The Democratic National Committee took in $17.3 million last month, on top of the Obama campaign’s $66 million. That and other political news in today’s Election Central Sunday Roundup.
Yesterday I asked what consequences John MccCain might face for repeated instances of lying if he were still in the Navy. The UCMJ covers official lies and, more generally, immoral conduct. But there’s also the US Naval Academy Honor Concept. The USNA makes clear it’s not a ‘code’, in that it’s not a specific set of rules but a general statement of moral conduct. But in the more colloquial sense most of us understand, it’s the Academy’s honor code, the rules of conduct midshipman are supposed to live by and against which they are judged.
The first two lines of the Concept are …
Midshipmen are persons of integrity: They stand for that which is right.
They tell the truth and ensure that the full truth is known. They do not lie.
As many reporters noticed, Gov. Palin dropped her “Bridge to Nowhere” lie from her stump speech during her trip to Alaska last week, presumably because too many locals knew about her actual role as a major supporter of the project. So I’d been wondering whether the line would return once she returned to the lower 48. Sure enough, today in Carson City, Nevada, she’s back at it.
From NBC’s First Read …
McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said this to the 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.”
Basing a campaign for high office on a strategy of deliberate lies is not an issue of tactics. It calls into question the character of the candidate and his fitness for office.
I’ve been meaning for a while to write a post explaining just why Trooper-Gate matters — a lot. And I will. But for now read this piece just out from the Times on Palin’s governing style. In a different way it tells the same story — a small-minded person who populates her administration with cronies and grade-school friends, fires those who dare to criticize her and uses the power of her office to pursue personal vendettas. In other words, someone in the habit of abusing official power who should not be let within a mile of being president.
Late Update: The Post, meanwhile, has a story about Palin’s tenure as mayor. Gist: The position has limited responsibilities; she hired a city administrator to take over a lot of those; and her tenure was highly divisive. And the same pattern of hiring cronies.
If John McCain were still in the Navy what consequences might he face for being caught telling a long series of lies?
Remember how Al Gore’s alleged and largely non-existent ‘exaggerations’ became a staple narrative of the 2000 campaign? Reed Hundt asks why the most of the press still seems largely indifferent to John McCain’s repeated lies throughout this campaign.
From TPM Reader BK …
It seems to me that the lying and exaggerating that has been done by the mccain campaign either from his lips or with his approval has a moral dimension that is not being discussed. No one is questioning McCains physical courage. But lying is an immoral act, one that you cannot get “forced into” by acts of others.
If there is a sustainable link between McCain, Palin, Bush and Cheney, it is their willingness to lie to get what they want. Bush and Cheney lied us into a war they wished to wage and they have been deceptive about many of their other policies. And the way an Administration runs takes its direction from the top. Is there really any doubt that if McCain and Palin are willing to lie about themselves and their opponents in an effort to get elected that they will continue to lie to the American public about there plans and policies.
Campaigns offer a direct view into how a candidate will run a large complex organization. McCains true colors,,,,,his true moral convictions….are being demonstrated for all of us to see. We have seen this ends based strategy before and we know it never turns out well for us.
I quite agree. This campaign has shown that while we know McCain has physical courage, he has bad moral character. And in this respect he’s found a true partner in Sarah Palin.
Turns out Palin didn’t quite shut down the Bridge to Nowhere after all. She held on to $73 million federal dollars for a scaled down Bridge to Nowhere.
Late Update: Extra bonus McCain Lie ™ unearthed! Down in the aforelinked article McCain spokesman Peter Feldman says this: “The fact is that once Governor Palin was elected and had an opportunity to look closely at the project, she killed it. She fought for Congress to kill the provision, but they sent the funds anyway. Palin fired the kill shot by not using a dime of that money on the bridge. (emphasis added)” Feldman appears now to be saying that Palin either campaigned against the original earmark or campaigned for it to be killed after it was approved. To the best of my knowledge I have never even heard them claim this before. But keep the timeline in mind. The Bridge to Nowhere earmark was killed in 2005, a year before Palin even ran for governor. And when she ran in 2006 she ran as a strong pro-Bridge candidate. So when exactly is Feldman claiming she campaigned against the bridge earmark? When she was Mayor of Wasilla?