Political fact checking

Found some interesting websites today that checks for accuracy the statements that are being made during this political season. I did not fact-check on the fact-checkers, but they seem to go after each of the candidates equally. Each seems to provide a decent level of background information about the particular statement and why it might be true, false, or partially true.

Farhad Manjoo for Slate wrote:Judging political lies is a bit like trying to evaluate bad American Idol performances; we agree that they all kind of suck, but we can still have endless fights about which ones suck the least.

The Quote is part of This article which is about McCain's recent attacks on Obama. The author is the same guy who wrote "True Enough: Learning to live in a Post-fact Society" and which I posted about in /forums/odds-and-ends/true-enough-learning-to-live-in-a-post-fact-society-5120/" target="_blank">this thread.

Here are the fact checking sites. If you know of more, post them here.

Politifact from the St. Petersburg Times: Has a "truth-o-meter", "flip-o-meter" and an "Attack File" to look at the statements that are being made by and about the various candidates.

Factcheck.org doesn't have the fancy meters like politifact does, but it seems to accomplish the same thing. Some good details in the background information.

The Washington Post Factchecker Gives more "pinnochios" for bigger lies. Written by a Washington Post staffer.

I'm shocked by the flood of responses that this topic has generated. 😛

I found this today. It is not a fact-checker, but they asked each candidate what their position is on science issues. I have not read through it, but it has an impressive list of individuals and organizations that support them.

The group is ScienceDebate 2008 and their site has the full text responses side by side for comparison.

or

The New York Times has a condensed version.

Frankly Sarge, I've been kinda avoiding any political talk lately. I checked those links, looked like just the GOP is lying, so I kinda skimmed over it and left.

I was ready to just say the hell with it, but I must admit Sarah Palin has me excited again. The left attacks her, the GOP side spins back, but at least she adds everything McCain never had.

lexx wrote:Frankly Sarge, I've been kinda avoiding any political talk lately. I checked those links, looked like just the GOP is lying, so I kinda skimmed over it and left.

I think that both sides are lying Lexx. I think there has been a burst of Republican activity lately however that has maybe more of the newer entries related to them 😀


I know what you are saying about the political talk. I was not trying to make this a political discussion per se, but just to try and figure out what is the misinformation that is being spread in the name of getting elected (or not getting someone elected as the case may be). The second post seemed like a neutral approach to showing how each of the candidates felt about issues involving science.

This is the exact problem, they are all willing to say or not say what is needed to be said whether it's true or not. What is sad is that a website whose mission is to spread the truth becomes a political issue, the truth is the truth no matter the party who said it.

What you said.....

lexx wrote:Frankly Sarge, I've been kinda avoiding any political talk lately. I checked those links, looked like just the GOP is lying, so I kinda skimmed over it and left.

I was ready to just say the hell with it, but I must admit Sarah Palin has me excited again. The left attacks her, the GOP side spins back, but at least she adds everything McCain never had.

What I heard....

lexx wrote:Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.

Blah. Blah Blah. Blah. Sarah Palin has me excited again. ::Cough::MILF:Cough:

Sorry Lexx, I couldn't resist.... Knife me later 😈

Sarge, I took a look FactCheck.org. I'm not so sure I think they are telling the whole truth. I think the spin has spin that was spun from the original spin before it was a yarn.

Case in point, Tax Breaks. They say Obama's will allow the middle income to keep more of their own money. However, it fails to add in three factors.

One, he wants to institute more government institutions to take care of us. These institutions need money.

Two, he wants to increase taxes on corporations. Well, as far as I'm concerned, a tax is a tax is a tax. Just look at your phone bill. I pay almost 25% in additional line item taxes for a $40 phone bill. If you tax the corporations, then the little guy pays the fee's, not the profit holders.

Three, he's for Earmarks, which means even more money will be needed to run the government.

Now, I'm not trying to make this a political conversation. I am trying to point out that it's not so easy to outline whether or not a specific issue is the truth or not. Taken on it's own, it may be the truth, but taken in context of the whole picture, it becomes political pandering.

I only point out this issue because it's one I've researched and totally did not agree with the way it was presented on factcheck, even though I do believe they are trying to be truth and honest regardless of sides.

It's simply not that easy.

....the spin has spin that was spun from the original spin before it was a yarn.

Hmm. I didn't go into them too deep. I saw like 8 palin lies vs 1 biden.

This election really saddens me. Obama is dangerous, and McCain is "McCain" sadly. This is probably why senators with their history of positions and votes can never win the prize, but this time you have one or the other.

Truth or lies doesn't seem to apply this time. Its all ideology. Facts to these guys are just something they get to skirt around or spin. Remember there is truth as you see it, I see it, and as God sees it. The 3-edge sword.

