-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: Public Campaign Action Fund
Purpose: To promote publicly financed elections and hold politicians accountable for their sources of campaign money.
Director: David Donnelly, co-author of Are Elections for Sale?
Funding: MoveOn.org contributed $400,000 for this ad.
Cost of the Ad: According to IRS reports, the group paid a little more than $1 million to a political consulting firm in October for media production and placement. The group's press release says that the media buy was six figures.
Where It Ran: Tallahassee, Fla., Roanoke and Lynchburg, Va., and national cable through Nov. 3.
Claims: John McCain loves gambling and has gambled with lobbyists in their own casinos. Gambling interest groups have contributed $1 million to McCain.
Accuracy: The Las Vegas Review Journal wrote an in-depth analysis about McCain's ties to gambling, personal and campaign-related. An investigative piece by the New York Times reported that McCain gambled with a lobbyist of a casino he oversaw while he was on the Senate Indian affairs committee. The Center for Responsive Politics reports that the casino/gambling industry gave $276,276 to McCain and $178,094 to Obama. According to the Review Journal article, a liberal watchdog group estimates McCain has received $951,000 in donations. Wynn Resorts, one company mentioned in the article, contributed $158,500 to the RNC in 2008, according to the Center For Responsive Politics.
Swift Boat Rating: 
The claims made in the ad are accurate. It's hard to pinpoint an exact amount of contributions or fundraising from the gambling industry, but $1 million seems like a fair estimate.
-
sponsorship
Barack Obama's half-hour infomercial Wednesday night didn't teach us a lot we didn't already know—except that an Obama administration would likely
feature immaculate stagecraft.
The spot opened with a shot of—I’m not making this up—amber waves of grain. Obama reiterated his plan to cut taxes for families making less than $250,000 in a softly lit room in front of an oak desk. He explained his Social Security plan to moist-eyed retirees in what could have been a church vestibule. Then a guy behind a register tells Mark Dowell, a laid-off auto worker, the price for groceries. The camera cut to Dowell, scowling, in a way that could not have possibly been live. Not to mention the well-coordinated switch to Obama's live address in Florida, with sweeping cameras straight out of a Rolling Stones concert movie.
Improved artifice easily fits under the banner of "Change." Some of President Bush's worst political moments came from poorly executed stagecraft. Dressing up as a fighter pilot and standing before a "Mission Accomplished" banner was the epitome of tone deafness. Bush's team also goofed in allowing him to be photographed looking down at post-Katrina New Orleans. Optics aren't everything, but Bush's visual flops were especially damaging.
And it's not just choreography that matters: It's making the choreography look effortless. Tonight's episode featured all sorts of shots that simply had to be rehearsed: a couple praying before dinner, a mother walking out of a grocery store toward a fixed camera, a woman with arthritis massaging her knuckles. You can imagine the cinematographer saying, "Can you pray a little longer this time? OK, now try moving your mouth a little." It's heavily choreographed. But the production quality is high enough that the transitions are almost invisible. It's the opposite of George H.W. Bush's famously clunky statement to the people of New Hampshire in 1992: "Message: I care." The trick is not to let the seams show.
Smart propaganda does not a smart administration make. If anything, it means we have to be more vigilant in calling out theater when we see it. But whatever the next four years may bring, we're in for some damn good camera angles.
-
sponsorship
Politics is a horse race whether you like it or not, so you might as well gamble on it with your friends. Here are the rules the Slate staff is using for our (no stakes) Electoral College pool.
Contestants choose a winner for every state. Points are awarded based on how certain the state looks to go to one candidate or the other, rewarding correct picks that go against the current political winds, like so:
- 3 points for correctly guessing a tossup state
- 2 points for correctly guessing a leaning state in the direction it's leaning
- 6 points for correctly guessing a leaning state against the direction it's leaning
- 1 point for correctly guessing a safe state in the direction it's leaning
- 10 points for correctly guessing a safe state against the direction it's leaning
The status of each state is determined by our "Election Scorecard" feature, which uses data from Pollster.com. As a tiebreaker, players guess the percentage of the popular vote for both McCain and Obama.
If you want to organize your own pool by these rules, here's a form (Google spreadsheet or Excel file) that lists the tilt for each state and calculates the electoral score for each set of picks. We'll post another spread after the election that calculates the score for each set of predictions.
A note on strategy: Some have wondered whether it would make sense to gamble the other way on all the safe states, given that an upset in one of them is worth 10 times as much as guessing according to the polls. This strategy would pay off only if more than 10 percent of the safe states flipped between now and the election, a sufficiently low probability to make it a risky move.
Got any good stories from your office Electoral College pool? Send them along. (E-mail may be quoted by name unless the sender specifies otherwise.)
-
sponsorship
Farhad Manjoo has a great piece up about the Obama campaign's text-messaging superiority. But the campaign's technological dominance extends to all corners of the Internet, as evidenced by this new video:
It's a prime example of the Internet gap in 2008. Obama's people understand the Web—what works, what doesn't, and what's funny about it. They realize that you can take a popular YouTube clip (and a great moment of FAIL), add some silly Photoshopping, and make a better ad than a snoozy Fred Thompson pep talk. Now if only they'd BarackRoll McCain.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: Let Freedom Ring
Purpose: To promote a conservative agenda and to counter liberal messaging. In this election, they support John McCain.
President: Colin A. Hanna
Funding: NPR reports that John Templeton, a physician and wealthy Republican donor, is a contributor.
Cost of the Ad: $5 million for the whole campaign.
Where It Ran: Colorado, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Washington, D.C., starting Oct. 24.
