The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

Given his flips and flops, he should get the maximum on the Pinocchio scale...

A five on the Pinnochio Scale!!

The morning after pill is NOT an abortion pill! Please fix this - it's factually inaccurate and politically incendiary to call it the "morning after abortion pill." The morning after pill is emergency contraception that must be used within 72 hours of sex, and has nothing to do with RU-486, the abortion pill that works within the first 10-12 weeks of a pregnancy. PLEASE make the correction. The anti-abortion camp attacks the morning after pill all the time using baseless propaganda like this, and having the Post call it the "morning after abortion pill" would be manna from the gods for them.

The "Fact Checker" has once again strayed from the mission. What we need is objective verification or debunking of factual claims made by candidates to support their policy positions or condemn those of their opponents. If that is not the mission of this column, may I suggest a name change?

What still dumbfounds me is that Mitt Isuzu is still leading the polls in New Hampshire. Ay caramba. Mitt has many of the same traits as John Forbes Kerry, but my guess is that not many supporters of Mitt were supporters of JFK in 2004.

"By Romney's later account, the meeting was a watershed moment in persuading him to adopt a public, pro-life position."

"Romney has signed a bill seeking federal waiver to expand number of low-income people eligible for family planning services, including morning-after pill, over protests of pro-life activists"

"Describes himself as a "convert" to the pro-life cause"

It's one thing for opponents of choice to refer to themselves as "pro-life". For the "Fact Checker" to do so in his own voice in these passages is quite another. I suppose the "Fact Checker" ought to specify who exactly he considers "anti-life".

That last was me, I missed the name box.

There is a very important fact to be checked, unfortunately it is virtually impossible to check it. Is Mitt's change from pro-choice to pro-life due to a change of heart or does it stem from political calculation?

If the former, he should be cut off at the knees in the Republican primaries. If the latter, then social conservatives could comfortably vote for him, in the general election if not the primaries.

Zuckermand is dead-on. This column could be useful if it actually vetted real factual claims. Romney flip-flopped, but he admits to it, so where is the lack of factual accuracy? Now one can say this means he has no central beliefs and will say whatever it takes to get elected, but that is an opinion, albeit supported by fact, that is left to the voters of Iowa and New Hampshire. Stick to actual veriable and undisputed facts. Example: Calfornia is most populous state in the U.S. Verifably true. Califoria is most important state in the U.S.. Well maybe, if size of economy or having most population are your benchmarks, but numerous other factors can point otherwise. I am sure you will not want for actual facts to verify, if not now, then later.

Why are you treating Romney differently from the Petraeus/BetrayUs ad yesterday?

Today you write this long article and indicate that you will withhold a Pinocchio rating until you give Romney "a chance to respond". Why did you not give MoveOn the opportunity to respond before publishing your piece on their ad? Double standard?

And are you really fact checkers or not? If you are independently checking the facts, what is the point of getting his response? The "facts" should speak for themselves, right?

I guess Romney was for it before he was against it!

Romney has repeatedly lied about his record. He deserves his own scale, Pinocchio's the one getting a bad rap in the comparison.

As someone else said, "You Speak. We Listen." Thanks, Kate, for clarifying the difference between the Morning After and RU-486 pills. We have changed the entry to reflect your comment.

On David's question, we refrained from assigning a snap Pinocchio rating because we think this is a little more complex than the MoveOn case yesterday. The issue is not whether Gov. Romney flipflopped--he has admitted as much--but whether he has been truthful about his record, which is a different and more complicated question.
And we wanted to give you all a chance to weigh in on this one.
Thanks.

I understand there's a lot of grey area here, but I second zuckermand and david. Not to be rude, but what is the Post good for if it can't adequately fact-check major presidential candidates during the campaign?

I think he should earn 4 out of 4 flip-flops. I don't understand how anyone could possibly trust this guy! Right _or_ left! He'll paint himself as a radical pro-lifer in the primaries and if he wins, don't be surprised to see him touting his record on choice rights in the general election. He's clearly lied (or generaously massaged the truth) about his record. 4 Pinocchios + 4 Flip-Flops!

