Why did Sarah Palin and John McCain 'stretch the truth' at the RNC convention, and will it hurt or help Obama?

There were even more lies than were discussed in that article.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aqphu...

It's funny because there was a similar article fact-checking the DNC (as illustrated by johnnydangerously59), and on pretty much every point the fact check concluded "yeah, that's basically correct". On the RNC it was like "this is grossly exaggerated and this one is a whopper of a lie, etc."

As for why they 'stretched the truth' (a.k.a. exaggerated and lied), they're trying to defend the choice of a woman who is clearly not qualified to be vice president of the USA. To do that, they exaggerate her qualifications and attack Obama by lying about him. Desperate times call for desperate measures.

As for whether it will hurt or help Obama, that's up to the American people. If most Americans base their votes on the issues and the Republicans are lying about (or simply not addressing), then it helps Obama. If most Americans base their votes on a fair assessment of character, then the GOP's willingness to exaggerate and lie will help Obama.

However, if people are looking for a reason to support McCain and/or not vote for Obama, and they're willing to ignore the 'stretching of the truth', then this hurts Obama. This certainly applies to many Republicans. After all, we saw how effective the Swiftboating was in 2004.

The question is, have American voters learned anything from the past 8 years.

LCY - read the quote next time before insulting other people.

MIKE HUCKABEE: Palin "got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska..."

That is a whopper of a lie.

I'm not sure if it they were all true statements and accusations but Palin made some good points. And who cares if her daughter gets knocked up. Don't criticize her, she didn't impregnate her daughter, therefore she isn't responsible. Sorry Dems, that's not enough to try to destroy her credibility. But I guess Dems think she is a "nut job" compared to Biden who has a criminal for a son. I'm sure that 80% approval rating of Palin in Alaska means nothing to them and that 10% approval rating of the Democratic Congress doesn't either.

.how did she stretch the truth?

We all know what she said is nothing but the truth.

Get a life on the comparing votes. How stupid!

You missed out one fact... that she got 114,697 votes running for governor in 2006. Nice try!!

Don't accuse people of lying if you're ignorant. We're not like you guys, a bunch of liars, spread rumors for your gain... very low

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

She didn't stretch the truth anymore then Democrats have.

It's politics sad but It's the way all parties act.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecki...

FactChecking Obama

August 29, 2008

He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them.

Summary

We checked the accuracy of Obama's speech accepting the Democratic nomination, and noted the following:

* Obama said he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” That’s wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain’s, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.

* He twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.

* He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

* Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."

* Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would "tax people’s benefits" but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.

* He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.

* Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.

Analysis

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accepted his party's nomination Aug. 28, speaking before more than 84,000 people in Denver's Mile High football stadium. Some of his comments were worthy of a ref's yellow flag.

Not Quite Every Dime

Obama reassured voters that he can pay for all his spending proposals:

Obama: Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow.

obama_convention_speechThis is misleading. Even by his own campaign’s estimates, closing corporate loopholes and tax havens won’t pay for all of Obama’s new plans. In July, the campaign told the Los Angeles Times that they estimate the yearly cost of their proposed tax cuts at $130 billion. They put revenue from closing tax loopholes at just $80 billion. Obama also proposes to raise taxes to pre-Bush levels for families earning more than $250,000 a year and singles making more than $200,000, yielding additional revenue. But he didn't mention that in his speech.

But Obama’s claim is misleading on another level. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, "without substantial cuts in government spending" Obama’s plan – and McCain's, too – "would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years." Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor told FactCheck.org that the Tax Policy Center's analysis "fails to take in account Senator Obama's spending cuts, including ending the Iraq war." That's true, but Obama's proposed cuts are dwarfed by the Tax Policy Center's projected deficits. Obama’s new spending programs might be completely offset by new revenue and spending cuts. But overall spending will still exceed overall revenue, and the nation would face at least 10 more years of annual deficits.

Afghan Muddle

Obama twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, incorrectly implying that McCain saw no need for more troops there.

Obama: When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11

Actually, McCain said in 2003 that the U.S. "may" muddle through, not that weobama_convention could or would. He also said he was very concerned about a rise in al Qaeda activity there. He said then that he was "guardedly optimistic" that the government could handle it.

McCain, 2003: I think Afghanistan is dicey. I think that there are certain areas of the country, particularly along the Pakistani border, that are clearly not under the control of either Pakistan or the Afghan government. ... There has been a rise i

Not worth a response. Look in the Obama and democratic/liberal mirror to get your answer.

It's called taking a page from the DNC Handbook, since it's ok for Democrats to lie thru their teeth it obviously must be ok for others to fib just a little

Because they have nothing else to say, if they told the truth no one would vote for them