A:Actually, the number is slightly higher than that: 38.4 percent of eligible voters didn’t cast a ballot for president in 2008. Even more — 39.9 percent — didn’t vote in 2006.

Dr. Michael McDonald, an associate professor at George Mason University and a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, has compiled voter turnout statistics on the national and state level since 1980. In the 2008 general election, 61.6 percent of the voting-eligible population cast a ballot for president, according to McDonald. In all, 132.6 million Americans voted.

Some, but not all, states report total ballots cast, a figure that includes blank ballots or those with votes for multiple candidates for the same office. But even when McDonald tallies those figures, and includes estimates for states that don’t report such numbers, the turnout creeps up to only 62.3 percent.

McDonald’s figures are current as of Dec. 24 and are unlikely to change much. As he writes, “All states have now posted offical [sic] or certified results. There are a few minor outstanding issues that may revise these numbers slightly.”

Minnesota, where the recount battle between incumbent Sen. Norm Coleman and comedian Al Franken has raged on for weeks, had the highest voter turnout, at 77.8 percent. Hawaii and West Virginia are tied for the lowest turnout, with 50.6 percent each.

McDonald’s figures are also quite similar to early projections released two days after the election by American University’s Center for the Study of the American Electorate. CSAE’s report, based on tabulated votes by the Associated Press and some estimates, said that voter turnout was between 60.7 percent and 61.7 percent of eligible voters. The methodology used by McDonald and CSAE is not the same. For instance, they use different estimates for eligible voters, with CSAE employing a number that excludes non-citizens from the over-18 population in the U.S. and McDonald calculating a figure that also adjusts for felons who can’t vote and Americans living abroad. CSAE says those other factors wouldn’t significantly alter the eligible-voter figure. Regardless, it’s worth noting that the two entities published very similar results.

What Happened to All That Record-Turnout Hype?

Before Americans went to the polls on November 4, much was made in media reports about record levels of voter registration and high enthusiasm levels among the electorate. And while the 61.6 percent turnout number doesn’t seem that impressive – in 2004, after all, 60.1 percent of eligible voters cast a ballot for the highest office – it is the highest turnout in the U.S. in decades. As the CSAE report says, “If the rate of voting exceeds 61.0 percent of eligibles, turnout will have been the highest since 1964.”

But why was it not even higher? Republican turnout, according to CSAE, dropped, while Democrats voted in higher numbers. The percentage of those voting for the Republican presidential ticket dropped by 1.3 percentage points and those voting for the Democratic ticket went up by 2.6 percentage points from 2004. Curtis Gans, the center’s director, said he, too, thought even more Americans would vote in 2008. “Many people were fooled (including this student of politics although less so than many others) by this year’s increase in registration (more than 10 million added to the rolls), citizens’ willingness to stand for hours even in inclement weather to vote early, the likely rise in youth and African American voting, and the extensive grassroots organizing network of the Obama campaign into believing that turnout would be substantially higher than in 2004. But we failed to realize that the registration increase was driven by Democratic and independent registration and that the long lines at the polls were mostly populated by Democrats.”

As for the youth vote, Tufts University’s Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) estimates that 52 percent to 53 percent of eligible voters under the age of 30 went to the polls in 2008. That’s up from 48 percent in 2004. CIRCLE’s figures are based on CSAE’s projections, exit poll data and Census population numbers.

– Lori Robertson

Sources

McDonald, Michael. 2008 General Election Turnout Rates. United States Elections Project, George Mason University, accessed 7 Jan. 2009.

Gans, Curtis. “Much-hyped Turnout Record Fails to Materialize; Convenience Voting Fails to Boost Balloting.” Center for the Study of the American Electorate, American University, 6 Nov. 2008.

“Youth Turnout Rate Rises to at Least 52%.” CIRCLE, Tufts University, accessed 7 Jan. 2009.

The post 2008 Voter Turnout appeared first on FactCheck.org.

A: This chain e-mail is a hoax. The “statistics” are grossly incorrect, and Prof. Olson says he didn’t write it.

Full Question

Is this true?

INTERESTING FACTS —– NOTICE LINK AND MAP AT BOTTOM

Some unreported stats about the 2008 election

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30

-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000

-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million

-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

Notice that only in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma: All counties were won by McCain/Palin.

The original posting with this information is below this Newsweek article at this link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/163337.

Full Answer

First, Joseph Olson is a professor at Hamline (not Hemline) University School of Law in St. Paul, Minn. None of what appears in this e-mail was written by him. He has been denying authorship of this old hoax since earlier versions first cropped up after the 2000 election. Most recently he posted a disclaimer about the 2008 version on his university profile page:

Olson: There is an e-mail floating around the internet dealing with the 2008 Obama/McCain election and the 2000 Bush/Gore election, remarks of a Scottish philosopher named Alexander Tyler, etc. Part of it is attributed to me. It is entirely BOGUS as to my authorship. I’ve been trying to kill it since December 2000. For details see: <http://www.snopes.com/politics/quotes/tyler.asp.

More important, the “unreported stats” listed in this e-mail are all wrong:

• President-elect Barack Obama actually carried 28 states (and the District of Columbia), not 20 as claimed in the message. Sen. John McCain carried only 22 states, not 30.
• The total area of states won by Obama is actually 1,483,702 square miles, significantly more than the 580,000 stated by the e-mail. McCain’s states have an area of 2,310,315 square miles, not the 2,427,000 claimed.
• The population of counties carried by Obama is just under 183 million, not the 127 million claimed. McCain carried counties with a total population of just under 119 million, far fewer than claimed in this message.
• The murder rate for counties carried by Obama was 6.56 per 100,000 inhabitants, less than half the rate claimed in the message. The rate for counties carried by McCain was 3.60 per 100,000, much higher than claimed in the message.

Our Calculations

We calculated county populations and murder rates using official data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s “USA County Data Files.” We obtained nearly complete county-by-county election results from the Web site of University of Michigan professor Mark Newman, who extracted them from USA Today’s election Web site as of Nov. 16. We adjusted these figures only to resolve ties in three counties (more recent figures show two of these counties going for Obama, one for McCain). It is possible that a few counties will change hands when all official results are reported.

