Democrat Presidential nominee BRCK BM is not telling the truth about American family incomes.

Here he was in Davenport, Iowa, on Monday:

“When Bill Clinton was President, in the ’90s, the average family income went up $6,000. Since George Bush has been in office, the average family income has gone down $1,000.”

He said the same thing a day earlier, on Aug 24: “Under George Bush, it has gone down $1,000. It is not just people’s imagination that they are feeling pinched. There is more money going out and less money coming in.”

On Tuesday, BRCK BM doubled the figure: “Since 2000, since George Bush took office, the average, typical family income has gone down $2,000. Typical family income has gone down $2,000. When Bill Clinton was president, the typical family income went up $6,200.”

That’s change you can believe in.

Er, maybe not so much.

According to the Census Bureau historical income tables, the median family income decreased only $272 between 2000 and 2007, not $1,000 or even $2,000.

And by “decreased only $272,” I actually mean increased by $272. In fact, the median family income has risen to the highest level in American history as of 2007 (the last recorded year), and I’m pretty sure George W. Bush was in office that year, not Bill Clinton.

And since Bush wasn’t actually in office in the year 2000, last time I checked, the median family income has actually risen $1,149 under his Presidency. Pretty remarkable, given that we also weathered a dot-com bust, a major terrorist attack, natural disasters and various other national and global financial disturbances in that span.

Why isn’t BRCK BM telling the truth?

• BRCK BM waited until everybody was asleep to send the text message?
• He sent it around 3a.m., which jabs Hillary Clinton and her supporters?
• Joe Biden represents change?
• BRCK BM picked somebody who said he would require on-the-job training?
• He waited until everyone else knew to inform his “first to know” supporters?

Heckofa job, BRCK BM.

It won’t be long before BRCK BM selects his running mate. On the off-chance he hasn’t made a firm decision yet, here are some suggestions from outside the mainstream that would mesh well with his message of HOPE, CHANGE and YES WE CAN:

Mary Winkler - This passionate family woman is wildly popular with religious voters and would bring some diversity to the ticket, helping to shore up disaffected Hillary Clinton supporters. Selecting her would be like sneaking up behind John McCain and fatally shooting him in the back, then unplugging the phone and driving to Florida (a key swing state).

Cap’n Crunch - This charismatic chap has high name recognition and could appeal to liberal kool-aid drinkers while being white-bread enough not to alienate moderates. He would also provide the military experience and candy marshmallows the Democratic ticket so severely lacks.

He Kexin - Though she’s only 14 years old, this little fellow citizen of the world would symbolize and herald the Utopian communist government desired by the presumptive Democratic nominee. She has dedicated her life to clinging to the parallel bars, rather than guns or God or negative attitudes about people who don’t look like her. And she has more experience than he does.

Memphis Liar Editor Bruce VanWyngarden picked the wrong day to stop sniffing glue:

The presidential race is starting to turn nasty — at least on one side. John McCain said last week that opponent Barack Obama was willing to “lose a war in order to win a campaign.” McCain also ran an ad falsely claiming that Obama canceled a meeting with wounded vets in Germany because “cameras weren’t allowed.” (This, even though McCain similarly had canceled an appearance with wounded vets this spring, also at the request of the Pentagon.)

First off, and this is an admittedly minor point, the McCain ad doesn’t make the direct claim Bruce reports. To be exact, the ad’s narrator says: “He made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras.” The ad certainly implies or suggests that BRCK BM canceled his visit because he wasn’t able to stage it as a campaign event, but the direct charge is not specified, and VanWyngarden also tampers with the quote: “cameras weren’t allowed.”

Second, I find no evidence for VanWyngarden’s assertion that McCain “canceled an appearance with wounded vets this spring.” According to CNN, “the Navy declined a McCain campaign request to speak at the Naval Aviation Museum at the naval base in Pensacola, Florida, because it is a military owned installation and is located on the base.” Unless there were wounded vets lined up to appear with McCain at the museum, VanWyngarden appears to be making a stretch.

