By comparing job figures with January 2009 and March 2012 and weighing them against women’s job figures from the same periods, [Romney’s press secretary Andrea] Saul came up with 92.3 percent. The numbers are accurate but quite misleading. First, Obama cannot be held entirely accountable for the employment picture on the day he took office, just as he could not be given credit if times had been booming. Second, by choosing figures from January 2009, months into the recession, the statement ignored the millions of jobs lost before then, when most of the job loss fell on men. In every recession, men are the first to take the hit, followed by women. It's a historical pattern, Stevenson told us, not an effect of Obama's policies.I don't get it. It's true, but nevertheless "Mostly False," because... because what? Because Obama isn't responsible for the numbers?! How does that make the assertion "Mostly False"? The assertion is simply a number, and you've said the number is correct. The conclusion should be "Completely True."
There is a small amount of truth to the claim, but it ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.
११ एप्रिल, २०१२
Romney campaign says 92.3% of the jobs lost under Obama were women's jobs.
Can that possibly be true? Romney's people did the math, but PolitFact discounts it, concluding:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०६ टिप्पण्या:
Just another flank in the librul War on Math.
Fake but accurate.
True but false.
Newspeak is un-bad! Obama's Presidency is a failure, but successful!
"Mostly False?" I thought it was "True But False"
This is just embarrassing. And people wonder why I scoff at fact checkers.
They're too embarrassed to have a 'true but damaging to our preferred candidate' category.
I believe them.
They fact-checked themselves and came up with four gold stars.
It's a historical pattern, Stevenson told us, not an effect of Obama's policies.
Expect to hear this theme a lot, now and in the future. The man is a tumbleweed in the desert of consequence. Listen to the wind blow.
Whcih is why I give no credence to Politifact. It needs to be retitled "WaPo Spin"
It's mostly false because it's the Republicans who have a war on women, don't you see.
The GOP "war on women" meme if very real and very much sunk in with independent women. Romney is toast.
"The GOP "war on women" meme if very real and very much sunk in with independent women. Romney is toast."
I'm not buying it.
They recently rated one they didn't agree with politically as "True but False". So why read these idiots?
In hard times, you cut the unneeded expenses first.
The above sentence easily be taken as a misogynistic observation. My point is that perhaps some workers are coddled. In good times, employers might hire and promote in ways that look politically correct. In bad times, they cut what's necessary.
I probably shouldn't be signing my own name to this comment.
Obama's stimulus was, by intent and target, a war on women.
How many women do you see out building infrastructure?
It was money for men, intended for men, given to men.
Please note: She added that many of women's job losses have been government jobs -- teachers and civil servants -- which have been slower to come back because they require greater government spending.And many of these jobs were cut by Republican Governors who were "balancing the budget."
1. If it doesn't fit our narrative then it's misleading.
2. And if it's misleading then it must be "mostly false" even if it's actually true?
The first makes sense, even if they won't admit it.
But if they're going to hold all political speech up to the second standard then none of it can be any better than "mostly false."
For what fool would expect even the most honest political candidate to offer "the whole truth" instead of just that part of the truch which further's that candidate's interests?
So, Politfact is my opionion of it.
Politifact pulled the same stunt earlier this year on a Romney assertion about the size of the US Navy. They said that while his claim was accurate, it ignored important context and was therefore false. One wonders if they know what the words 'true' and 'false' mean. See here:
http://bigtent.blogspot.com/2012/01/politifact-example.html
The claim was that the numbers were misleading, so they should not label them "mostly false."
False and misleading is not the same thing, which they should know, since they themselves are experts at presenting misleading "facts."
I get their point –even though the jobs were lost when Obama was President, arguably they would have happened before any of Obama’s policies actually went into effect. Although considering that Obama as a Senator in the majority party voted for so many of the policies of the two years that preceded his becoming President, I’m not sure what would be a reasonable time to start the clock at when Obama’s policies went into effect.
Also, anyone care to bet on whether Obama ever used a similar claim of “jobs lost on his watch” when criticizing his predecessor that started as soon as Bush 43 took office and whether PolitFact gave it a similar evaluation?
"Obama's stimulus was, by intent and target, a war on women.
How many women do you see out building infrastructure?
It was money for men, intended for men, given to men."
Except that most of the stimulus money went to state and local governments that used the money to retain government workers.
They're saying it is mostly false because the sample they lifted to show us is right after a big bump of male unemployment that would have told a different story. Painted a different picture as it were. Sang a different song, whistled a different tune. Tapped out a different message in Morse code but hardly anybody does that anymore.
So, basically: The fact is true, but we are going to point out all the extenuating circumstances, at as much length as our editors will permit us.
There's some point there, after all. Most of the devastating job loss in male-heavy sectors like construction had already happened when Obama took office, while most of the devastating job loss in female-heavy sectors like low-level state government jobs happened afterward. And Obama can't be held responsible for that, unless someone is keen on making the President responsible for managing the gender balance of state government staffing. Which God forbid.
But the statement was true. It doesn't get to be "mostly false" just because it was insufficiently surrounded by a nice leafy border of context.
