They seem to be mutually exclusive.
I have never been a good liar. In fact, I am almost honest to a fault and often say things to people that don't subscribe to the same kind of honesty I do. I would rather know the truth than have something sugar-coated only to bite me on the rear end later. I also find it very insulting when someone lies when there are ways to easily find out if something is true or not.
A lot of the drama in Mike's family comes from people telling half-truths or total lies depending on the person they are talking to. My mother-in-law recently lied to us to justify a situation. She told us the same story at least a half dozen times to justify herself only to find out in casual conversation with Mike's brother that her story wasn't nearly the whole story. Mike wasn't surprised because there is a long history of this. I had heard stories from Mike, but to experience it first-hand was good for me to see. I now really know why Mike has the relationship he does (or lack thereof) with his mom.
I didn't mean to drag that drama into this post, but it seem to parallel with the irritation I am feeling over politics. I read a lot of news online and it's amazing the lies and half-truths that are being spoken by both candidates. Maybe this is business as usual, but I am new to being politically aware so maybe I am just a little more sensitive about it. I really find it insulting to the intelligence of the American people, but maybe I am overestimating that intelligence.
The day after the debates I read an article that compared what Obama and McCain said with what actually is. Neither of them outright lied, but they more or less did by omission. Partial aspects of many different things were used against the other to make their point. If the whole story had been presented, they would not have been able to get their dig in on their opponent.
Then there's the McCain ad against Obama talking about his ties to a shady Freddie Mac exec. The man doesn't even work for Obama, but the ad leads you to believe he does. Yet one of McCain's main advisors received a $20 million golden parachute when the company she was CEO of failed and 20,000 people lost their jobs. When McCain was asked about it on the Today show, he said he really didn't know the details and that she had worked her way up to CEO from a secretary position, really almost justifying the situation. Seems quite hypocrital to me to criticize someone for the appearance of something bad when you are actually guilty of it yourself.
Recently I found out that both Biden and Obama voted for the Bridge to Nowhere, but all we hear about is Palins involvement with it. McCain didn't vote for it because he just didn't vote.
Then there was Palin's recent comment to someone on the street while she was waiting in line for a piece of pizza. She clearly said that the U.S. should launch cross-border attacks from Afghanistan into Pakistan to "stop the terrorists from coming any further in." McCain had already criticized Obama for having that same opinion. To save face, McCain went on the final interview segment of Palin with Katie Couric to expalin (unintentional typo but I am seeing humor in it) what she meant because McCain clearly knows more about what she meant than Palin does herself. He tried to blame it on the media calling it "gotcha journalism". It was just someone on the street afterall. Couric managed to point out that that man on the street is still a voter. Yet, on the very same day they are blaming this on the media, Palin criticized Biden for saying Obama was against clean coal (he's not) when the question was shouted to him from someone in a crowd. Can you say double standard?
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that base their votes on the misleading sound bites and the infinite number of talking heads spinning their spin that you find on all of the news channels. Not everyone has the time to read the news online like I do. I actually don't know if it is helping me much when it comes down to it anyway. I may just end up voting with my gut. As of right now, I am still undecided.
About Me
- Erin
- I'm a 30-something stay-at-home mom trying to find a balance between being a good mom and carrying on my passion as a jewelry designer.
Friends' Blogs
-
-
-
Harga Jam Tangan LED9 years ago
-
Other Blogs I Follow
-
-
vintage12 years ago
-
2 comments:
I was just telling Ray that I just want the election to be over. I am sooo sick of all the campaign ads and half truths coming from both sides. I get so frustrated because where do you go to get the actual truth?? It is the same with this whole economic crisis we are in. Why did it happen? That is all I want to know. But everyone you listen to has a different story and is pointing the finger at someone else. I feel so manipulated because the average american knows what the media feels like telling them. Even for someone semi-informed like me, I don't have the time of the economic knowledge to dig for the real truth. I just end up feeling powerless and manipulated!!
OH MY GOSH Erin, DITTO on everything! And yes, I think you are overestimating the average American's intelligence.
It's so interesting you posted about this today, because I just came across this link about Palin, and even though I wasn't a fan before, now I'm seriously disgusted by McCain's choice. She simply is NOT QUALIFIED to be the VP, much less the Pres should our 72 year old vet drop dead.
