Organizing for America

PALIN TONIGHT: “We have a $40 billion investment fund, a savings fund called the Alaska permanent fund when I and others in the legislature found out that we had hundreds of millions of dollars in Sudan we called for divestment so we wouldn't be doing anything that could be seen as condoning activity in Darfur. That legislature hasn't passed (it) yet but it needs to because all of us as individuals and humanitarians and as elected officials should do all we can to end those atrocities in that side of the world.”

FACTS: PALIN’S ADMINISTRATION WAS COMPLICIT IN KILLING DARFUR DIVESTMENT BILL

Alaska Permanent Fund’s Money Managers Opposed Darfur Divestment Bill. “A bill before the Legislature would force managers of the Alaska Permanent Fund to dump stocks of companies doing business in Sudan, whose government has been blamed for genocidal killings in Darfur. The measure also would apply to state retirement fund investments. Alaska's money managers oppose the bill and say managing money according to a political agenda is a bad bet. Managers of the state savings accounts say House Bill 287 would complicate their work, raise expenses and have little effect in Darfur. Managing money according to a social or political agenda is a bad bet, said Mike Burns, the permanent fund chief executive officer.” [AP, 3/4/08 ]

· Palin Appoints the Board of the Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation. “A governor-appointed board of six trustees sets APFC policy. Alaska law provides that the APFC Board be comprised of four public members, the Commissioner of Revenue and one additional cabinet member of the governor's choosing. Public members serve staggered four-year terms.” [Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation, Website ]

Under The Palin Administration, The Department Of Law Issued No Opinions Containing The Words “Divest,” “Sudan,” “Darfur” Or “Genocide.” The Department of Law has issued no opinions containing the word "divest" since 2004. It has never issued an opinion containing the words "Sudan" "Darfur" or "genocide." Searches for opinions on "social and invest" and "sanction and invest" revealed nothing relevant to Sudan or Darfur. [Alaska Department Of Law ]

Sarah Palin’s Administration Was Complicit In Killing Sudan Divestment Bills In Committee. On February 9, 2008, Governor Sarah Palin’s appointed Deputy Commissioner of Revenue spoke to the Alaska House State Affairs Committee on bipartisan HB 287, which would require the state to divest from Sudan. He agreed with another speaker who said divestment was ‘not the right tool.’ On April 1, Commissioner of Revenue paid lip service to SB 227 in the Alaska Senate State Affairs Committee, saying that the bill “should be amended…in the Finance Committee” and said that the Department of Revenue was “working with the Department of Law... to actually take certain actions with regard to divestiture that would still be compliant with the state investment laws.” The Legislature adjourned Sine Die on April 13. [Minutes Of The 25th Alaska Legislature]

Validator: Representative Les Gara

11:55 PM | Permalink

PALIN TONIGHT: “We have got to encourage other nations to come along with us with the impacts of climate change, what we can do about that. As governor I was the first governor to form a climate change subcabinet to start dealing with the impacts.”

FACTS: PALIN WAS NOT THE FIRST GOVERNOR TO ACT ON CLIMATE CHANGE OR REORGANIZE HER CABINET TO DEAL WITH IT

In JANUARY 2007, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick Began Sweeping Cabinet Reorganization to Integrate Energy and Environment to Deal With Climate Change. "The challenge of climate change illustrates vividly the need to integrate energy and environmental policy," added Governor Patrick, who has begun a sweeping Cabinet reorganization that combines energy and environmental affairs agencies into a single secretariat." [Gov. Patrick Press Release, 1/8/07 ]

· Nevada Created Climate Committee in April, 2007. On April 10, 2007, “Governor Jim Gibbons today signed an executive order creating the Nevada Climate Change Advisory Committee and named its 13 members. The Committee is tasked with making recommendations to the Governor on reducing Nevada's greenhouse gas emissions." [State of Nevada Press Release , 4/10/07]

· By May of 2007, 29 States had Taken Action On Climate Change. "Among the 29 states that have taken steps to curb their contributions to global warming, some have been more active than others. Massachusetts sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over its refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and won a victory in the U.S. Supreme Court last month. California, at the urging of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, passed the nation's most stringent emissions control legislation. California also worked with several New England states to set up the carbon registry." [St. Petersburg Times, 5/10/97 ]

Palin Created Subcabinet on Climate Change In SEPTEMBER 2007. According to a press release, “Governor Sarah Palin today signed Administrative Order 238 establishing a sub-cabinet to prepare a climate change strategy. ‘Many scientists note that Alaska’s climate is changing,’ Governor Palin said. ‘We are already seeing the effects. Coastal erosion, thawing permafrost, retreating sea ice and record forest fires affect our communities and our infrastructure. Some scientists tell us to expect more changes in the future. We must begin to prepare for those changes now.’” She also said that the sub-cabinet would look at ways to develop the state’s renewable energy sources. [Palin press release, 9/14/07]

11:52 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Joe Biden said: “[McCain] voted 4 out of 5 times on George Bush's budget.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

FACT: MCCAIN SUPPORTED 4 OF 5 BUSH BUDGETS

· McCain Voted for 4 of 5 Bush Budgets Adding Up To $9.8 Trillion In Spending. McCain supported four of the five Bush budgets that the Senate voted on from 2001-2006. McCain voted for the FY 2002 budget, the FY 2005 budget, the FY 2006 budget and the FY 2007 budget. The budgets added up to $9.8 Trillion in spending. [2001 Senate Vote #98; 2004 Senate Vote #58; 2005 Senate Vote #114; 2006 Senate Vote #74]

FACT: MCCAIN’S SPENDING PROPOSALS DON’T ADD UP AND ARE FAR MORE COSTLY THEN OBAMA’S PLANS

· McCain Offers Four More Years Of Soaring Deficits. Just like George Bush, McCain budget plan offers four more years of soaring deficits. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center said McCain’s tax plan would add $3.4 trillion to the debt over the next decade, and cuts for the wealthy instead of middle class families. [Tax Policy Center, 7/23/08, p. 42]

· New York Times: McCain’s Budget Will Add $200 Or $300 Billion To The Deficit Per Year. “The Obama campaign claims it can pay for all this, and even reduce the deficit, through tax increases and spending cuts. I think a more skeptical look at its budget leaves you worried it may add something like $50 billion a year to the deficit. But applying the same arched brow to Mr. McCain’s stated plans leaves you worried that he will add $200 billion or $300 billion or, depending on his voluntary tax system, even more.” [New York Times, 6/18/08 ]

· McCain Has No Plan To Pay For His Tax Cuts For The Wealthy And Corporations. McCain’s promise to continue George Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and give big corporate interests a tax cut would cost $340 billion a year, according to the Tax Policy Center. The Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and New York Times have all raised questions about whether McCain can pay for these tax breaks. In fact, a Washington Post editorial even said that his budget plan is “not credible” [Editorial, Washington Post, 7/14/08 ; Editorial, New York Times, 7/12/08 ; Wall Street Journal, 4/16/08]

· Washington Post: McCain’s Approach To Taxes Is Far More Costly Than Obama’s. “There is a serious debate to be had in this presidential campaign about the fundamentally different tax policies of Barack Obama and John McCain. Then there is the phony, misleading and at times outright dishonest debate that the McCain campaign has been waging -- most recently with a television ad. The two candidates have very different positions on taxes. Mr. Obama wants to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans and cut them substantially for low- and middle-income taxpayers. He would cut taxes for more households, and by a larger amount, than Mr. McCain, who would give the greatest benefits to wealthy households and corporations. … The McCain campaign insists on completely misrepresenting Mr. Obama's plan. … The country can't afford the tax cuts either man is promising, although Mr. McCain's approach is by far the more costly. We don't expect either side to admit that. But neither side should get to outright lie about its opponent's positions, either.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/31/08 ]

· 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: McCain Cannot Balance The Budget On A Crusade Against Pork And A One-Year Sliver Of Federal Spending And He Either Has A “Secret Plan To Balance The Budget Or He’s Blowing Smoke.” “Mr. McCain’s main campaign promises, if fulfilled, would lead to huge budget deficits. Extending the Bush tax cuts, enacting more tax cuts of his own and staying the course in Iraq would cost hundreds of billions of dollars more, every year, than the small bore spending cuts he has specified. Mr. McCain cannot balance the budget on a crusade against pork and a one-year freeze in a sliver of federal spending. Either he has a secret plan to balance the budget or he’s blowing smoke.” [Editorial, New York Times, 7/12/08 ]

10:50 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: “You do what I did as governor. And you appoint people regardless of party affiliation. Democrats, independents, Republicans, you walk the walk, don't just talk the talk.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]


FACT: PALIN HIRED HER FRIENDS TO KEY ADMINISTRATION POSITIONS

· Palin Hired Friends for Key Administration Positions. “Other friends and allies have gotten good jobs. Palin appointed close friend and political fund-raiser Deborah Richter as director of the Permanent Fund Dividend Division—the state agency that hands out yearly oil-dividend checks to Alaskans. As her attorney general, Palin chose Talis Colberg, a friend who specializes in insurance law. Some legal experts warned that Palin would do better to select someone with more experience in the oil and gas field—a big part of the Alaska attorney general's caseload—but ‘she chose someone she trusted,’ says Dave Dittmer, her pollster.” [Newsweek, 9/6/08 ]

· Palin Hired a High School Friend With No Experience to Head the State Division of Agriculture – a $95,000 Per Year Job. “So when there was a vacancy at the top of the State Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year directorship. A former real estate agent, Ms. Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as one of her qualifications for running the roughly $2 million agency.” [New York Times, 9/14/08 ]

· Palin Hired a High School Friend Who Had Established an Alaska Franchise of Mailboxes Etc. to Head the Economic Development Office, Paying Him $83,000 Per Year. “The Wasilla High School yearbook archive now doubles as a veritable directory of state government. Ms. Palin appointed Mr. Bitney, her former junior high school band-mate, as her legislative director and chose another classmate, Joe Austerman, to manage the economic development office for $82,908 a year. Mr. Austerman had established an Alaska franchise for Mailboxes Etc.” [New York Times, 9/14/08 ]

· Palin Hired One of Todd Palin’s Fellow Bristol Bay Setnetters to Serve on the State Fisheries Board. “Gov. Palin also appointed one of her husband's fellow Bristol Bay setnetters to the state Fisheries Board.” [Washington Post, 9/22/08 ]