Population figures are Census estimates for 2007. Murder rates are calculated from the number of murders and non-negligent homicides by county for 2005, the most recent figures Census provides, and population estimates for 2005.

Origins of a Hoax

This hoax goes back eight years, when an earlier version began to circulate following the bitterly disputed 2000 presidential election. Snopes.com, a site devoted to debunking urban myths, took that one apart at the time, noting that Prof. Olson denied authorship and that some factual claims didn’t check out. A new version went around for a time after the 2004 election, and whoever wrote the 2008 version of the e-mail didn’t even bother to make up new “stats,” but simply substituted the words “Democrats” and “Republicans” where the names “Gore” and “Bush” had appeared.

The origin of the population and square-mile figures used in the 2008 version, in fact, is this USA Today map of the 2000 election results. It shows 143 million people in counties won by George W. Bush and 127 million in counties won by Al Gore, for example. Of course elections are won by electoral votes not counties won. And the fact is that in 2008 the counties carried by Obama were far more populous than those carried by McCain.

The crime figures, however, were no more accurate in the original than in the 2008 version. They were debunked by Snopes which put the actual county-by-county murder rate at 6.5 for counties supporting Gore, in 2000, and 4.1 for counties supporting Bush. Each of those figures is a far cry from the 13.2 and 2.1 figures used in the original 2000 e-mail, and they’re simply repeated in the most recent version and attributed to Obama and McCain counties.

One original note in the 2008 version of the e-mail is the line added at the end: “Notice that only in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma: All counties were won by McCain/Palin.” But even that is a bit misleading. McCain and his vice presidential running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, did win all counties in Oklahoma and did carry the state of Alaska, but Alaska doesn’t tally votes by county.

Where Did It Come From?

References to the original e-mail were spotted as far back as November 2000. Terry Krepel, writing for ConWebWatch, a Web site “dedicated to analysis and critique of conservative ‘new media’,” mentioned two articles that appeared on the news site NewsMax.com in 2000 citing information from the e-mail.

Dave Hamrick, in his article for Georgia’s Fayette Citizen, offers an explanation of how Prof. Olson’s name came to be tied to the bogus murder rate figures. He asked Olson about them and discovered that the e-mail wasn’t Olson’s work:

Hamrick, Jan. 17, 2001: But in response to my e-mail, Olson said the “research” was attributed to him erroneously. He said it came from a Sheriff Jay Printz in Montana. I e-mailed Sheriff Printz, and guess what? He didn’t do the research either, and didn’t remember who had e-mailed it to him.

In other words, he got the same legend e-mailed to him and passed it on to Olson without checking it out, and when Olson passed it on, someone thought it sounded better if a law professor had done the research, and so it grew.

Who knows where it originally came from, but it’s just not true. We can’t be certain with whom, or precisely when, the message originated, but Hamrick’s observation, that Olson forwarded a version of the e-mail he had received, may explain how Olson’s name became attached to it.

-D’Angelo Gore and Brooks Jackson

Sources

Snopes.com. “The Fall of the Athenian Republic,” 18 Dec. 2008.

Kreppel, Terry. “NewsMax’s Urban Legend.” ConWebWatch, 7 April 2004.

Hardy, David. “Request regarding Joe Olson quotation.” Of Arms & Law (Weblog), 1 Oct. 2006.

Hamrick, Dave. “Don’t believe, or pass on, all you read.” Fayette Citizen, 17 Jan. 2001.

The post Unreported Stats appeared first on FactCheck.org.

A: A hearing is scheduled Dec. 8 to decide whether Virginia election officials should count absentee ballots that arrived late. In response to a lawsuit filed before Election Day by John McCain’s campaign, a judge had ordered officials to keep such ballots until the matter was resolved.

FULL QUESTION

Were the people serving in our military oversees able to get their votes in on time and their votes counted?

FULL ANSWER

Sources

Lewis, Bob. McCain sues to force Va. to count military ballots. Associated Press, 3 Nov. 2008

Mears, Bill. Judge orders Virginia to preserve absentee ballots from military. CNN.com, 4 Nov. 2008

McCain-Palin 2008 v. Cunningham.

The post Virginia’s Military Absentee Ballots appeared first on FactCheck.org.

The last five weeks have brought so many ads we feel like we’re drinking from a fire hose – and we’ll bet you’re pretty saturated, too.

Since our first “Whoppers of 2008” piece, we’ve seen some of the same themes repeated. McCain’s campaign doesn’t tire of distorting Obama’s tax plan, it seems, and in the process has whipped up at least 15 minutes of fame for sudden star Joe the Plumber. Obama continues trying to pull seniors into his camp by making deceptive claims about what McCain would do to Social Security, and he has new distortions about his opponent’s plans for Medicare.

And there are some fresh deceptions gobbling up airtime, including false depictions of McCain’s position on stem cell research, Obama’s connections to former Weatherman Bill Ayers and the community group ACORN, and both candidates’ health care plans. Then there’s a new parlor game, pin-the-blame-on-the-candidate for the financial crisis that has gripped the country.

For more on these and other mendacities and misrepresentations we’ve found recently, please read on to our Analysis section, where you’ll find summaries of many of our articles and links to the full-blown versions.

And if you haven’t voted already, do so by the end of Tuesday. After all, why do you think we’ve been doing all this work?

Analysis

Remember, these are just the recent clunkers. For a collection of those from earlier in the campaign, see our first installment, “The Whoppers of 2008.”

Since our last roundup of whoppers, Joe the Plumber has joined the cast, and Barack Obama’s “spread the wealth” comment to him has been made infamous by John McCain. In fact, in Obama’s exchange with Joe, he was simply talking about making the nation’s progressive tax system a bit more progressive by cutting taxes for most while raising them on top earners. McCain himself has defended progressive taxation in the past.

