Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 9:20 AM ET, 09/ 7/2008

Convention Edition

By Michael Dobbs

The political convention season generated its usual share of outlandish spin, misleading rhetoric, and outright fibs. The presidential and vice-presidential nominees for both parties resorted to some dubious arguments to attack their opponents while promoting their own accomplishments and policy proposals. Here is a guide to some of the more questionable claims of the two major presidential candidates and their running mates in accepting the nomination of their parties.

Barack Obama

"Many of these plans will cost money, which is why I've laid out how I'll pay for every dime - by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don't help America grow."

Obama's speech to the Democratic convention in Denver was full of costly promises, from expanded health care coverage ($65 billion annually) to increased education spending ($18 billion) to investments in green technology ($15 billion). But it is misleading for him to claim that he has shown how he will "pay for every dime" of his plans.

According to the non-partisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, the Democratic proposals will cost the federal budget around $377 billion in the year 2013. The analysis is based on the Obama campaign's own figures, including the optimistic claim that he can save $75 billion a year by closing tax loopholes and $55 billion by initiating a phased withdrawal from Iraq.

Committee president Maya Macguineas accused both the Obama and McCain campaigns of "wishful budgeting." She estimates that Obama's promises to extend most of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and lessen the bite of the Alternative Minimum Tax will likely cost the U.S. Treasury around $400 billion a year.

John McCain

"Russia's leaders...invaded a small, democratic neighbor to gain more control over the world's oil supply, intimidate other neighbors, and further their ambitions of reassembling the Russian empire."

McCain's explanation for the Russian invasion of Georgia is oversimplified in the extreme--and omits an important fact that has never been recognized by the McCain campaign: Georgia attacked first.

Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili has claimed that his forces responded to a move by Russian troops into the breakaway Georgian province of South Ossetia on August 7. But he has produced no evidence to support his version of events, and it has generally been discounted by western reporters on the scene.

The Georgian bombardment of the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali gave Russian leaders a perfect pretext for teaching a lesson to Saakashvili, who has aligned his country with the United States and is seeking NATO membership. The Russians were able to pose as the protectors of Georgia's Ossetian minority, who fear being swallowed up into Georgia proper and have been waging a low-intensity secessionist war with the Georgian army for nearly two decades.

Joe Biden

"In the Senate, John[McCain] has voted with President Bush 95 percent. And that is very hard to believe."

The Democratic vice-presidential candidate is exaggerating McCain's support for the policies of President Bush. According to the Congressional Quarterly, which keeps score, McCain supported the Bush administration on 95 per cent of the votes in 2007. But his loyalty score for the first seven and a half years of the Bush presidency is significantly lower--90 per cent.

The CQ analysis suggests that the presidential election campaign has drawn McCain closer to Bush. In 2005, the Arizona senator voted with the White House just 77 per cent of the time. So far in 2008, he has a 100 per cent pro-Bush rating, but he has missed many votes as a result of being out on the campaign trail.


Sarah Palin

I "championed reform to end the abuses of earmark spending by Congress. I told the Congress, "Thanks, but no thanks," on that Bridge to Nowhere."

The Republican vice-presidential candidate is overstating her opposition to earmarks and the Bridge to Nowhere. Palin endorsed the the bridge from Ketchikan, Alaska, to Gravina Island while running for governor in 2006. She only decided to kill the bridge project in 2007 after Congress voted to remove the $223 million earmark, and allow Alaska to use the money for other purposes.

Alaska has continued to benefit from earmark spending under Palin, even though the volume has declined compared to her predecessor. According to the Anchorage Daily News, the governor's office submitted earmark requests totaling $197 million this year, down from $256 million in Palin's first year in office, and $350 million the year before.

By Michael Dobbs  | September 7, 2008; 9:20 AM ET
Categories:  Barack Obama, Candidate Watch  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Lieberman Misleads on Obama's Record
Next: Sarah Palin and the Bridge to Nowhere

Comments

Is that it from the ENTIRE conventions?! "Oversimplified" and "overstated"? At least those were technically TRUE!! What about Obama's claim that McCain "won't even chase bin Laden to the cave he lives in"? What happened to the Pinnochios? Is Michael Dobbs ever coming back? Did he get stuck at another luxury resort during the hurricanes, and there's something you're not telling us?

Posted by: JakeD | September 7, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

It's a shame that Michael Dobbs is back in the Post's position as fact checker. The quality of the fact checking was improved during his absence. The fact checking performed by Polifact was better.

