A Petty Quibble

While reading arguments over who has experienced worse treatment at the hands of America's political partisans, George W. Bush or Barack Obama (a fairly childish argument in and of itself), I commonly see references to a "snuff film," a "liberal assassination fantasy" about President Bush, with the implication that American leftists were responsible for it. Not so.

That film, titled Death of a President (2006), was not, as is often believed, a product of the "professional left." It was not produced in the United States nor by an American citizen. It is a British film, with a British director, British writers, and British financing.

Like this post's title indicates, it's merely a petty quibble, and my wish here is to clarify.
Cheers

Rumor Central: Obamacare (Updated)

Taking a break from The Project to post some links regarding the plethora of rumors on health care reform.

1. For seniors concerned about Medicare and the fears of the government controlling "life and death decisions": the AARP has a page on "Myths vs. Facts"

2. "Health Insurance Reform Reality Check" addresses the claims that health insurance reform will:

-lead to a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing."
-would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors.
-will affect veterans' access to medical care.
-will harm small businesses.
-would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits.
-will force people out of their current insurance plans / force them to change doctors.

3. The rumors and distortions--on both sides--have kept Factcheck.org pretty busy. See the entries under:

"Health Care"
"Health Insurance"

4. The Truth-O-Meter at Politifact goes wild in the "Health" category.

5. The Associated Press fact checks rumors about "death panels" and clarifies the bill's statements on advanced care planning.

6. The Institute for Southern Studies corrects some of the misinformation presented by, among others, The Liberty Counsel (you can see the Liberty Counsel's full list of talking points here. This list appears to be one of the sources for Sarah Palin's much debunked claim about government run "death panels").

Note: Politifact approached the Liberty Counsel about a particularly specious claim on the list: that the health care bill "'will establish school-based 'health' clinics. Your children will be indoctrinated and your grandchildren may be aborted!". . .the bills now before the House say nothing about the school clinics being able to offer abortions." Politifact "spoke with Sarah Speller at the Liberty Counsel, who told us that the group had been getting a lot of calls about the memo and that everyone there was very busy as a result. However, she assured us that 'as far as our office can tell, everything in the overview is accurate. That's about all I can tell you,' she said. 'I'm just relaying what I've been told to say.' [Politifact] see no language in the three main versions of the bill that would allow school-based clinics, which have a long history of providing basic health services to underprivileged students, to provide abortions. Nor would the clinics even be new — they have been around for three decades. So we rate the claim Pants on Fire!

7. McClatchy publishes "Headed to a health care 'town brawl?' Read this first," a brief guide to wild claims about health care reform.

8. C Q Politics does a decent job at "Vetting the Health Care Rhetoric."

9. Factcheck has a fresh entry tackling a chain-email currently making the rounds: "Twenty-Six Lies About H. R. 3200." Factcheck notes that the email makes 48 claims. Of these, 26 are demonstrably false, 18 are misleading, and 4 are true.

If you find yourself in a muddle from all the misinformation floating about, the sites included above offer some clarity.

And it's back to The Project.

FactCheck to McCain Camp: Stop Distorting Our Findings

Earlier this week, FactCheck published an article debunking a series of smear emails targeting Sarah Palin. Today, John McCain's campaign released an ad that claims FactCheck found Barack Obama's campaign responsible for the viral emails. Not so, and is FactCheck peeved:

With its latest ad, released Sept. 10, the McCain-Palin campaign has altered our message in a fashion we consider less than honest. The ad strives to convey the message that FactCheck.org said "completely false" attacks on Gov. Sarah Palin had come from Sen. Barack Obama. We said no such thing. We have yet to dispute any claim from the Obama campaign about Palin.

Oh boy. This particular entry continues analyzing the new McCain ad in much the same vein:

The ad also quotes the Wall Street Journal as saying that the Obama campaign "air-dropped a mini-army of 30 lawyers, investigators and opposition researchers to dig dirt on Governor Palin." That's also a distortion. The Wall Street Journal opinion article did not say that the Obama team was there to "dig dirt." It said they were there do "dig into her record and background." Maybe the McCain-Palin campaign knows something we don't about what's in Palin's record and background.

Oh my. That was a bit snarky, wasn't it? And by the way, the Obama campaign categorically denies sending anyone to Alaska to “investigate” Governor Palin. The campaign has asked the Wall Street Journal for a correction.

Seriously folks—what’s up with all of the whacked out distortions all of a sudden? First the sex ed thing, then the “lipstick on a pig,” now this?

Chiming in on the "Bridge to Nowhere"

This really is puzzling.

