Close on the heels of a hard-to-explain discrepancy involving call-and-response claims from the Obama and Romney campaigns, PolitiFact New Jersey sheds one of PolitiFact's principles like newly adult cicadas shed old exoskeletons .
Recall PolitiFact editor Bill Adair's edict that the fact checkers would start taking credit and blame consistently into account:
About a year ago, we realized we were ducking the underlying point of blame or credit, which was the crucial message. So we began rating those types of claims as compound statements.
Now watch PolitiFact New Jersey duck blame or credit as Bill Clinton claims credit for balancing the budget and partially paying down the national debt:
Our ruling
At a June 1 campaign event, Clinton touted his fiscal record in the
final years of his presidency. "Then I gave you four surplus budgets for
the first time in more than 70 years, paid $600 billion down on the
national debt," Clinton told the crowd.
Clinton delivered four consecutive surplus budgets for the first time
in more than seven decades, but the former president misstated the level
of debt reduction. During those four fiscal years, the debt held by the
public dropped by nearly $453 billion, but total debt jumped by about
$400 billion.
We rate the statement Mostly True.
Who says the executive branch doesn't control the purse strings of the federal government?
Words matter -- We pay close attention to the specific
wording of a claim. Is it a precise statement? Does it contain
mitigating words or phrases?
--Principles of PolitiFact and the Truth-O-Meter
We have here an unusual fact check in that there is no quotation at all from the supposed source of the information, the political action organization American Crossroads. The fact check concerns accurate quotations of President Bill Clinton and the impression they create as presented in an American Crossroads political ad.
Here's the ad:
Here's the PolitiFact set up:
The ad splices together television news reports highlighting Obama's
plan to raise taxes a total of $1.5 trillion over 10 years, then pivots
to Clinton. "I personally don't believe we ought to be raising taxes,"
Clinton says in what appears to be an interview. "It won't solve the
problem."
Between the lines "we ought to be raising taxes," and "it won't solve
the problem," the ad jumps -- for just a split-second -- to some other
image.
It's a 30 second ad, but the PolitiFact description omits a sizable portion in the beginning using President Obama's own words on taxation: "The last thing you want to do is to raise taxes in the middle of a recession."
The ad does not merely use Clinton's words to oppose Obama's proposed tax increase. It uses Obama's words toward the same purpose.
PolitiFact:
The cut-away caught our attention because we've seen instances where politician's words were cut in a way that would create a different impression.
Indeed, after further review, that's what American Crossroads did here.
If PolitiFact is correct that the ad creates a different impression than did Clinton's words in context then we should expect to see PolitiFact identify the proper understanding as well as the false impression along with the supporting rationales for each.
We found the original Newsmax.com video. The two lines quoted by
American Crossroads come more than three minutes apart, as Clinton was
delivering a meandering answer on how to create jobs and fix the
flailing American economy.
PolitiFact is correct that the statements occur more than three minutes apart. The video confirms it.
PolitiFact:
When American Crossroads quoted Clinton as saying, "I personally don't
believe we ought to be raising taxes," they clipped Clinton's full
comments short. Here's the full quote, including what American
Crossroads left out:
"I personally don't believe we ought to be raising taxes or cutting
spending -- either one -- until we get this economy off the ground. This
has been a dead flat economy. And you don't want in something this flat
... if we cut government spending, which I normally would be inclined
to do when the deficit's this big, with interest rates near zero you
can't get the benefits of it."
So Clinton was as much deriding spending cuts as he was a plan to raise taxes.
PolitiFact is also correct that Clinton disparaged spending cuts as well as tax increases, though it isn't clear why that would have relevance with respect to American Crossroads' use of Clinton's words. Simply clipping Clinton's words does not misrepresent misuse, or else PolitiFact is acting hypocritically. Note the ellipsis (...) in middle paragraph above. In journalistic style an ellipsis indicates missing text.
PolitiFact:
Clinton went on to praise Obama's plan to continue cuts to the payroll
tax, saying it's a proven way to help the economy, before spinning off
into a discussion of former President Ronald Reagan and former House
Speaker Tip O'Neill.
Clinton remained on topic, praising Reagan and O'Neill for disposing of the debt from the savings and loan bailouts which in turn, by Clinton's account, corresponded with a job growth spurt during Reagan's tenure.
PolitiFact:
Later in the interview the second half of the quote comes up. But again, it's shortened.
"I would pay it," Clinton said, referring to a millionaire's tax
(though Clinton said that many wealthy New Yorkers like himself wouldn't
be affected because they already pay high state and local income taxes
that can then be deducted from your federal tax bill).
"It's okay with me, I'd pay more," he said. "But it won't solve the problem."
We still have no rationale from PolitiFact explaining how American Crossroads took Clinton out of context and/or juxtaposed his statements to alter their meaning. "It's shortened" doesn't cut it without an explanation as to how the shortened version significantly altered the meaning.
