Chris, the smears that you bring up are matched by “Republicans are greedy”, “Republicans are racist”, “Neocons plan wars of conquest”, and gee, what was it Harry Reid said about Bush enjoying the troop casualties? Honestly, I can't for the life of me understand the selective outrage among some here- why can't we just admit that there's stuff that's beyond the pale that comes from both sides?

Rambie, George: I was elaborating on what I see as the core narratives of each party- not espousing either one or commenting on who 'pulls the wool over the public's eye' more frequently. My point is that the narrative for conservatives is that big government advocates are the ones we need to fear in that regard. All politicians actually do pull the wool over the public's eyes as far as I'm concerned.

Which brings me to Stockboy- yes, I've known some people like that, and also the other side of the coin, people who completely buy into the fear of greedy corporation fatcats allying with the GOP. In both cases, I think that emotion is overtaking logic, but then also that, as you say, we all have to decide which lies are acceptable to us or alternatively have the naive belief that certain politicians are actually completely honest and above board.

Palin regained it for McCain, who has been failing to pull 50. Prior to choosing Palin my question was how high into the sixties Obama would be potentially likely to go, and if McCain would descend below 40 per cent total vote share (popular vote). As of now, the McCain campaign is viable beyond mere “survivor” and “lesser of two evils” status and could possibly do well, better than Dubya did after Gore lost to him in the debates. Palin's speech (and the two headliners before her) were definite, positive successes (and did well to put the other side in its place, deftly and soundly). The McCain campaign now has strong momentum (it remains to be seen how much is sustained after this week). Even if McCain flubs and deflates things tonight and afterward, the campaign now is stronger than Dubya was against Gore after Dubya won the debates and his winning in 2000 was suddenly seen as seriously possible by the public. It is even more so now, already, with the McCain campaign. That (and the defiinite GOP success, something not seen before, so much that the Obama campaign has been neglected this week by the media) seems to have generated a lot of desperation driving a lot of misbehavior today by the other side.

I very much agree with your statement, “My general take is that both parties use negative narratives against the other, but most people notice it a whole lot more when they disagree with the negative narrative and see it as an attack on 'their side'.” and this is why I struggle to be objective and I know I fail at times…

This statement of yours is probably the most interesting, “When you look at the right vs. left though, it's strictly about how the liberal candidates are attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of voters, so it comes across as more of a character attack on the Dem politicians.”

I say it's interesting because my rabidly pro-Bush brother and his wife are convinced that all politicians (including Bush and McCain lie). Yet they can't stand Obama because they are convinced he is really a “closet Muslim” and will advance black causes at the expense of whites. I've always wondered how my brother's family can be for one candidate and against another candidate if my brother's family believes that both candidates are lying. I think my brother's family is against Obama not because of his “lies” (as my brother's family perceives, not actual lies) but against Obama because he has a whole different agenda, related to a persona of his character (his being a Muslim, etc. and that persona is built on lies) ans is trying to pull the wool over people's eyes. That once elected Obama will pursue some deeply hidden agenda.

So deeper down for my brother's family it does seem to be about character (and I know that honesty is a character trait, but let's leave that as a neutral for this case, since both candidates are seen to be lying). But at the very heart of the matter, once one peels away all the layers… it's ultimately about Obama's race and the fear my brother's family feels about having a black family as the First Family and leaders of the country.

I don't know if any of that made any sense…. but I think your comment about “character” is true and it helps explain why some people are willing to accept some candidates over others, even though both candidates are seen to be lying. Never mind that the “character” aspect doesn't have a basis in fact… it's how people perceive a candidate that counts. And sometimes (as in the case of my brother and his family, they want to perceive a candidate a certain way so they will only listen to things that support their beliefs. It doesn't matter that it may all be hogwash… because at the end of the day it is how they vote that will decide who is president.

Thanks again.

CS, you started really good there and I'd agree. It's much easier to see an attack on “your side” than it is to identify an attack on “the other side”. As we've debated in the past, I've seen that in action and even today in the off-hand remarks of posters here.

Like Jazz, I appreciate that you just don't spew out talking-points and actually try to engage in a conversation, even in the face of adversity.

However, you fail to recognize that the rest of your post is a prime example of not seeing the attacks by “your side” at “their side”.

When you look at the right vs. left though, it's strictly about how the liberal candidates are attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of voters

The number one best selling book in America is pushing the lie that Obama is a secret Muslim.

The editor-in-chief of the company that published it is none other than Mary Matalin, a long-time Republican operative and advisor to both Bush presidents.

Which side is pulling the wool, CStanley?

When you look at the right vs. left though, it's strictly about how the liberal candidates are attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of voters, so it comes across as more of a character attack on the Dem politicians.

And the accusations of treason? The insinuations that Democratic men are gay and Democratic women are lesbians? The charge that they aren't really American?

Most of them are matters of opinion anyway

You're the one who brought them up as debunkable, aren't you?

Keep those goalposts moving, CStanley!!

George: you must be joking- I need to 'do better'? Hilzoy's assertions of unfactual statements are hers to defend. To her credit, she backed off of one that was completely incorrect (though no explanation as to how such a huge error was made during a 'fact checking' exercise.) That leaves, what, about 5 other claims, of which I've already unravelled two. Most of them are matters of opinion anyway- what constitutes a 'major piece of legislation', are his two books memoirs or not, is John McCain consistent or not. Really the only one of her charges which stands up to the light of scrutiny is the Bridge to Nowhere issue- and everyone already knows about that and it is impossible to think that we won't hear Sarah Palin have to defend her claims about it at least 50 times between now and the election.

Last night I forgot to notice whether Palin went after the Dems or Obama/Biden. But as I recall she didn't go after Biden at all, and didn't really go after the Dems. She did go after Obama. Which is what I would expect and leaves her (with respect to this particular aspect) on an equal footing with Obama. (Though I think she was much more unfair to Obama than he was to Bush/McCain, but I am struggling to set my own pro-Obama and anti-Bush views aside and see things objectively on this aspect. But my sense is still that Palin lied and distorted the record more than Obama.)

I recall Rudy and Lieberman being much more partisan (meaning they went after Dems in general) than their peers at the Dem convention (who mostly stuck with an anti-Bush/McCain approach while not attacking Republicans in general).

So I'd value your views (or anyone else's views) on this, if you care to comment. The first aspect being “fairness”: was Palin more fair in her attacks on Obama than Obama was with his attacks on Bush/McCain?

The second aspect being the partisan tone of the conventions… which convention attacks the other party more? Do the Republicans go after the Dems in general? Do the Dems try to limit their attacks to just Bush and McCain, and not go after Republicans in general? Or vice versa?

Sorry that the thread is gradually straying away from the original posting… but I see the broader point you're making about disingenuous and I agree that it is worth examining.

That was, admittedly, an error–one that Hilzoy had already apologized for.

Come on: do better!

I was actually in the midst of reading over the PDF budget documents that Hilzoy's piece linked to, and was puzzling over where they got the 65% number anyway, but then this popped up on memeorandum and I realized it's a moot point since that criticism was based on the former governor's budget recommendations and had nothing to do with Palin anyway!

Only those two, then?

Read this.

(relax, people, it's a joke.)

Which lies are the “partisan factcheckers” wrong about?