Overall, I like this new segment by the Post. I think you are doing a decent job. I would, however, be very interested in seeing how you select their subjects for checking.

Do you go for an equal distribution of Democrats and Republicans, regardless of which party is, as a whole, telling more whoppers? Has any thought been given to just selecting the most prominant distorters and featuring them, regardless of political affiliation and therefore not forcing an equal distribution?

Fact Checker?
Where is the full context for each position shown?

Example; If one were to say "George Washington shot and killed a 19 year old " It would sound much more sinister than "George Washington defended himself against a British sniper, out to kill him, in the war of independence"

He admits to flip flopping - That, at least, is much more honest than any of the other candidates.

I can't wait till you get to Hillary Clinton, Campaign Finance corruption and Whitewater.

I think the story I've pasted below demonstrates pretty clearly that Mitt Romney did indeed take some actions that were not, strictly speaking, pro-life. In this case, he sided with the rule of law over his supposed opposition to abortion. It is a story not mentioned in the Post column, but they would've found it eventually.

Here it is:

Romney says no hospitals are exempt from pill law

He reverses stand on Plan B

By Scott Helman, Globe Staff
December 9, 2005

Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law yesterday, saying that all hospitals in the state will be obligated to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims.

The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds.

Romney had initially supported that interpretation, but he said yesterday that he had changed direction after his legal counsel, Mark D. Nielsen, concluded Wednesday that the new law supersedes a pre-existing statute that says private hospitals cannot be forced to provide abortions or contraception.

"And on that basis, I have instructed the Department of Public Health to follow the conclusion of my own legal counsel and to adopt that sounder view," Romney said at the State House after signing a bill on capital gains taxes.

The unexpected decision revived an awkward political situation for Romney, who has staked out more conservative positions on social issues as he gears up for a possible presidential run in 2008. After vetoing the emergency contraception bill this summer, he declared himself firmly "prolife" and faulted the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Yesterday, abortion opponents, who see the
morning-after pill as a form of abortion, predicted a court battle over the issue, while reproductive rights advocates expressed surprise at the change of heart. Democrats accused the governor of a "flip-flop."

Romney made his announcement a week before the controversial law takes effect. His decision resolves, for now, a debate that has raged since the Department of Public Health disclosed its position Monday. The department had said that the existing statute allowed private hospitals to sidestep the new requirement if they wished. Massachusetts is one of eight states that require all hospitals to offer emergency contraception to rape victims.

A dozen Bay State hospitals that treat rape victims do not provide the morning-after pill, according to a 2004 survey by NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. The interpretation that all hospitals must offer the pill could have the greatest impact on Catholic hospitals that do not provide emergency contraception because it violates their religious tenets.

Catholic hospitals are extremely reluctant to discuss the issue. Christine A. Baratta -- a spokeswoman for the Caritas Christi Health Care System, which operates six Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts -- would only answer questions via e-mail. She said Caritas will continue to provide emergency contraception to sexual assault victims as long as they're not pregnant and that the hospitals use a serum blood test to determine pregnancy. It's unclear how that policy will conform with the law.

Caritas caregivers, Baratta said, "are committed to providing sexual assault victims the appropriate, comprehensive, and compassionate psychological, spiritual, and medical care they require."

Representatives of other Catholic hospitals -- Mercy Medical Center in Springfield, Saint Vincent Hospital in Worcester, and Saints Memorial Medical Center in Lowell -- did not return phone calls yesterday. Mercy and Saints Memorial officials have not returned repeated phone messages this week.

The emergency contraception pill, also called Plan B, is a high dose of hormones that women can take up to five days after sex to prevent pregnancy. Supporters of the new law say rape victims should have broad access to what they consider to be a safe, effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But some conservatives and Catholic groups oppose the morning-after pill because they believe it amounts to abortion in some cases.

The fight over the law is unlikely to end with Romney's pronouncement.

