|
|
|
|
Presidential Election, 2008 Zeroing in on the facts you need to make your decisionAbout FactCheckDigest.com"Fact checking" is big these days. Thriving on the fertile ground of political half-truths, internet rumor and conspiracy theory, web sites like FactCheck.org, PolitiFact.com, factchecked.org, and washingtonpost.com/factchecker, are springing up like mushrooms on manure. What used to be called the "stink test" is now the "The Pinocchio Test" or "Truth-O-Meter". Even the TV networks are jumping in with their own "fact check" pieces such as CNN's "Truth Squad" and "No Bull Test". These are all useful mechanisms for keeping people honest, but the sheer quantity of mis-information that needs to be fact-checked is enough to choke a mule! (or an elephant) FactCheckDigest.com builds upon and improves the fact-checking concept. Without slogging through a sewer of half-truths, FactCheckDigest.com goes directly to the pertinent facts in an organized way. FactCheckDigest.com does NOT repeat or try to correct the innumerable misleading statements in TV commercials. FactCheckDigest.com does NOT discuss debunked web rumors. If you want to fact-check a rumor, go to www.PolitiFact.com. They have a good series of articles on web/email rumors. FactCheckDigest.com DOES condense and organize the fact-check web sites and other reputable information sources, in a way that makes logical sense as it applies to the central question -- "Why should (or shouldn't) I vote for candidate X ?" About The Author and His OpinionsI am a retired engineer who in my spare time has compiled this information with no sponsorship by any individual or group. You can e-mail me at: Editor@FactCheckDigest.com I'd love to hear from you if you have any additions, corrections, or comments, or even if you just want to shoot the breeze. This project began as a Word file I had been maintaining with factual information about the candidates and links to valid information sources. You will find some information sorted by what I considered to be a net negative or positive for the respective candidates. Although this sorting reflects my opinion, I have tried to keep the content purely factual. It will be up to you to decide if each point is a reason to vote for or against a candidate. A few of the statements here are simply my opinion, but when that's the case, I'll tell you. If you are an undecided voter, hopefully you'll find this site useful in your search for the facts and in choosing who to vote for. I'll make updates as I gather more information. By the way, after election season I plan to do a Fact Check Digest on other topics such as global warming, Palestinian-Israeli conflict, gay marriage, aspartame and brain cancer, or cell phone usage and brain cancer. I'm open to any reader's ideas.
Reasons to vote FOR Obama· His pledge to make energy independence a priority. Per Democratic convention speech at http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/28/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_108.php o Also per statements on energy policy at http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy · He seems to be somewhat humble. More humble than McCain. (Per my opinion) Per Rick Warren interview at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/ · Obama's popularity in the rest of the world would presumably lift U.S. popularity. Per http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/06/28/2008-06-28_obamas_world_tour_candidate_will_break_f.html · He talks about surrounding himself with people who don't necessarily agree with himself. Per Rick Warren interview at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/ · Thoughtful answers to questions by Rick Warren. He didn't seem too self-assured. (Per my opinion) Per Rick Warren interview at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/ · He has been against off-shore drilling in the past, but said on 8/1/08 that he would be willing to compromise on his position if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs. Per http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/ o Note that it isn't clear that Obama is definitely for off-shore drilling per this statement the next day on 8/2/08: "This wasn't really a new position. What I'm saying is that we can't drill our way out of the problem." (Per an Obama Press Conference in Cape Canaveral, FL, 8/2/08) (need web citation) o Obama's web site does not mention offshore drilling (per Google sitesearch 9/27/08) & nothing at http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/newenergy (the "Energy and environment" link on the Obama web site). o Obama said he remained highly skeptical about drilling off Florida’s coast but that big steps toward energy independence may require compromise. Per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/699/ · Obama is for embryonic stem cell research. Per http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/ · He appears to advocate doing something about global warming. Per a speech Obama gave in 2006 (transcipt is at http://www.barackobama.com/2006/04/03/safety_of_our_planet.php) o The above link has been renamed, apparently because energy independence is currently the bigger issue (the content has not changed). Some of this speech does indeed involve energy independence but is mainly about global warming. See the new link at http://www.barackobama.com/2006/04/03/energy_independence_and_the_sa.php o In the above cited speech, he acknowledges that there is still some question as to how much is man made and how much is naturally occurring, which indicates that he is not an extremist on the issue (per my opinion). The pertinent quote is "There may still be disputes about exactly how much we're contributing to the warming of the earth's atmosphere and how much is naturally occurring, but what we can be scientifically certain of is that our continued use of fossil fuels is pushing us to a point of no return." Note that he said "there may still be disputes as to how much is man made" which may indicate he thinks it is all man made, but I suspect it is political speak to satisfy the extremists (per my opinion). Per http://www.barackobama.com/2006/04/03/energy_independence_and_the_sa.php · Community work is commendable. (Per my opinion) Per http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/070826/3obama.htm o I would like to see more information about what he actually did and what his philosophy was as a community organizer (see Not sure about these issues, or need more info ) · Obama has proposed spending $150 billion over 10 years to develop a variety of new energy technologies, specifically including advanced biofuels, "clean coal" technology, and wind and solar technologies. We find no specific reference to electric-car research, but we also find no evidence that Obama is opposed to developing electric cars. Per http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/distorting_obama.html · He said he would have voted against the war in Iraq on NBC's Meet The Press, Jul 25, 2004 . Note that I only consider this a positive for Obama if his reasons for not voting for the war were valid (i.e. if they were far-sighted), however, it isn't clear what his reasoning was. (Per my opinion) Per http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm#Voting_Record See Reasons to vote against Obama.
