Lil White Lies Extra: One Context for You, TWO for Me

Fact checkers should emphasize such contextual elements, not bury them.
-- Sublime Bloviations/PolitiFact Bias

And fact-checkers of fact-checkers should bring out those elements as well. Of course, if you're a biased fact-checker like PolitiFact Bias' Bryan White, you'd do it for the side you ideologically prefer and not the other. Here's a most excellent example.

 

In a recent review of a hotly-contested-by-the-right PolitiFact ruling on a statement by Paul Ryan that Obama promised to keep a GM Plant in his Wisconsin home district open, White formatted in bold the last words of Obama's speech "that's the future I'll fight for as your president" to prove it was a "pledge" as compared to Ryan's word "promise." He then said:

Importantly, Obama opened his speech with references to the plant. He then sketched his vision of America before mentioning how the Janesville plant could stay open if the government provides support. In that context, Obama pledged to provide that support. Does Mr. Obama use the specific term "promise" in his statement? No, certainly not. Does he guarantee the plant will remain open? Again, no. However, there is little doubt that every person in Janesville listening to his speech took it as a pledge from the president to work to enact policies to keep the plant open. Mr. Obama did, in fact, pledge to do just that.

Here's the complete context that preceded Obama's statement at the Janesville Plant in February, 2008, that was available on the internet, but White decided to "bury":

I believe that we can create millions of those jobs around a clean, renewable energy future. A few hours northeast of here is the city of Manitowoc [MAN-a-ta-WOC]. For over a century, it was the home of Mirro manufacturing – a company that provided thousands of jobs and plenty of business. In 2003, Mirro closed its doors for good after losing thousands of jobs to Mexico.

But in the last few years, something extraordinary has happened. Thanks to the leadership of Governor Doyle and Mayor Kevin Crawford, Manitowoc has re-trained its workers and attracted new businesses and new jobs. Orion Energy Systems works with companies to reduce their electricity use and carbon emissions. And Tower Tech is now making wind turbines that are being sold all over the world. Hundreds of people have found new work, and unemployment has been cut in half.

So Obama was talking about how a "sweeping energy policy could give the town the resources to produce something else." Since the plant was still producing (the biggest gas-guzzling) vehicles at the time, with the future unknown, this naturally follows and makes the most sense.

Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: The Egg-ception

I expected PolitiFact's ruling on a twittered statement by Obama's campaign about Republican vice presidential Paul Ryan regarding abortion to be a fairly straightforward, simple one:

Make sure the women in your life know: Paul Ryan supports banning all abortions, even in cases of rape or incest.

PolitiFact's Dave Umhoefer agreed with the statement in principle, except for an implicit "except for" for which he made it unduly complicated--where the life of the mother is at stake. But for that it is ruled as a Half True? According to the website Reproductive Health Reality Check, the reality is that Ryan wants it both ways:

Abortion rights supporters say that his previous vote on a "no exceptions" late abortion ban, the so-called "partial birth" abortion ban, means that he does not believe in exceptions ever. Ryan apologists claim that he has never stated he would ban abortion in all cases, and his support of "personhood" bills is simply an affirmation that the issue of whether abortion should be legal or not should be returned to the states.

Can Ryan have it both ways?

Polifact tries to give him cover. At the same time that they report that both the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the National Right to Life Committee agree that the only exception Ryan supports is in the case of the "life of the mother" being at risk, they also point out that the "Sanctity of Human Life" bill that Ryan supported in 2011 doesn't actually do any banning of abortion.

That's true. More likely to actually ban abortion would have been another bill sponsored that year, called the "Life At Conception" Act. It too declared "life" began at fertilization, but that there was a right to life from that point on.

It goes on to note that Ryan received the ready vice-presidential endorsement of the Catholic pro-life group CatholicVote which stated that Ryan understood Catholic "social teaching" which in the case of CatholicVote included no exceptions, even for rape.

 

Umhoefer failed to take note of Ryan's avoidance of taking a stand on that exception by making it implicit--or I should say, hiding it beneath the language of personhood at conception: (emphasis mine)

And while right wing pundits helpfully point out that Paul Ryan doesn't want to make abortion illegal (which: hahahahahahah), he just wants to give states the right to make abortion illegal, Mother Jones' Kevin Drum notes that Ryan's Sanctity of Human Life Act states,

(B) the life of each human being begins with fertilization, cloning, or its functional equivalent, irrespective of sex, health, function or disability, defect, stage of biological development, or condition of dependency, at which time every human being shall have all the legal and constitutional attributes and privileges of personhood; and

(2) the Congress affirms that the Congress, each State, the District of Columbia, and all United States territories have the authority to protect the lives of all human beings residing in its respective jurisdictions.

