0
   

McCain lies

 
 
DrewDad
 
  4  
Reply Tue 26 Aug, 2008 07:33 pm
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Heres the most interesting part of this whole thing.

Actually, I found the most interesting thing to be that the McCain camp had contingency attack ads for if Obama went, and for if Obama didn't go.

Edit: Oops. I missed a whole bunch of this thread.... <heads back to read>
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 09:53 am
@DrewDad,
Quote:
New McCain Ad Badly Distorts Obama's Words About Iran
By Greg Sargent - August 27, 2008, 10:11AM

The new McCain ad released this morning attacking Obama on Iran rips Obama's words out of context so egregiously that it amounts to a distortion at best and an outright smear at worst.

The ad's narrator says: "Obama says Iran is a 'tiny' country. 'Doesn't pose a serious threat.' Terrorism? Destroying Israel? Those aren't serious threats?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhH2q6h7_Ow

The quote where Obama supposedly said that Iran "doesn't pose a serious threat" was delivered by him on May 18, 2008, according to the date flashed by the ad itself.

But in juxtaposing that truncated quote with "terrorism" and "destroying Israel," the ad badly distorts what Obama actually said that day, and more broadly, also distorts Obama's position on Iran.

Here is the full May 18th Obama quote, as supplied by the McCain press release itself:

Quote:
"Strong countries and strong Presidents talk to their adversaries. That's what Kennedy did with Khrushchev. That's what Reagan did with Gorbachev. That's what Nixon did with Mao. I mean think about it. Iran, Cuba, Venezuela -- these countries are tiny compared to the Soviet Union. They don't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us. And yet we were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at the time when they were saying we're going to wipe you off the planet."


Very clearly, Obama didn't say that Iran doesn't pose any serious threat. Rather, he clearly said that Iran doesn't pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us.

What's more, Obama didn't simply say Iran was "tiny," as the ad suggests, in a clear effort to hoodwink viewers into thinking that Obama sees Iran as no threat at all. Rather, he said it was tiny compared to the Soviet Union.

These serious distortions are also at odds with Obama's actual positions on Iran. Obama has said that Iran is a threat to Israel.

For instance, on June 4, during a speech to AIPAC, Obama said: "There is no greater threat to Israel -- or to the peace and stability of the region -- than Iran."

Obama has also clearly said that Iran is a threat in the sense that it's liked to terrorism, despite the ad's suggestion that Obama doesn't see terror as a threat.

During his June 4th AIPAC speech, Obama said of Iran: "Its support for terrorism and threats toward Israel have increased."

Nothing like a bracing dose of lies to get your day off to a good start, huh?


http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/new_mccain_ad_badly_distorts_o.php
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Aug, 2008 12:16 pm
@sozobe,
Marc Ambinder... I thought the same when I read the above. Debated (for about 1 second) whether including the link to the video for the same reason.

Marc Ambinder wrote:
The McCain Ad Shell Game

27 Aug 2008 01:22 pm
McCain campaign airs provocatively misleading ads.

The press has a conundrum.

If we want to point out how misleading they are, we air the ad.

McCain's campaign wins the point.

If refuse to point out how misleading they are, McCain's campaign escapes criticism.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2008 09:28 am
Sarah Palin lies too...
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  3  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2008 08:10 am
McCain lies about Obama and nuclear power:

Quote:
GOING NUCLEAR.... Last week, in his acceptance speech, Barack Obama explained, "As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power." It was entirely consistent with the line Obama has taken throughout the campaign -- while Edwards took a firm stand against nuclear power, and Clinton was largely agnostic on the subject, Obama always expressed a degree of openness to the idea.

It's odd, then, that one of the major talking points from the McCain campaign is to attack Obama's "opposition" to nuclear power, despite the fact that Obama has said the opposite.

Last night, for example, John McCain explained in his acceptance speech:

"Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that."

This morning, on CBS News' "The Early Show," Steve Schmidt said the same thing:

"We need to drill for more oil here now. We need to build nuclear power plants. Senator Obama is against both and if you're against both, we will never be energy independent."
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Sun 7 Sep, 2008 08:14 am
McCain lies about Obama's health care plan:

Quote:
[In his speech at the RNC,] McCain often distorted Obama's views. He said Obama would raise taxes, when (just to repeat myself) Obama will raise taxes only on people making over $250,000 a year. Still, in that case, you can imagine a way in which you might make what he said out to be true, if you squint a bit: Obama will raise some taxes. But there's no way to make this out to be anything but a lie::

"His plan will force small businesses to cut jobs, reduce wages, and force families into a government-run health care system where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor."