· Palin Hired Childhood Friend John Bitney, a Registered Lobbyist, to Work on Her Gubernatorial Campaign – Later Became Her Legislative Director. In 2006, according to the Associated Press, "Bitney terminated his lobbying contracts when he joined the [Palin] campaign" and wrote "position papers, speeches, talking points, letters and messages for the campaign." The AP reported, however, that Bitney remained registered as a lobbyist while working with Palin, though "state law prohibits a registered lobbyist from serving as a campaign's director or treasurer, participate in fundraising or exercise any decision making authority or control over the campaign." [Associated Press, 9/21/06, Anchorage Daily News, 7/10/07]

o Bitney Served as Palin’s Legislative Director Once She Took Office. According to the Anchorage Daily News in 2007, John Bitney served as “Gov. Palin’s legislative director.” [Anchorage Daily News, 7/10/2007]

10:44 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Joe Biden said of McCain: “He voted against including 3.6 million children in coverage of an existing healthcare plan when he voted in the Senate.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]


The Facts: McCain Opposed SCHIP Expansion


MCCAIN SUPPORTED BUSH VETO OF SCHIP EXPANSION

McCain Supported Bush's Veto of SCHIP And Voted Against Providing Insurance For Millions of Uninsured Because It Raised Taxes On Tobacco. McCain voted against reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program for five years, expanding the program by $35.2 billion. To offset the cost of the expansion, it would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products. McCain told CNN that Bush’s subsequent veto of the legislation was the “right call by the president” because the legislation offered a “phony smoke and mirrors way of paying for it.” According to the New York Times, “what really sets [McCain] off is the way Congress proposes to finance the measure, which President Bush vetoed and is facing a veto override vote: an added tax on cigarettes.” [2007 Senate Vote #307, 8/2/2007; 2007 Senate Vote #306, 8/2/2007; 2007 Senate Vote #401 , 10/31/07; CNN, 10/3/2007 ]
The SCHIP Bill Would Have Expanded Health Coverage To 5.8 Million Children. Accord to the CBO, the SCHIP bill would expand coverage to 5.8 million children, 3.8 million of whom are uninsured and 2 million of whom have or have access to private health insurance. [Congressional Budget Office, 9/25/07 ]

10:39 PM | Permalink

Washington Post, Chris Cillizza: “The Fix”: Biden is on point: In each of the first three questions he banged on McCain. Keep your eye on the fruit... LINK

First Read (Domenico Montanaro): Biden is hitting his stride on foreign policy. His nuance and directness on this subject is what made him so good in those Democratic primary debates. LINK

TIME: [Donna] Shalala on Biden’s health care answer: “Nailed it.” Women in this room erupted in cheers. Who knew there were so many Democratic CEOs? LINK

CNN (Candy Crowley): "How long have I been at this? Five Weeks?" I'm not sure that's the greatest line for Palin to be using. LINK

ABC News (Rick Klein): Palin is falling into meaningless platitudes: "Change is coming." "We're going to learn from the mistakes of this and other administrations." LINK

Washington Post (Chris Cillizza): It's a hard argument for Palin to make: we need change, we need new faces, we need John McCain? LINK

TIME: John McCain “knows how to win a war.” Has anyone told her he was in Vietnam? LINK

TIME: Sarah Palin boldly vows to not answer the moderator's questions. LINK

Politico (Jonathan Martin): The Palin response to Biden's Bush-bashing: Too much looking backwards. She acknowledges that there have been "huge blunders throughout this administration as there have in every administration." LINK

Politico (Jonathan Martin): Now we know why Palin is trying to stick to her message and avoid the questions and conversation at hand. That climate change answer was rushed and uncertain, more like the Palin we saw with Katie Couric than the Palin of the first 30 minutes tonight. LINK

TNR (Michael Crowley): A pre-emptive strike from someone who clearly plans to spend the night dodging: "I may not answer the questions the way that either you or the moderator want to hear..." LINK

Washington Post Fact Check: Palin “Flatly False” on Biden Attack. Sarah Palin just asserted that Sen. Joseph Biden backed John McCain's military policies until this presidential race. That is flatly false. Biden was an outspoken opponent of President Bush's troop increases in Iraq as soon as Bush announced them after the 2006 elections. As Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, he led the most heated hearings before the troops were actually deployed. LINK

New York Times: Gov. Sarah Palin boasted that Mr. McCain “sounded that warning bell” about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, echoing some of Mr. McCain’s recent comments in which he portrayed himself as being on the vanguard in warning about the impending financial crisis.

But the legislation was introduced more than 16 months earlier and the debate over the issue had been going on for some time. He also only added his name after an oversight agency issued a lengthy report condemning practices at Fannie Mae. LINK

Washington Post Fact Checker (Michael Dobbs): Sarah Palin repeated John McCain's claim that Barack Obama voted to increase taxes for every American earning more than $42,000 a year. This is a considerable stretch. LINK

USA Today Fact Check on Palin Claim that Obama Voted 94 Times to Increase Taxes: The facts: Non-partisan Factcheck.org called that count, which has been cited before by Republicans, "inflated and misleading." Examining the 94 votes at issue, Factcheck.org found that 23 were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all; they were against proposed tax cuts. The 94 tally includes two, three and even four votes on the same measure. LINK

New York Times Fact Checker: Ms. Palin castigated Mr. Obama’s health care plan as one that would be mandate a “universal government-run” system in which health care is “taken over” by the federal government. This is inaccurate on several levels. LINK

USA Today Fact Check on Palin Health Care Attack: The claim: Palin said Barack Obama wants a "universal, government-run program" and "health care being taken over by the feds." The facts: Obama's health-care plan does not call for a government takeover. In fact, it isn't even universal. It would only cover all children. Obama's plan would give Americans the opportunity to have government health insurance, but they also could pick a private plan. LINK

Washington Post Fact Checker: Palin Attack on Obama Iraq Record. Sarah Palin oversimplified Obama's vote to stop funding U.S. troops in Iraq. Obama was one of 14 senators who voted against the bill on the grounds that it did not set a timeline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. Obama made clear that he was in favor of funding the troops, but could not agree to an indefinite extension of the war. The previous month, most Senate Republicans voted against a Democratic bill (supported by Obama) that linked funding of the troops to the establishment of a timeline for withdrawal. McCain missed that vote. LINK

Washington Post Fact Checker (Jonathan Weisman): Gov. Sarah Palin was erroneous when she claimed U.S. troop levels in Iraq are now at "pre-surge" levels. LINK

Washington Post Fact Checker (Jonathan Weisman): Palin repeated a standard line offered by the McCain campaign--that Obama has not admitted the "surge" of additional troops in Iraq worked. But in a September interview with Bill O'Reilly of Fox News, Obama said "the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated. . . I've already said it's succeeded beyond our wildest dreams." Obama has not, however, retracted his opposition to the surge, and he has said political reconciliation still needs to take place in Iraq. LINK

10:37 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: “Our founding fathers were wise in allowing flexibility in the office of the Vice President and we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president it's agenda in that position. Yes, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there and we will do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]


FACT: PALIN WOULD NOT RESPOND TO WHETHER THE VICE PRESIDENCY WAS PART OF THE EXECUTIVE OR THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Like Cheney, Palin Would Not Respond to Whether the Vice President Is Part of the Executive or Legislative Branches. “Vice President Dick Cheney has said his office only partially belongs to the executive branch. Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden disagrees and Republican rival Sarah Palin isn’t saying. Sen. Biden (Del.) believes the office he is seeking is solely in the executive branch, according to his staff. But aides to Alaska Gov. Palin did not answer the question. ‘Unlike Dick Cheney, Joe Biden won’t have to create a full employment plan for lawyers and scholars to clear up something that was unquestioned for about 200 years. The vice president is part of the executive branch, period. End of story,’ said Biden spokesman David Wade. In turn, a spokesman for the Republican presidential campaign did not answer the question. Instead, he e-mailed remarks Palin gave at a campaign rally in Golden, Colo., on Monday. Palin did not say what branch of government she believes the vice president’s office is part of in those remarks. Instead, Palin said she and Republican presidential nominee John McCain had discussed what responsibilities she would take on as his second-in-command.” [The Hill, 9/18/08 ]

10:36 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: “We need to put more of an emphasis on the profession of teaching, we need to make sure that education in either one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

The facts: Education has not been a top priority for McCain. He has repeatedly opposed education funding, including funds to hire 100,000 new teachers.

FACT: MCCAIN HAS REPEATEDLY VOTED AGAINST INCREASED FUNDING FOR NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, MORE TEACHERS AND FOR FAILING SCHOOLS AND DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS

· McCain Voted Against Reducing the Bush Tax Cuts For The Wealthy In Order to Fully Fund The No Child Left Behind Act. McCain voted against a proposal to reduce President Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy and instead use those funds for deficit reduction and to fully fund the No Child Left Behind Act. [SCR 23, Vote 60, 3/19/03; Vote 64, 3/16/06; Vote 58, 3/16/06; Vote 56, 3/16/05; Vote 35, 3/10/04; Vote 330, 9/9/03; Vote 5, 1/16/03]

· McCain Repeatedly Opposed Funding To Help Reduce Class Sizes By Hiring 100,000 New Teachers. On four different occasions, McCain voted against funding to hire 100,000 new teachers to help reduce class sizes. In addition, he has repeatedly voted against increased funding for teacher training programs. [2001 Senate Vote #103, 5/15/2001; 1999 Senate Vote #41, 3/11/1999; 1998 Senate Vote #93, 4/22/1998; 1998 Senate Vote #50, 3/31/1998]

· McCain Opposed Increased Education Funds For Failing Schools And Disadvantaged Students. McCain has repeatedly voted against increased funds for education programs designed to assist disadvantaged students. For instance, he opposed providing $250 million to help ensure accountability in programs for disadvantaged students and to assist states in their efforts to turn around failing schools. McCain even opposed funding for states to reduce dropout rates at middle and high schools with significant dropout problems. [Vote 330, 9/9/03; Vote 90, 5/3/00; Vote 147, 6/27/00]

· McCain Education Adviser Said “Education Is Obviously Not The Issue Senator McCain Spends The Most Time On.” “In comparison to Senator Barack Obama’s education plan, Senator John McCain’s is downright terse. Among his short list of initiatives, Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, includes bonus pay for teachers who raise student achievement or who take jobs in hard-to-staff schools, an expansion of after-school tutoring, and new federal support for online schools and for the voucher program in Washington, D.C. The brevity of Mr. McCain’s plan reflects his view that the federal government should play a limited role in public education, and his commitment to holding the line on education spending, said Lisa Graham Keegan, a McCain adviser and former Arizona education commissioner. ‘Education is obviously not the issue Senator McCain spends the most time on,’ Ms. Keegan said, adding that his plan’s limited scope should not be interpreted as a lack of commitment to education and school reform. ‘He’s been a quiet and consistent supporter of parents and educators who he thinks are making a difference.’ … Mr. McCain would reallocate 60 percent of the $3 billion in current federal spending on teacher quality programs to finance direct payments to ‘high-performing teachers’ who take jobs in high-needs schools and to those who improve achievement.” [New York Times, 9/10/08 ]

