Karl Rove: Fact-Checkers Are Biased
Find a Conversation
Karl Rove: Fact-Checkers Are Biased
| Sun, 09-14-2008 - 3:33pm |
Heh.
Karl Rove makes me smile.
As Think Progress notes, after spending the better part of the 2000s pushing every lie, half-truth and exaggeration he thought might help his lame-a$$ duck protege, George Bush, get elected (or keep him out of trouble), Rove is now apparently trying to convince the viewers of FAUX "News" that fact check organizations like factcheck.org and politifact are "biased," (because the fact checkers are now pointing out that his candidate - McCain - is far outstripping the Obama campaign in their use of such sleazy tactics).
Comedy gold. Of course, in his usual, sleazy manner (which posits that if you absolutely CAN'T avoid responsibility for something reprehensible, muddy the waters by claiming that "everyone does it" - regardless of the truth of that statement). So he's now trying to appear evenhanded, saying that "BOTH campaigns" are saying things that "aren't 100% true. However, when he turns right around in the very next breath, and says that "you can't trust the fact-check organizations," anyone who's actually had their brain turned on during the previous minute will realize that he's just contradicted himself: he's just said a) that both candidates are engaging in not-fully-truthful behavior BUT b) you can't trust the fact-checking organizations. Who CAN you trust, then, Karl? You? FAUX "News?" Oy. I need a drink.
What's got Ol' Turd Head Blossom so flustered is the recent spate of reports in both those - and other - fact-checking organizations. Here's PolitiFact on the deeply slimy McCain ad claiming that "Obama's one education accomplishment was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners":
Then there's the now-famous correction/objection which factcheck.org was forced to put out, entitled "McCain/Palin distorts our finding":
Pretty much says it all. There's also the lovely little falsehood being pushed by the McCain campaign regarding the whole "lipstick/pig" (non)-controversy. McCain's kneecappers saw an opening, so they sent out campaign surrogate Jane Swift, former Governor of Massachusetts, to do a conference call. In it, she literally said Obama'd called Palin a pig. Here's PolitiFact on the matter:
And, lastly, we have factcheck.org again, this time, on the McCain ad entitled "Disrespectful":
In light of all of that - and also in light of the fact that virtually all of the same organizations' critiques of anti-Palin and anti-McCain smears and falsehoods come from anonymous Internet yahoos and not from the Obama campaign - which is NOT the case with the anti-Obama smears emerging directly from within the McCain campaign - it's hardly a wonder that ol' Spinmaster Roveâ„¢ would try to muddy the waters by not only claiming "both sides do it," when they clearly don't, in nearly equal frequency or severity, and ALSO that "you just can't trust fact-checking organizations."
But that don't mean it's gonna fly, of course.....LOL
Edited 9/14/2008 5:03 pm ET by corrigenda
Karl Rove makes me smile.
As Think Progress notes, after spending the better part of the 2000s pushing every lie, half-truth and exaggeration he thought might help his lame-a$$ duck protege, George Bush, get elected (or keep him out of trouble), Rove is now apparently trying to convince the viewers of FAUX "News" that fact check organizations like factcheck.org and politifact are "biased," (because the fact checkers are now pointing out that his candidate - McCain - is far outstripping the Obama campaign in their use of such sleazy tactics).
Comedy gold. Of course, in his usual, sleazy manner (which posits that if you absolutely CAN'T avoid responsibility for something reprehensible, muddy the waters by claiming that "everyone does it" - regardless of the truth of that statement). So he's now trying to appear evenhanded, saying that "BOTH campaigns" are saying things that "aren't 100% true. However, when he turns right around in the very next breath, and says that "you can't trust the fact-check organizations," anyone who's actually had their brain turned on during the previous minute will realize that he's just contradicted himself: he's just said a) that both candidates are engaging in not-fully-truthful behavior BUT b) you can't trust the fact-checking organizations. Who CAN you trust, then, Karl? You? FAUX "News?" Oy. I need a drink.
