Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Well that didn't take long. The first brazen lie of Sarah Palin's campaign as John McCain's VP nominee came just moments into her speech accepting his invitation to join the ticket. From the Washington Post's transcript of her speech:
And I championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. In fact, I told Congress -- I told Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.(APPLAUSE)
If our state wanted a bridge, I said we'd build it ourselves.
But Brad Plumer at the New Republic blog puts the lie to that claim. He quotes her answer to a question about that "bridge to nowhere" in the Anchorage Daily News during her 2006 campaign for governor:
5. Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.
She wanted it so much that she knew she had to get the federal funding for it soon because of the pending legal problems of Alaska's two main men in Congress, Ted Stevens and Don Young. It turns out that they didn't have the clout in Congress to get it done, due in no small part to McCain's dogged campaigning against the project as an example of useless and expensive earmarks.
But did she really say no to those federal funds? Absolutely not. In fact, she only canceled the project because the state wasn't getting enough money from the federal government to get it done. Here's a Google cache of the statement the governor's office released on this subject on September 21, 2007 when she decided to redirect the funds for the project to find a different way of building access to Gravina Island:
"Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island," Governor Palin added. "Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."
She told Washington to keep the money out of old fashioned self-reliance? Nonsense. She makes it quite clear here that they had to look for an alternative only because they couldn't get enough federal money to get it done. And by the way, Alaska gets more earmarks than any other state in the nation.
This may be a new world record in how quickly a politician manages to get out the first lie after being introduced to the public.
Politics
Comments
Her wikipage points out the same thing, or at least it did last night when I looked. You'd think her people would at least have the savvy to Google and Wiki her before writing a speech; just goes to show how out of touch and unprepared the McCain campaign and her own handlers are.
Posted by: Julian | August 30, 2008 10:05 AM
"Pork Barrel" Palin!
Posted by: James Hanley | August 30, 2008 10:13 AM
Does it really matter? No one cares. Lies, deceit, and hypocrisy are part of every election. People are too lazy to care.
Posted by: yoshi | August 30, 2008 10:13 AM
Its funny when cynics write these sorts of things on political blogs filled with people who do care. Perhaps you haven't realized yet, yoshi, that more Citizens get their news from sites like this than from the televised media who, if they pick up this story, will do so a month from now.
In fact, the more you refresh this page, the more hits it'll get in the Google algorithms, and the higher it'll be on their Palin search list. Embrace the new world of technological partisanship and democratic opinion-shaping!
Just as an aside, does anyone else find it amazing that search-engine internal spell-checkers consider a non-capitalized Google to be an error? We've come a long way *sniff*.
Posted by: Julian | August 30, 2008 10:25 AM
Palin's eminent domain boondoggle as mayor:
Chris Gillow, "Wasilla shuffles budget", Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman, January 31, 2008
Rindi White, "End in sight on lawsuit over sports center land", Anchorage Daily News, Jult 25, 2008
Posted by: a knight | August 30, 2008 10:31 AM
I don't know what the McCain camp was thinking - when you go with an unknown you usually do so because they have no dirt at all, but hell she's a maniacal governor who uses her clout to have her enemies fired and she's going to get shredded by actual politicians! The only thing that can keep them from screwing this up is if they tell Palin to keep her mouth shut - oh wait, she's a woman working for republicans... they've already told her that.
Posted by: Reginald | August 30, 2008 10:40 AM
I don't agree with McCain on, well, anything, and I don't plan to vote for him. So picking Palin would probably have made no difference to me.
But there's an interesting analysis on fivethiryeight.com that notes McCain is taking a gamble that the socially conservative wing of the party will rally with her as the VP. He's also hoping to pick up a few women who would have voted for Reagan. In addition, she's a really ordinary person, in a lot of ways, more so than just about anyone else ever picked. That blocks the plutocrat party image that Mitt Romney would have lent the ticket.
On the down side it sort of takes the experience meme off the table as an argument, and may work against McCain. I was in the gym and heard a woman say "What did she govern, polar bears?" Now, in New York City that reaction is understandable, but McCain had better hope that nobody in Dayton or Cleveland or Kansas City thinks the same thing.