Third, and most importantly, VanWyngarden falsely suggests that the Pentagon asked the Senators not to meet with wounded troops, when in fact it has simply asked both to make such appearances in an official, rather than a political, capacity.

The Dallas News quotes Pentagon Spokesman Bryan Whitman: “Nobody denied Senator Obama the opportunity to visit our wounded being cared for at Landstuhl. Obviously as a sitting senator he has an interest in that and can certainly visit in an official capacity… The senator’s staff was informed of the limits on what the military can do with respect to a political campaign and how we could support a senator’s visit to Landstuhl, and quite frankly I expected them to have the visit.”

According to BRCK BM’s own campaign statement, canceling the event was a decision of his own choosing:

“The senator decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign.”

I’m willing to give BRCK BM the benefit of the doubt and take him at his word on this one, but McCain’s campaign is certainly free to reach a different conclusion, particularly in light of the larger context of BRCK BM’s campaign.

VanWyngarden continues his editorial with an analysis of McCain’s appearance on CNN’s The Situation Room, in which he repeated his vow to capture Osama bin Laden or otherwise “bring him to justice.”

Blitzer asked how McCain was going manage such a feat when President Bush hadn’t been able to do it in seven years.

This is an unexpected and welcome departure from the Leftist mantra that President Bush took his eye off the ball, but unfortunately it’s the only line approaching reasonable criticism in the whole editorial.

Of course, a few days earlier, McCain had proclaimed himself worried about the situation on the nonexistent “Iraq/Pakistan border,” which would suggest he doesn’t know the area quite as well as he’d like us to think.

Yes, of course… but what VanWyngarden fails to mention is that McCain’s comment was, like the question that elicited it, about Afghanistan, which in fact does border Pakistan — suggesting not that he’s unfamiliar with the area, as VanWyngarden implies, but instead that McCain’s simply as prone as any politician to verbal gaffes and temporary geographic confusion.

Take, for example, BRCK BM, who forgot his home state of Illinois shared a border with Kentucky when talking about that state’s primary…

“Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.”

… and who at one point seemed to have discovered an additional eight states:

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.

VanWyngarden continues:

What got to me, though, was his assertion that he knew how to capture bin Laden but hadn’t bothered to share this magical information with the president, the CIA, or the Pentagon. He’s a U.S. senator, for heaven’s sake. Surely the president will take his calls.

Seems to me that McCain was dangling his secret plan to capture the world’s leading terrorist as an incentive for the American people to elect him president. “Elect me,” he appeared to be saying, “and I’ll get the bad guy.”

It’s nothing short of absurd to claim that McCain’s confidence in his own military experience, knowledge about warfare and determination to defeat Al Qaida somehow amounts to “magical information” that he has refused to share with the White House.

Yes, it’s unfortunate that McCain seems to be making the capture of Osama bin Laden a campaign promise, rather than simply expressing his desire and readiness to continue aggressively taking the fight to Al Qaida.

But at least he’s not promised to cure paralysis, a la John Edwards, or worse, control the land, sea and air, a la BRCK BM, who told the crowds in Berlin, “Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands.”

Huh. Sounds like he’d rather win a campaign than capture Osama bin Laden. Either that, or the “maverick” is full of, uh, non-straight talk.

The Memphis Liar certainly knows a thing or two about “non-straight talk.”

Cross-posted at MemphisLiar.com.

The New York Times rejected John McCain’s Op-Ed on Iraq, a rebuttal to one they published that was penned by BRCK BM.

One reason the Times was forced to reject McCain’s editorial is that it clearly puts shame to their endorsement of him in the Republican primary:

Mr. McCain was one of the first prominent Republicans to point out how badly the war in Iraq was being managed. We wish he could now see as clearly past the temporary victories produced by Mr. Bush’s unsustainable escalation, which have not led to any change in Iraq’s murderous political calculus. At the least, he owes Americans a real idea of how he would win this war, which he says he can do.

