I suck and haven't updated this blog in a while. But since we've got less than thirty days until the election, I figure I might as well put in the effort for the home stretch.
Before I do, though, I need to recap the various gaffes I've missed in my absence. Since I've been gone, the following events have transpired.
More...
-When asked whether, as president, he would meet with Prime Minister Zapatero of Spain, McCain gave an insane answer implying that he either doesn't know who Prime Minister Zapatero is, thinks Spain is in Latin America, has forgotten that Spain is our ally, or all of the above. Listen to the insanity.
-On the morning of September 15th, 2008, when the Dow Jones plummeted 500 points in its worst day in seven years, McCain stated that the fundamentals of our economy are strong".
-A whole slew of new Sarah Palin firing scandals have come to light.
-Sarah Palin claimed that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had "gotten too big and too expensive to [sic] the taxpayers," seemingly ignorant to the fact that that Mae and Mac are private companies, and thus not funded by taxpayers.
-McCain released an ad stating that Obama supported teaching "comprehensive sex education to kindergardeners," when in actuality, the legislation in question was meant to protect young children from pedophiles. Furthermore, the articles cited by the ad were more critical of McCain then they were of Obama.
-The Washington Post revealed that, as Governor, Sarah Palin charged taxpayers for 312 nights of "business expenses," despite spending those nights in her home.
-McCain released an ad that included a quote from Katie Couric, wherein she mentions the sexism present in the campaign. The McCain ad implied that Couric was talking about Palin, despite the fact that her comments were made in reference to Hillary Clinton. CBS later forced YouTube to remove the ad.
-This video from the primaries resurfaced, wherein McCain says: "I am prepared. I need no on-the-job training. I wasn't a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn't a governor for a short period of time," in response to the type of experience needed for the presidency.
-In an interview with ABC, Sarah Palin revealed that she doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is.
-It was also revealed that, as Mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin cut funding that covered medical testing for rape victims, resulting in rape victims paying for their own forensic tests.
-In response to the Wall Street crisis, McCain told Matt Lauer that executives "need to be held accountable and stop walking away with these fat-cat packages," apparently unaware that Carly Fiorina received a $42 million payout when ousted as CEO of HP.
-While speaking at a rally, Sarah Palin referred to a "Palin and McCain administration", going one step further in confirming my theory that she plans to poison John McCain and seize the presidency once elected.
-The New York Times reported that McCain has been exploiting legal loopholes in campaign finance law that he previously fought to close.
-This one's from back in June, but I missed it at the time, so I'll mention it here. McCain said in June, "I'm not for, quote, privatizing social security. I never have been, I never will be.". In 2004, he said, "Without privatization, I don't see how you can possibly, over time, make sure that young Americans are able to receive Social Security benefits.". Here's a clip with the two quotes side by side.
-Another article in The New York Times revealed that Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, was paid $2 million by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac over the course of five years to shield them from harsher regulations. More info here and here.
-McCain spokesman and noted weasel Tucker Bounds refused to confirm that Phil Gramm (the former McCain economic advisor who stated that America was merely going through a "mental recession" felt by "a nation of whiners") would not be part of a McCain administration.
-Word got out that, when running for Mayor of Wasilla, Sarah Palin ran an incredibly dirty campaign against the incumbent mayor, a former mentor of hers.
-The Katie Couric/Sarah Palin interview happened. I don't think I need to say anything else.
-McCain threatened not to show up for the first presidential debate in order to deal with the economic crisis, even though doing so would have resulted in $5.5 million in losses for the University of Mississippi, where the debate was ultimately held.
-Steve Schmidt, a top McCain campaign advisor, claimed that McCain called for the firing of Donald Rumsfeld. This is not true.
-McCain released a peculiar ad in which Obama is criticized for agreeing with McCain.
-McCain said that Obama "has still not offered any plan of any kind" for dealing with the economic crisis. CNN called him out on it, and remarked that McCain himself hasn't laid out any specific plans for dealing with the crisis.
-Newsweek reported on yet another misleading McCain ad.
Let me know if there's anything I missed. Cheers.
Last week, there was talk of delaying the Republican National Convention due to Hurrican Gustav. In an interview with ABC that aired last Sunday, McCain said this:
"It wouldn't be appropriate to have a festive occasion while a near tragedy or a terrible challenge is presented in the form of a natural disaster."
