Why is he still not being totally

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Why is he still not being totally
36
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 7:19am

honest about Acorn?

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 12:35pm

if you'd read my post re factcheck you'd know I was NOT speaking of the registrations ... I've already said I didn't think he had jack to do with it.


Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2008
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 12:36pm
Untruth is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 12:40pm
Untruth is your opinion and you are entitled to it. actually until I looked at factcheck I had no idea if he was truthful or not ...

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-14-2008
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 12:47pm

Go to factcheck.

Search on John McCain's honesty in this campaign so far.

You will find - if you're honest - that it, too, is considered by factcheck to be inconsistent. I guess the question is: does this particular issue truly matter? I suppose it does, to you, else you would not continue bringing it up. But it's just not accurate to give the impression (inadvertently or deliberately) that Obama's the only one with a negative remark from factcheck on his record. Candidates often don't want to discuss certain issues, not necessarily because they have something horrible to hide, but because they don't HAVE to answer each and every question that anyone asks of them until the questioner - however misinformed, or partisan - feels "satisfied." That's the way it works: if a candidate tries to conceal too much, or the public or press gets a feeling that they're trying deliberately to cover up something truly significant, then the candidate will either get a greatly increased amount of pressure on the subject, or they will simply have it taken out on the at the ballot box.

The former is what you appear to be trying to do: increase the pressure on Obama to re-re-re-hash his associations with ACORN....until (I'm guessing) he reveals the shocking, damaging, game-changing "dirt" you're pretty certain is there. But that only works if there's enough of a groundswell of agreement with your position among the general electorate and - perhaps even more importantly - the media, to keep up the pressure on a broad-based and consistent level. And, in the case of both William Ayers AND ACORN, and in fact most if not all of the shaky, decade-old character-based attacks the McCain campaign and the right have chosen to make the focus of their campaign this season, that sort of groundswell just doesn't exist.

Last night on FOX news, Frank Luntz's hand-picked group of "undecideds" actually scored the debate for Obama. These "live viewer reactions" and "snap-polls" which are a result of improved communications technology are changing the ability of the elite punditocracy to tell us what REALLY happened, as well. John King on CNN last night was a perfect example. If you've watched any of the debates so far on CNN, you've seen their little "pundit scorecards" off to the sides of the screen: each pundit is awarding positive points to the candidates when the pundit feels they scored a good point, and less frequently taking one AWAY, if they feel one of the candidates truly stumbled, blew it, or perhaps even lied or was too angry or something. John King, throughout all the debates, has been consistently scoring McCain as high or higher than Obama. And last night was no exception: King scored it an 18-15 win for McCain. But after the debate was over, you could FEEL - it was literally palpable - that he wanted to take his expensive haircut and his "Chief White House Correspondent" status and pontificate to the hoi polloi that John McCain had won the night....because that's what he, John King, thought. But he restrained himself, and that's what made the expression on his face, and the words he said, so deliciously verklemmt: because he knew the snap polls were coming, and that they very well might make an ass out of him, if he tried to tell the country that McCain won, only to be told by the polls of hundreds of actual voters that Obama won. So instead, he ranted against the snap polls THEMSELVES, saying that they were "bunk," sampling voters who were "too emotional." But what really pi$$es King - and other pundits who're eager to throw their support to McCain - off, is that the American people can make up their own minds about who won now - they don't need John King to tell them what they saw. And have that be the only thing they hear on television for the next forty-eight hours, until they start questioning the wisdom of their own judgments.

And, in the case of Ayers and ACORN and various other "palling" nonsense, the American public has stated pretty conclusively in all four debates that they care far more about what's going on NOW in their own lives, and what the candidates will do (and HAVE done) with respect to it.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-28-2008
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 12:47pm

IMO, what it comes down to is there are generally 2 schools of thought here.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-28-2008
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 12:49pm

And, in the case of Ayers and ACORN and various other "palling" nonsense, the American public has stated pretty conclusively in all four debates that they care far more about what's going on NOW in their own lives, and what the candidates will do (and HAVE done) with respect to it.




Exactly!
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 12:51pm

factcheck has busted them both out on things -- yes.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2008
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 12:54pm
So you feel that the questions McCain has not answered quite honestly are less important than this one issue with Obama and ACORN?
iVillage Member
Registered: 09-26-2008
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 12:54pm
I guess I don't
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Thu, 10-16-2008 - 1:01pm
not what I said ....

Photobucket