OBAMA LOWLIGHTS (According to factcheck.org)

Obama: McCain will cut your Social Security.
"Republican Y wants to cut Social Security benefits for our seniors." John Kerry used something like that against George W. Bush in 2004. It wasn't true then and it hasn't gotten any more true in the past four years. But that hasn't stopped Obama from claiming that McCain wants to cut benefits in half.

McCain did support Bush's Social Security plan. But that plan would not have cut benefits at all. Everybody who gets a check now, or who is nearing retirement, would have remained in the current system. For younger workers who retire in the future, Bush proposed to slow the rate at which benefits grow – keeping pace with the rise of prices but not with the faster rise in wages, as is now the case. Compared with what today's retirees get, that's a smaller increase, not a reduction.

Obama also claimed that if McCain had his way, "millions" who rely on Social Security would have seen their investments disappearing in the recent stock market turmoil. He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers." Balderdash. The Bush plan, which McCain embraced, would not have allowed anybody born before 1950 to have private accounts, so nobody retired on Social Security today could possibly be relying on private accounts for even a small portion of his or her benefit check. For younger workers, the accounts would have been voluntary anyway.

Scaring Seniors
September 19, 2008
Updated: September 20, 2008
An Obama-Biden ad says McCain supports "cutting benefits in half" for Social Security recipients. False!
Summary:
A new Obama ad characterizes the "Bush-McCain privatization plan" as "cutting Social Security Benefits in half." This is a falsehood sure to frighten seniors who rely on their Social Security checks. In truth, McCain does not propose to cut those checks at all.

The ad refers to a Bush proposal from 2005 to hold down the growth of benefits for future retirees. Compared to the buying power of benefits paid to today's retirees, that would not have been a "cut" for anybody. It would have been a "cut" of half only in relation to benefits now promised to retirees who have yet to be born. And for average workers, that "cut" in 2075 was projected by one of Obama's own economic advisers to be 28 percent, not "half."

The ad also says McCain voted "in favor of privatizing Social Security." The term "privatizing" could give the wrong impression. McCain does support creating government-managed accounts that would allow individuals to invest some portion of their Social Security payroll taxes in widely diversified stock or bond funds.

Analysis:
The Obama campaign made no announcement of this ad and won't say where they intend to run it. It was first aired on a station in Flint, Mich. on Sept. 16, where it was recorded by the Campaign Media Analysis Group of TNSI Media Intelligence. According to CMAG, the ad has been running in Florida, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

Update Sept. 20: A day after this article was first posted the Obama-Biden campaign e-mailed an announcement to reporters with a script of the ad, saying it "began airing last week in key states across the country." We had originally called the ad "Social Security," the name CMAG assigned to it when first seen. The campaign calls it "Promise" and we have changed the name here to reflect that.

Obama-Biden Ad:
"Promise"
Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.
Announcer: A broken economy. Failing banks. Unstable markets. Families struggling. To protect us in retirement, Social Security has never been more important. But John McCain voted three times in favor of privatizing Social Security. McCain says, “I campaigned in support of President Bush’s proposal.” Cutting benefits in half, risking Social Security on the stock market. The Bush-McCain privatization plan. Can you really afford more of the same?
Betting the Bank?

The ad says McCain voted for "privatizing Social Security" and quotes him as saying he "campaigned in support of President Bush's proposal." McCain did say in March:

McCain, Mar. 3, 2008: I'm totally in favor of personal savings accounts and I think they are an important opportunity for young workers. I campaigned in support of President Bush's proposal and I campaigned with him, and I did town hall meetings with him.
The three votes featured in the ad are from 1998 and 2006. Two expressed a general "sense of the Senate" favoring creation of private accounts, and a third would have created private accounts only with the passage of additional legislation allowing younger workers to "opt out" of the current system. None would have actually resulted in changing Social Security without additional, specific legislation.

The ad implies that Bush's plan bets the whole lot of Social Security funds on unstable stocks. In fact, it would have "privatized" only a small portion of Social Security taxes that Americans could have invested in private accounts, if they chose to do so.

"Cutting Benefits"
The ad goes on to claim that the Bush (and McCain) plan would cut "benefits in half." This is a rank misrepresentation. Nobody now getting benefits, or even close to retirement, would have seen any reduction in benefits or cost-of-living adjustments under the plan Bush proposed in April, 2005. What Bush proposed – in addition to creating private Social Security accounts – was to hold down the growth of benefits received by those retiring in the future. He embraced a proposal for "progressive price indexing" of future benefits. This would have been a "cut" only in relation to what the current formula would produce for future retirees, assuming that taxes are increased sufficiently to keep the system going.

The "price indexing" would have tied the growth to the rate of price inflation, rather than to the growth of wages, as is the case now. Wages have historically risen faster than prices, so the current wage-indexed system pushes benefits for future retirees up faster than the rate of inflation. The "progressive" part would have held down the growth only for higher-income and middle-income workers, while allowing benefits for lower-income workers to rise in line with the current wage-based formula.

The Obama-Biden campaign attempts to document their "cutting benefits in half" claim by citing a report by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities written by Jason Furman, who is currently one of Obama's top economic advisers. This won't do. What Furman's study actually says is quite different from what the ad claims.

Furman's report says that the "progressive price indexing" plan Bush supported would result in benefits for the average worker who retires in 2075 that are 28 percent lower than under the current formula. Obviously 28 percent is not "half."

The Obama-Biden campaign notes that Furman's paper also says that full price indexing of benefits – even for low-income workers – would result in benefits 49 percent lower than the current formula in 2075. But that's not the plan Bush supported, and we find no evidence that McCain ever supported it either. We asked the Obama campaign to show us where McCain has ever supported full price indexing of benefits, but so far they have not done so.

What McCain Says:
For the record, McCain has said that he would seek a bipartisan deal with Congress to fix Social Security's financial problems.
During a Republican candidate debate last year in Orlando, Florida, he said:
McCain, Oct. 21, 2007: Look, what Americans need is some straight talk. They need to know -- every man, woman and child in America needs to know that both of these are going broke. They're going broke and we've got to do the hard things. We've got to fix it for the future generations of Americans. Don't we owe that to young Americans today? I say we do. ... It's got to be bipartisan. ... And you have to got to the American people and say we don't -- we won't raise your taxes. We need personal savings accounts, but we got to fix this system.

The system isn't exactly "going broke." But the latest official projection is that the trust fund will be exhausted by the year 2041, after which current tax rates will finance only 78 percent of currently scheduled benefits. We agree that "straight talk" is needed and that finding solutions will be hard. Ads like this, however, misinform the public and make the job of fixing the system more difficult.
-by Lori Robertson and Brooks Jackson

Sources:
Furman, Jason "An Analysis of Using 'Progressive Price Indexing' to Set Social Security Benefits," Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, May 2005.

"Fact Sheet: Strengthening Social Security For Those In Need," White House Fact Sheet, 28 April 2005.

"A Summary of the 2008 Annual Report," Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustee, 3 April 2008.

Davis, Bob, "Campaign '08: McCain Interview: 'I'm Always for Less Regulation'." Wall Street Journal, 3 March 2008.

Obama's Social Security Whopper
September 20, 2008
Updated: September 22, 2008
He tells Social Security recipients their money would now be in the stock market under McCain's plan. False.

Summary:
In Daytona Beach, Obama said that "if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week." He referred to "elderly women" at risk of poverty, and said families would be scrambling to support "grandmothers and grandfathers."

That's not true. The plan proposed by President Bush and supported by McCain in 2005 would not have allowed anyone born before 1950 to invest any part of their Social Security taxes in private accounts. All current retirees would be covered by the same benefits they are now.

Obama would have been correct to say that many workers under age 58 would have had some portion of their Social Security benefits affected by the current market turmoil – if they had chosen to participate. And market drops would be a worry for those who retire in future decades. But current retirees would not have been affected.

Analysis:
In our "Scaring Seniors" article posted Sept. 19 we took apart a claim in an Obama-Biden ad that McCain somehow supported a 50 percent cut in Social Security benefits, which is simply false. Then, on Saturday Sept. 20, Sen. Barack Obama personally fed senior citizens another whopper, this one a highly distorted claim about the private Social Security accounts that McCain supports.

What Obama Said
In Daytona Beach, Florida, Obama said in prepared remarks released by the campaign:
Obama, Sept. 20: And I'll protect Social Security, while John McCain wants to privatize it. Without Social Security half of elderly women would be living in poverty - half. But if my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would've had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week. Millions would've watched as the market tumbled and their nest egg disappeared before their eyes. Millions of families would've been scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers, the secure retirement that every American deserves. So I know Senator McCain is talking about a "casino culture" on Wall Street - but the fact is, he's the one who wants to gamble with your life savings.

That's untrue. All current retirees would be covered by exactly the same Social Security benefits they are now under what the Obama campaign likes to call the "Bush-McCain privatization plan," which Bush pushed for unsuccessfully in 2005.

Who Would Have Been Affected:
As the White House spelled out at the time, on page 5 of the document titled "Strengthening Social Security for the 21st Century," released in February 2005:

Bush Plan: Personal retirement accounts would be phased in. To ease the transition to a personal retirement account system, participation would be phased in according to the age of the worker. In the first year of implementation, workers currently between age 40 and 54 (born 1950 through 1965 inclusive) would have the option of establishing personal retirement accounts. In the second year, workers currently between age 26 and 54 (born 1950 through 1978 inclusive) would be given the option and by the end of the third year, all workers born in 1950 or later who want to participate in personal retirement accounts would be able to do so.

Nobody born before Jan. 1, 1950 could have participated, and anyone born on that date would be 58 years old now. The earliest possible age for receiving Social Security retirement benefits is 62, for early retirement at reduced benefits. Full retirement age is currently 66, and scheduled to go up to age 67 in coming years.

It is certainly true that the stock market carries risks, as recent events remind us. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down nearly 17 percent for this year, for example, and despite gains in other years it is still barely above where it was at the start of 2000. But historically there have also been rewards for those who make diversified investments and hold for long periods. When Obama spoke, the Dow Jones average still stood 305 percent higher than it had at the start of the 1990's.

Disappearing nest eggs?
Also worth noting here:
The private accounts would have been voluntary. Anybody fearful of the stock market's risk could simply stay in the current system.

Obama's reference to "casino culture," disappearing "nest eggs" and gambling with "your life savings" are also misleading exaggerations. Only a little under one-third of any workers' total Social Security taxes could have been invested (a maximum of 4 percent of taxable wages, out of the total 12.4 percent now paid, split equally between worker and employer.)

Correction, Sept. 22: Our original story incorrectly said the rate was 15.3 percent, but this figure included Medicare taxes. We also said what would have gone into private accounts would have been just over one-fourth of Social Security taxes, but the true figure is closer to one-third.

Speculation in individual stocks would not have been permitted. Workers would have had a choice of a few, broadly diversified stock or bond funds.

While McCain has voted in favor creating private Social Security accounts in the past, and endorsed Bush's 2005 proposal (which never came to a vote in Congress), he is not making a strong push for them as part of his campaign. In fact, a search for the term "Social Security" on the McCain-Palin Web site brings up the following: "No documents were found."

Footnote: When we contacted the Obama campaign for comment, spokesman Tommy Vietor defended Obama's remarks as accurate:
Vietor: You don’t have to be retired to rely on Social Security. Millions of people who will one day retire rely on Social Security as they plan their future. Senator Obama's bottom line is absolutely true. If McCain got his way and we had private accounts . . . people who are relying on that money for their retirement would be in a very difficult situation.

We would grant Vietor a point if Obama had made any mention of workers being fearful of their future retirement (although this would apply only to those who had chosen to participate in private accounts, and not to everybody.) But Obama did not say that. Instead, he referred to "elderly women" in danger of poverty. He spoke of families "scrambling to figure out how to give their mothers and fathers, their grandmothers and grandfathers" a secure retirement – not to families worrying about their own retirement. If Obama did not mean what he said to be a reference to current retirees, he could say so clearly and amend his words.
-by Brooks Jackson

Sources:
The White House, "Strengthening Social Security for the 21st Century," Feb 2005.

