Drudge Retort: Red Meat for Yellow Dogs
Saturday, September 27, 2008

Fact Check: John McCain and Barack Obama contradicted each other repeatedly during their first debate, and each volunteered some factual misstatements as well. Here’s how we sort them out.

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Subscriptions

Author Info

rcade

MORE STORIES

Special Features

World Readable

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in the discussion of this weblog entry should note the site's moderation policy.

By George Stephanopolous' count (ABC): Obama was a bit less truthful than McCain.

Wow what a debate vern, looks like Obama was left wearing his butt for a hat. What is really embarrising is an old man often refered to around here as "Mcsame" kicked his @ss and made Obama look like a deer in the headlights lol lol lol lol lol.

Well, I am in favor of negotiating with Iran.
---henry kissinger----

Takeashitski, this ought to be right up your alley, since you have dedicated your life to fairy tales, myths and half-truths.

This is the way it works. Obama says he wants to have talks with Iran. McStupid says, 'We should have no PRESIDENTIAL talks with Iran. Nobody execpt McCain said anything about presidential talks. Then he went on to discuss it as if that was the subject.

He even kept saying that kissinger didn't agree to presidential talks and that is true, but he's the one that made that shit up.

That's the kind of lies and half-truths McCain is going to be spewing from now on unless Obama calls him out on it.

Bottom line; Bush and Cheney all over again. Hope you enjoy your personal and professional insolvency and speaking chinese.

"Mcsame" kicked his @ss and made Obama look like a deer in the headlights lol lol lol lol lol.

#2 | Posted by Razor

Yes, the under 85 IQ crowd really loved McSame.

Obama's an idiot...that's a fact.

After watching Obama use McCain's mottled melon as a virtual speed bag last night, it's not hard to figure out why the maverick couldn't finish better than 894 out of 899 at Annapolis. ROFLMAO

I like the fake Russian dialect Obama uses when his says Pakistan. He sounds so "international." Then turns around and threatens to bomb other counties.

Brilliant!

I was quite surprised with the amount of people predicting obama would go up in flames. in his O4 senate race obama debated alan keyes and brutalized him. this seemed more stately. but that presidential negotiations business needs to be addressed.

also cletus: that is a fantastic user name.

"That's the kind of lies and half-truths McCain is going to be spewing from now on unless Obama calls him out on it."

Calls him out on it what debate were you watching! Obama was visably shaken and looked like he needed his momy at times. "Mcsame" as he is refered to around here mopped the floor with Obama so much so that at times I felt sorry for him.

obama got smoked.

what debate did you all watch?? There was no butt kicking. Just the same old tired rhetoric from Mcsame.

"obama got smoked." to the point of being embarising to watch, I really never thought Obama would do so poorly he can not even talk the talk much less walk the walk. He actually looked scared and visably rattled at times. All this pulled off by an old man called "Mcsame" around here.

OXFORD, Mississippi (CNN) -- Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama landed some punches Friday night, but neither delivered a knockout blow in the first presidential debate featuring the two party nominees.

www.cnn.com

Tired rhetoric (and a nazi vp) is all the right wingers have. oh, and flag waving.

Hell, when McSame couldn't answer a question, he just started waving the flag again.

The undecideds say Obama won the the debate. That is the ONLY opinion that matters.

Obama's RCP will be at +7 by wed of next week. See ya McSame

After watching the debate last night I turned off the set and went to bed since it'd been a busy day/week for me and because I didn't want to listen to the talking headcases.

I woke this morning and petted the poodle for a bit and thought about things. I honestly was of the opinion that it was pretty much a draw or perhaps very slightly a McBush win.

A couple of things that I had not taken into consideration -

1)McBush has been repeatedly taken to task for his mean spiritedness and "cranky old bastard" looks throughout. That's the way that I've become so accustomed to him looking that I discounted how most folks would feel. They don't like it.

2)This should have been a clear McBush advantage since this is his signature issue. Given that, his performance was mediocre at best. They don't like that either.

This is why McBush continues to sink.

***"There was no butt kicking. Just the same old tired rhetoric from Mcsame."***

It was the same old tired rhetoric from both, but keep waving your pom-poms. Nobody got smoked, it was a push.


"I like the fake Russian dialect Obama uses when his says Pakistan. He sounds so "international." Then turns around and threatens to bomb other counties."


Brilliant!"

Yes the correct way to say it is Pock-ezz-stan, Obama needs help from Biden on talking points lol lol. I wonder if he will be afraid to debate him again after such a flagerant @sswhiping by an old man.

Nice to see that not only do we have the resident righturds out in force this morning we now have Razor, a newly joined paid McBush blogger. Hope that $14 is worth your betrayal of all American's.

