The Fact Checker: 1 Pinocchio

Club for Growth’s attack on a GOP lawmaker

Club for Growth’s attack on a GOP lawmaker

Last week, we handed Two Pinocchios to Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) for his claim that he voted to “repeal and repay” the Troubled Assets Relief Program (a.k.a., “the Wall Street bailout”) because he had actually voted for TARP in the first place — a fact not disclosed in his campaign literature or his ads. Simpson made the ad in response to the Club for Growth, which has highlighted Simpson’s original vote for TARP — and his frequent defense of that vote until he faced a serious challenge this year. The Club for Growth is backing Simpson’s primary challenger, Bryan Smith.

Continue Reading »

Edward Snowden’s claim that he had ‘no proper channels’ for protection as a whistleblower

Edward Snowden’s claim that he had ‘no proper channels’ for protection as a whistleblower

“I had reported these clearly problematic programs to more than 10 distinct officials, none of whom took any action to address them. As an employee of a private company rather than a direct employee of the U.S. government, I was not protected by U.S. whistleblower laws, and I would not have been protected from retaliation and legal sanction for revealing classified information about lawbreaking in accordance with the recommended process.

Continue Reading »

The latest Super PAC attack against Mitt Romney

“Mitt Romney. He made millions off of companies that went bankrupt while workers lost promised health and retirement benefits.

“His own tax return from last year reveals he made $21 million, yet paid a lower tax rate than many middle-class families.

“Now Romney’s proposing a huge new $150,000 tax cut for the wealthiest 1 percent, while cutting Medicare and education for us.

“Mitt Romney. If he wins, we lose.”

— Voiceover of a new television ad by Priorities USA Action

This television ad, by the pro-Obama Super PAC Priorities USA Action, poses a unique challenge for this column because each of the statements uttered within its 30 seconds has a ring of truth. Of course, it paints each of these facts in the most negative light possible, without any balance, but that’s their prerogative.

The ad also repeatedly shows an image of a youthful Romney with dollars stuffed in his pockets — a 27-year-old photo that was shot as part of a promotional effort for a relatively new company, Bain Capital, that Romney headed at the time. The ad at one point even photoshops an image of an older Romney, a rather cheesy maneuver that recently was mocked by our friends over at Flackcheck.org.

Here’s some context for the claims made in the ad.

“He made millions off of companies that went bankrupt while workers lost promised health and retirement benefits.”

That’s the dark side of Romney’s business career at Bain Capital, which he would argue on balance helped create jobs for workers. (We had earlier taken Romney to task for claiming he created 100,000 jobs without mentioning the ones that had been lost.)

Continue Reading »

Obama and new pipelines that ‘circle the Earth’

“Under my administration … we've added enough oil and gas pipeline to circle the Earth and then some.”

— President Obama, remarks on oil and gas subsidies, March 29, 2012

A number of readers have asked about this claim by the president, wondering if it was correct. 

 Well, yes, but it’s kind of meaningless — and it’s missing some important context.

 Obama clearly made this claim in order to rebut suggestions that the administration is opposed to building pipelines, principally the Keystone XL pipeline. We have explored some of the erroneous claims made about that pipeline project before.

 But is the president straining too hard with this claim? Let’s explore.

 

The Facts

The circumference of the Earth at the equator is 24,091.55 miles, so we will use that as our guidepost.

Continue Reading »

Who has the better regulatory record — Obama or Bush?


(Michael S. Williamson — Washington Post)

“Over the Obama administration’s first three years, the net benefits of regulations reviewed by OIRA and issued by executive agencies exceeded $91 billion — 25 times the corresponding number in the [George W.] Bush administration and more than eight times the corresponding number in the Clinton administration.”

“In the last 10 fiscal years, the highest costs were imposed in 2007. The last three years of the Bush administration saw higher regulatory costs than the first three years of the Obama administration. If you're looking for the year with the highest regulatory costs on record, you'll have to go all the way back to 1992, under President George H.W. Bush.”

— From an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune by White House regulatory chief Cass Sunstein, March 19, 2012

“In terms of just the facts, the Obama administration’s issued fewer final rules in the first three years than the [George W. Bush] administration did in the first three years.

