First Clark exaggerates, now he lies about Edwards

[topdog08]

On Friday, Wes Clark and his campaign manager Chris Lehane accused John Edwards of not protecting veterans benefits. This over a "Sense of the Senate" amendment to an amendment to a 1999 Health and Human Services appropriations bills that said increases in discretionary spending should be limited to avoid dipping into the Social Security trust fund. Clearly, calling this an assault on veterans' benefits was a distortion if not an outright lie. Now they are just lying.

On Sunday, here is what Clark had to say:

"My opponents, on the other hand, haven't taken the bold but necessary steps to help America's working families. They have not asked millionaires to pay their fair share by raising their income tax rate. I like John Kerry and John Edwards. They are both good men. But real middle class tax cuts aren't just a matter of rhetoric - they're a matter of action. And while both men talk a lot about middle class tax cuts, when you look at their plans, you realize they're all talk and no action. In fact, the majority of families wouldn't get any tax cuts from either plan," Clark said....

JOHN EDWARDS' PLAN

Leaves out most middle-class families: only 13 percent of families have capital gains and only 17 percent of families have stock dividends.
Provides little tax relief - $33 on average for middle-class families.
Does not raise income taxes for millionaires. The Edwards proposal does not raise income tax rates for millionaires. It does take a much smaller step of raising capital gains rates for capital gains in excess of $1 million.


Edwards' plan specifically reverses the Bush tax cuts for those making over $240,000, including every single millionaire! This $240,000 threshold is the same one Wes Clark sets! Yet he accuses specifically states that Edwards is not raising the income tax rate for millionaires! In fact, he repeats the same sentence twice for emphasis. Does he think saying it twice will make it true? This is just an outright lie.

As for capital gains and dividend income? John Edwards plan INCREASES taxes on both capital gains and stock dividends! Clark is implying that John is cutting those taxes, when Edwards is raising them! Sure, only 13% and 17% pay each of those taxes respectively, but Edwards is RAISING taxes on those groups, not cutting them like Clark clearly implies.

And this $33 claim? I have no idea where Wes is getting that from, and of course he does not bother to say. Nonetheless, he obviously left out the following specific Edwards' proposals for working families:

The American Dream Tax Credit

Edwards' American Dream Tax Credit will offer a matching tax credit of up to $5,000 to help those who need it to cover a down payment on a first home. This credit will give millions of Americans their first chance to own a home.

Incentives to Invest and Save

To help working Americans invest in American business, Edwards will cut capital gains taxes for 95% of Americans. For these taxpayers, he will create a $1,000 exclusion from capital gains taxes, as well as $500 dividend exclusion. He will also lower the long-term capital gains rate for middle-class families. These steps will simplify tax filing and eliminate two tax forms for millions of Americans.

Matching Savings Accounts for Retirement

Edwards will give Americans who have the most trouble saving today a chance to save through matching savings accounts. He will match $1 in private savings with as much as a $1 refundable tax credit for savings, up to a limit of $1,000 per couple, for Americans with incomes up to $50,000. A working family that saves and receives the maximum under this plan every year from age 25 to retirement will have a nest egg of $200,000, on top of other savings.



The facts are clear. Clark is not telling the truth, and he needs to apologize. Of course, his hope is that Tennesseans will go to the polls tomorrow before his lies are uncovered. I guess he thinks it's the only chance he has to stay in this.

[Jack_Dawson]

1. Clark doesn't lie

Lehane, not so sure.

[topdog08]

2. The release quotes Clark himself

I would agree that Lehane is probably behind the bullet points.

Those bullet points are lying plain and simple, and if Wes Clark does not agree with those bullet points, he should retract them.

[LandOLincoln]

33. Lehane is pond scum. However, he is not Clark's

campaign manager. Eli Siegal? Segal? is.

If Lehane's research is faulty or deliberately skewed (he is a Republican, after all) he deserves to be hung out to dry.

So--if Clark boots Lehane, will Edwards boot Shelton--easily Lehane's equal in unfounded allegations?

Eh?

[SangamonTaylor]

3. It sounds like a flaw in his Intelligence gathering

He should blame that misinformation on the CIA! Or better yet, say that the British told him that Edwards and Kerrys' tax plans do nothing.

[LiberalBushFan]

4. thanks, John "Tied for 1st in Oklahoma" Edwards

Clark simply said the majority of families will not get a tax cut from either plan. You've disproved a lot of things Clark didn't say, but not what he said.

