2013: First Half "Overlapping Fact-Checks"

Of the 939 fact-checks published between (or among?) PolitiFact, the Washington Post FactChecker and Factcheck.Org in the first six months of 2013, there were 21 instances where two or more of the three fact-checkers did the same fact-check.  There were also cases where it was the same fact-check, but the statement being checked was made by different persons or organizations.  Sometimes a statement would be repeated (a "talking point") so it may have been fact-checked again at a later date (by the same fact-checker, which often occurs in the case of PolitiFact), which occasionally would change the rating.

 

At the end of 2012, with the Sandy Hook tragedy shortly before Christmas, guns and gun control suddenly became the hot topic politically, and the fact-checkers followed as 2013 began.  The most frequently overlapping topic concerned guns, followed by healthcare and the federal budget.  And as one might expect, significant nationally broadcast speeches, such as Obama's State of the Union address, were attractive fact-checking fodder.

 

Three statements had all three fact-checkers, PolitiFact, the Washington Post FactChecker, and FactCheck.Org, making a judgment.  One of them, by Barack Obama, had a differing outcome (the fact-checkers appear to be in disagreement), which I may be taking a better look at in another post.  In fact, in certain respects this was not a "triple" as I will explain.  The other two were by the same person, Michele Bachmann, who seems to be popular with the fact-checkers as far as what they believe are outlandish statements, and they were not disappointed.

 

The following are a selection of nine of those 21 instances, including the two three-peaters from Bachmann as well as those having some conflicts with ratings (my comments in italics).

Statement	"Other Fact-checker"	PolitiFact
Barack Obama: (SOTU on 2/13): "The U.S. has created half million manufacturing jobs in three years."	WaPo Factchecker: (in June when Obama repeated it)  Two Pinnochios:  "It's time to retire this talking point." Factcheck.Org: "The president was correct...but that's not the whole story."	True:  "...he has described the numbers carefully." This was by far the most contro- versial of PolitiFact's rulings, as it was technically correct but according to the other two fact- checkers, lacked context.
Barack Obama: (repeated) "40% of all guns purchased/sold do not require a background check." Repeated by Sen. Ted Cruz (R), Tom Barrett (D), and David Cicilline (D).	The WaPo started with an unrated "Verdict Pending" followed by Two Pinnochios a day later, then two months later Three Pinnochios. Factcheck.Org deemed this one an inconclusive "uncertain."	Half True:  Ted Cruz (R), Tom Barrett (D) and David Cicilline (D) all received the same rating. PolitiFact did not rate Obama on this statement.
Michele Bachmann: (3/19)  "70 percent of the food stamp budget goes to bureaucrats."	WaPo Factchecker:  Four Pinnochios. “There really aren't enough Pinnochios for such a misleading use of statistics." Factcheck.Org:  "...a grossly inaccurate claim."	Pants on Fire:  "That is ridiculously off base."
Michele Bachmann: (5/20):  The IRS is going to be "in charge of" a "huge national database" on healthcare with Americans' personal secrets.	“WaPo Factchecker:  Four Pinnochios.  "There is no evidence to support this assertion, and she is simply scaring people." Factcheck.Org:  "...falsely claimed..."	Pants on Fire: "She has mischaracterized the intent and limitations of the hub.  It's not a database."
Barack Obama: (SOTU on 2/13) The Affordable Care Act is "helping to slow the growth of healthcare costs."	Factcheck.Org:  "It may be helping, but the slower growth of healthcare spending began before the law was enacted."	Half True: "Obama is taking credit for more than he can prove."
Ron Johnson (R) stated that Obamacare has "$1 Trillion in hidden middle class taxes" which was denied as "untrue" at the same time by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D)  on ABC's "This Week"  3/10.	WaPo Factchecker:  Two Pinnochios for both: "Both lawmakers found themselves either a modifier too long or short." Factcheck.Org: "Wasserman- Schultz is wrong...(but) Johnson exaggerates."	PolitiFact did not fact-check either statement.
Barack Obama:  (SOTU on 2/13/)  The U.S. has doubled "the distance our cars will go on a gallon of gas."	Factcheck.Org: "The (president's claim)...isn't remotely close to being true right now."	False:  "The statement was misleading and more importantly untrue."
Barack Obama:  (4/17) The NRA "used to support background checks."	WaPo Factchecker:  NO RATING.  "At the same time the NRA worked hard to defeat the proposals advanced by...other Democrats."	True:  "The NRA has acknowledged that it has since changed its position to opposition."  This was also a conflict in ratings as WaPo's "no rating" is much different than True regardless that it is "not" a rating.
Tom Coburn: (5/9 on MSNBC).  "After the national park gun ban was lifted, violent crime fell by 85 percent."	WaPo Factchecker: Three Pinnochios.  "...there is no evidence that crime has declined because guns have been permitted."	False:  "....far from clear."



Truth Index+: Buh-Bye, Bachmann

What can I say.

Michele Bachmann was someone I termed a statistical "outlier" when it came to the PolitiFact Truth Index+, because she was so far off everyone else in terms of it, as well as in terms of its category Pants on Fire. When she announced she would not run for her congressional seat in 2014, PolitiFact "honored" her by describing the reasons for such a feat:

She had a remarkable streak: Her first 13 ratings were False or Pants on Fire.

Bachmann went on to compete in the 2012 Republican primary for president. She earned her first True rating for a statement she made during a 2011 debate that then-Sen. Obama "refused to raise the debt ceiling because he said President Bush had failed in leadership."

When a question was raised about her veracity, Bachmann cited our work during one of the many Republican presidential debates. "After the debate that we had last week, PolitiFact came out and said that everything I said was true," she said at a debate in Sioux City, Iowa, on Dec. 15, 2011.

Alas, she was totally wrong. In fact, the week before we had rated her statement that Mitt Romney instituted "socialized medicine" in Massachusetts as Pants on Fire.