Daniel Avila -- associate director for policy and research for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference, the public policy arm of the Boston Archdiocese -- said yesterday that despite the new administration position, Catholic hospitals will continue to have a basis for not handing out the morning-after pill.

"It's far from over," Avila said, arguing that Catholic hospitals can still rely on prior statute because the Legislature did not expressly repeal it in passing the new bill. ''As long as that statute was left standing, I think those who want to rely on that statute for protection for what they're doing have legal grounds."

Avila said it was premature to be "disappointed with any permutation in the debate," because a legal challenge was certain.

"It will be determined in the courtroom," he said.

Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly was asked yesterday if he expected to have to take any enforcement action against hospitals that don't comply. "I certainly hope that it won't come to that," he said.

State Public Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. said in an interview Monday that his department felt strongly that the new emergency contraception law did not compel all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill.

Romney said earlier through communications
director,Eric Fehrnstrom that he supported the department's ruling because it respected "the views of healthcare facilities that are guided by moral principles on this issue."

Asked yesterday to elaborate on that position, Romney said simply that the law was the law and that the state had to follow it. The governor characterized his own beliefs about emergency contraception this way: "My personal view, in my heart of hearts, is that people who are subject to rape should have the option of having emergency contraception or emergency contraception information."

"We're certainly happy to see that the administration decided that clear state laws, even those that this administration might not agree with, really need to be enforced and followed by everyone," said Mary Lauby, executive director of Jane Doe Inc., a Massachusetts coalition against sexual assault and domestic violence.

The chief legislative sponsors of the new law also praised the decision. "I think his lawyers are right," said state Senator Pamela Resor, an Acton Democrat. "I am pleased to be able to say it."

Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, who would seek the GOP gubernatorial nomination if Romney does not run for reelection next year, has been a supporter of emergency contraception and said this week she believes rape victims should be able to get it at any hospital.

Reilly, seeking the Democratic nomination in the governor's race, took credit yesterday, as did other Democrats and reproductive rights organizations, for pressuring Romney to abandon a policy they said would have only burdened victims.

"I think we're all very happy that the administration has backed off on this," Reilly told reporters yesterday at a press conference with representatives of Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice Massachusetts. "This administration was on a road that would have made it worse for women in that position."

Gubernatorial hopeful Deval Patrick was one of several Democrats yesterday to attack Romney for what they said was a "flip-flop."

"The governor got to the right decision. But, he took a long way to get there," Patrick said in a statement.

"The issue for the Fact Checker is not whether Romney has flip-flopped on abortion-he has publicly acknowledged changing his position-but whether he has been honest with the voters of Massachusetts and the United States..."

HUH? What is it to check?

I take from the lack of response Mr. Dobbs maintains it is the Post's editorial policy to refer to opponents of embryonic stem cell research and reproductive choice as "pro-life". This is unfortunate news.

Romney bases his "conversion" or "seen the light moment" on a meeting with Harvard researcher in which the facts of what was said in that meeting are questionable. Is Romney putting out misinformation as an excuse for his flip-flopping? And is he using a false quote to put him in good standing with the Pro-Lifers?

"2004, November 9: As speculation mounts that Romney is considering running for president in 2008, the governor meets Harvard University stem cell researcher Douglas Melton. By Romney's later account, the meeting was a watershed moment in persuading him to adopt a public, pro-life position. He says he was shocked to hear from Melton that "we kill the embryos after 14 days." Melton said that Romney "mischaracterized" his position. "We didn't discuss killing or anything related to it."[Boston Globe, December 17, 2006]"

"And we wanted to give you all a chance to weigh in on this one"

It seems the consensus is this and the move on ad are not suitable "fact check" topics.

From your mission stmt:"This is a fact-checking operation, not an opinion-checking operation. We will not attempt to call candidates to account for exaggerated political rhetoric. We are interested only in verifiable facts"

Perhaps you should consider revising that part.

FLIP-FLOP... FLIP-FLOP... FLIP-FLOP...

Was MoveOn.org asked to respond before pinocchios were assigned to its ad?

