Obama lied about Bill Ayers?

Let me state up front that I am not claiming to be unbiased while Factcheck's very existance depends on it.

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

McCain cranks out some false and misleading attacks on Obama's connection to a 1960s radical.

McCain says in an Internet ad that the two "ran a radical 'education' foundation" in Chicago.

After what appears exhaustive research Factcheck has debunked the McCain statement. Or have they. They failed to mention a grant went to Michael Klonsky, a known Chinese communist, and ACORN a relatively radical organization. Also they fail to mention that Ayers mentions Obama in his book.

It is curious that an article reserched as deeply as this one didn't bring up these points.

Also they mention the Governor of Illinois and Mayor Daily as if they were substantial character references, which at best is dubious.

I assume they knew these facts and intentionally didn't mention anything they thought wasnt common Knowledge. I have read the Chicago Anneberg Challenge papers and two people named Ayers remained on the board, and funds were given to Acorn, Klonsky as well as Ayers.

The statement that the CAC was "Mainstream" is curious because all they did was funnel monies to groups that would "Partner" with schools. You really have to follow the money trail to establish the point. WHICH FactCheck did not. This was the layered approach Ayers presented when applying for grant. This insulated the board from their failure to produce any results.

Then is it "Mainstream" education to spend $150,000,000 without any discernable results? You bet, that's education in Chicago.

Abolutely nothing was accomplished with the $150million distributed by CAC (50 from Anneberg with funds and 100mill from matching contributors, one the Chicago School system run by Daily.

So Obama partakes in a failed project. He just handed out the money to people who accomplished nothing. Or did they? I'll bet they trained a lot of community organizers. Where are your kids?

A Not so Subtle distortion

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sparring_in_spanish.html

From FactCheck:

Sparring in Spanish
September 19, 2008

A Spanish-language ad from Obama calls McCain a friend of Rush Limbaugh and says Limbaugh called Mexicans "stupid." A McCain ad in Spanish misrepresents Obama's role on immigration legislation.

This is headline, notice that they go out of the way in headline to state McCain "misrepresents" Obama. Whereas the headline would leave you still questioning if Limbaugh, a friend of McCain, did call Mexicans stupid.

If the headline was non-biased it would read as below.

A Spanish-language ad from Obama ERRONEOUSLY calls McCain a friend of Rush Limbaugh and distorts that Limbaugh called Mexicans "stupid." A McCain ad in Spanish misrepresents Obama's role on immigration legislation.

The actual discourse shows that the Obama ad was a a flagrant distortion, actually a LIE because it ios common knowledge McCain and Limbaugh are far from friends and Limbaugh probably didn't really say that.

Does this happen intentionally. No matter. A truly competent, neutral editor would recognize this and assert an even hand.

This is either an instance of personal preference dominating the editing process, or an example of lack of skill in editing, meaning a low comprehension of what you read.

In my education in logic and presentation, these examples of unfairness were taught to me , and I assume to these editors. What you are taught to maintain fairness can be twisted to manipulate your reader, if that is your bent.

______________________________________________

Who Caused Financial Crisis. FactCheck dosnt stop at facts they continue into bizarre opnions

Let me preface by saying I am a Conservative

"In Search of Conservative Principals"

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/who_caused_the_economic_crisis.html

This link answers the question Who Caused the economic crisis. After agreeing that Republican deregulation were positive, and that Democrats resisted Fannie/Freddie reform in 2000, 2003, 2004, and 2005, that Clinton also tried to propose reforms, that Clinton recognized a failure of Democrats to listen/respond, Factcheck recites the Democrat talking points listing diversions which have no research able facts to back them up as to "WHO CAUSED THE ECONOMIC CRISIS" and then concludes that everyone is to blame. Then Factcheck uses the Obama talking point that "there is enough blame to go around". I cannot see how that conclusion could be drawn from the facts they presented.

This is the kind of subtle bias that influences this whole site. Then factcheck says the McCain bill would have been too late, really the grossest kind of speculation. Obviously, being too late wasn't part of McCain's strategy and bears no weight in showing who was on the right side of the issue. BESIDES being purely speculative, 2006 may have WORKED. But presented as fact that it would not have helped.

