Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
You have to see the video and transcript of Megyn Kelly interviewing McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds and blasting him over and over again for the lies they've put out. Even Fox News is calling them out. Bounds just sits there and lies through his teeth and she actually calls him on it. I never thought I'd say this about Fox News, but this is precisely what reporters should be doing to political spokesmen. Transcript below the fold:
KELLY: I want to hold you accountable for what McCain is doing, and get you to weigh in on this. Has your candidate gone too far, has he stretched the truth with the voters?BOUNDS: Well, Megyn, what we have done is gone to great lengths to discuss Barack Obama's record. And I think what you're seeing in this ad today is that he would rather hurl insults than examine his record. I mean, it is true that during a struggling economy, he proposes raising taxes.
KELLY: Not on the middle class.
BOUNDS: Well...ulp...on job growth and small businesses that drive the job growth of this country.
KELLY: But you guys have suggested he's going to raise taxes on the middle class and virtually every independent analyst who took a look at that claim said that's not true. He'll raise it on people making $200,000 or $250,000, but not the middle class.
BOUNDS: Well, Megyn, you're giving him an enormous amount of credit for a guy who has voted only to raise taxes in the United States Senate. For now...for him to make a new claim...for him...now, keep in mind --
KELLY: No, no! Let's stay on point, I'm not giving him any credit. I'm saying what the independent analysts say. They say that claim is false. And if that's false, why would John McCain do that, Tucker? Why wouldn't he just level with the voters and say, look, he's going to raise taxes on the wealthy or whatever you consider somebody to be making over $250,000, it's going to have a trickle down effect. That may not be good for the middle class. But why say he's going to raise taxes on the middle class when he's not?
BOUNDS: Because his record says that he will. If we take ever his word on everything he says he will do, the oceans will part, the sick will become healed. They're all sorts of things that Barack Obama is claiming on this campaign. But when you look is at his record, he has voted to increase taxes, he has voted in support of higher taxes for people making as little as $42,000 a year. I think you and I can both agree that those people are entrenched in the middle-class of this country.
KELLY: Tucker, why did he claim--
BOUNDS: 94 times in three years he is voted in support of higher taxes. Why are we to take him on his word that he would cut any tax? He has no record of doing it.
KELLY: Why did John McCain suggests in an ad that Barack Obama supported, comprehensive sex-ed for kindergartners?
BOUNDS: You'll notice that the Obama campaign has never refuted that. They voted for that in Barack Obama's committee. His committee that he chaired voted to pass that legislation. If you examine the language in the bill--
KELLY: I looked at the language in the bill.
BOUNDS: I know you will have an Obama person on later, I hope that you will ask them if there was language in the bill that actually talked about sex education for kindergartners.
KELLY: The language in the bill talks about age appropriate sex ed, including education about child predators and inappropriate touching. What is wrong with that?
BOUNDS: And sexually transmitted diseases.
KELLY: Right. Why wouldn't you want a kindergartner to be educated somewhat about inappropriate touching from adults?
BOUNDS: About sexually transmitted diseases?
KELLY: No! No! [crosstalk] His campaign says that's not fair, what he was backing was trying to educate little kindergartners on how to avoid sexual predators' and that you are distorting the language of the bill. Your response.
BOUNDS: We did not distort the language of the bill. We told voters that he voted in favor of this education. That is a reform that is on his record. If we cannot talk about the votes that he's actually taken, if we can't talk about the fact that he is supporting higher taxes or has proposed more taxes in a down economy when americans are struggling, what can we talk about? It is an important debate. Let's talk about the facts. No more of the dishonest, sleazy accusations. What he is trying to do is divert attention away from the fact that he is no proven record of making reforms. When voters go to the ballot in November, they will vote for someone who has a record of reform and bipartisanship. That is John McCain, not Barack Obama.
Politics
Comments
James Cagney could not tap dance better
Posted by: thethyme | September 21, 2008 9:33 AM
Did I wake up in an alternate reality? Is Faux News going to start telling the truth?
Bet that was a real shock to Bounds. "Hey, these were supposed to be questions about how Obama's a Muslim!"
Posted by: BaldApe | September 21, 2008 10:07 AM
Wow. I wish I could get away with that argument - we don't believe what you say, so we're going to make up shit about you. Neat.
Posted by: Bob O'H | September 21, 2008 10:13 AM
The Repub tactic is to spew out lies faster than they can be disputed; it takes less time to tell a lie than to tell the truth, and fits into sound-bites better.
Posted by: Bruce | September 21, 2008 10:26 AM
I'm surprised that they didn't throw out the old, "how dare you question McCain about stretching the truth. When he was a POW for 5 years he didn't have any truth to stretch."
Posted by: Salad Is Slaughter | September 21, 2008 10:33 AM
Re Bruce
Sounds like the political version of the Gish gallop.
