Fact-Checking Obama's Acceptance Speech

[Pangloss]

This is why I hate political conventions. Over 38 million Americans watching and nobody bothers to call him on his facts. Misleading people should not be a path to public office. Yeesh. Fortunately the reliable, non-partisan Anenberg FactCheck organization leaps to the rescue. Some highlights:

 

* Obama said he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” That’s wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain’s, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.

 

* He twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.

 

* He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

 

* Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."

 

* Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would "tax people’s benefits" but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.

 

* He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.

 

* Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.

 

Full, detailed analysis can be found here:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/factchecking_obama.html

(I wonder if they'll get over 38 million hits. Somehow I doubt it.)

[CDarwin]

Median is a kind of average (along with mean and mode), or at least that's how it was taught in my math classes. But really good website.

[bascule]

7 factual errors in a one hour speech, some of which are just nitpicking? I don't think that's too shabby... it will be interesting to compare to the factual errors that are bound to be present in McCain's acceptance speech.

[Pangloss]

It will be, but will you call it nitpicking then?

 

I don't think there's a single thing in that speech that wasn't deliberately put there, bascule.

[ecoli]

It will be, but will you call it nitpicking then?

 

I don't think there's a single thing in that speech that wasn't deliberately put there, bascule.

yeah seriously... not with the team of speechwriters Obama probably has and on, arguably, the most important speech of his campaign to date. I felt it was lacking in substance. And these types of factual errors don't really fly and I definitely don't see it as nitpicking. Is it just me or does it seem like there's a double standard when it comes to media criticism of Obama and McCain (and I consider myself unbiased because I don't like either candidate).

 

Perhaps the media hyped it up too much, but I was not impressed by the DNC in general.

[iNow]

Over 38 million Americans watching and nobody bothers to call him on his facts.

What the hell are you talking about? That's all I've heard about since just last night, including here. It's been less than 24 hours since he spoke, these errors have been all over the news and internet, and you're here screaming that "nobody bothers to call him on his facts?" Whatever.

[ecoli]

What the hell are you talking about? That's all I've heard about since just last night, including here. It's been less than 24 hours since he spoke, these errors have been all over the news and internet, and you're here screaming that "nobody bothers to call him on his facts?" Whatever.

well my experience has been a bit different. I've been listening to conservative talk radio and this is first I'm hearing about the errors. Anecdotally though, I don't watch televised news.

[bascule]

I don't think there's a single thing in that speech that wasn't deliberately put there, bascule.

 

Are you saying every one of those errors is an intentional deception, i.e. a lie?

 

...yet you don't think Bush intentionally deceived America, i.e. lied.

 

*facepalm* you're only a liar if you're a Democrat, I guess

[Pangloss]

Yeah, Republicans could never lie like that. They all smell like roses. Ted Stevens does my gardening on weekends, you know.

Edited August 30, 2008 by Pangloss

[ecoli]

Are you saying every one of those errors is an intentional deception, i.e. a lie?

well, it is oddly suspicious that there were errors in such a probably well-planned speech.

 

...yet you don't think Bush intentionally deceived America, i.e. lied.

 

*facepalm* you're only a liar if you're a Democrat, I guess

that's a bit of a non-sequitur. When did Pangloss say that about Bush or about democrats?

[ParanoiA]

well my experience has been a bit different. I've been listening to conservative talk radio and this is first I'm hearing about the errors. Anecdotally though, I don't watch televised news.

 

Same here actually.

 

I guess I just don't see what's particularly notable about one distorting another's positions now .

 

Are you saying every one of those errors is an intentional deception, i.e. a lie?

 

You don't think so?

 

You just threw poop at Palin on another thread about McCain's VP choice and that was one "mark" on her past, which Obama also has experience with among others, but you're going to let Obama here slide on 7 points of blatant distortion that happened yesterday?

 

Ridiculous.

Edited August 30, 2008 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

Honestly, guys... looking at the supposed "lies," it appears to me that people are more upset about the little details he didn't say as opposed to the words he did. Stuff like,

 

"Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples."