[Cuban_Liberal]

7. Until the count is certified, you can't say he didn't n/t

[topdog08]

10. Well, he needs to watch what his campaign is saying then

If his campaign is going to issue an attack press release, he should either take responsibility for the content or retract it.

[AP]

5. Clark is starting to act like a guy who only got in race to protect Kerry.

[bhunt70]

6. and Edwards looks like a guy going for the VP spot.

[OKNancy]

8. I heard Edward say on This Week that he voted against

the veterans benefit because it was part of a bill that hurt farmers in his state.

[AP]

21. McCain aslo voted against it.

[JI7]

32. it is important

to look more into these things. the republicans claimed al gore's father was against civil rights because of one bill he voted against. but al gore sr was a well known supporter of civil rights. one of the biggest, especially from the south. it's one reason he lost the election. the reason he voted against that bill was because of some other thing in it which would have limited or cut federal funding for programs. he tried to get another bill passed without this.

[xultar]

9. *crickets chirping*

[topdog08]

12. Train to nowhere

Wow, $700,000 in ten days. What is that $70,000 a day? Who could ever match that pace?

http://newsobserver.com/news/story/3310311p-2953584c.html

Edwards camp touts fund raising

Sen. John Edwards' presidential campaign said that it has raised $2.6 million since shortly before the Iowa caucuses last month, including $200,000 on Friday alone.

The figures were disclosed in a conference call hosted by Edwards' campaign manager, Nick Baldick, with the aim of convincing reporters that Edwards will have enough money to compete in coming contests.

"We're in great shape," Baldick said.

Of the $2.6 million that has been raised since Jan. 16, about half is eligible to draw federal matching funds, Baldick said. That money will come in a few weeks. Nearly $1 million of the new money came in over the Internet, Baldick said.

The campaigns of Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean are not eligible for matching funds because they opted out of the public-financing system, which allows them to break state-by-state spending caps.

[robbedvoter]

17. We know where the money comes too

Reply

Donations to Sen. Edwards questioned
By Sam Dealey
http://www.hillnews.com/news/050703/edwards.aspx
Sen. John Edwards' presidential campaign finance documents show a pattern of giving by low-level employees at law firms, a number of whom appear to have limited financial resources and no prior record of political donations.
Records submitted to the Federal Election Commission (FEC) show these individuals have often given $2,000 to the North Carolina Democrat, the maximum permitted by law.
In many instances, all the checks from a given firm arrived on the same day -- from partners, attorneys, and other support staff.
     
Some of these support staff have not voted in the past, and those who have voted include registered Republicans, according to public records on file with various county registrars of voting.
Edwards' campaign records also reveal that many of these individuals' spouses and relatives contributed the maximum on the same day. The Hill found many of them to be first-time givers. Some have no previous demonstrable interest in politics, while others appear to be active Republicans.

As for our 700,000 this is in addition to 2,2 million we raised since new hampshire. No republican bundled law firms either. Just actual supporters, unswayed by the mediawhores.

[Edwards4President]

29. You love dragging out this nine month old story, don't you?

While you're dredging up this old canard, why not also mention that the Edwards campaign immediately returned all of these questionable contributions?

Or might that interfere with the smear?

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. You should dust off your reading glasses

The goal is $700,000 in 7 days. It is pretty clearly stated and the fundraiser has been going on for less than 6 full days. Clark raised over 2 million dollars in the month before the NH primary, with about 800,000 of it raised between shortly before the Iowa caucus and the NH primary. These are online figures only, not total fundraising figures. So if you add 800,000 and 600,000 you get 1.4 million Clark raised online NOT COUNTING Clark's fundraising for almost the entire month of February which is not included in those figures OR Clark's other fundrasing efforts which are ongoing but not specifically reported (same as Edwards).

And yes, Clark is eligible for Federal matching funds just like Edwards. I don't think you have shown any advantage for Edwards over Clark here. They have done equally well, and future fundraising will depend on how each gentleman does on Tuesday.

[xultar]

25. *crickets chirping*

[cheezus]

11. Why the desperate attacks to win 2nd place

What, Clark really wants to beat out Edwards for the VP spot?

[NNN0LHI]

18. Ding, ding, ding

Thats is what they appear to be running for right now.

Don

[robbedvoter]

23. These arguments belong in a malpractice case - channeling dead newborns

We are fighting for peace, democracy.
. That's why someone voting for IWR, patriot act (bragging about working for it) is unnaceptable.
Dismissed.

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. Clark Raises the tax on Millionaires Above the pre Bush Tax Cut levels.