Then there's the scandals dogging the GOP in Alaska. One other reason to pick Palin was to make sure the GOP got the votes there. Alaska has been solid Republican since statehood, but it's competitive now, largely because the Republicans self-destructed. The damage to the brand might -- just might -- put it over the top for Obama (Begich is very likely to be the Senator taking Stevens' seat anyway). That's 3 electoral votes McCain can't really afford to lose.
It's a gamble. He'll either pick up a couple of points for a narrow win or get blown out when Palin says something sufficiently awful. The debate with Biden is not going to be pretty.
Posted by: Jesse | August 30, 2008 11:05 AM
Principal aside, Pork Barrel reform is the *last* thing I would want my governor to be involved in. I want the other states earmarks taken away! Get my income taxes back working in *my* state!
Posted by: KeithB | August 30, 2008 11:14 AM
"You'd think her people would at least have the savvy to Google and Wiki her before writing a speech"
They did! And then they "fixed up" the Wiki page before they wrote the speech. And then they were discovered and Wikipedia restored the old page and locked it.
The story is here:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94118849
Posted by: Cathy | August 30, 2008 11:25 AM
A lot of folks are mocking Palin for stating that she didn't know what the VP does. To be fair, her answer seemed to be that she just didn't want to be window dressing. It was the ending to that question that concerns me, however. She said, "We want to make sure that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position especially for Alaskans."
Is it typical that a VP pick (or even a presidential pick) brings in a lot of favors to that person's state?
Posted by: bud | August 30, 2008 11:51 AM
Watching social conservatives universally bleat with approval over McCain's spin over Sarah Palin is disturbing - especially their mind-boggling claim that Palin's two terms as a podunk mayor qualifies as "executive experience."
The Kool-Aid is most definitely on the GOP's table, and their people are running in for seconds.
Yet I feel the Dems should be careful in going after Palin (if at all, a part of me thinks their best strategy is to ignore her entirely) on the bridge-to-nowhere, and should instead use Palin's greatest weakness against her: her staunch pro-life position (which fails to take into account cases of rape or incest).
I'm suspect once it is made more widely known among women voters, this position will go over like a lead balloon.
But finally, I believe that when the Palin fanfare dies down, McCain's stunt pick will amount to little when both realize that the economy is still the big issue this election year, and Palin (and her weak resume) brings damned little to the table in that regard.
Posted by: CHV | August 30, 2008 11:56 AM
Posted by: Herod the Freemason | August 30, 2008 11:59 AM
McCin's decisions seem completely weirsd. His ads mostly feature Obama and I do ot think that "Hang" ad was inadvertent. I bet if we were to do some research we'd find someone from the Ft Bragg Goat Lab.
Serioulsy, the McCain campaign seems like something out of Jon Ronson's "The Men Who Stare at Goats".
Posted by: Bacopa | August 30, 2008 12:05 PM
Another Palin quote on the infamous bridge projects, back in October of 2006: "I do support the infrastructure projects that are on tap here in the state of Alaska that our congressional delegations worked hard for."
And hard-working is the same as self-sufficient, right? Right?
Posted by: Jim Anderson | August 30, 2008 12:21 PM
I really don't think McCain picked Palin to shore up the GOP vote in Alaska. Romney, as a Mormon, would have helped him much more in the Mountain West where he is running behind Obama in several states (Mormons don't just live in Utah).
It's a pure gamble to get more votes from women, betting that they will choose to vote based on personality and not on policy issue, and I would bet that most women will see through that little ploy.
This is not a knock on Palin, but given McCain's past predilections, one does have to wonder why McCain passed over several much more experience Republican woman to plump for the youngest and cutest one available.
Posted by: tacitus | August 30, 2008 12:23 PM
The anti choice creationists women crowd? Wouldn't they vote Mccain anyway if they believed in giving women the right to vote?
Posted by: Phil | August 30, 2008 12:42 PM
I have to wonder if, by selecting Palin as his Veep, McCain is subconsciously setting himself up for failure. Similar to the speculation that Bill was subconsciously rigging Hillary's campaign, McCain might actually be deliberately throwing his own campaign. That, or he's a clueless misogynist who thinks that women will automatically vote for someone with ovaries, regardless of Palin's actual (anti-woman) stances.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 30, 2008 12:57 PM
As a mom, I am so upset (more like angry) that she is spending so much time away from her children ...especially the baby.
