Lil White Lies: Bucking Bias Selection Again!

Lately I’ve been in agreement with more of Bryan White’s PolitiFact analyses. I thought perhaps his “selection bias” might have gotten better, choosing PolitiFact (PF) rulings more carefully, where he stood a better chance of making more substantial counter arguments. But it didn’t take him very long to really politi-flub it up with this recent review on a PF ruling on a statement by Democratic candidate William Bennet about his opponent, Republican Ken Buck, on his position on abortion.

The sublimely bloviating pattern comes up again: parse the statement (to his favor), then argue selection bias. Bryan’s contention is opposition to abortion is not the same as wanting to outlaw it, then follows up with what looks like straw man argument that “it simply isn't realistic to anticipate an abortion ban even if Buck were elected president.”

Bryan frequently faults PolitiFact for “selection bias” in its rulings; certainly, if there’s a defect in the selection method that Bryan can show isn’t valid, he has some room for argument, but there isn’t any to speak of here.

So, did Ken Buck just oppose abortion, or did he want to ban it? For starters, Buck chose not to answer David Gregory’s question in the Meet the Press interview, which was (emphasis added):

Mr. Buck, I want to ask you about women who are taking a hard look at this race and deciding how they're going to make up their minds, and some issues that have come up, controversial issues, for you. You've taken a hard line position on abortion, saying you'd vote for a ban even if it includes rape and incest. During the primary campaign, you said, you said that voters should vote for you because you don't wear high heels. And then there was an issue that's gotten a lot of attention, as a district attorney, about a 2006 date rape case…

One would think that Ken Buck might deny the “vote for a ban” part of Gregory’s question, and say he was only opposed to abortion, and not in favor of a ban. That might cover Bryan. But Buck is clearly evading Gregory’s question.

So let’s look at something Buck said as reported in the Denver Post:

…No longer would Buck introduce a constitutional amendment to ban abortion — though he says he would still support one — and he now says he would be willing to vote to confirm even pro-choice judicial nominees.

And here is where he was asked the question directly:

Craig: And would it transfer into the legal world. You’re going to be a legislator if you’re voted into the United States Senate. Would you create a law that would prohibit abortion in the cases of rape or incest?
Buck: I would favor that position in law, yes.

Here’s the video where Buck states his opposition:



Time to move on to Bryan’s other parse farce, which is that:

Bennet did not make any statement that could be ruled "True." Bennet's ad implied something about Bennet by asking a question. That question had as its premise the notion that Buck would outlaw abortion.

So, what did the ad say?

But what about Ken Buck's extreme ideas? … Are we ready to outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape or incest? Extreme beauty is a good thing, but Colorado's no place for Buck's extreme ideas.

And, by the way, I got all this by going to PolitiFact’s links as they normally provide to back up their story. So it isn’t like Angie Drobnic Holan had not “verif[ied] that Buck believes that the government ought to outlaw abortion but concluded that was Buck's belief anyway”—because there was plenty of evidence that it was Buck’s belief, just by following her links.

Has Bennet ever made a statement about Buck’s position on any other occasion? After all, while Buck has backed off to some extent, and has been avoiding the question, he has been consistent on his opposition, and as affirmed above, is clearly for an abortion ban with no exceptions except for the life of the mother.

This is what he said in that interview with David Gregory, confirming the above (emphasis added).

MR. GREGORY: Is he [Buck] a political opportunist?
SEN. BENNET: I think absolutely. I mean, I think it's very clear that he ran a primary election saying that he would privatize Social Security, that he would demolish the Department of Education, that the American people need to wean theirselves off of student loans, that he supported the personhood amendment, pro-life in all cases except for--including cases of rape and incest. He's not changed his position on that.

So, does PF have to rate this instead? How many quotes from Bennet does Bryan need? He essentially ignored the plentiful evidence that Buck would vote for a ban on abortion, waving it aside because he thinks a ban probably wouldn’t happen, which isn’t the point . He then tries to claim Bennet never asked the question , a stretch at best.

