Skip to main content

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. Doverspa at Red State is using the latest from "rabidly impartial" to prop up Republicans. Here's a hint: if Doverspa or some of the folks at Red State are touting anyone's impartiality, look twice. In this case, they are using Factcheck's notoriously bad fact checking to take on the issue of the abortion rate under the Bush administration, and lying.

In October of last year, Glen Harold Stassen and Gary Krane wrote an opinion piece printed in the Houston Chronicle "Why Abortion Rate Is Up In Bush Years." (Note, the original title to the piece as posted at Sojourner's Sojomail was "Pro-Life? Look at the fruits." This title is the Chronicle's, not Stassen and Krane's.)

FactCheck asserts that in this column, Stassen and Krane "claim that abortions are rising again," a claim picked up and repeated by numerous Democratic politicians. What did the authors actually say? Follow me to the extended to find out.

Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4 percent decline during the 1990s. This was a steady decrease averaging 1.7 percent per year. (The data come from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies.)

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

We found four states that have posted three-year statistics: Kentucky's increased by 3.2 percent from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3 percent from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9 percent from 1999 to 2002. Colorado's rates skyrocketed 111 percent. We found 12 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6 percent average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3 percent average).

Under Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

Note the distinction. FactCheck says that Stassen and Krane are stating that the abortion rate is increasing, period. What Stassen and Krane are really saying is that the rate of decrease in the abortion rate has slowed--had it continued along the trend lines of the previous decade, there would have been 52,000 fewer abortions in 2002.

How does FactCheck buttress this lie? By misstating what the Guttmacher Institute ACTUALLY says. Thus while FactCheck claims that Stassen is contradicted by Guttmacher, in fact they say precisely the same thing:

A new analysis from The Alan Guttmacher Institute shows that U.S. abortion rates continued to decline in 2001 and 2002, although the rate of decline has slowed since the early 1990s.

Fact Check clearly needs more fact checkers. Here are some more lies:

Stassen said that in the four states that had already posted statistics for three full years of Bush's first term, he found that abortion was up. Twelve more states had posted statistics for two years of Bush's term - 2001 and 2002 - and here the picture was mixed. According to Stassen, "Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6 percent average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3 percent average)." . . . So Stassen was projecting findings onto the entire country from 12 states that he said had showed an increase and 5 (or maybe 4) that he said had shown a decrease. That leaves a total of 34 other states for which Stassen had no data whatsoever. . . . Stassen himself named only Kentucky, Michigan, Pennyslvania and Colorado among the 16 states he says he studied. . . . The Guttmacher Institute found that two of the states Stassen used had unreliable reporting systems. In Colorado, for instance, where Stassen claimed that rates "skyrocketed 111 percent," the reporting procedure had been recently changed in order to compensate for historic underreporting. Guttmacher also found Arizona had an inconsistent reporting system.

Now why this would distort the level of decrease or increase is hard to say, and much harder to say why it would hurt Bush. Of course, Fact Check does not take long to contradict itself, by criticizing Stassen for including the historically LOW reported abortion state Colorado? Stassen can't win for losing with Fact Check.

And finally, the Big Lie about Hillary:

Stassen offered his article as evidence that Bush's economic policies were driving pregnant women to abortion. And although he opposes abortion, his claim was soon picked up and repeated uncritically by the other side - supporters of abortion rights. In a speech to family-planning providers in New York on January 24, 2005 , Sen. Hillary Clinton recounted decreases in the abortion rate that occurred in her husband's administration, then lamented that the situation had changed. . . . [S]he omitted any mention of other states where abortions were going down, inviting her listeners to conclude that the national trend to fewer abortions had reversed itself since Bush took office.

But what did Hillary actually say?

But unfortunately, in the last few years, while we are engaged in an ideological debate instead of one that uses facts and evidence and common sense, the rate of abortion is on the rise in some states . In the three years since President Bush took office, 8 states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3% average), so we have a lot of work still ahead of us.

Where in the hell did Hillary get her facts wrong? What distortion?

Let's see what FactCheck missed in their reporting of the Guttmacher Institute's report. Hmmm, there would be that very large disclaimer, right there at the bottom of the press release: "Because these abortion estimates are not based on a comprehensive census, they are subject to some limitations and should be considered provisional." There would also be that little statement by the Institute's president, Sharon Camp: "It takes time for political decisions to be reflected in the statistical data, so it is too soon to tell what the impact of Bush administration policies will be on U.S. abortion rates." The Guttmacher Institute is a highly respected organization, for good reason. That FactCheck would use their analysis to try to buttress their claims, and leave out these key provisions, is certainly more telling about FactCheck than about Stassen and Clinton.