Posted by: Melissa | August 30, 2008 1:01 PM
Posted by: WScott | August 30, 2008 1:05 PM
As an Alaskan I think Palin is now a good enough politician that if the McCain campaign let her handle her own problems she can overcome them. She learns more quickly than anyone I've ever seen.
Just as Texans who saw the Rove machine destroy Ann Richards warned you not to underestimate W, I would say the same about Palin.
The only pro-life group she's ever been affiliated with, for instance, is Feminists for Life. Don't underestimate her understanding of spin. Nor is she really a creationist - any more than were those GOP pres. nominees who raised their hands at the debate if they didn't believe in evolution. It's called saying what they want to hear.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | August 30, 2008 1:08 PM
Melissa you are right, "won't anyone think of the babies?"
[Dingo breaks into choking sobs, then takes the babies] -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | August 30, 2008 1:09 PM
Why so negative re Sarah Palin. Give the woman
a chance, for heaven's sake. Let her speak. Let
her be heard. Let her debate. To hear fault finding
women degrade and demean other women in such an unfair manner is the very reason that we in America may never have a woman president much less a woman vice president.
I think this woman, governor of the state of Alaska, is admirable! I think she will have
Biden "bitin" his nails before their first debate
has ended. She is the perfect political mate for
John McCain. I look forward, eagerly, to her debates
with Biden. She does not come across as mean spirited
like the plagiarist Biden. She has grace and charm
and is obviously a woman of substance. She exhibits
strength of conviction and from all reports says what
she means and means what she says.
Sarah Palin is what this Grand Old Party needs at this time in America if we are to save this nation from going down
the path to complete moral destruction!
Posted by: Sarah Sawyer | August 30, 2008 1:21 PM
On a related note, you may want to check out the Star Tribune website for stories on preemptive raids on protest groups in St. Paul. Here's a precious excerpt on what the cops were looking for per warrant in one of their raids:
"...the warrant, signed by a judge on Friday, seeks multiple items, including electronics and mp3 players, rags, jars, Molotov cocktails, communication between RNC Welcoming Committee members, urine and feces."
They mean "among RNC Welcoming Committee members," of course. Seems rather broad, and like something that might apply to anybody's house and everybody's house.
Posted by: ice9 | August 30, 2008 1:41 PM
Sarah, the Obama campaign would be foolish to underestimate Palin and I have absolutely no doubt that Biden will get plenty of coaching in the coming days to make sure he doesn't come off as condescending or mean (though I would already wager that Fox News will claim exactly that no matter how fair Biden is).
But, there is absolutely no doubt that Palin is as green as they come. Less than two years ago the only thing she had on her resume was that she was mayor of a village. Obama is a grizzled veteran in both politics and policy when compared to Palin.
Two weeks ago she didn't know what the vice president did all day, and most front-line bloggers have met more foreign leaders than Palin and somehow she's supposed to be ready to take over as leader of the free world from day one? How the heck do you know that?
Not even McCain knows that yet. He's taking a huge gamble on America's future, especially since he's picked a running mate who has all the hallmarks of being another George Bush. She may help him win the election, but she also may end up ruining this country.
That you can say this with a straight face after eight years of a ruinous Bush administration scares the crap out of me. Are you insane?? Have you seen what the right-wing social conservative policies have done to this country?
Posted by: tacitus | August 30, 2008 1:54 PM
"Why so negative re Sarah Palin. Give the woman
a chance, for heaven's sake. Let her speak."
Sarah,
You suggest that the criticism of Palin is wrong because it's too soon to judge her, yet you sing her praises claiming that she is nothing less than exactly what the country needs to stave off moral destruction. From here it looks as if you don't really have a problem with judging Palin based on a small amount of information. It just looks as if you don't want to hear anything disruptive of your infatuation with McCain's perfect "mate."
