On pointing out lies and mistruths

Commenting on my previous post, Ciccina asks: "Is it okay to mention one side's distortions, but not the other?"

Definitely not, but as I have mentioned before, I am not a journalist, but a partisan blogger.  Still, in the interests of (some) fairness, here's my take on the distortions/lies split between the two campaigns:

First, anecdotal: The front page of FactCheck as of writing lists a dozen recent articles.  One debunks rumors spread about Governor Palin by chain e-mails (though a few have some truth to them); two point out issues with Obama ads.  The remaining NINE point out distortions, smears and lies spread by John McCain, Sarah Palin, and their acolytes, mostly about Barack Obama.

Second, some quantification.  Politifact has a truth-o-meter that tracks claims and statements made by each candidate.  As of writing, they have looked at 113 for John McCain, and 114 for Barack Obama.  I assume these are serious enough to be looked at by Politifact; some may be fluff, of course, but a lie is a lie, and a truth is a truth.  Etc.

Anyway, I graded these judgments on a numerical scale:

True: +10 [25-39 McCain-Obama]

Mostly-true: +5 [20-24]

Half-true: 0 [19-21]

Barely-true: -5 [21-12]

False: -10 [22-18]

Pants-on-fire: -20 [the most egregious lies carry the heaviest penalty; 6-0]

Weighting and averaging the scores, Senator McCain gets a -0.84, while Senator Obama gets +2.37.  So it seems that on average, Senator McCain's statements fall somewhere between "half-true" (0 points) and "barely-true" (-5), while Senator Obama's statements fall between "half-true" and "mostly-true" (+5).  Reducing the "Pants-on-fire" weighting to -10 still leaves Senator McCain at sub-zero levels.

There you have it... Yes, all politicians stretch the truth or exaggerate; but of the two Presidential candidates currently running, one has been much more truthful than the other.  And it is not the one claiming honor and integrity as his cornerstone.  Surprise, surprise.

Sarah Palin: lying already

When Governor Palin proudly proclaimed in her acceptance speech that she told Congress "Thanks, but no thanks" about funds for the Bridge to Nowhere, she was being less than truthful. Mudflats, a blog out of Alaska, quotes the Ketchikan Daily News (via dkos, I think):

“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 and that she ‘would not stand in the way of the progress toward that bridge’.
8-8-06

‘We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that’s so negative,’ Palin said.”
Ketchikan Daily News 9-28-06

[Ketchikan is the sparsely-populated destination of the Bridge.]

A report from the Anchorage Daily News (via Mudflats) also has a Ketchikan campaigner for Palin's gubernatorial run, Mike Elerding, saying he would not vote for the McCain/Palin ticket "because of Palin's subsequent neglect of Ketchikan and and her flip-flop on the "Ralph Bartholomew Veterans Memorial Bridge.""

Sarah Palin: For the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it.
[Lifted from the ADN report!]

More: Slate's Timothy Noah points out that Alaska gets back $1.84 for each $1 it pays into the Federal Treasury, ably aided by the great Guv'nor, and other hypocrisies.

The best takedown of McCain's Britney-Paris-Elitism approach

Forget the TV talking heads and media pundits, most of who are too chicken to call John McCain's campaign for the lie-filled, gutter politics it is (honorable exceptions: Joe Klein, and this, via TPM; also Eugene Robinson, via Klein; and Andrea Mitchell on Landstuhl). Here's the best takedown of McCain's recent attacks:



Oh yeah.