The Fact-Checker, by Michael Dobbs

Rudys cell calls are staged. There is a dated video on Youtube where this stunt was also done in the past.

I don't see any facts in your commentary but merely attacks on the republican candidate. After all Hilary changed here position on the war.

I think you need to specifically address the points raised in your Al Gore post. Is quoting a legal opinion proper fact checking of scientific arguments. Why didn't you talk to some scientific experts? If I find websites stating the world is flat, does that prove that there is some actual argument in whether the world is round or not?

You last post was very weak and it made you look like an anti-Gore hack. When you don't defend yourself with a proper explanation, it makes it look like your critics are right - you're a weak writer and the Post is still out to get Gore.

You should read Paul Krugman today:

"which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He's taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy. "

Yep - you're previous point only makes you look like a sour grapes right wing hack. "Al Gore won the nobel prize," you must of told yourself, "but look, he exaggerated in his movie! Polar bears drown because of storms not melting ice! I'll get him now!"

And yet, it was you who looks pathetic.

This is the worst thing in the Washington Post. There are no facts in the entire article to check.

These are attacks against all candidates, not just republicans. This is unbelievably useless.

Fact checker: You are never going to make these crazies (read above entries) happy. Their minds are made up - they only need to sift through the articles and pick which things agree with their pre-conceived notions, and cling to those.

I would like to see what facts the various candidates' health care plans are based upon. Is it true, for instance, that the one thing driving costs up above all else is medical malpractice premiums? A discussion of this whether here or somewhere else in the paper would be helpful.

As for Gore, whatever your personal beliefs, there are MANY in my community who dismiss him and anything he has to say about global warming just based on what they see as his hypocritical lifestyle. So no matter what others say or think,you were right to bring it up for discussion.

I suspect that Rudy took the call from his wife at an NRA convention because he wanted to stick his tongue out at the NRA and the pro-gun lobby.

What better way to diminish the importance of the NRA than to effectively say "I'd rather talk to my wife about personal matters than attend to the concerns of your wrong-headed organization."

Here's a fact to check: Rudy's just plain nuts. Why don't you report on that, it's so obvious a screw's loose.

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/

Mr. Dobbs, I'm no fan of either the smarmy, chameleon-like Romney or the clever but amoral Giuliani. But there are literally no objective facts here to check. Only opinions. Likewise, the British judge's assertions that Gore was being "too alarmist" or "political" were also not "facts", but impressions of his. That's before we get into the bald journalistic fraud of cutting and pasting the rulings of a judge as a stand-in for abritrating a scientific matter - a move that had just about every scientist in the DC area spitting up their coffee onto your article yesterday.

The term "fact checker" has apparently gone the way of "terrorism" in recent years. The term is used for things that fit the definition as loosely as a rapper's baggy pants. The words have been effectively rendered obsolete through misuse.

It's too bad, because the concept was and still is badly needed.

I don't understand how anyone can doubt whether Romney's changes have been sincere. And he definitely HAS given a VERY convincing explanation about his change.

"I don't understand how anyone can doubt whether Romney's changes have been sincere."

Oh sure, in fact most politicians go through a violent moodswing from trying to out-liberal Ted Kennedy to nuzzling up to the Taliban wing of the GOP in just five years. Why should a little thing like that give a voter pause about his credibility?

Washington (AP) - President and First Lady Romney are taking the customary presidential two-week late summer break to escape the Wasington heat. However, they announced that instead of retiring to Camp David or their Massachusetts home, they will be sojourning to the planet Kolob, in order to be closer to the Heavenly Father. Romney says it will be a "working vacation" as he plans to put the finishing touches on an ambitious proposal committing NASA to setting up a colony in God's home star system by 2020.

"America is a country of faith, and I have faith that if we put our minds to it we can accomplish great things", the president told reporters as he and Ann climbed aboard their gleaming white rocket ship garnished with golden angels on the South lawn. The president, facing repeated good-natured jabs from reporters to divulge whether he wore "boxers or briefs", just flashed his winning smile and stepped onto the lauchpad ladder.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolob

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_garment

The reason why we hesitated on the Romney/abortion question is that it is difficult to divine people's inner motivations or their core convictions.

Is something wrong with this sentence? I know Romney is Mormon, but are his inner motivations divine?

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.