The Joke That Is Politifact.

Remember back when fact check site rated an objectively factual statement of Barack Obama’s as “Half True” then had to revise its judgement after they were called out on the absurdity of the grade?

Well, it seems that the fact check site that tries so hard to ensure methodological “balance” that it heavily weights the scales against Democrats, is up to it’s old tricks again. In one of its fact checks of Wednesday’s debate, Politifact examined Barack Obama’s claim that the Romney/Ryan 20% across-the-board tax cut would cost $5 trillion dollars, and concluded that it was only Half-True. I’ll take the liberty of quoting the  Politifact piece directly:

Obama said: “Governor Romney’s proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military. And he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he’s been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn’t been able to identify them.”

The conclusion is accurate but misleading. Yes, the cuts would total that amount, but as Obama himself noted as he continued speaking, Romney hopes to offset the lost revenues by closing loopholes and deductions. The reductions in tax breaks are as much a part of Romney’s plan as the tax cuts.  [emphasis mine]

Wait, what? Hold on… I’m confused here. Because, correct me if I’m wrong, but this fact check article appears to say that a claim that the president made during the course of Wednesday’s debate is misleading because if you ignore what “Obama himself noted as he continued speaking” you come away with the wrong impression.  That’s right, folks: Politifact is literally judging a statement of the president’s as half-true because it is half-true if you take it out of context.

I’m at a loss for words, here.


Come on. You can’t expect Americans to read/listen to an entire paragraph. We don’t have the attention span. You elites and your fancy dependent clauses and qualifying statements.

I notice that Politifact didn’t bother to judge the assertion that there is no way in hell there are enough loopholes that could be closed (much less would be closed) in order to offset said $5T tax cut and $2T defense spending increase? Yeah, I didn’t think so.

Add a Comment
Please log in to post a comment