Today discussing Biden on McCain/Bush voting alignment, Dobbs introduces the write-up with "The Democratic vice-presidential candidate is exaggerating McCain's support for the policies of President Bush." Biden cites a 95 percent votes-with-Bush statistic. Dobbs ends the piece by noting that McCain has voted 100 percent with Bush in 2008.

Dobbs then misleads by citing a lot of non-votes by McCain and attributes these missed votes to "being out on the campaign trail". Funny thing is, McCain missed votes when he was in town. Tim Johnson of SD has a better voting record than McCain in this congress and he was disabled due to a brain aneurism. It isn't "busy on the campaign" unless 'busy' means fuzzing up the position and being able to claim credit on either side of an issue that was subject to a vote.

Statistics from 2005 would be before McCain rejected the actual 'Mavericky' actions and joined himself at the hip to Bush. That would also be before the Bush campaign team took over the McCain campaign.

What a shame.

Posted by: ftfc | September 7, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

ftfc:

Is Dobbs back?

Posted by: JakeD | September 7, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

Turns out Palin hired a lobbyist to get earmarks while mayor of Wasilla.

The Palin fact-check link to ADN is dead.

Here are two real fact checking reports.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-31-palin-bridge_N.htm

Or try this site:
http://www.adn.com/sarahpalin/story/511471.html

Or even the Post's Paul Kane
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/01/AR2008090103148.html

Posted by: ftfc | September 7, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

JakeD

!Special Feed the Trolls edition!

In the interim while Dobbs was away all posts were specifically by-lined. Today's is not. Also, Dobb's last post before the hiatus contained this note which seems to indicate the break until after Labor Day.

"NOTE TO READERS: The Fact Checker is taking a summer break. I have been sidetracked by a couple of long-term projects (including a vacation), and will be back in September. Rest assured that there will be plenty of controversial claims and statements to check between Labor Day and the Election."

Posted by: ftfc | September 7, 2008 11:24 AM | Report abuse

That was her JOB as mayor. As President of the Senate, she will help McCain end earmark abuse once and for all.

Posted by: JakeD | September 7, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

For more complete analyses, check http://www.factcheck.org - non-partisan (unless of course facts have a liberal bias)

Posted by: Joe J | September 7, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

You think you are a "troll"? Why no Pinocchios if Dobbs wrote this?

Posted by: JakeD | September 7, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

Joe J:

Those last questions were for ftfc. I have no problem dealing with facts. For instance, Palin DID tell Congress "Thanks, but no thanks" on that Bridge to Nowhere.

Posted by: JakeD | September 7, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

Michael Dobbs:

If you did write this, please address my initial questions and consider updating this (and previous three) thread with appropriate Pinocchio awards. Thank you.

Posted by: JakeD | September 7, 2008 11:59 AM | Report abuse

Jake D: I had forgotten what a complete idiot you are. Did you not listen to the speeches of the RNC convention? Or, did you listen with earplugs?

This woman is a dangerous, uneducated peasant. She has proven to me that she doesn't know how to think. The only person more dishonest than her is John McCain.

Go back to your golf game, Jake D. Leave politics for people who have learned to think rationally.

Posted by: Sue | September 7, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

McCain supported the Bush administration position 95% in 2007, but 90% since Bush took office. So Dobbs Dobbs sees Biden as imprecise, and therefore, "questionable." Please go back under the rock you came from

Posted by: Polaris | September 7, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Sue:

How do you believe someone can graduate top of his class from law school and not "think rationally"? Careful, because this is a trick question?

Posted by: JakeD | September 7, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand how Biden's claim, which is as you yourself admit, true and at most imprecise as to what period of time he's talking about, is lumped in the same category as Palin's claim to be decidedly anti-pork, which is flat out false.

She even ridiculed the phrase "Bridge to Nowhere" as deeply insulting to Alaskans... but then turned around and used it happily once hitting the national stage.

Posted by: Bad | September 7, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

False equivalence. Biden's statement doesn't belong in this column.

Biden's comment was true. And the fact-check gets at a deeper truth-- McCain flip-flopped on everything because he wants to be president.

"I didn't decide to run for president to start a national crusade for the political reforms I believed in or to run a campaign as if it were some grand act of patriotism. In truth, I wanted to be president because it had become my ambition to be president. I was sixty-two years old when I made the decision and I thought it was my one shot at the prize." John McCain "Worth the Fighting For: A Memoir (2002)

JakeD wrote: "How do you believe someone can graduate top of his class from law school and not "think rationally"?"

