Live Fact Check
Saint Anselm College Presidential Debates
We assembled a team of crack fact checkers to truth squad the Republican and Democratic debates at Saint Anselm College in Manchester, and call the candidates out for any inaccuracies. Environmental reporter Juliet Eilperin was sitting next to me in the media filing center. She is also an expert on Congress, having covered it all her life. We were joined in Washington by John Solomon, a veteran political reporter for the Associated Press and now the Post, and diplomatic reporter Glenn Kessler. Prior to the foreign policy beat, Glenn covered economics. I was a foreign correspondent for the Post for more than a decade, and also covered education, so I hope we will be able to weigh in quickly on most factual disputes.
Backing us up In Washington were ace researcher Alice Crites and editor Steve Ginsberg. Since this was a live fact check, we are not going to issue any definitive rulings this evening. Our aim was more modest--to flag questionable statements and contribute to a more informed discussion.
--Michael Dobbs
Bush taxcuts.
10:43 p.m.
Hillary Clinton said that George Bush's tax cuts benefited the wealthiest Americans. This is correct, since Bush cut marginal tax rates. However, such a charge lacks context. The wealthiest Americans pay a lion's share of non-Social Security taxes. The 400 wealthiest taxpayers pay about as much in federal income taxes as more than 40 million individuals and families at the bottom of the income scale, according to Internal Revenue Service data. The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more than 30 percent of the taxes, which is why 30 percent of Bush's tax cuts went to the top one percent.
--Glenn Kessler
Cap and Trade
10:41 p.m.
Richardson argued that a carbon tax would raise prices and take money out of the economy, as opposed to a cap and trade bill. The fact is both approaches will make energy more expensive, because they will increase the cost of generating that energy. The two approaches distribute the costs of producing cleaner energy differently, but they will both boost the cost of heating and lighting American homes by compelling energy producers to either install new technology or buy credits to compensate for the greenhouse gas emissions they emit into the atmosphere.
--Juliet Eilperin
Clinton Strategy
10:08 p.m.
The Clinton campaign came to this debate loaded for bear. No sooner had Clinton accused Obama of flip-flopping on funding for the Iraq war, health care, and the Patriot Act, her spokesman Phil Singer emailed reporters with factual backup for the New York senator's charges. Here is a sample from the press release on the the Iraq War:
"As a Senate candidate in November 2003, Obama said he would have 'unequivocally' voted against war funding because it was the only way to oppose Bush on Iraq:"
"Just this week, when I was asked, would I have voted for the $87 billion dollars, I said 'no.' I said no unequivocally because, at a certain point, we have to say no to George Bush. If we keep on getting steamrolled, we are not going to stand a chance." [Obama remarks, New Trier Democratic Organization forum, 11/16/03 .]
"But until he ran for president, Obama supported every funding bill for Iraq."
[The campaign goes on to list a long series of Obama votes.]
--Michael Dobbs
Richardson and North Korea
10:04 p.m.
"I've gone head-to-head with the North Koreans. We got the remains of soldiers back. We persuaded them to reduce their nuclear weapons." --Bill Richardson
Richardson consistently inflates his experience with North Korea, and this is another exaggeration. As U.N. ambassador, Richardson secured the release of an American held in North Korea and more recently he traveled to Pyongyang to retrieve the remains of U.S. troops lost during the Korean War. But his trip was largely unrelated to the recent six-nation agreement in which North Korea agreed to give up its nuclear weapons. (A White House official was assigned to accompany Richardson to Pyongyang and held some low-level talks with North Korean officials, but the deal had already been struck months earlier.) Moreover, the North Korea deal is now on the rocks. North Korea has shut down a nuclear plant, but it has not yet disclosed the full extent of its programs, let alone reduce its stockpile of nuclear material.
--Glenn Kessler
Health Care Spending
9:50 p.m.
Obama claimed that the United States spends twice as much as any other industrialized nation when it comes to health care. While it is true that in per capita terms, the United States spends more than most nations on health care, its rate of spending does not double that of several Western nations.
According to a January 2007 study by the Kaiser Family Foundation, the United States spent $5,711 per person on health care followed by Luxembourg at $4,611, Switzerland at $3847 and Norway at $3,769.
--John Solomon
Obama and War Funds
9:48 p.m.
Hillary Clinton attacked Obama for saying he was against funding the Iraq war even though he voted to spend $300 million on it. Obama was not in the Senate when the vote to authorize an attack against Iraq took place; Clinton was in the Senate in 2002 and voted for the war resolution. The Clinton campaign has noted that Obama, as a Senate candidate in 2003, said he would oppose a vote then on the floor of the Senate to fund $86 billion for the war. Since joining the Senate, Obama has said that despite his opposition to the war, he would support funding for the troops already on the ground. But Clinton also voted for the same funds that Obama did.
--Glenn Kessler
Health Insurance for National Guard Members
9:45 p.m.
Clinton seems to be exaggerating her accomplishments in getting health insurance for National Guard members in New Hampshire and elsewhere. She has made the same boast in ads that are now running in New Hampshire. My fellow fact checkers at Factcheck.org have already looked into this. Their conclusion: "Active-duty Guard and Reserve troops already were covered by federal insurance, and four out of five non-active-duty guardsmen and reservists already were covered by their civilian employers or other sources. Clinton did help expand and enhance health care coverage for reservists but can't claim credit for creating coverage where none existed."