Websites are cute, blogs let you vent, but at the end of the day, it how people feel. Pity we choose a president because he looks good but is an empty suit. Same with Palin of course, she's "explicit" gorgeous 🙂. The fact she and her husband stand for everything I believe is was just enough to get me to vote this year.

Its kinda funny the poll results conducted on who would be a better prez, O or Palin. Just goes to show you how lackluster McCain is.


Heck if you guys want to discuss any of this, I'm up for it 🙂. I'm taking a more of 'i lost' approach to this election however. I figure the most important things that will affect me will take a couple of years and I'll just sellout and move to the country.

Since this is turning political....

Atomm I think you are reading too much into what they are trying to do. The idea is that you take a statement made by a candidate or ad and check it verses reality. When you expand the topic too much, you get to the point where they are all lying liars that will say whatever they think they have to to get elected, and I don't think that helps anyone 😀

Earmarks - they are all for them as it means $$$ for their district. Some very important programs are funded entirely by these earmarks, such as foreign aid. While Obama is for earmarks, he at least makes it publicly known how much he is asking for and for whom whereas most in congress don't make that knowledge public. Some of it comes out, such as the bridge in Alaska, but most of it is buried in appropriations bills.

McCain is casting himself as a maverick and I find that fascinating. In my opinion, he used to be a maverick until he lost in the 2000 primaries. Since that time my perception is that he has been much more consistently on message with the Republican leadership than ever before which makes him anything but a maverick.

Palin seems to be a smart politician, but she literally knows nothing of national and international politics, and that shows when she is giving interviews. Having her a "heartbeat away" from the presidency scares me simply due to her inexperience as well as some of her views. I couldn't in any way vote for someone who really believes that the world was created in 7 days.

Lexx you did hit the nail on the head though

Truth or lies doesn't seem to apply this time. Its all ideology. Facts to these guys are just something they get to skirt around or spin. Remember there is truth as you see it, I see it, and as God sees it. The 3-edge sword.

This whole "truth as I see it" business has made it so that you can't persuade anyone of anything that they aren't predisposed to believe. People believe what they want to, despite what reality is. People don't believe scientists, engineers, politicians, doctors, or anyone else that may tell them something that they don't want to hear despite solid evidence.

Maybe people will believe a cartoonist? Scott Adams commissioned a survey of 500 economists about which presidential candidate would be better for the economy. The results are here:

http://www.dilbert.com/blog/

The interesting thing here is that he tried to be as complete and open as possible about bias in the results - and it does show political bias by economists. Most of the time, the details on these surveys are so hard to find that you can't tell.

Sarge, I wasn't trying to be political, but I'm not so good at that.... 😛

I see the flaw in my argument. Your right about this.

When you expand the topic too much, you get to the point where they are all lying liars that will say whatever they think they have to to get elected

And I think this is where the real problem lies. I don't look at a single statement and analyze it on it's merits. I try to take the whole of the argument and look at from a wider viewpoint. Based on your comments, I can see why I am so confused.

I also happen to not be a single issue voter. If I was, then I wouldn't vote for McCain based on the issues I disagree with Palin on. However, it's the fact that I am not a single issue voter that leads me to one side over the other in the end.

Alas, I am doomed to be screwed because deep down, I am probably a libertarian realistic enough to know that I have to choose between the two lesser evils because what I really believe in isn't electable. And if I take the third side, I find myself getting stuck with the candidate that I least like.

One problem I see is there are alot of us, (thats right US) out there Atomm. I don't like either candidate. Most people in that position fear voting for a 3rd party because it's a waste, but at soempoint a few people will have to stick out their necks to end this 2 party system. There are alot of people fed up with the two parties and all their bull.

I implore you to vote for the candidate... whoever and what ever party they may be, who is the best in your mind. until we all start doing that we are stuck in this duopolistic system we have here.

I haven't figured out how there could ever be a viable large 3rd party, unless it is an "Independent" party as those people who are dissatisfied with the two existing one's are too fragmented to coalesce into a single party with a platform a la the Dems and Repubs. Just look at the few of us here that are unhappy with the way things are. We each may agree with the others on a few subjects, but mostly we disagree about most things.

True, but eventually joining together to bust the two party system will allow new parties to exist. In other words there could be the lexx party and the sarge party, but not until someone breaks the 3rd party barrier.

If Ross Perot couldn't do it, then I don't think it can be done. And I say that not out of respect, but out of the amount of attention he garnered.

Atomm wrote:If Ross Perot couldn't do it, then I don't think it can be done. And I say that not out of respect, but out of the amount of attention he garnered.