Reasons to vote AGAINST Obama· Inexperience (8 yrs in the Illinois senate, 2+ yrs in U.S. Senate,) · Obama does not truly reach across the isle as he claims. He voted in line with fellow Senate Democrats 97 percent of the time in 2007 and 2005, and 96 percent of the time in 2006 (per http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html). He has never taken on his party leaders on a single major issue (per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/783/ ) He is far more likely to rubber stamp legislation from a Democratically controlled congress than McCain (per my opinion). o In Obama's defense, he did, in two cases, work on bills with Republican senators (Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana & Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican). Per http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin.html However, these were not controversial bills, and Obama did not go against the majority of his party like McCain has done. Per http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/print/ · Obama is the most liberal senator & Joe Biden is the third most liberal senator per National Journal’s 2007 rankings. Per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/526/ o Note that the ranking produced by UCSD's Keith Poole and UCLA's Jeff Lewis places Obama and Biden as the 11th and 10th most liberal senators (respectively) in the first half of the 110th Senate (2007) and as the 21st and 29th most liberal in the 109th Senate (2005-2006). Per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/526/ o Note that he wasn't the top liberal in his two other years in the U.S. Senate according to National Journal. He was 10th-most liberal in 2006 and 16th in 2005. Per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/526/ · Does not support school vouchers. Per http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/martin.vouchers/index.html · As a state senator, Obama opposed the welfare reform that was signed into law by president Clinton. Obama wrote that "“Last year, President Clinton signed a bill that, for the first time in 60 years, eliminates the federal guarantee of support for poor families and their children.” Per http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all o Obama claimed in 2008 TV ads that as a state senator he voted for legislation that moved people from welfare to work, however, it was a required follow-up to the 1996 federal welfare reform law worked out by President Clinton and the Republican Congress. Per http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html · Obama voted for a bill that called for increased taxes on individuals making as little as $42,000 a year. Married couples making a combined $83,000 would be affected. Per http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_debate_no_1.html · As a state senator, on controversial issues he voted "present" to avoid having a Yes or No vote on his record. On six (6) other votes, he claimed that he accidentally pushed the wrong button and intended to vote the other way. Per http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,1,7079399.story He voted present about 130 times. (need citation) · Obama has a very protectionist sentiment regarding the U.S. economy. Per http://www.nysun.com/editorials/william-jefferson-mccain/71586/ Also per Democratic convention speech at http://www.barackobama.com/2008/08/28/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_108.php · Obama has placed preconditions on the building of more nuclear power plants which eliminate the possibility of expanded nuclear power for decades to come. Per http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/science/07tier.html?_r=1&oref=slogin On page 4 of Obama's "Energy Fact Sheet" under the section titled "Safe and Secure Nuclear Energy:" he states "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 from the table. However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation. ...Obama will also lead federal efforts to look for a safe, long-term disposal solution 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. Barack Obama believes that Yucca Mountain is not an option. Our government has spent billions of dollars on Yucca Mountain, and yet there are still significant questions about whether nuclear waste can be safely stored there." Per www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf o Note that the Yucca Mountain waste storage site has been under development since 1977. Per http://ruby.colorado.edu/~smyth/Radwaste/Whatswrong.pdf It could take decades to implement Obama's new requirements, and he has made this a prerequisite for expanded nuclear power. There are already on-site waste storage systems that have been in use for four decades. Per http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/science/07tier.html?_r=1&oref=slogin Also per http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/nuclearwasteamountsandonsitestorage/ o Note that the "Energy Fact Sheet" document is no longer available on Obama's web site as of Oct. 15, 2008. o On Dec. 30, 2007 Obama stated "I start off with the premise that nuclear energy is not optimal. ... I am not a nuclear energy proponent. There is no perfect energy source. Everything has some problems right now. We haven't found it yet. Now I trust in our ingenuity. ... I have not ruled out nuclear as part of that [$150 billion proposed energy research] package, but only so far as it is clean and safe. Per YouTube.com video "Senator Obama takes a question on nuclear energy in Newton, IA on 12/30/07." 30 Dec. 2007, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-R52J2D5QQU&feature=related o Per FactCheck.org: There's no question that McCain is a much bigger advocate of nuclear power than Obama, who has taken a more guarded position. McCain has said that he'd work to bring 45 new nuclear power plants online by 2030, with the eventual goal of building 100 new nuclear plants. Obama has criticized that, highlighting his opposition to long-term storage of nuclear waste at the federal government's Yucca Mountain site in Nevada. "He wants to build 45 new nuclear reactors when they don't have a plan to store the waste anywhere besides right here," Obama said June 25 in Las Vegas. McCain supports going ahead with the Yucca Mountain plan. Per http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/distorting_obama.html o France generates nearly 75% of its electricity from nuclear power plants and emits less carbon dioxide per unit gross national product than any other industrialized nation. Other European countries have significant investments in this technology. This is also the case with industrialized nations in Asia. The US generates 21% of its electricity from 112 commercially licensed nuclear plants. Per a report from the Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) in May , 2001 at http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/product.biblio.jsp?osti_id=5237124 o Note that currently waste is stored on-site at nuclear plants as a temporary measure until a permanent site (such as Yucca Mountain) is approved by the federal government. On-site storage has been used for the last four decades. There are four manufacturers of interim used fuel storage systems that are in use today. Per a 2008 report by the Nuclear Energy Institute at http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/nuclear_statistics/nuclearwasteamountsandonsitestorage/ Obama wants to develop a new set of safety standards and new on-site storage technology before he would allow any expansion of nuclear power (per www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf) which would delay any expansion for decades (per http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/science/07tier.html?_r=1&oref=slogin ). o The following is an article form the New York Times from Oct. 6, 2008 ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/07/science/07tier.html?_r=1&oref=slogin )
Today about 20 percent of electricity in America is generated by nuclear
power, which is about 20 times the contribution from solar and wind power.
