Sarah Palin struggles to explain why she’s been saying she said “Thanks. But No Thanks” even though she didn’t …

Note particularly how she explains wearing this “Nowhere, Alaska” t-shirt when running in support of the Bridge in 2006 …

The Boston Globe does some digging on Palin, reveals her to be a big-spending tax-hiker who hasn’t actually travelled to the countries that the McCain campaign has said she has. That and other political news in today’s Election Central Saturday Roundup.

From The Boston Globe …

Sarah Palin’s visit to Iraq in 2007 consisted of a brief stop at a border crossing between Iraq and Kuwait, the vice presidential candidate’s campaign said yesterday, in the second official revision of her only trip outside North America.

Following her selection last month as John McCain’s running mate, aides said Palin had traveled to Ireland, Germany, Kuwait, and Iraq to meet with members of the Alaska National Guard. During that trip she was said to have visited a “military outpost” inside Iraq. The campaign has since repeated that Palin’s foreign travel included an excursion into the Iraq battle zone.

But in response to queries about the details of her trip, campaign aides and National Guard officials in Alaska said by telephone yesterday that she did not venture beyond the Kuwait-Iraq border when she visited Khabari Alawazem Crossing, also known as “K-Crossing,” on July 25, 2007.

McCain-Palin caught making up crowd-size estimates for campaign rallies.

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?

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.

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.

If John McCain were still in the Navy what consequences might he face for being caught telling a long series of lies?

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.

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.