That is the difference. Edwards and the other Democrats want to return the tax level on wealthy Americans to where it was prior to the Bush Tax Cuts. Clark will do that also AND he will ADD another 5% tax above and beyond that to all earnings above One Million dollars. That is an honest difference in their proposals.

Plus, unless I am mistaken, Clark wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts for those Americans earning more than $200,000 a year, not the $240,000 a year figure you cite for Edward's plan, which is also not an insignificant difference because a fair number of Americans fall within that income range, and the additional taxes collected are in a high income bracket, all of which helps fund Clark's progressive tax cuts for families.

[bowens43]

24. You do know that

Clark can't do that. Congress has to do that and I have yet to hear Clark explain how he will get a Republican controlled congress to pass his suggested legislation. Rolling back taxes to pre-cut levels or allowing the cuts to sunset is much more doable.

[Tom Rinaldo]

30. The simplest answer is this

Vote for who you think will make the best President. All of the candidates campaign based on platform promises that almost always involve a huge leap of faith, that somehow they can get their proposals through Congress. All of them. It is possible, if we elect the right President and he truly impresses the American people, that by 2006 we can regain control of Congress. Maybe not likely, but possible.

[robbedvoter]

14. On this week, Edwards claimed he never voted with the GOP

against the Wellstone law. Snafi confronted him with the roll call - it was fun!
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&sessio n=1&vote=00314#position
 
YEAs
Abraham (R-MI)
Allard (R-CO)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee, J. (R-RI)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeWine (R-OH)
Domenici (R-NM)
Edwards (D-NC)
Enzi (R-WY)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gorton (R-WA)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nickles (R-OK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

[mmonk]

15. He's saying they haven't taken the bold steps

Not what their plans "now" say.

[BootinUp]

16. Clarks tax plan is a more progressive than

Edwards plan.

Also, on ABC This Week Sunday, Edwards conceded that Clark's charge on the veteran benefits vote was true.

Clark DID NOT say Edwards never voted for veterans benefits.

So none of it was a lie, the lie is in the calling of it as one.

If Edwards feels that Clarks plan is too progressive on taxes then go ahead and lets have that battle.

[AP]

20. The difference between C & E's plan is about 100K tax bill on Clark's ...

...stock options which he exercised last week.

He's a hypocrite for calling Edwards's plan less progressive than his.

[SahaleArm]

22. Sorry but stock options are taxed as regular income n/t

[democratic nation]

26. If I wanted a President that voted with the republicans 80% of the time...

I'd vote for a republican...For the love of everything good and pure in this country...John Edwards talks about our nation needing change...well, if he thought so strongly about that before he could benefit from saying so...why did he vote with the Republicans on an average of 80% of the time since he has been in office??? I'd like every Edwards supporter to answer that one. Every Edwards supporter is being manipulated by a con-man...Why would Edwards even choose to run for President besides opportunism??? He voted with the Repubs on almost every issues...If you voted for the war, patriot act, no child left behind, and everything else...why would you even want to run for president if you agreed with the president 80% of the time??????????????

[HoosierClarkie]

27. Ding, ding, ding!

[loudsue]

28. Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

You have nailed that one on the head! John Edwards is NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING more than Joe Lieberman, without the honesty of Joe Lieberman.

Edwards is a FACE. He is a FACE!!!! There is no SUBSTANCE. I worked for his senate campaign in N.C. He has NEVER done anything for his constituents. He has NEVER DONE anything to further the traditional Democratic populist message. He is a bought-and-paid-for republican in Democrat's clothing. He wants to be the presidential prom queen, and he'll get in bed with anyone he has to in order to get there.

The man has NO experience that qualifies him to be either president or vice-president of this country. He's a LOUSY senator! Even Elizabeth Dole has, in her short 1-1/2 years as Senator, done more for the DEMOCRATIC constituents (though she is Republican) in North Carolina than John Edwards has done.

Who are the people that REALLY KNOW John Edwards' reputation that can honestly support him as a DEMOCRAT??? Much less as a Democrat that is fit to take the top post in this country?

THIS EDWARDS SUPPORT IS INSANE!!! It has been purchased...it has NOT been earned.

PLEASE Dems!!! Don't be fooled by this FACE!!

:kick:

[tishaLA]

31. I hate to say it

But I think you are 100% correct about edwards being Lieberman without the honesty. I'd also add the record of committment to civil rights, too.

Let's face it: in 5 years, he has managed to vote in favor of some of the most regressive legislation in the past 50 years. And he still boasts about many of those votes.

[Edwards4President]

34. You don't have to like Edwards, but you CAN'T honestly say that he's

bad on civil rights.

His record of commitment to civil rights is second to none in this race.