CALIFORNIA YANKEE

FactCheck.org Agrees - DNC Takes Over Obama's Lies

On Monday I went after Howard Dean and company for picking up Obama's lies with another less than truthful ad.

Now FactCheck.org has examined the Democrat's latest prevarications and found, once again, that the Democrats' ad "twists" what Senator McCain actually said:

The ad twists the sense of McCain's words by showing images of war, when he was really talking about a peaceful troop presence. Imagine how different the ad would seem if it showed images of, say, American troops walking the streets of Tokyo or Seoul and had included what McCain said about "Americans ... not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

Anyone who didn't already know the fuller version of McCain's answer could easily be fooled into thinking that McCain would be perfectly happy to see the war continue. McCain has said quite clearly that he considers Democratic proposals for a quick withdrawal from Iraq to be "surrender," and so deadly fighting could well continue longer under a President McCain than under either a President Hillary Clinton or a President Obama. But what the DNC ad conveys is the opposite of what McCain said.

Worse, FactChecker.com found a second DNC ad, this one distorting McCain's assessment of President Bush's economic record during a January debate, contains "untrue claims:"

Nevertheless, two of the DNC's factual claims are untrue.

Not Enough Jobs

While McCain says "a lot of jobs have been created," the ad shows a graphic that states, "1.8 million jobs lost." McCain is correct and the ad is wrong. Total nonfarm employment was nearly 5.4 million higher last month than it was when President Bush took office in January 2001, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That's the standard measure of jobs, and it means 5.4 million have been created.

[. . .]

Fuelish Math

The ad claims gasoline prices are "up 200 percent," which isn't correct. The increase is actually 139 percent.

Dean and company know no shame. At least Obama, after being beat up by numerous factcheckers for grossly misrepresenting Senator McCain's "100 Years" comment, finally dropped that distortion from his stump speech. Obama stopped using that discredited attack because it became obvious to all, even the admittedly Obamamania infected main stream media, that Obama's misrepresentation of McCain's comment was a "serious distortion to the point of rank falsehood."

How long will it be before the mainstream media takes Chairman Dean and the Democrats to task for even more "distortion," "rank falsehood," "seriously misleading" statements and "outright lying?"

UPDATE: Also posted at Right Side Politics and RedState.

More at Flopping Aces, The QandO Blog, Pirate’s Cove and Sister Toldjah.

Obama And Wright Throw Each Other Under The Bus

Too little too late.

Now that Obama's campaign is hurting so much that there is talk of Hillary wining both Indiana and North Carolina next week, Obama tries to do what he should have done six weeks ago.

Back then I posted "Wright Is Wrong And So Is Obama:"

Obama's refusal to dissociate himself from this preacher of "profoundly distorted" views is no different than the failure of Muslims to condemn the terrorism used by the Islamic extremists in the war they continue to wage against us.

The "profoundly distorted" views of reverend Wright, like those of the Islamic extremists, will not be overcome until the people of their own community disassociate themselves from the hate mongers.

Obama's speech might have been masterfully delivered by a great orator, but because of Obama's refusal to dissociate himself from the minister of hate, it was a speech that fails to help bridge the Democrat's racial devide.

Today Obama held a press conference and claimed he is now "outraged" by Wright's comments and attempted to dissociate himself from the radical cleric:

I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday.

[. . .]

Now, I've already denounced the comments that had appeared in these previous sermons. As I said, I had not heard them before. And I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia, explaining that he has done enormous good in the church. He's built a wonderful congregation. The people of Trinity are wonderful people. And what attracted me has always been their ministry's reach beyond the church walls.

But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st century, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses. They offend me. They rightly offend all Americans. And they should be denounced. And that's what I'm doing very clearly and unequivocally here today.

[. . .]

What we saw yesterday out of Reverend Wright was a resurfacing and, I believe, an exploitation of those old divisions. Whatever his intentions, that was the result. It is antithetical to our campaign. It is antithetical to what I am about. It is not what I think American stands for.

And I want to be very clear that moving forward, Reverend Wright does not speak for me. He does not speak for our campaign. I cannot prevent him from continuing to make these outrageous remarks.

But what I do want him to be very clear about, as well as all of you and the American people, is that when I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it.

