Sunday, April 26, 2009
Monday, October 6, 2008
Saturday, September 13, 2008
The truth about Obama's birth certificate.
brought to you by factcheck.org
Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
Analysis
Since we first wrote about Obama's birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News.
Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life?
Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site?
Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.
Doocy: Well, couldn't it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?
Corsi: No, it's a -- there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce.
Corsi isn't the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:
* The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal.
* It isn't signed.
* No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.
* In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters.
* The certificate number is blacked out.
* The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008.
* The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."
Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.
The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller
Alvin T. Onaka's signature stamp
The raised seal
Blowup of text
You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.
The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.
The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.
The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.
We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641.
Blowup of certificate number
Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obama's information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn't have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible.
We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen."
We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."
In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:
Obama's birth announcement
The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.
Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.
Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn't tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama's father's race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African." It's certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.
When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised." He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes."
–by Jess Henig, with Joe Miller
Sources
United States Department of State. "Application for a U.S. Passport." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.
State of Hawaii Department of Health. "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.
Hollyfield, Amy. "Obama's Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
Summary
In June, the Obama campaign released a digitally scanned image of his birth certificate to quell speculative charges that he might not be a natural-born citizen. But the image prompted more blog-based skepticism about the document's authenticity. And recently, author Jerome Corsi, whose book attacks Obama, said in a TV interview that the birth certificate the campaign has is "fake."
We beg to differ. FactCheck.org staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate. We conclude that it meets all of the requirements from the State Department for proving U.S. citizenship. Claims that the document lacks a raised seal or a signature are false. We have posted high-resolution photographs of the document as "supporting documents" to this article. Our conclusion: Obama was born in the U.S.A. just as he has always said.
Analysis
Since we first wrote about Obama's birth certificate on June 16, speculation on his citizenship has continued apace. Some claim that Obama posted a fake birth certificate to his Web page. That charge leaped from the blogosphere to the mainstream media earlier this week when Jerome Corsi, author of a book attacking Obama, repeated the claim in an Aug. 15 interview with Steve Doocy on Fox News.
Corsi: Well, what would be really helpful is if Senator Obama would release primary documents like his birth certificate. The campaign has a false, fake birth certificate posted on their website. How is anybody supposed to really piece together his life?
Doocy: What do you mean they have a "false birth certificate" on their Web site?
Corsi: The original birth certificate of Obama has never been released, and the campaign refuses to release it.
Doocy: Well, couldn't it just be a State of Hawaii-produced duplicate?
Corsi: No, it's a -- there's been good analysis of it on the Internet, and it's been shown to have watermarks from Photoshop. It's a fake document that's on the Web site right now, and the original birth certificate the campaign refuses to produce.
Corsi isn't the only skeptic claiming that the document is a forgery. Among the most frequent objections we saw on forums, blogs and e-mails are:
* The birth certificate doesn't have a raised seal.
* It isn't signed.
* No creases from folding are evident in the scanned version.
* In the zoomed-in view, there's a strange halo around the letters.
* The certificate number is blacked out.
* The date bleeding through from the back seems to say "2007," but the document wasn't released until 2008.
* The document is a "certification of birth," not a "certificate of birth."
Recently FactCheck representatives got a chance to spend some time with the birth certificate, and we can attest to the fact that it is real and three-dimensional and resides at the Obama headquarters in Chicago. We can assure readers that the certificate does bear a raised seal, and that it's stamped on the back by Hawaii state registrar Alvin T. Onaka (who uses a signature stamp rather than signing individual birth certificates). We even brought home a few photographs.
The Obama birth certificate, held by FactCheck writer Joe Miller
Alvin T. Onaka's signature stamp
The raised seal
Blowup of text
You can click on the photos to get full-size versions, which haven't been edited in any way, except that some have been rotated 90 degrees for viewing purposes.
The certificate has all the elements the State Department requires for proving citizenship to obtain a U.S. passport: "your full name, the full name of your parent(s), date and place of birth, sex, date the birth record was filed, and the seal or other certification of the official custodian of such records." The names, date and place of birth, and filing date are all evident on the scanned version, and you can see the seal above.
The document is a "certification of birth," also known as a short-form birth certificate. The long form is drawn up by the hospital and includes additional information such as birth weight and parents' hometowns. The short form is printed by the state and draws from a database with fewer details. The Hawaii Department of Health's birth record request form does not give the option to request a photocopy of your long-form birth certificate, but their short form has enough information to be acceptable to the State Department. We tried to ask the Hawaii DOH why they only offer the short form, among other questions, but they have not given a response.
The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.
We asked the Obama campaign about the date stamp and the blacked-out certificate number. The certificate is stamped June 2007, because that's when Hawaii officials produced it for the campaign, which requested that document and "all the records we could get our hands on" according to spokesperson Shauna Daly. The campaign didn't release its copy until 2008, after speculation began to appear on the Internet questioning Obama's citizenship. The campaign then rushed to release the document, and the rush is responsible for the blacked-out certificate number. Says Shauna: "[We] couldn't get someone on the phone in Hawaii to tell us whether the number represented some secret information, and we erred on the side of blacking it out. Since then we've found out it's pretty irrelevant for the outside world." The document we looked at did have a certificate number; it is 151 1961 - 010641.
Blowup of certificate number
Some of the conspiracy theories that have circulated about Obama are quite imaginative. One conservative blogger suggested that the campaign might have obtained a valid Hawaii birth certificate, soaked it in solvent, then reprinted it with Obama's information. Of course, this anonymous blogger didn't have access to the actual document and presents this as just one possible "scenario" without any evidence that such a thing actually happened or is even feasible.
We also note that so far none of those questioning the authenticity of the document have produced a shred of evidence that the information on it is incorrect. Instead, some speculate that somehow, maybe, he was born in another country and doesn't meet the Constitution's requirement that the president be a "natural-born citizen."
