I'd LOVE to see a commercial just like that.

Explain that McCain uses bogus figures.
Explain that Obama knows they're ridiculous, but if using the SAME misleading measurements, McCain has raised taxes 105 times while Obama voted that way only 84, and he's voted a whopping 477 "tax increases" in his career.

I'm Barack Obama and I don't approve of deception, so I approve this message.

OK, I'm caught on the phrase "nonbinding budget resolution." I understand the definition of "budget resolution":

A concurrent resolution, adopted by both Houses of Congress, that sets forth a Congressional budget plan for the budget year and at least four out-years. The plan consists of spending and revenue targets with which subsequent appropriation acts and authorization acts that affect revenues and direct spending are expected to comply. The targets established in the budget resolution are enforced in each House of Congress through procedural mechanisms set out in law and the rules of each House.

But do they lay out specific areas to tax or cut taxes? Or do they merely set a goal for revenue and expense?

Right now there is a bizarre ad produced jointly by the RNC and McCain. It claims, "At least liberal congressmen admit they want to raise your taxes." It doesn't name one, or show a clip to support that. But these are strange days.

OK, it's time for Michael Kinsley's quadrennial blasting of the Republicans for using this highly deceptive scare tactic yet again. It kicked off in 1992 with the infamous Clinton's 128 tax increases fraud (see his book, "Big Babies"). Bush tried it on Kerry in 2004, and Kinsley wrote about it in Slate (http://www.slate.com/id/2097656/)

But playing "Sez you! You raised taxes more!!" won't work. It's just what the Republicans want the Democrats to do. People don't think of Republicans as tax raisers so if the argument is who raised taxes more, they win, because you're admitting, yeah, we did raise taxes. Here's what Kinsley wrote in the 2004 Slate piece:

"The purpose of a phony statistic like this one isn't really to persuade people of its own accuracy. The purpose is to trap your opponent in a discussion he doesn't want to have (in this case about his past votes about taxes), bog the discussion down in silly details that few people will follow, and leave a general impression that where there is smoke, there must be fire. And certainly, if what matters to you above all else is paying fewer taxes, you'd be a fool to choose Kerry over Bush. But this isn't about taxes; it's about honesty. Honesty means more than factual accuracy, it means avoiding disingenuousness: not talking crap when you know it's crap."

Don't talk about McCain's "tax increases." Just say, "This is the same old Republican crap. It's not true and they know it. But they keep dishing it out because they want to avoid talking about how their disastrous policies have led us into the mess they're in. And that's what *we're* going to talk about."

I think that the next debate will be the last opportunity for Obama to dress down the McCain campaign for its despicable charges ('white flag of surrender', 'personal ambition over country', etc.) against the Dem nominee. 'Senator, have you no honor?' or something more forceful would be most appropriate.

I am tired of listening to such scurrilous charges from McCain and Palin.

The video shows 477, the headline shows 447. One of them is wrong.

I think Biden hit back the right way during the debate.

"The charge is absolutely not true. Barack Obama did not vote to raise taxes. The vote she's referring to, John McCain voted the exact same way. It was a budget procedural vote. John McCain voted the same way. It did not raise taxes. Number two, using the standard that the governor uses, John McCain voted 477 times to raise taxes. It's a bogus standard."

So instead of trying to bust McCain's tax-cutter image, use it - "if you use this standard, McCain voted 500 times for higher taxes, and that's obviously not true, so the standard sucks."

I swear, I nearly forgot that Obama plans to cut taxes on the middle class more than McCain. Palin was very effective at that one thing on Thursday.

More than anything, the McCain campaign is inviting more scrutiny of his past voting record when he does this, one Obama should take.

And there are 57 Communists in the State Department!!! Now, why don't you go play a game of solitaire?

McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. Instead of giving him points for being a "maverick", Obama should be using this as a cudgel and beating him like a baby seal.

Ties directly into the "raising taxes on those making $42,000" bunk, too. If Obama voted for a non-binding resolution to let the Bush tax cuts expire, then what kind of "tax hike" did McCain vote for when he voted against the Bush tax cuts?

McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. Instead of giving him points for being a "maverick", Obama should be using this as a cudgel and beating him like a baby seal.

Ties directly into the "raising taxes on those making $42,000" bunk, too. If Obama voted for a non-binding resolution to let the Bush tax cuts expire, then what kind of "tax hike" did McCain vote for when he voted against the Bush tax cuts?

Takin' hits and takin' shots and raisin' taxes. It's all in a day for the Maverick.

This is another example of Republican math. The numbers are not real, the 'facts' are phony. This is why our nation goes from one catastrophe to another.

In the '60s the USA survived the policies of the Best and the Brightest. At the start of the 21st Century, I have my doubts we can survive the Mediocre and Mendacious.

The Repub criteria for a "tax increase" are the same ones they used on Kerry in 2004. I can't remember if Kerry himself called them on it (others did), but I'm glad the Obama camp is coming out strongly against the attack.

what's the URL for that ad? I'd love to forward that to some people, but the johnmccainrecord.com doesn't give any videos.

The ad, of course, restores the correct perspective on this context-free "Obama voted 94 times for higher taxes" meme, and has validity for that reason. That the Obama campaign may choose not to put this on air could be because it is a tit-for-tat diversion from the thrust of their actual tax policy.

There may also be another reason for leaving this ad to work as a web video and that is that, in an economic situation as dire as America is now facing, people will be less concerned with tax adjustments in favor of a management system that repairs and restores the effective functioning of the economy. In this respect, I remember clearly (though I cannot supply a reference at this instant) that, in the weeks leading up to the 1997 UK election, in which New Labour won a landslide victory, a major, reputable survey was conducted to ask voters if they would accept the tax increases necessary to restructure and renovate the dilapidated social services. I remember the response was a resounding 'Yes', somewhere in the region of 80%+.

If the electorate are prepared to swallow a $700 billion so-called bailout, it is virtually certain they will accept whatever tax adjustments are also necessary to restore vitality to the economy. Therefore, the tax issue is secondary to the question of which party has the better, more realistic overall economic policy; and which party the electorate are more inclined to trust in this respect. Polls indicate clearly that the electorate favor the Obama team as the more trustworthy and the more responsible.

To be clear, they should use McCain's weasel language. Voting for "tax increases" is not the same as voting for "higher taxes". Voting against a tax cut isn't voting for a tax increase, but voting against a tax cut is voting for higher taxes (per John McCain).

We gotta be precise, lest we be accused of lying.