--Michael Dobbs
Non-Proliferation
9:28 p.m.
The Democratic debate seems more sedate than the Republican debate. The candidates are attacking each other less, and making fewer errors as a result. However, Sen. Barack Obama has just suggested that the nuclear non-proliferation treaty "fell apart" under the Bush administration. There have certainly been a lot of reverses over the last seven years, particularly on North Korea, but things weren't great under Clinton. It was under Clinton, after all, that India and Pakistan both tested nuclear weapons, which put a huge hole in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty.
--Michael Dobbs
On to the Democrats
9:05 p.m.
OK, here we go again with the Democrats, again on foreign policy. We could not get to all the questionable statements made by the Republicans, such as the clash between Romney and Huckabee over the surge and withdrawal, but we will come back to them over the next day or so.
Stay tuned!
--Michael Dobbs
Obama's Health Care Plan
9:53 p.m.
During an exchange on energy dependence, several of the Republicans tied oil imports to terrorism. Mike Huckabee suggested each time an Ameican filled up with gas it could fund terrorism. "Every time we swipe our credit card in the gas pump, we might as well be sending a check over to the madrassas that are training the terrorists." John McCain said that some oil money "will end up in the hands of terrorist organizations "
In fact, three of the largest sources of imported oil for the United States are non-Muslim countries with no ties to terrorism: Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the top sources of U.S. oil imports last year were: 1) Canada, 2) Saudi Arabia, 3) Mexico, 4) Venezuela, 5) Nigeria, 6) Iraq.
--John Solomon
Obama's Health Care Plan
8:34 p.m.
Mitt Romney is correct when he claims that Obama's health care plan will cost billions of new money. By the estimates of the Obama campaign, his plan will cost in the region of $50-$65 billion, to be paid for by ending tax cuts for Americans making more than $250,000 a year.
Romney was stretching the truth, however, when he insisted that his own health care plan in Massachusetts involved "no new money." Jason Furman of the Brookings Institution points out that the plan will be funded in part by $385 million in excess Medicaid payments that Massachusetts is now being permitted to keep.
--Michael Dobbs
McCain and Rumsfeld
8:50 p.m.
McCain boasted how he went public to declare he had no confidence in Bush's first Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for his handling of the Iraq war. But McCain didn't hold that position for most of Bush's first term. He finally came out with his "no confidence" comment in December 2004--well after the presidential election that saw Bush win a second term.
--John Solomon
Obama's Health Care Plan
8:32 p.m.
Barack Obama "wants the government to take over health care."
--Mitt Romney.
Nonsense. Obama's health care plan is arguably less radical than the one that Mitt Romney introduced in Massachusetts while he was governor. Obama has got into trouble with his fellow Democrats for not including an individual mandate in his health care plan, similar to the one that Romney introduced in Massachusetts. Obama has focused on bringing the price of health care down--not introducing government-run health care.
--Michael Dobbs
McCain's Immigration PLan
8:30 p.m.
John McCain and Mitt Romney just had a tussle about what Romney said about McCain's immigration plan two years ago. Romney is now attacking the plan as allowing amnesty for illegal immigrants--though in the debate he acknowledged it was not "technically" amnesty--but here is what he said about McCain's plan in November 2005, courtesy of the Boston Globe.
In an interview with the Globe, Romney described immigration proposals by McCain and others as "quite different" from amnesty, because they required illegal immigrants to register with the government, work for years, pay taxes, not take public benefits, and pay a fine before applying for citizenship.
"That's very different than amnesty, where you literally say, 'OK, everybody here gets to stay,' " Romney said in the interview. "It's saying you could work your way into becoming a legal resident of the country by working here without taking benefits and then applying and then paying a fine."
Romney did not specifically endorse McCain's bill, saying he had not yet formulated a full position on immigration. But he did speak approvingly of efforts by McCain and Bush to solve the nation's immigration crisis, calling them "reasonable proposals."
Romney also said in the interview that it was not "practical or economic for the country" to deport the estimated 12 million immigrants living in the U.S. illegally. "These people contribute in many cases to our economy and to our society," he said. "In some cases, they do not. But that's a whole group we're going to have to determine how to deal with."
--Glenn Kessler
Islamic Terrorism and U.S. Foreign Policy
8:15 p.m.
"There's an Islamic terrorism threat against us. It's an existential threat. It has nothing to do with our foreign policy."
--Rudy Giuliani
That may be how Giuliani sees it, but it is definitely not how Osama Bin Laden views the matter. It may be true that he detests America for its "freedom," as Giuliani and President Bush have claimed, but he has made clear in his public pronouncements that U.S. foreign policy is central to appeal for Islamic Jihad. In his first public statement, "A Declaration of War Against the Americans," issued in 1996, Bin Laden announced he was fighting U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and in particular U.S. support for the House of Saud and the state of Israel.