— Sunstein during Politico breakfast, March 20, 2012

The president’s opponents have accused him of stunting the economic recovery with a barrage of harmful new regulations ranging from a supposed “permatorium” on offshore oil drilling to stricter rules aimed at reducing farm dust — neither of which has actually taken effect during Obama’s term.

Cass Sunstein, who heads the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the White House budget office, argued against these critics in a Chicago Tribune opinion article titled “Why regulations are good — again.” He wrote that the number of new rules has decreased under President Obama and that estimated net monetary benefits of major rules has reached a staggering level in comparison with the first three years of the previous two administrations.

We don’t take issue with Sunstein defending the president’s regulatory policies. He has every right to do that, especially if he provides valid data to back up his claims — which he did in this case. But his op-ed, along with all the numbers he mentioned, suggest that the current administration has achieved far greater results than those of the past 20 years. He was especially hard on the Bushes in this regard.

We reviewed Sunstein’s claims to find out whether his figures tell the whole story. (Note: all figures are inflation-adjusted 2001 numbers and the years mentioned are fiscal years that end on Sept. 30.)

The Facts

Obama has issued several executive orders directing federal agencies to avoid redundant, conflicting and excessively burdensome regulations, presumably to avoid any chilling effect that such rules would have on an already mild economic recovery. The past three presidents have issued similar orders.

Continue Reading »

Is the health care law already running a deficit?

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “The original estimate for deficit reduction in the first 10 years was $143 billion, correct?”

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius: “Yes–”

Johnson: “So now we, we’ve reduced that $143 billion by $86 billion – by not getting revenue from the CLASS Act – and now $111 billion because we’ve increased the mandatory costs of the exchanges, correct?”

Sebelius: “I’m assuming the numbers are correct.  I’m sorry I don’t have them.”

Johnson: “So, when you add those together, that’s $197 billion added to the first 10-year cost estimate of Obamacare, so now we are instead of saving $143 billion, we are adding $54 billion to our deficit, correct?”

Sebelius: “Sir, I –”

Johnson: “We’ll submit that to the record. But, that’s basically true.  So instead of saving $143 billion, by this administration’s own figures and budget, we’re now adding $54 billion to our deficit in the first 10 years.”

— Exchange during congressional hearing, March 7, 2012

A reader asked us to fact-check these claims by Sen. Johnson, a trained accountant who won election in part on clever ads that played up his experience in the real world of budget numbers. (See ad at bottom of the column.)

 Secretary Sebelius certainly appears to be a bit clueless as Johnson tosses a bunch of numbers at her, clearly trying to show that the Obama health care law is now projected to show a deficit. But he gets his own facts and figures mixed up, as we will demonstrate.

 To the senator’s credit, he called us directly to talk through these numbers and conceded that some may not add up.

 “I am not hung up in the math here,” he said, saying that his larger point is that “previous estimates of entitlements have been wildly underestimated.” He cited, as an example, a McKinsey Quarterly study concluding that the Congressional Budget Office vastly underestimated how many employers will stop offering insurance as a result of the health care law, which has the potential to increase the cost of the law.

  “It is the large numbers, not the small numbers” that are important, Johnson said, and it “is my job to press administration officials” for more information. He noted that Sebelius said she assumed the numbers he used were correct. (Note to Secretary Sebelius: Don’t assume the numbers are correct when you aren’t really sure.)

 

The Facts

 When the health care law was passed, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that it would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over ten years. That number has been controversial ever since the estimate was released, and we certainly acknowledge it should be accepted with a large caveat. Such ten-year figures are subject to change, and depend greatly on assumptions that may or may not be sound.

Continue Reading »

Obama’s $8,000 in gas savings a year — oops, over a car’s life

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “Now, because of these new standards for cars and trucks, they’re going to — all going to be able to go further and use less fuel every year.  And that means pretty soon you’ll be able to fill up your car every two weeks instead of every week — and, over time, that saves you, a typical family, about $8,000 a year.”

 AUDIENCE MEMBER:  “We like that.”

 OBAMA:  “You like that, don't you?” 

 AUDIENCE:  “Yes!”  

 OBAMA:  “Eight thousand dollars — that's no joke. … It looks like somebody might have fainted up here.”