FACT: MCCAIN WON’T FULLY FUND NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND LIKE HE CLAIMS

· Washington Post Editorial: McCain’s Promise To Slow Discretionary Spending In A Bid To Balance The Budget Leaves Little Money For Initiatives Or To Fully Fund No Child Left Behind. McCain’s “education plan is both late in coming and still a work in progress, and his promise to slow discretionary spending in a bid to balance the budget leaves little money for initiatives or to fully fund No Child Left Behind.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/20/08 ]

· McCain Education Adviser Said McCain Believes NCLB Is Adequately Funded. “McCain has talked about freezing education funding until a review can be done of which projects work and which don’t. Money may get re-allocated among different programs but [education adviser Lisa Graham] Keegan said McCain believes NCLB is adequately funded.” [AJC, 6/16/08 ]

· McCain’s Plan To Freeze Discretionary Federal Spending Applies To Education Programs, Including Title I Under NCLB. “I'll go into more detail in a bit, but I wanted to highlight two important things I thought Keegan said. First, McCain's plan to freeze discretionary federal spending applies to education programs, including the largest program under the NCLB law, Title I. Though as president he may seek to re-allocate money between programs, McCain believes the NCLB law is ‘adequately funded,’ Keegan said. So states and schools shouldn't look for any additional federal dollars in a McCain budget.” [Education Week, 6/12/08 ]


FACT: MCCAIN SUPPORTS VOUCHERS

· McCain Supports Taking Money Away From The Public School System To Fund Private School Vouchers. McCain supports private school vouchers that take fund from public schools. In 2001, he also voted for President Bush’s voucher proposal. [S 1, Vote #179 , 6/12/01]

· McCain Supports Vouchers. In an interview, McCain said, “I support vouchers.” [Spartanburg Herald-Journal, 7/26/07; NEA McCain Education Tracking Document]

10:22 PM | Permalink

Tonight, the RNC attacked Joe Biden, stating: “Joe Biden blamed the very same deregulation that he voted for.” [RNC Press Release, 10/2/08]

FACT: Biden Is Committed To 21st Century Regulatory System And Transparency, Voted For Sarbanes-Oxley Act

· Biden Voted For Sarbanes-Oaxley Act, Which Implemented Regulatory Reform. McCain voted for the conference report of the Sarbanes-Oaxley, a bill that that would require more complete disclosure of corporate finances and overhaul regulation of the accounting industry. It would establish a new oversight board, funded by fees on publicly traded companies, to police accounting firms. The agreement would forbid firms from providing investment banking, management consulting and other services for publicly traded companies. It would require additional corporate reporting and disclosure requirements. In cases of security fraud, it would impose civil monetary penalties and require executives engaged in financial misconduct to pay back bonuses and profits. The money would be placed in a fund for defrauded investors. It also would bar executive loans. The agreement would create a criminal penalty for securities fraud and obstruction of justice involving document shredding and require top corporate executives to certify company financial statements. [Vote #192, 7/25/2002]

10:18 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: “Now, Barack Obama had said that all we're doing in Afghanistan is air raiding villages and killing civilians, and such a reckless, reckless comment and untrue comment again hurts our cause. That's not what we are doing there. We are fighting terrorists and we are securing democracy.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

· AP Factcheck: Western Forces Have Been Killing Civilians At A Faster Rate Than Insurgents Have Been Killing Civilians In Afghanistan; Bush Said He Understands The Agony Over The Loss Of Innocent Lives And Is Doing Everything He Can To Protect Them. “A check of the facts shows that Western forces have been killing civilians at a faster rate than the insurgents have been killing civilians. The U.S. and NATO say they don't have civilian casualty figures, but The Associated Press has been keeping count based on figures from Afghan and international officials. Tracking civilian deaths is a difficult task because they often occur in remote and dangerous areas that are difficult to reach and verify. As of Aug. 1, the AP count shows that while militants killed 231 civilians in attacks in 2007, Western forces killed 286. Another 20 were killed in crossfire that can't be attributed to one party. Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed his concern about the civilian deaths during a meeting last week with President Bush. Bush said he understands the agony that Afghans feel over the loss of innocent lives and that he is doing everything he can to protect them. He said the Taliban are using civilians as human shields and have no regard for their lives. ‘The president rightly expressed his concerns about civilian casualty,’ Bush said of Karzai. ‘And I assured him that we share those concerns.’” [AP, 8/14/07 ]

10:17 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: “First McClellan did not say definitively that the surge principles would not work in Afghanistan. Certain accounting for different conditions in that country and conditions are certainly different.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]


The Facts: It’s Not McClellan, Its McKiernan, And That’s Not What He Said About The Surge

McKiernan, Not McClellan. Army Gen. David D. McKiernan (Not McClennan) is commander of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force Said: “The word I don’t use for Afghanistan is ’surge,’ ” McKiernan stressed, saying that what is required is a “sustained commitment” to a counterinsurgency effort that could last many years and would ultimately require a political, not military, solution.
[http://thinkprogress.org/2008/10/02/mccain-mckiernan-afghanistan/]

10:15 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: “For those countries, North Korea also under Kim Jung Il, we have to make sure we are putting the economic sanctions on the economy and we have friends and allies supporting us to make sure that leaders like Kim Jung Il and Ahmadinejad are not allowed to proliferate or use those nuclear weapons, it is that important. [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

The Facts: Obama Worked Across The Aisle To Keep WMDs Out Of The Hands Of Terrorists. McCain Opposed The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.


FACT: 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]

o 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 ]

FACT: MCCAIN OPPOSED COMPREHENSIVE TEST BAN TREATY AND IS UNSURE IF HE WOULD SUPPPORT IT NOW

· McCain Voted Against An International Ban On Nuclear Weapons Testing. In 1999, McCain voted against a resolution of ratification accompanying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Resolution of ratification rejected 48-51. [Treaty Doc. 105-28, Vote #325 , 10/13/99]

· McCain Said He Would Take A “Second Look” At The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. McCain said “that the United States should work with Russia on nuclear disarmament and the reduction of tactical nuclear weapons in Europe — positions his campaign called a ‘significant departure’ from Bush administration policies. … His plan, he said, included not only working on nuclear issues with Russia but also with China, which should be encouraged to move toward nuclear arsenal reductions and a moratorium of additional ‘fissile material.’ He also vowed to take a second look at the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to see whether the ‘shortcomings’ that led him to vote against it in 1999 could be overcome. And he said he would seriously consider Russia's proposal to take the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty global. The agreement between Russia and the U.S. eliminated certain types of ballistic and cruise missiles.” [Denver Post, 5/28/08 ]

10:14 PM | Permalink

FACT: 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]

10:11 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Joe Biden said: “John McCain said as recently as a couple weeks ago he wouldn't even sit down with the government of Spain.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

The Facts: McCain Refused Meeting With Spain, Ally Contributing To War In Afghanistan


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]

10:08 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: The nice thing about running with John McCain is I can assure you he doesn't tell one thing to one group and then turns around and tells something else to another group [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

The Facts: McCain Has Told Different Audiences Different Stories On Immigration; Palin Does Same With Bridge To Nowhere

MCCAIN TELLS DIFFERENT AUDIENCES DIFFERENT STORIES ON IMMIGRATION REFORM

At A Private Meeting With Hispanic Leaders McCain Took Softer Line; McCain Afraid He Would Offend Conservatives “Republican presidential John McCain assured Hispanic leaders he would push through Congress legislation to overhaul federal immigration laws if elected, several people who attended a private meeting with the candidate said Thursday. Democrats questioned why the Arizona senator held the meeting late Wednesday night in Chicago. But supporters who were in the room denied that McCain held the closed-door session out of fear of offending conservatives, many of whom want him to take a harder line on immigration. … ‘He's one John McCain in front of white Republicans. And he's a different John McCain in front of Hispanics,’ complained Rosanna Pulido, a Hispanic and conservative Republican who attended the meeting. Pulido, who heads the Illinois Minuteman Project, which advocates for restrictive immigration laws, said she thought McCain was ‘pandering to the crowd’ by emphasizing immigration reform in his 15-minute speech. ‘He's having his private meetings to rally Hispanics and to tell them what they want to hear,’ she said. ‘I'm outraged that he would reach out to me as a Hispanic but not as a conservative.’” [Associated Press, 6/20/08]


PALIN TOLD ALASKANS SHE SUPPORTED THE BRIDGE TO NOWHERE, TOLD AMERICANS SHE WAS AGAINST IT

Palin Was for the Bridge to Nowhere Before She Was Against It. In 2006, Palin was asked, “Would you continue state funding for the proposed Knik Arm and Gravina Island bridges?” She responded, “Yes. I would like to see Alaska's infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now--while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.” [Anchorage Daily News , 10/22/06, republished 08/29/08]

2006: Palin: Don’t Allow “Spinmeisters” To Turn Bridge To Nowhere Project “Into Something That’s So Negative.” “‘Part of my agenda is making sure that Southeast is heard. That your projects are important. That we go to bat for Southeast when we’re up against federal influences that aren’t in the best interest of Southeast.' She cited the widespread negative attention focused on the Gravina Island crossing project. 'We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,' Palin said." [Ketchikan Daily News, 10/2/06]

In Minneapolis, Palin Told the Nation She Opposed the Bridge to Nowhere. Palin said to the nation at her RNC speech, “I told the Congress "thanks, but no thanks," for that Bridge to Nowhere.” [Palin RNC Speech, 9/3/08]

Politifact: Palin’s Stance On “The Bridge To Nowhere” Is “A Full Flop.” Politifact, a service of CQ and the St. Petersburg Times wrote, “McCain said Palin has ‘stopped government from wasting taxpayers’ money on things they don’t want or need. And when we in Congress decided to build a bridge in Alaska to nowhere for $233-million of yours, she said, we don’t want it. If we need it, we’ll build our own in Alaska. She’s the one that stood up to them.’ Nevermind that Alaska didn't give the money back. It spent the money on other transportation projects. The context of Palin’s and McCain’s recent statements suggest Palin flagged the so-called Bridge to Nowhere project as wasteful spending. But that’s not the tune she was singing when she was running for governor, particularly not when she was standing before the Ketchikan Chamber of Commerce asking for their vote. And so, we rate Palin’s position a Full Flop.” [Politifact ]

10:04 PM | Permalink

The Facts: McCain Has Ignored The Threat In Afghanistan. Obama Recognizes Afghanistan Is The Central Front In The War On Terror And Has Been Calling For Increased Troop Levels.

