GOP official threatens to sue Messenger

After reading the press release, it sure sounds like there better be some verifiable evidence that this statement was made. It also had better be more than the "reporter's" notes (those can be made anytime, anyplace). As a truly undecided voter I hate it when either side makes claims that are either untrue, or unvarifiable. It only makes their candidate look bad. If this claim and the quote can be proven, then I will not vote Republican. If this claim can not be substantiated, a Democrat will not get my vote.

What a stupid criteria to use to make your choice. Honestly, I don't believe you.

You think it is stupid to not vote for a candidate if it is proven that his supporters make up lies? Not stretching the truth, but lies?

I'm glad I do not belong to either party then.

I don't believe that you don't belong to either party. You're going out of your way to keep saying that. If you really had this as your only criteria, you already would have decided not to vote for McCain. In fact, if this was your only criteria, you would have had to excuse yourself from every election in the history of the world. So, no, I think you're being completely disingenuous.

Well, believe what you like. I realize straight party people have a hard time believing that others can be open minded. I am a registered Independant. I have, and will continue to vote for a republican, democrat, or independant, based on the person running for the position. For example, I voted for John Anderson in 1980 since neither candidate appealed to me on the issues. I don't vote straight party tickets, never have and never will.

It is funny that no one has agreed with me that lying by supporters of a candidate is a bad thing. It's only "the other guy" lying that gets peoples panties in a bunch. I'm not saying this reporter lied, just asking for evidence to be brought forth to prove they didn't. If it was me, I would produce it for all to see to erase any shadow of a doubt that I was not 100% accurate.

I will make up my mind during the debates. Neither candidate has said what they will do so far. "Fix it" and "Change" are buzz words, not policies. I watched some of the party platform organizing on CSPAN and that is the closest that you get to what a candidates party actually wants to do.

For a forum that is supposed to be of the party of fairness and equality, I see as narrow a view here as on any Republican forum I've visited. Both parties have some quality people in them, and both parties have some that make you want to count your fingers after shaking their hands.

When ads stretch the truth about statements, or positions, it is easy enough for a person with intelligence to weed through the BS. When an ad makes things up, then it gets harder.

My original post said that I hope there is some evidence to back up the assertion made about what the GOP chairman said. I have had personal experience with talking to a reporter and then reading my quote the next day, and wondering if the person even listened to what I had said or not. A good reporter will be able to prove what was said. If they can't, and then the candidate and his/her party runs with that information without verification...I hold that candidate responsible.

As I posted before, I can see your point. I would submit to you that Obama hasn't "run with it" (to my knowledge, no campaign ads have been made). He's filed an action that will hopefully produce the proof you are looking for. I would submit to you that the response of the defendant here may be the closest you ever get to the truth before the election.
If they put forward a series of stalling motions, refuse to testify under oath, etc. that is probably as close to evidence of guilt as you'll get. If they were not planning this heinous and heartless scheme, they will have nothing to hide from this court action.

I would like to know how a "good reporter" can prove anything was said if there is no recording the entire conversation. I mean, if I was a reporter who was doing and "on the record" telephone interview, I would assume anything said in that interview was a public statement, and feel free to report those statements as quotes. I also know what you mean about seeing your own quotes in the paper the next day, but what do you mean by showing proof? A tape of the conversation? That all conversations must be taped, and that anything said in an interview is subject to the same standards of proof as a courtroom? That seems a pretty high bar.

@oneundecided
wait, wait, wait.
Let's think of the timeline here.
1. Paper comes out with a blockbuster story about Republican voter caging.
2. Obama's campaign files suit to determine the truth of the claims (subpoenas of evidence)
3. Republicans file suit against the paper for reporting it
4. You decide not to vote democratic??

I'm all for wanting to get to the facts, but I think you're not quite clear on who is trying to get those facts for you, and who is trying to keep them from being reported.

By the way, here's a partial list of "unverifiable" statements from both sides
"Thanks but no thanks" (Palin requested the earmark, then shut down the bridge project, but kept the money).
McCain's claim on Obama's "sex-ed" vote (actually a vote for protecting children against pedophiles)
Obama continued to claim McCain said "the fundamentals of the economy are sound" long after McCain stopped saying it. (But then McCain said it again just this week)

One of these candidates is taking a lot more liberties with the truth. That candidate once claimed that he would run an "honorable campaign" but is now blaming the other candidate for "making" him lie.

I guess you missed 1.5 GOP asked the Blog to retract the statement prior to the Obama Campaign filing their suit.

Do you agree that if this is not a madeup statement then it should be provable? I said I wouldn't vote Democratic if this was an outright lie, not an exaggeration.

Equally, I will not vote Republican if the statement was in fact made (and can be proved) and now the GOP chairman is lying when he says he never said it.

I don't need to hear about those other statements, those are out their to be scrutinized already, with facts that can be found and verified, which I have tried to do. That needs to be done in this case. Present the audio of the interview (almost all reporters use tape recorders).

It just looks to me that this is heading in the direction where no evidence will be provided, and people will be left to believe who they want to. That doesn't help me at all. I in no way support voter discrimination, and won't support those who do. I equally don't want to taken as a fool who will believe anything I read.

Hey, that's reasonable. After some of the high-profile media goofs, like Dan Rather's TANG letter and the NY Times choosing to push a sex scandal instead of the ACTUAL scandal of corruption I guess some in the media have earned our skepticism.

Unfortunately, it's a conversation on the phone, so it's impossible to verify without the evidence from Obama's court action. There is probably an email or two floating around where they discussed this and it will come out, unless it's been deleted.

The paper is not an arm of the Democratic party. They clearly lean left, but I think they are trying to simply report the news they can find themselves instead of running with the mainstream "barbecue" media herd, that John McCain once called "my base." I would attribute any perception of bias to Colbert's Maxim: "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."

What I'm trying to point out to you is that the paper came out with a story, and the Republican Party (who are typically strong advocates for "freedom of speech") is trying to shut it down, while the Obama campaign is providing the legal muscle to try to find out the truth. Of course, Obama stands to gain from that truth coming out, that's why he's doing it. But he's not pushing the story into the MSM yet, because it hasn't been confirmed yet.

The problem with basing your vote on the outcome of this is that it will either be proven true or remain unsubstantiated, and the latter is the more likely outcome. It's such a horrible allegation, I pray to god it's not true, although I'm sure my partisan leanings are clear. But you can't prove a negative; there will either be proof it was said, or no proof at all, and I don't think it's fair for you to *not* vote for Obama based on the lack of proof of wrongdoing on the part of his opponents.

Mblackburn......... I could not have said it better myself! You get the GOLD

Remember, McCain-Palin: A Bridge to Nowhere!

I, like oneundecided, am looking for integrity and honesty in these two candidates. I am fighting the inclination to disbelieve everything that comes out of McCain's mouth (and campaign), because like our President, he claims to have Judeo-Christian values. But our President's actions have proven to contradict his words. Looking at the ads being put out by the McCain camp, I'm beginning to see a similar pattern. I feel as if Obama is up front and at least I know where he is coming from--he doesn't try to hide behind saying and doing what he thinks the people want to hear. I will keep an eye on this story to see the outcome. Thank you for pointing out the fact that he (Obama) hasn't run with the story. You're right, there has been no ad. As a matter of fact, this is the first I'd heard of this. I believe, judging from past ads, that if it were turned around, McCain would have had the ad out there and would've asked questions later. It's that kind of integrity or lack of that has me leaning more to the Left. And by the way, I have never voted a straight party ticket either. I'm just tired of the smoke and mirrors of our politicians.