PolitiFact:
After the American Crossroads ad was released, Clinton fired back saying
the group wrongly implied his opposition to Obama's plan to raise taxes
on the wealthy -- sometimes referred to as the "Buffett Rule" -- as
well as Obama's jobs plan.
"The Republican group American Crossroads has used a quote from me in a
video opposing President Obama's jobs plan and the 'Buffett Rule,'" he
said in the statement provided to POLITICO. "The advertisement
implies that I opposed the 'Buffett Rule.' In fact, I support both the
American Jobs Act and the 'Buffett Rule.' I believe that it's only fair
to ask those of us in high-income groups -- who have received the
primary benefits of the last decade's economic growth and the majority
of its tax cuts as well -- to contribute to solving our long term debt
problem.
"What I did say was that the 'Buffett Rule' cannot solve the problem
alone. Reducing the debt requires three things: more economic growth,
more spending cuts, and more revenue," he said.
Even if Clinton has a spotless reputation for truth-telling we don't take his explanation uncritically, do we?
In the case of the American Crossroads ad we're concerned with Obama's plan to raise taxes on the wealthy. That is the focus of the ad.
Clinton says American Crossroads presented him falsely as opposing Obama's jobs plan. That's a half truth. The ad does not address any aspect of the jobs plan other than the tax increases. The ad does not address, for example, the payroll tax decrease that Clinton praised.
Clinton further stated that American Crossroads painted him in opposition to the "Buffett Rule." Again, that's a half truth. The ad shows Clinton criticizing the tax increase for not addressing the creation of jobs. It does not include any mention of Clinton's support for such a tax increase during better economic conditions nor does it try to portray Clinton as opposed to tax increases on the rich regardless of circumstances.
Clinton's statement avoids the points made in the American Crossroads ad. Does Clinton favor raising taxes on a flat economy and does Obama's "Buffett Rule" proposal raise taxes on a flat economy? Does the tax increase help address the jobs problem, contrary to what Clinton suggested during his interview?
PolitiFact:
American Crossroads spokesman Jonathan Collegio defended the ad's
quoting of Clinton to PolitiFact Florida, noting that a 30-second ad
cannot run two-minute-plus quotes and that the "quotes selected for the
ad are the most succinct and relevant clips of Clinton's Newsmax
interview, and fairly represent his views."
We see it differently. The ad suggests that Clinton opposes Obama's
plan to raise taxes on the wealthy as a means of reducing the deficit.
By our review of the interview, Clinton actually appeared to straddle
that fence. At one point, he said that he didn't think the country
should raise taxes "until we get this economy off the ground." At
another point, he said he'd be "okay" with the tax and willing to pay
it, though he said in his particular case, he probably won't be
affected.
PolitiFact's review of the Clinton interview resulted in a false impression. Clinton did not straddle the fence, though he was made to appear that way through selective quotation.
Here's an expanded version of the second statement from Clinton, my portion of the transcript in bold, portions used by PolitiFact highlighted in yellow:
What I would like to say both to Speaker Boehner and to the president, "Okay, you've both had your deal. Go work it out. Meanwhile focus on putting American back to work now." Because it just confused Americans. Americans lost the fact that, whatever you think about this millionaire's surcharge, it--I don't really care because I would pay it but it won't affect me because I already pay the minimum income because I live in New York. So if you live, anybody that lives in New York, because our state and local taxes are so high and you get to deduct those against your federal taxes, we're already over any threshold anybody can consider. But, I, you know,it's okay with me, I'd pay more. But it won't solve the problem.
Clinton's thought, without the digression detailing his opinion of how it affect him, goes like this: Americans lost the fact that, whatever you think about this millionaire's surcharge, it doesn't solve the problem.
The PolitiFact version turns an irrelevancy into a critical piece of missing information. Clinton was saying that whether you favor increasing taxes on the rich or not, it doesn't solve the jobs problem. PolitiFact's interpretation contradicts Clinton's intent.
The American Crossroads ad segues from the Clinton quotations to another
quotation critical of Obama. Note the accompanying text in the ad:
"We need jobs not higher taxes."
It falls right into line with Clinton's criticism of Obama's tax hike proposal. The tax hike does not address the jobs problem.
PolitiFact:
At the least, American Crossroads is guilty of cherry-picking parts of
Clinton's statement to best fit into the narrative of its ad. But we
think they go one step further by cutting out critical pieces of
evidence -- namely that Clinton said he would be "okay" with higher
taxes for the wealthy and that he'd pay additional taxes if he was
required to.
Clinton's voice and image were no doubt selected specifically because
it'd be a stinging rebuke of Obama's policies -- from a fellow Democrat.
But viewer beware. We rate this claim False.
As explained above, PolitiFact miscategorized the evidence from the context. Clinton's general support for taxing the rich at higher rates, by his own words, does not mitigate the failure of the tax increases to address the jobs problem, and the latter was the focus of the American Crossroads ad.
