Being a registered Republican, converted Entrepreneur, and having and uncomfortable obsession with the economy and economics in general... and this is the best guy we could find for me to vote for? The rest of you republicans who voted for this guy in the primary should be ashamed.
I'm going to have to write in my "God"-damned vote.
Count the Lies - McCainPedia
I'm going to have to write in my "God"-damned vote.
Count the Lies - McCainPedia
54 Fact Checks
Washington Post Fact Checker Blog: "The Woman Touted by John McCain as the Most Knowledgeable Person in America on Energy Issues has been Having a Lot of Trouble Getting Her Basic Energy Statistics Straight." "The woman touted by John McCain as the most knowledgeable person in America on energy issues has been having a lot of trouble getting her basic energy statistics straight. Last week, Sarah Palin told Charlie Gibson of ABC News that her state, Alaska, produced 'nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy.' Yesterday, she told a campaign rally in Golden, Colorado, that she had been responsible for overseeing 'nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas.' Both claims are way off." [Washington Post, 9/16/08: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/palin_on_energy.html]
New York Times: What's Spanish for 'Lies'? McCain Immigration Ad "A Gross Distortion." "Senator John McCain's truth-deficient campaign hit another low last Friday with a fraudulent new ad, this time about immigration. The ad, in Spanish, accuses Senator Barack Obama and his Congressional allies of killing immigration reform. It's a gross distortion." [New York Times, 9/15/08: http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/15/whats-spanish-for-lies/]
Salon: New McCain Ad Is False In Any Language. "It turns out John McCain can lie in Spanish, too. McCain's campaign is running a Spanish-language TV ad in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico that blames Barack Obama for the failure last year of a sweeping immigration reform bill. 'Obama and his Congressional allies say they are on the side of immigrants. But are they?' the ad asks. 'The press reports that their efforts were 'poison pills' that made immigration reform fail.' ... Obama may not have been as involved in drafting the immigration legislation as McCain once was (though McCain was on the campaign trail for most of 2007, and wasn't as involved as he once was, either). And yes, he may have backed some amendments that supporters disliked. But it was McCain who abandoned his own legislation after the Republican base rose up against it, and it was McCain (and the White House) who were unable to convince allies on their side of the aisle to change their minds about the bill. Blaming Obama for the failure of immigration reform is simply wrong, no matter what language you do it in." [Salon, 9/15/08: http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/15/mentirosa/index.html]
Washington Post Fact Checker: 4 Pinocchios for McCain Earmark Claim. "John McCain is trying to claim that black is white when he argues that his running mate, Sarah Palin, has not accepted earmarks as Governor of Alaska. While it is true that she has sought fewer earmarks than her predecessor, Governor Frank Murkowski, Alaska still leads the nation in terms of per capita spending on earmarks, according to Citizens Against Government Waste. ...I will give Governor Palin a pass this week, to mark her inaugural media outing. Four Pinocchios for McCain for his clumsy attempt to rewrite history." [Washington Post, 9/13/08: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/weekend_edition.html]
FactCheck.org: McCain Energy Claim "Not true. Not even close." Palin says Alaska supplies 20 percent of U.S. energy. Not true. Not even close. "Palin claims Alaska 'produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy.' That's not true.... It's simply untrue that Alaska produces anything close to 20 percent of the U.S. 'energy supply,' a term that is generally defined as energy consumed. That category includes power produced in the U.S. by nuclear, coal, hydroelectric dams and other means -- as well as all the oil imported into the country. ...Sen. John McCain has also has used this inflated, incorrect figure. On Sept. 3, McCain told ABC News' Gibson: 'McCain: Well, I think Americans are going to be very, very, very pleased. This is a very dynamic person. [Palin's] been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply.' McCain repeated the false figure more recently, in a September 11 interview with Portland, Maine, news station WCSH6." [FactCheck.org, 9/12/08: ]FactCheck.org
