In the aftermath of the tragic bombing at the Boston Marathon on Monday, a lot of information came out, and less than 36 hours we now know that most, if not almost all, of that information was incorrect. As Elizabeth Scalia (@TheAnchoress) tweeted yesterday:
Phones weren’t shut down, other explosives were not found, there is no suspect in custody. Beyond “there was explosion” most MSM info wrong
— Elizabeth Scalia (@TheAnchoress) April 16, 2013
Every time something big happens, particularly if it is tragic, the media reports a lot of things that just aren’t so. You’ve heard the saying “if it bleeds, it leads?” Well that is completely true, and every news outlet wants to be the absolute first to report every detail. When things are happening quickly, news outlets report whatever information they have, with no time to fact-check the details to make sure that what they report is accurate. In the 24-hour news cycle, every broadcast news outlet is competing for ratings, so being right, but second to report, does not help. Being wrong, but first to report, can help a broadcast station because they get the reputation as “the first on the scene,” but there is no accountability later for being wrong. After all, it’s a chaotic scene, so how can you blame them for being wrong?
President Obama claimed last night that his jobs plan would be paid for. “Everything in this bill will be paid for. Everything,” he said. In politics, it never gets more clear than that. Of course, obviously I question it. I question everything any politicians says. What surprised me was that even the Associated Press is questioning it.
THE FACTS: Obama did not spell out exactly how he would pay for the measures contained in his nearly $450 billion American Jobs Act but said he would send his proposed specifics in a week to the new congressional supercommittee charged with finding budget savings. White House aides suggested that new deficit spending in the near term to try to promote job creation would be paid for in the future – the “out years,” in legislative jargon – but they did not specify what would be cut or what revenues they would use.
Essentially, the jobs plan is an IOU from a president and lawmakers who may not even be in office down the road when the bills come due. Today’s Congress cannot bind a later one for future spending. A future Congress could simply reverse it.
Thank you AP.
For the record, this is the same problem one runs into when talking about spending cuts. Most of those cuts are deferred to the out years to ease the pinch in the short term, and most never materialize because, as the AP points out, Congress can’t tell a future Congress what they have to spend.
Regardless of what you think of the President’s jobs plan, his claim it will be paid for is dubious at best. As the AP piece points out, Obama must send his proposal to the Super Committee – which he does not control – and hope they accept it, then get it through Congress and then hope that these proposals are adhered to in the future.
I have long had a problem with Politifact.
There is just something wrong with not being able to come out and call a statement straight up true or false. I guess I’m a black and white kind of guy. For crying out loud, they have four different versions of a statement being deemed true. For me, it is either true, or it is false.
What has happened in the political arena as a result of painting with so many shades of gray, is that politicians can use Politifact anytime they want to demagogue just about any issue their opponents have made a statement about. They can point to a Politifact rating of Half-True (Insert sneering chortle here) and say their opponent is being dishonest with the voters.
And I guess what really irks me out of my pants-on-fire is that they are simply wrong so often. Case in point; they recently deemed the Lie of the Year to be the following statement; “A Government Takeover of Healthcare.”
Really? Why not pick something a little more easily provable, like I dunno, Christine O’Donnell’s claim that she, is in fact, you.
Billy Hallowell over at Mediate does a good job pointing out how much of the debate Poltifact had to ignore to reach their conclusion that “Government Takeover of Healthcare” is a lie.
PolitiFact, one of the many fact checkers that has sprouted up on the web, announced yesterday that it had opened voting for the readers’ choice for the ”2013 Lie of the Year.”
Though PolitiFact’s editors and reporters will still choose the “Lie of the Year,” the fact checker, run by the Tampa Bay Times, has selected 10 finalists for this year’s “dishonor,” readers have been given the option to weigh-in. Readers can also write-in a one not on the list.
Among the 10 finalists are number of claims about Obamacare, including one made by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and another by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) about the congressional exemption from the law. There are a few others dealing with other random issue, from Syria to the United Nations.
President Barack Obama is also the list because of his revisionism on his infamous “if you like you plan, you can keep your plan” promise amid millions of insurance policy cancellation notices that are a direct result of the law.
“If you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you could keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed,” Obama told his supporters early last month.
“So we wrote into the Affordable Care Act you are grandfathered in on that plan. But if the insurance company changes it, then what we’re saying is they have got to change it to a higher standard,” he said. “They’ve got to make it better.”
Polls show that Americans don’t want Congress to increase the debt ceiling, even if it means defaulting on the national debt. While the merits of those polls may be a subject for debate, polls show that the public is concerned about rising deficits and have given President Barack Obama less than stellar marks on the subject.
But the White House has begun a full-court press to pressure Congress to raise the debt ceiling, the statutory limit for the national debt, and President Obama is making some deceiving claims about the issue.
