The Obama campaign has decided the time is right for their candidate to go into attack mode. It seems sinking poll numbers and a candidacy that looks like its imploding aren't sitting well with the Illinois Senator and his minions.
It wasn't that long ago that Senator Obama promised to wage a clean campaign. No more dirty Washington attack politics, he said. No more business as usual. It appears, however, that such a pledge only applies if you are winning. With Senator McCain seizing the initiative and gaining in the polls, Obama supporters are becoming increasingly nervous and ready for a do-what-it-takes-to-win strategy.
So the Obama campaign today began a new advertising blitz designed to portray John McCain as out of touch with ordinary Americans. I haven't seen the new ads yet, but according to the Associated Press McCain is shown "...at a hearing in the early ‘80s, wearing giant glasses and an out-of-style suit, interspersed with shots of a disco ball, a clunky phone, an outdated computer and a Rubik's Cube."
The voice in the ad says, "1982, John McCain goes to Washington. Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn't." It goes on to say, "He admits he still doesn't know how to use a computer, can't send an e-mail...." Finally, the ad shows McCain at a golf outing with former President George H.W. Bush, and at the White House with the current President Bush while the voice says, "After one president who was out of touch, we just can't afford more of the same."
But is it McCain who's out of touch? And if so, is he alone?
You see, what Senator Obama doesn't go around saying is that his income last year was more than $4 million. How many ordinary Americans made that kind of money in 2007? He also doesn't go around talking about the school his children attend. It's not a public school in Chicago. It's not even a regular private school. No, Senator Obama's daughters attend the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, which according to Investor's Business Daily, runs anywhere from $15,528 for kindergarten to $20, 445 for high school. How many ordinary Americans can afford that kind of tuition?
When asked about the school during a debate last year, Obama remarked that it was the best option for his girls. Good for him. I have no problem with that. As a father he should absolutely do what he feels to be in the best interest of his children. If he didn't, I would have more questions about him than I already do. That's not the issue.
The issue is not that he made $4 million or that his children go to an elite private school. The issue is that his is castigating his opponent for being out of touch when he cannot honestly say that he shares the plight of the ordinary American citizen. It's what we in ordinary America call hypocrisy.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 62
http://friendsofdanh.gather.com.
Our goal is to help you further your exposure and to support other gather members.
Besides, McCain can have someone else send an email for him. Isn't that what secretaries do?
Obama came from a single parent household and made himself what he is today. He made the grades and went to one of the best law schools in the country, then went to the top of his class. He worked hard to put himself where he is today.
Both Barack and Michelle are lawyers, and we all know lawyers make a nice salary and can afford to send their kids to good schools. Good for them.
John McCain's father and grand-father were Admirals, and he was a disappointment to them, only making Captain. He had a privileged upbringing, but he graduated 5th from bottom in his class.
He married a model, then cheated on her with a rich heiress.
He has never been in touch with what regular folks have to deal with, Obama came from nothing, and he knows what it is like to make due.
And frankly CJ
None of them, not the rich, not the poor, not the pauper, not the prince will ever know what John McCain has gone through for his country.
Nice post Greg
"Yeah, and then there is McCain who doesn't know how to use a computer or send an email." But he's not being hypocritical about it. Besides, presidents spend most of their time giving guidance, receiving briefings, making decisions, etc. Not a lot of necessity for computer expertise when you have a staff of hundreds doing the leg work for you.
"Obama came from a single parent household and made himself what he is today. He made the grades and went to one of the best law schools in the country, then went to the top of his class. He worked hard to put himself where he is today."
He deserves credit for everything he's worked for. But don't preach to me about someone else being out of touch when you make $4 million and your kids go to a school where tuition starts at $15k. That's not ordinary.
"John McCain's father and grand-father were Admirals, and he was a disappointment to them, only making Captain." Only making Captain? He chose to retire as a captain to pursue public office. By the way, only about 25% of each officer class makes it to that rank, on average, for each of the services. What a disappointment.
"He has never been in touch with what regular folks have to deal with...." You mean like having three sons serve in the military, including a junior enlisted Marine who served in the infantry in Anbar Province, Iraq?
"Regardless of the sacrifices McCain made for the US, the fact is that he's clueless as to what's going on in all but a very tiny part of the country."
That's pure opinion. And you know what they say about opinions....
Very true. So let's build a museum for him. Just keep him away from any real decision making that involves getting us into another war. He hasn't even been elected and can't wait to start at least two more wars.
Clearly neither is currently living like "normal folk." No one is suggesting they are. But how you live now doesn't dictate how you lived before or even whether you are "in touch." Being "in touch" has to do with how much you pay attention. It has to do with whether you can think about the priorities of the common man (and woman). It has to do with actually working to help all people, not just say you're going to do it. And these things come out in policy decisions.
A vote for McCain equals No universal health care.
A vote for McCain equals a continued collapsing economy.
A vote for McCain equals higher gas prices.
A vote for McCain equals no help for the housing market.
A vote for McCain equals a further erosion of woman’s rights.
A vote for McCain equals ideologue judges being placed throughout the country.
Only the fantasy dreamers thought he'd be anything different
A vote for McCain means a vote back to the dark ages.
