FactCheck.org has a history of right leaning pieces.

Cheney even referenced them during a debate.

One case comes up immediately on search engines, Media Matters had to fact check FactCheck.Org.

They were defending macaca Allen on the topic of underfunding necessary body armor.

Summary: In defending Sen. George Allen against a new television advertisement criticizing his 2003 vote on a Democratic amendment that would have increased National Guard funding for body armor, The Arizona Republic falsely suggested — and the website FactCheck.org falsely asserted — that Allen and his Republican colleagues have never voted against supplemental funding for body armor.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200609220002

Sen.Landrieu even cites actual military assessments for the bill that was blocked by Republican Senators:

The Marine Corps Reserve reports that before they could deploy a second wave of troops a shortage of helmets, tents, bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests must be fulfilled.

One reason may have been that it was drafted by Sen. Dodd.

The Dodd amendment included:
“…important high-tech body armor, bullet-proof helmets, special water packs to keep soldiers hydrated, and other survival gear.”
[...]

DODD: Now, in response to the Army’s request, the committee added $300 million to the present supplemental request which could be used for either this additional equipment or the clearance of weapons and mines still lingering on Iraqi battlefields.”

That is very crucial. Many metal pieces used to form the most crude versions of IFP are salvaged off abandoned military metals.

In fact, the Senate was given a choice, and Sen.Dodd argued on fulfillment of both needs as necessary security measures for troops well being in Iraq’s theater of combat:

I appreciate what the committee did with $300 million. But the committee report says you have to make a choice: Clearing up the battlefield or provide funding for soldiers’ equipment. And I don’t think the Army ought to be put in that position. I don’t think you ought to ask them to have to make that choice. That is the reason for the amendment.

Factcheck.org does not allow reader comments

Perhaps they changed the last line above…

A comment in the MM thread follows up several examples of equivolency aimed at making Kerry and Bush ad policy seem similar during the last race for President.

FactCheck.org has shown bias before

‘They mostly are nonpartisan and fairly represent the truth.’

Sometimes in the past they did not give a fair shake to the facts, and every time that they did not do that, they were biased by either giving those on the right a pass or by giving those on the left too much of a slam.

[link to http://www.factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/article134.html
[link to http://www.factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/article125.html
[link to http://www.factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/article140.html
[link to http://www.factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/article253.html
This last one is particularly telling. They compare Kerry and Bush political ads. Kerry’s ads are the typical campaign distortion, mostly true but with some selective information. Bush’s ads are blatantly misleading and very distorted, yet they compare the two campaigns as though the errors and distortions are equivalent.

[link to http://www.factcheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org/article260.html

- ellie717 / Friday September 22, 2006 03:52:10 AM EST
- Reply to this comment / Flag this comment

Cheney relied on mispresented information to claim equivolency, if I’m not mistaken he did as much on MTP as well.

The reason they admit as much, is to shape a narrative, the complicit media helps.

The following piece details why:

My seven weeks in Wisconsin left me with a number of observations (all of them highly anecdotal, to be sure) about swing voters, which I explain below. But those small observations add up to one overarching contention: that the caricature of undecided voters favored by liberals and conservatives alike doesn’t do justice to the complexity, indeed the oddity, of undecided voters themselves.

http://www.chrishayes.org/articles/decision-makers/
He then delves into the complexities of trying to win over voters numbed to variance or nuance in terms of making vote choices.

On these issues, too, undecideds recognized the severity of the situation–but precisely because they understood the severity, they were inclined to be skeptical of Kerry’s ability to fix things. Undecided voters, as everyone knows, have a deep skepticism about the ability of politicians to keep their promises and solve problems. So the staggering incompetence and irresponsibility of the Bush administration and the demonstrably poor state of world affairs seemed to serve not as indictments of Bush in particular, but rather of politicians in general. Kerry, by mere dint of being on the ballot, was somehow tainted by Bush’s failures as badly as Bush was.

Equivolency taps this instinct. By blurring the policy difference it discourages turnout. See also Joe Lieberman.

Back to topic:
FactCheck has a shoddy consistency about it. It doesn’t change the fact Obama had some ethically challenged contributors, that coupled with some questionable advice positions and his own talking points indicate problems on the whole, but his policies appear to fall on the weight of their own assumptions.

Again, compare his tack with the line of argument presented by Paul Krugman.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/18/introducing-this-blog/

The Great Compression: The middle-class society I grew up in didn’t evolve gradually or automatically. It was created, in a remarkably short period of time, by FDR and the New Deal. As the chart shows, income inequality declined drastically from the late 1930s to the mid 1940s, with the rich losing ground while working Americans saw unprecedented gains. Economic historians call what happened the Great Compression, and it’s a seminal episode in American history.

Check the graph. The distributive basis of our economy is returning to levels not witnessed since the days preceding the great stock market crash.

Playing on this background was another relative era of transitional scale economies and tech acceleration of worker effeciency. Wages did not rise with the effeciency enough to sustain the growth. Sound familiar?

Vote for Barack, you are operating under the assumptions of the Gilded age in many terms(health care, Social Security overhaul, colonial foreign policy). He’s made these radical statements of his own volition. Cloaking a return to days bygone as “change” when he’s essentially undermining the kind of institutional barriers and structure we’ve initiated to insure more broad and sustained long term economic health, lessons learned coming off history’s greatest crash.

On December 17th, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in CREW’s lawsuit seeking White House visitor records from the Secret Service, ruled that records of visitors to the White House and the Vice President’s residence are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and therefore must be made public.

More at their link:
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30620

Any plan to stay in Iraq is a plan to fight Iran.

Obama is campaigning to reach people in ways that highlight the worst in everyone.

Change is what George Bush brought in, a radical alteration of postmodern policy.

Don’t take my word for it, economist Paul Krugman can highlight these departures from proven ways of generating revenue, making capital solvent again, and adhering to market fundamentals as a way of insuring fairness in our exchange of value as a way to drive the economic engine forward.

Barack’s trying to use some voodoo lingo about “change” in America, but snake oil is what it is.

As for foreign policy, Colin Powell is whispering in Barack’s ear. Don’t ask him what their plans are and he don’t tell you how far past the event horizon he wants things to be pushed.

Any plan to stay in Iraq is a plan to fight Iran.

Four More Wars!
Not just a campaign rally cry in this day and age…