I have thought about this long and hard, and analyzed the dialogues I have had with 'the other side'. It is a collision of values and frames of reference. We see the search of objective truth and objective 'fact' to be among the highest aspirations. They see allegence to a trusted leader to be the highest aspiration. If the trusted leader says they told congress no thanks, you can take it to the bank. Every democrat, liberal, or journalist who shows evidence to the contrary is simply blinded by their own political prejudice--and they are not to be trusted because they are not the annointed bearers of Truth.

Many of these people believe in the infallibility of the Bible, which, if one has spent any time acquainting ones with Biblical scholarship, is an evolutionary, political document that is also filled with many fables intended as teaching stories. And yet they believe every word of it as if it were literal fact.

Obviously, there is much truth to Aesop's Fables. But if someone actually believes that once there was a Fox who could not reach some grapes---well, let's not give them a grant to build a Hadron collider.

Many in the media today see siding with power as more lucrative than speaking truth to it.

Wonderful Post! You address the issue of character here, of temperament. And in the process you indict both McCain and his running mate. How important it is to have leaders who are trustworthy speakers and careful decision-makers.

You also allude to the importance of the press. How important it is that we can depend on receiving the accurate information we need to hold our leaders to a high standard.

I would add one more thing. The importance of truth-telling when it comes to the Oath of Office. Someone who takes that oath must be a person who honestly means what the oath says and intends to honestly carry out what the oath demands. In order to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, one must understand the Constitution. One must have that understanding in one's very bones, in one's words and one's actions - especially during a campaign. One must have that trustworthiness to carry out the Oath at the core of one's conscience.

c4Logic (above) notes the "anointed bearers of Truth" whom republicans seem to look to for guidance. And I would like to underscore that in our republic, leaders are not "anointed," as kings are. They must earn the mantle of leadership.

On the basis of all these qualities, the republican ticket is manifestly unfit for high office. And it is a national disgrace that the whole world is watching as an election plays out - with one party fielding individuals who are morally unfit for the offices they seek.

I hope and I pray - for the nation and the world - that sanity prevails as Americans go to the polls on Nov. 4.

The world is seeing how well propaganda works.

Ah yes, the Greenwald paradox. Why won't reporters hound politicians 24/7/365 to reveal everything, and make themselves persona non grata in the process? To him and Hundt it's unfathomable. Needless to say, it's the perspective of someone that doesn't have to acquire information, just critique those that do.

More importantly, if Bill or Hillary Clinton were running, would this column have been written? Of course not. When the Clintons are involved, lying is SOP, and that's just fine for their fans.

But America has chosen liars to be our leaders; the most obvious example was Bush in 2004 and you would think that example would cause McCain’s support to collapse. But I can think of couple of reasons why some people would continue to support a leader who lies to them.

1) Unconsciously they want to be lied to, the truth is too painful to confront head-on. The right cannot confront the reality of the destruction that Bush has waged on the country nor do they want to confront the reality of peak oil or global warming. The worse things get the more they need to be lied to.

2) Lying in a campaign is a metaphor for Presidential ruthlessness. This could be true for non-ideological voters with a singular priority of self-interest who would only vote for a President who mirrors their own ruthlessness. If they want a President to be ruthless on their behalf they may want to believe he would lie for them as well.

That said I don’t think his credibility can be maintained for a majority of voters for the next two months.

Lying is bearing false witness.

It can get you kicked out of the Naval Academy

It can get you called before the mast, or courts martialed in the Navy

It can get you tried for perjury in a court of Law or a deposition.

It can get you indicted if you lie on your IRS forms.

It can get you fired on the job.

We teach our children not to lie. We encode it in our honor system. Lying is a breach of trust. It is a betrayal of 'good faith'. How can you trust a leader who lies to you to gain your consent, and your support? McCain and Palin break faith with you ever time they lie to you. Why is this acceptable? How can so many voters support this? Especially 'values voters'?

Every one here is correct, but I would add

that families in the suburbs or folks in smaller towns (Wasilla notwithstanding) do not see the need for big government or taxation or big city politicians. Politicians lie all the time. Therefore they cast their vote, if at all, for the more conservative of the two who promises them smaller government. And you know what? If McCain wins, their lives won't look a whole lot different (or so they've convinced themselves) than they do now.