»» Columnists

Washington Post ‘Fact Check’ Hyperventilates Over Anti-Romney Ad By Pro-Obama PAC

video

by Tommy Christopher | 10:56 am, November 4th, 2011

» 42 comments

On Wednesday, the pro-Obama Priorities USA Action PAC released a brutal, brutally effective ad against slow-and-steady GOP establishment pick Mitt Romney entitled “Mitt Romney’s America.”

In short order, Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler was all over the ad, awarding it a pile of Pinocchios based on assumptions and judgment calls that don’t add up to Jiminy Cricket.

Kessler gets at least one thing right, though. The ad is “over the top,” so much so that the top can’t see it without a telescope. As to whether the ad is fair to Romney, well, I’m a liberal, so I hate to see anybody take that kind of a beating. Almost anybody.

When I first saw that Priorities’ ad sought to nail down a vision of Mitt Romney’s America, I wondered just how they would do that, given Mitt’s positional versatility. It is with that very flexibility, though, that Kessler shields Romney. He criticizes Priorities for basing its claim that Mitt wants to privatize Social Security on an old Romney position. Just how far back did Priorities have to reach into the historical annals? A year and change:

Romney expressed some interest in private investment accounts as part of Social Security in the 2008 presidential campaign. But he wrote in his recent book that in the wake of the 2008 stock crash, he no longer thought such accounts were appropriate.

Romney’s book came out in March, 2010, though, and if recent history is any indication, even his books are set in mercury, not stone. Romney has so many “come to Jesus” moments that he’s got his own parking space in Jesus’ office complex. If it’s fair for Romney to choose whatever position is politically convenient at any given time, surely it’s fair for Priorities to do the reverse. In any case, privatizing Social Security has long been a goal of Republicans, and Romney’s longtime support for the idea fairly demonstrates that he would be unlikely to resist a push by a GOP-controlled Congress to do so.

It’s also ironic that WaPo’s entire ratings system relies on a similarly “old” position. While Pinocchio did, at one time, experience fib-related nasal protrusion, he later shed the condition when he became a real boy.

Kessler also dings Mitt Romney’s America over its claim that Romney would “dismantle” Medicare (oddly referring readers to a fact-check that refutes Republican attacks on Democrats over Medicare) with a rationale that seems to rely on a cure for death: (emphasis mine)

“Medicare dismantled.” This incorrect claim, for which we have previously awarded as many as Four Pinocchios, is based on Romney’s support for the House Republican budget plan, which would alter the financing of Medicare for people currently under the age of 55. Certainly, serious questions have been raised about what would happen to the cost of premiums under the GOP plan, but it is a stretch to say the system would be “dismantled.” Indeed, it would remain the same for elderly Americans — presumably the main target of this message.

So, as long as someone now over the age of 55 yet draws breath, the current Medicare system still technically exists (a Pinocchio-worthy distinction) under the Ryan plan, but unless one of them is Duncan McLeod, Priorities is correct. Despite Kessler’s misgivings, there is little controversy over how Ryan’s plan would change Medicare, transforming it from a guaranteed benefit to a voucher system that everyone agrees would leave beneficiaries holding the bag for huge differences between premiums and the vouchers.

Maybe “dismantle” is the hottest possible word choice, as opposed to “essentially ends,” or “ends Medicare as we know it,” but this ain’t Tiddly Winks. Based on WaPo‘s own scale, this is a one-Pinocchioer at best.

Kessler then challenges a portion of the ad that quotes Chris Wallace saying, as debate moderator, ” You bought Dade International, two U.S. plants were closed, 2,000 workers were laid off,” which is factually true. So what’s the problem? You tell me:

The ad tries to undercut Romney’s portrayal of himself as a job-creator by focusing on one case where a business his company invested in had to lay off workers. As we have written, the precise numbers may be impossible to obtain, but over time it appears that Romney, in his business practices, helped create more jobs than were lost.

“It appears?” Is that what we’re doing, an “appear-check?” Kessler’s own fact-check of Romney details some (but not all) of the jobs incinerated by Romney, and concludes with a “verdict pending,” which is a pretty flimsy basis on which to award Pinocchios.