It is also presented that he "joined the bill late" as if that was somehow negative as well. That is word for word a Democratic talking point and is totally irrelevant in explaining McCain's position.

These are Democratic talking points WORD FOR WORD. I would wish FactCheck were prohibited from editorializing. Truth has little chance in this scheme.

The FACTS related by factcheck.com support a conclusion that democrats are responsible.

Factcheck then intentionally muddies the waters with Bizarre nonsense talking points straight from the Democratic pundits, such as blaming the homeowner who got the mortgages. Then FastCheck magnanimously conclude "let's blame everyone".

That leaves blameless Fannie/Fredie/Dodd/Franks/Waters/Raines et all which is ludicrous.

I chose this instance of Fannie/Freddie because it is the most important one of our times. It is despicable that when all of the scoring points are against the Democrats for bad judgement that factcheck chooses to editorialize away the truth. Why is this editorializing needed? Cant we just present the facts? Of course that wouldn't suit the agenda of the people working at factcheck, would it? If this article had ended after the facts a totally different impression would be left in the readers mind. This isn't the only case, almost all conservative points are acknowledged then editorialized away.

Could we please re post this question without the diversion of factchecks opinion?

The more I read it the madder I get at the opinionated view that obscures and repositions the facts. This is a classic example from a journalistic school exercise of how to bias opinion.

FactCheck then sums it up with drivel about the economy being REALLY complicated. There is a similar devaluation of real estate, almost like clockwork, every 20 years. Bad loans combined with real estate devaluation is not complicated at all. Its only after listing 12 non-relevant reasons that it seems complicated. It wasn't complicated to Greenspan, Falcon, Bush, McCain et. al.

DISCUSSION:

I offer this discussion only to illustrate the difference between facts and speculation, maybe sometimes I am right and sometimes I'm wrong but it remains these points are open to debate. Democrats squashed regulations of fannie/freddie 4 or five times isn't open to debate. I can only suppose Factcheck doesn't really know the difference between fact and opinion as they seem to give the same weight to some of these bizarre statements as they do to pure facts.

I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT THIS IS A LIST OF 12 ITEMS, OBVIOUSLY Factcheck STARTED WITH AN OBJECTIVE TO LIST 12 ITEMS WHICH IS WHY THE LAST ONE IS SO BIZARRE.

The Question was "WHO caused the financial Crisis" after reading this do you think they answered that question? Or did they switch the answer for the question "What cased the financial crisis"? Who requires a list of names, dosn't it?

The Federal Reserve, which slashed interest rates after the dot-com bubble burst, making credit cheap.

Bizarre: Cheap credit dose not equal bad loans.

There is no evil in making homes more affordable, only when ALL OTHER FACTORS are against you such as no income, no down payment etc does it become a negative. Cheap credit helped millions of legit homeowners who refinanced, myself included. Of course I have 70% equity which is the REAL ISSUE isn't it?

Home buyers, who took advantage of easy credit to bid up the prices of homes excessively.

Home buyers individually have no leverage, only speculators might have in their communities and we could let them fail, it is the extraordinary push generated by community groups that generated 5-12 million questionable loans. Home buyers don't have leverage without agencies like ACORN who lobbied Franks/Dodd, And without these bad loans market would survive correction, I was trying to sell a home in 1987 when same real estate correction took place, this happens every 20 years or so. The creation of 5-12 million unqualified "NEW" home owners drove up demand, which drove up prices. That rests on Fannie/Freddie, not individual home buyers who were exploited by another "social" program.

This statement raises a ludicrous image of a home seller sorting through dozens of bids selecting the highest one. NEVER HAPPENED.

Congress, which continues to support a mortgage tax deduction that gives consumers a tax incentive to buy more expensive houses.

Again Bizarre position that making homes more affordable is a negative, ignoring that this doesn't cause bad loans.. The mortgage tax deduction certainly didn't cause crisis, I have owned a home for 35 years and always had that deduction. Other credit has been removed as a deductible. This consistent mantra that making a home easier to buy was the problem is Bizarre. It was the lack of qualification IN SPITE OF THESE ADVANTAGES that caused the problem.