You can watch Obama throw Wright under the bus in the following video:

I'm sorry, Obama's statement would have been much more believable if it had been said six weeks ago. Now, wink, wink, as Wright told the National Press Club on Monday, it sounds simply like the politics it is:

"Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever's doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they're pastors. They have a different person to whom they're accountable. As I said, whether he gets elected or not, I'm still going to have to be answerable to God November 5 and January 21. That's what I mean. I do what pastors do. He does what politicians do. I am not running for office. I am hoping to be vice president. ...

"He didn't distance himself. He had to distance himself because he's a politician. From what the media was saying I had said, which was anti-American. He said I didn't offer any words of hope. How would he know? He never heard the rest of the sermon. You never heard it. I offered words of hope. I offered reconciliation, I offered restoration in that sermon, but nobody heard the sermon. They just heard this little sound bite of a sermon."

You can watch Wright throw Obama under the bus in this video:

Can Hillary Win Both Indiana and North Carolina?

Andy Martin predicts Hillary will win Indiana, with 55%, and North Carolina with 51%:

Obama is not going to get the wins he is expecting. The trend line is moving strongly against him.

If we are correct and Obama loses both Indiana and North Carolina, his candidacy could begin to implode in the remaining primaries, leaving a virtual free-for-all at the close of the primary season in June. DNC National Chairman Howard Dean’s demand for prompt “action” on a nominee appears increasingly impractical and unrealistic.

[. . .]

The polarization which was evident in Pennsylvania is increasing in North Carolina and Indiana. Senator Obama’s percentage share of the vote has peaked in North Carolina and has begun to decline.

There is evidence to give some credence to Martin's prediction.

INDIANA

Hillary leads by nine in a new SurveyUSA poll, 52%-43%:

The results are identical to a SurveyUSA TV poll released 4 weeks ago, on 04/01/08. Clinton led then 52% to 43%, leads now 52% to 43%. Other polls show the contest closer; some polls show Obama ahead.

A recent American Research Group poll found Hillary Clinton ahead by five, 50%-45%:

In a similar poll taken April 2-3, Clinton led Obama 53%-44%.

The American Leadership Project, a mostly union financed 527 group, $700,000 ad buy can't hurt Hillary's chances in Indians.

NORTH CAROLINA

A new American Research Group poll finds Obama up by ten, 52%-42%. Obama held a similar 52%-41% lead in a poll taken April 14-15.

But the latest PPP poll finds Obama's 25-point lead in North Carolina a week ago has now been cut in half:

Obama 51 (-6 vs. last poll, April 19-20)
Clinton 39 (+7)

The endorsement of North Carolina's Governor Mike Easley also gives Hilary an additional boost in the final week before the May 6th primaries.

With polls now finding Obama has been damaged by the renewed controversy about his minister of hate, Jeremiah Wright, maybe Martin is right. Nevertheless, Hillary would have to make up a lot of ground in North Carolina with just a week to go.

McCain:'Put Families In Charge'

This week, Senator McCain focuses on his plans for health care:

"My approach to transforming health care is to put families in charge," McCain said Monday at Miami Children's Hospital in Florida, a possible swing state this fall.

McCain, wants everyone to get a tax credit to either buy insurance or offset the taxes on health care coverage obtained through work. The Republican presidential nominee to be, says variety and competition will help bring down costs:

McCain's plan aims at eliminating "the bias toward employer-sponsored health insurance" by offering tax credits for individual plans, according to his campaign website. The credits would be $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families. Those amounts would be subtracted from the final tax bill. Families, the campaign says, should be able to buy nationwide policies that can move from state to state.

McCain's approach of emphasizing the free market, differs from the bigger government approach of Hillary and Obama:

McCain said his Democratic opponents rely too much on government. He told reporters in Miami that he requires no mandates, because "that's what big government is all about."

McCain's campaign released the following ad, entitled "Health Care Action," highlighting McCain's plan to reform health care:

"Choice and competition, affordability and availability," -- sounds about right.

The Reverend Showman

Who knew Wright Could be so entertaining even as he is so wrong?