Even if you grant Kessler’s generous assumption, the Wallace quote is accurate and true, and its central point, that Romney profited from layoffs, doesn’t change when you factor in the (indeterminate) number of times Romney added jobs.

Kessler also resorts to the old “out of context” dodge regarding a couple of direct Romney quotes in the ad, “don’t try and stop the foreclosure process,” and “I’m for the Tea Party.”

Every quote in the world is, by definition, removed from its context. Kessler fails to demonstrate how including context substantially changes the meaning of either quote. In fact, on foreclosures, Romney goes on to show exactly where he stands in relation to the bright line between the 1% and the 99%, saying, “don’t try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit the bottom. Allow investors to buy homes, put renters in them, fix the homes up.”

The most egregious problem with WaPo‘s fact check is its defense of Romney’s veto, while Massachusetts Governor, of a ban on outsourcing. Unless I’m reading it wrong, they’re saying that it was okay because there wasn’t all that much outsourcing going on, anyway:

…the group points to Romney’s 2004 veto of a bill that would have prohibited state contracts with companies that use overseas employees for the work. Romney, then governor of Massachusetts, argued at the time that the bill did not protect the state’s jobs but might actually cost money. Proponents of the bill had touted a union study claiming that $7 million was spent on contract work overseas — but that’s a drop in the bucket compared to Massachusetts’s $24 billion budget at the time.

This is a fact check, though, and the fact is that Romney acted unilaterally to allow outsourcing. If you vote to allow murder, you don’t get credit because not that many people got murdered. Kessler links to, and promotes, Romney’s assertion that the outsourcing ban “might actually cost money” (Romney said, “it had the potential of costing our citizens a lot more money”), but neither Kessler, nor Romney, offer a single argument to back that up. That’s because it’s a circular argument: taxpayers might pay a little more on those contracts (the ones Kessler says there aren’t many of), but the Massachusetts citizens who kept their jobs would benefit, and continue to contribute to the economy.

If there’s anything wrong with Mitt Romney’s America, it’s with the notion that anyone in the world could divine a coherent vision from the candidate’s Wheel of Fortune positions, but that’s not Kessler’s criticism, and Romney’s flimsy political rudder shouldn’t be allowed to shield him from criticism.

In case you missed it, here’s Mitt Romney’s America, from Priorities USA Action:

2012 Election, barack obama, Chris Wallace, Duncan McLeod, Fact-Check, Glenn Kessler, Jiminy Cricket, Mitt Romney, Pinocchio, Washington Post

Anonymous

Bill Burton channels his inner dink . Identical to his outer dink .

Romney is a grown up , which will be a refreshing change in the White House .
Michelle

Indeed he will. And future POTUS Rubio will look great there next to him. That will no doubt send poor Tommy the rest of the way over the edge.
Anonymous

Wow Tommy,what to do?Go after a ridiculous campaign ad or the Washington Post,a regularly liberal leaning paper.

And gee whiz,that liberal leaning paper has a problem with a PAC funded attack ad,an ad that for the next year will be one of many from both sides that don’t come anywhere near being truthful and honest.An ad that people should dismiss immediately and basically either change the channel or out it on mute.

Nobody should take these ads seiously including you Thomas.
Anonymous

gee, is there no limit to your DNC propaganda!
RW

“As to whether the ad is fair to Romney, well, I’m a liberal, so I hate to see anybody take that kind of a beating.”

There. When Tommy declares he is a liberal and then goes on to present his liberal views, I have no problem with that. I have a problem when reporters pretend to be objective.
Free Man

You have to wonder what kind of Democrat “journalist” TC is going to become when Romney wins in 2012.
http://mediamatters.org/ Leedog

?? I think that sentence you mentioned was quoting Glenn Kessler!!
http://mediamatters.org/ Leedog

The political ad was excellent… describes Romney perfectly!!
Anonymous

Classic Tommy…and I thought we would make it to the weekend without more of his nonsense.
RW

“Kessler gets at least one thing right, though. The ad is “over the top,” so much so that the top can’t see it without a telescope. As to whether the ad is fair to Romney, well, I’m a liberal, so I hate to see anybody take that kind of a beating. Almost anybody.”

