Seen a Low Blow?
Let us know!

Help us keep this ad on the air
and fight other negative attacks.

Donate

What McCain Promised:

McCain Campaign 2000

Get Adobe Flash player

McCain Campaign 2008

Get Adobe Flash player

What they’re saying about McCain’s negative campaign

Sen. Chuck Hagel, Face the Nation
07/27/08

Get Adobe Flash player

Wolf Blitzer, CNN
07/27/08

Get Adobe Flash player

USA Today: McCain’s Ad Is “More Than A Stretch. It’s Baloney. It’s Also A Marker On The Path Toward The Kind Of Simplistic, Counterproductive Demonizing That Many Expect Will Poison The Fall Campaign.”

“Even by the elastic standards of political ads, this is more than a stretch. It's baloney. It's also a marker on the path toward the kind of simplistic, counterproductive demonizing that many expect will poison the fall campaign. Perhaps the silliest implication in the ad is that any one person, even a U.S. senator, is singlehandedly responsible for rising gasoline prices. That discounts factors such as America's own diminishing oil production, increasing demand from China, India and other developing nations, supply disruptions and uncertainties in volatile areas such as Iraq, Iran and Nigeria, and — more to the point — decades of feckless energy policy by Congress and a succession of presidents.” [Editorial, USA Today, 7/29/08]

Read More  |  See All

Annenberg Political Fact Check: In Repeating Their “Misleading” And “Inflated 94-Vote Figure,” The McCain Campaign “Falsely Impl[ies] That Obama Has Pushed Indiscriminately To Raise Taxes For Nearly Everybody.”

“Republicans claim Obama ‘voted 94 times for higher taxes.’ But their count is inflated and misleading. … [B]y repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody. A closer look reveals that he's voted consistently to restore higher tax rates on upper-income taxpayers but not on middle- or low-income workers. That's consistent with what he's said he'd do as president, which is to raise taxes only on those making more than $250,000 a year.” [FactCheck.org, 7/3/08]

Read More  |  See All

Even After It Was Debunked, McCain Continued To Repeat False Claim That Obama Voted 94 Times To Increase Tax.

As MSNBC’s First Read noted, McCain has continued to repeat the false claim that Obama voted to increase taxes 94 times even after it was proven to be false: “McCain and his campaign repeated at least two lines of attack against Obama, which when first said in early July, were called ‘bogus,’ ‘wrong,’ ‘inflated’ and ‘misleading’ by independent fact checkers. At his town hall today, McCain repeated that Obama wants to raise taxes on those making as little as $32,000 a year and in his campaign's response to Obama's event in Springfield, Mo., today, repeated that ‘...Obama’s bad judgment led him to vote in support of higher taxes 94 times...’ … On the support for higher taxes 94 times, Fact Check titled its post, ‘Tax Tally Trickery.’ ‘The McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee both claim that Obama has voted 94 times 'for higher taxes,’ We find that their count is padded.’” [MSNBC’s First Read, 7/30/08]

Read More  |  See All

Annenberg Political Fact Check: McCain Attack That on $32,000 Tax Increase Is “Wrong” And “Not True.”

As FactCheck.org noted, “The McCain campaign claims that Obama voted to raise income taxes on individuals who earn as little as $32,000 per year. That’s wrong…[and]…not true.” In fact, as FactCheck.org also noted, Barack Obama’s “tax plan would provide a tax cut of $502 for a non-married taxpayer earning $35,000.” Read More >

Even After It Was Debunked, McCain Continued To Repeat False Claim That Obama Supported A Tax Increase On Those Earning $32,000.