FactCheck's work, as it almost always is, is simply reflecting the same cherry-picking of data for which they criticize Stassen and Clinton. And what's worse, they use that data to lie about the statements Stassen and Clinton made. Keep that in mind the next time some Republican Winger cites "impartial" FactCheck. Like the GOP, FactCheck has no impunity in spewing whatever lie it takes to fit their agenda.

Update [2005-5-26 17:3:45 by mcjoan]:: Here's a very cynical update, in the guise of research. Will adding "abortion" to the title bring more readers? I'm curious, as this is the hot button issue of the week.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Thu May 26, 2005 at 12:38 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The ultimate irony? (4.00)
    Here's this, from Stassen:

    I, Glen, am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world. Gary Krane is an investigative journalist.

    I got nuthin'. But check out unbossed.

    by Joan McCarter on Thu May 26, 2005 at 12:34:04 PM PDT

  •  Who watches the watchers? (4.00)
    Apparently you do!

    Personally, I'm wary of ANY site on the Internet that purports to do what does:  an impartial review of political rhetoric.  On the Internet, it's just entirely too easy to misrepresent yourself and get away with making grandiose claims that go entirely unevaluated and are accepted at face value.  Hell, I even mistrust Snopes now after the whole retarded "Fahrenheit 9/11" flap.

    Slightly on/slightly off topic:  I also HATE HATE HATE Spinsanity because they have what I call "centrist bias."  The idea being that both the Left and the Right have their own extremist agendas, both are lying their asses off, and that the truth must ALWAYS be in the center.  

    Horror! Supernaturality! Ramblings! Carnacki! ME!! The Mystery of the Haunted Vampire! You know you want to click!

    by Raybin on Thu May 26, 2005 at 12:37:14 PM PDT

    •  I'm on it, Babe (4.00)
      Yeah, you gotta watch those Internet sites. Heh.

      I got nuthin'. But check out unbossed.

      by Joan McCarter on Thu May 26, 2005 at 12:59:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  spinsanity is dead (none)
      no kidding... the sites still there and you can see their death notice.
      •  I never heard of them (none)
        being the non-techno kind of person I am. What were they?

        I got nuthin'. But check out unbossed.

        by Joan McCarter on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:01:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  like fact check (none)
          they wrote articles trying to clarify spin.

          they had a left and right authors.


          They didn't do too bad a job, but Raybin's criticism is somewhat valid.  

          I liked the site myself (actually I post to a blog that is a spin off from the comments section) even though that criticism had validity... just because in the comment you could hold people to the standard of reducing rather than increasing spin, you could accuse people of spin because that was always the topic, and you could even advocate a certain spin as legitimate.

          One thing I learned there was that I don't usually really care if something is a lie.

          If Bush knew there were no WMD or not doesn't matter, the gross incompetance and the lie are both equally reasons to reject him... lies matter in a court of law, I would love to prove lies and start prosecutions, but basically, I don't have to know if Colin lied to the UN to believe Colin EFFECTIVELY lied to the UN.

          PS: Colin did lie to the UN, of course, I have no doubt about it.

          •  WTF ??? (none)
            Colin EFFECTIVELY lied to the UN.

            If you mean that colin powell's lies were effective, please explain how you reach that conclusion

            After poweell's speach, george had to cancel his announced security council vote for a war resolution

            no other country joined the coalition of the bribed, and Turkey abandoned us AFTER Colin's little lying spree

            so how were colin powell's lies effective ???

            If you mean that colin powell essentially lied to the UN, never mind

            •  convincing (none)
              I think the lies were pretty convincing, but I may be biased, I remember thinking, "no way he's just making this up... he wouldn't, would he?  Why even go to the UN".

              But anwyay, I didn't mean that, I mean that it is the SAME as a lie.

              We will never read Colin's mind, and my point is that we don't have to.  It doesn't matter if Colin is just that stupid/sloppy/immoral/gullible or if he lied, in politics, it's the same thing.

              With one caveat... lying is still important, and if you do get caught, we can more easily prosecute you as a criminal, so the question is not totally moot, it's just that it's not defense of a lie to wheedle it into a "mistake" instead.

