McCain/Palin stretching the truth a bit?

[hendrikus1967]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080904/...cvn_fact_check

Very promising!

Must be written by a biased, democratic AP employee!?!

[ensbergcollector]

did you see an article like this come out after the DNC?

[hendrikus1967]

Did you?

[ensbergcollector]

we can agree to disagree. you will say it is because they didn't stretch the truth. I will say it is because the media wouldn't point it out.

not to mention, half of the things pointed out by the ap are skewed and half-stories.

[OnePimpTiger]

I don't know the details on all of those and I won't claim to or try to defend them, but a few of those "inaccuracies" aren't actually inaccurate.

PALIN: "The Democratic nominee for president supports plans to raise income taxes, raise payroll taxes, raise investment income taxes, raise the death tax, raise business taxes, and increase the tax burden on the American people by hundreds of billions of dollars."

THE FACTS: The Tax Policy Center, a think tank run jointly by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, concluded that Obama's plan would increase after-tax income for middle-income taxpayers by about 5 percent by 2012, or nearly $2,200 annually. McCain's plan, which cuts taxes across all income levels, would raise after tax-income for middle-income taxpayers by 3 percent, the center concluded.

Obama would provide $80 billion in tax breaks, mainly for poor workers and the elderly, including tripling the Earned Income Tax Credit for minimum-wage workers and higher credits for larger families.

He also would raise income taxes, capital gains and dividend taxes on the wealthiest. He would raise payroll taxes on taxpayers with incomes above $250,000, and he would raise corporate taxes. Small businesses that make more than $250,000 a year would see taxes rise.

The author is comparing apples and oranges. Palin didn't say anything about after tax income, she said taxes would be raised. So what she said is not inaccurate, as everything I've seen shows Obama will raise taxes, and the author is incorrectly claiming so. She also never said he would raise taxes on everyone, including the poor, so that part is not inaccurate. And I've seen articles showing his tax increases actually will start for people earning around $35,000 a year.

MCCAIN: "She's the commander of the Alaska National Guard. ... She has been in charge, and she has had national security as one of her primary responsibilities," he said on ABC.

THE FACTS: While governors are in charge of their state guard units, that authority ends whenever those units are called to actual military service. When guard units are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, for example, they assume those duties under "federal status," which means they report to the Defense Department, not their governors. Alaska's national guard units have a total of about 4,200 personnel, among the smallest of state guard organizations.

McCain did not say she has commanded national troops in battle situations. He merely said she is commander, has been in charge, and puts national security as a high priority. There is nothing incorrect about that statement.

FORMER MASSACHUSETTS GOV. MITT ROMNEY: "We need change, all right — change from a liberal Washington to a conservative Washington! We have a prescription for every American who wants change in Washington — throw out the big-government liberals, and elect John McCain and Sarah Palin."

THE FACTS: A Back-to-the-Future moment. George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, has been president for nearly eight years. And until last year, Republicans controlled Congress. Only since January 2007 have Democrats have been in charge of the House and Senate.

He didn't say we need to change from a Democratic president...he said we need to change from a liberal Washington. Liberals control the House and Senate, so I don't think that statement can be called inaccurate. He didn't say anything about the length of time Democrats have controlled anything, so that fact has no bearing on the claim...and length of time really has little to do with calling for change anyway since this Congress has the lowest approval rating ever.

Like I said, I don't know about most of the claims in the article and frankly don't have the time to look into...but calling a few of those stretching the truth is stretching the truth itself.

[RedGoneWILD]

I think we need a whole sub-forum just to tackle the issue of media bias! That seems to be all that's brought up anymore...

I'm sure Obama said some things that could've been pointed out in an article like this, but does that mean that this article deserves no consideration at all?

[tnopud42]

From Yahoo - http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080828/...cvn_fact_check

Seems they did examine Biden's speech.

[ensbergcollector]

I think we need a whole sub-forum just to tackle the issue of media bias! That seems to be all that's brought up anymore...

I'm sure Obama said some things that could've been pointed out in an article like this, but does that mean that this article deserves no consideration at all?

the article definately deserves consideration. However, it needs to be discussed as well that after the DNC there wasn't a front page Yahoo headline about his inaccuracies. And like OnePimp pointed out, half of what the article says is skewed and bias. That causes me to not want to discuss the other half. People can't write articles full of lies and a couple of truths and have people focus on the truths.

[ensbergcollector]

Now this I find funny. because the RNC "fact-check" is front page yahoo news with picture and everything, they decide it is only fair that they post the DNC "fact check."...1 week later! I know the article was written a week ago but anyone care to tell me why it wasn't front page news?


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080828/...n_fact_check_6

[hendrikus1967]

However, it needs to be discussed as well that after the DNC there wasn't a front page Yahoo headline about his inaccuracies.

Well, seems tnopud proved you wrong