As FactCheck.org noted, the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee continued to repeat the false claim that Obama supported a tax increase on those earning $32,000 even after it was proven to be false: “After this article was posted the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee aired a radio ad in two states repeating the bogus $32,000 figure.” In addition, MSNBC’s First Read also reported that McCain was continuing to use the debunked claim: “McCain and his campaign repeated at least two lines of attack against Obama, which when first said in early July, were called ‘bogus,’ ‘wrong,’ ‘inflated’ and ‘misleading’ by independent fact checkers. At his town hall today, McCain repeated that Obama wants to raise taxes on those making as little as $32,000 a year and in his campaign's response to Obama's event in Springfield, Mo., today, repeated that ‘...Obama’s bad judgment led him to vote in support of higher taxes 94 times...’” [FactCheck.org, 7/8/08]

Read More  |  See All

Annenberg Political Fact Check: McCain’s Claim That Obama Would Raise Tax Rates For 23 Million Small-Business Owners Is “A False And Preposterously Inflated Figure.”

“McCain has repeatedly claimed that Obama would raise tax rates for 23 million small-business owners. It's a false and preposterously inflated figure. We find that the overwhelming majority of those small-business owners would see no increase, because they earn too little to be affected. Obama's tax proposal would raise rates only on couples making more than $250,000 or singles earning more than $200,000. McCain argues that Obama's proposed increase is a job-killer. He has a point. It's true that increasing taxes on those at the top would leave them less money for other purposes, including investment and hiring in the case of business owners. But the number of business owners who would see their rates go up would be only a small fraction of what McCain says. Many would see their taxes go down.” [FactCheck.org, 7/14/08]

Read More  |  See All

Washington Post Fact Checker: The McCain Campaign Attacks on Obama Tax Plan “Overblown,” “Wrong,” and “Greatly Exaggerated.”

“The McCain camp is attempting to persuade Americans that their taxes will increase dramatically with Barack Obama as president. The presumptive Republican nominee has repeatedly said that Obama would enact ‘the largest tax increase since the Second World War.’ A surrogate, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, insists that Obama has not proposed ‘a single tax cut’ and wants to ‘raise every tax in the book.’ … The claim that Obama will ‘enact’ the largest tax increase since World War II is also overblown. The Bush tax cuts will expire automatically at the end of 2010, so it is hardly a question of ‘enacting’ a new tax increase. ... Carly Fiorina is wrong to claim that Obama has proposed no tax cuts and wants to raise ‘every tax in the book.’ John McCain is on more solid ground when he claims that Americans from many different backgrounds could be affected by a rise in capital gains taxes, but he has greatly exaggerated the adverse impact.” [Washington Post, 6/11/08]

Read More  |  See All

ABC News: “Overwhelmingly Most Americans Will Not See Their Income Taxes Increased” Under Obama’s Tax Plan.

Anne Mathias, an economist at the Stanford Group Company, “points out that 95.1% of the American people are in households that earn less than $200,000 -- so overwhelmingly most Americans will not see their income taxes increased, if Obama's math is correct.” [ABC News, 7/7/08]

Read More  |  See All

New York Times: Charge That Obama Opposes “Innovation” On Energy Policy Is “False.”

“McCain’s false charges have been more frequent: that Mr. Obama opposes ‘innovation’ on energy policy; that he voted 94 times for ‘higher taxes’; and that Mr. Obama is personally responsible for rising gasoline prices.” [Editorial, New York Times, 7/30/08]

Read More  |  See All

Annenberg Political Fact Check: Claiming That Obama Proposes “No New Solutions” To The Energy Crisis Is “Misleading”; Obama Has Proposed $150 Billion In Spending.

“A new ad from the Republican National Committee claims Barack Obama proposes ‘no new solutions’ for the energy and climate crises. In fact, the Illinois senator has proposed $150 billion in spending over 10 years for biofuels, plug-in hybrids, low-emission coal plants and the rapid commercialization of other new, clean energy technologies. The ad also recycles the misleading claim that Obama has said ‘no’ to nuclear. Obama said he is open to nuclear if it is clean and safe. And while the ad correctly says that Obama is against lifting the gas tax and against more production ‘here at home’ (read: lifting the federal ban on more offshore oil drilling), neither of those steps is likely to be a ‘solution’ for the problems at hand. … The ad's most misleading claim is that Obama proposes "no new solutions" to the intertwined climate change and energy crises.” [FactCheck.org, 7/9/08]

Read More  |  See All

Annenberg Political Fact Check: McCain’s Claim That Obama Opposes Innovation In General And The Electric Car In Particular Is “Glaringly Inaccurate” And “Not True” Since “Obama Was Criticizing McCain For Not Going Far Enough.”

