pudge's Journal: More Leftwing Lies about McCain

In a new ad starring John Cusack, MoveOn tells more lies about John McCain.

It lies by saying that he "supports keeping troops in harm's way in Iraq," when, in fact, his main goal is to get them OUT of harm's way, but doing so in a way that doesn't harm our national security. And if I am not mistaken, that's the same goal as Obama.

It lies through innuendo by saying McCain opposes a bill to "support [the troops] when they return home," when, in fact, the bill in question is simply a bad, stupid, wasteful bill, and McCain has given more support to vets than Obama and Hillary put together. By far.

It lies when it says McCain's "top advisors are linked to war profiteers." It's simply false.

It lies when it says McCain "opposed health care for uninsured children last year." It never happened. He opposed the EXPANSION of ONE particular program for PAYING for health care for uninsured children. To characterize this as opposing "health care for uninsured children" is a lie, as he in fact SUPPORTED the bill that extended the program.

The only true claim it made is that McCain supports the OPTIONAL (they forgot that word) privatization of Social Security, which is a good thing considering that within the next decade it will begin taking in less than it puts out, which will mean not only a likely prospect of Social Security failure to meet its obligations in another 30 years, but also that we will have increasing annual budget obligations, as no more money from the Trust Fund will be going into the General Fund, and more money will be going out of the General Fund to pay back bonds to the Trust Fund. And optional privatization is one positive step toward fixing that problem in the long run.

I know it is not a surprise when MoveOn lies. It's expected, really. But it's worth noting, I think.

If you take MoveOn's Bush-McCain challenge, it doesn't lie so much as make McCain look GOOD. It shows that he correctly anticipated we would be greeted as liberators in Iraq (although it leaves out the part where McCain said we needed more troops than the Bush adminsitration sent, which was, of course, the real problem with the long-term effectiveness of our invasion); how he supports the Second Amendment; how he opposes the clearly legally incorrect Roe v. Wade.

The fourth question doesn't make McCain look good exactly, unless, of course, you know about Obama: yes, McCain is not an expert economist. Duh. He's not going to pretend to be. But he knows a lot more about the economy than Obama does, and probably ever will.

The fifth question is odd. It says Bush promised bipartisanship cooperation, but says nothing about McCain at all, perhaps attempting to imply McCain would not have such a record as President. The fact is, of course, that McCain has one of the best records of bipartisanship in the Senate.

Then if you continue on (providing your e-mail address, mine is [e-mail]), it's more of the same: making McCain look good (privatizing Social Security).

The best though is when they ask, "Who [Bush, McCain, or Both] said the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a 'second job' and skip their vacations?" McCain did. And I can't see how it is a bad thing to tell people who are behind on their own willingly accepted financial obligations to not spend money on luxury items, and to try to make more money. This is what my parents did. It's probably what your parents did. It's what I would think everyone should do. Apparently, though, MoveOn thinks -- and by obvious logical conclusion, they believe Obama supports the notion -- that people should NOT attempt to fulfill their own financial obligations.

Quite bizarre.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

The Left

[FroMan]

The old school Left had to hide their beliefs in the US to get elected. No one in his right mind would vote for higher taxes and more government influence in their lives at one point. Things have changed though, perhaps enough for them to be honest about their views. Whether for good or bad, the Left is not going to be able to hide their views with the advent of the internet. When fringe groups like Move On and such are posting their views everday it is impossible to hide the socialist and morally bankr

[off topic]

[FroMan]

Btw, since the slashdot data center move, I have noticed that posting happens much quicker. It used to take 10-20 seconds to post a message and now it is nearly instant. Cheers.

*yawn* But I still have to wait two minutes between comments.

Re:

[pudge]

Yeah, new server much snappier. Yay!

As to the time between comments, feel free to complain to CmdrTaco. He does listen ...

Re:

[FroMan]

It's cool. I understand it is a anti-crap-flood thing. I'm cool with the posting lag.

Re:

[stoolpigeon]

I didn't start this so I only feel a little guilty posting - but it would be really great if there were some way to filter who gets hit by the full two minutes, it can be extremely aggravating in a front page thread that is really active.