FACT: 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/

FACT: 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]

10:02 PM | Permalink

FACT: OBAMA SAID HE WOULD BE WILLING TO MEET WITH LEADERS OF HOSTILE NATIONS AS PAST PRESIDENTS HAVE DONE

· Washington Post Fact Check: “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 ]

· Five Former Secretaries Of State Agreed That The United States Should Talk To Iran. “Five former secretaries of state, gathering to give their best advice to the next president, agreed Monday that the United States should talk to Iran. The wide-ranging, 90-minute session in a packed auditorium at The George Washington University, produced exceptional unity among Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, Warren Christopher, Henry A. Kissinger and James A. Baker III.” [AP, 9/15/08]
· 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]
FACT: MCCAIN HAS MET WITH SYRIAN PRESIDENT DESPITE ADMITTING HE WAS SPONSORING TERRORISM

· McCain Had Met With Syrian President Hafez Assad Despite His “Presid[ing] Over A Brutal Regime” And His Engagement “In an Active Program of State Sponsored Terrorism.” In a 1984 McCain wrote an opinion piece that ran in the Arizona Republic about a Middle East trip he took with Senator John Tower. McCain wrote, “Key among the meetings was a 75 minute session with President Hafez Assad of Syria… Assad behaved in a friendly manner throughout our discussion. I had to remind myself during the meeting that this outwardly attractive man presides over a brutal regime, which has perpetrated numerous atrocities – against even the Syrian people – and presently is engaged in an active program of state supported terrorism and intimidation.” [Arizona Republic, 3/4/84]

10:01 PM | Permalink

FACT: MCCAIN WON’T EMBRACE A TIMETABLE EVEN THOUGH MALIKI AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION HAVE AGREED ON A TIMETABLE

· McCain Rejects A Timetable And Says New Withdrawals From Iraq Must Be Based On Improvements In The Security Situation There. “McCain rejects a timetable and says any new withdrawals from Iraq must be based on improvements in the security situation there.” [Bloomberg, 9/9/08 ]

· McCain Said Maliki’s Timetable Was “Not A Timetable.” McCain distanced himself this weekend from previously saying that Obama’s 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq would be “a pretty good timetable.” McCain explained, “Look, it’s not a timetable, as I said. I was asked, ‘How does that sound?’ Anything sounds good to me ... Anything is a good timetable that is dictated by conditions on the ground.” [ABC, “This Week,” 7/27/08 ]

· Washington Post: “The Bush Administration And Maliki Government Have Agreed On A Timetable For The Withdrawal Of U.S. Forces.” “U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have agreed to the withdrawal of all U.S. combat forces from the country by the end of 2011, and Iraqi officials said they are "very close" to resolving the remaining issues blocking a final accord that governs the future American military presence here. Iraqi and U.S. officials said several difficult issues remain, including whether U.S. troops will be subject to Iraqi law if accused of committing crimes. But the officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were unauthorized to discuss the agreement publicly, said key elements of a timetable for troop withdrawal once resisted by President Bush had been reached.” [Washington Post, 8/22/08 ]

· Maliki Specifically Said That There Will Be No Agreement Between Iraq And The United States Unless There Is A “Specific” Timeline That Is “Not Open-Ended.” “Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki demanded a complete U.S. military withdrawal from Iraq by 2011 as he embarked Monday on an attempt to win support among Iraqi leaders for a draft security accord with the United States. … ‘There is an agreement between both sides that no foreign soldiers will be in Iraq after 2011,’ Maliki said. He added that the accord ‘must be based on a specific deadline for the withdrawal of foreign forces and that it should not be open.’ His remarks are likely to complicate the debate in the U.S. presidential campaign over how best to conduct an American military pullout from Iraq. Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has opposed a firm timeline for withdrawal but suggested that troops be out of Iraq by 2013. Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, has called for U.S. combat troops to leave by mid-2010.” [Washington Post, 8/26/08 ]

10:00 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: “We know it's real, I'm not one to attribute every activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet, but there are real changes going on in our climate, and I don't want to argue about the causes. “[Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]


The Facts: Palin Doesn’t Believe Global Warming Result Of Human Activity, McCain Backing Away From His Own Bill

PALIN SAID SHE DOES NOT THINK GLOBAL WARMING WAS A RESULT OF HUMAN ACTIVITY

Palin Said She Did Not Believe Global Warming Was Man-Made. In an interview, Palin was asked her take on global warming. She responded, “A changing environment will affect Alaska more than any other state, because of our location. I'm not one though who would attribute it to being man-made.” [Newsmax, 8/29/08 ]

2006: Palin “Unconvinced” Of “Human Emissions” Impact On Global Warming. “During last fall's political campaign, Gov. Sarah Palin said she remained unconvinced about how much human emissions contribute to current global warming trends. She endorsed the work being undertaken by a new Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission created by the Legislature last May, which she said would help provide Alaskans with answers.” [Anchorage Daily News, 12/31/2006]

MCCAIN IS BACKING AWAY FROM HIS OWN CLIMATE CHANGE PROPOSAL AND HIS RUNNING MATE DOESN’T BELIEVE GLOBAL WARMING IS MAN MADE

Washington Post: What Was Missing From McCain’s Acceptance Speech Was Straight Talk About Combating Climate Change; It Was As If Palin “Exercised A Line-Item Veto On His Speech.” “We're happy that both Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama support a comprehensive approach to weaning the nation off imported oil. But what was missing from Mr. McCain's acceptance speech was straight talk about the other branch of a sensible energy policy: combating climate change. He is a vocal supporter and a one-time sponsor of legislation that would put a price on carbon. Yet he failed to explicitly mention the imperative of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It was as if his running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has questioned whether human activity contributes to global warming, exercised a line-item veto on his speech.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 9/6/08 ]

Ø McCain Has Taken To Denying That He Favors "Mandatory" Limits Even Though Its Central To The "Cap And Trade" Legislation He Has Sponsored. "McCain has lately taken to denying that he favors ‘mandatory’ limits on greenhouse gas emissions, even though a government-imposed limit is central to the ‘cap and trade’ legislation that he favors and has sponsored. The 2003 bill he sponsored jointly with then-Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman (now an Independent) laid out a cap-and-trade system, which would put the brakes on the release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by requiring utilities and other industries to limit emissions.” [Factcheck.org, 6/20/08 ]

09:58 PM | Permalink

Today, Sarah Palin said Obama opposed funding for the troops. [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

FACT: ATTACK ON TROOP FUNDING IS “HIGHLY MISLEADING”

AP: Charge That Obama Voted Against Troop Funding Is “Misleading.” “The ad's most inflammatory charge — that Obama voted against troop funding in Iraq and Afghanistan — is misleading. The Illinois senator consistently voted to fund the troops once elected to the Senate.” [AP, 7/18/08 ]
Fact Check.org: The Claim That Obama Voted To Cut Off Funding For Our Troops Is “Highly Misleading.” Factcheck.org wrote, “Lieberman also said that "colleagues like Barack Obama were voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield." That's a highly misleading claim that McCain also touted in an ad this summer. Obama has voted in favor of war-funding bills at least 10 times since becoming a senator. The McCain camp and Republicans cite one vote Obama cast against a funding bill as justification for their claim – but that vote came after President Bush had vetoed a version of the bill that included a date for withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, most Republicans voted against that 2007 war-funding bill Obama and the Democrats supported.” [Factcheck.org, 9/3/08 ]
FACT: USING THE SAME STANDARD, MCCAIN HAS SUPPORTED CUTTING OF FUNDING TO THE TROOPS

FactCheck.org: Using The McCain Campaign’s Standards, It Would Be “Literally True” To Say That “McCain Urged A Veto Of Funding For Our Troops.” “The McCain camp and Republicans cite one vote Obama cast against a funding bill as justification for their claim – but that vote came after President Bush had vetoed a version of the bill that included a date for withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, most Republicans voted against that 2007 war-funding bill Obama and the Democrats supported. McCain was absent for the vote, but he urged the president to veto the bill. As we said about this subject previously, ‘Based on those facts, it would be literally true to say that ‘McCain urged a veto of funding for our troops.’ But that would be oversimplified to the point of being seriously misleading.’ And the same goes for Lieberman’s claim at the convention.” [FactCheck.org, 9/3/08 ]

McCain Cheered On Bush And Welcomed His Veto Of The Iraq And Afghanistan Spending Bill, Noting That The Congress Needed To Pass A New Spending Bill Because The “Troops In The Field Are Waiting On Our Action.” McCain: “I look forward to the President’s prompt veto of this misguided bill. After the President rejects the legislation, I sincerely hope that the Congress will finally get serious about passing a measure that can be enacted into law. … We need to send a bill to the President that he can sign, and we need to do it as soon as possible – our troops in the field are waiting on our action.” [McCain release, 4/26/07 ]

McCain Introduced Amendment To Cut Off Funds For Troops In Somalia. On October 14, 1993, McCain introduced an amendment to the Fiscal Year 1994 Department of Defense appropriations bill to prohibit funding of U.S. military operations in Somalia except for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops. The amendment was defeated by a tabling motion, introduced by Senator Thurman, 61-38 (Republicans: 16-28; Democrats: 45-10). [2003 Senate Vote 313, 10/14/93, Motion agreed to 61-38: R 16-28; D 45-10; Biden: Y to table]

Ø McCain Later Admitted That He “Regretted” Introducing The Amendment And Stated “In Hindsight, I Wish I Had Not Undertaken So Drastic A Step.” “On October 14, 1993, eleven days after the ambush of our rangers in Mogadishu, I offered an amendment on the Senate floor restricting funds for American forces in Somalia to the purpose of their ‘prompt and orderly withdrawal.’ President Clinton criticized the amendment and its supporters for our ‘headlong rush into isolationism,’ which it was not. But it was an encroachment on presidential authority and a retreat in the face of aggression from an inferior foe that I would never have contemplated in the past. And even though I regretted my action, I felt the circumstances were so compelling that it was a necessary response to a failed policy that had cost the lives of eighteen good Americans . In hindsight, I wish I had not undertaken so drastic a step. But, as the administration had already agreed to compromise legislation that would have set a date for withdrawing our forces five months hence, my demand for a more prompt retreat was only a difference of timing not in kind. I could hardly see how our troops' security or America's international reputation would be better served by a slow retreat than a quick one.” [John McCain, “Worth the Fighting For,” p.280]

