McCain Screws The Pooch

McCain really needs to get some more competent spokesmen. First it was Tucker "Weasel" Bounds, now it's Michael "Apathetic Blob" Goldfarb. Goldfarb alleged that Barack Obama has "a long track record of being around anti-Semitic and anti-Israel" rhetoric. When pressured by anchor Rick Sanchez to name these anti-Semetic people Obama has been linked to, he couldn't, and evaded the question in possibly the laziest way imaginable.



Transcript:

SANCHEZ: Now, is the -- I need to parse this out as best I can from you, Michael. The fact that John McCain's organization gave $448,000 to this group that was founded by Mr. Khalidi, is there no reason for some to be critical of as well just as some might be critical of Barack Obama for being at a meeting with some girl read a poem for example?

GOLDFARB: Look. You are missing the point again, Rick. The point is that Barack Obama has a long track record of being around anti-Semitic and anti-Israel and anti-American rhetoric.

SANCHEZ: Can you name one other person besides Khalidi who he hangs around that is anti-Semitic?

GOLDFARB: Yes, he pals around with William Ayers.

SANCHEZ: No, no, the question I asked you is that can you name one other person who he hangs around with who is anti-Semitic? Because that is what you said.

GOLDFARB: Look, we know there are people who Barack Obama has been in hot water--

SANCHEZ: Michael, I asked you the name one person. One.

GOLDFARB: Rick --

SANCHEZ: You said he hangs around with people who are anti-Semitic. Okay. Khalidi and name other people that we all know about?

GOLDFARB: And rick, we both know who number two is.

SANCHEZ: Who? Would you tell us?

GOLDFARB: No, Rick, I think we all know who we are talking about here.

SANCHEZ: Somebody who is anti-Semitic that he hangs around with.

GOLDFARB: I think we all know who we are talking about.

SANCHEZ: Say it.

GOLDFARB: I think we all know who we're talking about, rick.

SANCHEZ: Well, you say that his policies differ from Barack Obama and many other people, and either way, we have the leave it at that.

The New Republic reports that Charles Fried, one of McCain's advisors (and a Reagan appointee) has left the McCain campaign and voted for Obama by absentee ballot.

From The New Republic:

Charles Fried, a professor at Harvard Law School, has long been one of the most important conservative thinkers in the United States. Under President Reagan, he served, with great distinction, as Solicitor General of the United States. Since then, he has been prominently associated with several Republican leaders and candidates, most recently John McCain, for whom he expressed his enthusiastic support in January.

This week, Fried announced that he has voted for Obama-Biden by absentee ballot. In his letter to Trevor Potter, the General Counsel to the McCain-Palin campaign, he asked that his name be removed from the several campaign-related committees on which he serves. In that letter, he said that chief among the reasons for his decision "is the choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis."

I've never before heard of an advisor quitting a political campaign two weeks before an election and supporting the opponent. On a related note, The Wall Street Journal recently posted a small list of prominent Republicans who, following Colin Powell's endorsement, have publicly stated their support for Senator Obama.

From The Wall Street Journal:

Former Massachusetts Gov. William Weld is endorsing Obama today at a press conference in Salem, N.H. Weld was a public supporter of Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries. In a statement, Weld called Obama a “once-in-a-lifetime candidate who will transform our politics and restore America’s standing in the world.”

On Thursday, former Minnesota Gov. Arne Carlson endorsed Obama at the state capitol. “I think we have in Barack Obama the clear possibility of a truly great president,” he said. “I would contend that it’s the most important election of my lifetime.”

Scott McClellan, a former spokesman for President George W. Bush, also endorsed Obama Thursday. USA Today reported that McClellan told CNN in a taping to be aired this weekend that Obama has “the best chance of changing the way Washington works.”

Ken Adelman, a prominent conservative on foreign policy matters announced his support for Obama on Tuesday, telling the New Yorker that his decision was based on temperament and judgment.

Adelman called McCain “impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird” in his handling of the U.S. economic crisis. He also was unsettled by McCain’s choice of running mate. “Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency,” Adelman wrote.

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:

It was a non-binding resolution. This means it was a general guideline for the congressional tax-writing committees to observe, not a piece of legislation that, if passed, would necessarily be implemented.

The resolution didn't contain any provisions that would raise taxes; it simply assumed that the 2003 tax cuts would expire, as they're set to, in 2011, which would result in the aforementioned tax increase.

The resolution didn't actually result in any tax increases (because, as I stated, the non-binding resolution was simply a suggestion, not a piece of actual legislation).

