Organizing for America

TONIGHT:

McCain: “Sure, but let me point out, I also warned about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and warned about corporate greed and excess and CEO pay and all that. A lot of us saw this train wreck coming.”

THE FACTS:

MCCAIN IS A “LATECOMER TO THE DEBATE” OVER REFORMING FANNIE AND FREDDIE AND HE ADMITTED THAT HE DID NOT ANTICIPATE THE HOUSING CRISIS

Politifact: McCain Is “A Latecomer To The Debate” Over Congressional Efforts To Increase Oversight Of Fannie And Freddie. “First of all, congressional efforts to increase oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac extend back to the early 1990s, making McCain a latecomer to the debate. The regulatory efforts proved unsuccessful because of Congress’ complicated relationship with the firms, whose dominance in the home financing market makes their stability critical to the economy.” [Politifact, accessed: 9/19/08 ]

McCain Said “I Don’t Claim To Be Smart Enough” To Offer A Solution To The Mortgage Crisis And Admitted That He Did Not Anticipate The Housing Crisis. In a meeting with the editorial board of New Hampshire’s Keene Sentinel, McCain responded to a question regarding the sub-prime mortgage loan crisis saying, in part, “I don’t know how bad it’s gonna get. And obviously, the worse it gets, then the more there is a role for government. But I can't come down yet and give you a specific solution, because I don't claim to be smart enough. But I do have some confidence in Paulson. And I’m glad to see him more and more active in this issue. But I’d love to give you a solution, but I don’t know one.” McCain also said “So, I’d like to tell you that I did anticipate it, but I have to give you straight talk, I did not.” [McCain Interview with editorial board of New Hampshire’s Keene Sentinel, 12/4/07, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTmIJ5Aag2Q]

MCCAIN WAS ONE OF 19 SENATORS WHO OPPOSED A BILL TO ESTABLISH AN INDEPENDENT REGULATORY AGENCY TO OVERSEE FANNIE AND FREDDIE

In 1992, McCain Opposed Establishing An Independent Regulatory Agency To Regulate Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. McCain voted against the Federal Housing Regulatory Reform Act which would have created an independent regulatory agency within the Department of Housing and Urban Development to oversee the activities of Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. The bill passed 77-19. [1992 Senate Vote #137, 7/1/92]

MCCAIN CAMPAIGN MANAGER RICK DAVIS’ FIRM WAS PAID BY FREDDIE MAC AND IS STILL ON THEIR PAYROLL

New York Times: McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis’ Firm Was Paid by Freddie Mac. “One of the giant mortgage companies at the heart of the credit crisis paid $15,000 a month from the end of 2005 through last month to a firm owned by Senator John McCain’s campaign manager, according to two people with direct knowledge of the arrangement. The disclosure undercuts a remark by Mr. McCain on Sunday night that the campaign manager, Rick Davis, had had no involvement with the company for the last several years. … They said Mr. Davis’s firm, Davis Manafort, had been kept on the payroll because of his close ties to Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, who by 2006 was widely expected to run again for the White House.” [New York Times, 9/23/08 ]

Roll Call: McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis’ Lobbying Firm Remains On The Payroll Of Freddie Mac. “The lobbying firm of Rick Davis, Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) campaign manager, remains on the payroll of mortgage giant Freddie Mac, according to two sources with knowledge of the arrangement. The firm, Davis Manafort, has collected $15,000 a month from the organization since late 2005, when Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae dissolved a five-year-old advocacy group that Davis earned nearly $2 million leading, the sources said.” [Roll Call, 9/23/08 ]

MCCAIN DID NOT SIGN ONTO OBAMA’S “SAY ON PAY” BILL TO GIVE SHAREHOLDERS A VOTE IN TOP OFFICERS’ COMPENSATION AND MCCAIN’s ECONOMIC ADVISER SAID MCCAIN OPPOSED LEGISLATIVE OR REGULATORY CURES FOR EXECUTIVE PROBLEMS

McCain Has Attacked Executive Compensation But He “Opposes New Government Steps To Curb Pay And Instead Favors Private-Sector Intervention”; McCain Has Not Signed Onto Obama’s “Say-On-Pay” Bill To Give Shareholders A Vote On Top Officers’ Compensation. “Sens. John McCain and Barack Obama both attacked executive compensation this past week. Unlike Sens. Obama and Hillary Clinton, however, the likely Republican nominee opposes new government steps to curb pay and instead favors private-sector intervention. … Democrats support a Senate bill that would require public companies to give shareholders an annual nonbinding vote on top officers' compensation. Sen. Obama, of Illinois, introduced the measure, similar to one that passed the House last year. ‘Washington needs to act immediately to pass this legislation’ and change ‘a system where bad behavior is rewarded,’ Sen. Obama said in Friday's prepared remarks. Obama staffers recently renewed his request for Senate hearings on the measure. If the ‘say-on-pay’ bill doesn't pass this year, it ‘will be a priority for Sen. Obama as president,’ campaign policy director Heather Higginbottom says. … Sen. McCain hasn't taken a stance on the say-on-pay bill, and opposes legislative or regulatory cures for executive-pay problems, says senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin.” [Wall Street Journal, 4/12/08 ; S 1181, introduced 4/20/07]

11:57 PM | Permalink

TONIGHT: John McCain said: “I am afraid Senator Obama doesn't understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy.”

Please see the last slide—where the Bush White House calls the surge a key TACTICAL shift

http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/iraq/2007/iraq-strategy011007.pdf

11:56 PM | Permalink

TONIGHT:

McCain: “We could impose significant meaningful painful sanctions on the Iranians that I think could have a beneficial effect.”

THE FACTS: MCCAIN VOTED AGAINST MEASURES TO STOP CORPORATIONS FROM DOING BUSINESS WITH COUNTRIES THAT SUPPORT TERROR AND HE HASN’T SIGNED ONTO OBAMA’S BILL TO INCREASE SANCTIONS ON IRAN

McCain Repeatedly Voted Against Closing A Legal Loophole That Allows Foreign Subsidiaries Of U.S. Companies To Do Business With Iran, Syria, Other Nations Subject To U.S. Sanctions. In 2005, John McCain voted against a proposal to stop corporations from financing terrorism by closing "a legal loophole that has allowed foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to do business with countries such as Iran and Syria that are subject to U.S. sanctions.” McCain voted against a similar proposal in 2004. [Senate Vote #203, 7/26/05; Senate Vote #101, 5/19/04; CQ Weekly, 7/29/05]

McCain Has Not Signed Onto Obama’s Bill Calling For Divestment >From Iran And When Asked Why, Said He Was “Not Familiar With It At All.” McCain, “when asked why he called for divestment from Iran but never signed onto the divestment bill Obama introduced last year, he pled ignorance: ‘I am not familiar with it at all. I do not know if it passed the Senate or had any hearing or anything else.’” [Slate, 6/5/08 ]

Ø Obama Sponsored The Iran Sanctions Enabling Act Of 2007, Which Would Require Publication Of Names Of Companies That Invest More Than $20 Million In Iran’s Energy Section And Authorize State/Local Governments To Divest Assets >From Those Companies. In 2007, Obama sponsored the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007. The bill would: The (1) require the U.S. government to publish a list every six months of those companies that have an investment of more than $20 million in Iran’s energy sector. This comprehensive list will provide investors with the knowledge to make informed investment decisions as well as a powerful disincentive for foreign companies to engage with Iran. (2) authorize state and local governments to divest the assets of their pension funds and other funds under their control from any company on the list; (3) protect fund managers who divest from companies on this list from lawsuits directed at them by investors who are unhappy with the results. [Obama Press Release, 5/15/07]

MCCAIN’S SENATE REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES ARE HOLDING UP OBAMA’S IRAN DIVESTMENT BILL

Last Week: Senate Republicans Blocked Obama Divestment Bill “Without Offering an Explanation.” “Republicans in the U.S. Senate blocked an amendment that would have enhanced Iran sanctions. Democrats have for months been trying to pass two sanctions-related bills that had passed overwhelmingly in the U.S. House of Representatives: One would have further isolated Iran's energy sector in a bid to get the Islamic Republic to stand down from its suspected nuclear weapons program; the other, authored by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the Democratic presidential nominee, would have made it easier for companies and pensions to disinvest from Iran. The Bush administration opposed the bills because it resists infringement on executive foreign policy powers, and also because it is conducting its own sensitive negotiations with Europe, Russia and China to isolate Iran. Pro-Israel insiders have said that Republicans also did not want to hand Obama a legislative victory in an election year. Under pressure from the pro-Israel lobby, the sides combined the bills into a compromise amendment that was to have been attached to the must-pass Defense Authorization Bill; at the last minute on Wednesday night Republicans blocked the amendment, without offering an explanation.” [Jewish Telegraphic Agency, 9/19/08 ]

11:41 PM | Permalink

THE FACTS: MCCAIN HAS CRITICIZED OUR ALLIES AND EVEN REFUSED A MEETING WITH SPAIN, WHO IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE EFFORT IN AFGHANISTAN

McCain Said He Wasn’t Sure Whether He Would Extend An Invitation To The Spanish President To Visit The White House. Q: “Senator, finally, let's talk about Spain. If you're elected president, would you be willing to invite President Jose Luiz Rodriguez Zapatero to the White House to meet with you?” MCCAIN: “I would be willing meet, uh, with those leaders who our friends [sic] and want to work with us in a cooperative fashion, and by the way, President Calderon of Mexico is fighting a very very tough fight against the drug cartels. I'm glad we are now working in cooperation with the Mexican government on the Merida plan. I intend to move forward with relations, and invite as many of them as I can, those leaders, to the White House.” Q: “Would that invitation be extended to the Zapatero government, to the president itself?” MCCAIN: “I don't, you know, honestly I have to look at relations and the situations and the priorities, but I can assure you I will establish closer relations with our friends and I will stand up to those who want to do harm to the United States of America.” Q: “So you have to wait and see if he's willing to meet with you, or you'll be able to do it in the White House?” MCCAIN: “Well again I don't, all I can tell you is that I have a clear record of working with leaders in the hemisphere that are friends with us, and standing up to those who are not, and that's judged on the basis of the importance of our relationship with Latin America, and the entire region.” [McCain Interview on Radio Caracol Miami, 9/17/08]

Ø Radio Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WItI9It_Swc

Top Foreign Policy Aide Confirmed That McCain Refused To Commit To A White House Meeting With Zapatero. “McCain foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann said there was no doubt that McCain intended to say that he would not commit to a White House meeting with Zapatero. Asked to explain McCain's apparent shift in tone and position since April, Scheunemann said in an e-mail: ‘If elected, he will meet with a wide range of allies in a wide variety of venues but is not going to spell out scheduling and meeting location specifics in advance. He also is not going to make reckless promises to meet America's adversaries. It's called keeping your options open, unlike Senator Obama, who has publicly committed to meeting some of the world's worst dictators unconditionally in his first year in office.’” [Washington Post, 9/19/08]

Spain Has 740 Troops Serving In Afghanistan. According the International Security Assistance Force, Spain has 740 troops serving in Afghanistan. [International Security Assistance Force, 9/1/08 ]

McCain Said That The French And Germans Are “Not Our Allies, They’re Our Adversaries.” Q: “Senator John McCain is a Republican from Arizona and a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Senator, going to the U.N. after all these months of trying to do with it just us and the British, what does it tell you? What's up?” MCCAIN: “Well, it tells me that we have to get help wherever we can and there is no doubt that this is a bit of a come down for us. Yet I want to point out that the French and German reaction was absolutely predictable. And that is that they're being far less than cooperative. I'm sorry to say that they're not our allies, they're our adversaries.” [MSNBC, “Hardball,” 9/5/03]

11:05 PM | Permalink

TONIGHT: McCain: “Well, I was interested in Senator Obama's reaction to the Russian aggression against Georgia. His first statement was both sides ought to show restraint. Again, a little bit of naivete there, he doesn't understand that Russia committed serious aggression against Georgia, and Russia has now become a nation fueled by petro dollars that is basically a KGB-run government.”