We think our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who also dug into some of these loopy theories put it pretty well: "It is possible that Obama conspired his way to the precipice of the world’s biggest job, involving a vast network of people and government agencies over decades of lies. Anything’s possible. But step back and look at the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and your sense of what’s reasonable has to take over."
In fact, the conspiracy would need to be even deeper than our colleagues realized. In late July, a researcher looking to dig up dirt on Obama instead found a birth announcement that had been published in the Honolulu Advertiser on Sunday, Aug. 13, 1961:
Obama's birth announcement
The announcement was posted by a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger who grudgingly concluded that Obama "likely" was born Aug. 4, 1961 in Honolulu.
Of course, it's distantly possible that Obama's grandparents may have planted the announcement just in case their grandson needed to prove his U.S. citizenship in order to run for president someday. We suggest that those who choose to go down that path should first equip themselves with a high-quality tinfoil hat. The evidence is clear: Barack Obama was born in the U.S.A.
Update, August 26: We received responses to some of our questions from the Hawaii Department of Health. They couldn't tell us anything about their security paper, but they did answer another frequently-raised question: why is Obama's father's race listed as "African"? Kurt Tsue at the DOH told us that father's race and mother's race are supplied by the parents, and that "we accept what the parents self identify themselves to be." We consider it reasonable to believe that Barack Obama, Sr., would have thought of and reported himself as "African." It's certainly not the slam dunk some readers have made it out to be.
When we asked about the security borders, which look different from some other examples of Hawaii certifications of live birth, Kurt said "The borders are generated each time a certified copy is printed. A citation located on the bottom left hand corner of the certificate indicates which date the form was revised." He also confirmed that the information in the short form birth certificate is sufficient to prove citizenship for "all reasonable purposes."
–by Jess Henig, with Joe Miller
Sources
United States Department of State. "Application for a U.S. Passport." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.
State of Hawaii Department of Health. "Request for Certified Copy of Birth Record." Accessed 20 Aug. 2008.
Hollyfield, Amy. "Obama's Birth Certificate: Final Chapter." Politifact.com. 27 Jun. 2008.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
A McCain ad wrongly claims Obama plans "painful tax increases" for working families. And who's talking about deficits?
BROUGHT TO YOU BY FACTCHECK.ORG
Summary
McCain's new ad puts another stitch in what we've called his pattern of deceit on Obama's tax plan. This one claims Obama and congressional Democrats plan to push forward "painful tax increases on working American families" and that they will bring about "years of deficits," "no balanced budgets" and "billions in new government spending."
The ad is plain wrong about higher taxes on working families. In fact, Obama's economic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most. As for "years of deficits," exactly the same claim could be made about McCain's program. It's unlikely either Obama or McCain would balance the budget, and both are projected to increase the debt by trillions.
Analysis
We've already reported on at least three other ads, in both Spanish and English, from Sen. John McCain's campaign that distort his rival's tax policy. The ads claim that, for example, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama would raise taxes "on the sale of your home" and that he has a "history of raising taxes" and that he wanted to raise taxes on "families" making just $42,000 a year.
Claims like these have led us to say that McCain's campaign is engaging in a "pattern of deceit" when it comes to describing Obama's tax plan. This most recent ad fits right into the template.
Tax Counter-Spin
The ad says Obama and “out of touch Congressional leaders” plan to implement “painful tax increases on working American families,” and it shows an image of a family presumably upset about an impending tax increase. But, as we've reported numerous times, Obama proposes a tax cut for the vast majority of households.
John McCain 2008 Ad:
"Expensive Plans"
Crowd: Obama, Obama…
Announcer: Take away the crowds, the chants. All that’s left are costly words. Barack Obama and out of touch congressional leaders have expensive plans. Billions in government spending, years of deficits, no balanced budgets, and painful tax increases on working American families. They’re ready to tax, ready to spend, but not ready to lead.
We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.
Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.
Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.
Put It on Our Tab
The ad also claims that Obama and congressional Democrats would bring about "years of deficits." But (and we've reported this before, too), the fact is both candidates' economic plans would fail to bring an end to deficit spending, and by that measure, McCain's is worse than Obama's. According to the TPC analysis, Obama's tax plan would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018, while McCain's plan would bring about a projected $5 trillion increase in the same time frame. The TPC also found that:
Tax Policy Center (Aug 28): Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.
The Obama campaign maintains that the Tax Policy Center's estimates don't account for Obama's proposed spending cuts, including things like ending the Iraq war. But those cuts will not come close to balancing the budget, and Obama has avoided promising a balanced budget during his first term.
McCain, however, has said he will balance the budget by 2013. Experts remain skeptical. In early July, The New York Times quoted Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition — a bipartisan fiscal responsibility advocacy group — as saying the claim was "unlikely":
Robert L. Bixby (as quoted by The New York Times, July 8): It’s feasible to balance the budget by 2013, but very unlikely under the policies Senator McCain has proposed. The spending cuts are far too vague to be counted on for significant savings and, even if they were more specific, I can’t see how they would come close to offsetting the level of tax cuts he recommends.
McCain senior economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin sent The Washington Post's editorial board a copy of McCain's plan in support of the candidate's claim. But the board concluded, in its July 14 editorial, that the plan was "not credible."
So the ad's claims about deficit spending and "no balanced budgets"? They could be applied just as easily to McCain as to Obama and the Dems. And we're not sure McCain really wants to go there.
-by Emi Kolawole
Sources
Burman, Len, et. al. “An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans: Revised August 15, 2008.” Tax Policy Center, 15 Aug. 2008.
Table T08-0182, Senator McCain’s Tax Proposals as Described by his Economic Advisors, Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009. Tax Policy Center, 19 July 2008.
Gleckman, Roberton Williams and Howard. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans." 28 August 2008. The Tax Policy Center. 29 August 2008
Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, "Table T08-0203 - Senator Obama's Tax Proposals of August 14, 2008: Economic Advisers' Version (No Payroll Surtax), Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009" 14 Aug 2008.
