Facts Are Hard

Harold Pollack meets the world of major newspaper op-eds:

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann wrote a self-satirical op-ed in the New York Post slamming the Obama health plan. These authors went on for several hundred words about how wrong it would be to offer undocumented immigrants the same health benefits now offered to the United States Congress when this would require rationing care to elderly Americans.

I noted one problem with their argument: The Obama plan does not cover undocumented immigrants—a fact that was debated at some length during the Democratic primaries. I noted that one could uncover this fact, by entering the words “undocumented immigrants Obama health plan” into a website called www.google.com.

Of course if being accurate were a requirement for op-ed pieces, then more than one national newspaper columnist might be out of a job. So given the current economic downturn, I think it's important to keep letting people make stuff up.

Comments

Obama's so easy to attack-- his positions on issues actually stay the same from day to day.

Posted by MattF | July 27, 2008 11:38 AM

Obama's health plan will fail because there is not enough money in the budget to build a backyard pool for every child in Mongolia. A program to build a pool in the backyard for every child in Mongolia is a bad idea, therefore America must stop Obama's health plan.

(Cue one of the OCD dudes about that thing that rhymes with Blust Blund Blumbag.)

Posted by El Cid | July 27, 2008 11:42 AM

Dick Morris and Eileen McGann article and the so called pro-Obama press is a lie.. Actually, the LA Times reports that 72% of the stories about Obama are negative where as only 28% of the stories are negative about McCain. Here are several quotes from the story..

"During the evening news, the majority of statements from reporters and anchors on all three networks are neutral, the center found. And when network news people ventured opinions in recent weeks, 28% of the statements were positive for Obama and 72% negative...."

"The center reviews and "codes" statements on the evening news as positive or negative toward the candidates. For example, when NBC reporter Andrea Mitchell said in June that Obama "has problems" with white men and suburban women, the media center deemed that a negative."

On Brit Humes Show
"Special Report" was tougher than the networks on Obama -- with 79% of the statements about the Democrat negative, compared with 61% negative on McCain."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-onthemedia27-2008jul27,0,6802141.story

Posted by Ann | July 27, 2008 12:13 PM

my understanding is that the new york times (and presumably other paper's) position is that op-ed pieces, being opinions, aren't subjected to fact-checking.

this ludicrous position - as keynes told us, we are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts - is a good part of why blogging is going to render op-ed punditry pointless....

Posted by howard | July 27, 2008 12:42 PM

If MattY is right, then BHO is a liar. Note that I'm not relying on DickMorris to come to that conclusion, I'm relying on data from the CensusBureau.

MattY could have done that too. I've tried contacting BHO's advisor on this to no avail. MattY could have tried to contact that advisor too and might have gotten an answer.

So, why didn't MattY do what I did? I'll let the reader decide.

Posted by TLB | July 27, 2008 1:28 PM

If I'm not mistaken, the Lou Dobbs show on Saturday stated the same thing. Although they used the words - Illegal Immigrants.

Posted by Micah | July 27, 2008 1:30 PM

There is an odd sort of overall consistency here. McCain shouldn't be held responsible by the media for what he actually says to people. Obama's statements shouldn't be used to contradict the media's assumptions. In short, what the candidates actually say shouldn't be allowed to interfere with media's preferred narratives.

Posted by DTM | July 27, 2008 1:36 PM

well, TLB, this reader has checked your link and concluded that your an idiot. is that good enough? how do clowns like you learn how to type?

Posted by howard | July 27, 2008 1:41 PM

TO: All Atlantic Staff
FROM: David Plouffee, Atlantic Chief Editor
SUBJECT: Mandatory lesson

Hey everyone: before Matt leaves us for CAP (and congratulations and thanks again!) he's going to be teaching all of us about a new thinking technique. Attendance is mandatory and will be Monday at 3pm. But, don't worry: it's going to be fun! Matt is going to teach all of us how to obamathink, the wonderful new technique that allows you to believe two contradictory things... at the same time! Don't worry, we'll have a telescreen set up so those in the back of the hall can learn this technique just as well as those at the front.

Posted by TLB | July 27, 2008 1:42 PM

LECTURE: How To Pimp Your 43 Vanity Domains 24/7 And Still Get Nobody To Visit. Now With Added Advice On How To Whine About Being Ignored By Major Campaigns When You're A Pathetic Nobody.

Posted by BLT | July 27, 2008 2:42 PM

Using left-wing standards of argumentation, Obama is either lying or engaging in anti-Hispanic racism.