              •  an untranslated recording convinced you ??? (none)
                there were reports within the hour denouncing powell's translations of his recorded evidence

                most of the "stockpile statistics" were estimates of WHAT COULD EXIST, and totally ignored the fact that wmd's have a shelf life

                Saddam may well have had 25 tons of biological weapons left over from gulf War I, but they would have degenerated into harmless substances in the intervening 10 years

                everything but the tape recordings had been discredited BEFORE Colin Powell's speach, and the presentation of what the tape recording caontained was quickly proven to be bullshit (people who ACTUALLY speak Arabic listened to them and laughed)

                that Colin powell refused to show the UN one of the suspect aluminum tubes is definite proof that Colin Powell knew there was a conspiracy to falsify evidence, yet he still parroted most of Cheney's script

                Cpolin powell didn't know because he didn't want to know. he was a willing participant

                •  well (none)
                  that's why I was still out there protesting for peace before the war started.

                  however, that doesn't mean it wasn't convincing to people not following the details.

                  In my case, yes I recognized the bogus evidence, but yeah, I am also admitting that those satelite photos of sites seemed like they were supposed to have been confirmed by people on the ground.

                  I mean, if you want to press me, no, I'm not going to claim to have been very convinced, had I been maybe I would have supported the war, not being an absolute pacifist.

                  But were Americans, with their general level of attentiveness, convinced at all?  yeah.

            •  fwiw (none)

                 1. In an effective way.
                 2. For all practical purposes; in effect: Though a few rebels still held out, the fighting was effectively ended.

              definition two, but I feel like arguing it was effective in the first sense as well.

              You are correct the UN was not convinced to go to war, but the nation I think saw those pictures and figured the WH couldn't be that wrong, the CIA had access to places and people the inspectors didn't, there must be something to it rather than a total fabrication (effectively a "lie").

              I remember doubting a bit at the time, but still figuring Saddam was contained, his weapons programs were weak.  But nonetheless I was suprised to find there was basically nothing at all at the places Colin showed.  I thought there had to be something there... that it might be an exaggeration... but totally wrong?

              And I've come to reallize that totally wrong from the people leading America is a lie too, because you claim competance then you don't swear something is true when it's not, if you believed it or not is for the courts but as a citizen, they are both damnable.  To hell with good intentions.

              Not that I think there were good intentions about these lies, mind you.

              •  Watergate taught me important lessons (none)
                and I weighed every claim through that prism

                and I did a lot of reading (maybe 500,000 words per day)

                the whole UN presentation effort was aimed at England, not America

                how would you measure the effectiveness from that perspective

                •  I'm not fit to judge that (none)
                  as you've pointed out, for those well informed, there was a lot of reason to think the presentation bore no relation to reality... I don't know how the English public viewed it because I don't know if they avialed themselves of that information via their far more honest press, or ignored it as I feel Americans did.
                  •  fair enough (none)
                    I am cursed by knowing the facts, and continually re-evaluating and re-examining them

                    thanks for your imput. I'm an Opinion Page Junkie, I wanna know what EVERYBODY thinks

                    self awarness of national folly is a bitch

                    •  I take it you think it was not effective in the UK (none)
                      but do you really think the US public didn't find it convincing?
                      •  US public opinion didn't matter (none)
                        I remember a debate that wasn't reported much by the msm, but the decisions had been made by that point

                        if Colin Powell's lies had been explained on the front page on the NY Times, as the lies of Judith Miller were disemminated, the story might have been different

                        I don't think Colin Powell convinced anybody who wasn't already kissing George's ass

                        Putin made a slight gesture, but every other country coughed "bullshit" into their sleeves

                        I don't think colin powell accomplished anything but the embarrasment of our country, and the destruction of his own reputation

                    •  me (none)
                      I'm cursed with a knowledge that my knowledge is limited.

                      As well as the same knowledge about others.

    •  WE do (none)
  •  they drove me nuts (none)
    before the election.  Full of errors, and really self-riteous.  But I thought I perceived  pro-bush and pro-kerry errors.  What is there agenda, do you think?
  •  Great diary (4.00)

    You rip Brooks next week.

    I'll take a vacation.  

    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

    by Armando on Thu May 26, 2005 at 12:46:13 PM PDT

  •  Cheney (4.00)
    Here's a hint: if Doverspa or some of the folks at Red State are touting anyone's impartiality, look twice.