Which actually means that states would have the right to ban all abortions with no exception for rape, incest, or the life of the mother. Further, in those states, if a woman was raped and wanted to have an abortion in another state, her rapist could theoretically sue her to stop the abortion, and Drum suspects that he'd probably win.

Further, yesterday another Mother Jones columnist pointed out that if the Sanctity of Human Life Act had become law, it likely would have made many forms of IVF illegal, and since Mitt Romney's two newest adorable grandbabies are the product of IVF and a surrogate mother, Ryan's big idea would turn Romney's kids into criminals. Most awkward political bromance ever.

The Republican Party Platform states under the sub-heading "The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life"-- "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children." This has been the pro-lifer legal loophole: “Nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" with that person being the newly fertilized egg.

Lil White Lies: Closing Arguments

His position also contradicts the Republicans’ position of opposing President Obama’s auto rescue.  --Alex Seitz-Wald, Salon

Another politi-flubbed Politi-Flub post from Sublime Bloviations concerns the fact-checking of Paul Ryan’s statement about the Janesville, Wisconsin GM Plant relating to (prior to) his acceptance speech before the RNC in Tampa, Florida. Even though other fact-checkers have weighed in with similar conclusions (except for certain PolitiFact detractors ), writer Bryan White says “PolitiFact has earned its status as the least-dependable of the stable of left-leaning fact check organizations.” He makes his case starting with his interpretation of a speech that Obama made in February, 2008 at the Janesville plant itself. He writes that it means there was, in fact, “a pledge from the president to work to enact policies to keep the plant open.” Here’s the key excerpt from Obama: 

And I believe that if our government is there to support you, and give you the assistance you need to re-tool and make this transition, that this plant will be here for another hundred years. The question is not whether a clean energy economy is in our future, it’s where it will thrive. I want it to thrive right here in the United States of America; right here in Wisconsin; and that’s the future I’ll fight for as your President.

It should also be noted, and I display a screen-snip at the bottom of this post just in case he fixes it and denies he did it, that the speech was not made by President-elect Obama in December 2008, but by then Senator Obama on February 13, 2008. A Sublimely Bloviating -Flub, perhaps to give an appearance that Obama made these remarks with the knowledge of the plant closing. But to continue, if White had looked at the previous two paragraphs of Obama’s statement, he would find that in context, Obama wasn’t talking about “policies to keep the plant open."  Not just because the closure wasn't even announced until several months later.  He was talking about how energy policy could produce new jobs, best described in an article by Whet Mozer in Chicago Magazine:

In context, Obama wasn't speaking so much about the auto bailout (which was just gearing up) as the idea that clean-energy investment could allow Janesville to remake its industrial sector, as made clear by the two previous paragraphs:

"I believe that we can create millions of those jobs around a clean, renewable energy future. A few hours northeast of here is the city of Manitowoc [MAN-a-ta-WOC]. For over a century, it was the home of Mirro manufacturing – a company that provided thousands of jobs and plenty of business. In 2003, Mirro closed its doors for good after losing thousands of jobs to Mexico.

But in the last few years, something extraordinary has happened. Thanks to the leadership of Governor Doyle and Mayor Kevin Crawford, Manitowoc has re-trained its workers and attracted new businesses and new jobs. Orion Energy Systems works with companies to reduce their electricity use and carbon emissions. And Tower Tech is now making wind turbines that are being sold all over the world. Hundreds of people have found new work, and unemployment has been cut in half."

It wasn't a promise to keep the factory making cars; it was an expressed belief that a sweeping energy policy could give the town the resources to produce something else, like passenger rail cars.

This fits with the fact the plant was still operating at the time Obama was there.  Unless Obama knew the plant was going to close, what's the purpose of promising to keep it open?  So White could only expect PolitiFact Wisconsin to “locate such a pledge” given his construed-without-context, untimely,  biased interpretation.     Which means they wouldn’t find it, since there's no such thing.  

