By Larry Elder
Thursday, December 19, 2013
PolitiFact has awarded their "Lie of the Year"
to President Barack Obama for his promise that "if you like your health
care plan, you can keep it."
PolitiFact, a feature of the Tampa Bay Times, purports to
rate the truthfulness of statements/assertions made by politicians. The
accurate are rated "true," then slide down the scale to "mostly
true," 'half true," "mostly false" and "false."
The biggest "lies" -- the most egregious -- are awarded, as
PolitiFact puts it, a "Pants on Fire!" rating. (Full disclosure: As I
recently wrote, PunditFact, its sister feature, recently gave me an undeserved
"mostly false.")
What's puzzling is that PolitiFact, until now, called
Obama's statement "true" and later "half true." In 2008
PolitiFact rated then-candidate Obama's "you can keep it" statement
as "true," because "Obama is accurately describing his health
care plan here." As The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto notes:
"PolitiFact actually rated Obama's promise as 'true' on the grounds that
in making the promise, he was making the promise. ... In 2008 it was but a
promise, which Obama might or might not have intended and might or might not
have been able to keep."
Then in 2009, when PolitiFact re-fact-checked the same
statement, they rated Obama's statement as "half true." The Obamacare
promise stayed stuck on "half true" even when PolitiFact again
re-re-fact-checked it in 2012.
"By 2012," writes Taranto, "we now know,
it was a full-fledged fraud, but exposing it conclusively as such would have
required a degree of expertise few journalists have. ... Its past evaluations
of the statement were not 'fact checks' at all, merely opinion pieces endorsing
Obamacare."
Stupid, Obama is not. Why would he continue this
blatantly false assertion about Obamacare, doctors and plans? He counted on the
supposed media "watchdog" to look the other way, fall asleep or cheer
him on.
Recall the comments by pundit Joan Walsh of leftwing
Slate.com on the 2008 campaign trail: "I was struck, when I got to Iowa
and New Hampshire in January, by how our media colleagues were just swooning
over Barack Obama. That is not too strong a word. They were swooning."
Two of America's most influential newspapers admitted
bias -- belatedly of course -- in their coverage of the 2008 and 2012
presidential elections. The Washington Post's ombudsperson, Deborah Howell,
examined her paper's 2008 election coverage: "The op-ed page ran far more
laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were
far more negative pieces about McCain, 58, than there were about Obama, 32, and
Obama got the editorial board's endorsement. ...
"Stories and photos about Obama in the news pages
outnumbered those devoted to McCain. Reporters, photographers and editors found
the candidacy of Obama, the first African-American major-party nominee, more
newsworthy and historic. ..."
As to The New York Times, former executive editor and
columnist Bill Keller, wrote: "If the 2012 election were held in the
newsrooms of America and pitted Sarah Palin against Barack Obama, I doubt Palin
would get 10 percent of the vote. However tempting the newsworthy havoc of a
Palin presidency, I'm pretty sure most journalists would recoil in horror from
the idea."
The Times' ombudsman, Arthur S. Brisbane, acknowledged
his paper is biased to the left: "Across the paper's many departments ...
so many share a kind of political and cultural progressivism -- for lack of a
better term -- that this worldview virtually bleeds through the fabric of The
Times. As a result, developments like the Occupy movement and gay marriage seem
almost to erupt in The Times, overloved and undermanaged, more like causes than
news subjects."
A we-know-best smugness explains Obama's vision, but his
protectors in the media help provide the means to pull it off. Surely people
would jump at the chance to unload their current policies, described by Obama
as "lousy" and "substandard." Did the mainstream media spend
much time in asking those with "substandard" policies whether they
might, you know, prefer them?
Pre-Obamacare, 85 percent of Americans had health care
coverage. According to an ABC News/Kaiser Family Foundation/USA Today survey,
"88 percent of the insured rate their coverage as excellent or good"
and "89 percent are satisfied with the quality of care they receive."
No, thought Obama, wait until these duped people learn to appreciate the
superiority of the Obamacare product.
Obama now asserts that, "Thanks in part to the
Affordable Care Act ... the cost of health care is now growing at the slowest
rate in 50 years." Really? The Wall Street Journal, in its opinion page,
says growth rates began declining more than 10 years ago and "bottomed out
at 3.9 percent in 2009 -- the worst year of the Great Recession, where it has
stayed ever since." This was, of course, before Obamacare was enacted in
2010.
The problem remains that the President -- despite his
best efforts -- has failed to repeal an economics law of physics: There ain't
no such thing as a free lunch. Obamacare is no exception. Good luck in getting
PolitiFact to fact check that.
No comments:
Post a Comment