Posted by: SLC | September 21, 2008 10:50 AM
Posted by: G. Shelley | September 21, 2008 10:58 AM
I remain a perfect cynic about Faux News. This lady has lied about so many other matters so many other times she has no credibility. I've watched her maybe a dozen times on prime time Faux shows when she's lied every time I've watched her.
I'm inclined to believe Faux challenged Bounds at a non-prime time hour to provide anecdotal "proof" they really are fair and balanced while their prime-time shows continue to pump out propaganda to support the GOP cause and their ratings. This show was broadcast in the morning.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 21, 2008 11:46 AM
You in the US haven't seen the full hypocrisy of Rupert Murdoch, you've only seen his Fox News so far. The UK has had this unpleasant parasite for a bit longer than you have and it's pretty much to form that Rupert and Fox would begin to ask hard questions of McCain.
Rupert is famous for switching sides in election years. When the Conservative Party was in power over here (right wing, about the same as your Democratic Party) News International was very ardently right wing and pro Conservative.
When the Conservatives were thoroughly discredited and about to lose power, he switched sides to the Labour Party (tokenly socialist).
What he does is approach the people who are in, or about to be in power, and gets concessions for his media empire in return for supporting the party of the hour. It's undemocratic, corrupt and downright dishonest, but it gets Rupert that little bit more power.
If Obama does stretch his lead, expect Fox News to suddenly turn pro-Democratic. I only hope you have more honesty than we did, and turn off that unpleasant man's channels and watch real news instead.
Posted by: Akheloios | September 21, 2008 12:19 PM
Actually we get a taste of the UK Murdoch given that the Drudge Report links to his UK publications quite a bit.
Murdoch also placed sidebets on Hillary Clinton about two years ago so we've seen that out of him to some degree.
I think he could easily turn his prime-viewing hour star Bill O'Reilly over to shill for the left given he has zero scruples and I tend to think he's way more moderate than he lets on, he merely shills for the right for money, power, and a chip on his shoulder from the "lefties" who fired him. Hannity? No way, he's as deluded as they come.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 21, 2008 12:27 PM
Oh believe me I think here we are experts on scum like Rupert. If he says it is true then there's at least a better than 50% it's complete bollocks, unless he wants something.
Sorry Rupert credibility = ZERO. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 21, 2008 12:28 PM
"Sounds like the political version of the Gish gallop."
It is. From Gish to Coulter to McCain, it's all the same: lie as fast as you can, never admit they are lies, and don't even argue with the refutations presented, just pretend they don't exist.
Posted by: Science Avenger | September 21, 2008 1:06 PM
Actually, Tucker Bounds was telling the absolute truth.
Since John McCain defines "Wealthy" as anyone who makes more than $5 million per year, then raising the taxes on those who make $4.9 million per year or less IS raising taxes on the "Middle Class".
Posted by: Blaidd Drwg | September 21, 2008 1:27 PM
Salad is Slaughter,
Or,
"How dare you suggest John McCain is stretching the truth! Since he can't raise his arms, he clearly can't stretch anything!"
Posted by: Dog's New Clothes | September 21, 2008 1:51 PM
Okay, my turn:
Lie? For five years Senator McCain was forced to stand because he didn't have a bed to lie in.
Posted by: Dr X | September 21, 2008 2:08 PM
Who exactly is he really talking about...?
Priceless. (Except it's 5 1/2 years!)
Posted by: David Marjanović | September 21, 2008 4:20 PM
Why are people still letting the McCain campaign insinuate that Obama is the Antichrist?
Posted by: The Ridger | September 21, 2008 5:36 PM
My response to all of his tapdancing would have been "you can rationalize this anyway you want, but the majority of people who look at what you've said compared to what everyone else is saying and what the language of these bills are saying and they are going to conclude that you have lied. Evasion and rationalization isn't going to help you fix your credibility."
Posted by: Robert | September 21, 2008 5:58 PM
Poor Tucker Bounds was the guy who got roasted on CNN as well. From the purely professional point of view, he's a dreadful spokesman because he's so incapable of smoothly sliding around the question. He gets a deer in the headlights look and starts stammering, visibly broadcasting that he himself is aware of how ridiculous he is. He'd be amusing if it wasn't all so infuriating.
Posted by: James Hanley | September 21, 2008 7:11 PM
Tucker's performance reminded me more of flat-footed stomping around to the beat of a really bad polka band.
Posted by: BobbyEarle | September 22, 2008 7:34 AM
from the very first paragraph of the bill:
"Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV."
So, how exactly do you comply with "...shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections..." without talking about how you have sex?
Posted by: delurking | September 22, 2008 9:40 PM
A few weeks ago I noticed that Faux News was beginning to snipe at McCain (even Rove, OMG!). Then I noticed that the FX was endlessly replaying "V for Vendetta". I'm relieved to see my intuition that Murdock is switching sides in order to curry favor with the future administration is not some Taxol-induced delusion.
