SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Liar's Poker

POLITICS OCTOBER 8, 2008

Liar's Poker

BY JONATHAN CHAIT

About a week after John McCain's campaign unveiled a vice-presidential nominee who incessantly boasted about her decision to turn down federal funding for a notoriously pointless bridge ("I told Congress 'thanks, but no thanks' on that Bridge to Nowhere"), the press corps began to notice that Sarah Palin had, in fact, vigorously championed the project until it was no longer tenable. Political fibs, even brazen ones such as this, are hardly unprecedented. What happened next, though, was somewhat unusual. Despite having its claim exposed in nearly every media outlet, the McCain campaign continued to assert it anyway, day after day, dozens of times in all. It was as if Bill Clinton had persisted in his claim that he did not have sexual relations with that woman even after the appearance of the semen-stained dress.

But what happened after that was even more unusual, and possibly without precedent: McCain's supporters simply suggested that the truth or falsity of their statements didn't matter. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said this to Politico about the increased media scrutiny of the campaign's factual claims: "We're running a campaign to win. And we're not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it." Republican strategist John Feehery made the point even more bluntly, telling The Washington Post: "The more The New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there, and the bigger truths are: She's new, she's popular in Alaska, and she is an insurgent." Then, he added, "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."

Here we have the distilled essence of the McCain campaign's ethos: Perception is reality. Facts don't matter. McCain has presented himself as the grizzled champion of timeworn values. But the defining trait of his candidacy turns out to be a postmodern disdain for truth. How could McCain--a man widely regarded, not so long ago, as one of the country's most honor-bound politicians, and therefore an unusually honest one--have descended to this ignominious low? Part of the answer is that McCain is simply doing what works--and there is good reason to believe that his campaign's strategy of persistent dishonesty will pay dividends come November 4. But part of the explanation for all this recent dishonesty may lie, oddly enough, in McCain's legendary sense of honor.

 

No presidential candidate has ever gone through an entire election without stretching the truth. Certainly, Barack Obama is not totally innocent. Last March, Obama said that McCain "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as one hundred years," when in fact McCain said that he would favor an indefinite peaceful military presence. (Obama was repeatedly called on this distortion by the press, and subsequently stopped saying it.) He has accused McCain of helping to permit a corporate takeover in Ohio that has led to the threat of layoffs--a literally true claim that inaccurately implies that the takeover caused the problem. He has also accused McCain of favoring nearly $4 billion in new tax breaks for Big Oil--literally true, but misleading, insofar as McCain is offering tax cuts to corporations in general, not Big Oil in particular.

But McCain's untruths, in their frequency and their audacity, defy any modern historical precedent. He has been concocting falsehoods for months on end, all of which serve a clear political purpose. Last summer, Obama--on the heels of a New York Times report that the Bush administration in 2005 had canceled at the last minute a snatch-and-grab operation targeting Osama bin Laden's lieutenants in Pakistan--pledged to follow through on any actionable intelligence against Al Qaeda. After Obama's nomination became likely, McCain--then trying to portray Obama as dangerously naïve and uninformed--accused him of having "once suggested bombing our ally, Pakistan." Obama had not said anything about bombing. His speech merely conveyed his support for small, special operations missions--the types of missions, incidentally, that the Bush administration has since undertaken.

During Obama's overseas trip this summer, he called off a meeting with wounded troops at a military hospital after the Pentagon told him that the trip might run afoul of a policy against visiting soldiers in the course of campaigning. A McCain ad accused him of canceling the meeting because he learned that cameras couldn't accompany him. (In fact, the press had never been scheduled to come along.)

Just last week, McCain attacked Obama for proposing to cut defense spending. "During the primary, he told a liberal advocacy group that he'd cut defense spending by tens of billions of dollars," charged the GOP nominee. "He promised them he would, quote, 'slow our development of future combat systems.'" Actually, Obama had pledged to cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful military spending (he also favored increasing the size of the military). Worse, almost any listener hearing this claim would come away thinking Obama was proposing to cut funding for weapons systems in development. In reality, Obama had promised to slow the development of a specific project called "Future Combat Systems," a controversial program. Indeed, McCain himself had proposed eliminating this very program in July.

McCain has endlessly accused Obama of favoring tax increases of all kinds--on middle-class families, on low-income workers, on millions of small-business owners, on electricity, on the sale of homes--that he does not favor at all. He's also in the habit of wildly misrepresenting Obama's energy plan. "My opponent doesn't want nuclear power, he doesn't want us to drill offshore, and the other day he mentioned that what we need to do is inflate our tires," he has said, adding, "that's a publicservice announcement, not an energy policy." Over the summer, McCain distributed tire gauges labeled OBAMA'S ENERGY PLAN. Obviously, Obama does have an energy plan, and in fact favors expanding nuclear power. McCain has also preposterously accused Obama of opposing electric cars. A McCain ad described Obama's position as "No to the electric car," simply because Obama had (justifiably) ridiculed McCain's proposal of a $300 million reward for anyone who could create a substantially improved electric car.

Back in May, McCain quoted Obama as having said of Hillary Clinton, "Like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, packin' a six-shooter!" McCain followed that story with an acid quip about how ignorant Obama was for thinking ducks are hunted with six-shooters. This was the kind of devastating detail that had stuck to Democratic nominees before, endlessly circulating on talk radio and cable news, revealing them to be pretentious phonies out of touch with working-class life. But McCain was twisting Obama's line in a crucial way. Obama had actually said: "She's talking like she's Annie Oakley. Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packing a six-shooter." Two different things--going on the duck blind, packing a six-shooter. Not only did the press not call McCain on this distortion, but news accounts actually repeated his misquote as fact.

Indeed, McCain's consistent pattern of distortion received little attention until September, when the campaign embarked upon a flurry of prevarications. First, Palin introduced herself to the public as an opponent of the Bridge to Nowhere, even though she had supported the project until it could no longer be sustained (and even then took the federal money but redirected it). McCain actually went on to boast that she had accepted no federal earmarks, when in fact she had requested $453 million.

McCain also ludicrously called Obama's metaphor for McCain's policies ("lipstick on a pig") a personal attack on Palin. And the McCain campaign ran an advertisement falsely accusing Obama of having voted for a bill calling for sex education in kindergarten. (This was an echo of a smear that McCain chief strategist Steve Schmidt had used in a 1996 congressional campaign.) Factcheck. org called the ad "simply false" and explained that the bill required age-appropriate instruction for subjects like teaching younger children about avoiding pedophiles, not, as the ad said, "learning about sex before learning to read." By this point it had become clear even to many of McCain's admirers that there was a pattern at work: He was running a campaign that was unusually, perhaps even uniquely, dishonest.

Considered from a purely amoral point of view, McCain's strategy has much to recommend it. His opponent is a narrow target. Obama has two principal political weaknesses: his race and his lack of experience. McCain, to his credit, has shied away from race-based attacks, and he has de-emphasized experience since selecting Palin. On the policy front, McCain faces even more of a disadvantage. He's defending a set of proposals nearly indistinguishable from those of an incumbent with the highest disapproval ratings in the history of polling. McCain got some traction attacking Obama for supporting a timetable for withdrawal, until the Iraqi prime minister endorsed essentially the same idea. Obama, like Bill Clinton, has taken few positions that might hurt him in the election. On taxes, for instance, Obama favors larger rate cuts for the vast majority of Americans, leaving McCain in the unenviable position of defending (vis-à-vis his opponent) higher taxes for the middle class and vastly lower taxes for the very rich. McCain, in short, stands little chance running against Obama. Running against a pretend Obama who favors broad tax hikes and opposes any new energy sources naturally seems more promising.

McCain does run some risk of a backlash. After years of portraying him as a uniquely honorable figure in American politics, the national press corps has started to take note of his brazen distortions, a development that may threaten his most precious asset. But we should consider an alternate possibility. Suppose that McCain has committed himself, with the Palin pick, to running a campaign centered around mobilizing the Republican base. He has enjoyed clear success with this since the Palin pick, attracting larger crowds, drawing higher fund-raising totals, and even seeing dramatically higher numbers of voters identifying themselves as Republicans in polls.

If this is McCain's strategy, then a bunch of news reports debunking his claims isn't going to hurt. Indeed it may even help. Last February, political scientists Brendan Nyhan of Duke and Jason Reifler of Georgia State published the results of an experiment designed to test the effects of political untruths. The results would unsettle any idealist. The first conclusion they found was that lies work. When subjects were confronted with an untrue political claim (President Bush banned stem-cell research; weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq) respondents naturally moved toward those positions. When the lie was corrected, however, the effect of the untruth in moving opinions largely remained. The truth, in other words, is no antidote for a lie.

Their second conclusion was even more disturbing. Subjects who identified as politically conservative were not only immune to the effects of having a lie corrected, the correction made them even more likely to believe a lie. So, for instance, one group of conservative subjects was presented with a news story that depicted President Bush claiming weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. A second group of conservatives was presented with the same thing, along with a paragraph noting that Bush's statement was untrue. The second group was more likely than the first to believe that Iraq possessed WMDs. The very fact of the press challenging their beliefs seems to have made conservatives more likely to embrace them. If this finding is broadly correct, then the media's newfound willingness to fact-check McCain will only succeed in rallying the GOP base to his side.

 

But wait. Those of us who have admired McCain are not used to analyzing his actions in purely amoral terms. This is a man with a history of true heroism who takes honor seriously. What happened to him?

The McCain campaign and its sympathizers have offered one semi-acknowledgment in public. According to their theory, McCain tried to run a high-road campaign, but was ignored by the press and rebuffed by Obama. McCain, complained his former aide, Dan Schnur, "had a poverty tour and nobody covered it." (McCain's tour did get some coverage, but not the commanding attention McCain hoped for, possibly because he had no actual poverty proposals to accompany it.) Likewise, McCain cites his unrequited offer to hold joint town halls as evidence of his good faith. "I think the tone of this whole campaign would've been very different," he said recently, "if Senator Obama had accepted my request for us to appear at town hall meetings all over America." McCain's proposal of joint town halls was salutary, but it wasn't an act of charity--the obvious purpose was to draw Obama into a forum where McCain excels. Even if McCain did make the offer out of a pure-hearted desire to lift the public discourse, Obama's refusal hardly justifies embarking upon a sustained campaign of slander. McCain's rationale is a bit like saying your rejection from law school forced you to turn to a life of crime.

