FactCheck.org is biased
FactCheck.org is not an impartial organization. Their posts frequently have partisan qualities, and those qualities always seem to be towards the Democrats. By partisan qualities, I don't mean lying or deliberately mis-stating anything. In fact, FactCheck.org has all the marks of a group of Democrats and left-leaning independents who are making a sincere effort to be non-partisan and are doing as well as can be expected of such a group. But they do tend to emphasize Republican problems and minimize Democrat problems. They sometimes write lines that are somewhat sneering to Republicans. And when they editorialize (as they do more often that one would want in an impartial organization) it is always in favor of the Democrats. I'm planning to do several posts on this subject. Hopefully I can do it mostly by linking to other bloggers and minimize my own work...
For my first example, FactCheck.org responds in a biased way
to an NRA add. Jim Geraghety
points out a few ways that they got it wrong. Snowflakes in Hell
points out a few more ways that they got it wrong. Those two links are fairly polite, so I recommend them to the opposition. For more details but in a less temperate fashion see Xrlq
who has an argument as well as a set of links that I got the first two from. FactCheck.org dismisses Obama's record in favor of his current campaign rhetoric. That seems to be leaving out some significant facts. Also, they replace the NRA's subjective evaluation of the evidence with their own subjective evaluation. These are not the acts of an impartial organization.
Another example is FactCheck.org's response
to a McCain ad that charges that Obama has voted 94 time "for higher taxes". This one is well-handled by Albany Media Bias
. The only thing I'll add is this quote from FactCheck.org: "by repeating their inflated 94-vote figure, the McCain campaign and the GOP falsely imply that Obama has pushed indiscriminately to raise taxes for nearly everybody." Of course, the proposition that this is what is implied is not a fact, it is an opinion. But most of the FactCheck.org response was effectively a response to this restating of McCain's ad. That is not the behavior of an impartial organization.
Welcome to Spur
I've been having an on-going discussion with Spur on Maverick Philosopher
. In that discussion, Spur accused me of having strange ideas that could not stand up to scrutiny. That sounds more hostile than it is --on philosophy blogs you say stuff like that. It isn't an insult, it is an invitation to prove the speaker wrong. But I've been feeling uncomfortable having such a discussion on a primarily non-political blog, so I was glad to see that Spur visited here in the comments. And, in hopes that he will return, I plan to do some posts backing up a few of the particular points that he objected to. The points that Spur called strange are these:
1. Bush's handling of the Iraq War has been very good, and the impression otherwise is largely due to hostile press coverage.
2. Bush's liberal policies are a large part of why his popularity is so low.
He also questioned these points:
3. FactCheck.org is a biased organization that favors the Democrats.
4. Bush's handling of the Katrina hurricane was reasonably competent, and again, it was a hostile press that makes people think otherwise.
In addition, in a comment
on this blog, he challenged this statement:
5. Obama's political campaign has repeatedly charged his critics with racism.
Over the next few days, I'll try to address all five points --as long as Spur shows up to argue with me. If he doesn't come back then I'll probably lose interest. They won't necessarily be in that order and I may use several posts on one point.
So, welcome to the blog, Spur. I no longer recall your blog address. If you will put it in a comment, I'll post it. And if you want to post replies to me on your blog, I'll link to them.
the doom ticket
By the way, I've been meaning to link this. It's a photo by that photographer (a professional journalist, mind you) who bragged that she tricked John McCain into standing in a bad light so she could get some unflattering photos. Here is one unflattering photo
, along with the lesson: "the best laid schemes o' mice an' liberal fembots gang aft agley".
Obama and terrorists
, here is an interesting link to a post
with an interesting link to an article
with new information about Obama's ties to unrepentant communist terrorist Richard Ayers:
It appears that Ayers took a keen interest in Obama at a time when Obama was nothing more than, as Stanley puts it, "a young and inexperienced lawyer." Why? There are tens of thousands of young and inexperienced lawyers in Chicago. What did Ayers see in (or hear from) Obama that caused the former to take such an interest in him?
But just because Obama was the protoge of a communist terrorist, that's no reason to question his patriotism.
So here's a thought experiment for you. Suppose that the national news industry got wind of a story about how Sarah Palin was mentored by a former domestic terrorist or someone equally controversial. How many TV networks and major papers and news magazines do you think would be dedicating teams to research the story?
My answer: pretty much all of them. And how many of these groups do you think have dedicated teams to investigating Obama's times to a former terrorist? My guess: pretty much none of them. But that doesn't mean the press is in the tank for Obama.