Here's a link to Obama's health plan. If anyone can find the part about forcing anyone into a government-run health care system, I'll eat my hat. (Remember the controversy from the primaries about mandates, and how Obama didn't have them?)

link
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 07:06 am
McCain lies about Obama's education record:

hilzoy wrote:
Sex, Lies, And Videotape

The McCain campaign has a new ad out that says (among other things):

Quote:
"Obama's one accomplishment?

Legislation to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners.

Learning about sex before learning to read?

Barack Obama.

Wrong on education. Wrong for your family. "


John McCain: wrong on the facts. For starters, the bill is not a "legislative accomplishment": it never came up for a vote. If it had, and if it had passed, it would not have been Sen. Obama's "legislative accomplishment": he wasn't among its sponsors. It was passed out of his committee, and I believe he supported it, but as far as I can tell, that's the extent of his involvement with it.

More to the point, the bill in question requires that sex ed courses use medically accurate information. That is: any sex ed courses that are currently being taught have to be accurate. It requires that they be age-appropriate, which I think rules out explicit discussions of sex in kindergarten. It starts with an explicit opt-out clause:

Quote:
"(a) No pupil shall be required to take or participate in any class or course in comprehensive sex education if the pupil's parent or guardian submits written objection thereto, and refusal to take or participate in such course or program shall not be reason for suspension or expulsion of such pupil."


So why, you might ask, did kindergarten even come up in the bill? Well:

Quote:
"Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators."


Helping kids protect themselves from sexual predators by teaching them the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching. Horrors. And totally the same as teaching kindergarteners about sex.

I hope McCain is enjoying himself. It would be a shame for him to give up what remains of his honor without getting anything at all in return.


http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_09/014636.php

Cites in original.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  3  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 07:14 am
@nimh,
nimh wrote:

McCain lies about Obama and nuclear power:

Quote:
GOING NUCLEAR.... Last week, in his acceptance speech, Barack Obama explained, "As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power." It was entirely consistent with the line Obama has taken throughout the campaign -- while Edwards took a firm stand against nuclear power, and Clinton was largely agnostic on the subject, Obama always expressed a degree of openness to the idea.

It's odd, then, that one of the major talking points from the McCain campaign is to attack Obama's "opposition" to nuclear power, despite the fact that Obama has said the opposite.

Last night, for example, John McCain explained in his acceptance speech:

"Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power. But Americans know better than that."

This morning, on CBS News' "The Early Show," Steve Schmidt said the same thing:

"We need to drill for more oil here now. We need to build nuclear power plants. Senator Obama is against both and if you're against both, we will never be energy independent."



So, what is Obama's record on drilling and nuclear power? I see what the right has said here, but no mention of Obama's actual platform.
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 08:09 am
@McGentrix,
I think this might be what you are looking for.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm#Voting_Record

Here is McCain's.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Energy_+_Oil.htm#Voting_Record

This is all just FYI.
nimh
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 02:11 pm
A Republican strategist reveals the logic behind all the lies: "little facts don't really matter."

Quote:
John Feehery, a Republican strategist, said the campaign is entering a stage in which skirmishes over the facts are less important than the dominant themes that are forming voters' opinions of the candidates.

"The more the New York Times and The Washington Post go after Sarah Palin, the better off she is, because there's a bigger truth out there and the bigger truths are she's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent," Feehery said. "As long as those are out there, these little facts don't really matter."

That's from the WaPo, via the Washington Monthly.

The McCain campaign can get away with pumping out lies because the resulting skirmishes about "little facts" are doomed to be rearguard fights on page A17 anyway. And it can rationalise the lies by arguing that they're just insignificant means in the cause of the bigger truth. And what is the bigger truth in question, when it comes to Sarah Palin? "She's new, she's popular in Alaska and she is an insurgent." Does that sound completely devoid of substance to you? It does to me too.

But why should McCain sweat the lies? They work:

Quote:
or now, there appears to be little political reason to back down. A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken Sept. 5 to Sept. 7 found that 51 percent of voters think Obama would raise their taxes, even though his plan would actually cut taxes for the overwhelming majority of Americans. Obama has proposed eliminating income taxes on seniors making less than $50,000 a year, but 41 percent of those seniors say their income taxes would go up in an Obama administration.

People are buying the lies. Thanks also to the ever acquiescent media.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 02:14 pm
@nimh,
How often do campaign promises become reality Nimh? Especially in regards to taxes?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 02:15 pm
@FreeDuck,
Thank you, now excuse me, I have to read!
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 02:43 pm
@FreeDuck,
Ok, read through it.

First impression, On The Issues is a biased, Obama supporting site. On the Obama page, they discuss what McCain says about Obama and how it's refuted. On the McCain page, they discuss what McCain said about Obama and how it's refuted... So, I doubt they actually have all the facts. Most likely justthe ones that support the O-man.