Rohter, Larry. Will the Real Tax-and-Spender Please 'Fess Up?. 13 Jun. 2008. The New York Times. 2 Sep. 2008.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_new_stitch_in_a_bad_pattern.html
Summary
McCain's new ad puts another stitch in what we've called his pattern of deceit on Obama's tax plan. This one claims Obama and congressional Democrats plan to push forward "painful tax increases on working American families" and that they will bring about "years of deficits," "no balanced budgets" and "billions in new government spending."
The ad is plain wrong about higher taxes on working families. In fact, Obama's economic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most. As for "years of deficits," exactly the same claim could be made about McCain's program. It's unlikely either Obama or McCain would balance the budget, and both are projected to increase the debt by trillions.
Analysis
We've already reported on at least three other ads, in both Spanish and English, from Sen. John McCain's campaign that distort his rival's tax policy. The ads claim that, for example, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama would raise taxes "on the sale of your home" and that he has a "history of raising taxes" and that he wanted to raise taxes on "families" making just $42,000 a year.
Claims like these have led us to say that McCain's campaign is engaging in a "pattern of deceit" when it comes to describing Obama's tax plan. This most recent ad fits right into the template.
Tax Counter-Spin
The ad says Obama and “out of touch Congressional leaders” plan to implement “painful tax increases on working American families,” and it shows an image of a family presumably upset about an impending tax increase. But, as we've reported numerous times, Obama proposes a tax cut for the vast majority of households.
John McCain 2008 Ad:
"Expensive Plans"
Crowd: Obama, Obama…
Announcer: Take away the crowds, the chants. All that’s left are costly words. Barack Obama and out of touch congressional leaders have expensive plans. Billions in government spending, years of deficits, no balanced budgets, and painful tax increases on working American families. They’re ready to tax, ready to spend, but not ready to lead.
We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.
Under Obama's plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.
Under McCain's plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama's plan.
Put It on Our Tab
The ad also claims that Obama and congressional Democrats would bring about "years of deficits." But (and we've reported this before, too), the fact is both candidates' economic plans would fail to bring an end to deficit spending, and by that measure, McCain's is worse than Obama's. According to the TPC analysis, Obama's tax plan would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018, while McCain's plan would bring about a projected $5 trillion increase in the same time frame. The TPC also found that:
Tax Policy Center (Aug 28): Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.
The Obama campaign maintains that the Tax Policy Center's estimates don't account for Obama's proposed spending cuts, including things like ending the Iraq war. But those cuts will not come close to balancing the budget, and Obama has avoided promising a balanced budget during his first term.
McCain, however, has said he will balance the budget by 2013. Experts remain skeptical. In early July, The New York Times quoted Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition — a bipartisan fiscal responsibility advocacy group — as saying the claim was "unlikely":
Robert L. Bixby (as quoted by The New York Times, July 8): It’s feasible to balance the budget by 2013, but very unlikely under the policies Senator McCain has proposed. The spending cuts are far too vague to be counted on for significant savings and, even if they were more specific, I can’t see how they would come close to offsetting the level of tax cuts he recommends.
McCain senior economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin sent The Washington Post's editorial board a copy of McCain's plan in support of the candidate's claim. But the board concluded, in its July 14 editorial, that the plan was "not credible."
So the ad's claims about deficit spending and "no balanced budgets"? They could be applied just as easily to McCain as to Obama and the Dems. And we're not sure McCain really wants to go there.
-by Emi Kolawole
Sources
Burman, Len, et. al. “An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans: Revised August 15, 2008.” Tax Policy Center, 15 Aug. 2008.
Table T08-0182, Senator McCain’s Tax Proposals as Described by his Economic Advisors, Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009. Tax Policy Center, 19 July 2008.
Gleckman, Roberton Williams and Howard. "An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates' Tax Plans." 28 August 2008. The Tax Policy Center. 29 August 2008
Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, "Table T08-0203 - Senator Obama's Tax Proposals of August 14, 2008: Economic Advisers' Version (No Payroll Surtax), Distribution of Federal Tax Change by Cash Income Percentile, 2009" 14 Aug 2008.
Rohter, Larry. Will the Real Tax-and-Spender Please 'Fess Up?. 13 Jun. 2008. The New York Times. 2 Sep. 2008.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/a_new_stitch_in_a_bad_pattern.html
Palin trips up on her facts, and Giuliani and Huckabee have their own stumbles on Night 3 of the Republican confab.
BROUGHT TO YOU BY FACTCHECK.ORG
Summary
Sarah Palin’s much-awaited speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night may have shown she could play the role of attack dog, but it also showed her to be short on facts when it came to touting her own record and going after Obama’s.
We found Rudy Giuliani, who introduced her, to be as factually challenged as he sometimes was back when he was in the race. But Mike Huckabee may have laid the biggest egg of all.
* Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.
* Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.
* The Alaska governor avoided some of McCain’s false claims about Obama’s tax program – but her attacks still failed to give the whole story.
* Giuliani distorted the time line and substance of Obama’s statements about the conflict between Russia and Georgia. In fact, there was much less difference between his statements and those of McCain than Giuliani would have had us believe.
* Giuliani also said McCain had been a fighter pilot. Actually, McCain’s plane was the A-4 Skyhawk, a small bomber. It was the only plane he trained in or flew in combat, according to McCain’s own memoir.
* Finally, Huckabee told conventioneers and TV viewers that Palin got more votes when she ran for mayor of Wasilla than Biden did running for president. Not even close. The tally: Biden, 79,754, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucuses. Palin, 909 in her 1999 race, 651 in 1996.
Analysis
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was a hit with the party faithful at the GOP convention, but some of her claims were amiss. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also delivered a few faulty remarks.
A Bridge Too Far
Palin claimed to have stood up to Congress on the subject of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, about which we wrote last November.
Palin: I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.
This is not the first time Palin has cited her choice to kill the bridge in 2007 as an example of her anti-waste stance. It’s true that she did eventually nix the project. But the bridge was nearly dead already – Congress had removed the earmark, giving the requested money to the state but not marking it for any specific use. Palin unplugged its life support, declaring in 2007 that the funds would not be used for the Gravina bridge.
