RedState Co-Founder appeared on MSNBC last night discussing, inter alia, the debt ceiling, and liberals are in a tizzy. Some of them apparently contacted the liberal hack artists at Politifact (who have still got about 5 people on earth convinced that they are a neutral fact checker) to take a run at Josh’s claims about polling on the deficit. The clip of Josh’s performance is here.
By way of reminder, Politifact’s long history of liberal hackery has been discussed ad nauseam, including this absurd piece in which liberal gasbag Gary Trudeau was declared correct despite equating terrorism with homicides, legal shootings, and accidents, not to mention this ridiculous hit job on Rob Portman, among many other clearly politically motivated “fact checks.”
It must have really stuck in liberals’ craw that even Politifact was forced to rate Trevino’s statements as “mostly true.” However, an examination of the facts shows that even this grudging admission on Politifact’s part was nothing more than pure hackery. The relevant graf of Trevino’s statements that Politifact purported to check is as follows:
“Yesterday,” Treviño said, “we saw Gallup release a poll that had 42 percent of Americans, a plurality, opposed to raising the debt ceiling. And today we had a Gallup poll showing 50 percent versus 11 (percent) on the other side thinking that the debt and the deficit should be dealt with by mostly spending cuts. So the Republicans are on the side of the American people here, and I think that’s pretty clear.”
Politifact was forced to concede that Trevino’s characterization of the poll showing a plurality opposed to raising the debt ceiling was 100% correct and accurate. So what caused them to rate Trevino’s remarks as “mostly true” instead of “completely and entirely true”? Politifact claimed that Trevino’s 50% vs. 11% was not entirely accurate:
Asked how they’d prefer members of Congress to address the deficit, 20 percent said only by cutting spending and another 30 percent said mostly with spending cuts. Four percent favored solely tax increases, while 7 percent said they’d prefer to tackle the deficit mostly by tax hikes.
Uh, well, it has been a while since I have had a math class, but those two sets of percentages seem to add up to 50 and 11 according to my laptop’s calculator. What is the problem, exactly, Politifact?
Still, 32 percent said they’d support a mix of spending cuts and tax increases. Put another way, at least 43 percent indicated some support for tax increases — most of them also backing budget cuts.
Memo to Politifact: the fact that a poll contains additional information that Trevino did not discuss does not make his statement less than entirely truthful. For example: if Trevino had been discussing the latest poll of the Republican caucus in Iowa and had claimed (correctly) that “Bachmann leads Romney 32%-29%,” his statement would not be rated merely “mostly true” because he did not disclose that Pawlenty was at 7%, Santorum at 6%, etc. Trevino by his own statement wasnt’ discussing the people who wanted the deficit solution split roughly down the middle, he was discussing people who favored “mostly cuts” versus “mostly taxes,” and his statement was (and should have been scored) completely correct.
These facts notwithstanding, liberal trolls went to the most notoriously liberal hacks in the fact-checking business, and weren’t able to get a response worse than “mostly true.” The reality, of course, is that Trevino’s statements were “completely true,” which doesn’t bode well for their position in the upcoming debt fight.
Jeff Emanuel
Unscathed in the lion's den...
babykaboomer Saturday, July 16th at 9:47PM EDT (link)Nice job, Josh. Good heavens, it’s a free-wheeling debate. The only way to hold your ground and get your point across in that setting is to condense your supporting facts. You needlessly start slicing 50/11 up into 30/20/7/4, and you look weak and foolish. Worse, you lose the audience’s (small though it may be) attention. The intent and result is to distill and clarify, not twist and mislead.
Maybe we need to hit them every two weeks
Flagstaff (Diary) Sunday, July 17th at 2:50AM EDT (link)with something to try to make them honest. Naaah, no it won’t. But let’s hit them anyway. Factual examples can be helpful, right?
http://www.redstate.com/flagstaff/2011/07/01/politifact-or-politispin/
As I said in a comment, ‘I got a bee in my bonnet about it [PolitiFact's bias] when all the talk shows last Sunday decided to use them as a surrogate for “moderate” criticism of Bachmann, including always referring to them as “the Pulitzer prize-winning website, PolitiFact.”’
Or as a friend called them, “the pullet surprise winning PolitiFact,” a pound of feathers in every story.
Buffett Rule #1: “Tax rates don’t matter if you don’t pay your taxes”
– Unnamed tax adviser to Warren Buffett, Leavenworth, KS, 2011
Buffett Rule #2: “A parrot in every pot and two Volts in every garage”– Jimmy Buffett, at a seance in Margaritaville, 1977
Having now linked to the video, I suspect
Flagstaff (Diary) Sunday, July 17th at 3:01AM EDT (link)that more people will see it here than saw it on MSLSD. You have to be a true believer to sit through a program hosted by Al Sharpton.
Buffett Rule #1: “Tax rates don’t matter if you don’t pay your taxes”
– Unnamed tax adviser to Warren Buffett, Leavenworth, KS, 2011
Buffett Rule #2: “A parrot in every pot and two Volts in every garage”– Jimmy Buffett, at a seance in Margaritaville, 1977
Create an alternative universe, then argue from it
johnt Sunday, July 17th at 9:55AM EDT (link)not complicated, and it stops leftists from having to spend the day banging their heads against walls. And to think they ridicule others for believing in God. Easier to have that faith and recognize it as such then these poor dementos clinging by their fingernails to a terrestrial fantasy. One that is collapsing in front of their faces, which is really scrambling the soup between their ears.
Ah, for the good old days of the Reality Based Community, haven’t heard that one for a while have we ?
“a man’s admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him”. Tocqueville