A vote for McCain equals the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Guaranteed. If you think that's a good thing, vote for McCain. If you are in the 2/3 of America or more who disagree, vote for Obama.
You know, Obama could have run an ad that said "what does 'out of touch' mean to you?"
To me, out of touch is lacking the good judgment to select someone who could fill in if (God forbid) the president were to die in office. That is a 33% chance for an 8-yr. McCain term, based only on US actuarial stix.
Out of touch is voting with Bush a huge percentage of the time. Post your favorite percentage--it's huge.
Out of touch is voting against veterans' benefits and particularly the new GI bill (because retirement would look "too good" to those serving? BROTHER!).
Out of touch is being a handmaiden to the energy companies.
Out of touch is "not knowing too much about the economy."
Out of touch is taking weekends off in 2008 while running for the presidency and not finding out about "the economy."
Must run, Greg, or the list could go on a lot longer. Perhaps others can fill in for me.
"He hasn't even been elected and can't wait to start at least two more wars." There's no evidence to support such a ridiculous statement, and frankly, I thought you were smarter than that.
"Neither does his sons being in the military have anything to do with being in touch." It's more of an association with normal people than Obama can make." Just in the Army it's an association with more than 500k active duty, 350k national guard, and while I don't know off the top of my head, I'd say probably another 200k in the Army Reserve. Throw in the other branches and that's quite a few.
But look, it doesn't matter. The whole point here is that Obama is being disingenuous. Using past experiences is stretching it. It's hard to listen to a guy in Obama's position, or McCain's position, say they are more in touch than the other guy. And for what it's worth, I heard on the radio today that McCain made just over $400k last year, or about 10% of what Obama made. Of course, that's not counting Cindy.
"A vote for McCain equals more War." Where's the evidence to support that?
"A vote for McCain equals No universal health care." Good. Domestic spending is already eating up too much of the budget. There is no guaranteed right to health care.
"A vote for McCain equals a continued collapsing economy." Based on what evidence? The economy grew at 3.3% last quarter, and grew at over 1% the quarter before that. Positive growth does not equal "collapsing."
"A vote for McCain equals higher gas prices." Again, based on what evidence? McCain would expand drilling, increasing supply, which would lower prices.
"A vote for McCain equals no help for the housing market." Good. Government bailouts are out of control. People who voluntarily signed up for adjustable rate mortgages should not be bailed out with my tax dollars.
"A vote for McCain equals a further erosion of woman’s rights." How do you figure?
"A vote for McCain equals ideologue judges being placed throughout the country." As opposed to liberal judges who legislate from the bench?
Don, it seems to me that you're very good at spouting off talking points without providing supporting evidence. Wallow in your ignorance.
"Your right Dan E because he has never gone through anything that didn't get a payoff just like the rest of the neocons." Are you just stupid?
"A vote for McCain means a vote back to the dark ages." Do you think before you spout off at the mouth? You would be the perfect poster child for John Wayne's, "Life is tough. It's even tougher if you're stupid."
Don't bother trying, those of us here that matter get it, the rest of them a two by four would not help.
And as for David he just think that to misconstrue others words make him appear intellig....no not even that he thinks it makes him look smart.
"A vote for McCain equals the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Guaranteed." Come on Dave. You're smarter than that. McCain says he opposes Roe v. Wade. He also is powerless to stop it without a significant adjustment of the Supreme Court. That's not going to happen in his lifetime, much less in any McCain administration. The congress, controlled by Democrats, would never confirm the necessary judges. That's what's guaranteed.
And Republicans are accused of playing the politics of fear? Give me a break.
"To me, out of touch is lacking the good judgment to select someone who could fill in if (God forbid) the president were to die in office." Palin has more executive governance experience than Obama. Give it up Dave. Even the Obama camp has abandoned the experience argument, realizing that it's a loser for them.
"Out of touch is voting with Bush a huge percentage of the time." Half the country seems to disagree with you. I guess they're just all out of touch too, right?
"Out of touch is voting against veterans' benefits and particularly the new GI bill (because retirement would look "too good" to those serving? BROTHER!)." There were multiple reasons for voting against a flawed bill, and I'm a veteran saying that. Do you honestly believe that a guy who did 20 years in the military, was a prisoner of war disabled by torture, and retired from active duty would be opposed to veterans' benefits?
You know as well as I do that every bill contains positives and negatives in order to attract votes in the Congress. There were better ways to provide benefits to veterans outside of that particular bill.
"Out of touch is being a handmaiden to the energy companies." And what do you base that on?
"Out of touch is "not knowing too much about the economy." Presidents aren't supposed to know everything. That's what the advisors are for. Just ask Obama about foreign policy.
"Out of touch is taking weekends off in 2008 while running for the presidency and not finding out about "the economy." Or going to Hawaii for vacation while running for the presidency.
Do you see how ridiculous this is?
Now, how about refuting my points with some facts?
John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench.
Constitutional balance would be restored by the reversal of Roe v. Wade, returning the abortion question to the individual states. The difficult issue of abortion should not be decided by judicial fiat.
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/issues/95b18512-d5b6-456e-90a2-12028d71df58.htm
Jeffrey Toobin, author of The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court suggests (interview with Thom Hartmann, 9/10/08) that the following judges are most likely to retire, and at least one of them early in 2009:
John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice – age 88, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975, initially thought to be a conservative, but was a moderate at best in his early years on the court and then swerved decidedly to the liberal side.