Any attempt to determine McCain's true motives is necessarily pure speculation. It's possible that McCain has convinced himself to actually believe the lies he has been telling. But here's a more likely explanation: All this dishonesty can be understood not as a betrayal of McCain's sense of honor but, in an odd way, as a fulfillment of it.

McCain's deep investment in his own honor can drive him to do honorable things, but it can also allow him to believe that anything he does must be honorable. Thus the moralistic, crusading tone McCain brings to almost every cause he joins. In 2000 and afterward, McCain came to despise George W. Bush and Karl Rove. During his more recent primary campaign, McCain thought the same of front-runner Mitt Romney. Not surprisingly, Romney was the target of McCain's most unfair primary attack--an inaccurate claim that he favored a withdrawal timetable in Iraq.

In time, when Bush's support became necessary for his second presidential campaign, McCain reconciled himself to his former rival--and even to Rove, whom he has reportedly taken on as an outside adviser. More recently, he apparently changed his view of Romney. Now, Obama is the villain. "The contempt that many McCain aides hold for Barack Obama," The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder wrote this summer, "rivals the contempt that McCain held for Mitt Romney a year ago." As Time reported, "McCain and his aides now view Obama with the same level of contempt they once reserved for tobacco-company executives, corrupt lawmakers and George W. Bush. They have convinced themselves that Obama is not honorable, that he does not love his country as much as himself."

The pattern here is perfectly clear. McCain has contempt for anybody who stands between him and the presidency. McCain views himself as the ultimate patriot. He loves his country so much that he cannot let it fall into the hands of an unworthy rival. (They all turn out to be unworthy.) Viewed in this way, doing whatever it takes to win is not an act of selfishness but an act of patriotism. McCain tells lies every day and authorizes lying on his behalf, and he probably knows it. But I would guess--and, again, guessing is all we can do--that in his mind he is acting honorably. As he might put it, there is a bigger truth out there.

Jonathan Chait is a senior editor at The New Republic.

Normal
0

false
false
false

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

This article originally ran in the October 8, 2008, issue of the magazine.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 127 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

127 comments

Mr. Chait, The facts presented surrounding John McCain's "postmodern disdain for truth" are indeed unsettling. Yet, while a lamentable development, they can hardly be said to derive their genesis out of thin air. Its roots may be said to have originated in the reactionary Goldwater positions some forty-four years ago. Further, the tactic came ; gaining their and gained their first tangible results with the re-election recieved their As a polity currently saddled with a Commander in Chief who is widely recognized by a great many of its citizens as a liar. Moreover, his lack of forthrightness and outright lies netted him a second term. In light of this fact, it is not hard to 'speculate' as to why Mr. McCain has adopted such contempt for the truth and its place in his political campaign. A refuge of last resort. Mr. McCain has undoubtedly decided that in a fair fight he cannot win. In the face of impossible odds, he has thus resorted to the only tried and true method of securing the Oval Office - lies. A la Bush 2004, he has opted to forgo the normative untruths common to all campaign's. Instead, he has chosen to mobilize the GOP political base by betting that, once again, it will not allow itself to be dissuaded by big-media reports he is lying, and it will back him in spite of his 'big whoppers'. So fragile is the republican brand that its faithful are willing to embrace any strategy that promises victory via dumbed-down discourse and innuendo. Aware history and conventional (learned) wisdom are on the other side- they will do whatever it takes to achieve their goal. The anti-media taint cultivated by the GOP Rovian apparatchiks in 2004 during Bush's re-election bid runs deep among the grassroots. Easily swayed by claims that the Republican doctrine is the only true doctrine for America, they are readily mobilized. The attendant symbolism associated with the GOP's message (whether it be patriotism, guns, or, God) is so simple and visceral in its construct that it can only but invite a form of hyper-partisanship and grassroots adherence that is more than willing to look beyond 'truth'. Unfortunately, the last time a troubled democracy witnessed a Party Ideology so committed to its patriotic 'mission', so inclined to look beyond facts, so willing to eschew opposing voices, and bereft of a moral center was in Germany in the 1930s. Frightful.

- BeerBellyBuddah

September 20, 2008 at 11:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If this is McCain's strategy..." (to run to the base?), of course it is. Look, in basketball, we call it a 'heat check,' a hot shooter keeps shooting increasingly tough shots until he finally misses one. The Rovian postmodern smear machine has gone 2 for 2, a few months ago, McCain was behind. Of course Schmidt (a Rove protege) said something like 'look, you can run as is and lose comfortably, or we can trot out this strategy one more time, might as well use it until it fails!'

- mmathog

September 24, 2008 at 12:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait, read dailyhowler.com

- mmathog

September 24, 2008 at 12:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seriously, are you guys and Mody Dowdy and Frankie Rich at NYT spoon-fed, week after week, by the Obama campaign, if not The One himself? You do realize that someone could take this entire article and rewrite it so that Obama is McCain and McCain is Obama and it would work/not work just as well, right? You realize that people who read TNR regularly take everything printed with a grain of salt since TNR's bias is so clear, right? Just reality checking. Signed, not a Republican.

- susan k. (NYC)

September 24, 2008 at 12:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Geez Chait! You are scaring the hell out of me. I'm serious. Unfortunately, I think you are definitely on to something and it's mind bogglingly terrifying. If McCain succeeds in this campaign then our democracy is in great danger because from now on out the public will not be able to make an intelligent informed choice because it will be impossible to know what the candidates really stand for because they will all lie from now on about everything. I've said in another post that this election is an I.Q. test for the American People. Now I see that it is also a test of our democracy. John McCain is downright evil if your article is correct. And I'm sad to say I think it is correct. Wake up America!

- woland

September 24, 2008 at 4:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Really, one comment and already a Godwin? Give the chance for discourse to develop before activating the nuclear option.

- SomeThoughts

September 24, 2008 at 8:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is truth in the McCain ads. Obama does hang around racists, terrorists, and felons. He does have wacky ideas about sex education. He does support denying medical treatment to live born babies that were supposed to be a choice. It is blatent misrepresentation to say that these are lies or the that liberal media creation Zero Obama is the only one truth. Obama lies about McCain's Social Security record, insults his disability, his immigration stance and efforts, creates an association with Rush and so one. And what about all the lies about Palin? Spare me your elitist crap. Ordinary people are going to elect the POTUS not you media spinning thugs.

- Peter from Dover NH

September 24, 2008 at 8:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sir: I suppose your investigative reporting might have some credibility if there was the least bit of objectivity in it. The most disconcerting part of this is that you, I am sure, believe to your core that you are being objective and are not tainted in your reporting in any partisan agenda. Not that you are alone. The same can be said for many in the media in their biased reporting of Barak Obama. The sad thing is that the partisan media, which you are a card carrying member, actually have deluded yourself into thinking that the voters who matter, the undecided, don't see through your misleading and distorted reporting designed to serve your agenda. Your fans are not voters that matter. They are in the tank already. As an Independent, who has voted democratic in every single presidential election, I am horrified at the level of bias that exists on both sides, albeit predominantly and most visibly on the left. You folk need to take a chill pill, and cease your disrespectful reporting of candidates like McCain and Obama who both have served this country way beyond yourself. Disagree with their positions. Analyze their records fairly and objectively. But calling heros "liars" isn't going to win you favor with those that you need to persuade in order to have your favored candidate win. Just remember. Your deep down belief that you are reporting in an objective manner just might be tainted by a bias that you accept because you just know your more right and smarter then those that disagree with you. You could be wrong. BTW, I have not decided whom to vote for, but you've done a good job of making me suspicious of the democratic agenda. Write an accurate story on Obama's Chicago connections, or "missing years" at Columbia and you will go along way to earning credibility with the voters that will decide this election, even if it makes your candidate look less then candid (note I didn't call him a liar).

- mark

September 24, 2008 at 8:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Until you and the rest of the MSM start to look into Obama with the same fury as McCain, your complaints will fall on deaf ears. You cannot act as a surrogate for a campaign and get away with it for too long. The independent media died in 2008. As for the comment about the National Socialist Party rule of Germany, please read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. It may change your perception. When the author speaks of right and left - keep in mind that Joe Lieberman would have been considered a rapid conservative and Nancy Pelosi a moderate. The true conservatives were rounded up and imprisoned or killed before 1932. Notice, I do not attempt to sway your opinion, merely present fact for your own mind to absorb. Confidence in the truth.

- Thomas Paine

September 24, 2008 at 8:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

May i have your attention please.....May I have your attention please? SO DOES OBAMA YOU IDIOT!

- matt key

September 24, 2008 at 8:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chait is reading from the Democrat party talking points. The strategy is to nitpick McCain statements to make him look dishonest, throw the word "liar" around, and keep scrutiny off of Obama. It is a strategy that works for the leftists because of media puppets like Chait, Paul Begala, and Keith Olbermann. I have never seen a truthful work come from any of these "men".

- Mike

September 24, 2008 at 8:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As the conservative "world view" and social and economic REALITY diverge further and further, each Republican Presidential campaign becomes more mendacious and surreal. Bush was a bigger liar than his father and McCain is a bigger liar than Bush. You ain't seen nothing yet -- wait 'til 2012.

- mnjam

September 24, 2008 at 9:03am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan Chait, Hmmm... and I would assume that Obama doesn't lie, has never lied, and is upfront about everything. What a joke your reporting is. Obama is a Marxist, a fraud being perpetuated on the public, and is trying to keep his past as silent as possible, and is abetted by phonies like you. Hang up your journalist hat and let someone competent take your place.

- Dr. Who

September 24, 2008 at 9:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For Mr. Chait to actually defend Obama's social security ad in an article about campaign lies really speaks volumes about his own honesty and integrity. For an analysis of how dishonest this ad really is, see Ruth Marcus in the September 22 issue of the Washington Post (Closing the Whopper Gap), where she pillories Obama for both the social security ad and him immigration ad. And Chait's response to the lies: it's pretty standard politics to lie about candidate's votes and record. TNR has really gone into the toilet.

- David Lampo

September 24, 2008 at 9:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Saint Obama is a pillar of honesty!!! His Spanish language add using Rush Limbaugh is so clean, Axelrod's attempts to create viral false emails about Sarah Palin, now organized attempt of the Obama to disrupt McCain appearances and harass - attendees. I am elderly and can hardly walk. I was harassed and yelled at by these hacks in Media, PA this week. Saint Obama of the ACORN tactics!!!

