Democrats: "Bush to Blame for Georgia"

You can tell when the democrats feel that they are losing on a particular issue when they resort to their old stand-by: "Blame Bush"

The link features Senator Daschle, but I heard the same line at least three times on various shows today. The line goes somethings like this:

"We've been focused too much on Iraq and not enough on these other issues. Obama would have focused on them and possibly prevented the invasion of Georgia."

This line might work for Americans who are hearing about the Georgia/Russia issue for the first time. Since they haven't heard of it before, it's easy to assume it must be new to the Bush administration as well. But of course the Bush administration has been involved in this situation, and doing the very diplomacy that Obama says he would have done. Additionally, McCain has talked consistently about this issue, so even if the Bush administration has been negligent, clearly McCain has not. Finally, this might be a good time to point out that the democrats have controlled congress for the past 1 1/2 years. What exactly have they done to prevent this?

Oh, but I ask too many questions. I forgot the talking points. If Obama was president, this never would have happened, and neither would have 9/11, hurricane Katrina, or the housing bubble.

Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin)

McCain: "The Taxman Cometh"

McCain released the latest in his series of celebrity ads (they must be working for him to keep making them):



This of course is not the first time that Republicans have made this claim. I did some research and it seems pretty clear to me that the tax increases Obama is proposing apply only to those making over 250 thousand dollars a year. He has even said that the proposed capital gains tax increase would only apply to those making over $250,000. Taxes is of course a complicated issue, so if the McCain camp has an explanation for how exactly Obama would raise taxes on the middle class, I'd like to hear it. However, I can find no such details. So to claim that "Obama's new taxes could break your family budget" seems misleading, unless of course McCain assumes most families make over $250,000.

With that said, I would not call this an outright lie. Here are some possible ways to salvage this message:

1) There is an argument to be made that increasing taxes on the rich will be harmful to the economy. That's a valid point to make, but this ad clearly is not taking that angle. It clearly implies that Obama will increase taxes on average Americans, not that the taxes will hurt average Americans indirectly.

2) Another possible saving grace for this ad is if one argues that Obama's past voting record indicates that he would raise taxes, despite what Obama might be saying now. That is another good point, but again this ad does not make that argument. It could have said, "Obama has voted for higher taxes" rather than making it appear as if Obama has promised he will raise taxes, which the phrase "Obama's new taxes" clearly implies.

3) Finally, it can also be argued that Obama's proposed increases in spending will necessitate higher taxes, regardless of what he might promise now. Again, that is a valid point. The problem, however, is that McCain has promised to eliminate the deficit in four years. He claims to be able to do that simply by curbing wasteful spending without tax increases, but that seems like a pipe dream to me. So if McCain doesn't have a solid plan to balance the budget, then he can't criticize Obama's tax plan for not being fiscally balanced either.

As if I need another reason to call him out, the memory of McCain scolding Romney for running a negative primary campaign makes these ads all the more bitter to the taste.

Wrong Rating: 2 out of 4 (misrepresentation)

McCain: "Countries Don't Just Invade Other Countries"

I recognize that each of us at times mis-articulates his position. "Mispeaking" is a fact of life, although the term is often abused and sometimes just means, "I said something I wish I didn't."

So, I try not to be too hard on politicians when they say one thing a little wrong, if I understand what they were trying to say based on other things they've said. I think sometimes we get carried away in the little things that trivialize the political debate. But with that said, I couldn't let this one slip by, as to my subjective ears, it seems this might be bordering on crossing from just "mispeaking" to "wrong". Decide for yourself:



Regardless of your opinion on the war on Iraq, you have to admit that sounds at least a bit hypocritical.

I'm sure he meant "Countries don't just invade other countries... unless they really want to."

Wrong Rating: 1 of out 4 (spin)

The Associated Press: "Most Troops Support Obama"

The associated press says:

Troops serving abroad have given nearly six times as much money to Obama's presidential campaign as they have to McCain's, the Center for Responsive Politics said Thursday.

That's pretty remarkable. I don't know if more troops support Obama or McCain (how much they give is just one piece of the puzzle), but 6 times more? Wow. But they leave it until the last line or the article, after wallowing in wonder over the astonishing number, to explain the details:

Among soldiers serving overseas at the time of their donations, 134 gave a total of $60,642 to Obama while 26 gave a total of $10,665 to McCain.

So, apparently we can extrapolate the political leanings of the entire military force oversees based on the contributions of 160 people. I'll wait to see an actual legitimate poll, thank you. The McCain campaign was right to say,

We feel confident that many U.S. troops stationed overseas will support John McCain in the election this fall, but we suspect most are too busy doing the important work of defending this country than to make political contributions.

Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin)

Pelosi: "Republicans Just Want to Drill"

Nancy Pelosi says that the problem with the Republican position is that they want to vote on drilling as a single measure. She says if they would present it as part of a comprehensive energy plan, she would allow a vote.



The problem with that is that Democrats said they would not allow an amendment to the energy bill they introduced, which would, in affect, have caused the bill to become a comprehensive bill that included drilling, which Pelosi now says would be acceptable. Huh?

Democrats love to argue that "we can't drill our way out of this problem." In doing so they set up a straw-man, and frankly I'm confused why the Republicans won't call them on it. It's true that drilling alone won't solve the problem. But the same argument can be made for every other energy source. That's why we need a comprehensive plan that includes every viable energy source. The Democrats pride themselves on championing such a plan, but the truth is that the Republican plan is actually more comprehensive, since it includes everything in the democratic plan, plus oil and nuclear energy.

Wrong Rating: 2 out of 4 (misrepresentation) -- Would have been higher except that Republicans don't seem eager to clear up the confusion.

McCain: "Obama's Energy Plan is Tire Pressure"

McCain, mocking Obama's comment that properly inflating tires would save as much oil as drilling would produce:



To suggest that properly inflating tires is Obama's entire energy plan (or even a significant part of it) goes beyond exaggeration to an outright lie.

Wrong Rating: 3 out of 4 (gross distortion)

Obama: "Fill Up Your Tires"

Obama on inflating your tires:



Even if this is true, the idea that every single American with low tire pressure is going to go and fill up their tires just because the president says they should is crazy. He may be right, but if it never happens then the oil is not saved. And in any case, why does this mean we can't drill? If we can save just as much oil by filling up are tires as we can by drilling, then why not do both and save oil while producing more at the same time? Why do we need to choose between the two?

Wrong Rating: 1 out of 4 (spin) -- I gave him some credit that what he's saying might technically be true, although irrelevant to the drilling debate.