Using that standard, the Romney campaign’s deceptive use of the Obama quote about avoiding discussion of the economy is not a lie, because Romney and his supporters don’t think so.
Except that Romney definitely was trying to mislead voters, just like Pelosi et al in regards to Medicare. Without one’s partisan blinders on, there’s no real debate.
I wonder how they could have established that these were seniors from the future, and not current seniors. Hovercrafts? Jumpsuits? Pearl Jam coming out their earbuds?
It is true, though, that having 20-odd years notice that Medicare won’t exist in its current form would allow me to prepare for that eventuality. I would likely forego any sort of consumer purchase that wasn’t directly related to earning more money, since it’s pretty much impossible to predict how much I’ll have to spend on healthcare in retirement. I’m not sure how you’d make a commercial out of that.
It really is a bit odd that a political add (known for stretching the truth) is given the same standard of veracity as, to cite one other finalist, words spoken by a Senator on the floor of the Senate.
If overreach and inexactitude in a political ad is enough to be lie of the year politicians everywhere can sleep easy knowing they can spout complete bullshit without being called out for it.
The only explanations that make any sense to me are that (a) PolitiFact wanted to even things up or (b) the “weighting” system proposed by Ritter.
The idea that quoting somebody quoting somebody else and pretending that the words were original to the speaker (like Romney did in an ad) is on the same level of mendacity is laughable.
It wasn’t my proposal – they mention something similar in their own explanation, although they don’t provide any formulas or anything. They say that the other lies were so obvious that no one believed them, while the Medicare one had a large effect on the political discourse.
Regarding the timing, even with the delay in implementation, do Ryan’s defenders think that really matters to today’s seniors? If seniors like Medicare (and, they must, because any attacks on it are considered political suicide), don’t you think they want it to be around for their children and grandchildren?
Most seniors I know don’t think, “well, I’ve got mine, screw my kids and their kids.” I would argue that, even if the commercials made it clear that current seniors wouldn’t be affected, the Republicans who voted for the plan would still feel plenty of heat.
The lie of the year isn’t the ad, it’s the claim that Republicans voted to end Medicare. The entry includes ads, but also includes statements or messages from VP Biden, Sen. Brown, Rep. Pelosi, and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Let’s not go holding people to different standards of truthfulness based on their titles or where they happen to be standing while they’re lying.
Gotcha.
I went and looked at their nine claims that were evaluated, and they almost all come down to whether you consider changing to a premium-support model to be “ending” Medicare. I think that is a highly debatable point, not something that can be simply labeled “FALSE” or “PANTS ON FIRE”.
You could even further reduce it to the question of whether “ending Program X” and “ending Program X as we know it” have the same meaning in the realm of politics.
I guess to me the only things that should be eligible for those ratings are obvious factual claims - things like “Abortion is 90% of what Planned Parenthood does”. Once opinions and interpretation come into it then you’re not really checking facts, you’re checking opinions.
But sure, if you’re looking for the debatable political statement that had the largest effect on the political discourse I guess the Medicare one is as good as any. And it certainly drove page views for PolitiFact, so good on them for that.
Based on Politifact’s statement, this is probably the best interpretation of what’s really going on–I also note they brought up the idea that “pandering to the fears of senior citizens” is a long-running political tactic they especially dislike.
–
To go back to the OP a moment–it is interesting to consider and probably true that there are a lot of progressives/liberals who think PolitiFact is essentially “on their side”. I wonder why that could possibly be the case? I mean, aside from the modern Republican party’s strategy since Clinton’s election being easily summarized as “be bombastic assholes, hope something sticks”.
Then why are we quibbling about when and for whom the plan would end Medicare, if it doesn’t end Medicare at all?
Because, and I hate to sound like Bill Clinton here, it depends on what the definition of “ending” Medicare is. There would still be a program called Medicare, but whether it would do a good job of fulfill the functions of existing Medicare is an open question.
duplicate
First of all, the fucking National Review says they got it wrong. And Politifact’s reader poll disagreed with them, despite Paul Ryan emailing people to tell them to get out and skew the vote. So Bricker’s pathetic attempt to turn this into a partisan, “both sides do it” sort of debate doesn’t fly.