Nuclear power also costs less, according to Gilbert Metcalf, an
economist at Tufts University. After estimating the costs and factoring out
the hefty tax breaks for different forms of low-carbon energy, he estimates
that new nuclear plants could produce electricity more cheaply than
windmills, solar power or “clean coal” plants. · Obama is in favor of nearly doubling the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to 28 percent. Per http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/9/19/obama-pushes-for-higher-investment-taxes.html o The most astounding result from the IRS data is the deluge of revenues from the very taxes that were cut in 2003: capital gains and dividends. Capital gains receipts from 2002-04 have climbed by 79% after the reduction in the tax rate from 20% to 15%. Per http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114670305012743294.html o During the debate between Obama and Clinton on April 16, 2008, Charlie Gibson and Obama had the following exchange (per http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=3 )
· Obama has a record of supporting wealth redistribution in the United States. o In his book Audacity of Hope, he wrote in favor of "...labor laws and tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of the nation's wealth." Per http://www.campusi.com/book_spid_0307237699_83.htm o Obama had a conversation with "Joe the plumber" (a plumber that asked Obama about his tax plan) Per http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LvWZpX-j9Q In his answer to the question "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?", Obama says (among other things) that "Its not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance at success too. ... I think that when you spread the wealth around that its good for everybody." o As a state senator, Obama opposed the welfare reform that was signed into law by president Clinton. Obama wrote: "“Last year, President Clinton signed a bill that, for the first time in 60 years, eliminates the federal guarantee of support for poor families and their children.” Per http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/080721fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all Obama claimed in 2008 TV ads that as a state senator he voted for legislation that moved people from welfare to work, however, it was a required follow-up to the 1996 federal welfare reform law which Obama opposed, which was worked out by President Clinton and the Republican Congress. Per http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_work_claim.html o In a 2001 interview on Chicago public radio, Obama repeatedly talks about redistribution of wealth:. Here are some example quotes: "You know maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts" "one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change and in some ways we still suffer from that." "Typically the court can be more or less generous in interpreting actions and initiatives taken but in terms of funding of abortions and Medicare and Medicaid the court is not initiating those funding streams. Essentially what the court is saying is at some point this is a legitimate prohibition or this is not and I think those are very important battles that need to be fought and I think they have a redistributive aspect to them." Per full transcript at http://www.foxnews.com/urgent_queue/#50041ecb,2008-10-27 (note that www.foxnews.com is a biased source, but in this case it is a full transcript that even the www.dailykos.com, a far left source, linked to it) o Obama said as recently as Jan. 2007 that he wanted universal health care by the end of his first term as president. Per http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-25-obama-health_x.htm o During the debate between Obama and Clinton on April 16, 2008, Obama responded to a question by Charlie Gibson about his position on capital gains taxes: "Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness. " Per http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/Story?id=4670271&page=3 · Obama is against lowering corporate tax rates to bring them in line with other industrialized countries. o Currently, the average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent, second only to Japan's combined rate of 39.5 percent. If we lowered the federal rate to 30.5 percent this would only lower the U.S.'s ranking to fifth highest among industrialized countries. Note that this takes into account that state taxes are deductable on the federal tax return. Per http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/22917.html o Note that Obama said he would consider trimming corporate tax rates as part of a simplification of the tax code. Obama did not offer specifics and said his economic team was taking a look at the issue. He has criticized a proposal for broader corporate tax cuts favored by Republican John McCain (lowering the top corporate rate from 35% to 25%), saying they would widen the budget deficit without boosting overall economic growth. "I've seen no evidence that ... would actually boost the economic growth and productivity," Obama said. Per http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSN1730710820080617 o Chris Edwards, Director of Fiscal Policy, Cato Institute states "After cutting the federal corporate rate from 46 percent to 34 percent in 1986, policymakers fell asleep at the switch, perhaps assuming that the U.S. had claimed a low-tax advantage permanently. But most industrial countries followed the U.S. lead and cut tax rates in the late 1980s. Another round of tax rate cuts began in the late 1990s. … If the United States were to cut its corporate rate to, say, 20 percent, not only would real capital investment increase, but firms would financially restructure in order to shift more of their global tax base into this country." Per http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0204.html o Obama stated during the first debate with McCain on 9/26/08, that "there are so many loopholes that have written into the tax code, often times with support of Senator McCain, that we actually see our businesses pay effectively one of the lowest tax rates in the world." Per http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aM923sttcs § Obama is correct in stating that there are many loopholes (which both Obama and McCain propose closing [see citation below]), however, the bottom line is that there is a net movement by multinational corporations OUT OF THE U.S. which has an effective tax rate of 25.2%, to other countries with LOWER effective tax rates, according to a study by the GAO (Government Accountability Office) in response to a request from U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, in August 2008. This report provides information on the average effective tax rates that U.S.-based businesses pay on their domestic and foreign-source income and trends in the location of worldwide activity of U.S.-based businesses. The report concludes that "U.S. business activity (measured by sales, value added, employment, compensation, physical assets, and net income) increased in absolute terms both domestically and abroad from 1989 through 2004, but the relative share of activity that was based in foreign affiliates increased." Per http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-950 § Note that both Obama and McCain propose closing corporate loopholes. Per http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm and per http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm o There is some evidence that cutting the corporate tax rate can produce more revenue than was projected under the higher rate in the special case of multinational corporations, which can move their money and operations around to take advantage of lower taxes in certain countries. Economists with the pro-business American Enterprise Institute came to that conclusion in a study released in July 2007. They found that lower corporate rates attract enough growth in corporate income to produce higher government revenues. Per http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/have_tax_cuts_always_resulted_in_higher.html o In the U.S., companies are taxed 35 percent on earnings of $10 million to $15 million or on all earnings over $18.3 million. That’s one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, making an overseas move somewhat attractive to companies that wish to avoid the U.S. tax rate. But that's not the leading reason companies send jobs overseas. According to a 2005 report by the Government Accountability Office, global technological advancement, increased openness of countries such as China and India, the higher education level of foreign workers in technological fields, and the reduced cost per foreign worker are all contributing factors to off-shoring. Per http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_kind_of_tax_breaks_does_the.html · When asked which supreme court Justices he would NOT have nominated, Obama indicated Clarence Thomas & Scalia. When asked specifically about John Roberts he said he had voted against him and added that "... he has been a little bit too willing and eager to give an administration, whether it's mine or George Bush's, more power than I think the Constitution originally intended." Obama also added "One of the most important jobs of, I believe the Supreme Court is to guard against the encroachment of the executive branch on the other, the power of the other branches." Per the Rick Warren interview (transcript at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/17/se.01.html) o With a Democratically controlled congress, Obama would have carte blanche to nominate