Also, McCain began denigrating Obama’s proposed refundable tax credits as “welfare.” But refundable tax credits are a key feature of McCain’s own health care plan, except that he calls them “reform.” In an early version of Obama’s plan, only a tiny portion of his tax credits would have gone to anyone who didn’t work, and advisers quickly announced that they had added a work requirement even for that one (a tax credit to benefit homeowners who don’t itemize deductions).

Two outside groups joined McCain in the tax attack. But one of them, Let Freedom Ring, pulled its ad off the air rather than defend its false assertion that Obama had voted to raise taxes on “100% of America.” An ad by another independent group, RightChange.com, says that Obama’s plan would hike taxes on “many small businesses” to 62 percent. That’s a ridiculously inflated figure that includes the state tax rate paid by people making more than $1 million annually in California.

Meanwhile, McCain has continued to broadcast, in speeches and ads, his most harped-upon deception of the campaign, telling voters that Obama favored higher taxes on “families making over $42,000 a year.” As we’ve said ad nauseam, Obama’s plan would raise taxes only on individuals making more than $200,000 a year, or couples or families making more than $250,000.

Obama’s ‘Welfare’ October 17

Right Change Is Wrong  October 24

Spread the Tax Hooey!  October 26

In two TV ads and in speeches, Team Obama made false claims aimed at frightening seniors into fleeing from McCain’s camp, to wit: McCain proposes to cut $882 billion out of Medicare benefits and eligibility to help pay for his health care plan. This turkey draws in part from a newspaper story saying McCain would pay for the health plan with “major reductions to Medicare and Medicaid.” The story said nothing about cutting benefits or eligibility, though, nor does it say the McCain camp has given a target number. One ad says benefits would be cut 22 percent, and there would be “higher premiums and co-pays.”

These claims have a de minimis relationship with reality, if that. The Obama camp borrowed calculations from a Democratic think tank that had piled detailed assumptions and calculations on top of a flat misrepresentation of what McCain’s economic adviser had said in the newspaper article. He was quoted as saying Medicare benefits would not be reduced, and reductions would come through “efficiencies.”

Obama’s False Medicare Claim  October 21

Obama: Celling McCain Short

Any ad that features the mom of a sick child is sure to pull a few heartstrings. But this radio spot is flat wrong when it says that “John McCain has stood in the way – he’s opposed stem cell research.” Technically, the carefully-worded phrase is correct: McCain has opposed embryonic stem cell research. But not since 2001, when he became convinced, he says, that the potential good it could do outweighed other considerations.

And although his vice presidential candidate feels otherwise, and the Republican Party platform doesn’t support his views either, McCain still opposes the Bush administration’s restrictions on stem-cell research. Our conclusion: The Obama-Biden ad seriously misstates McCain’s position.

Obama’s Stem Cell Spinning  September 30

In another attempt to paint groups and people with whom Obama has some connection in as unsavory a light as possible, McCain has gone after the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. And we’ve gone after him, for an ad accusing the group of “massive voter fraud” and for saying in the final presidential debate that ACORN is “now on the verge of maybe perpetrating one of the greatest frauds in voter history in this country, maybe destroying the fabric of democracy.”

Both claims are breathtakingly inaccurate. There’s a huge difference between voter fraud and voter registration fraud. And while ACORN, which hires part-time, $8-an-hour canvassers to go door-to-door and register people to vote, has had widespread problems with phony registrations invented by employees who don’t want to work, the problem has never been that it sent people to the polls using bogus identities or to vote in any other fraudulent manner. Even the Republican prosecutor of the largest ACORN case to date said the shenanigans of ACORN workers were “not intended to permit illegal voting.”

To be sure, Obama’s interactions with the group have been greater than he has let on. But whether those ties can accurately be called “long and deep,” as McCain’s ad claims, is highly questionable.

ACORN Accusations  October 18

FactChecking Debate No. 3  October 16

Order in the Court, Please

Yes, ads in some state Supreme Court races have acquired the tone of some of the nastiest ads in the rest of the political realm. We found some attacks that didn’t hold up in Alabama, where two candidates are vying for an open seat on the bench.

One was in the form of a robo-call. It’s unclear who’s responsible for the effort, but the caller imparts false information when he says that Democrat Deborah Bell Paseur received a rating of “F” from the Alabama State Bar. It turns out that the bar doesn’t rate judicial candidates. For her part, Paseur said in an ad that her opponent, Greg Shaw, was “backed by more than a million dollars tied to gas and oil lobbyists” from a certain building “near Washington, D.C.” It may be true that the group that occupies the building, the Center for Individual Rights, has spent that much buying ads in support of Shaw. But Paseur can’t prove that all that money is connected to oil and gas lobbyists: the group doesn’t release the names of its contributors, and at any rate is involved in many issues, not just energy.

For our write-ups on even more viciously false ads in a Supreme Court campaign this year, see articles we wrote back in March about a race in Wisconsin.

Court Fight in the Heart of Dixie  October 23

The post The Whoppers of 2008 — The Sequel appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Democrats celebrated Halloween early this year, trying to spook voters with the political boogeyman of risking Social Security in the stock market. Since October 1, we have found 58 ads from Democrats and their allies attacking their Republican House and Senate opponents on the issue. They mislead in several ways:

• They say benefits would have been "risked in the stock market." While that’s true for younger workers, current beneficiaries wouldn’t have been eligible for private accounts under the plan President Bush supported.
• The ads often show images of casino gambling and imply that holders of private accounts could lose their entire retirement savings. In fact, the plan proposed in 2005 would have allowed investment only in very broadly diversified funds. A complete loss would be practically impossible.
• Some claim the opponent "voted for George Bush’s plan to privatize Social Security." Actually, Bush’s proposal was never submitted as a bill to Congress, and so there was no vote

Analysis

Last week we examined how congressional candidates on both sides of the aisle were trying to fault their opponents for the financial crisis. This article looks at another strong theme running through Democratic ads, the accusation that Republicans want to gamble away pension funds in risky private investments.

In October, we found 58 congressional ads from Democrats and their allies attacking their Republican opponents on this issue. The tactic echoes similar charges made against Sen. John McCain by Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign and by allies, including labor unions and independent expenditure groups. Here we have chosen examples from competitive Senate and House races.