What's got Ol' Turd Head Blossom so flustered is the recent spate of reports in both those - and other - fact-checking organizations. Here's PolitiFact on the deeply slimy McCain ad claiming that "Obama's one education accomplishment was "legislation to teach 'comprehensive sex education' to kindergartners":
Rating: PANTS ON FIRE: Obama said that he did not support telling youngsters about explicit information about sex. The bill specifically mentions that instructional material must be age appropriate. It specifically mentions teaching children how to "say no to unwanted sexual advances" and "nonconsensual physical sexual contact." The legislation was not sponsored by Obama and it didn't pass, so calling it one of his "accomplishments" is absurd. We rate this claim Pants on Fire!
Then there's the now-famous correction/objection which factcheck.org was forced to put out, entitled "McCain/Palin distorts our finding":
Those attacks on Palin that we debunked didn't come from Obama.
Pretty much says it all. There's also the lovely little falsehood being pushed by the McCain campaign regarding the whole "lipstick/pig" (non)-controversy. McCain's kneecappers saw an opening, so they sent out campaign surrogate Jane Swift, former Governor of Massachusetts, to do a conference call. In it, she literally said Obama'd called Palin a pig. Here's PolitiFact on the matter:
Rating: PANTS ON FIRE: It is simply impossible to view the complete remarks by Obama and conclude that he’s making a veiled and unsavory reference to Palin. Her name never is used in the preceding sentence. In fact, it’s hard to see how one could interpret Obama’s lipstick-on-a-pig remark as referring directly to McCain, either. We think it’s very clear that Obama was saying McCain’s effort to call himself the “candidate of change†is like putting lipstick on a pig, trying to dress up a bad idea to look better. Agree or disagree with Obama’s point, but his remark wasn’t the smear that McCain’s people have tried to make it.
If anyone’s doing any smearing, it’s the McCain campaign and its outrageous attempt to distort the facts. Did Obama call Palin a pig? No, and saying so is Pants on Fire wrong.
And, lastly, we have factcheck.org again, this time, on the McCain ad entitled "Disrespectful":
The new McCain-Palin ad "Disrespectful" begins like an earlier ad we criticized, with its reference to Barack Obama's celebrity, but then goes down new paths of deception. It takes quotes from news organizations and uses them out of context in an effort to portray Obama and his running mate, Joe Biden, as unfairly attacking Sarah Palin and making sexist remarks.
In light of all of that - and also in light of the fact that virtually all of the same organizations' critiques of anti-Palin and anti-McCain smears and falsehoods come from anonymous Internet yahoos and not from the Obama campaign - which is NOT the case with the anti-Obama smears emerging directly from within the McCain campaign - it's hardly a wonder that ol' Spinmaster Roveâ„¢ would try to muddy the waters by not only claiming "both sides do it," when they clearly don't, in nearly equal frequency or severity, and ALSO that "you just can't trust fact-checking organizations."
But that don't mean it's gonna fly, of course.....LOL
Edited 9/14/2008 5:03 pm ET by corrigenda

Pages
Or, by "cut-up," did you mean he ought to be cut up, like an extra on the Sopranos?
The passage of time....is flicking dimly upon the screen
I can't read the lines I used to think I could read between
Perhaps my brains have turned to sand....
Oh me, Oh my - I think it's been an eternity
You'd be surprised at my degree of uncertainty
How can moments go so slow?
Several times I've seen the evening slide away.
Watching the signs taking over from the fading day.
Perhaps my brains are old and scrambled ...
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has sturck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling Begging
Naw. I'm with argy: what IS hypocritical - whether you're "honest" enough to admit it or not - is refusing to even watch a 30-second campaign ad, and then turning around and accusing (with no evidence other than your own hunch) someone ELSE of "not reading/watching/understanding" all of something.
Hippo-critter, meet mud puddle.
"A denial, a denial!"
- K. Cobain
Ashes where the bodies burning
No more war pigs have the power
Hand of God has sturck the hour
Day of judgement, God is calling
On their knees, the war pigs crawling Begging
Pages