FactCheck.org: Fred Plays it Straight, Rudy a Big Liarhead
Yes, I *do* specialize in executive summaries.
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Pardon the frivolous title, but this piece from the folks at FactCheck.org is pretty unusual. I can't remember one of their post-debate assessments that came out so one-sided. Now, Rudy's missteps in this debate didn't seem to be overly blatant, of the variety that could have been errors committed by innocently leaving words out (although after they resolve the Romney/Rudy mixup about their respective tax/spending records that might change) - but it underscores something astounding about their review of Fred Thompson - it's highly unusual for them to go through a candidate's entire debate performance and find *no* missteps, no matter how small.
In fact, the folks at FactCheck noted that Fred took care to be extra careful with the facts, and his respect for even the small details was very good.
More below...
Economic Growth: Thompson erred – but on the safe side – when he said, "We're enjoying 22 quarters of successive economic growth." Actually, the U.S. economy has grown for 23 successive quarters, according to the most recent figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. And when preliminary figures on gross domestic product for July, August and September are released later this month, the official total is expected to reach 24.
Restraining Future Social Security Benefits: Thompson also was correct about the effect of restraining growth of Social Security benefits for future retirees:
Thompson: And then, lastly, one of the other things that could be done would be to index benefits to inflation. Index benefit to inflation for future retirees. It would not affect current or near retirement people. [It] would be indexed to inflation instead of wages, as it is today. And it would solve the problem for several years; it wouldn't solve it indefinitely, but it would give us a window of opportunity to get our arms around the problem. It would be a major step in the right direction.
The Social Security actuaries calculate that it would require a tax increase of 1.95 percent of taxable payroll to pay benefits promised under current benefit formulas for the next 75 years. But most of that "actuarial imbalance" would disappear under various proposals to peg benefits of future retirees to inflation rather than to wage growth. One form of so-called "progressive" indexing would allow future retirement benefits for the lowest 40 percent of wage earners to keep growing under the current formula, which is pegged to wage growth, but slow down the growth of benefits for higher-income workers retiring after 2012 according to a sliding scale. Benefits for those at the very top would rise only enough to keep pace with inflation. Actuaries calculated that this would remove 1.21 percentage points from the 1.95 percent actuarial imbalance.
Opinions differ on whether any reduction in future benefit growth is a step "in the right direction," and we take no position on that. Thompson was correct to say that proposals for inflation indexing would "solve the problem for years," however.
I am the last person to suggest that the early stages of Thompson's campaign have been error-free, but I think Thompson's performance in the debates put to rest any claim that he's "lazy" or lacks command of the details of policy - in fact, as the folks at FactCheck.org demonstrated - he demonstrated a greater command of the facts and details than the leader in the race.
UPDATE: Diarist Brad G also checks in.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Straight Talk on SCHIP: McCain Blasts 'Voodoo' Scheme — Comments (3) »
FactCheck.org: Fred Plays it Straight, Rudy a Big Liarhead 30 Comments (0 topical, 30 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Their analysis seems overly generous to Hillary, giving her parameters the very generous benefit of the doubt. The high end of the government retirement program, $25 billion, is indeed almost $5 billion more than the approximately $21.5 billion that the baby bonds would have cost. And Rudy probably has, as I do, suspicions that it might end up costing much more than she's letting on.
Giuliani also exaggerated when he said Clinton's new proposal would cost $5 billion more than the $5,000-per-baby idea. She estimates that the new retirement plan proposal would cost about $20 billion to $25 billion each year, an amount she would finance by freezing the estate tax at its 2009 level.
So, Rudy's a liar because he does not bow before the towering integrity of Hillary Clinton's self-serving estimates of the costs of her own proposals?
Paul Krugman would be proud.
Anyway, I file these under Crank's First Rule of Government Financial Forecasts: they are always, always wrong.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
According to FactCheck.org,
"Giuliani misleads when he says Clinton called the free market 'destructive,' when what she has really said is that it is both disruptive to neighborhoods and people's lives, and a driving force behind prosperity."
So, according to FactCheck.org, it is incorrect to say that something that disrupts someone's neighborhood or one's life is destructive? I think that when she says that, she very well implies that it is a disruption that is not welcome, thus impliedly destructive. Then she throws in "and the driving force behind prosperity" because she's hedging and doesn't want to look like the communist that she is at heart.
I think FactCheck.org is patently incorrect in asserting that that Giuliani's statement was incorrect.
as I thought his expertise would be more on the courts, law enforcement, GWOT because of his legal background.
- Fred did impress me with his grasp of economic matters
I had the opposite reaction. His answer concerning a "strong dollar" revealed that he does not know what the term means. It was an ignorant, rambling response that had the disadvantage of being factually incorrect. His answer regarding Social Security was hogwash (and I say that knowing that other hogwash peddlers have praised his answer.)
I'm a big Fred fan. Frankly, his performance in the debate both disappointed and scared me.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
The only quibble that I think that FactCheck probably stands on solid ground on is Giuliani's mischaracterization of all torts as frivolous lawsuits.
The rest can all be construed in ways that support Giuliani's statements. FactCheck.org, however, prefers to construe them in ways that give Hillary the benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps they should rename themselves "SuppositionCheck"
at worst, two exaggerated critiques of Hillary's economic policies.
The third involved lawsuits. The tears live in an onion that involve critiques of our legal system.
As for Rudy's arguments with Mitt & vice versa, shame on them both for engaging in them. No one cares, and they wasted our time.
But that just goes to show how eager the group is to find "errors." It's part of what impressed me about Fred's performance.
