David Kirkpatrick

September 2, 2010

On Sarah Palin …

Filed under: Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 4:48 pm

“This is a person for whom there is no topic too small to lie about. She lies about everything.”

— Michael Joseph Gross, author of a recent Vanity Fair piece on the ex governor of Alaska

And this quote comes from someone who admits to heading into writing the Vanity Fair article, ” … with a prejudice in her favor.” So for Palin, with friends like these, who needs — well, you know the rest.

(Hat tip: the Daily Dish)

Advertisements

May 2, 2010

GM lying about paying back fed bailout

Filed under: Business, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 6:12 pm

To paraphrase Paul Harvey, here’s the rest of the story

From the second link:

General Motors CEO Ed Whitacre has bragged in TV commercials and newspaper columns that GM has paid back its bailout “in full and ahead of schedule.”

As with the Pontiac Aztek, an ugly exterior masks an ever darker problem: Whitacre is being fanciful to the point of deceit. GM received $50 billion in TARP funds (never mind that TARP was only supposed to cover financial institutions). About $7 billion of that came in the form of a straight-up, low-interest loan. And about $13 billion came in the form of an escrow account.

So how has GM, which lost $38 billion in 2007 even as it sold 9.4 million cars, paid back its debt? It took money from the escrow account to pay back the $6.7 billion loan.

October 5, 2009

The Treasury Department lied …

Filed under: Business, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 11:33 pm

pushing through the TARP bailout a year ago? I’m shocked (er, not really).

From the first link:

A government watchdog says federal officials weren’t entirely honest with the public about the health of the first 9 financial firms that got federal bailouts, according to a report released Monday.

Bailout special inspector general Neil Barofsky says in an audit that Treasury Department officials painted an overly rosy picture, creating “unrealistic expectations,” when they called the first bailout banks “healthy” institutions that would be able to lend more with government help.

“It is not our intent to suggest that government officials should make public their concerns over the financial health of individual institutions, but rather that government officials should be particularly careful, even in a time of crisis, of describing their actions (and the rationales for such actions) in an accurate manner,” the report stated.

Treasury appeared to disagree with the assessment of the Special Inspector General of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SigTARP), saying “people may differ” on the phrasing of the original bailout announcements.

August 17, 2009

Five real estate lies

Filed under: Business — Tags: , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 4:41 pm

I’d say this article may currently be a case of good advice coming a bit late in the game, but real estate is cyclical and a new buying frenzy is coming someday. Maybe not anytime too soon, but it is coming.

All five of these falsehoods are worth taking to heart. I’m adding number one to this post because I know a number of people who totally fell into the trap of “I prequalified for this amount and by god I’m buying a house for that amount.” Those people now? Not feeling so good about pushing the top edge of their purchase time financial clout.

From the link:

1. Buy as much home as you can afford. Even after the breathtaking three-year decline in home prices, I still hear this mantra over and over. This line from a well-known TV realtor continues to ring in my head: “You qualified for a $295,000 mortgage and you should spend that.” When the budding buyer protests, the realtor responds with a curt, “You can’t get what you want for less.”

The home shopper is worried about going too deep into debt and the realtor wants her to party like its 2005. And we know all know how long that hangover’s lasted.

Here are the two reasons NOT to buy too much house. You could lose an amount of money that you cannot afford to lose. Yes, home prices can decline. Because homes are bought with large amounts of leverage, a small decline can wipe out your entire investment and then some. In buying too much house, that loss will be too great as a percentage of your income and savings.

Two, the minute your income declines you bought MORE house than you can afford. As soon as someone takes a 20% hit to their pay (easy if you’re in a commission-based job) or suffers a job loss, that house payment becomes beyond your means.

The basic concept of buying a modest home over renting is sound because of the forced savings. But overreaching and buying too much house is not wise. A bigger home is not a better investment.

July 9, 2009

Bush-era CIA lied to Congress

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 12:29 am

Disappointing but not surprising.

Guess someone owes Pelosi an apology. She’s annoying, but certainly called a spade a spade when accusing the CIA of dissembling.