THE FACTS: OBAMA FORCEFULLY CONDEMNED RUSSIA’S INVASION OF GEORGIA AND WAS PRESCIENT IN WARNING ABOUT THE IMPENDING SITUATION THERE

April 2008: Obama Warned Of Possible Conflict In The Georgia Region In April 2008. Obama said in a press release, “Georgia is a sovereign country, a member of the United Nations, and a close friend of the United States. I welcome the desire by Georgia, as well as Ukraine, to seek closer ties with NATO. Russian President Vladimir Putin's decree establishing closer governmental and legal relations with the Georgian regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, without the approval of the Georgian government, is deeply troubling and contrary to Russia's obligations as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Putin's declaration falls short of recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent countries, but these pledges of closer ties to these two regions threatens the Georgian government and emboldens the secessionist forces in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili has offered to negotiate substantial autonomy for these regions. Negotiations between the Georgian government and regional leaders, fully supported by international organizations and responsible governments, are the right way to proceed. … The advance of democracy and peace in the region is a remarkable achievement that cannot be undone by unilateral acts designed to undermine the territorial integrity of democratic countries like Georgia.” [Obama Press Release, 4/21/08 ]

Obama Strongly Condemned The Outbreak Of Violence In Georgia And Urged An Immediate End To The Crisis. Obama said in a statement, “I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.” [Obama Press Release, 8/8/08 ]

Obama Condemned Russia’s Aggressive Actions And Reiterated His Call For An Immediate Ceasefire. Obama said in a statement, “I just spoke separately with Secretary Rice and President Saakashvili about the grave crisis in Georgia. I told President Saakashvili that I was deeply concerned about the wellbeing of the people of Georgia. Over the last two days, Russia has escalated the crisis in Georgia through its clear and continued violation of Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. On Friday, Aug. 8, Russian military forces invaded Georgia. I condemn Russia’s aggressive actions and reiterate my call for an immediate ceasefire. Russia must stop its bombing campaign, cease flights of Russian aircraft in Georgian airspace, and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia.” [Politico, Obama Press Release, 8/9/08 ]

11:01 PM | Permalink

TONIGHT:

McCain: “My reading of the threat from Iran is that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it is an existential threat to the state of Israel and it is a threat to the region because the other countries in the region will feel a compelling requirement to acquire nuclear weapons as well.”
McCain: “But have no doubt, but have no doubt that the Iranians continue on the path to the acquisition of a nuclear weapon as we speak tonight, and it is a threat not only in the region but around the world.”
THE FACTS: OBAMA WORKED ACROSS THE AISLE TO KEEP WMDs OUT OF THE HANDS OF TERRORISTS WHILE MCCAIN HAS SHOWN NO LEADERSHIP ON NON-PROLIFERATION ISSUES

Obama And Lugar Passed Law Boosting U.S. Efforts To Keep WMDs And Other Dangerous Weapons Out Of The Hands Of Terrorists. In 2006, Obama and Lugar introduced The Cooperative Proliferation Detection Act, which was passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously on May 26, 2006 and was eventually incorporated into the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006 and signed into law on January 11, 2007. … The legislation authored by Chairman Lugar and Senator Obama enhances: (1) U.S. cooperation with foreign governments to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles around the world; and (2) the United States' ability to provide assistance to foreign governments aimed at helping them detect and interdict weapons and materials of mass destruction. …The initiative was modeled after the Nunn-Lugar program that focuses on weapons of mass destruction in the former Soviet Union. The legislation was signed into law on January 11, 2007, as a part of H.R. 6060, the Department of State Authorities Act of 2006.” [P.L. 109-472 , 1/11/07; House Report 109-706 , 9/3/06; S. 2566 , 109th Congress; S.1949 , 109th Congress; Senate Report 110-40 , 3/29/07]

Ø Lugar-Obama Strengthens The Ability “To Detect And Intercept Illegal Shipments Of Weapons Of Mass Destruction That Could Be Used In A Nuclear, Chemical, Or Biological Weapon.” Obama and Lugar: “The other part of the legislation would strengthen the ability of America's friends and allies to detect and intercept illegal shipments of weapons of mass destruction or material that could be used in a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon.” [Washington Post, 12/3/05 ]
For 26 years In Washington, McCain Showed No Leadership On Preventing Nuclear Proliferation/Nuclear Terrorism. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Washington-based Arms Control Association stated: “The majority of people following the issue would point out McCain has not taken a leadership role on nonproliferation during his career in the Senate.” In response to the Obama campaign statement from spokesman Bill Burton that “John McCain has not led on nonproliferation issues when he had the chance in the Senate", the non-partisan website politicalfact.com concluded: “a look at McCain’s record on nonproliferation shows he mostly showed up for key votes but didn’t influence debates” and “we don't find much in McCain's Senate record to refute the charge of the Obama camp. We say, True.” [Politifact, accessed 9/24/08 ]

Nuclear Experts Said McCain’s Speech On Non-Proliferation “Did Not Break Significant New Ground.” “Nuclear experts said McCain did not break significant new ground, but they welcomed the focus on the issue. ‘McCain's speech, while vague in several key areas, reflects the emerging bipartisan consensus in favor of renewed U.S. leadership on nuclear disarmament that is needed to win support for steps needed to shore up the beleaguered global nonproliferation system,’ said Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association. He said it was ‘a welcome start’ that candidates are focused ‘on this underreported issue in the campaign.’” [Washington Post, 5/28/08 ]

10:52 PM | Permalink

DEBATE REALITY CHECK: JOHN MCCAIN’S DOUBLETALK ON HIS TAX PLAN

What he Says

What He Means

He will “Double the Dividend” in his Tax Plan

· "I want to double the dividend from $3,500 to $7,000 for every dependent child in America."

· “Let's give every American a choice. Two tax brackets, generous dividends…”

Double the Personal Exemption for Dependents in his Tax Plan

· “John McCain Will Double The Personal Exemption For Dependents. He proposes to raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000.”[1] [From his Website]

He will Offer Tax Credits So Families Can Purchase Health Care

§ “I want every family to have a $5,000 refundable tax credit so they can go out and purchase their own health care. "

He Will Also Impose a $3.6 Trillion Dollar Tax Increase by Taking Health Benefits

§ “So, [the tax credit is] equal to or more than the value of the tax break today for employer provided health insurance when you look at it… [A]ccording to the CBO initially by shifting to the employee tax aspect of it we save $3.5 trillion over a ten year period.” (McCain Remarks, Health08.org Conference, 10/31/07).

§ “Mr. Holtz-Eakin said in an interview that for some, Mr. McCain’s health care tax credits would not be large enough to compensate for his proposal to eliminate the tax breaks afforded to workers with employer-provided health benefits…. Charlie Black, a senior adviser to his campaign, who was also on the bus, acknowledged that some would pay more…” NYT, [5/1/08]).

10:49 PM | Permalink

TONIGHT:

McCain: “I voted for alternate fuel all my time… No one can be opposed to alternate energy, no one.”

THE FACTS: MCCAIN HAS VOTED AT LEAST 23 TIMES AGAINST INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY

1992: McCain Voted Against Proceeding On A Vote On The 1992 Energy Bill. McCain voted against proceeding to the bill to encourage energy conservation and increase domestic energy production. [1992 Senate Vote 150, 7/23/1992]

1999: McCain Voted Against Funding for Renewable Energy Programs. McCain opposed an amendment that would increase funding for energy supply and research and development activities for renewable energy sources by reducing unnecessary Energy Department contractor travel expenses. McCain voted to kill an appeal made by the chair that this amendment was out of order, effectively voting to kill the amendment. [1999 Senate Vote 171, 6/16/1999]

2001: McCain Voted Against Establishing Renewable Energy Tax Credits. McCain voted against establishing tax credits for investments in renewable energy technologies, incentives for new energy efficient residential construction and tax deductions for increased energy efficiency in commercial buildings. [2001 Senate Vote 125, 5/21/2001]

2002: McCain Voted Against Renewable Energy Mandate. McCain voted against an amendment to require utilities to generate 10 percent of electricity from renewable energy facilities by 2020. [2002 Senate Vote 55, 3/21/2002]

2002: McCain Voted To Allow Exemptions From Renewable Energy Standards. McCain voted for an amendment that would exempt retail electric suppliers in states that have state renewable energy standards from the federal renewable standard in the underlying amendment . [2002 Senate Vote 58, 3/21/2002]

2002: McCain Voted To Allow Exemptions From Renewable Energy Standards.. McCain voted to allow the Governor of a State the ability to waive certain provisions of the Federal mandate, if the provisions would adversely affect retail electric customers of the State, with respect to the application of the Federal renewable portfolio standard. [2002 Senate Vote 59, 3/21/2002]

2002: McCain Voted Against Proceeding On A Measure To Provide $14.1 Billion In Energy-Related Tax Incentives. McCain voted against a motion to invoke cloture on measure that would overhaul the nation's energy policies, restructure the electricity system and provide for $14.1 billion in energy-related tax incentives. [2002 Senate Vote 77, 4/23/2002]

2002: McCain Voted Against Phasing Out MBTE And Voted Against An Ethanol Mandate. McCain voted against keeping a renewable fuel program, including the phase-out of MTBE in the energy bill. [2002 Senate Vote 78, 4/23/2002]

2002: McCain Voted Against Alternative Fuels Tax Credits. McCain voted to strike provisions in the 2002 energy bill relating to alternative vehicles and fuel incentives. [2002 Senate Vote 91, 4/25/2002]

2002: McCain Voted Against The 2002 Energy Bill. McCain voted against the passage of a bill that would overhaul the nation's energy policies, restructure the electricity system and provide for approximately $15 billion in energy-related tax incentives. [2002 Senate Vote 94, 4/25/2002]

2003: McCain Voted For Waivers Of Ethanol Mandates For States That Can Meet Clean Air Standards Without Adding Renewable Fuels. McCain voted to allow states to waive the ethanol mandate in the renewable fuel program if the EPA Administrator determines, after a public notice and comment period, that implementation of renewable fuel requirement is not necessary to meet Clean Air standards, because States or regions can meet standards without adding renewable fuels. [2003 Senate Vote 203, 6/3/2003]

2003: McCain Voted to Allow Governors to Waive Ethanol Mandates. McCain voted to add language to the 2003 energy bill that would make a state subject to ethanol requirements only if the state's governor elected to participate. [2003 Senate Vote 204, 6/3/2003]

2003: McCain Voted to Allow the President Exempt States Or Regions From Renewable Energy Mandates McCain voted for an amendment that adds language that would give the president authority to exempt a state or geographic region from the ethanol requirements of the underlying amendment for 30 days if the Energy secretary determines the requirements have caused or will cause the average cost of gasoline to increase by at least 10 cents per gallon. The Frist amendment would require gasoline refineries to use 5 billion gallons of ethanol or other alternative renewable fuels annually by 2012, phase out the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and eliminate a requirement that gasoline sold in regions with high levels of air pollution contain 2 percent oxygen by volume. [2003 Senate Vote 206, 6/4/2003]

2003: McCain Voted To Limit The Ethanol Mandate To The Midwest. McCain voted for a measure that exempts States in East Coast, West Coast, and Rocky Mountain region from ethanol mandate, while leaving mandate in place in Midwest. [2003 Senate Vote 207, 6/5/2003]

2003: McCain Voted Against Requiring Gasoline Refineries To Use 5 Billions Gallons Of Ethanol Or Other Alternative Renewable Fuels Annually By 2012. McCain voted against an amendment that would require gasoline refineries to use 5 billion gallons of ethanol or other alternative renewable fuels annually by 2012, phase out the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and eliminate a requirement that gasoline sold in regions with high levels of air pollution contain 2 percent oxygen by volume. [2003 Senate Vote 209, 6/5/2003]

2003: McCain Voted Against The 2003 Energy Bill. McCain voted against passage of a bill to overhaul the nation's energy policies, restructure the electricity system and provide for approximately $15 billion in energy-related tax incentives. It also would direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to set a new CAFE standard within 15 months to two years. It would encourage the use of alternative energy and require utilities to increase their reliance on renewable fuels. [2003 Senate Vote 317, 7/31/2003]

2004: McCain Voted Against Phasing Out MBTE And Establishing Renewable Fuel Standards. McCain voted a measure that would require that gasoline sold in or introduced into the United States contain renewable fuel in specific amounts, beginning with 3.1 billion gallons in 2005 and increasing each year to 5 billion gallons in 2012. [2004 Senate Vote 73, 4/29/2004]

2005: McCain Voted Against Requiring Refiners To Use Renewable Fuels Like Ethanol And Phasing Out The Use OF MTBE. McCain voted to kill an amendment that would require refiners to annually use 8 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012, grant liability protection for ethanol manufacturers, phase out the use of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether and eliminate the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline. [2005 Senate Vote 138, 6/15/2005]

2005: McCain Voted Against An Amendment Requiring Refiners To Annually Use 8 Billion Gallons Of Renewable Fuels By 2012, Grant Ethanol Manufacturers Liability Protection, And To Phase Out The Use Of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) As An Additive. McCain voted against an amendment that would require refiners to annually use 8 billion gallons of renewable fuels by 2012, grant liability protection for ethanol manufacturers, phase out the use of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether and eliminate the oxygen content requirement for reformulated gasoline. [2005 Senate Vote 139, 6/15/2005]

