The MSM In Desperate Mode

Seems Democrats aren’t the only ones who have trouble with facts.

Factcheck.org…

GOP Convention Spin, Part II
September 4, 2008

Palin trips up on her facts, and Giuliani and Huckabee have their own stumbles on Night 3 of the Republican confab.
Summary

Sarah Palin’s much-awaited speech at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday night may have shown she could play the role of attack dog, but it also showed her to be short on facts when it came to touting her own record and going after Obama’s.

We found Rudy Giuliani, who introduced her, to be as factually challenged as he sometimes was back when he was in the race. But Mike Huckabee may have laid the biggest egg of all.

Palin may have said “Thanks, but no thanks” on the Bridge to Nowhere, though not until Congress had pretty much killed it already. But that was a sharp turnaround from the position she took during her gubernatorial campaign, and the town where she was mayor received lots of earmarks during her tenure.

Palin’s accusation that Obama hasn’t authored “a single major law or even a reform” in the U.S. Senate or the Illinois Senate is simply not a fair assessment. Obama has helped push through major ethics reforms in both bodies, for example.
The Alaska governor avoided some of McCain’s false claims about Obama’s tax program – but her attacks still failed to give the whole story.

Giuliani distorted the time line and substance of Obama’s statements about the conflict between Russia and Georgia. In fact, there was much less difference between his statements and those of McCain than Giuliani would have had us believe.

Giuliani also said McCain had been a fighter pilot. Actually, McCain’s plane was the A-4 Skyhawk, a small bomber. It was the only plane he trained in or flew in combat, according to McCain’s own memoir.

Finally, Huckabee told conventioneers and TV viewers that Palin got more votes when she ran for mayor of Wasilla than Biden did running for president. Not even close. The tally: Biden, 79,754, despite withdrawing from the race after the Iowa caucuses. Palin, 909 in her 1999 race, 651 in 1996.

A New Stitch in a Bad Pattern
September 2, 2008

A McCain ad wrongly claims Obama plans “painful tax increases” for working families. And who’s talking about deficits?
Summary
McCain’s new ad puts another stitch in what we’ve called his pattern of deceit on Obama’s tax plan. This one claims Obama and congressional Democrats plan to push forward “painful tax increases on working American families” and that they will bring about “years of deficits,” “no balanced budgets” and “billions in new government spending.”

The ad is plain wrong about higher taxes on working families. In fact, Obama’s economic plan would produce a tax cut for the majority of American households, with middle-income earners benefiting most. As for “years of deficits,” exactly the same claim could be made about McCain’s program. It’s unlikely either Obama or McCain would balance the budget, and both are projected to increase the debt by trillions.

Analysis
We’ve already reported on at least three other ads, in both Spanish and English, from Sen. John McCain’s campaign that distort his rival’s tax policy. The ads claim that, for example, Democratic Sen. Barack Obama would raise taxes “on the sale of your home” and that he has a “history of raising taxes” and that he wanted to raise taxes on “families” making just $42,000 a year.

Claims like these have led us to say that McCain’s campaign is engaging in a “pattern of deceit” when it comes to describing Obama’s tax plan. This most recent ad fits right into the template.

Tax Counter-Spin
The ad says Obama and “out of touch Congressional leaders” plan to implement “painful tax increases on working American families,” and it shows an image of a family presumably upset about an impending tax increase. But, as we’ve reported numerous times, Obama proposes a tax cut for the vast majority of households.

John McCain 2008 Ad:
“Expensive Plans”

Crowd: Obama, Obama…

Announcer: Take away the crowds, the chants. All that’s left are costly words. Barack Obama and out of touch congressional leaders have expensive plans. Billions in government spending, years of deficits, no balanced budgets, and painful tax increases on working American families. They’re ready to tax, ready to spend, but not ready to lead.

We spoke with Len Berman, director of the nonpartisan Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, which has produced one of the most authoritative analyses of the two candidates’ tax plans. When we asked him if Obama’s claim that he would “cut taxes for 95 percent of all working families” was true, Berman told FactCheck.org… that it was “consistent with our estimates.” Overall, the TPC found that Obama’s plan would produce a tax cut for 81.3 percent of all households, and a cut for 95.5 percent of all households with children.

Under Obama’s plan, the TPC estimates that people (or couples) making between $37,595 and $66,354 a year would see an average savings of $1,118 on their taxes.