Factcheck.org wrote, “The most glaringly inaccurate claim in the ad is that Obama opposes ‘innovation’ in general and ‘the electric car’ in particular. The claim is based solely on Obama's dismissal of McCain's proposal to award a $300 million prize for development of a battery package capable of powering plug-in hybrids or electric cars at a fraction of current costs. Obama called McCain's approach a gimmick, but it's not true that he opposes innovation or electric-powered cars. In fact, Obama was criticizing McCain for not going far enough.” [Factcheck.org, 6/26/08]

Read More  |  See All

Annenberg Political Fact Check: Obama Proposed Spending $150 Billion To Develop “A Variety Of New Energy Technologies” Eight Months Before McCain First Mentioned His $300 Million Car Battery Prize So “Readers May Judge For Themselves Which Candidate Is More Aggressive About Promoting Energy Innovation.”

“And far from saying ‘no to innovation,’ Obama has proposed spending $150 billion over 10 years to develop a variety of new energy technologies, specifically including advanced biofuels, ‘clean coal’ technology, and wind and solar technologies. We find no specific reference to electric-car research, but we also find no evidence that Obama is opposed to developing electric cars. Furthermore, Obama laid out this $150 billion proposal in a speech on Oct. 8, 2007. That is more than eight months before McCain first mentioned his $300 million car-battery prize on June 23. Readers may judge for themselves which candidate is more aggressive about promoting energy innovation.” [Factcheck.org, 6/26/08]

Read More  |  See All

Annenberg Political Fact Check: Obama Says He Has Not Ruled Out Nuclear And Would Support It “So Far As It Is Clean And Safe.”

The ad also has Obama saying "no" to "clean, safe nuclear energy." In fact, Obama has said, "I have not ruled out nuclear... but only [would support it] so far as it is clean and safe." [FactCheck.org, 6/26/08]

Read More  |  See All

Toledo Blade: Blaming Obama For The High Cost Of Gasoline “Amount[s]” To An “Outright Lie.”

“Why, then, is the Arizona senator stumbling headlong with a largely dishonorable presidential campaign, camouflaging his own shortcomings by fecklessly impugning his opponent’s integrity and spouting what amount to outright lies? As evidence, we reference the McCain TV commercial blaming Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, for the high cost of gasoline; Mr. McCain’s mendacious comment that Mr. Obama went to the gym in Germany rather than visit wounded American troops, and the even more desperate claim that his opponent would lose a war in order to win the presidency. Such vicious nonsense — nothing more than the political equivalent of drive-by shootings — gives the distinct impression that Mr. McCain is willing to destroy his own reputation for honor in order to save it, and win the November election himself.” [Editorial, Toledo Blade, 8/1/08]

Read More  |  See All

New York Times: Charge That Obama Is Personally Responsible For Rising Gasoline Prices Is “False.”

“McCain’s false charges have been more frequent: that Mr. Obama opposes ‘innovation’ on energy policy; that he voted 94 times for ‘higher taxes’; and that Mr. Obama is personally responsible for rising gasoline prices.” [Editorial, New York Times, 7/30/08]

Read More  |  See All

Annenberg Political Fact Check: McCain’s Ad Blaming Obama For High Gas Prices Is “Absurd, And McCain Knows It.”