Bachmann has been extensively covered on this blog--in fact, my very last post--and has been subjected to the Politi-Score, that is, taking into account all the fact-checks done on her by every source. In her case, she had four (4) sources because of the Minnesota Public Radio Fact-Checker in her home state. And she required more work than the others I've measured using the Politi-Score, as I ended up with a 5-part series when I covered her in August of 2011. It is still worth checking out, as it goes over many of the statements she made which were checked multiple times: (at that time) of the 50 statements from the 4 fact-checkers, a third of them were duplicated, and two statements were checked by all four fact-checkers (and for the most part rated quite consistently, which says something about the integrity of the fact-checkers' processes).

 

61% of Bachmann's statements
were rated False, of which
42% were Pants on Fire

Her Truth Index+ alone, however, should be reviewed in proper context. PolitiFact provided her last ratings by percentage for 59 rulings (see chart at right), but that was all (the same they would do for anyone else). Here is how she looks (below) when you calculate Bachmann's Truth Index+ and compare it to the overall Truth Index+ (through 3/31/2013), as well as that for Republicans overall, for Democrats overall, and compared to her fellow Republicans in Congress, and as an added individual comparison, to the next best female Democrat in congress who probably gets closest to her in terms of making those occasional outrageous statements, Nancy Pelosi, although she's only been subjected to the Truth-o-Meter 22 times, I'm assuming because she relinquished her Speaker of the House position following the Republican mid-term election rout in early 2011(and didn't attempt a run for president as Bachmann did).

 

As can be seen, the Truth Index+ for all the other measures goes from 84% higher for the Democrats overall down to 54% higher for her fellow Republicans in the House of Representatives. I'd also venture to say that for those who've had 50 or more rulings, which puts her in a very special Truth Index+ category especially for females, she probably ranks dead last as far as the Truth Index+ (males AND females).  And the more rulings, the more tell-tale "for truthiness" is the Truth Index+.

 

Today, PolitiFact published an article re-iterating its "principles" with regard to doing rulings. Bill Adair, PolitiFact's creator and outgoing manager, stated under the heading "Choosing Claims to Check" that "we select the most newsworthy and significant ones" and in a bulleted list of "questions they ask themselves" in selecting a statement asked "Would a typical person hear or read the statement and wonder: Is that true?" And Bachmann certainly met that criteria in many of her statements.  

 

In some ways, hard-line conservativism and Tea Party associations made her a colorful character.  But I can't really say she will be missed. Well, we still have 19 months to go, and anything can happen...so I'll keep my mouth shut.

Grading ZFC: Bachmann is Full of Care, and BS

In reviewing this meta-factcheck of PolitiFact (PF) by Zebra Fact-Check (ZFC), I carefully listened to the entire 17 minutes of Michele Bachmann's speech at the annual CPAC on YouTube. I must have heard the word "care" between 40 and 60 times in the course of the speech, along with something to the effect of "our movement loves people." It was a pure--in terms of logical fallacies-- "appeal to emotion."

PolitiFact fact-checked the following part of her speech:

We wondered if it was accurate for Bachmann to say that "scientists tell us that we could have a cure in 10 years for Alzheimer's" were it not for "overzealous regulators, excessive taxation and greedy litigators." So we checked with a variety of Alzheimer’s researchers and policy experts. (Bachmann’s office did not respond to an inquiry for this article.)

(I guess if you're excluded from the CPAC Movement of Love you don't deserve a response!)

My conservative counterpart claimed that in analyzing Bachmann's statement, PolitiFact "commit(ted) a core blunder in its fact check analysis." He added that it "fail[ed] to pay basic attention to Bachmann’s statement and severely misrepresent[ed] it in the fact check."

Oh my, do we like to use exaggerative words, like "core blunder" and "severely" misrepresent. So....was that really what it was, or was it something less?

 

Something should be added as far as the context, that ZFC ignores or neglects to mention. Bachmann started out with describing how Jonas Salk invented his Polio vaccine and gave it to Eisenhower in the 1950's which was distributed to the general population. She used it to segue into how a cure could be found in the same way for Alzeimer's. But the two diseases are vastly different: one is a virus, and one is a degenerative, progressive brain disease of unknown origins. It's  comparing apples to oranges. On top of that, if a cure for Alzeimer's is found, does she think whoever discovers it is going to give it so easily to the "people" especially in this day and age of our political parties (and I'm not going to say it's just the Republicans) cow-towing to the lobbyists of major corporations? I'd like to see just how far all that "love and care" is going to go to do it.

But that is besides the point. Was Bachmann's statement misrepresented by PolitiFact in a way so it could ultimately set her pants on fire? A friend of mine who calls himself "Deconverted Man" on YouTube--his real name is Daniel--just finished up on some courses on logical fallacies in completing his degree. He also responds to videos on YouTube with his own where he analyzes, explains, and puts on a "counter" those logical fallacies he finds (and he seems to find a lot). He was gracious enough to review PolitiFact's fact-check as well as what ZFC had to say.

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.

Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: Slam Bam Bachmann!

Or:  How to give Michele Bachmann a *True* in 240 words or less

The United States in 1913 was far different than the it is today. “Unions” were limited to craft guilds (and I believe that “collective bargaining” as we know it today was illegal). There was no Social Security, no Medicare, no Medicaid. The freeing of the slaves in the south gave way to rampant Jim Crowism along with racial subordination. Women could not vote. When you went to the hospital, it meant you were going to die. There was no infrastructure yet—such as the interstate highway system—as cars were just coming of age. And it would be another year before a major world war would start, necessitating a stronger defense, and the U.S.'s coming new world role as a formidable foreign power. Military investments by our government later enabled the space age and the advent of NASA.