leftist justices. (per my opinion) o In Obama's book Audacity of Hope he writes "Ultimately though, I have to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution --- that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." Per http://www.campusi.com/book_spid_0307237699_83.htm o See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/supreme.court.politics/index.html?iref=newssearch regarding how this election could affect the future of the federal courts. · Obama's ambiguity about a timetable for pull-out of troops from Iraq, depending on the audience he is talking to. Per http://www.politifact.org/truth-o-meter/statements/604/ · His opposition to the surge in Iraq. o In March 2007, Obama voted YES on redeploying US troops OUT of Iraq by March 2008. Per http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm o At the Democratic debate at University of Texas in Austin Feb 21, 2008, he sidesteps the question (see quote below) by pointing out that he didn't want the war in the first place. The following quote is taken from http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm § Q: You were opposed to the surge from the beginning. Were you wrong? § A: It is indisputable that we've seen violence reduced in Iraq. That's a credit to our brave men and women in uniform. The 1st Cavalry of Fort Hood played an enormous role in pushing back al Qaeda out of Baghdad. We honor their service. But this is a tactical victory imposed upon a huge strategic blunder. When we're having a debate with McCain, it is going to be much easier for the candidate who was opposed to the concept of invading Iraq in the first place to have a debate about the wisdom of that decision than having to argue about the tactics subsequent to the decision. § My comment about the above answer, is that it may turn out to be only a "tactical victory" as Obama describes it, but if the surge holds, then it will have been victory versus total strategic defeat & possibly a chaotic middle east, plus a huge psychological victory for Al Qaeda. Obama went with the Democratic crowd whereas McCain was going it alone because he thought it was the right thing to do, even though he knew it could be political suicide. (Per my opinion) Note that in March 2007, Obama voted YES on redeploying US troops OUT of Iraq by March 2008, per http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm, which would have been a disaster for Iraq and could have destabilized the entire middle east (per my opinion). o Obama appears to have been interpreting news of the surge out of Iraq in the worst possible light (per my opinion). During the Democratic portion of the Jan. 5, 2008 New Hampshire debate regarding the surge, Obama incorrectly claimed "[we are] back where we started two years ago [in Iraq]". Actually, all indicators of violence at the time showed dramatic improvement compared with two years earlier. Per http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nh_debate_the_dems_turn.html o On 9/4/08 Obama said that the surge has succeeded in reducing violence "beyond our wildest dreams." But Iraq still has failed to achieve the political reconciliation and self-sufficiency that is required, he said, and he vowed to withdraw American troops and end the war. Per http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26550764/ Obama would be better served if he gave some credit to General Petraeus, the surge strategy and its proponents, instead of conspicuously omitting any mention of them (per my opinion). Also note that Obama's view of the lack of progress in political reconciliation and self-sufficiency is an unfairly negative interpretation (per my opinion). It should be pointed out that there was actually great progress in those areas. By May 2008, Iraq had met all but three of the 18 goals that the US Congress had set for them. Per http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/01/AR2008070102860.html · Biden voted against the first gulf war (after Iraq invaded Kuwait). Per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/681/ · Biden voted against the surge in Iraq and instead called for the partitioning of Iraq into three autonomous provinces - Shiite, Sunni and Kurd. Per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/681/ · Obama said "I would have voted not to authorize the president to go to war given the facts as I saw them at that time." Per http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm#Voting_Record I consider this a negative for Obama because of the information we had at that time, and which he (presumably) would have based his decision on. (Per my opinion) o Consider what we knew at the time: § Senior U.S. intelligence officials reported to House and Senate members in a top secret National Intelligence Estimate in Oct. 2002, just days before Congress voted on a resolution authorizing the Bush administration to use force against Iraq. The full report remains classified, but much was made public July 18, 2003, in a White House background briefing months after the fall of Baghdad. Among the "key judgments" in the report was this: "We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade." Per http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_was_known_to_us_intelligence_and.html § Saddam had acted as if he had WMDs (he admitted later that he was faking it). Per http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml Also Per http://www.nypost.com/seven/01252008/news/worldnews/saddam_did_crazy_pretend_game_with___wmd_914166.htm § Iraqi ex-patriots & defectors were claiming that Saddam had WMDs. · The Iraqi defector known as "Curve Ball" (real name Rafid Ahmed Alwan) who fabricated a story about mobile biological weapons & indicated where they were located on satellite photos. He claimed to be a chemical engineer in Saddam’s Iraq, and that he had done so well in university he had been made director of a site at Djerf al Nadaf, just outside Baghdad. The Iraqis called it a "seed purification plant." In reality, he said, the place was secretly making mobile biological weapons. Alwan’s story fit what Western intelligence agencies feared: that Saddam might turn to mobile weapons to evade American bombs. Per http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/01/60minutes/main3440577.shtml · Ahmad Chalabi, the head of the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group, was accused of feeding the Pentagon misleading information in urging war. Per http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/06/politics/06intel.html?fta=y § Iraqi ex-patriots were pressuring the U.S. to get rid of Saddam & accused the U.S. of actually wanting to keep Saddam in power. Per http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targets/1220hawks.htm Also per http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/stories/exiles022398.htm § Saddam had contact with and supported Al Qaeda with intelligence, finances and munitions. Per http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48827 The Clinton administration was also worried about Iraq - Al Qaeda ties. Per http://www.weeklystandard.com/Utilities/printer_preview.asp?idArticle=3527&R=13AE4D6 § About two weeks before deciding to invade Iraq, President Bush was told by CIA Director George Tenet there was a "slam dunk case" that dictator Saddam Hussein had unconventional weapons (i.e. weapons of mass destruction). Per http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/ Note that this was not information that Obama was aware of when we went to war with Iraq, however he was aware of this afterwards when stating his opposition to the decision go to war. (Per my opinion) (need citation) § The prewar CIA testimony was that there was evidence of senior level contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda going back a decade involving Iraq providing al-Qaeda with various kinds of training-combat, bomb-making, and [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear] CBRN. According to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the CIA reported that "al-Qaida, including Bin Ladin personally, and Saddam were leery of close cooperation," but that the "mutual antipathy of the two would not prevent tactical, limited cooperation." Per http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter12-p.htm Also per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda (see numerous citations at this link) · Note that some of the evidence of training and high-level cooperation turned out to be from false confessions coerced from prisoners who were tortured. (need citation) · Note that a recently declassified report from February 2002, expressed doubt about the validity of intelligence obtained from al-Qaida detainee Ibn Shaykh al-Libi, however, an unclassified statement at the time by the C.I.A. described the reporting, now known to have been from Mr. Libi, as "credible." In the declassified report, it noted that Mr. Libi's claims lacked specific details about the Iraqis involved, the illicit weapons used and the location where the training was to have taken place. "It is possible he does not know any further details; it is more likely this individual is intentionally misleading the debriefers," Per http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/11/06/iraq.intel/index.html · The independent commission investigating the 9/11 attacks concluded in 2004 that there was no collaborative relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq, though some contacts between the two sides dated back to the early 1990s. Per http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/11/06/iraq.intel/index.html § Osama Bin Laden had a fatwa (religious approval) to kill 10 million Americans with a nuclear weapon. Per http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1626819/posts Also per http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE0DD173FF93AA15753C1A9609C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all § Al Qaeda would have no qualms about using WMDs on the U.S. if they got their hands on them and could deliver them. (Need citation) § The previous two administrations (Clinton & Bush senior) had contingency plans for the overthrow of Saddam. Per http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/28/AR2007112802485_pf.html Also per http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/28/us/politics/28clinton.html?ex=1353992400&en=71109ce2cd3c4d52&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink § 9-11 had just happened § The anthrax attacks had just happened. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks There was also evidence that some of the 9-11 hijackers may have been experimenting with anthrax when they were in Florida. Per http://usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/03/23/hijacker.htm § U.N. inspectors had spent 12 years playing cat and mouse with Saddam searching for WMDs with no definitive answer, and the U.N.'s resolve was weakening. It was also discovered that Saddam was bribing officials, and companies. Per http://cns.miis.edu/pubs/npr/vol08/83/alb83.htm An investigation in 2004 showed that 270 individuals, companies and institutions had allegedly received money from Saddam's regime, in return for their political support. Per http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_/ai_n12781559 § There was conflicting intelligence about Saddam's WMD programs. See http://www.nysun.com/foreign/saddams-wmd-moved-to-syria-an-israeli-says/24480/ See http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030205-1.html See http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/ Note that now some critics are pointing to instances of intelligence that indicated Saddam probably was not working toward WMDs, but this is cherry-picking of the intelligence that was out there. (Per my opinion) § Saddam had planned to assassinate Bush senior as revenge for the first Gulf war. Per http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/timeline/062793.htm Also per http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/longroad/etc/assassination.html Also per http://hnn.us/articles/1000.html § The "conventional wisdom" was that Iraq had a well educated society, and that among the middle eastern countries was most likely to support a representative (i.e. democratic) government. A CIA assessment indicated "a very sophisticated and intellectual infrastructure of highly educated people. There's no reason they couldn't establish a federalized—or loosely federalized—democracy."" Per http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/targets/1220hawks.htm § Saddam had on June 18th 2000, called for the armed overthrow of monarchies in the Gulf region. Per http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2000/20-230600.html § At the time there were thought to be 100 or more al Qaeda operatives inside the United States, some who have been here for a considerable period of time, all of whom went through a training process to prepare them to carry out terrorist plots when they were called upon to do so. It was also thought that a dozen or more other international terrorist organizations also had agents inside the United States. Per a statement by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Florida. Per http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/02/23/gen.terror.graham/ Note that this, in itself, is not a reason to invade Iraq, but is a supporting reason for an invasion in that al Qaeda could provide Sadam with an easy and clandestine way to deliver WMDs (per my opinion) (need citation), especially given the known past contacts between al Qaeda and Iraq dating back to the early 1990s (per http://edition.cnn.com/2005/US/11/06/iraq.intel/index.html) § Saddam had used WMD — against Iran in the mid-1980s, and he later used them against his own people, killing more than 5,000 civilians in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988. Per http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-03-17-oppose_x.htm § Saddam had possessed WMD, as he acknowledged to the United Nations after his ouster from Kuwait in February 1991. Moreover, until at least the early 1990s, U.S., British, French, German and Israeli intelligence agencies had underestimated his biological and nuclear programs. And all of them — along with the Clinton administration, the U.N. and both supporters and opponents of last year's war — assumed Saddam still had substantial quantities of WMD. Per http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/ § Saddam had maintained the capability to produce WMD. In 1991, the U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) discovered that Iraq possessed a workable design for an implosion-type nuclear weapon though not yet the necessary fissile material. If the material could be obtained elsewhere — from Russia, Pakistan or North Korea — Iraq was believed able to produce a bomb within a year. Iraq retained facilities as well as teams of scientists and engineers. And during the past year, the Iraq Survey Group, the U.S. inspection team, discovered a program to develop long-range missiles. The overall evidence led the team's head, David Kay, to say "Iraq was in clear violation" of a U.N. resolution demanding full accounting of WMD. Per http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-03-17-oppose_x.htm § Saddam had the intent. After the withdrawal of U.N. inspectors in 1998 and the erosion of international support for sanctions, Saddam counted on being free sooner or later to fully resume oil sales and rebuild his weapons. He continued to menace his neighbors, brutalize his people and cooperate with terrorist groups. He told Arab journalists in late 2002 that he was playing for time in the face of renewed American and coalition pressure. Per http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-03-17-oppose_x.htm § As British Prime Minister Tony Blair put it, 9/11 altered the balance of risk. In other words, it is far better to act decisively against the most lethal threats rather than hope to deter them or to retaliate following a mass casualty attack. Per http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2004-03-17-oppose_x.htm o Obama said in October 2004 "The Bush administration could not find a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda. WMD are not found in Iraq. And so, it is absolutely true that we have a network of terrorists, but it takes a huge leap of logic to suddenly suggest that that means that we invade Iraq." Note, however, that it was NOT known at the time that Saddam did not have WMDs, yet Obama uses this as a reason why he would not have voted for the war. Per http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm#Voting_Record Also note that at the time the pre-war intelligence that was available to the public and the House and Senate pointed very much to a connection between Saddam and Al Qaeda (per several citations above) which in several instances, turned out later to have been questionable or wrong. It is disingenuous of him to claim to have been against the war for reasons that he could not have known at the time (per my opinion). · Ahmed Yousef, Hamas' chief political adviser, spoke highly of Obama and expressed hope that he will win the election. Hamas later reversed its position on Obama. Per http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_hamas_endorse_barack_obama.html · Would meet with Castro & Chavez & Assad & Ahmadinejad without precondition. o Asked whether he would, in the first year of his presidency, meet “without preconditions,” with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea in order to “bridge the gap that divides our countries,” Obama responded affirmatively. Per http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1dSPrb5w_k Note that Obama's web site also states that he supports "direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." and that "Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior." Per http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/foreign_policy/ o Kissinger stated "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality" Per http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/fact-check-kiss.html o Note that Obama's position on negotiations with Iran has evolved since then. See details at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4999088 (need further detail here) · Obama's statements downplaying the threat from Iran as compared to the Soviet Union and China. o It has been argued that excerpts from the following Obama quotes have been taken unfairly out of context, so I've included the entire quote. o Obama, Remarks, Pendelton, OR, 5/19/08: "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. And ultimately that direct engagement led to a series of measures that helped prevent nuclear war, and over time allowed the kind of opening that brought down the Berlin Wall. Now, that has to be the kind of approach that we take. You know, Iran, they spend one-one hundredth of what we spend on the military. If Iran ever tried to pose a serious threat to us, they wouldn't stand a chance. And we should use that position of strength that we have to be bold enough to go ahead and listen. That doesn't mean we agree with them on everything. We might not compromise on any issues, but at least we should find out other areas of potential common interest, and