“McCain's new ad accuses Obama of keeping gas prices high, all by himself. That's absurd, and McCain knows it – he has said repeatedly that our current problems were ‘30 years in the making.’ The ad also tells us that gas prices are high because ‘some in Washington are still saying no to drilling in America.’ Not true. The federal government's estimate is that if the moratorium on offshore drilling were lifted today, it would be 2030 before we'd see a noticeable effect on supply and prices. For the same reason, it's simply not true that drilling more now will ‘rescue our family budgets.’” [FactCheck.org, 7/22/08]

Read More  |  See All

New York Times: “Aside From Correctly Stating Current Gasoline Prices” The McCain Ad Is “Misleading On Nearly Every Substantive Point.”

As the New York Times noted, “[a]side from correctly stating current gasoline prices, ‘Pump’ is misleading on nearly every substantive point.” [New York Times, 7/22/08]

Read More  |  See All

Columbus Dispatch: The McCain Ad Claim That Obama Is To Blame For Rising Gas Prices Is “Laughable” Especially Considering McCain Said That The Crisis Was “30 Years In The Making.”

“One particular line in the ad is laughable: When the announcer asks, ‘Who can you thank for rising prices at the pump?’ the crowd chants Obama's name. McCain on July 7 delivered a speech in which he said the nation's dependence on foreign oil was ‘30 years in the making.’” [Columbus Dispatch, 7/22/08]

Read More  |  See All

Politifact: “We find McCain’s Claim False.”

Politifact, a service of CQ and the St. Petersburg Times wrote, “If one were to line up all the leaders in Washington who share some responsibility for the offshore drilling moratorium — the first President Bush, the Republican leadership of Congress, the Democratic leadership of Congress, the Florida delegation — there would be quite a few people ahead of Obama. We find McCain's claim to be False.” [Politifact, 7/21/08]

Read More  |  See All

: The McCain Ad On Energy Was “Panned By Virtually Every Media Outlet For Being Factually Incorrect.”

MSNBC’s First Read blog wrote, “And the body language coming from the McCain campaign -- as Obama continues his overseas trip -- doesn’t look too pretty right now. Let us count the ways: It has aired its first two negative TV ads of general election, one of which (on energy) was panned by virtually every media outlet for being factually incorrect.” [MSNBC, FirstRead, 7/23/08]

Read More  |  See All

Cincinnati Enquirer: McCain’s Ad, on A “Truthful” Scale From “0” to “10,” Gets A “0.”

“HOW TRUTHFUL? 0 on a scale from 0 (misleading) to 10 (truthful)…The McCain ad’s claim that Obama says ‘he’ll raise taxes on electricity’ is based on an interview Obama gave to a San Antonio newspaper in February in which he said ‘what we ought to tax is a dirty energy like coal, and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.’ According to the Obama campaign, what Obama was referring to in the interview was his proposal for a cap-and-trade mechanism that would set a limit on greenhouse gas emissions, allowing entities to buy and sell rights to emit. If that is the case, McCain is criticizing Obama for a proposal that he, too, supports.” Read More >

Annenberg Political Fact Check: Claim in McCain Ad About Obama Raising Taxes On Electricity Is “False.”

“McCain's new ad claims that Obama ‘says he'll raise taxes on electricity.’ That's false. Obama says no such thing. McCain relies on a single quote from Obama who once – and only once so far as we can find – suggested taxing ‘dirty energy,’ including coal and natural gas. That was in response to a reporter's suggestion that a tax on wind power could fund education. Obama isn't proposing any new tax on electricity or ‘dirty energy’ as part of his platform, and he never has. It's true that a coal/gas tax would raise electric rates, but so would a cap-and-trade program to restrict carbon emissions. Cap-and-trade is an idea that both McCain and Obama support, in different forms. Neither candidate characterizes cap-and-trade as a ‘tax.’” [Factcheck.org, 7/30/08]

Read More  |  See All

Washington Post: Obama Doesn’t Have A Plan To Raise Taxes On Electricity But Both McCain And Obama Would Make Electricity Derived From Fossil Fuels More Expensive.”

