December 22-30, 2013
Dec 22 12:04 Reichgott-Junge: Campaign finance laws are complicated Dec 22 18:10 Vikings season post-mortem Dec 26 21:31 Wise words Dec 27 12:00 Sanctimoniousness, Obamacare edition Dec 29 02:04 ABM isn't tethered to the truth Dec 30 00:45 Vikings win Metrodome finale Dec 30 13:46 PolitiFact's spinmeisters
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Reichgott-Junge: Campaign finance laws are complicated
This morning on At Issue With Tom Hauser, Mr. Hauser raised the question about the DFL getting fined $100,000 for coordinating campaign activities between the candidates and DFL campaign committees. Hauser pointed out that "the DFL paid the fine without admitting wrongdoing." (That's fine. They don't have to admit it. Everyone knows what they did was illegal.)
For his part, Andy Brehm nailed it by saying that this is Campaign 101, that everyone who's ever been involved in a campaign knows that it's illegal for candidates to coordinate their efforts with outside expenditure organizations, PACs or with a party's campaign committee.
When it was Ember Reichgott-Junge's turn, she said that "campaign finance laws are too complicated" before launching into the rules governing independent expenditure organizations, superPACs and other special interest efforts.
Saying it was a wimpy, insulting answer is understatement. While there's many rules and regulations about reporting requirements, transparency requirements and other considerations, that's irrelevant to this discussion. The only thing that's relevant to this discussion is that DFL campaign committees knowingly violated campaign finance law by coordinating advertising with a dozen DFL state senatorial campaigns.
What's also insulting about Reichgott-Junge's statement is that it played into the ruling that the DFL campaign committees didn't admit to wrongdoing. Like I wrote earlier, they didn't need to. What they did has been illegal since Watergate. Reichgott-Junge knows this. She's run for election. She can draw on her own experience.
She knows that the DFL was willing to do anything, legal or illegal, to have a DFL governor and DFL majorities in the House and Senate. They're perfectly happy paying this fine. That's a tiny price for ramming the entire DFL special interest wish list down Minnesota's throats.
Does anyone think Tom Bakk lost sleep over this? Is it more likely that he laughed when he heard the ruling?
Posted Sunday, December 22, 2013 12:04 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 22-Dec-13 02:03 PM
Gary:
I think you can highlight this by trying to compare the outrage they expressed when Tim P's campaign was cited for illegal coordination (during the campaign by the way and not a year afterwords) and how they are reacting to this. If Amber is any judge I bet they will be vastly different.
and one other thing you didn't say even if you concede Amber's point that the laws might be complicated the Tim case (if it was remembered) was a warning sign of what you can't do and the consequences if you do it (which there weren't)
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Poli Posse at 22-Dec-13 04:02 PM
I bet there wasn't a complicated campaign finance law that Senator Reichgott-Junge voted no on.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 22-Dec-13 04:07 PM
Legitimately, there are parts of Minnesota's campaign finance laws that are complicated/nuanced. That's a BS excuse, though, in this instance. There isn't a candidate/campaign that isn't instructed not to coordinate with campaign committees or PACs.
I'll write more about this after I've researched it better.
Comment 4 by Rex Newman at 23-Dec-13 11:34 AM
You may remember I tracked the veracity of the Almanac couch some years ago. Least reliable was Wy Spano, to nobody's surprise. But runner-up for the most stone cold false statements was Ms. R-J. Her answers here were no different.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 23-Dec-13 12:31 PM
Rex, her statements weren't just dishonest. They were insultingly dishonest. That law is part of campaigning 101.
Vikings season post-mortem
Today's Vikings-Cincinnati game wasn't as much a contest as it was a pummeling. Cincinnati looked like a formidable team capable of making a strong playoff push from the start. Meanwhile, the Vikings looked like a team that can't wait for the Leslie Frazier era, and the season, to be over.
If there was any doubt that the Vikings need a major overhaul this offseason, this game put that question to rest almost instantly. On the game's first series, Matt Cassel fumbled. Cincinnati returned the fumble to the Vikings 4 yard line, where the Bengals scored 2 plays later. Cassel is the best of the Vikings QBs, which says everything about the state of the Vikings' QB situation.
