Was the PolitiFact Pulitzer deserved? Pt. 1

As a long time critic of the PolitiFact fact checking operation, I was annoyed that PolitiFact was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for its 2008 reporting leading up to the election.

The Pulitzer committee supposedly awards prizes to examples of journalism reflecting the highest standards of journalism.  An inquiry regarding those standards ended up directing me to the definition of categories provided at the Pulitzer Web page.  Though it is not stated explicitly, it is implied that the high standards represent honesty, accuracy and fairness on top of more purely artistic and literary considerations.

It took months, but the Pulitzer site eventually identified the works for which PolitiFact received its Pulitzer Prize.  I have resolved to second-guess the Pulitzer jury by examining in turn each of the thirteen works that collectively earned the award.

The first such work from the list was a page from January 2008 featuring five "Truth-O-Meter" ratings for some of the major presidential hopefuls (three Democrats and five Republicans).

The page relies in turn on numerous sub-stories for its accuracy and fairness, and I am perfectly willing to operate under the assumption that PolitiFact writers and editors would never intentionally misinform their readers.  It is not practical to examine each contributing story in detail, and I doubt that the Pulitzer jury bothered with that in any case.

The page does represent one area of concern, however:

With the Florida primary three days away, we have collected five of our most revealing rulings for each of the major candidates.

The above statement from the comments introducing the individual rulings unavoidably constitutes an opinion.  Traditional "objective" journalism strongly discourages opinion except where it is labeled as such.  PolitiFact wantonly flirted with a journalistic taboo.

That opinion does lead to some potentially fruitful examinations of the individual claims.  Is it really highly significant that John Edwards pledged to use his presidential power to take away Congress' health care benefits when he has no such powers?  Edwards could either be mixed up about presidential powers or he could be making one of the easiest campaign pledges a presidential candidate could make.  Granted, the "Pants on Fire" grade Edwards received goes along with "ridiculous" claims under the PolitiFact system.  Edwards' claim certainly was ridiculous whether he misunderstood presidential powers or simply made a literally truthful yet empty pledge.

More seriously, the Pulitzer jury apparently overlooked a major flaw in the fairness of the reporting, one that was relatively obvious even without examining the underlying details:

The statement: "John Edwards never - has ever from the beginning of his political career has never taken PAC money or the money of Washington lobbyists. Ever."
Joe Trippi, senior campaign advisor to John Edwards, on Sept. 20, 2007, in a television interview
The ruling: Edwards accepted $14,900 from employees at lobbying firms through June 2007. Given the absolute ironclad statement, we rule it Half True.

Compare the forgiveness of Edwards' absolutism with the hard line taken on John McCain:

The statement: "I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork- barrel project for my state."
--John McCain, Jan. 6, 2008, in a debate in Manchester, N.H.
The ruling: We find three examples of McCain seeking pork-barrel projects for Arizona, which puts a few blemishes on an otherwise stellar record against pork.

Though it does not appear in the text of "the ruling," PolitiFact found McCain flatly "False" for having some dubious examples of pork spending on his record.

It certainly appears that PolitiFact gave Edwards an easier ride than McCain on this point of comparison.

Verdict:  Based on this story, the Pulitzer jury had reason to fault PolitiFact for its fairness.  On a scale of 0-10 with zero representing the greatest offense against journalistic standards, 10 representing the highest attainment of standards, and six representing a neutral grade with respect to Pulitzer worthiness, I give this entry a five.  It counts slightly against PolitiFact's worthiness for the 2008 prize, in other words.


*****

Hat tip:  I may not have taken special notice of PolitiFact's treatment of Edwards' statement were it not for the comments of Jeff Dyberg at PolitiFact's FaceBook site.

Democratic debate at UNLV

I didn't catch absolutely the entire thing, but I did hear most of it. A few notes:

Sen. Clinton did not address the accusation that she fails to address issues. Her insinuation that 35 years in public life serves to make her stance on issues clear (and consistent?) didn't cut it.

A number of the candidates, including Barack Obama, suggested that the surge strategy is failing. Obama acknowledged some improvement in the security situation, but asserted that the political situation has not changed (is he paying attention?) and on that basis called for withdrawal of U.S. troops. This group of candidates is ready to wrest defeat from the jaws of victory.

