Wednesday, March 25, 2009

Reliable FactCheck.Org Dissects Obama's Tuesday Night News Conference

FactCheck.Org is a great website for accurate and nonpartisan reporting and information. Here's the organization's take on Obama's recent news conference:

He said his budget projections are based on economic assumptions that “are perfectly consistent with what Blue Chip forecasters out there are saying.” Not true. The average projection by leading private economists is now for substantially less economic growth than the administration’s forecast assumes.

He said he is reducing “nondefense discretionary spending” to less than it was under the past four presidents. Not true. His own forecast for the final budget of his four-year term puts this figure higher than in many years under Reagan, Clinton or either Bush.

He said he was “angry” about “inexcusable” bonuses paid to AIG executives. But he glossed over the fact that his own aides insisted on watering down a Senate-passed amendment that might have prevented payment of such bonuses.

He repeated that his budget is projected to cut the federal deficit in half by the end of his term. That’s true, but deficits also are projected to shoot up again later unless big policy changes are made.

Be sure to read the full analysis.


1950 Democrat said...

Is reliable on the birth certificate issue?

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

1950 Dem - Yes! I think the birth certificate issue is one of the oddest controversies. It has the feel of the "Clinton killed Vince Foster et al" stories.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said... isn't well known for their lack of bias.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Foxfier - During the presidential campaign, FactCheck got a very undeserved reputation for bias among conservatives. If you click the FactCheck link in Patterico's article, you will find very helpful and unbiased analysis. I am unconvinced by conservative arguments that FactCheck is biased. FactCheck has criticized candidates from both parties. It criticizes the Left and the Right.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

You're unconvinced they're biased; I'm unconvinced they're not.

Trying to be helpful here, since presumably you'd want to use a source that is agreed on generally as unbiased-- or biased in an opposite direction of the point it supports.

I'm glad if they're slowly recovering their prior reputation, but it will take years to rebuild trust-- what good is an "unbiased" source you have to double check on each topic?

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

Incidentally, the article linked by Patterico seems to have not changed-- it still holds that "actually contrary to what he has said throughout his campaign" is somehow proof that it's wrong to call him on his prior actions.

If a Politician saying something while he's running for office proves more than his actual actions before running, our politicians must be some of the most perfect creatures in existence.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Foxfier - even websites with the best intentions and honest efforts are accused of bias. Despite the numerous essays on this blog criticizing Democrats and liberals, some people have accused me of being a biased liberal.

With respect to FactCheck, the only thing you cite as evidence that the organization is biased is one article it published on the NRA's anti-Obama ads. Most political ads distort the truth. FactCheck has devoted numerous essays to dissecting political ads by ALL candidates and political groups.

I disagree with your description of the FactCheck article you cite, and the Patterico article does not change my opinion at all. You and Patterico wrongly state that FactCheck's arguments about Obama's position on guns come exclusively from what he said "while . . . running for office" rather than "his actual actions before running." If you actually read the essay, you should quickly discover that falsity of that claim. Instead, FactCheck's analysis is based on campaign statements and Obama's voting record with respect to guns.

I completely believe in criticizing politicians. But I believe in REAL criticism, not puffery. The NRA's arguments seem to "spin" Obama's record, rather than stating it accurately. This is why FactCheck responded. It has done the same with respect to Obama's "spin" as well.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

I hardly expect you to agree with me, but I thought you should at least know your unbiased source was not universally agreed so; you are not moved by Patterico's article, I am not moved by FC.O's article or the defenses of it.

If citing actions with supporting evidence in a clean format isn't "REAL criticism" enough for you, fine. If you'd like to lump a well argued article with someone dropping by the combox and leaving a "ur a lubtard!!!11!1" note, fine.

When you are-- presumably-- trying to change minds, it's generally useful to argue from shared ground, rather than to add in battles.

Darren Lenard Hutchinson said...

Foxfier - on the narrow issue of you stating that FactCheck refused to consider Obama's actions on gun control prior to his campaign, you misstated the content of the article. I am not trying to change your mind, but perhaps you could take a look at the article, and admit that you are mischaracterizing it.

I do know that a lot of very conservative types think FactCheck is biased, but they do not offer much to prove this. A lot of Democrats think that the media was not biased towards Obama, but they are lying too.

Foxfier, formerly Sailorette said...

I quoted their characterization of their own article-- right there, first few paras.

Anonymous said... is NOT reliable, NOT nonpartisan, TOTALLY owned by the Annenberg Foundation, and are totally in the tank for Obama.

The Annenberg Foundation created the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from a $500 million grant: the largest single gift ever made to American public education.

Barack Obama and William Ayers, the unrepentant domestic terrorist and leader of the Weatherman Underground, were on the Board of Directors from 1995-2001, and Obama was the Chairman from 1995-1999.

So, NO, Factcheck's agenda has always been to cover up and lie for Obama. Sure, they toss in a few negatives about him, but nothing of any substance.

Real Time Analytics