Bloomberg: McCain Campaign Misleading on Crowd Sizes. "McCain aide Kimmie Lipscomb told reporters on Sept. 10 that an outdoor rally in Fairfax City, Virginia, drew 23,000 people, attributing the crowd estimate to a fire marshal. Fairfax City Fire Marshal Andrew Wilson said his office did not supply that number to the campaign and could not confirm it. Wilson, in an interview, said the fire department does not monitor attendance at outdoor events...The campaign attributed that estimate, and several that followed, to U.S. Secret Service figures, based on the number of people who passed through magnetometers. 'We didn't provide any numbers to the campaign,' said Malcolm Wiley, a spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service. Wiley said he would not confirm or dispute the numbers the McCain campaign has given to reporters." [Bloomberg, 9/13/08: ]Bloomberg.com: Politics
New York Times: "Disrespectful" Ad Resorts to "Dubious Disregard for the Facts. "The advertisement is the latest in a number that resort to a dubious disregard for the facts. The nonpartisan political analysis group FactCheck.org has already criticized 'Disrespectful' as 'particularly egregious,' saying that it 'goes down new paths of deception,' and is 'peddling false quotes.' Even the title is troublesome. 'Disrespectful' is one of those words that is loaded with racial and class connotations that many people consider offensive." [New York Times, 9/13/08: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/us/politics/13madbox.html]
FactCheck.org: McCain Ad "Less Than Honest" About use of FactCheck.org: With its latest ad, released Sept. 10, the McCain-Palin campaign has altered our message in a fashion we consider less than honest. The ad strives to convey the message that FactCheck.org said "completely false" attacks on Sarah Palin had come from Sen. Barack Obama. We said no such thing. We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin. They call the ad "Fact Check." It says "the attacks on Gov. Palin have been called 'completely false' ... 'misleading.' " On screen is a still photo of a grim-faced Obama. Our words are accurately quoted, but they had nothing to do with Obama. [1]
FactCheck.org: A McCain-Palin TV ad accuses Obama of being "disrespectful" of Palin, but it distorts quotes to make the case. "The new McCain-Palin ad 'Lashing Out' begins like an earlier ad we criticized, with its reference to Barack Obama's celebrity, but then goes down new paths of deception. It takes quotes from news organizations and uses them out of context in an effort to portray Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, as unfairly attacking Sarah Palin and making sexist remarks. We've long been a critic of candidates (Obama included) usurping the credibility of independent news organizations and peddling false quotes, and this ad is particularly egregious." [FactCheck.org, 9/11/08: ]FactCheck.org
Five Ohio Papers: McCain 'maverick' ad inconsistent with facts. Palin was originally for the Alaskan "Bridge to Nowhere" while running for governor -- before she was against spending federal money to build it. She opposed the bridge only after it had become an embarrassment to the state and after $233 million in federal money earmarked for the bridge was diverted to other transportation projects in Alaska. In six of his 25 years in Congress, McCain voted for spending bills that included 12,763 pork-barrel earmarks worth more than $144.4 billion, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. Campaign finance reports also show Palin received significant support from oil industry executives, lobbyists or their wives during her 2006 election as governor and 2002 race for lieutenant governor. Her husband, Todd, is an oil fields production operator. [2]
Wall Street Journal Headline: "Record Contradicts Palin's 'Bridge' Claims." "The Bridge to Nowhere argument isn't going much of anywhere. Despite significant evidence to the contrary, the McCain campaign continues to assert that Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told the federal government 'thanks but no thanks' to the now-famous bridge to an island in her home state... But Gov. Palin's claim comes with a serious caveat. She endorsed the multimillion dollar project during her gubernatorial race in 2006. And while she did take part in stopping the project after it became a national scandal, she did not return the federal money. She just allocated it elsewhere." [Wall Street Journal, 9/9/08]
Chicago Tribune Blog: "The McCain-Palin Campaign Keeps Up the Misleading Line That She Was the Main Palyer in Taking Out the Bridge." "Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin keeps saying she stopped the infamous 'Bridge to Nowhere' in an attempt to burnish her credentials as a pork-fighting reformer. And reporters keep pointing out that her claim is exaggerated. Still, the McCain-Palin campaign keeps up the misleading line that she was the main player in taking out the bridge. And still reporters keep shedding light on the inexactness, to put it politely, of that claim. One of the latest journalistic efforts to separate fact from fiction comes from PolitFact, a service of the St. Pete Times and CQ. Yet, the McCain campaign has cut a TV ad that pushes the line that Palin stopped the bridge. It's as if they've decided to go with that first two parts of that famous Lincoln quote: 'You can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time...'" [Chicago Tribune Blog, 9/9/08]