Of the impending free agents on the defensive line, only Eversen Griffin is worth bringing back. Jared Allen will want too much for the production he's got left. KWill has been a stud but he's getting to the end of his career. Letroy Guion and Fred Evans never were productive players. That's why it was a gift to have Sharif Floyd drop into the Vikings' lap last year.
Of the linebackers, Chad Greenway is the only player on the roster who's worth bringing back. Erratic is the kindest adjective for Erin Henderson's play this year. Worthless might be the most accurate adjective for Henderson's play.
In the secondary, you've got 2 players you can absolutely build around. Safety Harrison Smith is someone to build around, as is corner Xavier Rhodes. Josh Robinson needs to be moved outside, which is his natural position. He clearly isn't a fit as the nickel. He's fast, athletic and young. It's too early to give up on a player like that.
As far as who should be the Vikings next coach, Paul Charchian threw out a name during the Vikings' Postgame Show on Fox9 that I think is worth looking into: Ken Whisenhunt. He's coached on 2 Super Bowl teams, which is amazing considering one of those teams was the Arizona Cardinals.
Prior to the Whisenhunt era, I'd argue that the Cardinals were the Chicago Cubs of the NFL. The Bidwill family was the cheapest family in the NFL by far. The joke at league meetings was that the way to make copper wire was to try pulling a penny from Bill Bidwill's fingers.
Despite the Bidwills' cheapskate ways, Whisenhunt won. The first thing he did in Arizona was resurrect Kurt Warner's career. After getting fired in Arizona, San Diego hired him. Now Philip Rivers' once-dead career is showing signs again.
If you want to strengthen the Vikings quickly, one way is to trade a third-round pick to the Redskins in exchange for Kirk Cousins. The Vikings have Seattle's third rounder so they can afford trading one of their picks. With Cousins in place to become the Vikings' QB, the Vikings could then use their first round pick to get a linebacker like UCLA's Anthony Barr or a dominant NT like Notre Dame's Louis Nix. At least the Vikings will have started rebuilding 2 defensive units that badly need rebuilding.
The Vikings should keep Rick Spielman as GM, though. It's true that he drafted Christian Ponder, which is a strike against him. That being said, he also drafted Adrian Peterson, Matt Kalil, Harrison Smith, Sharif Floyd, Xavier Rhodes, Cordarrelle Patterson, Kyle Rudolph and DEs Eversen Griffen and Brian Robison. He's also drafted Pro Bowl placekicker Blair Walsh and punter Jeff Locke. In short, he's done more than enough to earn his return.
The Vikings offseason unofficially started today. The coaching staff shouldn't return, with the exception of George Stewart. Rick Spielman and the scouts need another strong draft to turn this team around.
Posted Sunday, December 22, 2013 6:10 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 23-Dec-13 04:19 PM
Gary:
I don't think the trade with the Redskins will work. Until you're sure of RG's health the Redskins won't trade. And who knows the new coach (Mike S is suppose to be gone) might want to have Counsins.
Besides if you're looking at play this year you might want to consider picking up Flynn as a free agent. Flynn wants to be a starter which means he won't resign with the Packers and having gotten bounced from two teams because they thought they had a younger and great QB to build their teams around he has something to prove.
If I use that third round pick it's only to move to get one of the three good QB's in the draft.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 24-Dec-13 11:26 AM
Kevin Williams isn't worth a FA look because he's already said he's retiring at the end of the season. That's the reason the Vikings drafted Sharif Floyd.
Josh Robinson might be the worst defensive back in the NFL. If he's not, it's because Chris Cook picked it off from him (and that would be the first pick of his career). Neither should have a place on the 2014 roster.
And if you bring back Spielman you bring back the guy who not only destroyed the Bears and Dolphins when he held similar positions with those teams, you bring back the guy who built the worst defense in the 53-season history of the Minnesota Vikings.
The first round pick needs to be spent on a quarterback with the potential to be elite and then he needs to be given the ball. While the defense undergoes a top to bottom rebuild, a quality quarterback will at least keep the team in games. That makes Whisenhunt an interesting idea as coach for the reasons you mentioned.
