Find THIS PolitiFact (FactCheck) Ruling: Rick Santorum

About the time I published a Truth Index on Rick Santorum, he decided to drop out of the presidential race. It seems so far I have been right there as the 15-minute presidential candidate fame light dimmed for Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich. Keeping that in mind, I’ve just completed a review of 184 Mitt Romney rulings from all of the fact-checkers….don’t think it will work this time, ha ha.

Ron Paul is not pictured as he is already on another planet; Santorum is headed for deep space as well.

This post will combine a “PolitiFact versus FactCheck Number 3” review on Santorum, plus a few “nothing to be seen here”—i.e, “Find THIS PolitiFact Ruling” fact-checks done on Santorum but not by PolitiFact (or even FactCheck.Org).

(Note:  Google Blogspot does not appear to take too kindly to tables.  Please excuse the spacing/font errors.)

Santorum Statement	FactCheck	PolitiFact
"The Obama administration prohibits people who work with at-risk youth from promoting marriage as a way to avoid poverty."  (January, 2012)	"Santorum was right about abstinence not being part of this particular program, but he was wrong about marriage.”	“The change under Obama…was about what could be taught regarding abstinence -- not marriage… Santorum simply got it wrong. His statement is False.”
"… a third of all the young people in America are not in America today because of abortion.” –Rick Santorum, during a Republican presidential debate (March 29, 2011).	“But Santorum was wrong when he said that a third of pregnancies end in abortion…”	False:  So we find Santorum is significantly overstating the frequency of abortions…”
"Barack Obama has raised a 'stop sign' on oil exploration."  (June 6, 2011)	“Santorum was wrong when he said the Obama administration is 'against any kind of exploration offshore or in Alaska.'  The administration has approved 296 new permits...”	False:  "Just because the pace isn't as fast as some would like doesn't mean that Obama 'has put (up) a stop sign.'"
"...there were requirements put on other states when they came into the union that English be the principal language…”  (following similar statement in Puerto Rico, March, 2012)	“Rick Santorum greatly overreached when he claimed that Congress required English be the principal language and that it be taught and spoken universally” in several Southwest territories, Oklahoma and Hawaii as preconditions for them attaining statehood."	NOT CHECKED by PolitiFact. Possible Half True or Mostly False, as they are not saying he is "wrong."
"I didn't vote for a steel bailout." ( February 26, 2012, on Meet The Press).	But in fact, the former Pennsylvania senator voted in 1999 for the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Program, which was dubbed a “bailout” by multiple news organizations at the time.	NOT CHECKED by PolitiFact. Possible Mostly False or False.  It was $400 million dollars of taxpayer money, not anything like the billions for the automakers (also loan guarantees) but a substantial sum nonetheless.
“The dangers of carbon dioxide? Tell that to a plant, how dangerous carbon dioxide is,” Santorum said at the Gulf Coast Energy Summit in Biloxi, Miss., on March 12, [2012]. He made similar comments in early February in Colorado Springs, Colo., saying that global warming was a “hoax” and that “man-made global warming” and proposed remedies were “bogus.”	"...how dangerous can carbon dioxide be? Too much is definitely a bad thing. …97 percent to 98 percent of climate researchers ‘most actively publishing in the field’ agreed that climate change was occurring.”	NOT CHECKED by PolitiFact. In fact, nothing listed at all (as of today) on Santorum's view of global warming.  Given other rulings it's done, however, it would probably merit a False.
"In the Netherlands people wear a different bracelet if you’re elderly and the bracelet is ‘do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, but half the people who are euthanized every year, and it’s 10 percent of all deaths for the Netherlands, half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick." (February 3, 2012,  forum at Grace Bible Church in Columbia, Mo.)	This was a 3-part debunking:  (1) "Government statistics show euthanasia is climbing, but represented only 2.3 percent in 2010, according to the most recent data."  (2) "A representative of the Royal Dutch Medical Association said 'there are no forced cases of euthanasia.' " (3) "...the Dutch government and medical association say no such bracelets exist."	NOT CHECKED by PolitiFact. The multiple-lie voracity of this claim would have made a great Pants on Fire to hang on Santorum.  But they didn't....why not since they're supposedly so liberally biased?
"The idea that the Crusades and the fight of Christendom against Islam is somehow an aggression on our part is absolutely anti-historical. And that is what the perception is by the American Left who hates Christendom. ... –Rick Santorum, campaigning for president in South Carolina (February 2011)	NOT CHECKED by FactCheck.	NOT CHECKED by PolitiFact, even though it might be considered a candidate for one of those "push polls"-- "does the American Left hate Christendom?"  Definitely a good "False" ruling.
"I think the Democrats are actually worried he (Obama) may go to Indonesia and bow to more Muslims.” –Rick Santorum, Fox News interview (May 2010)	NOT CHECKED by FactCheck.	NOT CHECKED by PolitiFact.  This would have gone hand in hand with Romney's "Obama Worldwide Apology Tour" claim which garnered a Pants on Fire.