2005: McCain Voted Against Renewable Energy Mandate. McCain voted against an amendment that would mandate that renewable energy sources must produce at least 10 percent of the electricity sold by electric utilities by 2020, a minimum of 2.5 percent must be produced beginning 2008 through 2011. [2005 Senate Vote 141, 6/16/2005]

2005: McCain Voted Against Major Energy Legislation Providing $18 Billion In Energy Related Tax Incentives. McCain voted against final passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The bill would overhaul the nation's energy policy and provide for approximately $18 billion in energy-related tax incentives. [2005 Senate Vote 158, 6/28/2005]

2005: McCain Voted With Senate Republicans To Slash $20 Million from Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Program for Farmers. McCain voted for a budget package that almost entirely eliminated the popular and successful Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency program for farmers, cutting it from its current $23 million to only $3 million. The Energy Efficiency program had doled out more than $66 million in grants for 400 clean energy projects in Rural America since 2003, including ethanol plants. These projects, valued at over one billion dollars, include bio-energy projects, wind power, and energy efficiency improvements. [2005 Senate Vote 363, 12/21/2005; "Senate Passes Deficit Reduction Act Of 2005: Renewable Energy Programs Cut," Environmental and Energy Institute, 12/19/05]

2006: McCain Voted Against Extending The Renewable Energy Production Credit; The Measure Also Included $290 Million For Renewable Energy R&D On Solar, Wind, Geothermal, Biomass, Hydropower. McCain voted against an amendment that provided an additional $500 million for LIHEAP and $3.5 billion for other energy programs. The amendment extends the renewable energy production tax credit and clean renewable energy bonds programs for four years. The amendment provided for the following funding: Biomass cellulosic fuels ($250 million), Cellulosic biomass ethanol conversion assistance ($250 million), Renewable energy R&D Solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, hydropower ($290 million). [2006 Senate Vote 42, 3/14/2006]

10:36 PM | Permalink

TONIGHT:

McCain: “Senator Obama has the most liberal voting record in the United States Senate.”

THE FACTS: MCCAIN PRAISED OBAMA AS A CENTRIST, MCCAIN VOTED WITH BUSH 90 PERCENT OF THE TIME

McCain Praised Obama As “Very Impressive, He’s Thoughtful, He’s Centrist.” Sen. John McCain said of Obama: “He's very impressive, he's thoughtful, he's centrist.” [The Tribune (Port St. Lucie/Fort Pierce, FL), 12/18/05]

Politifact: McCain And Other Republicans Cite A National Journal Rating That Obama Is The Most Liberal Senator But “Other Measurements Tell A Different Story.” Politifact, a service of CQ and the St. Petersburg Times wrote, “McCain and other Republicans cite a National Journal rating to claim that Obama is the Senate's No. 1 liberal. But other measurements tell a different story. It’s a line you’ll hear many times from Sen. John McCain over the next five months: ‘In just a few years in office, Sen. Obama has accumulated the most liberal voting record in the Senate.’ But McCain’s campaign also pointed out recently that Barack Obama votes with President Bush about half the time.” [Politifact, 6/16/08 ]

McCain Has Voted With Bush 90 Percent Of The Time In The Senate. According to Congressional Quarterly, McCain has voted in support of President Bush's position 90 percent of the time since the beginning of his administration. [Congressional Quarterly, 8/15/08, http://www.cqpolitics.com/cq-assets/cqmultimedia/flash/votestudy/index.html ]

McCain: On The “Most Important Issues Of Our Day, I Have Been Totally In Agreement And Support Of President Bush.” In a June 2005 interview on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” John McCain stated that he was a strong supporter of President Bush: “I have agreed with President Bush far more than I have disagreed. And on the transcendent issues, the most important issues of our day, I have been totally in agreement and support of President Bush.” [NBC, “Meet The Press,” 6/19/05]

10:33 PM | Permalink

"We will never retreat from negotiations. I have openly expressed my
view of the Soviet system....But this doesn't mean that we can't deal
with each other. We don't refuse to talk when the Soviets call us
imperialist aggressors and worse, or because they cling to the fantasy
of a Communist triumph over democracy. The fact that neither of us
likes the other system is no reason to refuse to talk. Living in this
nuclear age makes it imperative that we do talk. Our commitment to
dialogue is firm and unshakeable, but we insist that our negotiations
deal with real problems, not atmospherics."

President Ronald Reagan's Jan. 16, 1984 Address on US-Soviet Relations.

http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1984/11684a.htm

10:29 PM | Permalink

TONIGHT:

McCain: “You might think that with that kind of concern that Senator Obama would have gone to Afghanistan, particularly given his responsibilities as the subcommittee chairman. By the way, when I'm subcommittee chairman, we take up the issues under my subcommittee.”

THE FACTS: MCCAIN HAS ATTENDED FEWER AFGHANISTAN HEARINGS THAN OBAMA

McCain Has Attended Fewer Afghanistan-Related Senate Hearings Than Obama. “It turns out that presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain has attended even fewer Afghanistan-related Senate hearings over the past two years than Obama's one. Which is a nice way of saying, McCain, R Ariz., the top Republican on the Senate Armed Service Committee, has attended zero of his committee's six hearings on Afghanistan over the last two years.” [Political Radar, abcnews.com, 7/17/08, http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/07/hearing-gate-ex.html]

10:22 PM | Permalink

THE FACTS: FIVE FORMER SECRETARIES OF STATE AS WELL AS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAVE ENDORSED TALKING TO IRAN

Former Secretary Of State Kissinger Said U.S. Should Talk To Iran “Without Conditions.” “Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger today told an audience in Washington, DC that the U.S. should negotiate with Iran "without conditions" and that the next President should begin such negotiations at a high level. The former Nixon and Ford U.S. Secretary of State early in the year indicated his belief that the U.S. should hold direct talks with Iran when speaking to Bloomberg Television.” [ABC News, 9/15/08]

Kissinger: US “Has To Talk To Adversaries” And Find A “Mode Of Negotiation” To Do So With Iran. Secretary Kissinger said, “I agree with Jim that one has to talk to adversaries but one should not treat it as a psychiatric problem, so that it's just a question of going into a room and creating goodwill. How well we negotiate with Iran depends in part on the objective balances that exist in the region. The reason it worked when Colin was secretary is because we had a force in Afghanistan. We were changing the situation, but we recognized that Afghanistan could not be solved without the participation of 5 the neighbors, and in that context, it was possible to get an agreement with Iraq. If Iran considers itself a significant country that wants to be respected, we ought to find a mode of negotiation, because if things get tougher, we have to be able to tell the American people that we have done everything we can to explore a peaceful evolution.” [Transcript , 3/27/08]

Couric: Kissinger Confirmed Talks Without Preconditions. Katie Couric said, “Incidentally, we confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following our interview. He told us he supports talks, if not with Ahmadinejad, then with high-level Iranian officials without preconditions.” [CBS News, 9/25/08]

Charlie Gibson: Bush Administration Insisted It Would Not Talk With Iran, But Its New Willingness to Talk “Is Essentially What Barack Obama Has Been Proposing.” Charlie Gibson: “The Bush administration, for years, has insisted it would not talk with Iran until Iran suspended its nuclear enrichment program. That policy was reversed today. The State Department said it will send Undersecretary of State William Burns to meet face-to-face with Iran’s nuclear negotiator this weekend. So, Martha Raddatz is here to explain what seems like a major turnaround…There are political implications to this because this is essentially what Barack Obama has been proposing, isn't it?” Martha Raddatz said, “It sure sounds like it, Charlie. There’s a good quote today, from John Bolton, the former U.N. ambassador. He said this is like getting an Obama administration six months early. The White House says it's very different. But it sure sounds like it's heading in that direction.” [ABC World News, 7/16/08]

Washington Post Fact Checker: “McCain Is Distorting History When He Suggests That Barack Obama Is Bucking American Presidential Tradition In Expressing A Willingness To Meet With The Leaders Of Countries Hostile To The United States.” “McCain is distorting history when he suggests that Barack Obama is bucking American presidential tradition in expressing a willingness to meet with the leaders of countries hostile to the United States. Hitler apart, U.S. presidents have held meetings with some of the greatest mass murderers in history. It is also incorrect to suggest, as both McCain and President Bush have done, that the mere willingness to meet or negotiate with foreign dictators constitutes "appeasement," a term used to describe actions such as the surrender of the Czech Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in a desperate bid to avoid World War II.” [Washington Post, 5/21/08 ]

10:20 PM | Permalink

TONIGHT:

McCain: “I don't think that Senator Obama understands that there was a failed state in Pakistan when Musharraf came to power. Everybody who was around then and been there knew about it, knew that there was a failed state.”

THE FACTS: MCCAIN IN DECEMBER 2007 “WAS OUTSPOKEN IN HIS DEFENSE OF MUSHARRAF” THEN MOVED TO OBAMA’S POSITION

12/28/07: Washington Post: McCain “Was Outspoken In His Defense Of Musharraf” And McCain Said Musharraf “Has Done A Pretty Good Job.” “McCain was outspoken in his defense of Musharraf, who has had to contend with criticisms today from others on the campaign trail, such as Bill Richardson's call for a curtailing of U.S. aid to Pakistan. ‘I continue to believe Musharraf has done a pretty good job, done a lot of the things that we wanted him to do,’ McCain said, citing Musharraf's decision to relinquish his military post, to call elections, and to end martial law.” [Washington Post, 12/28/07 ]

8/18/08: McCain Said The Resignation Of Musharraf Is “A Step Toward Moving Pakistan Onto A More Stable Political Footing.” McCain said in a statement, “The resignation of President Pervez Musharraf is a step toward moving Pakistan onto a more stable political footing. Pakistan is a critical theater in countering the threat of al Qaeda and violent Islamic extremism, and I look forward to the government increasing its future cooperation.” [Boston Globe, 8/18/08 ]

OBAMA HAS CONSISTENTLY BEEN CRITICAL OF U.S. SUPPORT OF MUSHARRAF

Obama Said That With Our Unconditional Support Of Musharraf We Have Gotten Neither Stability Nor Democracy. Obama said, “In Pakistan, I will reject the false choice between stability and democracy. In our unconditional support for [Pakistani President Pervez] Musharraf, we have gotten neither.” [Washington Post, 3/2/08 ]

Obama Said It Was A Mistake To “Put All Our Eggs In The Musharraf Basket.” Obama said, “On the question of Pakistan, which Senator Clinton just raised -- we just had an election there. But I've said very clearly that we have put all our eggs in the Musharraf basket. That was a mistake. We should be going after Al Qaida and making sure that Pakistan is serious about hunting down terrorists, as well as expanding democracy. And I was right about that. On the issues that have come up that a commander in chief is going to have to make decisions on, I have shown the judgment to lead. That is the leadership that I want to show when I'm president of the United States.” [Democratic Debate, 2/21/08]

Obama Said Musharraf Acted In An Anti-Democratic Fashion. Obama said, “Not only do we have a president who has acted in an anti-democratic fashion the past, but we also have the rise of Islamic militants in the northwest provinces that are going back and forth between the borders of Afghanistan and Pakistan.” [MSNBC, 12/27/07 ]

10:14 PM | Permalink

TONIGHT: Obama: “At one point, while you were focused on Iraq, you said, well, we can muddle through Afghanistan.”

THE FACTS: MCCAIN HAS IGNORED THE THREAT IN AFGHANISTAN AND THINKS IRAQ IS THE CENTRAL FRONT IN THE WAR ON TERROR

McCain: “We May Muddle Through In Afghanistan.” During a November 2003 appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations, John McCain was asked about his views on Afghanistan. McCain noted that there had been a rise in al Qaeda activity along the border with Pakistan, and said that he was concerned about the increase in U.S. casualties. However, he added, “But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that -- in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan.” [Council on Foreign Relations , 11/5/03]

Ø VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wazv45RYj60

McCain: Iraq Is The Central Front In The War On Terror. “I agreed with General Petraeus when he said Iraq was the central battleground in the war and the struggle against al Qaeda. And he said that repeatedly.” [NBC, “Today,” 7/21/08]

10:10 PM | Permalink

McCain: “Bomb Iran.” “Mr. McCain – who has taken a hard-line stance on Iran, and who joked early in the campaign by suggesting renaming the Beach Boys song ‘Barbara Ann’ as ‘Bomb Iran’ – referred in his speech here to creating ‘real-world pressures’ on Iran. He called for the United Nations to impose tougher political and economic sanctions, and saying that if it fails to do so that the United States should lead ‘like-minded countries’ in imposing their own sanctions, including some sanctions that he said would ‘impose a heavy cost on the regime’s leaders, including the denial of visas and freezing of assets.’ And he spoke of spearheading a worldwide divestment campaign, modeled on the one that helped pressure South Africa to end apartheid.” [New York Times, 6/2/08 ]

VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-zoPgv_nYg

10:04 PM | Permalink

TONIGHT:

McCain: “Senator Obama said the surge could not work, said it would increase sectarian violence, said it was doomed to failure. Recently on a television program he said it exceeded our wildest expectations, but yet after conceding that, he still says that he would oppose the surge if he had to decide that again today.”

