The linked article is clear. McCain was way out on his characterizations, Obama called him on them, and Obama was correct. Reading through each of the points it is quite clear. Obama was way more honest and accurate than McCain.
This article rips McCain apart.
Bullshit. Factcheck.org is a Left Wing spin site.
Lets look at just the first two points to see how accurate they are:
POINT #1:
McCain's accusation against Obama was that he had agreed to PRESIDENTIAL level meetings without preconditions (prior meetings with lower than President level diplomats going well first would be a type of precondition... that Obama only accepted later in backtracking).
McCain was correct on this:
QUESTION: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"
OBAMA: "I would."
Emphasis on the above quote is mine, but highlights that Obama was not answering for lower level or even high-level-but-not-
Presidential talks... he was answering for himself... as President.... without preconditions.
McCain was correct and Obama tried to weasel out of it.
POINT #2:
For this one I am going to quote the article just to show how transparently ridiculous it's attempt at spin was:
Obama denied voting for a bill that called for increased taxes on "people" making as little as $42,000 a year, as McCain accused him of doing. McCain was right, though only for single taxpayers. A married couple would have had to make $83,000 to be affected by the vote, and anyway no such increase is in Obama's tax plan.
Ok... so the article defines a difference between $42,000 a year for a single person, and $83,000 a year for a married couple. It does this despite the fact that $83,000 divided by two people is $41,500... or rounded up to give Obama some credit: $42,000.
McCain was correct across the board on this one. The idea that Obama's current tax plan doesn't include this is irrelevant. McCain was doing the same thing Obama attempts to do: Use past record to cut through rhetoric and possibly empty promises. A tactic that Obama seems to feel is fair game.
After just the first two points this article is effectively dismissed as spin. The only value is for echo-chamber dwellers with low levels of IQ that can't even see that $83,000 / 2 = $42,000 rounded up.
The RNC wants to encourage investigation of campaign finances?
Talk about folks in glass houses.
#3 | Posted by silver_ironist at 2008-10-05 10:17 PM
www.newsweek.comFrom another article (NewsWeek) on the subject:
You were saying? So much for transparency under Obama.