Showing posts with label Andrew Sullivan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Andrew Sullivan. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 06, 2012

Thine own petard lieth in wait for such as thee, Andrew Sullivan

It's simply amazing. 

Sullivan shows us how to hoist one's self with his own petard like a father patiently demonstrating to his young son how to tie a tie.

No, really.  Sullivan shares with his readers a chart derived from PolitiFact's "Truth-O-Meter" readings.

Sullivan comments:
Of course, there's a big bold disclaimer: Politifact picks and chooses what topics it covers; it itself is not unblemished in its impartiality; none of this pretends to be a comprehensive, independent analysis of large swirling, now uncoordinated campaigns. Nonetheless, you can separate out party leaders on both sides, as selected by Politifact, and gauge their truthfulness, as measured by Politifact.
Exactly!  The chart tells you nothing dependably about the candidates, but it does potentially tell you something about PolitiFact.

Compare:



That's a nicely tied tie! 

Unfortunately, Sullivan doesn't seem aware that he has undercut the point of his post.
Again, what you see is a GOP advantage in truthiness in general but a huge discrepancy when it comes to total, massive, pants-on-fire whoppers.
Sullivan's claims especially tickled me since I'm completing the first of a series of studies examining PolitiFact for signs of bias.  The first such study looks specifically at "Pants on Fire" ratings compared to other ratings.  The difference between "False" and "Pants on Fire" is important because PolitiFact defines the difference between the two (so far as I can tell) on entirely subjective terms.
FALSE – The statement is not accurate.

PANTS ON FIRE – The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim.
Until PolitiFact reveals its objective means for determining that a statement is worthy of ridicule, it's reasonable to take the definitions literally.  Far from showing that Republicans lie outrageously, Sullivan's stats simply show PolitiFact's tendency to think Republican untruths worthy of ridicule.

Of note, PolitiFact Wisconsin is often criticized as leaning to the right.  This measure bears that suspicion out to some extent, though I suspect the reasons behind the numbers differ significantly.

Monday, October 06, 2008

Legends of the Left: Obama foresaw the subprime mortgage crisis

Presidential candidate Barack Obama appears to have achieved a prophetic status rivaling that of Nostradamus, at least when it comes to having vague statements interpreted as specific predictions.

I first encountered this "Obama knew" claim from an acquaintance. He argued that Obama saw the subprime mortgage crisis coming. I could not induce him to offer any specifics, however.

Senator Biden made the claim during his debate with Sarah Palin.
Barack Obama pointed out two years ago that there was a subprime mortgage crisis and wrote to the secretary of Treasury. And he said, "You'd better get on the stick here. You'd better look at it."
Naturally I developed a curiosity about that letter.

And I quickly ran across a link at The Daily Kos under the headline "Obama saw it coming." The blogger "free speech zone" dressed up a portion of an Obama speech with hotlinks:
If you want to understand the difference between how Senator McCain and I would govern as President, you can start by taking a look at how we've responded to this crisis. Because Senator McCain's approach was the same as the Bush Administration's: support ideological policies that made the crisis more likely; do nothing as the crisis hits; and then scramble as the whole thing collapses. My approach has been to try to prevent this turmoil. In February of 2006, I introduced legislation to stop mortgage transactions that promoted fraud, risk or abuse. A year later, before the crisis hit, I warned Secretary Paulson and Chairman Bernanke about the risks of mounting foreclosures and urged them to bring together all the stakeholders to find solutions to the subprime mortgage meltdown. Senator McCain did nothing.
I infer that "free speech zone" added the hotlinks because they do not occur in the version of the speech to which the post links.

Note that Andrew Sullivan also considers this letter a warning about the subprime mortgage crisis.

So what mounting risks did Obama talk about? It's always wise to get the point rapidly in a letter ...

Dear Chairman Bernanke and Secretary Paulson,

There is grave concern in low-income communities about a potential coming wave of foreclosures. Because regulators are partly responsible for creating the environment that is leading to rising rates of home foreclosure in the subprime mortgage market, I urge you immediately to convene a homeownership preservation summit with leading mortgage lenders, investors, loan servicing organizations, consumer advocates, federal regulators and housing-related agencies to assess options for private sector responses to the challenge.

