Time's Carney claimed new McCain ad -- which contains falsehoods -- is "[l]egitimate" and "entirely within bounds"

In a September 23 post on Time.com's Swampland blog headlined "McCain's Legitimate Attack," Time Washington bureau chief Jay Carney wrote that "what's important" about Sen. John McCain's "new ad ... attacking [Sen. Barack] Obama 'and his liberal allies' for failing to lead in the midst of the current financial markets crisis" is that the ad is "entirely within bounds." Carney continued: "As I and others have said in criticizing some of the McCain campaign's false or distorted assaults on Obama, there are plenty of potential Obama weaknesses that McCain can fairly and legitimately try to exploit." In fact, contrary to Carney's suggestion that the new McCain ad does not contain distortions or falsehoods, it does, falsely claiming that Democrats have sat by silently in response to the current financial situation and falsely suggesting that Obama intends to raise taxes on American families in general.

"Obama and his liberal allies" have been "[m]um on the market crisis"

The new McCain ad -- which was released on September 23 -- claims that "Obama and his liberal allies" have been "[m]um on the market crisis," citing a September 20 Washington Times article headlined "Obama mum on market crisis." But Obama's campaign released a "Statement of Principles for the Treasury Proposal" on September 21, in which Obama said of Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's draft proposal for a bailout plan: "Even if the Treasury recovers some or most of its investment over time, this initial outlay of up to $700 billion is sobering. And in return for their support, the American people must be assured that the deal reflects some basic principles."

And Obama's Democratic colleagues on Capitol Hill, Sen. Christopher Dodd (CT), chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, and Rep. Barney Frank (MA), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, each produced legislative proposals on September 22 to address the "market crisis."

"More taxes. No leadership. A risk your family can't afford."

The ad also juxtaposes a picture of Obama with the narrator saying, "More taxes. No leadership. A risk your family can't afford." In fact, Obama has proposed cutting taxes for low- and middle-income families and raising taxes only on households earning more than $250,000 per year. Indeed, McCain's own chief economic adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin, has reportedly said it is inaccurate to say that "Barack Obama raises taxes." In addition, the Tax Policy Center concluded in its analysis of Obama's and McCain's tax proposals that "Obama would give larger tax cuts to low- and moderate-income households and pay some of the cost by raising taxes on high-income taxpayers. In contrast, McCain would cut taxes across the board and give the biggest cuts to the highest-income households."

From Carney's post:

McCain has a new ad (see below) attacking Obama "and his liberal allies" for failing to lead in the midst of the current financial markets crisis. As many have noted, including George Will and the Wall Street Journal, McCain's own handling of the crisis has hardly been a profile in leadership. But what's important about this ad is not its claims about McCain but its line of attack on Obama. Why? Because it's entirely within bounds. As I and others have said in criticizing some of the McCain campaign's false or distorted assaults on Obama, there are plenty of potential Obama weaknesses that McCain can fairly and legitimately try to exploit.

- First and foremost, of course, is experience. McCain has more, Obama has relatively little. Whether that matters to you as a voter, or whether you think McCain's experience has been good or bad for the country, the fact is that it's fair for McCain to criticize Obama's lack of it.

- Second, it is irrefutably true that Obama hails from the solidly liberal tradition within the Democratic Party. He speaks eloquently about transcending partisanship, but his record of doing so -- both in Illinois and in Washington -- is fairly limited. And most of his policy proposals can be described as liberal or progressive. And so it is certainly fair for McCain to say that if Obama wins, "liberals" will be in charge of the House, Senate and the White House. I am not saying that would be bad or good for the country, or that such an attack would persuade swing voters in this cycle. But I am saying that it is entirely fair for McCain to attack Obama on this front -- i.e., to go back to the old GOP well and warn about scary liberals and big government.

The point is that there are stark substantive differences between these two candidates. Sticking to those differences as they launch their attacks is the honorable way to campaign.