[TET ]

DSCC Ad: "Dues"

[TET ]

DSCC Ad: "Risky"

Announcer: Imagine Roger Wicker had his way and Congress passed his plan to gamble Social Security in the stock market. Bankrupt firms and companies going under and taking your Social Security with them. If Roger Wicker and his Wall Street friends risky scheme to put Social Security in the stock market had passed, it would have been snake eyes for your future. Roger Wicker: too risky for Mississippi. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this ad. [/TET]

Gambling v. Investing

Many of the Democratic ads promote the idea that stock market investment is tantamount to casino gambling. Typical is a Mississippi DSCC ad, which says Republican Sen. Roger Wicker’s "plan to gamble Social Security in the stock market" would have allowed "bankrupt firms and companies going under" to take "your Social Security with them."

Throughout the ad, viewers see a roulette wheel spinning with a Social Security card in the dreaded 00 slot. And the DSCC ad isn’t alone. We found 11 ads with gambling language or imagery. (For a sampling, see below.) But the casino analogy – while it certainly must seem apt to many given the market’s recent plunge – is a rather serious exaggeration.

There is certainly risk in the stock market, and also potential for reward. But the fact is, the plan Bush proposed would not have allowed the sort of pure speculation that is conjured up by images of craps tables and roulette wheels. The only investment options allowed under Bush’s 2005 proposal would have been a few highly diversified funds, like those that members of Congress and other federal employees may invest in through the Thrift Savings Plan. In that system, participants may choose to invest in one or more of six different funds.

Nobody would have been allowed to bet on a single company’s stock. And unless the entire U.S. economy ground to a halt and every single publicly traded company went completely bust, no private account could have been reduced to zero, as images of craps and roulette games suggest. And as we’ve pointed out before, accounts would have been voluntary, and no more than one-third of Social Security taxes would have been allowed to go into private accounts in the first place.

From the DSCC ad in Mississippi	DSCC ad Louisiana Senate race
Cazayouz ad in Louisiana’s 6th district	DCCC ad in Ohio
DCCC ad in Arizona’s 1st district	David Boswell ad in Kentucky 2nd district

We also note that the DSCC ad strains to find justification for tying Wicker to private accounts. It cites a July 2001 vote against an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have prohibited implementing the final report of President Bush’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security. That amounted to a vote to allow the commission to go through with the mandate Bush had given it, which was to come up with plans that, among other things, "must include individually controlled, voluntary personal retirement accounts, which will augment Social Security." The commission issued its final report that December. It laid out three different alternative plans to shore up the Social Security system’s shaky finances, all of which included voluntary private accounts.

The ad also cites a March 2008 article from the Enterprise-Journal (Macomb, Miss.) that reported Wicker "would back an independent commission to reform Social Security, saying there are ways for the program to get a better interest rate than the 2 percent returned by investing in the U.S. treasury."

So while it’s true that Wicker has endorsed the concept of private accounts, it’s a stretch to accuse him of having a specific "plan."

 [TET ]

DCCC Ad: "Lee Terry: Whose Side Is He On?"

Announcer: These days, everyone watches their future tick up and down. But families planning retirement shouldn’t depend on these arrows. It’s why we can’t afford Lee Terry. Terry supports privatizing Social Security, cutting guaranteed benefits and winning windfall profits for Wall Street millionaires. The same Wall Street types that have given Lee Terry’s campaign almost $350,000 dollars. It makes you wonder whose side Lee Terry is really on. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. [/TET]

[TET ]

Lee Terry for Congress Ad: "The Facts"

Lee Terry: I’m Lee Terry and I approve this message.

Announcer: Jim Esch’s ads are a lie. Records show Lee Terry opposed privatizing Social Security. It’s Esch who wants to raise Social Security taxes, raise income taxes and raise business taxes to pay for more Washington spending. Esch’s tax plan would be devastating to families. It’s the kind of thinking that got us into this economic mess. Jim Esch: negative attacks, higher taxes, wrong for us. [/TET]

[TET ]

DCCC Ad: Barletta Social Security

Announcer: What if they had their way? The politicians like Lou Barletta and George Bush. They wanted to privatize Social Security, putting your retirement at risk. Barletta wanted to follow Bush, right into this mess. And with our markets in free-fall, where would our safety-nets be now? In these times, the last persona we should trust is Lou Barletta. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is responsible for content of this advertising. [/TET]

Truth Nose-Dives Again

One Republican is being attacked for a position he never held. Republican challenger Lou Barletta, running against Democratic incumbent Paul Kanjorski in Pennsylvania’s 11th district is accused in a DCCC ad of proposing to put retirement funds at risk in the stock market, which is simply false.

In this one, the DCCC is careful to use the past tense, saying Barletta "wanted" to put Social Security benefits at risk. But it’s still a whopper. In 2002 Barletta spoke in favor of creating private accounts that would be invested only in government securities, not stocks of private companies. Nevertheless, the ad shows him posed against a newspaper headline saying "Stocks nose-dive again," and it says "with our markets in free-fall, where would our safety nets be now?"

The ad brings in a photo of President Bush and says "they" wanted to "privatize" Social Security, as though Barletta had endorsed Bush’s proposal.

The truth is, as the Allentown Morning Call reported in 2002 when Barletta previously ran against Kanjorski, Barletta favored "personal savings accounts [to] invest in bonds or money market funds," not stocks.

Such facts don’t deter the DCCC. When Barletta tried unsuccessfully to get local stations to stop airing ads claiming that he supported "privatization," the DCCC just insisted that it was right. In July, the Scranton Times-Tribune quoted DCCC spokesman Jennifer Crider: "This is his position," Ms. Crider said. "If you look at his record, he clearly did (support privatization)." We’re not sure how Crider defines "privatization," but the record is clear that Barletta didn’t do what this ad claims.

– by Justin Bank and Brooks Jackson

Sources

The post More Social Security Bunk appeared first on FactCheck.org.

We find House and Senate campaigns are taking liberties with the facts as they seek to assign blame for the nation’s financial mess.