Next up, and in more heated discussion, there’s the question of “when is the plant closed”? If you read Politifact’s ruling, it’s very important to note that Kertscher wrote that the plant was effectively shut down on December 23, 2008, in the planning for many months.  The conservative crowd, of course, says Janesville didn’t shut down in December of 2008, but in April of 2009, when Obama was president. Basically it ceased regular production (see photo above). In the ensuing few months, it had 57 workers completing a contract order from Isuzu for a vehicle called the NPR W series . The conservative websites say it was still producing (what’s termed at GM “medium duty”) “trucks” but they were actually commercial forward cabs, produced at a miniscule rate compared to the regular production (44 jobs per hour versus 2). Nevertheless, in December 2008, the plant was largely idled except for the special order for Isuzu; and it has been on “standby” ever since as again described by Whet Mozer of Chicago Magazine:

Lil White Lies: Return to Sender

It gets a little tiresome seeing “Grading” PolitiFact (PF) repeatedly engage in partial reporting on its reviews of PolitiFact. Or I should say, it accuses them of doing the same thing it does, the reason I’m starting this review with its very words.

In this ruling Obama campaign spokesperson Stephanie Cutter said that Paul Ryan’s Medicare Plan included the same cuts as the ones Obama is making. PolitiFact’s Angie Drobnic Holan writes that she is rating Cutter on "whether Cutter is correct that Ryan relies on those same reductions in his budget."

She finds her claim True because in an interview with George Stephanopoulos Ryan agrees: "Well, our budget keeps that money for Medicare to extend its solvency. What Obamacare does is it takes that money from Medicare to spend on Obamacare. ..." So Grading PolitiFact concludes:

Sorry, but that's not a fact check and it's very misleading. PolitiFact is seizing on an ambiguity from Ryan and insisting that it perfectly dovetails with Cutter's claim. A real fact check would verify from the text of Ryan's budget that the savings have the same origin as those projected by the CBO for the health care reform law. This fact check doesn't do that at all. Ryan's budget is neither listed among the sources on the sidebar nor linked in the text of the story.

First off, there’s a lot of other sources confirming Cutter’s remarks indirectly, such as the New York Times:  (emphasis mine)

Mitt Romney’s promise to restore $716 billion that he says President Obama “robbed” from Medicare has some health care experts puzzled, and not just because his running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, included the same savings in his House budgets.

Or, FactCheck.Org: (emphasis mine)

The Romney campaign told us that the “Romney-Ryan plan” is Ryan’s latest Medicare plan, except it would not include any of those $716 billion cuts that were in the Affordable Care Act. Ryan’s plan did include the majority of those cuts, and overall, Ryan estimated his plan would lead to greater Medicare cuts/savings than the president’s.

Or ABC News, which stated its information on the Ryan-Obamacare cuts came from the Kaiser Family Foundation: (emphasis mine)

Voters might be left with the impression that Romney and Ryan have both opposed the cuts. The truth is that Ryan himself endorses them in his signature budget plan – the same plan Romney has said he would sign as president if it reached his desk.

Those Medicare savings -achieved through reduced provider reimbursements and curbed waste, fraud and abuse, not benefit cuts – appear in the House Republicans’ FY 2013 budget, which Ryan authored.

His plan would in part repeal the entirety of the Affordable Care Act — except the reductions in Medicare spending now at the center of debate, according to analysts with the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation.

Or NBC News, linked in the ruling’s source list:  (emphasis mine)

The Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – does cut the growth of Medicare by $700 billion over 10 years. But benefits to seniors actually increase under Obamacare, which reduces payments to providers in exchange for more people covered by insurance. What’s more, the Ryan plan – approved by the House – cuts Medicare spending every bit as much as Obamacare does. In fact, it incorporates the very same budget projections, even as it repeals Obamacare. That’s what you call having it both ways.

Faced with questions about Ryan's support for these cuts, the Romney campaign clarified its position Monday evening and disagreed with those cuts.

White cites an article by Dave Weigel of Slate, which he says belies PolitiFact’s argument as to how the "cuts" are to be achieved:

Lil White Lies: Grating PolitiFact Green Cheese

Well, I knew I was overdue to be in agreement with one of my conservative counterpart’s Grading PolitiFact reviews, and for a moment I thought I was, in reading his review of this PolitiFact ruling on statement by Obama on Paul Ryan’s Budget.  On the face of it, it looked like Grading PolitiFact made a good point.  But as is most often the case, as I dug into the details, I realized that I just couldn’t comfortably see eye to eye with that “F” being awarded for “bad journalism” along with those “protesteth-too-much” exclamations of a PolitiFact ruling that’s “horrifying” and “a train wreck.” It always seems to turn out its readers are expected to make some logic/reality jumps that are just too far reaching.