 

Do you really think more than 4 or 5% of the american public listening to the speech are being so detailed in their analyses that this matters to them?

 

 

Also, comments like:

 

"He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time."

 

Makes me wonder to myself, so what? Democrats aren't the ones americans hate right now, whereas Bush/Cheney are (and for good reason).

[CDarwin]

Seriously, this has escalated a bit. I don't think anyone would say that Barack Obama just stood up and lied to us for an hour, but the man's a politician giving a political speech. He manipulated what he said to make his points the most forceful way possible. Like Pangloss has been saying, these conventions are essentially marketing, and that's what Obama's speech was too.

[Pangloss]

Makes me wonder to myself, so what? Democrats aren't the ones americans hate right now, whereas Bush/Cheney are (and for good reason).

 

Oh dude you are so looking at this the wrong way. Congress's approval rating has fallen something like 20 points, to single digits, since Democrats took over. Do you really think the convention would have generated 38 million viewers had it been Biden accepting the nomination instead of Obama? Seriously?

 

I think very few people see Democrats as rescuing American from Bush & Company. That's very much the purview of haters and ideologues and Democratic partisans. What Americans are doing is looking for salvation from politicians. And Obama is the one and only glimmer of hope in that department, regardless of his party affiliation.

 

The reason he can't put this thing away in the polls is because he keeps falling back on standard political methods and forgetting the headway he made when he talked about unity and getting over our differences. In short, he keeps sounding like a politician.

 

He's got to do better than exaggerations and misrepresentations of Republican/conservative/McCain positions. My two bits on it, anyway.

[iNow]

Oh dude you are so looking at this the wrong way. Congress's approval rating has fallen something like 20 points, to single digits, since Democrats took over.

I know it's fallen, but do you have a source to support the "single digits" part? I've not seen them that low.

 

 

Either way, he's not running for congress, he's running for president, so it makes sense that they'd be bashing the president that is there now, who is a republican, and who is being viewed as the worst president in american history. When someone gives you an underhanded pitch like Bush has, you really have to swing at it, don't you?

[Pangloss]

Sure, actually Rasmussen just released a new report repeating the July figures on Wednesday.

 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_performance/congressional_performance

 

I don't entirely disagree with your point above, and I'm sure many people are angry with the Bush administration. I just think it's a mistake to see people as flocking to Democrats.

[bascule]

You just threw poop at Palin on another thread about McCain's VP choice and that was one "mark" on her past, which Obama also has experience with among others, but you're going to let Obama here slide on 7 points of blatant distortion that happened yesterday?

 

Ridiculous.

 

Let's wait for the fact check on the McCain speech to get a baseline, shall we?

[john5746]

1) Obama said he could “pay for every dime” of his spending and tax cut proposals “by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens.” That’s wrong – his proposed tax increases on upper-income individuals are key components of paying for his program, as well. And his plan, like McCain’s, would leave the U.S. facing big budget deficits, according to independent experts.

 

2) He twisted McCain’s words about Afghanistan, saying, “When John McCain said we could just 'muddle through' in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources.” Actually, McCain said in 2003 we “may” muddle through, and he recently also called for more troops there.

 

 

3) He said McCain would fail to lower taxes for 100 million Americans while his own plan would cut taxes for 95 percent of “working” families. But an independent analysis puts the number who would see no benefit from McCain’s plan at 66 million and finds that Obama’s plan would benefit 81 percent of all households when retirees and those without children are figured in.

 

4) Obama asked why McCain would "define middle-class as someone making under five million dollars a year"? Actually, McCain meant that comment as a joke, getting a laugh and following up by saying, "But seriously ..."

Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would "tax people’s benefits" but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.

 

 

5) He said McCain, far from being a maverick who’s "broken with his party," has voted to support Bush policies 90 percent of the time. True enough, but by the same measure Obama has voted with fellow Democrats in the Senate 97 percent of the time.

