Some are big fans of fact-checkers. They just love themselves some Politifact.
Me, not so much. It’s a fun site for entertainment purposes, sure. But selecting the occasional random media narrative-driven controversy and rating a candidate’s truthfulness on it? It’s red meat for playing the gotcha game, but tells us little about a politician’s overall honesty.
But given the last few days’ constant barrage of Hillary supporters brandishing “Fact-checks™!” of the interminable fossil-fuel fundraising kerfluffle, it’s high time they (Fact-) Check themselves.
Appearing on Meet The Press Sunday, Hillary repeated her rather shopworn line (that no one really believed anyway) that she as the “only candidate...on either side” that Wall Street was “actually running ads against”. As usual, the talking point passed unchallenged by the Press she was there “Meet”-ing. (It has been over 120 days since Clinton held an honest-to-God press conference, but, hey, it’s her game so she sets the rules).
Politifact Verdict: Pants on Fire lie.
Politifact complains that Hillary has been misconstruing...Politifact itself, inflating their fact-check of one financial-service industry attack-ad against Hillary into a claim the industry only attacks Hillary. Nope.
After contacting industry watch dogs, Politifact was easily able to demonstrate the obvious: Wall Street is not a political monolith, and distributes its support and attacks across the spectrum. She has faced more attack ads from Wall St than Sanders, but he has faced some too. And Wall Street’s most-attacked candidate of the cycle so far? Donald Trump.
And, irony of ironies, many of the Wall Street-funded attack ads against Trump have been created by — surprise surprise! — a Clinton-affiliated superPAC:
Clinton’s own affiliated super PAC, Priorities USA Action, took a third of its donations from the financial sector. It has aired 11 ads against Trump and spent more than $61,000 targeting the Republican frontrunner.
Trump’s Republican opponents and their GOP allies have further pounded Trump with dozens of additional attack ads produced by their super PACs, also heavily funded by financial-sector cash.
Sanders has, however, only faced a few such Wall Street-funded attacks. But according to political science professor John G. Geer, it’s not because Wall St views his policies as less tough on them than Clinton’s. No, it’s a business decision:
"Sanders has an important message that is resonating with many. But that is not enough to win the nomination," Geer said. "Why spend money that will have little return on the investment?"
If Sanders ever looks primed to overtake Clinton for the nomination, that calculus will shift on a dime. Even so, given Wall Street’s documented attack ads against pretty much every candidate in the race, including massive ad campaigns against Trump, Hillary’s claims to be the “only candidate...on either side” Wall Street attacks in ads is just “preposterous”:
The financial sector has contributed to both sides of the aisles, including to Clinton’s own campaign. Groups backed by Wall Street have run attack ads against virtually every candidate.
Clinton’s claim rates Pants on Fire!
End of story.
So now that the great, infallible Pulitzer-Prize winning “Fact-Checker™!” Politifact has revealed Hillary’s claim to be a “Pants On Fire” lie, she’ll drop it from her repertoire and stop saying it, right?
And we can expect outraged demands from her supporters that she apologize, right?
Let’s not hold our breath.