Claims: Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Frank Gaffney says that candidates who are determined not to use force or invest in a strong military convey "weakness" that "invites aggression." (He doesn't explicitly name Obama.) The ad then quotes Joe Biden's statement that "it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama."
Accuracy: Frank Gaffney writes editorials theorizing that Islamist groups are using Obama to take over the United States. The ad implies that Obama is determined not to use military force or to maintain a strong military. Both of these claims are false. In fact, both Obama and McCain want to expand the armed forces. In a 2007 speech, Obama said, "I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America. ... I will ensure that our military becomes more stealth, agile, and lethal in its ability to capture or kill terrorists." The Biden statement, made at a rally in Seattle, is accurate.
Background: The group's Never Find Out campaign features individuals addressing Obama's tax plan, energy plan, and use of the present vote in the Illinois Senate. Other ads have attacked Obama on his comments about small-town Pennsylvanians, his position on the Employee Free Choice Act, and offshore drilling. Ronald Reagan nominated Gaffney for assistant secretary of defense; Gaffney served for seven months until the Supreme Court blocked the nomination.
Swift Boat Rating: 
Biden did warn Americans that an international crisis would test Obama. But the ad's implications—that Obama would not use force and would weaken the military—are inaccurate. The ad gets an extra boat for featuring Gaffney, who is not the most credible spokesperson.
-
sponsorship
Yesterday, Sarah Palin said that this election is going to "come down to the wire." She may have meant it's going to be close. But she also may have been suggesting that this election rests in the hands of the hit HBO series.
If so, McCain's screwed:
Cast
of "The Wire" Campaigns in North Carolina for Obama
Stars Will Make Stops
in Raleigh Sunday and UNC Chapel Hill and Duke on Monday
RALEIGH—
Tomorrow, members of the cast of the Peabody Award-winning drama series, The
Wire will attend a Backyard Brunch for Barack in Raleigh. Seven of
the show's cast members will visit the Tarheel State in support of the
change Barack Obama will bring across the country and in North Carolina.
Chad
Coleman who plays Dennis "Cutty" Wise, Deidre Lovejoy who plays
Rhonda Pearlman, Jamie Hector who plays Marlo Stanfield, Clarke Peters who
plays Detective Lester Freamon, Sonja Sohn who plays Detective Shakima
"Kima" Greggs, Seth Gilliam who plays Sergeant Ellis Carver, and
Gbenga Akinnagbe who plays Chris Partlow will all appear at the backyard brunch
on Sunday.
Look for the attack ads citing Obama's shady drug-dealer connections. Some members of the cast also went knocking on doors, which obviously means kicking them down. On a side note, Akkinagbe, who plays Chris Partlow, confirms via a friend that Season 4 is "definitely the best one."
John McCain wants it to be one way. But it's the other way.
Update 3:51 p.m.: They also made this video.
-
sponsorship
From a McCain press logistics summary:
Thursday, October 23, 2008
ORMOND BEACH, FLORIDA
Event: John McCain Participates in "Joe the Plummer" Tour Rally
Location: All Star Building Materials, Inc.
1361 North Highway U.S. 1
Ormond Beach, FL 32174
Date: Thursday, October 23, 2008
I had no idea John McCain was a Modest Mouse fan.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: Republican
Jewish Coalition PAC
Purpose: To
advocate for issues relevant to Jewish Republicans. In this election, they
oppose Barack Obama.
Executive Director:
Matthew Brooks, who also directs the Jewish Policy Center.
Funding: Individual
donations.
Cost of the Ad: More
than $1 million.
Where It Ran: Florida, Nevada, Ohio and Pennsylvania
through Election Day.
Claims: Obama
would meet with leaders of unfriendly countries during the first year of his
administration. Hillary Clinton said she would not. She also said Obama's stance
was irresponsible and naïve.
Accuracy: Obama
and Clinton's responses are taken from the July 2007 CNN/Youtube Democratic
Primary debate in South Carolina.
(Watch their complete responses here.) As some have pointed
out, Obama never explicitly said he would meet with Ahmadinejad-only that
he would consider sitting down with unnamed leaders. (The questioner did not
specifically name the leaders, but a picture of Ahmadinejad was shown.) Clinton, in an interview
with the Quad City Times, called
Obama's comments "naïve and frankly irresponsible."
Background: Formerly
the National Jewish Coalition, the RJC lobbies on behalf of Jewish interests. The
PAC has contributed
heavily to state candidates in the past. They were responsible
for some pretty nasty attacks on Howard Dean in 2005. Last month, the group received
sharp criticism for a poll that asked Jewish voters to respond to negative
statements about Obama. One polled voter happened to be a writer for the New Republic
and blogged
about his experience.
Swift Boat Rating:
Obama has reiterated his intention to meet with leaders of
anti-American countries. The ad leaves interpretation up to the viewer.
-
sponsorship
Playing the terrorism card is risky: You could look desperate, and your opponent could accuse you of fear-mongering. But if your opponent brings up the subject, then you may have an opportunity.
Which is why the McCain campaign is probably sending Joe Biden a thank-you card (it doesn’t do text messages) right about now. Over the weekend, Biden suggested that Obama would face an international crisis soon after taking office: “Mark my words,” Biden said at a Seattle fundraiser. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. … Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”
McCain pounced on the statement, claiming that even Joe Biden agrees that Obama presidency would be dangerous. The key words, according to the McCain camp, are “generated crisis,” as if Obama’s mere presence in the Oval Office would provoke the crisis. “We don’t want a president who invites testing from the world at a time when our economy is in crisis and Americans are already fighting in two wars,” McCain said.