This begs the question, what was McCain doing when Hurrican Katrina struck three years ago? This picture from the White House web site tells it all.
More...
Note: Since John McCain has chosen Sarah Palin as his running mate, and she thus now plays a very big important role in his campaign, I feel it's within the spirit of this blog to cite her follies as well as McCain's.
Many have pointed out that Sarah Palin, the presumptive Republican candidate for the Vice Presidency, is too inexperienced to be a heart atta--I mean, heartbeat away from the presidency. While that's certainly true, her problems don't stop at inexperience.
More...
While running for governor in 2006, Palin (along with the other candidates) was asked a series of questions regarding her proposed policies and politics. Here is one of them, along with her response.
Q: Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not?
SP: Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance.
As many scholars would be happy to tell you, the Pledge of Allegiance was not written by our founding fathers. It was written by Baptist minister Francis Bellamy in 1892 roughly over a hundred years years after our country was founded. Furthermore, the phrase "under God" wasn't added until 1954, about 120 years after the death of the last founding father.
Keeping in mind that McCain is, in his own words, older than dirt, and that he's developed the most deadly form of skin cancer four times, is it a good idea to elect a Vice President who doesn't know basic facts about the formation of our country? Anyone who was ever peripherally paying attention to politics a few years ago remembers that debate we had about whether "Under God" should be kept in the Pledge of Allegiance. I can't remember a single time that debate popped up and a pundit didn't remind us that "Under God" was added in the 1950s, during the "Red Scare." Come to think of it, weren't those debates going on around 2006, the year in which this questionnaire was given to Mrs. Palin?
"But, as for that VP talk all the time, I tell ya, I still can't answer that question until someone answers for me: What is it exactly that the VP does, every day?"
It's about 3/4 of the way through. This is insane.
This one is pretty self-explanatory. Earlier today, a reporter asked McCain how many houses he owned. He didn't know.
Reporter: How many houses do you and Cindy McCain have?
McCain: I think, uhh...I'll have my staff get to you. It's condominiums where--I'll have them get to you.
Some people think that his statement is indicative of an elitist attitude on McCain's part, and thus hypocritical (remember when McCain accused Obama of elitism earlier in the campaign?). I think that it's indicative of a failing memory and overall crumbling of McCain's mental capacity, which, to me, is far worse than elitism.
Hey all. This one is about a week old. I'm sorry for the delay; I've been busy watching this over and over again on an infinite loop in hopes that it will cause me irreversible brain damage, at which point I might be able to score a handicapped placard for my car. It hasn't worked so far, but I did happen to stop the loop long enough to find another string of nonsense spewing forth from the smirking mouth of John McCain's campaign.
SUMMARY: McCain's campaign has released ads that state or imply that Obama will raise taxes on people making as little as $42,000 a year, and that he has a history of doing so. In actuality, Obama has no plans whatsoever to do this; he will raise taxes only on individuals making more than $200,000 a year, and families making more than $250,000 a year.
Furthermore, Obama does not have a "history" of voting for these increases; he has never once voted yes on or supported any such legislation. He once voted yes on a non-binding resolution that, if followed, would have resulted in a fifteen-dollar tax increase for individuals making $42,000 a year. However, that portion of the resolution was not followed, and that increase in taxes never occurred.
More...
~~~
McCain released three ads recently; all with a common theme, and all with a different version of a false claim regarding Obama's tax plan for the middle class. Let's give a quick rundown of them all.
1. This TV ad plays up Obama's "celebrity" status, and features the following narration:
"Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000."
It is accompanied by a clip of a mother with her child, and a block of text that reads "Obama: Raise taxes on middle class."
2. This ad, which also uses the "celebrity" angle, contained the following quote:
"You've seen in him London, Paris, and Berlin. Now, you too can join The One's fan club right here in America. The perks are amazing - like a tax increase for everyone earning more than $42,000 a year."
It is accompanied by the text: "Obama voted to raise taxes on everyone making $42,000 a year."
3. This radio ad states:
"Official records document Barack Obama has a history of raising taxes, even on middle class Americans making just $42,000 a year."