09:57 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Joe Biden said: “[McCain] voted 20 times against funding alternative energy.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

FACT: MCCAIN HAS VOTED AGAINST RENEWABLE ENERGY MORE THAN 20 TIMES

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 The 2005 Energy Bill that Contributed to a Dramatic Increase in Wind Power. McCain voted against the Energy Policy Act of 2005. [2005 Senate Vote 213, 7/29/05]

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]

09:56 PM | Permalink

Today, Joe Biden said: “But John McCain will not support a windfall profits tax. They have made $600 billion since 2001, and John McCain wants to give them all by itself separate, no additional bill, all by itself another $4 billion tax cut. … So I hope the governor is able to convince John McCain to support our windfall profits tax, which she supported in Alaska, and I give her credit for it.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

FACT: MCCAIN HAS REPEATEDLY OPPOSED A WINDFALL PROFITS TAX AND HIS TAX PLAN GIVES OIL COMPANIES $4 BILLION IN TAX BREAKS

· 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]

· 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]

09:54 PM | Permalink

Tonight Sarah Palin said: “[John McCain] he has a good health care plan that is detailed. I want to give you a couple details on that. He is proposing a five billion dollar tax credit for families so they can get out there and purchase their own health care coverage 5,000 tax credit, that is budget neutral. That doesn't cost the government anything as opposed to Barack Obama's plan to mandate health care coverage and have this universal government-run program, and unless you are pleased with the way that the Federal Government has been running anything lately, I don't think that is going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the Feds. But a $5,000 health care credit through our income tax, that's budget neutral, that's going to help, and he also wants to erase those artificial lines between states so that through competition, we can cross state lines, and if there is a better plan offered somewhere else, we would be able to purchase that. So affordability and accessibility will be the keys there with that $5,000 tax credit also being offered.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

The Facts: McCain’s health care plan would raise taxes on middle class families. Obama’s plan is not government run and would maintain the existing system.

FACT: MCCAIN WOULD RAISE HEALTH CARE TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES AND CAUSE 20 MILLION TO LOSE THEIR HEALTH CARE THROUGH THEIR EMPLOYERS

· McCain’s Campaign “Acknowledged” That His Health Care Plan “Would Have The Effect Of Increasing Tax Payments For Some Workers.” “Though Senator John McCain has promised to not raise taxes, his campaign acknowledged Wednesday that the health plan he outlined this week would have the effect of increasing tax payments for some workers, primarily those with high incomes and expensive health plans. … Douglas 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.” [New York Times, 5/1/08 ]

· 20 Million Americans Would Lose Employment-Based Health Insurance Under The McCain Plan. “A study coming out Tuesday from scholars at Columbia, Harvard, Purdue and Michigan projects that 20 million Americans who have employment-based health insurance would lose it under the McCain plan. … According to the study: ‘The McCain plan will force millions of Americans into the weakest segment of the private insurance system — the nongroup market — where cost-sharing is high, covered services are limited and people will lose access to benefits they have now.’ The net effect of the plan, the study said, ‘almost certainly will be to increase family costs for medical care.’” [Herbert, New York Times, 9/16/08 ]

· Because McCain’s Health Care Tax Credit Is Indexed To “Regular Inflation,” Which Is Lower Than Annual Increase In Health Care Costs, After Four Years “The Number Of Uninsured Would… Creep Upward.” “Eliminating the tax exclusion, they wrote, ‘would greatly reduce the number of people who obtain health insurance through their employers.’ They put that figure at 20 million, and calculated that it would be offset at first by the 21 million who would be able to afford individual coverage using Mr. McCain’s tax credits. Within a few years, however, the trend would reverse, the study asserts. That is because, according to Mr. Holtz-Eakin, the McCain health care tax credits would be indexed to ‘regular inflation,’ presumably the Consumer Price Index, which is typically lower than annual increases in health care costs. Unless costs can be substantially reined in, the credits would therefore enable fewer people to afford coverage each year, leading to an eventual rise in the number of uninsured. … The estimates in Health Affairs are comparable to those made in July by the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution, which projected that 1 million people would gain coverage after one year under Mr. McCain’s plan, that almost 5 million people would gain coverage after four years, and that the number of uninsured would then creep upward.” [New York Times, 9/16/08 ]

· Wall Street Journal: McCain Plan Would “Allow Health-Insurance Companies to Escape State Regulations They Don't Like.” “Sen. McCain also would let people buy health insurance across state lines. That would allow health-insurance companies to escape state regulations they don't like, such as rules allowing for appeals when companies deny coverage and rules requiring insurers to cover people with various conditions or to cover particular types of treatments. The companies would likely gravitate to the states with the regulations they most favored. The result is that health-insurance companies would all operate out of states with few regulations, effectively stripping state rules built over decades, [Elizabeth] Edwards said. ‘We can expect all our health-care policies to be written in states where little is required of them.’” [Wall Street Journal , 4/19/08]

· Commonwealth Fund Study: McCain’s Plan Would Cost $185 Billion In The First Year While Obama’s Plan Would Cost $86 Billion in the first year. According to a report by the Commonwealth Fund, “McCain's plan would reduce the number of uninsured Americans by 1.3 million over the coming decade at a total cost of $1.3 billion. Obama's plan would reduce the ranks of the uninsured by 34 million at a cost of $1.63 billion. During the first year of implementation, McCain's proposed plan would dent the federal budget to the tune of $185 billion, while Obama's plan would require $86 billion.” [Washington Post, 10/2/08 ]

FACT: OBAMA’S PLAN IS NOT GOVERNMENT RUN

· Washington Post: McCain Repeats "Canard" That Obama’s Health Care Plan Would Turn The System Over To The Federal Government. "John McCain raised an old Republican canard, repeated often in the primaries, when he claimed that Obama's health care plan would eventually turn the health care system over to the federal government. The Illinois senator proposes helping individuals purchase health insurance through a system of subsidies and tax credits. He is also in favor of mandatory health insurance for children. But he is not advocating a state-run health system, such as the one that exists in Britain and some European countries. Under the Obama plan, individuals will still be free to choose between different types of health insurance, and will be able to choose their own doctors." [Washington Post Fact Check, 9/26/08 ]
· Fact Check.org: “Obama’s Plan Wouldn’t ‘Force’ Families Into A ‘Government Run Health Care System.’” “Furthermore, Obama’s plan wouldn’t ‘force’ families into a ‘government-run health care system.’ His plan mandates that children have coverage; there’s no mandate for adults. People can keep the health insurance they have now or chose from private plans, or opt for a new public plan that will offer coverage similar to what members of Congress have. Obama would also expand Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. His plan certainly expands government-offered insurance – and McCain’s doesn’t – but it’s not a solely government-run plan, as McCain implied. And if Obama's public plan turns out to be similar to what federal employees have, as he says it would be, we're not sure how "a bureaucrat" would stand ‘between you and your doctor.’” [Factcheck.org, 9/5/08 ]
· Joe Klein: When McCain Says Obama Favors A “Government-Run Health-Care System, He’s Not Telling The Truth.” Joe Klein at Time wrote, “When McCain says, for example, that Barack Obama favors a government-run health-care system, he's not telling the truth — Obama wants a market-based system subsidized by the government…” [Time, 9/17/08 ]

· McCain Has Repeatedly Suggested That His Democratic Rivals Are Proposing A Nationalized Health Care System And That Suggestion Is “Incorrect.” The New York Times wrote, “Senator John McCain has been repeatedly suggesting that his Democratic rivals are proposing a single-payer, or even a nationalized health care system along the lines of those in countries like Canada and Britain. The suggestion is incorrect. While both Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York are calling for universal health care and an expanded role for government, they stop well short of calling for a single-payer plan.” [New York Times, 5/3/08 ]

FACT: OBAMA’S PLAN WOULD MAINTAIN THE EXISTING PRIVATE SYSTEM

· Obama’s Plan Would Maintain The Existing Private System And Give Consumers The Option Of Buying Insurance From The Federal Government Along The Lines Of Medicare. Obama “would maintain the existing private system, providing government subsidies or tax credits to help the low-income uninsured afford premiums.” Obama would also “give consumers a new option to buy insurance from the federal government, with policies along the lines of Medicare.” [New York Times, 5/3/08 ]

· Commonwealth Fund Study: Obama’s Plan Has The Best Chance Of Making Health Care More Affordable, Accessible, Efficient And Higher In Quality; McCain’s Plan Would Only Cover 2 Million Of the Projected 67 Million Uninsured While Obama’s Plan Would Cover 34 Million. “An analysis of the two starkly different approaches to reforming the U.S. health care system offered by John McCain and Barack Obama suggests Obama's plan has the best chance of making health care more affordable, accessible, efficient and higher in quality. The report, released on Thursday by the Commonwealth Fund, sized up the presidential candidates' plans for dealing with a health care system which has left nearly 46 million people uninsured and many more underinsured.” [Reuters, 10/2/08 ]

09:48 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Senator Biden said “Barack Obama laid out four basic criteria for any kind of rescue plan here. He first of all said there has to be oversight, we are not going to write any check to anybody unless there is oversight of the Secretary of Treasury. He secondly said you have to focus on homeowners and folks on main street. Thirdly, he said you have to treat the taxpayers like investors in this case, and lastly, what you have to do is make sure the CEOs don't benefit in this because this could end up in the long run people making money off this rescue plan. So, as a consequence of that it brings us back to maybe the fundamental disagreement between Governor Palin and me and Senator Barack Obama, and that is we are going to fundamentally change the focus of the economic policy. We are going to focus on the middle class because it is when the middle class is growing, the economy grows and everybody does well, not just focus on the wealthy and corporate America.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

The Facts: Barack Obama Has Been A Leader On The Financial Crisis, The Housing Crisis And Increasing Government Oversight.


