Rachel just ripped Politifact again...
Last edited Fri Jan 27, 2012, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)
You know how Obama's recent ad said energy imports are below 50% now?
Politifact checked that claim, found it to be 100% true.
BUT...
Since Obama said it, they rated the claim as "half-true."
Rachel said by that same logic, if Obama said it was raining, and it was, then Obama's claim is "half-true."
Politifact has lost all credibility.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Or so it would seem. 
and found it to be true. What's Politifact's problem? 
"For the first time in 13 years, our dependence on foreign oil is below 50 percent."
But why isn't it all true? It's a simple statement of fact -- either it's below 50 percent or it isn't, and even if the actual number wrong, the statement should be either entirely true or entirely false.
...There are several ways to measure foreign oil dependency, the agency adds, and some of the other measures also show a decline but still have U.S. dependence above 50 percent. But we are writing for the general public, not petroleum engineers and economists, and the energy agency itself, staffed by professional analysts, not politicians, certainly includes the broadest measure (net crude and oil product imports as a share of U.S. total demand).
Yet this decline in dependence has occurred since 2005. Team Obama is correct in saying dependence only recently -- in 2010 -- fell below 50 percent, but the commercial suggests that the current president deserves credit...(T)he claim in the ad -- made specifically to boast of Obama’s accomplishments -- lacks context. And when factually accurate claims leave out such important context, the Truth-O-Meter’s dial turns to Half True.
Well, he DID say in the past THIRTEEN years, so he's NOT trying to take all the credit. Unless the ways of measuring oil dependency which raise the number above 50% outnumber the ways of measuring oil dependency that add up to less than 50%, the statement is MOSTLY TRUE at the very least.
rocktivity