OBAMA HAS REPEATEDLY SAID THAT WHILE THE SURGE COULD HELP TO REDUCE VIOLENCE IN IRAQ, IT DID NOT CHANGE THE POLITICAL DYNAMIC IN IRAQ

Obama Said That With A Surge, “We Might See Some Improvement In Certain Neighborhoods” But That It Won’t Change The Underlying Dynamic. Obama said, “I don't think there's been any doubt that if we put U.S. troops in that, in the short term, we might see some improvement in certain neighborhoods because the militias are going to fade back into the community. That's one of the characteristics of what we've seen. The problem is that we don't see any change in the underlying dynamic which is Shia militias infiltrating the government, Sunni insurgents continuing the fight, that's the essence of the problem and unless we say that we're going to occupy Iraq indefinitely, we're gonna continue to see problems.” [WQAD, 3/11/07 ]

Obama Said the Purpose of the Surge Was to Allow Iraqi Leaders to Reconcile, But they Were Not Reconciling. Obama” “The stated purpose of the surge was to enable Iraq's leaders to reconcile. But as the recent report from the Government Accountability Office confirms, the Iraqis are not reconciling. Our troops fight and die in the 120 degree heat to give Iraq's leaders space to agree, but they aren't filling it. … This only underscores the point - the solution in Iraq is political, it is not military. Violence is contained in some parts of Baghdad. That's no surprise. Our troops have cleared these neighborhoods at great costs. But our troops cannot police Baghdad indefinitely - only Iraqis can.” [Obama Speech, 9/12/07 ]

MCCAIN WAS A CHEERLEADER FOR A POLICY THAT SENT TOO FEW TROOPS IN THE FIRST PLACE

McCain Supported The Administration’s Military Strategy For Iraq, Saying Only 100,000 Troops Would Be Needed. Tim Russert: “Today, the front page of The Washington Post, ‘War Plans Target Hussein Power Base. Scenarios feature a smaller force, narrower strikes,’ calling for 100,000 rather than the 500,000 we used in the Persian Gulf War, and not taking out power dams and electric grids, but focusing on Saddam and his Republican Guards. Is that what you see?” McCain responded, “Yes…And I believe that this strategy is based on one fundamental fact: Saddam Hussein is dramatically weaker than he was before. And what Iraq—in 1991—what Iraqi soldier is going to die for Saddam Hussein if he thinks he's on his way out? And so from everything I can tell, that seems to be a very good strategy, and I think we're going to take great advantage to the precision of our weapons that can be delivered from the air.” [NBC, Meet the Press, 9/22/02]

10:01 PM | Permalink

THE FACTS: MCCAIN HAS IGNORED THE THREAT IN AFGHANISTAN AND THINKS IRAQ IS THE CENTRAL FRONT IN THE WAR ON TERROR

McCain: Iraq Is The Central Front In The War On Terror. “I agreed with General Petraeus when he said Iraq was the central battleground in the war and the struggle against al Qaeda. And he said that repeatedly.” [NBC, “Today,” 7/21/08]

McCain: “We May Muddle Through In Afghanistan.” During a November 2003 appearance before the Council on Foreign Relations, John McCain was asked about his views on Afghanistan. McCain noted that there had been a rise in al Qaeda activity along the border with Pakistan, and said that he was concerned about the increase in U.S. casualties. However, he added, “But I believe that if Karzai can make the progress that he is making, that -- in the long term, we may muddle through in Afghanistan.” [Council on Foreign Relations , 11/5/03; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wazv45RYj60&eurl=http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/17/mccain-03-afghanistan/]

THE FACTS: OBAMA HAS BEEN CALLING FOR MORE TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN FAR LONGER THAN MCCAIN

Major Garrett: McCain “Was Behind Obama” On The Call For More Troops In Afghanistan And “Lost Ground When He Offered Three Different Explanations About Where The Additional Combat Forces Would Come From.” “McCain this week backed Obama’s call for more combat troops in Afghanistan. He had resisted that for months because he didn’t want to siphon troops from Iraq. McCain said Afghanistan needed more troops than Obama (McCain says three brigades and Obama says two brigades) AND a new military strategy — a re-think, as it were, comparable to that which led to the new counter-insurgency approach in Iraq. On this, many analysts agree, but no new strategy can be implemented without more troops and McCain was behind Obama on that call. McCain also lost ground when he offered three different explanations about where the additional combat forces would come from (the U.S., then NATO, then maybe the U.S. and NATO).” [Fox News, 7/19/08 ]

David Gergen: “In The Last Two Days We've Seen Twice Now The Bush Administration Reverse Itself And Take Positions That Are Much Closer To Obama’s,” Added “The Greater Danger To Our Troops Right Now Is In Afghanistan. That’s What Obama’s Been Arguing All Along.” David Gergen: “For the last few months, John McCain has had the upper hand in the arguments about foreign policy, as one of the chief architects of a surge that Obama voted against and then it seemed to work. And yet in the last two days we've seen twice now the Bush administration reverse itself and take positions that are much closer to Obama’s. Last night we talked about the fact that suddenly the Bush administration had reversed course and was going to begin talking directly to Iran this weekend, and now tonight we're talking about them reversing course and saying we must send more troops into Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is becoming in many ways at least as dangerous as Iraq. You know, last -- in June, there were virtually the same number of American troops who died in Afghanistan as in Iraq, and yet in Iraq we have five times as many troops. So the danger, the greater danger to our troops right now is in Afghanistan. That’s what Obama’s been arguing all along.” [Anderson Cooper, CNN, 7/16/08]

Christian Science Monitor: McCain “Has Resisted Calls For More Troops In Afghanistan.” “McCain has resisted calls for more troops in Afghanistan and has rejected criticism that the Iraq war is detracting from efforts to secure Afghanistan. He labeled Barack Obama ‘naïve’ for saying he'd strike terrorist targets in Pakistan with or without the cooperation of President Pervez Musharraf. … Aides to the Arizona senator said Wednesday that he continued to view success in Iraq as the best chance for victory in the global war on terror. ‘As on many things, Senator Obama is not listening to our commanders, and Senator McCain is,’ says Kori Schake, a senior policy adviser to McCain. ‘General David Petraeus believes Iraq is the central front in the war on terror. Al Qaeda has even said it is.’ … Ms. Schake's comments came about two hours after Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said additional troops were needed in Afghanistan but that too many were tied down in Iraq to send more.” [Christian Science Monitor, 7/7/08]

2004: McCain Said, “We Have Sufficient Troops” In Both Afghanistan And Iraq. In an appearance on CNN, Wolf Blitzer asked McCain, “As you know, the critics argue that there's a finite number of U.S. soldiers, finite number of special operations forces, Arabic-speaking personnel, and that you either use them in Iraq or Afghanistan but there's probably not enough to do a thorough job in both places.” McCain responded, “I think we have sufficient troops to do the job in both places. It's very difficult but I believe we can.” [CNN, Wolf Blitzer Reports, 4/1/04]

09:58 PM | Permalink

TONIGHT:

McCain: “Senator Obama is the chairperson of a committee that oversees NATO that is in Afghanistan. To this day he has never had a hearing. That's remarkable.”

THE FACTS: THE FULL FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, NOT OBAMA’S SUBCOMMITTEE HOLD HEARINGS ON NATO’S ROLE IN AFGHANISTAN AND OBAMA CHAIRED A FULL FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE HEARING THAT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE

FactCheck.org: The Full Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Not Obama’s Subcommittee, Held Hearings On Afghanistan; McCain Missed All Seven Hearings On Afghanistan Held By Senate Armed Services Committee In The Last Two Years. “It was the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not Obama's subcommittee, that had the hearings on this global hot spot, and Obama attended one of those. Over the same time period, McCain himself attended none of the Afghanistan hearings held by the Armed Services Committee on which he serves. … McCain's ad fails to mention that his own record is no better. Although he's the highest ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, he missed all seven of the hearings that his panel held on Afghanistan during the same two years, according to ABCNews.com.”” [FactCheck.org, 7/22/08 ]

Republican Richard Lugar’s Spokesperson Said Criticism Of Obama On Not Holding Oversight Hearings On NATO’s Role In Afghanistan Is Unfair Because NATO’s Role In Afghanistan Would Be Held Before The Full Foreign Relations Committee. The claim “while technically true, is unfair, said Andrew J. Fischer, a spokesman for Republican Sen. Richard Lugar. Lugar now serves as a minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee, but he was the chair, from 2003 to 2006, when Republicans controlled the Senate. He is the ranking Republican on the committee. Fischer, who is a minority staff member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said something as major as NATO’s role in Afghanistan would typically be held before the full Foreign Relations Committee, rather than Obama’s European subcommittee.” [Politifact, 2/26/08 ]

Senator Obama Chaired A Foreign Relations Committee Hearing That Discussed NATO And U.S. Efforts In Afghanistan. Obama chaired a Foreign Relations Committee meeting in April 2008. During the meeting, Obama discussed NATO and Afghanistan and the resources we need to win the war there saying, “Afghanistan, NATO's first major mission beyond the borders of Europe, has been overlooked and undermanned by many members of the alliance, including the United States. Success in Afghanistan, I believe, is critical to American national security and to the security of the entire world, and a failure there would not only endanger our nation and global stability, it would cast serious doubt on the ability of NATO's military and political architecture to uphold our security in the 21st century.” [Foreign Relations Committee Hearing, 4/8/08]


MCCAIN MISSED EVERY ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE HEARING IN THE LAST TWO YEARS ON AFGHANISTAN

ABC News: McCain Missed Every Armed Services Committee Hearing In The Last Two Years That Discussed Afghanistan. A review of the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings as listed on the committee Web site for the past two years reveals that McCain’s committee has held six hearings that included the word “Afghanistan” in the title or “Central Command” — which overseas U.S. troops in Afghanistan. McCain missed them all. [ABC News, 7/17/08 ]

09:55 PM | Permalink

THE FACTS: MCCAIN WAS ONE OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION’S LEADING CHEERLEADERS AND SUPPORTERS ON THE IRAQ WAR

2008: McCain Said "No One Has Supported President Bush on Iraq More Than I Have." During a March 2008 interview on The Mike Gallagher Show, McCain stated, "no one has supported President Bush on Iraq more than I have." [The Mike Gallagher Show, 3/28/08, For audio, Think Progress Blog, http://thinkprogress.org/2008/04/02/mccain-no-one-has-supported-president-bush-on-iraq-more-than-i-have/]

2006: McCain Had Full Confidence in Bush’s Ability to Lead the War. McCain was asked if he had confidence in Bush and his national security team to “lead the war,” to which he responded, “I do. I do. I have confidence in the president and I believe that he is well aware of the severity of the situation.” He also said that “I know that the president’s committed to win and I know the president’s committed to prevail.” [NBC News, 8/20/2006]

2003: McCain Said Bush Led With “Clarity” And Did Not Exaggerate the Case for War. During an interview with a live audience, Senator McCain praised President Bush on his leadership on the Iraq war and said, “I think the president has led with great clarity and I think he’s done a great job leading the country, don’t you all?” And asked if he think the president exaggerated the case for war, McCain said, “I don’t think so…I think that he made a strong case and I think that case has been verified with discovery of mass graves and the brutality of this incredible regime.” [MSNBC, “Hardball,” 4/23/2003; Fox News, “Hannity and Colmes,” 7/31/2003]

2003: McCain Declared He Would Have Done Nothing Differently From Bush In The Run-Up To The Iraq War If He Were President. Bill O’Reilly asked McCain, “All right, Senator, if you were president, what would you have done differently in the run-up to this war?” McCain stated: “Nothing.” O’Reilly followed up: “Nothing?” McCain elaborated, “The president has handled this, in my view, skillfully.” [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 3/18/03]

2002: McCain Said The President “Has Embarked On A Well Planned Effort” To Take On Iraq. “I think the president has embarked on a well planned effort to rid the world and this country of the threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein.” [CNN, 9/12/02]

2003: Prior To The Invasion Of Iraq McCain Said, “I Have No Qualms About Our Strategic Plans.” “I have no qualms about our strategic plans. I thought we were very successful in Afghanistan,” McCain told the Hartford Courant in March 2003, just prior to the invasion of Iraq. [Hartford Courant, 3/5/03]

2002: McCain Supported The Administration’s Military Strategy For Iraq, Said Only 100,000 Troops Would Be Needed. In an interview on Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked McCain: “Let me read something that you wrote just last week in Time magazine. ‘I'm not yet convinced that the large U.S. force contemplated for the operation [in Iraq] is the best or only option.’ Today, the front page of The Washington Post, ‘War Plans Target Hussein Power Base. Scenarios feature a smaller force, narrower strikes,’ calling for 100,000 rather than the 500,000 we used in the Persian Gulf War, and not taking out power dams and electric grids, but focusing on Saddam and his Republican Guards. Is that what you see?” McCain responded, “Yes…And I believe that this strategy is based on one fundamental fact: Saddam Hussein is dramatically weaker than he was before. And what Iraq—in 1991—what Iraqi soldier is going to die for Saddam Hussein if he thinks he's on his way out? And so from everything I can tell, that seems to be a very good strategy, and I think we're going to take great advantage to the precision of our weapons that can be delivered from the air.” [NBC, Meet the Press, 9/22/02]

09:51 PM | Permalink

TONIGHT:

McCain: “He has voted in the United States Senate to increase taxes on people who make as low as $42,000.”