If you read yesterday's article on MoveOn, there is very little in the Post's analysis that deals directly with the quotations under consideration. Read the lines from the ad very carefully, and then look at the Post's response. In almost every case, the writer goes off track and deals with inaccurate versions of the claims MoveOn made.

The Post is just jumping on the "condemn that ad" bandwagon here.

If I may suggest an example of what I mean by a controversial factual claim from a candidate that would make a suitable subject for a "Fact Check":
http://fred08.com/NewsRoom/PressRelease.aspx?ID=9f48acc2-e10b-4cef-b808-8ea436c850ef
Thompson continues, "I understand Hillary Clinton has just acknowledged that her new health care plan could require somebody to actually prove they've got insurance before they can get a job.

A "Fact Checker" might find that the highly qualified and carefully phrased statement from Mr. Thompson is technically correct, but misleading in its implication the "insurance check" idea is a part of Clinton's plan, rather than a vague hypothetical. A "one Pinnocchio" you might say.

Hi FactChecker:

Romney has changed his mind on abortion. He's been very upfront on that. I think you should focus more on clarifying the truth of evidence candidates site to support their platforms, instead of once again telling people that Romney used to support abortion, at least politically.

Let me fact find you, however. Take the below statement (this is the one where you paint Romney as if he were contradicting himself):

"August 21: Tells Nevada television station that states should make their own decisions on abortion rights. See video here. Statement appears to contradict an August 6 statement to George Stephanopoulos of ABC News in which he said he supported a human life amendment to the constitution assuring federal protection to unborn children. See video here."

This is not a contradiction. Romney does support a Federal Amendment. He is also, as an alternative, in favor of giving states the power to oppose it. Romney is in favor of any action necessary to reduce abortions, whether they be federal, or state mandated. I've heard him speak on leaving it up to the states. The jist was that if the federal government is not able to pass something (this is difficult since there is such wide disagreement), then at least individual states should be able to decide. With such a solution, more liberal states such as Massachussetts could vote to protect their so-called right to choose, where more conservative states would be free to place restrictions.

I think your "Truth Patrol" segment needs a "Truth Patrol" itself.

This would constitute an example of a candidate making a factual claim that is , in fact, provably false. You might say, "This is a job for the "Fact-Checker"!"

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ie0AXT5wT2MAtnVwJEOoBbjCeEBA

"Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani said Friday that the alternative minimum tax -- which is expected to generate as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years -- could be eliminated by balancing it out with even more tax cuts."

Frankly, the possibility he misspoke is irrelevant. If he lets the claim stand, as he has, then it should be debunked.

By the way, I just read your rating scale explanation, and I've got to revise my rating to 2 pinnochios on the Thompson quote and this Rudy one has got to be minimum three.

It's unsurprising that you timidly refuse to issue a (ridiculous) ranking for this, given that the Washington Post fears above all other things the mouth-breathing, spittle-flecked right loonies screaming about your bias.

Gutless.

Romney is a Perfect 10,
or and 11 without a Headache

So let me get this straight, the Washington Post is holding off on issuing their Pinocchio score until they've given Romney time to respond?

Notice, the Post didn't give MoveOn a similar chance to respond to it's Pinocchio evaluation.

Why the double standard and kid glove treatment of Romney? Maybe they don't risk ruffling as many feathers when slamming left wing organizations. Plus, the GOP loves it when the Post becomes part of the echo chamber.

I think you've confirmed the fact that Mitt changes his stance on abortion faster than I change channels during commercials.

So give him a double-4 pinnochio. Or one for every change of stance he's made since...whenever.

And as far as needing to get his opinion or feedback...um, you didn't ask MoveOn their opinion of your weak, selective review of their content, why do you need to ask Mitt for his? And if they're facts you're reporting here, then...they're facts right?

In 2 days you blew right through your own rules and your own credibility. That's a fact.

you a willing to do you homework, but you a e not fact checking. you had no trouble giving moveon.org pinnochios for making allegedly unproven assertions, but you don't have the guts to note that the many lies Romney made a lies.