From the link:

In a June 26 letter to Mr. Panetta discussing his testimony, Democrats said that the agency had “misled members” of Congress for eight years about the classified matters, which the letter did not disclose. “This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods,” said the letter, made public late Wednesday by Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, one of the signers.

In an interview, Mr. Holt declined to reveal the nature of the C.I.A.’s alleged deceptions,. But he said, “We wouldn’t be doing this over a trivial matter.”

April 9, 2009

Palin, a liar? No!

Filed under: Media, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 12:15 am

Given Sarah Palin’s track record with the truth, I’m going with Levi here.

From the second link (the first goes to a Daily Dish search for Sullivan’s comprehensive listing of Palin’s various prevarications):

Levi Johnston said during an interview on CBS’s “Early Show” that he moved into the governor’s house a few weeks before Bristol Palin gave birth to their child.

Palin’s camp has denied the claim, but Johnston insisted the governor is not telling the truth. “They said I didn’t live there,” he said. “I was like, ‘OK, well, whatever you want to call it. I had my stuff there.’”

Asked if the Palin was lying about him, Johnston simply said: “Yes.”

February 24, 2009

Richard Perle — a bit confused …

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 3:37 pm

… or a smoke-blowin’ ass monkey? You be the judge.

I’ve always found it amazing that once he bailed on the Bush 43 regime he’s gone somewhat unchallenged when making wild statements that could be generously called “truth challenged.”

From the link:

The “people who wound up in important positions” were key neoconservatives like Douglas Feith, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, and others, who had been openly calling for regime change in Iraq since the late 1990s and who used their positions in the Bush administration to make the case for war after 9/11, aided by a chorus of sympathetic pundits at places like the American Enterprise Institute, and the Weekly Standard. The neocons were hardly some secret cabal or conspiracy, as they were making their case loudly and in public, and no serious scholar claims that they “bamboozled” Bush and Cheney into a war. Rather, numerous accounts have documented that they had been openly pushing for war since 1998 and they continued to do so after 9/11. As neoconservative pundit Robert Kagan later admitted, he and his fellow neoconservatives were successful in part because they had a “ready-made approach to the world” that seemed to provide an answer to the challenges the U.S. faced after 9/11.

The bottom line is simple: Richard Perle is lying. What is disturbing about this case is is not that a former official is trying to falsify the record in such a brazen fashion; Perle is hardly the first policymaker to kick up dust about his record and he certainly won’t be the last. The real cause for concern is that there are hardly any consequences for the critical role that Perle and the neoconservatives played for their pivotal role in causing one of the great foreign policy disasters in American history. If somebody can help engineer a foolish war and remain a respected Washington insider — as is the case with Perle — what harm is likely to befall them if they lie about it later?

(Hat tip — Cato-at-Liberty)

October 3, 2008

Post veep debate the DNC puts out “count the lies” release

If the GOP version hits my inbox it’ll go up as well.

The full press release:

Democratic National Committee – Post Debate Update: ‘Count the Lies’ Total Tops 100 After 22 New Debate Fact Checks

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Democratic National Committee today updated the Count the Lies counter to reflect the 22 new fact checks published during and after last night’s Vice Presidential candidates’ debate.  According to independent, non-partisan fact check organizations Sarah Palin repeated “old canards” on energy, repeated “several false claims” on taxes, got the facts wrong on troops levels in Iraq, made health care claims that are “inaccurate on several levels” and distorted her own record in Alaska.

(Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080519/DNCLOGO )

With these new articles, no fewer than 103 fact checks have been published debunking McCain-Palin campaign lies since he promised to run a respectful campaign in February. Visit www.democrats.org/CountTheLies to see the updated Count the Lies counter.