The actual amount of the tax increase for Americans making $42,000 a year under the resolution would have been $15. That's fight - fifteen bucks. That's the same price as the bagel and lox platter I had at Jerry's Deli back in July (admittedly, Jerry's Deli is absurdly overpriced).

Most importantly, this tax increase is not contained in any of the tax plans Obama has proposed for his presidency..

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).

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.

Yesterday, I wrote about McCain's "Celebrity" attack ad, which compares Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, implying that he's more of a flashy pop figure than an actual politician ready to lead.

Aside from the obvious problems with that approach, there's also the fact that Paris Hilton's family members are (or, rather, were) avid McCain supporters, and donated money to his campaign on more than one occasion. Apparently, William Barron Hilton, the eldest Hilton and Paris' grandfather, is none too happy with the ad.

In addition, McCain apparently used her likeness without her permission. One of the socialite's representatives told TMZ:

"Miss Hilton was not asked, nor did she give permission for the use of her likeness in the ad and has no further comment."

Nicely done.

Update: Paris Hilton's mother just weighed in with her opinion on the matter.

"It is a complete waste of the money John McCain's contributors have donated to his campaign. It is a complete waste of the country's time and attention at the very moment when millions of people are losing their homes and their jobs. And it is a completely frivolous way to choose the next President of the United States."