We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. And while neither the government nor the private sector acting alone is capable of quickly balancing the important interests in widespread access to credit and responsible lending, both must act and act quickly.

There simply isn't anything at all in the first two paragraphs that a reasonable person could take as predicting the subprime mortgage crisis. Obama focuses on the risks of foreclosure, not on the risk of a system-wide dissipation of liquidity.

On the other hand, Obama does express some concern over liquidity at number six among six bullet points where he recommends a direction for a summit between private entities and regulators:
  • How to ensure adequate liquidity across all mortgage markets without exacerbating consumer and housing market vulnerability.
Sounds a bit vague, doesn't it? But here's the kicker: Obama wasn't foreseeing anything. He wrote his letter after the crisis had already hit. His letter is dated March 24, 2007. The Telegraph (UK) provides a timeline of the crisis showing how Obama predicted a crisis that had already occurred.

30 June 2004 The US Federal Reserve starts a cycle of interest rate rises that will lift borrowing costs from 1%, their lowest level since the 1950s, to the current level of 5.25%.

The central bank will go on to increase interest rates 17 times in a row as it tries to slow inflation. It pauses in June 2006, and has not lifted borrowing costs from 5.25% since then.

August 2005 through 2006 Higher borrowing costs start to impact on the US housing market and the property boom starts to unwind.

Building rates drop sharply to decade lows and prices also start to come down.

Defaults on sub-prime mortgages - where lenders give cash to people with poor or no credit history at higher than normal repayment levels - start to increase.

12 March 2007 Shares in New Century Financial, one of the biggest sub-prime lenders in the US, are suspended amid fears it may be heading for bankruptcy.

It's generally easier to predict things that have already happened, obviously.

What we have here, it seems, is an Obama trying to burnish his reputation for good judgment despite having no real foundation in fact. Biden goes along for the ride, parroting the campaign talking point for the sake of higher office. Andrew Sullivan ... I'm not sure what he gets out of the deal.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Following the money on Iraq

Hat tip to American Power for pointing the way to Nancy Morgan's essay on Iraq, "We Won":
America, its allies and the Iraqi people have won the war against terror in Iraq. How do we know? Simple. Just follow the money. European and Asian investment companies are beating a path to Iraq, money in hand. Iraqi Airlines is flying high thanks to a colossal $5.5 billion contract with Boeing and the United Arab Emirates just canceled billions of dollars of Iraqi debt as they moved to restore a diplomatic mission in Baghdad.

When foreign countries start investing billions of dollars in a country, its a safe bet they are aware of the risks involved. And, unlike the old news media and our elected Democrat officials, they see a relatively stable country ripe for investment.

The influx of foreign investment is largely due to the improved security in Iraq, which continues to improve even after the withdrawal of nearly 25% of U.S. combat brigades. The Joint Chiefs of Staff recently acknowledged cautiously that security 'is on its way to becoming sustainable.'
Meanwhile, in the "reality-based community" we have the following (this one from Kathy at "Comments from Left Field":

God, I’m so tired of this:

  • First of all, isn’t this, like, the 67,986th time we’ve “turned the corner”? Which “final and critical campaign” is this one? There’ve been quite a few, you know.
  • Second, pardon me if I don’t jump up and down screaming and waving the red, white, and blue at the statement that Al Qaeda is “close to dead.” Al Qaeda is a very small part of the violence in Iraq. And Al Qaeda wasn’t even in Iraq until after the U.S. invaded, so “killing” it is only correcting a problem we caused to begin with. It hardly constitutes “winning” the war.
  • Third, who is getting those oil contracts? Why are you so happy to have it confirmed for you that all the blood that’s been spilled in Iraq was, indeed, spilled for oil.
Kathy keeps right on going for two more bullet points, all this after suggesting that Andrew Sullivan was quaffing Kool-aid when he published an article on July 6 noting progress in the Iraq War.

Try following Kathy's link in support of Al Qaeda being a "very small part" of the violence in Iraq and try to figure out what she wants you to read. It might as well be a phantom citation since it leads to a lengthy Wikipedia entry with no apparent information that would unambiguously support Kathy's claim.

Keepin' it real in the Reality-based community, I suppose.