THE FACTS: OBAMA DID NOT VOTE TO RAISE TAXES ON FAMILIES MAKING $42,000 A YEAR

Fact Check.org: 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 ]

Factcheck.org: Over 95% Of Households With Children Would Get A Tax Cut Under Obama’s Plan. “In fact, an analysis of the candidates’ tax plans by the Urban Institute-Brookings Tax Policy Center found that 95.5 percent of households with children would get a tax cut under Obama’s plan.” [Factcheck.org, 9/24/08 ]

OBAMA’s PLAN PROVIDES A BIGGER TAX CUT FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS THAN MCCAIN AND MCCAIN’s TAX CUT LEAVES OUT 101 MILLION MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES AND 37 MILLION SENIORS

Obama’s Plan Would Cut Taxes On The Middle Class Three To Almost Eight Times More Than McCain’s Would. “But when it comes to promises, it's worth pointing out that, according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Center's analysis of both candidates' proposed plans, Obama would cut taxes for those making in the range of $38,000 to $66,000 three to almost eight times more than McCain would.” [MSNBC, “First Read,” 8/8/08 ]

McCain’s Plan To Cut Taxes Leaves Out 101 Million Middle Class Households. “McCain's plan is tilted toward corporations and the most affluent, neglects middle-class Americans and lacks immediate solutions, Obama's advisers said today in a conference call with reporters held to unveil a report critical of the Arizona senator's proposals. … McCain's plan to cut taxes for the middle class by increasing the dependent exemption leaves out 101 million households without children, according to Obama's report. His plan gives tax cuts to the nation's wealthiest 2 percent and to large corporations, the report said.” [Bloomberg, 7/6/08 ; IRS Tax Stats ; Tax Policy Center, Preliminary Analysis Of The 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plan, 6/20/08 ]

09:48 PM | Permalink

DEBATE REALITY CHECK

THE 2005 ENERGY BILL ACTUALLY RAISED TAXES ON OIL COMPANIES

Fact Check.org: Describing The 2005 Energy Bill As “Corporate Welfare” Is “Misleading.” “McCain attacked Obama for voting for ‘corporate welfare’ for oil companies. 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. … Describing such a complex measure as ‘corporate welfare’ is misleading.” [FactCheck.org, 9/5/08 ]

Fact Check.org: Congressional Research Service Showed That The Energy Bill Actually Raised Taxes On The Oil And Gas Industry. The Associated Press reported, “The 2005 act that [is described] as packed with billions of dollars in oil industry breaks actually raised taxes on the oil and gas industry by about $300 million over 11 years, according to the Congressional Research Service. The nonpartisan analysis found $2.6 billion in tax cuts for the oil and gas industry and $2.9 billion in tax increases. The bulk of tax breaks went to other sources of energy, including alternative fuels favored by both Clinton and Obama.” [Associated Press, 2/15/08]

MCCAIN’S CAMPAIGN CO-CHAIR CALLED THE 2005 ENERGY BILL THE “BIGGEST LEGISLATIVE BREAKTHROUGH WE HAVE SINCE I HAVE BEEN IN THE SENATE” AND IT HAS CONTRIBUTED TO A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN WIND POWER

McCain Campaign Co-Chair Lindsey Graham Said The 2005 Energy Bill “Is The Biggest Legislative Breakthrough We Have Had Since I Have Been In The Senate.” Sen. Lindsey Graham said of the 2005 Energy Bill that invested in renewable and alternative energy, and which John McCain voted against and Barack Obama for: “This is the biggest legislative breakthrough we have had since I have been in the Senate,” said Graham. “The passage of the energy bill will make us less dependent on Middle East oil, expand and diversify our energy resources, and provide billions for hydrogen research.” [Graham press release, 7/29/05 ]

McCain Voted Against The 2005 Energy Bill that Contributed to a Dramatic Increase in Wind Power. McCain voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which, as USA Today noted, contributed to a dramatic increase in wind power generation: “The U.S. wind power grew 45% in 2007, the sharpest rise since the 1980s, as developers responded to a federal tax credit, a growing number of state renewable energy mandates and global warming concerns, the American Wind Energy Association said Thursday.” [2005 Senate Vote #213, 7/29/05; 2005 Senate Vote #212, 7/29/05; USA Today, 1/17/08]

McCain Was The Only Senator To Miss A Vote On Legislation To Revoke $13.5 Billion In Tax Breaks From The Five Largest Oil Companies To Invest In Renewable Energy; McCain’s Staff Noted That He Would Have Opposed The Bill Had He Voted. John McCain supported the filibuster of the 2007 energy bill that would have stripped tax cuts for oil companies and instead fund tax incentives for renewable energy. While McCain was the only senator to miss the vote on the bill, according to his staff he did, in fact, support the continuing the filibuster. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the bill that was defeated “would have revoked $13.5 billion in tax breaks from the five largest oil companies. The money would have been redirected into tax incentives for solar, wind, geothermal, biomass, wave energy and other renewables. … But the measure failed on a 59-40 vote, falling one vote shy of the 60 votes needed to end debate and move the bill forward.” [HR 6, Senate Vote 425, 12/13/07, Failed 59-40: R 9-39 D 48-1 I 2-0; Forbes, 12/13/07; San Francisco Chronicle, 12/14/07]

09:43 PM | Permalink

TONIGHT:
McCain: “No matter what, we have got to cut spending. We have, as I have said, we have let government get completely out of control.”

THE FACTS: MCCAIN’S BUDGET PROPOSAL HAS BEEN CALLED “NOT CREDIBLE”

Washington Post: McCain’s Plan To Balance The Budget By 2013 “Is Not Credible.” “McCain says that President McCain would balance the federal budget by 2013. The plan is not credible. … Mr. McCain sells American voters short -- and he does himself a disservice -- with his implausible claim.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 7/14/08 ]

New York Times: It’s Unclear How McCain Plans To Balance The Budget. "Mr. McCain has promised once again to balance the budget by the end of his first term in 2013, his advisers said Monday. They were reverting to an earlier pledge that Mr. McCain abandoned in April, when he proposed a series of costly tax cuts and, citing the ailing economy, said that it might take two terms to balance the budget… But it is unclear how Mr. McCain intends to balance the budget. Fiscal analysts who have examined Mr. McCain's plans say his calls to extend President Bush's tax cuts and cut corporate and other taxes without calling for comparable spending cuts could increase the federal budget deficit significantly." [New York Times, 7/8/08 ]

Wall Street Journal: McCain’s Plans To Eliminate Earmarks Will Not Pay For Lost Revenue From His Tax Cuts. “When asked Wednesday, after a town-hall meeting in Exeter, N.H., how he would balance his proposed budget, Sen. McCain responded, ‘By eliminating wasteful and pork-barrel spending, to start with.’ How much would that get him? In fiscal 2008, there were 11,737 appropriation earmarks totaling $16.8 billion. That is down from a peak in 2005, when there were nearly 13,500 earmarks totaling almost $19 billion. Eliminating earmarks wouldn't restore revenue lost by Sen. McCain's other propositions, including a litany of tax cuts. He plans to not raise taxes, but he also plans to increase the size of the military and institute health-care overhauls.” [Wall Street Journal, 3/14/08]

09:37 PM | Permalink

McCain Voted Against A One-Year Tax On Oil Companies To Fund Low Income Energy Assistance. McCain voted against considering an amendment to the 2005 Tax Relief legislation that provided $2.92 billion in FY 2006 for the Low-Income Energy Assistance Act. The legislation was offset by imposing one year levy on excess profits of U.S. oil companies and foreign companies that do substantial U.S. business. [2005 Senate Vote #339, 11/17/2005]

McCain Voted Against Making Gasoline And Energy Price Gouging A Federal Crime. McCain voted against making price gouging on energy products, services or markets a federal crime. [S. 2020, Vote 334, 11/17/05; Motion Rejected 57-42: R 13-42; D 43-0 (ND 39-0, SD 4-0); I 1-0.]

McCain Voted Against A Windfall Profits Tax On Big Oil. McCain voted against imposing a temporary 50 percent tax on oil company profits from the sale of crude oil. Funds collected from the tax would be used to provide a consumer tax credit for petroleum products. [Vote 331, S. 2020, Motion rejected 35-64: R 0-55; D 34-9 (ND 33-6, SD 1-3); I 1-0, 11/17/05; Houston Chronicle, 11/17/05; Las Vegas Review-Journal, 11/18/05; Environment and Energy Daily, 11/18/05]

McCain’s Tax Plan Will Cut Taxes For Oil Companies by Nearly $4 Billion – Including $1.2 Billion for Exxon. A study by the Center for American Progress Action Fund noted that the corporate tax rate cut included in the McCain tax plan “would deliver a $3.8 billion tax cut to the five largest American oil companies” – ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy, and Marathon. According to their analysis of Exxon’s financial statements, the company would receive a tax savings of $1.2 billion under the McCain plan. [“The McCain Plan to Cut Oil Company Taxes by Nearly $4 Billion ,” Center for American Progress Action Fund, 3/27/08]

09:35 PM | Permalink

FACT: OBAMA HAS BEEN A LEADER ON EARMARK REFORM

Obama Sponsored Bill to Provide Transparency and Integrity in the Earmark Process. Obama sponsored the Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act of 2006 that would prohibit consideration of an appropriation bill unless: (1) a list of all earmarks in it, the names of the requestors, and a short justification for each earmark are available to all Members, and made available to the general public on the Internet, for at least 72 hours before its consideration; (2) all earmarks are contained in the text of the bill and not incorporated by reference or directed in the committee report; and (3) all earmarks are germane to the bill. [109th, S.2261, 2/8/2006, Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 2/8/2006]

Obama Joined The Senate’s Efforts To Ban Earmarks For A Year. Obama supported and voted for a Senate amendment that would ban earmarks for a year and he hasn’t asked for any earmarks this year. [Politico, 3/10/08 , CNN, 3/14/08 ; AP, 9/8/08 ]

Ø Chicago Sun-Times Applauds Obama And Others For “The Courage To Disclose Every Earmark Request.” “As valuable as it has already been to see the earmarks and their sponsors at the subcommittee stage, it's even more valuable to see the requests from members before they even make it that far. That's why we applaud Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, Democratic Rep. Rahm Emanuel and GOP Representatives Peter Roskam, Judy Biggert and Mark Kirk for having the courage to disclose every earmark request, whether successful or not.” [Editorial, Chicago Sun-Times, 6/27/07]
FACT: MCCAIN HAS VOTED FOR BILLIONS IN EARMARKS AND ACTUALLY REQUESTED AT LEAST THREE EARMARKS AND PALIN HAS REQUESTED MILLIONS IN EARMARKS

McCain Has Voted For 12,673 Earmarks Totaling $144 Billion In Just Six Years. In just six of his 25 years in Congress, John McCain voted for spending bills that included 12,763 earmarks totaling $144.408 billion according to the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, which the McCain campaign has cited as an authoritative source for the definition of earmarks. [Appropriations Bills From FYs 1994, 1996, 1998, 2002, 2004 and 2005 for which the Congressional Research Service totaled earmarks and for which John McCain voted for the conference reports. "Earmarks in Appropriation Acts: FY1994, FY1996, FY1998, FY2000, FY2002, FY2004, FY2005," Congressional Research Service, 1/26/06; Senate.gov; Center For American Progress, 4/16/08 ]