Today marked Phase Two of Operation Terrorism Card. The McCain campaign held a conference call in response to a Washington Post piece about commenters on al-Qaida-related message boards celebrating the U.S. financial meltdown. The gist of the piece: These al-Qaida commenters generally think the crisis is caused by the U.S. spending its resources on foreign wars, and they suggest that McCain would be more likely to continue this trend.
McCain surrogates took the opportunity to refute the article and to spin it around on Obama. McCain spokesman and blogger Michael Goldfarb said that the article, in a “rather irresponsible and rather outrageous fashion, claims that al Qaeda supports John McCain for president.” McCain Foreign Policy Adviser Randy Scheunemann then read a series of quotes—“If we’re going to talk about who has support from terrorist groups”—from Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Muammar Gaddafi saying positive things about Obama. (Gaddafi has also attacked Obama.) Scheunemann said he was reading the quotes “without commentary.” Finally, former CIA director Jim Woolsey argued that one commenter’s motives are suspect: “This individual knows that the endorsement would be kiss of death, figuratively and literally. So it seems to me pretty clear that by making this statement, he is clearly trying to damage John McCain.”
As for Goldfarb’s complaint, the piece stops short of saying that al-Qaida endorses McCain or that the commenters are anything more than al-Qaida sympathizers. Adam Raisman of Site Intelligence Group, who was also quoted in the Post piece, emphasized to me that the commenter in question was “not affiliated with al-Qaeda. He doesn’t represent the group, he’s not spokesman.” Rather, he’s an al-Qaida sympathizer whose comment represents the prevailing views of other users—that McCain would keep America on its current trajectory. Raisman also dismissed Woolsey’s suggestion that the commenter was using reverse psychology to hurt McCain. “I don’t think the author wrote the message with any intention other than having like-minded individuals read it,” he told me. “I don’t think he thought he was … harming the campaign in any way.”
For weeks, the McCain camp has insinuated that Obama isn’t ready to handle crises. (Obama has said the same about McCain.) But until now it hasn’t made the explicit case that Obama would provoke and/or be unable to handle a terrorist attack. And just in time, too: With less than two weeks to go before Election Day, the McCain camp is running out of ammo. The “celebrity” angle flubbed, Ayers went nowhere, and the campaign is now mulling whether to invoke Jeremiah Wright, despite McCain’s assurances that he would not. The best part? Campaign apparatchiks can now claim it was Biden and the Washington Post who brought up terrorism—not them.
-
sponsorship
Joe the Plumber may never
have fancied himself the mascot of the Republican Party, but Tito Munoz seemed
fully prepared for the role.
Munoz showed up at a McCain rally in Woodbridge, Va.
last weekend dressed in a yellow hardhat and orange surveyor vest, decked out in
McCain-Palin flair and
sporting a sign that read “Construction Worker for McCain-Palin” on one side
and “Media—Tell the Whole Story!” on the other. During McCain’s stump speech,
Munoz was behind the candidate, alongside “Phil the Bricklayer” and “Rose the
Teacher.”
After McCain had left, Munoz planted himself a few yards
behind the press bleachers and started shouting about the media. He quickly
attracted a small crowd of reporters and fellow rally-goers. (Listen to audio of Munoz here and here, and see the Mother Jones video here.)
“Why you guys have to go and find every little thing that
Joe the Plumber is about?” he demanded. “How come you have not done the same
thing with Obama?”
If publicity was Munoz’s goal, it worked. National Review’s Byron York devoted
800 words to Munoz in a story about the “Joe the Plumber” phenomenon, which
received considerable
blog attention. The McCain campaign noticed, and two days later Sarah Palin
introduced "Tito the builder" into her stump speech.
“Tito is not pleased with how the Barack Obama campaign and
some of the media friends there have been roughing up Joe the Plumber,” Palin said
at a Colorado rally.
Is it really that easy to insert oneself into the campaign
storyline? Munoz’s case is worthy of a close read. Here are a few tips on how
to become a McCain campaign personality:
- Make Your Profession
Clear. Sarah Palin cannot shoehorn you into the “(name) the (profession)”
formula if she doesn’t know what you do. Blue-collar jobs are preferable but
not required. If your line of work involves a uniform, wear it. (Note: Party
City has hundreds of locations nationwide.)
- Choose a red-meat
issue. Choices include media bias, taxes, and William Ayers. No need to
confine yourself to one if the spirit moves you. Just let it flow.
- Find David Corn. The
bulk of Munoz’s tirade was directed at Mother
Jones Washington bureau chief David Corn, who provoked
him for several minutes with requests for facts to back-up his arguments. That
exchange got the crowd riled around Munoz, which attracted more people and more
reporters. If Corn isn’t present, any journalist willing to engage the mob will
suffice.
- Humility, humility. “I’m
just an ordinary person, like everybody,” Munoz told the crowd. “But I’m tired
of listening to the bias in the media. And today I make a decision to come and
support [McCain] and come and confront you guys.”
- Project. Munoz
was not without competition during his impromptu press-bashing press
conference. At one point, a taller man in a brown jacket directly behind
him—pictured here—briefly stole the spotlight when he started yelling that
“human life begins at conception, end of story.” Not to be outdone, Tito simply
out-shouted his competitor.
It worked for Tito. Meanwhile, Senate candidate and former Virginia governor Jim
Gilmore stood twenty feet away, looking lonely.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are:
Health Care for America
Now
Purpose: To
support quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
Director: The national campaign manager is
Richard Hirsch, previously executive director of Citizen Action, an
organization that helped the poor find insurance in New York state.