When she was running for governor, however, Palin expressed a different position. In 2006, the Ketchikan Daily News quoted her expressing optimism and support for the bridge at a Ketchikan campaign stop.
Palin, 2006: "People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,” said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. … Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she “would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.”
Palin also answered "yes" to an Anchorage Daily News poll question about whether she would continue to support state funding for the Gravina Island bridge if elected governor. "The window is now," she wrote, "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." It was only after she won the governorship that Palin shifted her position. And even then, it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’” Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.
The bridge reversal is not the only matter throwing doubt on Palin’s credentials as a government waste reformer. Watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has reported that the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, which had not previously received significant federal funds, hauled in almost $27 million in earmarks while Palin was mayor. (McCain has explicitly criticized several of the Wasilla earmarks in recent years.) To help obtain these earmarks, Palin had hired Steven Silver, the former chief of staff for recently indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, as Wasilla’s lobbyist.
And Palin continued to solicit federal funds as governor. A request form on Stevens’ Web site shows that she requested $160.5 million in earmarks for the state in 2008, and almost $198 million for 2009.
Tough Grader
Palin disparaged Obama’s legislative record, both in Illinois and in Washington:
Palin: But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state Senate.
Of course, we can’t say what Palin considers “major.” But if Palin’s own ethics reforms in Alaska were important enough to highlight in her convention address, then it’s only fair to credit Obama’s efforts on that topic. In 1998 in the Illinois Senate, Obama cosponsored an ethics overhaul that bars elected officials from using their campaign funds for personal use and and was called the the first major overhaul of Illinois campaign and ethics laws in 25 years. It also bans fundraisers in the state Capitol during legislative sessions. Obama’s Republican cosponsor Kirk Dillard even appeared in an Obama ad last summer describing Obama’s skills working with members of both parties to get legislation passed.
In Washington, Obama was instrumental in helping to craft the 2007 ethics reform law that ended gifts and meals from lobbyists, cut off subsidized jet travel for members of Congress, required lobbyists to disclose contributions they “bundle” to candidates, and put the brakes on other, similar common practices.
In addition, we already noted in a recent article Obama’s efforts with Republican senators to help detect and secure weapons of mass destruction and to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles around the world, and to create a publicly searchable database on federal spending.
Overburdened?
One area where we note improvement is the way Palin attacked Obama's tax proposals – as a burden "on the American economy" rather than, as McCain has been falsely claiming, a direct tax increase on middle-income workers:
Palin: And let me be specific: The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes, and raise investment income taxes, and raise the death tax, and raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. ... How are you – how are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?
Her tax remarks still cry out for context. Obama proposes to cut taxes for most individuals (81.3 percent of all households would get a tax cut), while raising them only for a relative few at the top, which she did not mention. But she avoided the false claims that McCain continues to make, most recently in a TV ad that wrongly accuses Obama of planning "painful tax increases on working American families." Instead, Palin spoke of the effect of an overall tax increase on jobs and the economy.
It's quite true that Obama's plan would increase taxes overall, by a total of $627 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Economists may debate how large or small an effect such an increase would have on jobs and businesses; it's certainly a topic open for discussion in a political campaign.
Riffing Wrongly
In attacking Obama, Palin reeled off a few statements that had a nice cadence, but were light on facts.
Palin: America needs more energy; our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.
We have factual problems with three of these statements.
* Obama's not against producing more energy. In fact, he's not even against drilling for oil any more, within limits. He has a $150 billion clean energy program and says that he wants to develop clean coal technology, advance the next generation of biofuels, prioritize construction of the Alaska gas pipeline (surely a measure Palin agrees with) and take a host of other steps to both conserve energy and produce it, in various forms.
* If Obama's comments about meeting with "terrorist states" are worthy of ridicule, then perhaps so are those of the Bush administration and other Republicans. Obama made his first statement on this in an answer to a video question at a Democratic debate last year, when he said "I would" when asked whether he'd meet "separately, without precondition" in his first year with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Reagan, JFK and other presidents had spoken to the Soviet Union regularly, he noted.
In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama elaborated, saying that he would take an aggressive diplomatic approach – carefully preparing for such meetings, setting a clear agenda, coordinating with U.S. allies, and not conducting the meetings at all unless they were clearly in the U.S. interest. He also stressed he would "do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
In recent months, the Bush Administration has been more open to beginning a dialogue with the same nations that it once referred to as the “axis of evil.” In July, the president sent a high-level official to Geneva to sit in on nuclear talks with Iran and authorized Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak with North Korean diplomats about ending that country’s nuclear weapons program. Reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times noted the stark contrast between the administration’s current position about meeting with “foes” and its attitude several years ago.
Further, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in May that we should "sit down and talk" with Iran. So did former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in March. As did Sen. Dick Lugar, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as far back as 2006.
* Obama isn't worried, as Palin said, "that someone won't read them their rights" when it comes to suspected terrorists who are detained by the U.S. He does, however, support the right of detainees to challenge their imprisonment in federal court. That's the same position the Supreme Court took in June in a case called Boumediene v. Bush.
Cookin' with Gas
Palin talked about standing up to oil companies and oil lobbyists, citing her work on getting a gas pipeline built in Alaska:
Palin: I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.
Actually, construction hasn’t begun on the pipeline, and the project isn't quite a done deal. Palin signed legislation just last week that authorizes the state to give a license in 90 days to TransCanada to start developing the project. The state also can provide $500 million as seed money. She gets credit for moving the pipeline closer to realization after many years of talks. Palin pushed for legislation that would allow a private company to build the 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline, instead of oil companies, which she said were moving too slowly on the issue.
In an Aug. 27 press release, Palin indicated that there was still work to be done before the project would become a reality:
Palin, press release, Aug. 27: After dreaming of a natural gas pipeline for more than 30 years, Alaskans have now created the framework for the project to advance. This legislation brings us closer than we’ve ever been to building a gas pipeline and finally accessing our gas that has been languishing for so many decades on the North Slope.