“The few campaign watchers who aren't transfixed by the images of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton in Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) new attack ad aimed at Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), might be asking themselves right now, ‘What's this about an Obama electricity tax?’ Short answer: there isn't one. Long answer: both McCain and Obama would make electricity derived from fossil fuels more expensive, since they're both committed to setting mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions through a cap and trade system. In fact, they would raise energy costs by the same amount over the next 12 years, since they have identical short-term emissions goals.” [Washington Post, 7/30/08]

Read More  |  See All

Politifact: McCain’s Statement Is False; Higher Capital Gains Wouldn’t Apply To Americans Making Under $250,000.

Politifact, a service of CQ and the St. Petersburg Times wrote, “To support the argument, the McCain campaign points to some statistics. … These statistics ignore a very important caveat Obama has included in his tax plan, his unequivocal pledge that he will not raise capital gains taxes (or any other taxes) for families making less than $250,000 a year. … ‘I would say this stuff is, at best, misleading,’ [Tax Policy Expert Eric] Toder said. … The fact is the capital gains tax would have absolutely no direct effect on savings in a traditional college savings plan. As for retirement savings through stocks or a mutual funds, people who cash out would not face higher tax rates unless you make more than $250,000. That doesn’t apply to most Americans. We rate McCain’s statement False.” [Politifact, 7/7/08]

Read More  |  See All

Politifact: Obama “Has Been Consistent” On Iraq And The McCain Campaign’s Statement That He Changed His Position Is “Off-Base” And “False.”

Politifact, a service of CQ and the St. Petersburg Times wrote, “Opponents charge Barack Obama with changing position on Iraq. We cull through the record and find he has been consistent in urging an orderly, efficient withdrawal with no permanent bases…Weighing all these statements together, we find the McCain campaign is off-base in saying Obama has changed position. Obama repeatedly said facts on the ground could affect the tactical moves of an overall withdrawal. Obama's position was not an iron-clad withdrawal timeline in the first place. We find the McCain campaign's statement that Obama has reversed position to be False.” [Politifact, 7/10/08]

Read More  |  See All

Annenberg Political Fact Check: McCain’s Argument That Obama’s Opposition To The Kyl-Lieberman Bill “Is A Glaring Example Of The Logical Fallacy Of Argumentum Ad Ignoratiam.”

“McCain claims that Obama's opposition means that he also opposed calling the IRGC terrorists. We find otherwise: Obama cosponsored an earlier bill that also called for designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization; The Kyl-Lieberman amendment did more than just label the IRGC terrorists. Obama stated at the time that he opposed the bill on the grounds that it constituted 'saber-rattling'; McCain claims that Obama must oppose calling the IRGC a terrorist group because Obama's Web site doesn't say anything about the IRGC. McCain's argument is a glaring example of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.” [FactCheck.org, 6/5/08]

Read More  |  See All

REALITY: Washington Post Fact Checker: “McCain Is Distorting History When He Suggests That Barack Obama Is Bucking American Presidential Tradition In Expressing A Willingness To Meet With The Leaders Of Countries Hostile To The United States.”

“McCain is distorting history when he suggests that Barack Obama is bucking American presidential tradition in expressing a willingness to meet with the leaders of countries hostile to the United States. Hitler apart, U.S. presidents have held meetings with some of the greatest mass murderers in history. It is also incorrect to suggest, as both McCain and President Bush have done, that the mere willingness to meet or negotiate with foreign dictators constitutes "appeasement," a term used to describe actions such as the surrender of the Czech Sudetenland to Nazi Germany in a desperate bid to avoid World War II.” [Washington Post, 5/21/08]

Read More  |  See All

Annenberg Political Fact Check: The Full Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Not Obama’s Subcommittee, Held Hearings On Afghanistan; McCain Missed All Seven Hearings On Afghanistan Held By Senate Armed Services Committee In The Last Two Years.

