Fact Checking the Fact Check

There are fact checks, and then there are fact checks. Now, with the amount of preparation both parties put into their time before the debates, you think they’d have figured out already that people can go online and figure these things out for themselves, and I think they assume people will. Biden made a lot of statements, and many of those have been identified as completely and blatantly wrong. He stated these with an air of complete authority. This is scary, because people have been so upset with their perceptions that Bush has lied to the American people, and yet Biden blatantly and provably lies with astonishing ease.

Now I’ve seen a number of articles attacking some of Palin’s statements, making it seem like she’s just as guilty as he is, so I decided to go through and assess those claims for myself, and come out with a response. Those who want to attack or defend Biden’s statements are welcome to do so, and I may go over some of Biden’s more blatant violations in another article. But here I’m going through the official AP Fact Check article, and looking at the distortions they claim she made, I can find nothing on the level of what Biden has made, and further, they are as guilty if not more guilty of making the same distortions in their very same article.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081003/ap_on_el_pr/debate_fact_check;_ylt=AqP5Fl.OWm8bCdxOhqRL5U6s0NUE



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PALIN: Said of Democratic presidential candidate Obama: "94 times he voted to increase taxes or not support a tax reduction."

THE FACTS: The dubious count includes repetitive votes as well as votes to cut taxes for the middle class while raising them on the rich. An analysis by factcheck.org found that 23 of the votes were for measures that would have produced no tax increase at all, seven were in favor of measures that would have lowered taxes for many, 11 would have increased taxes on only those making more than $1 million a year.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s the basis for the 94 votes for tax increases or against tax cuts-

* To Date, Obama Has Voted For A Tax Increase Approximately Once Every Five Days Congress Has Been In Session. (The Library of Congress Website, thomas.loc.gov, Accessed 6/8/08)

Obama Voted At Least 12 Times For Higher Income Taxes.

Obama Voted Against Marriage Penalty Relief At Least Twice.

Obama Voted Against Extending The Expanded Child Tax Credit.

Obama Voted At Least 3 Times Against Repealing The 1993 Income Tax Increase On Social Security Benefits.

Obama Has Voted At Least 5 Times Against Providing Relief From The Alternative Minimum Tax.

Obama Has Voted At Least 7 Times Against Tax Incentives Benefitting Small Business.

Obama Voted Against Capital Gains Tax Cuts At Least 9 Times.

Obama Voted Against Tax Cuts On Dividend Income At Least 9 Times.

http://www.gop.com/news/NewsRead.aspx?Guid=40abb3a8-83c8-4f0f-ae4f-c85162396145

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PALIN: Criticized Obama's "plan to mandate health care coverage and have universal government run program" for health care, and added: "I don't think it's going to be real pleasing for Americans to consider health care being taken over by the Feds."

THE FACTS: Wrong on several counts. Obama's plan does not provide for universal coverage, only mandates insurance for children and doesn't turn the system over to the government. Most people would still get private insurance through their work. Obama proposes that the government subsidize the cost of health coverage for millions who have trouble affording it and he'd set up an exchange to negotiate prices and benefits with private insurers — with one option being a government-run plan.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From the article, Palin said Obama had a "plan to mandate health care coverage and have universal government run program". From the same article: there is "one option being a government-run plan", and "mandates insurance for children". It doesn't turn over the system to the government, but creates a government system which people are mandated to be a part of if they don't already have a system. That basically means that you have to have health care coverage, and if you don't have it, you get put in a government run system. That's universal coverage, and it is mandated. Its not a mandated universal government run program, but a mandated coverage level and a universal catch-all government run program. This is actually really close to what she said. So at worst, this is an issue of semantics.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PALIN: "Two years ago, remember, it was John McCain who pushed so hard with the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac reform measures. He sounded that warning bell."

THE FACTS: Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska led an effort in 2005 to tighten regulation on the mortgage underwriters — McCain joined as a co-sponsor a year later. The legislation was never taken up by the full Senate, then under Republican control.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On McCain's bill that would have created a regulatory agency: "Chris Dodd, then the ranking member of the Banking Committee and now its chair, was in the middle of receiving preferential loan treatment from Countrywide Mortgage, one of the companies gaming the system in the credit crisis." http://hotair.com/archives/2008/09/17/mccains-attempt-to-fix-fannie-mae-freddie-mac-in-2005/ I can actually get records from opensecrets.org to show that he got the most money from them, as well as senate records of who was in charge to show that this was actually something that was stopped by the democrat in charge of the committee. To take a line from the AP story, to say that the congress was run by Republicans is misleading. The person in charge of the committee it never left was a Democrat who was taking cash from, you guessed it, Freddie and Fannie.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PALIN: Said the United States has reduced its troop level in Iraq to a number below where it was when the troop increase began in early 2007.

THE FACTS: Not correct. The Pentagon says there are currently 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, about 17,000 more than there were before the 2007 military buildup began.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Troop levels are consistently shifting and people are being rotated in and out- when this article was written, there were 150,000 troops. Before that, there were 142,000. Before the surge, one estimate had it at 133,000. Depending on when you're looking at before then, you can find different numbers. It depends on who you ask, and when. But troop levels are, by any account, coming down overall. While her estimate may not have matched the estimates of the journalists writing up "fact check" articles, that does not detract from the fact that they are coming down.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War_troop_surge_of_2007

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PALIN: Said Alaska is "building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline, which is North America's largest and most expensive infrastructure project ever to flow those sources of energy into hungry markets."

THE FACTS: Not quite. Construction is at least six years away. So far the state has only awarded a license to Trans Canada Corp. that comes with $500 million in seed money in exchange for commitments toward a lengthy and costly process to getting a federal certificate. At an August news conference after the state Legislature approved the license, Palin said, "It's not a done deal."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By stating that Alaska is "building a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline", Palin is obviously implying that it is a work in progress. When you're starting a project, you talk about estimates.

I don't know anyone who says Alaska is "in the process of implementing a natural gas pipeline which has not yet begun work but which has an estimated price of $40 billion dollars, although we have only put $500 million in seed money in at this point". The word "building", which implies "work in progress", is not something I take issue with, but then again, I'm not writing a fact check article.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PALIN: Said a McCain-Palin administration "will support Israel," including "building our embassy ... in Jerusalem."

THE FACTS: Moving the U.S. Embassy from its present location in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is a perennial promise of presidential candidates courting the Jewish-American vote. In fact, moving the embassy is actually required by U.S. law. But successive administrations of both parties, including George W. Bush's, have made the same pledge only to find that the realities of Middle East peacemaking have forced them to invoke a waiver to delay it. Jerusalem is claimed as a capital by both Israel and the Palestinians and Israel's occupation of east Jerusalem is not internationally recognized. The city's status is one of the key issues of disagreement in peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And finally, as to the building the embassy in Israel, it is quite clearly a campaign promise, and something they find worth pursuing. Obama has made tons of these, and they would fill many, many pages full of promises that he can't fulfill, but those aren't put into articles about this debate.


Simply because it's complicated and has a history of being hard to do does not mean that the McCain campaign does not intend to pursue it. They may not succeed, but to list it as a distortion that it is something that they want to do is itself a distortion.


In fact, in the speech she made, Palin discussed the recent successes in foreign policy which may make this possible- "...they have a track record of being able to forge these peace agreements. They succeeded with Jordan. They succeeded with Egypt. I'm sure that we're going to see more success there, also." http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/02/debate.transcript/ So this false promise is looking more and more likely, as opposed to Obama's promises of lowering taxes while increasing spending, which seems more and more unlikely even as our economy continues to go south.