Here are some excerpts from Wright's recent comments:

From his appearance Monday at the National Press Club in Washington:

"I stand before you to open up this two-day symposium with the hope that this most recent attack on the black church is not an attack on Jeremiah Wright; it is an attack on the black church. ... The most recent attack on the black church, it is our hope that this just might mean that the reality of the African-American church will no longer be invisible."

• On whether he should apologize for shouting in a sermon "God damn America" for its treatment of minorities:

"God doesn't bless everything. God condemns some things. And dem, D-E-M, is where we get the word damn. God damns some practices and there's no excuse for the things that the government, not the American people, have done. That doesn't make me not like America or unpatriotic."

From a speech during the NAACP's annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner on Sunday in Detroit:

"I'm not here for political reasons. I am not a politician. I know that fact will surprise many of you because many in the corporate-owned media have made it seem as if I have announced that I'm running to for the Oval Office. I am not running for the Oval Office. I've been running for Jesus a long, long time, and I'm not tired yet."

"In the past, we were taught to see others who are different as being deficient. We establish arbitrary norm and then determine that anybody not like us was abnormal. But a change is coming because we no longer see others who are different as being deficient. We just see them as different."

Reverend Wright is so out of touch with mainstream America, he doesn't realize how extreme he is.

Newspaper Circulation Continues Decline

U.S. newspaper circulation fell 3.6 percent in the last six months.

Among top 20 U.S. newspapers, only the two largest national dailies, USA Today and The Wall Street Journal, were able to increase circulation.

Newspaper circulation has been on a declining trend since the 1980s. According to the Audit Bureau of Circulations, the pace of decline has picked up in recent years as more people go online for news, information and entertainment:

Gannett Co.'s USA Today remained the top-selling paper in the country with an average daily circulation of, 2,284,219, up 0.3 percent, while The Wall Street Journal rose 0.4 percent to 2,069,463.

[. . .]

The New York Times Co.'s flagship paper remained the third-largest with circulation of 1,077,256, down 3.9 percent from the same period a year earlier. That company also owns The Boston Globe and International Herald Tribune.

Metropolitan dailies have suffered the worst declines, a trend that continued in the most recent reporting period, with the Dallas Morning News reporting a 10.6 percent drop to 368,313.

Courtesy of the Associated Press, here are the percentage changes in average paid weekday circulation of the nation's 20 largest newspapers:

1. USA Today, 2,284,219, up 0.3 percent

2. The Wall Street Journal, 2,069,463, up 0.4 percent

3. The New York Times, 1,077,256, down 3.9 percent

4. Los Angeles Times, 773,884, down 5.1 percent

5. New York Daily News, 703,137, down 2.1 percent

6. New York Post, 702,488, down 3.1 percent

7. The Washington Post, 673,180, down 3.6 percent

8. Chicago Tribune, 541,663, down 4.4 percent

9. Houston Chronicle, 494,131, down 1.8 percent

10. The Arizona Republic, 413,332, down 4.7 percent

11. Newsday, Long Island, 379,613, down 4.7 percent

12. San Francisco Chronicle, 370,345, down 4.2 percent

13. Dallas Morning News, 368,313, down 10.6 percent

14. The Boston Globe, 350,605, down 8.3 percent

15. The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., 345,130, down 7.4 percent

16. The Philadelphia Inquirer, 334,150, down 5.1 percent

17. The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, 330,280, down 4.2 percent

18. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 326,907, down 8.5 percent

19. Star Tribune of Minneapolis-St. Paul, 321,984, down 6.7 percent

20. St. Petersburg Times, Florida, 316,007, down 2.1 percent

How much longer can printed newspapers survive?

Hillary's Perceived Honesty In Free Fall

Gallup finds only 37% reports perceive Hillary as honest and trustworthy.

As the graphic shows, Hillary's perceived honesty is in free fall.

Hillary's "exaggerations" concerning her "experience," have contributed to the decline in her perceived honesty.

As recently as 2005, a majority of Americans thought Hillary was honest and trustworthy.

DNC Takes Over Obama's Lies

Howard Dean and Company pick up the lying where Barack Obama left off.

Barack Obama, after being beat up by numerous factcheckers for grossly misrepresenting Senator McCain's "100 Years" comment, finally dropped that distortion from his stump speech. Obama stopped using that discredited attack because it became obvious to all, even the admittedly Obamamania infected main stream media, that Obama's misrepresentation of McCain's comment was a "serious distortion to the point of rank falsehood."