    Or if Dick Cheney tries to quote a site during the vice-presidential debate.. If Dr. Evil tries to use, something's fishy.

  •  Desperately Seeking A False Balance (4.00)
    Same old problem as with most of the mainstream media.
    They give small mistakes by the Democrats equal bearing as major mistakes and outright lies by the Republicans.
    When they can't find mistakes, they invent them, even if they themselves must stretch the truth in order to do so.
    All so they can claim to be "impartial".

    If the situation was reversed, would the wingers would hesitate for a second to say that abortions have gone down under Bush and then blame Clinton for the destruction of morals leading women to have abortions?  Wait a minute, they say that anyway.  
    Great diary.

  •  What about Dean? (none)
    From the fact check article, and on Meet the Press last weekend he said abortion was up 25% under Bush.

    Is there any justification for that number?

    "A rising tide lifts all ships." Genesis 7:17

    by dissenter2004 on Thu May 26, 2005 at 01:35:55 PM PDT

    •  No (none)
      Dean misspoke. FactCheck says he lied, but that's an overstatement, IMO. I hope that the DNC staff that's prepping him does a better job in the future.

      I got nuthin'. But check out unbossed.

      by Joan McCarter on Thu May 26, 2005 at 01:41:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Dean quote (none)
      here is the Dean quote:
      Here is Dr. Dean on NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday: "We'd like to make abortion rare. You know that abortions have gone up 25% since George Bush was president?" Dr. Dean went on, "There are not many of us who want to see the abortion rate continue to go up as it has under President Bush."

      He didn't misspeak.  This isn't like the "Osama had nothing to do with 9/11" quote that was an obvious accident.  He is peddling false information.  He should apologize.
      •  I guess it's more like (none)
        "There's WMD in Iraq."

        Or "Major military operation are now over."

        Or "We came to Iraq by invitation."

        Or "I never met you till tonight." (Cheney to John Edwards in a debate.)


        I got nuthin'. But check out unbossed.

        by Joan McCarter on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:10:27 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The last one (none)
          by the way was reported on by FactCheck who stated:
          Cheney's "First Time"

          Cheney claimed Edwards has such a poor attendance record in the Senate that he was just meeting Edwards for the first time during the debate, even though Cheney visits the Senate most Tuesdays. But the Kerry-Edwards campaign quickly documented at least two instances in which Cheney had met Edwards previously. Edwards escorted Elizabeth Dole when she was sworn in as North Carolina's other senator on January 8, 2003, according to Gannet News Service. Cheney administered the oath.

          Cheney also was present with Edwards at a National Prayer Breakfast on Feb. 1, 2001, when a transcript shows Cheney acknowledged Edwards among those at the gathering:

          Cheney: (Feb. 1, 2001): Thank you. Thank you very much. Congressman Watts, Senator Edwards, friends from across America and distinguished visitors to our country from all over the world, Lynne and I are honored to be with you all this morning.

          •  dailykos (none)
            broke that story thank you.

            Fact  Check was following the crowd.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:47:22 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Good catch (none)
            though I remember blogging that debate with a bunch of kossacks here, and IIRC, Kossacks were the first to unearth the video clip of the breakfast.

            I think they're cherry-picking on this data as much as they claim Clinton and Stassen did. Assuming that they are as impartial as you assert, I think they should be more careful in their characterization of Stassen's and Clinton's remarks.

            I got nuthin'. But check out unbossed.

            by Joan McCarter on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:48:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  They're not impartial (none)
              Certainly THAT article is not.

              Ask Adam if CJR is impartial.

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:53:48 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Read the rest of their post (none)
              Check out and read some of the articles on both sides.  They do their best unlike the partisan media watchdogs on both sides.  FWIW, I think the partisan ones are also useful, but characterizing FactCheck as anything but impartial would be a fallacy in my opinion.
      •  This diary is about Fact Check (none)
        not Howard Dean.

        Stop trying to change the subject.

        The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

        by Armando on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:21:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Armando (4.00)
          The quote is present in the factcheck article.  McJoan linked to the article in her diary.  How can it not be a facet of the subject at hand?  That being, in my mind, the use of innacurate statistics to describe abortion rates.

          "A rising tide lifts all ships." Genesis 7:17

          by dissenter2004 on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:31:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was not talking to you (none)

            But the diary is not about Dean just because the article mentions him.

