Grading PolitiFact: Jesmer apparently not as artful as Obama?

I've railed in the past about the way fact checkers at PolitiFact display a disgraceful inconsistency in deciding whether the issue is the literal meaning of a politician's statement or the underlying argument.

On Friday, Mar. 20, PolitiFact published a piece about the following statement from Rob Jesmer, executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee:

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, placed an
amendment in the "stimulus" bill that allowed for banks bailed out with taxpayer money - including A.I.G. - to hand out huge bonuses without any government oversight or regulation, as long as those bonuses were issued before February 11.

The entry, by writer/researcher Alexander Lane and editor Scott Montgomery, ruled the statement "Half True" despite the fact that the statement is literally true:

The Republicans’ charge is true in a limited sense — Dodd’s amendment did address the bonus issue while falling short of disallowing the recent AIG bonuses.

The sense in which the claim is true was actually the main point of Jesmer's message, which starts by calling attention to Dodd's inconsistency in the press). The sense that Lane found false was a minor implicit argument brought to the fore with a subsequent comment from Jesmer:

It is no wonder that Senator Dodd received more campaign contributions from A.I.G. than any other politician during the 2008 cycle, including President Obama. As FOX News put it yesterday, "A.I.G. must be feeling very grateful to Chris Dodd this morning."

Assuming that Jesmer is right about the level of contributions Dodd received from A.I.G., this statement is also literally true, but it may exaggerate the degree to which Dodd was the friend of A.I.G.

The problem with the PolitiFact evaluation?

Lane and Montgomery took a claim that was literally true but carried a dubious implicit argument and ruled it "Half True."

The previous day, editor Montgomery and writer/researcher Angie Drobnic Holan took a claim that might be literally true (Drobnic never got to the bottom of the literal truth) but which also carried a plainly false implicit argument.

The PolitiFact judgment: Mostly True.

The politician in question for the latter judgment? President Obama.

Obama was careful in the way he phrased his statement ...

So was Jesmer, by all indications.

The key to evaluating the truth of a political claim should always be the point the communication. In Jesmer's case, his point was that Dodd had dropped the ball. His claim was literally true and reasonably supported his main idea. Jesmer should have been judged no worse than "Mostly True."

In contrast, Obama made a claim that may well be false and used it to support a plainly false main idea, that the auto makers have been ignoring needed innovation. On the contrary, the differences between the Model T and the modern SUV show an emphasis by the manufacterers on needed innovations in terms of safety, power and energy efficiency. Obama's claim should have rated no better than "Barely True."

Grade for Lane and Montgomery: D-

Angie Drobnic Holan and Montgomery received an "F."