These ads are all different, but they all communicate the same message: Obama will raise taxes on people who make as little as $42,000 a year. I will say right off the bat: This is not true. Barack Obama will only raise taxes on individuals making more than $200,000 a year, and families making $250,000 a year.
Where did McCain get the $42,000 number? In March 2008, Obama voted yes on a non-binding budget resolution. Under this resolution, individuals making $42,000 a year would see a tax increase.
However, consider the following:
With all this in mind, let's re-assess McCain's claims. Is he lying, or simply being misleading? The answer, I think, is both. Statements like "Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000" are somewhat open to interpretation. If the phrase "voted to raise taxes" refers to casting a "yes" vote on anything with the potential to raise taxes, then yes, he did. But if the phrase refers to voting yes on something that, if passed, would guarantee an increase in taxes, then the claim is false. The statement is misleading, but not patently false.
Then there's stuff like, "You can join [Obama's] fan club right here in America. The perks are amazing - like a tax increase for everyone earning more than $42,000 a year." Again, this doesn't actually contain the words, "Obama will raise taxes on people making $42,000 a year" (which would be false), but it implies that with such force that I, personally, would say it qualifies as a false statement. That's admittedly debatable, but it's a semantic debate on what qualifies as false - no one could argue that it's not a statement constructed with the intent to mislead.
But then we have, "Official records document Barack Obama has a history of raising taxes, even on middle class Americans making just $42,000 a year." That is completely, 100% untrue, and this is the kind of stuff McCain shouldn't be getting away with. Obama does not have a history of raising taxes on people making $42,000 a year. No vote he's ever cast, no legislation he's ever supported has had this effect. As I said earlier, the resolution in question did not actually result in a tax increase, indirectly or directly, for anybody making $42,000 a year. It was a proposed guideline, but supporting a proposed guideline is not the same as having a "history of increasing taxes."
Once again, just for the record: The only individuals who will see a tax increase under Obama's plan are those who make more than $200,000 a year. Families must make more than $250,000 in order to see this increase.
More info: FactCheck.org
Hey, everybody. I apologize for the lack of updates over the last few days; I recently arrived back home after spending the summer in Los Angeles, and have taken a few days to settle back in. But I'm back, and so is John McCain, with another deceptive attack ad (this one, in my opinion, more shameful than any others he's put out thus far).
SUMMARY: McCain's new ad claims that, if elected, the senator will promote renewable energy. In truth, John McCain's proposed energy plan does not contain a single measure to advance, increase, or implement renewable energy.
More...
A couple days ago, McCain's campaign put out a modification of their infamous "Celebrity" ad (the one where McCain compared Obama unfavorable to Paris Hilton, apparently unaware of the campaign contributions he'd received from the Hilton family). This new version omits Paris, but replaces her with something even less credible.
The advertisement contains images of wind turbines accompanied by the following narration:"Renewable energy to transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence, that's John McCain."
So John McCain is for renewable energy. Surely, he has some sort of proposed policy in his energy plan that reflects this, right? Otherwise, it would just be an empty, meaningless, and intentionally deceptive claim.
John McCain's energy policy, as posted on his website, offers no solid plans for furthering renewable energy. It does offer quite a bit in the way of furthering other energy sources: "John McCain Will Commit $2 Billion Annually To Advancing Clean Coal Technologies," and "Will Put His Administration On Track To Construct 45 New Nuclear Power Plants By 2030 With The Ultimate Goal Of Eventually Constructing 100 New Plants." However, coal and nuclear power, as many people can tell you, are not renewable sources of energy.
The closest that the website comes to giving specifics on renewable energy is the following paragraph:
"John McCain Will Encourage The Market For Alternative, Low Carbon Fuels Such As Wind, Hydro And Solar Power. According to the Department of Energy, wind could provide as much as one-fifth of electricity by 2030. The U.S. solar energy industry continued its double-digit annual growth rate in 2006. To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. John McCain believes in an even-handed system of tax credits that will remain in place until the market transforms sufficiently to the point where renewable energy no longer merits the taxpayers' dollars.
Let's take a look at that again. "To develop these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility." What does that mean? There's nothing there about increasing funding for research and development of renewable energy. No mention of setting deadlines regarding widespread implementation of renewable energy, or putting in place rigid requirements for energy companies. What does it mean, "to rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility?"