 

6) Obama noted that McCain’s health care plan would "tax people’s benefits" but didn’t say that it also would provide up to a $5,000 tax credit for families.

 

7) Obama said "average family income" went down $2,000 under Bush, which isn't correct. An aide said he was really talking only about "working" families and not retired couples. And – math teachers, please note – he meant median (or midpoint) and not really the mean or average. Median family income actually has inched up slightly under Bush.

 

1) Wrong

 

2) McCain was dodging the question, but basically said "Eye on Iraq, hope for Afghanistan" I disagree with Fact Check

 

3) they should have been more conservative with the numbers, but the basic message is correct.

 

4) McCain blew the question - he never answered it. Maybe a better line would be he doesn't know what middle class is

 

5) This was OK - Obama is saying McCain is Bush 2.0. He doesn't need to bring his own voting record into it.

 

6) McCain only presents the good, Obama only presents the bad of McCain's proposal. I'm sure McCain will return the favor

 

7) Wrong - an explanation is needed, although I think in reality, median income has gone down because I disagree with inflation measurements - especially below 100,000 income levels, but they had to come up with the numbers somehow.

 

Not that bad, IMO. Obama doesn't walk on water, but I already knew that - no one has.

 

Since McCain has talked more about Obama than himself, I will be surprised if he doesn't surpass Obama in this regard. And I still won't regard either man as dishonest - just trying to present the best sides of their arguments.

 

I've done similar things in interviews and worse in corporations trying to convince QA that production problems were limited in scope and resolved.

[iNow]

I agree that Obama doesn't walk on water, and it's unfortunate that this election has become more about him than the issues (due, in very large part, to the side of his opponent).

 

 

Let's wait for the fact check on the McCain speech to get a baseline, shall we?

 

That's an excellent point. I'll be curious to see the delta.

[ParanoiA]

Let's wait for the fact check on the McCain speech to get a baseline, shall we?

 

Why? Why do I care if McCain provides a list of 100 lies? How does that justify throwing a fit over one mark on one's past while denying the evidence of at least 7 enumerated cases of distortion by another?

 

This response from you seems to imply you are heavily invested in the us vs them, rep vs dem - I have no interest, sorry. McCain isn't any holier when he lies, and it doesn't make Obama's lies "less bad".

[insane_alien]

McCain isn't any holier when he lies, and it doesn't make Obama's lies "less bad"

 

nope, but it could help choose the lesser of two evils.

[ParanoiA]

nope, but it could help choose the lesser of two evils.

 

..which is exactly what feeds the status quo political machine that everyone likes to SAY they're against. Everytime we settle for the "lesser of two evils" we enable the two party seige - the same seige I remember many posters in here talking about being against - talking about how we'd like to see multiple parties and blah blah blah.

 

But when the rubber meets the road, they play along.

 

We say we don't like liars - yet we elect them over and over again for successfully lying. We rationalize and appeal to how much the other guy lies more or how it wasn't really a lie, but bending the truth - teenager logic. Please. A liar is a liar and none of them deserve the high office of the land if they can't tell me the damn truth.

 

But hey, we all want to belong to a team, right? A team with relevance. Right now, the two relevant teams are Dems and Pubs, and they are jam packed with dispicable liars and cheats - after all, that's where the opportunity is, isn't it?

 

I suppose we'll keep rewarding them...like we always have.

[ecoli]

or staying home... or trying to find a few gems in the garbage heap. Let me know when they show up.

[bascule]

This response from you seems to imply you are heavily invested in the us vs them, rep vs dem - I have no interest, sorry. McCain isn't any holier when he lies, and it doesn't make Obama's lies "less bad".

 

Umm, it's more like I expect there to be a certain degree of error in any speech of this nature. You apparently expect it to be perfect.

[ParanoiA]

Umm, it's more like I expect there to be a certain degree of error in any speech of this nature. You apparently expect it to be perfect.

 

I expect it to be honest and worthy of a statesman. Not bullshit distortions worthy of stoners at the smoke hole.