David Souter, Associate Justice – age 68, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990, a moderate and disappointment to conservatives, who has consistently voted on the liberal side.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice – age 75, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993 - liberal.
All of the pieces are in place for the overturning of Roe v. Wade. All that is needed is the election of John McCain.
What was it like before Roe v. Wade?
When Abortion Was a Crime - by Leslie J. Reagan (Google book review)
It's crucial to look back to the time when abortion was illegal. Leslie Reagan traces the practice and policing of abortion, which although illegal was nonetheless widely available, but always with threats for both doctor and patient. In a time when many young women don't even know that there was a period when abortion was a crime, this work offers chilling and vital lessons of importance to everyone.
The linking of the words "abortion" and "crime" emphasizes the difficult and painful history that is the focus of Leslie J. Reagan's important book. Her study is the first to examine the entire period during which abortion was illegal in the United States, beginning in the mid-nineteenth century and ending with Roe v. Wade in 1973. Although illegal, millions of abortions were provided during these years to women of every class, race, and marital status. The experiences and perspectives of these women, as well as their physicians and midwives, are movingly portrayed here.
Reagan traces the practice and policing of abortion. While abortions have been typically portrayed as grim "back alley" operations, she finds that abortion providers often practiced openly and safely. Moreover, numerous physicians performed abortions, despite prohibitions by the state and the American Medical Association. Women often found cooperative practioners, but prosecution, public humiliation, loss of privacy, and inferior medical care were a constant threat.
Reagan's analysis of previously untapped sources, including inquest records and trial transcripts, shows the fragility of patient rights and raises provocative questions about the relationship between medicine and law. With the right to abortion again under attack in the United States, this book offers vital lessons for every American concerned with health care, civil liberties, and personal and sexual freedom.
http://books.google.com/books?id=lIaHNI0QrBEC&dq=
when+abortion+was+a+crime&source=gbs_summary_s&cad
PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.
GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.
PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.
Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but...
GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn't we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?
PALIN: Perhaps so.
It's ok to start fearing the election of this ticket, starting now. Oh, wait--that would be fear-mongering, something Democrats have accused Republicans of. The difference is that here it is the Republican ticket itself, thanks only to the cow-towing of John McCain to the Right Wing, that creates an incredible and outlandish risk for Americans.
http://www.cqpolitics.com/cq-assets/cqmultimedia/flash/votestudy/index.html
Nothing new for McCain--he has been an opposed the interests of veterans and our troops in the field for years...
August 2001: McCain voted against increasing the amount available for medical care for veterans by $650,000,000....
October 2003: McCain voted to table an amendment by Senator Dodd that called for an additional $322,000,000 for safety equipment for United States forces in Iraq and to reduce the amount provided for reconstruction in Iraq by $322,000,000.
March 2004: McCain once again voted for abusive tax loopholes over veterans when he voted against creating a reserve fund to allow for an increase in Veterans' medical care by $1.8 billion by eliminating abusive tax loopholes....
March 2006: McCain voted against increasing Veterans medical services funding by $1.5 billion in FY 2007 to be paid for by closing corporate tax loopholes.
April 2006: McCain was one of only 13 Senators to vote against $430,000,000 for the Department of Veteran Affairs for Medical Services for outpatient care and treatment for veterans.
May 2006: McCain voted against an amendment that would provide $20 million to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for health care facilities.
September 2007: McCain voted against the Webb amendment calling for adequate troop rest between deployments. At the time, nearly 65% of people polled in a CNN poll indicted that "things are going either moderately badly or very badly in Iraq.
http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/articleid/9559
"From McCain's website...." The fact remains that what he says and what he will actually be able to do are two entirely different things. Liberal judges rarely retire during a Republican administration, and conservative judges rarely retire during a Democratic one. They do this because they want someone like minded in office to nominate their replacements. McCain is 72 years old. There is a chance he won't even make through his first term. Even if liberal judges died and McCain nominated conservative replacements, they would never get through a Democratic-controlled Congress.
To say that all that is needed is the election of John McCain is a gross distortion of reality.
"It's ok to start fearing the election of this ticket, starting now." I feel the same way about the Obama-Biden ticket.
My response about voting with the president was simply this: most Republicans don't think that voting with the president is a bad thing. George W. Bush still enjoys wide popularity within the Republican Party, despite his lack of fiscal restraint. And given the very tight race between McCain and Obama, I'd say the electorate is not as lop-sided as many have believed it would be.
"After opposing the GI bill, McCain was AWOL and did not cast a vote for or against the 2008 bill, which passed 75-to-22 without him. That's how much he cares about veterans." Come on Dave. Surely you know that votes are missed all the time when the outcome is not in doubt. That's why Senators and Representatives work with their party leadership. If his vote had been needed, it is likely that he would have been there.
You present bills voted against by McCain as if they were single issue bills. The truth is, and you know this, that nothing is that simple in the Congress. Multiple measures that have nothing to with defense or veterans are added to defense and veterans appropriations bills all the time. Hell, it's like that with virtually every bill.
