Skip to main content

I've just been looking at the coverage of the debate and recent ads by factcheck.org and came to the startling conclusion that, much like the MSM, they seem to be "out to get" John Edwards. I mean, a company called "fact check" should probably, you know, stick to the facts. Instead, they play fast and loose with the facts, maybe they live by the "depends what the definition of is is" motto from the 1990s. Either way, I thought I would offer a counterpoint to their checksof the debate, and of the recently released ads.

First, Yucca mountain. In the debate wrap-up, factcheck.org focuses on Edward saying he changed his mind based on the stolen documents. They completely ignore his statement about changing science.

Edwards' Weak Alibi
Edwards said he had changed his position on a proposed nuclear waste site at Nevada's Yucca Mountain because of allegations of forged documents.

Actually, this isn't what Edward said. What Edwards said:

Former Sen. Edwards:  Well, I'm opposed to Yucca Mountain. I will end it for all the reasons that have already been discussed, because of the science that's been discovered, because apparently some forgery of documents that's also been discovered -- all of which has happened in recent years.

In response to a charge from Clinton that he voted twice in favor of making Yucca a nuclear waste site, Edwards said:

Edwards: I said the science that has been revealed since that time and the forged documents that have been revealed since that time have made it very – this has been for years, Hillary. This didn't start last year or three years ago. I've said this for years now – have revealed that this thing does not make sense, is not good for the people of Nevada, and it's not good for America.

Actually, Edwards had changed his position when he signed on as the 2004 running mate of presidential candidate John Kerry, who was opposed to the nuclear repository. That was long before the documents scandal erupted in March 2005.

It seems to me that John Edwards is saying each and every time that he will end it mostly because of the changes in the field. Also, because of the forged documents, but first and foremost because of the changing science. All of which has happened in recent years. It appears that factcheck.org has never heard of, or thought of, reinforcment. Everything Senator Edwards said fits perfectly with the idea that he changed his mind of Yucca mountain at some point in the past and that decision has been reinforced by continuing changes in the science and the discovery of forged documents. All of these things have happened since Edwards supported Yucca mountain many years ago.

Next, about speaking English to become a citizen. Factcheck.org challenges Senator Edwards by pointing out that In fact, the law already requires, with few exceptions, that applicants for citizenship "must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language." They go on to say:

Edwards falsely implied that immigrants generally can become citizens without being required to learn English.

Edwards: I think if you want to become an American citizen and earn American citizenship, you should learn to speak English.

   Actually, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, applicants who wish to become naturalized U.S. citizens already "must be able to read, write, speak, and understand words in ordinary usage in the English language." The only exceptions are for those with physical or mental impairments, those who have been legal residents for 15 years and have reached age 55, or who have been legal residents for 20 years and have reached age 50.

Let's look into what was actually said at the debate.

Williams: Senator Edwards, in touching on immigration here...What would be the problem with English as an official language, as a bedrock requirement of citizenship?

Former Sen. Edwards:  Well, at least from my perspective, what we need to be doing is we need comprehensive immigration reform. We need to create a path for citizenship for 11 million to 14 million who are here who are undocumented we need to give them a real chance to earn -- I'm not for amnesty, but I am for being able to earn American citizenship.

Williams: But what about speaking the language?

Former Sen. Edwards:  I'm about to get to that...Second, I think if you want to become an American citizen and earn American citizenship, you should learn to speak English.

Now, I think that we should help with that process. We should help make sure that those who are living here, and they're not English-speaking as their first language, get a chance to actually learn English.

But I think that should be a requirement for becoming an American citizen.

If anyone, besides factcheck.org, needs fact checked here, it is Brian Williams. He asked, TWICE, if Senator Edwards thought there was a problem with  English being a bedrock requirement of citizenship. Senator Edwards answered, that "if you want to become an American citizen and earn American citizenship, you should learn to speak English."

Perhaps he should have said "as is already the law" and put Brian Williams in his place. But, as it is, he was actually answering the question as asked, not once, but twice. The only ones who are "echoing a Republican line here in appealing to anti-immigrant sentiment" would be Brian Williams and Factcheck.org.


Now, onto the latest ads by Senator Edwards. First, the two ads that Factcheck.org did not attack.

Dime - That John Edwards is the only candidate never to take a dime of Washington Lobbyist and PAC money. I guess they completely agree that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have taken Washington Lobbyist and PAC money.