we can reduce some of the tensions that has caused us so many problems around the world." Per http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/McCain_says_Obama_downplays_Iran_threat.html o The following quote is McCain's criticism of the above Obama quote. This is the full quote. o “Senator Obama has declared, and repeatedly reaffirmed his intention to meet the President of Iran without any preconditions, likening it to meetings between former American Presidents and the leaders of the Soviet Union. Such a statement betrays the depth of Senator Obama’s inexperience and reckless judgment. Those are very serious deficiencies for an American president to possess. An ill conceived meeting between the President of the United States and the President of Iran, and the massive world media coverage it would attract, would increase the prestige of an implacable foe of the United States, and reinforce his confidence that Iran’s dedication to acquiring nuclear weapons, supporting terrorists and destroying the State of Israel had succeeded in winning concessions from the most powerful nation on earth. And he is unlikely to abandon the dangerous ambitions that will have given him a prominent role on the world stage. This is not to suggest that the United States should not communicate with Iran our concerns about their behavior. Those communications have already occurred at an appropriate level, which the Iranians recently suspended. But a summit meeting with the President of the United States, which is what Senator Obama proposes, is the most prestigious card we have to play in international diplomacy. It is not a card to be played lightly. Summit meetings must be much more than personal get-acquainted sessions. They must be designed to advance American interests. An unconditional summit meeting with the next American president would confer both international legitimacy on the Iranian president and could strengthen him domestically when he is unpopular among the Iranian people. It is likely such a meeting would not only fail to persuade him to abandon Iran’s nuclear ambitions; its support of terrorists and commitment to Israel’s extinction, it could very well convince him that those policies are succeeding in strengthening his hold on power, and embolden him to continue his very dangerous behavior. The next President ought to understand such basic realities of international relations.” Per http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/McCain_says_Obama_downplays_Iran_threat.html o Obama's statement is dangerously naive in the extreme (per my opinion). I would add to McCain's comments that the "MAD" (mutually assured destruction) deterrent which prevented the use of nuclear weapons during the cold war, CANNOT be counted on with the religious radicals within the Iranian regime. There is a very real possibility that given their apocalyptic vision of the end of western dominance that individuals or groups in Iran could pass a nuclear device to a terrorist group which could end up killing millions of people in the United States. After such a disastrous nuclear attack in the U.S., not only would it have been too late to prevent it, but we would be left with no obvious culprit to counter-attack. (per my opinion) · Biden stating that Obama is not prepared to be president, and that "the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." Per http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26368733/ o This statement is dulled somewhat by the fact that Biden made the statment in a Democratic primary debate. (Per my opinion) However, he was very insistent in his position. · Obama accepted earmarks up until recently. Per a 3/13/08 CBS news piece: "McCain is a longtime opponent of so-called earmarked projects while Obama and Clinton have always asked for their share. Now that critics of Congress' pork barrel ways are intensifying their election-year attacks, Obama and Clinton have jumped on the bandwagon." Per http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/13/politics/main3937627.shtml See the definition of earmarks at http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/what_is_an_earmark.html o Since Obama came to the Senate in January 2005. The total, including earmarks in which he joined with other senators in making the request, is $931.3-million. Per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/16/mccains-pork-project/ o Obama requested a $1 Million earmark for the University Of Chicago Medical Center (Per Obama For America Website, answercenter.barackobama.com) where his wife Michelle had just been appointed Vice President (Per University Of Chicago Medical Center press release "Michelle Obama Appointed Vice President For Community And External Affairs At The University Of Chicago Hospitals," 5/9/05) (need web citation) o Obama funneled millions of dollars via earmarks to his political and financial supporters at Center For Neighborhood Technology. "Obama ... Sought Money For The Center For Neighborhood Technology, Where His Neighbor Jacky Grimshaw Is A Honcho." Per Chicago Sun-Times article in Mar. 2008, by Lynn Sweet "Obama lists pet projects, at last" at http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/842166,CST-NWS-sweet14.article Note that in 2005, when The Center For Neighborhood Technology saw a deficit of about $830,000, it spent at least $1.4 Million of its $1.7 Million in revenues on compensation for high-level employees. In 2005, Jacky Grimshaw was compensated $78,400. (Per Center For Neighborhood Technology, IRS Form 990, 2005) (need web citation) § The above cited article ("Obama lists pet projects, at last") has been removed from the Chicago Sun-Times web site as of Sep. 14, 2008. § Executives and board members of The Center For Neighborhood Technology have contributed $20,688 to Obama's campaigns. (Per Center For Neighborhood Technology Website at www.cnt.org. Also per Congressional Quarterly Money Line Website at www.moneyline.cq.com ) § In 2006, Obama requested $2.2 Million earmark for The Center For Neighborhood Technology. (Per Obama For America Website at answercenter.barackobama.com) · Obama's position on reparations. He is not for direct cash payments, but does want programs that disproportionately help various groups (native Americans, African Americans) that have been hurt by past injustices (my summary of his position). o At the UNITY '08 Convention on July 27, 2008, Obama stated regarding reparations, "I've consistently believed, when it comes -- whether it's Native American issues, whether it's African-American issues and reparations, that the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just to offer words, but offer deeds." Per http://mediamatters.org/items/200808060008 o CNN correspondent Suzanne Malveaux asked Obama moments after his initial remark whether he supported "offering reparations to various groups," Obama replied: "I have said in the past, and I'll repeat again, that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed. And I think that strategies that invest in lifting people out of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but that have broad applicability and allow us to build coalitions to actually get these things done, that, I think, is the best strategy." Per http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0807/27/le.01.html o In his book, Audacity of Hope, Obama supports "universal" social programs that appeal to broad-based political coalitions "even if they disproportionately help minorities," Per http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Dae/CPhm o In Audacity of Hope, Obama speaks of "economic justice" financed by "tax laws that restore some balance to the distribution of the nation's wealth," Per http://www.campusi.com/book_spid_0307237699_83.htm o Obama's position on affirmative action: "Affirmative action programs, when properly structured, can open up opportunities otherwise closed to qualified minority candidates without diminishing opportunities for white students. Given a dearth of black and Latino Ph.D. candidates in mathematics and the physical sciences, for example, a modest scholarship program for minorities interested in getting advanced degrees in these fields won’t keep white students out of such programs, but can broaden the pool of talent that America will need for all of us to prosper in a technology-based economy. Moreover, as a lawyer who’s worked on civil rights cases, I can say that where there’s strong evidence of prolonged and systematic discrimination by large corporations, trade unions, or branches of municipal government, goals and timetables for minority hiring may be the only meaningful remedy possible." Per http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Obama+Black+Supremacist+Myth?t=anon · The way Obama answered questions by Rick Warren. He seemed uncertain and stuttered a lot, as if trying to adjust his answers to the audience (per my opinion). Per Rick Warren interview at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/ · In November 2007, Barack Obama signed his name to his commitment to accept public financing as his party's general election nominee: QUESTION: "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?" OBAMA: "Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests." (Sen. Barack Obama, "Presidential Candidate Questionnaire," Midwest Democracy Network. Per http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/20/1158418.aspx · The Obama campaign's health care plan is inconsistent with his prior position on health care in which he advocated a government controlled single-payer system. As recently as Jan 2007, Obama was advocating universal health care by the end of his first term as president. Per http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-25-obama-health_x.htm Obama also wanted a single-payer (federal government) system as recently as 2003. Per http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/22/clinton-hits-obama-for-wa_n_82662.html Obama's current health care plan leans toward federal control with a new public insurance program (see below). o See a side-by-side comparison of Obama & McCains health care plans at http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=5&c=16 o Independent studies generally agree on one thing – Obama's plan would cover more people. But they differ widely on how much each plan would cost, and particularly on how McCain's plan to change the tax rules on all existing employer-provided coverage would work out. One study estimated that McCain's plan would cut the number of uninsured Americans by 21 million, while another put the number at only 1 million. The estimates may vary so widely because both candidates are vague about important details, such as the income levels at which subsidies would be offered or, in Obama's case, the penalty parents would pay for not insuring children. Per http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/health_care_spin.html o McCain on health care: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Health_Care.htm
