-
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.