All Posts Tagged With: "debunked"

Jim Martin continues to push the fallacy that the country is more “red” than “blue,” pinning his entire argument on “non-skewed” maps that skew the picture of the electorate, giving more weight to land area than actual votes. Furthermore, he continues to push numbers that have already been debunked: “Red Blooded Americans occupy 2,427,00 acres and the Blue Bloods occupy only 580,000.” This oft-repeated meme is something I posted about earlier this month.

First, the figures in FGO’s own maps are measured in square miles, not in acres. More importantly, the figures are just plan wrong. FactCheck.org, asked to check into the veracity of an email touting these same numbers that had been circulating the Internet, corrected the record:

The total area of states won by Obama is actually 1,483,702 square miles, significantly more than the 580,000 stated by the e-mail. McCain’s states have an area of 2,310,315 square miles, not the 2,427,000 claimed.

The numbers aren’t quite as lopsided as Mr. Martin would have you believe. Regardless, it is indeed true that Barack Obama won less square miles than John McCain. However, the last time I checked we don’t elect presidents based on how many square miles they win but on how many votes by people they win. So, let’s check those numbers out:

• Population of counties carried by Obama: just under 183 million
  Population of counties carried by McCain: just under 119 million

• People casting actual votes for Obama: 66,882,230
  People casting actual votes for McCain: 58,343,671
  

• Number of electoral votes for Obama:  365
  Number of electoral votes for McCain:  173

Perhaps in FGO world, Mr. Martin would prefer a system of one vote per acre rather than one vote per person. But that’s not the American system of government — at least right now.

Additionally, Mr. Martin and many other diehard red-staters continue to cling to the fact that Oklahoma was the only state to have all its counties “go red,” wearing it as a badge of honor. Perhaps for them it is. But for Oklahoma? It continues to show the rest of the nation (and the world) just how out of step our state is.

*
P.S. I’m still humored by continued embracing of the “red” status while “rejecting the small pink tinged change.” What could be more “pink tinged” than something that’s completely red?!?

In a word, “NO!” FactCheck.org debunks the prevalent meme amongst right-wing bloggers and “news” outlets:

For much of the past week, several right-leaning news sites have compared an estimated $160 million price tag for Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration to a $42 million tally for George W. Bush’s 2005 inauguration. Those numbers are accurate as far as they go, but not comparable.

The Associated Press and ABC News both report that Obama’s inauguration could cost between $160 and $170 million, while Bush raised a net total of $42.3 million to cover the costs of his inauguration, according the New York Times and others, based on the report Bush’s committee filed with the Federal Election Commission a few months after the event.  But those aren’t direct comparisons; the Obama estimates include the cost of security, while the figure for Bush’s inauguration does not. Continued

Tags: Barack Obama, bullies, costs, debunked, distortions, FactCheck.org, facts, George W. Bush, inauguration, lies, right-wing

Oklahoma’s own senator once again grabs the national spotlight with rants based more on fear, hysteria and ignorance than on reason, sanity and reality. His antics leave such a “positive” impression of our state, making us all so very “proud.” Think Progress reports on his latest crusade:

Appearing on Fox News this morning, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) peddled the emerging right-wing trope that Barack Obama’s White House energy and climate adviser Carol Browner is a secret socialist. The source of the right-wing paranoia is Browner’s brief participation in a group called the Socialist International’s Commission for a Sustainable World Society.

As the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson explained in a thorough debunk, the Socialist International is a “worldwide organisation of social democratic, socialist and labour parties” from Albania to Zimbabwe, intended to foster global partnerships to confront issues like climate change. Its members include the center-left New Democratic Party of Canada, the center-left Israeli Labor Party, and the ruling Labour Party in Great Britain.

Nevertheless, following in the footsteps of the National Review, Glenn Beck, the Washington Times, and Drudge, Inhofe called Browner a “socialist.” But he delved even further into conspiracy-land:

I have other problems with Carol Browner. There’s another organization that a lot of people don’t realize — it’s called the Center for American Progress. This report that came out — this is the group that’s trying for the Fairness Doctrine. Trying to, I think, dramatically upend the First Amendment. And try to stop talk radio and talk TV from being conservative.

FOX: And she was a member of that group?

INHOFE: Yes, she was a member of that group. It’s called the Center for American Progress.

In one fell swoop, Inhofe characterized Browner, the Center for American Progress, and the authors of this blog as part of a grand socialist conspiracy.

Inhofe was holding up a copy of a joint Center for American Progress and Free Press report on talk radio, entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio.” Inhofe might want to open it up and read what it says about the Fairness Doctrine. The report specifically does not call for reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine.

A key author of the report said, “There is no need to return to the Fairness Doctrine.” Instead, the report argues, “Increasing ownership diversity [of radio stations], both in terms of the race/ethnicity and gender of owners, as well as the number of independent local owners, will lead to more diverse programming.”

Hewing to the baseless concerns of Rush Limbaugh, the right-wing spends an inordinate amount of time mobilizing opposition on a matter that the left has expressed little interest in pursuing. But don’t believe us — we’re all part of a socialist conspiracy!

FactCheck was asked to check into the veracity of the following email making its way around the Internets:

INTERESTING FACTS —– NOTICE LINK AND MAP AT BOTTOM

Some unreported stats about the 2008 election

Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota, points out some interesting facts concerning the 2008 Presidential election:

-Number of States won by: Democrats: 20; Republicans: 30

-Square miles of land won by: Democrats: 580,000; Republicans: 2,427,000

-Population of counties won by: Democrats: 127 million; Republicans: 143 million

-Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Democrats: 13.2; Republicans: 2.1

Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens. Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in rented or government-owned tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”

Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

Notice that only in the states of Alaska and Oklahoma: All counties were won by McCain/Palin.

The original posting with this information is below this Newsweek article at this link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/163337.

*
Here’s what FactCheck found Continued

The debate Tuesday night between incumbent (and perennial embarassment) U.S. Senator James Inhofe and challenger Andrew Rice is getting a little national attention, especially in the blogosphere.

Think Progress picked up on Inhofe’s continued inexplicable defense of his comment in 2003 that global warming is “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.” I didn’t watch the debate or really even read about it because I know Inhofe will win anyway and he makes me absolutely sick to my stomach every time I hear him speak. However, Think Progress reported this excerpt from that debate:

INHOFE: I think I was right on that, and I do believe — first off, let’s keep in mind, though, what the issue is. It’s not whether or not we’re going into a global warming period. We were. We’re not now.

You know, God’s still up there. We’re now going through a cooling spell. And the whole issue there was is it man-made gases, anthropogenic gases, CO2, methane. I don’t think so.

Think Progress’ story goes on to say:

Asked whether John McCain is a victim of the global warming “hoax,” Inhofe responded, “People are afraid of some of the environmentalists out there because they pour all the money into campaigns and, consequently, we have a lot of people who fall in that category, and some of them are Republicans.”

Summing up his assessment of global warming science, Inhofe declared: “It’s hysteria.”

[...]

This chart prepared by NASA’s Goddard Institute clearly disproves the notion that we’re in a cooling period:

Far from a “cooling spell,” the U.S. is now entering a period of “global boiling.” Each day brings new, troubling headlines of a world wrought with extreme storms, floods, droughts, rising seas, catastrophic change, and species loss.

In addition, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) recently reported that Arctic sea ice volume likely hit a record low in 2008. NASA data shows that for a four-week period in August 2008, sea ice melted faster during that period than ever before. Apparently, the “cooling spell” hasn’t been felt in the Arctic.