A mailer from the Republican National Committee targets Barack Obama on patriotism and taxes.

The mailer shows the statue of Marines raising the flag at Iwo Jima next to the words, "It used to be easy to recognize patriotism."

Inside, it says that "Obama-Biden calls paying higher taxes 'patriotic.'"

"Sounds mixed up," he said. "But it shouldn't be surprising — Barack Obama loves high taxes. In four short years, Obama has voted for 94 tax hikes."

Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan group checking claims made in the presidential election, found that the 94 votes cited as tax increases are padded, noting that 53 were for budget measures that would not result in any tax change, 23 were against proposed tax cuts and several votes were counted twice.

The "patriotic" line refers to a statement made in mid-September by vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, who noted that Obama's plans call for higher taxes on the wealthy.

"It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut," he said.

A second robocall targets Barack Obama on taxes.

The automated call from John McCain's campaign and the Republican National Committee features a man named John arguing that Obama and Congressional Democrats will cause "massive tax increases."

"Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats have voted at least 94 times for tax hikes in the last four years, including raising taxes on those making only $42,000 per year," he says. "Now they tell us paying higher taxes is patriotic. They just don't get it."

Factcheck.org, a nonpartisan group checking claims made in the presidential election, found that the 94 votes cited as tax increases are padded, noting that 53 were for budget measures that would not result in any tax change, 23 were against proposed tax cuts and several votes were counted twice.

The "patriotic" line refers to a statement made in mid-September by vice presidential nominee Joe Biden, who noted that Obama's plans call for higher taxes on the wealthy.

"It's time to be patriotic ... time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut," he said.

As with other joint efforts, the call mentions Congressional Democrats to satisfy federal election requirements.

After the jump, the script.

   Comments (3)

A veterans' group is spending $200,000 on TV ads saying U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole voted against body armor for troops.

The ad by VoteVets.org features a man identified as an Iraq war veteran firing shots from an AK-47 through a flak jacket given out early in the war. He also fires into more modern body armor, which stops the shots. It claims Dole twice voted against the more modern armor, Jim Morrill reports.

The ad appears to be the same one used in 2006 in a Virginia Senate race. According to the watchdog site FactCheck.org, the votes came on a 2003 amendment that would have appropriated just over $1 billion for unspecified "National Guard and Reserve Equipment" but made no mention of body armor. The amendment lost on a generally party-line vote.

The group called the ad false.

"America's active duty personnel and veterans have no greater friend than Elizabeth Dole," said campaign spokesman Dan McLagan. "To accuse her of causing them harm is the lowest form of sleazeball politics."

Majority Action has revisited an earlier claim about the 2005 energy bill.

In a radio ad over the Fourth of July weekend, the liberal 527 organization attacked U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole for voting for the bill.

And in a new TV ad that began airing today, the group again repeated its claim that Dole has voted to give "big oil companies" billions in tax breaks. Text in the ad cites the energy bill.

As we noted the first time, that charge is misleading.

As the nonpartisan FactCheck.org has reported, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 included tax cuts of about $2.6 billion for oil and gas companies, but it also included tax hikes worth about $2.9 billion, for a net increase of nearly $300 million over 11 years.

"The breaks that the oil and gas industry received were more than offset by tax increases contained in the same measure," FactCheck.org noted.

Majority Action, a liberal 527 group funded by investor George Soros, ran a radio ad last weekend that attacks U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Dole's record on mileage standards.

What it says: "Gas prices are over $4 a gallon, and if you’re traveling this holiday weekend one person you can thank for your higher fuel costs is Elizabeth Dole. In July of 2003, Dole voted against raising fuel mileage standards for our cars and trucks. If Dole had voted to raise mileage standards then, they would be taking effect today and North Carolina families could be saving $1,600 or more on fuel costs every year. Dole has also taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign cash from the oil and gas industry and voted to give oil company giants like ExxonMobil billions in tax breaks."

The background: In 2003, the U.S. Senate debated a mammoth energy bill for more than two months. One amendment to the bill would have raised mileage standards on new cars, trucks and SUVs by specific benchmarks over several years, including 32 miles per gallon in 2008.

Dole voted against that amendment, which failed by nearly a two-thirds vote. She voted for a different amendment that would have left mileage standards up to the U.S. secretary of transportation.

In the end, both amendments were a moot point, since the bill never came to a vote.

According to a 2006 U.S. Department of Energy report, the average vehicle in the United States gets 20.2 mpg. In theory, a household with two cars both going the average 12,408 miles a year could save more than $1,600 a year on gas if they got 32 mpg instead.

Still, that presumes that the family replaced both cars and did not change its driving habits.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Dole has received $261,456 from the oil and gas industries since her election in 2002.

But as FactCheck.org has reported, while the 2005 energy bill that Dole supported had $2.6 billion in tax cuts for oil and gas companies, it also had $2.9 billion in tax hikes for those same companies — a net increase of $300 million over 11 years.

Is the ad accurate? It's a stretch.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's latest ad focuses on high gas prices and energy indepenence, Rob Christensen reports.

What the ad says: "Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence, but nothing's changed — except now Exxon's making $40 billion a year, and we're paying $3.50 for gas. I'm Barack Obama. I don't take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won't let them block change anymore. They'll pay a penalty on windfall profits. We'll invest in alternative energy, create jobs and free ourselves from foreign oil. I approve this message because it's time Washington worked for you. Not them."

The background: ExxonMobil reported earning a record $40.6 billion in profits in 2007. The average national cost of gas on April 7 was $3.33 per gallon, according to the Energy Information Administration.

It is technically true that Obama has not taken money directly from oil companies, because direct corporate contributions have long been banned.

But Obama's campaign has accepted $213,000 in contributions from people who work in the oil and gas industry or their spouses, according to the Center For Responsive Politics. And according to FactCheck.org, Obama's campaign has received money from executives of ExxonMobil ($30,850), Hess ($5,200), Shell ($9,900), ConocoPhillips ($4,300), Chevron ($9,500) and BP ($6,396.)

Obama's oil and gas industry contributions are a tiny fraction of the $193 million that Obama’s campaign has raised and are less than Clinton has brought in from similar sources.

Is the ad accurate? The assertion that Obama does not receive money from the oil industry is misleading. Accepting contributions from oil industry executives, as opposed to their political action committees, is a distinction without merit.