In his interviews and public declarations, Bin Laden repeatedly attacked the deployment of U.S. troops in his homeland Saudi Arabia, which he regarded as an assault against Islamic religion.
As Washington Post foreign correspondent Craig Whitlock reported in November 2004, Bin Laden's "underlying message" has remained consistent over the years: "Americans have repeatedly humiliated Muslims with a foreign policy that has propped up corrupt governments in the Middle East and perpetuated conflict in the region. Until you prevail on your government to stop, we will strike back."
Sounds like U.S. foreign policy does have something to do with his war against the United States, at least in his own mind and the mind of his supporters.
--Michael Dobbs
Hillary Care
8:00 p.m.
"We don't need Hillary care or socialized medicine"
--Mitt Romney
Romney praised the health care plan that he introduced as governor of Massachusetts for insuring hundreds of thousands of previously uninsured citizens. He proceeded to attack Hillary Clinton's health care plan, which is very similar to the plan that he introduced in Massachusetts while he was governor. Both plans include an individual mandate obliging tax payers to take out health insurance.
The former Massachusetts governor said that his plan would lead to everybody being insured in the state. In fact, several hundred thousand Massachusetts residents were still uninsured when the mandate came into force at the beginning of this year.
--Michael Dobbs
400,000 Troops?
7:50 p.m.
Fireworks right from the start on foreign policy, with clashes between Paul, Huckabee, Giuliani, and Romney. They can't all be right. We are checking Huckabee's statement that the Defense Department said that "we would need 400,000 troops to successfully bring stability to Iraq." Not sure where he got the figure of 400,000 from. The army chief of staff, Gen. Shinseki, was roundly criticized by Bush administration officials when he argued that "several hundred thousand soldiers" would be required to stabilize the country after the invasion, but did not mention a specific figure.
--Michael Dobbs
Giuliani Stretches Military Cuts
7:45 p.m.
"Bill Clinton cut the military drastically. It was called the peace dividend, one of those nice-sounding phrases: very devastating. It was a 25, 30 percent cut in the military."
--Rudy Giuliani
Giuliani accused former President Bill Clinton of reducing the size of the military by "25-30 percent" under a policy known as the "peace dividend." Giuliani's statement was a slight exaggeration. Pentagon figures show that when Clinton took office at the start of 1992, the combined active duty military personnel totaled 1.79 million. When Clinton departed eight years later, there were 1.4 million. That amounts to a decline of 21.8 percent.
But his comment ignores the fact that Clinton continued a policy that was originally implemented by President Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, and broadly supported by both parties after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In fact, the former President Bush bragged about how much he had cut the military in his 1992 State of the Union address: "After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. . . The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."
Or as then Defense Secretary Dick Cheney boasted at the time: "We will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion. That's the peace dividend. . . And now we're adding to that another $50 billion . . . of so-called peace dividend."
--Glenn Kessler
Posted on January 5, 2008 at 10:44 PM ET
| Category:
Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Economy, Health, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Immigration, Iraq, John Edwards, John McCain, Live Fact Check, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Other Foreign Policy, Rudy Giuliani, Social Issues
Share This:
Technorati |
Tag in Del.icio.us |
Digg This |
What Are These Links?
Previous: Fact Checker Hits the Road |
Next: NH: One Day to Go
Posted by: Jason | January 5, 2008 8:08 PM
It amazes me how little understanding Republicans have of our health care problems. They all say that the free market is the solution... but the free market is the problem. When insurers drop people because the cost of their treatment is too expensive, that's the free market. When an insurer denies coverage because of a pre-existing condition, that's the free market. When the state of Maine - hardly a densely populated state - has more MRI machines than the entire country of Canada, we all pay for that overhead... yes, the free market once again. And if my wife needs surgery again, what am I supposed to do? Go shopping for the CHEAPEST surgeon???? Do they really think I'm stupid enough to think that I will think twice about bringing my wife to the emergency room because of the costs? Do they think we're dumb enough to think that a savings account is the answer?
Health care is not a free market commodity in the traditional sense. This is why Republicans are out of touch with this issue. They are locked in a utopian vision mindset that would make any college aged Marxist blush. The Republican health care plan is simple: don't get sick, and think twice about going to a doctor if you do. They pay no mind to the fact that catastropic care - which is needed when you forgo preventive care - is so much more expensive than preventive care. Americans aren't going to the doctor too much... they're going too little!
One last thing. In the debate tonight, some of the Repubs spoke of preventive care as some kind of uniquely American individualistic principle. Again, wrong... all of the other industrial countries that offer universal health care plans of one kind or another all place preventive care as the centerpiece of their system. That makes it affordable. Duh! Republicans, hire some new health care consultants! Use your brains! You have NO idea what you're talking about!!!
Posted by: Milo Janus | January 5, 2008 8:24 PM
I love how Romney tells the other candidates he "can do without the personal attacks" yet those are the only kind of commercials he's been making...please, Mitt, please!!!
Posted by: Lee | January 5, 2008 8:35 PM
I appreciate this column: out all the colums I have read, this one bytes the bullet.
