Fact-checking Palin's speech

[john5746]

From Fact Check:

 

* Lieberman said Obama hadn't "reached across party lines" to accomplish "anything significant," though Obama has teamed with GOP Sens. Tom Coburn and Richard Lugar to pass laws enhancing government transparency and curtailing the proliferation of nuclear and conventional weapons.

 

* Thompson repeated misleading claims about Obama's tax program, saying it would bring "one of the largest tax increases in American history." But as increases go, Obama's package is hardly a history-maker. It would raise taxes for families with incomes above $250,000. Most people would see a cut.

 

* Lieberman also accused Obama of "voting to cut off funding for our American troops on the battlefield." But Obama's only vote against a war-funding bill came after Bush vetoed a version of the bill Obama had supported – and McCain urged the veto.

[bascule]

The errors are too numerous to summarize beyond saying she got a lot of things wrong:

 

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

 

Additional coverage here:

 

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

 

I'm unable to find a similar fact check for Biden's speech.

[iNow]

I'm unable to find a similar fact check for Biden's speech.

 

That's not to imply he didn't make any errors, though. I saw this one this morning on ABC:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Conventions/story?id=5726571&page=1

 

 

It's really bad how extensive the falsities are. For reference, there were 7 relatively minor one's in Obama's speech.

[Pangloss]

I copied john5746's post over to this thread but I think because it was posted earlier it shows up as the first post of this thread. Bascule's post #2 is actually the first post of this thread. Sorry about that.

 

---

line[/hr]

 

I have to take issue with this fact-check on technical grounds:

 

Giuliani also said McCain had been a fighter pilot. Actually, McCain’s plane was the A-4 Skyhawk, a small bomber. It was the only plane he trained in or flew in combat, according to McCain’s own memoir.

 

The Skyhawk was indeed a fighter plane, frequently loaded out with air-to-air missiles, and McCain was a fighter pilot, by the normally-accepted layman's definition. The Navy differentiates between "fighter" and "attack" roles for combat jets, but the Skyhawk was fully capable in both roles and often performed a 'fighter' role even though its primary mission was 'attack'. Furthermore, pilots are trained for both roles, and are not differentiated between "attack pilots" and a higher level called "fighter pilots" -- they are the same. That's even more true today, with one plane performing both roles (the F/A-18 Hornet), but it was true in McCain's time as well.

 

But more to the point, we call pilots of both types of aircraft 'fighter pilots' when referring to them in the general literature and amongst the general public. This is a long-standing tradition.

 

Just to give an example of how ubiquitous the Skyhawk was in the "fighter" or "air combat" role, the plane was often used in "red gun" air-to-air operations to simulate Russian fighter aircraft, and in that role it often beat far superior "fighter" aircraft like the Hornet, Phantom and Tomcat. It was also flown by the Blue Angels for several decades (not replaced until the Hornet), which doesn't mean anything by itself but does indicate that it was a high performance aircraft of the general fighter variety. (Similarly the Thunderbirds flew the T-38 Talon trainer for many years, but the Talon was sold overseas as the F-5 fighter.)

Edited September 5, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[iNow]

The fact being checked in this point was actually that she said he was a "Top Gun," not just "fighter pilot." (at least per the link I shared)

 

 

TOPGUN is the popular name of the United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor (SFTI) program. SFTI is the modern-day evolution of the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School and carries out the same specialized fighter training as NFWS had from 1969 until 1996, when it was merged into the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center at NAS Fallon, Nevada.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_Fighter_Weapons_School

 

 

 

However, I too find that a minor point and will grant rhetorical license.

[CDarwin]

I'd have taken the Huckabee comment as just a joke. And a pretty good one too. I mean that one was Biden-worthy. I wouldn't analyze too seriously.

[Pangloss]

Oh she called him a Top Gun? Yeah that's definitely stretching his qualifications, unless he actually went there and graduated.