As for the Webb amendment regarding troop rest times, I actually helped prepare the Army's official response saying why it was a bad idea and why it defied all military sense. You can't tie the hands of the guys fighting the war for political reasons.
And I don't buy into the "company line." I simply call them like I see them, and the "facts" you provide are distorted and much more complex than you portray in your posts.
"The McCain camp, with the explicit blessing of The Candidate, has descended into a morass of lies...." Which lies, exactly?
McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.
http://graphics.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/McCain_character_loyal_to_a_fault+.shtml
"McCain is an inveterate devotee of email. His nightly ritual is to read his email together with his wife, Cindy. The injuries he incurred as a Vietnam POW make it painful for McCain to type. Instead, he dictates responses that his wife types on a laptop. "She's a whiz on the keyboard, and I'm so laborious," McCain admits."
Are you insulated from the world? Does Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran ring a bell? How about his belligerent comments on Georgia? Obama also favors Georgia and Ukraine's entry to NATO, but I have a lot more faith in his ability to get it done without WWIII than I do this idiotic pair.
Then why does he vote against them, time after time?
Link to the Forbes article, please, Lera?
"Does Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran ring a bell? How about his belligerent comments on Georgia? Obama also favors Georgia and Ukraine's entry to NATO, but I have a lot more faith in his ability to get it done without WWIII than I do this idiotic pair."
The bomb Iran thing was said as a joke, laughing at the time. As for Georgia, we essentially have abandoned them. McCain is not being belligerent. He is stating support for a fragile democracy that turned to us after the Cold War. In the years since the fall of the Soviet Union, we have increased political, military, and economic ties with Georgia, supported democratic movements in the country, and supported their entry into NATO.
If they are admitted to NATO, we are obligated to defend them under article 5 of the NATO charter. McCain is simply acknowledging reality. Would Obama defend Georgia with force? I have my doubts.
"Then why does he vote against them, time after time?" See my comment above about how bills in congress are laden with often objectionable provisions that more often than not have nothing to do with the intent of the bill as titled. If you want a real eye opener, look at any defense authorization bill and see for yourself how many non-defense projects are included.
Too bad Obama has to make fun of people's disabilities that they sustained as a POW. First Biden wants a man in a wheelchair to stand and then this.
Lies? There are so many to choose from, and they are so cynical, and repeated so often, that it's hard to choose the most egregious examples. Here are a few recent examples that reflect how desperate this campaign is to "position" itself and trash the opponent, the facts be damned.
September 2008: "[A] new McCain ad, set to air in key states... characterizes the Alaska governor as an ardent opponent of the 2005 bridge proposal championed by Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens connecting Ketchikan, Alaska to the Ketchikan airport on Gravina Island (Population: 50)." LIE.
What's nuts about this lie is that not only was she for it before she was against it, but also when the appropriation came in--and money was provided--Palin spent it anyway, reportedly (ABC News) on a road to nowhere.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/08/obama-campaign-calls-mccain-ad-a-lie/
September 2008: Palin: "[Alaska] produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." LIE. Try 3.5%, Sarah. OK, I know, she's just uninformed. But she's the freakin' VP candidate, making a claim for her glorious contributions to energy independence. Not good enough.
September 2008: McCain: "[Palin's] been governor of our largest state, in charge of 20 percent of America's energy supply."LIE. Prevarication is a group sport, apparently. Repeated at least twice, on Sept. 3 and Sept. 11.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/energetically_wrong.html
September 2008: McCain ad: "Obama 'gave big oil billions in subsidies and giveaways,' a reference to the 2005 energy bill.... LIE. Actually, the bill, which President Bush signed into law, slightly raised taxes on the oil industry. Obama voted for the bill; McCain voted against it. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that the energy act "included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry. In addition, [the act] provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years."
In total, the vast majority of the billions in tax breaks and subsidies included in the bill went to electric utilities and nuclear power, as well as alternative fuels research and energy-efficient cars and buildings.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/maverick_misleads.html
September 2008: "Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family." LIE.
"The bill specifically mentions that instructional material must be age appropriate. It specifically mentions teaching children how to 'say no to unwanted sexual advances' and 'nonconsensual physical sexual contact.' The legislation was not sponsored by Obama and it didn't pass, so calling it one of his 'accomplishments" is absurd."
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/712/
August 2008: "McCain released three new ads with multiple false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals." LIE. LIE. LIE.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/151621
Are you disputing that no legislative bill is single topic? Or that it is way beyond the realm of probability that conservative judges would be confirmed by a democratic congress? Or that George W. Bush enjoys widespread support in the Republican Party? Or that the electorate is essentially split down the middle right now?
"September 2008: "[A] new McCain ad, set to air in key states... characterizes the Alaska governor as an ardent opponent of the 2005 bridge proposal championed by Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens connecting Ketchikan, Alaska to the Ketchikan airport on Gravina Island (Population: 50)." LIE." Governors cannot introduce earmarks in Congress. Talk to Ted Stevens about Alaska's earmarks. He and Robert Byrd are the worst of the bunch. And the last report I saw, can't remember if it was ABC or CBS, said she had cut earmark requests by Alaska's congressional delegation by more than 50% during her two years as governor.
"September 2008: Palin: "[Alaska] produces nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." LIE." Is being uninformed the same as lying?
