Tax Deceptions August 8, 2008 McCain misrepresents Obama's tax proposals again. And again, and again. Factcheck.org McCain has released three new ads, with a number of false and misleading claims about Obama's tax proposals. A TV spot claims Obama once voted for a tax increase "on people making just $42,000 a year." That's true for a single taxpayer, who would have seen a tax increase of $15 for the year – if the measure had been enacted. But the ad shows a woman with two children, and as a single mother, she would not have been affected unless she made more than $62,150. The increase that Obama once supported as part of a Democratic budget bill is not part of his current tax plan anyway. A Spanish-language radio ad claims the measure Obama supported would have raised taxes on "families" making $42,000, which is simply false. Even a single mother with one child would have been able to make $58,650 without being affected. A family of four with income up to $90,000 would not have been affected. The TV ad claims in a graphic that Obama would "raise taxes on middle class." In fact, Obama's plan promises cuts for middle-income taxpayers and would increase rates only for persons with family incomes above $250,000 or with individual incomes above $200,000. The radio ad claims Obama would increase taxes "on the sale of your home." In fact, home-sale profits of up to $500,000 per couple would continue to be exempt from capital gains taxes. Very few sales would see an increase under Obama's proposal to raise the capital gains rate. A second radio ad, in English, says, "Obama has a history of raising taxes" on middle-class Americans. But that's false. It refers to a vote that did not actually result in a tax increase and could not have done so. These ads continue what's become a pattern of misrepresentation by the McCain campaign about his opponent's tax proposals. Some of McCain's previous false claims: McCain falsely claimed Obama's plan would increase taxes on 23 million small-business owners, when the vast majority of them would get a cut. Any increase would actually fall only on the most affluent, a few hundred thousand business owners. McCain falsely claimed Obama "says he'll raise taxes on electricity," though Obama has said no such thing and his tax plan contains no proposal for a tax on electricity. As noted already, McCain falsely claimed Obama once voted for a Democratic budget bill that called for raising taxes on persons making as little as $32,000 a year, when in fact the proposal would not have affected anyone with total income under $41,500 a year, or $83,000 for a married couple with no children. McCain stated that Obama would raise taxes "if you have an investment for your child’s education or own a mutual fund or a stock in a retirement plan." This was found to be "false" by Politifact.com and Factcheck.org. McCain has been twisting Obama tax facts since early June, when he told a small-business gathering that : "Under Senator Obama's tax plan, Americans of every background would see their taxes rise." There may be persons of "every background" among the affluent, but McCain's phrasing was misleading. These ads continue his long-running pattern of deception on taxes.

Here's an interesting story I found about media favoritism between the candidates: http://www.alternet.org/election08/88101/?ses=cb6420ea57b8d6b867a64c23e1a02476

I read the recent entry on Obamamamaniacs tonight and immediately started to wonder: had I really misread conservative responses to mentions about Senator Obama? The author presents them as so reasonable and amiably presented and yet, that has not been my experience. Of course, Obamamamaniacs is an imagined conversation, drawn from what the author says is true life experience. I don’t trust my memory or interpretation that much, so I tried an experiment. I decided to compare actual written conservative responses to stories dealing primarily with Obama and stories dealing with McCain. I chose the overall issue of attack ads because everyone agrees, attack ads only degrade our political dialogue by misleading, misconstruing or lying about a candidate. Since we all feel this way, I felt certain that when presented with an attack ad against Senator Obama or Senator McCain, the overall response would be the same: immediate recognition of the dirty tricks used against the candidate and a complete refusal to be manipulated by the misuse of information. Sadly, conservatives in my experiment did not live up to the high-minded ideal of the Obamamamaniacs fiction… turns out, real conservatives quite accurately support the mob mentality they love to depict in their posts and don't apply the same standard to an attack ad against Obama that they do to one against McCain: # 1 From May 26 “Fool me once” “The ad is a product of Vets for Freedom. They call themselves "a nonpartisan organization established by combat veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan." This wounded veteran featured has a scathing message for Barack Obama. The Vets for Freedom's mission is to "educate the American public about the importance of achieving success in these conflicts by applying our first-hand knowledge to issues of American strategy and tactics in Iraq," and they "support policymakers from both sides of the aisle who have stood behind our great generation of American warriors on the battlefield, and who have put long-term national security before short-term partisan political gain." The organization is a PAC… A PAC raises and spends limited "hard" money contributions specifically for electing or defeating candidates. Organizations that raise soft money for issue advocacy may also set up a PAC. Most PACs represent business (like Microsoft) labor (like the Teamsters) or ideological interests (Emily's List or the NRA). Do you think there's any difference in result between the efforts of a 527 and a PAC? Even though a 527 can't expressly advocate for a candidate, could the outcome be the same? Should they have to abide by the same rules as a PAC?” RESPONSES: 1) Obama hasn't been to Iraq in over 2 years??? While I don't like these types of ads, he does make a valid point 2) I was more suprised that Obama hasn't met with Petraeus ever. I guess it's easy to cling to the "It's not working" strategy when you refuse to be updated by the people who actually see the whole picture, and not just the media. 