The time is now to start over, from the top down. Fans who are forking out a billion dollars for a stadium through taxes and pass-through fees for the "Vikings' share" want to see a clean slate.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 24-Dec-13 01:37 PM
Bob:
I see you're a not a big Spielman fan here, but a couple of things to consider about Spielman since I will keep him:
One, the NFL is such a competitive league where if a team regresses just a little bit you can dramatically fall in the standings and lose games you won the previous year. If you look Houston and Atlanta basically tried to keep their teams the same and had just as bad of a year as the Vikings. Green Bay almost fell apart when Rogers went down and only got right when they got Flynn back. Injuries to key players only make it worse.
Two, the Les Steckel club probably had the worse defense in the 53 season history of the club (especially in that second half).
Three, does the General Manager have the ability to figure out what the team needs are and acts to correct them. Going into this season it was believed that this team had a problem with WR. He went and got Jennings plus Patterson. Yes you think the defense needs to be rebuilt. His first two picks in the draft was a defensive lineman and a corner back. Later picks included a couple of linebackers and defense lineman. It certainly looked he was trying to address the needs of the team which is his job.
Four, maybe coaching and the systems deserve some of the blame. After all a major gripe about the Vikings offense is that it is so predictable. The Tampa 2 left recievers wide open all of the time.
I'm rather confident in part because Spielman will cleanup the defense that this team will be much better next year.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Wise words
I've written here frequently about foolish people writing for the St. Cloud Times. This time, I get to write about Dr. Roy Saigo's wise words , mostly because they're the skills I learned as a supervisor at Fingerhut. Here's something Dr. Saigo said that I can relate to:
The second thing Collins emphasizes is the most effective CEO is not a celebrity. If the boss is a celebrity, then you have 'one genius and 1,000 helpers.' He talks about CEOs who tell the media they are going to produce the best products, be the best grocery chain, university, football team, etc. Yet, successful companies build their businesses with practical, achievable goals and little fanfare. I call this accountability.
Part of my training to be a supervisor was a class called Interaction Management. One of the things that IM emphasized was identifying key principles. These key principles could be anything from getting a simple job done that takes little time to empowering workers to master a multi-faceted responsibility that might take 3-4 hours.
At Fingerhut then, the key to accomplishing important responsibilities wasn't about instructing the employee what he or she needed to do. It was about telling them about their responsibilities to their co-workers and their employer. How they got from Point A to Point B wasn't important as long as the thing got done properly and in the fastest time possible.
I tried to live by a saying I'd heard from a former night shift supervisor. His instructions to his workers was simple: make me look good in the morning. Which leads to this key paragraph in Dr. Saigo's article:
A successful team develops a positive, can-do spirit, toughness and, most importantly, trust and a sharing of the joy of success.
Ronald Reagan once said that "It's amazing what you can accomplish when you don't care who gets the credit." Of all of the wise things Ronald Reagan said, that sentence was consistently proven true. It's something that others have picked up on. Superblogger Glenn Reynolds wrote a book a few years back. Appropriately, it was titled "An Army of Davids." The key principle that Reynolds conveyed to his audience was that there were hundreds of experts just waiting to be discovered and utilized through the internet. He didn't think that everyone on the internet was a genius. It's just that he thought that he knew that, for every highly-publicized expert on TV, there were hundreds of experts on the internet just waiting to be found.
Reynolds' attitude wouldn't be possible if he was an egomaniac. Successful people have to have an ego because they couldn't survive without it. The difference between successful people and and egomaniac is that egomaniacs are control freaks. They're the fastest people to the microphone when there's success. They're also the people you won't see admitting failure.
Reynolds couldn't have written that book if he was a control freak because he needed to admit that there were lots of outstanding people in every discipline in the United States. Thanks to his book, lots of people were empowered.
Posted Thursday, December 26, 2013 9:31 PM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 27-Dec-13 08:43 AM
Great article! Well stated.
Sanctimoniousness, Obamacare edition
One of the things that vulnerable Democrats are trying to do is distance themselves from a law they voted for. Sen. Mary Landrieu, (D-LA), is one of a group of senators who are doing everything possible to distance themselves after voting for the ACA, aka the Affordable Care Act. According to this LA Times article , she's hoping people will give her another term by expressing her outrage with the bill she got bought off for:
In the months before Congress passed the president's healthcare law, Sen. Mary L. Landrieu faced a deluge: The office phones rang off the hook, the mail was heavy and a few restive constituents, well aware of the cameras, showed up at her events urging her to vote against it.
