Factcheck: A License to Kill

[Zguy28]

A License to Kill

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_license_to_kill.html

October 28, 2008

A new anti-Obama group runs a bunk-filled ad implying he'd give a driver's license to Mohammed Atta.

Summary

An upstart group calling itself the "National Republican Trust PAC" mixes a pile of false claims and the image of 9/11 mastermind Mohammed Atta to create one of the sleaziest false TV ads of the campaign.

• The spot falsely claims Obama has a "plan" to issue driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. In fact, Obama has said quite specifically, "I am not proposing that that's what we do."
  
  
• The ad implies such licenses would enable terrorist attacks. In fact, Atta wouldn't have needed one to carry out his attacks.
  

• It claims that Obama's health care plan will apply to illegal immigrants. But Obama has stated quite clearly that his plan "does not" cover illegal immigrants.
  

The ad falsely claims that Obama's plan "gives illegals Social Security benefits," which is also flatly untrue.

See link for full analysis...

**************************************

Just one in a recent series of independent and false ads run by neo-con organizations.

[Zguy28]

Here's another one:

Right Change Is Wrong

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/right_change_is_wrong.html

October 24, 2008

A conservative group misleads voters mightily on Obama's tax plans for small businesses.

Summary

A conservative group called RightChange.com has spent $3 million running ads that largely criticize Obama and his tax plans. They're false:

• Two ads say Obama would tax "small businesses" at a rate of "62 percent." He wouldn't. That number is an inflated estimate of the very top tax rate, and it doesn't represent what Obama has proposed.
  
  
• That false figure includes an increased Social Security tax rate that Obama doesn't support, plus the state income tax rate paid by people making more than a million dollars a year in California.
  
  
• One ad implies that regular folks just trying to make it as entrepreneurs would be hit with such a rate. But even if this estimate were correct – and it's not – it would affect the wealthiest taxpayers and only 1 percent of those who could generously be considered small-business owners.
  

See link for full analysis...

[AsburySkinsFan]

How any self respecting GOPer can stand back and allow this stuff without a word of objection is beyond me, this isn't negative, this isn't gutter this is utterly foul putridity from the festering underbelly of the GOP and it should be condemned from the highest levels of the GOP; condemned not disassociated but strong bold words and actions of condemnation if the GOP want a shot at leading this country in 4 years then they had better start proving that they are worthy of leadership...swiftboat...corsi...terrorist...socialist...and now this. Utterly disgusting, and one more reassurance that I made the right decision to leave the GOP.

[PeterMP]

How any self respecting GOPer can stand back and allow this stuff without a word of objection is beyond me, this isn't negative, this isn't gutter this is utterly foul putridity from the festering underbelly of the GOP and it should be condemned from the highest levels of the GOP; condemned not disassociated but strong bold words and actions of condemnation if the GOP want a shot at leading this country in 4 years then they had better start proving that they are worthy of leadership...swiftboat...corsi...terrorist...socialist...and now this. Utterly disgusting, and one more reassurance that I made the right decision to leave the GOP.

Well, the first one might be a little over the top, but how is the second one any different than any of a number of ads that Obama is running that Zguy has posted before (I saw the McCain's going to cut medicare/medicaid benefits ad myself for the first time), and note, those are ads that Obama himself is running.

If McCain's version of campaign finance reform had been okayed by the Supreme Court these ads woudn't even be running (at least not this close to the election), I believe.

[Larry]

How any self respecting GOPer can stand back and allow this stuff without a word of objection is beyond me, this isn't negative, this isn't gutter this is utterly foul putridity from the festering underbelly of the GOP and it should be condemned from the highest levels of the GOP;

"The other side does it, too"

You know it's coming.

Edit: You know it has come.

[Zguy28]

How any self respecting GOPer can stand back and allow this stuff without a word of objection is beyond me, this isn't negative, this isn't gutter this is utterly foul putridity from the festering underbelly of the GOP and it should be condemned from the highest levels of the GOP; condemned not disassociated but strong bold words and actions of condemnation if the GOP want a shot at leading this country in 4 years then they had better start proving that they are worthy of leadership...swiftboat...corsi...terrorist...socialist...and now this. Utterly disgusting, and one more reassurance that I made the right decision to leave the GOP.

Do you have the same thoughts with regards to your candidate scaring senior citizens by telling them McCain is going to eliminate their Medicare benefits?

That's pretty darn low if you ask me.

[Zguy28]

"The other side does it, too"

You know it's coming.

Edit: You know it has come.