No – Glenn Kessler is mentioned, not directly quoted, then Tommy picks up.
Anonymous

Nope, and I bet you’re anxiously awaiting his next article too.
http://gregingleright.weebly.com/ Greg

Fair advert… Romney’s right wing opponents only capable of criticism that is hackneyed… A professional campaign will dissect Rombey in a concise and clear manner.
Anonymous

You have to wonder which version of Mitt would win in 2012, given the plethora of contradictory positions he’s taken in the past.

http://www.whichmitt.com/
Anonymous

And yet you continue to support it with your pageclicks and comments.
Holistic

Tommy: Brutal, brutally! Speaking of hype ventilating!! Your so full of yourself so often.
Lkvwliberal

Obviously Tommy is getting paid by the word. So much nonsense. He’s so confused he’s going after the Washington Post?!!! Hey Tommy–they’re on your side!!!
JoeP-55-skins

Tommy C shows in this article his extreme liberal bias. Anyone checking facts can choose just which facts to check and then interpret (twist, spin, mutilate) those facts as her or she wishes. I read Kessler’s article in WaPo and was a little surprised at how he seemed to almost bend over backwards to give Romney a break. But then I thought that maybe this is a fair way to do this “fact”-checking when you’re “opining on facts,” rather than what Tommy wished him to do, which would’ve been to spin liberal bias throughout the facts and determine the Romney attack ad was “exremely fair.”

Romney has a stupid way of saying things sometimes, and Kessler was painstaking in allowing for this. Obviously, Tommy would have pulled an Olbermannesque or Ed-Schultzesque stunt and proclaimned this a wonderful, truly fact-filled ad.

But you do all of us a disservice, Tommy, when you criticize someone who is trying to be fair to both sides of the political spectrum. Rather than working at Mediaite, you would probably find yourself in more comfortable surroundings by signing up as a “‘factual’ political expert-commentator” at MSNBC.
http://gawker.com/5482474/the-mysterious-case-of-toure-praising-raped-slaves-for-seducing-massa Touré’s insane mofo cousin Phd

Ban them Tommy! Ban them! Only a few haters left!
Anonymous

From the lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist dictionary:

“FACT CHECK” = a load of slime, lies, misrepresentations and BS thrown at any non-socialist who dares tell the truth, the facts or describes the mess created by the lunatic-left. It’s often used by the lamestream stooges of the d-cRAT socialists in what is jokingly called “reporting” or “analysis”. NB: when done for ANY STATEMENT by ANY lunatic-left d-cRAT socialist the “fact check” ALWAYS concludes that the d-cRAT socialist is 100% absolutely, positively, unquestionably correct – so nothing to see here, just move along, folks.
Anonymous

I don’t read the Post Fact-Checker regularly, but I don’t like most of what I have seen. There was one piece in particular which irked me, he had this bs piece about how supposedly Obama’s mention of the 67 Israeli borders was some major shift in US foreign policy (despite Jeffrey Goldberg and others pointing out again and again how it wasn’t).

Kessler did do a great piece on Gingrich though when the latter entered the race.
Anonymous

It might be time for the Republicans to pick some new candidates! The phone is ringing in the bullpen, but the problem is nobody’s there to pick it up.
http://twitter.com/maggiefanelli Maggie Fanelli

Anyone else automatically know this was a Tommy Xtopher atricle just by the title?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Peter-Flynn/1206363468 Peter Flynn

Great example. Conservative buttsex hooker.
Anonymous

The Washington Post has long shed any vestiges of the evil “liberal bias”, and now that the editorial pages are full of neocon warmongering they’re going after burnishing their “both sides do it, voucherizing Medicare is not destroying it, gutting Social Security and protecting massive unaffordable tax cuts for the rich are sacrosanct” credentials.

Another right leaning fact check fail.
Anonymous

There are a couple of problems with this. Number one, I didn’t say the ad was “fair” to Romney. It was brutal, brutally brutal. But “fact-checking” isn’t about fairness, it is about accuracy. Liberal or not, I know the difference between accuracy and inaccuracy. It’s not the job of a fact checker to “try to be fair,” it is to check the facts. Your instincts were correct, Kessler did “ bend over backwards to give Romney a break.”
Anonymous

I’m all in favor of any hit piece whatever on Governor Romney, from whatever source. I’m a little surprised that the WaPo would go to such lengths to try to defend the Mittster, unless they are coppering their bets (if you don’t understand the allusion, check an article about Faro) in case President Obama loses; Romney would be about as malleable a guy as is running on the Republican side. I REALLY don’t want Romney as the Republican nominee. I would hate to have to vote 3d party or not at all.
Kdardad

Tommy you stated you are a liberal in this article, but I wonder after you wrote it the first time, did you remove the word hack?
As to whether the ad is fair to Romney, well, I’m a liberal hack

, so I hate to see anybody take that kind of a beating. Almost anybody.
http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SMUGSPLRKQOJBS5T6I4S5H2YSE Andy-48

The Washington Post is run by Rev Sun Moon, a REPUBLICAN. I do not see how he would be printing a Liberal leaning paper. It seems that someone is drinking a little too much of Jim Jone’s kool aid.
Norbit

Obama and his Administration will. and have, LIED about anything and everything!

LIES about transparency, policy effects, lobbyists, bipartisanship, causal relations, Race, the Supreme Court, the GOP, FOX, czars, his DOJ, his political intent…and the demonstrable list goes on and on.

This is what Euro-Socialist Marxists do – THEY LIE about their intent, and all the other LIES just fall into place!

And, what’s of particular value to Obama - as well as most other Democrats - is he has the services and loyalty of a complicit ”mainstream media” at his disposal to propagate whatever narrative he proffers!
Norbit

Did you all note the (slight) swipe Tommy took at Moore in tone and content on the other thread?
Norbit

And Comcast (conservative) owns msnbc, so there must be no liberal bias there either.
lol!

Of course, as everyone should know, ownership and editorial content at both venues are administered independently.

But for any liberals out there willing to fund a study, (using their own money, and not taxpayer-funded, government dependency, lifetime of Democratic Welfare handout money), evaluating the question of “liberal bias” at the WaPo over the past number of years…that’s something fairly easy to do, because demonstrable bias can be found in virtually every edition of the paper.
Rio

The WaPo is not run or owned by Rev. Moon, Moon owns the Washington Times. The WaPo is owned by The Washington Post Company and most on the paper’s staff are indeed, liberal.

And, look at what the Washington Post Company also owns:
http://www.cjr.org/resources/?c=washpost
MontyPyth0n

“But “fact-checking” isn’t about fairness”

Hey Tommy, I thought you liberals were all about fairness……
Greg

Yeah that Eugene Robinson is a real neocon. Its amazing how bias makes people completely dumb and blind.
Anonymous

This attempt to call attention to the inaccuracies of the article, seemed very insincere. Either standup for the facts or admit your bias.
Eep100

Apparently the Post took it seriously.
Anonymous

I don’t support Romney at all as there is no doubt in my mind that he is simply obama lite. Four years of obama has already been four to many. But after seeing the add, I could be ALMOST be tempted to so if I didn’t know that Romney has taken the exact opposite position of each issue highlighted in the video in the past, and will probably flip again when he deems it necessary.
Anonymous

You just lost a bet my friend.
Guest

“Liberal or not, I know the difference between accuracy and inaccuracy.”
cite.
Liberalsaredouches

I stopped at, “I’m a liberal.” I knew an intelligent article was impossible.
http://twitter.com/reagansucked ronald reagansucked

Holy… someone who sits down for a 60 Minutes interview is getting ambushed? A prostitute is the same as a journalist, and should have the same access to the White House Press Room? What planet are you from? Yeah, 60 Minutes has only been on for 45 years or so. It’s not like people have any idea what they’re getting into when they sit down for the interview. Unreal.
http://twitter.com/reagansucked ronald reagansucked

So the media are stooges of the liberals and the Democratic party (which despite your delusional rantings are not synonymous)… except this entire article is based around a liberal being pissed at what he sees as poor fact-checking on the part of the media. WaPo always shills for liberals except when, y’know, they don’t!

You’ll manage to shoehorn these mutually exclusive narratives into one coherent thought someday. Keep trying.