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.

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. 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 quite 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 your statement of basing your vote on the outcome of this is that it will either be proven true or remain unsubstantiated, and the latter is the highly 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.

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.