Neither side doing this crap is okay. NEITHER. That's why I've been posting it about both.

[PeterMP]

"The other side does it, too"

You know it's coming.

Edit: You know it has come.

Its true though Larry. I don't mind if some one is outraged about this, but at least show your outrage in something resembeling a reasonable manner.

I happily and clearly said the lipstick on a pig controversy was stupid, worthless, and shouldn't have even been mentioned by the Republicans, but these sorts of ads appear to be part of polticial landscape and are practiced by both parties, unless we want to ammend the Constitution to stop them.

To pretend these are awful ads that should drive people away from the Republican party from somebody that is overtly and enthusiastically supporting Obama is ridiculous.

[Zguy28]

Its true though Larry. I don't mind if some one is outraged about this, but at least show your outrage in something resembeling a reasonable manner.

I happily and clearly said the lipstick on a pig controversy was stupid, worthless, and shouldn't have even been mentioned by the Republicans, but these sorts of ads appear to be part of polticial landscape and are practiced by both parties, unless we want to ammend the Constitution to stop them.

To pretend these are awful ads that should drive people away from the Republican party from somebody that is overtly and enthusiastically supporting Obama is ridiculous.

They may be part of the landscape, but that doesn't make them okay, whatever the source. They are all lies.

[PeterMP]

They may be part of the landscape, but that doesn't make them okay, whatever the source. They are all lies.

I've contacted congreesman and senators on multiple occassions supporting elimination/stricter control of political campaign ads, especially as you get closer an election. I understand why the Supreme Court decided the way it did w/ respect to McCain's campaign finance reform law, but I don't like it w/ respect to the Constitution or what it does w/ respect to democracy.

I don't like them. I don't mind if other people don't like them and blast them. ASF's post went beyond that though to making a criticism of one of the parties even though he was completely silent in your factcheck threads on the Obama ads. That was my complaint w/ respect to that w/ respect to his post.

To me Larry's types of post are worthless and simply an attempt to deflect the truth.

By its very nature, ASF's post (and Larry's somewhat defense of it), run counter to your post, which I agree w/.

[JMS]

Well, the first one might be a little over the top, but how is the second one any different than any of a number of ads that Obama is running that Zguy has posted before (I saw the McCain's going to cut medicare/medicaid benefits ad myself for the first time), and note, those are ads that Obama himself is running.

But Pete, McCain is proposing cutting close to a trillion dollars of medicaid spending over ten years in order to make his healthcare plan revenue neutral. McCain says he can do that without cutting services, Obama is calling that bunk. I don't see Obama's critism as false. I see McCain's assertion as fancyful and much harder to believe.

I don't think their is much parrellel between the dirty tricks used by the two campagns.

The Republicans are calling Obama..

• Terrorist
  
• Socialist
  
• Communist
  
• Elitest
  
• The most liberal senator in Congress ( worse than Ted Kennedy and an socialist Senator ).
  
• A black insurgent sent to transfer wealth from the white community to the black community.
  

All False. All bogus.

The Republicans adds are basically a laundry list to strike fear into the voters.

That's not equivilent to Obama pointing out that McCain isn't very likely to save 100 billion a year from Medicare by "fighting fraud" alone, and that taking 100 BILLION dollars a year out of Medicare as McCain has proposed, is going to mandate he cut services or enrollement or both..

[PeterMP]

But Pete, McCain is proposing cutting close to a trillion dollars of medicaid spending over ten years in order to make his healthcare plan revenue neutral. McCain says he can do that without cutting services, Obama is calling that bunk. I don't see Obama's critism as false. I see McCain's assertion as fancyful and much harder to believe.

We discussed this in that thread, and as stated, Obama is making similar claims as a way to defray cost for his health plan. Obama hasn't placed any numbers on it, but for Obama's health care plan to be revenue neutral, he must make up costs from effeciency in the general medical system including medicare and medicaid and cutting fraud.

Factcheck stated that. Not me.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?t=266886

"McCain does propose substantial "savings" through such means as cutting fraud, increased use of information technology in medicine and better handling of expensive chronic diseases. Obama himself proposes some of the same cost-saving measures."

The only difference between McCain and Obama is that McCain has actually given more details and we can estimate how much he has to make up specifically w/ respect to medicare and medicaid for Obama we don't. It might be less, but it might be more.

[PeterMP]

The Republicans are calling Obama..

• Terrorist
  
• Socialist
  
• Communist
  
• Elitest
  
• The most liberal senator in Congress ( worse than Ted Kennedy and an socialist Senator ).
  