- Mary

September 24, 2008 at 9:45am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm glad beer BeerBellyBuddah said it. Under Bush we have come close to the type of moral depravity that led the civilization that was an injured Germany to its frankly, down fall. The potential injury from Wall Street's problems and our lost military ventures could lead to a similar result absent a less morally corrupt administration unwilling to bend to our basest human instincts.

- Jim in Virginia

September 24, 2008 at 9:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You talk lies? I talk cover up. What about Bill Ayres?? There are enough cover ups to equal a zillion lies coming from the Obama camp. Start reporting about Obamas history and people might start reading you columns ... at this point it is same old same old. Why bother?

- MDean

September 24, 2008 at 9:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For me, this is a great read until I reached page 3. I understand the point that you were making. However, to call someone's race a political weakness is difficult to swallow. It is certainly an obstacle, but to call it a weakness, is problematic. And I think that people should truly be disgusted by that concept. Not because you wrote it, but because such perception exists. I wonder, at this point, whether being a female is viewed now as a political strength.

- S.

September 24, 2008 at 10:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think McCain knows full well he is lying, which explains the nervous twitches and pasted-on smiles whenever he is confronted. He doesn't like being called dishonorable, or a liar. Yet he has run the sleaziest presidential campaign in modern US history. The fact is, he is willing to do anything, absolutely anything, to win. His ambition knows no bounds. I think he does believe he deserves to be president, and deserved it more than George Bush eight years ago. But it isn't because he thinks he is honorable. He knows, deep down, that his ambition rules. Look at the way he dumped his injured first wife when he returned from Nam and realized he could snag a pretty heiress. What kind of honor did that reveal? No, he is pure ambition. He also believes he is right, he believes he would be a better president than Obama, but throughout his history he has always been disdainful to those who disagree. His ego knows no bounds. You see it in the way he snaps at others, including his wife when she teased him about losing his hair. You see it in the perspective others in the Senate have about him. All have been subjected to his tirades. He simply can't admit that someone else has an opinion that matters (until he co-ops it for his own). He is pure, blind ambition, and driven by a super-sized ego and the desire for power.

- Sensible Centrist

September 24, 2008 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Where's the proof backing up your statements that Palin supported the bridge to nowhere until she was forced to abandon it?

- Greg

September 24, 2008 at 10:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

BeerBrain, your mastery of the English language is a stark contrast to your inability to deal with reality.

- Eloquence

September 24, 2008 at 10:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Bridge to Nowhere statement was not a lie. And it's time to take a deep look at the lies in Obama's campaign, starting with his policies. How about starting with paying for giveaways for almost everyone with a tax increase on just the top 5% of Americans? How about the depth and nature of some of his associations? How about his position on whether to resusucitate a baby born during an attempted abortion. Want the truth? Let's take a bi-partisan, cleansing look.

- leanright

September 24, 2008 at 10:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, if you are going to accuse McCain of lying, it would be a nice start not to do any yourself. Two specific instances to illustrate my point. First, sex education. Have you actually read the bill? I have. Obama's distortion on the issue is far more egrigious than McCain's and Factcheck is simply wrong. There is no definition in the bill of "age appropriate", there is a long list of "shall" topics that are to be covered and programs "may" exempt some of them. In addition, examining policy papers from professional advocacy organizations for sex educators--and their definition of what "age appropriate means--makes it clear that what he supported was way more than just protecting children from pedophiles. Second, nuclear energy. Obama's statement on nuclear energy is this: "I do not think we can take nuclear power off the table." So he is willing to discuss it...but that is manifestly not the same as actively campaigning to expand nuclear energy. In the absence of that promise, no reasonable observer of American politics can argue that Obama is setting himself up to take on one of the most vociferous components of the Democratic coalition to increase nuclear electric generating capacity. You are a smart man and a keen observer. You know that both of these points are true. While I understand you support Obama, remember that your professional credibility is on the line when you support Obama against the demonstrated facts in such a blatant fashion.

- George

September 24, 2008 at 10:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan, you write this piece as if lying is exclusive to the McCain camp. To be fair it should be pointed out that BHO's campaign is equally guilty. On Monday, Joe Biden told a group of Nationla Guard Association members that when he and other Senators were on a visit to Afghanistan their helicopter was forced down by enemy fire. In fact, his helicopter was forced down by bad weather. Yet, the mainstream media chooses to ignore his lie. BHO has spoken out against the current government bailout plan but not the Freddy/Fannie bailout. Why? One reason, as a Senator, he received the third highest dollar amount (1996-29008 figures) in contributions from these organizations. A lie of omissin is still a lie. Additionally, new Barack Obama campaign ad says John McCain supports "cutting Social Security benefits in half." FactCheck.org says that's "a falsehood sure to frighten seniors who rely on their Social Security checks. In truth, McCain does not propose to cut those checks at all." A lie is a lie no matter who tells it. If you intend to be fair and unbiased you would report "Why honor prevents BHO from telling the truth.

- Mike Weaver

September 24, 2008 at 10:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When are people going to understand that policy makers, presidents, members of congress, judges, etc. will only stop lying when the people pull their heads out of their butts and begin to hold them accountable! Until we do them will ALL keep lying straight to our face in an effort to get to the top.

- They are both lying!

September 24, 2008 at 10:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am struck by the parallelism of this from Chait's second paragraph: But what happened after that was even more unusual, and possibly without precedent: McCain's supporters simply suggested that the truth or falsity of their statements didn't matter. and this from Wikipedia's discussion of Harry Frankfurt's *On Bullshit*: In particular, Frankfurt distinguishes bullshitting from lying; while the liar deliberately makes false claims, the bullshitter is simply uninterested in the truth. Bullshitters aim primarily to impress and persuade their audiences. While liars need to know the truth, the better to conceal it, the bullshitter, interested solely in advancing his own agenda, has no use for the truth. Following from this, Frankfurt claims that "bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are." Bill Clinton made an eloquent plea on the Daily Show last night for people to think about the coming election as a choice regarding the path our country should follow. I do hope that we will not opt for a future based in bullshit; and that we will find a way to agree that the truth can be difficult to articulate, and awkward to face, but it is quite important none-the-less (and now I am paraphrasing *On Truth* Frankfurt's less popular sequel to *On Bullshit*.)

- Lewis E Gilbert

September 24, 2008 at 10:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Patriotic flopping. It's hard to love your country more than that.

- desertson

September 24, 2008 at 10:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm a Democrat (a professional one at several junctures in my career), so my support for Obama is strong and there is something that has always bugged me about McCain going back to the Keating Five (still the most undiscussed item in this campaign). That being said, there is something indeed troubling about this campaign from both sides as the negative ads have just been so over-the-top that they are embarrassing (or should be). What is extremely maddening to me (and this is probably because I am a Democrat and will vote for Obama unless he partakes in a satanic ritual prior to November 4) is that McCain's camp appears to be intent on producing bald (or extremely receding hairline) face lies in their campaign even outside the advertisments. While the shielding of Palin is understandable to keep some of her more controversial stances underwraps, it's a lot of the other stuff that seems to fly out of nowhere and directly in the face of the truth that is bothersome and to see these same pervarications picked up in the blogosphere and the troglodyte radio world is beyond exasperation for me. It has been an ugly campaign and my side hasn't been sleeping with the angels, so this isn't about any "evil conservative conspiracy" out to incite fear where none should rightfully exist. It is just plain disheartening. It's really too bad that the Straight Talk Express picked up about ten cars worth of pig feces on the track to November.

- Lundell

September 24, 2008 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow... what a 'hard-hitting' article. Seems as though you have really done your homework; or did you? Poking holes in these arguments, though not difficult, are a waist of time. You have made up your mind about Obama, and no amount of logic will sway you. That is fine, but being a supposed journalist, what work have you done to poke holes in the numerous gaffs and lies that have come from Obama and his camp? For any credibility, please attach a list of links to the many critical pieces you have wrote about Obama/Biden; otherwise, you are simply a paid political hack, cheer-leading for your candidate, and presenting a one-sided view... some pro you are...

- Verbal

September 24, 2008 at 10:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great piece Johnathon.

- Lundell

September 24, 2008 at 10:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What's the matter NR? Do you totalitarians not like having the truth pointed out? Chait is a lying leftist ideologue just like Begala and Olbermann. There is not a shred of decency among them.

- Mike J

September 24, 2008 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How could John McCain ever have been considered honorable when the allegedly tortured by the Vietnamese McCain (there are stories circulating that call his heroism into question but, of course, the Democrats are not the Swift Boat Republicans) came home to a wife -- crippled and disfigured by an auto accident only to launch a series of affairs? Had McCain stayed with the wife who supported him during his years of capture, I would feel differently about McCain. His last affair (perhaps) was with the egregious Cindy Lou Hensley who became his second wife. Women who engage in sex with married men who are not their husbands disgust me more than men who are philanderers. Cindy Lou considers herself an only child, despite having a step-sister, her father's daughter by his first marriage. This woman does not have family values. Her financial dealings are not free from clouds of doubt. This is a disgusting pair. McCain lied in his primary relationship -- his marriage -- because he could not deal with a wife who lost her beauty, height and vigor. He excuses himself on the grounds that he was immature. He was 44. How long did he need to grow up? He continually excuses his bad behavior and his dishonesty. The man is a neurotic bundle of lies and excuses. And he always was.

- SWozniak

September 24, 2008 at 10:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Why has McCain ever been called an honorable man??? he was a member of the Keating Five,he cheated on his first wife, lied about his age to get a date with Cindy and then lied about these facts in his book !!!

- roger smith

September 24, 2008 at 10:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Now there's a bit of irony, The New Republic accusing someone of not being truthful.