Dow Jones & Co. "Dow Jones Industrial Average Historical Performance" Spreadsheet accessed 20 Sep 2008.


Obama's Energy Errors
In July, we caught him saying that his plan will "fast track alternatives" to imported oil. In reality, Obama's offers a 10-year research and development fund, which doesn't sound all that "fast" to us. Obama also claimed that if Americans properly inflated their tires, we could save as much oil as offshore drilling would produce. That's true in the very short term, but not over the long haul. And Obama, too, has distorted McCain's energy claims. He accused McCain of receiving $2 million from the oil and gas industry; that figure was $700,000 too high at the time. And Obama continues to claim that McCain will give $4 billion in tax breaks to oil companies. But these tax cuts are the result of an across-the-board decrease in corporate tax rates, which would also benefit companies that provide alternative energy.

Straining a Point:
July 16, 2008
Updated: July 17, 2008
An Obama ad says he'll "fast track alternatives" to imported oil. Actually, his plan is a 10-year proposal with no guarantees.
Summary
Obama released a national ad saying he would "fast-track alternatives" to imported oil. On closer examination, his proposal is to spend $150 billion over the coming decade on energy research. Ten years doesn't sound all that "fast" to us, and there's no guarantee that the research will result in less oil being imported.
Analysis
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign released the ad and said it would run on national cable TV networks starting July 17. According to the news release, the 30-second spot "underscores Barack Obama’s understanding of national security in a new century." Perhaps so. Much of what it says is accurate enough, but on one point we find that it strains the truth and could easily give viewers a false impression.

Obama 08 Ad:
Changing World
Announcer: 40 years ago it was missile silos and the Cold War.
Today, it’s cyber attacks…loose nukes…oil money funding terrorism.
Barack Obama understands our changing world.

On the Foreign Relations Committee, he co-sponsored a law to lock down loose nuclear weapons.

As president, he’ll rebuild our alliances to take out terrorist networks... And fast-track alternatives so we stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations.

New leadership for a changing world.

Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.Fast Track

As an example of Obama's supposed grasp of 21st-century security threats, the ad says he will "fast-track alternatives so we stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations." Pictured on screen are images of whirling windmills generating electricity, a solar array against a blue sky, and a couple of white-coated lab workers, one of them peering into a microscope.

The campaign says the ad is referring to Obama's long-standing proposal to spend $150 billion over 10 years for research into alternative energy – "to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid."

Spending that money may well be a good idea, but it's not our place to judge. We do object to implying that a decade-long program, which in all probability could not even begin until sometime in late 2009, is a "fast track" to anything.

We also point out that even over the long term there can be no guarantee that just spending more for research will produce the sort of new fuels, vehicles or other breakthroughs that would actually reverse the growth of oil imports. Keep in mind that the U.S. imported the equivalent of 13.4 million barrels of oil per day last year, up nearly 17 percent from just five years earlier and 32 percent higher than in 1997. This is a huge problem that has been getting worse for a long time. Reversing it will not be "fast" or painless.

We repeat: We're not knocking Obama's 10-year plan. We cited it in our July 9 article as the reason that a Republican National Committee ad was wrong to say that Obama has "no new solutions" to the energy problem. We're not endorsing Obama's plan either. We are saying Obama’s ad gives the false impression that his decade-long program is a "fast track" that would allow the U.S. to "stop spending billions on oil from hostile nations."
-by Brooks Jackson

Update, July 17: This article originally described the ad as saying that Obama "has fast-track alternatives" to imported oil. After this article was posted, some readers contacted us to say that "fast-track" should be read as a verb, giving the ad the sense that Obama's $150 billion proposal would merely speed up research and put alternatives on a fast track.

We agree the phrase was probably meant to be a continuation of the previous sentence: "As president, he'll rebuild our alliances ... and fast-track alternatives ..." We have rephrased our story throughout to reflect that. But whether intended as a verb or a modifier, we judge the term "fast-track" to be misleading, creating with words, and the accompanying pictures, the impression that Obama could quickly replace imported oil with wind and solar power and yet-to-be-developed fuels.

Sources:
Obama08. "OBAMA FOR AMERICA, “CHANGING WORLD,” :30 FOR TV" campaign fact sheet 17 July 2008.

U.S. Energy Information Administration, "U.S. Crude Oil and Petroleum Products Imports from All Countries (Thousand Barrels per Day)" Web site accessed 17 July 2008.


Obama's Overstatement
August 4, 2008
Updated: August 6, 2008
An Obama ad says McCain's campaign got $2 million from "Big Oil." The total is actually $1.3 million.

Summary:
Obama released a TV spot saying McCain's campaign got $2 million from "Big Oil" while McCain proposed "another $4 billion in tax breaks" for the industry.

The truth is that McCain's campaign has received $1.33 million from individuals employed in the oil and gas industry, not $2 million. Obama himself has received nearly $400,000, according to the most authoritative figures available. We find the $2 million figure is based on a mistaken calculation.

Furthermore, McCain is not proposing new tax breaks specifically targeted to the oil industry. He's proposing a general reduction in the corporate income tax rate, which Democrats figure would benefit the five largest oil and gas companies by $3.8 billion.
Analysis
Sen. Barack Obama's campaign released the ad Aug. 4. Its core claim is that McCain accepted $2 million in campaign contributions from "Big Oil" and is "in the pocket" of the industry. The Obama campaign even named the ad "Pocket."

Obama'08 Ad
"Pocket"
Announcer: Every time you fill your tank, the oil companies fill their pockets. Now Big Oil’s filling John McCain’s campaign with 2 million dollars in contributions.

Because instead of taxing their windfall profits to help drivers, McCain wants to give them another 4 billion in tax breaks. After one president in the pocket of big oil… We can’t afford another.

Barack Obama… A windfall profits tax on big oil to give families a thousand dollar rebate. A president who’ll stand up for you.

Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approve this message.

An Inflated Figure
It's certainly true that McCain gets far more money from donors in the oil and gas industry than Obama does. And there's no question that McCain's recent support for expanding offshore drilling is a position that the industry favors. But the $2 million figure is inflated.

According to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics – which both campaigns cite as authoritative from time to time – McCain had received $1,332,033 from persons in the oil and gas industry (both directly and through company-sponsored political action committees), not $2.1 million as the Obama campaign claims. Those are the most recent and authoritative figures available and are based on reports on file at the Federal Election Commission as of July 28.

The Obama campaign said it cobbled together its $2.1 million figure by adding one total from a report in the Washington Post, which said oil and gas donors gave $1.1 million to McCain in June, and an older total from CRP, which put the McCain campaign's total at just over $1 million through May 30. But that turns out to be adding apples to oranges, and it does not give an accurate figure for money that went directly to "John McCain's campaign," as the ad puts it. Much of the money given in June went to a joint fundraising venture of the McCain campaign, the Republican National Committee and several state GOP committees, an unknown portion of which was passed through to the McCain campaign itself.

The Post said its report was based on an analysis by the Public Campaign Action Fund, a group that advocates taxpayer financing of political campaigns. That group's Campaign Money Watch project released a report July 31, titled "It's a Gusher: As John McCain Fights For Big Oil, They Open Their Wallets." That report refers to $1.2 million that went to "McCain’s Victory ’08 Fund," a joint fundraising committee. The report does not say how much actually ended up in McCain's own campaign coffers and how much went to other Republican candidates and committees.

Furthermore, the figures given by the Post don't exactly match those in the Campaign Money Watch. David Miller of Campaign Money Watch told us the Post reporter "didn't actually see our report" but was briefed on preliminary findings a few days before the report was completed. David Donnelly, the national campaigns director of the Public Campaign Action Fund, defended the Obama campaign's ad: "There's a strong case to be made that more than $2 million was given by the oil and gas industry to advance John McCain's campaign." But he's counting money to various Republican party committees, for use in supporting McCain and other candidates as well.

We judge the $1.3 million figure from the Center for Responsive Politics, which includes any money transferred to McCain's campaign, to be the most authoritative tally of oil and gas donations to the campaign. And we conclude that the $2 million figure in Obama's ad is the result of counting some donations raised during June that actually went elsewhere.

In Big Oil's Pocket?

It bears repeating, as we've reminded readers before, that oil companies themselves don't make donations. It's illegal under federal law for corporations to donate directly to candidates and has been since 1918. The ad refers to donations from executives and employees of oil companies, given either directly or through company-sponsored political action committees, or PACs.

Both candidates accept donations from individual employees of oil companies. In fact, when Obama claimed in an ad last March that "I don't take money from oil companies," we criticized him for being a little too slick. The CRP puts Obama's total from oil and gas donors at $394,465.

Based on CRP's figures, McCain's oil and gas donations account for just 92 cents out of every $100 he's raised. Obama's oil and gas total comes to 12 cents per $100. That's a significant difference between the two candidates, and it's clear that the industry is favoring McCain with its donations. Whether that puts him "in the pocket" of the industry is a judgment we'll leave to our readers.

Correction, Aug. 6: Our original article incorrectly stated that McCain's oil and gas donations were 0.9 cents per $100 and Obama's were 0.1 cents per $100. We miscalculated the decimal place in both figures.

"Another $4 Billion"

The ad's claim that "McCain wants to give [oil companies] another $4 billion in tax breaks" is also somewhat misleading. McCain is not proposing any special tax breaks for the oil industry. What he's proposing is a reduction in the corporate income tax rate for all companies. The $4 billion figure that Obama and many Democrats have constantly repeated recently is their estimate of the amount by which oil company taxes would be reduced should this proposal be enacted without any additional offsets, such as closing of existing preferences or "loopholes."

McCain's proposal would cut the top corporate rate from 35 percent to 25 percent. It also would allow for immediate write-offs for companies buying new equipment and technology, and a tax credit of 10 percent of the amount companies spend on wages devoted to research and development. The Obama campaign points to an analysis by the Center for American Progress Action Fund from March 27, which estimated that the McCain plan would be worth a total of $3.8 billion per year to the five largest U.S.-based oil companies, Exxon/Mobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy and Marathon. That was based on 2007 earnings and tax figures. Since then, the industry's profits have risen substantially, so the reduction in corporate tax rates might benefit them even more by the time it could be enacted in a McCain administration. But the benefit would go to all companies, not just those in the oil business.
– by Brooks Jackson, with Emi Kolawole

Sources:
Mosk, Matthew. "Industry Gushed Money After Reversal on Drilling." Washington Post, 27 July 2008.

Center for American Progress Action Fund. "The McCain Plan to Cut Oil Company Taxes by Nearly $4 Billion," 27 March 2008.

Obama'08. "Senator Barack Obama Announces Emergency Economic Plan," news release 1 Aug 2008.

The Associated Press. "McCain hits Obama on windfall profits tax," 17 June 2008.

Campaign Money Watch: "IT’S A GUSHER: As John McCain Fights For Big Oil, They Open Their Wallets," 31 July 2008.


Obama: McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
We first caught the DNC distorting McCain's remarks all the way back in February. But that didn't stop the DNC or the Obama campaign from continuing to say that McCain wanted to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years. In fact, McCain is referring to a peacetime presence in Iraq, as the full context of McCain's remarks makes clear. Here's what McCain actually said, in a Jan. 3 town hall meeting:
McCain, town hall meeting, Jan. 3: Maybe a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world.

Smear or Be Smeared?
February 8, 2008
The DNC plans "unlimited" spending against McCain; some of its claims are misleading.

Summary:
The Democratic National Committee proposes to spend unlimited amounts of money to "tell the real story" about John McCain before Republicans can "start smearing" the eventual Democratic nominee. But the line of attack the Democrats outline to their potential donors in an e-mail contains some claims that are false or misleading.