“The McCain ad “says he ‘never held a single hearing on Afghanistan.’ It was the full Senate Foreign Relations Committee, not Obama's subcommittee, that had the hearings on this global hot spot, and Obama attended one of those. Over the same time period, McCain himself attended none of the Afghanistan hearings held by the Armed Services Committee on which he serves. … McCain's ad fails to mention that his own record is no better. Although he's the highest ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, he missed all seven of the hearings that his panel held on Afghanistan during the same two years, according to ABCNews.com.”” [FactCheck.org, 7/22/08]

Read More  |  See All

AP Fact Check: The McCain Ad’s Charge That Obama Voted Against Troop Funding Is “Misleading.”

“The ad's most inflammatory charge — that Obama voted against troop funding in Iraq and Afghanistan — is misleading. The Illinois senator consistently voted to fund the troops once elected to the Senate, a point Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton made during the primaries when questioning whether his anti-war rhetoric was reflected in his actions.” [AP, 7/18/08]

Read More  |  See All

Annenberg Political Fact Check: McCain’s TV Ad Claiming Obama Voted against the Troops Uses Statements that “Paint An Incomplete Picture.”

“The McCain campaign is running a TV ad attacking Obama with statements that are literally true but paint an incomplete picture. It says he ‘voted against funding our troops.’ He did – exactly once. Obama cast at least 10 votes for war-funding bills before voting against one last year, after Bush vetoed a version that contained a date for withdrawal from Iraq. … As recently as April 2007, Obama voted in favor of funding U.S. troops again, but this time Democrats added a non-binding call to withdraw them from Iraq. McCain (who was absent for the vote) urged the president to veto that funding measure, because of the withdrawal language. President Bush did veto it, and McCain applauded Bush's veto. Based on those facts, it would be literally true to say that ‘McCain urged a veto of funding for our troops.’ But that would be oversimplified to the point of being seriously misleading, which is exactly the problem with McCain's ad.” [FactCheck.org, 7/22/08]

Read More  |  See All

Toledo Blade: McCain’s Comment That Obama Went To The Gym Rather Than Visit Wounded Troops Is “Mendacious” And “Vicious Nonsense [That Is] Nothing More Than The Political Equivalent Of A Drive-By Shooting.”

“Why, then, is the Arizona senator stumbling headlong with a largely dishonorable presidential campaign, camouflaging his own shortcomings by fecklessly impugning his opponent’s integrity and spouting what amount to outright lies? As evidence, we reference the McCain TV commercial blaming Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate, for the high cost of gasoline; Mr. McCain’s mendacious comment that Mr. Obama went to the gym in Germany rather than visit wounded American troops, and the even more desperate claim that his opponent would lose a war in order to win the presidency. Such vicious nonsense — nothing more than the political equivalent of drive-by shootings — gives the distinct impression that Mr. McCain is willing to destroy his own reputation for honor in order to save it, and win the November election himself.” [Editorial, Toledo Blade, 8/1/08]

Read More  |  See All

St. Petersburg Times Editorial: McCain’s Claim Is “Below The Belt” And There “Is No Evidence That He Was Snubbing Soldiers Because He Could Not Appear With Them On Television.”

“A new McCain ad suggests that while Obama traveled abroad last week he ‘made time to go to the gym but canceled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.’ That's a compelling punch line, but it's below the belt. What actually happened: Obama planned to visit wounded troops at a medical center in Germany until the Pentagon said it would not allow him to bring a retired Air Force major general who is one of the campaign's foreign policy advisers. The Democrat may have been poised to blur the line between political events and official troop visits by members of Congress. But there is no evidence that he was snubbing soldiers because he could not appear with them on television.” [St. Petersburg Times Editorial, 7/31/08]

Read More  |  See All

New York Times: McCain’s Attack On Obama Claiming He Turned His Back On Wounded Soldiers Is “False.”