John Edwards joined others in calling NAFTA a failure, talking about the loss of jobs that occurred as a result. Isn't he aware that agreements like NAFTA increase the buying power of Americans across the board? I get no hint of that type of realization from him. Sen. Dodd gave the closest approximation of sanity on trade issues.

Sen. Clinton, addressing her "boy's club" remarks and the suggestion that she was playing the gender card, took a page from hubby's book, saying "I'm not exploiting anything at all."
Depends on what "exploiting" is, I suppose. Her Oct. 31 cackle came out when Wolf Blitzer engaged in word play on the boy's club phrase.

I must have heard this wrong, but it sounded like Edwards jumped at the chance to follow Hillary on the gender issue (Paul Shanklin, anyone?). And again, maybe I heard it wrong, but it sounded like Edwards addressed a male soldier (home from a third Iraq deployment) with "many women like you." I was blinking my eyes in disbelief during this segment, having difficulty believing I'd heard rightly. Edwards finished with a strong statement in favor of withdrawal, which I marked down in my notes as "standing up for spinelessness."

Bill Richardson addressed a question from the audience regarding disparity in pay between private security companies and U.S. soldiers. Richardson showed his fiscal restraint by calling for increased pay for U.S. soldiers across the board as well as calling for a boost in the size of our armed forces. The cameras showed the face of the person who asked the question after he finished with that part of the response. A look of doubt crossed her face on that one.

Barack Obama said he would save Social Security by keeping Bush from raiding the Soc. Sec. trust fund to get money for the war. Come on, Sen. Obama. You know that the Congress controls the purse strings, and you know that the Congress doesn't bother keeping track of which expense uses funds borrowed from Social Security. Obama's other great idea was to remove the cap on Soc. Sec. payroll taxes. Clinton criticized him for advocating a tax hike after that one, then she did her imitation of Internet spelling police by correcting a misstatement by Obama (he twice called the payroll tax increase a tax cut).
Clinton could have pulled that off without sounding petty, in my opinion, but she didn't do it.

Almost forgot: Obama had a third great idea. He thinks that preventative medicine saves on Medicare expenses. President Bush was blowing the same horn when he stumped for his Medicare prescription drug plan. I strongly doubt that it works that way. The longer people stay alive, the more medical expenses they incur. Die of a heart attack at 60 and you might save the government the expense of two hip replacements when you hit your 70s. I'm certainly not recommending euthanasia for sexagenarians; I'm just pointing out that it doesn't work that way in terms of economics. Both Obama and Bush are almost certainly wrong on this point.

My last notes concern Supreme Court nominations. Some of the nominees explicitly favored a Roe v. Wade litmus test (Richardson, if I remember correctly). Most said they'd insist on a recognition of the right to privacy, a some of those (including Clinton) went on to intimate that recognition of the right to privacy led to a recognition of the legitimacy of Roe. That's a load of hooey. One of President Bill Clinton's Supreme Court nominees (Ginsberg, if I remember correctly) questioned Roe's basis in the right to privacy, advocating an alternative basis in the right to self-defense.

The reasoning of Roe v. Wade is an embarrassment to those who take constitutional law seriously, even to many scholars who heartily support the outcome of the case. As John Hart Ely, former dean of Stanford Law School and a supporter of abortion rights, has written, Roe "is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be."
(Opinion Journal)

This is a terrible group of candidates, based on their answers to the questions. The best hope is that they know good policy but lie through their teeth about what they'd do just to capture the nomination.

Kucinich was a joke again, but that isn't news.

*****

On the benefits of running for vice president

John Edwards took something from running-mate John Kerry.

John Edwards has a plan.

On Sept. 7, 2007, John Edwards gave us his bold new direction. I almost said "bold new direction for the war on terrorism" but Edwards eschews the notion of a war on terrorism.

The first quarter of it is more-or-less pure criticism of Bush's policies. From that point onward I'll try to keep the criticism separate from the Plan.

... we need new institutions designed to share intelligence, cooperate across borders, and take out small, hostile groups.

Such as? Part of the yet-to-be-revealed Plan, no doubt.

... we need a new foreign policy of conviction that requires cooperation in exchange for our support, whether it's arms sales, trade, or foreign aid.

Let Musharraf fall? Roll the dice hoping that the replacement isn't hostile? But I shouldn't jump to conclusions. Surely the Plan will reveal all.