New York Times: Palin Health Care Claim “Inaccurate On Several Levels.” “Ms. Palin castigated Mr. Obama’s health care plan as one that would be mandate a ‘universal government-run’ system in which health care is ‘taken over’ by the federal government. This is inaccurate on several levels. Mr. Obama’s proposal includes an option for people to choose a new public plan with benefits similar to what members of Congress and other federal employees currently have. It also includes an expansion of Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, but it is not at all exclusively government-run. Mr. Obama’s plan also only mandates that children, not adults, have coverage. [New York Times, 10/2/08: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/check-point-the-vice-presidentia l-debate/]

FactCheck.org: Palin Health Care Claim “False.”  “Palin said that Obama’s plan would be ‘government run’ and would mandate health care. The first claim is false, as we’ve said before. Obama’s plan would increase the offerings of publicly funded health care, but would not replace or remove private insurance, or require people to enroll in a public plan. The second claim leaves out important information. Obama’s plan would mandate health coverage for children, but not for adults.” [FactCheck.org, 10/2/08: http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/10/02/socialized-medicine/]

Politifact.com: Obama’s Plan Does Not Call For Government-Run Health Care. “At the vice presidential debate in St. Louis, Mo., Sarah Palin defended John McCain’s health care plan and criticized Barack Obama’s. Obama has a plan ‘to mandate health care coverage and have a universal government run program,’ Palin said. ‘And unless you’re pleased with the way the federal government has been running anything lately, I don’t think that it’s going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the feds.’ Problem is, Obama’s plan keeps the free-market health care system intact, particularly employer-based insurance. It is not a government-run program and is very different from the health care systems run by the government in some European countries… So Palin is mostly wrong about Obama’s plan having a mandate; it only has one for children. He would like it to be universal at some point. She also emphasized that Obama proposes government-run health care, a statement that is completely inaccurate.” [POLITIFACT.com, 10/2/08: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/765/]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Palin Claim That Biden Supported McCain Policies “Flatly False.”  “Sarah Palin just asserted that Sen. Joseph Biden backed John McCain’s military policies until this presidential race. That is flatly false. Biden was an outspoken opponent of President Bush’s troop increases in Iraq as soon as Bush announced them after the 2006 elections. As Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, he led the most heated hearings before the troops were actually deployed.” [Washington Post Fact Checker Blog, 10/02/08: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/]

FactCheck.org: Palin Repeats “Old Canard” About Energy Bill.  “Palin threw out an old canard when she criticized Obama for voting for the 2005 Energy bill, saying, “that’s what gave those oil companies those big tax breaks.” It’s a false attack Clinton used against Obama in the primary and McCain himself has hurled. It’s true that the bill gave some tax breaks to oil companies, but it also took away others. And according to the Congressional Research Service, the bill created a slight net increase in taxes for the oil industry.” [FactCheck.org, 10/2/08: http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/10/02/2005-energy-bill-deja-vu/]

AP: Despite Claiming to Have “Taken On” the Oil Industry, Palin on Same Side As American Petroleum Institute, Big Oil on Key Issues.  “PALIN: Claimed she has taken on the oil industry as Alaska governor. THE FACTS: Palin pushed to impose a windfall profits tax on oil companies and distributed the proceeds to the state’s citizens to offset rising energy costs. However, she has also sided with the industry on a number of issues. She sued the Interior Department over its designation of polar bears as an endangered species. That puts her on the same side as the American Petroleum Institute, the oil industry’s chief trade association. She also supports the industry’s desire to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – a position at odds with McCain.” [AP, 10/02/08: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEBATE_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AZTUS&SECTION=HO ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT]

AP: Palin Exaggerates Pipeline Claim.  “PALIN: Said Alaska is ‘building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline, which is North America’s largest and most expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets.’ THE FACTS: Not quite. Construction is at least six years away. So far the state has only awarded a license to Trans Canada Corp., that comes with $500 million in seed money in exchange for commitments toward a lengthy and costly process to getting a federal certificate. At an August news conference after the state Legislature approved the license, Palin said, ‘It’s not a done deal.'” [AP, 10/02/08: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEBATE_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AZTUS&SECTION=HO ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Palin Overstates Impact of Increased Oil Production. “Gov. Palin suggested that the nearly $700 billion the U.S. spends a year on imported oil could be replaced by domestic sources. CNNMoney.com took estimates from various government agencies to conclude that crude oil production could be increased at most between 1 and 3 million barrels per day, on top of the 5 million barrels a year already produced domestically. The United States currently consumes about 20 million barrels annually, so an expansion of domestic drilling would make barely a dent in that amount unless consumption also is reduced.” [Washington Post Fact Checker Blog, 10/02/08: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/]