So yes, Michele Bachmann saying that income taxes were 7% in 1913 and were 70% by 1980 (in this PolitiFact ruling) was True, but it was a far different country we lived in as far as what services our tax revenues  provided. And, taxes didn’t rise on a straight line, either, as writer Lou Jacboson briefly recognized in two short paragraphs, “…For every year between1944 to 1963, the top tax rate exceeded 90 percent.” That’s a period of 19 years, until it was lowered to the rate Bachmann specifies.

The other implication of her statement seems to be that taxes rose steadily until about the time Reagan became president, to give Ronald Reagan credit where credit wasn’t really due, as the one who started the movement to cut taxes (since shortly after his initial cuts, he went on to raise them several times). One Facebook commenter, Dean Hare, put it this way:

I would have ranked this as Mostly True due to the cherry-picked dates, because the rates during the Eisenhower administration were 91%, and all the current Republicans want to out-Reagan Ronald Reagan by making 'Historic" tax cuts. You were a little generous and need to re-visit this. I think you need to keep in mind with ALL your tax policy rulings the facts that the World War II debt was paid off with these high tax rates and an economy booming with publicly funded physical and intellectual infrastructure spending (ie: Government Stimulus on roads, the military and education). Too many of your rulings forget the tax policy and federal spending history from the 1945-1980 era -- and you also refuse to cite the eleven tax increases Reagan signed into law after it became obvious his initial cuts were too deep, requiring additional revenues.

Another Facebook commenter (or topic page) with the  name "Economics Online Tutor" published a comparison of U.S. economic performane and tax policies since 1913 on their Facebook wall, and it's worth a view in the context of Bachmann's other implication in this statement, that tax cuts stimulate the economy.

If a Democrat had said this I could just hear my conservative counterpart screaming that writer Lou Jacobson was ignoring the underlying argument (but neither blog post nor Facebook comment could be found on that from him, being as Bachmann is a Republican). Without underlying context Bachmann’s statement means very little, and there’s more than a few caveats here. This is not the usual Bachmann whopper, but PolitiFact certainly appears to be throwing her a bone in the way it was ruled on.

Politi-Score: Three Debates, Part 3

As my previous post was about the most covered topics at the three recent Republican presidential debates, let's see how the candidates fared truth-wise by the three biggest ones:  healthcare/Medicare, jobs and social security.  I'm looking at the most frequently reviewed statements in those categories.

Healthcare if you dare. On the most covered topic of healthcare, there were  some statements which the fact-checkers noted had been checked long before these debates.

The group of fact-checked statements that  caused quite a stir in the media, however, all related to the same healthcare topic: Rick Perry’s defense of his executive order to require young girls to get a HPV vaccine called Gardasil, which prevents cervical cancer. Michele Bachmann decided to tie it into political contributions Perry received from the company that makes the vaccine, Merck. FactCheck.org verified that Perry had indeed received thousands in contributions, but his response to Bachmann’s accusation gave pause even to Rush Limbaugh, as he commented that his first thought when Perry said he couldn’t be bought for $5,000 was-- what IS his price then? (Yes, I heard Rush say that on his radio show on September 12, and yes, I do occasionally listen to Rush Limbaugh.) FactCheck.org also confirmed two other untruths of Bachmann’s: that Merck made millions of dollars off the drug (False) and that it was potentially dangerous (False). They also confirmed as true that Perry’s former chief of staff was a lobbyist for Merck.

Her controversial anecdote following the debate, about the drug causing retardation, did not make my review list, because not only was it after the debates, but the fact-checkers have no way to verify it as some woman who told Bachmann personally. But no worry—a University of Pennsylvania bioethicist has decided to try to validate it the only way possible: by offering “… to donate $10,000 to the charity of Bachmann’s choice if she can produce such a patient” because as they say, money talks and bullsh*t walks. So far, as usual, her campaign hasn’t responded (where have I heard that before?). So I guess Bachmann’s walking.

“Romney says his health care bill affected far smaller percentage of people than Obama's”—which was a statement he first made in a presidential candidate forum in South Carolina, presumably to differentiate as much as possible the two very similar healthcare systems--as the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler put it “… an inconvenient fact that Romney tries hard to run away from.” He continued to make the claim into the Reagan Library Debate, where all three fact checkers concluded that Romney was making a faulty comparison. Here’s FactCheck.org’s explanation:

The main goal of both is to cover more of the uninsured, and to do so while preserving the primarily employer-based insurance structure. In 2004, before the Massachusetts law was passed, 7.4 percent of Massachusetts residents were uninsured, according to the state Division of Health Care Finance and Policy (see page 12). Romney said 8 percent, but that statistic can vary, depending on how being uninsured is measured. Under the Massachusetts plan, that figure went down to 1.9 percent in 2010. Nationally, 16.7 percent of the population is uninsured, as of 2009, according to the Census Bureau. And, like the Massachusetts endeavor, the federal overhaul is aimed at reducing that figure.

PolitiFact’s Louis Jacobson felt the “wildly divergent” percentages deserved a Pants on Fire, even soliciting an agreement from the Cato Institute:

Politi-Score: Three Debates, Three Debaters

Politi-Score in parentheses; *Ames score revised slightly due to categorization error.

Most media sources agree that when Rick Perry entered the Republican presidential race, it took a lot of wind out of Michele Bachmann’s sails. When Perry appeared for the second Republican debate, the fact-check counts sort of confirmed it. Bachmann got precedence in fact-checks at Ames, where she was covered for about 1/3 of the total, but in the second debate, she only received five or 1/6 of the total. It’s also significant to note that her Politi-Score greatly improved as well. It seems the more she fades into the background, at least in this case, the more “honest” she is.