The DNC paints McCain as favoring "endless war" in Iraq. What McCain actually said is that he wouldn't mind a hundred-year troop presence "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

It says McCain "looked the other way" rather than investigate Jack Abramoff and a Republican "Culture of Corruption." In fact, McCain's investigation led to a prison term for Abramoff and the downfall of several powerful Republicans. His investigators didn't probe members of Congress directly, but that wasn't the job of his Indian Affairs Committee. And in any case, federal prosecutors opposed a competing congressional investigation which might have interfered with their own efforts.


The DNC message makes criticisms of McCain that could be directed at its own leading candidates as well. It notes that he lacks training in economics, which is equally true of Clinton and Obama. And it accuses him of "staggering" reliance on lobbyists for campaign help, when Clinton also has substantial aid from lobbyists and Obama has some from former lobbyists.

If recent history is any guide, the preemptive attack that the DNC outlines in this message will be followed by similar attacks by Republicans. Past elections have included spiraling rounds of attacks by both parties, in which each side claims to be responding in kind to the other.

Analysis:
According to this fundraising pitch, the DNC plans a massive advertising campaign that will give voters what we judge to be a distorted picture of Arizona Sen. John McCain's positions. The mass e-mail was sent out to the party faithful Feb. 6, the day after McCain emerged from Super Tuesday as the clear front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, and even before former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney suspended his run for the GOP nomination. The subject of the e-mail: "How we'll beat John McCain."

Excerpts, DNC E-mail:
"How we'll beat John McCain"

Dear ,
Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney are done. John McCain will be the Republican nominee -- he's the only one with a reasonable path to the nomination.
So how do we beat him? We stand up -- right now -- start fighting, and show the American people that he's not who they think he is.
We can't wait for Hillary or Barack to win the nomination. Now that the Republicans have a candidate, the dollars are starting to pour in from special interests who will do anything to beat the Democratic nominee.
They're just waiting for us to decide so they can start smearing. ... We must be ready to fight back, and fight back hard, today.
... John McCain is a media darling, but don't trust his carefully-crafted image - he's worked for years to brand himself. From Iraq to health care, Social Security to special interest tax cuts to ethics, he's promising nothing more than a third Bush term.
After championing campaign finance reform and ethics legislation to score political points, he now has a staggering amount of lobbyists involved in every aspect of his campaign. In fact, two of the top three sources for John McCain's campaign cash are D.C. lobbying firms, and he looked the other way as Jack Abramoff bought and paid for the Republican Party and the Culture of Corruption.
On immigration reform, he's run as far to the right as he can, aligning himself with the most extreme elements of the Republican Party. On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush's call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying "Make it a hundred!"
On a woman's right to choose, McCain has vowed to appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
On the economy, one of the issues that the American people care most about, McCain has said: "I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." We can't afford four more years with a President who drives the economy into the ground. We can't afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. We can't afford four more years with a President who gives tax cuts to companies who ship jobs overseas; with a President who can't get every American the health care they deserve; with a President we just can't trust.
I don't just want to beat John McCain - I want it to be a landslide. ... Only the Democratic Party is legally allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to back our nominee and tell the real story about John McCain. We proved that our strategy worked in 2006, and it will work again this fall. ... Let's get going,
Howard Dean

In the message, party chairman Howard Dean complains that McCain is a "media darling" whose "carefully-crafted image" can't be trusted. He asks for contributions to finance a series of attacks. "Only the Democratic Party is legally allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to back our nominee and tell the real story about John McCain," he writes. "Let's get going."

A 100-Year War?

The DNC's message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an "endless" war in Iraq.

DNC: We can't afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush's call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying "Make it a hundred!"

That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. His actual words are posted in a video on YouTube. Far from advocating "endless war," he said the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq would be "fine with me" provided that they're not being killed or wounded. Here's the full quote:

McCain, Jan. 3: Make it a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as American, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting and equipping and motivating people every single day.

It should be noted that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, despite their frequent talk of withdrawing from Iraq, have said repeatedly that they would maintain at least some troops in a combat role in Iraq for some time, possibly their entire term of office.


There's little doubt that McCain is less eager than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage "endless war" based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.

"Culture of Corruption"
Perhaps the most twisted claim the DNC makes about McCain is this:
DNC: [McCain] looked the other way as Jack Abramoff bought and paid for the Republican Party and the Culture of Corruption.

The truth is that McCain, as chairman of the Senate's Indian Affairs Committee, vigorously pursued an investigation into how tribes had been fleeced by the mostly Republican lobbyists they hired to back their casino ventures. Federal prosecutors later sent a number of players in the scandal to prison, including lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Republican Rep. Bob Ney of Ohio. The scandal also entangled and contributed to the downfall of ex-Rep. Tom DeLay of Texas, the former Republican majority leader, who once described Abramoff as "one of my closest and dearest friends." It also contributed to the defeats of Republican Sen. Conrad Burns of Montana and eight-term Republican Rep. Richard Pombo of California. Even McCain's critics admit he kept pressure on the Bush Justice Department while it investigated Abramoff. To say that he "looked the other way" is false.

The DNC and others point to a news item from 2005 in the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, which said McCain assured colleagues that his investigation wasn't aimed at them. According to the report, McCain said at the weekly lunch of the GOP's Steering Committee, "It's not our responsibility in any way to involve ourselves in the ethics process [of senators]. ... That was not the responsibility of the Indian Affairs Committee." But that should come as no surprise; investigating possible misconduct by senators is the job of the Senate Ethics Committee (spelled out on page 12 of the Senate Ethics Manual).

Furthermore, the Ethics Committee publicly declined in 2006 to investigate the Abramoff affair, because the Justice Department was already conducting criminal investigations and had told the committee that a parallel Senate probe could interfere. Even the Ethics Committee's Democratic vice chairman, Sen. Tim Johnson of South Dakota, concurred in that decision. We fail to see how the DNC can with any honesty criticize McCain for failing to do the job of another committee, especially when that panel's leading Democrat feared that a congressional investigation might jeopardize possible criminal cases.

The DNC's Glass House
The DNC also throws some stones at McCain that could be hurled at their own leading candidates.

Economics: The DNC paints McCain as untrained to run the economy: "McCain has said: 'I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.' " That's an accurate quote. But while McCain wasn't trained as an economist, neither were Obama or Clinton. Clinton has touted her experience working for children and health care. Obama talks about his experience organizing the poor and low-income workers in Chicago. None of the three senators sit on the Finance Committee, the Banking Committee or the Budget Committee. We'll be interested to hear the DNC explain how a graduate of Harvard or Yale law schools is any better educated about economics or the economy than an Annapolis grad who has been in Congress longer than the two Democrats put together.
Lobbyists: The e-mail criticizes McCain for his reliance on lobbyists to raise campaign money, implying that his past crusades for stricter campaign-finance regulation and tightened congressional ethics laws were insincere efforts to "score political points":
DNC: After championing campaign finance reform and ethics legislation to score political points, he now has a staggering amount of lobbyists involved in every aspect of his campaign.

This is a reference to a recent report by Public Citizen, the group founded by Ralph Nader, which has tallied 59 persons who are or formerly were registered as lobbyists serving as "bundlers" (fundraisers) for McCain's campaign. That's more than for any other candidate, and Public Citizen said McCain's list is growing.

However, neither of the leading Democratic candidates are entirely innocent on this score. Clinton voted for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation in 2002, and nevertheless has 20 lobbyist-bundlers aiding her campaign, according to the Public Citizen report. And even Obama, who crusaded for congressional ethics legislation last year, has 10 fundraisers whom Public Citizen identified as lobbyist-bundlers. In his case, all are former lobbyists and none are now registered.

Closer to the Mark
The DNC is closer to the mark on some other matters. Briefly:

Abortion: The DNC says "McCain has vowed to appoint judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade," the Supreme Court decision that makes most abortions legal. McCain has come pretty close to saying just that. On his Web site he says, "John McCain believes Roe v. Wade is a flawed decision that must be overturned, and as president he will nominate judges who understand that courts should not be in the business of legislating from the bench."

Immigration: The e-mail accuses McCain of running "as far to the right as he can" on immigration and of "aligning himself with the most extreme elements of the Republican Party." And in fact, McCain said in the most recent GOP debate that he would not vote again for the immigration bill he sponsored in 2005 with Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. He said he now believes "the people want the border secured first" before dealing with those who already are here illegally. At an earlier debate, Republican Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado, the party's most vocal critic of illegal immigration, noted happily that McCain and other GOP candidates had started to sound like him. He said, "All I've heard is people trying to out-Tancredo Tancredo. It is great. I am so happy to hear it. It is a wonderful thing. It's a good message, yes. We want to secure the borders." When Tancredo later dropped out of the GOP race, however, he endorsed former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, not McCain.
–by Brooks Jackson

Sources:
Public Citizen. "Number of Lobbyist-Fundraisers for Presidential Candidates Already Exceeds 2004 Totals," 29 Jan. 2008.

Smith, R. Jeffrey. "The DeLay-Abramoff Money Trail: Nonprofit Group Linked to Lawmaker Was Funded Mostly by Clients of Lobbyist." The Washington Post, 31 Dec. 2005.

Weisman, Jonathan and Chris Cillizza. "DeLay to Resign From Congress; Associates Say Reelection Fears, Not Criminal Probe, Led to Republican's Decision." The Washington Post, 4 April 2006.

Kane, Paul. "McCain Won’t Target Members." Roll Call, 10 Mar. 2005. (Subscription required)

Select Committee on Ethics, United States Senate. "Senate Ethics Manual; Jurisdiction of the Committee," 2003; 12.

Select Committee on Ethics, United States Senate. letter from chairman George Voinovich and vice-chairman Tim Johnson to Fred Wertheimer, 17 Feb. 2006.

"GOP Rep. Pombo Loses to Little-Known Democrat; Doolittle Wins." The Associated Press, 8 Nov. 2006.

John McCain 2008 "On the Issues: Overturning Roe v. Wade," Web site accessed 7 Feb. 2008.

CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate transcript. CNN.com, 28 Nov. 2007.

"Transcript of Republican presidential debate in Simi Valley." Los Angeles Times, 30 Jan. 2008.

Pulliam, Jason. "Tancredo drops out, endorses Romney." Des Moines Register, 20 Dec. 2007.


DNC vs. McCain April 29
April 29, 2008
Two Democratic Party TV ads hit McCain on Iraq and the economy. We supply context and corrections.

Summary:
The Democratic National Committee has produced two TV ads against McCain, hoping to soften him up while the party figures out who its own presidential nominee will be.

One ad shows selected portions of McCain's comments that a 100-year U.S. presence in Iraq would be "fine with me." The ad uses dramatic images of war and violence, and omits any mention that McCain was speaking of a peaceful presence like that in Japan or Korea.

An earlier ad attacks McCain for saying the nation's economy is "prosperous" and "better off overall" than eight years ago. The ad uses a couple of incorrect statistics to argue otherwise. It says the country has lost 1.8 million jobs when, in fact, it has gained nearly 5.4 million, and it says gasoline prices have risen 200 percent, when the actual figure is 139 percent.

Analysis:
The latest DNC ad was released April 27 and is set to start running on cable networks next week. An earlier ad has been running lightly on cable since April 20. Both are aimed at raising doubts about Sen. John McCain as he campaigns for the White House – and while Democrats are still trying to sort out whether Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. Hillary Clinton will be their standard-bearer. The DNC is using both ads in fundraising appeals, asking the party faithful to donate money to buy broadcast time for them. It calls the Iraq ad "one of the most powerful television spots Americans will see this year."

Choosing His Words Carefully
The latest ad follows up on a DNC fundraising e-mail, which we critiqued in February, portraying McCain as willing to fight an "endless war" in Iraq.