Posted by: jbvoter | January 5, 2008 9:02 PM
Milo's post about health care in this country is right on the money. We spend more per capita on health care than any other industrialized country in the world, but we are far down the list when it comes to things like infant mortality and longevity. This so-called free market is not not giving us value for our dollar. The whole system is broken and needs major reform.
As far as I am concerned none of the candidates go far enough in addressing this very serious issue.
Posted by: Ellen L | January 5, 2008 9:22 PM
Fact checking is the most minimal of critical levels of review. Who is really able to lead the nation as President. We keep getting dummies as President because journalists think its all about facts and minutae instead of whether someone is able to lead. As far as I am concerned not one of the Republicans, with the possible exception of Huckerbe,shows any signs of being a real leader.
Posted by: Paul Nolan | January 5, 2008 9:30 PM
Didnt huckabee say something about all 50 states signing the declaration of independence.
did we HAVE 50 states back then?
Posted by: tabmasterflash | January 5, 2008 9:47 PM
Can you do fact checking on Charlie Gibson?
Posted by: Scott Hettinger | January 5, 2008 10:30 PM
New Hampshire Democratic Debate Winner
Who won the ABC Democratic Debate in New Hampshire?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1451
.
Posted by: PollM | January 5, 2008 10:40 PM
If there are two professors at St. Anselm who make $100,000 collectively I would be extremely surprised. Gibson has no idea. Only a miniscule number of NH families earn $200,000 even with both working. In fact, few earn $100,000. Much of the state is poor, especially in the North Country where paper mills continue to close down.
Posted by: Mary Ellen Hettinger | January 5, 2008 10:43 PM
Hillary is propagating a selective list of Obama's votes around the internet to try to claim there is no difference between them.
The differences are actually quite large. This would be a good fact check, but it takes more work than can be done on the fly.
Hillary has always been willing to go to war.
In the White House, the administration turned to Hillary to give Bill backbone when he was hesitant to use military force.
On Iraq, she didn't bother to read the intelligence, but Obama had the right insight and judgement that has been repeated several times where Hillary has been proven wrong.
Both Hillary and Obama has been voting to fund the war, I don't think any Democrat is willing to play a game of chicken with Bush over the troops.
A 2006 Washington Post article has Hillary drumming for war against Iran harder than Bush.
Obama and Clinton have sponsored very different bills for troop extradition, Obama's has a tigher timeline.
Hillary has said she would keep troop in to protect "American interests". Does that mean oil?
A vote was held to tie Iraq funding to a schedule of troop extradition. It passed 80-14 and was vetoed by Bush. Clinton was the ONLY Democrat to vote against it. Clinton has now voted for Iran.
They are different in other respects as well. Obama would meet with foreign leaders without preset conditions; after calling Obama naive and inexperienced, Hillary has now adopted this policy because it is supported by political studies.
Hillary supports torture, even though it's against the Geneve Conventions, and has ridiculed Obama for expressing support for gun control and against the death penalty.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/01/on-second-thoug.html
Posted by: Kiku | January 5, 2008 11:23 PM
I don't know if circular campaigning is considered worthy of fact checking, but Hillary did something close to it.
Earlier, she release to the press a set of comments criticizing Barack. Then, during the debate, she quoted the article as an independent article for it's criticisms. Barack called her on it.
Posted by: Kiku | January 5, 2008 11:26 PM
More subtly, Hillary used her line that words don't matter, they have to be backed up by hard work every day.
Obama retored beautifully, he said that words do matter, because words inspire people, they pull people together, they unite people to work to change. Change cannot happen while people are divided.
Posted by: Kiku | January 5, 2008 11:31 PM
Hey Post this is great! The press should do this for all important political events, including the State of the Union. Help save our democracy from further decline.
Posted by: Steve | January 5, 2008 11:35 PM
Hillary sensed her time is running out and she started acting out of desperation. Poor Hillary
Posted by: hoalu | January 5, 2008 11:40 PM
Tax cuts: What do you mean it " lacks context"? The Bush tax cuts mainly helped the the wealthiest Americans, period. By the way, when they make the determination about who is paying the taxes, I don't believe they include payroll taxes, although the money raised by payroll taxes are treated as general revenue just like any other taxes. You kind of sounded like the Wall Street Journal.
Posted by: rj2z J. Tewes | January 5, 2008 11:58 PM
Dear Fact Check,
I'm torn between Edwards and Obama. Can you look into the Hil-lie-ary Clinton claim that Barack Obama's chief NH politico is a lobbyist for pharma? If its true, I'll probably re-think my choice.
Thanks,
Matthew
Posted by: Matthew | January 6, 2008 12:10 AM
TO tabmasterflash (above) - Huckabee said something about 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence - not states.
Posted by: Susie | January 6, 2008 12:12 AM
Great idea to fact check the debates. Clinton never sounded desperate. She was aggressive, assertive, specific and strong.
Posted by: rdklingus | January 6, 2008 12:18 AM
Glenn Kessler must feel like Fact Checker needs some White House spin. What do you mean Clinton's comment "lacks context"? Clinton's comment is true,'nuff said. Stick to fact checking and leave the spin to the White House.
The Bush administration defended the cuts by saying the wealthy pay more taxes so they get more back with a tax cut. They say this as if it had to be the case. We could have had an across the board rebate or a FICA cut.