Washington Post energy correspondent Steven Mufson wrote that the major oil companies have opposed the pipeline project, saying it wasn’t economically feasible. Yet, ConocoPhillips and BP have proposed their own gas pipeline that would compete with the state-backed project. TransCanada estimates it will take 10 years to finish the pipeline, according to its application to the state, and it will cost about $26.5 billion – not $40 billion as Palin said.
As for Palin having “stood up to ... the Big Oil companies,” as she said in her speech, she has on this issue, not on others. Oil is, after all, incredibly important to Alaska’s economy. About 80 percent of the state budget comes from oil and gas taxes and royalties. Palin is in favor of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore areas, a position she shares with oil companies.
Georgia on Their Minds
Before Palin took the stage, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the evening's keynote speaker, gave a factually challenged account of how Obama and McCain had responded to the Georgia-Russia conflict.
First, he said that “within hours” McCain had “established a very strong, informed position that let the world know exactly how he’ll respond as president. At exactly the right time, John McCain said, ‘We’re all Georgians.’ ” McCain did release a strongly worded statement on the conflict on Aug. 8, the day reports of violence first surfaced, but he didn’t say, “We’re all Georgians” until four days later.
Giuliani went on to criticize Obama, saying his “first instinct was to create a moral equivalency — that ‘both sides’ should ‘show restraint.’ ” It’s true Obama’s initial statement said, “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war,” and McCain called on Russia to “unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.” It’s worth noting, however, that Obama’s words echoed those of White House press secretary Dana Perino, who said on Aug. 8, “we urge restraint on all sides – that violence would be curtailed and that direct dialogue could ensue in order to help resolve their differences.” Early reports also said Georgia may have triggered the outbreak of fighting. We’ll leave it to readers to judge which candidate took the right tack.
Giuliani then said Obama “changed his position and suggested that the U.N. Security Council could find a solution. Apparently, none of his 300 advisers told him that Russia has a veto on any U.N. action.” But Obama’s very first statement called for U.N. Security Council action – and so did McCain’s.
Obama, Aug. 8: …the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.
McCain, Aug. 8: The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course.
Apparently, McCain doesn’t share Giuliani’s concern for Russia’s veto power either. In fact, in his third statement on Aug. 11, McCain said: "The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression. … We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion.”
Giuliani wrapped up his account by saying, “Finally Obama put out a statement that looked ... well, it looked a lot like John McCain's.” It’s true that Obama’s statements became more forceful – as did McCain's – but Obama was calling for Russia to “stop its bombing campaign” and “withdraw its ground forces from Georgia” in his second statement, as well as his third.
Naked Gun
Giuliani also bungled a reference to McCain's Navy record:
Giuliani: And being a "Top Gun" kind of guy, he became a fighter pilot.
Actually, McCain wasn't a fighter pilot at all, much less "top gun" among that very specialized group. McCain was a bomber pilot, and he himself makes this clear on page 173 of his book "Faith of my Fathers": "I trained exclusively in the A-4 Skyhawk, the small bomber that I would soon fly in combat missions." The aircraft is formally called a "Light Attack Bomber" by Boeing, successor to McDonnell-Douglas, the company that made it. It's true that a few A-4s were flown by the Navy Fighter Weapons School at Miramar, California – but they played the role of "bogies," which the fighter pilots in training were supposed to intercept and shoot down.
Giuliani might be forgiven for his mistake, as he never served in the military himself.
Too Good to Check?
The biggest whopper of the night may have come from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who charged that Palin “got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States.” It may sound like a great line, but it’s not true – not even close. Palin garnered 651 votes in 1996 and 909 votes in 1999 in her two races for mayor of Wasilla, according to the city. Biden, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucus, got 79,754 votes in the Democratic primaries.
– by Viveca Novak, with Brooks Jackson, Jess Henig, Lori Robertson and D'Angelo Gore
Sources
Bowlen, Scott. "Palin: It's about service to people." Ketchikan Daily News. 9 Aug. 2006.
Anchorage Daily News. "Where they stand; Running for Governor 2006." 22 Oct. 2006.
Taxpayers for Common Sense. "Wasilla, Alaska Benefited from Nearly $27 Million in Earmarks from 1996 to 2002." 2 Sep. 2008.
Hamburger, Tom, Richard Simon and Janet Hook. "McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin." The Los Angeles Times. 3 Sep. 2008.
Hamburger, Tom. "Palin relied on earmark system she now opposes." The Los Angeles Times. 1 Sep. 2008.
Long, Ray and Christi Parsons, “Campaign Finance Reform not Without Its Loopholes; Edgar calls Ethics Legislation ‘Significant Step’”. Chicago Tribune, 13 Aug. 1998.
Cooper, Helen. “A New Openness to Talks With That ‘Axis of Evil’.” The New York Times, 22 July 2008
Eggen, Dan. “U.S. Talks With Iran Exemplify Bush's New Approaches.” The Washington Post, 20 July 2008
Sciolino, Elaine and Steven Lee Myers. “Policy Shift Seen in U.S. Decision on Iran Talks.” The New York Times, 17 July 2008
Obama, Barack. “Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: AIPAC Policy Conference.” Barackobama.com, 4 June 2008, accessed 4 Sept. 2008
The New York Times. “Transcript: Fourth Democratic Debate,” 4 June 2007
Yen, Hope. "Two Senators Say U.S. Should Pursue Nuclear Talks with Tehran." Associated Press, 17 April 2006.
Bender, Michael. "Obama Would Consider Off-Shore Drilling as Part of Comprehensive Energy Plan," Palm Beach Post, 1 Aug. 2008.
DeYoung, Karen. "Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure," The Washington Post." 15 May 2008.
Hall, Camilla and Mike Schneider. "Kissinger Backs Direct U.S. Negotiations With Iran." Bloomberg.com. 14 March 2008.