"September 2008: McCain ad: "Obama 'gave big oil billions in subsidies and giveaways,' a reference to the 2005 energy bill.... LIE." I've actually seen a couple of reports on tv that said Obama had voted for a bill that extended tax credits to oil companies. Sounds like a partial truth, just like many of Obama's ads.
"September 2008: "Obama's one accomplishment? Legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners Learning about sex before learning to read? Barack Obama. Wrong on education. Wrong for your family." LIE. You also mention the bill says the instructional material must be age appropriate. But it's still sexual education instruction for grades K to 12. Age appropriate or not, it's still sexual education, and he voted for it.
The truth is that both parties stretch the truth considerably. Like Obama's claim that he will give a tax cut to 95% of American taxpayers, which according to the tax policy center is actually more like 81% of American taxpayers.
Or Obama's claim that family income has dropped by $2000 during George W. Bush's administration, when in reality (again, tax policy center) it was $324.
Or Obama's claim that John McCain wants to continue the war in Iraq for 100 years, taking a quote out of context and distorting the truth: that McCain said a Korea-style or Germany-style presence without Americans being killed would be acceptable.
Both sides engage in dirty politics. Yet you only seem willing to point out one party. Disingenuous and hypocritical.
We don't need to know what he has been through. We don't have to take care of him or represent him. He needs to know about us, and he doesn't.
Since you posted this to the Writers Review (and turned off ratings, which makes no sense), I will address the writing. The humor falls flat, which makes this satire almost look as though you believe it. I would suggest forgetting the humor and using language that indicates this is opinion.
Since you seem fond of factcheck.org, I thought I'd add a few from that site concerning Senator Obama:
"In a new ad, Obama says, 'I don’t take money from oil companies.' Technically, that's true, since a law that has been on the books for more than a century prohibits corporations from giving money directly to any federal candidate. But that doesn’t distinguish Obama from his rivals in the race. We find the statement misleading: Obama has accepted more than $213,000 from individuals who work for companies in the oil and gas industry and their spouses. Two of Obama's bundlers are top executives at oil companies and are listed on his Web site as raising between $50,000 and $100,000 for the presidential hopeful."
"Obama has released his first post-primary ad, a 60-second spot that's airing in 18 battleground states. In effect, "Country I Love" is Obama's first ad of the general election campaign, and as such it invites scrutiny. We don't find this ad egregiously misleading, but it paints a picture of Obama's accomplishments that could leave viewers with a misimpression or two. His description of his upbringing and work history are accurate. He describes the "strong values" he says he learned from his mother and her parents. But when Obama discusses his legislative accomplishments, he leaves out some important context. The ad talks about laws that Obama "passed," but in fact, he sponsored only one of the three bills mentioned and cosponsored another. The third included provisions from some bills he'd sponsored earlier, but his name wasn't attached to the one that passed. And two of the three laws were accomplishments of the Illinois Legislature, not the U.S. Senate."
"Obama announced he would become the first presidential candidate since 1972 to rely totally on private donations for his general election campaign, opting out of the system of public financing and spending limits that was put in place after the Watergate scandal. One reason, he said, is that 'John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.' We find that to be a large exaggeration and a lame excuse. In fact, donations from PACs and lobbyists make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's total receipts, and they account for only about 1.1 percent of the RNC's receipts."
"Obama says his health care plan will garner large savings – $120 billion a year, or $2,500 per family – with more than half coming from the use of electronic health records. And he says he’ll make that happen in his first term. We find his statements to be overly optimistic, misleading and, to some extent, contradicted by one of his own advisers. And it masks the true cost of his plan to cover millions of Americans who now have no health insurance. Obama cites a RAND study that found widespread use of electronic health records could save up to $77 billion a year in overall health care spending. But the study says that level of savings won’t be reached until 2019, when it projects 90 percent of hospitals and doctors would be using electronic records systems. Much could be done to speed up the adoption of electronic record-keeping. But experts, including the lead researcher on the RAND study, are extremely doubtful the U.S. could see widespread adoption in the first term of an Obama presidency, or even a second term. Even a campaign adviser acknowledges Obama’s plan likely won’t reach the full savings potential until five years into implementation, by which time Obama could be out of office. Obama says he’ll "lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year” by investing in electronic health records as well as other efforts. But his adviser tells us that $2,500 figure includes savings to government and employers that could, theoretically, lead to lower taxes or higher wages for families – so we shouldn't necessarily expect insurance premiums that are "lower" by that amount. The RAND study on which the campaign partly bases its estimates is one of the only reports available on possible cost savings. It may well be correct – no one knows for sure. But it looks at potential savings in an ideal situation and recently has faced criticism. Many, if not most, health care experts and professionals agree that the use of electronic health records or health IT would have various benefits, in terms of quality of care as well as spending. But doctors and hospitals in the U.S. have been slow to adopt it for several reasons. Whether Obama can effectively bring about widespread adoption and large savings is an open question and not as concrete as his pronouncements imply."
"Obama released a national ad saying he would "fast-track alternatives" to imported oil. On closer examination, his proposal is to spend $150 billion over the coming decade on energy research. Ten years doesn't sound all that "fast" to us, and there's no guarantee that the research will result in less oil being imported."