It's not the first time I've seen side-switching with curry-flavoring. I mean favor-currying. I was one of those snow birds who moved to DFW in the 70's and 80's and kicked Jim (Crooked As A Dog's Hind Leg) Wright out of office. He was in the pocket of corrupt Defense Contractors! We put Dick Armey in.
Stop laughing, those of you who know the rest of the story.
Anyway, you get bitten enough times, you learn to follow the money before getting too excited about particular politicians. When TPTB decided that a man would be easier to elect than a woman, and Pharma money (for example) started moving towards the Obama campaign, I figured that he was The One. (Oh kewl, money-following on NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92513698 )
I'm also assuming that TPTB rejected McCain, forcing him to crawl to Daddy Dobson and accept Queen Barracuda in order to receive Dobson's blessing and become competitive. I think the lying and dirty fighting are symptoms of his desperation. He's been a loyal party member, and didn't he nicely endorse Bush after getting smeared in 2000? And they do this to him? One could almost pity him, staked out like a decrepit bait goat for the wolves, the parasites leaping off his body as his life gushes into the ground.
It could be worse for McCain. He could get elected, and then one of Palin's crazy fan boys in Joel's Army could put an arrow through his brain, to assure the ascension of the Queen of Heaven. I'm almost certain she would ban "V for Vendetta", for starters. (And nver bring a pit bull with lipstick to fight wolves; she'll just join in the gnawing.)
I am hoping that Obama has enough Realpolitik sense to negotiate some reality-based solutions with TPTB. I am so very tired and bored with the Magical Mystery Tour (which, while entertaining late 20th century art, makes for bad 21st century politics). May I have some evidence-based policies please? And a little more science?
Posted by: Tree | September 22, 2008 10:33 PM
Let's call it like it is, not only is McCAin a liar, he also can't remember things anymore. Like the earmarks he denies he ever got for AZ. He is an elderly man, not fit for the presidency in an unstable world. He is a man who would go to war because it makes no difference to him anymore. He and his Armageddon twin have a terrifying agenda. If you vote for them, forget your children, they will be drafted to fight in "god's wars." These people are nuts! And MCBush is too old to take on this task.
Posted by: 'Demetria | September 22, 2008 11:19 PM
Let's call it like it is, not only is McCAin a liar, he also can't remember things anymore. Like the earmarks he denies he ever got for AZ. He is an elderly man, not fit for the presidency in an unstable world. He is a man who would go to war because it makes no difference to him anymore. He and his Armageddon twin have a terrifying agenda. If you vote for them, forget your children, they will be drafted to fight in "god's wars." These people are nuts! And MCBush is too old to take on this task.
Posted by: 'Demetria | September 22, 2008 11:20 PM
By talking about age-appropriate behaviors. We've aleady begun teaching my pre-K age grandson that biting another person can possibly make either one of the people sick. So he should never bite anyone, and he should tell the caretaking adult if he or another child is bitten. It may well not be necessary to go on to explain to kindergarten students that biting can draw blood, and swallowing someone else's blood or getting it into a scratch or cut on the hands or body can possibly transfer a disease, but surely a child just a little older than that needs this additional information too.
Children need to be taught not to drink after each other, or pee on each other, and not to take in each other's saliva. Yes, I know all this can sound ridiculous, but if you're around four and five year olds much, you'll find some of them actually do things like spit into each other's mouths. And seeing an adult male ejaculate can seem to a young child to be very like being peed on.
And of course, every young child should be taught what inappropriate touching is, and how to say no to it, and how to report it to a caretaking adult. This doesn't require that a child understand exactly what motivates adults in such touching.
And every young child child really must be taught never, ever, to touch a hypodermic needle they see in the trash or on the ground.
Sorry for any unpleasant explicitness here, but really it's important to know that there are things that every young child needs to learn that will help in some degree to protect against disease long before the child knows much of anything about the sex act.
In other words, the passage you quote requires that in every grade children be instructed in behaviors that help prevent the transmission of these diseases, not that in every grade children be taught details about the diseases themselves or details about all the behaviors that can trasmit the disease.
Posted by: JuliaL | September 23, 2008 1:07 AM
GREAT COMMENTS JULIA!!!
Obviously people who ask these insane questions have never had to deal with a child's curiosity!!!
The lengths that the PALIN/MCCAIN camp are going to instill fear and loathing is just reprehesible.
I, myself, think that 2004 taught quite a few people a lesson in the fear and loathing department. I guess when you have nothing to stand for - your only option is to try to pull down the ones that do.
November 4 can not get here quick enough.
HEY - WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT OBAMA AHEAD IN FLORIDA?!?!?!
NOT SO RED ANYMORE HUH????
Posted by: BethanyB | September 23, 2008 4:49 PM