Bush could have cut taxes to benefit the less well off, but he didn't. His taxes benefited the rich more. Those are the facts. Stick to them.
Posted by: W | January 6, 2008 12:28 AM
Kessler's spin on regressive tax cuts is an irrelevant distraction from the sorry truth that revenue returned to the uber-rich is typically gambled away on investments, increasingly foreign, that potentially hurt America, whereas, in utter contrast, revenue returned to the middle class and poor is invariably saved or spent in America on mortgages and other domestic goods that increase our GNP. It's also true that the very rich derive far, far greater financial benefit from federal expenditures, so it's only right they pay for it.
Posted by: jhbyer | January 6, 2008 12:31 AM
Hillary used the gender card again tonight. But I've never heard Obama use the race card - has he?
Notice, there are no fact-checks about what Ron Paul says. That's because he only speaks the truth and everyone knows it!
Posted by: frogolicious | January 6, 2008 12:41 AM
The Democrats want to pull our troops out of Iraq. Hello!? If you pull the troops out of Iraq then Iraq will have no air force. No air force = a failed state. A failed state = a distabalized Iraq. Do any of you realize what would happen if Iraq government fails??!! If Iraq fails then the terrorists will take over creating a crisis in the middle east. Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, Jurusalem, Syria, Eqypt, and etc. will be pulled into a vacuum of dispair. Pakistan's nuculear weapons would fall into terrorist hands and introduction WWIII. WWIII means a fate far worse then simply staying in Iraq.
Now I was against the Iraq war but we can't leave yet. We should draw down and pull our troops back to a back-up role. Allow our air force to reinforce the Iraq military.
Next, free-market principles are the way too go with health care. Many of you don't understand economics and therefore don't realize how free-trade and privatization has given you the prosperity you enjoy. If we switch to a social health care system then the drug companies would scale back on research and development. This means we would fail to keep pace with new disease. The countries in the world who have social health care sustain thier systems by stealing US drug patents and making generic versions to US objection.
A point the democrats made I agree with is fixing the problem of lobbyists. This is a vacuum which steals stockholder money.
Did anybody notice the unfair democrat advantage in the debate? The democrats got to go second. Also, they had less candidates allowing more talk time. Lastly, the facebook system was a good idea but COME ON! Facebook is dominated by the under 30 age group! Very scewed information!
Posted by: Matt Maniac | January 6, 2008 12:41 AM
MILO JANUS, thank you for the bottom-line of fundamental truths essential to a constructive debate too long prevented by health care myths and GOP phobias.
Posted by: Anonymous | January 6, 2008 1:08 AM
PLEASE PROVIDE REFERENCES FOR ALL YOUR FACT CHECKS! With links if it all possible. Are we just supposed to take your word for it?
Posted by: Economist for Obama | January 6, 2008 1:09 AM
Wow, some of these so-called "fact checking" comments are misleading. Several items:
1) Glenn Kessler seems to offer an editorial comment on Bush's tax breaks-
"The top 1 percent of taxpayers pay more than 30 percent of the taxes, which is why 30 percent of Bush's tax cuts went to the top one percent."
In other words, the top 1% had a greater per capita reduction in total dollars. The tax break could have been written so that would not have occurred. Kessler seems to be offering the logical underpinnings for Bush's policy.
2) Michael Dobbs on accuracy of Dems-- "The candidates are attacking each other less, and making fewer errors as a result."
That's an assumption. Maybe the Dems are just more informed candidates.
3) John Solomon on Huckaby's imported oil comments: "In fact, three of the largest sources of imported oil for the United States are non-Muslim countries with no ties to terrorism."
Then you list Saudi Arabia as our #2 source of imported oil. Uh, last time I checked Saudi Arabia was a Muslim nation where most of the 9/11 terrorists came from.
Posted by: Factchecking factchecker | January 6, 2008 1:22 AM
I posted my remarks on NYT and i guess i post them again here. First, let me say that i like Obama a lot. Haven't seen one like him in a long long time. However, whenever i think rationally about the likelihood of winning the presidential elections in 11/08, i cannot see him defeating McCain. And y'll saw/listened tonight to what McCain said about Obama and his detrimental lack of foreign policy. And please do not point out to me the recent national polls in which Obama defeats McCain. At this point of the race, those polls are totally irrelevant. Again, I really do not think that the American people would elect someone with one year of experience in the Senate.
Let us visualized this for one moment. On one side you have McCain: a decorated war hero, 20 years of experience in the federal government, very honorable, respected by almost everyone, very tough on earmarks and wasteful spending, outspoken and early critic of the Bush administration and the war effort, called for the resignation of Rumsfeld, called for the surge (which some argues that it is working), darling of the independents, and so forth. On the other side, you have Obama who has a very light resume but has charisma and offer hope, which is, let's face it, something that is very intangible. Sure, the Bush administration has been a disaster and in 08 the pendulum is most likely going to swing to the other side, but i don't think, given the choice, that the American people would chose Obama over McCain.