"Obama’s latest ad repeats an often-stated claim, saying he 'worked his way through college and Harvard Law.' We know Obama took out loans to get himself through school. But the campaign at first provided information on just two jobs Obama had in those years, and they were both in the summer. The ad also says he 'passed a law to move people from welfare to work, slashed the rolls by 80 percent.' Actually, the Illinois law was a required follow-up to the 1996 federal welfare reform law worked out by President Clinton and the Republican Congress. Welfare rolls did go down by nearly as much as the ad says, but Obama can't claim sole credit. Update, July 25: Our original story said in the headline that Obama's campaign listed only two summer jobs. Now that a spokesman has provided additional information, we have updated this article accordingly. But it's still a stretch for Obama to say he 'worked his way through college.'"
"We checked the accuracy of Obama's speech accepting the Democratic nomination, and noted the following: 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. 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. He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in. 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 ...' 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. He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s 'broken with his party,' has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time. Obama said 'average family income' went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about 'working' families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush."
"An Obama ad in Georgia ties McCain to former Christian Coalition executive Ralph Reed and the Abramoff lobbying scandal. It doesn't give a full picture. The ad says that Reed 'is now raising money for McCain's campaign.' But McCain has said, 'I neither seek nor want his support.' It says McCain, as a committee chairman, 'never even called Reed to testify' about Abramoff, which is true. But McCain's public report embarrassed Reed and damaged him politically nonetheless."
"Obama's campaign is running a TV ad in Indiana that asks the question: 'How can John McCain fix the economy, when he doesn't think it's broken?' But the ad uses quotes from McCain that are old and taken out of context: The ad shows McCain saying, "I don't believe we're headed into a recession." But McCain said that in January, and he also acknowledged at the time that the American economy was in "a rough patch." The ad then shows McCain saying in April, "[T]here's been great progress economically." But the quote is lifted from a much longer response; McCain went on to say that the "progress" made during Bush's tenure still wouldn't console American families who are facing "tremendous economic challenges." The third quote from McCain, "[W]e have had a pretty good prosperous time, with low unemployment," also comes from January. In his full response, McCain went on to say "things are tough right now."
"At a nationally televised forum at a mega-church in Southern California, we found these misrepresentations: Obama claimed that "I worked with John McCain" on ethics legislation. In fact, the two worked together for barely a week, after which McCain accused Obama of "partisan posturing" and added, "I won't make the same mistake again." McCain later voted against the ethics bill that Obama supported, stating that it was written by Democrats with "no input" from Republicans. Obama wrongly claimed that abortions "have not gone down" under President Bush. In fact, the abortion rate has gone down 9 percent, and the annual total has declined by more than 100,000."
"An Obama ad running in Nevada accuses McCain of favoring storage of waste from nuclear power plants at Yucca Mountain, which is the government plan, while not wanting the waste shipped through his home state of Arizona. The ad uses a clip of a 2007 interview of McCain, in which he responds, "No, I would not," when asked whether he'd be comfortable with having the waste travel through Phoenix on its way to Nevada. The McCain campaign objects, saying the Republican candidate's response was taken out of context. McCain also said, "I think it can be made safe," and that waste is "not well protected" where it is now, and the Obama ad doesn't include those statements."
"An Obama ad features video of McCain walking toward the camera with a group of people in power suits, as the narrator says, "the lobbyists, running his low road campaign." None of the people pictured are lobbyists, however. The ad also repeats a misleading claim that McCain favors "billions in tax breaks for big oil and drug companies." But McCain's tax policy doesn't target those industries. He calls for lowering the corporate tax rate for all companies."
"Obama released a TV spot saying McCain's campaign got $2 million from "Big Oil" while McCain proposed "another $4 billion in tax breaks" for the industry. The truth is that McCain's campaign has received $1.33 million from individuals employed in the oil and gas industry, not $2 million. Obama himself has received nearly $400,000, according to the most authoritative figures available. We find the $2 million figure is based on a mistaken calculation. Furthermore, McCain is not proposing new tax breaks specifically targeted to the oil industry. He's proposing a general reduction in the corporate income tax rate, which Democrats figure would benefit the five largest oil and gas companies by $3.8 billion."
"A new Obama ad targeted to Michigan voters says McCain "refused to support loan guarantees for the auto industry." That was true, but it's not now – and it wasn't when this ad was made. Yet the ad doesn't mention McCain's changed position on government support for the carmakers."
The energy bill that McCain is attempting to savage Obama over was multi-line, and as I documented above, the net was an increase in taxes to oil companies, and advantages to "green" energy initiatives. Of course, McCain voted against it. It is your candidate that is playing games with this issue. Why don't you send McCain an email explaining it to him.
Greg: "Or that it is way beyond the realm of probability that conservative judges would be confirmed by a [D]emocratic congress?"
No it is not. Chief Justice Roberts (2005): the Senate voted 78 to 22 to confirm Roberts. All 55 Republicans, half the 44 Democrats and independent Sen. James M. Jeffords (Vt.) voted yes. Justice Alito (2006) was confirmed 58 to 42. This despite the fact that both Roberts and Alito are quite conservative and will vote in a heartbeat to overturn Roe v. Wade, once they get the chance. In fact, it is highly probable, in the 80% range, that anyone more qualified than say, George Harrold Carswell will be confirmed. In fact, since 1789, all but 34 of the 154 nominees have been confirmed. Five persons were rejected and later confirmed.
http://leahy.senate.gov/issues/SupremeCourt/PDFs/NominationsNotConfirmed.pdf
Greg: "Or that George W. Bush enjoys widespread support in the Republican Party?"