... we need a long-term strategy to win the minds of those who are not yet our enemies, by offering education, democracy, and opportunity in place of radicalism, hatred and fear.

And the first step in that direction is to pull out of Iraq and let the civil war take its course? But I don't want to put words in Edwards' mouth. I will look forward to the specifics of the Plan.

... we need to reengage with the world and reassert our moral leadership.

Somehow I expect that really means that we'll fall in line with what Europe wants us to do, but I really must wait for the Plan.

It's the right time for a bold new direction.

As president, I will launch a comprehensive new counterterrorism policy that will be defined by two principles—strength and cooperation.

The centerpiece of this policy will be a new multilateral organization called the Counterterrorism and Intelligence Treaty Organization (CITO).

Pipe-dream, but it's more than I expected. Edwards' strategy hints at an adherence to the liberal framework of understanding war.

Every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. CITO will create connections between a wide range of nations on terrorism and intelligence, including countries on all continents, including Asia, Africa, Latin America, and Europe.

Edwards just spelled out why his plan doesn't work. As expected, it relies on the presuppositions of liberalism (see URL above if you're not sure what I mean), specifically that every nation has an interest in shutting down terrorism. That simply isn't true unless some particular state of affairs exists such as "The United States will kick your butt unless you toe the line." Edwards does not appear to consider the legitimacy of some of the positions of the realist camp, which see war and conflict as the natural outworking of nations competing with each other for higher status. Russia, China and Iraq do not particularly care if the United States or Europe have problems with terrorism. What's bad for the West may be good for their aspirations to power. Let the United States deal with the weaknesses of its open society. Let the terrorists bring the Americans to their knees. The Russians and the Chinese use the type of authoritarian systems that can effectively eliminate terrorism--once they exercise their control widely and ruthlessly enough.

The Plan had better have a good supply of magic dust to get the cooperation of any two of those three.

CITO will allow members to voluntarily share financial, police, customs and immigration intelligence. Together, nations will be able to track the way terrorists travel, communicate, recruit, train, and finance their operations.

Edwards will be able to stop the Italians and the South Koreans from paying millions for the release of hostages. Sorry, but I don't believe it for a half a second. I doubt that the United States under Edwards would refuse to offer money for the return of hostages.

The new organization will also create a historic new coalition. Those nations who join will, by working together, show the world the power of cooperation. Those nations who join will also be required to commit to tough criteria about the steps they will take to root out extremists, particularly those who cross borders. Those nations who refuse to join will be called out before the world.

Wouldn't it be more severe to put them in the corner for a time?

Actually, at this point Edwards' CITO is starting to look like an organization that conservatives have suggested as the natural replacement for the UN--an organization of the "democratic" nations. That leaves out the probably intractability of the Russians and the Chinese (unless those regimes undergo some impressive reform in a short span).

I will lead efforts to improve human intelligence through 1,000 new annual scholarships to improve language skills for students who pursue careers in intelligence and diplomacy.

That's a good idea, but 1,000 annual scholarships isn't exactly a bold move.

I will direct the Secretary of State, working with the Attorney General and other national security officials, to launch comprehensive strategies to support agencies in other countries.

... and then hopefully he'll change his mind after he finds out how that idea compromises our intelligence sources. Until then it's good rhetoric, I suppose.

And during my first year in office, I will establish a "Marshall Corps," patterned after the military reserves, that will include at least 10,000 civilian experts. Its members will be deployed abroad to serve on reconstruction, stabilization, and humanitarian missions.

Is that via a draft or what? We've got plenty of civilian experts in Iraq, as I understand it. They just have trouble staying because of the security situation. I wonder how they'll feel when Edwards redeploys the troops?

The guy's an empty suit.

Edwards' foreign policy for one America

Democrat John Edwards said the Bush administration's plan to sell $20 billion worth of weapons to friendly Arab states amounted to a foreign policy of convenience and he will take a tougher stance with Saudi Arabia if elected president.

Edwards said the United States should require the Saudi government to shut down the movement of terrorists across its borders, help stabilize the Iraqi government and participate more seriously in regional security before they are offered weapons.
(San Francisco Examiner, Associated Press)

Hmmm. Edwards wants to unilaterally push other countries around.