• A Democratic ad in Kentucky accuses Republican Senate Leader McConnell of conduct bordering on the criminal, but falsely accuses him of taking $4.4 million from "big banks."
• A Republican ad in Pennsylvania claims Democratic House member Kanjorski sponsored a bill to "slash oversight" and "banks made millions." In fact, the bill never made it out of committee.
• Many ads imply that mere acceptance of campaign donations from financial institutions is evidence of guilt. A Republican challenger’s ad in Kansas shows a suitcase full of cash and says "he failed to stop them," with no specifics offered.
• A Democratic ad in Wisconsin assigns blame for the "bailout on Wall Street" to the Republican candidate, even though he’s a state legislator who had no role in Washington’s handling of the affair. It connects him with "failed Bush economic policies" on the grounds that he supports making tax cuts permanent.

These four are among many congressional ads that are trying to fault an opponent for the crisis.

Analysis

Fingers are pointing in all directions as Democrats and Republicans try to blame each other for the financial crisis that led Congress to enact a $700 billion rescue package. Their ads are filled with images of suitcases full of cash, of Wall Street signs and of foreclosure notices. Democrats accuse their opponents of failing to regulate banks, and Republicans accuse theirs of going soft on two federally chartered mortgage agencies. Each side accuses the other of being influenced by campaign donations.

We’ve said before that no one individual or political party is solely responsible for the economic crisis. But each side tries to make blame a simple matter, even at the expense of the facts.

[TET ]

DSCC Ad: "Wild"

Announcer: Some places it would be considered a crime, but not in Washington. Wall Street’s big banks gave Mitch McConnell $4.4 million for his campaigns, and he fought for less regulation of Wall Street. McConnell opened the gate and Wall Street went wild. And now, our entire economy is at risk. Maybe it’s time we bring Mitch McConnell back to the corral. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. [/TET] 

Hate to Regulate?

Ads from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee have targeted at least two incumbent Republican senators for accepting contributions from the financial sector while fighting for "less regulation" of Wall Street.

One such ad tells us that "Wall Street’s big banks gave Mitch McConnell $4.4 million for his campaigns." But that’s not true. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Sen. McConnell of Kentucky has received $4.4 million in contributions from the financial, insurance and real estate sectors – a much broader group than "Wall Street’s big banks."

As evidence for its claim that McConnell "fought for less regulation of Wall Street" and that he "opened the gate and Wall Street went wild," the ad cites McConnell’s vote for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act. But that law wasn’t what caused the meltdown. We examined that legislation in our previous report, ultimately noting that "economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been."

As for the ad’s assertions that in "some places" McConnell’s acceptance of campaign contributions from the financial industry and his actions in the Senate "would be considered a crime": Perhaps so, but by that standard practically any House or Senate member of either party could be called a criminal just for taking donations from groups whose interests they support. In the U.S., that’s perfectly legal.

‘Millions’ from ‘Banks’

Republicans, for their part, are linking Democrats to a more specific couplet of culprits: the Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae") and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation ("Freddie Mac"). For example, in Pennsylvania’s 11th congressional district, challenger Lou Barletta released an ad saying his Democratic opponent, incumbent Rep. Paul Kanjorski, "pocketed millions in contributions from his friends at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other banks." That’s false. The total isn’t "millions."

To back up its claim, the ad shows on screen an article from the Wilkes Barre Times Leader. But the article actually reported that Kanjorski has received "$96,000 in campaign donations from mortgage buyers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac since 1989."

On its Web site, the Barletta campaign states that Kanjorski has received $2.7 million since 1989 – "millions," if you will. But to get to that total the campaign lumps together "the subprime mortgage, banking and insurance industries and realtors." And of course, real estate agents and insurance companies are not "banks."

The ad goes on to say that "Kanjorski sponsored a bill to slash oversight on the banking industry. His friends at the banks made millions." Banks may have made money, but not with any help from Kanjorski’s bill. The 2005 Ney-Kanjorski bill that the ad refers to was introduced but didn’t even make it out of committee.

The ad shows a headline saying the bill "opens the door to predatory lenders"; in fact, it contained uniform national standards aimed at curbing abusive lending practices.  According to the Congressional Research Service summary of the proposed bill, it would have set new "requirements for higher-cost mortgages" among other provisions. However, it was panned by the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonpartisan group "dedicated to protecting homeownership and family wealth by working to eliminate abusive financial practices." The group preferred an alternative bill and criticized Kanjorski’s measure on grounds that the new federal rules he proposed were weaker than some of the state rules it would replace. But while Kanjorski’s measure might have "slashed regulation" in some states, it would have increased it elsewhere.

In any event, the implication that a bill that never passed helped banks "suck up all the money" is wrong.

[TET ]

Nick Jordan Ad: "The Truth"

Nick Jordan: I’m Nick Jordan and I approve this message.

Announcer: Financial crisis, meltdown on Wall Street. How did it happen? Ask Dennis Moore. For 10 years, Moore sat on the committee responsible for holding Wall Street accountable. Moore failed to stop them, but he did take their money. Nearly $2 million in campaign cash. Now he’s bailing them out. Moore gets $2 million, they get $700 billion, we get the bill. Dennis Moore, he’s failed us all. [/TET]

Contributions = Guilt

The crudest strategy is to imply guilt for the financial mess through mere acceptance of donations from financial institutions, with no attempt to separate those that acted irresponsibly from those that didn’t, and with no attempt to specify exactly what bad act the target supposedly committed.

For example, in Kansas, Republican challenger Nick Jordan is attacking incumbent Democratic Rep. Dennis Moore with an ad showing a suitcase full of "campaign cash" from "Wall Street." It says, "Moore gets $2 million, they get $700 billion, we get the bill."

Moore’s sin? He "sat on the committee responsible for holding Wall Street accountable" and voted for the bailout measure.