- Mark W. Scott

September 24, 2008 at 10:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think you have been fooled by McCain. He has never been particularly honorable politically. He has always lied. All this 'legendary honor' bestowed upon McCain by you and the rest of the press is just hokum - he fooled you into thinking he was honorable and you took that story line and lazily ran with it. I'm sorry but wake up and smell the coffee. He has always lied in your face and was never particularly honorable. Why are you still writing this crap. We all know you and the rest of the press have been taken for the proverbial ride with all this 'honor' talk

- waylon

September 24, 2008 at 10:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think it has its roots in something to do with obtaining public support above all else. Back when Newt Gingrich came to power, Cokie Roberts was interviewing him on NPR about the fact that now that he was going to be Speaker of the House, things he previously might have said off the cuff would be judged more severely -- implying that he had been saying stupid things all along but that no one cared up to this point. Gingrich, insulted, cut her off and said something to the effect that when the people are behind you, they will lift you up and that's what is important. The philosophy that getting public support is more important than anything else is exemplified in a banner that says "Mission Accomplished."

- Nusholtz

September 24, 2008 at 10:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, Mr. Obama has been lying to the public for years. Will you write an article about all of his lies?

- Theresa Jones

September 24, 2008 at 10:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Your bias is showing! You so obviously do not know the facts that this article is amusing to read. My suggestion, stop drinking cool-aid so you can look around and see the entire picture. After that, you can begin speaking with something akin to authority.

- getalifevirginia

September 24, 2008 at 11:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting how Kos or whoever sends out the directive to every liberal journalist out there to accuse John McCain of "LIES LIES LIES". A week later, Frank Rich, Joe Klein, and this guy all write the same EXACT same column, title of which is ripped off from a book written by a certain ex-SNL current Minnesota politician.

- GNR

September 24, 2008 at 11:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama has lied and distorted from the start. However, we will never see any article on how many exaggerations and lies Obama has stated.

- Roberto

September 24, 2008 at 11:20am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan, your article is right on the mark - and judging from the reaction of the righties, the truth must really hurt. Good job!

- Don in Texas

September 24, 2008 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There is VERY LITTLE truth in McCain and if Americans want this lying slandering, character assassin to lead the country, then what does that say about Americans? Moreover, Palin as VP is ridiculous.

- greyce

September 24, 2008 at 11:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Unfortunately, most of you have fallen for the "perception" that McCain has "always" been honest and a man of integrity. One, cannot have mastered the game of deception so well, if one has not lived it. McCain is a compulsive gambler who first was put in office by his father-in-laws Las Vegas Mafia business partner, Kemper Marley. McCain has used the Land Trust money in Arizona for sweetheart deals for his buddies, who kick back money to his campaign. This money is supposed to fund Arizona public schools. McCain has stolen money from children for 26 years in Arizona. One land deal, last year in Yavapai County where McCain got a couple hundred grand. He is a crook, and always has been. He is a dumb guy who is easily manipulated by his buddies like Phil Gramm. He has no leadership capabilities.

- Wiserone

September 24, 2008 at 11:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sheesh, reading these comments proves the premise of the article and the first and last comments. I despair of American's inability to recognize truth when it slaps them in the face and supporters of McCain-Palin seem not only not to be able to recognize truth but they must offset by inventing and inflating mostly untruths about Obama. Bill Ayers, give me a break!! Let's face it, part of this clinging to blatant untruths is more palatable than admitting to racial prejudice. This is true where I live. I despair for the country. Well, off to work in the Obama campaign as I forswear reading any more comments here.

- dww44

September 24, 2008 at 11:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, You have proven that the media takes the easiest path to production. You are lazy in the aspect that you are merely repeating the assertions that have been being played in the media over these last months and you offer no new information. Anyone can write an opinion piece that repeats the beliefs already stated many times. While I understand that you are unable as well as not required to offer any objectivity since this is an opinion piece, it would be much more interesting if you would get off your couch and make an actual contribution in the form of new information not previously stated. Quit the laziness and get out and do some investigation on your own.

- Darrin D

September 24, 2008 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The more you repeat a lie, the more people believe it to be true, especially when it comes from multiple sources. Independent of who is telling the truth, the advertising industry understood this concept long ago, and put their messages in print, radio, and television to maximize its impact. Despite Obama's "Fight the Smears" efforts, a recent poll showed that more people now believe that he is a Muslim than believed it 6 months ago. The McCain campaign and their supporters (and Obama's campaign to a much lesser extent) have done an excellent job of spreading lies and getting them into the general public discussion. If I don't trust CNN or the NYT and one of their reports says that something is untrue, guess what I'm going to believe? So we end up with articles about the flavors of ice cream that the Palin family ordered at Cold Stone Creamery. Truth doesn't stand much of a chance in today's world.

- TonyW

September 24, 2008 at 11:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great article, Mr.Chait.

- Steve

September 24, 2008 at 11:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This post is typical of exactly the sort of Pavlovian response that the GOP "faithful" have towards their party and the media, which Chait addresses. If "2+2=4" appeared in the New York Times, they would claim it wasn't true. If a White House videotape had captured George Bush drinking a fifth of Jack Daniels while wearing a toga, they would claim that someone from MoveOn photoshopped the film. They have an "answer" or excuse for every prevarication someone from their party is on the record as telling. And, when someone from their party tells the behind-the-scenes truth (O'Neill, McClelland, DiIlio, etc.), the "story" becomes not the facts revealed, but the "traitorous" nature of the person who could no longer conceal the lies being fed to the American people. Very Nixonian. After all, we are talking about a large segment of our population that believes that the earth is 6,000 years old and that Jesus would want us to bomb the crap out of any country that won't sell us cheap oil. Reflective thinking is considered a weakness by these folks; if it doesn't fit on a bumper sticker or come out of Rush "Thrice Divorced" Limbaugh's pumpkin-shaped piehole, it can't be true.

- pcp

September 24, 2008 at 11:50am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Says you, Chait. You are the lying hack, and you aren't helping your magazine's less-than-stellar reputation.

- whysoangry

September 24, 2008 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'll grant that lying is McCain's only hope for winning. But as the MSM becomes tire of the isolation and the lies they will run more and more negative articles of his lying. His biggest mistake is he started lying too early, he should of waited for the last 30 days. That way the MSM would be too slow to react and new lies could be told in quick succession before the old are exposed. Lying is a skill, John McCain is not very good at it (compared to Rove). His camapign will crash and burn.

- FredZ

September 24, 2008 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mccain foolishly tried to convince the American people that fish actually like big oil rigs!! So save the fish and drill baby drill. I think Mccain is just taking the "shot gun approach" here. Throw everything out there and just see what sticks.. Hey I guess you can fool some people all the time, Bush sure did!

- VAAPPLE

September 24, 2008 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Despite being almost Broderish in its excessively flattering "even-handedness" toward McCain, this is still one of the single best and most factually accurate articles anywhere about this campaign. The "why" of McCain is obviously debatable (and the conclusion is really the least important and least interesting part of the piece), but the "what" just isn't any more. Thanks, Jonathan, for a great piece

- AWH

September 24, 2008 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr.Chait why do you bother? Is it comforting emotionally to write such biased silliness? Do you really think anyone who reads this piece thinks you are a journalist?

- Joseph T

September 24, 2008 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think many of you are being unfair to Mr.Chait - he admits up-front that some of Obama's messages have stretched and misrepresented the truth about McCain. The difference, though, is the DEGREE to which McCain is willing to stretch the truth or completely ignore it, and the FREQUENCY with which he does so. I'm also quite frightened by the study results mentioned in the article in light of commenters who continue to believe that Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. The comments prove the study. We have Palin on video and reported in newspapers campaigning for Alaska Governor in support of the bridge. That so many people are able to ignore those facts and continue to cling to the lie they find more comfortable is truly frightening. As for McCain's honor, I think we have another POW-related issue here. Any man who endured what he endured for our country is to be honored for his sacrifice. Such dedication shows love of country in a way that most people will never have to experience. So I think McCain has been given the benefit of the doubt all his political life, forgiven for errors or stances that would have doomed other men, out of respect for his service. But that's reason to put him in the White House.

- RadicalCentrist

September 24, 2008 at 12:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Theresa.....name one. We'd all like to talk about it if you could only come up with one.

- desertson

September 24, 2008 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan Chait morphs into Sidney Blumenthal. *STANDS CLAPPING* Are you going to be bringing Michelle Obama her tea, or massaging Joe Biden's bunions, John? Nice career move, btw!!!

- Ralf Nemperor

September 24, 2008 at 12:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How ironic that the left MSM wants to criticize McCain for using "perception is reality". Isn't that the reason BHO is even close in this election? There is a reason that MSM is on the verge of collapse. The plane is heading into the ground, so they intend to "power up". Great strategy, good luck.

- joemoney

September 24, 2008 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What went wrong in your life development to create such animus within you? This is a political discussion forum, not a court hearng to determine your guilt or innocence in the matter at hand. To berate your opponent in debate is to lose the force of your argument. Liberal and moderate Democrats AND Republicans have lived through nearly eight years of an unusual Republican administration and now we are engaged in a narrative commentary, hopefully on a civil basis, to determine our political choices for the next several years. So, Peter from Dover, please take a deep breath and at least listen to others as we wade through to our individual choices. I know I will vote for the most reasonable choices based on ALL the sanely, rationally, presented information I can obtain before then.

- Oh, Peter, Peter, Peter.

September 24, 2008 at 12:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you BeerBellyBuddah. Finally, I see, in print, someone else who sees the link between the Republican Party and fascism. I thought I was alone. Joseph Gobbels said "if you tell a big enough lie reapeatedly, people will eventually come to believe it." The frequent avoidance of open questions from the press on the part of Palin/McCain is typical of many dictatorships, where press contacts, if any, are stage managed. If McCain/Palin are elected, perhaps,atthe 2012 convention the mantra will not be 'drill, baby, drill, but 'seig heil'. I am trying to obtain a copy of the 1980 book, "Friendly Fascism", (Gross) which speaks of the marriage of a powerful military with big busines And, will reread, Orwell's 'Animal Farm' and '1984'.

- o. peabody

September 24, 2008 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There is truth in the McCain ads. Obama does hang around racists, terrorists, and felons. He does have wacky ideas about sex education. He does support denying medical treatment to live born babies that were supposed to be a choice." Thank you, for providing a perfect example of the above discussed phenomenon. A typical Right-Winger, you'll do for a case in point. "What I think is true, because I wish very much that it were!" If you are going to say Obama this, or Obama that, then meet the same journalistic standard as the author...cite your sources. Obama wants to deny medical treatment to live born infants? Citation? Obama *hangs out* as in, drinks beer with-- terrorists? Citation? You Repubs can lie all you want, but in the interest of mental hygiene, I suggest you avoid the temptation to start believing the lies yourselves. The map is supposed to reflect the territory, not the other way around. World views should be informed by the world, not vice versa.