Grading PolitiFact’s contention is that ruling writer Angie Drobnic Holan totally ignored Paul Ryan’s “specifics” he noted in a later interview about the loopholes he intended to close in his so-called Budget plan, making Obama’s statement that the “Republicans in Congress never list(ing) one” less than the True it was awarded. Writer Holan admits as much, publishing exactly what Ryan said in her ruling write-up. So the question becomes why she “skipped over” this, from a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace.

The problem is that it not only wasn’t enough, when it comes right down to it, Ryan’s budget is pure fantasy, and Grading PolitiFact wants you to accept the fantasy as reality.

This was like Newt Gingrich’s “Moon colony” fantasies. Imagine this scenario (green background added for "effect"):

Newt Gingrich makes a statement that “My plan for this lunar colony is to mine its green cheese and haul it back to earth.”

Obama, trying to remain polite, tells an audience that Newt has not said how he would specifically pay for any lunar colony .

In the mean time, Fox News asks Newt about how he planned to pay for the colony, and Newt says the green cheese could be mined and marketed by private industry.

PolitiFact says Obama’s statement is True, that Newt did not say how he would pay for it, since the “mined and marketed by private industry” statement was so vague.

But PolitiFact could just as well say Obama’s statement is True because THE MOON IS NOT MADE OF GREEN CHEESE. PolitiFact likely avoided that as too many Republican pundits would yell “bias” because they really believe the Moon is made of green cheese.

But Grading PolitiFact says because Newt told Fox News the non-existent green cheese could be mined and marketed privately, that means Newt did specifically say what could be done, therefore Obama’s statement should not have been rated true.

On the basis of Ryan’s agreeing with interviewer Chris Wallace on loopholes which may be closed for high income earners, according to writer Bryan White, it makes the “literal claim” of Obama’s less than True. Now, this in and of itself doesn’t “broaden the tax base” and certainly won’t make up the $4.6 trillion that White claims means “isn’t spending $4.6 trillion on lower tax breaks.” In other words, at what income level is the loophole to be closed? Does Ryan specify that? With such a lack of specifics, the so-called loopholes can’t relevantly be calculated into that $4.6 trillion.

And when White says Obama is engaging in double-speak, he then follows with his dose of what I’ve called “the thief shouting robber.”

If the budget pays for the $4.6 trillion by increasing taxes by closing loopholes and eliminating deductions then it isn't "spending" $4.6 trillion on lower tax rates. There are honest and forthright ways to express skepticism that the Ryan proposal remains neutral on income tax revenue. Obama did not use one of them.

But it isn’t honest and forthright on the part of Ryan because closing ALL the loopholes aren’t enough to pay for the $4.6 trillion. The debt still increases, the deficits are still there (see chart below by clicking "read more").  Ryan’s budget proposal is an exercise in futility (i.e., the moon is made of green cheese). And I don’t know how else Obama could be more honest and forthright in expressing skepticism on Ryan’s proposal of  “tax revenue neutrality.” Maybe it’s just his political correctness in not just coming out and saying Ryan’s budget is a sham.

Eric Alterman explains it quite nicely, putting the onus squarely on “conservative pundits” like writer White:  (emphasis added)

Grading PolitiFact *Liberal*-Style: RyanCare--Pay or Die!

There was quite a “liberal” uproar over this PolitiFact (PF) ruling on the claim made by a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee TV ad on Paul Ryan’s proposed “Path to Prosperity” to change Medicare from a defined benefit to defined contribution plan, as well as raise the eligibility age from 65 to 67. And of course, leave it as is for the most important Republican voting bloc, the “screw-everybody-but-me” baby boomers.

Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly (which appears to be a sort of counter to the conservative Washington Examiner) headlines his criticism "When PolitiFact Becomes PolitiFalse."

Josh Marshall at Talking Points memo: “Knowledge Counts”-- “This is why Republicans are spinning this issue so hard and bamboozling folks at places like Politifact.”

“PolitiFact has Pants on Fire in their rating of Democratic Claims about Medicare” says David Dayen of FireDogLake.

Finally, Brian Beutler at Talking Points Memo makes a mild claim, “PolitiFact Insists Republicans Don't Want To End Medicare”.

I’ve listed these links first as part and partial to linking from the “Guide to PolitiFact Detractors” page because it adds a lot to the “liberal” PolitiFact critics who think PolitiFact leans right.

Careful reading of what “RyanCare” offers, as noted above, is its re-structuring of the Medicare program from a defined benefit, government as single payer to defined contribution, consumer-driven plan. And once all the baby-boomers die, should this program as defined by Paul Ryan actually come to pass, there would be no Medicare as we know it today. Medicare would simply be an individual subsidy program.