— Exchange during President Obama’s speech in Mount Holly, N.C., March 7, 2012

It is certainly possible to get carried away at a rally with adoring supporters. And every politician misspeaks from time to time. But these remarks stand out because the president engaged in conversation with the audience about his figure – savings of $8,000 a year in gasoline costs – and declared “that’s no joke.”

 Oops. No wonder folks were fainting. The average annual cost for gasoline is less than $3,000, according to the Consumer Federation of America.

 Let’s take a closer look at this figure.

 

The Facts

 To be fair to the president, he has gotten this $8,000 figure correct on a number of occasions — at least four times in the past two weeks.

Continue Reading »

Will the Keystone XL pipeline lower gasoline prices?


(Gene J. Puskar/AP)
“The [Keystone XL] pipeline will bring secure energy to America, support the creation of thousands of jobs, and help bring down prices at the pump.”

--Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Feb. 16, 2012

We have been looking this week at various claims made by politicians on both sides of the aisle about energy prices. This comment by Rep. Upton was made after the House of Representatives passed a bill requiring swift approval of the Keystone XL pipeline, which would carry heavy crude oil from Canada’s Alberta province to the Gulf Coast. (The Obama administration has claimed it needs more time to study the possible environmental impact.)

 We had previously dinged both Democratic and Republican lawmakers for making outlandish claims about the number of jobs that would be created by the pipeline, but we have no dispute with Upton’s “thousands of jobs.” That’s the right way to frame it.

But we are interested in his assertion that Keystone “will…help bring down prices at the pump.” Is this correct?

 

The Facts

 First of all, even if the Keystone XL pipeline were suddenly approved, it would not be completed until at least 2014, so building it would have no impact on gasoline prices this summer, predicted to be near record highs. We could not find any experts, even those referred to us by Upton’s staff, to say that the prospect of the pipeline being built in the future would somehow impact the price of gasoline today.

Continue Reading »

Did Obama say he ranked in the top four presidents?

“Now these days when he's not spending our money or infringing on our rights, he’s busy running for reelection. He believes that — did you hear this? He believes he ranks among the top four presidents in American history. Can you believe that? I’d find a different spot for him.”

— Mitt Romney, Feb. 28, 2012

 

A reader asked us about this statement in the former Massachusetts governor’s speech after his victories in the Michigan and Arizona primaries. This comment has its roots in something Obama said that caused a brief stir in the conservative blogosphere just before Christmas, so we figured it was worth exploring.

 In Romney’s telling, Obama comes off as an arrogant twit. So, did the president really say this?

 

The Facts

 In December, Obama sat down for an interview with Steve Kroft of “60 Minutes.” The clip in question was never aired on CBS, but the full interview was later posted on the CBS News Web site. (See below at the 55-minute mark.)

Continue Reading »

President Obama and the defense budget


(Win McNamee/GETTY IMAGES)

“Over the next 10 years, the growth in the defense budget will slow, but the fact of the matter is this: It will still grow, because we have global responsibilities that demand our leadership. In fact, the defense budget will still be larger than it was toward the end of the Bush administration.”

— President Obama, speaking at the Pentagon , Jan. 5, 2012

We’ve been wondering about this quote every since the president said it six weeks ago, when he spoke about the Defense Strategic Review at the Pentagon. We had previously questioned one of the statements in his speech, but we were not able to fully check this one until we could actually see the numbers in the White House budget proposal for the 2013 fiscal year released Monday.

We take no position on the right level for the defense budget. But, with numbers in hand, let’s examine the president’s assertions and whether there has been any sleight of hand. Warning: Lots of budget numbers ahead.

The Facts

Under the debt ceiling deal reached by the president and congressional leaders last summer, the defense budget must be cut by $487 billion over the next 10 years. Additional cuts may be mandated because a deficit-cutting congressional committee could not reach agreement, but since all concerned say they want to avoid that scenario, let’s keep our focus on the initial round of defense spending reductions.

Continue Reading »

The unemployment number: Is Gingrich right that it’s flawed?


(Evan Vucci, AP)

“When you include the number of people who have quit looking for work because they're convinced the Obama administration's economy is so bad they can't find a job, it jumps up to about 12 percent. When you include the number of people who have part-time jobs who wish they had a full-time job, it's at 16 percent or 17 percent. I mean, this is an administration which has actually shrunk the workforce fairly dramatically. In the last year, it's the lowest male participation rate in the labor force since the 1940s — so right after World War II.”