Funding: The
organization has received a $10
million dollar grant from the Atlantic Philanthropies as well as $500,000 a
piece from their 16 steering
committee members, which include MoveOn.org,
the Center for American Progress
Action Fund, and the recently
targeted community-organizing group ACORN.
Cost: $1 million,
part of a larger $4.3 million dollar ad buy that will air similar ads against
congressional candidates.
Where It Ran: The
ad aired on national cable and major markets in Ohio for two weeks starting Oct. 8.
Claims: The ad is
narrated by a woman with cancer who says that John McCain’s health care plan
could cause 20 million people lose their employer-provided health insurance
plans. Those with existing conditions like her, she says, would not be able to
get a new plan.
Accuracy: John
McCain’s health care
plan would give families a $5,000 dollar tax refundable tax credit to
purchase health insurance while reducing incentives that encourage employers to
provide their employees with coverage. The main thrust of the ad – that 20
million people would lose their insurance if John McCain’s plan were instituted
– is supported by a recent
paper published in the journal Health
Affairs and a follow-up
report (PDF) by the Economic Policy Institute. These studies argue that, with
fewer tax incentives, fewer businesses will offer insurance plans. The
Commonwealth Fund has documented
the difficulty of finding health care individually after losing an
employer-sponsored plan and the Kaiser Family Foundation including in the case
of breast-cancer
survivors (PDF) and other individuals with pre-existing conditions. However,
another
recent study (PDF), by the health system consultant HSI, argued that McCain’s plan would in
fact reduce the number of uninsured people by 20 million. And a Tax
Policy Center report (PDF) lands in the middle, agreeing that McCain’s proposal
would cause 20 million to lose or leave their employer-sponsored program but
saying also that overall the proposal would decrease the number of uninsured by
one million as 21 million bought non-employer-sponsored plans, including some
of those who lost their employer-sponsored plans.
Factcheck.org
has examined McCain’s proposal and found a consensus among health care experts
that McCain’s proposal would most likely cause employers to reduce the coverage
offered. Their report also stated that while some would benefit from the
adjustment of incentives, the old and unhealthy would probably get the short
end of the stick, as Jane Bryant Quinn argued in Newsweek.
Swift Boat Rating:
Several studies state that around 20 million people could
lose their employer-sponsored coverage, though the ad doesn’t mention that many
would likely get non-employer plans. That being said, many health care experts agree
with the assertion that McCain’s plan would make it harder for people like the woman
portrayed in the ad to secure health insurance.
Background: Health
Care for America Now is a coalition of non-profits and public officials. Obama
has signed their statement of
principles.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: MoveOn.org Political Action
Purpose: To elect progressive candidates. In this election, they support Barack Obama.
Founders: Joan Blades and Wes Boyd
Funding: Federal PACs cannot accept donations greater than $5,000, so MoveOn.org relies mostly on small donations. The group has deep pockets, though. According to FEC reports, it spent $1,152,073 to oppose John McCain and another $4,008,667 to support Obama as of Oct. 19, 2008.
Cost of the Ad: The ad is part of a $7 million fall campaign.
Where It Ran: Las Vegas on Oct. 20, plus other cities the day before Sarah Palin visits them until Election Day. A $25,000 ad buy was purchased for Cleveland, Toledo, and Cincinnati, Ohio, Oct. 21 and 22.
Claims: Sarah Palin doesn't have any national-security experience. Even though she supports the war, she can't explain Bush's war policies. Palin has claimed to be an expert on Russia because she can see it. Because McCain is 72, Palin could end up in charge.
Accuracy: Palin regularly dodges questions related to her foreign-policy or national-security experience. The campaign has pushed her position as commander of the Alaskan National Guard as important foreign-policy experience, but a closer look reveals that any decision to deploy the Guard would not fall under her jurisdiction. In an interview with Charles Gibson, Palin was unable to say whether she supported the Bush Doctrine. (That said, Gibson's definition of the Bush Doctrine was challenged.) Palin has voiced support for the Iraq war and even said it was a "task from God." When asked by Gibson to talk about her experience with Russia, she said that she can see Russia from Alaska. At 72, McCain would be the oldest president elected to a first term, and his health has been a topic of concern in the campaign.
Background: MoveOn.org is no newcomer—it spent $30 million in the 2004 election, the fourth largest amount spent by a PAC. So far in this election, it has spent just more than half of its 2004 total. The FEC fined the group in 2004 for not properly reporting donations and expenditures to the FEC even though it was acting as a political action committee. Jonathan Cranin, responsible for the E*Trade "Baby" and MasterCard "Priceless" commercials, produced the ad.
Swift Boat Rating:
The McCain campaign has tried to equate Palin's energy and Alaska National Guard experience with foreign-policy experience. The truth is, they have a hard time nailing down anything she has actually done.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: pH For America
Purpose: To persuade Americans that Barack Obama is not a good Christian.
Director: Stephen Marks, opposition researcher and self-described "political hit man."
Funding: Small donations
Cost of the Ad: Less than $1,000 to produce. The latest ad buy was $2,500.
Where It Ran: Starting Oct. 17 in Florida, Ohio, Virginia, and Missouri.
Claims: Obama "insulted small-town Americans" when he said they are bitter and cling to guns and religion. He also "mocked and ridiculed" the books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and the Sermon on the Mount by taking passages "painfully out of context." Obama "condescendingly" implied that Americans don't read the Bible.