The three-term Louisiana Democrat was one of the final holdouts, but ultimately she backed the bill. And now in this red state, where President Obama lost by 18 percentage points in 2012, her opponents intend to make her pay the price.
Sen. Landrieu's first mistake was ignoring her constituents. The next mistake she made was selling out her constituents in return for the now-infamous Louisiana Purchase. She wasn't even honest about it, criticizing "Republican bloggers" for spreading the story :
After reports surfaced of $100 million for Louisiana was added to the Senate's health care reform legislation, originally from ABC News , and subsequently commented upon by prominent lefties, like U.S. News and World Report's Bonnie Erbe as my colleague Noel Sheppard pointed out , Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., took the Senate floor on Nov. 21 to announce she would vote in favor to proceed forward with the Senate Democratic leadership's bill.
She also responded to allegations that $100 million earmarked for the Louisiana was added to that legislation to sway her vote. She referred to the likes of ABC News correspondent Jonathan Karl and Erbe as "very partisan Republican bloggers."
"I know that might time is up, but I would like to ask personal privilege for just one more minute to address an issue that has come up unfortunately in the last 24 hours by some very partisan Republican bloggers so I need to respond I think and will do so now," Landrieu said. "One of the provisions in the framework of this bill that I've just decided to move on to debate has to do with fixing a very difficult situation that Louisiana is facing and any other state that might have a catastrophic disaster, let's hope they don't, like we did in 2005."
In other words, Sen. Landrieu was bribed into voting for the catastrophic disaster known as the ACA. She ignored her constituents while accepting a bribe to vote for legislation that didn't fix the problems that President Obama promised it would fix.
Sen. Landrieu's third mistake is pretending to stand up against President Obama's failed health care initiative. Sen. Landrieu's history isn't littered with profiles in DC courage, if such a thing even exists. She's known as a dealmake in the worst sense of the word. At some point, compromise will be needed. She sat in the power seat and got a few trinkets in exchange for voting for the worst legislation in US history.
No legislation has done more to expose people's personal information to indentity thieves. No legislation has done more to tell the average American family that the product they've purchased is substandard when, in reality, these "substandard" policies have saved their lives .
Sen. Landrieu thought she knew better what her constituents needed when she ignored their phone calls, emails and talking directly with her. If that isn't enough, then President Obama and his allies insisted that the policies that got cancelled were "substandard policies."
The sanctimoniousness and I-know-better-than-you attitude drip from those sentences.
For that and other reasons, Sen. Landrieu isn't worthy of the high office of United States senator. She put her good standing in the Democratic Party ahead of her constituents' needs.
In the end, that's the most damning reason why she needs to be fired next November.
Posted Friday, December 27, 2013 12:00 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 27-Dec-13 04:21 PM
Gary:
I would've added that once a Republican Senator read a regulation in 2010 that said everyone was losing their current policy (which has happened) he proposed a bill which would've given every policy their protection not to be cancelled. Mary along with every democrat voted against it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 28-Dec-13 08:25 AM
We're entering the next phase of the Obamacare non-argument. First was Denial, then Panic, and now Blame, that we Conservatives can't or won't fix it for them. Oh, we can, but concepts like Free Markets and Personal Liberty are off their table.
It's right out of Atlas Shrugged, when statist Jim Taggart demands his capitalist sister Dagny save him, his job, and their company. "But I want a discussion! You're not saying anything. You're supposed to have the answers!"
We (the GOP) have to stay out of any such effort to fix MnSure or Obamacare. Let them stew. Either the web site remains dysfunctional or it starts working so that the millions can see just what really isn't there. If they demand help, demand repeal.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 28-Dec-13 08:35 AM
That's a great point, Rex.
If the DFL insists on getting GOP help but that it be done on 'their playing field', conservatives should insist that the solution isn't found on 'their playing field', that it's founded on free markets, competition and personal liberty.