            So I don't buy your reasoning.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:35:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Geeze Armando, (none)
              You must not get a whole lot out of reading a book.

              "Must ignore subplots."  
              "Cannot be distracted from main theme."

              mcjoan took apart the fact check article.  She also called into question Doverspas impariality, which lets face it the guy is not impartial, but neither is she by discrediting the factcheck article and never mentioning the inaccurate statement by Dean, about abortion rates, quoted therein.

              "A rising tide lifts all ships." Genesis 7:17

              by dissenter2004 on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:47:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's called advocacy (none)
                You may have noticed that dailykos is a Democratic Blog.

                You want her to point out the errors of the DNC Chair? Don't hold your breath.

                The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                by Armando on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:52:47 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you are being too fair (4.00)
                  I'm into analysis not advocacy and I don't think that the Dean issue fits in the diary in any way.

                  there is still an implicit assumption that factcheck is supposed to get facts right... this is not an essay claiming factcheck is always wrong.

                  It's more of a caution to show they are not always right and moreover can just be totally wrong themselves.

                  All these fact check places will suffer the same danger, they characterize motivation, they characterize error, and they make errors themselves.

                  They react to, for example, what they think they hear Hillary say rather than what she really said.

                  Factcheck is well read enough to take this seriously.

                  Snopes has the best take on this issue, they actually have a section where they have invented urban legends themselves and give pretty little notice that's what they've done.

                  I've seen one of them reported around the world, that Mr. Ed was actually played by a Zebra.

                  Finally I found the section index and Snopes point is, "what, you thought we were saying you could trust us for accurate information too... DON'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ!" (paraphrased).

                  Of course, it's also an advocacy site and that is no doubt why you don't see dozens of diaries jumping on Dean's mistake.

                •  must've missed that (nt) (none)

                  "A rising tide lifts all ships." Genesis 7:17

                  by dissenter2004 on Thu May 26, 2005 at 03:05:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, (none)
          And if the subject was changed, you should blame me.  Not Doverspa.  I asked the question because I wanted to know the answer.

          "A rising tide lifts all ships." Genesis 7:17

          by dissenter2004 on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:32:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I blame Doverspa (none)
            for choosing to ignore the point of the diary - Fact Check's lies.

            Again, I was not talking to you.

            The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

            by Armando on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:36:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Dang man (none)
              Here's the quote from the article McJoan links to:
              Finally, as recently as May 24, 2005 , Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean also asserted on NBC News' Meet the Press:

              Dean:You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was President ?

              Dean's "statistic" went unchallenged by moderator Tim Russert, so millions of viewers probably got the impression that Dean's very specific 25 percent figure was correct. But Dean was wrong -- and by a wide margin.

              So FactCheck pointed out that Dean was wrong about the abortion statistic.  That is exactly what the diary was on.  Dude, you get some wide latitude on some RS threads.  This was on topic and you're calling me out is out of line.
              •  I get called out on everything I write (none)
                at Red State.

                My gawd, you folks were defendiing that fool Thompson whose column made no  sense whatsoever.

                Sides, just having some fun with you.

                I know what you wee doing in your bit at Red State. I'd do it to if I were you. You should know what I am doing here.

                The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                by Armando on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:45:31 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  That really bugs me (4.00)
                  I thought you guys were just fellow citizens, telling me the truth as you saw it without repeating partisan talking points.

                  I'm heartbroken, disillusioned, going to start drinking again...

                  "A rising tide lifts all ships." Genesis 7:17

                  by dissenter2004 on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:49:17 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Heh (none)
                    Well I am, but Doverspa is a tool of Rove. You know Red State is run by Richard Viguerie right? Heh.

                    The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

                    by Armando on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:51:38 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Maybe I'm not cynical enough (none)
                    But that is how I see blogging.  Fellow citizens debating and discussing issues.  I know that things here will be slanted.  But with all of the emphasis on the "reality-based" community, I thought any impartial facts or quotes would be useful.

                    If I was just trying to score points, I would have made a big deal about Dean's assertion that Osama had nothing to do with 9/11.  But that's not my style.  I do think he misled and owes an apology or public correction on the abortion issue.

                    But from someone who thinks I'm brain-dead, evil, and hates me, I'm not holding my breathe too long.