However, in the third debate, the CNN-Tea Party, she appeared to maker her “voice of the Tea Party” loud and strong again. This time she came close to getting a third of the fact checks as she did in Ames, while the truthiness dropped accordingly, although not quite as bad. Bachmann’s had more fact-checks in these three debates than any of the other candidates. On the other hand, had Rick Perry participated in the first debate in Ames, he would likely have exceeded her. He averaged ten fact checks in each of the last two debates, so by extrapolation he might have had close to 30 for the three.

All in all, Romney, Perry and Bachmann received just over 70% of the fact-checks by FactCheck.org, the Washington Post Fact Checker and PolitiFact. Here’s a closer look at the Politi-Score in PolitiFact Truth Index format as to how they did.

Politi-Score in parentheses next to each candidate's name.

Here's how Bachmann, Perry and Romney scored for each debate in attaining the overall average (Politi-Score)  shown above:

So, how did Romney suddenly score so much higher and "truthful" in the third debate on CNN? It was in the tit-for-tat book-quoting between Romney and Perry. The “Trues” that brought up Romney’s scores was his calling out Perry for stating that  Social Security was unconstitutional in his recent book “Fed Up” which both PolitiFact and the WaPo Fact Checker confirmed were true. These Trues and Mostly Trues made up over half the fact-checks on him for the CNN debates. Perry, however, only had one fact-check attributed to him regarding book quotes, while all three fact-checkers took him to task on stating that the Stimulus created zero jobs, with PolitiFact giving him a Pants on Fire.

Next, a discussion of one re-recovered ruling on a Rick Perry statement about social security as Ponzi, and a few other items of interest.

Sidebar: Politi-Psychotic without the "otic"

Recently when using a friend’s new laptop with Windows Seven (I’m still on Vista), typing in the name of this blog in the search box, I noticed that for each letter a different search would come up (assuming that’s Windows Seven or a better browser)….and when I got to politipsych, I found there was a site by that name, and it had some excellent write-ups on Republican candidates…they read with the flare of one of my favorite authors and occasional Salon journalist Camille Paglia. In this case, a post dated August 15, by Dr. Alan J. Lipman, caught my eye:

Note Ben Smith’s excellent article on Bachmann’s rapid Waterloo at Waterloo moment, showcasing all the insular, self-protective tightness of fearful “can’t believe that we’re here” organizational pathology that will magnify as the spotlight increases upon her.

The triangle is between Perry-Bachmann-Romney.

Perry will chip away at Bachmann’s brittle, protected, highly anxious and therefore highly managed style. Bachmann will also increasing demonstrate numerous unforced errors in this regard. End result: Perry’s relaxed strength will be reinforced against Bachmann’s increasingly difficult to hide over-controlled self-protection against her own fear of her shaky insecurity.

Perry’s downhome Texan style, while likely an issue in the general, will wear well against Romney’s shape-shifting, “corporations are people”, off-kilter retail politics. R’s will like his comfortable, broken in boots, and barring a scandal, he’s got it.

I agree: I’m betting on Perry as the one who "gets it", who’ve some described as someone who looks like Josh Brolin portraying George W. Bush. It’s the possibility of scandal and/or the successful ability of the Obama 2012 election team to focus on Perry in terms of Bush’s many negatives (and Perry's forays into right-wing extremism) that will keep him from going to the Whitehouse. While I had always heard he might run in 2016, announcing for 2012 was a good idea (for the Republicans) because he is a far better candidate than the others in terms of potential appeal to independent voters.  Lipman followed by this more in-depth psychological analysis of Perry's rival Michele Bachmann:

Bachmann coming in with expectations of near certifiability for inpatient treatment, has shown herself to be able to shift to voice that is reasonably free of near psychotic utterances (e.g. Swine Flu the result of Democratic machinations), and to show reasonable tenacity at evading the worst dangers of her dangerously near past utterances. Of course–that does not mean that they weren’t said, and while showing increased skill at evasion, she has little with which to actually answer the content of these statements.

She has been able to do this for short bursts. This will not last for the campaign, the frayed edges of the anxious need for controlled perfection–borne of anxiety, of the fear that it will all collapse around her from one mistake, of the remarkable house of cards upon which her “Tax attorney” “Family Business” candidacy has been built, will force a self-protective shock troop surrounding her; a prima donna need to ensure perfect conditions for appearances which will quickly undermine any “voice of the people” rhetoric, and slips of the less than factual or reassuring variety. She is tight, controlled, scared. It won’t be long.

Yep, it won't be long. Next up, as time affords me, will be a Politi-Score review of Perry.

Tchotchkes: GOP Prez Buttons I'd Like to See

Although for Bachmann, I can think of some appropriate by-lines, such as: 

• Tender n Flakey
• What's my Lyin'?
• Vote for me--or go to Hell 

PolitiFact Detractors: Your AIM is Way Off

Whoever owns (Logan Churchwell) Accuracy in Media (AIM), as it calls itself, probably just loves Cliff Kincaid, the writer of this recent AIM fact-check of the fact-checker, in this case, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker (Glenn Kessler). He really knows how to take “fairness” and “balance” (where have I heard that before?) in media to the upper stratosphere of politi-psychotics. Cliff may not have known that PolitiFact weighed in as well (seconding the False) on fact-checking Michele Bachmann’s statement that the August 5 S+P downgrade of U.S. sovereign debt proved her right that the debt ceiling should not have been raised (see my previous post on this). Oh well, he’d just say they’re all just part of that vast left-wing conspiracy that is “so determined to undermine Bachmann’s presidential run.” 

She's whipping her campaign into shape!



Analogy time. Let’s say it’s the dead of winter and you have your grandma connected to a breathing machine in your home. Suppose you’re not able to pay the utility bill that's due unless your credit limit is raised, and Michele Bachmann was just hired at the bank and is put in charge of increasing said limit. So Bachmann says to you, I’m not raising your credit limit, because you need to cut your expenses NOW and turn your thermostat down to 58 degrees. What would you say? Is cutting that expense now going to pay the current utility bill?