DNC Ad: "100"
Offscreen voice: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years.
On screen graphic: Senator McCain. President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years.
McCain: Maybe a hundred. That'd be fine with me.
On screen: 100 years in Iraq.
On screen: 5 years. $500 billion. Over 4,000 dead.
Offscreen voice: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years.
McCain: Maybe 100.
Narrator: If all he offers is more of the same, is John McCain the right choice for America's future?
On screen: Is John McCain the right choice for America's future?
Narrator: The Democratic National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.
It opens with a shot of McCain onstage at a town hall meeting in January. An offscreen voice says President Bush has discussed keeping U.S. troops "in Iraq for 50 years." We see McCain saying, "Maybe a hundred." Pause. "That'd be fine with me." Then we hear an explosion and sirens, accompanied by video of cars on fire, plumes of smoke and general chaos in an obviously dangerous setting. The words "Maybe a hundred" appear on the screen, followed by "5 years," "$500 billion" and "Over 4,000 killed."

The clear implication is that if McCain is elected, we can expect to be battling in Iraq for many decades to come. But the admakers cut off the rest of McCain's response, which provides some badly needed context:

McCain, town hall meeting, Jan. 3: Maybe a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world.

The DNC ad doesn't mention that McCain was speaking specifically about a peacetime presence. And the text of the ad paired with images of Iraq under siege leave a clear impression that McCain proposes to allow a century more of war, with U.S. involvement. That's not what he said, in New Hampshire or in other settings when he's been asked about it.

Republicans have called the ad a distortion, but DNC Chairman Howard Dean defended it, saying in an NBC News "Meet the Press" interview on Sunday:

Dean, April 27: First of all, we're not arguing that he's going to be at war for a hundred years. We don't think we ought to be in Iraq for a hundred years under any circumstances. Think of the hundreds of billions of dollars that are being spent in Iraq, which we need right here at home right now to preserve American jobs. That's the first thing.

Secondly, if Senator McCain believes that you can occupy a country like Iraq for a hundred years without having a long war and violence and our troops being hurt and, and killed, I think Senator McCain is wrong. ... [D]oes anyone think, who's watching this show, that if you keep our troops in Iraq for a hundred years, people won't be attacking them and won't be setting off suicide bombs and won't be having militias go after them? I don't think so. And most Americans don't think so.

Dean is correct in one sense. His ad doesn't say in so many words that McCain is "going to be at war for a hundred years." But by juxtaposing McCain's words with dramatic, violent images of war, it clearly leaves that impression.

It's one thing to argue, as Dean does, that McCain's position is a recipe for continued violence and bloodshed, whatever his stated intent. But it is another thing to misrepresent that intent. The ad twists the sense of McCain's words by showing images of war, when he was really talking about a peaceful troop presence. Imagine how different the ad would seem if it showed images of, say, American troops walking the streets of Tokyo or Seoul and had included what McCain said about "Americans ... not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

Anyone who didn't already know the fuller version of McCain's answer could easily be fooled into thinking that McCain would be perfectly happy to see the war continue. McCain has said quite clearly that he considers Democratic proposals for a quick withdrawal from Iraq to be "surrender," and so deadly fighting could well continue longer under a President McCain than under either a President Hillary Clinton or a President Obama. But what the DNC ad conveys is the opposite of what McCain said.

DNC Ad: "Better Off?"
CNN’s Anderson Cooper: Senator McCain, are Americans better off than they were eight years ago?
McCain: I think you can argue that Americans, overall, are better off because we have had a pretty good, prosperous time. . .
On screen graphic: Household Income Down $1,000.
McCain: . . . with low unemployment . . .
On screen: Unemployment Up
McCain . . . low inflation . . .
On screen: Highest Inflation in 17 Years
McCain: . . . A lot of good things have happened. A lot of jobs have been created…
On screen: 1.8 million jobs lost
Gas Prices Up 200 Percent
McCain: I think we are better off overall…
Announcer: Do you feel better off? The Democratic National Committee is responsible for this advertising.

Untrue Claims
The DNC's first national ad was released April 21 and tweaks McCain for his positive assessment of President Bush's economic record during a January debate on CNN. While McCain talks of "a pretty good, prosperous time" over the past eight years and says, "I think we are better off overall," the ad flashes images of a foreclosure sign, a closed factory, a gasoline pump with a $4.01 price per gallon and a series of gloomy economic statistics.

The announcer poses a perfectly fair question at the end: "Do you feel better off?" Individual voters may answer that question differently based on their own circumstances, regardless of the numbers. Nevertheless, two of the DNC's factual claims are untrue.


Not Enough Jobs
While McCain says "a lot of jobs have been created," the ad shows a graphic that states, "1.8 million jobs lost." McCain is correct and the ad is wrong. Total nonfarm employment was nearly 5.4 million higher last month than it was when President Bush took office in January 2001, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's the standard measure of jobs, and it means 5.4 million have been created.

The DNC defends its claim of "jobs lost" by pointing to the total number of persons who were without jobs in March. That figure is 1.8 million higher than it was when Bush was sworn in. But it doesn't mean that many jobs were lost, it means that the job gain didn't keep pace with the number of persons who are seeking work. The ad would have been correct to say that there are "1.8 million more unemployed." That stark statistic doesn't contradict McCain's statement that lots of jobs were created, however. It means not enough were created to satisfy the need.

Fuelish Math
The ad claims gasoline prices are "up 200 percent," which isn't correct. The increase is actually 139 percent.

The price of regular gasoline at the pump has gone from $1.47 per gallon the week Bush was sworn in to $3.51 the week the ad appeared, according to the Energy Information Administration. That's an increase of $2.04 per gallon, which is 139 percent of the starting price.

The DNC picked the week ending Dec. 3, 2001, as its starting point – long after Bush took office. By that time the price of regular had dipped to $1.11 as Americans curtailed travel in the weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Using that figure does produce a 200 percent increase, but that's not the change that has occurred since Bush was sworn in.

The ad's other statistics check out, mostly:

"Household Income Down $1,000." That's close. Official Census figures show median household income in 2006 was $48,201, which is $962 lower than in 2000, when it stood at $49,163 after adjustment for inflation.

"Unemployment Up." The unemployment rate was 4.2 percent when Bush took office, and it was 5.1 percent in March, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. But McCain also was right when he said unemployment is "low." The average monthly unemployment rate since 1948 is just under 5.6 percent, putting the current level at half a point below average.

"Highest Inflation in 17 years." The Consumer Price Index advanced 4.1 percent during 2007, the fastest rise in prices since the 6.1 percent increase during 1990.
–by Viveca Novak and Brooks Jackson

Sources:
Russert, Tim. Interview with Howard Dean. "Meet the Press." NBC, 27 April 2008.

McCain, John. "Surrender is NOT an Option." johnmccain.com, accessed 29 April 2008.

U.S. Department Of Labor Statistics. "Consumer Price Index History Table," undated, accessed 29 April 2008.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. "U.S. Regular All Formulations Retail Gasoline Prices (Cents per Gallon)," undated, updated 28 April 2008, accessed 29 April 2008.

U.S. Census Bureau, "Historical Income Tables **–** Households, *Table H-6. Regions--All Races by Median and Mean Income: 1975 to 2006." 28 Aug 2009, accessed 29 April 2008.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "Employment, Hours, and Earnings from the Current Employment Statistics survey (National), Total Nonfarm Employment, Seasonally Adjusted, Jan. 1948 - March 2008," data extracted 29 April 2008.


He's Against the Troops
In his convention acceptance speech, Obama twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he had recently called for more troops there himself.

FactChecking Obama
August 29, 2008
He stuck to the facts, except when he stretched them.

Summary:
We checked the accuracy of Obama's speech accepting the Democratic nomination, and noted the following:

Obama said he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” That’s wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain’s, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.
He twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.

He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."

Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would "tax people’s benefits" but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.

He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.

Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.

Analysis:
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accepted his party's nomination Aug. 28, speaking before more than 84,000 people in Denver's Mile High football stadium. Some of his comments were worthy of a ref's yellow flag.

Not Quite Every Dime
Obama reassured voters that he can pay for all his spending proposals:

Obama: Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow.

This is misleading. Even by his own campaign’s estimates, closing corporate loopholes and tax havens won’t pay for all of Obama’s new plans. In July, the campaign told the Los Angeles Times that they estimate the yearly cost of their proposed tax cuts at $130 billion. They put revenue from closing tax loopholes at just $80 billion. Obama also proposes to raise taxes to pre-Bush levels for families earning more than $250,000 a year and singles making more than $200,000, yielding additional revenue. But he didn't mention that in his speech.

But Obama’s claim is misleading on another level. According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, "without substantial cuts in government spending" Obama’s plan – and McCain's, too – "would substantially increase the national debt over the next ten years." Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor told FactCheck.org that the Tax Policy Center's analysis "fails to take in account Senator Obama's spending cuts, including ending the Iraq war." That's true, but Obama's proposed cuts are dwarfed by the Tax Policy Center's projected deficits. Obama’s new spending programs might be completely offset by new revenue and spending cuts. But overall spending will still exceed overall revenue, and the nation would face at least 10 more years of annual deficits.

Afghan Muddle
Obama twisted McCain's words about Afghanistan, incorrectly implying that McCain saw no need for more troops there.

Obama: When John McCain said we could just “muddle through” in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11

Actually, McCain said in 2003 that the U.S. "may" muddle through, not that we could or would. He also said he was very concerned about a rise in al Qaeda activity there. He said then that he was "guardedly optimistic" that the government could handle it.

McCain, 2003: I think Afghanistan is dicey. I think that there are certain areas of the country, particularly along the Pakistani border, that are clearly not under the control of either Pakistan or the Afghan government. ... There has been a rise in al Qaeda activity along the border. There has been some increase in U.S. casualties. I am concerned about it, but I'm not as concerned as I am about Iraq today, obviously, or I'd be talking about Afghanistan. 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.

So I'm guardedly optimistic, but I am also realistic that the central government in Kabul has very little effect on the policies and practices of the warlords who control the surrounding areas.

Recently, however, both candidates have called for an increased troop presence in Afghanistan. In July, Obama proposed sending two more combat brigades, drawn down from Iraq. McCain immediately followed this with a call for three more brigades, but later clarified that some of those troops would be NATO forces. A McCain spokeswoman said that the U.S. would "contribute" troops to the increase under McCain's plan.

Tax Spin
Obama said: “I will cut taxes ... for 95 percent of all working families.” And he said McCain proposes “not one penny of tax relief to more than 100 million Americans,” a claim his running mate, Joe Biden, made the night before.

Obama is right about his plan's effect on working families. More broadly, though, the plan cuts taxes for 81.3 percent of all households in 2009, according to the Tax Policy Center. The TPC also says McCain’s tax plan would leave 65.8 million households without a cut, not 100 million.

The TPC’s calculations factor in what's in effect a hidden tax on individuals that results from taxing corporations. McCain proposes to lower the corporate income tax rate, and Obama proposes billions of dollars in increased corporate taxes in the form of “loophole closings.” Individuals wouldn’t experience those changes as an increased tax bill from the government, but both the Congressional Budget Office and TPC allocate all corporate tax to owners of capital rather than to consumers. That means rather than flowing through to consumers in the form of higher prices or lower wages, corporate tax changes would show up as higher or lower returns on investments, which typically come in the form of corporate dividends, and profits or losses from stock sales.

Only by ignoring the hidden benefit to individuals can McCain’s plan be said to produce no cut for 100 million households. According to a calculation the TPC did at FactCheck's request, 101.9 million see no benefit if the effects of a corporate reduction are set aside.

For the record, Obama aides say the indirect effect on holders of capital won't be as large as TPC says. "We dispute TPC's methodology here," says Brian Deese of the Obama campaign. He says several of the "loophole closers" that Obama is proposing won't affect corporations or are on offshore activity that will not directly filter through.

We'd also note that retirees would fare quite a bit less well than working families under Obama's tax plan: The TPC estimates that 32 percent of households with a person over age 65 would see a tax increase.

Rich Humor
Obama used a clumsy attempt at humor by McCain as evidence of his supposed insensitivity to middle-class economic realities:

Obama: Now, I don't believe that Senator McCain doesn't care what's going on in the lives of Americans; I just think he doesn’t know. Why else would he define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year?

