Live Q&As

The hardest part of the job is assigning the Pinocchios. I admit to some extent it is subjective, but I try to be consistent. I weigh such factors as whether they make a big deal about it, whether they based it on a reliable source, how much they took out of context and so forth. 

Intent is very difficult to determine. But yes, it appears some statements are so extreme that it must have been done deliberately. That certainly gets it into the 4 Pinocchio realm!

Good question. I frankly wasn't too bothered by the John Wayne from Waterloo-Winterset mix-up. (I did not "fact check" it.) It is easy to make a mistake like that--it is certainly embarassing--though obviously a politician has to be careful they do not have a pattern of misstatements. Bachmann certainly has to watch that. 

ha, funny question. My brother claims that this is the perfect job for me because he grew up hearing me say I was always right! 

I do have a good memory for facts and details--don't try to play Trivial Pursuit with me--but my wife and children always check my assertions of "fact" at home. 

Thanks for the compliment.

We do plan to overhaul the page at some point soon and would like to keep a running score of the presidential candidates. This is an excellent idea, thanks!

I have done averages for other presidential candidates too when they made their announcement speeches. Each of these speeches has a number of assertions, and it seems to make the most sense to check them all in one place.

(She might claim it was unfair of me to fold her interviews in with her speech, since the speech by itself was not so bad in terms of facts.)

Yes, a really bad fact in a prepared speech would probably fare worse than something said in an interviews. Context is important. 

Here's another perspective re John Wayne. Has she blamed staff? She left when she was 12...maybe this is something she had mixed up from childhood and never thought to doublecheck?

I have done many fact checks of Obama, one of which prompted the White House to issue a response called "Fact Checking The Fact Checker." I try to keep it even between Democrats and Republicans, though all the announcement speeches this month has probably tilted it a bit toward the GOP. It will even out in the end.

Here's a link to the one on Obama that upset the White House:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/president-obamas-phony-accounting-on-the-auto-industry-bailout/2011/06/06/AG3nefKH_blog.html

I have not had a chance to personally examine this issue, but yes, one has to keep a sense of proportion about what is a gaffe and what is a deliberate misstatement. 

Good for you to check the facts on this. I looked up that same article today when she made this point again today. She certainly does not provide the right context. For those who have not read the USA Today story, here are the reasons they give for the increase:

Key reasons for the boom in six-figure salaries:

• Pay hikes. Then-president Bush recommended — and Congress approved — across-the-board raises of 3% in January 2008 and 3.9% in January 2009. President Obama has recommended 2% pay raises in January 2010, the smallest since 1975. Most federal workers also get longevity pay hikes — called steps — that average 1.5% per year.

•New pay system. Congress created a new National Security Pay Scale for the Defense Department to reward merit, in addition to the across-the-board increases. The merit raises, which started in January 2008, were larger than expected and rewarded high-ranking employees. In October, Congress voted to end the new pay scale by 2012.

• Paycaps eased. Many top civil servants are prohibited from making more than an agency's leader. But if Congress lifts the boss' salary, others get raises, too. When the Federal Aviation Administration chief's salary rose, nearly 1,700 employees' had their salaries lifted above $170,000, too.

-----

Thanks for the note.

I sat on that one for more than a week.  I would say the score was more like 1 yes, 1 "defensible," 2 no. And the two no's, while working for a different administration, are highly qualified economists.  Part of the problem, for me, at least, was that the current baseline showed a 20 percent shift. But another baseline showed little change. So I was hoping for some clarification from the experts but did not get it.

There are times when I would simply dump a column like that. (I spent a week checking a quote from a politician that I thought was wrong but ultimately decided it wasn't wrong but wasn't right either.) But I thought it was an interesting issue to raise, and worthy to share with readers in any case. 

Gee, I would hope not!  57 states struck me as something said when tired, and I did not check the Waterloo-John Wayne mistake by Bachmann because it did not seem important. I try to check facts that shed light on important issues. (I would argue Paul Revere was important because if you don't know American history, that says something. Some readers, however, thought I bent over backwards to give palin the benefit of the doubt.)

I certainly thought that was the case, though I have not  checked it. I can't imagine he would have said that to someone like Newt Gingrich, who has certainly said some flaky things in recent weeks. 

She got that from a thinly sourced newspaper article in India. debunked completely. 

There is some stuff running around on the Internet saying William & Mary only gives this degree to foreign students. That's the case today, but W&M did have this program for Americans when she received the degree. Not sure about her law school's quality rating.