Mitt Romney’s tour of touting President Obama’s alleged ”apology tour” isn’t grinding to a halt. Not only has the Republican presidential hopeful plowed this infertile terrain before, but fact-checkers have also called him out on this stretch of a claim. And this blog several weeks ago noted the futility of all the apology-related fact-checking. Here’s how we put it on Sept. 13:

The fact-checkers seemed a bit fatigued by Mitt Romney’s latest round of allegations that the Obama administration goes around apologizing for America. That’s the line of attack that the Republican presidential candidate unleashed in a Wednesday morning news conference following the deadly attacks against U.S. personnel in Egypt and Libya. Several times Romney claimed that the Obama administration’s statements in anticipation of and in response to unrest in that region amounted to “apologizing” for American values or some variation on that sentiment.

The piece inventoried the frustration expressed by fact-checkers on the apology thing. PolitiFact, for instance, noted that it had done all kinds of work on this body of work: “PolitiFact has examined those speeches, consulted experts on speechmaking and apologies, and rated Romney’s claim Pants on Fire.”

These days, Romney's “apology” claims are being met with ever-shorter dismissals by fact-checkers. In last week’s presidential debate, Romney said, “The president’s policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour.” This check from the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler took this view of the matter:

This Four-Pinocchio claim rears its head again. Readers can refer back to our lengthy look at this issue back in early 2011. The apology tour never happened.

During the convention time frame, a Romney pollster said that the campaign wouldn't be “dictated by fact-checkers.” This whole apology-tour claim offered a grand opportunity to fact-check that particular claim. Consider it checked. No matter the evidence to the contrary, the Romney campaign enjoys this attack. It must be working.