Ban - That John Edwards is the only candidate who would ban Washington lobbyists from working in his White House. Both of the other candidates have lobbyists on their staff already.


Now, for the ads they challenge.

Deal - that John Edwards is the only candidate who opposed NAFTA and other trade deals that send foreign jobs overseas.

What Factcheck.org says.

Narrator:Which Democrat opposed NAFTA and other trade deals that send American jobs overseas? John Edwards is the only one.
John Edwards: I'm John Edwards and I approve this message.

The ad titled "Deal" says that "John Edwards is the only one" among Democrats who opposed NAFTA and other trade deals. Of course, none of the current Democratic candidates, Edwards included, was even in Congress when NAFTA was implemented, so such a pronouncement rings a bit hollow.

Hillary Clinton wants us to believe her role as First Lady included much decision-making influence. Well, her husband passed NAFTA. You can't have it both ways. Beyond that there is a first-hand basis for saying that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton support the kind of trade deals that have killed the economy here in North and South Carolina.

In contrast to most of the Democratic presidential candidates who oppose the Peru NAFTA expansion, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois support it. Clinton and Obama’s support for the Peru FTA – after both opposed the 2005 Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), which contained identical provisions and now campaign against NAFTA in Iowa, should make voters wonder just what sort of trade policy Clinton and Obama really support. None of the senators running for president voted today, although all four have issued public statements taking positions on the Peru pact.

Clinton’s support for the Peru FTA suggests that her recent call for "a time-out" on trade agreements apparently begins only after she votes for one more NAFTA-style agreement. The fact that Obama was the first Democratic presidential candidate to announce his support for the Peru NAFTA expansion two months ago makes his recent attacks on Clinton regarding NAFTA bizarre.

Factcheck goes on:

Edwards has been an outspoken critic of the agreement for some time, but he may be forgetting one of his Democratic counterparts. Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio is also a strong opponent of NAFTA, and yes, he's still running for president, even though he hasn't been included in some of the recent debates. He even promises on his Web site that, if elected president, he "will end America's participation in NAFTA and the WTO."

Dennis Kucinich received 0% of the caucus support in Iowa and 1.4% of the New Hampshire Primary votes. In Michigan, with only he Gravel and Clinton on the ballot (Dodd has dropped out), he received 3.66% of the vote. Heck, Dodd received .65%, so he is only 3% above a candidate who dropped out and Mike Gravel (who received .4%). If factcheck.org insists on including candidates for the Democratic nomination in their attacks on Edwards, candidate who have 0 delegates, and less than 2% support in any real primary/caucus state; then, I insist that they include all the hopeless candidates in their factchecks of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton as well - all fourteen of them.

Beats - in which Edwards lays out how he is the only candidate to beat all the Republicans in head-to-head match-us in a recent CNN poll.

What Factcheck says.

John Edwards For President Ad: "Beats"

Narrator: Who's the only Democrat that beats all the Republicans in the recent CNN poll? John Edwards is the only one.
John Edwards: I'm John Edwards and I approve this message.

The Edwards ad titled "Beats" shows a picture of the two Democratic front-runners he is chasing, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and asks which Democrat "beats all the Republicans in the recent CNN poll." Flash to a photo of Edwards: "John Edwards is the only one." But that's not what "the recent" CNN poll showed.

In fact, Edwards wasn't even included in the most recent CNN poll that compared the Republican and Democratic candidates in head-to-head match-ups.

Isn't that the whole point? It's a ten second ad, is he supposed to explain how CNN is trying to push him out of the race by not polling him - even though they polled a much greater number of Republicans, but that in the last poll when he was included, he did well. Oops, so much for the 10 seconds. This is ridiculous. Factcheck says HE WASN'T INCLUDED IN THOSE POLLS, so how can he talk about them???? The structure of polls matters, what did people think when they were asked about head-to-heads with no John Edwards? Did they know Edwards wasn't being polled? Did they assume he was out of the race?

By the way, he said "the recent" not "the most recent". Can you see the difference there? Maybe "a recent" would have been slightly more correct, but there is nothing in "the recent" that suggests he is trying to fool anyone. In fact, it is only CNN that is trying to fool someone, the American public, by NOT INCLUDING Edwards in "the most recent" CNN poll.