FACT: BARACK OBAMA HAS BEEN A LEADER ON THE FINANCIAL CRISIS

· Factcheck.org: “The Record Shows That Obama Has Not Been Quiet On Such Issues And Indeed Has Proposed Measures For Some Time On Topics The Ad Claims McCain Has ‘Led’ On.” “We make no judgment as to which candidate offers better or more effective solutions to the financial crisis or limiting corporate CEOs pay checks. But the record shows that Obama has not been quiet on such issues and indeed has proposed measures for some time on the same topics the ad claims McCain has ‘led’ on.” [Factcheck.org, 9/24/08 ]

· CEO COMPENSATION: Factcheck.org: Obama “Called For Controls On Executive Compensation Much Earlier” Than McCain. The Obama campaign points out that its candidate has called for controls on executive compensation much earlier, sponsoring “say-on-pay” legislation in April 2007 that would have required public companies to hold a nonbinding shareholders vote on CEO pay. McCain hadn’t signed on to the bill, and a senior adviser told the Wall Street Journal that McCain opposed government regulations aiming to fix executive-pay issues.” [Factcheck.org, 9/24/08 ]

o APRIL 2007: Obama Sponsored The Shareholder Vote On Executive Compensation Act. Obama was the chief sponsor of a bill to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require a proxy, consent, or authorization for a shareholder meeting occurring on or after January 1, 2009, to permit a separate shareholder vote to approve executive compensation, but the vote would not be binding on the board of directors. [110th, S. 1181, Referred to Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, 4/20/07]

FACT: OBAMA INTRODUCED LEGISLATION MORE THAN A YEAR AGO TO ADDRESS MORTGAGE LENDING PRACTICES

· Factcheck.org: In McCain’s September 19th Speech He Called For The Creation Of A Mortgage And Financial Institutions Trust To Keep People In Their Homes Which “Sounds Awfully Similar To The Pronouncements” Of Obama. Factcheck.org wrote, “In his Sept. 19 speech, McCain also called for the creation of a “Mortgage and Financial Institutions trust — the MFI,” which would “keep people in their homes and safe guard the life savings of all Americans by protecting our financial system and capital markets.” Sounds awfully similar to the pronouncements of another presidential candidate.” [Factcheck.org, 9/24/08 ]

· Obama Introduced Legislation in February 2006 to Address Deteriorating Mortgage Lending Practices: After early reports of deteriorating mortgage lending practices and rising foreclosures, Barack Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD Act aimed at stopping mortgage transactions that promoted fraud, risk and abuse. Obama’s legislation provides the first federal definition of mortgage fraud, authorizes stiff criminal penalties against fraudsters, and empowers consumers to make informed decisions through increased funding for housing counseling. [109th, S.2280, 2/14/2006, Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 2/14/2006]

FACT: MCCAIN PROCLAIMED HIMSELF A “DEREGULATOR.” OBAMA HAS CALLED FOR EFFORTS TO REFORM THE REGULATION OF FINANCIAL MARKETS.

· 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]

· Obama Called for Efforts to Restore Public Trust in Capital Markets More than a Year Ago. On September 17, 2007, Barack Obama gave a speech at the NASDAQ in which he rightly foresaw that capital markets cannot succeed without public trust. Obama explained: “there is no dividing line between Main Street and Wall Street” —the struggles of ordinary Americans are at the root of our current financial turmoil, and that we all “have a stake in each other’s success.” Following this speech, in January 2008, former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker endorsed Obama, saying that the depth of the challenges facing America “demand a new leadership and a fresh approach.” [Obama Speech At Nasdaq, 9/17/07 ; Wall Street Journal, 1/31/08 ]

· Obama Outlined Principles for Revamping Our Financial Market Regulatory Framework Six Months Ago. On March 27, 2008, Barack Obama outlined six detailed principles for how government should correct failures in financial market oversight and move forwards to restore accountability, transparency, and trust. Going well beyond what the Treasury or other candidates would propose, Obama foresaw current challenges in calling for broad sweeping regulatory changes, including permanent oversight for any firm with access to the Fed’s discount window. [Obama Speech, 3/27/08 ]

09:47 PM | Permalink

Senator Biden was correct in saying that John McCain voted the exact same way as Senator Obama on a budget resolution on extending the Bush tax cuts. Please see Senator McCain’s vote below:

McCain Voted For The Amendment To FY 2009 Budget Resolution To Adjust The Resolution To Allow For The Extension Of Certain 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts. McCain voted for that Baucus, D-Mont., amendment no. 4160 that would adjust the resolution to allow for the extension of certain 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, including the 10 percent tax bracket, the child tax credit, the estate tax and small business provisions, and the elimination of the so-called marriage penalty. The amendment would eliminate most of the $336 billion in surpluses projected for fiscal 2012 and 2013 in the resolution. Passed 99-1. [Senate Vote #42, 3/13/08]

09:46 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: “An increased tax formula that Barack Obama is proposing in addition to nearly a trillion dollars in new spending that he is proposing is the backwards way of trying to grow our economy.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

The Facts: Palin’s Claims About Obama’s Spending Have Been Debunked. Obama’s Plan Would Cut The Deficit Far More Than McCain’s.


FACT: ANALYSIS HAS SHOWN THAT MCCAIN’S CLAIMS ABOUT OBAMA’S SPENDING ARE “MISLEADING” AND OBAMA’S SPENDING PLANS ADD UP

Former McCain Advisor: Obama Has Proposed $990 Billion In New Spending But Also $989 Billion In Spending Cuts So The Net Cost Roughly Balances Out. Maya MacGuineas, a former McCain advisor in his 2000 campaign is now the president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. The Washington Post wrote, “The non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget calculates that Obama has promised a total of $990 billion in new spending over his first four-year term. At the same time, he has also proposed spending cuts that amount to around $989 billion, so the net cost roughly balances out…’Obama has talked about a lot of new spending initiatives, but he has also talked about new ways to curb spending,’ said Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee, whose detailed budget analyses are available here . ‘I give him points for holding the line.’” [Washington Post, 10/1/08 ; Committee For A Responsible Federal Budget Website ]

CNN Fact Check: The Claim That Obama Would Spend A Trillion Dollars More Is “Misleading” Because It Doesn’t Take Into Account The Savings From Other Policy Changes Obama Is Calling For. “The McCain campaign is basing this figure on its own tally of how much money all of the new programs Obama has vowed to fund would ultimately cost. The total does not look at how much money Obama would save through cutbacks in other parts of his spending plan…Verdict: Misleading. The figure McCain gave is based on his campaign's tally of the costs of numerous programs Obama has discussed, but ignores the savings from other policy changes Obama is calling for.” [CNN, 9/29/08 ]

New York Times: Obama Has Outlined How He Would Pay For His Various New Programs. “Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton have acknowledged that their various new programs would be costly but have outlined how to pay for them.” [New York Times, 4/27/08 ]


FACT: OBAMA’S PLAN WOULD CUT THE DEFICIT FAR MORE THAN MCCAIN’S

Obama’s Plan Would Lead To A National Debt $1.2 Trillion Smaller Than You Would See Under McCain. “According to the Tax Policy Center, over the course of a decade Obama's plan would result in a national debt $1.2 trillion smaller than you would get under McCain's plan. Less government borrowing ultimately means lower interest rates and more private investment. This positive effect may well outweigh the blow to growth and jobs from weaker work incentives.” [Washington Post, 9/8/08 ]

Analysts Say McCain’s Plan Would Increase The Deficit More Than Obama’s. “Experts say that both the McCain plan and the Obama plan would increase the deficit, and that neither man has adequately explained how his proposals would be paid for. But several analysts have said they believe that Mr. McCain’s plan would increase the deficit more, because of the size of the tax cuts he is seeking.” [New York Times, 6/11/08 ]

FACT: MCCAIN’S TAX PLAN IS FAR COSTLIER THAN OBAMA’S AND EVEN ALAN GREENSPAN SAID WE CAN’T AFFORD HIS TAX CUTS FOR THE WEALTHY AND CORPORATIONS

Alan Greenspan Said The Country Can’t Afford McCain’s Tax Cuts Without Corresponding Spending Reductions. “Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said the country can't afford $3.3 trillion of tax cuts proposed by Republican presidential nominee John McCain without corresponding spending reductions. Greenspan, a lifelong Republican and longtime friend of McCain, said today on Bloomberg Television's ‘Political Capital With Al Hunt’ that ‘I'm not in favor of financing tax cuts with borrowed money.’” [Bloomberg, 9/12/08 ]

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 ]

Washington Post: McCain’s Approach To Taxes Is Far More Costly Than Obama’s. “The country can't afford the tax cuts either man is promising, although Mr. McCain's approach is by far the more costly. We don't expect either side to admit that. But neither side should get to outright lie about its opponent's positions, either.” [Editorial, Washington Post, 8/31/08 ]

09:33 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: “Now, as for John McCain's adherence to rules and regulations and pushing for even harder and tougher regulations, that is another thing that he is known for, though. Look at the tobacco industry." [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

The Facts: McCain Has Flip-Flopped On Tobacco Taxes

2007: MCCAIN VOTED AGAINST EFFORT TO EXPAND SCHIP TO 5.8 MILLION CHILDREN BECAUSE IT RAISED TAXES ON TOBACCO AND IT EXPANDED COVERAGE TO MIDDLE-INCOME CHILDREN

March 2007: McCain Voted Against SCHIP Reauthorization Funded By An Increased In Federal Cigarette Taxes. McCain voted against Smith, R-Ore., amendment no. 510 that would adjust the resolution and allow for an increase in federal cigarette taxes by no more than 61 cents per pack. It would assume the revenue would be used to reauthorize the State Children's Health Insurance Program. [Vote 105, SCR 21, Adopted 59-40: R 13-36; D 44-4 (ND 40-3, SD 4-1); I 2-0, 3/23/07]

August 2007: McCain Supported Bush's Veto of SCHIP And Voted Against Providing Insurance For Millions of Uninsured Children Financed By An Added Tax On Tobacco Products. McCain voted against reauthorizing the State Children's Health Insurance Program for five years, expanding the program by $35.2 billion. To offset the cost of the expansion, it would increase the tax on cigarettes by 61 cents to $1 per pack and raise taxes on other tobacco products. McCain told CNN that Bush’s subsequent veto of the legislation was the “right call by the president” because the legislation offered a “phony smoke and mirrors way of paying for it.” [2007 Senate Vote #307, 8/2/2007; 2007 Senate Vote #306, 8/2/2007; CNN, 10/3/2007 ]

October 2007: McCain Opposed Extending Coverage To Uninsured Children. On October 31, 2007, after President Bush vetoed the first SCHIP reauthorization, McCain voted against expanding SCHIP to millions of additional children. He voted against a motion to invoke cloture and bring the reauthorization forward for a vote before the Senate. The motion passed 62-33. [H.R. 3963, Vote #401 , 10/31/07]

October 2007: McCain Supported Bush’s Veto Of SCHIP Legislation Because It Raised Taxes On Tobacco. According to the New York Times, “what really sets [McCain] off is the way Congress proposes to finance the measure, which President Bush vetoed and is facing a veto override vote: an added tax on cigarettes.” [2007 Senate Vote #307, 8/2/2007; CNN, 10/3/2007 ; New York Times, 10/16/07]

Ø McCain Claimed the Reauthorization the SCHIP Bill Expanded the Program “Beyond What Congress First Intended.” In a speech on the Senate floor regarding the reauthorization of SCHIP, McCain claimed "the program has expanded beyond what Congress first intended. In some cases, SCHIP coverage has been extended to middle-income children and to certain adult populations." [Congressional Record, 8/2/07]

