Enough spin and lies, McCain

Originally posted early September on my myspace blog. Enjoy, it's long!

Let me begin by stating my opinions clearly and succinctly. I will give supporting information, supported by factcheck.org and snopes.com. McCain has shown he is not qualified to be an honorable, honest public servant by refusing to talk about issues and by flat out lying time and time again in this campain to the American people. Palin has also continually lied, albeit at the behest of McCain's campaign managers - even after her lies have been proven, she has still repeated them. Obama has tried again and again to take the high road; ignoring most of the lies and trying to keep the campaign on the issues. I will also be searching for information regarding misleading ads by Obama to be fair in this blog. This will be long, biased towards Obama (although how anything honest and fair couldn't lean towards Obama fails me). I would love to hear other opinions and comments, but please keep them clean and fair.

Let me also begin with a short political history of my personal beliefs - so that you see I'm not just some yellow dog democrat. I always vote the candidate who will be best for the country in my opinion. In 2000, the first election I was of age to exercise my voting privilege, I voted for George H. W. Bush. He was a wonderful governor of Texas. I had personally benefited from his policies; he made health care affordable for my daughter when I was a single mother, he funded schools in a manner that made my entry to college easier, and overall, did the right thing for the state. In 2004, I voted for Kerry. The reason behind that was simply a vote against Bush. I knew, even then, that Bush was leading our country down an economic path that would lead us into really hard times. Unfortunately, I was correct. I am personally pro-life, pro-gun (to a point), pro-death penalty. I am all about fiscal conservatism. Above all, I advocate a smart fiscal policy that keeps taxes as low as they can be, spending low, and eliminates deficits.

So why am I not voting Republican?

I'll start issue by issue, gaff by gaff, misstatement by misstatement.

1) McCain's ad on Iran.

"Obama says Iran is a "tiny" country, "doesn't pose a serious threat." Terrorism, destroying Israel, those aren't "serious threats"?"

Obama's actual words: Strong countries and strong presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela – these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet.

From factcheck.com: "
Obama didn't say Iran is tiny – except in comparison to the once-huge Soviet Union. Iran's population is estimated to be about 72.2 million by the Population Reference Bureau. Iran's own statistics put it at 70,495,782 in 2006-2007. Either way, that's about one-fourth of the 270 million people estimated to be living in the U.S.S.R. in 1982, according to various sources.
Nor did he say Iran doesn't pose a serious threat, except in comparison to the former Soviet Union. And that's a fact. "

I'll take your attention back to McCains claim that "destroying Israel.. those aren't serious threats?"

Obama's words on Iran on June 4: "The Iranian regime supports violent extremists and challenges us across the region. It pursues a nuclear capability that could spark a dangerous arms race and raise the prospect of a transfer of nuclear know-how to terrorists. Its president denies the Holocaust and threatens to wipe Israel off the map. The danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."

FactCheck.orgs summary of this ad: "By separating Obama's words from their context, and from his other comments on the subject, McCain's ad distorts Obama's stated views on Iran. "

I agree. This is one of the "spins". I won't call it a lie. We'll get to those shortly.

2) There have been four ads by McCain talking about Obama's tax policy.

The first ad said Obama once voted for a tax increase on people making $42K a year. The ad showed a woman with two children. According to factcheck.org, the tax increase would have been $15 a year for a single person making $42K and the mother with two children in the ad wouldn't have had an increase unless she made over $62K a year. Plus, it's not part of his proposed tax plan now. So it's a spin (not a lie) but a moot point and very misleading. How's that for honorable?

I'll just copy factcheck.org's review of the second ad instead of paraphrasing it for you: 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. Again, let me point out this is not part of his current tax plan either.

McCain's third ad, as presented by factcheck: The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would "raise taxes on middle class." In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000.

So...that one's a blatant lie.

Fourth ad, as presented by factcheck: The radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes.

If you sell a home over $500,000 as a married couple, you now pay a tax rate of 15% on gains over $500,000. After 2010, based on the Bush tax cuts that McCain supports anyway, the capital gains tax above that $500,000 threshold ($250,000 for non-married) will be raised to 20%. According to the L.A. Times and BarackObama.com, Obama will raise the capital gains tax to 20%. So... McCain put out an ad that slams Obama for using the same plan he's supporting. So, if you are so fortunate as to have a home that you bought for $100,000, and it sells for $700,000, you've made a $600,000 profit. $500,000 is non-taxable. Of the remaining $100,000 that is taxable, you'll pay $20,000 in taxes regardless of whether you vote for Obama or McCain. So a $20,000 tax bill on a $600,000 profit amounts to a 3.3% tax rate.

Yes, it's confusing. That's why McCain thinks he can get away with lying to us about it. It's working, as most blogs I've seen talk again and again about Obama raising our taxes.

Now here's the DOOZY! Ready?

McCain ad: "
Crowd: Obama, Obama…
Announcer: Take away the crowds, the chants. All that's left are costly words. Barack Obama and out of touch congressional leaders have expensive plans. Billions in government spending, years of deficits, no balanced budgets, and painful tax increases on working American families. They're ready to tax, ready to spend, but not ready to lead."

