Jonathan Weisman at WaPo has a story about the damn lying (my highlights, below):
From the moment Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin declared that she opposed the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," critics, the news media and nonpartisan fact checkers have called it a fabrication, a distortion or, at best, a half-truth. But yesterday in Lebanon, Ohio, and again in Lancaster, Pa., she crossed that bridge again.
"I told Congress: 'Thanks but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere up in Alaska,' " Palin told the crowds at the "McCain Street USA" rallies. "If we wanted a bridge, we'll build it ourselves."
Palin's position on the bridge that would have linked Ketchikan to Gravina Island is one example of a candidate staying on message even when that message has been publicly discredited. Palin has continued to say she opposed a project she once campaigned for -- then killed later, only after support for it had collapsed in Congress.
I maybe detect a wee bit of an exasperated tone, in those opening paragraphs -- or perhaps it is just wishful thinking. But it's not all that often that you can see a report that pretty much says "yep, it's a lie," and even in this article Weisman bends over backwards for "balance" against lies coming directly from the Republican candidates' mouths.
So then, what's the Republican response?
John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters' opinions of the candidates.
"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," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."
Yeah -- piss off, all you media truth thugs. Palin's an insurgent, and to insurgents facts don't matter. Only themes. (Since when were we using the word insurgent as a good thing, by the way? Somebody needs to go back to their Newspeak manual.)
Honestly. I know I keep repeating myself, in recent posts, but is this really what we have devolved to? That, quote, "these little facts" are secondary, in elections, and there's not a damn thing we can do about it? Candidates for the presidency can simply lie through their teeth, and it is a good thing, because the ability to affect the narrative via a repeated lie is much more useful than any possible blowback for telling that lie?
Then what do we have elections for? If I can simply stand up and say "so-and-so's tax policy will cost you all one million dollars each," when it won't, or "so-and-so is a supporter of infanticide," when he isn't, or "so-and-so wants to show your children dirty pictures," when it's not true, or "I was against this bad thing" when we've got freakin' film of you supporting it -- what's the point? It is impossible to have a democracy without informed voters, and it is impossible to have informed voters when you are going out of your way to lie to them.
I said it yesterday, and I'll say it again. Crooks. That's the only word for it. There's no noble or higher purpose here, there's nothing admirable about it, not even in the most brutal, Machiavellian sense. They're liars. They're crooks. It is taken as a Republican given that anything that can gain power is justifiable, regardless of how loathsome it is or how depraved the fabrication.
If we welcome open, direct lies into our political discourse, it's not political discourse anymore -- just the oratorical equivalent of an organized crime ring. McCain knows he can lie through his teeth and almost nobody will truly call him out on it -- at least, not compared to all the people who will hear the lie. That's been the strategy for every election involving the old Nixonites, from then until now, and there's no chance it's going to go away until there is a price to be paid for being a nationally televised liar. So when's that going to be?