Ø The SCHIP Bill Would Have Expanded Health Coverage To 5.8 Million Children. Accord to the CBO, the SCHIP bill would expand coverage to 5.8 million children, 3.8 million of whom are uninsured and 2 million of whom have or have access to private health insurance. [Congressional Budget Office, 9/25/07 ]


2008: MCCAIN SAID HE WOULD NOT SUPPORT AN INCREASE ON TOBACCO TAXES

July 2008: McCain Said He Would Not Support An Increase On Taxes On Tobacco. Q: “As president, would you support an increase of the Federal tax on tobacco?” MCCAIN: “I don't think I would, because I don't think the money is being spent on the state taxes right now.” [McCain at Livestrong Summit, 7/24/08 ]

09:28 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Joe Biden said: “Using the standard that the governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes. It is a bogus standard.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

FACT: MCCAIN SUPPORTED NEARLY 500 TAX INCREASES THROUGHOUT HIS LEGISLATIVE CAREER

· McCain Supported Nearly 500 Tax Increases Throughout His Career Including 105 Tax Increases Since 2005. Despite Senator McCain's rhetoric, he has supported nearly 500 tax increases throughout his Congressional career. McCain supported 105 tax increases since 2005. McCain’s tax increases included: twice supporting increased excise taxes imposed on public charities, supporting an excise tax on certain acquisitions of interest in insurance, and twice supporting an expansion on the base of the tax on private foundation net investment income. [H.R. 4297, 2/2/06; Joint Committee on Taxation on H.R. 4297, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-9-06.pdf, 2/8/06; S. 2020, 11/18/05; Joint Committee on Taxation S. 2020; http://www.house.gov/jct/x-82-05r.pdf, 11/29/05; Joint Committee on Taxation documents; Thomas.gov]

· During McCain’s Senate Tenure, He Supported Multiple Tax Increases on Items from Airline Tickets to Vaccines. During his Senate tenure, McCain has supported taxes on vaccines four times, twice supported a three percent telephone excise tax on certain prepaid phone cards, supported raising airline tickets three times including twice supporting doubling the international departure tax on airline tickets and twice supported raising taxes on tobacco products. [H.R. 2488, 8/5/99; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on H.R. 2488, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-61-99r.pdf , 8/5/99; S. 1429, 7/30/99; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on S. 1429, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-55-99.pdf, 7/23/99; H.R. 2014, 6/27/97; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on H.R. 2014 and H.R. 2015, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-36-97.pdf, 7/1/97; H.R. 2676, 5/7/98; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on H.R. 2676, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-51-98.htm , 6/24/98; H.R. 2014, 7/31/97; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on H.R. 2014, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-39-97.pdf, 7/30/97; H.R. 3299, 10/13/89; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on H.R. 3299, 11/21/89; H.R. 2015, 7/31/97 ]

· McCain Supported Raising Taxes on Vaccines Four Times. McCain supported a uniform tax on vaccines, twice supported taxes on the Streptococcus Pneumoniae vaccine, and also supported a tax on vaccines for Rotavirus Gastroenteritis. [H.R. 2488, 8/5/99; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on H.R. 2488, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-61-99r.pdf , 8/5/99; S. 1429, 7/30/99; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on S. 1429, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-55-99.pdf, 7/23/99; H.R. 2014, 6/27/97; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on H.R. 2014, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-36-97.pdf, 7/1/97; H.R. 2676, 5/7/98; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on H.R. 2676, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-51-98.htm , 6/24/98]

· McCain Twice Supported Imposing Taxes on Phone Cards. During McCain’s Senate tenure, he has twice supported a three percent telephone excise tax on certain prepaid phone cards. [H.R. 2014, 7/31/97; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on H.R. 2014 and 2015, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-39-97.pdf, 7/30/97; H.R. 2014, 6/27/97; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on H.R. 2014, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-36-97.pdf, 7/1/97]

· McCain Supported Three Tax Increases on Airline Tickets. McCain supported three tax increases on airline tickets including twice supporting the doubling the international departure tax on airlines. [H.R. 2014, 7/31/97; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on H.R. 2014, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-39-97.pdf, 7/30/97; H.R. 2014, 6/27/97; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on H.R. 2014 and 2015, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-36-97.pdf , 7/1/97; H.R. 3299, 10/13/89; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on H.R. 3299, 11/21/89]

· 1997: McCain Twice Voted to Support Increasing Taxes on Tobacco Products. McCain supported two tax increases on tobacco products in 1997. [H.R. 2015, 7/31/97; H.R. 2014, 6/27/97; Joint Committee on Taxation Report on H.R. 2014 and 2015, http://www.house.gov/jct/x-36-97.pdf, 7/1/97]

09:26 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: “Barack Obama had 94 opportunities to side on the people's side and reduce taxes, and 94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction, 94 times. Now, that is not what we need to create jobs and really bolster and heat up our economy. We do need the private sector to be able to keep more of what we earn and produce.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

The Facts: McCain/Palin Claim On Taxes Is “FALSE”

OBAMA HAS NOT VOTED 94 TIMES TO RAISE TAXES

New York Times: Charge That Obama Voted 94 Times For “Higher Taxes” Is “False.” “McCain’s false charges have been more frequent: that Mr. Obama opposes ‘innovation’ on energy policy; that he voted 94 times for ‘higher taxes’; and that Mr. Obama is personally responsible for rising gasoline prices.” [Editorial, New York Times, 7/30/08 ]
CNN: The McCain Claim That Obama Voted To Raise Taxes 94 Times Is “Misleading.” CNN wrote that McCain’s claim was “Misleading. McCain's summary ignores the fact that some of the votes were for measures to lower taxes for many Americans, while increasing them for a much smaller number of taxpayers. A nonpartisan examination also finds that the 94 total includes multiple votes on the same measures and budget votes that would not directly lead to higher taxes.” [CNN, 9/21/08 ]
FactCheck: The McCain Campaign’s Claim That Obama Voted 94 Times To Raise Taxes Is “Inflated” And “Falsely Impl[ies] That Obama Has Pushed Indiscriminately To Raise Taxes For Nearly Everybody.” “It's true that most of the votes the GOP counts would either have increased taxes for some, or set budget targets calling for such increases. But by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he's voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers.” [FactCheck.org, 7/3/08 ]
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 ; Tax Foundation Tax Policy Blog, 8/14/08 ]

09:25 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: “What I have done as a governor and as a mayor is true, they had the track record of reform, and I joined this team that is a team of mavericks with John McCain also, with his track record of reform, where we are known for putting partisan politics aside to just get the job done.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

McCain Has Been A Reliable Vote For George Bush And THE Republican Party

· 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]

· Arizona Republic Headline: “In Tight Senate Votes, McCain Not A Maverick. When It Matters The Most, He Seldom Bucks His Own Party.” “Over the years, Sen. John McCain has publicly condemned Republican Party leaders and occasionally voted against the GOP on selected issues. But an Arizona Republic analysis of his Senate votes on the most divided issues in the past decade shows that McCain almost never thwarted his party's objectives.” [Arizona Republic, 5/7/08 ]

· 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]

MCCAIN’S ABRAMAOFF INVESTIGATION “IGNORED” ACTIONS BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

· McCain Acknowledged That Members Had Responsibility In The Lobbying Scandal, But Refused To Investigate Members’ Actions In An Investigation That “Ignored” Congressional Republicans. McCain acknowledged that Members were responsible for their conduct in Congress surrounding the lobbying scandal but refused to include the legislative actions taken by Members of Congress saying, “We stop when we find out where the money went.” The Associated Press reported that, “The intervention by congressional Republicans…was all but ignored in recent hearings on Capitol Hill led by [McCain], that examined Abramoff's lobbying inside Interior. [Senator McCain, CQ Transcriptions, 1/25/06; Roll Call, 3/10/05; AP, 11/17/05]

McCain Backed Away >From Bipartisan Reforms He Once Championed

· McCain Acknowledged His Shift On Immigration From Supporting Comprehensive Reform To Supporting An Enforcement First Strategy. “McCain spent months earlier this year arguing that the United States must combine border security efforts with a temporary worker program and an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. Now, the Republican presidential candidate emphasizes securing the borders first. The rest, he says, is still needed but will have to come later. ‘I understand why you would call it a, quote, shift,’ McCain told reporters Saturday after voters questioned him on his position during back-to-back appearances in this early voting state. ‘I say it is a lesson learned about what the American people's priorities are. And their priority is to secure the borders.’” [Associated Press, 11/3/07]

· McCain Said He Would Oppose the Legislation He Authored With Kennedy. Asked whether he would vote for the immigration legislation he previously sponsored, McCain eventually replied, “No, I would not.” [CNN GOP Presidential Debate, 1/30/08]

· McCain Was “Noticeably Missing” From Latest Campaign Finance Reform Legislation, Likely To Avoid Charges Of Hypocrisy If He Side Stepped The System In 2008. With McCain “noticeably missing” as one of the former “key proponents of BCRA,” Senator Feingold and Congressmen Shays and Meehan offered campaign finance reform legislation “to raise the spending limits for the primary and general elections and significantly boost the matching funds available to candidates. McCain, who was “conspicuously absent from the latest [campaign finance reform] effort” was not made available for comment by his office. “Several people involved in discussions about the legislation said the senator's absence was related to his widely expected bid for the presidency in 2008.” [Roll Call, 7/27/06; New York Sun, 7/28/06]

09:24 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: “American workforce is the greatest in this world, with the ingenuity and the work ethic that is just entrenched in our workforce.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

The Facts: John McCain Has Repeatedly Voted Against The Interests of American Workers.