And please guys, refrain from comparing Obama to JFK because it is not intellectually honest. I am old enough (i was 10 years old when JFK was assassinated)to remember JFK and to remember his 1960 win. JFK had a very impressive resume. He was a lieutenant and commanded a patrol torpedo boat in WWII, earned the navy and Marine Corps medal and a purple heart for his services, got elected to the House in 1946 and to the Senate in 1952 before he ran for president in 1960. It is true that Obama has the same X factor that JFK had, but that's where the comparison ends.
Anyway, i guess i am one of those undecided and i am just talking/thinking out loud, though i liked what Hillary said to night.
Posted by: Stephen | January 6, 2008 1:51 AM
Let me offer a factual criticism of Mr. Kessler's "fact check", because he repeated a political defense of the Bush tax cuts but made it worse by using flawed math.
By saying that "30 percent of Bush's tax cuts went to the top one percent" and saying that that that one percent pays more than 30 percent of the income taxes, you imply that everyone received a proportional tax cut. But that's simply not the case -- a huge proportion of the population received no tax cut at all, particularly when payroll taxes are included.
I know Glenn knows better, but I also know that the vast majority of the people you have interviewed over the years as a business reporter fall into that one percent -- so you need to be careful about the bias here.
I've just come from door-to-door canvassing for my preferred candidate, reminding me again how most people live and how far removed reality is from the way the American lifestyle is depicted in the media.
Posted by: CL | January 6, 2008 2:27 AM
We have written some criticisms here:
http://econ4obama.blogspot.com/2008/01/fact-checking-wp-debate-fact-checkers.html
Posted by: Economists for Obama | January 6, 2008 2:30 AM
After WP is an organization where those who can disseminate dishonesty, lies, untruths, falsehoods & Josef Goebbels Nazi like propaganda flourish. Honest, & Truthful people are unable to get into WP. Why? Because Honesty & Truthfulness are attributes disdained at WP.
GOD is watching you WP.
WP Liars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: WPLiars@WPLiars.com | January 6, 2008 2:48 AM
Another classic Hilary moment was when she referred to Musharraf as an "elected" leader. He wasn't. He came to power originally via a coup -- he then "won" an election that most opposition parties sat out because of concerns that the vote would be rigged (as it was).
Contrast this with Richardson's unequivocal declaration that Musharraf needed to go, and that our best bet was with the Pakistani people and an interim care-taker government as provided under the Pakistani constitution.
When Clinton talks about how she is for "change" her discussion of Pakistan didn't reveal any clear distinction between her position and that of Bush's current policy vis a vis Pakistan (Bush referred to Musharraf as a friend of the democratic process; Hilary says as much implicitly by emphasizing that Musharraf is an "elected" leader).
I think it's fair to look at HRC's statement from the perspective of it being a "noble" lie. e.g. That people can't handle the truth, but sometimes you tell a lie in the hope that a more palatable truth will emerge later.
Based on the Bush experience, this kind of slipperiness with the truth though seems to produce dangerous foreign policy (and given HRC's track record on foreign policy questions I would be very reluctant to "trust" her underlying judgment when she lies to me).
Richardson's statement and that of the other Democratic leaders was much more consistent with the factual reality.
HRC's statement:
"Real quickly, thirdly, so far as we know right now, the nuclear technology is considered secure, but there isn't any guarantee, especially given the political turmoil going on inside Pakistan. I would work very hard to try to get Musharraf, who is the elected president -- these elections are about parliamentary positions. If you remove Musharraf and have elections, it's going to be very difficult for the United States to be able to control what comes next. I would try to get Musharraf to share the security responsibility of the nuclear weapons with a delegation from the United States and perhaps Great Britain so that there is some failsafe."
Posted by: JP2 | January 6, 2008 4:12 AM
In the NH Republican debate on Jan 5, Rudy said, "...If we don't make this a major program, led by the president of the United States, the way Eisenhower started the program to put a man on the moon and then Kennedy followed..." Did Ike start the program to put a man on the moon -- or just start the U.S. space program in general? Has JFK been wrongly credited as the initiator of the moon program all these years? Or this this another of Rudy's misstatements?
Posted by: Hal | January 6, 2008 5:01 AM
I have a question about government supplied health care instead of the free market. Jason, what happens if your wife does need surgery, but the doctor tells her that she has to be put on a waiting list because he is backed up because government funded health care has laid off the majority of doctors who specialize in her kind of treatment? What else happens when the government raises taxes so high that you do not have the gas money to even take her to the doctor?
Posted by: Michael | January 6, 2008 5:50 AM
I have seen re-plays of Gen. Shinseki's statement, and I believe that when askes about the number of troops needed in an invasion of Iraq he did say "something in the nature of 300,000 to 400,000".
Posted by: Tom | January 6, 2008 7:52 AM
The #1 cause of injury, disability, and DEATH in America is, Health Care. More people die now from contact with the American Medical Health Care system than from any other cause of death. More than from Cancer, Heart disease, or Stroke. More than any other country in the world. Many times more than any other people in the world. Contact with the American medical health care system is the #1 risk factor now for injury, disability, and premature DEATH in America. This fact is a catastrophic indictment of the entire US Health Care System.
