I put up a comment elsewhere today about this very article. The reason being I saw "exaggerate" presented as different than lying. Also "lying" is in quotes now, versus just regular lying I guess. So the spectrum from truth to lie has how many increments? If candidates can say whatever they want and the burden falls on citizens to sort things out, having to dig even further than an article by a respected journalist, then the best liar gets elected right? And the candidate that adheres more closely to an ethical standard is instantly penalized. How is that democracy?

Unless one postulates that Governor Palin can reasonably said to be unaware of her own positions, then Governor Palin was lying.  One can only guess what in Kurtz's imagination would constitute "lying". 

In Palin's defense, she is stark raving mad.

Gosh darn, she's so adorable...just too cute for words.  ;>)

You can be stark raving mad, and a liar at the same time.  Mad Hate Hag Liar Paln is living proof of that.

I agree with Howie.  Just hear me out.

Ever since the President said it was okay to torture and kill someone as long as you didn't think that would be the outcome (even if it was completely unreasonable to think so), I have realized that to Republicans and especially the Bush Administration, the truth appears to be what you make it.  Or more importantly what you force yourself to believe beyond reason.

As long as you can completely delude yourself to a false reality, you are covered, because that is the new government approved reality.

In Republicanworld, Palin was actually telling the truth if she deluded herself into believing it really happened.

Republicans have now rendered reality "quaint" along with the Geneva Conventions, Habeas Corpus, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

For the first time I was not proud of my country  (permanent resident since 99, citizen since 2006) when I heard the sound from Abu Ghraib scandal.

we are better than abu ghraib, iraq war, pleasing the Big Oil, dammit. 

It will get better.  I firmly believe there are still enough decent Americans left - maybe because the alternative is unthinkable.

I think I agree with you more often than some who had their citizenship handed to them upon birth. :)

 

This has to be the worst example of our so-called independent press this month--if not this year. How exactly does Kurtz think Palin did not lie? She stated several times before she was governor she was for the bridge:

"We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge," Gov. Palin said in August 2006, according to the local newspaper, "and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative." The bridge would have linked Ketchikan to the airport on Gravina Island. Travelers from Ketchikan (pop. 7,500) now rely on ferries.

Then, when congress dropped the earmark (it said Alaska could use the money for whatever it wanted), Palin said this:

Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer," she said. "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. 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."

Read that second statement again. Palin was *still* for the bridge; she just had to drop it because Alaska didn't have enough money.

I would challenge Kurtz to find any meaningful way, a statement or an act, that shows that Palin said no to the bridge to nowhere.  

She said it in that one speech, does that count?

 

... or was that the speechwriter talking? ;)

"or was that the speechwriter talking? "

She said it, she owns it.  If she wants to blame the speechwriter...then next time let the SPEECHWRITER give the speech.

As a former executive speechwriter, I say "elect more speechwriters!"  *

At least then there wouldn't be any distinction between the idiot who wrote the lie and the idiot who mouthed it.

 

* I'm quite impressed that Obama wrote his acceptance speech, as well as many of his other lines. Not only does he do a very good job, he literally talks the talk and walks the walk, and can't pass the buck. 

actually kerry was entirely consistent in what he voted for in 2004.  he voted for one funding bill that was paid for with tax increases on the wealthy, and voted against one that did not pay for the funding.  every senator voted for one and against the other.   that clip that the gop ran was kerry telling an audience he did that.  but his explanation to that same audience was never run.  and the press was glad to promote the republican flip-flopper propaganda.

That's because your so called "liberal media" has been decimated by an attck which started nearly 30 years ago. The xristian right has done well in it's mission to screw the narrative in their favour so their message gets through.

It actually started 44 years ago at the Republican Convention, when angry Goldwater delegates loudly denounced "the liberal media" from the floor, stomping and shaking their fists at the network's broadcast booths.

Glenn Beck criticized Obama for an ad which called Palin a liar.  He said that you can lead people to that conclusion, but not say it directly.

I thought "straight talk" was supposed to be a good thing.  What happened to that? 

The corporatist conservative Republican Party controlled news media does not allow lying Republicans like Liar Palin to be called liars under any circumstances.  The media will attack those who call Palin and McCain and other Republicans liars, and then smear them, and then the conservative media puts the "consider the source" spin on it stating why you should doubt the person who called Palin a liar more than Palin's acutal lie.

And on AC360, I saw one of the most ridiculous segments on Palin imaginable.  Cooper said that Palin didn't try to ban books.  He flat-out said it wasn't true.  But then the explanation (from Joe Johns, I believe) was that Palin inquired about banning books, and the librarian was subsequently fired, and then her employment was then reinstated, but that we don't really know what happened.  Is there an alternative explanation here?   Why is she inquiring about banning books and firing someone if she wasn't trying to get that done?

Cooper also said that the story about Palin pushing creationism in schools was false as well.  Johns' explanation for that was that she just wanted students to be able to debate creationism and evolution in school.  Where, in the lunch room?  If you're making this part of a science class, you're teaching creationism in schools.  I don't see how you get around that.

The lead-up to this was that Palin was being mistreated the same way Obama was with "Muslim" stories and the like.  What a pathetic exercise in false equivalence. 

I saw the lead-in to that segment and knew it would be ridiculous.  Obama was smeared with a bunch of made up stuff, and the media is comparing that to true stuff about Palin that they somehow can't "prove" because they can't connect any dots.  Disgusting.  Anderson Cooper did his best work during Hurrican Katrina. 

Yes, apparently you can't conclude that Palin tried to ban books unless she comes right out and says "I tried to get a bunch of books removed from the public library.  The librarian refused, so I fired her."  Anything less than that is just a guessing game.

It's a wonder that Cooper didn't also seek to attack and/or smear the people who made these accusations against Liar Palin, too.

I am unsure if Kurtz is just a liar, is too silly to understand her lies, or if he is definitely a Republican shill.  Mr. Kurtz, we count on news folks to confront lies even if it is coming from someone in our own party.  So get with it and do your job, unless sucking up to McCain Palin is what you consider your job to be.  Your uneven handedness makes the Olberman and other MSNBC  commentaries seem absolutely correct in their posts.  I guess we simply cannot expect you to even live up to their standards.

"I am unsure if Kurtz is just a liar, is too silly to understand her lies, or if he is definitely a Republican shill."

The answer is all three.  Kurtz is a liar, Kurtz is a Republican lia, and Kurtz is too silly to understand her lies. 

"When the Senate had its chance to stop the Bridge to Nowhere and transfer the money to Katrina rebuilding, Messrs. Obama and Biden voted for the $223 million earmark, siding with the old boys' club in the Senate. And to date, they still have not publicly renounced their support for the infamous earmark."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122100927525717663.html

It's deceitful for Obama to attack Palin on this subject without coming clean about his vote.

Oh goodie, the latest talking point spewed out in all the right wing blogs endlessly.  Ted Stephens, Republican, put in the earmark for the bridge, and Sarah Palin, Republican, thought it was a great idea until it was ridiculed all over the country. 

for more right wing distortions of reality: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html

New Orleans got their money and the earmark was eventually removed for the Bridge - although Stevens was still able to get the Federal part of the money.  It is kind of silly to focus on a single vote on an amendment by Obama - when that is only a very tiny part of the overall story - apparently to attempt to rebut what Palin is on the record as supporting whole-heartedly.

You've got nothing.  Sorry.

Kurtz, you're a liar.

Kurtz is a right wing Republican liar.

It should be noted that Howard Kurtz is a right wing Republican himself, and that his wife is a Republican political consultant.

Those 2 factors are key in explainig why Kurtz is trying to rescue Palin from being caught in her lie.