Posted by USA_Patriot | July 27, 2008 3:11 PM

I noted one problem with their argument: The Obama plan does not cover undocumented immigrants—a fact that was debated at some length during the Democratic primaries.

So I guess "universal coverage" isn't even important to Obama as an ultimate goal, let alone as part of his actual plan.

As described on his website, Obama's plan includes mandatory coverage of children. "All children," it says. There's no mention of an exception for children who are resident in the country illegally. Therefore, Obama's plan, as stated on his campaign website, does cover at least some undocumented immigrants.

Posted by Mixner | July 27, 2008 3:36 PM

Obama's plan doesn't cover the children of non-humans. Nor does it extend to other planets, which makes the claim that it is 'universal' a blatant lie. Also, I have no life.

Posted by Nitpixner | July 27, 2008 3:51 PM

Let me try to summarize the link in my first comment:

1. BHO says his plan will cover 47,000,000 people.
2. The CensusBureau says that the 47,000,000 people includes 10.2 million who are not citizens; one can assume that millions of those are in fact "undocumented".
3. But, BHO says his plan won't cover the "undocumented".

Is BHO lying?

Is BHO lying in our current time frame and just being extremely misleading about something that might happen years from now? (see the link for an explanation).

Or: when BHO uses the 47,000,000 figure... could he actually be using base-7 math? Because, 47,000,000 in base-7 is 35,000,000 in our base-10 system.

Suggested avenue for MattY to explore: could BHO be so very advanced a thinker that he's promoting the advanced base-7 number system, but he doesn't want to make his followers feel bad by having to point out that's what he's using?

Posted by TLB | July 27, 2008 3:59 PM

Correction: there's no "47,000,000" in base-7, which doesn't use 7s. However, BHO could be using base-8, in which case 47,000,000 is 39,000,000 in our system. That's still 2,000,000 (base-10) off, but who's counting!

Plus, if correct, that means that BHO is using the octal system... just like some computers.

Posted by TLB | July 27, 2008 4:13 PM

People see things like that LA Times study that shows the MSM treating Obama negatively - yet they still think Obama is going to win this election.

Suckers.

TLB: Give it a rest.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | July 27, 2008 9:45 PM

Hack, you can buy McCain on intrade right now for 33. That's a 200% return if you are right. I wouldn't touch that turd with a ten foot pole and I don't think public reaction to your pet theory of an Iran attack is predictible at all.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 27, 2008 9:58 PM

RSH: I will not give this a "rest" until I have proved - using advanced ObamaMath - that BHO is not a liar.

But, first, a correction. BHO couldn't have been using octal... and, in fact... when the decimal 47,000,000 is converted into base-11, it's only about 25,000,000.

Do you know what that means? That means that BHO is using a NonIntegral numeric base somewhere between 10 and 11. That is literally unbelievable. Even StephenHawking couldn't do that... yet BHO can!

But, wait, there's another explanation.

Ladies and gentlemen, plug this calculation into your calculators (using base-10):

37,000,000 * (1 + e/10)

Where, of course, e is the constant. Do you know what you get?

About 47,000,000!

What this means is that BHO thinks of people as not just people like others, but PeoplePlus! Where, the plus is one-tenth of e.

Now, I know how Euler, Gauss, and - yes - even Newton felt when they made their discoveries.

Posted by TLB | July 27, 2008 10:51 PM

No, TLB, you are that asshole electrician who has figured out Einstein's number about how E=MC² is all crazy crap. You patiently try and explain to him how he's confusing momentum and energy and you eventually learn that some people are too damn stupid to educate and move on.

That's why no one wants to talk about your incredible find. That or they are embarassed for you.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 27, 2008 11:07 PM

Thanks for noting my stuff Matt. The willful deception in Morris and McGann's piece is striking. I guess I'm a little naive to expect anything different.

Several commenters note that the 47 million includes about 10 million noncitizens. Two points:

One: Not all noncitizens are here illegally.

Two: If Obama had more than a soundbite to explain things he could explain this issue with greater depth. He has actually been straightforward on undocumented immigrants. No major candidate proposed that the undocumented be covered.

His plan will cover most but not all uninsured people in America. This is why we need strong safety-net providers to address other unmet needs.

Posted by Harold Pollack | July 28, 2008 4:42 PM

Does anyone trust Harold Pollack's take on this? If so, please see the link I provided above if you haven't already.

Also note that I still haven't received a reply from BHO's expert, and I'm unable to find a recent statement from him or an article mentioning him that explains the BHO lie I discuss at my link.

I feel like I'm watching the birth of Sc|ent)logy or something.

Posted by TLB | July 28, 2008 10:30 PM