Claim That McCain Has Never Sought A Single Dollar In Earmarks Is “Not True.” “McCain claims to have ‘never sought a single dollar’ in pork barrel funding. It's just not true. … McCain in 2006 co-sponsored legislation that asked for $10-million for an academic center at the University of Arizona to honor the late Supreme Court chief justice William Rehnquist. In 2003, Frank noted, McCain won authorization to buy property to create a buffer zone around Luke Air Force Base in Arizona, and in 1992, McCain asked the Environmental Protection Agency to provide $5-million toward a wastewater project in Nogales, Ariz.” [Politifact, accessed: 9/25/08 ]

Wall Street Journal: By McCain’s Own Math, His Running Mate Has Requested More Earmarks Per Day Than Obama. “It is difficult to compare Sen. Obama's earmark record with Gov. Palin's -- their states differ in size, for instance, and the two candidates play different roles in the process. But using the same calculation that the McCain campaign uses, the total amount of earmarked dollars divided by the number of working days while each held office (assuming a five-day workweek, every week, for both), Gov. Palin sought $980,000 per workday, compared with roughly $893,000 for Sen. Obama.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/15/08 ]

This Year, Governor Palin Requested 31 Earmarks Worth $197.8 Million. “But under her leadership, the state of Alaska has requested 31 earmarks worth $197.8 million in next year's federal budget, according to the website of Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), the former chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.” [Los Angeles Times, 9/1/08 ]

09:28 PM | Permalink

DEBATE REALITY CHECK ON MCCAIN’S RECORD ON DEREGULATION

TONIGHT, BARACK OBAMA SAID: “Now, we also have to recognize that this is a final verdict on eight years of failed economic policies promoted by George Bush, supported by Senator McCain, a that basically says we can shred.”

THE FACTS: MCCAIN HAS BEEN IN FAVOR OF MORE DEREGULATION FOR 26 YEARS AND HIS VP NOMINEE COULDN’T NAME A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE OF REFORM HE HAD FOUGHT FOR

On the Campaign Trail in 2000, McCain Touted his 17-year Record of Voting for Less Regulation. “Campaigning in Camden, SC, McCain said ‘I am a proud Republican conservative with a 17-year record of voting, not rhetoric, but voting against higher taxes, for smaller government, for less regulation.’” [Greenville News, 1/10/00]

McCain: “I Have A Long Voting Record In Support Of Deregulation.” McCain, at a Senate Commerce Committee hearing as having said, “I have a long voting record in support of deregulation.” [St. Petersburg Times, 6/5/03]

McCain: “I Am A Deregulator. I Believe In Deregulation.” While speaking about the cable and satellite television during an appearance on CNN’s “On the Money,” John McCain said, “I am a deregulator. I believe in deregulation.” [CNN, “In the Money,” 7/13/03]

McCain Said One of The Differences Between Obama & Himself Would Be “More Regulation Or Less Regulation.” During a media availability in Phoenix, Arizona, John McCain said, “I think the important thing is that there will be stark differences between either Senator [Clinton] or Senator Obama and me because they are liberal Democrats and I’m a conservative Republican… whether we pursue the present strategy in Iraq or whether we — or whether we set a date for withdrawal, which will mean Al Qaida wins; whether we have more regulation or less regulation.” [McCain Media Availability via CQ Transcriptions, 3/3/08]

Only Weeks Before the Bear Stearns Collapse, McCain Proclaimed Himself a “Deregulator” and Said “I’m Always for Less Regulation.” McCain told the Wall Street Journal “As far as a need for additional regulations are concerned, I think that depends on the legislative agenda and what the Congress does to some degree, but I am a fundamentally a deregulator. I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated, not just a moratorium.”[Wall Street Journal, 3/3/08 ]

McCain: “Let’s Reduce Regulation.” While speaking about the economy in St. Louis, Missouri, John McCain said, “I’m asked all the time are we in a recession or not in a recession. And I don’t know the answer to that because it’s kind of a technical term… I do not believe we should raise your taxes. I think it would be the worst thing we could do. And that means to me I think the tax cuts need to be made permanent. When you’ve got a bad economy, the worst thing you can do is increase people’s tax burden. Let’s reduce it. Let’s reduce regulation.” [CNN, 3/15/08]

In the Immediate Wake of Bear Stearns, McCain’s Response Was to Call for Less Regulation. In a major economic speech, after offering a diagnosis of the troubles facing the housing and financial markets, John McCain’s proposed solution was less overall regulation. “In financial institutions, there is no substitute for adequate capital to serve as a buffer against losses. Our financial market approach should include encouraging increased capital and financial institutions by removing regulatory, accounting and tax impediments to raising capital.” [McCain speech, 3/25/08 ]

Palin Was Stumped When Asked for Specific Examples of McCain Trying to Reform the Banking Industry. “But Palin seemed stumped when pressed to cite examples of McCain trying to reform the banking industry, beyond urging greater restrictions on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. ‘I'll try to find some and I'll bring them to you,’ Palin said.” [Washington Post, Kurtz Column, 9/25/08 ]

08:57 PM | Permalink

CHICAGO TRIBUNE CALLED STANLEY KURTZ’ ANNENBERG WORK “ALICE IN WONDERLAND JOURNALISM” BECAUSE OF ITS “CONCLUSION FIRST! RESEARCH AFTERWARD!”

Chicago Tribune: Stanley Kurtz’ Work On Obama And The Annenberg Challenge Is “Alice In Wonderland Journalism – Conclusion First! Research Afterward!” On August 31, 2008, the Chicago Tribune reported, “Kurtz had just started poring over nearly 1,000 archival files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge at the University of Illinois at Chicago. But even before he’d gotten access to the documents, he’d assured National Review Online readers they would ‘provide significant insight into a web of ties linking [former Annenberg board chairman Barack] Obama to various radical organizations.’ This is Alice in Wonderland journalism—Conclusion first! Research afterward!” [Chicago Tribune, 8/1/08]

• Chicago Tribune Called Stanley Kurtz A “Partisan Attack Dog” Who Is “Actively Engaged” In The “Guilt-By-Association Campaign Against Obama.” On August 31, 2008, the Chicago Tribune reported, ”WGN-AM 720 host Milt Rosenberg erred Wednesday night when he had partisan attack dog Stanley Kurtz as his only guest for a two-hour show….Rosenberg, who is himself quite the partisan, tut-tutted right along with Kurtz. It all disguised that Kurtz really had nothing new to add to the insinuations and innuendo in the guilt-by-association portion of the campaign against Obama in which he’s actively engaged.” [Chicago Tribune, 8/31/08]

• 8/27/08: Kurtz Said “There’s A Lot That We Don’t Know That We Would Like To Know” When Asked About His View Of The “Content” Of The Obama-Ayers Relationship. On August 27, 2008, Milt Rosenberg’s asked Stanley Kurtz on his radio show, “What’s the content of the Obama-Ayers connection?” Stanley Kurtz responded, “There’s a lot that we don’t know that we would like to know.”
[Audio Clip, Stanley Kurtz on Obama and Ayers, Milt Rosenberg (WGN), 8/27/08]

Zengerle: “I Almost Feel Sorry For Stanley Kurtz…His WSJ Article Is Titled ‘Obama And Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools,’ But The Evidence For That Consists Largely Of Scare Quotes And Leaps Of Logic Designed To Substitute For Actual Evidence…Pretty Weak.” On September 23, 2008, Jason Zengerle wrote, “I almost feel sorry for Stanley Kurtz. Last month the conservative writer was making a big stink that, in the course of researaching Barack Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers, the University of Illinois at Chicago library had denied him access to ‘the internal files’ of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was a nonprofit educational group both men were affiliated with in the 1990s. Kurtz protested: The records in question are extensive, consisting of 132 boxes, containing 947 file folders, a total of about 70 linear feet of material. Not only would these files illuminate the working relationship between Obama and Bill Ayers, they would also provide significant insight into a web of ties linking Obama to various radical organizations, including Obama-approved foundation gifts to political allies. Obama’s leadership style and abilities are also sure to be illuminated by the documents in question. Well, lo and behold, Kurtz finally gained access to those 70 linear feet of material, and, judging by the op-ed he's produced in today's Wall Street Journal, it looks like he found less an inch worth of damning material. Not that Kurtz would admit as much. His WSJ article is titled ‘Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism on Schools,’ but the evidence for that consists largely of scare quotes (‘leadership,’ ‘organized,’ ‘external partners,’ etc) and leaps of logic designed to substitute for actual evidence…So Kurtz spends days wading through 70 linear feet of material, suffers lord knows how many papecuts, and the best he can come up with is that Ayers was part of a five-person ‘working group’ that signed off on Obama joining CAC's board? That's pretty weak.” [New Republic (The Plank), 9/23/08]

STANLEY KURTZ’ WORK ON OBAMA AND THE ANNENBERG CHALLENGE IS FILLED WITH FALSITIES, BASELESS CLAIMS, AND CONVENIENT OMISSIONS

President Reagan Awarded Annenberg The Presidential Medal Of Freedom – The Nation’s Highest Civilian Honor – For His Philanthropic Work On Education. In 2002, the University Of Pennsylvania Almanac reported, “President Ronald Reagan awarded Ambassador Annenberg the nation’s highest civilian honor in 1986, The Presidential Medal of Freedom, citing him for a ‘brilliant career in publishing, for his pioneering use of television for educational purposes, and for his devotion to the development of higher education.’” The New York Times wrote, Reagan “will also continue to visit this gaudy desert oasis for the well-heeled, where he came this weekend to celebrate New Year’s Eve for the 20th time at his friend Walter H. Annenberg’s 350-acre estate, complete with its own golf course, on the corner of Bob Hope and Frank Sinatra drives. [UPenn Almanac, 10/8/02; New York Times, 1/2/89]

Walter Annenberg Was President Nixon’s Ambassador To Great Britain From 1969-1974. From 1969-1974, Walter Annenberg served as President Richard M. Nixon’s Ambassador to Great Britain.
[usembassy.org.uk, accessed 8/21/08]

REALITY: CHICAGO ANNENBERG CHALLENGE PROPOSAL RECEIVED SUPPORT LETTERS FROM REPUBLICAN GOVERNOR JIM EDGAR AND THE DEANS OF EDUCATION FROM 16 CHICAGO AREA UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES

Deans of Education At 16 Chicago Area Universities And Colleges, Including Northwestern and the University Of Chicago, Wrote A Letters Of Support For The Original Annenberg Grant Proposal. In 1994, the Council of Chicago Area Deans of Education, which included the Deans of Education at sixteen Chicago-area universities and colleges, wrote a letter of support for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant proposal written by Prof. William Ayers, Anne Hallett and Warren Chapman. The Council wrote, “We are pleased that the Annenberg Challenge guidelines emphasize the importance of professional development of teachers. The Council of Chicago Area Deans of Education supports the proposal written to the Annenberg Foundation by the Chicago School Reform Collaborative, co-chaired by Anne Hallett and William Ayers…We look forward to working closely with the Chicago area schools as partners to enhance student growth and development. We pledge our resources to advancing the goals of the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago.” [Deans Council Letter to Vartan Gregorian, 8/5/94]

Republican Governor Jim Edgar Wrote A Letter Of Support For The Original Annenberg Grant Proposal. In 1994, Illinois Republican Governor Jim Edgar wrote a letter of support for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge grant proposal written by Prof. William Ayers, Anne Hallett, and Warren Chapman. Governor Edgar wrote, “I am pleased to support the concept paper for the Annenberg Challenge Grant submitted by the Chicago School Reform Collaborative Working Group. Their efforts to make urban schools more responsive to their local communities are commendable.” [Edgar Letter to Vartan Gregorian, 8/5/94]

• 1995: Illinois Governor Jim Edgar (R) And Mayor Richard Daley (D) Joined A Citywide Gathering Of Children, Parents, Teachers, Principals, And School Reform And Civil Leaders” For The Grant Announcement. In 1995, Brown University’s Annenberg Institute issued a press release on the presentation of Chicago’s Annenberg Challenge grant. According to the release, “The Annenberg Foundation today announced a five-year grant totaling $49.2 million to support Chicago school reform, calling Chicago reform ‘a major breakthrough from which the nation can learn.’…Mayor Richard M. Daley and Gov. Jim Edgar joined a citywide gathering of children, parents, teachers, principals and school reform and civic leaders at Washington Irving Elementary School for the grant announcement.”
[News Release, 1/23/95]