                    •  I was glad to see you stand up (none)
                      on the stem cell thing over there.  They are tying it to abortion too much.  I think they are afraid it is a step on the slippery slope.   They are going to lose on this one, soon.  And if they tie it to their favorite issue they will only hurt themselves.

                      "A rising tide lifts all ships." Genesis 7:17

                      by dissenter2004 on Thu May 26, 2005 at 03:23:55 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  They really believe it. (none)
                        And I respect that but I disagree with them.  That's the same way I talk to people here.  Respect and disagree.

                        Strategically, it will hurt Rs although letting Congressmen vote their conscience was a smart move.

                        But those who believe it is wrong are as passionate and driven as abolitionists.  If they are deemed correct by history, those on the other side will seem as inhumane as those who defended slavery on a utilitarian basis.

              •  mcjoan's thesis doesn't seem to be... (none)
                ... that factcheck is NEVER right, and she admitted readily to a point she could have ignored or tried to rebutt.

                You can't trust factcheck absolutely, however well intentioned they might be.

                No one can subtract all bias, you can just do a decent job, some times.

  •  great diary mcjoan (none)
    and news to me....
  • (none)
    ...The only website I've ever seen Dick Cheney plug in his entire career.


    But what's with Howard saying abortion's gone up 25% since Bush became President?

    KISS -- Keep It Simple, Stupid! :-D

    by Viktor on Thu May 26, 2005 at 01:48:01 PM PDT

  •  FactCheck and Dean (none)
    Howdy, McJoan.

    First, FactCheck has taken both sides and especially 527s to task.  They lambasted the Swift Boat Vets and and they are the closest thing I have seen to impartial in politics.  They are not a media firm.  They are an academic organization.  They may not be perfect and some one must always watch them, but it should take more than my using the word "impartial" to demean them.

    Second, I am most interesting in the lie in Dean's quote:

    Here is Dr. Dean on NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday: "We'd like to make abortion rare. You know that abortions have gone up 25% since George Bush was president?" Dr. Dean went on, "There are not many of us who want to see the abortion rate continue to go up as it has under President Bush."

    It is factually inaccurate and that is exactly what is set up to find and counter.  Kudos to them for pointing it out.

    Finally, I am quite saddened that you would file me under the "some Republican winger" category.  I try to make constructive and lucid commentary on Kos without disrupting the Democratic purpose of the site.  I see it doesn't take much to bring out a little intolerance over here.

    •  Pffft (none)
      Fact Check went after STASSEN! and then Hillary!

      And lied about it.

      IT was junk.

      Can you argue that mcjoan is wrong in what she wrote above on what Fact Check wrote?

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:19:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There's lies (none)
      and there's mistakes. This was a doozy and probably deserves clarification, but a lie? What evidence do you have that this was intentional rather than a mistake?

      And, you'll note, I'm focusing on Clinton and on Stassen (an avowed pro-life ethicist and statistician). What about them?

      I appreciate your efforts at dailyKos, but when you write at Red State, that's a whole different ball of wax.

      I got nuthin'. But check out unbossed.

      by Joan McCarter on Thu May 26, 2005 at 02:20:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yeah (none)
        My cheering on Civil Union in CT really puts me out there with the other wingers.  Fine.

        FWIW with Hillary at least, FactCheck often points out where people have implied something without saying it.  Her quote could easily be construed to imply that abortions were rising.  And many people on this site have that belief, so if it isn't from those statistical "mistakes" where is that idea originating.

        They went after the Swift Boat Vets for implying many things that were unproved either way.  It was a classic he said, she said case, but they criticized the group.  Ditto MoveOn's "knocking down the house" ad on Social Security.  Maybe that isn't the best policy, but they are consistent about it.

    •  Geez (none)
      Doverspa, I think you are taking way too much heat for this.  

      You posted a link, on your website, to an article that you had nothing to do with writing.  There was no reason for you to think the article was incorrect.

      We are setting a very high standard if what you did was wrong.

      That's where I saw the Leprchaun. He tells me to burn things! -R. Wiggum

      by Blue Neponset on Thu May 26, 2005 at 03:09:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Probable OBE, but Factcheck has... (none)
    slightly updated their article today, incorporating some updated commentary from Stassen, and partially addressing their glaring error w/rt Sen Clinton.

    Never wear your best trousers when you go out to fight for freedom and truth. -- Henrik Ibsen

    by mik on Fri May 27, 2005 at 01:23:56 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site