 

I could see someone not objecting to a comment like that at a party or in casual conversation, but as with Obama's speech, those things are planned to a T, so there's no excuse for that. (I would never, say, suggest that she just made a mistake. (insert ellipses here))

[swansont]

The Skyhawk was indeed a fighter plane, frequently loaded out with air-to-air missiles, and McCain was a fighter pilot, by the normally-accepted layman's definition. The Navy differentiates between "fighter" and "attack" roles for combat jets, but the Skyhawk was fully capable in both roles and often performed a 'fighter' role even though its primary mission was 'attack'. Furthermore, pilots are trained for both roles, and are not differentiated between "attack pilots" and a higher level called "fighter pilots" -- they are the same. That's even more true today, with one plane performing both roles (the F/A-18 Hornet), but it was true in McCain's time as well.

 

But more to the point, we call pilots of both types of aircraft 'fighter pilots' when referring to them in the general literature and amongst the general public. This is a long-standing tradition.

 

Just to give an example of how ubiquitous the Skyhawk was in the "fighter" or "air combat" role, the plane was often used in "red gun" air-to-air operations to simulate Russian fighter aircraft, and in that role it often beat far superior "fighter" aircraft like the Hornet, Phantom and Tomcat. It was also flown by the Blue Angels for several decades (not replaced until the Hornet), which doesn't mean anything by itself but does indicate that it was a high performance aircraft of the general fighter variety. (Similarly the Thunderbirds flew the T-38 Talon trainer for many years, but the Talon was sold overseas as the F-5 fighter.)

 

According to Wikipedia, air armaments of the A-4 on strike missions were defensive in nature, and only one air-to-air kill was made during the Vietnam era. They did, however, fly fighter escort missions for ASW. (The navy generally likes versatile aircraft, because carriers have limited space.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-4_Skyhawk

 

However, if (as for laymen) you're going to limit the choices to fighter pilot/ bomber pilot, fighter pilot is probably more apt. This wasn't a lumbering multi-engine plane with a crew of several, which is what I think of when someone says bomber.

[ParanoiA]

Palin I thought this was interesting:

 

FACT: While serving as mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin hired Steven Silver, a former chief of staff for Sen. Ted Stevens, to lobby Congress for earmarks. Wasilla received around $27 million in federal money, about as much as Boise, Idaho. Boise has a population of 200,000 people, compared with Wasilla's 10,000. Earmarked funds went to sewage improvements and improving roads connecting the town to a local ski resort.

 

Well that certainly challenges any of Palin's notions of being against earmarks. But then, Dr Paul was guilty of this as well. I found his explanation hard to accept. I imagine Palin's would be similar. Something about earmarks being a crappy corruptive deal, while at the same time screwing your constituency if you don't use them. A damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

 

I guess that's like campaign finance reform - it's only good if everybody has to comply. Otherwise, a candidate must indulge in uncomfortable exercises until the laws reflect their conscience.

 

I don't know how I feel about that. But it is what it is.

 

The interesting twist, I think, is that it says something about her executive talent. She got the same money for her 10,000 folks as Idaho got for 200,000. Hmm...

 

 

Oh, and the bit about the plane was just 'plane' stupid. So the ebay sale fell through...so what? She said she put it on ebay and she drives herself to work. I have to admit, I'd probably use that one too. The plane sold - when's the last time a politician sold a private jet to save the state money? She drives herself to work. Freakin cool.

 

Reminds me of our mayor here in Kansas City. He dismissed his security detail and the city limo. He drives himself to work in a beat up toyota corolla, or something like that. They laughed at him in the local paper - the Star - and criticized his decision. I thought, shit man, why are we giving this guy crap for saving us money and doing it by starting with his own sacrifices? Weird.

