2008
The Lying Game
We don’t object to people reprinting our articles. In fact, our copyright policy encourages it. But we’ve also asked that “the editorial integrity of the article be preserved” and told those who use our items that “you should not edit the original in such a way as to alter the message.”McCain-Palin 2008 Ad:”Fact Check.”Announcer: The attacks on Governor Palin have been called “completely false”…”misleading.”
On screen: Photo of Obama, FactCheck.org banner, “‘completely false’ . . . ‘misleading’ 9/0/08”
And, they’ve just begun.
The [Wall Street] Journal reports Obama “air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers” into Alaska to dig dirt on Governor Palin.
As Obama drops in the polls, he’ll try to destroy her.
Obama’s “politics of hope”? Empty words.
McCain: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.
Less Than HonestWith its latest ad, released Sept. 10, the McCain-Palin campaign has altered our message in a fashion we consider less than honest. The ad strives to convey the message that FactCheck.org said “completely false” attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin had come from Sen. Barack Obama. We said no such thing. We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin.
If “less than honest” means something, then “more than honest” must also mean something. But “more than honest” means nothing (being honest is as much as a person can be), and so “less than honest” means nothing. Let’s be absolute on this matter: McCain is lying about Obama. That’ all he is doing, no more and no less.
But why does McCain need to lie? Why not just tell the truth about Obama? Surely there’s a truth or two that McCain can use to discredit Obama’s character and politics. Surely he and his hardworking team can find these truths and not have to resort to outright lies. And in this particular case, why is the truth better than its opposite? Because resorting to lies, as McCain has done, can only mean one thing: there’s no real reason not to vote for Obama. This fact alone exposes the desperate content (or core) of McCain/Palin’s candidacy: to deprive Americans of a better president. That’s all they are doing and nothing more. If this weren’t the case, then why the need to continually manufacture lies (instead of revealing truths) about Obama?
I rest my case.
Comments (12)
Single most coherent thing Chuck has ever written.
Posted by Graham | September 11, 2008 11:25 AMIf “less than honest” means something, then “more than honest” must also mean something.
This is absolutely not true. "Less than 100% of the time." "Less than complete." Et cetera. I agree that McCain is lying about Obama, but you don't have to play word games to emphasize that honesty is not a question of degrees.
Posted by pndmnm | September 11, 2008 11:26 AMWe have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin
That is so awesome. I hope to gosh this means something to Americans.
I'm not holding my breath...
Posted by Mike in MO | September 11, 2008 11:28 AMThe fucking cunt has lied about saying "no thanks" to the Bridge To Nowhere 27 times so far. No one seems to be calling her on it. WHYWHYWHY???
Posted by Fnarf | September 11, 2008 11:30 AMIt sucks when you agree with someone's point, but they come across as such a complete moron that it's a little embarrassing to be on the same side.
"If 'less than honest' means something, then 'more than honest' must also mean something."
I mean, is that possibly the stupidest thing ever printed in The Stranger (and that's saying something!)? I guess that if "less than certain" means something, then "more than certain" must mean something too, right? How about "less than perfect" implying "more than perfect"? Can we turn it around and say that because "temperatures greater than absolute zero" exist, therefore "temperatures less than absolute zero must exist"?
Hey, Charles, I get it that you're more of a word assembler than thinker, but come on. Wax that poetic brain a bit on the concepts of absolutes versus partials; the possibility of falling short of an absolute does not imply the possibility of exceeding the absolute.
Or just stop writing crap that even you don't understand, even if it is in a good cause.
Posted by also | September 11, 2008 11:56 AMFnarf - ixnay on the untcay. The last thing we need is tasteless sexist slurs to distract from the actual issues. Call her a lying sack of shit, but we don't need the C-word around here, thanks.
Posted by David | September 11, 2008 11:57 AMcunty cunt cunt. cunny. cunnilingus.
the word is 2000 year old latin. let's get the fuck over it.
Posted by cunt. | September 11, 2008 12:16 PMAside from splitting a few semantical hairs - I actually agree with Chaz on this one.
Which for me, is saying quite a lot.
Kudos to you, sir.
Posted by COMTE | September 11, 2008 12:21 PMI thought someone might object to cunt, but my usual "colostomy bag" was taken, by her running mate. I think cunt is a great word, and completely applicable in the circumstances. It's not sexism, mate; it's just hatred, OK?
Posted by Fnarf | September 11, 2008 1:14 PMI'm with Fnarf on this one. She is a cunt. A royal fucking cunt. We should all be screaming it from the rooftops. The people that object weren't going to vote for Obama anyway.
Posted by Mike in MO | September 11, 2008 1:17 PMCharles, I finally saw Zoo and I just wanted to say it was a beautifully told story. Keep it up!
Posted by Carollani | September 11, 2008 1:54 PMAll of the Slog election coverage has convinced me that Charles Mudede is not a pretentious, self-indulgent idiot, but is in fact capable of intelligent and insightful posts on occasion.
Posted by Nick | September 11, 2008 3:41 PMComments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.