|

On the whole, PolitiFact finds Romney peddling more campaign falsehoods than Obama

 

Here is how PolitiFact rates Mitt Romney’s and Barack Obama’s campaign statements so far.

Click on specific rulings to see all of Romney’s or Obama’s statements for that category.

Romney’s statements:

True  29 ( 16%)

Mostly True  25 (14%)

Half True  51 (28%)

Mostly False  32 (17%)

False  31 (17%)

Pants on Fire  16 (9%)

Obama’s statements:

True  96 (22%)

Mostly True  101 (23%)

Half True  113 (26%)

Mostly False  52 (12%)

False  62 (14%)

Pants on Fire  7 (2%)

 
Share:

17 Comments

  1. *yawn*

    When politicians comment on complex things (and what part of the government isn’t complex?) these so-called fact-checkers begin their ritual exegesis and then compress mountains of details and subjective interpretations into a single truth score. As James Taranto said, we are witnessing the “bizarre rise of the fact-checking propagandists.”

    The only recent “fact” that was really a binary true or false: Obama’s claim that Romney wanted to fire Big Bird… which PolitiFact rated as a pants-on-fire false, by the way. I think Obama is just trying to attract the votes of all birdbrain voters this year, not just the ones from Sesame Street.

    By the way, Romney is making huge inroads among women voters. If he makes the same inroads among voters under 40, this election is over and I see a moving van parked in front of the White House. Paul Ryan has a real opportunity to connect to younger voters tonight.

  2. Hardly a fair comparison when you sample 184 Romney statements to 431 Obama statements.

  3. Brilliant logic, Neftali.

    Far more of Obama’s statements are put to the truth test, and you think that’s unfair to Romney?

    That’s like saying that it would be unfair to Romney if fact-checkers examined only half of one of his speeches but all of one of Obama’s speeches.

    Truly brilliant logic.

  4. No question about it Willard and his twin brother have been lying since they entered politics.

  5. Another thing you’re not considering, Neftali, is the likelihood that Romney’s stump speeches are often much the same — with the same crapola about Obama’s “apology tour,” etc.

    PolitiFact deals with the veracity (or lack thereof) of each statement just once rather than over and over again when it’s repeated day after day.

  6. Pat – I can easily find 67 additional (each different) Romney statements that are “TRUE.” Probably wouldn’t be hard to find 76 an additional Romney “Mostly True” statements. So that way the numbers equal Obama’s.

    I see this similar argument all over the left-leaning sites. We’re seeing by far the biggest shift in favor of Romney in this history of this campaign, most of it coming from independent voters. Rather than trying to figure out how to re-tweak their own message to make it more appealing, liberals have just resorted to calling their opponent a liar. Good luck with all that.

  7. As a subscriber to a newspaper that runs both national and state oriented Politifact pieces I can tell you without a doubt that it is a joke. For both sides.

    For you to run a piece that tries to scientifically quantify the fact checking is absurd. You can’t compare fact checks of different topics on different people and try to derive some relevance from that analysis. The topics and subjects that are being checked are chosen randomly.

    Too often they are “fact checking” things that aren’t facts but rather opinions or estimates of future budgetary events. They then come up with multiple opinions of truths or half truths to arrive at one overall rating.

    This piece explains the problem with fact checking of non facts.

    http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/the_rumble/2012/08/fact-checking-the-fact-checkers

    Just after Rep. Paul Ryan’s speech last night, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina sent an e-mail blast claiming that Ryan had “lied” about Medicare, the stimulus, the deficit and the General Motors plant closure in Ryan’s home town. The media jumped like good little lapdogs, claiming that the cited parts of Ryan’s speech were indeed false. This Associated Press “fact check” is typical. But every Ryan statement criticized is either absolutely true or not a fact at all, but a matter of opinion.

    Townhall’s Guy Benson blows up each of the AP’s (and Messina’s) objections. The bottom line is that the fact checker criticisms of Ryan’s speech come in only one form: “Yes it’s true, but here’s some context that Democrats want to talk about.” That’s not fact checking; that’s advocacy. And it’s not persuasive, it’s absurd.

    If they stay on this course, media fact checkers, as a class, are going to be regarded as having as much credibility as Wasserman Schultz. This has already begun. In response to Republicans’ continued riffs on the President’s “you didn’t build that” comment, Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler yesterday pulled out the big guns, saying he was “compelled to increase the Pinocchio rating to Four.” In response, I’m compelled to observe that this will not change Republicans’ minds — I give it four hallucinating Dumbos.

    Human Events’ Jon Cassidy took a hard look at another media fact checker, PolitiFact, which instead of the Washington Post’s childish Pinocchios, rates political statements on a scale of “True” to “Pants on Fire.” Cassidy found that in many cases PolitiFact writers investigated claims that are matters of opinion, rather than fact. That’s not fact checking, either; that’s punditry. And (ahem) pundits are a dime a dozen.

  8. Neftali: You’re right. Lots of Romney’s true statements are ignored by those biased fact-checkers.

    For example, how come they never give him credit for his brilliant observation that the trees in Michigan are just the “right height”?

    Damn liberal media!