[Pangloss]

The corporate jet thing is misinterpreted, IMO. That model was a 1960's-era design that has been out of production since 1987. Alaska bought it in 2005 for a song at $2.7 million -- 7-10 seats and a bathroom for less than three million bucks? You couldn't get for a new jet for that if the landing gear was busted and the pilot's seat was missing. I wish all governments were that efficient in their purchasing habits. Whether they NEEDED one is another question (and a perfectly reasonable one to ask), but we are talking about the largest state in the union and one that's a very long way from the continental US.

 

And you don't sell corporate jets on Ebay unless you're making a statement. That wasn't about extravagance, it was about politics.

[Phi for All]

Well that certainly challenges any of Palin's notions of being against earmarks. But then, Dr Paul was guilty of this as well. I found his explanation hard to accept. I imagine Palin's would be similar. Something about earmarks being a crappy corruptive deal, while at the same time screwing your constituency if you don't use them. A damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

But if you're campaigning on the basis of not being a Washington insider, doesn't it say something that she decided to take the crappy, corruptive deal while she was still in Alaska? Is she already corrupted, before she steps foot in DC?

 

I guess that's like campaign finance reform - it's only good if everybody has to comply. Otherwise, a candidate must indulge in uncomfortable exercises until the laws reflect their conscience.

Or be very, very vocal about why you aren't willing to indulge in uncomfortable exercises.

 

The interesting twist, I think, is that it says something about her executive talent. She got the same money for her 10,000 folks as Idaho got for 200,000. Hmm...

Well, she hired the guy who got the same money for her 10,000 folks as Idaho got for 200,000. It says more about her executive recruitment talents. Which might be just as valid.

 

Oh, and the bit about the plane was just 'plane' stupid. So the ebay sale fell through...so what? She said she put it on ebay and she drives herself to work. I have to admit, I'd probably use that one too. The plane sold - when's the last time a politician sold a private jet to save the state money? She drives herself to work. Freakin cool.

I totally agree.

 

Reminds me of our mayor here in Kansas City. He dismissed his security detail and the city limo. He drives himself to work in a beat up toyota corolla, or something like that. They laughed at him in the local paper - the Star - and criticized his decision. I thought, shit man, why are we giving this guy crap for saving us money and doing it by starting with his own sacrifices? Weird.

I was just out there a couple of weeks ago. We walked from our hotel and saw Springsteen at the Sprint Center. Having walked past the Star building, I can understand why they wanted to make fun of anyone who'd pass up opulence to save money. That is one freaking expensive-looking newspaper building.

 

I don't know how long your mayor has been around but I thank him for our pleasant experience. Coming from parched Colorado, it was awesome to see so many water features. You guys are second in fountains only to Venice! Very beautiful. Your downtown is a dream, too. No congestion that I could see. Even on Monday it wasn't crowded, and all the graffiti was in Hallmark verse (like rap with roses). I applaud a mayor who would sacrifice his limo (but not his soul) to help his city.

[ParanoiA]

But if you're campaigning on the basis of not being a Washington insider, doesn't it say something that she decided to take the crappy, corruptive deal while she was still in Alaska? Is she already corrupted, before she steps foot in DC?

 

Oh certainly. I think if you're going to complain about earmarks, yet be arguably forced to to engage in them for the interim or screw your constituency, then you ought to be straight forward about your interim engagement. Otherwise, it's misrepresentation, which is what she did at the very least.

 

I don't know how long your mayor has been around but I thank him for our pleasant experience. Coming from parched Colorado, it was awesome to see so many water features. You guys are second in fountains only to Venice! Very beautiful. Your downtown is a dream, too. No congestion that I could see. Even on Monday it wasn't crowded, and all the graffiti was in Hallmark verse (like rap with roses). I applaud a mayor who would sacrifice his limo (but not his soul) to help his city.

 

Well I'm glad you had a pleasant experience. I've only lived here about 5 years now, but it's been interesting. I do take the fountains for granted, although I walk downtown a lot. I think they're trying to revitalize it, so it will likely be congested next time you make it through.