— Newt Gingrich, discussing a jobs report that showed unemployment decreases, from a “Meet the Press” interview on Feb. 5, 2012

These types of comments are typical of critics of President Obama who have brushed off recent progress in lowering the national unemployment rate. Some say the improvements are too small, but Gingrich goes a step further, suggesting unemployment doesn’t gauge the true health of the job market. He recommended a few alternative measures after host David Gregory asked: “How is it that you can say this administration has not led economic recovery?”

Depending on the question, Gingrich actually has been inconsistent in his use of unemployment figures. He’s used the unemployment metric to argue that he was successful as Speaker of the House during the late 1990s. He said during a Jan. 19 interview with PBS’s “News Hour” that “we cut taxes in the largest capital gains tax cut in history, and the result was we got unemployment down to 4.2 percent.”

If the unemployment number is good enough for Gingrich, it should be good enough for Obama. Regardless, we looked at the speaker’s preferred metrics to determine whether they really paint a gloomier picture of the job market. Do they disprove the Obama supporters who say the economy is making progress?

Lori Williams of Tableau Software kindly developed some graphs for us to help readers visualize the data.

The Facts

The numbers in question come from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which defines the unemployment rate as the percentage of people in the workforce — those who are actively seeking work — who haven’t landed jobs. It does not count part-time workers or individuals who dropped out of the labor force.

Continue Reading »

President Obama’s Google Plus ‘hangout’ claims about engineering demand


(Saul Loeb - AFP/Getty Images)

"There's a huge demand around this country for engineers. . . . Where you’re seeing a lot of specialized demand is in engineering that’s related to the high-tech industries.”

-- President Obama, during a Google Plus video conference, Jan. 30

 

Obama’s comments came in response to a question from Fort Worth resident Jennifer Wedel, who asked why the government has extended and continues to issue H-1B visas when people such as her engineer husband, Darin Wedel, can’t find work.

The president said that not all engineering fields have equal demand at the moment but that “what the industry tells me is that they don’t have enough highly skilled engineers” for work in the high-tech domain.

Obama seemed perplexed after Jennifer mentioned that her husband was a semiconductor engineer. He asked her to forward his resume and said he was interested in “finding out exactly what’s happening there.” We decided to look into the matter as well. 

Continue Reading »

Did Obama run the most negative ads in U.S. history?


(Susan Walsh/AP)

“No candidate in American history has ever run more negative ads than Barack Obama.”

— Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), speaking on CNN, Jan. 31, 2012.

 

A reader asked us about Rubio’s statement, saying, “I do not recall Obama being overly negative in his campaign.”

 But it appears to be an article of faith for Republicans. Joe Scarborough, a former GOP member of Congress who hosts MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” declared on Wednesday: “Barack Obama won ugly in 2008; he ran more negative ads than anyone else in the history of television.”

 But is this really the case?

The Facts

 The nasty campaign of 2008 actually was raised in one of the presidential debates at the time. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Obama’s Republican rival, complained that Obama had “spent more money on negative ads than any political campaign in history.” Obama responded that almost all of McCain’s ads were negative. 

Continue Reading »

Pro-Gingrich cartoon ad slightly wrong about Romney

“I agree with Governor Romney on many things, for instance abortion. He was pro-choice most of his adult life, so was I. But he changed his position when he became presidential candidate Romney. Now, let’s take guns. Governor Romney and I, we were in complete agreement on gun control — now that is, until he changed his mind. And on health care, well, I was so inspired by Romneycare that I nationalized it and called it Obamacare. Now presidential candidate Romney is against the individual mandate and universal health care.”

— Remarks by a cartoon President Obama during a fictionalized debate with Mitt Romney, depicted in an ad from the pro-Newt Gingrich Super PAC Winning Our Future.

Gingrich describes himself as the only viable candidate left in the GOP race, and this innovative cartoon ad — the first of its kind that we’ve seen — feeds into that narrative, attacking one of Romney’s perceived strengths: his supposed ability to challenge Obama.