FactCheck.org: The ad says Obama and "out of touch Congressional leaders" plan to implement "painful tax increases on working American families," and it shows an image of a family presumably upset about an impending tax increase. But, as we've reported numerous times, Obama proposes a tax cut for the vast majority of households.
Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates' tax plans. When we asked him if Obama's claim that he would "cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families" was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was "consistent with our estimates." Overall, the TPC found that Obama's plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.
Here's the best part!!!!!!!Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.

Ok, so I think I've successfully debunked the McCain tax myths about both himself and Obama. Just for fun, I'll allow to McCain to defend why he got all that stuff wrong. McCain: "[the] issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should"

Lets move on to the Republican Convention.

Cl.. Lieberman said Obama had never reached across party lines to accomplish anything significant.

Verdict: Lie. Obama worked with Sen. Tom Coburn and Dick Lugar to pass laws enhancing government transparancy (ie trying to prevent cover-ups) and "curtailing the proliferation of nuclear and conventional weapons."

Cl.. Thompson said he would bring "one of the largest tax increases in American history."
Verdict: Lie. See above tax claims.

Cl.. Obama voted against funding for Iraq war.

Verdict: Spin. The only vote Obama ever made against a war funding bill came after the version of the bill Obama supported was vetoed (McCain supported the Veto but never showed up to vote on the bill). I love this line from factcheck.org: "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." And the same goes for Lieberman's claim at the convention.

On to night three of the convention!

Factcheck.org:
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. "The window is now," she wrote, "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." (ie, while we have Republicans in office who will send us this money) It was only after she won the governorship that Palin shifted her position. And even then, it's inaccurate to say that she "told the Congress 'thanks, but no thanks.'" Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn't qualify as standing up to Congress. My addition: She kept the money for other Alaska highway projects. While writing a check to citizens of Alaska for $3200 each. McCain himself said recently that that bridge to nowhere money could have prevented the 35W collapse had the funding gone where it was actually needed.

Palin's accusation that Obama hasn't authored "a single major law or even a reform" in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.

Giuliani distorted the time line and substance of Obama's statements about the conflict between Russia and Georgia. In fact, there was much less difference between his statements and those of McCain than Giuliani would have had us believe.

Giuliani also said McCain had been a fighter pilot. Actually, McCain's plane was the A-4 Skyhawk, a small bomber. It was the only plane he trained in or flew in combat, according to McCain's own memoir.

Finally, Huckabee told conventioneers and TV viewers that Palin got more votes when she ran for mayor of Wasilla than Biden did running for president. Not even close. The tally: Biden, 79,754, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucuses. Palin, 909 in her 1999 race, 651 in 1996.

Now I'll be fair. Here's the Dem's convention spins. Fortunately, they didn't blatantly lie. But they did spin a bit.

Obama said he could "pay for every dime" of his spending and tax cut proposals "by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens." That's wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain's, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts. Is it wrong for me to be just happy he plans on finding SOME of the money he needs to pay for this stuff? I'd prefer him to find ALL of it...

He twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, saying, "When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources." Actually, McCain said in 2003 we "may" muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there. My addition: The day after Obama called for two more combat brigades in Afghanistan, McCain called for three.

Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..." My addition: I saw the comment, and it was a joke. He then failed to answer the original question "what constitutes the middle class" by giving a feel-good answer of "it's not money that makes us rich, it's family and love". He's yet to answer the "middle class" question.

Obama noted that McCain's health care plan would "tax people's benefits" but didn't say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families (although a normal health insurance policy is about $12K)

Obama also pulled some sleight of hand when he stated that "the average American family" saw its income "go down $2,000" under George Bush. That's not correct. Census figures show average family income went down $348. My addition: I'm appalled that average income went down $348 in eight years! Productivity has gone up and wages have gone down!? As the dollar loses value, adjust that number with inflation, gas, and energy costs and I'm sure $2000 is closer to the real number.

Now it's McCain's turn. Here we go with his acceptance speech:

Cl.. Obama's health care plan would "force small businesses to cut jobs" and would put "a bureaucrat ... between you and your doctor."

Verdict: Lie. In fact, the plan exempts small businesses, and those who have insurance now could keep the coverage they have.

Cl.. McCain attacked Obama for voting for "corporate welfare" for oil companies.

Verdict: Blatant Lie. In fact, the bill Obama voted for raised taxes on oil companies by $300 million over 11 years while providing $5.8 billion in subsidies for renewable energy, energy efficiency and alternative fuels.

So we've got an absolute liar and flip-flopper in McCain (does anyone else remember when he almost left his party to become a Democrat in 2000???? IF that isn't flip flopping what is?) with a VP candidate who is currently under investigation for abuse of power (and just got her first passport in 2007- how's that for foreign policy experience). UPDATE: it's been concluded she abused said power.

On the other hand, we've got a candidate who's trying his damndest to actually talk about issues while taking the high road about all of these attacks and a VP candidate with 36 years of foreign policy experience. Why isn't McCain failing in the polls? UPDATE: McCain is failing in the polls! Yeha!!!

Please don't tell me it's because Obama is black. Please. Please. Please.