- Robert

September 24, 2008 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama lies EVERY TIME he says he is African-American. OF COURSE, Obama won't say he is 7 times MORE ARAB-American. That wouldn't grt him him the votes he needs to win the predidency. ALl the African-Americans are being played for fools and people like you are helping him. Obama has NO EXPERIENCE at anything, but running his mouth and YOU KNOW IT. Obama votes "present" as much as he votes for or against any legislation before him. Obama is against energy independence, obviously, just like Pelosi et all. He will KILL this country with his (and the Democrats) unwillingness to let our oil producers drill where the oil IS. No nuclear energy, no shale oil, no clean coal...is their motto. Obama isn't a "leader" he is just a good talker and you would have him become President simply because he is a Democrat that has a chance of winning. Not that IS b*llsh*t!

- Searchin4Truth

September 24, 2008 at 12:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, of course. This is obviously "Media Bias". Whenever McCain comes out and balls-out lies about something that is patently false and the Media doesn't give him a pass...it is media bias. When the media says "The sky is blue"...blame the media. Not the sky. Right.

- Ben in Denver

September 24, 2008 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you BeerBellyBuddah. Finally, I see, in print, someone else who sees the link between the Republican Party and fascism. I thought I was alone. Joseph Gobbels said "if you tell a big enough lie reapeatedly, people will eventually come to believe it." The frequent avoidance of open questions from the press on the part of Palin/McCain is typical of many dictatorships, where press contacts, if any, are stage managed. If McCain/Palin are elected, perhaps,atthe 2012 convention the mantra will not be 'drill, baby, drill, but 'seig heil'. I am trying to obtain a copy of the 1980 book, "Friendly Fascism", (Gross) which speaks of the marriage of a powerful military with big busines And, will reread, Orwell's 'Animal Farm' and '1984'.

- o. peabody

September 24, 2008 at 12:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Example 2: "Obama is a Marxist," That's a lie. Look up Marxism on Wikipedia, and the fallacy of this statement should become obvious. If you want to level a valid criticism of Senator Obama, please try again. BTW, are you ignorant, or are you a liar? I'm curious. I'm collecting data to try tpo form an hypothesis concerning the Republican inability to tell the truth. Your feedback would be helpful.

- Rob

September 24, 2008 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love how conservative apologists forget how hard the media probed Obama's Rev. Wright associations, his meeting with Ayer, Father Phlager, and every other somewhat shady person he happened to be in the same room with for a few minutes while in Illinois. These allegations are not new - they have been beaten TO DEATH during the Democratic primary, and have all been answered effectively to the mind of anyone not already against Barack. He's explained time and again about these facts - if Republicans weren't paying attention to the news during the Dem primary, thats not the medias fault. NYT, New Republic, DailyKos, all these and every news media left and right have spoken about these issues. Its been done, to death.

- Brian

September 24, 2008 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you Mr. Chait. The more information I receive from both sides of this political argument, the better able am I to make an informed decision. What perturbs me, although they ertainly have the right to make fools of themselves, is that the uninformed individuals who post on these sites do sort of stink up the place. Is it lack of intellect, or just plain meanness, that motivates these meagerly equipped people. Do they really think they can persuade me of anything with their wild ad hominem attacks? Give me a break!

- Erudite Soul

September 24, 2008 at 12:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jonathan Chait LIES EVERY TIME TOO. Obviously media and his most ardent readership would not notice it. Why would they? No thought. No honor. No decency .... Oh, well ... what's new?

- George Shen

September 24, 2008 at 12:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Perhaps given the history of this campaign the article could have been entitled "The Distortions of Obama and McCain." McCain was an early victim of a distorted New York Times front page article that asserted that he may have had an affair with a female lobbyist. Of course, no reliable evidence for presented for this assertion and few in the media held the NYT accountable for this outrage. During the primary campaign, Obama frequently ran ads asserting that he did not take money from "oil companies." Of course, no candidate may legally take money from any company. However, factcheck.org and USA Today both presented evidence that Obama had, in fact, taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions from oil company and pharmaceutical company executives. The bulk of the media failed to follow through on this investigation. Further, Obama has asserted that he takes no money from "Washington" lobbyists and that no Washington lobbyists are on his campaign staff. However, David Axelrod was an active lobbyist in the state of Illinois. And the Obama campaign takes contributions from the spouses of Washington lobbyists and from lawyers who do business with firms that have done lobbying in Washington. The pig remarks? Yes, McCain used the line in reference to Hillary Clinton's health care proposals. However, the Obama remark had a decidely different context, one directly connected to Sarah Palin. If one watched the reaction of the crowd at Obama's rally to his remark as he was in the middle of it, then it is clear they were drawing a connection to Palin. Chait's claim here is arguable. There is much about Obama that has not been sufficiently explored by the media. We have not heard a great deal about his connections with his first major patron Tony Rezko, now a convicted felon. We have not heard very much about his association with former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johson, now apparently under investigation by the FBI for fraud. There is much to risk in electing this man of little experience whose history the media is apparently reluctant to investigate fully.

- James Clendinen

September 24, 2008 at 12:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would disagree that the most undiscussed item in this campaign has been Keating Five. The most undiscussed items of this campaign has been Obama's association and business dealings with convicted felon Rezko, terrorist Ayers and perhpas a one worthwhile accomplishment that warrants Obama's assent to presidency (still doing my best to find one but none of my liberal friends seem to be able to help).

- George Shen

September 24, 2008 at 12:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Most of the media didn't challenge Palin on her "I told Congress thanks but no thanks" on the so-called Bridge to Nowhere because they didn't pay any attention to the chronology and don't get the political point: that she told Congress to shove it. But she didn't tell Congress any such thing. Congress had killed the funding for the project by November 2005 (with the money being freed to be used for other projects in Alaska). Palin didn't run for governor until 2006. She didn't kill the bridge project being done with state money (which was completely inadequate) until 2007. The political point of what she alleged (and why the McBush campaign kept repeating it) was that she allegedly stood up to Congress. That she was for the project when she campaigned in 2006 and then killed it in 2007 misses the key political narrative: she allegedly stood up to a crazy Congress. The question that she should be asked about her quote is: "Just when did you tell the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' regarding the project?" Her only answer would have to be "never." But the media are so lazy and untalented that they can't even get the basic chronology down.

- Union Lawyer

September 24, 2008 at 12:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of course he won't write about Obama's lies. This writter is "in the bag" for ObamaCON. How a "come from nowhere" guy like Obama, who is nearly HALF ARAB can claim to be 'Black" and get away with it...is beyond me. When that truth comes out there will be a huge backlash from the African-American community.

- JohnKeller

September 24, 2008 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sigh. It gets more ridiculous every day. McCain lies?? You have got to be kidding me. I can't believe the garbage that is spewed from the left. It's past the point of sickening. When will you Obama idiots wake up to the fact that the man you support is a total fake and a liar???

- SueM

September 24, 2008 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is there no end to the love affair with McCain? Let me see if I have this straight - sure, McCain lies like a rug, but it's only because he is such a great guy, who really loves his country and has a more highly developed sense of honor than the rest of us. Unlike those typical lying, cheating politicians who lie for selfish reasons, McCain's lies are motivated by his love of his country. I feel better already.

- Yink in SD

September 24, 2008 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is the most useless waste of cyber space of all time. Liar, liar, pants on fire? Is this really the Democrats and ther allies campaign strategy? When differences in political opinion, and predictive outcomes of those proposed policies become lies? What a waste of space!

- TS

September 24, 2008 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here is a brief overview of political history you might use to balance your story. BHO said he was a Believer, a Christian, just like all the good Evangelicals. Most Believers, Christians and good Evangelicals would rejoice over a 20 year association and mentorship with one of the most valued people in their lives - their pastor. But not Obama… Most politicians who make it into office praise and lift up the good people who nurtured their careers. But not Obama… Everyone is proud to be associated with their supporters, fellow board members, mentors - all those people who really mean something. But not Obama… When might you, yourself, join them under that humongous bus? Not soon enough!

- MSZ

September 24, 2008 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All politicians lie and so are the MSMs. Some lie more than others. Just like a$$hole, some are stinkier than others. As for you, Chait, you're reek with left wing liberal stinkiness. What's good for the liberals is not good for the conservatives. What's good for conservatives is not good enough for the liberals!!!!

- diqiti

September 24, 2008 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think you need to read his biography. His biographer has always said that McCain is torn between his sense of purpose and his strong desire to win. Usually his ego and desire to win trumps his honor and that is why he can let Sarah lie, hire campaign strategists who were the ones who destroyed him in 2004, approves ads that contain lie after lie (e.g. Obama is going to tax electricity), .... Honor didn't prevent John from dumping injured loyal wife No. 1 to marry the one with enough money to secure his political future. John is in love with an image and persona that he adores having wrapped around his shoulders like James Brown's Cape of Woe, but which he rarely, if ever, has lived up to for the last 40 years.

- atp2007

September 24, 2008 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The major problem continues to be that from what Sarah Palin has demonstrated so far in interviews, she has an appallingly low understanding of and engagement with the great international and economic issues of our time, and yet this heartbeat-away-from-the-Presidency person now refuses to stand for any more interviews, where her deficiencies would be further exposed. I don't think we would be having these types of angry discussions if the VP candidate were any of the following: Romney, Huckabee, Elizabeth Dole, Giuliani, Gordon Smith, Susan Collins or Tom Coburn. Go through your Almanac of American Politics and you could easily find 50 other Republicans more qualified than Sarah Palin, most of them conservatives. Thus the anger on the part of Palin-haters is not about cultural or political issues per se, but rather that Palin, among many qualified Republicans, is grievously ill-qualified to be President.

- gmck

September 24, 2008 at 1:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Greg, The truth about Palin supporting the Bridge to Nowhere is in the public record. Try reading it.

- Peter Guthrie

September 24, 2008 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Indeed, the Straight Talk Express, has gone straight to Perdition... in a handbag.