Posted by: Dr X | August 30, 2008 1:58 PM
I'm pretty sure Marion Delgado is right about not underestimating Palin. She may be inexperienced, but she is already lying like the best of them. When NPR reported on the announcement, most of the report played up her claim as a reformer and talked about her taking on the state GOP, while ignoring that she only turned against Stevens and Young when they no longer had power and were about to get clobbered by the Justice Department.
While I don't totally agree with Yoshi on the apathy of the electorate, the MSM is thoroughly ignoring Palin's low points and playing up the folksy-hockey-mom thing. I don't care how self-important bloggers are, there will be 50-60 million people voting in November and most will not have read any blogs but most will have watched TV or listened to the radio.
I hope some of you are writing, calling, or e-mailing the networks and other MSM outlets to urge them to report on Palin's real stance on earmarks rather than relying only on the blogosphere to do the job.
Julian - NPR did a story on Palin, noting that her Wiki page was altered with a very favorable bias by someone using the nickname of one of her kids the night before McCain's announcement. Her campaign people are savvier than you think.
Sarah Sawyer - they have a clock named for that type of reasoning.
Posted by: c-serpent | August 30, 2008 1:59 PM
Ice9...If someone flushed the toilet just as the police got there, could they be arrested for destruction of evidence?
Posted by: chaos_engineer | August 30, 2008 2:05 PM
This is laughable:
Running for the village PTA, council and mayoralty? The PTA??? Are you *%&$ing kidding me? Imagine if he had picked a man and was gushing over as thin a record? He would have had Republicans calling for him to step down from the nomination.
I'm sorry, but it's not sexist to point out how callow a choice McCain made in his naked attempt to pander to women. It's not Palin's fault -- though if she seriously thought she had a future on the national stage she should probably have turned it down, but I understand how hard that would have been. McCain has lost it. Utterly.
Posted by: tacitus | August 30, 2008 2:06 PM
That's not the way Google works. They don't (yet) monitor all Internet traffic.
Posted by: jpf | August 30, 2008 2:17 PM
ice9:
"...the warrant, signed by a judge on Friday, seeks multiple items, including electronics and mp3 players,..."
That ought to cover about 99% of St. Paul's citizens under 40.
Tacitus:
"Imagine if he had picked a man and was gushing over as thin a record? He would have had Republicans calling for him to step down from the nomination"
Imagine if a democratic candidate had done it.
Posted by: democommie | August 30, 2008 3:25 PM
Sarah Sawyer wrote:
Is someone preventing her from speaking, being heard or debating by pointing out that she told an obvious lie within moments of being announced as the VP candidate? Should I not point out that obvious lie lest I risk being called "negative" by people who leave utterly substanceless comments in response?
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 30, 2008 3:45 PM
Julian wrote:
Still there:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin#Budget
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 30, 2008 4:20 PM
Julian wrote:
Actually Keith Olbermann did the story yesterday on "Countdown."
Posted by: Norman Doering | August 30, 2008 4:25 PM
Well good :) Hopefully the nightly news big wigs will pay attention.
Posted by: Julian | August 30, 2008 4:39 PM
Ah, ok jpf, I only have a very basic concept of how it works gleaned from simplified explanations given by the creators to documentary crews. So is it specific high traffic sites, or only a certain kind of traffic, like linking, that they monitor to determine site popularity?
Posted by: Julian | August 30, 2008 4:43 PM
Seeing the normally thoughtful and reasonable commentary on this blog - even when it gets heated - made it rather jarring to see the blatant PR-speak parroted by "Sarah Sawyer." I admire all the people who were able to respond to that comment as if it were from an actual reader...but "Sarah" just has to be a paid staffer for McCain's campaign. And the staffer thought that linking to a site would make the comment more believable...but "http://yahoo" is the best she could do?
Obviously, the McCain Internet Team needs to take tips from Alex Doonesbury.
Posted by: BobApril | August 30, 2008 5:05 PM
>>>It's a pure gamble to get more votes from women, betting that they will choose to vote based on personality and not on policy issue, and I would bet that most women will see through that little ploy.
Yesterday, I cruised Jack Cafferty's blog on CNN to read replies to him asking whether McCain's selection of Sarah Palin would sway any former Hillary voters, and I'd wager the "no way" crowd bested the "yes" crowd by 8-1.