I haven't the slightest idea what that means. Neither does FactCheck.org. Neither does Frank Maisano, an energy company spokesman:
"I don't even know what that means," Frank Maisano told us when we read that line from McCain's plan. "It means that they don't want to tell people what that means."
However, I do consider myself an educated man; furthermore, as a philosophy major at UC Berkeley, I spent four years dissecting arguments and reducing them to their very core. So, for the sake of clarity (and truth in advertising), let's try and figure out what exactly McCain's stance on renewable energy is (other than that he "believes" in it, which is an empty claim. You can believe in something without doing a damn thing about it, as is proven by the fact that I believe in maintaining a responsible workout schedule).
What we're trying to figure out, in essence, is what exactly McCain plans to do for renewable energy. The operative word is "do." What will he do; what action will he take, aside from showing clips of wind turbines? Well, from a grammatical standpoint, if we're trying to find out what the subject of a sentence will do (or is doing, or has done, etc.), we generally try and identify the verb in the sentence.
The first verb in that sentence is "develop," but that's contained in the framing of the question, not the answer ("In order to develop X, we must Y..."). The next verb is "require," but that's not in reference to McCain himself; that, again, is part of the question ("Developing X will require that we Y...").
No, what we're looking for here is "rationalize." Let's take a look at this fragment of the sentence:
There we go. McCain is going to rationalize. What does this mean? To rationalize something is to provide a logical reason for its existence. So, John McCain's plan for renewable energy, it seems, is to provide a logical reason for the existence of tax credits that already exist. How progressive!
He's said nothing of which specific tax credits he's referring to, whether or not they've been effective, or how substantial they are. More troubling, though, is the fact that, when you get down to it, John McCain is not proposing any new measures to further renewable energy. None. Zip. Nada. Not a single measure.
Once again, the advertisement showed video of wind turbines, and stated:"Renewable energy...that's John McCain."
Yesterday, Osama Bin Laden's former driver, Salim Hamden, was found guilty of supporting terrorism, but was acquitted of conspiring in terrorist attacks. Senator McCain released a response to the verdict, which said, in part:
I welcome today's guilty verdict in the first trial held under the Military Commissions Act (MCA)...Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a trusted confidante of Osama Bin Laden, was provided a full hearing of the charges against him and was represented by counsel who vigorously defended him. The jury found that the prosecution lawyers had proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Hamdan had aided terrorists by supplying weapons to Al Qaeda and Taliban forces in Afghanistan. This process demonstrated that military commissions can effectively bring very dangerous terrorists to justice.
But, as the Associate Press reports, Hamded wasn't found guilty of supplying weapons to Al Qaeda:
While being convicted of supporting terrorism, Hamdan was acquitted of providing missiles to al-Qaida and knowing his work would be used for terrorism.
Further support for the theory that McCain just isn't paying attention to what's going on around him.
If you "tire" of McCain's continuous string of nonsense, and feel obligated to learn the truth, I must "pressure" you to read this post (although only you can "gauge" its significance).
SUMMARY: Obama suggested that inflating one's tires more would be a good way for them to save gas. This is backed up by numerous scientific studies. However, McCain criticized Obama's suggestion. Then, a few days later, he conceded that it was a good tip. Then, the next day, he criticized it again.
More...
At a rally last Thursday in Ohio, Obama mentioned that one way for consumers to improve their mileage would be to make sure their tires were properly inflated. The McCain camp jumped all over this remark, criticizing it for being an insignificant measure and implying that tire inflation constituted the majority of Obama's energy policy. At a campaign stop yesterday, McCain said:
“We need to offshore drill for oil and natural gas. We need to drill here and we need to drill now...We’re not going to achieve energy independence by inflating our tires.”
Furthering the attack, McCain had his campaign staff hand out tire gauges with the words "Obama's Energy Policy" on them to members of the press. It's amusing (and sad) that this is probably one of the classier attacks McCain has waged within the last week or so.