I give him 4 Pinnocchios and you 4 Jelly fish. Grow a spine.

Romney should get four Pinnochios for claiming that he has ANY position on choice or abortion. What a lightweight.

This "Fact Checker" column is a joke. Right up there with Novakula and Krauthammer.

Kate, owned Dobbs' Fact Checker. Now, we have to check the checker. =(

I give Romney 5 HBS Baker Scholars and 5 HLS cum laudes. Very solid candidate, one of the most qualified on either side, the whole flip-flop spew is old. Mitt has a solid ethical and value-based system, evidenced by his 1996 personal ad in news agencies, his record in private and public office, and his policy stances.

GREAT JOB, fact checker for putting all this info together logically in one place for all to see. I agree that the man has flip-flopped all over town, but I myself want to know how much truth there is behind what he has said. I feel the same about wanting to know how truthful Hilary is, for instance. Or any of these other people, no matter what their party. I was fooled by Bush and have regretted it ever since. The real problem is that politicians seem to bby anyone's estimation, and I feel deeply that the next election(s) will define its future. So the more you can add, the better off we will all be - if you can get past most of the hateful whinners who have been posting entries. Just keep in mind that it's usually only the nut cases that weigh in to blast you. You're doing us a great service.
I really look forward to seeing what you will do with Obama, Hilary, Guiliani,et al.

i see my entry got garbled somehow. I wanted to say that politicians all say what they think people want to hear. I want to vote for someone who has a gut, a sense of morals, something in which they believe in deeply. Since I think our future is being defined by the upcoming elections, I want all the info I can get.That's why I am so glad to see the Post doing this. Keep it up!

The contrasting videos of Romney clearly show that he is smart and articulate. But sadly they reveal a man who calculates his answers based on whom he's talking to and what position will benefit him the most at the moment. He's an intelligent, smooth used car salesman. We had a president like him for 8 years in the 90's and don't need another.

good one, Bill. That's it exactly.

If political opportunism were a crime, there'd be 4 jail cell icons instead of pinnochios. Romney is not just an awful excuse of a candidate, he's a sorry human being. Anyone who would twist policy positions and make official governmental decisions based on the enhancement of his political political ambitions has no credibility, has no soul, and has no business formulating policy.

"We are still gathering facts on this case. We will post a rating after examining all the evidence, and giving Governor Romney a chance to respond."

Still gathering facts? Shouldn't a column called 'Fact Checker' actually check the facts and 'examine all the evidence' BEFORE you publish an article?

I know, silly me for holding so-called 'journalists' to any kind of standard.

Traditional media and pundits loves to bash bloggers for publishing information that isn't fact-checked or examined. And here you have the Washington Post - THE WASHINGTON POST for God's sake - doing the exact same thing. We'll just dump a bunch of words out at you and actually check on the facts later.

Is it just laziness? Stupidity? Incompetence? I'll examine the facts and get back to you at some later date.

COME ON mikeVA! So when the Republicans are screaming flip-flop at Kerry it is a perfectly legitimate and a valid reason to oppose his presidency, but when a Republican flip-flops, much more spectacularly I might ad, then the flip flop issue is "old" and somehow unimportant.

Once again the hypocrisy of the right is jaw dropping.
Boy it's hard being on the left-hogtied by logic, reason, and a sense of fair-play

Your mode of operation is baffling indeed. You withhold your rating of Romney, claiming it's too difficult to arrive at such, after you demonstrate and document quite clearly and irrefutably that Romney has completely falsified the facts or is suffering from Alzheimers with his repetitive changes of position. As a trial attorney, I can tell you I could completely destroy Romney on the stand with this kind of evidence. How anyone can even take Romney's abortion claims seriously (for or against) is beyond reason. He clearly lacks any moral compass on the issue. Your evidence here is FAR, FAR clearer and simpler than your subjective claims against MoveOn (to whom you did not hesitate in assigning three Pinochio rating). And yet you withold your rating???? He deserves 25 Pinochios based upon the evidence you already gathered. Case closed.