Accuracy: In an event in San Francisco, Obama did say that some Americans, such as small town Pennsylvanians, "cling to guns and religion."*
As for the Bible, the clips in the ad come from Obama's 2006 "Call to Renewal" address, in which he responded to opponent Alan Keyes' claim that Obama was not a true Christian. Obama did mock Biblical verses, but he was trying to prove his point that literal interpretation makes no sense. And the problem isn't "context," as the ad suggests. Leviticus creates a set of rules regarding slavery. (Slave is used in some translations, and servant is used in others.) Deuteronomy suggests that a rebellious son be brought to the town's elders to be stoned to death.
At the end of that same paragraph, Obama says, "Folks aren't reading their bibles." But it's pretty clear that he's not talking about the American people—he's talking about Americans who interpret scripture literally.
Background: The pH in the group's name stands for "political hit man." This group clearly had the infamous Swift Boat ad of 2004 in mind when they created this ad: "pHForAmerica.com is hoping to become the ‘Swiftboat' 527 of 2008," states the group's Web site. Stephen Marks has created political ads in the past. The group's videos (there are one-minute and two-minute versions), which have been on Youtube for months, garnered a direct response from the Obama campaign, which called Marks a "scam artist" and said the ad would never be aired on TV. The group bought time earlier this month in Michigan and Pennsylvania but pulled the ad after it became clear those states were leaning Democrat.
Swift Boat Rating:
Obama did mock Bible verses, but only the literal meaning of them. By suggesting that Obama is not a true Christian, the ad plays to people's fears that he might be something else entirely. It's this insinuation that earns the spot an extra boat (although apparently that's what the ad's makers want).
Correction, Oct. 16, 2008: This piece originally said that Barack Obama made his "guns and religion" statement in Pennsylvania.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: Service Employees International Union
Purpose: To promote the interests and values of laborers. In this election, they support Barack Obama.
President: Andy Stern
Funding: According to FEC reports, a lot of funding comes from group employees themselves, including Anna Burger and Andy Stern, who each contribute around $300 a month. Other funding comes from the union's two million members.
Cost of the Ad: $1 million
Where It Ran: Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Oct. 6 through Oct. 10, 2008.
Related Groups: To see SEIU connections, check out this graphic from the Center for Investigative Reporting.
Claims: John McCain's health care plan will raise taxes and deny coverage for pre-existing conditions such as cancer. McCain will also tax health benefits.
Accuracy: The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that McCain's health plan would not raise taxes for most families and that it would most negatively affect high-income earners. McCain's Web site states that those with pre-existing conditions will "get the high-quality coverage they need." But it doesn't say how that will happen. The McCain plan will encourage people to buy health insurance plans from private companies instead of through their employer, and these private companies would all have different rules about pre-existing conditions. McCain proposes a family tax credit of $5,000; the average cost of health care for a family of four was $12,100 in 2007. If an employee does not purchase an employer-sponsored health care plan, employers could opt to pay the health benefits—an average of $8,800—to the employee as wages. Families could use this extra income to make up the difference between the tax credit and insurance premium. But McCain would remove the tax exemption from this amount, which would then be taxed as income.
Background: SEIU has historically been one of the most active groups in presidential elections, and spent $12 million in 2004. According to the FEC, SEIU has spent nearly $20 million to support Obama and almost $2 million to oppose McCain as of Oct. 9.
Swift Boat Rating:
It's fair to say that McCain will tax health benefits, but the other two claims are a bit off. McCain's plan does not regulate private companies' stances on covering pre-existing conditions—it would leave that up to each individual company. Nor would his plan raise taxes for middle-class families—the $5,000 tax credit would be enough to subsidize the majority of health care plans.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: Judicial Confirmation Network
Purpose: The group supports conservative nominees to the Supreme Court. In this election, they oppose Barack Obama.
President: Gary Marx, former coalitions director for Bush-Cheney 2004 and Mitt Romney.
Funding: The group is a registered 501(c)4, funded through individual donations.
Cost of the Ad: $550,000 in a $1 million campaign.
Where It Ran: Michigan, Ohio, and nationally on the Fox News Channel through Friday, Oct. 10.
Claims: Tony Rezko, a slumlord who was convicted on 16 counts of corruption, donated money to Obama. Obama also associated with William Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground who planted a bomb in the Pentagon in 1972 and later said he "didn't do enough." The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor for years, blamed the U.S. for the Sept. 11 attacks. If Obama "chose" these people as associates and backers, the ad suggests, how can we trust him to choose Supreme Court justices?
Accuracy: The majority of the facts in the ad are correct. Rezko started to donate to Obama's state senate campaign in 1995, although Obama recently gave Rezko donations to charity. Obama and Ayers worked together on the board of the same Chicago anti-poverty foundation for three years. Ayers, when he was a member of the Weather Underground, planted a bomb and later said it wasn't enough. Wright did say in a sermon that African Americans should not sing "God Bless America" but "God damn America." But the ad is wrong to equate this statement with blaming the U.S. for 9/11. It was another controversial Wright statement—"America's chickens are coming home to roost"—that suggests the U.S. is partly to blame.
Background: The group was created in 2004 to help President George W. Bush's nominations get confirmed in the Supreme Court. The group campaigned heavily for Samuel Alito's confirmation.
Swift Boat Rating:
Although the facts in the ad are essentially correct, suggesting that these associations have anything to do with Supreme Court nominations is a stretch.
-
sponsorship
In the beginning, there was “The One.” Now, thanks to an off-hand comment in tonight’s debate, there’s “that one.” The result: One "one" cancels the other "One" out.
McCain was discussing a 2005 energy bill “loaded down with goodies, billions for the oil companies, and it was sponsored by Bush and Cheney. You know who voted for it? You might never know. That one,” he said, indicating Obama. “You know who voted against it? Me.”