REALITY: OBAMA SERVED ON THE CAC BOARD WITH NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY PRESIDENT ARNOLD WEBER, A FORMER ADVISOR TO NIXON AND REAGAN

Arnold R. Weber, A Chicago Annenberg Board Member, Was An Assistant Secretary Of Labor And Associate Director Of The Office Of Management And Budget Under President Nixon; Weber Also Served As An Advisor To Carter And Reagan. Arnold R. Weber, former President of the Commercial Club of Chicago’s Civic Committee and a longtime Republican donor, was a member of the Chicago Annnenberg Challenge Board from 1998-2003. According to Northern Illinois University (NIU)’s website, Weber served as an advisor or cabinet-level appointee for three U.S. presidents. [Chicago Annenberg Challenge IRS Form 990, 1998-2003]1994, the Chicago Tribune reported, “As a faculty member at the University of Chicago Graduate School of Business from 1958 to 1973, Weber developed a reputation as a labor expert. The Nixon administration called on him several times-as assistant secretary of manpower in the U.S. Department of Labor in 1969-70, associate director of the Office of Management and Budget in 1970-71 and executive director of the Cost of Living Council during the 1971 wage-price freeze.” In 1994, the Chicago Tribune reported, “He served in various capacities for the Nixon, Carter and Reagan administrations. His associates include former Secretary of State George Shultz, a colleague of Weber’s while they were at the University of Chicago.” [Chicago Tribune, 12/23/94]

• Weber Has Given $1,500 To McCain In 2008. In 2008, Arnold Weber made donations of $1,000 and $500 to McCain’s presidential campaign. [fec.gov, accessed 8/21/08]

KURTZ CLAIM: KURTZ SINGLED OUT ONE OUT OF SEVERAL HUNDRED CAC GRANT RECIPIENTS AS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PROGRAM’S WORK AND CONNECTED IT TO JEREMIAH WRIGHT AND TRINITY UCC BECAUSE THE GROUP ADVOCATED JUNETEENTH DAY CELEBRATIONS

REALITY: ANNENBERG CHALLENGE DONATED TO OVER TWO HUNDRED CHICAGO SCHOOLS AND FOCUSED ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND TEACHER PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT

1995-2001: CAC Invested In School Improvement Efforts On The Ground In More Than Half Of All Public Schools In Chicago. According to an archived page of the CAC website, CAC “invested in school improvement efforts on the ground in 250 schools working together in 45 networks throughout the city.” Another archived webpage contains a statement from Ken Rolling, the CAC Executive Director, claiming that, “By the end of our initiative in 2001, more than half of all public schools in the city will have participated in the Chicago Annenberg Challenge-inspired school improvement efforts.” [chi-challenge.org (archived)]

Annenberg Spawned The Chicago Public Education Fund (CPEF), A Group Of Chicago Civic And Corporate Leaders Dedicated To Raising Funds For Teacher And Principal Leadership Development, Which Helped Chicago Public Schools Increase Its Number Of National Board Certified Teachers From 10 In 1999 To Nearly 700 In 2006. The Chicago Tribune wrote that “the Chicago Annenberg Challenge group, which expires next year, provided the largest financial support to The Chicago Public Education Fund, one of several such funds across the country, officials said.” In 2007, the Philanthropy Roundtable reported, “Their first major initiative was Leadership Fund I, a four-year $10 million fund launched in March 2000 that invested in programs dedicated to recruiting and retaining talented principals and teachers. One of The Fund’s most significant achievements was its “master teacher” plan, which helped Chicago increase the number of teachers with certification from the independent, nonprofit National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. That number grew from ten in 1999 to 379 in 2004, nearly doubling to 646 in 2006, with a goal of 1,200 by 2008. The Fund achieved this success in part through a $1.25 million commitment to a two-tiered incentive strategy: up to $3,000 for every teacher who achieved board certification and $30,000 to schools where teams of teachers achieved board certification. Leadership Fund I also drove policy changes which improved the quality of training aspiring principals receive by requiring that all Chicago Public School principal preparation programs combine business and education models, high admissions standards and rigorous internships. And it coordinated a comprehensive audit of CPS professional development spending, resulting in budgeting and accountability improvements. [Chicago Tribune, 3/29/00; http://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/printarticle.asp?article=1481, 8/6/07]

• Chicago Tribune Editorial Praised Public Education Fund On Teacher Incentives As An “Example [That] Over Time Can’t Help But Show Other States That It’s A Lot Less Costly To Develop And Lure The Most Outstanding Teachers To The Most Disadvantaged Schools Than It Is To Pay Later For An Intractable Achievement Gap.” In 2004, the Chicago Tribune wrote in an editorial, “Most of the teachers who do pass [certification], unfortunately, end up in the more affluent, high-achieving schools, particularly in states that don’t provide adequate incentives to lure them to schools that most need their expertise. Illinois, along with California and New York, has been a proud exception to that rule. The reason has to do with generous salary incentives for board-certified teachers who work in low-performing or high-poverty schools. Illinois provides state, local and private money to support teachers to prepare for, apply to sit for and even retake the final exam. Chicago’s Public Education Fund, a business-backed non-profit that promotes board certification, this year is providing $2,000 stipends to individual Chicago teachers awarded the certificate. The state kicks in another $3,000 each year for 10 years for those who earn National Board Certification, while Chicago Public Schools gives a one-time $2,500 bonus. Here in Illinois, those kinds of commitments must be sustained and even expanded as more teachers seek the master teacher credential. That example over time can’t help but show other states that it’s a lot less costly to develop and lure the most outstanding teachers to the most disadvantaged schools than it is to pay later for an intractable achievement gap.” [Chicago Tribune, Editorial, 4/14/05]

REALITY: KURTZ HASN’T MENTIONED THAT AYERS HOLDS THE TITLE OF “DISTINGUISHED SCHOLAR” AT THE UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, WHERE REPUBLICAN GOV. MARK SANFORD SERVES AS EX-OFFICIO CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

Bill Ayers Has Held The Title Of “Distinguished Scholar” At The University Of South Carolina’s McKissick Museum of Education Since 2005 And Has Participated In Several Events At The School. Since 2005, Bill Ayers has held the title of Scholar At The University Of South Carolina’s McKissick Museum of Education, and has participated in teaching/education related events at the university. [Prof. Bill Ayers’ Curriculum Vitae (billayers.org)]

• Governor Mark Sanford (R) Is The Ex-Officio Chairman Of The University Of South Carolina Board Of Trustees. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican, is the ex-officio chairman of the University of South Carolina Board of Trustees. [sc.edu, accessed 8/22/08]

USC Museum Of Education Website States That “The Museum of Education Continues To Revel In The excitement Of The Recent Gallery Talk By Bill Ayers.” Text on the USC Museum of Education’s webpage on the “Carolina Shout” program states that “the Museum of Education continues to revel in the excitement of the recent Gallery Talk by Bill Ayers of the University of Illinois-Chicago.” [http://www.ed.sc.edu/musofed/news.html]

Carolina SHOUT! Emcee Called Bill Ayers “One Of Our Most Devoted Participants, And, After Attending the First Event In 2001, He Has Become Our Official Shout Historian And Archivist.” “Jocelyn Sanders: Bill Ayers is one of our most devoted participants and, after attending the first event in 2001, he has become our official Shout historian and archivist. Also, Dr. Ayers is a internationally-renowned education author who has delighted USC audiences through the years with his lectures and numerous publications. His career has taken many paths: as longshoreman, co-director of a day care center, community activist, preschool teacher, deputy commissioner of education for the city of Chicago, baker, founder of three magnet schools, and, presently, Distinguished Research Scholar at the USC Museum of Education and Senior University Scholar at the University of Illinois- Chicago where he is director of the Center for Youth and Society . . . . Bill Ayers.” [ed.sc.edu, accessed 8/25/08]

University of South Carolina Website Features Three Reflective Essays By Prof. William “Bill” Ayers, Who Writes About His Experiences At USC Museum of Education’s Carolina SHOUT! Teachers’ Celebration. The University of South Carolina’s School of Education website features a piece of writing by University of Illinois-Chicago Prof. William (Bill) Ayers about his experience at a USC-sponsored event celebrating local teachers. The piece is called “2001 Carolina Shout Reflections, By Bill Ayers.” In the essay, Ayers wrote, “I knew I would be there from the start…But, CAROLINA SHOUT?..I had no idea. It began as it should have begun—old friendships renewed, some time to catch up and catch on, good connections remembered and remade. There was conversation, then, with students and faculty from the University of South Carolina, with schoolteachers from nearby cities and towns, with a few guests from far away…Meeting Cleveland Sellers after a span of more than thirty years—a lot of water under that bridge, a whole lot of water—also took my breath away. I remembered Cleve as a brilliant and courageous field secretary of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), a teacher and an organizer who embodied a belief in the ability of ordinary people to accomplish extraordinary things…And now here he was a professor, an historian, but still with his mind and his heart and his eyes set on freedom. Seeing him reminded me of the danger of looking backward with a kind of anesthetizing nostalgia—even if the intent seems beneficent—when there’s so much more to be done, and we talked about rejecting the construction of ‘the sixties’ as a straightforward narrative with a message of obvious progress and a neat conclusion. There’s so much more to be done…CAROLINA SHOUT! CAROLINA SHOUT! Thank you, Carolina, thank you.” Ayers published similar “reflections” in 2004 and 2006, both of which are posted on the website. [ed.sc.edu, accessed 8/25/08]

Bill Ayers Was Featured In A Video Speaking To Children At The University Of South Carolina; Ayers’ Is Identified As “Bill Ayers, McKissick Museum Of Education, University Of South Carolina. A caption and link underneath a photo on the USC Museum of Education website, reads, “The Museum’s first Gallery Talk to a SRO crowd. see a video clip: “The Call To Teach” by Bill Ayers. The link leads to a youtube video of Ayers speaking. Ayers is identified as being with the USC Museum of Education in the video. [ed.sc.edu, accessed 8/25/08]

KURTZ CLAIM: KURTZ HAS REPEATEDLY MADE THE FALSE ALLEGATION THAT BILL AYERS ARRANGED OBAMA’S CHAIRMANSHIP OF THE ANNENBERG BOARD

REALITY: OBAMA WAS RECOMMENDED FOR THE CAC CHAIRMANSHIP BY DEBORAH LEFF, NOMINATED BY PAT GRAHAM, AND ELECTED BY THE ORIGINAL ANNENBERG BOARD

Former Joyce Foundation President Devorah Leff Recommended Obama To Serve As Chair. “While working with Adele Simmons and Patricia Graham to identify a highly qualified person to chair the education reform organization the Annenberg Challenge, I recommended Barack Obama to serve as Chair. After meeting with Obama to review his qualifications, Patricia Graham asked Obama to become a candidate for the position.” [Deborah Leff, former president of the Joyce Foundation]

Obama Was Elected Board Director By Founding Board Members Susan Crown, Pat Graham, Stanley Ikenberry, Ray Romero, Arnold Weber, And Wanda White. “After being recommended by Deborah Leff and recruited by Pat Graham, Barack Obama was elected as Chair of the Annenberg Challenge by the founding Board of Directors of the Annenberg Challenge – Susan Crown, Pat Graham, Stanley Ikenberry, Ray Romero, Arnold Weber, and Wanda White.” [Ken Rolling, former executive director of the Annenberg Challenge]

KURTZ CLAIM: KURTZ USED OBAMA’S SERVICE WITH AYERS’ FATHER AND BROTHER ON THE CPEF LEADERSHIP COUNCIL AS A FURTHER PROBLEMATIC TIE

REALITY: THE CURRENT CHAIRMAN OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS HAS BEEN A MEMBER OF THE CPEF LEADERSHIP COUNCIL SINCE IT WAS CREATED

Illinois GOP Chairman Andrew McKenna Has Been A Member Of Chicago Public Education Fund (CPEF) Leadership Council Since Its Creation In 2001. Since the Chicago Public Education Fund (CPEF) was created in 2001, Andrew J. McKenna, Chairman of the Republican Party of Illinois, has been a member of the CPEF Leadership Council. [CPEF 2001 Annual Report; CPEF 2002 Annual Report; CPEF 2003 Annual Report;CPEF 2004 Annual Report CPEF 2005 Annual Report; CPEF 2006 Annual Report]

12:17 PM | Permalink

In her nearly 10 year career at U of C, Michelle Obama instituted community service programs, helped to restore community relations with the University, and established a network of health care clinics to provide patients with primary care.