Razor,

After next week's VP debates(if Sarah Scaracuda shows)the American people are going to turn their backs and shun McBush. Either that or they'll demand that he kick her off the ticket. Net result, they both do a quick fade into obscurity.

***"This should have been a clear McBush advantage since this is his signature issue."***

So you're saying the economy is his signature issue? Because that's what about half this debates focus was. It was supposed to be foreign policy, but their wasn't a foreign policy question until 9:30 or later. The fact that McCain even stayed close is a miracle. I thought Obama did good, and if all else is equal, he at least looked better than McCain. Don't forget the Nixon/Kennedy debate; one sounded better, the other looked better, and looking better won.

Jwil72,

You're right John(sorry couldn't resist)the focus had shifted more toward economy early on but the central theme was Foreign Policy. Obama looked far more statesmanlike, McBush looked angry and petulant. People seeing that are going to be very disinclined to like him or vote for him.

Maverick 1 Obama 0.


I love reading the liberal post's no matter how bad the butt whipping delivered by McCain the liberals deny,deny,deny. It must be CNN aired a diferant debate at the same time complete with actors that looked like Obama and McCain. I always thought Biden would go down in flames and expected Obama to do very well. Obama was wearing his butt for a hat as soon as McCain opened his mouth. Looks like the Maverick is something to be worried about if you are a liberal and have to debate him. I can hardly wait for the next debate only this time I am going to bring popcorn.

and looking better won.

#21 | Posted by jwil72

Looking better always wins.

I can hardly wait for the next debate only this time I am going to bring popcorn.

#23 | Posted by Razor at 2008-09-27 10:52 AM | Reply | Flag


Please bring pretzels instead, maybe you'll choke on them like your hero(or should that be spelled hore)GWB.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Sarah Palin nowhere to be found. They really can't take the muzzle off this girlie.

www.huffingtonpost.com

"what debate did you all watch?? There was no butt kicking. Just the same old tired rhetoric from Mcsame." #11 | Posted by rastaninja

You forgot to take off your beer goggles.

Hey fuckface, don't dare touch my beer goggles or I'll be forced to go all Frank Cotten on your ass.

***"Jwil72,

You're right John(sorry couldn't resist)..."*** Reagan58

Oooh, mystery and intrigue. Was that just a shot in the dark, or am I that obvious? And I agree to a degree, Obama "looked" a bit more statesman like, but if I have to listen to another statement by Obama like the one from Thursday (I think), "Um, uh, um ,uh, um, uh, um, uh..." It was torture to listen to him, not just because of the ums and uhs, but because he said absolutely nothing. That wouldn't have made the grade in a freshman communications class.


"Looking better always wins." LIP

Maybe. So I take it your predicting a Palin victory then?

Actually it was a reference to Obama repeatedly saying "You're right John" during last nights debate. He was nicer throughout, it showed and people noticed. McBush is gonna have an even tougher climb now. No, I'm anxiously awaiting the VP debates, I think it's going to provide more comic fodder than even Ross Perot.

Obama was cooler and overall handled himself better. That said, he clearly showed his political philosophy. One I completely disagree with. If he does somehow win I think it will be bad for America. I think it's a great idea to remove the tax burden from the poor and middle class. But in the end you someone has to pay the bills. Bills that Obama wants to increase drastically. Increasing taxes now will not help the economy. Trying to force 5% of the people to carry 95% of the load is insane,criminal and UnAmerican. Try and get a job from a poor person. They don't pay very well.

***"Actually it was a reference to Obama repeatedly saying "You're right John" during last nights debate."***

FF. duh, should've pick that up. But I'm not sure how effective it was to say "you're right John" so many times. I guess it depends on which side you've viewing it from. I thought it was an attempt to look nicer and and less combative, maybe to provide a good contrast to McCain, but he handed McCain a sound bite on a platter. When you're trying to draw contrasts, saying "you're right John" over and over is not good.

If Palin can even stay close in the debate (which is debatable), she wins, because as LIPZ said, looking good always wins.

The linked article is clear. McCain was way out on his characterizations, Obama called him on them, and Obama was correct. Reading through each of the points it is quite clear. Obama was way more honest and accurate than McCain.

This article rips McCain apart.

The linked article is clear. McCain was way out on his characterizations, Obama called him on them, and Obama was correct. Reading through each of the points it is quite clear. Obama was way more honest and accurate than McCain.

This article rips McCain apart.

Bullshit. Factcheck.org is a Left Wing spin site.