One need only skim McCain’s Op-Ed to discover how profoundly wrong the Times editors were about the surge, even as they endorsed the man who helped initiate it.

Ironically, rejecting McCain now is probably the best gift they could have given him.

UPDATE: Welcome, Times editors! (more…)

BRCK BM was interviewed for Face the Nation:

Logan: “What would be a ‘mission accomplished’ for you in Afghanistan?

Obama: “Well, a ‘mission accomplished’ would be that we had stabilized Afghanistan, that the Afghan people are experiencing rising standards of living, that we have made sure that we are disabling al-Qaeda and the Taliban so that they can [sic] longer attack Afghanistan, they can no longer engage in attacks against targets of Pakistan, and they can’t target the United States or its allies.”

Logan: “Losing is not an option?”

Obama: “Losing is not an option when it comes to al-Qaeda. And it never has been. And that’s why the fact that we engaged in a war of choice when were [sic] not yet finished with that task was such a mistake.”

Losing is not an option when it comes to al-Qaeda… except when it comes to al-Qaeda in Iraq. When it comes to al-Qaeda in Iraq, losing has always been an option, the only option BRCK BM will consider.

So take that, al-Qaeda! We will hunt you down and defeat you… unless you’re in Iraq. If you’re hiding, training or attacking people in Iraq, we cannot engage in a “war of choice” against you.

But otherwise, you’re pretty much targeted for destruction. And by destruction, we mean minimum security detention, full legal representation, all of the Geneva Convention rights, Habeas Corpus rights, three square meals and properly-handled, flush-proof Korans. And if you act up, we shall taunt you a second time.

We’re dead serious on this one, because we want a stable, progressing Afghanistan, where al-Qaeda is disabled and unable to target Americans and their allies. But what we absolutely don’t want is a stable, progressing Iraq where al-Qaeda is disabled and unable to target Americans and their allies.

Losing to al-Qaeda in Afghanistan is not an option, and neither is defeating al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Because MCHLL BM seemed to downplay the value of the (admittedly idiotic) $600 stimulus checks, blogger Sister Toldjah and the Tennessee GOP are wondering what you did with yours, and what someone could purchase with that money other than “a pair of earrings.”

Thanks to the Memphis Flyer and a host of leftists who went before them, we know that you can eat for a week on less than $23.72. Accordingly, your $600 stimulus check could feed you for more than 25 weeks — that’s 177 days, or nearly six months.

So, what can you do with your $600 stimulus check? You can buy half a year’s worth of groceries.

No word yet on whether Jesse wants to put in a microchip, treat him for fleas and cover his bones with adamantium. Updates as they develop.

See also: This excellent analysis by Nathan Moore.

Step 1. Open an account on electronic social networking platforms like Youtube and Facebook.

Step 2. Wear a Che Guevara t-shirt.

Step 3. Support a Presidential candidate whose campaign has a Youtube and Facebook account and whose staff and supporters display Che Guevara flags and posters alongside the candidate’s signs.

First, BRCK BM surrogate Wesley Clark said McCain would represent Bush’s Third Term, as if the Bush-McCain split isn’t legendary.

Now Gen. Clark says McCain doesn’t have enough military experience, as if there were any national politician with a more impressive story of service and dedication to this country.

Just to save Gen. Clark some time, let’s list a few more brilliant attacks he could make:

• Cast McCain as a political outsider who doesn’t understand the political process or know the major players.
• Point to McCain’s lack of legislative achievement in the Senate, his failure to make a mark on Congress, and his inability to reach bipartisan compromise.
• Say McCain is too conservative to appeal to moderates and Democrats, people like, oh, and I’m just pulling out a random name here, Joe Lieberman.
• Explain why his policies are unpopular with Hispanic voters.
• Accuse him of pork-barrel spending.
• Question his patriotism.

That should get you through the next few weeks, General.