By attending Regent.

Posted by: Message on the Tablets | September 7, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

The earmark for the "Bridge to Nowhere" were stripped out by congress in November 2005. Palin was a private citizen at that time. Although the specific earmark was removed, the money still went to Alaska. Palin supported the bridge during her campaign in 2006 and in her first months as Governor. Here's her statement from Sept. 2007 when she decided not to allocate the money to the bridge at that time:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

Posted by: Donald M. | September 7, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

Does Dobbs actually get paid real $$$ by the WP for this McBush propaganda?
Comparing budget #s that are somewhat misleading from BOTH campaigns with one of McCain's outright lies Re: Georgia, is in itself disingenuous.
The comparison of Palin's outright lie Re: the "Bridge to Nowhere" with a minute difference of 5% in Biden's remarks about McSame's Bushiness is an obvious journalistic crime.
Grow up Dobbs, or just go back on vacation...permanently

Posted by: olo | September 7, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

OBAMAS DEFINITION OF "CHANGE" COMES FROM SAUL ALINSKI.


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1511


For Alinsky, the middle class was a pawn. He was smart enough to realize he could produce his desired ‘change’ only by convincing the middle class to side with him in its own destruction. Obama learned and followed Alinsky’s instruction in Chicago. Alinsky taught that “politics camouflaged as community organizing was the only effective way the socialist elites could mobilize the have-nots to take power from the haves” Obama advanced to the point where he taught classes to new organizers for the Gamaliel Foundation and the Industrial Areas Foundation, both stressed the Alinsky approach! If you doubt Allinsky’s redistribution of wealth philosophy read the beginning of his book ‘Rules for Radicals’. If you doubt Obama’s dedication to this philosophy consider this discourse between ABC news moderator Charles Gibson and Barack Obama on April 16, 2008:
Gibson points out the fact that statistics show each time the capital gains tax has been increased tax revenue goes down as a result of less capital investments and each time capital gains tax are lowered tax revenue goes up as does job creation numbers. Obama responded “what I’ve said is that I would raise the capital gains tax for the purpose of fairness.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtaH8GHAfrI&feature=related

Obama will disarm you , then strip you of everything you have using his "civilian security forces" that he promised you in Denver on July 2.

Posted by: rtfanning | September 7, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

"She estimates that Obama's promises to extend most of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and lessen the bite of the Alternative Minimum Tax will likely cost the U.S. Treasury around $400 billion a year."

Should that read "McCain's promises"? My own fact-checking confirms that it is McCain who wants to extend the Bush tax cuts and cut the Alternative Minimum Tax and Barack Obama has spoken out against them. Please correct this -- you are misinforming your readers.

Posted by: Juniper dG | September 7, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

Did the media get it right about who started the war in Georgia? Michael Totten reports a fairly convincing claim that it was started by the South Ossetian militia: http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php

Posted by: Brian Slesinsky | September 7, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, the way I phrased that was confusing. It should read "My own fact-checking confirms that it is McCain who wants to extend the Bush tax cuts and cut the Alternative Minimum Tax and Barack Obama has spoken out against McCain's plan."

Posted by: Juniper dG | September 7, 2008 1:51 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA LIES ABOUT OUTSOURCING TO FOREIGN SOIL!

Barack and Howard Dean are using a company called Donor Services Group in Los Angeles that has an outsource call center in Manila, Philippines to handle their fund raising efforts. This isn't the only company they are using that is open about sending American Jobs to foreign soil. Both Obama and Dean know this but they are getting great rates on with low wages and this works in their efforts to mislead the public on jobs.

Donor Services Group is a minimum wage company that does not pay a fair wage to nearly 150 staffers and refuses to pay for all hours worked and makes WalMart look like a very generous company!

Both DNC and Barack know this and don't care that the company uses harsh tactics on the staff to get money raised.

Posted by: Corwin | September 7, 2008 2:07 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA LIES ABOUT OUTSOURCING TO FOREIGN SOIL!

Barack and Howard Dean are using a company called Donor Services Group in Los Angeles that has an outsource call center in Manila, Philippines to handle their fund raising efforts. This isn't the only company they are using that is open about sending American Jobs to foreign soil. Both Obama and Dean know this but they are getting great rates on with low wages and this works in their efforts to mislead the public on jobs.