Re:

[Bill Dog]

Things have changed indeed. Govt. takeover of healthcare has been so well-received this time, Dems feel at ease to think out loud about what else could be taken over, like the oil companies. With no fear of the Hugo Chavez comparisons. Govt. grabbing things is now well-esconced as a legitimate option. We're used to asset forfeiture laws. Anger over SCOTUS' expanding the use of eminent domain died down soon enough. I don't think anyone cared when the airport security industry was nationalized. Huge numbers o

Freedom from Responsibility

[Naqamel]

Apparently, though, MoveOn thinks -- and by obvious logical conclusion, they believe Obama supports the notion -- that people should NOT attempt to fulfill their own financial obligations.

At least they're being somewhat intellectually honest in wanting to protect people from the consequences of their poor decisions.

Make the choice to buy more house than you can afford? Sure, Big Brother should bail you out. After all, it's not *your* fault you made a poor decision. You shouldn't have to take responsib

Re:

[pudge]

Thanks, I know of Goldberg's book, but I am probably not going to read it. I have little time to read books and tend to read more histories than opinions when I do. But I agree with most of what I've seen him say on the subject.

Re:

[ncc74656]

A bit off topic - If you haven't already done so, you should check out 'Liberal Fascism' by Jonah Goldberg. It is an extremely well written book. Logic and facts are on Mr. Goldberg's side in this book...

He also goes into the view (common among libs) that things such as reason and logic are tools used by the white man to keep everybody else down. Earlier instances of fascism didn't hold reason and logic in any higher regard, either, so there's a bit of history connecting them. It explains much about th

Re:

[Naqamel]

I also like how he points out that Mussolini created artificial holidays like "Brotherhood Day".

Kind of reminded me of artificial holidays like "Earth Day".

Sincerely,
The Poster Formerly Known as RailGunner.

Re:

[pudge]

Why the name change?

Re:

[Naqamel]

Couple of reasons:
+ Never liked 'RailGunner' as a nickname.
+ I can shamelessly self-promote my (sigh... off again) Christian Metal band, also named Naqamel...
+ It's unique, Google turned up no hits for Naqamel when I first thought it up, but there's like 8000 or so other Rail Gunners out there, and most of them are complete dorks.

Re:

[pudge]

Riiiight. MOST of them ...

One of these days...

[Zeriel]

I should write up where I fall on various issues and see if Slashdot can categorize me. I've always kinda felt center-left on a lot of the issues, but at the same time I'd love to find most of the writers for MoveOn and punch them in the face. Of course, I feel the same way about LGF and freerepublic and dailykos, too. (this is why your post made me think about this--remembering how much I hate MoveOn.)

But my biggest amusement and/or headache is that all my Republican friends think I'm a liberal sissy (

Re:

[pudge]

Pudge, you seem to feel that your kind are being betrayed by the left wing.

Incorrect. Not even close. I doubt you could supply a single quote from me, ever, to support this.

If you wanted the debate to be balanced you would have opposed the lies of this administration.

Let's see. I criticized Bush's statements about his tax cuts as false (i.e., saying that every income tax payer got a cut in 2003, when many in the 10% bracket did not). I criticized his rhetoric about Iraq before the invasion, saying the case for WMD existing was weak and that there were other reasons for going in that he didn't talk about. I also defended Kerry from false claims that he opposed funding

Re:

[pudge]

Jeez, I should have wrote "you *seem to me*". There is really no accusation or correctness involved.

Shrug. That's a distinction without a difference. If you like, then, take my response to mean, "reality does not match your perceptions."

To me, it seems politics is nearly always a sporting event. People pick a side (team/party/whathaveyou) and ignore their team's transgressions. None of it has anything to do with fairness when your team is winning.

Yes, to many people it is. Not to me, and not to the people I work with in politics at the local level. To me, politics is about ideas and doing what is best for me, my family, my neighborhood, my county, my state, my nation, and my world. And so on. Obviously. If it were, to me, simply about picking a side and ignoring transgressions to "win," then I would not ha