"But at least those on the left still maintain some semblance of sanity, especially as compared the now collective psychosis of those on the right side of the culture wars divide."

Oh that is good; "some semblance of sanity"; one is tempted to ask for examples of these left exemplars but too much hilarity can be enervating; suffice to say if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and writes like a duck then it's a dud.

Interesting observations. Thank you.

Just a few clarifications:

@Chek: The need is not really for a “fact checking entity” but rather a return to the mindset of valuing truth and censuring lies. This has not been abandoned completely, but has certainly diminished in recent decades.

@R0bert, regarding John Howard’s broken commitment to which you refer:

His exact words in 1995 were:

Mr Howard: "No. There's no way a GST will ever be part of our policy."
Q: "Never ever?"
Mr Howard: "Never ever. It's dead."

He did NOT say "Maybe if we take it to the next election, campaign on it and the voters approve." He said “Never ever.”

So, R0bert, what was the intervening issue or event that justified John Howard in the run-up to the 1998 election abandoning that specific promise?

@Cohenite, JohnBennetts is correct. There is no ‘journalist’ in Australia past or present with such a tawdry record of distortion and fabrication as Mr Bolt.

Don’t take my word for it, Anthony. Just count the falsehoods listed by judges in Australia’s courts of law.

@Leo Lane: No, haven’t studied the “trillion dollar deficits in Washington”. Will do so and get back to you.

Regarding “Austin, who … suggests that Gillard is not accountable for the breaking of her promise of no carbon tax.”

Yes and no, Leo. The article does say “Commitments (a), (b) and (c), above, are thorny ethical issues. They certainly warrant scrutiny and criticism where appropriate.”

So I’m not really letting Ms Gillard off the hook.

Just urging us to distinguish between categories (a), (b), (c) and (d) – for all MPs.

@Rhian: Yes, agree entirely that all sides in politics must be held to account for broken promises and lies.

Would you agree that the Republicans had more funding and a more extensive national organisation than the Democrats in the recent campaign?

Would you agree that they had adequate resources to fact-check the Democrat candidates, and indeed worked hard to do so?

Would you agree they found relatively little that was really damaging?

Thanks, all. Cheers, AA

The interesting thing about the recent USA presidential election, was that this was the election for the taking by the Republican party, yet they did not have a sense of sincerity or honesty, in how they sold themselves to the voters.
The election result we see, is that the American populace wanted to be in the 21st century; and not in nationalism stagnation or the past.

Alan

I don’t know about organisation, but according to this website, the Democrats raised and spent more than the Republicans:

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/campaign-finance

I also understand Obama was the first presidential candidate to eschew public funding for his campaign, in order to get around the spending limits attached to the funding.

Politifacts “truthometer” at least attempts to be balanced and scrutinised both campaigns. It found half-truths and outright lies in the campaigns of both major parties, though Romney appears the greater offender:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/

I’m not anti-Obama – if I were American I would have voted for him. Nor do I disapprove of fact-checking – I found the politifacts website quite entertaining. But as I said, to be credible fact-checkers need to apply the same standards to both parties and to themselves, otherwise they’re just part of the partisan machine – albeit a valid one. Benen's site is clearly in the latter category.

Alan your comments about Bolt and support of the deeply flawed Bromberg judgement and the RDA is tedious.

It is not only Bolt who has raised the disturbing and cogent complaints about Gillard and despite the location of some of the missing documents the large remaining amount of missing documents from various sources should be a concern to any reasonable and fair-minded citizen.

That you are not concerned and have joined the partisan group of lefties who ignore the increasing apparentness of the corruption of the labor brand means you are no more than just another apologist for the most destructive political group in this nation's history.

Way to go Alan.

Greetings again,

@Kipp: Re “this was the election for the taking by the Republican party, yet they did not have a sense of sincerity or honesty …”

I think this is correct, Kipp. Many of the hard right, Conservative policies Mr Romney had insisted throughout the campaign were the right course for the nation were simply jettisoned during the third debate.

Do you get to see The Daily Show in Australia? If you watch just the first 10 minutes of this, you will see the incredible about-turns Mr Romney made towards the end the campaign:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/tue-october-23-2012-gerard-butler

At one level this is amusing. But the serious questions are these: What does Mr Romney really believe about foreign policy? If American citizens can’t trust what he says, how can foreign trading partners, military allies or enemies seeking contracts or treaties be expected to trust him?

Could this be the primary reason Romney lost the unlosable election - after spending so many billions?

This would seem to have direct relevance for Conservatives in Australia who also face long-standing challenges regarding handling the truth. (Google Tony Abbott lies.)

@Rhian,

Thanks for those links. I’ve read them carefully and accept the prima facie evidence regarding funding.

The only caveat perhaps relates to “dark money” which by its nature we will never know about.

Agree completely “credible fact-checkers need to apply the same standards to both parties and to themselves”.

But there seems a need these days for each side in politics to fact check the other and for neutral third parties to attempt even-handed analyses of truthfulness.

And we certainly need fact checkers monitoring the news media.

It would be great if we could get back to the pre-Murdoch period of being able generally to trust journalists and news organisations not to lie to us. But that seems a hazy rosy memory these days.

Cheers, AA