“Now, this debt ceiling — I just want to remind people in case you haven’t been keeping up — raising the debt ceiling, which has been done over a hundred times, does not increase our debt; it does not somehow promote profligacy,” said President Obama in a meeting with business executives. “All it does is it says you got to pay the bills that you’ve already racked up, Congress. It’s a basic function of making sure that the full faith and credit of the United States is preserved.”
“And I’ve heard people say, well, in the past, there have been negotiations around raising the debt ceiling,” he said. “It’s always a tough vote because the average person thinks raising the debt ceiling must mean that we’re running up our debt, so people don’t like to vote on it, and, typically, there’s some gamesmanship in terms of making the President’s party shoulder the burden of raising the — taking the vote.”
Eric Holder hates them. People like Yours Truly love them. Folks typically fall on one side or the other.
I’m talking about Stand Your Ground laws. The question is, does the data really support Holder’s idea that they lead to more violence? Well, Michael Doyle over at McClatchy took at look at the numbers, and the conclusion?:
The controversially concluded Florida murder trial of George Zimmerman has prompted fresh debate over whether “stand your ground” self-defense laws hinder violence or, perversely, propel it.
The evidence appears mixed.
Some studies show enhanced public safety. Others suggest the opposite. One study concluded that several dozen men a month are killed as a consequence of the laws. In a speech this week, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder showed himself to be among the skeptics.
The resulting ambiguity, like the Zimmerman trial itself, in which he was found not guilty of murdering 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, may confound anyone hoping for a neutral finding of fact. It also allows advocates and critics alike to cherry-pick their preferred experts, which can enliven debate but complicate lawmaking.
It’s actually somewhat surprising that the evidence is mixed. However, the McClatchy piece also boasts an interactive map that, after clicking a state, shows the violent crime rate over a period of years. It also notes when that state passed its Stand Your Ground law.
Of course, there are some factors that have been missed.
There are many congressional races that are going make the election this November fun to watch. Odds are that Republicans will keep the House of Representatives, but how big will their majority be come January 2013?
My home state of Georgia has managed to an interesting race or two in the last couple of cycles. In 2010, then-Rep. Jim Marshall (D-GA) was knocked off by Austin Scott, who has gone on to become the president of the freshman GOP class. Marshall’s district had been a Republican target before, in 2006 and 2008, but GOP nominees met a tough, and unwilling electorate.
This year about bring fireworks in the Peach State as Rep. John Barrow (D-GA) is facing a tough bid for re-election this year thanks to his district, GA-12, recently being redrawn by the state legislature. The Cook Political Report has the seat rated as “Lean Republican.”
Such challenges aren’t new to Rep. Barrow, who managed to fight off a tough challenge in 2004 from former Rep. Max Burns (R-GA). Despite being biannually mentioned as a vulnerable member, Barrow has survived.
This year’s challenge is more formidable. With the Republican-controlled legislature making the district more amenable to their party, Barrow now finds himself as one of the most vulnerable Democrats in the House. Of course, Barrow realizes this, which is why he voted against cap-and-trade, for extending current tax rates, and for both contempt resolutions against Attorney General Eric Holder.
DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS) has ignited a firestorm by claiming that a conservative columnist misquoted her. The Washington Post, far from anything approaching a conservative news agency, summed it up well:
Debbie Wasserman Schultz’s false accusation of a misquote
“That comment was reported by a conservative newspaper. It’s not surprising that they would deliberately misquote me.”
— Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz during Fox News interview, Sept. 4, 2012
Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz on Tuesday denied a report from Washington Examiner columnist Philip Klein, who quoted the Florida congresswoman as saying that Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren described Republican policies toward Israel as “dangerous” for the Jewish state.
The problem? Well, you see, Klein didn’t misquote her at all. In fact, Klein has actually posted audio, noting:
Below, find the audio of what she said on Monday, which I’m confident demonstrates that I quoted her accurately in my story. The relevant part starts around the 28-second mark.
After listening to the audio, you can check out the clip above of her on Fox News saying she was “deliberately” misquoted, and judge for yourself.
During a public appearence yesterday in his home state, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was pressed by reporters on his unsubstaniated charge that Mitt Romney hasn’t paid his taxes in 10 years.
According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Reid didn’t back down from his claim, for which he has absolutely no evidence. Reid once again said that Romney could put it to rest by producing more tax returns. Reporters kept after Reid on the charge, prompting him to snap, saying, “I’ve answered your question.”
He received some backing from ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), who told the Huffington Post that because “[s]omebody told [Reid]” that Romney hadn’t paid his taxes that “Harry Reid made a statement that is true.”
On what planet that makes sense is anybody’s guess, but others aren’t so convinced. For example, PolitiFact reviewed the charge and weighed the likelihood that someone earning as much as Romney, and gave Reid their worst rating — “Pants on Fire”:
On Aug. 6, a Reid spokesman confirmed to PolitiFact that the majority leader still maintains the information came from the anonymous Bain investor. Our Truth-O-Meter guidelines say we hold officials accountable to back up their words. By those standards, Reid has not proven his allegation.
Still, we wondered how likely it was that Romney didn’t pay taxes for 10 years.