This isn't the first time this has happened.  SurveyUSA, which I understand is paid to do match-up polls across the US by a combination of media organizations dropped Edwards from their polls - AFTER HE BEAT EVERY REPUBLICAN by a great margin than ANY OTHER DEMOCRAT.

One has to wonder what Factcheck.org's goal in all of this is.  Why are they trying to distort the things that John Edwards has said?

Originally posted to chuckles1 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:39 AM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Spread the word, rec the diary, give on Friday. (23+ / 0-)

    We can keep him in this race regardless of what the media says.

    Support the Troops. End the War.

    by chuckles1 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:40:21 AM PST

  •  Edwards voted for China MFN and said (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nulwee

    that NAFTA should exist.

    Published: February 24, 2004

    ''I believe that Nafta should exist,'' Mr. Edwards told editors and reporters of The New York Times at a meeting yesterday in New York, as he sought endorsements heading into next Tuesday's primary. ''I think Nafta is important -- it is an important part of our global economy, an important part of our trade relations.''

    And, there is no known proof (I even asked Mrs. Edwards for it, but had no response) that Edwards opposed NAFTA in his 1998 run against Faircloth as is often claimed because despite being a Republican, Faircloth voted against NAFTA (in 1993) because of NC's union tradition, hence raising NAFTA would only have helped Faircloth.

    Contrast Faircloth's vote against with Edwards' vote FOR China MFN (even Jesse Helms voted against both NAFTA and China MFN).

    •  Good point on China (6+ / 0-)

      However, what Edwards voted for had protection clauses in it that should have helped America. It is George Bush's fault that these protections are not being enforced, not John Edwards.

      Support the Troops. End the War.

      by chuckles1 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:54:17 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

        "what Edwards voted for had protection clauses"

        What exactly are you referring to: China MFN roll call, Bill Page.

        Note that NAFTA also had labor/env protections. If he "opposed NAFTA" as he claims (but there is no available evidence that he did) then why exactly did he think that "protection clauses" in China MFN (if they do exist in the bill or agreement) were going to work when the ones in NAFTA didn't work too well.

        Given that Canada and Mexico are open democracies and China is a closed authoritarian rule/dictatorship, there is a better chance of enforcement in CAN/MEX than in China, common sense says.

        On labor/env protections, NAFTA had them, but it was a side agreement. Gore said in 2000 that those protections should be made part of the text of the man agreement itself. Edwards followed Gore and said the same thing for a while. But, if I am not mistaken, Peru FTA does have these protections directly in the agreement. Given that this is primary time and he needs labor support to win, he seems to have found some other reason to oppose it.

        Another point of note: Obama (and HRC) voted against CAFTA. Given that and JRE's China MFN vote (these being the major trade votes), I think that Obama's record is less pro-free trade than Edwards', but Edwards' rhetoric tries project to the contrary.

        Edwards really hypes about being opposed to free trade at the time of the primaries, but in reality and on record, he isn't exactly opposed to free trade.

    •  On Nafta... (8+ / 0-)

      And though he says he campaigned against Nafta in his 1998 Senate race, he did not make it a central issue. (His opponent, Lauch Faircloth, a Republican incumbent, also opposed the agreement.)

      Mr. Edwards said in an interview that his opposition was not to free trade fundamentally, just to the way it had been practiced; he wants tightened labor and environmental standards applied to the nation's trading partners.

      Support the Troops. End the War.

      by chuckles1 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:56:11 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think most Democrats are against trade... (7+ / 0-)

        just the kind of unregulated trade that has happened recently.

        Support the Troops. End the War.

        by chuckles1 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 09:58:52 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Response: part 1 (0+ / 0-)

        Enforcing labor and env. standards is what we ALL want. The question is where do you draw the line to say such and such agreement enforces them and something else doesn't. That line is not well-defined. Neither is enforcement a clear concept given that between various countries governments etc are different.

        eg, it is next to impossible to enforce things in China because of their authoritarian govt closed to the outside world. This addresses your point response above partially. Next, I am not sure if the problems we have with China (eg, currency pegging and stealing blue prints, not making their markets easily accessible etc) were pinned down in China MFN; I doubt that they were.

        Edwards voted for:
        China trade
        Vietnam trade
        Andean nations FTA

        against:
        Chilean FTA
        Singapore FTA

        We've seen that he's not fundamentally opposed to NAFTA. Nor would he repeal it.

        If you consider the sizes of the countries, Chile and Singapore get dwarfed by a factor 50 or so compared to China alone.