Jordan takes liberties here. The $2 million figure isn’t just from "Wall Street." It counts all the donations that Moore has received over the past five elections from companies in finance, insurance and real estate, many of them far from major financial centers. In fact, Moore’s biggest donor in the current election is QC Holdings, a financial firm headquartered in Overland Park, Kan., that specializes in making payday loans and has nothing to do with the dicey home mortgages that caused the financial meltdown. QC executives and employees gave Moore $24,619 this election cycle, according to Opensecrets.org. Those donations were likely triggered by a bill to bring about tighter regulation of the payday loan industry. It was sponsored by four of Moore’s fellow Democrats and is sitting before the financial service committee of which he is a member.

The ad says Moore has "failed us all" but doesn’t say how. What would Jordan have done differently? He’s a state senator with a voting record that regularly gets ratings of 80 percent and higher from Kansas business groups, so it’s an open question how he would be tougher on "Wall Street" than his opponent has been.

[TET ]

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Ad Attacking John Gard

Announcer: Our economy in crisis. Wisconsin families struggling. Taxpayers, $700 billion to bailout Wall Street. Why? The failed Bush economic policies supported by John Gard. Policies that put millionaires before working families, and save the best tax cuts for Wall Street investors. With George Bush finally leaving, Wisconsin’s ready to turn this economy around. Not let John Gard turn it back. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising. [/TET]

• In Missouri, a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ad attacking Republican Rep. Sam Graves faulted him for "voting against cracking down on greedy CEOs." But it cites a vote against a Democratic sponsored amendment to a 2003 bill dealing with executive pensions. Its sponsor said it "addresses the underlying problems and causes of the Enron scandal" but made no mention of the subprime mortgage mess, which was still years away. The measure failed on a mostly party-line vote.
• In New Hampshire, another DCCC ad attacked GOP Rep. Jeb Bradley for the very same vote, saying he "voted against cracking down on golden parachutes for greedy CEOs" and "helped get us in this mess," as though the 2003 vote had some connection.
• In Kentucky, former Republican Rep. Anne Northup is trying to regain the seat she lost two years ago to Democratic Rep. John Yarmuth with an ad saying he supported "$700 billion for Wall Street CEOs." In fact, the money is not going to chief executives, and Democrats insisted on a provision in the package aimed at limiting executive pay at companies getting help.

—by Justin Bank

Sources

"Kanjo 7th in Money Received," The Times Leader (Wilkes Barre, PA), 21 Sept. 2008.

"Kanjorski’s greed at the heart of financial collapse," Lou Baretta Campaign Website, 15 Sept. 2008.

Downey, Kristin "Standards for Mortgage Lending Debated" Washington Post, 25 May 2005.

"The Ney-Kanjorski Bill: Replaces effective state protections against predatory lending with a weak federal standard," Center for Responsible Lending, 16 March 2005.

Jagannathan, Malavika. "Candidates stress political differences." Green Bay Post-Gazette, 27 Oct. 2006. 

The post $700 Billion Blame Game appeared first on FactCheck.org.

An Obama-Biden ad ties McCain to the closing of a plant in Pennsylvania. Its assertions are misleading and false:

• The ad says McCain "sold … out" workers whose factory closed. But there was nothing McCain, or anyone could have done. The factory was making parts for televisions that are becoming obsolete. The company in question has called the ad "misleading."
• It implies jobs were sent to China by saying that workers were paid to "disassemble the plant and ship the equipment to China" and that McCain "supported tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas." But the only things shipped to China were the parts.
• It's misleading to imply that McCain's support for the tax code in question is to blame for companies sending jobs overseas, as we've said before. The Obama-Biden campaign refers to a dynamic of U.S. tax code that allows companies to defer paying corporate income taxes on money they earn overseas and leave overseas. But the relationship to lost jobs is tenuous.

Analysis

The Obama-Biden campaign is running an ad that tells the story of the closing of a Corning plant in Pennsylvania and alleges Sen. John McCain was involved. But this story is a tall tale.

[TET ]

Obama-Biden Ad: "Sold Out"

Obama: I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.

Announcer: Corning shuts down it's plant in Pennsylvania. Hundreds lose their jobs. Then the workers are rehired to disassemble the plant and ship the equipment to China. Washington sold them out with the help of people like John McCain. He supported tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. And voted against cracking down on China for unfair trade practices. We can't afford more of the same. [/TET]

Technology Killed the TV Plant

Sen. Barack Obama earlier used the Corning plant as grist for mailers against Sen. Hillary Clinton during their heated primary contest. The liberal Talking Points Memo said then that the implication in the attack was wrong. We don't see any difference this time around.

The ad says a Corning manufacturing plant in Pennsylvania closed and "hundreds los(t) their jobs. Then the workers are rehired to disassemble the plant and ship the equipment to China." That's all correct. But then the ad goes astray by saying that "Washington sold them out with the help of people like John McCain."

When the plant closed in 2004, it wasn't politicians or trade practices that "sold them out." Rather, the culprit is that unforgiving foe: new technology. The plant was closed because it made cathode ray tubes, which are used in conventional televisions. But the cathode ray tube is a dying technology, and Corning no longer makes it. Conventional TVs are being displaced by new plasma and LCD televisions as the prices of these products decrease.

The Corning company itself is displeased with the ad, because of its implication that American jobs were sent abroad. The ad says that workers shipped "the equipment" to China (that's true) but adds that McCain's involvement was that he "supported tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas." Corning spokeswoman Kelli Hopp-Michlosky told us the ad is "misleading":

Hopp-Michlosky: The ad's facts themselves are true, but are presented out of context so that the underlining message is misleading. Corning closed a plant, and a business altogether and we know longer make CRTs. Yes the parts were taken down and sold to a manufacturer in China, but we have learned that the company lost funding and those parts have never been used to create more CRTs or jobs.

Local Pennsylvania news stations have noted the false implication of the ad as well. Hopp-Michlosky told NBC affiliate WETM that Corning has contacted the Obama campaign "expressing our displeasure and presenting all the facts so they see how misleading the ad appears. We will continue to speak with them on this."