Lets look at just the first two points to see how accurate they are:

POINT #1:

McCain's accusation against Obama was that he had agreed to PRESIDENTIAL level meetings without preconditions (prior meetings with lower than President level diplomats going well first would be a type of precondition... that Obama only accepted later in backtracking).

McCain was correct on this:

QUESTION: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"

OBAMA: "I would."


Emphasis on the above quote is mine, but highlights that Obama was not answering for lower level or even high-level-but-not-
Presidential talks... he was answering for himself... as President.... without preconditions.

McCain was correct and Obama tried to weasel out of it.

POINT #2:

For this one I am going to quote the article just to show how transparently ridiculous it's attempt at spin was:

Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on "people" making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama's tax plan.

Ok... so the article defines a difference between $42,000 a year for a single person, and $83,000 a year for a married couple. It does this despite the fact that $83,000 divided by two people is $41,500... or rounded up to give Obama some credit: $42,000.

McCain was correct across the board on this one. The idea that Obama's current tax plan doesn't include this is irrelevant. McCain was doing the same thing Obama attempts to do: Use past record to cut through rhetoric and possibly empty promises. A tactic that Obama seems to feel is fair game.

After just the first two points this article is effectively dismissed as spin. The only value is for echo-chamber dwellers with low levels of IQ that can't even see that $83,000 / 2 = $42,000 rounded up.

"Would you be willing to meet separately"

You're assuming Obama is the only member of an Obama administration. Why couldn't "you"---in that instance---be plural?

"McCain was correct across the board on this one."

Only to folks who can't tell singular from plural.

Moonman, your first point about meeting with foreign leaders is pure bullshit.

Unless when Sen Obama says he would go after bin laden in Pakistan you take that to mean he would personally catch a flight to Pakistan and hunt him down.

The "I", Sen. Obama used refers to the U.S., not him personally you shitspinner.

"Would you be willing to meet separately"

You're assuming Obama is the only member of an Obama administration. Why couldn't "you"---in that instance---be plural?

Because the word "you" is not plural. It is singular. Any attempt to suggest otherwise is actually to INVITE assumption and spins the answer like a top.

Bullshit. Factcheck.org is a Left Wing spin site.

Ok, if you say so. You are entertaining.

I disagree with your interpretation of who Obama was referring in being willing to meet. I take it as Kissinger stated it. You don't. Fine.

But on the tax issue, you have to assume a lot to make that one work. Single payers under the Democratic budget plan (not Obama's by the way) would have to make 62,150. A family of four making 90K wouldn't have been affected. Those are all more positively affected by Obama's plan than McCains - meaning less taxes for them.

www.newsweek.com

I wouldn't expect you to actually post anything other than what you have, however. There's your world of right wing bullshit, and then there's reality.

Enjoy your day. It's beautiful here and I am going to go enjoy it, while savoring a good debate from last night.

"Because the word "you" is not plural. It is singular. "

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


you
6 dictionary results for: you
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) -

you /yu; unstressed yʊ, yə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[yoo; unstressed yoo, yuh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation pronoun, possessive your or yours, objective you, plural you; noun, plural yous.
pronoun
1. the pronoun of the second person singular or plural, used of the person or persons being addressed, in the nominative or objective case: You are the highest bidder. It is you who are to blame. We can't help you. This package came for you. Did she give you the book?
2. one; anyone; people in general: a tiny animal you can't even see.
3. (used in apposition with the subject of a sentence, sometimes repeated for emphasis following the subject): You children pay attention. You rascal, you!
4. Informal. (used in place of the pronoun your before a gerund): There's no sense in you getting upset.
5. Archaic.
a. yourself; yourselves: Get you home. Make you ready.
b. a pl. form of the pronoun ye.
noun
6. something or someone closely identified with or resembling the person addressed: Don't buy the bright red shirtit just isn't you. It was like seeing another you.
7. the nature or character of the person addressed: Try to discover the hidden you.

Moomanfl

Vote for McCain. You have proven your hatred for America and its liberal foundation many times. America is a liberal country founded by liberals, for people who love freedom. Maybe you should find a country without so much liberalism. Liberalism is what separates America from the rest. You belong with the rest.

Unless when Sen Obama says he would go after bin laden in Pakistan you take that to mean he would personally catch a flight to Pakistan and hunt him down.

Again an attempt to spin it. Nobody (with an IQ over 30) expects that a President will personally hop a flight and go fight.

However every one expects that a President would personally meet with Heads of State.

Your parsing is ridiculous.

"Because the word "you" is not plural. It is singular. "

Why...because you say so?

You're assuming it's singular and judging based on that. Merely assuming it's plural---which it certainly can be---invalidates your point.