George Bush is the most unpopular president in U.S. history. His approval rating, hovering around 30%, after languishing much of the year in the mid-20's, may in fact represent what is left of the Republican party in the U.S. To that extent, I'll agree with you.
Greg: "Or that the electorate is essentially split down the middle right now?"
This issue is whether lies and misdirection mean more than qualifications and priorities. The jury is still out.
"The energy bill that McCain is attempting to savage Obama over was multi-line, and as I documented above, the net was an increase in taxes to oil companies, and advantages to "green" energy initiatives." You're missing the point. Every bill contains positives and negatives and each elected official has to weigh those factors and then make a decision about his vote. Sometimes that means voting for a bill you don't like because it contains a provision you really want, and sometimes that means voting against a bill you do like because it contains something you absolutely can't stand for. You paint a picture that is much more simplistic than reality.
"In fact, it is highly probable...." But it isn't. The congress swapped Roberts and Alito for Rehnquist and O'Connor. They won't allow the real balance of the court to change.
"George Bush is the most unpopular president in U.S. history. His approval rating, hovering around 30%, after languishing much of the year in the mid-20's, may in fact represent what is left of the Republican party in the U.S." Yet his approval rating is almost double that of the Democratic-controlled Congress. Interesting.
"This issue is whether lies and misdirection mean more than qualifications and priorities. The jury is still out." And as I pointed out above, quite extensively, both candidates are involved in misdirection, distortion, and truth stretching.
“The last month, for sure,” said Don Sipple, a Republican advertising strategist, “I think the predominance of liberty taken with truth and the facts has been more McCain than Obama.”
Indeed, in recent days, Mr. McCain has been increasingly called out by news organizations, editorial boards and independent analysts like FactCheck.org. The group, which does not judge whether one candidate is more misleading than another, has cried foul on Mr. McCain more than twice as often since the start of the political conventions as it has on Mr. Obama.
(emphasis added)
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/us/politics/13mccain.html
On the Supreme Court, give up Greg. You're beat. I come in with facts, history, statistics all that prove that 80% of nominees are confirmed, including bipartisan supprot, and you come up with your expert witness (yourself) that dictates what the Senate will or won't do, history be damned. Let me make it clear to others who are interested in facts: any American who does not want to see Roe v. Wade reversed must stay far away from this ticket. It's poison.
On the energy bill, read what I said again. You're missing the point. Regarding veteran's benefits, McCain voted against major bills 4 out of 5 times. One of the reasons I support Obama is, as he says, "We'll have a simple principle for veterans sleeping on our streets: zero tolerance."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-veterans10-2008aug10,0,6583664.story
“The last month, for sure,” said Don Sipple, a Republican advertising strategist, “I think the predominance of liberty taken with truth and the facts has been more McCain than Obama.” So we've moved from McCain / Palin lies to just a matter of degree. I see.
"On the Supreme Court, give up Greg. You're beat." I don't think so. You're not facing the reality of the most bitter partisanship this country has ever seen in the Congress. Hell, Republican bills in the House aren't even brought to the floor, and Republican amendments in the Senate are not allowed (because Harry Reid says there's no time for minority amendments), and you believe that Reid will allow conservative judges to replace liberal judges on the Supreme Court? You're living in a fantasy world my friend.
"On the popularity front, let's remember that McCain is in Congress, and voted in support of Bush positions 90% of the time--in the top 1/3 of Republicans in Bush support." I saw on factcheck.org that Obama votes with the Democratic leadership 97% of the time. Wow, he even beat McCain for party loyalty. Where's that bipartisanship he was talking about?
And again, with the legislation, you're oversimplifying the bills. You can't pick one or two provisions and determine the merit of the bill.
Ahhh, yes, the Constitution and the principles behind our country, "of the people, by the people, for the people" ....? It's been such a long time, I'd forgotten what that sounded like.
"The difference is that 80% of the people don't approve of BUSH or his catastrophic policies, Greg."
Okay, I was hoping someone would go down this road. All week I've been watching Democratic Party leaders and analysts, and members of Obama's campaign staff, say that polls are meaningless. Of course, they're saying this because McCain is now tied with or ahead of Obama in virtually every national poll.
So here's how it goes. If polls mean something, then about half of those polled like McCain for president, and half like Obama. Not bad for a guy who agrees with policies that 80% disagree with. If polls don't mean anything, as the Democrat talking heads have been saying all week, then that negates your comment about the percentage opposed to Bush. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that polls are good when they make Republicans look bad, but polls are no good when they make Democrats look bad. It just doesn't work that way.
Now, the Democratic-led Congress. You said, and I quote, "...the Democrats have only been in the majority for the last 8 months." Not true. Try 20 months. They won the House and Senate in November 2006 and the Democrat majority was sworn in to office in January 2007. That's 20 months, not 8. And their approval rating has steadily declined for those 20 months, sitting now at a whopping 17%. Sorry to burst your bubble.