Right now, there's virtually no competition in rural Minnesota. Some counties, like Fillmore, don't have providers who accept Medicaid for children. That means a parent with a sick child either has to pay for that child's health care out of their own pocket or they have to travel long distances to get them to a provider who accepts Medicaid.
That isn't much of a choice.
Comment 4 by SWOhio at 28-Dec-13 11:42 AM
Sen. Landrieu (D-LA): 'If you like the insurance that you have, you'll be able to keep it.' (MSNBC's Hardball, 12/16/09)
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Dec-13 12:00 AM
Thanks for that reminder, SW.
ABM isn't tethered to the truth
Saying that the Alliance for a Better Minnesota isn't tethered to the truth is understatement. Thursday, I received this fundraising appeal from ABM:
Gary,
I know we've asked a lot from you this year. Sign a petition. Share an email. Join us on Facebook. But I have one more critical ask.
Thousands of progressives across Minnesota have donated to A Better Minnesota this year ($10 has been a common contribution), but we are just short of our goal for 2013. We need your help to push us across the finish line!
Will you join your fellow progressives and donate $5, $10, or $25 right now?
Whether it's holding politicians' feet to the fire or advocating for a positive, progressive vision for our state, there is no turning back on the work we've already begun. You are a part of our mission to fight for a better Minnesota.
I sincerely hope that you've been impressed with what we've done so far. The truth is that we've done it all with your support. We don't depend on others to fight for our progressive values. We depend on you.
Please donate $5, $10, $25, or whatever amount you can today!
Sincerely,
The Better Minnesota Team
First, I'm skeptical that there's such a thing as a "positive, progressive vision" for Minnesota or any other state. The progressive agenda isn't positive. It's true that there's a bunch of things that progressives want to do but that doesn't justify characterizing that agenda as positive.
For example, part of the DFL's "positive progressive agenda" includes giving the Met Council more authority to control people's lives :
Transit-oriented development (TOD) provides the opportunity to enhance the transit investment by shaping regional development around transit. The working definition of TOD, as defined by the Metropolitan Council and partners at regional think tanks in September 2012 and February 2013, is: A moderate to higher density district/corridor located within easy walking distance of a major transit stop that typically contains a mix of uses such as housing, jobs, restaurants, shops, services and entertainment. These districts/corridors enable people of all ages, backgrounds, and incomes abundant transportation choices and the opportunity to live convenient, affordable and active lives.
This is another example of a "positive progressive agenda." Just like the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, isn't about improving health care or extending health insurance to people who were uninsured, TOD is about controlling people's lives.
Simply put, so-called positive progressive politics is about controlling people's lives by using government force to tell people what they have to do. While I recognize the fact that a progressive reading this will accuse me of writing an anti-government rant because conservatives hate government, that isn't what this is at all.
What I'm saying is that I want government to do what it's supposed to do. Things like public safety and setting tax and regulatory policy isn't done by the private sector. Put differently, I want government limited and useful but I want the private sector and individuals to make most of the important decisions for their families or their company.
Like I said earlier, the progressives' agenda is about controlling people's lives. That's why ABM's 'positive' progressive agenda is destined for failure. ABM's way is the controlling, deceitful way. It isn't about giving people liberty or meaningful choices.
At its finest, the GOP agenda is about letting families decide what's best for them. ABM's agenda is best described as convincing families it's more important to do what's right for the collective than for their families.
Posted Sunday, December 29, 2013 2:04 AM
No comments.
Vikings win Metrodome finale
Sunday afternoon, the Minnesota Vikings defeated the Detroit Lions in the final game in Metrodome history. In a game that only meant something in terms of draft positioning and, possibly, the head coaches' fate, Cordarrelle Patterson stole the show, scoring a pair of touchdowns. Patterson's first touchdown came after he chose not to throw a wide receiver option pass, instead finding his way through the Detroit Lions' defense for a 50-yard TD run. Patterson's other touchdown was the game winner in the fourth quarter. It came on a back shoulder throw from Matt Cassel with just under 10 minutes left in the game.
It was a fitting game for the Metrodome's finale because the Metrodome wasn't a great sporting venue. People have great memories of the Metrodome because of the events, not the facility.
