Matthews: “I have never in my life seen a party run from its own record like the republicans have…

Where’s the President of the United States? The country’s worried like hell. Where is he?”

“…has outright lied, about his opponent”

From Ruth Marcus, Washington Post:

And it is a phony evenhandedness, comfortable for journalists but ultimately misleading, that equates these failures without measuring the grossness of their deviation from the standard of decency.

In the 2008 race, and especially in the past few weeks, the imbalance has become unnervingly stark. Ideological differences aside, John McCain’s campaign has been more dishonest, more unfair, more — to use a word that resonates with McCain — dishonorable than Barack Obama’s.

She continues:

He — the easy out would be to say “his campaign” — has been misleading, and at times has outright lied, about his opponent. He has misrepresented — that’s the charitable verb — his vice presidential nominee’s record. Called on these fouls, he has denied and repeated them.

The most outrageous of McCain’s distortions involve Obama on taxes. He asserts that Obama’s new taxes could “break your family budget,” and that an Obama presidency would inflict “painful tax increases on working American families.” Hardly. Obama would lower taxes for most households, and lower them more than McCain would. The only “painful tax increases on working American families” would be on working families making more than $250,000.

Likewise, the McCain campaign has its story about Sarah Palin, and it’s sticking with it — facts be damned. She said “thanks but no thanks” to that “Bridge to Nowhere,” except that she didn’t: She backed the bridge until it was unpopular, then scooped up the money and used it for other projects. More than a year after McCain began railing against the bridge, Palin, then a gubernatorial candidate, said the state should build it “now — while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”

Palin sold the gubernatorial jet, on eBay and for a profit — except that she didn’t. She didn’t take earmarks as governor — except for the $256 million she sought last year, and the $197 million wish list for 2008.

Finally:

Sitting on the couch with the women of “The View” last week, McCain offered a litany of excuses for his conduct this time around: Obama’s ads are hard-hitting, too. The tone wouldn’t be so negative if Obama had agreed to more debates. McCain’s own lipstick comment was different because he was referring to health care.

You had to wonder: Are there any corners left for McCain? Is there any reason to trust that a man running this campaign would go on to be an honest president?

CNN Takes the lead in Debunking McCain / Palin Lies in Back-to-back reports:

Obama wants to teach sex to kindergarteners? Lie.

Palin opposed the Bridge to Nowhere? Lie.

Palin hasn’t taken earmarks as Governor? Lie.

Alaska produces 20% of America’s energy? Lie.

Palin visited Iraq and Ireland? Lie.

From Darrel West:

Despite these historical precedents, the 2008 campaign has reached all-time lows in the use of misleading and inaccurate political appeals. Even Karl Rove, the architect of negative ads in previous campaigns, has complained about the tenor of this year’s campaign.

And:

And:

This imbalance has caused some soul-searching and second-guessing in newsrooms as reporters realize they are being successfully manipulated by the McCain campaign. “Stop the madness,” said TIME’s own Mark Halperin in an appearance on CNN to discuss the controversy. “I think this is the press just absolutely playing into the McCain campaign’s crocodile tears.”

By the weekend, many news organizations had mounted a backlash of their own, running prominent pieces accusing the self-branded “straight-talking” McCain of deceiving voters. “The ‘Straight-Talk Express’ has detoured into doublespeak,” announced the Associated Press, while the New York Times blared, “McCain Barbs Stirring Outcry as Distortions.”

And:

The backlash has not yet had an impact on voters’ perceptions of McCain’s credibility, though with the press emboldened, that could change.

And from CNN’s Report on this morning’s Palin-POW-wow in Ohio:

Palin’s claims aren’t exactly accurate: Obama would maintain the Bush tax cuts and offer tax breaks to individuals making under $250,000 a year. According to the non-partisan Center for Tax Policy, Obama’s tax plan would offer greater tax relief than McCain’s for low and middle-income earners, but McCain’s plan would lower the tax burden more across the board.

And this from TIME:

In the heat of a campaign, Schmidt understood that outrage could cut through the news clutter like a buzz saw. It didn’t matter much if the outrage was fueled by fact — better if it was fueled by emotion, which would tweak the fury of his base, leading to exciting exchanges on cable television and fresh chatter around the watercooler. Unlike health care or foreign policy, the emotional charge of outrage has a magnetic effect; voters are forced to take sides and respond, shifting the debate.

Now, four years later, Schmidt and the McCain campaign have returned to outrage, and there is little doubt that the tactic is again having the desired effect.

NYTimes Caucus Blog continues to focus on Puff Pieces while Economy Reels, and Elected Leaders Get Let Off the Hook

Biggest Economic Melt Down Since the Great Depression:

Meanwhile - let’s see what the NYTimes Politics Caucus Blog is covering:

NYTimes’ Caucus Blog has a long history of putting Puff at the top of the Page fold:

And:

Outstanding back-to-back editorials by one right-leaning, and one left-leaning NYTimes columnist:

I would have more sympathy for this view if I hadn’t just lived through the last eight years. For if the Bush administration was anything, it was the anti-establishment attitude put into executive practice.

According to the study: “The McCain plan will force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system — the nongroup market — where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and people will lose access to benefits they have now.”

And:

You would think that with some of the most venerable houses on Wall Street crumbling like sand castles right before our eyes, we’d be a little wary about spreading this toxic formula even further into the health care system.

But we’re not even paying much attention.

Updated:

In the Collins / Brooks Campaign Conversations today Brooks Gives fresh insight to the column;

At about 4 p.m. yesterday, I was working on an entirely different column when it struck me somehow that it was a total embarrassment. So I switched gears and wrote the one I published. I have no idea why I thought the first one was so bad — I was too close to it to have an objective view. But I reread it today and I was right. It was garbage. I’m not sure I would have had that instinctive sense yesterday if I hadn’t been struggling at this line of work for a while.