But, that aside, lets look at the votes... well, I mean the votes they listed anyways. There are a lot more votes on McCain's page that for some reason (Like Obama may appear in a bad light if they showed his vote) during the same time they were both in the Senate.

One of the things that bothers me...

On Obama's page:
Quote:
GovWatch: $150B for electric car batteries & new technology
McCain released a Web ad saying that Obama opposes "innovation" in general and "the electric car" in particular. The claim is based solely on Obama's dismissal of McCain's proposal to award a $300 million prize for development of a battery package capabl of powering electric cars. Obama called McCain's approach a gimmick, but Obama was criticizing McCain for not going far enough.
Obama said, "I commend McCain for his desire to accelerate the search for a battery that can power the cars of the future. But I don't think a $300 million prize is enough. When John F. Kennedy decided that we were going to put a man on the moon, he didn't put a bounty out for some rocket scientist to win--he put the full resources of the US government behind the project and called on the ingenuity and innovation of the American people."

And far from saying "no to innovation," Obama has proposed spending $150 billion over 10 years to develop a variety of new energy technologies.


On McCain's Page:
Quote:
GovWatch: No, Obama supported $150B in energy innovation
McCain released a Web ad that distorts Obama's positions on clean-energy innovation and nuclear power. The ad portrays Obama as saying "no" to energy "innovation" and to "the electric car." In fact, Obama proposed a $150 billion program of research into wide variety of clean-energy technologies.
The ad also has Obama saying "no" to "clean, safe nuclear energy." In fact, Obama has said, "I have not ruled out nuclear... but only [would support it] so far as it is clean and safe."

The most glaringly inaccurate claim in the ad is that Obama opposes "innovation" in general and "the electric car" in particular. The claim is based solely on Obama's dismissal of McCain's proposal to award a $300 million prize for development of a battery package capable of powering plug-in hybrids or electric cars at a fraction of current costs. Obama called McCain's approach a gimmick, but it's not true that he opposes innovation or electric-powered cars. In fact, Obama was criticizing McCain for not going far enough.


This goes on for most of the topics covered. Fairly biased if you ask me.

Both: Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR.

Obama: Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas.
McCain: Voted NO on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas.

Obama: Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%).
McCain: Voted NO on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%).

Both: Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Obama: Voted YES on Bush Administration Energy Policy.
McCain: Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy.

Obama: ?? Nothing listed
McCain: Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010.

Obama: ?? Nothing listed
McCain: Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill.

Obama: ?? Nothing listed
McCain: Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds.

The rest of these have no record of Obama's vote...
McCain: Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months.
McCain: Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling.
McCain: Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.
McCain: Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository.
McCain: Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline.

I do not see here where it records missed votes or absent votes but it is a start anyways. Again, I believe your source to biased against McCain and if you look at the pages side by side, you will see it as well.

FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 03:21 pm
@McGentrix,
Ok. I hadnt read it that closely. I think what I linked for you was just the voting section, but if you scroll up from there you see more stuff. What you quote looks more like a fact check than a voting record. Sorry, that isnt what I meant to link to.

Dont know if the site itself is biased but yeah, I wasnt trying to link to a fact checker. I think OnTheIssues just collates information that it finds elsewhere. I will look for another source.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 03:31 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Obama: ?? Nothing listed
McCain: Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010.

Obama: ?? Nothing listed
McCain: Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill.

Obama: ?? Nothing listed
McCain: Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds.

The rest of these have no record of Obama's vote...
McCain: Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months.
McCain: Voted YES on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling.
McCain: Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.
McCain: Voted YES on approving a nuclear waste repository.
McCain: Voted NO on do not require ethanol in gasoline.


Those were all before Obamas time. The first few were from 2003 and they go down from there.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 04:29 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:

So, what is Obama's record on drilling and nuclear power? I see what the right has said here, but no mention of Obama's actual platform.

Regarding your question about his platform, this is what I've found on the Obama website about drilling:

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy_more

Quote:
Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.

An Obama administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.


http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

Quote:
Promote the Supply of Domestic Energy

With 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, the U.S. cannot drill our way to energy security. But U.S. oil and gas production plays an important role in our domestic economy and remains critical to prevent global energy prices from climbing even higher. There are several key opportunities to support increased U.S. production of oil and gas that do not require opening up currently protected areas.

• A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Leases. Oil companies have access to 68 million acres of land, over 40 million offshore, which they are not drilling on. Drilling in open areas could significantly increase domestic oil and gas production. Obama will require oil companies to diligently develop these leases or turn them over so that another company can develop them.

• Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas. An Obama administration will set up a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in:

  • Bakken Shale in Montana and North Dakota which could have as much as 4 billion recoverable barrels of oil according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

  • Unconventional natural gas supplies in the Barnett Shale formation in Texas and the Fayetteville Shale in Arkansas.

  • National Petroleum Reserve‐Alaska (NPR‐A) which comprises 23.5 million acres of federal land set aside by President Harding to secure the nation's petroleum reserves for national security purposes.

Prioritize the Construction of the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline. As president, Obama will work with stakeholders to facilitate construction of the pipeline. While this pipeline was proposed in 1976, and Congress authorized up to $18 billion in loan guarantees for this project in 2004, there has been no progress in building this critical energy infrastructure under the Bush Administration. The planned pipeline would have a daily capacity of 4 billion cubic feet of natural gas, or almost 7 percent of current U.S. consumption. Not only is this pipeline critical to our energy security, it will create thousands of new jobs.

• Getting More from our Existing Oil Fields. Nationally, experts believe that up to 85 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil remains stranded in existing fields. Enhanced oil recovery (EOR) using carbon dioxide offers an immediate‐ to medium‐term opportunity to produce more oil from existing fields. And in the EOR process, large quantities of CO2 can be sequestered underground, reducing global warming pollution. Under an Obama Administration, we will pass a carbon cap‐and‐trade‐bill, which will incentivize emitters to send their CO2 to old oil fields for EOR, thereby providing economic benefits while also stimulating additional domestic oil and gas production. To speed that process, we will map all stationary CO2 sources and develop a database to help industry calculate the most cost‐effective oil field destination for each source's CO2.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 04:49 pm
This is what I've found about nuclear energy:

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

Quote:
Diversify Our Energy Sources

There are no silver bullet solutions to our energy crises. Our economy, security and environment will be best served through a sustained effort to diversify our energy sources. Barack Obama will:

[..]

• Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy. Nuclear power represents more than 70 percent of our non‐carbon generated electricity. It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power as an option. However, before an expansion of nuclear power is considered, key issues must be addressed including: security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. Barack Obama introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to establish guidelines for tracking, controlling and accounting for spent fuel at nuclear power plants. To prevent international nuclear material from falling into terrorist hands abroad, Obama worked closely with Sen. Dick Lugar (R‐IN) to strengthen international efforts to identify and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction. As president, Obama will make safeguarding nuclear material both abroad and in the U.S. a top anti‐terrorism priority. In terms of waste storage, Obama does not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. He will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long‐term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, Obama will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry‐cask storage technology available.


He's went a bit further in speeches.

Quote:
As President, I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power.


(28 August)

Quote:
we'll double the amount of our energy that comes from renewable sources by the end of my first term. That means [..] finding safer ways to use nuclear power and store nuclear waste


(5 August)
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 04:56 pm
Now - just as a reminder - aside from any interesting discussions about the pros and cons of Obama's proposals, in the context of this thread it's important to go back to what McCain said.

This is what McCain said in his acceptance speech at the RNC:

Quote:
Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling and without more nuclear power.


This is what his campaign manager Steve Schmidt said:

Quote:
We need to drill for more oil here now. We need to build nuclear power plants. Senator Obama is against both


Look at what Obama actually is proposing, and you see that McCain and Schmidt simply, straight-up lied.

Obama is proposing more drilling, here, now. Just not as much as McCain would like, and with a much clearer warning attached that when it comes to achieving energy independence, the drilling part can only be a stopgap, and the long-term solutions must be found elsewhere. "Senator Obama thinks we can achieve energy independence without more drilling" is a lie.

As for nuclear, Obama's platform is pretty vague. His administration would find ways to "safely harness nuclear power" and "find safer ways to use nuclear power". The nuclear power that's already being generated now? Extra nuclear power? He doesnt say. So McCain could fairly have slammed him for being evasive. But for being against more nuclear power? That they made up.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  2  
Reply Wed 10 Sep, 2008 06:57 pm
Haven't seen a reference to McCain's "Fact Check" ad yet -- which, in a nice dose of irony, was pretty much completely false:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/09/10/1374041.aspx
FreeDuck
 
  2  
Reply Thu 11 Sep, 2008 07:37 am
@sozobe,
If that's the one I think it is, factcheck.org has already factchecked his factcheck.
 

Related Topics

McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
My Fellow Prisoners... - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Afred E. Smith Dinner - Discussion by cjhsa
mccain begs off - Discussion by dyslexia
If Biden And Obama Aren't Qualified - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The Case Against John McCain - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
 
  1. Forums
  2. » McCain lies
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/20/2019 at 08:33:42