Now, you and your family would be freezing and grandma might die if the power gets interrupted. But Bachmann doesn’t think that’s a big deal, and still threatens to cut you. She says you can throw some blankets on her and give her mouth to mouth (i.e., just pay the interest on the debt). In the final moments before power cut-off, you get the office manager to over-ride Bachmann so you can get the credit to pay the utility bill and keep the power on, and submit a plan to turn down the thermostat to 60 degrees and have a family meeting to pare down future expenses further. FICO lowers your credit score, however, because your negotiations with Bachmann made you late paying the bill and because you really should lower your thermostat to 58 degrees.

You see Bachmann later and she proclaims: “See FICO was right. Your credit limit should not have been raised.” You bite your lip. If Bachmann was really right, and you didn’t get that increase, grandma would be dead.

It was your previous utility expenses incurred in the bill currently due that required the credit limit increase, so it was not possible to just immediately cut expenses and pay the bill (the debt ceiling had to be increased in order to pay bills already incurred). Both Bachmann and Kincaid conflate the debts incurred which required the debt ceiling increase with current and future expenses. It was clear in the S+P report that increasing the debt ceiling was not the issue: the issue was the wrangling and the “trajectory” of the increasing debt in the future. The S+P report also discussed a more positive scenario by expiring high-earner tax cuts in 2013 because it would bring down the high trajectory—the cuts the Republicans want to keep in place. (emphasis added)

Our revised upside scenario--which, other things being equal, we view as consistent with the outlook on the 'AA+' long-term rating being revised to stable--retains these same macroeconomic assumptions. In addition, it incorporates $950 billion of new revenues on the assumption that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts for high earners lapse from 2013 onwards, as the Administration is advocating. In this scenario, we project that the net general government debt would rise from an estimated 74% of GDP by the end of 2011 to 77% in 2015 and to 78% by 2021.

Then to add insult to injury, Bachmann says, “You just got a blank check when they raised that debt limit.” You now feel like cold-cocking her.

But there may be a better answer to explain this to conservatives like Cliff: The Clinton Surplus. Because as most conservatives would only be too giddy to tell you, there was no Clinton “surplus”—it was a budget surplus--the debt continued. There was just a lot less added to the debt. I’m sure Kincaid would suddenly be able to differentiate it then..as well as Bachmann. Of course, no problem. That’s what you might call conservative “bias exposed for all to see.”

Politi-Scoring the Ames Debates: Ceiling Fans

Reviewing the fact-checks of the recent Republican debate in Ames, Iowa, at the three sites that the Politi-Score is ascribed to (PoliGraph got left out as it did not do a review and as noted before, is more of a PolitiFact Junior/Minnesota) it becomes obvious who they tend to concentrate on: the person who ultimately won the Saturday “Straw Poll”, that is, Michele Bachmann, with a distant second by perceived strongest contender Mitt Romney. The fact-checks of statements by Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum seemed to be a courtesy if anything by FactCheck.org.

There were 24 statements fact-checked in total: 8 of them (1/3) were made by Bachmann, 5 by Romney, 3 each Paul and Pawlenty, 2 for Huntsman, and 1 each for Cain, Gingrich and Santorum. Doing an individual Politi-Score would not make much sense. In total, however, this is how it looked for each of the fact-checking websites, along with the aggregated Politi-Score.

Overall, you can compare the debate Politi-Score of (-54) to that of ALL 2011 PolitiFact Republicans (-23) or ALL 2011 Washington Post Fact Checker Republicans (-60). It seems PolitiFact found them (far) less truthful while the Washington Post found them a bit more. It should be noted, however, that PolitiFact had the "most truthful" debate score (-30) which compares more closely with their overall 2011 Republican of (-23).

This was the most "popular" fact-checked statement at the Ames debates.

Along with the most fact-checks, Bachmann had the most replications. The most re-covered fact-check was Bachmann’s distorted contentions regarding the debt ceiling: that raising the debt ceiling was giving Obama a blank check (False by both FactCheck.org and the Washington Post Fact Checker), and that the Standard and Poor downgrade of U.S. Treasuries proved she was right about not raising the debt ceiling (False at PolitiFact and “a mischaracterization” at Washington Post FactChecker). Mitt Romney was the only other one re-covered for two statements, and the only Pants on Fire from PF. Tim Pawlenty did have one very True statement about Bachmann (which no one checked, although he did make one other about Romney rated True): that she has a reputation for making false statements. He must be reading those fact-checking sites.

Politi-Score: Wrapping Up Bachmann (Jumping the Snark Part 5)

Here’s the rest of the statements by Michele Bachmann which have been fact-checked at least two times.

Bachmann: "My husband and I have never gotten a penny of money from the farm." (June 26)

PolitiFact (PF) ruled False, and there was this from FactCheck.org:

Bachmann falsely claimed that she and her husband "have never gotten a penny" from a family farm that received federal subsidies. But she reported income from the farm in 2006, 2008 and 2009 — the most recent year available — on her congressional financial disclosure statements.

Bachmann:  “The president released all of the oil from the Strategic Oil Reserve.” (June 26)

PolitiFact ruled False, while the Fact Checker included it as the "blended" Mostly False, expressed thus:

This is a huge overstatement. The Strategic Petroleum Reserve has 727 million barrels of oil, and the Obama administration announced last week that the U.S. will release 30 million barrels of oil from the reserve. (Another 30 million barrels will be released by European countries.)

So she’s off by a factor of 25.

Bachmann:  “One. That's the number of new drilling permits under the Obama administration since they came into office.” (March 26)

PolitiFact gave this one a Pants on Fire, while FactCheck.org said “not even close”:

This claim is not even close to the truth. A query of Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement’s online database shows 276 permits were approved for "new wells" — both developmental and exploratory — from the time Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009 to the date of Bachmann’s speech.