Donor Services Group is a minimum wage company that does not pay a fair wage to nearly 150 staffers and refuses to pay for all hours worked and makes WalMart look like a very generous company!

Both DNC and Barack know this and don't care that the company uses harsh tactics on the staff to get money raised.

Posted by: Corwin | September 7, 2008 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Message on Tablets:

I'm referring to Harvard and Stanford law schools.

Posted by: JakeD | September 7, 2008 5:25 PM | Report abuse

I'm confused how Dobbs put together his numbers.

The Iraq war has cost 575 Billion dollars over 5 years. Thus stopping the war should save us at least $100 Billion per Year.

The proposals by Obama that you mentioned total $98 Billion.
$100 B - $98 B = $2 B dollars to spare.

How'd you come up with your numbers?

Posted by: Costs | September 7, 2008 7:28 PM | Report abuse

The supposedly nonpartisan organization that Dobbs got his $$ from has some suspicious numbers.

For example, in the section "Implement unspecified cuts to slow spending"
They credit Obama with $50 Billion in savings, but they credit McCain with $159 Billion. If they're unspecified, it seems misleading to credit one with 3x as much in savings at the other.

A second example. Their numbers are for the expected budget in 2013. Yet they credit Obama for the savings he would get in Iraq in 2010. If they were aiming for an accurate estimate, they would credit him with the full savings he should expect by extrapolating his withdrawal to 2013, that is at least $100 Billion.

The bottom line, though, is that for almost every category in their estimate, they just make up a number.

Posted by: NonPartisan? | September 7, 2008 7:45 PM | Report abuse

Unless I am proven otherwise, I have to assume Dobbs is still on vacation and Alice Crites pieced together this mangled thread.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 8:18 AM | Report abuse

For instance, Palin DID tell Congress "Thanks, but no thanks" on that Bridge to Nowhere.

Posted by: JakeD
====================

When? Citation, please.

Posted by: zukermand | September 8, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

After the controversy, and when it was basically dead anyways, she officially killed the project (but kept the money ; )

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

Perhaps I ought to focus us a bit...

...Palin DID tell Congress...

Posted by: JakeD
=============

When did Palin "tell congress" anything? I'm interested in reading the quote.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

that was me.

Of course, you know as well as I do, Palin is lying. Repeatedly. She never "told congress" anything about any bridges.

Posted by: zukermand | September 8, 2008 10:09 AM | Report abuse

I'm sorry, that's not exactly true, she did "tell congress": “Yes. I would like to see Alaska’s infrastructure projects built sooner rather than later. The window is now — while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist.”

But "no, thanks"? No.

Posted by: zukermand | September 8, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

...and, hey, BS artist, "basically dead"? Is that a term of art for "ceased to exist a year and a half ago"? Maybe, if one wishes to obfuscate.

Posted by: zukermand | September 8, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/17/politics/17spend.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Published: November 17, 2005
WASHINGTON, Nov. 16 - Congressional Republicans decided Wednesday to take a legislative wrecking ball to two Alaskan bridge projects that had demolished the party's reputation for fiscal austerity.

Straining to show new dedication to lower spending, House and Senate negotiators took the rare step of eliminating a requirement that $442 million be spent to build the two bridges, spans that became cemented in the national consciousness as "bridges to nowhere" because of the remote territory and small populations involved.

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

That was me again.

Posted by: zukermand | September 8, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

Gov. Palin could have still built the bridge, and Congress is not a single person. She was the final one to decide the bridge would not be built. See prior Fact Checker thread.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

There you go again. I ask you about "telling congress" and you start talking about bridges. Why do you keep changing the subject? As for your "Congress is not a single person", I'm not the one claiming to have "told congress" something, she is.

Posted by: zukermand | September 8, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

The two concepts are related -- did you review the full Fact Checker thread -- when she killed the bridge, that told Congress "Thanks, but no thanks." Kinda like if I simply stopped responding to your posts.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

Did she use those four exact words, maybe not. But she got the same point across (see her statement about FOCUS above). Seriously, Zuckerman, if she had muttered sarcastically "Thanks, but no thanks" to Congress at the time, you would just be picking nits somewhere else.

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 12:48 PM | Report abuse

First of all, I'm not the one claiming I said something, she is. Second, you claim:"when she killed the bridge, that told Congress "Thanks, but no thanks." "
How? In what possible shape or form did congress offer or request anything that she could decline?