The Post’s Fix reports that this video is the first in a three-part series envisioning potential debates between Romney and the sitting president. It illustrates an increasingly negative strategy by Gingrich and his supporters since the candidate’s lackluster finishes in the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries. The approach appears to be working, with a new CNN poll showing Romney losing ground in South Carolina — an equally likely explanation is that the other candidates are resonating with Palmetto State voters.

Continue Reading »

Santorum’s erroneous marriage attack on Obama


(Chris Keane, Reuters)

“Elayne Bennett runs a program called Best Friends — the wife of [former Secretary of Education] Bill Bennett. And she told me through Bill that the Obama administration now has a policy — and this program is a program targeted at at-risk youth, specifically, in many cases, in the African-American community, who are at-risk young girls. The Obama administration now has regulations that tells them that they can no longer promote marriage to these young girls. They can no longer promote marriage as a way of avoiding poverty and bad choices that they make in their life. They can no longer actually even teach abstinence education. They have to be neutral with respect to how people behave.”

— Rick Santorum, during the GOP debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., Jan. 16, 2011

Santorum made these remarks in response to a question about whether “the time has come to take special steps to deal with the extraordinary level of poverty afflicting [African Americans.]” You might recall that the candidate made headlines earlier this month by bungling a statement about a related issue.

 “I don’t want to make peoples’ lives better by giving them somebody else’s money,” Santorum told a group of Iowans on Jan. 1. The comment represents pretty standard conservative fare, but the former senator uttered a syllable that, to some ears, sounded like “black” before “people’s lives,” causing critics and the media to pounce.

Debate moderator Juan Williams may have been baiting Santorum into a race discussion, but the GOP candidate cleverly shifted the spotlight onto the Obama administration, making the type of accusation that gets a rise out of values voters.

We talked to Elayne Bennett and reviewed Obama’s record on abstinence education to determine whether Santorum’s debate remarks were accurate.

The Facts

Bennett told us that no federal officials ever prohibited her organization from encouraging marriage. In fact, the federal government bankrolled the foundation’s efforts to promote healthy marriages before and after Obama entered the White House, so Santorum is wrong on that account.

Continue Reading »

President Obama and the defense budget: a factoid that falls short


(Mark Wilson/GETTY IMAGES)
“And I firmly believe, and I think the American people understand, that we can keep our military strong and our nation secure with a defense budget that continues to be larger than roughly the next 10 countries combined.”

— President Obama, remarks on the Defense Strategic Review, Jan. 5, 2012

 

Many questions remain about the Obama administration’s plan to reduce defense spending, most of which cannot be answered until the formal budget plan is released. But in making the case for his plan last week, the president cited a “fact” that we have seen uttered time and again by various politicians: The $550 billion U.S. military budget is larger than the military budgets of the next [fill in the blank] countries combined.

 The president chose the number 10. We’ve also seen the number 14, or similar figures in the past.

But how relevant is this statement and does it really say something significant about the relative strength of the U.S. military?

The Facts

 Without a doubt, the United States has the most powerful military in the world, in part because it is the world’s only global power with global responsibilities. The Web site Globalfirepower.com ranks countries based on 45 factors, and the United States tops many of the charts. Here’s one small statistic: The United States had 11 aircraft carriers, as of the end of last year; no other country had more than two. The United Kingdom even is mothballing its single aircraft carrier.  

Continue Reading »

Romney vs. Obama on job creation


(BRIAN SNYDER/REUTERS)

“And I'm very happy in my former life; we helped create over 100,000 new jobs. By the way, we created more jobs in Massachusetts than this president’s created in the entire country. So if the president wants to talk about jobs, and I hope he does, we’ll be comparing my record with his record and he comes up very, very short.”

— Mitt Romney, Jan. 3, 2012

 

It’s a new year, and we already have new claims about job creation. The Romney campaign was sufficiently proud of this quote, made on “Fox and Friends,” that it blast-e-mailed it to reporters.

 As we have mentioned before, the notion that a president – or particularly a governor – can magically create jobs with a set of policies is a bit of a stretch. Broadly speaking, presidential policies can certainly have an impact, but even a president is at the mercy of  the business cycle. Obama became president in the midst of the worst recession in memory, so obviously that is going to be a drag on his “job-creation record.”

