McCain/Palin '08: The Lie Is The Plan

i hate to start sounding like dave (well, you know what i mean), but WTF?!?!! seriously, the repugs are drinkin this kool aid? just going along, cheering when the applause sign tells them to, with a complete disregard for what is objectively, unequivocally false. i don't get it. wait, but i do get it. this is the same crap they pulled in '04 when they elected bush--forget the facts (you're voting against your own self-interests and, oh by the way, the case for war in iraq is based on lies). republicans like their life to be black and white, yes and no, good and bad. and, like paglia said, they totally cave in to their fear and suspicions. why? how are they so different--in motivations, in morality, in interests, from democrats?

bridget, seana and john--you're related to a few of them, any insights?

from daily kos

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.)