Jumping the Snark AND Grading PF Liberal Style!

When I initially saw this result in my Excel “sort” I straight off dismissed it: Half True at PolitiFact versus False at FactCheck.org , for Michele Bachmann’s statement that “Obamacare” would require 16,500 new IRS agents to police it. After all, Half True can just as well mean Half False, and because the False could arguably just as well be a Mostly False at Factcheck since it’s subject to my own interpretation as to ranking, I didn’t think it was a candidate for a major post. But, just in case, I decided to first read FactCheck’s take on it. FactCheck was pretty emphatic (and a bit snarky, I might add) about the False:

Bachmann not only exaggerates but is flat-out wrong when she repeats the oft-stated false claim about the need to hire "16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing President Obama’s health care bill." As we reported previously, the figure of 16,500 originated from a House Republican report that relies on false assumptions and outright misrepresentation. The CBO estimated in March 2010 that the health care law would increase IRS administrative costs by $5 billion to $10 billion over 10 years. But that money will not be going for "16,500 IRS agents in charge of policing" health care mandates. The IRS is mostly responsible under the new law for administering tax credit programs, not collecting penalties.

When I looked at what PolitiFact had to say, I saw opportunity a-knocking for an excellent Grading PolitiFact Liberal Style piece. Because now I had another website verifying the same claim which was basically saying through its harsher “grade” that PolitiFact was going way too easy on Republicans/Conservatives. So,  here's the best of both worlds!

Bachmann made this statement in January when she followed up President Obama’s State of the Union message. In February, an actual estimate emerged as reported by U.S. News, of 1,054, besides the required systems changes to implement the law. So, compared to 16,500, we can safely say Bachmann’s claim is False to maybe Mostly False. But that conservatively biased (snark snark) PolitiFact just had to elevate it to an inconclusive Half True.

Politi-Score: Jumping the Snark (Part 3)

Michele Bachmann had one statement with what appeared to be “opposing” rulings on its veracity by PolitiFact (Mostly True) and the Washington Post Fact Checker (Mostly False). But closer examination revealed that they both treated the ruling similarly.



The statement in question as published in the Washington Post Fact Checker:

In February 2009, President Obama was very confident that his economic policies would turn the country around within a year.

He said, and I quote, ‘A year from now, I think people are going to see that we're starting to make some progress. If I don't have this done in three years, then there's going to be a one-term proposition.’ Well, Mr. President, your policies haven't worked. Spending our way out of the recession hasn't worked. And so Mr. President, we take you at your word.”

According to Kessler, Bachman left some crucial words out of her Obama quote which “undercut her claim.”

However, this was again a case I’ve previously discussed in my Bachmann series: it was part of a “blended ruling” Kessler awarded Bachmann for eight statements combined. As Kessler noted in his “Pinnochio Test” conclusion: (emphasis added)

Bachmann’s announcement speech had relatively minor transgressions, fact wise, but she did worse in her pre-announcement interviews. We are pleased to see she has modified her language on the 800,000 jobs — though this stale talking point should be dropped altogether — but she erred badly on her assertion about the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. She needs to figure out how to eliminate the use of hyperbole — such as “massive” or “all” — from her vocabulary.

On a blended basis, she is getting two Pinocchios, but that’s only because we do not use 1/2 Pinocchios.

In this “blended” ruling, Kessler’s toughest “grade” was levied on the 800,000 jobs Bachmann claimed would be lost under Obamacare and an assertion that Obama had released all the oil from the SPR. Other than that, the rest, including the statement that quoted Obama as saying he would turn the economy around in one to three years, he considered “relatively minor transgressions, fact-wise.” So I’m guessing the “turn the economy around” statement was the minor transgression, an improvement truth-wise over the other two, and would have garnered less than Two Pinnochios by itself—or maybe 1-1/2 if Kessler could award half Pinnochios....or even one, the Mostly True.

PolitiFact's banner:  "Not a major omission"...WaPo: "Relatively minor transgression."

PolitiFact used the same Bachmann quote in its analysis and several others which preceded it that, as writer Louis Jacobson indicated, expressed a similar “variation on the line” of Bachmann leaving out a not quite inconsequential part of what Obama actually said, which, to paraphrase Kessler, undercut her claim:

Politi-Score: Jumping the Snark (Part 2)

One of the many so-called “proofs” of liberal bias on the part of PolitiFact (PF) offered by my conservative counterpart was the “snark” it displayed with regard to Michele Bachmann in some of its initial rulings on her. I’ve noted since that if there was indeed snark, it has substantially slipped, but it may still be there today, only not on the part of PolitiFact.

The 50 “rulings” of four fact-checkers on Michele Bachmann, as I noted before, contained ten statements which had been fact-checked by more than one fact-checker, resulting in 16 duplicates. Let’s take a look at some of these.

The $105 billion hidden in Obamacare (March). Covered by all four fact-checkers, the rulings ranged from Mostly False (PF and FactCheck.org), False by the MPR PoliGraph, and a full Pants on Fire Four Pinnochios from Glenn Kessler’s The Fact Checker. A small bit of snark surfaced in his conclusion: (italics added)

There is no "bombshell" except Bachmann's bombast.

She is correct that Congress already has appropriated some spending in future years, but her claim that this money was "hidden" does not have credibility. The money for these programs was clearly described and analyzed by the Congressional Budget Office before the legislation was voted into law.

FactCheck.org said Bachmann was “wrong” on the $105 Billion, twice, first in the headline and then: (italics added)

Rep. Michele Bachmann’s claim…is way off base…Bachmann is just wrong to characterize the mandated appropriations in the health care law as "hidden." It was, as the saying goes, hidden in plain sight.

I assigned a Mostly False to this one, but it could have qualified for a “False.” The MPR PoliGraph gave it a False. PolitiFact’s ruling, on the other hand, was clearly minus the snark, and gave her the benefit of the doubt, awarding her a Mostly False.  So much for "liberal bias."