[TET ]

Obama-Biden Ad: "Shaky Economy"

Obama: I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message.
Woman 1: The economy is very, very shaky.
Woman 2: In just my own neigborhood, I've seen two foreclosures.
Man 1: McCain's policies are the same (inaudible) of President Bush
Narrator: Bush-McCain Economics: Tax breaks for companies that export jobs, but nothing for 100 million households. A plan to privatize social security. Cutting benefits and piling up debt.
Man 1: I can't understand why we would want four more years of this.
Woman 2: It's the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome.[/TET]

Tax Breaks for Outsourcing?

The Corning ad repeats a claim Obama has made frequently, for example, in an ad called "Shaky Economy," which has run in nearly a dozen states this month. It says that McCain supports "tax breaks for companies that export jobs." But no matter where or how many times it's said, it is still misleading.

To start, the Obama campaign is referring to a long-standing aspect of the federal tax code that allows U.S.-based multinational corporations to defer paying U.S. corporate taxes on profits made overseas if the profits are left there, too.

McCain cast three votes against amendments to budget and spending bills that the amendments' Democratic sponsors said were intended to address this, in 1995, 2004, and 2005.

But this tax provision isn't the main reason companies decide to set up shop abroad.

Back in 2004 when we criticized John Kerry for using a similar iteration of this claim against President Bush, we pointed out that Christian Weller, a senior fellow at the Democratic-leaning Center for American Progress, had said taxes "are a very small part" of companies' decisions to move jobs offshore. Those at a 2005 Brookings Institution summit on trade also said taxes had little to do with outsourcing. Joel Slemrod, a tax expert at the University of Michigan's business school, summed it up by saying: "For those who see [offshoring] as a problem, this is not a solution."

During the Democratic Primary, we found Obama and Hillary both using this claim as a piñata. And our colleagues at Politifact.com found Joe Biden peddling it on the campaign trail.

– by Justin Bank

Sources

"Cathode-Ray-Tube TV Format Dying Slow, Quiet Death," AP. 23 Oct 2006.

Graham, Katie. "Corning Inc. blasts Obama ad." NBC Affiliate WETM 18. 18 Sept. 2008.

The post Obama’s Trade Trickery appeared first on FactCheck.org.

McCain's campaign launched a TV ad touting his running mate, Palin, and offering a comparison to Obama. Some of its claims are off the mark:

• It says Obama "gave big oil billions in subsidies and giveaways," citing his votes for a 2005 energy bill. But the bill slightly raised taxes on the oil industry overall.
• The ad plucked a positive blurb about Palin from an Associated Press article that, in fact, was very much a mixed review. The AP said she "brings an ethical shadow to the [Republican] ticket," for example.
• The ad says Obama is the "most liberal" Senator. But the National Journal rated him the 16th most liberal in his first year and the 10th most liberal in his second. It rated his votes "most liberal" only in 2007, when he was busy campaigning and missed one-third of the votes on which the rating is based.

Analysis

Sen. John McCain's campaign says the ad, titled "Alaska Maverick," will run in "key states," though it will likely get plenty of media coverage as well. It's misleading on a few fronts.

[TET ]

John McCain 2008 TV Ad: "Alaska Maverick"

Announcer: The Journal says: "Governor Palin's credentials as an agent of reform exceed Barack Obama's." They're right.

She "has a record of bi-partisan reform."

He's the Senate's "most liberal."

She "took on the oil producers."

He gave big oil billions in subsidies and giveaways.

She's "earned a reputation as a reformer."

His reputation? Empty words.

John McCain: I'm John McCain and I approved this message. [/TET]

Don't Forget About the Tax Hikes

The most misleading claim in the ad is that Obama "gave big oil billions in subsidies and giveaways," a reference to the 2005 energy bill that we've debunked again and again. Actually, the bill, which President Bush signed into law, slightly raised taxes on the oil industry. Obama voted for the bill; McCain voted against it. The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that the energy act "included several oil and gas tax incentives, providing about $2.6 billion of tax cuts for the oil and gas industry. In addition, [the act] provided for $2.9 billion of tax increases on the oil and gas industry, for a net tax increase on the industry of nearly $300 million over 11 years."

In total, the vast majority of the billions in tax breaks and subsidies included in the bill went to electric utilities and nuclear power, as well as alternative fuels research and energy-efficient cars and buildings.

McCain's ad attempts to contrast Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's record on "big oil" with Obama's. It says she "took on the oil producers." Maybe so. The ad's quote comes from an Anchorage Daily News article that said Palin had pushed through a bill to have an independent company build a gas line that oil companies hadn't moved on quickly enough, according to Palin, and she also backed increased oil taxes. But Obama is making attacks on oil companies a centerpiece of his campaign, while Palin favors drilling in places that even McCain wants to keep off limits, most notably the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Praise in Context

The ad uses a partial quote – she "has a record of bi-partisan reform" – from an Aug. 29 Associated Press report. Those words do appear in the article, but so do several others that aren't as flattering.

In fact, the AP report raises some questions about Palin's credentials, saying: "She is younger and less experienced than the first-term Illinois senator, and brings an ethical shadow to the ticket." It also says, "Palin's lack of experience undercuts GOP charges that Obama is not ready to be commander in chief."

The ad also quotes the Wall Street Journal as saying, "Governor Palin's credentials as an agent of reform exceed Barack Obama's." But those words didn't come from the newspaper's reporters, they came from the WSJ's editorial board, which is notably conservative and generally friendly to Republicans and hostile to Democrats.

Liberal Leanings

The ad also says Obama is "the Senate's 'most liberal,' " a claim that rests on flimsy evidence to say the least. It's based on one analysis of votes cast in 2007. Obama was ranked as the “most liberal senator” by a National Journal evaluation of voting records in 2007 – but that wasn’t the case during his first two years in the Senate, when he ranked 16th and 10th on the most-liberal scorecard. Obama also missed one-third of the 99 votes on which National Journal based its rankings last year, due to his campaign schedule.

We have no argument with the fact that Obama is liberal – he is a Democrat, after all – but we note the ad's claim rests on one evaluation of last year's votes. According to another analysis, this one of bill sponsorship by the independent site GovTrack.us, Obama is a "rank-and-file Democrat." That's a step below the ranking of "far-left."