In fact, most women on the blog (about 500 had filed posts at the time I saw it) expressed disgust for McCain apparently thinking he could toss another woman at these voters, and they wouldn't notice the difference.
>>>Running for the village PTA, council and mayoralty? The PTA??? Are you *%&$ing kidding me? Imagine if he had picked a man and was gushing over as thin a record? He would have had Republicans calling for him to step down from the nomination.
Also agreed.
It seems like Republicans (esp the religious right) are upholding Palin in a cult of personality as much as any of Obama's supporters for him have over the past 18 months.
By comparison, Obama's experience towers over Palin's. Period.
If any of her supporters believe otherwise, they are delusional.
Posted by: CHV | August 30, 2008 5:27 PM
People said that about the debate between Dubya and Gore or Dubya and Kerry. To Democrats it looked like their guy kinda won. To everyone else, it looked like Dubya consistently got the better of each opponent.
Biden has a lot of flip-flops, apparent contradictions, and mucho dirt. He is actually quite vulnerable in a debate.
Posted by: wheyghey | August 30, 2008 5:59 PM
Don't you get it, Ed? All it takes for you to effectively silence Palin's voice is to criticize her! Or something.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 30, 2008 6:00 PM
CHV:
Fixed it for ya.
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 30, 2008 6:32 PM
Now is the time, more than ever, for Obama supporters to do everything they can for Hillary's supporters. While I am certain that Hillraisers as a rule would be outraged to be handed Palin in place of HRC, it may still not quench their anger towards Obama. And Michelle, Jill, pleeeease reach out Hillraisers. We need every 18 million of them to defeat the McSame ticket. For if we don't we are heading into a 4 year terrible headwind that will make the last eight look like a picnic.
Posted by: rimpal | August 30, 2008 7:33 PM
Yes, be scared. A friend, an all-time solid Democrat, came over yesterday gushing about having a woman in the WH and how she is now going to vote for McCain. Solely on the basis that he picked a woman and the Democrat primaries did not. One old neocon's fiat against the general democrat electorate. I do not get how the disproportionate weighing works.
She is not dumb. She is in fact very bright. I am only hoping I can get her to pay attention.
I hope we survive this.
Posted by: GrayGaffer | August 30, 2008 8:45 PM
That may very well be the case. However, if this person really is a solid Democrat who would vote across party lines simply due to the vice president's gender, her priorities are obviously skewed and her reasoning skills, at least in this instance, are lacking. I can only hope that your friend is not representative of left-leaning voters at large (particularly my fellow women, whom I am counting on to recognize the transparency of McCain's selection).
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | August 30, 2008 9:26 PM
As to the story of the baby's identity, I'd say the story is nobody else's business and the Palin family should have their privacy respected, except that several things do make this a legitimate public matter:
1) One of Palin's great claims to character among the Republican anti-abortion base in the last few days is that she bore a baby even after the fetus tested for Down syndrome. If she is lying, she is lying about a significant part of her political claim to fame.
2) This comes in addition to lying about her stance on the Bridge to Nowhere and about firing the state Safety Commissioner. A pattern of lies would be an indicator of character, and we're all trying to figure out who she is.
3) Most of all, as an anti-abortion executive, she would make the private lives and pregnancy decisions of every other woman in America a public matter potentially enforcable with police and jails. This obviates any claim to her own pregnancy decisions being accorded any privacy respect. "Don't dish it out if you can't take it."
4) Palin is not just anti-abortion, she is anti-birth-control, and an opponent of sex education for teens other than abstinence-only. So her 15- or 16-year-old accidently becoming pregnant is very relevant, since she wants to keep the knowledge and devices to prevent pregnancy out of the hands of every other teenage girl in America.
Apparently she and her family chose the traditional Catholic/Evangelical way: take the girl out of school for months claiming she has mono, make her have the baby in secret, and lie to cover it up.
Not everyone wants to (or can afford) to take this route. In particular, maybe Bristol would have preferred to have her child openly and without fear or shame. Maybe others want to make their decisions without terror of the laws that religions conservatives are seeking to apply.