McCain, John and Salter, Mark, "Faith of my Fathers," Random House 1999; 173.
Williams, Roberton and Gleckman, Howard. “An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans." Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 15 Aug 2008.
Boeing Corp. "A4D/A-4 Skyhawk Light Attack Bomber," Web page giving description and brief history of A-4 Skyhawk, accessed 4 Sep 2008.
The Skyhawk Association, "Navy Fighter Weapons School, 'TOP GUN'" Web page accessed 4 Sep 2008.
Application for License, Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. Project Cost Estimate. TransCanada, 30 Nov. 2007.
“Palin Signs AGIA License Bill,” press release. State of Alaska Governor’s Office, 27 Aug. 2008.
Ordonez, Isabel and Cassandra Sweet. “Conoco Proceeds With Alaska Gas Pipeline; Wants Exxon To Join.” Dow Jones Newswires, 8 Aug. 2008.
Mufson, Steve. “Sarah Palin and Big Oil.” Energy Wire, PostGlobal, washingtonpost.com, 30 Aug. 2008.
Sutton, Anne. “Alaska gov. backs license for natural gas pipeline.” The Associated Press, 23 May 2008.
1996 Election Results. City of Wasilla, Alaska. Cityofwasilla.com, accessed 4 Sept. 2008.
1999 Election Results. City of Wasilla, Alaska. Cityofwasilla.com, accessed 4 Sept. 2008.
2008 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. Democratic Convention. The Green Papers, accessed 4 Sept. 2008.
Vock, Daniel C. "Obama's record in the Illinois Senate." Stateline.org, 25 Aug 2008.
Vock, Daniel C. "Obama; He puts ethics on the agenda." Illinois Issues Online, Feb 2007.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
Summary
Sarah Palin’s much-awaited speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night may have shown she could play the role of attack dog, but it also showed her to be short on facts when it came to touting her own record and going after Obama’s.
We found Rudy Giuliani, who introduced her, to be as factually challenged as he sometimes was back when he was in the race. But Mike Huckabee may have laid the biggest egg of all.
* Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.
* Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.
* The Alaska governor avoided some of McCain’s false claims about Obama’s tax program – but her attacks still failed to give the whole story.
* Giuliani distorted the time line and substance of Obama’s statements about the conflict between Russia and Georgia. In fact, there was much less difference between his statements and those of McCain than Giuliani would have had us believe.
* Giuliani also said McCain had been a fighter pilot. Actually, McCain’s plane was the A-4 Skyhawk, a small bomber. It was the only plane he trained in or flew in combat, according to McCain’s own memoir.
* Finally, Huckabee told conventioneers and TV viewers that Palin got more votes when she ran for mayor of Wasilla than Biden did running for president. Not even close. The tally: Biden, 79,754, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucuses. Palin, 909 in her 1999 race, 651 in 1996.
Analysis
Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin was a hit with the party faithful at the GOP convention, but some of her claims were amiss. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee also delivered a few faulty remarks.
A Bridge Too Far
Palin claimed to have stood up to Congress on the subject of the infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” the Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska, about which we wrote last November.
Palin: I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that bridge to nowhere.
This is not the first time Palin has cited her choice to kill the bridge in 2007 as an example of her anti-waste stance. It’s true that she did eventually nix the project. But the bridge was nearly dead already – Congress had removed the earmark, giving the requested money to the state but not marking it for any specific use. Palin unplugged its life support, declaring in 2007 that the funds would not be used for the Gravina bridge.
When she was running for governor, however, Palin expressed a different position. In 2006, the Ketchikan Daily News quoted her expressing optimism and support for the bridge at a Ketchikan campaign stop.
Palin, 2006: "People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose,” said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area’s potential for expansion and growth. … Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she “would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge.”
Palin also answered "yes" to an Anchorage Daily News poll question about whether she would continue to support state funding for the Gravina Island bridge if elected governor. "The window is now," she wrote, "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist." It was only after she won the governorship that Palin shifted her position. And even then, it’s inaccurate to say that she “told the Congress ‘thanks, but no thanks.’” Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn’t qualify as standing up to Congress.
The bridge reversal is not the only matter throwing doubt on Palin’s credentials as a government waste reformer. Watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense has reported that the small town of Wasilla, Alaska, which had not previously received significant federal funds, hauled in almost $27 million in earmarks while Palin was mayor. (McCain has explicitly criticized several of the Wasilla earmarks in recent years.) To help obtain these earmarks, Palin had hired Steven Silver, the former chief of staff for recently indicted Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, as Wasilla’s lobbyist.
And Palin continued to solicit federal funds as governor. A request form on Stevens’ Web site shows that she requested $160.5 million in earmarks for the state in 2008, and almost $198 million for 2009.
Tough Grader
Palin disparaged Obama’s legislative record, both in Illinois and in Washington:
Palin: But listening to him speak, it’s easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or even a reform, not even in the state Senate.
Of course, we can’t say what Palin considers “major.” But if Palin’s own ethics reforms in Alaska were important enough to highlight in her convention address, then it’s only fair to credit Obama’s efforts on that topic. In 1998 in the Illinois Senate, Obama cosponsored an ethics overhaul that bars elected officials from using their campaign funds for personal use and and was called the the first major overhaul of Illinois campaign and ethics laws in 25 years. It also bans fundraisers in the state Capitol during legislative sessions. Obama’s Republican cosponsor Kirk Dillard even appeared in an Obama ad last summer describing Obama’s skills working with members of both parties to get legislation passed.
In Washington, Obama was instrumental in helping to craft the 2007 ethics reform law that ended gifts and meals from lobbyists, cut off subsidized jet travel for members of Congress, required lobbyists to disclose contributions they “bundle” to candidates, and put the brakes on other, similar common practices.
In addition, we already noted in a recent article Obama’s efforts with Republican senators to help detect and secure weapons of mass destruction and to destroy conventional weapons stockpiles around the world, and to create a publicly searchable database on federal spending.
Overburdened?