        Given these facts, Edwards' record is cleary pro-free trade, but at primary time, he pretends to be exactly the opposite and tries to attack his rivals with exaggeration (and demagoguery IMO). That's the problem I have with his trade rhetoric.

    •  Ah the one thing you got (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckles1, pioneer111, Predictor, zazzlin

      How is your candidate doing on that telecom question? Or would he much rather be at a fundraiser, those are important too.

    •  You know the answer to this (6+ / 0-)

      It was a path to get China into the WTO to have some sort of control over the issue, and this criminal in cheif hasn't enforced any of the terms.

    •  BTW... (6+ / 0-)

      I forgot to thank you for coming by the other day when your trolling friend Yoshi landed in one of my diaries. I've been gone more or less since November, so it is good to see that somethings never change.

      BTW, talking about not speaking up, can you tell me why Obama, the anti-war crusader that he is, never gave a speech or submitted a bill about Iraq until 11 months after he was in the Senate. Right after he opened up his Presidential Exploratory Committee?

      It seems to me that someone who cares so deeply about an issue would get right to work on it?

      Support the Troops. End the War.

      by chuckles1 on Thu Jan 17, 2008 at 10:04:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Fact check indeed (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckles1, pioneer111, Predictor, zazzlin

      It's rather sad in a post about fact check your willfull disregard for same.

      From your article by Adam Nagourney no less, one of the most useless "reporters" around.

      ''It's important to be straight with people about the jobs issue -- about trade and jobs,'' said Mr. Edwards, of North Carolina. ''The kind of trade policy I'm talking about -- not an extreme trade policy, but the kind of trade policy I'm talking about -- is not going to save all those jobs. And I think people deserve to know that.''

      ''To have someone who is from the rural South, a place that is very culturally conservative, out there advocating in common-sense language for what's right and what's responsible and what's moral, along these waterfronts,'' he said, ''has enormous potential to unite this country.''

      Mr. Edwards said yesterday that he favored the inclusion of standards on labor and the environment in trade pacts. Such standards, he said, would slow American job losses by prohibiting child labor or lax environmental standards.

  •  Rec'd for the truth (5+ / 0-)

    But of course, the M$$M media will look the other way rather than read this diary.

    Of course, one tells them the truth and they think it's hell!

    PS  M$$M=MainStream Smearbucket Media

  •  It's good to factcheck Factcheck (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckles1

    They made goofs in the past - I remember when particularly egregious mistake in '04 when they confused Bob Kerrey with John Kerry. There was also some questionable factchecking during the last election regarding Cheney and Halliburton. Still - most of the time they are pretty solid.

  •  Go to Fair.org (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    chuckles1

    Fair.org has done a few articles about "factcheck" in the past.  You will probably have to search the sites archives to find them, but they are really good articles.   Factcheck has a long-running problem with nitpicking for some candidates while other candidates have to come out and say "The sky is orange" before they label it as more than an arguable opinion.

    Further, Fair's articles talk about the 2004 election where Factcheck had a problem with many things Kerry did and say while giving Bush a free pass on his constant verifiable lies (or even if he did or said the exact same thing as Kerry).

    At the very least, Factcheck has a nasty habbit of doing what the MSM does and equates little things from the left with massive and blatant lies from the right.  It is typically done underheadlines such as "Left and Right have problems with the truth!"  Then it is followed with "Edwards said X happened at 5 when really it happened at 4" and equated/balanced with "McCain said X happened when, depending on who you ask, it may not have happened that day or at all...the facts are fuzzy."

    Plus factcheck is also the site Cheney meant to spread during the 2004 VP candidate debate.  Expect he accidentaly said .com instead of .org which sent people to an anti-Bush/Cheney site.   Considering we all know how much Bush and CHeney LOVE sites that incorporate spin, misinformation, false balance and confuse the issue...what does that say about Factchecks actual fact checking abilities?

  •  The English requirement question seems to be (0+ / 0-)

    if it should be a "bedrock requirement" that English should be required for citizens. The most correct answer would probably be "It already is a requirement, with a few exceptions". But by saying that English should be required for citizenship they are appealing to the immigration conservatives. I think that's good politics. Haven't Hillary and Obama make the same statement? I don't see anything misleading.

    VERY PETTY on the part of factcheck.org. Makes them look silly.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site