  9. Still no word from you Mr. C on the Libya situation?

    I am sure your behind in your usual excellent work. You know, given all the fact checking of important things like comments on heights of trees.

    Let me keep you caught up.

    Read the text, but you really should watch the video.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rep-trey-gowdy-explodes-at-libya-hearing-i-want-to-know-why-we-were-lied-to/

    Gowdy went after both U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney for providing “demonstrably false” statements about the attack, not just to Congress, but to the American people as well. He slammed the Obama administration for initially saying the attack was in response to a video and not an act of terrorism, delivering a blistering and impassioned critique of the White House’s handling of the incident.

    Gowdy quoted Rice as saying, “Our current assessment is that what happened in Beghazi was…in fact, initially a spontaneous reaction” to an anti-Muslim YouTube video.

    “I don’t know what the phrase “in fact” means in diplomatic legalese. I can tell you what it means in a court room — it means it’s a fact,” Gowdy proclaimed.

    “I would like to have another hearing where we can ask Ambassador Rice, under oath, who told you what when. You are going to blame the intelligence committee? You come before this committee and you tell us who told you it was video!” he added, raising his voice now.

    Gowdy went on to say that Carney, the “spokesperson of the leader of the free world,” also went on the record saying there was no evidence supporting the theory that the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Libya was premeditated. Carney also blamed the anti-Muslim video for the assault.

    “Was it negligence? What it just a reckless disregard for the truth? or was it more nefarious than that?” the congressman asked.

    Gowdy then recounted a conversation he had with Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) just before the House Oversight Committee hearing.

    “He still gets emotional talking about what he saw in Libya. There were four Americans who died under circumstances we can scarcely fathom. The terror, the fear, the anarchy of being killed in that fashion,” he explained, his voice soaked with emotion.

    “This was never about a video! It was never spontaneous! This is terror, and I want to know why we were lied to,” Gowdy said.

  10. Libya was a tragedy that shouldn’t be exploited by the GOP for political purposes. Willard who does not hold a government office demands answers as if he’s in charge of something. For starters how about showing us all of your tax returns and money in hiding if you’re such a great patriot and ask your vp weasel why he voted against funding embassy security. Like the Navy Seal’s mother said shut up!

  11. Are you saying an terrorist attack that results in an Ambassador being assassinated isn’t worthy of asking questions and finding out what went wrong?

    It’s not being exploited by the GOP. It was the administration who tried to run some silly disinformation campaign about a You-Tube video being responsible for the terrorist attack in Libya that made this a political issue.

    Besides, every single thing a politician does is political so that’s just a stupid argument.

  12. Here are more developments to keep Pat up to date. I hope he can address this very important issue soon. The leader of the DNC certainly made a mess of it. Although I feel bad for her, it’s so very hard to lie for liars. It’s much easier if you let the liar keep on lying for themselves. Maybe Bill Clinton is free?

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/debbie-wasserman-schultz-gets-into-exchange-with-piers-morgan-you-are-flogging-the-wrong-dead-horse/

    Altering his question slightly, Morgan asked where Schultz would admit that Ambassador Rice was simply wrong in her statement.

    Schultz refused to provide simple yes or no answer and instead justified the Obama administration’s handling of the incident, saying they were working on the best information they had at the time.

    She then attempted to accuse Republicans of using the attack as a “political opportunity” yet again. She called what the GOP is doing “un-American.” Morgan was forced to interrupt her.

    “You are flogging the wrong dead horse,” he interjected. “It isn’t about what Mitt Romney or Republicans did. The… really important horse that should be flogged is the behavior and the statements of those who were in positions of responsibility and, we would assume, knowledge, and it’s pretty un-American, pretty un-American, to put out completely false statements before you know the facts, isn’t it?”

    “It is not OK for you to be saying that the administration was putting out completely false statements,” Schultz said, a look of disbelief on her face.

    Morgan rebutted her by saying the information that the White House released turned out to be completely wrong.

    “That doesn‘t mean it’s false,” Schultz replied.

    “What?” Morgan shot back, flabbergasted.

    “That doesn‘t mean it’s deliberate,” she clarified.

  13. doc: I’m still trying to figure out why Ronald Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon when 241 Americans were killed in the terrorist bombing of a barracks in Beirut in 1983.

    Let me know if you have any theories about that matter.

  14. Too bad Ronald Reagan isn’t running for office. In fact, I believe he’s dead.

    So tell me what you think about the:

    A) Blatant lying by the Obama administration about Libya for obvious political purposes.

    or

    B) Complete incompetence of the Obama administration in handling security at our Middle East embassies and protecting it’s diplomatic corps?

    If you are still upset about the dead guy and how he handled Beirut, I am sure you are absolutely disgusted by the current President and his handling of Libya.

  15. Doc, Pat was more interested in getting his photo shoot than the Libya non-issue.
    http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/10/dems-more-riveted-by-celebrity-photo-shoot-than-benghazi/#comments

  16. shawnnews

    Of what value are “The Blaze” and “Legal Insurrection”? What have they been right about or what insights have they offered other than ideology reinforcement?

  17. Just a reporting of the facts shawnnews.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>