Should We End Politifact “as we know it?” We could call it Factcheck.org!

Politifact came out of nowhere to usurp Factcheck .org as the go to arbiter of the truth. But why?

“How’d they come to that conclusion?” or “are they crazy?” is my usual response.

Take their latest blunder:

TPM: If Democrats proposed to turn Medicare into a system that only provided free veterinary services to seniors, would Republicans be lying to say Dems wanted to "end Medicare," without including the caveat "as we know it"?

Of course not. But that's more or less the charge PolitiFact is leveling at Democrats over a new DCCC ad (below) which flatly charges Republicans with proposing to "end Medicare."

PolitiFact calls the caveat "as we know it" -- as in "end Medicare as we know it" -- an important qualifier. And they conclude that because the DCCC eschewed this qualifier, and because the House vote on a non-binding budget resolution doesn't have the force of law, Democrats have told a "Pants on Fire" lie by stating "Republicans voted to end Medicare."

Bottom line; It's all in our minds. The GOP didn't say one way or another what they want to do with Medicare. It was all non-binding.

Politifact removes from its formulation history and political platforms, choosing instead to parse the “facts” using every semantically devised trick used by the fear mongering right wing spinmeisters.

Ironically, their research makes their conclusions seem strangely removed from reality, leaving the reader more confused than satisfied.

My own reaction to a favorable rating is more like, “wow, we got lucky with this challenge.”

That’s not a confidence builder.

Politifact treats focus group tested cheap semantics and parlor tricks like a slam dunk Perry Mason argument. 

Even Factcheck.org makes the same clueless argument about Medicare not changing: "...continue the present system indefinitely for those now age 55 and older, and subsidize the purchase of private insurance for those who go on Medicare after 2022."

Again, the present retirees getting Medicare are not part of the argument, future retirees are. If it wasn't a devastating change, and an end to the current Medicare program, than how could it possibly save the government massive amounts of money? The cost difference doesn't magically go away...or does it?