Sun-Times, Wall Street Journal Editorial Pages Say Attacks On Michelle Obama Are Without Merit

Chicago Sun Times Editorial Defended University Of Chicago Policy, Describing It As “Good Public Policy.” On August 27, 2008, the Chicago Sun Times defended the University of Chicago Medical Center’s policy, describing it as “good public policy.” The Sun-Times editorial stated “Mrs. Obama and the South Side teaching hospital are being accused -- sincerely by some, for cynical political gain by others -- of essentially turning their back on the urban poor. On the contrary, we believe the university hospital's efforts to essential outsource non-urgent medical problems to neighborhood clinics is good health care policy, with the potential to become a model for the nation. If done right, it could help contain the escalating costs of medicine that burden all Americans while providing quality primary medical care for the poor and uninsured.” [Chicago Sun Times, 8/27/08]

American Enterprise Institute Medical Fellow Wrote a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed Saying “Michelle Obama Is Right About Avoiding The ER.” An op-ed from Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute argued, “When Michelle Obama was an executive at the University of Chicago Medical Center, she worked to expand a program that encouraged uninsured patients on Chicago's South Side to visit local health clinics in lieu of her hospital's emergency room. That "Urban Health Initiative" saved her hospital money, and it also surely improved the health of the people it served.” [Wall Street Journal, 9/2/08]

The Real Story From Those Who Worked With the University Of Chicago Medical Center

Statement from Senator Dick Durbin: "The fact that Sen. Grassley is questioning the work of the University of Chicago Medical Center -- especially those programs aimed at reducing emergency department overcrowding and promoting preventive health -- is troubling and shows that he simply doesn't understand the problems facing our hospitals today. Far too many of the 1.1 million people who live on Chicago's South Side depend on the emergency room for their primary medical care, rather than getting the health care they truly need. Residents of the South Side have rates of diabetes, asthma, hypertension and other debilitating chronic conditions that are as much as five times higher than the rest of Illinois. UCMC is providing more than $64 million a year in charity and unreimbursed care and has received high marks from everyone from community groups to the Illinois Attorney General for their efforts. I am prou d to have helped secure federal funds in support of that work."

Statement from Attorney General Lisa Madigan: "Compared to other hospitals in Illinois, University of Chicago Medical Center clearly provides care to a great number of low income patients. And you can see that in the large number of Medicaid patients the hospital serves." [Statement From Attorney General Lisa Madigan, 8/22/08]

ACCESS Community Health Network Statement on UCMC: “The University of Chicago Medical Center and Access Community Health Network share a common objective: primary care services for south side residents. The Medical Center has involved Access Community Health Network in efforts to expand access to primary health care. We are pleased with our strategic partnership with Medical Center.” [Statement From ACCESS Community Health Network Media Coordinator Elaine Hegwood, 8/22/08]

Health Care Consultant: UCMC’s Institutional Interests “End Up Being The Right Thing For The Community.” Pat Terrell, a consultant at Health Management Associates, said, “This is driven by their own institutional interests, but those interests end up being the right thing for the community.” [Crain’s, 3/31/08]

Holy Cross Hospital CEO: It’s Best For The Local Hospital And “It’s Best For The Patient” For Each Hospital To Treat Those Patients That It Is Best Suited To Handling. Crain’s reported, “‘There’s no question that it’s better for both of us if we handle more of these routine cases,’ says Holy Cross Hospital CEO Wayne Lerner, who is in talks to accept some U of C pediatric cases and expectant mothers. ‘And it’s best for the patient.’” [Crain’s, 3/31/08]

In One Year, UCMC Went From Turning Away Half Of Critical Care Patients To Taking Ninety Percent. Crain’s reported, “A year ago, [U of C] was turning down half the requests from other hospitals to transfer critically ill patients for complex treatment because it didn’t have space. Today, with partners taking care of routine cases, U of C can take 90% of the more-complicated transfers.” [Crain’s, 3/31/08]

Rhetoric and Reality

RHETORIC: Dan Shomon is a University Lobbyist.

REALITY: Shomon Was Registered To Lobby For The University At The State Level; The University Of Chicago And The University Of Chicago Medical Center Use Separate Governmental Relations Teams

2005 – Current: Dan Shomon Was A Registered Lobbyist In Illinois For The University Of Chicago. According to Illinois lobbying disclosures, Dan Shomon was a registered lobbyist in Illinois for the University of Chicago from November 2, 2005 to current. State lobbyist cannot lobby the Senate without registering as a federal lobbyist. [Illinois Lobbying Disclosures]

RHETORIC:Michelle Obama Recommended That The Hospital Hire David Axelrod's Firm

REALITY: Neither Michelle Obama nor Valerie Jarrett Reached Out To Ask Or Encourage Axelrod’s Firm To Apply For A Contract. As A Prominent Chicago Consultant With Decades Of Experience In Town, David Axelrod And His Firm Have Relationships At Institutions Around The Chicago Area That Are Completely Independent Of The Obamas. Susan Sher, Chief Counsel And Government Relations Director For UCMC, Knew David Axelrod From Her Work As Corporation Counsel For Mayor Daley While David Served As His Consultant, And She Encouraged Ask To Apply For A Contract. The Hiring Decision Was Made By UCMC CEO Jim Madara.

RHETORIC: The Hospital Spent Less Than The Average For Nonprofit Hospitals In Cook County

REALITY: THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL CENTER PROVIDES MORE UNCOMPENSATED CARE THAN PEER INSTITUTIONS.

The University Of Chicago Medical Center Provides More Uncompensated Care Than Peer Academic Medical Centers (AMA). In 2004, the average academic medical center provided a mix of 50 percent private insurance and 50 percent government insurance, which included Medicare and Medicaid. At the University of Chicago Medical Center, the patient mix is 35 percent private and 65 percent government pay, of which 37 percent is from Medicaid, compared to the AMC average of roughly 20 percent. According to John Easton, the Director of Communications at the University of Chicago Medical Center: “The University of Chicago Medical Center is one of the largest providers of unreimbursed care in Illinois. The Medical Center provides more days of inpatient care for those covered by Medicaid than any other private hospital in Illinois. In fiscal 2006, for example, UCMC provided more than 70,000 days of inpatient care to those covered only by Medicaid, which reimburses hospitals only a fraction of the costs of care.” [The University of Chicago Medical Center Director of Communications John Easton, 7/28/08]

The University Of Chicago Hospitals Was Second In The State In Total Medicaid Patient Days In 2006. In 2006, the University Of Chicago Hospitals was second in the state of Illinois in the number of Medicaid patient days, a total of 71,633. [Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, for the state fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.]

The University Of Chicago Hospitals Admitted 11,818 Medicaid Patients, Third In The State Of Illinois In 2006. In 2006, the University Of Chicago Hospitals admitted 11,818 Medicaid patients, the third largest provider of care in the state of Illinois. [Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, for the state fiscal year ending June 30, 2006.]

Urban Health Initiative

THE URBAN HEALTH INITIATIVE IS PREMISED ON PROVIDING THE BEST HEALTHCARE TO THE SOUTH SIDE BY RECOGNIZING SERVICES AND OPTIMIZING EXPERTISE, INCLUDING PROVIDING UCMC RESOURCES TO COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS

Crain’s: UCMC Was The “White Knight For Small Health Centers And Cash-Strapped Hospitals On The South Side.” Crain’s reported, “U of C is assuming the unlikely role of white knight for small health centers and cash-strapped hospitals on the South Side.” [Crain’s, 3/31/08]

The Urban Health Initiative Is The Product Of A Realignment Of Thinking That Places UCMC Into A Community Context. “The new attitude embedded within the UHI represents the contemporary place of an academic medical center in an urban setting. We now look beyond our own four walls and view ourselves as just one piece of a larger healthcare network. Given finite societal resources, we must steward them so that each provider plays the right role at the right time.” [Urban Health Initiative Memo]

UCMC Was “Forging Alliances” With Other Health Care Providers To Help “Solve A Growing Health Care Crisis On The South Side.” Crain’s reported, “Seeking to free up beds to take more complicated cases like organ transplants or brain surgeries, the medical center’s CEO, James Madara, is forging alliances to treat the rising number of poor patients needing routine care. While the effort is aimed at stemming the tide of these patients coming through its own doors, U of C is also helping to solve a growing health care crisis on the South Side.” [Crain’s, 3/31/08]

100 UCMC Physicians Have Moved Into Clinics And Local Hospitals; UCMC Has Invested $2 Million In Clinics. Crain’s reported, “Almost 100 U of C physicians have been scattered across neighborhood clinics and a few hospitals on the South Side in the last year. The medical center also has spent more than $2 million in the last six months to expand walk-in clinics like Dr. Walker’s and relocate some of its own doctors and patients to other facilities, including moving its 10-bed psychiatric unit to nearby Mercy Hospital.” [Crain’s, 3/31/08]

UCMC Gave Access Community Health A $350,000 Grant To Expand A Nearby Clinic Where UCMC Specialists Will Begin To Treat Patients. “A $350,000 grant was provided from UCMC to Access Community Health (our largest clinic partner) to build out and expand its Grand Boulevard location near campus; several UCMC faculty specialists will begin caring for community patients at Grand Boulevard in the first quarter of CY ‘08.” [Urban Health Initiative Memo]

THE URBAN ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTER’S MISSION IS COMPROMISED WHEN ITS BEDS ARE FILLED BY PRIMARY CARE PATIENTS ADMITTED THROUGH THE ER

JAMA Paper: Using The Emergency Room For Primary Care Is Inefficient And Displaces Patients In Need Of More Complex Care. Laurence D. Hill and James L. Madara wrote, “Urban academic medical centers frequently become default providers of routine primary care through emergency departments overcrowded with patients who often could be treated more effectively in neighborhood health care settings, absorb specialized patient care resources, and may displace access for patients more in need of complex care.” [JAMA, November 2, 2005—Vol 294, No. 17]

JAMA Paper: When Urban Academic Medical Centers Compete With Federally Qualified Health Centers, The Community Loses. Laurence D. Hill and James L. Madara wrote, “This is a particularly acute problem for organizations such as Federally Qualified Health Centers, which are provided a competitive advantage through governmental financial incentives to provide primary care to inner-city patients. When urban academic medical centers directly compete with Federally Qualified Health Centers, either through lack of appreciation of their existence or through advertising that inadvertently stimulates patients to bypass local health care centers, academic centers can drive these clinical care centers out of business. This in turn detracts from the neighborhood economy and places additional financial stresses on the academic medical center due to its intrinsically high cost structure.” [JAMA, November 2, 2005—Vol 294, No. 17]

South Side Health Collaborative

Initiated The South Side Health Collaborative, A Network Of 19 Community-Based Primary Care And Social Services Providers To Care For The Uninsured On The South Side.. Michelle Obama initiated the South Side Health Collaborative (SSHC), a network of 19 primary care and social services agencies that provide care for patients who have visited the University of Chicago Medical Center with medical ailments better treated at community health centers, regardless of the patient’s ability to pay. More than 4,000 patients have been linked with SSHC sites to better address their primary care needs. The SSHC has also successfully moved patients to community primary health sites, which, due to the prominence of the University of Chicago Medical Center, were operating under capacity and losing essential government funding. [The University of Chicago Medical Center Medical Center by Michelle Obama “Letter To The Community]

University Of Chicago Received A Two-Year Healthy Communities Access Program Federal Grant. In 2005, the University of Chicago received a two-year Healthy Communities Access Program (HCAP) federal grant, one of 230 received nationwide, totaling $430 million. The Medical Center used the grant to implement the South Side Health Collaborative in February 2005. [University of Chicago Medicine On The Midway Journal, Spring 2007]

South Side Health Collaborative Has Provided A Medical Home To More Than 15,000 Previously “Medically Homeless” Patients. According to the University of Chicago Medical Center, “Since 2005, more than 15,000 patients who came to the UCMC emergency department and self-identify as not having a regular doctor-the ‘medically homeless’-have found medical homes and received the primary and preventive care from SSHC facilities.” [John Easton, Director of Communications, The University of Chicago Medical Center, 7/25/08]

In First Year Found “Medical Homes” For More Than 1,200 Patients. According to the University of Chicago Medical Center 2006 Annual Report, “the South Side Health Collaborative, which, after a year of establishing relationships between the Medical Center and various neighborhood health centers, has found primary care “medical homes” at nearby clinics for more than 1,200 patients, substituting routine preventive measures for emergency care.” Michelle Obama stated of the program “We’ve been able to survive like an island, but now the world is seeping in, and our salvation will be the success of our partners. Now we’re working together to get people to the right place,” Obama says, “to make sure everyone stays generally healthy with routine care.” [The University of Chicago Medical Center: 2006 Annual Report]

10:24 PM | Permalink