Now the Democratic Party is out with an ad that not only continues the "Distortion," "Rank Falsehood," "Seriously Misleading" statements and "Outright Lying" about McCain's 100 year remarks, the Democrats' new ad is illegal as well:

New DNC Ad Quotes Sen. McCain Responding To A Question On How Long The U.S. Will Be In Iraq With The Words: “Maybe 100. That Would Be Fine With Me.” (DNC Website, www.democrats.org, Accessed 4/27/08)

Friday, the Republican Party of Virginia filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission stating the Democrats new ad against Senator McCain "is a coordinated communication between the DNC and its presidential candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama." Because the ad exceeds the $5,000 contribution limit, the Democrats' ad violates federal election law because the ad "is an excessive in-kind contribution from the national committee to its presidential candidates within the restricted window of time."

RNC Chairman Robert Duncan called on Howard Dean and company to stop airing the Democrats' "illegal & inaccurate" ads:

It is becoming increasingly clear that Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) will say and do anything to defeat John McCain, even violating federal election law. The conduct of the national party and its chairman in particular, is part of a developing pattern of reckless behavior and rhetoric that has questioned everything from Senator McCain’s integrity and character to his heroic and valiant military service to our nation.

[. . .]

Media reports detail that the DNC has recently been in communication with the campaigns of Senators Clinton and Obama. The reports also detail the fact that the DNC and the campaigns of their presidential candidates have coordinated strategy; therefore, the ad that is currently being run against Senator McCain cannot be an independent expenditure, as presented in the disclaimer.

This morning we saw yet another advertisement being announced by the Democrat National Committee which is not only illegal, but a complete distortion of Senator McCain’s comments and record.

This is the Democrats' outrageous and cynical response to Senator McCain's high-minded call for tolerance and respect.

Clintons Hell-Bound

“There are African-Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they're hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win."--Rep. James E. Clyburn (D-SC)

Rep. James E. Clyburn, the highest-ranking African-American in Congress, clarified statements he made criticizing Bill Clinton and implying that Hillary Rodham Clinton was trying to sabotage Barack Obama:

“I’m not saying anything that people aren’t saying among themselves, and many of them are saying it to me,” Clyburn said on MSNBC. “"That’s all I was saying, that people are saying this. I think it’s a great concern,” adding that he isn't among those who believe that Hillary Clinton is trying to sabotage the party.

The New York Times reports Clyburn calls Bill Clinton's attempt to revise campaign history “bizarre:”

In an interview with The New York Times late Thursday, Mr. Clyburn said Mr. Clinton’s conduct in this campaign had caused what might be an irreparable breach between Mr. Clinton and an African-American constituency that once revered him.

“When he was going through his impeachment problems, it was the black community that bellied up to the bar,” Mr. Clyburn said. “I think black folks feel strongly that this is a strange way for President Clinton to show his appreciation.”

Mr. Clyburn added that there appeared to be an almost unanimous view among African-Americans that Mr. and Mrs. Clinton were committed to doing everything they possibly could to damage Mr. Obama to a point that he could never win in the general election.

According to MSNBC, Clyburn has been talking about this since the beginning of the year:

“I said [this] in January, when we had the debate down at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, that ‘Bill Clinton needs to chill out.’" he said. "That was in January. At that point, everybody thought that this thing would be over on Super Tuesday and that the leading candidate for the nomination would be Hillary Clinton. That’s certainly what I thought. And even then, I thought the president was saying things that would anger black voters. Now we are down almost into May and I’m saying the same thing. The only difference is that this time there’s another person that’s in the lead who happens to be African American.”

“We have nine contests left. The conduct of this campaign in Indiana and North Carolina could very well be determinative of what we will have after we get a nominee,” he said. Clyburn said also added  that party unity will depend on the second-place finisher. “If Hillary Clinton walks off the playing field, Obama is in trouble. If Obama walks off the playing field with Hillary Clinton as the nominee, Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party, would be in trouble.”