– by Lori Robertson, with D'Angelo Gore

Sources

The post Maverick Misleads appeared first on FactCheck.org.

Summary

An Obama ad features video of McCain walking toward the camera with a group of people in power suits, as the narrator says, "the lobbyists, running his low road campaign." None of the people pictured are lobbyists, however.

The ad also repeats a misleading claim that McCain favors "billions in tax breaks for big oil and drug companies." But McCain’s tax policy doesn’t target those industries. He calls for lowering the corporate tax rate for all companies.

Analysis

Barack Obama’s campaign has been very forthright about criticizing John McCain for having lobbyists work for his campaign. Yet a new Obama TV ad, released Aug. 11, gives a false picture – quite literally – of who exactly they are.

[TET ]

Obama for America Ad: "Embrace"

Narrator: For decades, he’s been Washington’s biggest celebrity. And as Washington has embraced him, John McCain hugged right back.

The lobbyists, running his low road campaign. The money, billions in tax breaks for big oil and drug companies but almost nothing for families like yours. Lurching to the right then the left, the old Washington dance, whatever it takes. John McCain: a Washington celebrity playing the same old Washington games.

Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message. [/TET]

The ad features a shot of McCain walking with a serious-looking group of people in power suits as the narrator says, "The lobbyists" – dramatic pause – "running his low road campaign." But none of the folks pictured are actually lobbyists. Not even former lobbyists. And two of them are Secret Service guys.

The Washington Times‘ Christina Bellantoni noted the discrepancy in the ad Aug.  11, identifying those pictured as, from left to right, "an unidentified Secret Service agent, eBay executive Meg Whitman, McCain, another Secret Service agent, traveling press aide Brooke Buchanan and Greg Wendt, a San Francisco Democrat and volunteer adviser who travels with McCain." The McCain campaign confirms that those are the identities of the people pictured.

Granted these smartly dressed folks may well fit the bill at a Hollywood casting call for "lobbyists." But they’re not lobbyists in real life. Whitman is well known as the recently retired eBay CEO with a lengthy business career. She’s a campaign co-chair. Wendt’s career has been in mutual fund management. Both are McCain fundraisers.

The Obama campaign justifies the ad’s statement that "the lobbyists" are running McCain’s campaign by citing various press reports about McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, who is a former telecommunications lobbyist; senior adviser Charlie Black, who was chairman of the lobbying firm BKSH & Associates and who recently stepped down to work for McCain; and several other McCain advisers that have worked as lobbyists. McCain said in February that while lobbyists serve as his advisers, "they’re honorable people, and I’m proud to have them as part of my team," as reported by the Associated Press. In May, the McCain camp announced a new conflict-of-interest policy saying that no one working for the campaign could be a currently registered lobbyist. There are now former lobbyists in the campaign.

When we asked the Obama camp about its use of an image lacking any actual lobbyists, former or otherwise, spokesman Tommy Vietor told us, "I think everyone knows which lobbyists are running his campaign."

If so, everyone should also know they’re not pictured in this ad.

The post Not Pictured Here appeared first on FactCheck.org.

A: Yes. Obama’s newly designed campaign plane features the campaign’s logo on the tail. However, an image of the U.S. flag appears on the side of the plane.

FULL QUESTION

I was sent an e-mail about Barack Obama’s plane. It said that he had removed the American flag from the tail of his plane and replaced it with another symbol. Can this be true?

WHAT A DISGRACE!!! AND HE IS ALL AMERICAN????

Obama The Patriot – Removes American Flag From His Plane

The Patriot Room
Posted on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 8:11:07 AM by Bill Dupray

Barack Obama recently finished a $500,000 total overhaul of his 757. And as part of the new design, he decided to remove the American flag from the tail…

What American running for President of the United States would remove the symbol of his country? And worse, he replaced the flag with it with a symbol of himself… Obama is such a despicable human being.

Please forward this if you’re not ashamed of our country and our flag & if think this is a disgrace.

If you do not forward this to everyone you know nothing will happen. If Obama is elected president of the United States we are in trouble. If you think the Liberals can lead our country just look what Pelosi and Reid have accomplished for us.

FULL ANSWER

On July 20, before Sen. Barack Obama took off on a week-long overseas tour that included stops in the Middle East and Europe, his campaign unveiled a newly designed Boeing 757 plane that the Illinois senator, members of his campaign staff, secret service and members of the press corps will use for the remainder of his campaign. The plane features first class, business and coach seating, with new carpet and leather chairs and a brand new paint job of the exterior.

Prior to the redesign, Obama had used a number of planes for his traveling needs, but the plane in question was one he has chartered from North American Airlines since late March. The design of that plane had featured two images of the American flag: a small wavy flag that was displayed on the side of the aircraft and a much larger image of the flag that appeared on the plane’s tail. According to NAA’s director of corporate communications, Steve Forsyth, both images are typical of North American Airline planes. “The flag design is used on the tails of all North American aircraft (Boeing 757s and 767s) and is in the corporate logo,” said Forsyth. However, neither image is a part of the Obama campaign’s new plane design.

Obama’s freshly painted plane features his campaign slogan, “Change We Can Believe In,” and his Web site name on the side, and the campaign’s sunrise “O” symbol on the tail, instead of the American flag. However, an image of the flag does appear on the body of the plane with its tail number.

When asked about the plane’s new look sans the flag on the tail, Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor said, “I’d note that there is a flag on the side of Senator Obama’s plane, near the center. I’d also note that there is not a flag on the tail of John McCain’s plane. Lastly, I’d note that I don’t think plane design should lead us to question the patriotism of either candidate.”

It is probably worth mentioning that Sen. John McCain’s campaign Boeing 737 plane does not feature a U.S. flag on its tail either. As these images from CNN show, it does feature one on the side of the plane near the campaign’s slogan, “Reform. Prosperity. Peace.”

-D’Angelo Gore

Sources

The post No Flag on Obama’s Plane? appeared first on FactCheck.org.