o Obama on health care: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm
· Obama has a massively unfair campaign financing advantage over McCain. Also, Obama is spending much more money on negative ads than McCain, who has a slightly higher percentage of negative ads than Obama. o Obama is outspending McCain by three-to-one in television advertising. In some battleground states, the difference is ten-to-one. Per http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/10/obamas_spending_edge.html o With advertisements running repeatedly day and night, on local stations and on the major broadcast networks, on niche cable networks and even on video games and his own dedicated satellite channels, Mr. Obama is now outadvertising Senator John McCain nationwide by a ratio of at least four to one, according to CMAG, a service that monitors political advertising. That difference is even larger in several closely contested states. The huge gap has been made possible by Mr. Obama’s decision to opt out of the federal campaign finance system, which gives presidential nominees $84 million in public money and prohibits them from spending any amount above that from their party convention to Election Day. Mr. McCain is participating in the system. Mr. Obama, who at one point promised to participate in it as well, is expected to announce in the next few days that he raised more than $100 million in September, a figure that would shatter fund-raising records. Per http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/18/us/politics/18ads.html o See web link "How Barack Obama Struck Fund-raising Gold -- New York Magazine" (apparently retitled "Money Chooses Sides") at http://nymag.com/news/politics/30634/ o This is partly what campaign finance laws were intended to prevent (i.e. disproportionate funding between candidates). Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform o “Political scientists usually think that presidential races are poor places to find advertising effects because both campaigns typically have similar resources and air ads in similar markets,” says Professor Ken Goldstein, Director of the Wisconsin Advertising Project. “The advertising advantage held by the Obama campaign this year puts us in unchartered waters. This year the spending is hugely unequal and in some cases, the Obama campaign has massive advantages,” Per http://wiscadproject.wisc.edu/wiscAds_release_103108.pdf o 61 percent of Obama's ads have been negative versus McCains 73 percent (contrary to Obama's statement that 100 percent of McCain's ads were negative). Per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/804/ o Obama has portrayed himself as a new kind of politician who would like to curb the influence of money and special interests over the political system. In March of last year, the Obama campaign stated that he would "aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election" if he won the Democratic primary election. But the campaign backed away from those statements as Obama's popularity increased and the campaign contributions started flowing in. The more his fundraising efforts paid off, the more the campaign talked about pursuing that goal only as an "option" he would explore. The decision also has historic implications; Obama is about to become the first presidential candidate since the public finance system was established in 1971 not to participate in general election public funding. Per http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-06-19-opt-out-qa_n.htm o The Obama campaign has purchased their own network channel.
Reasons to vote FOR McCain· Experience (25 yrs in senate, 22 years in military). · His pledge to put together a bipartisan administration. Per the Republican convention speech (transcript at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/john-mccain-republican-co_n_124061.html) · Long record of bipartisan legislation & cooperation, and willingness to go against the Republican party. o McCain has broken with the majority of his own party on climate change, out-of-control spending, torture, campaign-finance overhaul, immigration, a patients' bill of rights, gun control and tax cuts. Per http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/15/records-show-mccain-more-bipartisan/print/ Also per http://www.ontheissues.org/john_mccain.htm o One of his biggest supporters is Joe Lieberman. Per http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1817122,00.html o Joe Biden's statement that he would be proud to run with or against McCain “because the country would be better off.” Per http://demconvention.thehill.com/content/view/495/74/ o Praise for McCain by Hillary. Per http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/04/clinton-mccain-has-more-_n_89758.html o See http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_it_true_john_mccain_voted_with.html debunking the "voting 95% with Bush" claim. · Long-time support for campaign finance reform. o McCain / Feingold bill (Feingold is a democrat) for which McCain went against the republican party to push the bill through. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act · His pledge to make energy independence a major priority. His "all of the above" strategy (drilling, nuclear, wind, solar, hybrid cars, clean coal, etc.) Per acceptance speech (transcript at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/john-mccain-republican-co_n_124061.html). o NOTE: The $300 million prize for a car battery is ok but NOT very important (it provides incentive but normal market forces should suffice). (Per my opinion) o NOTE: The "gas tax holiday" idea was not very significant, & in fact might slightly hurt long-term by failing to discourage the use of gasoline due to its slightly lower price. It would have provided immediate relief, however. This was more hype than anything else. (Per my opinion) · McCain's record of standing up to corruption by politicians, lobbyists and the "Iron Triangle" of the Defense Department, Congress and industry. o For example: Since late 2001, when he spotted a $26 billion contract for leasing tankers in a footnote in the federal budget, McCain and his two aides have outmaneuvered Air Force brass and Boeing's 35-person Washington lobbying operation in a classic Washington power play and a media blitz worthy of Madison Avenue. McCain's efforts killed the deal and sparked criminal convictions; spurred the resignations of top Air Force and Boeing officials, including Boeing CEO Phil Condit; and brought to light the biggest Pentagon weapons scandal in 20 years. Per http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002130791_mccain26m.html · His certainty in answering questions by Rick Warren (i.e. he isn't making it up as he goes, or saying what he thinks the audience wants to hear, but really thinks that way). (see below why this may also be a reason to vote against him) (Per my opinion) See the interview at http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/ · His choice of Palin for V.P. in that she did what was right & went against a corrupt republican establishment & put together a bipartisan government. (see below why his choice of Palin could also a reason to vote against him) o Palin went against the Republican establishment in Alaska. Per http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/03/palin.track.record/ Note however that Anne Kilkenny (resident of Wasilla, Alaska) in her e-mail on Sarah Palin claims that she is "not at all" a maverick. Per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/palinemail/ · His unshaken support for the surge in Iraq when it was political suicide. Per http://www.johnmccain.com/FIE/surge.htm · His opposition to the way the Iraq war was handled by Bush. Per http://www.johnmccain.com/FIE/surge.htm · He would nominate supreme court justices who have a "proven record, of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America and not legislating from the bench." He also added that Alito and Roberts were two of his "most recent favorites". When asked which Justices he would NOT have nominated, McCain indicated Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stephens. Per the Rick Warren interview (transcript at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/17/se.01.html) o With a Democratically controlled