What's memorable about today's game was that Cordarrelle Patterson's play today told defensive coordinators across the NFL that they'd better know where he's at on every play. Simply put, he's the bigger-and-faster version of Percy Harvin. That and he doesn't have Percy's migraines.
Matt Asiata, who started in place of Adrian Peterson and Toby Gerhart, rushed for 115 yards on just 14 carries. Should Gerhart leave after the season as a free agent, Asiata seems like a more-than-adequate back-up for Adrian Peterson.
Another bright spot for the Vikings was TE Chase Ford. Ford's play might've pushed Litchfield's John Carlson off the Vikings roster. Carlson has battled injuries throughout his career. He signed an expensive contract 2 years ago, coming from Seattle through free agency. The Vikings might just cut him and free up cap space to shore up other positions of need.
Today was likely the last games in a Vikings uniform for Jared Allen, Kevin Williams, Erin Henderson, Charlie Johnson, Chris Cook, Toby Gerhart and possibly Eversen Griffin.
Jay Glazer is reporting that Vikings Head Coach Leslie Frazier will be fired Monday morning :
Frazier will be fired as the Vikings' head coach Monday, according to Jay Glazer of FOX Sports. Frazier is in his fourth year as the head man in Minnesota, after taking over on an interim basis in Week 11 in 2010. He led the Vikings to a 3-3 finish that season before receiving the job full time.
That's bittersweet news. In his 3 full seasons, Frazier's records have been 5-10-1, 10-6 and 3-13. Winning 18 of 48 games means winning less than 40% of the games he coached. That said, though, razier's players played hard most of the time. Unfortunately, NFL head coaches aren't judged by whether they're men of integrity or whether their players play hard. NFL head coaches are judged on wins and losses.
That's why the Metrodome's finale was likely Leslie Frazier's Vikings finale.
Posted Monday, December 30, 2013 12:45 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 30-Dec-13 04:24 PM
Gary:
Probably a better way to describe the group is:
Who will we pay another team to take: Cook.
Who will we like to stay if they weren't looking for more playing time, more pay then we will offer, and maybe a better team: Allen and Gerhart.
Who we should pay to stay: Griffin and Henderson did enough to justify a contract.
Who was going to retire: Williams.
And who didn't make enough impact for me to recognize Johnson.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 30-Dec-13 11:50 PM
I just read in the Pi-Press that KWill wants to play another 2 years. He was moved to nose tackle, where he played well. I'm fine with Spielman signing him for 2 years at $4 million per.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 31-Dec-13 03:55 PM
Well if Williams stays that should help the entire defense line (especially if we can talk Allen into saying). Besides we have two million a year to spare once we get rid of Freeman. I should've added him to the pay another team to take him list.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
PolitiFact's spinmeisters
Avik Roy's article doesn't just highlight the fact that PolitiFact isn't the gold standard in fact-checking, though it certainly does that. This paragraph highlights the most important thing we need to know about Politifact:
On October 9, 2008, Angie Drobnic Holan of PolitiFact published an article using the site's 'Truth-O-Meter' to evaluate this claim: 'Under Barack Obama's health care proposal, 'if you've got a health care plan that you like, you can keep it.' The article assures us in its headline that 'Obama's plan expands [the] existing system,' and continues that 'Obama is accurately describing his health care plan here: It remains to be seen whether Obama's plan will actually be able to achieve the cost savings it promises for the health care system. But people who want to keep their current insurance should be able to do that under Obama's plan. His description of his plan is accurate, and we rate his statement True.'
Thanks to Roy's article, what we can definitively determine is that PolitiFact rates speculation as fact or fiction. It isn't possible to determine whether then-candidate Obama's statement was true because the legislation hadn't been written at that point. Without reading the legislation's language, it's impossible to tell whether Obama's promise was true or false.
That's quite damning to PolitiFact's reputation. The statements reviewed by FactCheck.org , by contrast, either note that something is speculative or they're commenting on promises made by political candidates.
Simply put, PolitiFact is more about playing political favorites than it's about fact-checking politicians' statements. That's why I've never taken their statements that seriously. Admittedly, they got President Obama's lie of the year right. Unfortunately, they didn't get it right until 5 years after they rated that statement as true. That's a pretty pathetic record.
Posted Monday, December 30, 2013 1:46 PM
No comments.