  

The Facts

 The Romney campaign provided a link to Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing that during Romney’s four-year term as Massachusetts governor, the number of jobs went up 61,000. By contrast, the number of jobs under Obama has dropped by 1.86 million.  

Continue Reading »

Barack Obama: the ‘food-stamp president’?


(JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS)

“We are going to have the candidate of food stamps, the finest food stamp president in American history, in Barack Obama, and we are going to have a candidate of paychecks.”

— Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Dec. 6, 2011, on CNBC

As speaker, Gingrich helped push through the signature welfare overhaul that then President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996. When Clinton, after two vetoes, agreed to accept the legislation, he shrewdly noted that he was eliminating the welfare system forever more as a campaign issue.

“After I sign my name to this bill, welfare will no longer be a political issue,” Clinton said. “The two parties cannot attack each other over it.”

 Having eliminated welfare as a campaign issue, Gingrich now appears to be trying to breath life into “son of welfare” by attacking President Obama as the “finest food stamp president.” But he has explicitly rejected the idea that this is a no-so-subtle form of racial imagery.

 (As is usual, Gingrich’s rhetoric excess got the better of him last month when he also declared people can use food stamps “to go to Hawaii,” a claim that our colleagues at PolitiFact correctly labeled “Pants on Fire.”)

In any case, how accurate is the claim that Obama is “the food-stamp president”?

 

The Facts

 Officially, the food stamp program is now formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is broadly available to almost all households with low incomes, though most of the benefits go to families with children. (It also has massive support from the farm lobby, which is why GOP efforts to cut it back have often failed.)

Continue Reading »

Barack Obama: the ‘food-stamp president’?


(JONATHAN ERNST/REUTERS)

“We are going to have the candidate of food stamps, the finest food stamp president in American history, in Barack Obama, and we are going to have a candidate of paychecks.”

— Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Dec. 6, 2011, on CNBC

As speaker, Gingrich helped push through the signature welfare overhaul that then President Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996. When Clinton, after two vetoes, agreed to accept the legislation, he shrewdly noted that he was eliminating the welfare system forever more as a campaign issue.

“After I sign my name to this bill, welfare will no longer be a political issue,” Clinton said. “The two parties cannot attack each other over it.”

 Having eliminated welfare as a campaign issue, Gingrich now appears to be trying to breath life into “son of welfare” by attacking President Obama as the “finest food stamp president.” But he has explicitly rejected the idea that this is a no-so-subtle form of racial imagery.

 (As is usual, Gingrich’s rhetoric excess got the better of him last month when he also declared people can use food stamps “to go to Hawaii,” a claim that our colleagues at PolitiFact correctly labeled “Pants on Fire.”)

In any case, how accurate is the claim that Obama is “the food-stamp president”?

 

The Facts

 Officially, the food stamp program is now formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. It is broadly available to almost all households with low incomes, though most of the benefits go to families with children. (It also has massive support from the farm lobby, which is why GOP efforts to cut it back have often failed.)

Continue Reading »

Mitt Romney: Flip-flopper or not?

“And there's no question, but that people are going to take snippets and take things out of context and try and show that there are differences.”

— Former governor Mitt Romney on Fox News, Nov. 29, 2011

Mitt Romney has a flip-flop problem. Slowly but surely, the conventional wisdom is solidifying that the former Massachusetts governor often has changed his position to suit the politics of the moment. The story line has been advanced by his opponents, in both parties, but also in the media. Take a look at this wicked cartoon by our colleague Tom Toles, in which Romney tells an elephant dressed as Santa Claus: “What would you like me to ask for?”

 Of course, politicians have every right to change their minds. An inflexible attitude is not always the sign of an effective leader. But too many flips without enough explanation may give voters pause. In Romney’s case, many of his moves have been from the left — when he was governor of Massachusetts — to the right, as he has run for the Republican presidential nomination.

 Now the Democratic National Committee has assembled some of its best evidence of Romney-as-flip-flopper in a four-minute video ad. The DNC helpfully provided a detailed explanation of where each clip came from (see below), and we have picked through them to see whether the flip-flop charge holds up. We give a Pinocchio rating to each claim, in the order in which it is made in the commercial.

Continue Reading »