The 800,000-jobs-killing Obamacare (June). All four fact-checkers selected this statement as well, and in this case they all agreed on the ruling of Mostly False, since the CBO estimated there would be a “small impact.” That is, except for FactCheck.org who took it a little further calling it an outright “false claim,” so I classified it likewise. They were pretty clear on this, headlining the check “Repeating a Falsehood on Healthcare” along with a twist of snark, if you want to call it that:  (italics added)

Politi-Score: Jumping the Snark (Part 1)

Michele Bachmann will be my test baby for the first in a series of Politi-Psychotic pieces examining and analyzing the results of multiple fact-checkers on an individual politician’s statements.

Bachmann has been getting more reviews lately because of her presidential inclinations, and there are four fact-check sources to consider on her, and “consolidate” into one. A total of 50 Bachmann statements (all of which were made during 2011) are broken down as follows in parentheses: PolitiFact (15), FactCheck.org (15), the Washington Post Fact Checker (13), and the Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) PoliGraph (7).

After categorizing the statements into their levels of truthfulness, I realized I may have to revive the Politi-Score just retired in favor of PolitiFact’s Truth Index. It could be said that the Politi-Score has undergone a complete re-design and emerged as a comprehensive, “global” Truth Index, taking into account other fact-checkers. So, look for that tag soon.

I tried to keep the rules consistent to those used in my last post on the Fact-Checker: FactCheck.org was the tough one, because it does not grant rulings. So, there were basically four categories: True (which, like Glenn Kessler’s Fact Checker, are very rarely awarded); Inconclusive (I don’t think FactCheck.org would even publish those), which would rank a Half True; Misleading, which would get a Mostly False, and False, and this is where FactCheck.org uses the words “False” or “Inaccurate” (untrue, erroneous) somewhere in its review describing the statement at hand. If it does not use those words, it falls into the Misleading or Mostly False category. I did do one “Mostly True” however for FactCheck. This was a numbers claim which fell within the percentage “minimum” for Mostly True that’s been posted about before in a review of PolitiFact numbers claims. The MPR PoliGraph was handled similarly to the Washington Post Fact Checker-PolitiFact Truth Index in my previous post.

Of the 50 statements, one third, or 16 were duplicates (speaking of "selection bias"). That is, there were 10 statements which were also evaluated and ruled on by another fact-checker. There were two statements reviewed by all four fact-checkers (6 dupes). There were two statements reviewed by three of the fact-checkers (4 dupes). The other six were reviewed by two fact-checkers (6 dupes). Those I was most interested in examining were ones which could have (widely) divergent rulings. However, there were cases where the rulings had to be reconciled with the methods of the Fact-Checker and the context they said they examining, in other words, they may not be as divergent as thought.

Here is Bachmann’s Truth Index for each Fact-Checker, with the newly appointed “Politi-Score” at the end, which is the overall average:

I have to figure out a better way to present these graphs:  CLICK on graphic TO ENLARGE.

In my next post, I will take a look at some of the individual duplicated statements and the discrepancies between rulings between and among the fact-checkers.

Marcus and Michele Bachmann Explain Marriage

Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: Score 5 in June

On July 4, PolitiFact published a Mailbag issue in which readers took it to task for some of its rulings from the month of June. While I try to critically think on just about everything, especially when it comes to grading PolitiFact in a liberal style, it seems to me that more “thinkers” make for better ideas and insights. And as I haven’t done much lately in the “Grading PolitiFact Liberally” area, this mailbag gave me the opportunity to catch up. Because some of the readers have some compellingly good reasons for either upgrading a Democrat or downgrading a Republican—for a total of FIVE rulings. So let’s get started:

1. Liberals should just revere that Palin-speak!

Several readers charged that we [PolitiFact] were too soft in giving former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin a Barely True -- rather than a False or Pants on Fire -- for her comment that "Part of (Paul Revere’s) ride was to warn the British that were already there that, 'Hey, you're not going to succeed.' "

One reader wrote, "Going to your definition of Barely True, the ‘element of truth’ you were referring to was that he ‘warned the British.’ But he did not, in fact or in deed, warn the British. He bluffed the British, since his intention was to gain his freedom, not to give them notice of danger. The statement should be correctly be rated False.

Another reader, tongue half-way in cheek, offered a justification to rate Palin’s comment True.

"Technically, she was right since there was no America yet. All of the citizens in the area were still considered British subjects, and any warning given by Revere would certainly have been heard by British subjects that were still loyal to the King, as well as those that wanted their freedom from the crown," the reader wrote.

Chris Wallace of Fox News got it right on this one: Palin “messed up.” I mean, I’m sure Revere intended to get captured by the British just so he could warn them. As for the “tongue half-way in cheek” excuse most likely offered by some sublimely bloviating type, Wikipedia explains:

Riding through present-day Somerville, Medford, and Arlington, Revere warned patriots along his route, many of whom set out on horseback to deliver warnings of their own. By the end of the night there were probably as many as 40 riders throughout Middlesex County carrying the news of the army's advance. Revere did not shout the phrase later attributed to him ("The British are coming!"): His mission depended on secrecy, the countryside was filled with British army patrols, and the Massachusetts colonists (who were predominantly English in ethnic origin[43]) still considered themselves British.

So, why then the secrecy and how did those who were loyal to the King know the signals? Anyway, Palin could well have merited a False on this one. Score 1.

2. POW! BAM! It's Bachmann!

We also received a number of comments suggesting that we were too lenient on Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann when she said, "The CBO, the Congressional Budget Office, has said that Obamacare will kill 800,000 jobs." We rated that statement Barely True.