- John Stetson

September 24, 2008 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LOL. How does the imbecilic author get from A) McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said this to Politico about the increased media scrutiny of the campaign's factual claims: "We're running a campaign to win. And we're not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it." to B) McCain's supporters simply suggested that the truth or falsity of their statements didn't matter. Ummmmmmm....Huh? Rightfully calling the media on their 24/7 spin cycle (oh, I'm sorry, their *analysis*) somehow, according to this cretin, means that the McCain camp doesn't think "the truth or falsity of their statements didn't matter."

-

September 24, 2008 at 2:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Excellent article, Jonathon. Palin DID support the Bridge before she opposed it. In 2006, she was cheering on the "strong Alaskan Congressional delegation" that was procuring the millions of dollars in funding for the Bridge to Nowhere and many other projects. That's fine--it's what a lot of Governors do in support of their state. But now Palin (and McCain) are claiming that Palin never supported this funding. They are making this claim to try to convince voters that Palin is a maverick reformer who has always opposed earmarks. That's a lie. Both candidates have stretched the truth in this campaign, but McCain's fibs are much more blatant and revealing. McCain lies the same way Bush has been lying for the last 8 years. McCain's lies with no shame whatsoever, with a disdain for the truth and for anyone who discovers and protests the lying. We don't need another lying cowboy in the White House. Vote Obama in '08

- Nick K.

September 24, 2008 at 2:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a large-brained, extremely intelligent person. I have a post-graduate degree from an elite university and am quite learned. I have a "Obama-sized" intellect, and I can detect "nuance" where the average person cannot. I am a very smart, almost "Hillary-smart." Anyone from a small town in Alaska cannot possibly interest me, because there is no way they can be as smart as me. I go to all the best parties in New York and the Hamptons, and I know Marueen Dowd personally. I have conversed with Frank Rich, Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher, and they tell me that I am very bright. In fact, they told me that I am smarter than I look. Therefore, because I am so smart, wise and nuanced, I agree with everything that Mr. Chait says. How could two large-brained smart people like Mr. Chait and myself possibly be wrong. GO OBAMA!

- Volkmeister

September 24, 2008 at 2:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The liar is Mr. Chait. Sarah Palin never said she turned down the earmarks, she said "I stopped that bridge to nowhere", which she did. Manipulating the truth to get Obama elected is one thing. Lying is another. Chait is a liar.

- senorlechero

September 24, 2008 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I should really count the total number of posts with the same weak Republican smears attempting to be used on Obama. Here is the Republican talking point "Obama is a big bad black man because he knows people who have done wrong things. Because of this he is a bad guy" So "Guilt by Association" in the republican definition would say that if you work with a guy who at some point was convicted or was under suspicion of being a Child Molester you by your logic are a kiddie diddler regardless of the truth or outcome of a criminal investigation even if you were a child when this person was suspect. Republican logic is great. Considering that most everyone in america has associated with a criminal of some sort or another we are all criminals. So again by your logic if we are all criminals, who cares if Obama spoke with a guy named Ayers whom he happens to be a professor never convicted of any crimes such as terrorism. Obama must be a terrorist and you Republicans are all kiddy Diddlers.

- TimL

September 24, 2008 at 2:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am superman! That is a great assertion right? Problem is I need some proof to back it up. Seriously, you republicans need to start actually providing factual accounts of your made up lies. "Mr. Chat, Mr. Obama has been lying to the public for years. Will you write an article about all of his lies?" Which lies Theresa? Provide evidence. Unfortunately you Republicans never do. You just make up stuff. Or use "Ghost writers" to spread lies. And this is the christian party? I am sure God is ashamed of you all.

- Thersa Jones

September 24, 2008 at 2:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Holding up a tee-shirt hardly constitutes "vigorous" support. Where are your facts you hack? Oh, what am I saying. You write for the New Republic.

- NickinVA

September 24, 2008 at 2:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I posted a response to BeerBrain this morning. It was comment #2 and The New Republic deleted it.

- Eloquence

September 24, 2008 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thank you for this article. I for one have been disturbed by John McCain continued lies. Do we really want another president who has lost respect and willing go down in history for fabrication of untruths? There is no honor in this behavior, and I hope the American people will demand differently. I would like to see something in place to reject folks as candidates if they lie to the American people.I am sick of hearing "how they all do it." My first year in college, I had a room mate which was probably a pathological liar. She lost ALL credibility of those living around her, as should McCain. Do we really want more of the same crap GWBush fed us? Americans' demand the truth!!

- Allie in Oregon

September 24, 2008 at 2:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I believe the majority of you are missing the point of this article. To debate whether Obama lies is pointless. Chait admits that Obama lies and gives examples of this. What Mr. Chait is attempting to do is rationalize why McCain is resorting to lies when most Americans have understood him to be a hero, patriot, and honorable man. Mr. Chait does not pretend to think that Obama is honest, Mr. Chait wants to know why McCain(whom Mr. Chait respected) is falling into the same political game that everyone else falls into. His answer is that McCain wants the best for the U.S. and to him there is no one better than himself. Basically, by any means necessary. A different point and debate can be made for why politicians lie. The foremost idea is that they lie to confuse the electorate into thinking that they should vote for their opponents. Another is that the American people as a whole cannot handle the unadulterated truth. A statement must be sugar-coated or a blatant lie for the American public to swallow it. No matter how you look at it being a commanding officer of a naval squadron does not qualify someone to be president and neither does being a community organizer and Senator. Wesley Clark did not need for everyone to get upset with him just because he told the honest truth. The job of Presidency is unique in that there is no other job in the world that can prepare you for it, no experience that can be said to make you a great leader. THroughout our history we've had good presidents and bad presidents and it didn't matter what they did before reaching office. It depended on them personally. We've had generals be good and bad, Senators be good and bad, Governors be good and bad. Thank you.

- TexasTeacher

September 24, 2008 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You say wait until 2012? I see you are already conceding loss! At least you see reality.

- Eloquence

September 24, 2008 at 2:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, I am voting for the liar. I'll let you guess which one.

- claire

September 24, 2008 at 2:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"We'll tell ourselves lies and then scream for action..." Elton John Palin supported the bridge, got elected, looked at the numbers and said "No Thanks" - zeroing out that budget item. As a politician, she's clearly more fond of the "no thanks" part than the support part and emphasizes it in her speeches. It is a stretch of the sort that politicians have been making since before the Republic was founded. But according to Chait and his fellow travelers (I'm looking at you, BeerBelly) she's a barefaced liar and the modern equivalent of Goebbels?? Of course, Saint Obama can tell a barefaced lie about McCain's Social Security plans - no screwing around with even a trace of an anchor to reality - and you'll see no reason to even mention it. The way I see it, McCain is more experienced and has shown better instincts in the Fannie/Freddie debacle (trying to stop it while Obama cheered them on) and on the Surge (saying it would succeed where Obama sought immediate withdrawal and defeat). Both oppose torture: McCain viscerally, Obama opposes it unless it is a newly born child. Most of the other issues are "don't care" types of things. Typical election. Typical politics. And, in the end, my vote goes to the guy with better instincts. No big deal. The way you see it, if McCain wins it will only be because his campaign uses "smears" and "lies" worthy of the Nazi takeover of Germany. So, given your frame of reference, how long before some of you take the next step and begin prosecuting a program of violence? After all, if you truly believe what you are saying, I can't help but think that you'd gladly kill others just to "save America" and feel good about yourselves while doing it. Is it any wonder why, when people start paying attention to what kind of people are being drawn to each campaign, McCain is likely to pull ahead decisively?

- Wildmonk

September 24, 2008 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Republican machine has ingratiated smearing and lying in to the realm of political discourse to such an extent that fatigue has set in to fighting it. It's just the way it is now. It's behind the Florida and Ohio election fiascos and how th epress bailed out, The Kenneth Starr / Clinton fiasco, Vince Foster, Swift-Boating of Kerry, Palin deference, Obama is a Muslim fanatic.....Republicans have lost their Conservative compass and now exist as a party only to exist and achieve more power and riches. Leadership is trifling annoyance to those ends, and unfortunately we see what they do with it. Like Coach K and Dukie basketball....just foul foul foul. They can't call all of them.

- Mike N

September 24, 2008 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barack Obama taught McCain how to do this and how it works. Now McCain is using the lessons taught to him by the Obama camp. What is the problem?

- David J

September 24, 2008 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, Jonathan, you are preaching to the choir and betraying your calling and doing that of which you accuse McCain. All's fair, and all that, eh?

- Me

September 24, 2008 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait Your article is incessantly biased, full of political fibs, evidences a complete disdain for the truth, is ignominious and low minded, presented with persistent dishonesty, but I suppose fairly represents your character, talent and ability.

- Jezk-

September 24, 2008 at 3:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Its amazing that the foregoing post have proved the point you make in your article - that exposure to the truth only fortified their support for the liar.

- JWB

September 24, 2008 at 3:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

McCain has asked that Friday's debate be postponed. He needs the time to "deal" with the economic crisis and other things. Things like the sinking ship that's on fire.

- desertdog

September 24, 2008 at 3:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't believe how vile some of these comments have been. A few years ago I was hoping it would be McCain instead of Bush on the ticket and was thrilled to see that he threw his hat in the ring this time around - not now. With my own eyes and ears, I have watched and heard him lie, manipulate truths and use very poor judgment. in my opinion. I want a president whose judgment I can trust, who I know will stand strong and consider all the people of America. Our nation is in a huge crisis right now and it looks like it will get worse before it gets better. I am not voting for someone based on their personal lives, their religion, their race, their stand on gay rights or abortion. I am voting for someone who will take us back to a solid ground nationally and globally so that our country can continue the discourse on those social issues. I am sad to say that McCain is no longer that person for me. You can call Obama a liar - I don't agree. He has stretched the truth as all these politicians do, but nowhere near to the degree that McCain has. It is not equal and McCains people are treating the American people like a bunch of idiots. Where is the old McCain??? If he behaves in this manner, buckling under pressure from special interest groups, saying and doing anything to win, well then, I have no choice than to believe he will do the same as president - too scary of a prospect for me. My vote is with Obama.

