Lil White Lies: Incredabble! (Updated 2x)

When PolitiFact (PF) recently put out an item on Facebook asking readers to send them “liberal emails”, it had some major implications. For one, this would seem to say that PF is not getting many for review. For another, this particular ruling would be one of those liberal emails that they did--so they could claim they rated liberal emails! Bryan White said in his review that this one should never have seen the light of day—well, clearly it must be that this is the reason PF did this piece. I’m assuming that’s why he said “Mind your checks and balances, gents.” Well, they ARE minding their checks and balances, if this is what he is referring to.

There used to be a troll (a "semi"-screamer) that commented on the Facebook PF page (and every so often re-appears) with a pseudo-name of Delilah Bach. I’m sure Delilah was keenly aware that the birther story had been de-bunked, but would persist in the posting the question “Why doesn’t Obama show his long-form certificate of birth?” along with a list of reasons to mistrust Obama.…as if there’s some reason we can’t trust the evidence enough. Well, why would he have to show his long-form birth certificate? Why is this even an issue to be brought up? Does this make Delilah a birther, or is she just “dabbling” in the more “plausibly deniable” part of it, the fact he won’t release the certificate, for the sake of making it an issue of trust?

The thrust of Bryan’s criticism is this overlap between curiousity and inquiries concerning the certificate of birth (and Obama’s not releasing it) and the birther conspiracy. It is the only part of the conspiracy theory that survives. But Bryan claims that there is no overlap, and that skepticism about the certificate of birth as shown by Deal on behalf of some of his constituents is not the same as dabbling in birtherism.

So readers have to judge for themselves if inquiries about Obama’s certificate of birth (and citizenship) has any connection to birther conspiracies. If you believe it’s all one in the same, then Deal is dabbling in birtherism. If you believe it isn’t, that they are not connected, then Deal is dabbling in curiousity, expressing doubts and making inquiries only about Obama’s “long-form” certificate of birth.

Scroll to the bottom of this link to know more about the matrix for "critiquing the critique" and my  Guidelines. In the future there will be two lines at the bottom to rate Bryan's critique and PolitiFact. For this one I am going to use a *Peanut* rater because Bryan (I'm assuming) is the elephant (republican) and this was from PolitiFact-Georgia, which is known for growing peanuts.

Three Peanuts for Bryan AND for PolitiFact.

Postscript:  Bryan White's criticism of my account was "To say someone "dabbled" in birther conspiracies conveys that the conspiracies were actively believed." (If he would only allow the same amount of trust to ACORN and the suits dropped against it!)    However, Bryan made a very careful choice of the word "conveys" which means infers or implies.   Obviously, Bryan is using information that can't be verified (whether Deal actively believes it or not) as an argument advantage.  No one knows, so Bryan is assuming he does not (i.e., politicians typically conceal what they really believe on certain subjects...so he admits Republicans conceal their beliefs [lie?]? Hmmmm)

All we know is that (1) **In the House, Deal was possibly the Republican most responsive to the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the United States. I say "responsive" because Deal's response shifted over time. In 2009, he told video reporter Mike Stark that he had "no idea" where Obama was born. Later, he maintained that he believed the president was born here while becoming the first congressman to officially request to see Obama's birth certificate.**

...And (2) the birther theory has drawn a lot of derision and scorn, so people like Deal back away.  The heart of the dabbler claim may lie in the statement of his being so responsive to his constituents.   Along with backing away to avoid the scorn…. means while we know he was playing to the birther crowd, we don’t know how he actually feels about it.   This also fits with my guideline (2):  This is only Bryan's so-called "favorable interpretation"--favorable to Deal and not to PolitiFact, of course.   He accuses me of rescuing PolitiFact, while he throws them overboard.

Postscript to Postscript:  Here's another dabbling which doesn't quite fit Bryan's definition.

Title and Link	Liberal Bloggers say Nathan Deal "dabbled" in birther conspiracy theories
Who? Affiliation	“Liberal Bloggers” (about Nathan Deal, Republican)
Ruling	Mostly True
Checkers	Willoughby Mariano (Writer and Researcher): Jim Denery and Jim Tharpe (Editors)
Number of Words	1,116
#Sources Cited	18
Argument Summary	PF proved he was not a birther but “dabbled” to the extent he “lent birthers credence by treating their claims seriously.”
Bryan’s Argument	Deal was proven by PF to NOT be a birther (publicly); his only belief was Obama not producing a “certificate of birth.”  "Dabbling" should mean not taking the conspiracy itself seriously.  PF used term "ambiguously."
Quick Interpretation	PF and Bryan differ on the interpretation of the word “dabble” as well as the “object” of the dabbling (conspiracy versus certificate of birth); in his view, PF gave “dabble” an uncharitable interpretation.
My criticism:	Doesn’t birth have something to do with a birth certificate?
Guidelines	(2) Subjectivity:  Agenda of the “charitable interpretation.”
Rhetorical Devices/Fallacies	Moving the goal post; possible parsing of curiousity with regard to Obama’s certificate of birth to not being the same as a curiousity about birtherism.
Does it change the Ruling?	Yes—using Bryan’s interpretation, Liberal bloggers' allegations would be FALSE.
My view	Half True. Outwardly he catered to the birthers, inwardly he wasn’t a birther. He should have distanced himself in 2008.
Comments	(1) We really don’t know Deal’s true position outside of what he says in public; (2) Then what’s the point in wanting Obama’s certificate of birth, if you’re not at least slightly interested in birther conspiracy? Why is so much evidence necessary? (3) The word “superficially” can mean “outwardly” and “on the surface” and it’s clear Deal gave the outward appearance of sympathy with the birthers.
Consequences of Bryan’s interpretation (What I have to believe if he is correct)	If you are known for being “a friend” of the birthers, are one of few in congress who participate in a letter to the President asking for his certificate of birth, are termed “birther-curious” by the news, say publicly several times that you’d like to see Obama’s certificate of birth, you’re NOT dabbling in birtherism because (according to Bryan) you don’t take the conspiracy itself seriously.