I ranted a little yesterday about MSM "fact checkers", and
so did James
Taranto. There is absolutely no question about who did a more
thorough, more convincing, more damning job. You should Read The Whole
The usual conservative complaint about all this "fact checking" is the same as the conservative complaint about the MSM's product in general: that it is overwhelmingly biased toward the left. But the form amplifies the bias. It gives journalists much freer rein to express their opinions by allowing them to pretend to be rendering authoritative judgments about the facts. The result, as we've seen, is shoddy arguments and shoddier journalism.
It might actually be useful for journalism to point out the divergence between political rhetoric and reality. But with the term "fact checker" taken, what would such people call themselves?
For more detail on one of the "fact checking" skirmishes, see
Robert Rector at NRO, who examines the
claim, derided by the "fact checkers", that the Obama Administration
is attempting an extralegal run-around to gut welfare reform.
So it appears the administration intends to do away with standards of the reform law that require 30 to 40 percent of the work-eligible [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families] caseload to engage in clearly defined activities for 20 to 30 hours per week. It will replace those standards with a new standard urging that the work-eligible caseload engage in vaguely defined activities for as little as one hour per week.
This sounds a lot like “gutting” to most reasonable people.
It only sounds like that because that's exactly what it is.
Dave Barry continues his exemplary coverage from
Anyway, Jeff (Thanks, Jeff!) and I were sitting at the CNN Grill bar enjoying complimentary margaritas when up walked famous political insider strategist James Carville. He chatted with us for several minutes, during which he revealed some fascinating inside political information. Unfortunately I can’t tell you what it was, because I can never understand anything Carville says. I know he is brilliant, but he sounds -- and I mean this respectfully -- like an extremely Cajun version of the Aflac duck. My notes just say: “Carville.”
You can ogle the PDF version of the 2012
Democratic Platform. The one that fails to mention "God". Or
"Jerusalem". But "abortion" shows up a lot. And I couldn't help but
check for …
- We see an America where everyone has a fair shot, does their fair share, … [p. 32]
- "… asking the wealthiest to again contribute their fair share." [p. 32]
- "… while asking the wealthiest and corporations to pay their fair share. [p. 34]
- "Cutting Waste, Reducing the Deficit, Asking All to Pay Their Fair Share" [p. 38]
- "The Republican Party has a different vision—instead of asking everyone to do their fair share …" [p. 38]
- "We believe America prospers when everyone, from Main Street to Wall Street, does their fair share …" [p. 44]
- "It’s a vision that says everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone engages in fair play. " [p. 46]
- "We reject the Republican budget plan that would force us to destroy the safety net in order to help the wealthiest avoid doing their fair share. [p. 54]
The Democrats continue to play that same scratchy record, the one that says "We think you're stupid."
Do "we all belong to the government?" PJ
Tatler notes an attempt to find
a Democrat that believes otherwise.
URLs du Jour — 2012-09-05
Last Modified 2012-09-18 3:56 PM EDT