What McCain actually said at the Saddleback Church forum on Aug. 16 was that he favors low taxes for all income levels. He drew a laugh, then said, "but seriously" as he struggled to make his point:

Pastor Rick Warren, Aug. 16: [G]ive me a number, give me a specific number - where do you move from middle class to rich?

McCain: I don't want to take any money from the rich – I want everybody to get rich. ... So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? But seriously, I don't think you can - I don't think seriously that - the point is that I'm trying to make here, seriously – and I'm sure that comment will be distorted – but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues.

Health Care Half Truths
Obama gave only half the story when he described a feature of McCain's health care plan:

Obama: How else could he offer a health care plan that would actually tax people’s benefits...

McCain proposes to grant families up to a $5,000 tax credit to use for health benefits. The flip side of that proposal, which McCain seldom if ever mentions, is that the value of employer-sponsored benefits would also become taxable. Both candidates are trading in half-truths here; McCain talks only about the pleasurable side of his plan, while Obama's speech mentioned only the painful aspect. Neither gives a complete picture.

Party Hearties
Obama painted McCain as a Republican partisan who's supported the unpopular President Bush consistently:

Obama: And next week, we'll also hear about those occasions when he's broken with his party as evidence that he can deliver the change that we need. But the record's clear: John McCain has voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time.

It's true that McCain's voting support for Bush policies has averaged slightly above 89 percent since Bush took office, according to Congressional Quarterly’s vote studies. But it has ebbed and flowed. It reached a low of 77 percent in 2005. Last year it was 95 percent. By comparison, Obama's own record of supporting Bush policies has averaged slightly under 41 percent since the senator took office. However, Obama's voting record is no less partisan than McCain's. He has voted in line with his party an average of nearly 97 percent of the time. The truth is that neither candidate can claim a strong record of "breaking with his party" if Senate votes are the measure.

He Didn't Mean It
Obama also pulled some sleight of hand when he stated that "the average American family" saw its income "go down $2,000" under George Bush. That's not correct. Census figures show average family income went down $348.

As it turns out, when Obama said "average family income," he didn't mean "average," and he didn't mean "family," either. An Obama aide says he was really referring to median income – which is the midpoint – and not to the average. And Obama was talking only about "working families," not retired couples.

For all families, median family income actually inched up under Bush by $272.
– by Brooks Jackson, with Viveca Novak, Justin Bank, Jess Henig, Emi Kolawole, Joe Miller, Lori Robertson and D'Angelo Gore

Sources:
Burman, Len, et. al. “An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans: Revised August 15, 2008.” Tax Policy Center, 15 Aug. 2008.

Table T08-0182, Senator McCain’s Tax Proposals as Described by his Economic Advisors, Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009. Tax Policy Center, 19 July 2008.

Gleckman, Roberton Williams and Howard. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans." 28 August 2008. The Tax Policy Center. 29 August 2008

Nicholas, Peter. "Adding Up the Cost of Obama's agenda." 8 July 2008. The Los Angeles Times. 29 August 2008

CQ member Profiles: Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz). 1 Apr. 2007. Congressional Quarterly, 9 June 2008.

CQ member Profiles: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill). February 2008. Congressional Quarterly, 12 June 2008.

Transcript, "Saddleback Presidential Candidates Forum" CNN.com 16 Aug. 2008.

Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, "Table T08-0203 - Senator Obama's Tax Proposals of August 14, 2008: Economic Advisers' Version (No Payroll Surtax), Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009" 14 Aug 2008.


In September, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden accused McCain of calling a GI Bill McCain voted against "too generous." Biden's line was similar to an earlier AFL-CIO ad that accused McCain of voting against increasing health care benefits for veterans. McCain actually voted for an increase in health care funding for vets, though the version he supported contained smaller increases than some Democratic-sponsored alternatives. And McCain did refer to Sen. Jim Webb's proposed GI Bill as "more generous" than the version he supported, but "more generous" is not the same as "too generous."

AFL-CIO Falsely Attacks McCain
July 10, 2008
Updated: July 14, 2008
It runs an ad claiming McCain voted "against increasing health care benefits for veterans," when he actually voted repeatedly to increase them.

Summary:
The AFL-CIO is attacking McCain with a TV spot saying he voted "against increasing health care benefits for veterans." Actually, he voted for increases in those benefits.

The labor federation points to McCain's votes against Democratic proposals to increase funding. Those were defeated along party lines and were accompanied by alternative measures to increase benefits by smaller amounts, all of which passed unanimously or with near-unanimous majorities. McCain supported all of them.

The AFL-CIO also points to a McCain vote against a war spending supplemental appropriations measure from 2007 that included additional funding for veterans' health care, along with much else. The measure passed the Senate along partisan lines but was vetoed by President Bush. But McCain voted for a later version of the supplemental that ultimately passed into law and actually included slightly more funding for veterans' benefits.

Analysis:
The AFL-CIO attack ad against John McCain started airing today and is the first ad the labor federation has run in the 2008 presidential campaign. It will run in Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin for the next three weeks, according to a report in the Washington Post.

We find the ad, narrated by Vietnam veteran Jim Wasser, to be unduly harsh on McCain's voting record on veterans' health benefits.

AFL-CIO Ad: "Not Now"
Vietnam Veteran Jim Wasser: Every vet respects John McCain’s war record. It’s his record in the Senate that I have a problem with. He wants us to keep spending ten billion dollars a month in Iraq, just like Bush. That’s money we could use to build schools and roads and create jobs we need here at home. He even took Bush’s side against increasing health care benefits for veterans. People should let John McCain know his agenda’s not what we need. Not now.McCain's Votes

The ad says that McCain "took Bush's side against increasing health care benefits for veterans." But he actually voted to increase veterans' health care benefits, though not by as much as Democrats proposed.

The AFL-CIO, in documentation it provided to FactCheck.org, cites four specific votes as support for this allegation. Three of them were against Democratic amendments to the annual budget bill in 2004, 2005 and 2006. And all of them failed along party lines in a Republican-controlled Senate. But in each case, McCain supported different amendments to increase veterans' health benefits, either on the same day or the following day.

Specifically, in 2004 McCain voted against an increase of $1.8 billion, but an increase of $1.2 billion passed by unanimous consent. In 2005 he voted against an increase of $2.8 billion, but voted for a $410 million increase. And in 2006, he voted against a $1.5 billion increase, but voted for an $823 million increase.

There was no dissent for the 2004 amendment, and the 2006 amendment passed unanimously. In 2005, the alternative spending increase passed with a healthy 96-to-4 bipartisan stamp of approval. Also, it's worth mentioning that the president does not express an opinion on every amendment offered in the Senate. So it is not accurate to say McCain "took Bush's side" on these votes.

The union group also cites a fourth vote, a March 2007 vote by McCain against a war spending supplemental that passed the Senate but was vetoed by the president. The bill did include $1.77 billion in additional funding for veterans' health care benefits. However, McCain voted for an alternative version of the supplemental that was quickly introduced, passed and signed into law. And it actually included slightly more money for veterans' health benefits, $1.79 billion.

$10 Billion a Month?
The ad also says that McCain "wants us to keep spending ten billion dollars a month in Iraq, just like Bush." It is true that the U.S. is spending $10 billion or more per month in Iraq, according to most estimates. And McCain has certainly resisted any "retreat" from Iraq, and he has even said U.S. troops could remain for decades. But strictly speaking, McCain has never said that he wants to spend $10 billion per month in Iraq. Quite the contrary.

In fact, McCain says he's counting on reduced spending for military operations to help him balance the federal budget. In his "Jobs for America" plan released July 9, the McCain campaign said:

McCain campaign: The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.

We can't predict whether McCain, or for that matter, Obama, will actually be able to cut spending in Iraq. But it's simply wrong to say McCain "wants" to continue spending at the current level, when he's said he wants to reduce it.
-by Justin Bank

Correction, July 14: Our article originally said that McCain's 2005 and 2006 votes against Democratic proposals to increase veterans' funding preceded his votes for legislation to increase funding by less. McCain's votes for the alternative legislation came first. We have changed the story to reflect this.

Sources
Cillizza, Chris, "AFL-CIO Goes After McCain in Battleground States," Washington Post. 9 July 2008.

108th Congress, U.S. Senate, 2nd Session Roll Call Vote No. 40.

109th Congress, U.S. Senate, 1st Session Roll Call Vote No. 55.

109th Congress, U.S. Senate, 1st Session Roll Call Vote No. 54.

109th Congress, U.S. Senate, 2nd Session, Roll Call Vote No. 41.

109th Congress, U.S. Senate, 2nd Session, Roll Call Vote No. 40.

110th Congress, U.S. Senate, 1st Session, Roll Call Vote No. 126.

110th Congress, U.S. Senate, 1st Session, Roll Call Vote No. 181.

Public Law 110-28: U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007.


Stretching with Biden
September 18, 2008
Obama's running mate gives a twist to McCain's words while stumping in Michigan.

Summary:
Biden proved once again that it doesn't take outright falsehoods to create a skewed impression of one's opponent. We found in a Sept. 15 speech that:
Biden used partial quotes to support his charge that McCain wouldn't help "small borrowers" suffering in the mortgage crisis but would "fight for those that lost their ... real estate investments." In fact, McCain's full quote said he would also fight for those who "lost their jobs" and "savings," and he has proposed assistance for homeowners.

He said McCain called Sen. Webb's GI Bill proposal "too generous." McCain never used those words. He did support a less-costly version of the bill.

Biden repeated several other talking points that we've previously critiqued for their spin, including the accusation that McCain would give $4 billion a year in tax cuts to oil companies.
Analysis
In a Sept. 15 speech, Democratic vice presidential nominee Joe Biden attempted to outline the differences between Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain on issues ranging from bank bailouts to Social Security. But he played loose with McCain's words to make some of his points.

Fighting for Investors?
Biden made it appear as if McCain was only going to work on behalf of those with “real estate investments":

Biden: Let me just give you one more example. In the midst of this housing crisis, John McCain said, “I will fight for those that lost their … real estate investments.” He went on to say, “It’s not the role of government to bail out big banks or small borrowers.”…What about the people who don’t invest in homes, but live in them? There’s an important distinction between the predators and the preyed upon.

There is, but there’s also a distinction between a full quote and a partial quote.

McCain took a hard line against government assistance in March but added some cushioning this month as financial crises mounted. Here is his comment from the March 25 sit-down with the Orange County Hispanic Small Business Roundtable:


McCain: I have always been committed to the principle that it is not the duty of government to bail out and reward those who act irresponsibly, whether they are big banks or small borrowers. Government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk that would endanger the entire financial system and the economy.

But six months later, McCain softened his language. Essentially, he supports bailing out unsuspecting borrowers and punishing the irresponsible ones (lenders, too). Biden leaves some important phrasing out of his quote from the Sept. 5 statement posted on McCain's campaign Web site:

McCain: As I promised last night, I will fight for those that lost their jobs, savings, and real estate investments. Some Americans have been left behind in the changing economy, and it often seems your government hasn't even noticed.

The Web site also includes this statement on McCain's approach to helping those with mortgages: "No taxpayer money should bail out real estate speculators or financial market participants who failed to perform due diligence in assessing credit risks. Any assistance for borrowers should be focused solely on homeowners and any government assistance to the banking system should be based solely on preventing systemic risk."

Too Generous to GIs?
McCain has made his military service record a cornerstone of his campaign. So this attack from Biden had a loud bark, but we find that the factual bite is not quite as strong:
Biden: When George Bush initially opposed a new GI bill that would send a new generation of veterans to college, John McCain stood with him, calling Senator Webb’s effort too generous.

But McCain never actually said the bill was “too generous.” A June report from Congressional Quarterly used the phrase to characterize his and Pentagon officials’ position:
CQ (June 21): GOP Sen. John McCain of Arizona, his party's presumed presidential nominee, has endorsed a less costly plan that he says is more in line with the thinking in the Pentagon, where officials worry that a too-generous aid program will harm long-term retention rates in the armed forces. But Republicans and the White House cast that plan aside last week in holding up their end of the deal to get through the supplemental war-funding bill.