3) I think that certain aspects of the situation in IRAQ go highly underreported. There are many soldiers there that think that they are making a difference. There are people that volunteer to go back. They are building infrastructure and turning electricity on. Providing protection and learning to respect the people they are protecting. I go back and forth with my opinion of if we should leave, but I do wish that more sides of this issue were shown in the popular media. 4) As far as not meeting with these specific soldiers, I think the point is that he is their senator. If he won't even meet with politically active veterans from the relatively small group that he is supposed to represent as a senator, will he make a good commander in chief? 5) As ____said, I'm less concerned about his not meeting with Gen Petraeus one on one. It would be great to see him making an extra effort to have contact with people that have a lot of influence over a war he will effectively be running if elected. But, it's not as if he has completely avoided them. 6) Actually, you know what would be of even greater concern to me...? If he has met with veterans who now oppose the war, yet refused to meet with his own constituents who support the war. That would be of greater concern to me than his not meeting with Gen Petraeus. 6) I wonder if they did this ad as a response to the moveon.org ad... 7) what scares me is the fact that a candidate who has such a strong opposition on the war, and who may be the next PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES in less than half a year, has NEVER met with the General commanding the WAR we are in! That is ludicrous! 8) I also was reminded of the Swiftboat ads. However, if it's true, it's worth mentioning. 9) sorry, but publicly asking questions versus sitting down and having a PERSONAL conversation differ GREATLY. 10) and its not about "wasting resources" when it comes to visiting iraq. its just for extra safety, which is worth going over there for. Talking to the people, the soliders, the citizens...seeing what its like...going to the place where war actually takes place is EXTREMELY important whether you are "wasting resources" or not. And its up to Obama whether he wants a "photo op" or not. But not everyone goes to Iraq for one. For god sakes, even Angelina Jolie has been there, and by her going there, she said that she got to talk to iraqi citizens who said the surge was helping! Many have visited, and there is no excuse. 11) p.s. there is very little "racist hype" against Obama in the media versus the extreme favoritism the media has for him. Unless you haven't been listening to the news, almost all of them but Fox news has been trying to protect Obama. So he's had a bunch of lee way when it comes to all of this. 12) I didn't realize Obama hadn't been to Iraq since taking office. How can anyone make an informed decision on anything without gathering facts first hand? 13) also, its really low to expect a senator to drop everything and meet with you if you show up? i agreee but is it low to do that to a president and then refuse to leave and camp out for months outside his residence? i would think so but there are many people (not you specifically ____ )who would disagree based on politics. i would not be surprised in the least if we see an obama trip to iraq in the next few weeks... its not like he really needs to campaign more for right now. 14) Those other president "wannabes" didn't go to Iraq, but they also didn't get the nomination, and Barak is the Imminent DNC nominee. I would like to see him transfer to more Presidential duties, like getting the lowdown on Iraq in a private session with the person responsible for the goings on in Iraq, General Petreaus. 15) "the guy cant win in the arena of public opinion". LMAO! Poor old Obama getting shafted by the world. I really pity him... June 09, 2008 – “We won’t be fooled again” (Anti-Obama Ad by “Willie Horton” creator) “You can't escape with a degree in political communications without becoming intimately involved with at least one of the trilogy of defining moments in campaign TV: The "Daisy" ad, the Checkers Speech, and the Dukasis downfall, Willie Horton. The man behind one of the ads about the furloughed felon-turned-rapist (not the slick ad, the um, more basic one) has brewed up a serving for the new millennium — and it's aimed right at Barack Obama. Pointing a finger at an Obama vote against extending the death penalty to gang-related murders, conservative activist and producer Floyd Brown is fund raising to get his encore ad on the airwaves. Currently running on his website ExposeObama.com, the ad aims to draw a parallel between Obama's crime vote and the war on terror saying, "when the time came to get tough, Obama chose to be weak. . . . Can a man so weak in the war on gangs be trusted in the war on terror?" Though presidents have little to do with issues of crime, safety is a theme