Driven by greed. And a rush to profit. Thousands of Americans are killed, and injured daily in America. By compromised health care. Cutting corners. Over, and under treatments. And poisonings with all manor of toxic, poisonous pharmaceuticals. Especially the children. America only makes up 2-4% of the world population. But Americans buy, and consume 50% of all pharmaceuticals world wide.
This is an emergency. America is in a crisis. And more Americans have died from this health care crisis than have died in all the wars in US history.
But the tide has turned. And the message is getting out. And taking hold about the fact that we have a very serious, and major health care crisis going on in America. Hurting everyone. Especially our precious little children. Rich, and poor alike. And most all Americans seem to understand now that "HR 676 Not For Profit Single Payer Universal National Health Care For All (Medicare For All)" is the way to go. Like all the other developed countries have done. Americans want government managed, tax payer supported health care Now. Medicare for all. Like other developed countries have. And like older Americans have now. Accept no substitute.
I am sick and tired of hearing how the candidates, and politicians health care plans are going to protect, and preserve the private for profit health insurance companies that have been killing, and ripping off the American people. And now the politicians want to mandate (require) that every American has to support the private for profit insurance company's that have been killing, and ripping you off. Or you will be fined, and PENALIZED. Thats right. PENALIZED. Ridiculous! The politicians really think you are all detached idiots. CASH COWS! To lead to the slaughter. Don't put up with that.
Just look at what is already happening with Massachusetts insurance mandates. It's a catastrophe. Financially, and medically for all the people of Massachusetts. And the private insurance companies just raised their rates by as much as 16%. And everyone has to pay now. It's a slaughter.
It's NOW TIME to bring out the BIG GUNS!! The BIG GUNS!! are you. The American people. And anyone else that wants to help. From now until HR 676 is passed into law. I want every person to reach out and touch their fellow Americans every day if you can. I want you to take a phone book. And call at least one of your fellow Americans every day. And ask them to pickup the sword of HR 676 Single Payer Not For Profit Universal Health Care For All (Medicare For All).
Call more than one each day if you can. And ask them to do the same as you are doing if they can. And also to put maximum pressure on their politicians to get HR 676 done. And to make sure their politicians support HR 676. Accept no substitute. HR 676 is a no-brainer. It's the best way to go on health care. It's the only moral, and ethical way to go. That is why every other developed country has done it. Most did it years ago. See sickocure.org, and http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm
I know that many of you have been doing a fabulous job of spreading the word by talking it up with family, friends, and co-workers. And putting pressure on the politicians to get HR 676 done ASAP. The phone calls to your fellow Americans will increase the pressure. And increase momentum for HR 676 at an astonishing, and exponential rate. And I know many of you have been wanting to do something more to help. The phone calls to your fellow Americans is something you can do every day to help.
Trust me. It will be something to see. But you have to keep the focus, and pressure on getting HR 676 passed pronto. They will try to distract you. With all manor of other crises, and catastrophes. And other plans. Don't be distracted. HR 676 Single Payer Not For Profit Universal Health Care is the #1 concern of the American people. Thousands of Americans are dieing daily now. And you or your loved ones could be next.
There is no good reason HR 676 cannot be passed into law well before the coming elections. And SCHIP should have been passed by now. Even if it was for 3x the 35 billion congress ask for. Do not tolerate delays. If it is not passed before the coming elections. All America will know which politicians are on the side of the American people. And which are not when they vote. Well before the elections. This is supposed to be a democracy. And well over the majority of Americans want tax payer supported single payer government managed health care for free for all Americans as a right. Many of the politicians will be soliciting your financial, and political support for the coming elections. Make sure you send a note telling them that you expect them to support HR 676 if they expect you to support them.
Everyone can do this. Most of you are well informed about HR 676. This truly is one of those no-brainer's. Be considerate of your fellow Americans when you call. But be comfortable about calling. These are your fellow Americans. Some will be receptive. And some will not be. Some maybe rude, and mean. Just thank them, and move on to the next. Most will be with you. And if you get a call from one of your fellow Americans about HR 676. Let them know you are already on board. And thank them for calling. Build them up. And keep them strong. They are fighting for all of us.
Keep fighting. Pickup that phone, and call your fellow Americans. It's the right thing to do. It's time to start swinging your political sledge hammers. Until your government gets the message you want HR 676 NOW! And nothing else. No more insurance mandate bait, and switch. Or hokey tax deduction open market lunacy, and lies. Market solutions don't work. That is what we have now. You cant seek the low bid for your child's brain surgery.
Start using all your powers Now. There are at least 250-300 million of you that want HR 676. The insurance, and medical industry want to keep our disgraceful system as it is. And force you through mandates to continue to pay them to rip you off, and KILL you, and your loved ones.
Everyone knows the true story now. If we continue to let them get away with this through our politicians, and our corrupted political system. The American people will be known as the worlds biggest bunch of lazy chumps, and dummy's. Don't let that happen. Start swinging your political sledge hammers with all your might until HR 676 is law. That is the only way we can have the best Universal Health Care system in the world. Bless you all... KEEP FIGHTING!!!!! Be creative. Your doing great!