In the following Video report, Dan Abrams discusses Clyburn's remarks with political analysts John Ridley, A. B. Stoddard and Roy Sekoff:

Clyburn is right to be concerned about the Democrats' deserter problem and the Clintons' use of the race card.

Millbank Continues The Post's War Against Feith

Dana Milbank continues the Washington Post's campaign against Doug Feith's new book, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism.

The paper's effort to diminish Feith's book began two weeks ago when Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung wrote a hit piece on Feith's book without waiting for the book to be released or bothering taking the time to read the unedited manuscript of an embargoed book of some 528 pages  less than six hours before they managed to obtain less than six hours before they went to press.

It seems a little unethical that Ricks and DeYoung forget to mention that they both have books being sold, books which take a bit of a different view of things than the three Post writers' versions of what is contained in Feith's book.

I feel at least as qualified as DeYoung, Milbank or Ricks to write about Feith's new book. Even though, like the three of them, I have not yet read War and Decision. At least I took the time to talk to Feith about the book and his experiences before writing this. Earlier today I was fortunate enough to participate in a conference call with Doug Feith and other bloggers including some RedState colleagues. As Pejman Yousefzadeh posted, we engaged in an interesting hour-long discussion about the book.

One of my colleagues attended the book launch event the Center for Strategic and International Studies ("CSIS") held for War and Decision, last night. Like Feith, my colleague reported that Mibank's article bore little resemblance to what actually occurred during the book launch. You don't have to take their word for it or my representations about what they said. CSIS has posted a video, or if you prefer, an audio file of the event, so even though you weren't there you can watch or listen to the event and draw your own conclusion.

As for Millbank's article, just note that reviewers, who have actually read War and Decision, give it high praise:

At the National Review, Larry Di Rita calls it "a reference publication:"

Feith draws on countless internal documents, many of which were intended for, written by, or debated among members of the president’s Cabinet, the most senior advisers to Cabinet officials, and the president himself. Feith has performed a public service by taking the time to present these documents, which have gone through the painstaking process of official declassification, in nearly 600 citations that are reproduced online with links to full texts, transcripts, and presentations. (To pick another insider account by comparison, George Tenet’s At the Center of the Storm offers, well, zero documents, citations, or footnotes).

[. . .]

In grasping the importance of this book, it’s crucial to understand the current state of the Iraq-war literature — a genre largely created by journalists, who bring to the task the same rigor and sourcing found in daily news stories (which is to say not much). Tom Ricks, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Bob Woodward, George Packer, Michael Gordon, and others have created a narrative arc that relies upon the insights of civilian and military actors willing to air their opinions, insights, grievances, and point papers with reporters eager to give them a hearing.

[. . .]

War and Decision sets a high standard for official memoirs that will follow. It is fair enough for other officials to take issue with Feith’s conclusions, and some have, but these criticisms are blunt until they can rely on documentation as rich as Feith’s. The press wrote the first draft of the Bush administration and the War on Terror, but Feith’s book relegates it to the recycling bin.

At the Wall Street Journal,  Bret Stephens liked Feith's book for its myth busting:

"War and Decision" offers many more such examples where perceptions of the administration's conduct collide with the reality of it. Much to Mr. Feith's credit, however, his book is no apologia, even for those he obviously admires. Of Mr. Rumsfeld, he notes that "his style of leadership did not always serve his own purposes: He bruised people and made personal enemies." As for President Bush, Mr. Feith argues -- rightly, in my view -- that his problem was not that he "discouraged challenges" but rather that he showed "an excessive tolerance of indiscipline, even of disloyalty, from his own officials."

Washington Times columnist, Frank J. Gaffney Jr. calls the book "extraordinary:"

In contrast to previous books and memoirs on the subject published to date, Mr. Feith's is not aimed at self-promotion or self-vindication. Neither is it an effort to settle scores with those who have, in some cases viciously, attacked the author in their own screeds.

Rather, it is the first attempt by a serious student of history to lay out the myriad, challenging choices confronting a president who, within eight months of taking office, witnessed a devastating attack on this country and resolved to prevent another — possibly far more destructive one.

As mentioned in Larry Di Rita's review, Feith has also set up a companion website to the book, where you can access copies of many of the documents referred to in his book.

I plan to read War and Decision. How about you?