“In recent weeks, Mr. McCain has been waving the flag of fear (Senator Barack Obama wants to ‘lose’ in Iraq), and issuing attacks that are sophomoric (suggesting that Mr. Obama is a socialist) and false (the presumptive Democratic nominee turned his back on wounded soldiers). … [McCain] accused Mr. Obama of canceling a visit to wounded American troops in a German military hospital because news cameras were not allowed. That’s a false account of what occurred — and Mr. McCain ignored Mr. Obama’s unheralded visit to a combat hospital in Baghdad.” [Editorial, New York Times, 7/30/08]

Read More  |  See All

ABC News: “The Part About Wanting To Bring The Media Is Decidedly Not True. There Were Never Any Plans For Obama To ‘Bring Media People And Cameras.’ Never.”

Asked why Obama scrubbed a trip to visit wounded veterans at Landstuhl Hospital in Germany, McCain said, "I have no idea except that I know that according to reports that he wanted to bring media people and cameras and his campaign staffers.” According to ABC News, “The part about wanting to bring the media is decidedly not true. There were never any plans for Obama to ‘bring media people and cameras.’ Never.” [ABC News, 7/30/08]

Read More  |  See All

Annenberg Political Fact Check: The McCain Ad’s Insinuation That Obama Canceled The Visit Because Of the Press Ban Or The Desire For Gym Time “Is False.”

“A new McCain ad says Obama ‘made time to go to the gym, but canceled a visit with wounded troops. Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras.’ McCain's facts are literally true, but his insinuation – that the visit was canceled because of the press ban or the desire for gym time – is false. In fact, Obama visited wounded troops earlier – without cameras or press – both in the U.S. and Iraq. And his gym workouts are a daily routine. The Obama campaign canceled the visit with wounded troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany, Obama says, when he learned that the Pentagon would not allow him to bring along a retired Air Force major general who is serving as a foreign policy adviser to the campaign. Obama says that ‘triggered then a concern that maybe our visit was going to be perceived as political.’” [FactCheck.org, 7/28/08]

Read More  |  See All

Andrea Mitchell: The McCain Claim Is “Literally Not True” And “I Can Vouch” That Obama Had No Intention Of Bringing Cameras; “It Seems Inexplicable That This Whole Thing Has Become Such An Issue.”

In an interview with McCain supporter Sen. Richard Burr, Andrea Mitchell said the McCain ad is “literally not true”: “As someone supporting John McCain, I’ve got to ask you about this new John McCain ad. It says, literally, he could have gone, but did other things, but not with cameras. That literally is not true. Let me play a bit of Robert Gibbs, Obama’s spokesman reacting to that today… The point is he had no intention of bringing cameras. I was there, I can vouch for it. Why put up an ad claiming that’s why he didn’t visit the troops? They claim the reason they didn't go was they were concern it would seem too political since that was the political leg of his journey… Well, he wasn’t planning to bring an entourage. He certainly visited the soldiers only four or five days earlier when he was in Iraq and visited them in Walter Reed without notice and entourage. It seems inexplicable that this whole thing has become such an issue, but clearly, the McCain campaign wants this to be an issue, wants to paint him as someone who’s unfeeling about the troops.” [MSNBC, 7/28/08]

Read More  |  See All

Tumulty: “There Is Absolutely No Evidence” That Obama Canceled The Trip Because He Couldn’t Bring Media And The Military Confirmed That The Plan Was To Leave Media And Staff At The Airport.

“Jake Tapper notes the ad also claims that Obama cancelled the trip because he was told he couldn't bring the media. There is absolutely no evidence for that one. The campaign insists that the plan had been to leave us at the airport, and the military has confirmed that arrangements were being made to hold media and staff there at a passenger terminal.” [Time, 7/26/08]

Read More  |  See All

Tumulty: How Many More Times Are McCain And Other Republicans Going To Repeat “A Thoroughly Baseless Charge?”

“This front-page account in the Washington Post is absolutely consistent with what I know, based on my reporting, about Obama's cancelled visit to Landstuhl. So how many more times are the McCain campaign and the Republicans going to repeat what is a thoroughly baseless charge?” [Time, 7/30/08]

Read More  |  See All

 
Paid for by Obama for America