Getting Facts Straight this Election Cycle
Candidates, especially those seeking the Presidency, are prone to spout off facts and figures that support their position and make their opponent look bad. How do we shift through all the BS and get right to the truth? For me, I turn to the researchers at FactCheck.org. Here is a summary of a recent item I just received from them following a recent debate between Clinton, Obama and Edwards:
In one of the liveliest debates of the 2008 presidential campaign, the three top Democrats slugged it out in Myrtle Beach, S.C. We noted some low blows:
- Clinton falsely accused Obama of saying he “really liked the ideas of the Republicans” including private Social Security accounts and deficit spending. Not true. The entire 49-minute interview to which she refers contains no endorsement of private Social Security accounts or deficit spending, and Obama specifically scorned GOP calls for tax cuts.
- Obama falsely denied endorsing single-payer government health insurance when he first ran for the Senate, saying, “I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer.” But in fact he gave a speech in 2003 saying, “I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer health care program.”
- Edwards misleadingly claimed, “I was the one who beat John McCain” in a recent CNN poll. The problem is that there is a more recent CNN poll, one that shows either Clinton or Obama beating McCain and doesn’t include Edwards.
FactCheck.org doesn’t leave it there — they dig deep into archives to find exact words and phrasing to illustrate exactly how a claim is taken out of context. They look at claims in advertising and are equally honest when it comes to Republicans as well. To see the full analysis of the above click here. Now if only we had a similar group for state and local elections.
The flip side is context. People in general, and many politicians, as well, do change their minds on specific nuances while remaining consistent on more general positions, especially when they learn more about an issue/become “better educated”. Politicians also face a lot of votes where they (need to) vote no on a specific bill (or amendment) in order to move a better bill (or amendment) forward. Being an incumbent and/or a “seasoned veteran” is a mixed blessing. On the positive side is name recognition and a track record. On the negative side is, potentially, the track record. A challenger, especially one with little or no public service, is able to parse the incumbent’s record and public statements and use their votes and quotes selectively against them, while not having to withstand the same scrutiny. Much like the flak Huckabee is getting over raising taxes in Arkansas, leadership is all about building consensus and making, at times, hard choices . . . that can come back to haunt you, especially when taken in isolation/out of context. Bottom line, it’s easy to nitpick words, but we need to remember that it’s results that count. And yes, locally, we need more transparency in how government works – the challenge isn’t the “spin”, it’s in the limited amount of information that actually gets “shared” and out to the public to consider . . .
Couldn’t have said it better myself, Jim. Excellent comment. The transparency in the local government will only come when the locals who are represented by those who are currently holding positions of power, and not only campaigning for these positions.
A current, local example of this problem is the proposed ½% increase in the local sales tax rate (to allegedly increase funding for the Police department), that (I think) we’ll be voting on in less than two weeks. Without addressing the pluses and minuses of supporting or opposing the measure, I find it “interesting” that there has been no apparent effort to educate the voters on why they should support a tax increase, or why they should oppose it. Apparently, the Mayor and the majority of the Aldermen agreed that a tax increase is needed, otherwise, it wouldn’t be on the ballot. Do they think that most voters will support it because funding the Police is inherently good and right? Do they assume (or know) that there will be no organized opposition? Do they think that voters will support an(y) increase in their taxes with no real explanation of why? Are they constrained, by law, from advocating for or against? Of even explaining why, in neutral terms? If so, why haven’t they enlisted surrogates to advocate for the increase? We seem to have a limitless ability to posture over racial issues and partisan divides that apparently go back generations, but we seem to be unable to discuss substantive changes in real time, be they tax increases or charter changes. The unfortunate outcome is simply more of the same . . .
How do we sexy up the civic issues that we should be paying the most attention to? Without venue for informing and then discussing (schools and workplaces to allocate time?) or even an official propoganda machine fanning the city’s flames we currently can’t do much.
Most other places have a media, print and/or broadcast, that’s always waiting for a “good” story. And most issues have some vested interest, like the police union here, that should be “spinning” the “why we should for it” side of the issue. “Requiring” discussion at work or school won’t work. Discussion already happens in those places every day, on issues that intrigue people or they care about, like sports. The problem here isn’t so much disinformation as a complete lack of information (fair or unfair, good or bad). I don’t know if it’s cultural or intentional, but I don’t like voters making knee-jerk decisions based on ballot language alone – there’ just too much that the language can’t and doesn’t cover.
agreed.
Very useful, thanx for the resource.