« | »

Fact Free ‘Fact Checkers’ Pounce On Romney

Ann Romney’s slanderer and longtime Obama flack, Hilary Rosen, tweeted this right after the debate:

And when the Obama campaign says jump, the news media says ‘how high?’

From NPR:

Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks

by Mark Memmott and Scott Montgomery | Thurs October 4, 2012

In their first of three debates, President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney "traded barbs" and stretched some facts, say the nonpartisan watchdogs at PolitiFact.com.

PolitiFact.com is operated by the Tampa Bay Times. To say it is non-partisan is to say the Tampa Bay Times is non-partisan.

Similarly, the researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center’s FactCheck.org found examples of truth-stretching by both men.

Brooks Jackson, the former CNN reporter runs FactCheck.org. They are so non-partisan that they closed down their site after they got Obama elected in November 2008.

Overall, it was a debate packed with facts, a wonk’s delight. From the very first remarks, with President Obama saying 5 million jobs have been created in the private sector over the last 30 months, the debate was very number focused. So there were some things to check. And because Romney made more factual assertions, he’s getting dinged more — at least in the early hours after the debate — by the fact checkers.

Yes, that is the only reason Romney is getting fact checked more.

Here is a sample of what’s being reported about the truthiness of what Obama and Romney had to say Wednesday night on stage at the University of Denver:

One of the biggest disputes was over tax cuts. Obama argued that Romney’s plan to stimulate the economy includes a tax cut totaling $5 trillion that, Obama said, isn’t possible because the Republican nominee is also promising to spend money in other places. Romney flatly disputed that number. "First of all, I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut," he said.

Who’s right? The Washington Post’s Fact Checker says the facts on this one are on Obama’s side…

FactCheck.org has weighed in too, tweeting during the debate that "Romney says he will pay for $5T tax cut without raising deficit or raising taxes on middle class. Experts say that’s not possible."

PolitiFact has given a "mostly true" rating to the charge that "Romney is proposing a tax plan "that would give millionaires another tax break and raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year."

What a surprise!

— Has the president put in place a plan that would cut Medicare benefits by $716 billion? Romney says yes. The president says no. According to PolitiFact, Romney’s charge is "half true." …

The New York Times writes that Obama "did not cut benefits by $716 billion over 10 years as part of his 2010 health care law…"

So the cuts didn’t happen. Even though it was the non-partisan CBO that first said they did.

— In listing his objections to the Affordable Care Act, Romney said it "puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people, ultimately, what kind of treatments they can have. I don’t like that idea."

But the Times and National Journal have reported that the board in question wouldn’t make treatment decisions, a point Obama made during the debate. National Journal called Romney’s characterization of what this board would do "one of the biggest whoppers of the night." PolitiFact gave Romney’s claim a "mostly false" rating…

FactCheck.org, which has likened the charge about this panel to the earlier claim from Republicans that Obama would create "death panels," writes that "the board, the Independent Payment Advisory Board, cannot, by law, ‘ration’ care or determine which treatments Medicare covers. In fact, the IPAB is limited in what it can do to curb the growth of Medicare spending."

Because telling doctors how much they can charge for specific treatments has nothing to do with "treatment decisions."

— On cutting the federal deficit, PolitiFact writes, "Romney claimed that Obama had said he would ‘cut the deficit in half.’ That’s the case. … Obama said he put forward ‘a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan.’ That’s true if you combine the 10-year impact of his budget with the 10-year impact of cuts already approved. (For that reason, we’ve previously found his claim that his budget plan would ‘cut our deficits by $4 trillion’ Half True.)"

Another blatant lie. Obama said he would cut the deficit in half by the end of his second term. Instead, he has doubled it.

— As for Obama’s claim that under his watch the economy has created 5 million jobs in the past 30 months, NPR’s John Ydstie says that’s true…

Naturally. Just look around.

For the record, our favorite fact free ‘fact check’ from the debates comes from the Obama puppet, Glen Kessler at the Washington Post:

Fact Check: Romney’s gas claim

by Glenn Kessler | Wed October 3, 2012

Romney claimed that gasoline prices have doubled under Obama. This is a misleading statistic.

Gasoline was an average of $1.83 a gallon the day before Obama took the oath of office, but that was because of the economic crisis.

Exactly four years ago, the average price was $3.67 — not much different than today’s price of $3.72. Gas prices had plunged after the collapse of Lehman Brothers sparked the crisis, reaching $1.59 a gallon by the end of December. So the dip was largely a temporary aberration.

This is so typical it isn’t funny. The FACT is the price of gas is what Romney said it was.