FACT: MCCAIN HAS REPEATEDLY OPPOSED EFFORTS TO HELP WORKERS INCLUDING VOTING AT LEAST 19 TIMES AGAINST INCREASING THE MINIMUM WAGE

McCain Has Voted At Least 19 Times Against Increasing The Minimum Wage. Since arriving in the U.S. Senate in 1987, McCain has voted against increasing the minimum wage at least 19 times. [2007 Senate Vote #23, 126; 2006 Senate Vote #179; 2005 Senate Votes #26, 257; 2000 Senate Vote #76; 1999 Senate Votes #94, 239; 1998 Senate Vote #278; 1996 Senate Votes #58, 184, 186; 1995 Senate Votes #344, 519; 1989 Senate Votes #29, 39, 68, 1988 Senate Votes #335, 336]

McCain Has Repeatedly Voted Against Measures To Help Displaced Workers. In 2004, McCain voted against an amendment to ensure that existing Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) benefits be made available to service and high-tech workers. In 2002, McCain voted against a proposal, sponsored by Senator John Edwards, which included funding for an emergency assistance grant program for community colleges that provide training programs for displaced workers. In 1995, McCain voted against a Moynihan amendment to maintain the worker retraining assistance part of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides job retraining for workers laid off as a direct result of an international trade program such as NAFTA. The amendment was to a bill that would repeal these training services but would retain the income assistance part of the program. According to the Washington Post, “Organized labor won a major victory Tuesday when a program of special assistance for workers who lose their jobs as a result of trade agreements was removed from the block grant. The vote left the program intact as a federally guaranteed entitlement.” [2004 Senate Vote #80, 5/4/2004; 2002 Senate Vote #111, 5/15/02; Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, 5/15/02; 1995 Senate Vote #482, 10/10/95]

McCain Repeatedly Voted Against Repealing Tax Breaks That Encourage American Corporations To Ship Jobs Overseas. In 1995, 2004, and 2005, John McCain voted against repealing the deferral clause in the U.S. tax code that has provided an incentive for American companies to locate production facilities outside of the United States. Under the current tax code, U.S. companies are required to pay a 35 percent tax on any income earned inside the United States. However, under the deferral clause, U.S. corporations can defer paying taxes on any active income earned by a foreign subsidiary until it is repatriated to the United States. And as USA Today has noted, these transfers “often don't happen for years. General Electric, for example, has $62 billion in ‘undistributed earnings’ parked offshore, according to recent Securities and Exchange Commission filings. Drug giant Pfizer boasts $60 billion. ExxonMobil has $56 billion.” [USA Today, 3/20/08 ; Senate Vote #63, 3/17/05; Senate Vote #83, 5/5/04; Senate Vote #517, 10/26/95]

McCain Repeatedly Opposed The Ergonomics Rule, Aimed At Curbing Certain Workplace Injuries And Health Problems. In 2000 and 2001, McCain repeatedly voted to repeal or block implementation of ergonomics regulations, requiring “about 1.6 million employers to set up programs to prevent repetitive motion injuries.” [2001 Senate Vote #15, 3/6/2001; 2000 Senate Vote #143, 6/22/2000; 2000 Senate Vote #171, 6/30/2000; Congressional Quarterly, 6/30/2000]

McCain Has Repeatedly Voted To Strike Davis-Bacon Protections. McCain has repeatedly and consistently voted to provide exemptions from or limitations to the Davis-Bacon Act, requiring that workers be paid the prevailing local wage on federal construction sites. [1999 Senate Vote #320; 1996 Senate Votes #134; 1994 Senate Votes #248, 119, 116, 1993 Senate Votes #67, 289; 1992 Senate Votes #205, 105; 1990 Senate Votes #122, 120; 1989 Senate Votes #181, 36; 1987 Senate Vote #284]

McCain Voted Against Requiring 60 Day Notice For Plant Closings And Layoffs. McCain voted to kill a provision that requires employers of at least 100 full-time workers to give 60 days’ notice of plant closings and mass layoffs. [S 1420, Vote #180, 7/9/87, Failed 40-60: R 36-10 D 4-50]

McCain Has Repeatedly Voted Against Measures To Help Displaced Workers. In 2004, McCain voted against an amendment that provides that existing Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) benefits be made available to service and high-tech workers. In 2002, McCain voted against a proposal, sponsored by Senator John Edwards, which included funding for an emergency assistance grant program for community colleges that provide training programs for displaced workers. In 1995, McCain voted against a Moynihan amendment to maintain the worker retraining assistance part of the Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which provides job retraining for workers laid off as a direct result of an international trade program such as NAFTA. [2004 Senate Vote #80, 5/4/2004; HR 3009, Vote 111, 5/15/02; Congressional Quarterly Daily Monitor, 5/15/02; S 143, Vote 482, 10/10/95]

09:22 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: “John McCain saying our economy was strong, he was talking to and about the American workforce, and the American workforce is the greatest in this world, with the ingenuity and the work ethic that is just entrenched in our workforce, that is a positive, that is encouragement, and that is what John McCain meant.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

The Facts: John McCain Has Said The Fundamentals Of the Economy Are Strong And That Americans Are Better Off Than They Were Eight Years Ago


FACT: MCCAIN IS OUT OF TOUCH ON THE ECONOMY

MSNBC: McCain Has Used The Phrase, “The Fundamentals Of The Economy Are Strong” At Least 16 Times This Year. “First Read searched through our database of the candidates' speeches and found McCain had used the phrase [“the fundamentals of the economy are strong”] at least 16 other times, between Jan. 1st and June 5th of this year.” [MSNBC, “First Read,” 9/15/08 ]

McCain Admitted “It’s Easy For Me To Go To Washington And Frankly, Be Somewhat Divorced From The Day-To-Day Challenges People Have.” McCain: “I think a small town mayor has very great responsibilities, they have a responsibility for the budget, they have hiring and firing of people. They have great responsibilities. They have to stand for election. I admire mayors. I’m -- listen, mayors have the toughest job, I think, in America. It’s easy for me to go to Washington and frankly, be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have.” [CNN, 9/11/08 ]

McCain Did Not Know How Many Houses He And His Wife Own. McCain said in an interview “that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own. ‘I think — I'll have my staff get to you,’ McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. ‘It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you.’ The correct answer is at least four, located in Arizona, California and Virginia, according to his staff. Newsweek estimated this summer that the couple owns at least seven properties.” [Politico, 8/21/08 ; Audio ]

McCain, Asked To Define Rich, Said “How About $5 Million” And Then Quickly Added That He Was “Sure That Comment Will Be Distorted.” McCain and Obama’s contrasting views on wealth surfaced during when each was asked to define “rich.” McCain took a far more discursive approach to answering the question but ultimately settled on a dramatically higher figure: “I think if you're just talking about income, how about $5 million?” McCain quickly added that he was “sure that comment will be distorted,” and his campaign said Sunday that he was joking. [Los Angeles Times, 8/18/08 ]

McCain Adviser Phil Gramm: “You’ve Heard Of Mental Depression; This Is A Mental Recession. … We Have Sort Of Become A Nation Of Whiners.” “You've heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession," Phil Gramm said, noting that growth has held up at about 1 percent despite all the publicity over losing jobs to India, China, illegal immigration, housing and credit problems and record oil prices. ‘We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet.’ ‘We have sort of become a nation of whiners,’ he said. ‘You just hear this constant whining, complaining about a loss of competitiveness.” [Washington Times, 7/9/08 ]

McCain Still Thinks We Are Better Off Than We Were Before George Bush Took Office. MR. COOK: “I'm going to ask you a version of the Ronald Reagan question. You think if Americans were asked, are you better off today than you were before George Bush took office more than seven years ago, what answer would they give?” SEN. MCCAIN: “… I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, you could make an argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time.” [Bloomberg , 4/17/08]

McCain, On Whether, “Americans Better Off Than They Were Eight Years Ago,” McCain Said “Yes.” MR. COOPER: “Senator McCain, are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?” SEN. MCCAIN: “I think you could argue that Americans over all are better off because we have had a pretty good, prosperous time with low unemployment and low inflation, and a lot of good things have happened, a lot of jobs have been created.” [Republican Debate , 1/30/08]

McCain Said Economic Worries are “Psychological” at Town Hall Meeting. “Now, as far as putting additional money in American taxpayers' pocket, that's fine, because a lot of this is psychological. A lot of it's psychological. Because I believe the fundamentals of our economy is still strong.” [McCain Town Hall, 1/24/08, West Palm Beach, Florida]

09:19 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Sarah Palin said: “Now, John McCain thankfully has been one representing reform. Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell. People in the Senate with him, his colleagues didn't want to listen to him, and wouldn't go towards that reform that was needed then.” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

The Facts: McCain Has Overstated His Warnings About Fannie And Freddie

MCCAIN’S CLAIM THAT HIS 2006 EFFORTS ON FANNIE AND FREDDIE WERE A WARNING ABOUT THE FINANCIAL MARKETS IS “QUITE A STRETCH”

McCain “Overstates The Role” He Played In Trying To Push Legislation To Reform Fannie And Freddie. “McCain overstates the role he has played [in trying to avert the financial crisis], interviews and Senate records suggest. … Last week in Iowa, he told supporters: ‘When I pushed legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Senator Obama was silent. He didn’t lift a finger to avert this crisis.’ … The 2006 legislation that the McCain campaign cites was introduced more than a year earlier, in January 2005, by Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, and co-sponsored the same day by two Republican colleagues, John E. Sununu of New Hampshire and Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina. … Republicans and Democrats in the Senate familiar with the legislation and lobbyists for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac say that speech was the only action by Mr. McCain they recall on the issue. Mr. McCain ‘never took on the role that some other Republicans did’ to try to limit the companies, said a former Freddie Mac executive who later lobbied for the company until its failure. ‘I remember working against a number of amendments, and they were always introduced by Hagel and Sununu,’ said the former executive. ‘John McCain was never anywhere to be found.’” [New York Times, 9/26/08 ]

Politifact: McCain’s Implication That His 2006 Remarks On Fannie And Freddie Were A Warning About The Financial Markets Disaster Is “Quite A Stretch” And “Barely True.” “‘If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole,’ McCain declared in a May 26, 2006, news release. … The implication in McCain's remarks is that his remarks in 2006 were in some way a warning about the financial markets disaster that struck in 2008. That strikes us as quite a stretch. … His attempts to depict those efforts as some sort of early warning that could have lessened the current credit crisis just don't wash. All McCain was talking about then was the potential fallout of accounting troubles in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He didn't say anything about a freewheeling climate among creditors that had major financial institutions becoming badly leveraged on bad loans. We rule his claim Barely True.” [Politifact, accessed: 9/19/08 ]

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: Admitted That He Did Not Anticipate The Housing Crisis. In a meeting with the editorial board of New Hampshire’s Keene Sentinel, McCain 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]

09:15 PM | Permalink

Tonight, Joe Biden said: “It is evidence of the fact that the economic policies of the last eight years have been the worst economic policies we have ever had. As a consequence, you have seen what has happened on Wall Street. If you need anymore proof positive of how bad the economic theories have been, this excessive deregulation, the failure to oversee what was going on, letting Wall Street run wild, I do not think you needed anymore evidence than what you see now. So the Congress has been putting Democrats and Republicans, been put in a very difficult spot. ” [Vice Presidential Debate, 10/2/08]

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

· 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 ]

· 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 ]

08:58 PM | Permalink