Seriously, if Edwards thinks that Iraq is a lost cause then what does he care if Saudi Arabians go to Iraq by the thousands? Does he just want to protect American lives and who cares about the Sunni minority in Iraq? How does that help Saudi Arabia if Edwards is going to make good on his promise to withdraw American troops?

Saudi Arabia is dominated by Sunnis. They have no desire to see an Iraq dominated by Shiites and even less so if Iraq is pulling the strings--and that's almost certainly what will happen if the U.S. leaves Iraq without establishing a unified Iraqi government representing each of the main factions.

So what does Edwards propose? Leave Saudi Arabia with its current armaments as a hostile Shia state cozies up next door? We'll sell them arms after Iran attacks? And they can train with the new equipment on-the-fly?

If the Democrats in Congress weren't intent on losing Iraq, then the arms deals for Saudi Arabia and Egypt wouldn't be so critical. An Iraq aligned against Iran's extremist tendencies provides Saudi Arabia a measure of security.

The threat of a U.S. pullout leading to a sectarian genocide in Iraq accentuates Saudi Arabian insecurity.

It's about that simple.

The old news on John Edwards' hair

I was reading the Captain's Quarters blog today and found some old news I'd missed.

John Edwards apparently gets his haircuts paid for with campaign funds. Cap'n Ed's CNN link was broken, but I found an even better one from MSNBC:

Edwards' haircuts cost a pretty penny

Candidate's multiple tonsorial stylings cost over $200 a clip

WASHINGTON - Looking pretty is costing John Edwards' presidential campaign a lot of pennies. The Democrat's campaign committee picked up the tab for two haircuts at $400 each by celebrity stylist Joseph Torrenueva of Beverly Hills, Calif., according to a financial report filed with the Federal Election Commission.
(MSNBC)

Gotta love that headline. The story plainly says that the haircuts were "$400 each" and the headline writer turns that into "over $200 a clip." It's over $300 a clip, too. Might even be $400 a clip.
Could bias in the editing room have influenced the editor's inability to perform simple math? I mean, technically it's true that $400 is over $200, but come on!

Edwards prepares for a public appearance, with "I Feel Pretty" as the soundtrack:



Here's another prize Edwards video:

Help John Edwards and you help the poor

The New York Times is reporting that a not-for-profit established by John Edwards for the purposed of assisting the poor primarily assists John Edwards.

I suppose the reasoning is that because John Edwards wants to help the poor and get rid of the "Two Americas" that therefore using funds designated to assist the poor to help him campaign for president is a legitimate expense.

It's not hard to see why Michael Medved calls Edwards a phony.


Hat tip to Captain's Quarters.

John Edwards: don't fight 'war on terror'

If the Democratic Party of John F. Kennedy isn't dead, it certainly isn't feeling very good.

John Edwards, one of the current Democrat frontrunners in the race for the DNC presidential nomination, came out against the war on terror during a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

Edwards is not the first presidential candidate to publicly reject the notion of a war on terrorism. In a speech last fall, Democrat Joe Biden also criticized the doctrine as "simply wrong."

In the first presidential debate last month in South Carolina, Edwards and Biden said they did not believe there was a global war on terror, along with Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel. Front-runners Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama indicated that they did.

(ABC News)

Edwards had been slipping in the polls against Clinton and Obama. Is this his way of courting the base?

"For us to be successful in this war on terrorism, we have to find these terrorist groups where they are, whether it's within our borders or outside our borders, and stop them and stamp them out before they do us harm," Edwards said in a 2004 CNN interview.
(ABC News)

Looks like he's changed his mind a bit.

I'm still chuckling (albeit in disgust) at what I read about Edwards at the Powerline blog a few hours ago.

Reviewing my Amanda Marcotte moment

I chuckled as Amanda Marcotte made the news as a maligned blogger in the John Edwards camp.

Apparently some of Marcotte's past authorial indiscretions made the Edwards campaign a little nervous. Some reported that Marcotte got canned, but apparently the campaign hasn't taken that step--at least not yet.

Here's a Marcotte gem aimed at yours truly along with "Robert":

Why do I get all the Klansmen on my blog? Seriously. Crow, Robert—you’re not fooling anyone. I grew up in the South amongst white conservatives. I know what jokes about “stupid” voters are. I know they’re coded racism.

To review the full context (helpful in appreciating the depth of Marcotte's silliness), go here.