"Hey guys, you blew it," wrote one reader. "The CBO did not say that 800,000 jobs will disappear -- it said that 800,000 workers might disappear. The jobs that they occupied like would still exist to be filled by other workforce participants. This would reduce the unemployment rate slightly, make the workers seeking the vacated jobs better off and presumably make the disappearing workers better off, since leaving would be their choice."

This one is kind of sad—800,000 people will no longer have to work because they don’t have to just for the insurance. Most of the jobs would still be there. When some of those people leave because they now have health insurance, they will necessarily have to be replaced. In other words, in a sense, it’s creating jobs, not killing them. Bachmann distorts this CBO extrapolation way out of line in a disingenuous way. Not only that, she repeated it. Misleading, says PolitiFact? Your Factcheck.org cohorts are calling it flat out false: (emphasis added)

Politi-Score: Fact-checking Bill Adair

“…only chain e-mails score lower on the Truth-o-Meter than Michele Bachmann...”

PolitiFact’s Bill Adair has a recurring fact-checking role on MSNBC’s “The Daily Rundown” hosted by Chuck Todd. I think yesterday’s (June 28) was the first one I’ve watched; while Adair does a pretty good job vocalizing the reasons for the rulings, he did say something (actually two things, one of which I’ll address in my next post) that merited this post.

Adair stated that only chain emails beat out Michele Bachmann as the “least truthful”. I wrinkled my nose at that statement (as something someone looking for a statement to fact-check might do) and said to myself, I don’t think that’s true. I recalled that the e-mails were all lumped together on PolitiFact’s “Personalities” page, regardless of political affiliation. There were 89 through the end of 2010, and to get a more accurate read on the Politi-Score, it we necessary for me to categorize them as to whether they were from Democrats, Republicans, or they were “unknown”. As it turned out, almost half (44) were in that “unknown” category.

Bachmann and chain e-mail total PF rulings and scores at the end of 2010.

Above is a screen-print of my filtered Excel spreadsheet reflecting Bachmann’s and the separated chain e-mail Politi-Scores at the end of 2010. The second to last column reflects the Politi-Score (the last column "DB Score" is the Daily Beast score, discussed below). Bachmann was way ahead of the chain e-mails because at that time she had 7 Falses and 6 Pants on Fire. In the Politi-Scoring methodology that means she didn’t even make a positive score, because False is assigned a zero and Pants on Fire is assigned a -25. Because among the chain e-mails there were 21 scoring from True to Barely True, only the e-mails of “unknown” affiliation scored a negative, although the negative wasn’t as high as Bachmann’s.  

Current Bachmann and chain e-mail total PF rulings and scores.

Sidebar: A Theory on Why Michele Bachmann is the "Lyin' King"

Note:  Another article at the blog Motor City Liberal arrives at a similar but rhetorically excellent conclusion on Bachmann.  Great reading!

A recent article by Michele Goldberg of the Daily Beast gives some excellent insight into why Michele Bachmann probably believes that anything she says (and there's a lot of flat-out crazy remarks as well) is the “truth” despite PolitiFact’s rulings which show her to be the least truthful politician of those rated by them (and why she has no reason to answer their calls to her office when they are investigating her statements):

…A key moment in her political evolution, as for many of her generation, was the film series "How Should We Then Live" by the theologian Francis Schaeffer, who is widely credited for mobilizing evangelicals against abortion, an issue most had previously ignored. A Presbyterian minister, Schaeffer argued that our entire apprehension of reality depends on our worldview, and that only those with the right one can understand the true nature of things. Christianity, he argued, is "a whole system of truth, and this system is the only system that will stand up to all the questions that are presented to us as we face the reality of existence." Theories or assertions from outside this system—evolution, for example—can be dismissed as the product of mistaken premises.

This accounts for some of the bafflement that occasionally greets Bachmann's statements. "Michele Bachmann says certain things that sound crazy to the general public," says author Frank Schaeffer, Francis Schaeffer's son and former collaborator. "But to anybody raised in the environment of the evangelical right wing, what she says makes perfect sense."

But what does taking up such a closed world view in spite of the evidence really mean? In some respects, it makes Bachmann pathological, as she has essentially shut off all critical thinking skills.

Critical thinking doesn’t require a PhD, or even a college education. It simply means getting in to the habit of asking “What’s the evidence?” And if the evidence can’t be distinguished from wishful thinking or making stuff up, then you say “That’s wishful thinking” and “You’re making stuff up.”

If people started taking critical thinking seriously, belief in astrology, foot reflexology, homeopathy, crystal power, dowsing, faith healing, demonic possession, the Shroud of Turin, ghost hunting and young-earth Creationism would disappear overnight, freeing up an enormous amount of wasted time, effort and resources. And think of what more critical thinking would do for our politics. It boggles the mind.

Which is why I used to believe in astrology, etc., until critical thinking made me realize it was “stuff made up”, and why I became an agnostic after a lot of critical thinking since being “saved.”

Bachmann’s evidence is confined to the world view into which, like a baptism, she has been fully immersed . There’s likely no hope she would change. I suspect she is so pathologically complete in her Christian “reality” that if space aliens suddenly revealed themselves to our world with far advanced scientific knowledge and answered many mysteries by providing clear-cut evidence of big-bang creation, evolution and global warming (or, heaven forbid, that some humans are actually  born gay), she would still insist there was only her God, Supply Side Jesus, and the aliens needed to be saved...and their evidence didn't matter.

Based on Goldberg’s article, however, one can see a trend which may be useful in overcoming such candidates by revealing their inherent lack of depth: we’ve seen it in Sarah Palin, Christine O’Donnell, and Sharon Angle as well. That is when confronted with critical questions or facts that challenge their reality (which can be as simple as “what do you read?” in the case of Palin), they go into a cowardly avoidance mode.

Michele, Michele, pudding and pie

Kissed the Christians and made them cry

But when those with reason came out to play

Michele, Michele ran away.