It's one thing to puff your resume. It's another to be willfully deceptive.

Aren't you a little ashamed or embarrassed? Aren't you at least a little angry at Sen McCain for showing such complete disregard for the responsibilities of governing and putting you in the position of making an ass of yourself defending this ridiculousness?

Posted by: zukermand | September 8, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

I am not ashamed or embarrassed at all, nor do I think I am "making an ass" of myself for pointing out that Gov. Palin killed the project last year:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it’s clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public’s attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

Still not sure what you don't understand about that, but then again, I don't really care if you understand either. See ya!

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

For anyone other than zuckermand, discussion continues here:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/08/bush_praises_palin_selection_o.html

Posted by: JakeD | September 8, 2008 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Rampant rumor says the truth of the matter, the candidate that successfully target and murder mutual opponents wins the election in November. That this opponent has exposed corruption in both parties is the reason. Does that mean, as another sharp critic and opponent to both, should we worry about our family's physical safety too? Will our car be tampered? Bodies targeted while on the street? Etc.? Hm....

Posted by: Anonymous | September 8, 2008 3:58 PM | Report abuse

http://www.petitiononline.com/giveback/petition.html

This is a petition just started to ask Congress and the President of the United States to request that Gov. Palin and the State of Alaska return the funds that are so obviously scorned by Sarah Palin.

Sure, we know it is just Republican BS, but make her (and John McCain) put her money where her mouth is or shut up.

I'm sure the American public can find somewhere to spend the $433,000,000.00 in funding that Alaska received because of that earmark.

Posted by: Sign the Petition! Tell Gov. Palin to put OUR money where HER mouth is! | September 8, 2008 5:39 PM | Report abuse

if:
"Committee president Maya Macguineas accused both the Obama and McCain campaigns of "wishful budgeting." She estimates that Obama's promises to extend most of the Bush tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and lessen the bite of the Alternative Minimum Tax will likely cost the U.S. Treasury around $400 billion a year. "

THEN WHAT DO McCain's promise to keep ALL of the Bush tax cuts cost?

How convenient to forget to mention that.

Tell Palin to put OUR money where HER mouth is - sign the petition:

http://www.petitiononline.com/giveback/petition.html

To: U.S. Congress and the President of the United States

Since the day that Senator John McCain brought Governor Sarah Palin (R) of the of Alaska onto his campaign ticket as his choice for Vice-President, Governor Palin has repeatedly stated that she said "Thanks, but no thanks" to earmark funding for the "Bridge to Nowhere" (Gravina Island bridge in Ketchikan, Alaska). The facts support otherwise.

When running for governor, Palin expressed a different position. In 2006, the Ketchikan Daily News quoted her expressing optimism and support for the bridge at a Ketchikan campaign stop.

Palin, 2006: "People across the nation struggle with the idea of building a bridge because they’ve been under these misperceptions about the bridge and the purpose," said Palin, who described the link as the Ketchikan area's potential for expansion and growth. [...] Palin said Alaska’s congressional delegation worked hard to obtain funding for the bridge as part of a package deal and that she "would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge."

Palin also answered "yes" to an Anchorage Daily News poll question about whether she would continue to support state funding for the Gravina Island bridge if elected governor. "The window is now," she wrote, "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist."

It was only after she won the governorship that Sarah Palin shifted her position on the funds. And even then, it is inaccurate to say that she "told the Congress thanks, but no thanks."

Palin accepted non-earmarked money from Congress that could have been used for the bridge if she so desired. That she opted to use it for other state transportation purposes doesn't qualify as standing up to Congress.

The State of Alaska did not return the money. They still haven't. And today, Governor Sarah Palin is telling the American Public a lie about her stance on the funds.

Please read about this and other statements made by the Vice-Presidential candidate of the Republican party here:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/gop_convention_spin_part_ii.html


On behalf of the American taxpaying public, we are asking Congress and the President of the United States to ask the Governor of the State of Alaska and the State of Alaska to return the $433,000,000.00 in funding they received, since clearly such funds were, according to Governor Palin in 2008, unwanted, unneeded and scorned.

The American public can find other uses for such scorned funds.

Posted by: nobush3rd | September 8, 2008 10:52 PM | Report abuse

So he voted with Bush... come now, isn't that better than voting present t avoid having to make up his mind? Just a thought, but I feel like I might be paying Congress too much when they can't even bother to vote yes, or no.