ABC News: Palin “Got Her Facts Wrong” on Homeowner Protections.  “Sarah Palin got her facts wrong in Thursday’s debate with Joe Biden when discussing where John McCain stands on new protections for homeowners facing foreclosures. The Alaska governor incorrectly made it sound like McCain supports giving bankruptcy judges the power to rewrite mortgage payment terms on first homes. He doesn’t.” [ABC News, 10/03/08: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/10/palin-misstates.html]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Palin Falsely Says Troops are Now at Pre-Surge Levels.  “Gov. Sarah Palin was erroneous when she claimed U.S. troop levels in Iraq are now at ‘pre-surge’ levels. When President Bush announced last month that he would withdraw an additional 8,000 U.S. troops over the coming months, he committed to leaving at least 138,000 troops in the country at the end of his presidency, 3,000 more than there were before the troop increases known now as ‘the surge.'”  [Washington Post Fact Checker Blog, 10/02/08: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/]

CNN: Palin Surge Claim “False.” “During the vice-presidential debate in St. Louis on Thursday, Oct. 2, Republican nominee Gov. Sarah Palin criticized Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama’s opposition to the military ‘surge’ in Iraq and said, ‘The surge worked. Barack Obama still can’t admit the surge works.’ …The Verdict: False. Obama has said the surge “succeeded beyond our wildest dreams” from a military perspective.” [CNN.com. 10/2/08: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/02/fact-check-is-it-true-obama-st ill-cant-admit-the-surge-works/]

Fact Check.org: Obama Did Not Vote Against Troop Funding. “Palin repeated the claim that Obama “voted against funding our troops.” The claim refers to a single 2007 vote against a war funding bill. Obama voted for a version of the bill that included language calling for withdrawing troops from Iraq. President Bush vetoed it. (McCain supported that veto, but didn’t call it “vetoing support for our troops.”) What Obama voted against was the same bill without withdrawal language. And he had voted yes on at least 10 other war funding bills prior to that single 2007 no vote.” [FactCheck.org, 10/2/08: http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/10/02/obama-voted-against-troop-funding/]

AP: Palin Claim About Troop Levels in Iraq “Not Correct.”  “PALIN: Said the United States has reduced its troop level in Iraq to a number below where it was when the troop increase began in early 2007.  THE FACTS: Not correct. The Pentagon says there are currently 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about 17,000 more than there were before the 2007 military buildup began. PALIN: ‘Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell.’  THE FACTS: Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska led an effort in 2005 to tighten regulation on the mortgage underwriters – McCain joined as a co-sponsor a year later. The legislation was never taken up by the full Senate, then under Republican control.” [AP, 10/02/08: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEBATE_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AZTUS&SECTION=HO ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Palin Tax Hike Claims “Untrue.” “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin signaled early she would go after Barack Obama all night on the charge that he had voted 94 times to either raise taxes or fight against tax cuts.  Fact check.org, a non-partisan watchdog, has analyzed the charge. Of the 94, 23 of those votes were indeed votes against proposed tax cuts. Eleven of them were increases on families earning over $1 million to help fund programs such as Head Start and school nutrition. And 53 were on non-binding budget resolutions that foresaw allowing tax cuts to expire as scheduled. Such out-year projections are meaningless, since non-binding budgets are passed each year.  Fact.check.org ruled the claim misleading.  On another point, Palin said a tax hike that hits earners over $250,000 would hit ‘millions of small businesses.’ That is untrue. The vast majority of small businesses barely break even and do not pay the top tax brackets. To get that figure, Republicans count affluent taxpayers who claim some income from some small business income as ‘small businessmen.'” [Washington Post Fact Checker Blog, 10/02/08: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/]