Again an attempt to spin it. Nobody (with an IQ over 30) expects that a President will personally hop a flight and go fight.

Kind of cuts your "you" singular argument to shreads.

"1. the pronoun of the second person singular or plural"

Moomanfl: bitch-slapped by the dictionary.

Yes the correct way to say it is Pock-ezz-stan,


God no!

Is that how he pronounced it?

If so, then he lied in his book about staying in Pakistan for 3 weeks.

You want deeper analysis. Fine.

Look at the remainder of Barack's answer:

OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous. And I think that it is a disgrace that we haven't spoken with them."

What Obama was doing here is painting a contrast between himself and Bush. Bush however HAS kept up lower-than-Presidential-level talks. Therefore the only contrast to be made would be at the Presidential level.

The idea that preconditions doesn't include lower level diplomatic discussions is after the fact back-pedaling.

Maybe the "you" could be interpreted plural, but by the contrast that Obama himself made it was evident that he didn't do so except in retrospect when called on it.

Factcheck did get one thing wrong, though. They said Obama said 95% of the American people would get a tax break. He actually said:

"And in his tax plan, you would have CEOs of Fortune 500 companies getting an average of $700,000 in reduced taxes, while leaving 100 million Americans out.
So my attitude is, we've got to grow the economy from the bottom up. What I've called for is a tax cut for 95 percent of working families, 95 percent."

That works out to about 81% of Americans as FactCheck stated.

www.cnn.com

I also notice that nobody is touching the second point. Understandable.... hard to dismiss the stupidity of what they were trying to claim in the argument.

I know Obama was trying to be polite -- a little too polite if you ask me. Obama should have pounded harder on McCain when McCain made obvious exaggerations and almost downright untruths about Obama and his positions.

Obama acted like it was some Harvard debate. People wanted to see if he had some spunk in him. I felt like saying -- "Why are you letting McCain get away with saying this, saying that?"

Also, Obama missed the HUGE opportunity to smack McCain up the side of the head over and over again about being one of the main proponents of deregulation, that McCain had picked Gramm as his financial advisor, and he should have called McCain exactly what he is -- a NEOCON.

The one place where Obama did shine was in explaining the need to bring more troops into Afghanistan. But Obama came off too weak to me and held back too much. FIGHT, Obama, next time you're own stage. You let McCain hog all the air time.

Too late now.

I also notice that nobody is touching the second point. Understandable.... hard to dismiss the stupidity of what they were trying to claim in the argument.

You don't notice much.

"I also notice that nobody is touching the second point. "

Are you joking? First you mistake a singular/plural and pretend it's a gaffe, and then you want to rely on overlooking a singular/plural gaffe. If McCain said "people", he should know that's a minimum of two...even if you don't.

OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous. And I think that it is a disgrace that we haven't spoken with them."

So moonman the "we" in the quote above is singular too? And "this administration" refers only to the president?

You got it wrong. Admit it and then we can move on to your spin #2.

Bottom line? McCain largely lied outright while Obamma over-stated the case a coupla times.

Maybe the "you" could be interpreted plural, but by the contrast that Obama himself made it was evident that he didn't do so except in retrospect when called on it.

~MooMoo.

Do you think the general principle is sound or not, Moonman?

Should America speak with her enemies or ignore them and hope they go away?

Isn't shutting yer eyes and hoping wot you don't see can't hurt you the ultimate in naivete?

Another aspect of the "without pre-conditions" debate that nobody seems to be talking about is the laughble notion that one can say to let's say the Iranians that you wanna hold talks with them regarding their nuclear program but not until they agree to stop their nuclear program.

Or not talking with the Palestinians until they are to recognise Israel and stop all violence.

"We won't sit down and meet to talk about X until you agree to do X" simply doesn't work.

Those kind of pre-conditions stop the dialogue before it even starts.

One of McCain's most egregious lies last night involved his portrayal of himself as a champion of alternate fuel strategies.

GOPhers are now and forever shall be the biatches of BigOil.

If people haven't figure that out by now then they should prolly ignore politics completely and take up knitting fer a hobby.

Be Well.

"I know Obama was trying to be polite -- a little too polite if you ask me."

Yes he was, Chris, but that's ok. He needed to appear presidential and he did. I suspect the polls will show a substantial uptick on the "does he have the experience necessary" question.

Meanwhile, the meme is developing that McCain is angry and condescending. Wouldn't surprise me to see SNL do an Al Gore on him tonight.

Nullifidian

You do have a point. Maybe McCain's arrogance and condescending attitude in
the debate might end up backfiring on him.

***"One of McCain's most egregious lies last night involved his portrayal of himself as a champion of alternate fuel strategies."