Factcheck.org: Congress Had All But Killed Bridge to Nowhere When Palin Killed It, Was Sharp Turnaround From Position During Gubernatorial Campaign. "Palin may have said "Thanks, but no thanks" on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure." [FactCheck.org, 9/4/08]
Politifact: Palin's Stance On "The Bridge To Nowhere" Is "A Full Flop." Politfact, a service of CQ and the St. Petersburg Times wrote, "McCain said Palin has 'stopped government from wasting taxpayers' money on things they don't want or need. And when we in Congress decided to build a bridge in Alaska to nowhere for $233-million of yours, she said, we don't want it. If we need it, we'll build our own in Alaska. She's the one that stood up to them.' Nevermind that Alaska didn't give the money back. It spent the money on other transportation projects. The context of Palin's and McCain's recent statements suggest Palin flagged the so-called Bridge to Nowhere project as wasteful spending. But that's not the tune she was singing when she was running for governor, particularly not when she was standing before the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce asking for their vote. And so, we rate Palin's position a Full Flop." [Politifact]
AP FACT CHECK: Palin's Broader Story on the Bridge to Nowhere is "Misleading," Her Self-Description as a Champion of Earmark Reform "Is Harder to Square With the Facts." "Palin did abandon plans to build the nearly $400 million bridge from Ketchikan to an island with 50 residents and an airport. But she made her decision after the project had become an embarrassment to the state, after federal dollars for the project were pulled back and diverted to other uses in Alaska, and after she had appeared to support the bridge during her campaign for governor. McCain and Palin together have told a broader story about the bridge that is misleading. She is portrayed as a crusader for the thrifty use of tax dollars who turned down an offer from Washington to build an expensive bridge of little value to the state. 'I told the Congress 'thanks but no thanks' for that Bridge to Nowhere,' she said in her convention speech last week. That's not what she told Alaskans when she announced a year ago that she was ordering state transportation officials to ditch the project. Her explanation then was that it would be fruitless to try to persuade Congress to come up with the money... Her self-description as a leader who 'championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress' is harder to square with the facts." [AP, 9/8/08]
USA Today Adwatch Headline: "A Disconnect on Palin's Bridge Claim." "It's the claim that Palin 'stopped the 'Bridge to Nowhere' that sparked the dispute. The reference is to a proposed bridge to a remote Alaskan community that would have cost the U.S. government more than $200 million. Palin has said repeatedly that she told the federal government: 'Thanks, but no thanks.' As a candidate for governor, however, Palin supported the bridge." [USA Today, 9/8/08]
Anchorage Daily News Headline: "Palin Touts Stance on 'Bridge to Nowhere,' Doesn't Note Flip Flop." "When John McCain introduced Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate Friday, her reputation as a tough-minded budget-cutter was front and center. 'I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere,' Palin told the cheering McCain crowd, referring to Ketchikan's Gravina Island bridge. But Palin was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it. The Alaska governor campaigned in 2006 on a build-the-bridge platform, telling Ketchikan residents she felt their pain when politicians called them 'nowhere.' They're still feeling pain today in Ketchikan, over Palin's subsequent decision to use the bridge funds for other projects -- and over the timing of her announcement, which they say came in a pre-dawn press release that seemed aimed at national news deadlines. 'I think that's when the campaign for national office began,' said Ketchikan Mayor Bob Weinstein on Saturday." [Anchorage Daily News, 8/31/08]
Daily News Miner: Palin Supported Bridge to Nowhere, Later Kept the Money -- "That Was Hardly 'Thanks, But No Thanks.'" "In her introductory speech Friday as McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin picked up on the Ketchikan bridge that was never built as a symbol of bad federal policy... That is not how Palin described her position on the Gravina Island bridge when she ran for governor in 2006. On Oct. 22, 2006, the Anchorage Daily News asked Palin and the other candidates, 'Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?' Her response: 'Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now — while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.' Palin's support of the earmark for the bridge was applauded by the late Lew Williams Jr., the retired Ketchikan Daily News publisher who wrote columns on the topic... The money was not sent back to the federal government, but spent on other projects. That was hardly 'Thanks but no thanks.'" [Daily News Miner, 8/31/08]