congress, it would be nearly impossible for McCain to get confirmation of a far right justice nomination. (Per my opinion) o See http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/supreme.court.politics/index.html?iref=newssearch for further information about how many supreme court justice positions might be opening up in the next 4 or 8 years, plus other issues. · Torture he endured as a POW (if you believe him, this profoundly affected his life and priorities in a positive way, per the Republican convention speech. Transcript at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/john-mccain-republican-co_n_124061.html). · McCain voted NO on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage. (Jun 2006) and wants to leave gay marriage up to the states. (Jan 2007). Per http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm · He is for embryonic stem cell research. Per http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Abortion.htm#04-SEN8 · Pro free-trade. Concedes the realities of the world marketplace & sees protectionism as a risk to American jobs in the long run & supports re-training for people who loose jobs as a result of international competition. Per his acceptance speech. (transcript at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/john-mccain-republican-co_n_124061.html). o 25 million jobs have been gained since NAFTA. Per http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/how_many_us_jobs_have_been_lost.html · McCain supports school vouchers. Per http://www.ontheissues.org/John_McCain.htm o See also http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/16/martin.vouchers/index.html for background and commentary on school vouchers. · His anti-protectionist sentiment regarding the U.S. economy. Per Republican convention speech. (Transcipt at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/04/john-mccain-republican-co_n_124061.html) · His stand on global warming. "He he has been a leader on the issue of global warming with the courage to call the nation to action on an issue we can no longer afford to ignore." Per http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Environment.htm · His stand against torture. Per http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Homeland_Security.htm#Torture · McCain does not accept earmarks, and has consistently fought against them. Per http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/13/politics/main3937627.shtml o PolitiFact.com said this about McCain and earmarks: "Sen. John McCain has a well-deserved reputation in Washington as a pork-buster. The GOP presidential nominee regularly castigates colleagues when they insert language in spending bills forcing taxp everywhere to pay for projects only of interest to a select few." Per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/719/ o PolitiFact writer John Frank pointed out that McCain has rarely sought pork, but has on a few occasions. McCain advocates have argued that those projects don't meet the definition of pork-barrel spending, but as pointed out by the National Taxpayers Union, they would probably meet the public idea of one. Per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/sep/16/mccains-pork-project/ · McCain does not want to raise capital gains taxes. Per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/apr/29/capital-gains-taxes-demystified/ · McCain believes it is strategically and morally essential for the United States to support the Government of Iraq to become capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people. He strongly disagrees with those who advocate withdrawing American troops before that has occurred. It would be a grave mistake to leave before Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and before a competent, trained, and capable Iraqi security force is in place and operating effectively. Per http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/fdeb03a7-30b0-4ece-8e34-4c7ea83f11d8.htm · Health care. McCain does NOT support a big government-run program. o See a side-by-side comparison of Obama & McCains health care plans at http://www.health08.org/sidebyside_results.cfm?c=5&c=16 o Independent studies generally agree on one thing – Obama's plan would cover more people. But they differ widely on how much each plan would cost, and particularly on how McCain's plan to change the tax rules on all existing employer-provided coverage would work out. One study estimated that McCain's plan would cut the number of uninsured Americans by 21 million, while another put the number at only 1 million. The estimates may vary so widely because both candidates are vague about important details, such as the income levels at which subsidies would be offered or, in Obama's case, the penalty parents would pay for not insuring children. Per http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/health_care_spin.html o McCain on health care: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/John_McCain_Health_Care.htm
o Obama on health care: http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm
Reasons to vote AGAINST McCain· His bad temper. o I have changed my mind on this based on further research. See MINIMAL ISSUES TO ME regarding McCain's temper. · His age. He will be 72 when inaugurated. o On the other hand, he seems very healthy and his mother is 95(as of 5/13/08) and still very lucid (per my opinion per a video during the Republican convention). He has stood up to a grueling presidential campaign (per my opinion). See a Tim Russert interview of McCain an his mother at http://video.msn.com/video.aspx?mkt=en-us&brand=msnbc&vid=393219d9-4bb8-486e-8e33-6e89a8b43a86 · He's not quite as humble as I would like him to be. (Per my opinion) o Although, his self-deprecating humor tends to show that he doesn't take himself too seriously. (Per my opinion) · McCain's choice of inexperienced V.P. Sharon Palin who may have some ethics issues, & is very conservative. o "Road to nowhere" issue. The "Road To Nowhere" is a 3 mile long stretch of road leading to where the bridge would have been had Congress not killed funding for it in 2005. The price tag for the road? $26 million dollars. And nobody uses it. Per http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/22/cnn-exposes-palins-road-t_n_128462.html o Trooper brother-in-law issue. Note that "Troopers eventually investigated 13 issues and found four in which Wooten violated policy or broke the law or both". Per article from Anchorage Daily News at http://www.newsminer.com/news/2008/jul/28/scrutiny-wooten-raises-conduct-questions/ Also, per Politifact.com, the police chief "had publicly supported Palin's political opponent, incumbent mayor John Stein, in the 1996 mayoral campaign" and was fired by Palin "a few months after taking office". Also, per the police chief (seen on some TV news story), Palin did not tell him to fire the trooper, but he did receive phone calls that he felt were "intense pressure" to fire him. o Book banning issue (nothing in FactCheck.org as of 9/5/08). Note that this appears to have been a rhetorical question posed by Palin. PolitiFact.com indicates that the "Story of banned books is murky", and that the librarian said “She was asking me how I would deal with her saying a book can’t be in the library.” Per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/704/ o Didn't know what the Bush doctrine in an interview with Charlie Gibson on 9/11/08. << Can't find unedited video of this (9/11/08). Note that there is evidence that this was edited in a way that changed the way her answers were perceived. See http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/12/abc-edits-out-palin-objection-to-holy-war-question/ See the unedited full transcript with underlined text showing the sections that were edited out at http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/ o She said in the Gibson interview regarding abortion that it was her personal view and that it should be left up to the states to decide. Per the unedited transcript at http://marklevinshow.com/gibson-interview/ · His certainty in answering questions by Rick Warren (i.e. he may be too fixed in his thinking or too self-assured, or maybe he heard the questions ahead of time (per my opinion)). Per http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/16/warren.forum/ · His claim that he "knows how to" or "will" get Bin Laden (need citation here) o Note that maybe this is because he knows about the supposed secret technology used in Iraq that Bob Woodward mentioned?. But, if we have this technology, why wouldn't we already be using it to get Bin Laden? This "technology" might be a cover story to protect snitches in Iraq. (Per my opinion) · Sarah Palin's "bridge to nowhere" opposition was greatly exaggerated. o She killed the project when it was essentially dead already. That she said "thanks but no thanks" is rated as "half true" by politifact.com. Per http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/675/ o There is talk that she supported it in the beginning. Nothing in PolitiFact.com or FactCheck.org on this. Have also heard on TV that her original support was for a cheap bridge. (need citation here) o Note that the "road to nowhere" was not initiated by Palin, however it appears that she could have canceled the contract. The earmark for the road had already been committed and the contract had been signed by the previous governer before Palin took office, however, she could have canceled the contract (which would have involved cancellation penalties). Per http://www.newsweek.com/id/159421/output/print
|
|
Send mail to
Editor@FactCheckDigest.com with questions or comments about this web site.
|