• A black insurgent sent to transfer wealth from the white community to the black community.
  

All False. All bogus.

The Republicans adds are basically a laundry list to strike fear into the voters.

There have been multiple threads on many of those topics. If one is outraged, then post such comments in those threads.

[JMS]

We discussed this in that thread, and as stated, Obama is making similar claims as a way to defray cost for his health plan.

Obama hasn't placed any numbers on it, but for Obama's health care plan to be revenue neutral, he must make up costs from effeciency in the general medical system including medicare and medicaid and cutting fraud.

I don't think that's accurate.

Obama may want to fight fraud but who doesn't. Obama isn't claiming he can milk 100 billion dollars out of Medicade a year. Obama's medical plan doesn't require him to. Obama isn't proposing giving every man woman and child a 5k tax credet towards healthcare.

Obama's actual cost savings for medicare and medicaid are totally different from McCain's. Obama want to repeal the law which Bush and the Republicans passed that says Medicade can't negotiate with drug companies as the US Military and Canada does. This will reduce drug costs across the board by 50%. We know this because it's had that effect for the Military and for Canada..

Obama also want's to stop the subsidies to HMO's. HMO's are profitable companies. Federal subsidies on them don't make them more efficient rather they only make them more profitable. Obama thinks that is a waste of money.

Claiming Obama is equally guilty of misleading statements on healthcare as McCain is not factual.

The only difference between McCain and Obama is that McCain has actually given more details and we can estimate how much he has to make up specifically w/ respect to medicare and medicaid for Obama we don't. It might be less, but it might be more.

More details? You mean McCain's proposal is more simple. He wants to give the insurance company a five thousand dollar subsidy for every person they insure. And when it comes to paying for it his numbers don't add up...

Obama's plan is a lot more ambitious, and has a lot more details.

[PeterMP]

I don't think that's accurate.

Obama may want to fight fraud but who doesn't. Obama isn't claiming he can milk 100 billion dollars out of Medicade a year. Obama's medical plan doesn't require him to. Obama isn't proposing giving every man woman and child a 5k tax credet towards healthcare.

Obama's actual cost savings for medicare and medicaid are totally different from McCain's. Obama want to repeal the law which says Medicade can't negotiate with drug companies as the US Military and Canada does. This will reduce drug costs across the board by 50%. We know this because it's had that effect for the Military and for Canada..

Obama also want's to stop the subsidies to HMO's. HMO's are profitable companies. Federal subsidies on them don't make them more efficient rather they only make them more profitable. Obama thinks that is a waste of money.

Claiming Obama is equally guilty of misleading statements on healthcare as McCain is not factual.

Obama's plan is a lot more ambitious, and has a lot more details.

JMS, I'm not going to argue with you. I gave the link the to the thread about the factcheck. Part of the factcheck is given in the OP, and I'm sure Zguy has given the link to the whole factcheck page. If you disagree, go argue with factcheck.

Factcheck called the Obama ad untrue.

[JMS]

There have been multiple threads on many of those topics. If one is outraged, then post such comments in those threads.

You are the guy who said both parties are equally guilty. I was just saying you are wrong..

There is no parallel between the negative ads of the two campaigns. The GOP and McCain are just trying to strike fear in people and stampede them based on prejudice and blatantly false statements. Obama's "negative" ads are actually highlighting real policy differences between the two candidates.

It's a dis-service to claim an equivalence where none exists.

[PeterMP]

You are the guy who said both parties are equally guilty. I was just saying you are wrong..

There is no parallel between the negative ads of the two campaigns. The GOP and McCain are just trying to strike fear in people and stampede them. Obama's "negative" ads are actually highlighting real policy differences between the two candidates.

In the context of this thread, I said there was no real difference between these and similar ads from the otherside that ASF was completely silent on. Again, go back and look at threads related to the lipstick on a pig nonsense and see what I said.

[JMS]

JMS, I'm not going to argue with you. I gave the link the to the thread about the factcheck. Part of the factcheck is given in the OP, and I'm sure Zguy has given the link to the whole factcheck page. If you disagree, go argue with factcheck.

Factcheck called the Obama ad untrue.

Pete, you don't need to write all that to bow out of a discussion you are getting your butt kicked in. All you have to do is quote the immortal words of Roburto Duran.... "No Mas"... "No Mas"....

That and not try to draw an equivelence between the GOP/McCain negative campagning and the Dems.

[PeterMP]

Pete, you don't need to write all that to bow out of a discussion you are getting your butt kicked in. All you have to do is quote the immortal words of Roburto Duran.... "No Mas"... "No Mas"....