It's true McCain actively worked against Virginia Democrat Jim Webb's proposed GI Bill. And it's true McCain supported a less-costly Republican version of the bill. A compromise eventually led to a modified version of Webb's proposal being folded into the fiscal 2008 supplemental spending bill, which was eventually signed into law. McCain did not vote on that bill. According to McCain spokesman Robert Fischer, McCain supported the compromise but was not present for the vote.

McCain may indeed have worried that making GI benefits too attractive could depress retention rates. But we've found no evidence that he used the words "too generous," which implies that he didn't think veterans deserved to be rewarded for their service. In addition, his office issued a press release voicing a different concern with Webb's bill:
McCain: With respect to the G.I. Bill changes that have been included in this agreement, I am very pleased that the important education benefits that will be provided to our veterans and servicemembers will include the option for those currently serving to transfer educational benefits to their families and in that manner encourage retention. That has always been my primary concern with respect to the Webb bill.

Creative Clippings
Biden was not the first to truncate McCain’s remarks (Stephen Colbert did the same) when he attempted to illustrate that McCain was out of touch with average Americans:
Biden: I believe that’s why Senator McCain could say with a straight face, as recently as this morning, and I quote, “the fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

It's true that McCain has been using that line and similar ones at least since early 2008, although usually with some qualifying language thrown in, as we've noted. And this time, he elaborated during a campaign stop in Orlando, Florida, Sept. 15:
McCain (Sept. 15): You know that there’s been tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street. And it is – it’s – people are frightened by these events. Our economy, I think, still, the fundamentals are – of our economy are strong, but these are very, very difficult times. And I promise you, we will never put America in this position again. We will clean up Wall Street. We will reform government.

That said, we'd also note that later that day, in an interview with NBC affiliate WESH 2, McCain changed his tune slightly:
McCain: Everybody knows I was talking about our workers. They're the strongest and the best in the world. Those fundamentals are at risk right now because of the greed and excesses of Wall Street.

The next day, in Tampa, McCain repeated his revised remark, but changed "fundamentals" to "foundation":
McCain (Sept. 16): And this - this foundation of our economy, the American worker, strong. But it's been put at great risk by the greed and mismanagement of Wall Street and Washington. I'll give you some straight talk, my friends.

Mental telepathy is not our strong suit, but we can say that "fundamentals of our economy" doesn't seem to us like a synonym for "workers." Biden gets demerits for quote butchering here, but McCain gets a few for shifting his meaning to more politically expedient ground.

Same Old Energy Tax Cut Distortion
Biden repeated yet another misleading statement we’ve previously debunked when he said this about McCain’s plans for corporate tax cuts:
Biden: …he thinks the Exxon-Mobils of the world should get an additional $4 billion dollars a year in tax cuts.

In fact, McCain supports a broad-based reduction in the corporate income tax rate for all companies – not a special break for the oil and gas industry. The left-leaning Center for American Progress Action Fund concluded that McCain’s tax plan would produce a tax cut of roughly $4 billion for the top-five U.S. based oil companies. But it would also produce a tax cut for companies in other sectors of the economy – a fact Biden fails to mention.
–by Emi Kolawole

Correction: We originally said WESH was an ABC affiliate. It's the NBC affiliate in Orlando.

Update: Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor sent us this May 26 quote from John McCain, in which McCain describes Webb's GI Bill proposal as "more generous" than the GOP's version:
McCain (May 26): I know that my friend and fellow veteran, Senator Jim Webb, an honorable man who takes his responsibility to veterans very seriously, has also offered legislation that would provide more generous benefits.

McCain then points to the differences between the two bills. But, as we mentioned before, this is not the same as saying that the bill was "too generous," nor does it imply that it was unnecessary to reward veterans for their service.

Sources:
Bush, George W. and John McCain. "President Participates in Social Security Conversation in Arizona." 21 Mar. 2005.

Clarke, David. "Vets' Issues Boost Democrats' Image." Congressional Quarterly Weekly. 21 Jun. 2008.

Lubbes, Sara. "House Bill Aims for Equal Pay for Men and Women." Congressional Quarterly. 27 Jul. 2008.

Demirjian, Karoun. "Senate to Take Up Bill on Pay Discrimination." Congressional Quarterly. 21 Apr. 2008.

Wall Street & Your Wallet; Mutual Attraction; To Drill or Not; Palin by Comparison. 16 Sep. 2008. CNN Newsroom. 17 Sep. 2008.


More Misleads and Factual Fumbles
Obama quotes McCain as saying he wants to apply "Wall Street deregulation" to health care. That's a distortion of McCain's words. McCain actually limited his comparison just to the idea of allowing people to purchase health care policies across state lines.
Out of Context on Health Care
September 22, 2008
Obama ad twists McCain's words on health care "deregulation."

Summary
An Obama-Biden ad falsely claims McCain says he wants to "do the same to our health care" that "Wall Street deregulation" has done to the banking industry.

The ad relies on a single phrase from a journal article under McCain's byline, in which he said he would reduce regulation of health insurance "as we have done over the last decade in banking." But the full context reveals that McCain was referring narrowly to his proposal to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines.

Analysis:
The Obama-Biden campaign released the ad Sept. 22 and said it will air on national cable TV networks. It claims that McCain said he would "reduce oversight of the health insurance industry ... just 'as we have done over the last decade in banking.' " But the ad takes the comments out of context, failing to explain what exactly McCain meant by the comparison to banking. He was talking specifically about allowing the sale and purchase of health insurance plans across state lines.

Obama-Biden Ad:
"Article"
Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.
Announcer: We’ve seen what Bush-McCain policies have done to our economy. Now John McCain wants to do the same to our health care. McCain just published an article praising Wall Street deregulation. Said he’d reduce oversight of the health insurance industry, too. Just "as we have done over the last decade in banking." Increasing costs and threatening coverage. "A prescription for disaster." John McCain, a risk we just can’t afford to take.McCain's words come from an article under his byline in the September/October issue of "Contingencies," a journal of the American Academy of

Actuaries. Here's what the McCain article actually said, in full context:
McCain: I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation. Consumer-friendly insurance policies will be more available and affordable when there is greater competition among insurers on a level playing field. You should be able to buy your insurance from any willing provider—the state bureaucracies are no better than national ones. Nationwide insurance markets that ensure broad and vigorous competition will wring out excess costs, overhead, and bloated executive compensation.

Note that McCain began by speaking of buying insurance "across state lines." His comparison with banking regulation was limited to "opening up the insurance market" to "nationwide" competition to "provide more choices" to consumers.

McCain has in fact touted this aspect of his health care plan for months. His Web page on health care prominently says:
McCain health care plan: An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.

Obama used this misleading accusation on the campaign trail over the weekend. In Daytona Beach, Florida, on Sept. 20, Obama said: "So let me get this straight – he wants to run health care like they've been running Wall Street."

The analogy to banking in the article was poorly timed, given recent financial events, though it's likely it was written well before Wall Street's crisis reached its climax last week. McCain senior adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin complained to reporters that Obama misunderstood what McCain meant: "If Barack Obama thinks that today's financial troubles were caused by policies which allowed Americans to use an ATM anywhere in this country, then it is better that he continue to be silent about solutions to the crisis on Wall Street," he said. Holtz-Eakin told the Wall Street Journal that the article was talking about provisions that allowed for banking across state lines, which were approved in 1995 – not "over the last decade," as the article said.

Obama adviser Jason Furman said that it seemed to him that McCain was referencing 2004 rules that, the Journal reported, "pre-empted state banking regulations and that, [Furman] argues, helped bring on the current financial meltdown." McCain did not cite specific legislation. But it is clear he was comparing such regulations to his proposal to allow the sale of health insurance across state lines.

We’d also note that this was not "an article praising Wall Street deregulation," as the ad says. Wall Street itself is never mentioned, and the only reference to banking or the financial industry is that one line about regulation over the past decade.

This ad reminds us of another by the Democratic National Committee that took McCain's comments out of context. That ad charged that McCain wanted to stay in Iraq for 100 years, but his full remarks showed that he was talking about a peaceful presence in the country, much like U.S. troops' presence in Japan or South Korea, two examples McCain used in his remarks. McCain said staying in Iraq for a hundred years "would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." The DNC left that part of the quote out of the ad.

An Accurate Quote
The Obama-Biden ad ends by calling McCain's plan "a prescription for disaster," as those words, credited to the Boston Globe, flash on screen. Unlike the first quote cited in the ad, this one is accurate. It comes from a Sept. 21 Globe editorial that compared McCain's and Obama's health care plan, raising objections to McCain's. Here's the quote in context:

Globe editorial (Sept. 21): There is no comparable lab test, however, for the radical revision of healthcare that McCain is proposing. For all of his moderate positions on immigration and climate change, on healthcare he has endorsed a right-wing ideologue's vision: destroy employer-based coverage and turn Americans over to the tender mercies of private nongroup insurers in an unregulated environment. It's a prescription for disaster.

Obama and Biden may share that assessment of McCain's plan, as their ad says. But the ad's main criticism rests on distorting McCain's words rather than evaluating an actual component of his health care proposal.
– by Lori Robertson and Brooks Jackson

Sources:
McCain, John. "Better Care for Lower Cost for Every American." Contingencies, Sept./Oct. 2008.

Editorial. "World apart on healthcare." Boston Globe, 21 Sept. 2008.

Meckler, Laura and Nick Timiraos. "Crisis Draws Attention to McCain Social Security Plan," 22 Sept. 2008.

Balz, Dan. "McCain Health-Care Article Fuels New Clash Over Economy." Washington Post, 21 Sept. 2008.


Obama has misrepresented some of McCain's votes on school funding as votes for cutting education spending. In fact, of the five votes the Obama ad lists, one was for an increase in school funding (just a smaller one than Democrats wanted) and four others were against increases and not for spending cuts.

School Funding Misleads
September 11, 2008
An Obama ad plays fast and loose with McCain's voting record on education and proposals as a presidential candidate.

Summary:
A new Obama-Biden ad includes misleading claims about McCain and education spending:
It says McCain "voted to cut education funding" and lists five votes. But one was a vote for increased education funding, although for fewer dollars than what Democrats may have wanted. And three others were votes against additional funding, not votes for funding cuts.

The ad says that "McCain's economic plan gives $200 billion more to special interests while taking money away from public schools." Not exactly. McCain has proposed a one-year freeze on discretionary spending in general. A freeze would mean that funds would not keep pace with inflation and population growth, but no dollars would be "taken away." The $200 billion for "special interests" refers to the cost of McCain's proposal to reduce the tax rate for all business corporations, not just a few "special" ones.

The ad says McCain proposed abolishing the Department of Education. He did once say in an interview that he "would certainly favor" abolishing both the departments of Education and Energy, but he hasn't pushed for either.

Analysis:
On Sept. 9, Obama gave a speech on education in Ohio, and his campaign released a new attack ad.

Distorting the Vote Record
The Obama ad says that McCain "voted to cut education funding" and lists five Senate votes. But only one of the five meets that description, and even then, the vote requires further explanation.

In 1995, McCain voted for a Republican budget resolution for fiscal year 1996 that would have reduced education spending from the previous year. But education was not the only budget item targeted. The resolution was actually one in a series of appropriations bills for departments ranging from Health and Human Services to the Department of Energy, and in each measure, the Newt Gingrich-led Republicans tried to reduce funding from the previous year's level. President Bill Clinton refused to sign any of the measures, and the government was shutdown for a time.

Besides that vote to actually cut funding, the ad lists three votes against increased funding for the Department of Education. In the past, we've criticized Republicans for falsely attacking Obama on voting for tax increases when he actually voted against tax cuts. Obama's ad applies the same faulty logic. Voting against an increase is notably different from voting for a funding cut.