Didn't Teddy Roosevelt form a third party - the Bull Moose party or something like that - when he didn't get the nomination from his own party? That was after his presidency, and I don't believe he was successful with it, but I think he got a lot more votes and attention than say, the Green party does. It would take a very charismatic, or rich man (or both), to really do something with a 3rd party, or else an established politician jumping ship. I could go to Wiki and make myself look smart by checking my Teddy info and presenting it as fact, but who would I be fooling? 🙂

What would a 3rd party look like? Fiscally conservative & socially liberal? Vice-versa? A hodgepodge? To create a successful party, you have to come up with policies and views that are different enough to separate you from the established parties, but are in tune enough with the people that you won't end up with 3,000 total votes after election day.

Independence looks like a cake-walk compared to that challenge.

Bubbaspanky wrote:True, but eventually joining together to bust the two party system will allow new parties to exist. In other words there could be the lexx party and the sarge party, but not until someone breaks the 3rd party barrier.

You know I don't even mind this. At least I think we here are well informed, and most of the time just agree to disagree. My single biggest problem is most people don't know these candidates past one single issue, if that. The other half of our country doesn't even bother to vote let alone study the records and issues.

I still think a better reform would be to allow everyone to campaign for 6 months and have a one day primary for each side, winners to face off in Nov. That would eliminate the extremists from both sides. This cycle of Iowa, NH, etc, etc. is netting the worse candidates.

I bet with a national primary Lieberman could have easily won the demo nod hands down that way. Hell I like Joe, I'd voted for him given the opportunity.


Oh, btw, I was born and raised in the 'sarge' party ya know. I still fight with my mother over Bush every time I visit ;p Too many disenchantments and perhaps environmental effects from working with certain people made me stop and take pause several years back.

So... theres still hope for Sarge 🙂

Atomm wrote:If Ross Perot couldn't do it, then I don't think it can be done. And I say that not out of respect, but out of the amount of attention he garnered.

Just a note to say I agree in part. Perot's ego got the better of him. Had he started his message months earlier and asked for campaign money instead of just bragging he had plenty of his own to spend, probably put a lot of people off.

He was funny on the debates tho. Loved those charts 🙂

Well Lexx I was raised in a die hard repub family and was a repub for a while. I still think Dole Kemp was a great ticket.

There have been alot of parties over the years, this two entrenched party system is recent and stupid.

I agree a viable third party isn't likely to happen, but it's because people are afraid of "Wasting their vote". If all the people who weren't happy with either candidate voted for a 3rd party moderate, that 3rd party would win in a landslide. I would vote for a conservative guy who said, "hey I will do the best thing I can always, I am not going to lie, and am not going to pander, and I cannot be bought" (jesse ventura fits this bill to some extent).

Lexx Lieberman is nothing more now than a repub who for some reason continues to claim democrat. I agree with the election idea though I think it's such a waste to do so many primaries and such a long run, I mean they now spend 2 years campaigning for a 4 year job. What pisses me off, is neither of them is doing the job we are paying them for... senator. Somehow I doubt my boss would allow me 2 years of paid leave to run for anything.

It's a dumb system, but it won't change until people refuse to put up with it anymore.

lexx wrote:Just a note to say I agree in part. Perot's ego got the better of him. Had he started his message months earlier and asked for campaign money instead of just bragging he had plenty of his own to spend, probably put a lot of people off.

He was funny on the debates tho. Loved those charts 🙂

When I moved to Big D, I went to work for H Ross's company. There is a long hallway with all these pictures from his run for President including some of the actual charts. It was kind of cool.

Bubbaspanky wrote:I agree a viable third party isn't likely to happen, but it's because people are afraid of "Wasting their vote". If all the people who weren't happy with either candidate voted for a 3rd party moderate, that 3rd party would win in a landslide. I would vote for a conservative guy who said, "hey I will do the best thing I can always, I am not going to lie, and am not going to pander, and I cannot be bought" (jesse ventura fits this bill to some extent).

You have to like Ventura's military background, and his no-nonsense, straightforward, outsider attitude. . .but I halfway think he has the IQ of his fans from his wrestling days.

http://truther.org/index.php?/2008052142/9...-ourselves.html

he's a nut, but you know at least he isn't going to bullshit you.

Sort like the Govenator..... I love that he's threating to shut down California's government until the state legislature makes the right decisions for the states future. I want a man like that in office......

Atomm wrote:Sort like the Govenator..... I love that he's threating to shut down California's government until the state legislature makes the right decisions for the states future. I want a man like that in office......

Don't worry, according to Demolition Man, he will be Pres soon enough...

If he could run, I wonder if he would win.....

CNN has short summaries of candidate stances on 20 different issues as well as "fact-checking" in their Election Center

I didn't read them all but it should give you a basic idea of where they each stand on the primary campaign issues.