SUMMARY: McCain is claiming that Obama canceled a visit to US troops in Germany because the hospital wouldn't allow cameras inside. In truth, Obama canceled the trip at the request of the Pentagon, and there were never any plans to film the event to begin with.

~~~

A lot has been made of Obama's recent trip to Germany, and his cancellation of a visit to US troops there. Here is McCain's take on it, in the form of (yet another) attack ad. This one is actually a modification of an earlier ad he released.

Announcer: Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan. He hadn't been to Iraq in years. He voted against funding our troops.

And now, he made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.

John McCain is always there for our troops. McCain. Country first.

John McCain: I'm John McCain and I approve this message.

The bolded piece was added to the earlier ad in lieu of reports that Obama canceled a planned visit to wounded US soldiers at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center.

The Washington Post has devoted three pages (!) to dispelling the McCain campaign's myth. It's a pretty well-written, thorough article, so rather than summarizing it, I'll just offer a few choice quotations:

The essence of McCain's allegation is that Obama planned to take a media entourage, including television cameras, to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany during his week-long foreign trip, and that he canceled the visit when he learned he could not do so. "I know that, according to reports, that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers," McCain said Monday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

The Obama campaign has denied that was the reason he called off the visit. In fact, there is no evidence that he planned to take anyone to the American hospital other than a military adviser, whose status as a campaign staff member sparked last-minute concern among Pentagon officials that the visit would be an improper political event.

...

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said again yesterday that the Republican's version of events is correct, and that Obama canceled the visit because he was not allowed to take reporters and cameras into the hospital.

"It is safe to say that, according to press reports, Barack Obama avoided, skipped, canceled the visit because of those reasons," he said. "We're not making a leap here."

Asked repeatedly for the "reports," Bounds provided three examples, none of which alleged that Obama had wanted to take members of the media to the hospital.

...

"We got notice that [Gration, the military adviser and only other person whom Obama had intended to travel with to the hospital] would be treated as a campaign person, and it would therefore be perceived as political because he had endorsed my candidacy but he wasn't on the Senate staff," Obama said. "That triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political, and the last thing that I want to do is have injured soldiers and the staff at these wonderful institutions having to sort through whether this is political or not, or get caught in the crossfire between campaigns."

I think it's pretty clear what happened here. Obama canceled a trip to visit troops out of concern that it would be viewed as insincere and strictly-political, and McCain then claimed that Obama's failure to do so was a sign of how little he cares about the troops. That is the most ridiculous part of this - the insinuation behind it.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Obama didn't care about our troops. Let's say he doesn't a lick of empathy for them. If that's the case (and that is what McCain is insinuating), then this must have been the rundown of events.

1. Obama thinks to himself, "I don't care about US troops."
2. Obama then visits US troops at Walter Reed Medical Center on June 28th, not allowing any cameras inside (despite the fact that he doesn't care about them).
3. He then plans to visit more wounded troops at a hospital in Germany.
4. Obama suddenly realizes that he never cared about the troops to begin with, and cancels his visit.

This is the narrative that McCain is implying, and it just doesn't make any sense. It's completely illogical. Furthermore, as has already been pointed out, even if Obama didn't care about the troops, don't you think he'd go out of his way to visit them anyway? That's what candidates do; it's standard operating procedure for a campaign. A candidate has to at least seem like they care, so they visit veterans and senior citizens and factories and all of that stuff. To try and take these sort of things as an indication of a candidate's feelings (or, worse, their policies) is absurd, and McCain knows this.

A more honest way to gauge who cares more about the troops would be the examine the respective Senators' voting records. As you may remember, Obama voted to pass the recent GI bill, which would give more benefits to veterans, while McCain declined to vote.

Here's the cherry on top: When the announcer in the ad says "And now, he made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops," the ad cuts to a video clip of Obama shooting a three-pointer, implying that he was playing basketball instead of visiting the troops.

The problem? The clip they used was of Obama playing basketball at a military base. The people cheering in the background? Yup, those are US troops.

The McCain campaign released another ad today. It's viciously anti-Obama, as one might expect, but interestingly enough, nothing is said of McCain during the entire ad.

Narrator: He's the biggest celebrity in the world. Is he ready to lead?

With gas prices soaring, Barack Obama says "no offshore drilling," and says he'll raise taxes on electricity.

High taxes, more foreign oil. That's the real Barack Obama.

John McCain: I'm John McCain, and I approve this message

Notice how the ad focuses entirely on Obama; nothing is said of how McCain will deal with those issues (and there's reason for that, as you'll soon see). McCain is mentioned once: when he identifies himself, to let us know that he approves of this message. That's all. The message isn't "McCain is the best choice for America;" rather, it's, "Obama is a bad choice for America, so you might as well go with the other guy."

This ad uses similar tactics as his last ad against Obama. Let's address these claims once more.

With gas prices soaring, Barack Obama says "no offshore drilling"

I addressed this earlier, but the fact of the matter is that increasing offshore drilling would not have any effect on domestic gas prices until 2030, according to the EIA. Linking Obama's opposition to offshore drilling to rising gas prices is an intentionally misleading move on McCain's part (that, or he doesn't understand that offshore drilling takes as long as it does to bring down gas prices, which is equally worrying).

He says he'll raise taxes on electricity

It's unclear exactly what this is in reference to. It could be referring to Obama's plan for a cap-and-trade system, in which gas and oil companies must pay a tax for every ton of pollution that they emit in efforts to bring down pollution levels. This tax on the companies would likely be passed down to the consumer as well via the gas companies raising prices, and in that sense, could be seen as "raising taxes on electricity."

However, if this is indeed what McCain's talking about, then he's guilty of the same thing. In fact, McCain authored cap-and-trade legislation in 2003, alongside Senator Joe Lieberman. If this is what he's now criticizing Obama for, then McCain is guilty of outright hypocrisy once again.

On July 18th, the McCain campaign released a 30-second TV spot. The narration of that ad claims:

Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan. He hasn't been to Iraq in years. He voted against funding our troops.

Let's examine this piece by piece.

Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan

This is literally true; as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's subcommittee on European Affairs, Obama never held any hearings on Afghanistan. However, he did attend one of the three Afghanistan hearings held by the committee as a whole. McCain, on the other hand, attended zero of the six meetings held by his Senate Armed Services committee in the last two years.

Let's recap: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which Obama is a part, held three hearings on Afghanistan; Obama attended one of them. The Senate Armed Services Committee, of which McCain is a part, held six hearings on Afghanistan; McCain attended none of them.

Afghanistan Hearings Attended By The Candidates In The Last Two Years:
Obama: 1 out of 3
McCain: 0 out of 6

He hasn't been to Iraq in years.

This is also literally true: Obama traveled to Iraq in January 2006; then, as McCain's ad was released, was en route to Iraq. He arrived four days later, and news of the trip first first broke on July 11th, six days before McCain released that ad. So, yes, technically, there was a two year and five month period during which Obama had not been to Iraq. But it doesn't mention that Obama was in the process of going to Iraq, and if McCain had released that ad five days later, his statement would have been patently false, instead of just intentionally misleading.

He voted against funding our troops.

Again, the absolute most literal interpretation of this, devoid of any context, is correct. But when you look at the facts that it omits, the deceptive nature of it becomes evident.

Obama did vote against funding out troops - on one occasion (measure H.R. 2206, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, in 2007). On every other war funding bill that went through the Senate, Obama voted yes. FactCheck.org has the whole story, complete with links to the US Senate website that back up Obama's voting record.

On July 14th, The New York Times ran an op-ed piece by Barack Obama, in which details his plans for Iraq, and why, he believes, McCain's plans for Iraq are flawed. On July 21st, John McCain submitted a rebuttal piece to the same paper. However, the times rejected it. Times Op-Ed Editor David Shipley explains :

The Obama piece worked for me because it offered new information (it appeared before his speech); while Senator Obama discussed Senator McCain, he also went into detail about his own plans.

"It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama’s piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq. It would also have to lay out a clear plan for achieving victory — with troops levels, timetables and measures for compelling the Iraqis to cooperate. And it would need to describe the senator’s Afghanistan strategy, spelling out how it meshes with his Iraq plan."

Hmmm. That really kind of makes you want to read the original piece, doesn't it? Well, fortunately for you (but unfortunately for McCain), The New York post got their hands on it, and decided to publish it.

Turns out, The New York Times made a wise decision in not running the op-ed. The Huffington Post reports on a myriad of errors made by McCain in his piece. However, some of the claims made by HuffPo, while factually sound, were a bit misleading or dubious, so I've not included them in this post. Rather, I'll just direct your attention to this quote from McCain's piece:

"In 2007, [Obama] wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we'd taken his advice, the war would have been lost. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

"To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Maliki has endorsed his timetable - when the Iraqi prime minister has merely said that he'd like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of US troops at some unspecified future point."

Fact: Maliki did endorse Obama's timetable - two days before McCain submitted his piece. As Spiegel Online International reported in an interview with Maliki:

"US presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes."

Well-played, McCain.

FactCheck.org has brought to light some inaccuracies in McCain's recent attack ad. In it, McCain tackles the issue of offshore drilling:

Announcer: Gas prices - $4, $5, no end in sight, because some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America. No to independence from foreign oil.

Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?

Chant: Obama, Obama

(image of Barack Obama is displayed on screen)

Announcer: One man knows we must now drill more in America and rescue our family budgets.

The implication here is that lifting the current moratorium on offshore drilling would lower gas prices, and those, like Obama, who've voted against offshore drilling are partially responsible for the recent spike in gas prices.

The problem is that none of this is true. The Energy Information Administration estimates that, were we to lift the moratorium on new offshore drilling, we wouldn't see an increase in the output of crude oil until 2030.

The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017.

So, the implication that Obama (or any senator who voted against offshore drilling) is to blame for high gas prices betrays a complete lack of understanding on McCain's part on how oil production works.

Furthermore, in a speech earlier this month, McCain contradicted the point his ad attempted to make:

"Let me give you a little bit of straight talk on energy. Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil has been thirty years in the making, and was caused by the failure of politicians in Washington to think long term about the future of the country."

Obama, of course, was elected to his first term as a senator in 2004.

In a July 9th speech in South Park, PA, McCain criticized Obama's voting record regarding the Iranian Revolutionary guard, and their recent missile tests:

"It's my understanding that this missile test was conducted by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. This is the same organization that I voted to condemn as a terrorist organization when an amendment was on the floor of the United States Senate. Senator Obama refused to vote."

He's referring to the September 26th, 2007 vote on the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. He was correct in stating that Obama "refused" to vote on it. The problem is that McCain didn't vote on it, either. The US Senate web site lists both senators as having not voted on the measure.

Now, the CNN article says that the McCain campaign "admitted the error;" however, as of July 22nd (thirteen days after the error was made), the quote is still at the very top of the transcript of that speech, and there is no clarification that McCain's claim that he voted to pass that amendment was patently false.

In a town hall speech he gave in Virginia, McCain claimed that Barack Obama's proposed tax plan would "increase taxes on 23 million small business owners." He stated that Obama's plan includes a required health-care tax on small businesses. This tax, he claims, would increase their costs of business, resulting, ultimately, in layoffs.

Unfortunately for McCain, this is an extremely flawed argument. The U.S. Small Business Administration Office of Advocacy estimates that, in 2006, there were 26.8 million business in the US, with 99.9% of them being "small" businesses (that is, those with fewer than 500 employees). That sounds kosher. The problem here is that the SBA considers everyone who reports $1,000 or more in business receipts as a "small business owner." That includes many people who don't own a business, but simply make a small bit of side income from freelance work. Many of these people, of course, do not operate a business at all, and don't have any employees that they could lay off (even if they wanted to).

Let's get the fact straight: As this radio ad released by Obama's campaign clarifies, Obama's plan only calls for increases in taxes on couples who make more than $250,000 a year in income, or singles making more than $200,000.

More info: FactCheck.org article.