Posted by: jacksmith | January 6, 2008 8:10 AM
Kessler, I remember quite well, when the Korean delagates drove from D.C. to Santa Fe, to meet with Richardson, regarding stalled talks with Bush & Co. Are you saying they did this so Richardson could exaggerate his relationship with them? Pleeze.
Posted by: Mark Ropel | January 6, 2008 9:47 AM
Can we factcheck the moderator?
If I am not mistaken, Charles Gibson said that if it weren't for the surge we would be "counting bodies instead of ballots" in Iraq. But there were elections in Iraq long before the surge, and I don't believe there have been elections since the surge. Needless to say, we are still counting bodies.
In addition to be being factually challenged, this seemed like needless editorializing.
Posted by: JD | January 6, 2008 10:13 AM
Romney has a sophisticated understanding of the challenges we face in the global economy. He's been a highly successful leader in business making money by turning around floundering companies, understands the importance of people, organization, research, planning, communication and direction. While Governor of the mostly Democrat Massachusetts, he brought the fractured constituencies together and they became the first state with universal health care that seems to work. He took no salary at all as Governor because as he said, "I have enough". He lowered state "taxes". He increased penalties on drunk driving. Never supported the release of criminals convicted of serious crimes. Never was first to bring up religion. Kept his promise not to attack anyone's cherished right to choice of lifestyle or abortion. He turned around MA's economy from negative to a positive. How dare he do his job well and for no pay on top of it! When the Salt Lake City Olympics crumbled under corruption and scandal he went to Salt Lake, took over for a one dollar salary, saved the Olympics and made it profitable. He supports a strong military. He led a massive security mobilization at the Olympics in the wake of the 9/11 attack and, as governor, helped build up Massachusetts' homeland security efforts. I can certainly understand left wingers hating Romney, after all he's been married to the same woman. He's from a close knit family and values family first. He is concerned about "illegal" immigration and what it means to the security of the United States. Regarding his flip-flopping on big issues? Everyone, and that means everyone in politics makes mistakes, gets to change their mind once, and most seem to do it more than once. Stand all of the candidates up next to each other in a direct comparison of what they really have done and then vote for the best person to make good change and run the country in the right direction.
Posted by: DDinnell | January 6, 2008 11:03 AM
A couple of these are pretty sketchy. Guiliani is off by 3% so the link to this article is "Guiliani Stretches the Truth on Military Cuts"? Or the Obama quote about the U.S. paying twice as much as Europe for health care. So they find a whopping three European countries that merely pay 50% less. I'm assuming the rest, which is a pretty good majority, are closer to half.
Posted by: J.P. Morgan | January 6, 2008 11:58 AM
I live in the UK and we are catching the American disease of medicalisation.
You drug health children to make money.
There is no free market. You use laws to force the expenditure.
Posted by: Robert Alexander Jones | January 6, 2008 1:53 PM
I live in the UK and we are catching the American disease of medicalisation.
You drug healthy children to make money.
There is no free market. You use laws to force the expenditure.
Posted by: Robert Alexander Jones | January 6, 2008 1:54 PM
Glenn Kessler
Last time I checked, being an apologized for Bush's regressive tax cuts does not qualify as "fact checking".
Posted by: charlie | January 6, 2008 10:27 PM
Matt Maniac, I'm sorry to break the bad news to you, but Iraq has been a failed state for more than two years now, according to several independent NGOs that rate national governments for their efficacy. The surge "worked" while failing to help Iraq's failed government, unfortunately.
Posted by: jhbyer | January 7, 2008 12:42 AM
I find it interesting that no one is looking more closely at the Bush tax cuts. I refer you to this site: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7180618 that has these telling facts:
• The wealth gap in America has long been in the making. In the 30 years between 1975 and 2005, U.S. households in the bottom 80 percent income bracket saw their share of national income actually fall. Those in the bottom 40 percent saw a drop in their incomes when adjusted for inflation. Only the top 20 percent of households experienced an increase their share of the total national income; much of that went to households in the highest 5 percent of the income bracket.
• U.S. households in the top 20 percent of the income distribution earn own well more than 80 percent of the nation's wealth.
• Households in the top fifth of the income bracket earn almost half of the nation's income.
Or here: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Distribution_of_wealth
• It has been estimated that in 1998 the top 1% of U.S. households owned about 38% of all household assets, and the top 10% owned about 71%, while the bottom 40% owned only 0.2%.
Of course this does not even touch the FICA tax, which cuts off at $97,500. So while you who earn less than the cutoff pay 7.65% on all you earn (and let's face it, even though you don't see all of this in your paycheck - your employer figures their half of FICA into the calculus of how much to pay you), those earning above this get an under-acknowledged tax break.
Posted by: Dan | January 7, 2008 3:00 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
Contact the Fact Checker
We rely on our readers to send us suggestions on topics to fact check and tips on erroneous claims by political candidates, interest groups and the media. If you have facts or documents that shed more light on a subject under discussion, or if you think we have made a mistake, let us know.
If you wish to send an attachment, please e-mail factchecker@washpost.com.
I didn't know the WP was doing live fact checks for the debate. This is a great feature. Obviously there is only so much one can do fact checking on the fly, but the responses have been thorough and relevant so far.