Witless, gutless douches.

Factcheck this!

Mitt Romney is a shabby, dishonest and disinguous pol who clearly tailors his beliefs to his audience. My vote goes firmly in the Pinocchio column, although Pinocchio, in my opinion, is too benign an image for one whose lust for power rivals Dick Cheney's.

"disinguous" should have been disingenuous. If only Fact Checker had a spell checker!

Why do we never hear these politicicans discuss their views on a womans right to ALL forms of family planning, not just abortion? What are their views access to Plan B, which is typically given after a rape? What are their views on pharmacists that refuse to fill prescriptions for Plan B and monthly contraceptives?
We hear self-rightous people like Romney rail against abortion, but what about those that are already born?

I strongly object to your portrayal of this as "flip-flopping." You imply that the only way to be consistent in the abortion debate is to be an extremist: to be for or against ALL of the following (family planning, stem cell research, emergency contraception, abortion rights, and Planned Parenthood). Why can't a person have a more subtle view? Can't a person have good reasons for being in favor of stem cell research and family planning, yet against abortion rights in most cases? Polarization is one of the problems in American politics today, and you shouldn't be encouraging it.

Romney gets four pinocchios, Fact Checker gets five chickens.

Why the double standard for republicans. Don't liberal groups deserve the same chance to respond? YOu column did not hesitate to give Moveon the worse possible rating for judgement calls but are giving Romney with the benefit of the doubt.
Shame on you Michael, you should strive to be impartial rather write a colum based on your biases. I say give Michael Dobbs 5 pinocchios.

Let me explain why the MoveOn parallel is appropriate.

On two or three questions with MoveOn, you judged that MoveOn had not proved its case that no progress had been made, citing things like Anbar province.

But no where did you deal with the fact that many--not all, but many--believed the purpose of teh surge was to make political progress, on which point even Petraeus' numbers show abject failure (and therefore, if you accept this measure, abject failure on your part).

It seems as though Romney should not be given very many Pinocchios for the following reasons:

(1). He openly stated from the beginning that he was personally anti-abortion. He also stated that he opposed changing the laws surrounding anti-abortion policy regardless of his personal views. He admitted his personal morals conflicted with his public actions from the beginning. Are we sure as spectators that the fact that he continually struggles with his views on abortion a sign that he understands that the issue is more than black and white? It seems that either extreme in this issue can get dangerous.

(2). While many of his "flip-flops" are caught via film on this blog, it seems like the majority of the "flip-flops" came from newspaper columnists. Not every news organization is as unbiased as the Washington Post. Neither the Boston Globe nor the Salt Lake Tribune are known for giving Romney (or Mormons) fair treatment. I have seen misrepresentations from both papers. How can we be sure that he actually said what they wrote?

(3). Morning after pill support, and encouraging planned parenthood for the poverty-stricken should not be held against him. To classify Romney as Pro-Choice because he isn't an extremist wackjob who discourages responsible sexual practices is unfair.

Therefore, if we want to truly rate Romney's Pinocchios, then it seems that we should eliminate the "flip-flops" on this blog that could have been misconstrued by columnists and leave only the flip flops coming from his mouth (or pen). That way, we could fairly represent Romney for his own actions (which is the whole point of this blog). There is plenty of fodder for rating Romney's "flip-flops" that are undeniably attributed to him.

http://kreoline.247ihost.com >chiropractic consolidation debt loan student Walk the plank

I too was pro-death until I saw pictures of aborted babies and when abortion hit home. I regret my aborting my baby and I am a grand mother of three aborted grand babies, my only ones. I walked into the light 2004 and it was hard to admit being wrong for all of those years. I listned to Mitt Romney speak in 2006 while on the stage in Washington DC. at a Pro-Life March. Right there and then I prayed for him to run of the highest office as President of the United States of America. He was wrong and he admitted it and that takes balls. That is why I support him for President.

fun search test!

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.