Under McCain’s plan, on the other hand, those same individuals would save $325 on average — $793 less than the average savings under Obama’s plan.

Put It on Our Tab

The ad also claims that Obama and congressional Democrats would bring about “years of deficits.” But (and we’ve reported this before, too), the fact is both candidates’ economic plans would fail to bring an end to deficit spending, and by that measure, McCain’s is worse than Obama’s. According to the TPC analysis, Obama’s tax plan would increase the debt by $3.5 trillion by 2018, while McCain’s plan would bring about a projected $5 trillion increase in the same time frame. The TPC also found that:

Tax Policy Center (Aug 28): Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.

The Obama campaign maintains that the Tax Policy Center’s estimates don’t account for Obama’s proposed spending cuts, including things like ending the Iraq war. But those cuts will not come close to balancing the budget, and Obama has avoided promising a balanced budget during his first term.

McCain, however, has said he will balance the budget by 2013. Experts remain skeptical. In early July, The New York Times quoted Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition — a bipartisan fiscal responsibility advocacy group — as saying the claim was “unlikely”:

Robert L. Bixby (as quoted by The New York Times, July 8): It’s feasible to balance the budget by 2013, but very unlikely under the policies Senator McCain has proposed. The spending cuts are far too vague to be counted on for significant savings and, even if they were more specific, I can’t see how they would come close to offsetting the level of tax cuts he recommends.

McCain senior economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin sent The Washington Post’s editorial board a copy of McCain’s plan in support of the candidate’s claim. But the board concluded, in its July 14 editorial, that the plan was “not credible.”

So the ad’s claims about deficit spending and “no balanced budgets”? They could be applied just as easily to McCain as to Obama and the Dems. And we’re not sure McCain really wants to go there.

Sorry about all the cutting and pasting and yes it’s all from factcheck.org…. I’m simply making the point that Republicans can be just as dishonest and loose with the fact as Democrats.

Neither side is faultless.

Really and your proof of that statement is……..? Also Chuck, scroll down a bit and you’ll notice that Curt linked to Factcheck.org… for a debunking of the Palin email. If it’s good enough for debunking that lie then I think it’s good enough for debunking others. I didn’t state it as gospel I merely pasted it from Factcheck.org…’s website. Chuck since you know so much, why not email Factcheck and challenge their data. Nah, that would require a brain…something you don’t have.

Also, notice they also debunk Democrats lies too. It’s called a non-partisan website. You wouldn’t know about that either.

Pity.

Hey Ron,

Why don’t you spend some time doing some fact checking on Obama? Obama was Chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 – 2001. During that time, he was responsible for giving out grants amounting to almost $160 Million dollars to help improve Chicago Schools.

This money went to ethnic and social programs like these:

$632,662 to Small Schools Workshop, started by Mike Klonsky and William Ayers, created to push their school reform agenda.

$413,000 to the South Shore African Village Collaborative for their “Celebrate African-American Holiday of Juneteenth” (celebrating the Emancipation Proclamation). Some African-Americans celebrate Juneteenth instead of the Fourth of July.

and many more…

Turned down to receive a grant:

The Chicago Algebra Project: goal to increase student achievement

The District 5 Math Initiative: goal to aid Hispanic students in the process of learning English, to further learn math and science.

and many more programs designed to advance student fundamentals.

The final findings report showed “there were no statistically significant differences between Annenberg and demographically similar non-Annenberg schools.”

$160 MILLION dollars Zero results, this is the extent of Obama’s executive experience, and he has had his minions do everything possible to obstruct this record. See http://www.globallabor.blogspot.com/ to help you start your fact checking.

I’ll take someone like McCain/Palin who have accomplished something over someone that has failed to accomplish something but talks about what they are going to accomplish in the future.

Tony

Ron:
Touche. You really got me with your rapier wit and superior intellect. Gosh, I guess I will go slash my wrists.

Clowns like you are an insidieous disease that inhabits the internet trying to make people think you are smart. Well, I have news for you: you can’t be very smart to swallow all the bilge you have regurgitated from KOS.

Chuck

Ron- come up stairs, dinner is ready. Your homeroom teacher called, said you were using your time on things other than school work. You know we’ve talked about this before, how do you expect to go to college that way.