TIME: "Palin Has Continued to Repeat the Already Exposed Lie" About Her Opposition to the Bridge to Nowhere. "Palin has continued to repeat the already exposed lie that she said, 'No, thanks,' to the famous 'bridge to nowhere' (McCain's favorite example of wasteful federal spending). In fact, she said, 'Yes, please,' until this project became a symbol and political albatross." [TIME Magazine, 9/9/08]
AP: Palin Supported Bridge, Later Abandoned Project But Used the Federal Money for Other Alaska Projects. "Palin voiced support for the bridge during her campaign to become Alaska's governor, although she was critical of the size, and later abandoned plans for the project. She used the federal dollars for other projects in Alaska." [AP, 9/9/08]
Washington Post's Kurtz: Palin's Assertion on Bridge to Nowhere a "Whopper." "The senator from Arizona has made a crusade of battling pork-barrel 'earmarks,' but the whopper here is the assertion that Palin opposed her state's notorious Bridge to Nowhere. She endorsed the remote project while running for governor in 2006, claimed to be an opponent only after Congress killed its funding the next year, and has used the $223 million provided for it for other state ventures." [Washington Post, Kurtz Column, 9/9/08]
New York Times: Ad on Sex Education Distorts Obama Policy. "The commercial also asserts that a sex-education bill introduced in Illinois, which Mr. Obama did not sponsor and which never became law, is his "one accomplishment" in the field of education. Both sets of accusations, however, seriously distort the record... It is a misstatement of the bill's purpose, therefore, to maintain, as the McCain campaign advertisement does, that Mr. Obama favored conventional sex education as a policy for 5-year-olds. Under the Illinois proposal, "medically accurate" education about more complicated topics, including intercourse, contraception and homosexuality, would have been reserved for older students in higher grades. The advertisement, then, also misrepresents what the bill meant by "comprehensive." The instruction the bill required was comprehensive in that it called for a curriculum that went from kindergarten and through high school, not in the sense that kindergarteners would have been fully exposed to the entire gamut of sex-related issues. [New York Times, 9/11/08: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/us/politics/11checkpoint.html]
Washington Post: Three Pinocchios for Education Ads. Nobody expects television ads to be fair and objective analyses of public policy. Almost by definition, the ads are partisan sales pitches, designed to promote one political brand while running down the rival brand. But they should not misrepresent the record of the other side and should clearly distinguish quotes from non-partisan news sources from standard political rhetoric. The McCain "education" ad fails this test. [Washington Post, 9/10/08: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/09/mccain_attacks_on_education.html]
AP: McCain Campaign's Charge That Obama Voted Against Troop Funding Is "Misleading." "The ad's most inflammatory charge — that Obama voted against troop funding in Iraq and Afghanistan — is misleading. The Illinois senator consistently voted to fund the troops once elected to the Senate, a point Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton made during the primaries when questioning whether his anti-war rhetoric was reflected in his actions." [AP, 7/18/08]
Factcheck.org: McCain Campaign's Attack On Obama's 2007 Supplemental Vote Is "Oversimplified To The Point Of Being Seriously Misleading." The Annenberg Public Policy Center's factcheck.org wrote, "Prior to the sole 2007 vote cited by the McCain campaign as justification for this ad, Obama voted for all war-funding bills that had come before the Senate since 2005, when he was sworn in. So did all other Senate Democrats, except for a few absences. As recently as April 2007, Obama voted in favor of funding U.S. troops again, but this time Democrats added a non-binding call to withdraw them from Iraq. McCain (who was absent for the vote) urged the president to veto that funding measure, because of the withdrawal language. President Bush did veto it, and McCain applauded Bush's veto. Based on those facts, it would be literally true to say that 'McCain urged a veto of funding for our troops.' But that would be oversimplified to the point of being seriously misleading, which is exactly the problem with McCain's ad. Furthermore, by saying that 'John McCain has always supported our troops,' the ad insinuates that Obama doesn't. But funding a war and supporting troops are not necessarily the same thing. If they were, we'd reiterate our point above, that both men expressed a willingness to see a war-funding bill killed unless it met their conditions. For the record, here are Obama's votes in favor of war funding bills. We count 10 votes on five separate measures." [FactCheck.org, 7/22/08]