Lil White Lies: Pay NO Attention to those Conservative Commentators

My reaction to a feature on PolitiFact Bias called “Nothing to See Here,” which publishes statements designed to show those important claims it thinks PolitiFact is not selecting (after all, the lynchpin of  where PolitiFact's Truth-o-Meter rating system fails is supposedly "selection bias") because they’re less favorable to Democrats (or more favorable to Republicans), was to show other rulings PolitiFact could have done but chose not to, those which PolitiFact Bias conveniently skips over (i.e., biasly doesn't select)  since they don’t help their case. But I could do this another way: there had to be a time when their proclamation that PolitiFact wasn’t checking something turned out wrong, and PolitiFact did check it. And that time is now.

The statement came from Obama on the Supreme Court’s review of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”):

Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

PolitiFact Bias’ Bryan White ends his brief prediction for a claim which should be unfavorable to Democrats with “It's perhaps even money that PolitiFact will address this statement. If it does, I'll be interested to see the spin (if any).”

Within 48 hours, PolitiFact did address the statement, and awarded it a False in a 1,700-word tome by Molly Moorhead (which may have explained the short delay, and why the Wall Street Journal beat them to it).

I noted this in a Facebook comment with only one word “Really?” PolitiFact Bias’ Bryan White responded to me directly (despite my blocking) that he put a disclaimer on it with the “even money” bet, and that he already explained in introducing the feature “Nothing to be Found Here” that PolitiFact could ultimately do a fact-check. But that’s what anyone would do (myself included), and is a poor excuse. He wants to be known for his predictive power because of his underlying belief in PolitiFact’s liberal-leaning bias, and when he’s more often wrong than right, it doesn’t serve him well. If he had eight predictions in a row and PolitiFact produced a fact-check for all of them, he might as well throw his new feature in the garbage can. He needs to point out those statements for which he has more certainty that PolitiFact would likely not be checking them.

But PolitiFact Bias’ hack-on-board did not stop with his excuses for a wrong call: he later added his promised spin in his analyses of PolitiFact’s False ruling at co-blog Sublime Bloviations, claiming it was not only False but ridiculously so, and should have been rated a Pants on Fire, therefore assuring himself of PolitiFact’s liberal bias. Naturally, he ignored the most important underlying context he lauds so often about the rest of his remark emphasized here:

And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I'm pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

I believe PolitiFact recognized this underlying context to Obama’s message, but did not explore it and kept the context narrowed, because reviewing what conservative commentators have said about lack of judicial restraint would have revealed Obama's real message and could have lifted the ruling from False, implicating “PolitiFact’s Bias” as writer White so craves. Obama’s comment was obviously directed at Conservatives in a slam at their complaints about judicial activism, for which there are numerous, numerous examples. But that underlying context to Obama’s remark, so often strongly stressed as something PolitiFact "missed" by Grading PolitiFact, was totally ignored.

Writer White starts out by showing how Obama greatly exaggerated the “strong majority of a democratically-elected congress” passed the ACA law. He boasts that even some Blue Dog Democrats voted against it, to which I say, that’s how it’s supposed to be, should they be voting in lock-step because that is how the Republicans do it? We all know the answer to that. But good enough, Obama did exaggerate when he said “strong majority.” However, that was not the point.

The next complaint by writer White is PolitiFact’s over-charitableness (read: left wing bias) in its interpretation of Obama’s remarks regarding “unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law.” When writer Moorhead writes that this part of his statement “puzzled us” White elaborates:

It's probably a puzzling head-scratcher because of its ridiculousness (read: "Pants on Fire") if PolitiFact was not aware that Obama is the smartest person to live in the White House since Hillary Clinton. Since Obama is so smart, there must be a logical explanation.

Saying “Obama is the smartest person to live in the White House since Hillary Clinton” is, to use White’s own term, snark….cynical snark. He is making his contempt for PolitiFact known, and nothing else. But to provide a better “perspective” on what was meant by “unprecedented and extraordinary”, here is Jon Perr of the blog Perrspectives:

Find THIS PolitiFact Ruling: Michele Bachmann

In my last post I promised that I'd follow with ten excellent statements by Michele Bachmann never covered by PolitiFact.  Because, like the blog PolitiFact Bias, here at Politi-Psychotics, we "anticipate a pattern of ignored stories that puts PolitiFact in the role of serving the interests of the" RIGHT.  Unlike those who promise objective research proving PolitiFact liberal bias, I keep my promise.