Washington Post Fact Checker: Palin Repeats False Tax Hike for Families Making $42,000 Claim.  “Sarah Palin repeated John McCain’s claim that Barack Obama voted to increase taxes for every American earning more than $42,000 a year. This is a considerable stretch. Obama voted for a non-binding budget resolution that laid down general budgetary guidelines based on the assumption that the Bush tax cuts will expire, as scheduled, in 2011. The budget resolution did not represent a vote to raise taxes. Obama has said that he is in favor of continuing the Bush tax cuts for all but the wealthiest Americans.” [Washington Post Fact Checker Blog, 10/02/08: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/]

FactCheck.org: Palin Got Troop Levels “Wrong.” “Palin got her numbers wrong on troop levels when she said that troops were now down to “pre-surge” levels. The surge was announced in January 2007, at which point there were 132,000 troops in Iraq according to the Brookings Institute Iraq Index. As of September 2008, that number was 146,000. President Bush recently announced that another 8,000 would be coming home by February of next year. But that would still be 6,000 more than when the surge began.” [FactCheck.org, 10/2/08: http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/10/02/troop-levels-off/]

FactCheck.org: Palin Repeats “Several False Claims” on Taxes.  “Palin repeated several false claims about Obama’s tax policies. Obama did not in fact vote to increase taxes on “families” making as little as $42,000 per year. What Obama actually voted for was a budget resolution that called for returning the 25 percent tax bracket to its pre-Bush tax cut level of 28 percent. That could have affected an individual with no children making as little as $42,000. But a couple would have had to earn $83,000 to be affected and a family of four at least $90,000. Palin also repeated the exaggeration that Obama voted 94 times to increase taxes. That number includes seven votes that would have lowered some taxes, 23 that were against tax cuts, and 17 that came on just seven different bills. And finally, it’s false that Biden and Obama voted for ‘the largest tax increase in history.’ Palin is referring here to the Democrats’ 2008 budget proposal, which would indeed have resulted in about $217 billion in higher taxes over two years. That’s a significant increase. But measured as a percentage of GDP, the yardstick that most economists prefer, the 2008 budget proposal would have been the third-largest since 1968, and it’s not even in the top 10 since 1940.” [FactCheck.org, 10/2/08: http://wire.factcheck.org/2008/10/02/tax-distortions/]

New York Times: Palin’s Small Business Tax Hike Claim Overstated. Ms. Palin said “millions of small businesses” would pay higher taxes under Mr. Obama’s tax plan, pointing to the increases for “those making $250,000 a year or more.” Mr. Obama’s plan would affect couples making more than $250,000 or singles making more than $200,000. Many small-business owners actually pay taxes as individuals, not as corporations. But Factcheck.org cited a projection by the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center that 663,608 taxpayers with business income would fall into the top two tax brackets in 2009 and, therefore, be affected by the Obama tax plan. Not all of these, however, would be properly considered “small business owners.” Some are simply those who get income in from real-estate partnerships or other investment arrangements. In other words, the actual number of small businessmen who would be affected by Obama tax plan is likely even smaller than that number, not “millions.” [New York Times, 10/2/08: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/check-point-the-vice-presidentia l-debate/]

New York Times: Palin Increased Wasilla Sales Tax.  “Governor Palin said she reduced taxes when she was mayor of Wasilla, from 1996 to 2002. The city did eliminate property taxes, but she also pushed through a half-cent sales tax increase to pay for a $15 million sports complex. That increase followed a 2-cent sales tax initiated by her predecessor that helped the city expand its police force and pay for other new services. Ms. Palin also said she eliminated a business inventory tax. She did, and that move is credited with bringing many large chain stores to Wasilla.”  [New York Times, 10/2/08: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/check-point-the-vice-presidentia l-debate/]