that resonates with voters. To see Brown's thoughts on Obama, and the original Willie Horton ad, read more. Brown says: There are many, many different votes that Barack Obama has taken over the course of his state Senate career that are going to show him to be absolutely missing in action when it comes to the question of controlling violent crime. If he thinks it is not a significant issue, then he should talk to Michael Dukakis. Obama's campaign and others dispute the way the ad suggests that Obama's vote made him responsible for the gang-related deaths of three youths. FactCheck.org has called the death penalty ad "reprehensible misrepresentation." Obama recent record appears focused on addressing what he sees as the root causes of crime, including doing away with or modifying laws that set mandatory minimum sentences like those in drug cases. McCain has maintained a tough-on-crime position for decades, including strict sentencing and a focus on the rights of victims. Does this new ad pack heat — or is the connection drawn, tenuous at best? Will this "Horton" hear a who?” Responses: 1) First of all this is another are you for or against the death penalty issue. Being tough on gangs, rapists whatever is not hinged upon asserting the death penalty. This by the way has clearly proven over the decades that its deterrence of homicide has worked about as well as saying hey please don’t do that. You're either for it or against it and it has nothing to do with being tough on crime. Kamala Harris who is the San Francisco D.A. is opposed to the death penalty but don't think for a minute that she is weak towards crime. 2) The best way to combat this kind of message is to explain why he voted the way he did. Personally, I would want to know why Obama would vote against tougher penalties for hate crimes. 3) The death penalty isn't a deterrent because it takes so d___ long to carry out the sentence. If we carried out the sentences in a quick and effecient manner, gangs would take notice. 4) The point I think more so is the fact that if he can't help stop the gang wars that are going on out here {believe me, I live in the middle of a lot of it} how well will he handle the "war on terrorism"? 5) That's a good point uniko. I'd like to hear Obama's plans for the war on terror. June 13, 2008 “I hold myself to the same standards” “Actor John Cusack has filmed a fast and furious political TV ad, challenging viewers to explain how John McCain is any different than President George W. Bush. He brings up issues like the GI Bill, ties to war profiteers, and children's health care. Move On wants supporters to help raise $70,000 to put the ad in front of swing voters. Do you think John's message can influence swing voters? With President Bush's approval ratings at an all time low, will voters be able to form an opinion of Republican John McCain? I wonder why McCain doesn't do more to separate himself from Bush on the issues.” Responses: 1) On the topic at hand, talk about spreading lies and propaganda... way to go Cusack! You are dead to me, as Cab said, instead of your face cut at several angles behind colored backgrounds making. How about some truth, facts, data sh!t up! 2) oh and I pity the fool who is "influenced" by John's propagandistic message. 3) The same way that just by voting against that GI Bill, doesn't mean that McCain doesn't care about veterans or that he is equal to Bush. 4) John McCain only disagrees with Bush on spending, energy, climate change, and the management of the war... ... but yea, I'm sure they're the same. 5) Are you seriously suggesting that moveon.org isn't in the business of spreading propaganda? I mean, REALLY?! 6) (At the suggestion that there are conservative groups making similar ads) Oh I'm sure there are! I just haven't seen an ad for any yet and I'd be willing to bet my lunch money that there aren't any stars in them! (there aren’t any stars in them) 7) (My personal favorite:) I hope that when a dirty ad comes from the right we get to see it and make fun of it too! (Yes, the responders in 6 and 7 responded in the earlier threads – conservatives may want to reconsider trusting their memories) 8) But he's a 100 times different, that's the whole point. If you read up on his stances and the issues you'd see that. but if you just listen to cusack and take it all for fact, then you probably won't see that. 9) just to clear things up, I hope I didn't come across as saying we can't compare similarities, but I would hope we'd compare them with facts and context rather than little bits of info that can be construed in any which way. 10) I don't like this kind of spin in political commercials. It denegrates into mass hate all around. I guess this is the initial cannon shot to signify the beginning of the 527 war. Way to keep it above the board. 11) What is wrong with the ad in my opinion is that it delivers with ambiguity. It leaves one with the impression that Sen. McCain and President Bush are as I said in my first comment a carbon copy of each other, which couldn't be further from the truth. 12) Like I said I agree that it is a good commercial. It's just not an honest one. 13) The problem with this ad is it only tells have the story. It doesn't say anything about why McCain voted the way he did. Did he vote against the healthcare for children? Yes, because familes who made up to $80,000/year could qualify for said healthcare for their children. People who make that much, can afford their own healthcare. One thing I noticed in researching the responses: the conservatives never offer documentation to support their positions. We all also might want to consider using spell check more often.