Do explain, seems like McCain was better on that point last night.


"GOPhers are now and forever shall be the biatches of BigOil."***

They/we are all biatches of big oil.

Would you be willing to meet separately"

You're assuming Obama is the only member of an Obama administration. Why couldn't "you"---in that instance---be plural?

#35 | Posted by Danforth

This was a big issue during the primaries. Obama did, in fact, repeatedly say that he would meet with the leaders of hostile foreign countries "without preconditions," following the lead of Kennedy/Kruschev, Nixon/Mao, Reagan/Gorbachev. Clinton and Edwards called him on it in the youtube debate -- www.thenation.com -- but he defended his statements several times afterward: www.newsmax.com . (For a bizarre version of US-Soviet history, check out the video link in the newsmax article.)

To his credit, Obama has backed away from that position. But McCain is not lying about Obama's statements.

What Obama was doing here is painting a contrast between himself and Bush. Bush however HAS kept up lower-than-Presidential-level talks. Therefore the only contrast to be made would be at the Presidential level.

The idea that preconditions doesn't include lower level diplomatic discussions is after the fact back-pedaling.

Maybe the "you" could be interpreted plural, but by the contrast that Obama himself made it was evident that he didn't do so except in retrospect when called on it.

#47 | Posted by moomanfl

Bush hasn't kept up low level talks, he just started them up recently. Taking another que from Obama, I see.

MooMan-
Regarding your second point, I read on CNN that the "increase" in taxes for people making less than $42,000 a year was in fact a simple matter of letting the Bush tax cuts expire, so not so much an increase but a return to the norm.

I'll be honest and admit that I go a little bleary-eyed at any mention of tax codes or economics (I wish I didn't, but I do), so maybe that's not accurate, but that's what they're saying.

"I read on CNN that the "increase" in taxes for people making less than $42,000 a year was in fact a simple matter of letting the Bush tax cuts expire"

Which means the Republicans are trying to blame Obama for tax increases the Republicans authored.

***"Which means the Republicans are trying to blame Obama for tax increases the Republicans authored."***

Thats the dumbest shit I've ever heard. Really, you usually do better than that.

"Thats the dumbest shit I've ever heard. Really, you usually do better than that."

It must take a lot of koolaid and an extra-thick tinfoil hat to exonerate the authors of the bill.

***"It must take a lot of koolaid and an extra-thick tinfoil hat to exonerate the authors of the bill."***

You can make all the smart ass coments you like, it doesn't change the reality of the issue. If the bill is allowed to expire, it will expire because a Democrat Congress allowed it to expire. That is exactly what Obama wants. A tax increase by any other name , smells the same. You can go back to waving your pom-poms or chasing your tail.

If the bill is allowed to expire, it will expire because a Democrat Congress allowed it to expire. That is exactly what Obama wants...

#64 | Posted by jwil72 at 2008-09-28 08:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

Yes, it is. Obama wants a different tax structure put in its place - one that is not so skewed to the top few percent, but rather one that helps the middle class.

***"one that is not so skewed to the top few percent, but rather one that helps the middle class."***

You mean that top few percent that pay the bulk of the taxes in this country. I think I read somewhere that 43% of the people in this country don't pay any income tax, that's just not very patriotic.

JWL-
I really have no idea what you "read somewhere", but I'm busy carving it in stone.

"If the bill is allowed to expire, it will expire because a Democrat Congress allowed it to expire. "

Republicans wrote that into the bill. If they didn't want taxes to rise, why did they write a tax increase into law? Republicans proposed the tax increase, Republicans wrote the tax increase, Republicans passed the tax increase without a single Democratic vote, and a Republican signed the tax increase into law.

Which, in some minds, makes it (of course!) all the Democrats' fault.

***"I really have no idea what you "read somewhere", but I'm busy carving it in stone."***

Couldn't remember where I heard it, so I looked around and the numbers I found were anywhere from 33%-38%, my fault, but you can carve that on your ass for all I care.

And this tax hike arguement is going in circles. Fact is, when the tax hike hits, it will most likely be under a Dem congress and president who will have the power to extend them or make them permanent. But you have your view of things, and I have mine, but I'm done, I'm going to eat lunch with my beautiful pregnant wife. Later

"Fact is, when the tax hike hits, it will most likely be under a Dem congress and president ..."

That doesn't change the authorship of the tax increases.

"...who will have the power to extend them or make them permanent."

You haven't been paying attention the last week, have you?

Comments are closed for this entry.
Drudge Retort

Home | News | Comments | User Blogs | Nooner | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | Copyright 2008 World Readable