FactCheck.org: Troops Ad Based on "False" Insinuation. "McCain's facts are literally true, but his insinuation - that the visit was canceled because of the press ban or the desire for gym time - is false. In fact, Obama visited wounded troops earlier - without cameras or press - both in the U.S. and Iraq." [Fact Check.org, 7/28/08: ]FactCheck.org
Washington Post Fact Checker: McCain Campaign Attacks on Obama Tax Plan "Overblown," "Wrong," and "Greatly Exaggerated." "The McCain camp is attempting to persuade Americans that their taxes will increase dramatically with Barack Obama as president. The presumptive Republican nominee has repeatedly said that Obama would enact 'the largest tax increase since the Second World War.' A surrogate, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, insists that Obama has not proposed 'a single tax cut' and wants to 'raise every tax in the book.' ... The claim that Obama will 'enact' the largest tax increase since World War II is also overblown. The Bush tax cuts will expire automatically at the end of 2010, so it is hardly a question of 'enacting' a new tax increase. ... Carly Fiorina is wrong to claim that Obama has proposed no tax cuts and wants to raise 'every tax in the book.' John McCain is on more solid ground when he claims that Americans from many different backgrounds could be affected by a rise in capital gains taxes, but he has greatly exaggerated the adverse impact." [Washington Post, 6/11/08]
Politifact: McCain's Statement That Obama's Tax Plan Would Raise Taxes Is "False." Politifact reported, "So calling it a tax increase might not be considered fair. There's no disputing that taxes will rise, but the question of who's responsible for that tax increase is another matter entirely. At PolitiFact, we've concluded, as have others, that it's unfair to call Obama's plan a tax increase merely because it doesn't change existing tax law to keep rates low. We think about it this way: The reason taxes will increase is because of tax policy signed into law not by Obama, but by somebody else... the more recent data — combined with the fact that Obama's proposal does not constitute a tax increase in the traditional sense, since some taxes would be lower under his plan than they would under current law — persuades us to classify McCain's statement as False." [Politifact, 6/11/08]
FactCheck.org: McCain's Claim That Obama Would Raise Tax Rates For 23 Million Small-Business Owners Is "A False And Preposterously Inflated Figure." "McCain has repeatedly claimed that Obama would raise tax rates for 23 million small-business owners. It's a false and preposterously inflated figure. We find that the overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000. McCain argues that Obama's proposed increase is a job-killer. He has a point. It's true that increasing taxes on those at the top would leave them less money for other purposes, including investment and hiring in the case of business owners. But the number of business owners who would see their rates go up would be only a small fraction of what McCain says. Many would see their taxes go down." [FactCheck.org, 7/14/08]
Independent Economists At The Tax Policy Center Came To The Conclusion That Obama's Tax Plan Offers A Net Tax Cut—Which Holtz-Eakin Has Repeatedly Used To Claim Obama's Plan Is "Fiscally Irresponsible." Michael Scherer of Time wrote, "So I want to make a few things clear. First, the Obama campaign calculates that its tax plan offers a net tax revenue reduction over ten years, if the health plan is included. Second, independent economists at the Tax Policy Center come to the same conclusion. Third, Holtz-Eakin has repeatedly, and quite seriously, invoked the net-tax-cut calculations of Obama to make the argument that the Democrat has a fiscally irresponsible economic plan." [TIME Magazine, 7/30/08]
Annenberg Political Fact Check: Claim That Obama "Promises More Taxes On Small Business, Seniors, Your Life Savings, Your Family" Is "Simply Not True For The Vast Majority Of Viewers Who Will See It." "The TV ad also says that Obama 'promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.' This statement is simply not true for the vast majority of viewers who will see it. Obama, in fact, promises to deliver a $1,000 tax cut for families making up to $150,000 a year, and he says he would increase income tax rates, capital gains tax rates and taxes on dividends only for those with family incomes over $250,000 a year, or for single taxpayers making over $200,000." [FactCheck.org, 8/8/08]
Washington Post: McCain's Attack On The Obama Tax Plan "Crosses The Line From Reasonable Argument To Unacceptably Misleading." "Barack Obama and John McCain have important differences on tax policy. These are fair game for campaign ads, and no one expects 30-second spots to be suffused with nuance. But Mr. McCain's latest attack on the Obama tax plan crosses the line from reasonable argument to unacceptably misleading." [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/10/08]