Posted by: starwhisperer | September 9, 2008 12:43 AM | Report abuse

Starwhisperer, Obama's "present" votes happened when he was a State Senator in Illinois. A present vote is strictly a procedural matter in Illinois and it often moves bills forward. Check out McCain's votes in the U.S. Senate. He has been AWOL since his campaign began. Do your homework before you make phony charges. Also I guess, according to you, McCain isn't earning his keep.

Posted by: pax | September 9, 2008 1:15 AM | Report abuse

I can't say that I'm impressed with this biasly inaccurate & poorly written 'Fact Checker' column.

I was always under the impression the Post was a publication that could be reliably counted on for accurate information and superb writing.

What the hell is going on out there?

I suppose I should change my posting name for this comment to 'Disgusted' Progressive from Oregon

------------
"The Failure Party": bringing you lies, hypocrisy, deceit and failure since 1972.

"If it wasn't for lies, there'd be no Palin or GOP at all"

I was once taught "it takes the village to raise a child." I now propose 'it will take the nation to save our country'

Posted by: Progressive From Oregon | September 9, 2008 6:25 AM | Report abuse

So McCain voted w/ Bush 90% of the time -- that still makes him more of a maverick than Obama, who voted with the Democrats 97% of the time. As I've said all along, Obama has no REAL guts. He's an empty suit.

Posted by: Pretzel Logic | September 9, 2008 7:22 AM | Report abuse

I've got a question about the "Bridge to Nowhere" and "keeping funding" as has often been stated.

Federal appropriations for specific projects are (I would assume) tied to those projects.
I wouldn't think it possible for a state to apply for highway funding and use it for some other purpose, say chocolate icecream for all over thirty year olds. The U.S. is corrupt enough but that would lead to rampant malfeance.

Much as I think Gov. Palin is unqualified and a rabid right-wing, bored again talker in tongues, I don't think she could get away with simply diverting money that way.

Chris Brown in Hamburg

Posted by: Chris Brown | September 9, 2008 8:42 AM | Report abuse


In reference to the Georgian conflict,
this is the first time I see the fact that Georgia attacked first. We learned this from foreign media as our own media seems to be not informing us correctly. What is also not mentioned is that Israel and the US provided arms to them.

Posted by: Shirley Esquivel | September 9, 2008 9:16 AM | Report abuse

It's morally wrong to take the bridge monies and spend it on other projects.

It should be returned back to the federal coffers and spent according to federal budgetary priorities.

Are this the people who are bragging they are "Country First"???

-or "Alaska First, Alaska Always"?

Posted by: Fred | September 9, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Chris Brown and Fred:

Congress (including the U.S. Senate) specifically changed the bill to allow Alaska to keep the (partial) funding and use for other highway projects. If there was something illegal about it, don't you think SENATORS Obama and Biden would be waiving that around like crazy?!

Posted by: JakeD | September 9, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

Pax, as a matter of fact, I think none of them are earning there money. I promise my husband works harder in the army than any of these people. So, come on now lets up his paycheck instead! What I really want is someone in office that is honest... about their past, what they plan to do, and possibly someone who doesn't ooze slimy politics wherever they go. Do I think there is any chance of this from either side? No, do I think there is any chance of it ever happening? No. They all need to stop talking about how they know the plight of the blue collar worker, until they have been one.

Posted by: starwhisperer | September 9, 2008 1:48 PM | Report abuse

This report is certainly fair and balanced. One fact checked for each of the four candidates.

Never mind the fact that just about every assertion McCain and Palin make about Obama and about their own records is a flat out lie. By pretending that each of the four candidates is equally misleading and dishonest, the Post is helping perpetuate that Republican lie.

Posted by: mk | September 11, 2008 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Wow....Joe Biden claims that McCain votes with the current POTUS 95% of the time, and the Post says his average is more like 90%, then states that is "significantly lower."

Then, in the next breath it is revealed that during the current year his record is 100% in compliance with the POTUS?

Where in this so-called balanced analysis is a mention that his current record is "significantly higher" than Sen. Biden's claim?

I guess that according to the Post, quibbling over a few points is significant but outright lies by the two Republican candidates is equivalent.

Posted by: Rafael Block | September 11, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse

I propose that these postings by renamed fact chucker.

Posted by: stilletto | September 11, 2008 9:09 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company