Text 7629, 95 rader
Skriven 2008-09-15 16:19:16 av Alan Hess
Ärende: campaign lies
=====================
www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.viewpoint15sep15,0,4038317.story
baltimoresun.com
Viewpoint: To McCain, truth is irrelevant

By Steve Chapman

September 15, 2008

Last year, at a campaign event in South Carolina, Sen. John McCain called on a
woman who had a question about the expected Democratic nominee. "How do we beat
the bitch?" she asked. Mr. McCain laughed, said, "That's an excellent
question," and noted he was leading Sen. Hillary Clinton in a poll, before
assuring his audience that "I respect Senator Clinton."

Back then, sexism directed at a candidate for high office did not cause a wave
of revulsion in Mr. McCain. But sometime in the last year, he had his
consciousness raised. So when Sen. Barack Obama scoffed at the idea that the
GOP ticket offered real change from President Bush, saying, "You can put
lipstick on a pig - it's still a pig," Mr. McCain's camp rose up in outrage at
Mr. Obama for "comparing our vice presidential nominee, Governor Palin, to a
pig."

In this interpretation of Mr. Obama's remarks, the McCain people are - what's
the word I'm looking for? - lying. They pretend to be unaware of the clear
meaning of this old cliche, and the pretense is completely phony.

How can I be so sure? Last year, Mr. McCain said that Hillary Clinton's 2008
health care plan was disturbingly similar to her 1993 version: "I think they
put some lipstick on the pig, but it's still a pig." If that's a sly sexist
insult, Mr. McCain owes Mrs. Clinton a big apology.

Does anyone truly believe that Mr. Obama got up that morning trying to think of
a sneaky way to call Sarah Palin a pig? Or that he is stupid enough to think he
could get away with it? Is there anything in his past to suggest he talks or
thinks about women in such terms? Of course not.

Now politicians are not saints, and campaigns are not conducted under oath. We
all expect a certain amount of deceit from people running for office, in the
form of fudging, distortion, exaggeration and omission. But the McCain
campaign's approach, as this episode illustrates, is of an entirely different
scale and character. It is to normal political attacks what Hurricane Ike is to
a drive-through car wash.

Take Mrs. Palin's claim to have opposed the "Bridge to Nowhere." Long after it
was exposed as false, she kept making it. The assumption behind the McCain
strategy is that truth is irrelevant.

Last week, he released a TV spot on education studded with falsehoods. It
quoted the Chicago Tribune calling Mr. Obama a "staunch defender of the
existing public school monopoly." But the Tribune didn't say it. I did, in a
signed column in the Tribune, which praised Mr. McCain's support for school
vouchers for low-income families.

The ad couldn't be bothered explaining why Mr. Obama is wrong about vouchers.
Instead, it said his "one accomplishment" was a bill mandating sex education
for kindergarteners. "Learning about sex before learning to read?" asked the
narrator, implying that 5-year-olds would be taught the proper use of condoms
before being taught their ABCs. Which, as it happens, is not true.

Mr. McCain may be the only candidate who has ever gotten in trouble with
FactCheck.org for quoting FactCheck.org. Another commercial showed a photo of
Mr. Obama while saying the group called the attacks on Palin "false" and
"misleading." But the group quickly repudiated the charge.

The FactCheck article, it pointed out, "debunked a number of false or
misleading claims that have circulated in chain e-mails and Internet postings
regarding Palin." The ad, however, "strives to convey the message that
FactCheck.org said 'completely false' attacks on Sarah Palin had come from Sen.
Barack Obama. But we said no such thing. We have yet to dispute any claim from
the Obama campaign about Palin."

Why does Mr. McCain insist on running such a mendacious campaign? There is
plenty an honest conservative might say in opposition to Mr. Obama: He's wrong
about Iraq. He's wrong about Iran. He's wrong about offshore oil drilling. He
wants to raise taxes. He favors abortion on demand. He would appoint liberal
judges. He would impede school reform.

But Mr. McCain has concluded that a fact-based case about Mr. Obama isn't
enough to prevail in November. So he has chosen to smear his opponent with
ridiculous claims that he thinks the American people are gullible enough to
believe.

He has charged repeatedly that his opponent is willing to lose a war to win an
election. What's Mr. McCain willing to lose to become president? Nothing so
consequential as a war. Just his soul.

Steve Chapman is a columnist for the Chicago Tribune. His column appears
regularly in The Sun. His e-mail is schapman@tribune.com.



Copyright + 2008, The Baltimore Sun

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Try the CROSSFIRE echo - all welcome (1:261/1000)