Washington Post: McCain's TV Ad States That Obama Has A Plan To Raise Electricity Taxes; "The Short Answer: There Isn't One. Long Answer: Both McCain And Obama Would Make Electricity Derived From Fossil Fuels More Expensive." "The few campaign watchers who aren't transfixed by the images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) new attack ad aimed at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), might be asking themselves right now, 'What's this about an Obama electricity tax?' Short answer: there isn't one. Long answer: both McCain and Obama would make electricity derived from fossil fuels more expensive, since they're both committed to setting mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions through a cap and trade system. In fact, they would raise energy costs by the same amount over the next 12 years, since they have identical short-term emissions goals." [Washington Post, 7/30/08]
Annenberg Political Fact Check: McCain's Ad Is "False" In Its Claims Obama Will Raise Taxes On Electricity. "McCain's new ad claims that Obama 'says he'll raise taxes on electricity.' That's false. Obama says no such thing. McCain relies on a single quote from Obama who once -- and only once so far as we can find -- suggested taxing 'dirty energy,' including coal and natural gas. That was in response to a reporter's suggestion that a tax on wind power could fund education. Obama isn't proposing any new tax on electricity or 'dirty energy' as part of his platform, and he never has. It's true that a coal/gas tax would raise electric rates, but so would a cap-and-trade program to restrict carbon emissions. Cap-and-trade is an idea that both McCain and Obama support, in different forms. Neither candidate characterizes cap-and-trade as a 'tax.'" [FactCheck.org, 7/30/08]
Cincinnati Enquirer: McCain's Ad, on A "Truthful" Scale From "0" to "10," Gets A "0." "HOW TRUTHFUL? 0 on a scale from 0 (misleading) to 10 (truthful)" "The McCain ad's claim that Obama says 'he'll raise taxes on electricity' is based on an interview Obama gave to a San Antonio newspaper in February in which he said 'what we ought to tax is a dirty energy like coal, and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.' According to the Obama campaign, what Obama was referring to in the interview was his proposal for a cap-and-trade mechanism that would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions, allowing entities to buy and sell rights to emit. If that is the case, McCain is criticizing Obama for a proposal that he, too, supports." [Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/31/08]
New York Times: Charge That Obama Voted 94 Times For "Higher Taxes" Is "False." "McCain's false charges have been more frequent: that Mr. Obama opposes 'innovation' on energy policy; that he voted 94 times for 'higher taxes'; and that Mr. Obama is personally responsible for rising gasoline prices." [Editorial, New York Times, 7/30/08]
Annenberg Political Fact Check: In Repeating Their "Misleading" And "Inflated 94-Vote Figure," The McCain Campaign "Falsely Impl[ies] That Obama Has Pushed Indiscriminately To Raise Taxes For Nearly Everybody." "Republicans claim Obama 'voted 94 times for higher taxes.' But their count is inflated and misleading. ... y repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he's voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That's consistent with what he's said he'd do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year." [FactCheck.org, 7/3/08]
Annenberg Political Fact Check: The McCain Attack That Obama Has Voted To Increase Taxes On Those Earning $32,000 Is "Wrong" And "Not True." As FactCheck.org noted, "The McCain campaign claims that Obama voted to raise income taxes on individuals who earn as little as $32,000 per year. That's wrong...[and]...not true." In fact, as FactCheck.org also noted, Barack Obama's "tax plan would provide a tax cut of $502 for a non-married taxpayer earning $35,000." [FactCheck.org, 7/8/08]
Annenberg Political Fact Check: Claim That Obama Would Have Raised Taxes On "Families" Making $42,000 Is "Simply False." "A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on 'families' making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected." [FactCheck.org, 8/8/08]
