McCain Campaign Accused of Stetching the Truth on Obama

  Share  
Share


The official spokesman, Tucker Bounds, for the John McCaign campaign was grilled by Fox News hottie Megyn Kelly tonight. Megyn wanted to know why a McCain ad say Barack Hussein Obama will raise taxes on the middle class when Obama said he would not. Carlson explained it is because Obama’s record in the Senate showed he voted consistently to raise taxes, so the McCain campaign ad is taking Obama at his voting record, rather than his words as a candidate.

Let’s break this down. McCain’s staff are saying Obama is lying when he promises not to raise taxes on the middle class, because his voting record as a Senator reflects someone who will, and has consistently voted to raise taxes. Actions do speak louder than words. Perhaps Obama should find a way to prove he isn’t lying, because higher taxes is a primary concern right now, and trust is a big issue in this election. We all want to believe Obama, so stop telling us to hope, and start making a case to prove you’re going to keep your promise.

When Newt Gingrich was the Speaker of the House he made a contract with America. Perhaps the presidential candidates could do the same.

Would you as a voter feel more confident in your candidate if he put his promises into a contract?


Posted on September 15, 2008 at 10:19 pm(PST)

3 Responses to “McCain Campaign Accused of Stetching the Truth on Obama”

  1. User says:
    September 17, 2008 at 8:51 am

    @HG: I do not label your ‘political coverage’ as propaganda because I disagree with what is being said, I label it as propaganda because it fits the definition:

    “Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.”

    Although taken from Wikipedia, it is a pretty accurate description of what has been represented on this site.

    I think it is very obvious that both campaigns have run ‘half-truths’ regarding the other candidate (and VP). However it is also very obvious that this site has selectively defended those ‘half-truths’ regarding Palin & McCain and only furthered ‘half-truths’ presented against Obama. Your track record speaks for itself.

    Certainly we are free to disagree, but I find it disingenuous to say this site is even making the smallest attempt at providing unbiased and balanced coverage. As with anyone you have the right to cover however you see fit however to say it is not propaganda, simply put that is as big lie as those coming out of both campaigns.

    Best of luck with the rest of your site.

    ***HG says***

    We write only facts, and stay away from half-truths. If we were unsure of the facts we would label it a rumor, and if we were to print a half-truth we retract, and correct the error, so our readers get the facts. To date we have had a great deal of difficulty gathering any facts that we can report on Obama, because he changes his position constantly, or issues statements filled with half-truths or lies, like how he never heard his preacher Jeremiah Wright spew hatred against whites in church. The majority of our coverage deals with the lies and unfair attacks on Sarah Palin, rather than the Presidential candidates themselves. However, when facts do present themselves about Obama, it seems those facts are presented by people other than Obama, but we still report those facts. To say we don’t have balanced reporting is false. You are only seeing what you want to see. Good luck opening your eyes, and your mind, to seeing both sides of our reporting.

    Reply
  2. User says:
    September 16, 2008 at 6:08 am

    @ HG: I believe Johnny’s point is clear, you don’t have to be a supporter of either candidate to find overly biased ‘reporting’ insulting. Sites like what this site has become and others that do the same for Obama are a window into what’s wrong with the political process.

    We should all have more respect for our country than to sling this low brow propaganda. It is disappointing that when people have an audience they rarely use it to properly inform and inspire people to learn more on their own. Rather as we can see here you delve into the same type of rhetoric that keeps people who actually think for themselves out of the political process.

    I’m sure you will reply back with the same type of “you worship Hussein” response but if you could do the rest of your readers a favor.. at least add a filter to remove your ‘political propaganda machine’ so people can enjoy the rest of your content because I’m sure the above points mean nothing to you.

    ***HG says***

    When the reader doesn’t agree with everything that is reported, like you are expressing here, that reader sees the information as biased propaganda. How you see it is based on your own beliefs and life experience. We do our best to be objective, but we have a tendency to expose the lies, and baseless attacks, from candidates like those being waged against Sarah Palin. In fact, 90% of all our political reporting has been about the lies and unfounded attacks on Palin, who has been forthcoming about all information about herself, which is not something Barack Obama has done. With all other media attacking Palin, someone has to stand up and do the right thing.

    As much as we don’t like to report about politics, when politicians reach celebrity status, like Obama and Palin have done, we are obligated to start reporting. The current campaign is so intense, we will probably have to do more political reporting from now on. Over time our reporting will get better, and more interesting, but it takes a little time, and feedback from readers like yourselves, for us to write the stories to make them more palatable for your consumption.

    Thank you for reading HG, and thank you for your feedback.

    Reply
  3. johnny paycheck says:
    September 15, 2008 at 11:13 pm

    The spokesman’s name is NOT Tucker Carlson. It’s Tucker Bounds.

    You were wrong about something as simple as the name of someone when it’s clearly visible in the clip.

    I’ve noticed over the last couple of months that this site has turned more into a forum for you to criticize the democratic party with your one-sided, right-wing rhetoric rather than an informed, unbiased perspective on the electoral process.

    For someone who is so concerned with getting the facts straight and getting the finger pointed, not being able to recognize a campaign spokesman from a bow tie sporting imbecile denotes the fact that you shouldn’t talk about things you have no concept of.

    By the way, I can’t help but notice you only refer to Barack Obama’s middle name and no one elses. Further proof that you’re just trying to make a cheap political point by adding “Hussein” into your harangue of conservative bias.

    PS. I’m voting for McCain.

    ***HG says***

    I was working on several stories at the same time, and made a name error. Thank you for correcting me. I’ve corrected the article.

    P.S. You sound like an Obama supporter, otherwise you might not be so concerned with the facts on this site not supporting him. What’s wrong with using Obama’s middle name of Hussein? Are you one of those that wants us to hide Obama’s middle name so no one finds out it has Muslim origins?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

© Copyright Hollywood Grind 2006 - 2009. All rights reserved.