Posted by: TinWings | August 30, 2008 9:55 PM
From the strategic POV on Palin, I'm going with "pandering to the Christianist vote" at the moment.
But really, forget all this crap about bridges. According to my favorite local wingnut, it's all about character.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | August 30, 2008 10:03 PM
Err, TinWings, was there another source you were responding to on that?
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 30, 2008 10:21 PM
I will enjoy the Fail Train that is McCains campaign roll onward. This choice was stupid. Are there no better, no more qualified women in all of the GOP?
The debate between Palin and Biden will be fun to watch, that's for sure. My prediction: she'll come out of it looking like a total loon. Only the super funie right will stick wiht here, the rest of the GOP will be going "WTF?"
-Ian
Posted by: Ian Kennedy | August 31, 2008 1:12 AM
Julian: I have no idea what your point is.
> In fact, the more you refresh this page, the more hits
> it'll get in the Google algorithms, and the higher it'll be
> on their Palin search list. Embrace the new world of
> technological partisanship and democratic opinion-shaping!
No - the more trusted people that link to this article, the higher it will rank within Google's algorithms. The more you refresh this link, the more bandwidth you (and the host) have to pay for.
Are you saying that pointing out the obvious is parroting the party line? Are you opting against following links on the internet? Are you stating that bloggers are hypnotists? I really don't care either way (as I've already made my mind up) but I have absolutely no idea what point you are trying to make. Can I just assume that you were making a joke? I hope so, because otherwise you convey information like old people screw.
Posted by: Brandon Crafts | August 31, 2008 5:00 AM
Now, stop complaining about Palin's inexperience.
Did George W. Bush have significantly more experience? No. And everything worked out well for him. Okay, except for a disastrous and needless war. Everything worked out well for Bush except for a disastrous and needless war. Oh, and a screwed-up economy. Everything worked out well for Bush except for a disastrous and needless war and a screwed-up economy. Oh, and...
Posted by: mark | August 31, 2008 9:01 AM
My experience is purely anecdotal, but I think there are a lot of insulted women out there this weekend.
In the past 48 hours, I've been deluged by phone calls and e-mails from my female buddies, astounded that somehow, some way, we'd be drawn to the ticket because, as Samantha Bee so brilliantly put it on the Daily Show, Palin is a fellow "Vagina-American," even though her positions on the issues, the ones we know about, offend us to our very core.
Posted by: Lauri | August 31, 2008 10:43 AM
Calling a politician out for lying in a speach is like calling a retarded kid out for double dribbling in basketball. They all do it! Let's go back and look at Savior Obama's acceptance speech from Thursday night four years from now and see how much BS he was spitting when his Utopian society hasn't been created in his one term of office.
Posted by: Dingle Berry | August 31, 2008 11:10 AM
John Kerry had a good line today on This Week with George S... and this seems like as good a thread as any to share it. He reviewed her positions on global warming, evolution, gun control, abortion, and then stated that it seems she comes from the "flat earth caucus."
I thought it was pretty funny, although he didn't say it with a smile.
Posted by: chris | August 31, 2008 11:33 AM
chris:
John Kerry has no sense of humor. Then again John McCain has no sense of honor.
Posted by: democommie | August 31, 2008 2:44 PM
And Bush has no sense, period?
Posted by: Azkyroth | August 31, 2008 6:33 PM
Fine, but isn't Obama lying big time when he claims to be against the Iraq War when he continues to vote to fund it? Isn't he lying when he makes boatloads of promises that he can't possibly all keep?
Is that less important than fibs about earmarks?
Posted by: Mark F. | September 1, 2008 10:32 PM
Fine, but isn't Obama lying big time when he claims to be against the Iraq War when he continues to vote to fund it?
No. He opposed the war, but once the US was committed to it anyway, he had no choice but to vote to fund it, rather than get nailed for trying to cut off our military's supplies from behind. There's no inconsistency or dishonesty here, just a response to the consequences of a decision he opposed.
Isn't he lying when he makes boatloads of promises that he can't possibly all keep?
You mean like chasing Bin Laden to the gates of Hell? Balancing the budget by 2012 without raising taxes? Finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
Posted by: Raging Bee | September 2, 2008 8:58 AM