One area where we note improvement is the way Palin attacked Obama's tax proposals – as a burden "on the American economy" rather than, as McCain has been falsely claiming, a direct tax increase on middle-income workers:
Palin: And let me be specific: The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, and raise payroll taxes, and raise investment income taxes, and raise the death tax, and raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars. ... How are you – how are you going to be better off if our opponent adds a massive tax burden to the American economy?
Her tax remarks still cry out for context. Obama proposes to cut taxes for most individuals (81.3 percent of all households would get a tax cut), while raising them only for a relative few at the top, which she did not mention. But she avoided the false claims that McCain continues to make, most recently in a TV ad that wrongly accuses Obama of planning "painful tax increases on working American families." Instead, Palin spoke of the effect of an overall tax increase on jobs and the economy.
It's quite true that Obama's plan would increase taxes overall, by a total of $627 billion over 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Economists may debate how large or small an effect such an increase would have on jobs and businesses; it's certainly a topic open for discussion in a political campaign.
Riffing Wrongly
In attacking Obama, Palin reeled off a few statements that had a nice cadence, but were light on facts.
Palin: America needs more energy; our opponent is against producing it. Victory in Iraq is finally in sight, and he wants to forfeit. Terrorist states are seeking nuclear weapons without delay; he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaida terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America, and he's worried that someone won't read them their rights.
We have factual problems with three of these statements.
* Obama's not against producing more energy. In fact, he's not even against drilling for oil any more, within limits. He has a $150 billion clean energy program and says that he wants to develop clean coal technology, advance the next generation of biofuels, prioritize construction of the Alaska gas pipeline (surely a measure Palin agrees with) and take a host of other steps to both conserve energy and produce it, in various forms.
* If Obama's comments about meeting with "terrorist states" are worthy of ridicule, then perhaps so are those of the Bush administration and other Republicans. Obama made his first statement on this in an answer to a video question at a Democratic debate last year, when he said "I would" when asked whether he'd meet "separately, without precondition" in his first year with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea. Reagan, JFK and other presidents had spoken to the Soviet Union regularly, he noted.
In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in June, Obama elaborated, saying that he would take an aggressive diplomatic approach – carefully preparing for such meetings, setting a clear agenda, coordinating with U.S. allies, and not conducting the meetings at all unless they were clearly in the U.S. interest. He also stressed he would "do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon."
In recent months, the Bush Administration has been more open to beginning a dialogue with the same nations that it once referred to as the “axis of evil.” In July, the president sent a high-level official to Geneva to sit in on nuclear talks with Iran and authorized Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to speak with North Korean diplomats about ending that country’s nuclear weapons program. Reports in the Washington Post and the New York Times noted the stark contrast between the administration’s current position about meeting with “foes” and its attitude several years ago.
Further, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in May that we should "sit down and talk" with Iran. So did former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger in March. As did Sen. Dick Lugar, then chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as far back as 2006.
* Obama isn't worried, as Palin said, "that someone won't read them their rights" when it comes to suspected terrorists who are detained by the U.S. He does, however, support the right of detainees to challenge their imprisonment in federal court. That's the same position the Supreme Court took in June in a case called Boumediene v. Bush.
Cookin' with Gas
Palin talked about standing up to oil companies and oil lobbyists, citing her work on getting a gas pipeline built in Alaska:
Palin: I fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history. And when that deal was struck, we began a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.
Actually, construction hasn’t begun on the pipeline, and the project isn't quite a done deal. Palin signed legislation just last week that authorizes the state to give a license in 90 days to TransCanada to start developing the project. The state also can provide $500 million as seed money. She gets credit for moving the pipeline closer to realization after many years of talks. Palin pushed for legislation that would allow a private company to build the 1,715-mile natural gas pipeline, instead of oil companies, which she said were moving too slowly on the issue.
In an Aug. 27 press release, Palin indicated that there was still work to be done before the project would become a reality:
Palin, press release, Aug. 27: After dreaming of a natural gas pipeline for more than 30 years, Alaskans have now created the framework for the project to advance. This legislation brings us closer than we’ve ever been to building a gas pipeline and finally accessing our gas that has been languishing for so many decades on the North Slope.
Washington Post energy correspondent Steven Mufson wrote that the major oil companies have opposed the pipeline project, saying it wasn’t economically feasible. Yet, ConocoPhillips and BP have proposed their own gas pipeline that would compete with the state-backed project. TransCanada estimates it will take 10 years to finish the pipeline, according to its application to the state, and it will cost about $26.5 billion – not $40 billion as Palin said.
As for Palin having “stood up to ... the Big Oil companies,” as she said in her speech, she has on this issue, not on others. Oil is, after all, incredibly important to Alaska’s economy. About 80 percent of the state budget comes from oil and gas taxes and royalties. Palin is in favor of drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore areas, a position she shares with oil companies.
Georgia on Their Minds
Before Palin took the stage, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the evening's keynote speaker, gave a factually challenged account of how Obama and McCain had responded to the Georgia-Russia conflict.
First, he said that “within hours” McCain had “established a very strong, informed position that let the world know exactly how he’ll respond as president. At exactly the right time, John McCain said, ‘We’re all Georgians.’ ” McCain did release a strongly worded statement on the conflict on Aug. 8, the day reports of violence first surfaced, but he didn’t say, “We’re all Georgians” until four days later.
Giuliani went on to criticize Obama, saying his “first instinct was to create a moral equivalency — that ‘both sides’ should ‘show restraint.’ ” It’s true Obama’s initial statement said, “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war,” and McCain called on Russia to “unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.” It’s worth noting, however, that Obama’s words echoed those of White House press secretary Dana Perino, who said on Aug. 8, “we urge restraint on all sides – that violence would be curtailed and that direct dialogue could ensue in order to help resolve their differences.” Early reports also said Georgia may have triggered the outbreak of fighting. We’ll leave it to readers to judge which candidate took the right tack.