It should be noted as well, what the “personhood” amendment that Buck supports is about. What it means is that a fetus has all the rights of a “person” from conception. It makes the scope of the law with regard to abortion much stronger: it is now by definition murder. Of course it raises a lot of other legal problems as well, which Buck himself discovered with regard to contraception. Another interesting theory I’ve heard put forth is that that since the fetus has the rights of a person, say, for example, the mother was negligent in some way during pregnancy that caused the person born to have some birth defect, they may now have cause to sue their mother for that negligence, since legally they were not just a fetus but a person. This example makes it very clear that such an amendment takes the abortion issue much farther down the road than just making it illegal (even in cases of rape or incest). And if Buck feels that strongly about it, it only adds fuel to the fire that he is in favor of an abortion ban.

So here we have it again: Bryan gives Drobnic the usual grade and claims she used “poor logic” and “fail[ed] to achieve any resemblance to objectivity” on the basis of his  pseudo-logic and  failing to achieve any resemblance to objectivity, as well as failing (deliberately?) to review Drobnic’s source material.

This recurrent pattern of claiming “selection bias” gets very weak and practically inapplicable when the person claiming it not only doesn’t recommend more valid selection criteria, but uses it themselves to the distinct favor of their own bias. (Note to self: New category on critique table?)

Maybe Bryan should get into his alien ship and fly back to Planet Sublime Bloviations for some R and R. It looks to me like he’s a little over-worked.

Title and Link	October 18: Ken Buck wants to "outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape or incest."
Who? Affiliation	Michael Bennet (Democrat) running against Ken Buck (Republican), for Senator in Colorado (Kenneth Bennet’s statement about Ken Buck)
Ruling	True
Checkers	Angie Drobnic Holan, Writer/Researcher; Martha Hamilton, Editor
# of words	906
#Sources Cited	10
Argument Summary	Michael Bennet ran a campaign ad called “Extreme” which said his opponent, Republican Ken Buck, would outlaw abortion even in cases of rape or incest. PF found that Ken Buck has consistently held this position, even though he has backed off somewhat from his hard-line stance.
Bryan’s Argument	Michael Bennet never asked this question, this was in an ad, so PF created the question for Bennet; opposing abortion and wanting to ban it are two different things, and he could not get it banned as senator,anyway, as evidenced by its legislative/legal history.
Quick Interpretation	This reminds me of one of the cartoons I created about Bryan which he strenuously objected to as “lampooning” him; according to his reasoning here, I could simply say, “Hey, YOU just created that argument, Bryan, the cartoon just implies you’re an idiot and I myself never said it!”
My criticism:	Bryan’s sophism is….well, sophomoric.
Guidelines	Beyond the guidelines!
Rhetorical Devices/Logic fallacies	Bryan loaded his critique with all kinds of logic/fallacies and other claptrap, but Socrates isn’t going to save him.
DOES IT CHANGE THE RULING?	Nope.
My view	...
Comments	(1) The personhood amendment that Buck has sponsored (only backing off because of the contraception issue) makes it very unambiguous that he is more than in favor of an abortion ban, even more than in cases of rape or incest.  (2) In an interview with the Colorado Independent, he was asked the question directly (“Would you create a law that would prohibit abortion in the cases of rape or incest?”) and he responded “I would favor that position in law, yes.”
Consequences of Bryan’s interpretation (What I have to believe if he is correct)	Michael Bennet never made the statement that Ken Buck did not believe in abortion even in cases of rape and incest, it was just implied in an ad (even though there’s evidence he did say it). Wanting to ban abortion and opposing it are not the same (even though there’s evidence Ken Buck has said on several occasions he would ban abortion or sponsor legislation to ban it.)
Bryan’s Grade	OFF THE PEPĖ SCALE….maybe 10 Pepes.
PF Grade	One Pepé.