- decided independent

September 24, 2008 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I used to support Barack Obama. win or lose, after this election, "Swift Boating" someone is going to be nowhere near as disgustingly nasty as "New York Timesing" someone. Anyone who paid any attention to the issue at the time would have known as a matter of fact that "hahaha, the Republican Governor of Alaska doesn't even support the Republican Senator of Alaska's bridge-to-nowhere proposal!" Anyone who has ever paid any attention to Alaska would've known "They've got one unimpeachably reformist governor." When right-wing 527s (e.g. Swift Boats) attack Obama, McCain says "quit it." but when left-wing 527s (e.g. New York Times) smear McCain, Obama pretends its true, because he knows with his unlimited private funds and the backing of the media, he can sucker people into believing the media fabrications (e.g. "Sarah Palin was for the bridge-to-nowhere before she was against it") are true, because it's all they've ever seen. It's a fantastic campaign strategy, actually, sell out the White House for unlimited amounts of cash, get in the tank with the media owners, and start making stuff up about your opponent unimpedingly.

- Obamacrat for McCain

September 24, 2008 at 4:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with several people who have already said "when and why was he ever considered honorable" He should not have been, being tortured does not give you a pass for the rest of your life, and I can tell most of the Rep commenting on here didn't even read the whole article, because if they did they would realize that they proved the article right. I personally think a lot of Americans on both sides need mental help, a lot of people can not think objectively and logically about this race, if they did they would be able to say "your right he has been outright lying lately" No BO is not prefect but when put side by side and compared on any group of issues the choice is clear. There is a reason the US has a very high number of mental illness issues...and elections show this every time.

- amberlinat

September 24, 2008 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with several people who have already said "when and why was he ever considered honorable" He should not have been, being tortured does not give you a pass for the rest of your life, and I can tell most of the Rep commenting on here didn't even read the whole article, because if they did they would realize that they proved the article right. I personally think a lot of Americans on both sides need mental help, a lot of people can not think objectively and logically about this race, if they did they would be able to say "your right he has been outright lying lately" No BO is not prefect but when put side by side and compared on any group of issues the choice is clear. There is a reason the US has a very high number of mental illness issues...and elections show this every time.

- amberlinat

September 24, 2008 at 4:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From the old "liar, liar, pants on fire" school of debate. Ridiculous article, foolish author. This is all perspective - libs believe this nonsense, cons do not. Moreover, this entire issue is insignificant - the truthfulness of what a politician says, or, more succinctly, the truthfulness of the interpretation of what the candidates have said. The proof is in the pudding - actions, deeds, experience. What is important is each man's life, their background, the ideals they live by, their life accomplishments. As we stand today, many would have us select the best talker as President. Hogwash. Leaders lead, talkers talk. Actions and deeds. Examine each candidate and judge their actions, not their talk. These are politicians, they will say whatever is necessary to win an election. Pointedly, Obama's sole accomplishments are won elections. He has not record of accomplishments, no deeds, no legislation, no laws written, no fights fought. He is "present" but not "yea" or "nay". Find out the character of each man, their history, background, ideals at www.honestjohnwade.com

- www.honestjohnwade.com

September 24, 2008 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, if you want to honestly discuss politicians and lying you should start with the Left; it appears that the left is incapable of reasoned analysis, and that the Obama campaign or its pollsters have determined that accusing the GOP or John McCain of lying resonates with the voters and the MSM with its bias merely puppets the the Obama campaign literature. I do not know why the MSM has become so biased, whether it is laziness or ignorance, but it certainly does not represent reporting by a free press of the issues facing this country. The biggest liars in the country are elected Democrats. One needs only look at the Clinton Administration for proof. This country is facing a financial meltdown, and Clinton Administration officials Franklin Raines and Jamie Gorelick received over $100 Million is compensation and bonuses by adopting blatantly corrupt accounting practices to justify this compensation; it can only be described as greed. I should point out that Barney Frank, Christopher Dodd, and Charles Schumer all lied repeatedly about the financial condition of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac so that they could enhance their campaign coffers for reelection. These campaign contributions were nothing more than bribes to assure the continuance of Fannie and Freddie's corrupt accounting practices. This is a far bigger scandal than Enron, but no one in the MSM wants to report it honestly because it would damage Democrats and their lust for political power. This by the way is the biggest lie of all by the MSM and Democrats, and any postition taken by John McCain pales in comparison to the magnitude of lies by Democrats and the MSM. The MSM, the NYT being the worst example, is so tied to the Democratic Party that it has become merely a public relations/propaganda arm of the Democratic Party and for which first amendment protection should be denied. The Dems remind me of the 1930's Nazi propagandists - tell a big lie and keep repeating it, eventually people will believe it. Remember, Nazi stood for National Socialist and the only party who wants the government to take over every aspect of our lives, like the National Socialist Party did in Germany, is the Democratic Party.

- Tom

September 24, 2008 at 5:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bill Ayers and Obama? Big deal. Is it Obama's job to arrest and convict a man considered to be a terrorist, even after he has been cleared by the justice department? If you people think Ayers is guilty, go arrest him in Chicago. Ayers is not Obama. Ayers is not running for president. You dimwit Repugnants should say something new. Ayers is old news.

- ddave

September 24, 2008 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Compare the different "exaggerations": Palin's on the bridge to nowhere or Obama's on the Ayers is just a neighbor. I agree both candidates are using dirty politics. However, the journalists are playing the dirtiest game of all. Reporting their bias as fact and only giving the American people one side. Maybe Ayers is just a terrorist who happens to be a neighbor. But that deserves a lot more scrutiny that a bridge to nowhere....

- Sheri Stover

September 24, 2008 at 6:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Chait, You are not being fair and you are not being honest about the record of John McCain. The least you could do as a reporter is at least be fair. However, since you are in the tank for Barack Obama then the least you could do would be to say so. Say that you are a liberal/socialist who believes this country should be a one party state with government control/regulation of everything. Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it! I will never read another of your articles due to your inability to at least tell the truth and to be fair in your reporting.

- Michael F. George

September 24, 2008 at 6:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All true, too true. But let's go back thirty years to Bloom's book, "Closing Of The American Mind". Fact is that the mental capacities of Americans has been systematically simplified. Television force-feeds inanities like Married With Children, and Springer (?) that snooze the mind. The populace can no longer think and discriminate: they're easily manipulated along simple 'hot-issue' topics. Regardless of the polls, the Republicans will win this election because at a crucial moment they will unleash the subterranian racism of the country. This is what Hill-Billy meant when they continually cried that.."He can't win!"

- riviera

September 24, 2008 at 6:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

you are a centrist please you are funny and rabid and very misinformed or stupid. If the shoe fits put it on your head

- mikef

September 24, 2008 at 11:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

wow another person drinking Kool-Aid

- mikef

September 24, 2008 at 11:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

do any of you strive for the truth or just chatter like a fool

- mikef

September 24, 2008 at 11:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's whole campaign is a lie. The claim that he's about "change" while proposing a platform 95% aligned with the last two Democrat presidential candidates, and "bi-partisanship" while voting 97% along party lines, means that every time he says the word "change", it's a lie. It's a more insidious kind of lie -- it's not the standard distortion of facts used by all politicians (including Obama and McCain) to win elections, it's an actual lie to the American people about his core belief system. He's engaged in an elaborate charade pretending to be "centrist" while in fact is he is the most left wing candidate ever to receive the Democrat party nomination.

- NetResearchMan

September 24, 2008 at 11:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sure, it's a tradition among politicians to present their cases in the most appealing manner. Sometimes this involves factual omissions and exaggeration. But, usually, there is some discernible basis in reality. With McCain, the lie is the campaign, the power is the goal, and there is zero basis in reality. It turns the political process into nothing more than sock puppet theater where the candidate in question baldly disrespects the judgments and opinions of the American people. This is not democracy, but an attempt at dictatorship.

- Luthiel

September 25, 2008 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Chatter like a fool? Now, how on earth does that make sense? Do any of us strive for the truth? What are you driving at? (Occams Razor apparently is not operative for many of the respondents to your article Mr. Chait). The gospel truth is that most of the circular "thinkers" thus far in this post cannot understand the thrust of your treatise. It is not that they will not, it is that they are simply incapable of embracing oppositive argument in the quest for enlightened understanding based on intelligent discussion. Bless their hearts.

- Erudite Soul

September 25, 2008 at 1:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To the publishers of TNR: how is it that a senior editor can use so much space to say so little, and that this little can be such nonsense and so dishonor the meaning of words? This is what his rambling saga of John McCain's pathetic campaign amounted to: "McCain tells lies every day and authorizes lying on his behalf, and he probably knows it. But I would guess--and, again, guessing is all we can do--that in his mind he is acting honorably. As he might put it, there is a bigger truth out there." So, we are to understand that it is moral t lie if the ends are a "bigger truth." What might that truth be? That's right, you can only guess. I would also suggest that Mr. Chait look up the word honor, perhaps do some reading about the subject or biographies of people who actually exemplify the word. As we can only guess, whatever McCain's understanding of that word, it is not about one man's belief in his own hoary personal history in a corrupt war, (that would have been Vietnam), his own sense of self-importance, or his own perverse perspective of reality. Is McCain entitled to the title "man of honor" because he survived his POW experience, as opposed to so many other Americans who every day of their lives work for true peace or many other virtues (another ancient word not to be used lightly)? Honor has to do not with a man's single-handed heroism. Honor has to do with doing the right thing no matter what. And it might not always be easy to see what the "right" action or belief is; this is perhaps what Mr. Chait means by a bigger truth. But this bigger truth arises not from a vacuum but is born and bred in a society, a culture. Honor takes that into account if it is true honor. Chait speaks of honor here as if it were an end in itself, something so precious that we can excuse lies in its defense or public expression. Mr. Chait attempts to apologize for McCain by stretching for an explanation as to why this candidate could lie so plainly and that this explanation is found in the candidate's sense of honor. It would be much easier to explain McCain as a victim of his war experiences and his inability to reconcile two bigger truths that he has lived with: the many horrible sacrifices made by those defending this nation, and this nation's government, the leaders of which were liars then and apparently now, and certainly without honor. If this is what we now are to understand as honor, that it is merely a subjective psychological construct a man may claim because he says he is a patriot, then let us no longer speak of honor in America.

- G. D.Wymer

September 25, 2008 at 2:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The stupid just oozes out of Chait like lava out of a volcano. McCain lies because of his honor? Alternative hypotheses: McCain lies because many in the MSM are too busy kiss McCain butt to understand why lying is.

- tomdurk

September 25, 2008 at 2:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is just plain silly. In 2000, Chait showed his adoration for McCain in "This Man is not a Republican." This February, Chait finally acnkowledged that McCain is at least a flip-flopper by saying "He has diverged wildly and repeatedly from conservative orthodoxy, but he has also reinvented himself so completely that it has become nearly impossible to figure out what he really believes." Then in July, Chait argured that despite not knowing what McCain stands for, and that his current incarnation resembles Bush, he wouldn't be such a bad president because "...the upside to a candidate who changes his philosophical orientation as often as McCain is that he could always switch back. " The most laughable part of that column was the ridiculous prediction: "The best aspect of a McCain presidency is that, while it would probably follow the policies of George W. Bush, it would put an end to the politics of Karl Rove." McCain, quite simply, is a typical political opportunist. Rather than changing his opinion of the guy, Chait now argues that McCain is a great patriot who lies out of honor, not in spite of it. Sorry, but you're wrong again. McCain is a liar. He is not a good person. You thought he was a good guy when he agreed with you on issues. But that will happen with any opportunist (just like the broken clock that is right twice a day). Your arguments have the prescience of George Bush looking into the soul of Valdimir Putin. It's time to admit you're wrong and to oppose him with the vigor you used against Bush.

- Just Bob

September 25, 2008 at 2:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Can't write it any better than this excerpt from today's Daily Howler (www.dailyhowler.com): HONOR SHILLING! McCain lies because of his sense of honor, Jonathan Chait now proclaims: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2008 HONOR SHILLING: Just when you think you’ve seen it all, you will then see something like this. We saw it yesterday, offered as the top item on TNR’s web site: The Lying Game Why honor prevents John McCain from telling the truth by Jonathan Chait Say what? To judge from that teaser, Chait seemed to be saying that McCain has been lying his keister off because of his sense of honor, not in spite of it. And sure enough, that is Chait’s claim—to the extent he can be said to have one. Men in Black had a great deal to teach us. When has it ever seemed so clear that these fellows don’t come from this earth? As he starts, Chait spends several pages listing McCain’s many recent lies. Quite literally, Chait asserts that McCain’s degree of lying is without modern precedent. (“McCain's untruths, in their frequency and their audacity, defy any modern historical precedent.”) Chait is puzzled by this, of course, for the predictable reason: CHAIT (10/8/08): How could McCain—a man widely regarded, not so long ago, as one of the country's most honor-bound politicians, and therefore an unusually honest one—have descended to this ignominious low? McCain was “widely regarded” as being “unusually honest.” How then, the schoolboy wonders, could he be lying so much? One possible answer doesn’t enter Chait’s head. It simply doesn’t occur to Chait that the reputation McCain enjoyed (among Chait’s colleagues, of course) may have been undeserved or mistaken. That would mean that Chait and his colleagues had been wrong in a basic assessment—and clearly, that isn’t allowed by the rules. Let’s face it: Getting these robots to relinquish a narrative is like pulling a pit bull from a large leg of lamb. Instead, we quickly reach Chait’s thesis: McCain has been lying his keister off because of his vast sense of honor: CHAIT (fuller passage): How could McCain—a man widely regarded, not so long ago, as one of the country's most honor-bound politicians, and therefore an unusually honest one—have descended to this ignominious low? Part of the answer is that McCain is simply doing what works—and there is good reason to believe that his campaign's strategy of persistent dishonesty will pay dividends come November 4. But part of the explanation for all this recent dishonesty may lie, oddly enough, in McCain's legendary sense of honor. As he proceeds, Chait persistently fails to consider the possibility that his original assessment of McCain was just wrong. Instead, we get crap of this nature: CHAIT: Those of us who have admired McCain are not used to analyzing his actions in purely amoral terms. This is a man with a history of true heroism who takes honor seriously. What happened to him? As is the way with such stewards of culture, Chait simply asserts that McCain “takes honor seriously.” The fact that he has been lying his ass off—in a way which has no modern precedent—can’t be allowed to call this original, controlling idea into question. Is it possible that “those of us who have admired McCain” simply judged his character wrong? Not in the world of the career liberal press, where a narrative can never be abandoned—where the judgment of the clan can never be said to be wrong: CHAIT: Any attempt to determine McCain's true motives is necessarily pure speculation. It's possible that McCain has convinced himself to actually believe the lies he has been telling. But here's a more likely explanation: All this dishonesty can be understood not as a betrayal of McCain's sense of honor but, in an odd way, as a fulfillment of it. Is there a dumber person on earth? If so, will he please raise his flipper? (By the way: If McCain “actually believes” the things he says, by definition those statements aren’t “lies.”) Let’s make sure we understand a few parts of our recent history: Nine years ago, Chait’s press corps began a two-year war against the vilest person on earth. That man now holds the Nobel Peace Prize. To this day, Chait’s colleagues have refused to admit that their judgment of Gore was astoundingly wrong. Al Gore never said he invented the Internet! As people of their type will do, they’ve slowly reversed their iconic claims, without ever telling us why. During that same period, Chait and his colleagues were staging a public love affair with the great Saint McCain. It was always clear that they were perhaps being played for fools by The Man They Loved—and now, McCain is lying his keister off, in ways which have no precedent. But so what? Even in the face of that new evidence, Chait refuses to rethink the original judgment. He refuses to imagine that he and his colleagues may have just judged this lover wrong. Men in Black had much to teach us. Does anyone think these puzzling poodles are actually flesh of this earth? This man is not a journalist: This past week, we reread Chait’s long profile of McCain from January 2000. (Click here, prepare to cringe. Embarrassingly, the piece was headlined, “This Man Is Not a Republican.”) Chait had observed many changes, or apparent changes, in McCain’s political stances; in the process, he convinced himself that The Man They Loved was on an “intellectual odyssey.” Today, of course, McCain has re-adopted almost all the positions he seemed to have dumped at that time. Was it possible that McCain was just playing politics? Was it possible that he just didn’t understand the logic of some of his policy switches? Back in those days, journalists were required, by Hard Pundit Law, to interpret McCain in uplifting ways. Two months earlier, Richard Cohen had played the same card. “Intellectual journey,” he’d said. His headline: “No One Like McCain.”

- Union Lawyer

September 25, 2008 at 3:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Geez, what a group of absolutely stupid, ignorant comments. My fear is that commenters here actually represent the broad electorate. By the way, Mr. Chait, it apparently hasn't occurred to you that the MSM, including you, were taken in by McCain's schtick and he was never the honorable man you claim he was.

- smuggler

September 25, 2008 at 4:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Goofiest analysis I've read in ages. What Chait calls McCain's sense of honor most people would call rampant paranoia, the delusion that anyone who disagrees with you is a monster to be stopped at all costs -- Bush, Romney, now Obama. Worse, this tendency to demonize opponents is largely responsible for the dysfunctional politics that now plague our country. The genius of our system used to be compromise. But the Ann Coulter/Karl Rove mindset that anyone not on your side, even the majority party, are all traitors makes accommodation impossible. Now Chait tells us McCain thinks the same way, only Chait calls it "honorable" because McCain truly believes he is right. So what? Don't lunatics and extremists always think they are right? It's time to recognize the danger this "I'm right and everyone else is the enemy" mindset poses to our American experiment in democracy instead of labeling it excusing it as "honorable." stu.rosenberg@verizon.net

- Stuart Rosenberg

September 25, 2008 at 5:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is it possible, just possible, that the earlier assessment that McCain is an honorable man nonpareil was mistaken. Maybe, just maybe, the mainstream media were blinded by a unique combination of an inspiring 50 year old war story, hilarious stripper tales and lots of free doughnuts? He did, after all, throw over his original spouse for an Arizona beer heiress whose millions and influence helped kick start his political career. He was also a charter member of the Keating 5. He also dissembled early and often during the 2000 Presidential primary season. He's been flip-flopping and lying almost nonstop during this Presidential election. He even lied about the position of his fellow Republican, Mitt Romney, on a time table for pulling out of Iraq. Is it possible that the campaign "narrative" concocted this year is simply wrong? Nah, couldn't be!

- Ed Szewczyk

September 25, 2008 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

From today's dailyhowler: " Just when you think you’ve seen it all, you will then see something like this. We saw it yesterday, offered as the top item on TNR’s web site: The Lying Game Why honor prevents John McCain from telling the truth by Jonathan Chait Say what? To judge from that teaser, Chait seemed to be saying that McCain has been lying his keister off because of his sense of honor, not in spite of it. And sure enough, that is Chait’s claim—to the extent he can be said to have one. Men in Black had a great deal to teach us. When has it ever seemed so clear that these fellows don’t come from this earth? As he starts, Chait spends several pages listing McCain’s many recent lies. Quite literally, Chait asserts that McCain’s degree of lying is without modern precedent. (“McCain's untruths, in their frequency and their audacity, defy any modern historical precedent.”) Chait is puzzled by this, of course, for the predictable reason: CHAIT (10/8/08): How could McCain—a man widely regarded, not so long ago, as one of the country's most honor-bound politicians, and therefore an unusually honest one—have descended to this ignominious low? McCain was “widely regarded” as being “unusually honest.” How then, the schoolboy wonders, could he be lying so much? One possible answer doesn’t enter Chait’s head. It simply doesn’t occur to Chait that the reputation McCain enjoyed (among Chait’s colleagues, of course) may have been undeserved or mistaken. That would mean that Chait and his colleagues had been wrong in a basic assessment—and clearly, that isn’t allowed by the rules. Let’s face it: Getting these robots to relinquish a narrative is like pulling a pit bull from a large leg of lamb. Instead, we quickly reach Chait’s thesis: McCain has been lying his keister off *because* of his vast sense of honor:"

- Monk

September 25, 2008 at 8:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Were you drunk when you wrote this?

- Paul X.

September 26, 2008 at 1:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

chait will twist himself into a pretzel before he'll abandon his precious narrative about what an honourable man the lying sainted mc-same is. keep typing that script, monkeyboy ...

- bloodnok

September 26, 2008 at 2:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Republican ticket is still worrying about playing to their base and they seem to thin that their base does not care about the truth.

- Judy

September 26, 2008 at 7:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To Obamacrat for McCain: Obama told his supporters not to donate money to 527s and told the 527s not to release ads. He reneged a few weeks ago. To everyone: Thank you for making this comment page a self-parody, a regurgitation of your party's talking points.

- Will

September 30, 2008 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close