Anyway, there are a few problems with this attack. First off, Obama was right - inflating your tires does increase your mileage. According to a study from the University of Pennsylvania (aptly titled "Energy Conservation From Systematic Tire Pressure Regulation"):
The study indicates that substantial benefits would accrue if car care facilities systematically offered complimentary tire pressure checks with oil changes including: (i) increased safety by decreasing all crashes and saving more than 100 lives per year, (ii) reduced petroleum consumption by over a billion gallons/year, which would (iia) provide over $4 billion in economic savings for US consumers that could in part be recouped in retail/auto-care facilities, (iib) reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 13.5 million tons and automobile pollution...
Time Magazine ran an article confirming that this is true:
The Bush Administration estimates that expanded offshore drilling could increase oil production by 200,000 bbl. per day by 2030. We use about 20 million bbl. per day, so that would meet about 1% of our demand two decades from now. Meanwhile, efficiency experts say that keeping tires inflated can improve gas mileage 3%, and regular maintenance can add another 4%. Many drivers already follow their advice, but if everyone did, we could immediately reduce demand several percentage points. In other words: Obama is right.
Second off, McCain and his campaign are clearly attempting to imply that Obama's suggestion constituted the bulk of his energy policy, which simply isn't true. It was an offhand response to a question asked about what individuals could do to improve their situation - it had nothing to do with Obama's energy policy; it was meant only as a helpful tip.
So I suppose that it's only reasonable that McCain backtracked, and admitted that Obama's suggestion was a good one. At a town hall meeting today in Pennsylvania, he remarked:
“Obama said a couple of days ago says we all should inflate our tires. I don’t disagree with that. The American Automobile Association strongly recommends it."
Good! McCain realized the error in his ways, and attempted to clear it up. Surely he won't go back on his word the very next day while speaking to voters in Ohio. Oh, wait a second...
"He's claiming putting air in your tires is the equivalent of new offshore drilling," McCain said. "That's not an energy plan, my friends -- that's a public service announcement."
So, let's recap.
1. Obama correctly states that inflating your tires is a good way to save on gas.
2. McCain criticizes Obama for saying this, despite the fact that, by the Bush Administration's own estimates, Obama's offhand suggestion would save more money than than the entirety of McCain's offshore drilling plans.
3. McCain has his campaign hand out satirical tire gauges with the phrase "Obama's Energy Plan" printed on them.
4. McCain then admits that Obama's idea was pretty good.
4. McCain then criticizes Obama again for his suggestion the day after conceding that it was valid.
Now's probably a good time for me to point out that, while I try to use an objective tone in writing this blog (in order for it to maintain its credibility), that's getting kind of difficult.
Is McCain completely oblivious to how irresponsible he's been acting? Is he even aware of what's going on? Does he bother looking into the facts behind his positions before stating them? Does he even think about what he's about to say before speaking? I've said it before, and I'll say it again. I don't think that McCain is necessarily a bad person, but he is coming off as more and more senile by the week.
This one was just brought to my attention by my good friend Chris Tognotti. McCain just released another attack ad (the third in three days by my count, although I could be mistaken).
This is a ridiculously misguided ad. For those who don't want to/can't view it now, it consists of about a minute of clips of Obama speaking to enthusiastic, cheering crowds, accompanied with narration like, "In 2008, the world will be blessed" and "They will call him The One." The attempt, I think, is to attack, in an ironic fashion, the perceived over-enthusiasm over Obama that his supporters possess.
Of course, the ad also contains a series of out-of-context quotes from Obama, intended to imply that he is an egotistical candidate with a Messiah complex. How out-of-context, you ask? Take a look at this example, used in the ad:
"I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”"
Personally, I don't think that's even too egotistical, but take a look at the full quote:
"It has become increasingly clear in my travel, the campaign, that the crowds, the enthusiasm, 200,000 people in Berlin, is not about me at all. It’s about America. I have just become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions.”
Obama was actively downplaying his own significance, yet the McCain campaign twisted it around to imply the opposite.
The real problem with this ad, though, is that if you watch it when you're only half-paying attention, it really seems like an ad for Obama. As Chris pointed out to me, not everybody is able to grasp irony and satire, and even fewer people are able to grasp tongue-in-cheek. Only in the last few seconds does it even state that it's an ad for McCain, so the casual viewer might just think that it's a slightly over-enthusiastic ad for Obama.