On September 16 at a rally in Tampa, John McCain said:
My friends, earmarking and the pork-barreling goes on - it’s gonna stop.
I have never asked for a single earmark pork-barrel project for my state of Arizona. Senator Obama, has asked for $932 million in earmarks, literally $1 million for every day that he’s been in office.
Obama took office January 4, 2005. As of today, he’s been in office 1352 days, during which congress did business 892 days (including 268 non-legislative-period days). This according to the Library of Congress’ calendar for 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005 (a tabulated count of in-session days is here). That would mean Obama requested either $1352m, $892m or $624m, none of which are the $932 figure he did actually request.
As for McCain other unequivicable statement - that he “never asked for a single earmark pork-barrel project for my state of Arizona”. Because McCain said “pork-barrel”, which is a subjective term, there’s no definite lie.
McCain didn’t have to say “literally”, which offers literally no wiggle room. But he did, thus McCain is literally lying when he tells us that Obama has asked for literally $1 million a day.
Tags: McCain
September 17th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
is that a lie? did obama really request $932? if so, then it seems that he requested more than $1/day. perhaps mccain under-estimated in this case… does that count as a ‘lie’?
September 17th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
The $932m is generally accepted (though some claim it’s $931m), but McCain’s use of literally is the problem in this instance because literally offers little room for estimation. In the fullest sense, Obama has been in office 1352 days, which works out to $689k/day in requested earmarks. If we use the narrower counts, either of which is a favorable interpretation of “in office” - the total number of work days (892) make McCain’s statement almost true. In that instance, there’s only a $40m / 40 day discrepancy, which we would not flag in a general statement like the one he made September 10. But in this instance the math simply does not support his assertion that Senator Obama has requested “literally $1m for every day that he’s been in office”.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
I just wish McCain didn’t use the word literally. He didn’t have to, but he chose to. It’s hard for us to determine exactly why and the depth of impact of seemingly small lies like these…but regardless, he didn’t have to make such a pointed emphasis. If he insists on it, we’re going to call him out. We don’t really have a choice.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
$932 million / 892 days is literally $1.044843049327354 million/day.
September 17th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Again, it’s this stupid sound byte election. No one discusses what the earmarks are for? Some of Obama’s earmark requests are for General Dynamics to fund high explosive technology, others for a hospital, another for a science center…
My point is earmarks for worthwhile things shouldn’t be an issue. It’s the earmarks for bridges to nowhere that should be an issue. It’s like lobbyists. I have no problem with lobbyists who fight for social justice or causes or even industries, but do them legally and fairly. It’s the lobbyists for big oil like Charlie Black that are the issue.
September 17th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Maybe he meant literal figuratively.
September 17th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Pinnix has a point. If he’s requested $932 million and been active for 892 days, that’s roughly $1m a day.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
We agree with McCain’s previous and related statement, linked above - that Obama, “has consciously attempted to manipulate the system by requesting nearly $1 million every working day he has been in the Senate.”
But literally $1m a day would either mean $1352m, $892m or $624m in requested earmarks, depending on your take (and again, the most accurate definition would be the 1352 days in office). Though the $932m isn’t that far off, it’s literally untrue unless he’s means literally in a figurative sense (as mattyc noted above). But in the best case this is a definite white lie, missing the mark on the “literally” by 40 days or $40m. In the worse sense - one we are not attempting to prove, though are further researching - McCain’s off by $360m. In either case, it’s just not literally true.
September 17th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Does anyone else think this is foolish? I’m mean I was pretty darn close. The fact of the matter is it’s more than a million a day. If you are more worried about me using the word “literally” than where your tax dollars will be going then that will be good to know for future reference. Like when I’m running the country.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
You’re right, John. It is foolish to be comparing tit for tat who spends more on earmarks, because earmarks aren’t inherently bad; we should be judging the merit of the earmark itself. We shouldn’t demonize appropriating money for hospitals, schools, and technology just because you want to coin ‘earmark’ a political dirty word.
Wether federal funds should be appropriated by elected officials or civil servants is a legitimate debate, which we can’t have if you keep distorting the realities of how budgets and appropriations work. A $200 billion Infrastructure bill still costs the taxpayers $200 billion wether it has one earmark or one million.