"I just knew the attack machine would begin criticizing Obama for getting tough and pointing out John McCain's failings." What attack machine is that? Obama supporters are doing the exact same thing. Just look at the comments above. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. And for the record, it's Democrats saying he's not being tough enough.
Whatever difference in tone might have existed, it is long gone. So much for taking the high road, huh? Where's the change from Washington politics as usual?
That was a Republican strategist. (And also the New York Times in my full comment.) In my own opinion, I think the difference is still significant, if not fundamental. If it were 3 am and you and I were enjoying single malt scotches, I'd say that everything is a matter of degree. The viciousness of McCain's handlers, the rush to cheap lies and misrepresentations, as I mentioned earlier, will stain McCain's reputation. It does, however, create difficulty in the Obama camp. Do they sully themselves with the kind of sleaze oozing from the McCain camp? I don't think you're going to see anything like it. I don't think Obama will allow it. I think there will be some hard-hitting advertising and strongly worded "instant response," which will have the McCain spin doctors squealing like stuck, lipstick-smeared pigs. There will be a qualitative difference in content, as has already been noted by independent observers.
Where have I been? Completely off Gather for a while. I'm checking now and again to see how you are doing, Greg. And I see you're doing all right, and I'm glad. Take care.
Single malt scotch, huh? I keep Glenlivet 12yr old at the house.
Hope all is well with you, Dave. Likewise, take care.
It is pathetic how out of touch McCain is with economics and foreign policy. He imagines US interests are "threatened" by Russia and Iran and that we can afford to pursue a unilateralist militaristic policy. Bush has had to adopt a more realistic policy. (It appears he was clueless about Georgia's invasion - at least Putin did not accuse Bush of lying to him when they spoke of it in China.)
In 1990 Secretary of State James Baker remarked, "there but by the grace of God go we" as the USSR crumbled. The quasi Soviet empire fell by the same means that's strangling the quasi American one. Neither destroyed the other, but each due to divisive and uniquely irreconcilable contradictions within are what canceled themselves out. It appears that authoritarian republican architectures are just as lethal to the making of imperium as are liberal ones.
The US economy - and taxpayers - are hostage to its debtors, whether foreign governments, "sovereign wealth funds" (they don't report who they are) or banks. Had we not bailed out Fannie and Freddie (doubling our debt) which foreigners own, the dollar would have collapsed . More to come . We will have to do the same for megalith AIG or the dollar is done.
In 1990 Secretary of State James Baker remarked, "there but by the grace of God go we" as the USSR crumbled. The quasi Soviet empire fell by the same means that's strangling the quasi American one. Neither destroyed the other, but each due to divisive and uniquely irreconcilable contradictions within are what canceled themselves out. It appears that authoritarian republican architectures are just as lethal to the making of imperium as are liberal ones.
Der Spiegel notes ruefully, " European banks may be in the best position to benefit from the American turmoil. Despite its share price taking a battering this year, Barclays was able to consider buying Lehman and is now ready to sign up teams of first-rate bankers from Lehman, Merrill, or other institutions who may now be looking for a home.
Old World banks, with their relatively strong balance sheets, may find themselves well-positioned to buy other distressed American assets. Now that Merrill appears to have been taken out, bankers are casting an eye at Morgan Stanley, which along with Goldman Sachs is one of the last two major U.S. investment banks not attached to a behemoth such as JPMorgan Chase or Bank of America. In today's risky world, bankers in Europe say, it is doubtful that an investment bank can stay on the playing field without the backing of a big commercial sister. "
Trashy politics isn’t some old reliable weapon that will do the job if you just have the nerve to bring it out. It’s a risk, because it’s an insult to the electorate. It’s also not an organic feature of John McCain’s persona. And for that reason, above all others, he should cut it out.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/greenwald/31342
At the risk of sounding presumptuous, I just counsel a bit of standing back and taking a look around. My last comment above had nothing in particular to do with the campaign per se or a comparison of the candidates. It had to do with what McCain (or more specifically, his campaign bosses) is/are doing to McCain. There is a possibility the McCain campaign is already pulling back from the sleaze of the prior weeks, although it may be more about events interceding (the financial meltdown). If they do pull back from the sleaze campaign, I'll notice. I'm not sure you'll recognize the difference, or admit to it.
If either candidate pulls back from the sleaze campaign, I'll notice as well, and give credit where credit is due. I think that aspect of politics sucks, personally, but negative attacks seem to work. Perhaps why they always engage in them.
What I find particularly striking is that this SHOULD, by all accounts, be a year for the Democrats to run away with this thing. History has shown that the public doesn't like to keep the same party in the white house for three terms. We are still in an unpopular war, Afghanistan is going south, wall street is reeling (although that was a nice comeback by the bargain hunters today), etc., etc., etc.
Yet it remains a neck and neck race for the presidency. And I don't buy into the "it's because he's black argument." Certainly there is some of that. I suspect, unfortunately, that there always will be. But it is doubtful that it accounts for the fact that he can't seem to put McCain away.
McCain is at risk in the debates because that is just not his forum. Which is why he proposed townhalls, where he is more at ease. No surprise that Obama has rejected this idea. He doesn't do well on the fly.