Oh, my. wv: pmDDD dutize. Yeah, when I'm premenstrual, I require strictly digitally-recorded chamber music. I save the analog stuff for the other three weeks of the month. Dutize!
Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your claim here is only MOSTLY false.
There's a big difference between mostly false and totally false. Mostly false is slightly true.
With totally false, well, there's usually only one thing you can do.
What's that?
Front page of the NY Times.
Second, by choosing figures from January 2009, months into the recession, the statement ignored the millions of jobs lost before then, when most of the job loss fell on men. In every recession, men are the first to take the hit, followed by women. It's a historical pattern, Stevenson told us, not an effect of Obama's policies.
So, he's wrong to "blame" Obama for women losing jobs when he started his administration --- and is ALSO wrong to not note the loss of jobs by men under Bush?
"Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?", there's a picture of Barry in a wife-beater saying pretty much the same thing.
This is what they think of the public.
PS I don't think the War on Women is polling as well as expected - witness how the polls have to be faked to get it to work, but Santorum's exit will help the Romster's cause immensely.
rv - what do you have against balanced budgets? Or should I rephrase - why are you in favor of bankrupt governments?
They recently rated one they didn't agree with politically as "True but False". So why read these idiots?
To the extent their real fact-check remains credible, that's still a useful service. So long as they distinguish the actual facts from whatever they're using to claim that true statements are false, freedom is slavery, war is peace, and we have always been at war with Eastasia, you can discount the pro-Obama frippery and use the fact check for what it is.
In this case, the statistic is accurate, but does seem to be a little misleading. But that's a judgment the reader ought to make for himself, not outsource to some journalist.
Regrettably, much of what purports to be fact checking is not. Reporters use the cloak of fact checking to register their disagreement with statements that are factual but that the reporters believe fail to address a more significant issue or fail to cite facts that are more congenial to the reporters' political or policy preferences. It becomes in effect advocacy journalism, except that it lacks the cajones to admit it.
When the currency of fact checking is debased, that undermines the value of not only the counterfeit fact checks but also the legitimate ones. In theory, fact checking is a good idea. In practice, the temptation to pervert the form has proved damn near irresistible.
Bush's fault Come on!
It's rare you can use the same joke twice in one day.
It's even rarer that someone finds it funny.
But that doesn't deter a nerd.
No, it does not, sir.
It's a war on math!
Quayle,
Obama's stimulus was, by intent and target, a war on women.
How many women do you see out building infrastructure?
It was money for men, intended for men, given to men.
Nah. Quite the contrary. It wasn't sexism in either direction; it was cluelessness. It took Obama nearly two years to realize that there's no such thing as a shovel-ready project. Not in this country, anyway.
He couldn't have sent lots of money to working men even if he'd wanted to, because you can't: Anything involving digging or building or paving or the like involves planning permission. Usually rather a lot of it.
If I was down 19 points with women I might consider lying too!
Err... Garage, the point of this is that the statistic is completely true. The journalist just, for some reason, could not admit it.
Ann, are you serious?
"Women account for 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under Obama."
is a factually correct statement, but it is a lie in that it gives the impression that all job losses for this recession took place under Obama and the actual timeline shows that by the time Obama was in office, there had already been 7,000,000 jobs lost, with the overwhelming majority of those being men's jobs.
By this post of yours Ann, you are saying you don't believe "there are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Because that maxim is based on factually accurate yet totally misleading statistics, much like this one that you find so much comfort in.
Politifact has lots of problems, but this problem is one of your own imagination.
One day Margaret Raymond, who has never liked Andrew Coan, walks into Coan's office, pulls out her Glock and shoots him. She turns around adjusts her pantsuit, and walks calmly out of the office, the gun disguised in a pamphlet from the Global Legal Studies Center.
Nearing an exit, Raymond sees Professor Althouse using her DSLR to take a picture of the Restroom Cafe. "Hey Ann", she shouts, "think quick", and Raymond tosses the gun to Althouse who catches it in both hands, dropping and shattering the DSLR below.
Raymond exits, stage left. Just as Madison's finest arrive on the scene.
The next day, in the Daily Bruin, the headline screams: "Police say Althouse was found holding the pistol."
If I was down 19 points with women I might consider lying too!
Says the person who obviously doesnt know how to read.
@Jerry
How many sock-puppets do you post as?
The journalist just, for some reason, could not admit it.
Well, but they did admit it. The fact that they did a giant yes BUT!!!!! ("The numbers are accurate but quite misleading.") shouldn't distract you -- I think they highlighted what they were doing more fairly that most journalists would.
Except that most of the stimulus money went to state and local governments that used the money to retain government workers.
So, you're telling me that Obama borrowed from the Chinese not for capital projects, but to cover regular monthly expenses?
Wow!
Double wow!
Does Obama know anything about money and finance?
Anything?
What nonsence and bias in the mostly false rating. They really are saying that, in their opinion, it is not "fair" to blame Obama for those losses? Is it a truth watch or a fairness watch? I would be surprised if they ever applied such a standard to Obama. I wonder what they say when Obama claims the country was "losing 800,000 jobs a month" when he came into office.