Why, despite very public evidence to the contrary, does Governor Palin continue to assert (daily) that she “told the Congress, Thanks but not thanks to that ‘Bridge to Nowhere’”?

Seriously, doesn’t the McCain campaign worry that such a blatant truth skew is going to come back and bite them? Or do they think we’re all so unthinking that we’ll just automatically accept their “truthiness” over the media’s plenteous research? (Actually, this might be the case).

The McCain campaign did finally respond, rather indignantly (and with an attempt to divert attention to Obama. More puzzlement: why respond with "well, Obama voted for those funds" when your candidate's "Maverick" status is at stake?).

As numerous media outlets have pointed out, the truth seems to be that she canceled the project when politically convenient; the Governor kept the federal funding for the bridge and used it for other state projects. For just a few more examples of factchecking the Governor’s claims, see “McCain and Palin castigate the earmarks she seeks” (AP), The Plank, and PolitiFact. And here’s the Anchorage Daily News, which says of Governor Palin’s position on the “Bridge to Nowhere”: “She was for it before she was against it."

And this kind of says it all:

Photo taken in 2006 while campaigning in Ketchikan, AK. The zip code "99901" belongs to that town, the location of the planned "Bridge to Nowhere."

Lipstick Variations, or, Sandbox Politics

Welcome to “lippygate.”

What’s the difference between these two statements?

From The Chicago Tribune:

McCain criticized Democratic contenders for offering what he called costly universal health care proposals that require too much government regulation. While he said he had not studied Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton's health-care plan, he said it was "eerily reminiscent" of the failed plan she offered as first lady in the early 1990s.

"I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig," he said of her proposal.

From The Christian Science Monitor:

“John McCain says he’s about change too, and so I guess his whole angle is, ‘Watch out, George Bush – except for economic policy, health care policy, tax policy, education policy, foreign policy, and Karl Rove-style politics – we’re really gonna shake things up in Washington.”

“That’s not change, [. . .] That’s just calling something the same thing something different. You know you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still a pig.”

Apparently, although the former was directed specifically at a woman’s proposal and the latter to a man’s general political appeal, the latter is sexist. You see, according to the McCain campaign, Obama wasn’t directing the remark at McCain’s “plan for change.” He was directing it at Sarah Palin. Despite Governor Palin's dismissal of sexism in politics this year(she referred to Hillary Clinton’s "running as victim" and “whining”), her team isn't afraid to cry foul. Ex-Massachussetts Governor Jane Swift, the head of Governor Palin’s “truth squad,” issued the following statement:

“Ultimately, I think the American people will realize that calling a very prominent female governor of one of our states a pig is not exactly what we want to see when we supposedly are going to have this great debate that is the politics of hope,” Swift said.

The McCain campaign is clearly hoping that people see Obama’s line as an allusion to Palin’s speech at the Republican National Convention. I can see their point, But was it a "smear"? The “lipstick on a pig” phrase is one of those tiresome, empty phrases politicians refuse to release, and, honestly, it’s simply puzzling that one year ago, the phrase was McCai's cliché; this year, it’s Obama's sexist attack. Unsurprisingly, the Obama camp picked up on this immediately:

“Enough is enough,” said Obama campaign official Anita Dunn. “The McCain campaign’s attack tonight is a pathetic attempt to play the gender card about the use of a common analogy — the same analogy that Senator McCain himself used about Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s health care plan just last year.”

The desperation in how people are seeking and grasping at perceived attacks has just become silly now. Consider the complaints about Biden’s and McCain’s “sexist” jokes about their wives, or claims that the McCain’s “celebrity” ad was essentially “racist.” Both campaigns, and their more ardent, unthinking supporters, run the risk of appearing childish and petulant, and, as a result, turning the public off. Maybe this isn't such a good thing now that Dr. Ron Paul has sent out a general call for people to vote third party this year.

The last word goes to Huck: “It’s an old expression, and I’m going to have to cut Obama some slack on that one."

Trust Huck to add some common sense.

Added: To Swampland: thank you! In Mark Silva's view:

Everyone is playing with half a deck if they think the American voters are looking for a whining war of alleged offenses against the race of the Democratic nominee for president, the gender of the Republican nominee for vice president or the patriotism of either parties' candidates. The only card that plays out in a debate of one-liners like this is the Joker.

And PolitiFact gives the McCain/Palin campaign a full on "pants on fire" for this nonsense.


Aside: In case you've read reports that neglect to include Obama's followup to the "lipstick on a pig reference": when he mentioned her name and the audience began catcalling, he shushed them. He repeated the call to lay off of her family and her religion, and he expressed admiration for her accomplishments. Read this AP report for his comments.