PF loves Debbie Wasserman Schultz, won't tolerate criticism

PolitiFact's matrix strikes again, keeping invisible to most my criticism of their fact check of DNC Chair and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.



See what you miss by not making me your "friend" on FaceBook?

The whole comment:

PF went way easy on Wasserman Schultz on this one.

Think about it. Medicare solvency improves dramatically by simply refusing to pay for health care services. But that's nothing to brag about, is it? PPACA does three things to Medicare and one of them *might* help with making Medicare service better (better payment for better outcomes, at least if providers don't avoid providing services for those with worse prospects for a good outcome). The other two are increased Medicare payroll taxes and decreased reimbursement to health care providers, neither of which is likely to improve Medicare on balance, and the latter isn't likely to occur anyway because of the "doc fix."

So, Wasserman Schultz isn't telling the whole story. She's claiming that the PPACA made Medicare more solvent *and* better for seniors overall (her underlying point). PolitiFact does her the colossal favor of ignoring the key part of her underlying point, then goes the extra mile by figuring her degree of error based on the incorrect figure (12 years).

*Why* was it wrong to say she was off by only a third? For purposes of comparison, the degree of error is normally calculated by determining the percentage of inflation for a figure that was exaggerated. For Wasserman Schultz, that figure is 50 percent (correct figure 8, exaggerated figure 12).

For a figure that was reported low to obtain a better appearance then PolitiFact's method was correct. For example: "I struck out only 8 times this series" The player struck out 12 times. The claim of 8 strikeouts is off by a third (33 percent).

PolitiFact is the greatest, isn't it?

Isn't it nice of PolitiFact to protect its readers from the truth?

Brandon Fox follies

The post, which apparently will not be showing up in the corresponding thread on PolitiFact's Facebook page:

***If Cain knows so much about these documents and speaks of them so frequently then such an elementary (school) mistake shouldn't happen.***

We might use the same reasoning to ridicule the president for campaigning... in all 57 states. Your reasoning is spurious. Extemporaneous speech easily leads to omissions and other slips of the tongue. The evidence says that is the case here with Cain.

***And you know damn well that those listening to him probably don't know the difference and think that those words really ARE in the Constitution.***

Those people listening to him in Atlanta have had a chance to listen to him for years, as he is a well-known radio personality there. Like me, they're likely to have heard Cain's full and accurate explanation prior to hearing his announcement speech. Not that it matters what the audience thinks. The point is whether Cain knows what he's talking about or not. The evidence says yes. You say no.

***So he was trying to intentionally mislead his audience, or he spoke incompetently about a topic he supposedly knows a lot about.***

Sure, if you'll admit that President Obama spoke incompetently about the number of states in the union even though he's relatively expert in knowing the number of states. Where's that teleprompter when you really need it?

***And yes, you are ignoring the obvious (as usual).***

About what, specifically? It's obvious in both videos I linked that Cain knows the contents of the founding documents as touching his announcement speech. Yet you're trying to leave it an open question whether he knows what he's talking about. Aren't you the one ignoring the evidence?