New York Times: On Taxes, Palin “Made Claims About Senator Obama’s Policies That Are Not Correct. “In addressing the issues of taxes, Governor Palin has made claims about Senator Obama’s policies that are not correct. She revived, for example, an accusation that he and Mr. Biden voted “for the largest tax increases in U.S. history” and also charged that he would raise taxes “for those families making only $42,000 a year. Mr. Obama voted twice this year in favor of a budget resolution that would have allowed the tax cuts that President Bush pushed through Congress in 2001 and 2003 to expire at the end of 2010, as the original law mandated. But that, by the definition of the Congressional Budget Office and other tax experts, does not constitute a tax increase. The resolution, if not accompanied by other tax changes, envisages an increase in taxes for an individual earning $42,000 a year who has no dependents and owns no real estate. But it would not apply to a family. Indeed, estimates are that a family of four making as much as $90,000 would not see a tax increase.”  [New York Times, 10/2/08: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/check-point-the-vice-presidentia l-debate/]

AP: Palin Repeats “Dubious Count” of Tax Votes.  “PALIN: Said of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama: ’94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction.’ THE FACTS: The dubious count includes repetitive votes as well as votes to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them on the rich. An analysis by factcheck.org found that 23 of the votes were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all, seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, 11 would have increased taxes on only those making more than $1 million a year.” [AP, 10/02/08: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/D/DEBATE_FACT_CHECK?SITE=AZTUS&SECTION=HO ME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT]

New York Time: Palin’s Claim About McCain on Fannie and Freddie Not Accurate. “Gov. Sarah Palin boasted that Mr. McCain ‘sounded that warning bell’ about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, echoing some of Mr. McCain’s recent comments in which he portrayed himself as being on the vanguard in warning about the impending financial crisis. Ms. Palin was referring to Mr. McCain’s decision in 2006 to sign on as a co-sponsor of a Senate bill that would have overhauled regulations governing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. But the legislation was introduced more than 16 months earlier and the debate over the issue had been going on for some time. He also only added his name after an oversight agency issued a lengthy report condemning practices at Fannie Mae.” [New York Times, 10/2/08: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/02/check-point-the-vice-presidentia l-debate/]

Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, www.democrats.org.

This communication is not authorized by any candidate or candidate’s committee.

Photo:  http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20080519/DNCLOGO
AP Archive:  http://photoarchive.ap.org/
PRN Photo Desk photodesk@prnewswire.com
Source: Democratic National Committee
   
Web Site:  http://www.democrats.org/

September 23, 2008

Palin’s twelve lies

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — David Kirkpatrick @ 10:26 am

Andrew Sullivan does a bang-up job of listing 12 demonstrable lies from McCain’s veep pick.

There’s a lot of stuff, both true and not, swirling around Sarah Palin, and the approach Team McCain has taken by sequestering her away from the horse race press isn’t helping matters.

This list cuts through the BS and uncovers twelve actual, factual lies told by a person John McCain wants to put his lack of a pulse away from the presidency of the United States. That decision alone disqualifies him in my mind. The most cynical and unserious act ever from a presidential nominee from any US political party.

The list of twelve (with links) from the Daily Dish link:

– She has lied about the Bridge To Nowhere. She ran for office favoring it, wore a sweatshirt defending it, and only gave it up when the federal congress, Senator McCain in particular, went ballistic. She kept the money anyway and favors funding Don Young’s Way, at twice the cost of the original bridge.

– She has lied about her firingof the town librarian and police chief of Wasilla, Alaska.

– She has lied about pressure on Alaska’s public safety commissioner to fire her ex-brother-in-law.

– She has lied about her previous statements on climate change.

– She has lied about Alaska’s contribution to America’s oil and gas production.

– She has lied about when she asked her daughters for their permission for her to run for vice-president.

– She has lied about the actual progress in constructing a natural gas pipeline from Alaska.

– She has lied about Obama’s position on habeas corpus.

– She has lied about her alleged tolerance of homosexuality.

– She has lied about the use or non-use of a TelePrompter at the St Paul convention.

– She has lied about her alleged pay-cutas mayor of Wasilla.

– She has lied about what Alaska’s state scientists concluded about the health of the polar bear population in Alaska.

You cannot trust a word she says. On anything.