With full consideration of the context it's hard to see any significant flaw in the ad's use of the Clinton quotations. The biggest failing is the juxtaposition of one quotation concerned with the weak economy while the other was focused on jobs. Given that the two are closely linked a criticism along those lines seems like hairsplitting.
On top of everything else, it's extraordinarily difficult to see how PolitiFact could justify a "False" rating for this item. As noted, American Crossroads doesn't make any sort of concrete claim. The ad in question simply quotes President Clinton. And the quotations are apparently perfectly accurate. If they were taken entirely out of context to mean the opposite of what Clinton intended then PolitiFact's definitions of "Half True" or "Mostly False" (formerly "Barely True") appear to fit better than the "False" rating:
HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context.
BARELY TRUE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression.
Barack Obama channels Bill Clinton with respect to Hillary Clinton. Joan Vennochi at Boston.com sums it up succinctly:
During their showdown, he said, "What exactly is this foreign policy expertise? Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no." Now he calls her "an American of tremendous stature who will have my complete confidence, who knows many of the world's leaders, who will command respect in her capital and who will clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world."
While I agree with pundits who see Obama's appointments as a type of comfort for conservatives since it could have been so much worse, the appointments really do not mean much until it comes time to implement executive policy. Obama claims that he will set the policy, and his staff will apparently dutifully implement his wishes. While that remains to be seen, the one thing we can dependably learn about Obama is through comparison of his rhetoric with his actions.
Sen. Clinton has no real qualifications in terms of foreign policy, as per (campaign) Obama? No problem. Post-campaign Obama will appoint her Secretary of State and express the highest confidence in her abilities.
There is at least one way to reconcile the statements such that Obama isn't reasonably viewed as having a forked silver tongue on a par with Slick Willy's. Sen. Clinton, in spite of her lack of experience, can perform brilliantly in the office of Secretary of State by obeying the string-pulling of Obama.
That reading somewhat ignores Obama's notable lack of foreign policy experience, of course.
"Sharon" over at Common Sense Political Thought (she also blogs at Gold-Plated Witch on Wheels) has a nice summary of the subprime mortgage crisis and the etiology of blame. Click the link and read the rest once your appetite is whetted.
As Ed Morrissey of Hot Air points out, the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae happened on George W. Bush’s watch, and for that, Democrats will try to pummel him. And he certainly didn’t pursue any regulatory solutions wholeheartedly, but it’s not like this was unpredictable. Indeed, the New York Times ran a story on this five years ago. (read more)
***
Hey, "Inside the political football" garners no Google hits. It's nice to think up something first for a change, especially after I discovered that "Elastic Waste Band" had already been used by a Grateful Dead tribute band.
Though I suppose somebody could have thought of the football thing and dumped it for something much better ...
Politico has established itself as the go-to source for political news on the 'Net, and thus warrants inclusion on the "Essential Links" in the sidebar.
Politico's reporting on Bill Clinton's complaints about Hillary Clinton's press coverage serves as an example of what should not be missed.
Hillary Clinton demonstrated some real ignorance while appearing to take a page out of Slick Willie's campaign handbook.
Senator Clinton manifested these things while responding to President Bush's veto of a bill that would have permitted federal funds to support fetal stem cell research without the earlier limitations (the linked Chicago Tribune story suggests that federal funds are not permitted to support fetal stem cell research, which is not true).
“This is just one example of how the president puts ideology before science, politics before the needs of our families, just one more example of how out of touch with reality he and his party have become,’’ Clinton said. “And it's just one more example as to why we're going to send them packing in January 2009, and return progressive leadership to the White House.”
And Clinton – who has pledged that if Bush does not end the war in Iraq, “I will’’ – issued a similar pledge on stem cells: “This is research that…holds such promise for devastating diseases. And we know that stem cell research holds the key to our understanding more about what we can do. So let me be very clear: When I am president, I will lift the ban on stem cell research.’’
(Chicago Tribune)
First, the obvious error that nearly everybody will miss: Every application of science is about ideology. Use science to improve communications, and it's because you want better communications (ideology). Use science to gas Kurds and it's because you want to kill Kurds (ideology). Use science to cure Parkinson's disease and it's because you want to cure disease (ideology). Science per se is value neutral. Ideology is what keeps us from experimenting on human beings without their consent (though there have been exceptions here and there).
So, Clinton accuses Bush of getting in the way of science on the basis of ideology as if there's something wrong with that in principle--yet her motive for wanting scientific research on human embryos is equally based on ideology.
That knight from Monty Python's Flying Circus who used to go about whacking people gently (lest anyone see an advocacy of violence against the former First Lady) with a rubber chicken should pay a visit to Mrs. Clinton--preferably while she's on-camera.
Second, Clinton employs husband Bill's misleading rhetoric in making her promise to lift the ban on stem cell research.
No doubt this is meant to sound very gallant and warm the hearts of potential Democrat voter as they consider the depth of her humanity--except that there is no ban on stem cell research. There isn't even a ban on fetal stem cell research. The ban is on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research on lines not already in existence when the president first acted on the issue.