The Obama camp immediately blasted out a one-liner to reporters: “Did John McCain just refer to Obama as ‘that one’?” In an otherwise forgettable debate, that’s already become the moment, with Obama campaign manager David Plouffe suggesting it reflects McCain’s “anger” and lumping it in with his refusal to look Obama in the eye last debate.
Which is, of course, utterly silly. “That one” is good-natured towel-snapping—another way of saying, Get a load of this guy. Anyone who knows how McCain talks knows this. He was joshing around. It wasn’t particularly funny—but it wasn’t mean-spirited either.
It could still matter, though. McCain’s campaign has had a good chuckle dubbing Obama “The One,” a tweak at the worshipful way some fans treat him. (And, some believe, a hint that he’s the Antichrist.) They’re still laughing, too. Just today, the McCain camp issued novelty cufflinks with a mock presidential seal on one side—a jab at Obama’s campaign seal—and “The One” engraved on the other.
But “that one” could mean the end of “The One.” Now, every time Team McCain resurrects their favorite moniker, Team Obama need only reply, Sorry, which one? Oh, you mean “THAT one.”
It’s a dumb response, but then again, it’s a dumb attack. After all, it takes one to know one.
-
sponsorship
Did Obama miss the best pitch he's going to see in this debate? The second question, from a man named Oliver Clark, asked the candidates: "Well, senators, through this economic crisis, most of the people that I know have had a difficult time. And through this bailout package, I was wondering what it is that's going to actually help those people out."
McCain responded first, giving an airy answer about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—institutions, he suggested, the questioner "may never even have heard of ... before this crisis"—and taking a snipe at Obama for his contributions from those institutions. At this point, the moment felt eerily analogous to the most famous question from the 1992 town hall debate below, in which a young woman asked the three candidates how the national debt had personally affected them. (She probably meant the recession.) George H.W. Bush's response (about 20 seconds into the video) was muddled and aloof, and Bill Clinton pounced on the opportunity to give a personal, compassionate-sounding response (2:30 in the video). The exchange was instant presidential-debate lore.
As Jack Shafer wrote in Slate today, Clinton's '92 playbook has more than a few valuable pages in it, and Obama's answer hardly lived up. After a mini economics lesson about frozen credit markets and their effect on business, he flipped the question into an attack on McCain's support for deregulation. The man-of-the-people card may not be Obama's strong point, but one can't help feel that he missed an essential opportunity to connect with voters.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: WakeUpWalMart.com
Purpose: To change Wal-Mart's business strategy and the way the corporation treats employees. In this election, they oppose John McCain.
Campaign Director: Meghan Scott
Funding: United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
Where It Ran: Aired three times during the vice-presidential debate on CNN and MSNBC in Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
Related Groups: UFCW
Claims: 1.6 million women are charging Wal-Mart with pay discrimination. When equal-pay legislation came to the Senate, McCain "helped defeat it."
Accuracy: In the largest class action suit to date, 1.6 million women sued Wal-Mart for discrimination regarding pay and promotions in 2004. McCain opposed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in April that would have made it easier for people to sue their employees on the basis of discrimination. McCain did not vote on the bill but voiced his opposition on the campaign trail.
Background: UFCW created the group in 2005 to directly challenge Wal-Mart. Although the group has aired one previous ad attacking McCain's economic plan, it has focused almost exclusively on Wal-Mart in the past. According to the Federal Election Commission, UFCW has spent $596,570 in support of Obama so far this election cycle.
Swift Boat Rating: 0 boats
The facts in the ad are all correct: 1.6 million women sued Wal-Mart, and McCain opposed the bill that would have made it easier for women to sue employers on the basis of discrimination.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund
Purpose: Protecting endangered species by promoting the election of pro-environment lawmakers
Senior Director: William Lutz
Funding: According to the WSJ, the group is funded mostly by small donors.
Cost: The group says it spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for airtime but would not specify an exact amount.
Where It Ran: The ad has run in Florida, Ohio, and Michigan and will expand into Colorado and Northern Virginia.
Claims: The spot crosscuts between images of Sarah Palin and footage of aerial hunting, stating that Palin supported aerial hunting and also proposed a $150 bounty fee for the foreleg of any killed wolves in order to encourage the practice.
Accuracy: The ad describes the basics of Palin’s record correctly but fails to mention the rationale for aerial hunting, which supporters refer to as “predator control.” These proponents argue that killing gray wolves, which are abundant in Alaska though they have been on and off the endangered species list in the continental United States, is necessary to maintain sufficient levels of moose and caribou for subsistence hunters that rely on those animals for their food. Whether the policy really helps these hunters is another question. Various groups of scientists have also questioned the logic of the policy, saying it didn’t consider the imperative of maintaining predator populations. Critics have also said that predator-control operations should be limited to fish and game agents.
Swift Boat Rating:
The ad gets the essentials of Palin’s record right. While some may disagree with its characterization of aerial hunting, the characterization is not blatantly unfair.
Background: After Palin proposed the bounty on wolves’ forelegs, Defenders of Wildlife themselves filed a lawsuit that forced her to back off the policy.
-
sponsorship
The House of Representatives will vote on a financial bailout bill for the second time in a week this afternoon, and backers of the measure are desperately hoping to corral at least 13 more vote than they did on Monday, when the bill failed by a 228-205 margin.
In order to have any hope of wrangling those 13 votes, party leaders need to understand the unusual ingredients that made up the defeating coalition. Various Trailhead readers noted that the extremes of both parties voted against the measure, while donations from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae correlated with support for the bill.