------------
With all the love my mama gave me
I'm gonna drop the devil to his knees
the reputed Third Rail, Social Security & Medicare.
He clearly did his homework. The delivery was a little wobbly, but no GWB "fuzzy math" stuff.
birth right citizenship and Iran's acts of war
Fred has thought all these issues out, much as Reagan did, and reduced them to radio essays that disciplines the mind to get it down to 700 words or less
http://www.redstate.com/comment/reply/39181/539863
http://towncommons.blogspot.com/2007/04/fred-thompson-on-iranian-hostage...
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Taking into consideration sentiments about the veracity of FactCheck.orgs claims, I think their article points out something that many in the media and elsewhere have failed to notice.
Fred Thompson is a serious guy. He is careful not to play fast and loose with the facts in pursuit of politcal expediency or scoring "gotcha" points. His command of the subjects that were covered in the "debate" was excellent. A lot of commentary here and elsewhere is that he doesn't have "it", whatever that means. Not combative enough or doesn't have some at hand solutions for whatever interest group is being pandered to, I suppose. No "red meat" for the politcal chattering class. He doesn't make for "good" news copy.
Frankly, he comports himself like a thoughtful, rational adult, not some desperate to be elected at any cost, political hack and I think we could stand a lot more of that in our political dialogue.
“We have forgotten in America that a democracy is the most difficult kind of government to maintain. It is the hardest kind of government under which to live. It is hardest to maintain because of the widespread political corruption to which it so easily lends itself. Our drift today toward complete totalitarian bureaucracy is one that threatens immediately the very freedoms for which our own boys are dying.”
Ernest R. Palen, D.D.
I did my homework all semester and didn't have to cram.
Reagan was also called lazy. But read two books:
How Ronald Reagan changed my life
Reagan: A Life in Letters
and one sees how wise people manage their time
see Fred
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Reagan honed, in just the way Reagan did: Radio spots. Reagan did radio spots from 1978-1980. Fred filled in for Paul Harvey the last 2 years.
see the book
Reagan: In his own Hand
and see Fred
http://www.abcradionetworks.com/Blog.asp?id=15663&m=6&y=2007
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
While Factcheck's analysis may be correct that Guliani was incorrect in some of his assertions, and Fred was spot on that still doesnt change the fact that Rudy is a more skilled debater. BTW I support Fred, Im just pointing out the truth here. That said, Fred's grasp of the facts and his accuracy does show he is no light weight as the MSM is trying to portray him.
Before I would call anyone in this race a better debater than anyone else, I'd have to see a real debate. 90 minutes, mano a mano, with an impartial moderator. These so-called "debates" are nothing more than 2 hour show and tells, "moderated" by Chris Matthews? (There's an oxymoron for you.)
Newt's ideas on the matter are worth considering and the sooner the better for all of us IMO.
“We have forgotten in America that a democracy is the most difficult kind of government to maintain. It is the hardest kind of government under which to live. It is hardest to maintain because of the widespread political corruption to which it so easily lends itself. Our drift today toward complete totalitarian bureaucracy is one that threatens immediately the very freedoms for which our own boys are dying.”
Ernest R. Palen, D.D.
Fred couldnt have made any mistakes. He talks in broad terms, has no plan and I can't remember him talking about his record once. Did he talk about his record?
So who's your candidate and why?
“You can convince an ignorant man easily; you can convince a wise man more easily. But a man who knows a little and thinks himself to be perfect, not even Brahma can convince.”
Proverb
My candidate is Rudy. I think the field is weak. I don't see how Fred or Mitt could get one more vote Than GWB did in 2004. With any other candidate running I think Hillary is a lock.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8S7D9280&show_article=1
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
of today will see that Gamecock's CW of 1972-2004 will win out.
America will not, for the first time ever, in 2008, elect an appeasing McGovernite president in a time of war.
Hence, yes, Rudy would win a landslide, but most any Republican will win comfortably given the positions staked out by all the dems.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
My candidate is John McCain. I am a converted Romney supporter (I live in the republican political hell which is Massachusetts.) Why do I support McCain? My two issues are pork-barrell spending and national defense. I don't agree with McCain on every issue but I think he is right on these two.
Brad Marston
Visit the best political blog that nobody reads at www.azamatterofact.com
Moe didn't mention it, but the comments here at RedState are set-up to be threaded, and when you use "Reply to This" you help keep the thread intact.
It can get confusing when your replying to the last comment on the page - you need to use the "Reply to This" link below the comment but still within the comment box, not the link at the bottom of the page.
Wow great headline, mades the debate sound real Presidential. Thought I walked into Daily Kos by accident.
If Rudy is such a liar why is CFG so solidly behind him?
Thompson's rating was so high because he only said 2 words in the whole debate! He just slouched there and answered now and then, looking like we were interrupting him while watching ESPN or Law & Order or something.
glad you're here.
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
constantly repeating "lineitemveto" as if its the answer to all that ails the United States. Reminded me of Rain Man and "Cincinnati"
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
at Factcheck was posted on the 9th regarding his police numbers that he uses and also his efficiency in setting up his emergency center.
The critiques of Fred, by the way, for not saying anything is crazy as pointed out in the FactCheck article since they verified many DETAILS of the comments that he made. Fred is quite substantial, he just didn't get down in the weeds yelling at the other candidates.
...but they tend to be relatively nit-picky when it comes to Republicans. If they call out a Democrat, though... get out the popcorn; they're probably onto something borderline epic when that happens (which is more often than you'd think).
"I don't understand why the same newspaper commentators who bemoan the terrible education given to poor people are always so eager to have those poor people get out and vote." - P.J. O'Rourke