The whole thing is a ridiculous fail by Politifact. Ryan’s plan would replace Medicare, a system whereby old people get a card and get the majority of their medical expenses paid for without much fuss, to a voucher plan which forces Grandma to shop for insurance in our glorious free market with a voucher whose benefits are designed to lag the annual rise in healthcare premiums, which means Grandma will be assuming more and more out-of-pocket expenses as she gets older (and God forbid she need major surgery). This is not Medicare. It’s not even close. But apparently, so long as the Republicans call a voucher system “Medicare,” it’s a lie to say they want to end Medicare. And if I call my dog “Bricker” and I claim that Bricker pissed on my kitchen floor yesterday, it would be a lie to say that my dog is not Bricker.
This whole thing happened because Politifact craves the appearance of “balance.” Their previous Lies of the Year were Republican lies, all their other candidates this year for Lie of the Year were Republican lies, their readers voted for a Republican lie, but they didn’t want another year of the online conservatrolls harassing them for their “liberal bias,” so they bent over backwards to throw a bone to conservatives. And now that the supposed left is criticizing them for it…well, that’s balance! They’ve proven their non-partisan bona fides, which in today’s news biz is more important than honesty.
So enjoy this one, conservatives. You’ve so cowed the Liberal Media, they won’t even call a spade a spade anymore.
What if the GOP proposed something that actually increased funding for seniors. Let’s say that Ryan’s plan scrapped Medicare, Medicaid, and all government insurance under a National Health Care System (just like the UK) for all and called it Americare.
Would it be a lie to say that the Republicans want to end Medicare?
I guess my problem isn’t that the new program would be called Medicare, its that the deception is such that it makes seniors think that they will be left with NOTHING, when in fact they are left with what MAY be arguably a lesser program. To me that is the real deception and its reinforced with the old man having to get work as a stripper.
Raw fear is the only point of that misleading ad, and that is why I think it is the worst.
Is that the editorial position of the National Review?
Or is that a blogger who has a blog on the online version of the National Review?
And while I do appreciate your new-found reverence for the National Review’s analytical prowess (or the prowess of its bloggers), I can’t help but think you don’t really mean it.
I look forward to their future craven silence, then.
First, quit pissing on Moidalize’s kitchen floor. Then we’ll start respecting you. That’s disgusting.
It was definitely a lie, but I’m not sure it deserved the 2011 lie of the year. Pretty egregious though. Also, is politifact thought/known to be actually liberally biased? Or is it liberally biased in the same what that all of the “mainstream media” is, if you know what I mean.
The second one.
Now, if we can only find examples of “the Democrats” saying it without adding “as we know it”, or similar explanatory verbiage that clarifies the statement to be true. Can’t have a lie without a liar, right? Anybody got anything?
It’s, um, remarkable that the OP thinks this is a more fit matter for discussion than what the Ryan plan, which every member of his party in the House voted for, actually would do. Now *there’*s something to get upset about.
Oh, come on. You understood exactly what he meant. The National review is a conservative rag, and even they recognize that Politifact is in fact the one lying. Don’t pretend like you don’t know that, if the side that stands to benefit the most from a something declares it false, then it has more weight than if the opposite side does so.
And they are lying, as set by their own fucking criteria. They are using a definition of “biggest lie” that is different from what the average person who has not researched them would say. To anyone who reads it in passing, it appears they are saying that the claim is so inherently false that anyone who believes it was stupid. Argh!
And I for one will not be using them to check other lies. I may use their community, but not their editors. They’ve indicated that they are just as much ready to lie for a headline as anyone else. I hope they enjoy their publicity.
Apparently, you do not understand what was said to you. You quoted the opinion of an author on the blog portion of the NRO, and then have proceeded to extrapolate that to being the majority opinion of the NRO without showing that to be true.
I want to get back to this…because Bricker has never addressed it. Why do you think that Obama desires equality of outcomes? What on Earth has made you think such a thing?
Is it reasonable for me to say that I think that McConnell and Boener want the poor to just starve on the streets? There is sure a hell of a lot more evidence in favor of that…in the sense that we are closer to that than we are to absolute equality of outcomes…and the Republicans seem hell-bent on not even allowing us to have a reasonable discussion about inequality, while the gap continues to widen! And yet, I don’t think I would say here in great debates that I think that McConnell and Boener want the poor to just starve on the streets.