But it is hilarious to hear it explained that it was all due to the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

This article was posted by Steve on Thursday, October 4th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

6 Responses to “Fact Free ‘Fact Checkers’ Pounce On Romney”

  1. Rusty Shackleford says:

    Clearly, Romney, by being so assertive, is a racist.

    That aside, in the second debate, if mumbles the resident tries to assert the NYT’s fact checker stats, Romney will, hopefully, counter with the things captain socialist has said (easily verifiable) vs. the things he has done.

    Just cite the day, time and words such as, “In 2009, in a speech in Ohio, you said “XYZ” when, in fact, exactly the opposite has happened and you, in fact, signed legislation that went 180 degrees counter to that statement.”

    He has to play the part of the attorney for the prosecution and be Perry Mason all over his ass. But it’s not that hard. Most any conservative blogger can do it and if Mitt has a good set of notes, and obviously his memory serves him very well, then it will keep the caped invader on the defensive. Of course, the next debate, he’ll come out swinging with attacks on Romney.

    Some say the debate was geared to allow attacks on the poor black guy to “prove” how racist he is and how he was mistreated. In other words, by letting Romney go all “schoolteacher” on his ass, it will (naturally) offend people and they will gasp at the horrendous overbearing nature of Romney.

    Oops. Miscalculation times one million. Americans know that this is rubber-meets-the-road time. And you’d better bring your brain and all those special skills the media keeps telling us you have.

    They were not there which lends even more credence to his incompetence and his lack of desire to study for the debate as well as his lack of character and intelligence. Some lefty entities are already making excuses because “the incumbent has less time to prepare because, as president, they are very busy.”, but even the most in-the-tank lackey for him has noted that he was campaigning for $$$$ while he should have been preparing for the debates.

    Naturally, this also translates into what kind of college student he was, since those skills are in-place and never leave in the general sense. In other words, his lack of preparation for the debates indicates he was a very poor student in college. By failing to prepare, he prepared to fail. Which is fine by me, but Mitt was almost over-prepared and expected an onslaught of full left-wing talking points and verbal masturbation from the won.

    Either way, he owned Obama’s ass, ate his lunch and took his sneakers.

    • Mithrandir says:

      Liberals love/ hate people in this order:
      1. Rabid supporters.
      2. Quiet supporters.
      3. Indifferent people.
      4. Quiet conservatives.
      5. Rabid conservatives.

      You either support them, or they try to shut you up. The last thing they want is a #5 that is unembarrassed and unwilling to be deterred by accusations of racism/sexism/homophobia. You don’t realize how much that bothers them, they are easily flustered, angry, flummoxed, annoyed, and off their game when they have a #5 flinging their own poo back at them. Gingrich was a pro at that, that’s why they hate him so much.

  2. mr_bill says:

    This pattern is getting very old:

    1.) nerobama makes a fool of himself
    2.) nerobama camp blames somebody else (this time it’s Lehrer)
    3.) the DNC calls the lickspittle media stenographers to do damage control

    Do these “journalists” ever get tired of the 4AM phone call asking them to figure out a way to make nerobama not look like a buffoon?

    • Mithrandir says:

      The rise of SPIN really started with Bill Clinton. It was the beginning era of political correctness, which is also SPIN. The media really took off their mask then, knew their power, and now they are nothing more than Baghdad Bob’s with a thrill up their leg for democrats.

      When they aren’t editing 911 tapes, forging National Guard documents on George Bush, staging crash test vehicles with explosives like NBC did, making up lies via email on global warming, covering up murder with border gun running and/or embarrassing Libya attacks—-when they aren’t busy doing ALL of that, they are writing the news every day, not reporting it. They are just scum, every last one of them.

  3. Chrispbass says:

    The gall of H.Rosen. Almost unbelievable.

    ****— As for Obama’s claim that under his watch the economy has created 5 million jobs in the past 30 months, NPR’s John Ydstie says that’s true…****

    Hilarious – they know it’s complete and utter BS so they find someone who doesn’t think it’s BS to quote. Nice.

  4. untrainable says:

    I object to the word truthiness. Either something is true, or it’s not. There are not degrees of truth, except in the minds of liberal minions. A lie of omission is a lie. Fortunately for Obama, in order for a person to recognize a lie as a lie, they have to have some connection with the truth, and since most liberal’s connection to reality is tenuous at best, lies are as good as the truth because nobody on the left looks too closely. They trust his words just because they’re his words.

    The cult of personality has never been demonstrated any more effectively than in the show being put on by the media and the lefty talking heads. They are counting on their narrative being enough to erase what people saw with their own eyes during this debate. Obama is an empty suit in an empty chair, with no more connection to reality than that of his mindless followers.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »