April 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30          

« Trash talk | Main | No free lunches »

Aug 30, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


In reading the post I thought this was going to be an unexpected recognition of Wasserman's transgressions in the matter of fact on the Cone blog.

I additionally thought that the link would note that both Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper actually grew backbone enough to question her and by extension the Obama administration's assertions.


It was just more mythologizing that Obama didn't relax the welfare work requirements which he clearly did. And that Democrats are not racist by assumption which they clearly are.

BTW...Faded Obama posters and attempting to sail on yesterdays wind do not a campaign make. 8.3%


I saw a couple other similar reports this morning. Hard to say if it will have much impact. Maybe it will if people actually start asking politicians to explain why their assertions don't accord with reality. Would be nice if this happens at the debates, too.

So many of us, though, consume only political media that agrees with us. Most of that isn't delivering news or reportage, so we glean distortions through bias, mis-direction, and agenda-driven spin.

Or, like me, some just stop inhaling mainstream media. It's all very predictable. Somehow, I don't think something called "news" ought to be predictable.

Account Deleted

Romney has to win Ohio and that ad plays very, very strong there I will bet.


Another link about "fact-checking" from Ed that just by coincidence involves fact-checking Mitt Romney's alleged lies. It always seems to be fact checking alleged Republican claims that make news at this blog for some reason. The one-sided, partisan approach to fact checking and stories about fact checking almost makes it appear as if there really is no true concern about getting the facts right at all.

Anyway, the "fact-checkers" have been wrong about a number of things, especially their knee-jerk reaction to Paul Ryan's speech where many of their accusations of lying are lies themselves. But you won't read about that here despite the frequent theme about the importance of fact-checking.

Getting facts wrong can have real consequences, and not just for the credibility of the blogger. Yep, but nothing does more damage to the credibility of the blogger than a double standard.

Andrew Brod

I know Spag loves the man made of straw, but I haven't read much that claims Romney's speech was full of lies. He didn't get specific enough for that concept to be relevant, one way or the other.

Ryan's speech is another story. I'm sorry that the mean fact-checkers are hurting Spag's feelings, but there are times when truth, like Colbert's reality, has a liberal bias.

It wasn't always thus. One of the interesting points Klein makes in the linked piece is that Sarah Palin's 2008 convention speech was generally truthful. I thought McCain was generally a truthful and honorable candidate.

But I don't think any of this matters. The Romney campaign's response to near-universal condemnation of the welfare/work ad has been to shrug. The ad's working well for Romney, so who cares if it's honest?

In my view, the pervasive dishonesty of the Romney campaign is a striking sign of his weakness as a candidate. He has the amazing good luck to run against an incumbent who's presiding over the worst economy in a generation, but he has to lie to stay even? It's rather sad.

On the other hand, it also might work.

Account Deleted

Andrew hits on something very important to me. I never cared for Romney in the past, especially in 2008 when McCain and others made him look so callous and hollow during the primaries. During this campaign I've noticed several 180 degree spins on past position's held by Romney.

But more important is his frivolous treatment of the truth. He's even denied direct statements he's made during this campaign. And so "the pervasive dishonesty" Andrew points to troubles me as well and reminds me a lot of Nixon.

I think given who Romney's dad was and what his dad achieved, the son thinks he is entitled to the presidency and Nixon had that same view of the office, albeit for different reasons.


As usual, but my point is over here and you guys are are way over there.

But since you want to deal with the merits, and the Ryan fact checkers have already been shown to be wrong and are fact checking things Ryan never claimed.

Also, has anyone fact checked the number of people who Romney has killed?

Not really important to because Romney is one of the "others". That was my point.


Is Ezra Klein now considered a fact checker because liberal Democrat progressivism is the truth?

Nice try, Doc.

It appears the concept of fact checking is in the process of jumping the shark -- but don't fact check that. (lifted from someplace)


It seems that we aren't only entitled to our own facts, but also our own "fact-checkers".

The Left wing crack-up continues to amuse me.


"but there are times when truth, like Colbert's reality, has a liberal bias."

As if.....

tk solomon

Practical politics consists in ignoring facts. ~ Henry B Adams

tk solomon

Politics, as a practice, regardless of its professions, has always been the systematic organization of hatreds.~ Henry B Adams

The comments to this entry are closed.