Obama-Biden Ad:
"New Kind"
Narrator: When they grow up, will the economy be strong enough? Barack Obama understands what it takes: make America number one in education again. John McCain doesn't understand. John McCain voted to cut education funding. Against accountability standards. He even proposed abolishing the Department of Education. And John McCain's economic plan gives $200 billion more to special interests while taking money away from public schools. We can't afford more of the same.
Obama: I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.

Those three votes were:
A vote McCain cast against an amendment to the 2006 budget resolution to increase discretionary education funding by $500 million. It passed anyway, and McCain voted for the final bill.
A vote against an amendment to the 2001 budget resolution that would have repealed tax cuts worth $250 billion in order to increase education funding. It passed anyway, and, again McCain voted for the final bill.
A vote against an amendment in 2001 to add $250 million to Title I funding for struggling schools. The measure failed.

Finally, the Obama campaign points to McCain's vote in 2000 for the next year's education appropriations bill, saying in their ad backup that it "underfunded" the department. But that legislation, which was signed into law by President Clinton, was a spending increase from the previous year.

Like Candy from a Baby?
The ad also says, "John McCain's economic plan gives $200 billion more to special interests while taking money away from public schools." But that's misleading.

To start, McCain's plan doesn't include any specific cuts to education programs and funding. Rather, he has proposed an across-the-board "freeze [of] non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year." So education grants, as well as all sorts of other government programs like farm subsidies and NASA projects, would not receive their annual funding increase for one year. Some would argue that a freeze is actually a cut when you factor in the effect of inflation. And others would go further and say it's a cut if the money had been projected by an earlier budget.

Indeed, the Obama campaign provided us with an analysis done by the Tennessee affiliate of the National Education Association that demonstrated the difference in funding between a freeze and the anticipated increase from the previous year's budget. To the NEA Tennessee branch, a freeze is a cut. But even if one agrees with that, McCain's proposal to freeze the entire discretionary budget is different from a proposal to specifically "take money away from public schools," as the ad says. No dollars are being "taken away."

The "$200 billion to special interests" line is actually a new version of an old attack. It refers to the total cost, over five years, of McCain's proposal to lower the corporate tax rate. The Tax Policy Center's analysis of McCain's plan estimates a $200 billion loss of revenue over the next five years. We've criticized the Obama campaign previously for unfairly implying that McCain's plan would give tax breaks targeted to "oil companies." In this case, the campaign calls a change in taxes on all businesses a giveaway to "special interests." But the corporate tax rate is paid by any incorporated entity, a group that includes restaurant owners, garage mechanics and other small businesses that we suspect few would call a "special interest."

Burn It All Down
The ad claims that McCain "proposed abolishing the Department of Education." Not exactly. He didn't formally propose such a move as much as it was an offhand suggestion, and that department wasn't the only one he mentioned.

In December 1994, shortly after the Republicans captured control of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years, there was much discussion about shrinking the size of government and how Congress could do that. McCain had this exchange with CNN's Frank Sesno on the topic:
Frank Sesno: Senator McCain, would you favor doing away with the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Department of Energy?

Sen. John McCain: I would certainly favor doing away with the Department of Energy and I think that given the origins of the Department of Education, I would favor doing away with it as well.

We couldn't find any other record of McCain mentioning this idea, and the quote is the only support the Obama campaign provided for its claim. Saying McCain "proposed" abolishing the department, as if it were a legislative initiative, is misleading.
– by Justin Bank

Sources:
Sesno, Frank. "The Late Edition." CNN, 11 Dec 1994.

Burman, Len, et al. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans." Tax Policy Center, Revised 15 Aug 2008.

"Fiscal & Per Capita Impact of McCain's Proposal to Freeze Discretionary Spending." Tennessee Education Association.

Obama's False Response
Obama's ad claims that McCain is “running on a platform to ban abortion even in cases of rape and incest” is false.

McCain for years made clear that he would allow abortions in cases of rape or incest and to protect the life of the mother as well. You can see our Ask FactCheck item on the subject for more details. McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin, supports banning abortion except when necessary to save the life of the mother.

The ad refers to "a platform," but the official Republican Party platform is actually silent on the question of exceptions. It calls for a “human life amendment to the Constitution” but does not specify how such an amendment would be worded. It contains no references at all to exceptions for rape or incest, either to rule them in or to rule them out. And in any case, McCain's own position is clear, and contrary to what the Obama ad claims.

The ad also misrepresents the BornAliveTruth.org ad's sponsorship. Obama's ad quotes newspaper articles that call McCain's attack ads "sleazy" and "vile," and then shows frames from the Jessen ad. But the Jessen ad is not McCain's. It's sponsored by BornAliveTruth.org. The McCain campaign committed a similar misattribution recently; it ran an ad pinning Internet rumors about Sarah Palin on Obama's campaign, without any evidence to back that up.
–by Jess Henig, with Justin Bank

Sources:
Illinois 92nd General Assembly. SB 1095, 22 Feb. 2001.

Illinois 92nd General Assembly. SB 1662, 30 Jan. 2002.

Illinois 93rd General Assembly. SB 1083, 19 Feb. 2003.

Illinois 94th General Assembly. HB 0984, 3 Feb. 2005.

Illinois Compiled Statutes. "Illinois Abortion Law of 1975." Accessed 17 Sep. 2008.

107th United States Congress. "Born Alive Infants Protection Act," 23 Jan. 2002.

Planned Parenthood of Illinois. "History of 'Born Alive' Infant Legislation in Illinois." Accessed 17 Sep. 2008.

Bolisetty, Srinivas et al. "Preterm outcome table (POT): A simple tool to aid counselling parents of very preterm infants." Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 16 May 2006.


Obama's Stem Cell Spinning
September 30, 2008
His radio ad is wrong: McCain still supports federal funding for stem cell research.

Summary:
An Obama-Biden radio ad hammers McCain for being opposed to stem cell research. Not true. Meanwhile two spots from the McCain-Palin campaign, together with the Republican National Committee, describe McCain's support for the research; they're largely accurate.

By saying that "John McCain has stood in the way – he's opposed stem cell research," the Obama ad seriously misstates the view that McCain has held on this issue since 2001, when he began backing embryonic stem cell research, a position that was out of step with that of many of his fellow Republicans.

Analysis:
We first noticed that stem cell research had become a subject of campaign radio ads when Sen. John McCain and the Republican National Committee released one on Sept. 12 touting his support for it. Then Sen. Barack Obama came back with his own ad, saying that "John McCain has stood in the way – he's opposed stem cell research." McCain and the RNC countered with yet another, this time taking the Obama campaign to task for its ad.

Republican National Committee Ad: "Stem Cell"
Announcer: They're the original mavericks. Leaders. Reformers. Fighting for real change.
John McCain will lead his congressional allies to improve America's health.
Stem cell research to unlock the mystery of cancer, diabetes, heart disease. Stem cell research to help free families from the fear and devastation of illness. Stem cell research to help doctors repair spinal cord damage, knee injuries, serious burns. Stem cell research to help stroke victims.
And, John McCain and his congressional allies will invest millions more in new NIH medical research to prevent disease. Medical breakthroughs to help you get better, faster.
Change is coming. McCain-Palin and congressional allies. The leadership and experience to really change Washington and improve your health.
Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee.
McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.What'd We Miss?

McCain has been known for supporting federally funded stem cell research since 2001, so his first ad didn't ring any alarm bells with us. It touted McCain's support for "stem cell research to unlock the mystery of cancer, diabetes, heart disease."

Obama's ad did set sirens off, however. McCain "stood in the way" and "opposed stem cell research"? Maybe we'd missed something.

McCain didn't mention embryonic stem cell research in his ad, a subject that has put him at odds with some in his party, including President George W. Bush (though, notably, not former First Lady Nancy Reagan, whom he credited with helping to change his stance back in '01). Was he now in favor of using only adult stem cell lines for research, and had he done something to "stand in the way" of other options?

Nope. It turns out nothing much has changed at all. In 2004, McCain was one of 14 GOP members of Congress who signed a letter to Bush asking him to lift restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, citing its potential to lead to treatments or cures for deadly and crippling diseases and conditions. In 2006, he was one of 19 Republicans to vote for federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, a bill that Bush vetoed. The bill allowed use only of embryos that were frozen or slated for destruction anyway by fertility clinics. There was a similar vote in 2007, in which McCain voted the same way.

McCain's response to a question about funding embryonic stem cell research at an MSNBC Republican candidate debate in 2007 was strongly supportive.


Q: Would you expand federal funding of embryonic stem cell research?
McCain (May 3, 2007): I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering. It's a tough issue. I support federal funding.

And now? The McCain-Palin campaign's Web site says the ticket supports embryonic stem cell research, but not the creation of embryos for that purpose, which is right in line with previous statements he's made.

Obama-Biden Ad: "Stem Cell"
Obama: I'm Barack Obama, candidate for president, and I approve this message.
Jody Montgomery: My name is Jody Montgomery and my daughter Maddy was diagnosed with Type I Juvenile Diabetes at age three. Six times a day, I take her blood. Six times a day, I pray for a cure. Researchers are working hard to do just that. Our best hope is stem cell research, and that's why we support Barack Obama.
Announcer: Stem cell research could unlock cures for diabetes, cancer and Alzheimer's too. But John McCain has stood in the way – he's opposed stem cell research. Picked a running mate who's against it. And he's running on a platform even more extreme than George Bush's on this vital research. John McCain doesn't understand that medical research benefiting millions shouldn't be held hostage by the political views of a few.
Montgomery: For Maddy and millions of others, stem cell research can unlock cures. Barack Obama understands that. But John McCain just doesn't.
Announcer: Paid for by Obama for America

McCain-Palin site: John McCain opposes the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. To that end, Senator McCain voted to ban the practice of "fetal farming," making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes.

McCain elaborated in an answer he gave Science Debate 2008, a group whose members include numerous Nobel laureates, elected officials, university presidents and others, when it asked him for his position on "government regulation and funding of stem cell research":
McCain (Sept. 15): While I support federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, I believe clear lines should be drawn that reflect a refusal to sacrifice moral values and ethical principles for the sake of scientific progress. Moreover, I believe that recent scientific breakthroughs raise the hope that one day this debate will be rendered academic. I oppose the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes and I voted to ban the practice of “fetal farming,” making it a federal crime for researchers to use cells or fetal tissue from an embryo created for research purposes.

Will It Cure Lame Back-Up Disease?
To substantiate its claim that McCain "opposed" and "stood in the way" of stem cell research, the Obama-Biden campaign offers support that can charitably be described as inadequate. The campaign cites an article that describes McCain's meeting with a group of Christian conservative leaders. The article quotes some participants as saying "they were impressed that he seemed open" to the points made by one of the nation's leading opponents of embryonic stem cell research. But the article also said McCain "did not offer any indication he would change his mind."

The Obama camp also cites two articles saying that religious conservatives weren't enthusiastic about McCain in part because of his position on the issue, and another describing Republican Rep. Mike Castle's concern that McCain could flip due to pressure from the evangelical wing of the party. Castle is a strong proponent of federal backing of embryonic stem cell research.

We'd say that the Obama campaign's arguments add up to pretty weak tea, but that would be a slight to the popular and storied beverage.

McCain-Palin/ Republican National Committee Ad: "Stem Cell Response"
Announcer: Barack Obama and his congressional allies’ stem cell attacks are simply not true. Leading news organizations call their attacks “misleading.” “Out of bounds.” “Manhandling the truth.” “Wrong.”
The truth? John McCain and his congressional allies fought FOR stem cell research. They stood up and said stem cell research was too important for you and your family.
Stem cell research will help unlock the mystery of cancer, diabetes and heart disease. It will allow scientists to explore treatment for Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Stem cell research will help free families from the fear and devastation of illness.
Change is coming. McCain-Palin and congressional allies. The leadership and experience to change Washington and improve your health.
Paid for by McCain-Palin 2008 and the Republican National Committee.
McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

It's also true that the Republican platform calls for a ban on any research experimentation on human embryos, regardless of whether the embryos were scheduled for destruction or not:
Republican Platform, 2008: We call for a ban on human cloning and for a ban on the creation of or experimentation on human embryos for research purposes.