Catholic University politics professor Matthew Green took that analysis a step further. He ran the roll call-vote against 14 factors that might have affected a representative’s vote: Data points like freshman status, membership in the various House caucuses, vulnerability in the upcoming election, and so forth.
Using a standard logistic regression model, Green discovered several factors that reliably predicted a "no" vote, and another few that reliably predicted a "yes" vote.
Members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, the Blue Dog Coalition of fiscally conservative Democrats, the Congressional Black Caucus, and those on the ideological extremes of their party were likely to vote against the bill with a high statistical significant (p < .05, if that means anything to you).
Meanwhile, party leaders, those not running for re-election, and members of the New York delegation were significantly likely to support the bill. Members of the Financial Services Committee also trended toward supporting the bill, but with a slightly weaker correlation.
This model essentially studies each factor in a vacuum, holding other factors constant in order to study its effects in isolation. So a lawmaker with multiple, conflicting traits—take for examples, Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., a member of the Congressional Black Caucus and a party leader—predicting the vote gets tricky.
-
sponsorship
Joe Biden claimed in tonight's debate that "we spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country." The claim sounds stunning, and Biden has made it before; he said the same thing in a March 2 New York Times op-ed and at a Senate foreign relations committee hearing a year earlier.
The key word here is building. To make the claim work, one needs to compare only the reconstruction costs in Afghanistan with the entire Department of Defense bill for Iraq. According to the most recent Congressional Research Service report on war appropriations, Congress has appropriated $653 billion for Iraq and $172 billion in Afghanistan. (See Page 16. Afghanistan is listed as "OEF" for "Operation Enduring Freedom.") By that comparison, it would take more than a year's worth of Iraq spending to equal the total cost of operations in Afghanistan.
Biden is referring only to rebuilding costs in Afghanistan, which are a small fraction of total spending. The claim is a classic apples-to-oranges analogy, and it's unclear exactly where Biden is getting his price for oranges. The same CRS report lists all foreign aid and diplomatic spending in Afghanistan at $12.4 billion on Page 19, which is getting us closer; if we use fiscal year 2008 numbers for Iraq, when combat costs totalled $145 billion, three weeks comes out $8.4 billion. Biden is probably parsing out that $12.4 billion figure even further. This September 2008 CRS report on postwar policy in Afghanistan says that the U.S. Agency for International Development has spent just under $7 billion in the country (See Table 14 on Page 65).
Is Biden hoping viewers will gloss over his caveats and think he's making a legitimate, apples-to-apples comparison? He certainly fooled this guy. If so, it's bad idea—even in a nation plagued by innumeracy, the claim that we outspend total funding for Afghanistan in three weeks in Iraq fails the smell test. If this isn't the strategy, Biden could try a little harder to explain his reasoning. It didn't help that, when he repeated himself in the debate, he left out all the caveats: "Let me say that again. Three weeks in Iraq; seven years, seven years or six-and-a-half years in Afghanistan."
-
sponsorship
Sarah Palin got a tough rap this week for flubbing questions in media interviews. Her solution tonight: not answering them at all.
Gwen Ifill nobly tried to keep both candidates on task. But Palin demonstrated a knack for answering the question she wanted to answer—not the one that was asked. At one point, Ifill asked Palin to respond to a comment by Sen. Biden on health care. “I would like to respond about the tax increases,” Palin pivoted and proceeded to accuse Obama of raising taxes 94 times. A minute later, Ifill prompted Palin to respond about McCain’s record of deregulation. Again, Palin resisted: “I'm still on the tax thing because I want to correct you on that again.” Biden looked exasperated, prompting Palin to say, “I may not answer the questions that either the moderator or you want to hear, but I'm going to talk straight to the American people and let them know my track record also.” In other words, screw your questions, I’ve memorized a message and gosh darn it, I’m going to get it across. She even managed to steer Ifill at one point: “Can we talk about Afghanistan real quick?” “Certainly,” said Ifill.
It wasn’t just Ifill she ignored—Biden got the cold shoulder, too. When Palin said Obama voted to cut off troop funding, Biden pointed out that McCain has voted against troop funding as well, because the legislation contained a timeline for withdrawal. She did not respond. Same when he pointed out that Obama’s tax plan raises taxes only on those who make more than $250,000, not families who make as little as $42,000, as Palin and McCain claimed. She had talking points but few responses to Biden’s rebuttals. One notable exception was the time she corrected Biden on “McClellan’s” argument that counterinsurgency could work in Afghanistan as it has worked in Iraq. Biden conceded the point but didn’t mention that his name is actually Gen. McKiernan.
The strategy worked. Palin kept the conversation on her turf, avoided follow-ups, and came across both forceful and charming. She addressed the camera directly—part of the “straight to the American people” message—instead of addressing Biden (although she did turn his way to inform him, “Your plan is a white flag of surrender in Iraq”). She’s also a master of the tonal pivot, going from beaming smile to sly grin to dead serious all within the same answer. The format helped, too. The two-minute rebuttal periods didn’t produce much cross-chatter, and Ifill didn’t ask many follow-up questions.
In her closing statement, Palin said she liked the debate because “I like to answer these questions without the filter of the mainstream media.” If by “filter” she means Couric-style follow-ups, requests for clarification, and other obstacles to the subjects she came to talk about, she’s right. This debate was a great medium for her.
-
sponsorship
All four candidates have conjured Main Street in the two debates this fall, usually juxtaposed against the evils of Wall Street. Barack Obama got to it in the fifth sentence of his opening remarks in last week's debate, and McCain was quick to follow. Biden and Palin have both already invoked the proverbial boulevard of the middle class.