Real estate agents, most of whom work for the sellers rather than the buyers and who earned higher commissions from selling more expensive homes.

Nonsense, anyone who has ever sold a home knows the AGENT wants the sale regardless of the sellers interests or the price, they want turnover above all else, this works in favor of the buyer.

The Clinton administration, which pushed for less stringent credit and down payment requirements for working- and middle-class families.

OK.

Mortgage brokers, who offered less-credit-worthy home buyers sub prime, adjustable rate loans with low initial payments, but exploding interest rates.

Another Bizarre statement. Brokers don't issue loans, they act as agents for the lenders. Nor do they set the standards. Everyone knows without pressure from community organizers and encouragement by Fannie/Freddie the lenders these brokers represent would not have ever offered these terms. Franks created an environment where these transactions were encouraged EVEN DEMANDED. Even so, whenever an investor (Homeowner) speculates on the future he is responsible for his own losses. Just like any investment/gamble.

Former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who in 2004, near the peak of the housing bubble, encouraged Americans to take out adjustable rate mortgages.

He also encouraged congress to regulate fannie/freddie. An ARM was pretty good advice as long as you refinanced in 2007, you saved a few thousand. A fixed mortgage bets rates will go up, a ARM bets they won't. Greenspan's fault lies in that he overestimated the sophistication of the of many home buyers.

Wall Street firms, who paid too little attention to the quality of the risky loans that they bundled into Mortgage Backed Securities (MBS), and issued bonds using those securities as collateral.

OK. But it would be fare to say they expected US Gov to back Fannie/Freddie which ameliorated the risk.

The Bush administration, which failed to provide needed government oversight of the increasingly dicey mortgage-backed securities market.

Yes but congress passes laws. Bush is on record 12-17 times criticizing Fannie/Freddie and asking for reform.

An obscure accounting rule called mark-to-market, which can have the paradoxical result of making assets be worth less on paper than they are in reality during times of panic.

OK. Bizarre to call this an obscure regulation, I'm sure no one in finance consider this obscure. But that wouldn't have stopped foreclosures only slow the drop in funds including these mortgages.

Collective delusion, or a belief on the part of all parties that home prices would keep rising forever, no matter how high or how fast they had already gone up.

Truly bizarre statement. Hardly a point at all, same apples to stock market, coin collecting, Barbie Dolls, Beany Babies, Comic Books, and most of human endeavors. This is like saying being human is the crux of the problem.

Collective delusion has no significance if the markets are managed correctly. Nobody cares that a painting sells for 42 million dollars.

The problem is the bad mortgages couldn't survive the corrections. Good mortgages will.

That is the essential real property ownership program that has worked for 500 years on this continent and will continue to work. I have refinance 4-5 times reducing my rate each time thanks to the GOOD Mr. Greenspan. It is only the ACORN style initiatives that have distorted this valid premise. Good investments are good, bad are bad. Maybe we need a community group to teach the difference to new home buyers?

Summary of FactCheck's Opinion

Higher interest rate are good for economic stability.
Higher taxes (Eliminate mortgage Deduction) are good for economic stability.
Less Home Buyers(too many bid up prices) are good for economic stability.
Less enthusiasm about economy (Collective delusion) is good for economy.
Less Liquid markets(Mortgage funds) are good for economy.
Outlawing advice from Financial Experts (Greenspan) is good for economy.
Politicians who have an opinion shouldn't accept defeat they should foment revolution.
Real estate agents who are paid by the seller should serve the buyers interest.
No one should accept government sponsorship as a test of viability.
No one should take 5 votes in committee as an indication of a politician's real stance.
Just because a politician supports a bill doesn't mean he supports a bill.
Signing on to a bill after it is on the floor is an act of deceit.
Two years DEFINITELY isn't long enough to prevent a Financial Crisis (Crystal Ball Syndrome)

There is no doubt that Dodd, Franks and thus Pelosi are to blame for the finacial crisis due to their defense of Fannie/Freddie since the Clinton days.