So let’s get started on a Republican who should have been taken to task by fact-checkers for some things, but true to being in the role of serving the political interests of the right, PolitiFact didn’t select these items for fact-checks. Our subject speaker today is Mrs. “PolitiFact said everything I said was True” Michele Bachmann, and all that snarkiness Bryan White complains about that could have gone along with it. 

1. On the payroll tax cut extension:

And remember, the reason why President Obama proposed it in the first place was to create jobs. There isn’t one shred of evidence that that created jobs. So it defeated its purpose. 

Great one for economic specialist and Grading PolitiFact's favorite PolitiFact journalist Lou Jacobson. Except…except….he didn’t select this one! Why not?!!! It’s a no-brainer!

2. On the Keystone XL pipeline:

The delayed Keystone XL pipeline "would have brought at least 20,000 jobs,"

Another good one for “counts.” PolitiFact never addressed the “jobs” part of it at all, gross or net.

3. On solving the deficit and national debt crisis:

We need to simply tell people the facts, like Glenn Beck, with that chalkboard, that man can explain anything. I think if we give Glenn Beck the numbers, he can solve this.

So, can Glenn Beck solve the debt crisis with a chalkboard, like Bachmann says?

4. On marriage equality:

Because the immediate consequence, if gay marriage goes through, is that K-12 little children will be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal, natural and perhaps they should try it.

Will K-12 children be forced to learn that homosexuality is normal as a result of same sex marriage?

5. On global warming:

But there isn’t even one study that can be produced that shows carbon dioxide is a harmful gas. There isn’t one such study because carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas, it is a harmless gas. Carbon dioxide is natural. It is not harmful. It is part of Earth’s life cycle.

Lil White Lies Extra: Nothing to See WHERE?

In December, my conservative counterpart  told Eric Levine of Content in Reality (in the comments section) the following:

…I've been busy conducting a study that objectively verifies PolitiFact's ideological bias. I've got all the information for the national operation collected and sorted, and I'm in the process of readying it for publication

As I posted in early February, I’m still waiting! It’s going on three months now, and PolitiFact Bias’(PFB) “Research” page still has “nothing to see here” (all it says is “Coming Soon.”) This was supposed to be THE objective, definitive proof of PolitiFact’s left-wing ideological bias, so you’d think Bryan White would be very anxious to publish his findings for all to see! Now all we have is another futile attempt to prove selection bias by PolitiFact: noting claims with a cynical “Nothing to See Here” that it thinks PolitiFact is not selecting because of its bias.

To provide some contrast to the selection process PolitiFact uses to choose its subject matter, PFB introduces a new feature: Nothing To See Here.

Posts in this series will feature claims a non-liberal might find interesting enough to fact check. While we won't be surprised if PolitiFact checks some or perhaps even many of the issues we highlight, we still anticipate a pattern of ignored stories that puts PolitiFact in the role of serving the political interests of the left.

OK, well, Politi-Psychotics can do that liberal style too. I’m still trying to find a humorous double-entendre to title the categorization: it could be something innocuous like a “Where’s THIS Fact-Check PFB?” all the way to something riské like “I’ll Show PFB Just Where It Can Stick This Fact-Check.”

Nevertheless, posts in this series will feature claims a non-conservative “might find interesting enough to fact check.” After all, as I’ve pointed out 26 times already (the list shows 25 but I haven't added the most recent one yet), there’s plenty in the “vast ocean" of PolitiFact's 5,000-plus statements that could be construed as showing a conservative bias, so that it could as easily be said (although I feel paranoid doing so), that “these put PolitiFact in the role of serving the political interests” of the right.

But I must commend the PolitiFact Bias page on Facebook. The page has almost 50 fans, including Ann Coulter wannabe Michele Malkin. Which brings me back to my initial thoughts about Bryan White: WHY? Why such a vendetta against PolitiFact? What did they ever do to him that put him on such a mission?  I mean, maybe 200 or more mostly lengthy, detailed (although often incoherent) and very scathing critiques of PolitiFact rulings in a blog called Sublime Bloviations; an additional  "PolitiFact Bias" blog single-sourced to bring together only conservative critics of PolitiFact, a Facebook page for the PolitiFact Bias blog (indicating his eliciting support from other PolitiFact detractors), his partnership with PolitiFact disparager Deff Jeff Dyberg, along with a steady practice of attacking liberal commenters on PolitiFact's Facebook page with what seems to be the goal of pushing them away from posting comments.  This is a pretty serious indictment. 

Someday we may know. In the meantime, I will shortly follow with a post of ten excellent statements by Michele Bachmann that PolitiFact never bothered to fact-check that will most likely not be part of "Nothing to See Here" for very obvious reasons.