Despite all the sturm-und-drang that goes into cobbling together a party platform, the truth is that it doesn't dictate a candidate's positions or how he will govern if elected.

In this set of ads, the misimpressions created by the Obama-Biden ad are far worse than the passing blip in the McCain-Palin/RNC spots. The Democrats' ad should be shelved in a closet and hauled out only if McCain really does change his position on stem cell funding. So far, that's not the case.
–by Viveca Novak

Sources:
California Republican Debate Transcript, MSNBC, 3 May 2007.

Addressing the Moral Concerns of Advanced Technology, McCain-Palin 2008 Web site, accessed 29 September 2008.

McCain Statement on Stem Cell Research, United States Senate Web site of Sen. John McCain, 18 July 2006.

John McCain's answers to the top 14 science questions facing America, Science Debate 2008 Web site, 15 Sept. 2008.

Wallsten, Peter and Bob Drogin. "McCain Seeks to Reassure Conservatives in Ohio," Los Angeles Times, 27 June 2008.

Alaska Gubernatorial Debate, C-Span Video Library, 2 Nov. 2006.

Young, Jeffrey. "Stem Cell Backers Doubt McCain's Support," The Hill, 12 Aug. 2008.

Wereschagin, Mike. "Democratic Candidates Try to Reach Religious Voters," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 13 April 2008.

Youngman, Sam. "Religious right leader says McCain has ‘work to do’ to win evangelicals," The Hill, 12 March 2008.


Obama's Trade Trickery
September 26, 2008
An Obama ad implies that a Pennsylvania plant sent jobs overseas and says that McCain is to blame. That's wrong.

Summary:
An Obama-Biden ad ties McCain to the closing of a plant in Pennsylvania. Its assertions are misleading and false:

The ad says McCain "sold ... out" workers whose factory closed. But there was nothing McCain, or anyone could have done. The factory was making parts for televisions that are becoming obsolete. The company in question has called the ad "misleading."

It implies jobs were sent to China by saying that workers were paid to "disassemble the plant and ship the equipment to China" and that McCain "supported tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas." But the only things shipped to China were the parts.

It's misleading to imply that McCain's support for the tax code in question is to blame for companies sending jobs overseas, as we've said before. The Obama-Biden campaign refers to a dynamic of U.S. tax code that allows companies to defer paying corporate income taxes on money they earn overseas and leave overseas. But the relationship to lost jobs is tenuous.

Analysis:
The Obama-Biden campaign is running an ad that tells the story of the closing of a Corning plant in Pennsylvania and alleges Sen. John McCain was involved. But this story is a tall tale.

Technology Killed the TV Plant
Sen. Barack Obama earlier used the Corning plant as grist for mailers against Sen. Hillary Clinton during their heated primary contest. The liberal Talking Points Memo said then that the implication in the attack was wrong. We don't see any difference this time around.

Obama-Biden Ad: Sold Out
Obama: I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.
Announcer: Corning shuts down it's plant in Pennsylvania. Hundreds lose their jobs. Then the workers are rehired to disassemble the plant and ship the equipment to China. Washington sold them out with the help of people like John McCain. He supported tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. And voted against cracking down on China for unfair trade practices. We can't afford more of the same. The ad says a Corning manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania closed and "hundreds los(t) their jobs. Then the workers are rehired to disassemble the plant and ship the equipment to China." That's all correct. But then the ad goes astray by saying that "Washington sold them out with the help of people like John McCain."

When the plant closed in 2004, it wasn't politicians or trade practices that "sold them out." Rather, the culprit is that unforgiving foe: new technology. The plant was closed because it made cathode ray tubes, which are used in conventional televisions. But the cathode ray tube is a dying technology, and Corning no longer makes it. Conventional TVs are being displaced by new plasma and LCD televisions as the prices of these products decrease.

The Corning company itself is displeased with the ad, because of its implication that American jobs were sent abroad. The ad says that workers shipped "the equipment" to China (that's true) but adds that McCain's involvement was that he "supported tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas." Corning spokeswoman Kelli Hopp-Michlosky told us the ad is "misleading":

Hopp-Michlosky: The ad's facts themselves are true, but are presented out of context so that the underlining message is misleading. Corning closed a plant, and a business altogether and we know longer make CRTs. Yes the parts were taken down and sold to a manufacturer in China, but we have learned that the company lost funding and those parts have never been used to create more CRTs or jobs.

Local Pennsylvania news stations have noted the false implication of the ad as well. Hopp-Michlosky told NBC affiliate WETM that Corning has contacted the Obama campaign "expressing our displeasure and presenting all the facts so they see how misleading the ad appears. We will continue to speak with them on this."

Tax Breaks for Outsourcing?
The Corning ad repeats a claim Obama has made frequently, for example, in an ad called "Shaky Economy," which has run in nearly a dozen states this month. It says that McCain supports "tax breaks for companies that export jobs." But no matter where or how many times it's said, it is still misleading.

Obama-Biden Ad: Shaky Economy
Obama: I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.
Woman 1: The economy is very, very shaky.
Woman 2: In just my own neigborhood, I've seen two foreclosures.
Man 1: McCain's policies are the same (inaudible) of President Bush
Narrator: Bush-McCain Economics: Tax breaks for companies that export jobs, but nothing for 100 million households. A plan to privatize social security. Cutting benefits and piling up debt.
Man 1: I can't understand why we would want four more years of this.
Woman 2: It's the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.To start, the Obama campaign is referring to a long-standing aspect of the federal tax code that allows U.S.-based multinational corporations to defer paying U.S. corporate taxes on profits made overseas if the profits are left there, too.

McCain cast three votes against amendments to budget and spending bills that the amendments' Democratic sponsors said were intended to address this, in 1995, 2004, and 2005.

But this tax provision isn't the main reason companies decide to set up shop abroad.

Back in 2004 when we criticized John Kerry for using a similar iteration of this claim against President Bush, we pointed out that Christian Weller, a senior fellow at the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress, had said taxes "are a very small part" of companies' decisions to move jobs offshore. Those at a 2005 Brookings Institution summit on trade also said taxes had little to do with outsourcing. Joel Slemrod, a tax expert at the University of Michigan's business school, summed it up by saying: "For those who see [offshoring] as a problem, this is not a solution."

During the Democratic Primary, we found Obama and Hillary both using this claim as a piñata. And our colleagues at Politifact.com found Joe Biden peddling it on the campaign trail.
– by Justin Bank

Sources:
"Cathode-Ray-Tube TV Format Dying Slow, Quiet Death," AP. 23 Oct 2006.

Graham, Katie. "Corning Inc. blasts Obama ad." NBC Affiliate WETM 18. 18 Sept. 2008


Out of Context on Health Care
September 22, 2008
Obama ad twists McCain's words on health care "deregulation."

Summary
An Obama-Biden ad falsely claims McCain says he wants to "do the same to our health care" that "Wall Street deregulation" has done to the banking industry.

The ad relies on a single phrase from a journal article under McCain's byline, in which he said he would reduce regulation of health insurance "as we have done over the last decade in banking." But the full context reveals that McCain was referring narrowly to his proposal to allow people to purchase health insurance across state lines.

Analysis
The Obama-Biden campaign released the ad Sept. 22 and said it will air on national cable TV networks. It claims that McCain said he would "reduce oversight of the health insurance industry ... just 'as we have done over the last decade in banking.' " But the ad takes the comments out of context, failing to explain what exactly McCain meant by the comparison to banking. He was talking specifically about allowing the sale and purchase of health insurance plans across state lines.

Obama-Biden Ad: "Article"
Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.
Announcer: We’ve seen what Bush-McCain policies have done to our economy. Now John McCain wants to do the same to our health care. McCain just published an article praising Wall Street deregulation. Said he’d reduce oversight of the health insurance industry, too. Just "as we have done over the last decade in banking." Increasing costs and threatening coverage. "A prescription for disaster." John McCain, a risk we just can’t afford to take.McCain's words come from an article under his byline in the September/October issue of "Contingencies," a journal of the American Academy of

Actuaries. Here's what the McCain article actually said, in full context:
McCain: I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition, as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation. Consumer-friendly insurance policies will be more available and affordable when there is greater competition among insurers on a level playing field. You should be able to buy your insurance from any willing provider—the state bureaucracies are no better than national ones. Nationwide insurance markets that ensure broad and vigorous competition will wring out excess costs, overhead, and bloated executive compensation.

Note that McCain began by speaking of buying insurance "across state lines." His comparison with banking regulation was limited to "opening up the insurance market" to "nationwide" competition to "provide more choices" to consumers.

McCain has in fact touted this aspect of his health care plan for months. His Web page on health care prominently says:

McCain health care plan: An important part of his plan is to use competition to improve the quality of health insurance with greater variety to match people's needs, lower prices, and portability. Families should be able to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines.

Obama used this misleading accusation on the campaign trail over the weekend. In Daytona Beach, Florida, on Sept. 20, Obama said: "So let me get this straight – he wants to run health care like they've been running Wall Street."

The analogy to banking in the article was poorly timed, given recent financial events, though it's likely it was written well before Wall Street's crisis reached its climax last week. McCain senior adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin complained to reporters that Obama misunderstood what McCain meant: "If Barack Obama thinks that today's financial troubles were caused by policies which allowed Americans to use an ATM anywhere in this country, then it is better that he continue to be silent about solutions to the crisis on Wall Street," he said. Holtz-Eakin told the Wall Street Journal that the article was talking about provisions that allowed for banking across state lines, which were approved in 1995 – not "over the last decade," as the article said.

Obama adviser Jason Furman said that it seemed to him that McCain was referencing 2004 rules that, the Journal reported, "pre-empted state banking regulations and that, [Furman] argues, helped bring on the current financial meltdown." McCain did not cite specific legislation. But it is clear he was comparing such regulations to his proposal to allow the sale of health insurance across state lines.

We’d also note that this was not "an article praising Wall Street deregulation," as the ad says. Wall Street itself is never mentioned, and the only reference to banking or the financial industry is that one line about regulation over the past decade.

This ad reminds us of another by the Democratic National Committee that took McCain's comments out of context. That ad charged that McCain wanted to stay in Iraq for 100 years, but his full remarks showed that he was talking about a peaceful presence in the country, much like U.S. troops' presence in Japan or South Korea, two examples McCain used in his remarks. McCain said staying in Iraq for a hundred years "would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." The DNC left that part of the quote out of the ad.

An Accurate Quote
The Obama-Biden ad ends by calling McCain's plan "a prescription for disaster," as those words, credited to the Boston Globe, flash on screen. Unlike the first quote cited in the ad, this one is accurate. It comes from a Sept. 21 Globe editorial that compared McCain's and Obama's health care plan, raising objections to McCain's. Here's the quote in context:
Globe editorial (Sept. 21): There is no comparable lab test, however, for the radical revision of healthcare that McCain is proposing. For all of his moderate positions on immigration and climate change, on healthcare he has endorsed a right-wing ideologue's vision: destroy employer-based coverage and turn Americans over to the tender mercies of private nongroup insurers in an unregulated environment. It's a prescription for disaster.

Obama and Biden may share that assessment of McCain's plan, as their ad says. But the ad's main criticism rests on distorting McCain's words rather than evaluating an actual component of his health care proposal.
– by Lori Robertson and Brooks Jackson

Sources:
McCain, John. "Better Care for Lower Cost for Every American." Contingencies, Sept./Oct. 2008.

Editorial. "World apart on healthcare." Boston Globe, 21 Sept. 2008.

Meckler, Laura and Nick Timiraos. "Crisis Draws Attention to McCain Social Security Plan," 22 Sept. 2008.

Balz, Dan. "McCain Health-Care Article Fuels New Clash Over Economy." Washington Post, 21 Sept. 2008.