First I read this:
"Sarah Palin Endorses Hamas by Jeffrey Goldberg
29 Sep 2008 10:43 am
How can it be that some people still pretend that Sarah Palin is suited for high office? This country has never seen someone so comprehensively unprepared for the vice presidency; Dan Quayle was Metternich by comparison. I've watched Sarah Palin's interview with Katie Couric three times, and my astonishment does not diminish. Her nonsensical answer about Russia has deservedly been highlighted, but let me focus on another question, this one concerning the export of democracy. Couric asked, "What happens if the goal of democracy doesn't produce the desired outcome? In Gaza, the U.S. pushed hard for elections and Hamas won."
Palin's answer, in full, was this: "Yeah, well especially in that region, though, we have to protect those who do seek democracy and support those who seek protections for the people who live there. What we're seeing in the last couple of days here in New York is a President of Iran, Ahmadinejad, who would come on our soil and express such disdain for one of our closest allies and friends, Israel ... and we're hearing the evil that he speaks and if hearing him doesn't allow Americans to commit more solidly to protecting the friends and allies that we need, especially there in the Mideast, then nothing will."
The issue here is not that Palin didn't know the answer. There are many possible answers to this question, some of which are right and some of which are wrong. The issue here is that she didn't know the question. Because she was apparently ignorant of the subject, she endorsed Hamas' victory, and, in essence, called for the U.S. to "protect" Islamists who seek to use democratic elections to lever themselves into power. And, of course, Ahmadinejad came to power in a more-or-less democratic election. Palin's answer was truly remarkable. A person who could be President of the United States has shown herself to be completely ignorant of one of the most vexing and important foreign policy questions of the day. Freshman congressmen know how to answer this question. Here's one possible Republican response:
"Yes, Katie, it's true that if you push for democracy, sometimes you get an outcome that you don't want. This happened in Gaza with Hamas, and I think the Bush Administration was as surprised as everyone else. So the lesson here is that you have be careful when you try to export democracy. But I still believe that, over the long-term, democracy is the best antidote to terrorism that we have. What we have to do, though, is know when to push, and know when not to push. And every day, we have to do the hard work of advocating for press freedom, and the rule of law, and for all those things that build a civil society."
See? Not that hard. Unless you don't:
a) Know what happened in Gaza;
b) Know where Gaza is;
c) Know who rules Gaza today;
d) Care.
I want to wait and see Palin on Thursday night in her debate with Joe Biden; perhaps her performance in the Couric interview was abnormally bad. But I have a terrible feeling that John McCain has placed this country - and, of lesser importance, his campaign - in an untenable position."
Then I read this:
The Lies And Lies And Lies Of Sarah Palin by Andrew Sullivan
29 Sep 2008 12:56 pm
I'm posting this because none of the direct, indisputably proven, factual untruths that Palin has uttered has yet to be retracted by this candidate or her running mate. When you have a leading politician running on a record of outright lies, and those lies are deemed irrelevant, you have a problem. Each one has been fact-checked to near-death. They are not the usual political lie - hyperbole, parsing, exaggeration, spin. They are factual, checkable, indisputable untruths.
Palin could not have asked her girls for permission to accept McCain's veep offer if she also says she accepted the offer unblinkingly and right away. Palin did fire a police chief even as she insisted to a reporter she hadn't. She did violate the confidential medical records of Mike Wooten. She hasn't met with any trade missions from Russia. She does not have any gay friends that anyone can find. She did not oppose the Bridge to Nowhere. She did not sell that plane on eBay. Her Teleprompter did not fail in her convention speech. Alaska's state scientists did not conclude that polar bears were in no danger. She did deny publicly that humans had anything to do with climate change.
Alaska does not provide "nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy," as she claimed. The gas pipeline she touts as her major "mission accomplished" has not broken ground and may never do so. She did not take a pay-cut as mayor of Wasilla. And on and on. Anyone with Google can check all of these out. Including reporters.
These are all documented, bald-faced factually irrefutable lies. More to the point: she refuses to cop to them or be held accountable for them or take questions about them. Until she does, we can rightly infer there is no reason to believe anything she says, and that includes her recent medical history. A liar like this cannot be taken on trust. We have to verify it all.
Release the medical records and tax returns now."
It's nearly IMPOSSIBLE to know what's true and what isn't anymore, and I don't think the average American has the time, energy, or patience to sort it all out. I think 90% of voters ARE making up their minds on sound bites and talking heads... I'm one of them! Obama is ahead in my mind right now...!
Post a Comment