Giuliani then said Obama “changed his position and suggested that the U.N. Security Council could find a solution. Apparently, none of his 300 advisers told him that Russia has a veto on any U.N. action.” But Obama’s very first statement called for U.N. Security Council action – and so did McCain’s.
Obama, Aug. 8: …the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis.
McCain, Aug. 8: The U.S. should immediately convene an emergency session of the United Nations Security Council to call on Russia to reverse course.
Apparently, McCain doesn’t share Giuliani’s concern for Russia’s veto power either. In fact, in his third statement on Aug. 11, McCain said: "The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression. … We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion.”
Giuliani wrapped up his account by saying, “Finally Obama put out a statement that looked ... well, it looked a lot like John McCain's.” It’s true that Obama’s statements became more forceful – as did McCain's – but Obama was calling for Russia to “stop its bombing campaign” and “withdraw its ground forces from Georgia” in his second statement, as well as his third.
Naked Gun
Giuliani also bungled a reference to McCain's Navy record:
Giuliani: And being a "Top Gun" kind of guy, he became a fighter pilot.
Actually, McCain wasn't a fighter pilot at all, much less "top gun" among that very specialized group. McCain was a bomber pilot, and he himself makes this clear on page 173 of his book "Faith of my Fathers": "I trained exclusively in the A-4 Skyhawk, the small bomber that I would soon fly in combat missions." The aircraft is formally called a "Light Attack Bomber" by Boeing, successor to McDonnell-Douglas, the company that made it. It's true that a few A-4s were flown by the Navy Fighter Weapons School at Miramar, California – but they played the role of "bogies," which the fighter pilots in training were supposed to intercept and shoot down.
Giuliani might be forgiven for his mistake, as he never served in the military himself.
Too Good to Check?
The biggest whopper of the night may have come from former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who charged that Palin “got more votes running for mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, than Joe Biden got running for president of the United States.” It may sound like a great line, but it’s not true – not even close. Palin garnered 651 votes in 1996 and 909 votes in 1999 in her two races for mayor of Wasilla, according to the city. Biden, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucus, got 79,754 votes in the Democratic primaries.
– by Viveca Novak, with Brooks Jackson, Jess Henig, Lori Robertson and D'Angelo Gore
Sources
Bowlen, Scott. "Palin: It's about service to people." Ketchikan Daily News. 9 Aug. 2006.
Anchorage Daily News. "Where they stand; Running for Governor 2006." 22 Oct. 2006.
Taxpayers for Common Sense. "Wasilla, Alaska Benefited from Nearly $27 Million in Earmarks from 1996 to 2002." 2 Sep. 2008.
Hamburger, Tom, Richard Simon and Janet Hook. "McCain had criticized earmarks from Palin." The Los Angeles Times. 3 Sep. 2008.
Hamburger, Tom. "Palin relied on earmark system she now opposes." The Los Angeles Times. 1 Sep. 2008.
Long, Ray and Christi Parsons, “Campaign Finance Reform not Without Its Loopholes; Edgar calls Ethics Legislation ‘Significant Step’”. Chicago Tribune, 13 Aug. 1998.
Cooper, Helen. “A New Openness to Talks With That ‘Axis of Evil’.” The New York Times, 22 July 2008
Eggen, Dan. “U.S. Talks With Iran Exemplify Bush's New Approaches.” The Washington Post, 20 July 2008
Sciolino, Elaine and Steven Lee Myers. “Policy Shift Seen in U.S. Decision on Iran Talks.” The New York Times, 17 July 2008
Obama, Barack. “Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: AIPAC Policy Conference.” Barackobama.com, 4 June 2008, accessed 4 Sept. 2008
The New York Times. “Transcript: Fourth Democratic Debate,” 4 June 2007
Yen, Hope. "Two Senators Say U.S. Should Pursue Nuclear Talks with Tehran." Associated Press, 17 April 2006.
Bender, Michael. "Obama Would Consider Off-Shore Drilling as Part of Comprehensive Energy Plan," Palm Beach Post, 1 Aug. 2008.
DeYoung, Karen. "Gates: U.S. Should Engage Iran With Incentives, Pressure," The Washington Post." 15 May 2008.
Hall, Camilla and Mike Schneider. "Kissinger Backs Direct U.S. Negotiations With Iran." Bloomberg.com. 14 March 2008.
McCain, John and Salter, Mark, "Faith of my Fathers," Random House 1999; 173.
Williams, Roberton and Gleckman, Howard. “An Updated Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans." Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, 15 Aug 2008.
Boeing Corp. "A4D/A-4 Skyhawk Light Attack Bomber," Web page giving description and brief history of A-4 Skyhawk, accessed 4 Sep 2008.
The Skyhawk Association, "Navy Fighter Weapons School, 'TOP GUN'" Web page accessed 4 Sep 2008.
Application for License, Alaska Gasline Inducement Act. Project Cost Estimate. TransCanada, 30 Nov. 2007.
“Palin Signs AGIA License Bill,” press release. State of Alaska Governor’s Office, 27 Aug. 2008.
Ordonez, Isabel and Cassandra Sweet. “Conoco Proceeds With Alaska Gas Pipeline; Wants Exxon To Join.” Dow Jones Newswires, 8 Aug. 2008.
Mufson, Steve. “Sarah Palin and Big Oil.” Energy Wire, PostGlobal, washingtonpost.com, 30 Aug. 2008.
Sutton, Anne. “Alaska gov. backs license for natural gas pipeline.” The Associated Press, 23 May 2008.
1996 Election Results. City of Wasilla, Alaska. Cityofwasilla.com, accessed 4 Sept. 2008.
1999 Election Results. City of Wasilla, Alaska. Cityofwasilla.com, accessed 4 Sept. 2008.
2008 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses and Conventions. Democratic Convention. The Green Papers, accessed 4 Sept. 2008.
Vock, Daniel C. "Obama's record in the Illinois Senate." Stateline.org, 25 Aug 2008.
Vock, Daniel C. "Obama; He puts ethics on the agenda." Illinois Issues Online, Feb 2007.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