That and not try to draw an equivelence between the GOP/McCain negative campagning and the Dems.

I had the last comment in the other thread. If you want to continue the discussion, bump the thread and reply to it. I really don't see the need to start a discussion over so you can just disapper when we get to the same point.

[Zguy28]

I've contacted congreesman and senators on multiple occassions supporting elimination/stricter control of political campaign ads, especially as you get closer an election. I understand why the Supreme Court decided the way it did w/ respect to McCain's campaign finance reform law, but I don't like it w/ respect to the Constitution or what it does w/ respect to democracy.

I don't like them. I don't mind if other people don't like them and blast them. ASF's post went beyond that though to making a criticism of one of the parties even though he was completely silent in your factcheck threads on the Obama ads. That was my complaint w/ respect to that w/ respect to his post.

To me Larry's types of post are worthless and simply an attempt to deflect the truth.

By its very nature, ASF's post (and Larry's somewhat defense of it), run counter to your post, which I agree w/.

That's fine and a great explanation.

[Zguy28]

But Pete, McCain is proposing cutting close to a trillion dollars of medicaid spending over ten years in order to make his healthcare plan revenue neutral. McCain says he can do that without cutting services, Obama is calling that bunk. I don't see Obama's critism as false. I see McCain's assertion as fancyful and much harder to believe.

I don't think their is much parrellel between the dirty tricks used by the two campagns.

The Republicans are calling Obama..

• Terrorist
  
• Socialist
  
• Communist
  
• Elitest
  
• The most liberal senator in Congress ( worse than Ted Kennedy and an socialist Senator ).
  
• A black insurgent sent to transfer wealth from the white community to the black community.
  

All False. All bogus.

The Republicans adds are basically a laundry list to strike fear into the voters.

That's not equivilent to Obama pointing out that McCain isn't very likely to save 100 billion a year from Medicare by "fighting fraud" alone, and that taking 100 BILLION dollars a year out of Medicare as McCain has proposed, is going to mandate he cut services or enrollement or both..

You are the guy who said both parties are equally guilty. I was just saying you are wrong..

There is no parallel between the negative ads of the two campaigns. The GOP and McCain are just trying to strike fear in people and stampede them based on prejudice and blatantly false statements. Obama's "negative" ads are actually highlighting real policy differences between the two candidates.

It's a dis-service to claim an equivalence where none exists.

Factcheck.org disagrees with you.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_false_medicare_claim.html

Excuse us if we take their word over yours.

But achievable or not, "savings" are what McCain is proposing. It's a rank distortion for Obama's ad to twist that into a plan for "cuts in benefits, eligibility or both," and for Obama to claim in a speech that seniors will "receive fewer services, and get lower quality care."

Update, Oct. 21: The Center for American Progress Action Fund issued a rebuttal to this article, claiming our analysis is “flawed,” that this article “relies solely on the denials of McCain senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin” and that we failed to conduct a “thorough analysis of the implications” of McCain’s health care proposals.

We disagree. Our criticism of both Obama and American Progress is that they themselves misinterpret and misrepresent what Holtz-Eakin said to the Wall Street Journal in the first place. He was quoted in the Journal, and stated again to reporters in a conference call, that what McCain is proposing is to reduce the costs borne by Medicare and Medicaid, and that benefits will not be reduced. American Progress simply ignores that clear statement in its analysis, and the Obama ads take the extra step of telling seniors that McCain plans to cut benefits, when McCain says the opposite.

The American Progress argument rests on the idea that because McCain has also promised to make his health care plan budget neutral – neither raising nor cutting total federal spending – and that because American Progress' analysis concludes that he cannot achieve the savings that he claims, that McCain therefore must be forced to break his promise not to cut benefits.

We are also skeptical that McCain can achieve such savings, and we said so at the outset of our article. And we've twice called into question the campaign's claim that its plan is budget neutral. But it is false logic to conclude that Medicare benefit cuts would be McCain’s only option should his promised savings fail to materialize. McCain could simply run up the deficit. Or he could choose to water down his health care plan to make it less expensive.

It is certainly possible that McCain will break his promise not to cut benefits, just as it is possible that Obama will break his promise to raise taxes only on families making over $250,000 a year. We have no crystal ball, and we don't pretend we can predict the future. But for Obama or American Progress to state as a matter of fact that McCain will be forced to cut benefits, or that he is proposing any such thing, is simply a falsehood designed to frighten elderly voters.

Scaring Senior Citizens is equally low to guilt by association ads.