Ezra Klein makes an important point about the discrepancy between obsessive fact-checking of possibly phony narratives (such as those of Scott Beauchamp) and the relative lack of attention given to false or misleading claims about policy:

Indeed, it’s a shame that so much attention is given to untrue narratives — which, really, can only be protected against so much, and are published because readers love them — and so little offered to untrue arguments. The Weekly Standard, which led the charge against Beauchamp, is a locus of bullshit, from flagrantly untrue portrayals of Iraq to discredited supply-siderism, but somehow, such quackery never attracts The New York Times’ notice. We demand truth in our colorful tales but accept lies in our serious arguments about public policy. It’s infuriating.

A case in point is President Bush’s latest suggestion that his tax cuts increased revenue:

Through tax relief, we cut taxes for American families and reduced tax rates on dividends and capital gains — energizing small businesses to invest and expand. And since we lowered these important tax rates, the economy has created more than 8 million jobs, increased wages, and grew tax revenues that will lead to a surplus.

Nearly every economist disagrees with the implication that tax cuts increase revenue, including numerous administration economists, but why quibble with these details when we could be arguing about whether Beauchamp’s squad ran over dogs in Iraq?

(For more on Bush’s numerous suggestions that tax cuts increase revenue, see my previous posts on the subject, our work at Spinsanity, and All the President’s Spin.)