Washington Post: McCain's Attack On Obama For Voting To "Raise Taxes On People Making Just $42,000" Is "Unacceptably Misleading." "Barack Obama and John McCain have important differences on tax policy. These are fair game for campaign ads, and no one expects 30-second spots to be suffused with nuance. But Mr. McCain's latest attack on the Obama tax plan crosses the line from reasonable argument to unacceptably misleading. 'Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000,' the announcer warns. The basis for this statement is the senator's vote for the fiscal 2009 budget resolution, a nonbinding blueprint that assumed that all the Bush tax cuts would expire as scheduled. However, Mr. Obama has repeatedly said he wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for families making less than $250,000 a year. If anything, he has lavished too much in tax breaks on the middle class, proposing an expensive $1,000-per-family additional tax credit and, last weekend, piling on top of that an immediate, presumably one-time, $1,000-per-family rebate for energy costs." [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/10/08]
Washington Post Fact Checker: 2 Pinocchios for McCain Claim That Iran Is Training al-Qaida. "There is no reason to doubt the statements by U.S. generals that some of the weapons and munitions used by Sunni extremists in Iraq can be traced back to Iran. Odierno's statement about movements of 'a small number' of al Qaeda personnel through Iran to Iraq also seems quite credible. But it is a big stretch to conclude from these statements that Iran is providing organized support for al Qaeda in Iraq." [Washington Post Fact Checker blog, 3/20/08]
Washington Post Fact Checker: 3 Pinocchios for Verb Tense Defense of Comments About Drawing Down Troops to Pre-Surge Levels. "McCain insists that he did not make a mistake, in verb tenses or any other way. 'I said we had drawn down,' he told reporters today. 'I said we have drawn down and we have drawn down three of the five brigades. We have drawn down three of the five brigades. We have drawn down the marines. The rest will be home the end of July. That's just facts, the facts as I stated them.' ...For the record, those are NOT the facts as he 'stated them.' What he said was that U.S. forces had "drawn down to pre-surge levels...Prior to the conference call, I was inclined to give McCain a maximum of two Pinocchios for his misstatement about troop levels in Iraq. Everybody misspeaks once in a while. But the attempt by the McCain media machine to spin the mistake as a simple matter of 'verb tenses' is an insult to our intelligence. Pointing to Obama's recent misstatement about his uncle liberating Auschwitz, Scheunemann says that all candidates should be held to the "same standard." I agree. Three Pinocchios." [Washington Post Fact Checker blog, 5/3/08: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/05/mccain_the_surge_and_verb_tens.html]
FactCheck.org: McCain's Spending Plans Don't Add Up. According to the non-partisan FactCheck.org, "McCain's big promise is that he can balance the budget while extending Bush's tax cuts and adding a few of his own. He likes to leave the impression that this can be done painlessly, for example, by eliminating "wasteful" spending in the form of "earmarks" that lawmakers like to tuck into spending bills to finance home-state projects. We found that not only is this theory full of holes, it's not even McCain's actual plan." [FactCheck.org, 5/13/08]
Washington Post Fact Checker: 4 Pinocchios for McCain's "Fantasy" Plan to Balance Budgets by Cutting Earmarks. "McCain's talk about eliminating $100 billion a year in earmarks is largely fantasy. His advisers are now promoting a more realistic plan of eliminating $100 billion in overall spending. But it is difficult to take even that promise very seriously given the fact that the senator refuses to identify exactly which projects he will be cut. To use a phrase coined by George H.W. Bush, this is 'voodoo economics,' based more on wishful thinking than on hard data or carefully considered policy proposals." [Washington Post Fact Checker Blog, 5/23/08]
FactCheck.org: McCain's Largest Tax Increase Charge "Wrong" and "Misleading." According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center's Factcheck.org: "By the measure most economists prefer, McCain is wrong in his claim that Sens. Clinton and Obama want to implement "the single largest tax increase since the Second World War;"... At a more basic level, it's misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration - the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010." [FactCheck.org, 5/14/08]
Fact Check: McCain's Plan Would Result In Employers, Particularly Small Businesses, Dropping Coverage. According to FactCheck.org, "McCain's plan to tax workers on the value of their employer-provided health care plans and provide tax credits would encourage some employers, mainly small businesses, to drop health benefits, say experts, and the proposal could eventually eliminate job-based insurance altogether." Director of the health research and education program at the Employee Benefit Research Institute Paul Fronstin "says a tax credit plan like McCain's likely would mean the end of employer-sponsored health care." [FactCheck.org, "McCain's $5,000 Promise, 5/1/08]