"I think we need a little bit of reality from Wasilla Main Street there, brought to Washington, D.C.," Palin said tonight.
So, what's Main Street like in Palin's hometown of Wasilla, Alaska, where she was mayor for six years? Google Maps reveals a diminutive road of a few blocks connecting Wasilla Fishhook Road and Knik Goose Bay Road. To verify this, your intrepid correspondent called the Wasilla Public Library, located at 391 N. Main Street. (The time difference really benefits the Washington media elite.) The woman who answered the phone, who asked to be identified as Kathy, told me, after some consultation with a colleague, that it was four blocks long.
-
sponsorship
After Sarah Palin's interviews with Katie Couric, expectations could not be lower. Even showing up would be a victory.*
But as usual, both campaigns are engaging in the usual
counterintuitive praise for their opponents. The best quote comes from Obama
campaign manager David Plouffe as he tried to ratchet up expectations—reportedly
provoking guffaws from the press scrum.
"Governor Palin is one of the best debaters in American
politics,” Plouffe said. “If you look at her - no she is. Her 2006 debate, she knew
where she wanted to take every question, and so I think she'll be relentlessly
on message tonight, and again I'm sure she'll have any number of biting and
witty one-liners. But our focus is on the person sitting at home in Canton, Ohio, tonight, Akron, Ohio,
tonight, who's struggling economically."
*Update: The debate has begun. She is here.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: Winning Message Action Fund
Purpose: A 501(c)4 nonprofit affiliated with NARAL Pro-Choice New York. The group advocates for reproductive rights. In this election, it opposes John McCain.
President: Kelli Conlin
Funding: Individual donors. Although they share staff with NARAL Pro-Choice New York, their finances are separate.
Cost of the Ad: Less than $10,000.
Where It Ran: Ran 92 times through SaysMeTV on various networks and markets. Airtime was never purchased for this ad. Instead, Winning Message Action Fund uses a company called SaysMeTV that allows individuals to pay to air the ad on networks ranging from BET to Animal Planet. For example, one ad in the Indianapolis suburbs on CNN between 7 p.m. and 12 a.m. costs $45. Airtime for this ad was mostly purchased in Pennsylvania.
Related Groups: NARAL Pro-Choice New York and National Institute for Reproductive Health.
Claims: McCain opposes Roe v. Wade and thinks it should be overturned. If it were overturned, 21 states would immediately start to ban abortions, making them illegal. The ad asks the question, “How much time should she serve?”
Accuracy: McCain explicitly states on his Web site that Roe v. Wade was a “flawed decision that must be overturned.” The Center for Reproductive Rights released the “What if Roe Fell” report (PDF) in 2007. On Page 10 of this report, it states that 21 states are at high risk for banning abortion. But only four states—Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, and South Dakota—have enacted bans-in-waiting that would outlaw abortion as soon as Roe v. Wade is overturned. Bans-in-waiting don’t violate federal law because they don’t go into effect unless Roe v. Wade is overturned and therefore wouldn’t require legal action to be enacted. The report lists jail time as the punishment for many of the states’ statutes. But in all four ban-in-waiting statutes, the punishments are for the person who performs the abortion, not the woman who receives it.
Background: The ad started as an Internet campaign in August, funded for TV by individuals. But the organization will start purchasing its own airtime this month. The organization is still unsure if it will use the “How Much Time" ad or create a second one.
Swift Boat Rating:
John McCain opposes Roe v. Wade, but the group’s 21-state estimate is a bit exaggerated. There is evidence that these 21 states could move to ban abortion, but nothing implies that action would be immediate. No statutes currently in existence would send a woman to prison for having an abortion—it’s an idea that’s commonly used as a scare tactic.
-
sponsorship
The 228 members of the House of Representatives who brought down the financial bailout bill on Monday represented a strange coalition, including many of the most liberal and most conservative lawmakers. Some state delegates banded together. All of Arizona voted against the bill, for example, while 25 of 29 New Yorkers supported it.
Reader Nili Gilbert wrote in today with a particularly compelling correlation. Gilbert matched the roll call for the vote against political donations from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac dating back to 1989, using data compiled by Open Secrets. The results are striking: Members who voted for the bill have received an average of $8,588 in political donations from the two gargantuan lenders, which the government rescued from collapse in early September. Those who voted against this week’s bill received an average of $3,877 from the lenders. These figures include both donations from Freddie and Fannie’s political action committees and from employees of those companies. If you break out just the PAC donations, the divide looks just about the same: an average of $6,514 in donations to members who voted for the bill, compared with $3,051 for those who didn’t.
To be clear, we’re just looking at this data as a predictor of how a member voted on the bailout, not the cause. The two former “government sponsored enterprises” were bailed out in early September and placed in a conservatorship, bringing them under government control, and Monday’s vote wasn’t about doing Fannie or Freddie any favors. Instead, the data shed light on how some lawmakers are far more politically connected with financial institutions than others and how those connections matter when examining votes on financial issues.
Why do we still care about this? The Senate is voting today on a new version of the legislation that supporters hope will be more palatable to the House. Backers of the new bill need 13 more votes in the House, assuming they can retain the 205 who supported the first incarnation. Of the opponents to that bill, 34 have received at least $10,000 in donations from Freddie and Fannie in the past 20 years. According to this thesis, they would be logical people to try and flip. (For the dataphiles out there, this also means the median donation to members who voted against the bill is much lower than the average—just $675. The median for those who voted for the bill is $2,250.)
Got a better predictor of bailout votes? Drop me a line.