Lie Count - Tracking our future leaders’ lies

During the first presidential debate between McCain and Obama on September 27:

MCCAIN: Admiral Mullen suggests that Senator Obama’s plan is dangerous for America.

OBAMA: That’s not the case.

MCCAIN: That’s what …

OBAMA: What he said was a precipitous…

MCCAIN: That’s what Admiral Mullen said.

Did Admiral Michael Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, say Obama’s plan for withdrawal from Iraq was dangerous for America? The basis for McCain’s assertion was this interview on July 20 by Fox News:

WALLACE: But I’m asking you in the absence — forget about Obama. Forget about the politics. If I were to say to you, “Let’s set a time line of getting all of our combat troops out within two years,” what do you think would be the consequences of setting that kind of a time line?

MULLEN: I think the consequences could be very dangerous in that regard. I’m convinced at this point in time that coming — making reductions based on conditions on the ground are very important.

We’ve been able to do that. We’ve reduced five brigades in the last several months. And again, if conditions continue to improve, I would look to be able to make recommendations to President Bush in the fall to continue those reductions.

The context for the Wallace / Mullen interview was about Iraq’s security, not America’s. The question regarded the risks a time line would cause to Iraq and the US military. But McCain isn’t initially quoting Mullen, just drawing an inference from this interview, well outside lie territory.

But McCain then McCain says Mullen actually said Obama’s plan was dangerous to America. In that new context, McCain’s statement doesn’t hold up. 

When asked about a time line for withdrawal, Mullen said a plan with a fixed time frame could have “very dangerous” consequences. But Wallace’s question explicitly asks Mullen to ignore Obama and answer in a non-political sense. So there’s no way, without Mullen making a direct reference to Obama, that McCain could claim this was a statement about Obama’s plan or the explicit danger to America.

It’s no lie for McCain to say Mullen suggested Obama’s plan was dangerous, but it is a lie to say Mullen outright said it. He didn’t.

(Note: Obama’s reference to “precipitous” refers to a distinct quote from Mullen, and therefore not a lie.)

During the first presidential debate between McCain and Obama on September 27, McCain said:

Senator Obama opposes both storing and reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel.

But according to Obama’s energy plan, McCain is wrong:

In terms of waste storage, Barack Obama and Joe Biden do not believe that Yucca Mountain is a suitable site. They will lead federal efforts to look for safe, long?term disposal solutions based on objective, scientific analysis. In the meantime, they will develop requirements to ensure that the waste stored at current reactor sites is contained using the most advanced dry?cask storage technology available.

McCain’s lying - Obama supports plans for the storage of nuclear waste.

From a McCain interview with John Harwood for CNBC on September 23, 2008, regarding the wall street crisis (video here):

HARWOOD: You mentioned cronyism and corruption on Wall Street and in Washington, and you’ve criticized Obama for self dealing here. How do you square that with the fact that your campaign manager, Rick Davis, was involved in some lobbying activities on behalf of Fannie Mae? And secondly, what specifically would you prevent, would you outlaw–what activity would you outlaw in Wall Street to make sure this doesn’t happen again?

McCAIN: And my campaign manager has stopped that, has had nothing to do with it since, and I’ll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who wants to look at it.

McCAIN: [...]

In Washington, I still think that it was the special interest money that went–and Fannie and Freddie money that went, and everybody was involved in this–not everybody, but certainly Senator Obama got next amount of money, except for the two Democratic chairman. His vice presidential search team was headed by Mr. Johnson, and…

HARWOOD: And your campaign manager?

McCAIN: And my campaign manager has stopped that, has had nothing to do
with it since, and I’ll be glad to have his record examined by anybody who
wants to look at it.

The media has generally interpreted McCain’s point to be that Rick Davis, McCain’s campaign CEO, has been untouched by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac money since working for his campaign. But McCain wasn’t very specific about when Davis had stopped - only that he had stopped.

But according to a recent Roll Call article the lobbyist firm that Davis owns, Davis Manafort,  is still a lobbying firm employed by Freddie Mac. Davis himself is not a lobbyist, but as an owner he has financial interest in the firm and it’s activities.

McCain’s lying when he says his campaign’s CEO, Davis, “has stopped” any involvement with Freddie Mac. Regardless of whether McCain meant Davis stopped at the beginning of the campaign, or just any time in the past, the lobbying firm Davis owns continues to draw the same $15k / month it has commanded since “late 2005.”

According to Steve Schmidt, the McCain campaign’s senior campaign strategist:

[Joe Biden's] son is a lobbyist for the credit card and banking industry. The Obama campaign is surrounded by people who have worked in the lobbying industry.

Joe Biden has two sons, one of which (Robert Hunter Biden) is a registered lobbyist. (He announced he was immediately stopping all lobbying activities on September 13.) Lobbyists are required by federal law to disclose their clients. According to Hunter Biden’s records, he has never had a client in the credit card or banking industries.

Steve Schmidt is lying when he says that any Biden son is lobbying for the credit or banking industries, when neither is.

From McCain’s ad titled “Patriot”:

Obama and Biden voted to raise taxes on working American making just $42,000.

Higher taxes on seniors and their life savings.

Higher taxes on your electric bills.

There are two questionable statements here.

There is no call in Obama’s tax plan to tax life savings, but Obama does have a plan to raise capital gain taxes. The proposal would impact the tax rate on investment accounts, including 401(k) and 403(b) accounts. For families with incomes above $250k, their capital gain tax would raise from 15% to no more than 20%.

Do investment accounts count as “life savings?” We’d call this close, but not a definitive lie though it’s dubious at best to consider an investment, which bears inherent risk, as savings when savings implies no inherent risk.

But McCain’s reference to high electric bill taxes has no basis. They base their claim on an interview with the San Antonio Express-News on February 19, 2008:

GUERRA: Have you considered other funding sources, say taxing emerging energy forms, for example, say a penny per kilowatt hour on wind energy?

OBAMA: Well, that’s clean energy, and we want to drive down the cost of that, not raise it. We need to give them subsidies so they can start developing that. What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.

Obama suggested a tax on “dirty energy”, but did not call for any electricity tax. (Neither his formal energy plan or tax plan make reference of any tax for either energy production or consumption, though there is a call for a windfall profit tax which would include oil companies.)

McCain’s campaign is lying when they switch Obama’s conditional statement about taxing energy producers, as a call for taxes on electricity consumption.