Washington Post Fact Checker Blog: Claim that Special Interests Haven't Given Me "Any Money" is "Patently False." "His claim that he is the only presidential candidate not to receive money from 'special interests' is patently false. I was tempted to award four Pinocchios, but I am subtracting one because it is an old quote. Let me know if McCain has repeated the claim recently." [Fact Checker, Washington Post, 2/29/08]
FactCheck.org: McCain Claim to Have Supported Every Katrina Investigation "Is False." "McCain was asked by a New Orleansreporter why he voted twice against an independent commission to investigate the government's failings before and after Hurricane Katrina, and he incorrectly stated that he had "voted for every investigation. McCain actually voted twice, in 2005 and 2006, to defeat a Democratic amendment that would have set up an independent commission along the lines of the 9/11 Commission. At the time of the second vote, members of both parties were complaining that the White House was refusing requests by Senate investigators for information...McCain's statement that he 'supported every investigation' is false. The record shows McCain lined up with his party as it circled the wagons to defend the Bush administration against a more aggressive probe of what went wrong before and after Katrina." [FactCheck.org, 6/5/08]
FactCheck.org: McCain Voted for MontanaEarmark he Mocks. "Despite the fun McCain had ridiculing the bear project on the Senate floor, he didn't actually try to remove it from the bill. He did introduce several amendments, including three to reduce funding for projects he considered wasteful or harmful, but none removing the grizzly bear project appropriations. And despite his criticisms, he voted (U.S. Senate: Legislation & Records Home > Votes > Roll Call Vote ) in favor of the final bill." [FactCheck.org, 11/20/07]
Non-Partisan Analysis Says 25 Percent of McCain's Tax Plan goes to Households Earning More than $2.8 Million Annually. "Both John McCain and Barack Obama promise to cut taxes for the majority of Americans. But an Obama administration would redistribute income toward lower- and middle-class households, while a McCain White House would steer the bulk of the benefits to the wealthiest families, according to a nonpartisan analysis of the still-evolving tax plans of the presidential candidates. [Wall Street Journal, 6/12/08]
FactCheck.org: McCain Gas Tax Holiday Will Not Drive Prices Down; Would "Give Federal Funds To Oil Refineries." "But economists say that the proposal is unlikely to actually lower the price of gasoline. McCain's plan would essentially give federal funds to oil refineries... But the nonpartisan American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials estimates ( AASHTO - News ) that the total savings for the average American motorist works out to about $28; for a two-car household, that would be $54. That's IF prices actually dropped 18.4 cents per gallon. However, there's every indication that they wouldn't. Here's why: According to the basic principles of supply and demand, cutting the price of an item causes people to buy more of it. That's why stores put items on sale. But when something is priced too low, consumers will buy it faster than it can be manufactured, which leads to shortages. [FactCheck.org, 5/2/08]
FactCheck.org: McCain's Spending Plans Don't Add Up. According to the non-partisan FactCheck.org, "McCain's big promise is that he can balance the budget while extending Bush's tax cuts and adding a few of his own. He likes to leave the impression that this can be done painlessly, for example, by eliminating 'wasteful' spending in the form of 'earmarks' that lawmakers like to tuck into spending bills to finance home-state projects. We found that not only is this theory full of holes, it's not even McCain's actual plan." [FactCheck.org, 5/13/08]
Washington Post Fact Checker: 4 Pinocchios for McCain's "Fantasy" Plan to Balance Budgets by Cutting Earmarks. "McCain's talk about eliminating $100 billion a year in earmarks is largely fantasy. His advisers are now promoting a more realistic plan of eliminating $100 billion in overall spending. But it is difficult to take even that promise very seriously given the fact that the senator refuses to identify exactly which projects he will be cut. To use a phrase coined by George H.W. Bush, this is 'voodoo economics,' based more on wishful thinking than on hard data or carefully considered policy proposals." [Washington Post Fact Checker Blog, 5/23/08]
FactCheck.org: McCain's Largest Tax Increase Charge "Wrong" and "Misleading." According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center's Factcheck.org: "By the measure most economists prefer, McCain is wrong in his claim that Sens. Clinton and Obama want to implement 'the single largest tax increase since the Second World War;'... At a more basic level, it's misleading to tag Clinton and Obama for something that was scheduled during the Bush administration - the expiration of the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which by law will occur at the end of 2010." [FactCheck.org, 5/14/08]