 

He hasn't been mayor but a couple of years I think. He was auditor before that. We think he's pretty cool, and I like him for his principled style. He's fighting with the council right now over his wife being a full-time volunteer. She's a bit, in the way. And with all the issues on the table, he's still fighting this thing front and center. So, it has its drawbacks.

[Pangloss]

I was born in Kansas City, and it's nice to hear that the city is doing well. Now if you could just get the Royals to win some ballgames you'd be all set.

[Sisyphus]

Well that certainly challenges any of Palin's notions of being against earmarks.

 

It baffles me how she gets away with claiming that at all. She makes a big deal about "saying no thanks" to the "Bridge to Nowhere," but that's bullshit. She was completely in favor of it - campaigned on it, even - until after it was defeated in Congress. Sorry, but you don't get credit for turning down nonexistent earmarks, and certainly not when you were asking for it, earlier. She was also perfectly willing to keep and spend the big fat porkbarrel check Alaska got in lieu of the bridge fund, so she didn't even save the taxpayers any money. It's just blatant hypocrisy on multiple levels, and I don't see how you could excuse it even if you totally accept Ron Paul's rationale.

[iNow]

She also didn't sell her plane on eBay:

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/05/AR2008090503722.html

In fact, the jet did not sell on eBay. It was sold to a businessman from Valdez named Larry Reynolds, who paid $2.1 million for the plane -- shy of the $2.7 million purchase price -- according to news reports at the time. Reynolds contributed to Palin's campaign in 2006.

It appears that, as she promised during her bid for governor, Palin did try to sell the plane on eBay, but there was only one serious bid, in December of 2006, and it fell through. The Westwind II was sold about eight months later, achieving her goal of ridding the state of a luxury item.

 

But that hasn't stopped Palin, or John McCain, from implying -- or asserting outright -- that Palin sold the jet on the Internet.

[Pangloss]

I think what she actually said was that she "put" it on ebay, not that she sold it there. Someone would have to look up the text of her speech to be sure, though. Clearly the implication was that she sold it there, but that's not particularly important because it did sell and she made what was probably a reasonable percentage of the investment back for that plane type and length of ownership.

 

(In fact the original deal that the previous governor made was a pretty good one -- $2.7 million for a 7-10 seat corporate jet with a bathroom in the year 2005? Only if you buy one that's 18+ years old, which they did. I don't know all the ins and outs of that issue or anything about Alaskan politics, but that's hardly an extravagance.)

[iNow]

What I think bothers me more is how they've been repeating the claim about the jet on eBay in so many of their recent appearances and speeches. If it's clearly untrue, then why keep perpetuating a lie?

[Pangloss]

Are they? Do you have any links on that, saying "sold" rather than "put"?

 

Never mind, I just found one:

 

"You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on eBay -- and made a profit!" McCain declared in Wisconsin at a campaign stop on Friday. It could not be immediately determined what that profit was.

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/05/plane_not_sold_on_ebay.html

 

That's McCain, not her -- the article goes on to say that she's been more precise in her comments on the subject. But you're right, the campaign needs to stop doing that, across the board.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Pangloss
multiple post merged

[iNow]

Fact Checking.

 

A short video by CNN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Tc7BF_Fd7I

 

 

 

Here's a post which summarizes reports from Newsweek, the Wall Street Journal, and TPM, along with a video:

http://scienceblogs.com/effectmeasure/2008/09/palin_comparison_ix_the_bridge.php

 

 

 

The outright lying of the McCain [campaign] is shameless and brazen, so we shouldn't be surprised [that] they defended themselves with still more lies.

Edited September 9, 2008 by iNow
multiple post merged

[ParanoiA]

Yeah, I think they're getting a bit seduced by the fun of being able to say they sold it on "ebay", when it would still have plenty of bite if they'd just say they sold it and find some other way to work in their initial ad in ebay.