Obama is just so wonderful, nothing is ever his fault. He inherited everything and cannot be accountable for anything. That is what you call leadership.
Obama cannot be held entirely accountable...
Of course not. Obama can't be held accountable for anything. Besides, he emanates goodness and light everywhere.
the original article said,
First, Obama cannot be held entirely accountable for the employment picture on the day he took office, just as he could not be given credit if times had been booming.
It should read:
First, we would never hold a Democrat President accountable for a bad employment picture on the day he took office, just as we would give him full credit for things that happened before he took office if times had been booming (see: Clinton "ending" Bush I's recession)
Jacques:
I doubt the "think fast" gag has ever ever been used by a woman on another woman. So your analogy fails aka is False.
As Pelosi would say: We need to reelect him to find out what's really his fault.
Scott,
Look back through the history of Althouse blogs and comments and you'll understand the difference between a sockpuppet and a pseudonym.
Some people comment at blogs and have a need generally not to be easily identifiable to others except via a pseudonym.
Most people can understand that and appreciate the opportunities for communication the internet gives us.
But if you have some other evidence of sockpuppet behavior, perhaps where I am arguing with myself in the guise of sockpuppet, or using a sockpuppet to support something I have said in another name in the same thread, feel free to post that evidence.
@Jerry
So, simply, your answer is zero? That would have saved you a lot of time.
I am continually astounded by Pogo's encyclopedic knowledge of film, and his use of film quotes to get his point across. Pogo the Red possum is pretty damn funny too.
Here's the kicker that's missing in the Politifacts story, more than 82,000,000 have given up looking for work under this so called leader. Add them to the still existing ranks of the official unemployed and you get a unemployment rate of 19%.
That is the secret they are hiding from the uninformed.
How many kool aid drinkers think that 20% unemployment, high gas prices, and sky rocketing debt, while promising your Russian handlers to cut you some slack until after the election is a winning formula for political office? I once was, but Obama will be killed (oops is that violent and threatening? G. Zimmerman told me it was okay) come November. He will get the black racist vote, and the extremely stupid liberal vote. That's it. I predict he might get 30% to 40% of the total vote.
That he could get any percentage indicates to me that there needs to be means testing for the right to vote. Some people shouldn't be allowed loose by themselves , let alone decide the fate of the country.
We have an irresponsible president..
That sounds about right to me.
Romney should link this statistic to Ron Suskind's book where Obama is purported to have said men don't go for healthcare jobs but need more macho jobs.
Link the two, Ann. Perfect for your analytical mind.
That was funny Pogo.
Great headline... Am I to take it the other 7.7 % of the women are not getting to sit home and draw their Government checks. How brutally unfair to them. The War on Women goes on.
Aha, Ann, Here is your post talking about Obama's macho stimulus plan. Could this be the reason that women lost 90+ % jobs?
-------------------
Here's a fascinating passage from Ron Suskind's new book "Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President" (pp. 18-19)(boldface added). Obama and his advisers are plotting campaign strategy in August 2007 and the subject turned to the problem of jobs for 10 million low- to moderately skilled male workers. What "sunrise" could the government subsize and stimulate. The advisers hit on health care:
That was where the jobs would be: nurse’s aides, companions to infirm seniors, hospital orderlies. The group bandied about ideas for how to channel job-seeking men into this growth industry. A need in one area filling a need in another. Interlocking problems, interlocking solutions. The Holy Grail of systemic change.
But Obama shook his head.
“Look, these are guys,” he said. “A lot of them see health care, being nurse’s aides, as women’s work. They need to do something that fits with how they define themselves as men.” ...
-----------------------
Incidentally it also turns out that the Obama administration is paying its female staffers significantly less than the males.
garage mahal said...
If I was down 19 points with women I might consider lying too!
If your sample had 24% Republicans and 41% Democrats, you'd be 19 down, too.
Wanna bet what it would be if the sample was honest?
its mostly false because if it were true that would hurt Obama and the media wouldn't be doing their jobs if they allowed an assertion that hurts Obama to go unanswered.
If your sample had 24% Republicans and 41% Democrats, you'd be 19 down, too.
Yep. No doubt we'll continue to see skewed poll shenanigans in the months to come. Here's Jay Cost's analysis of yesterday's ABC/ WP poll: Obama on Thin Ice.
As Cost says, "if Democrats look weak in polls that are so ridiculously pro-Democratic, you know they are in trouble."
Pogo said:
"Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your claim here is only MOSTLY false.
There's a big difference between mostly false and totally false. Mostly false is slightly true.
With totally false, well, there's usually only one thing you can do.
What's that?
Front page of the NY Times."
I approve of all references to Princess Bride.
How about:
"True, but omits other facts that might lead to a contrary conclusion."
About what one should expect from Washingtonskaya Pravda. remember, for the press organs of the state, the topic of every story is "Who, whom." any story must benefit the party and Comrade Urkel.
An inconvenient timeframe was chosen.
Those two French Airbus pilots did a fine job too, until the plane hit the ocean.
yashu, you read my nasty little mind.
I think our beloved little Zero is in a lot more trouble than we can even imagine.
leslyn said...
MEANWHILE, back at the ranch....
Mittens doesn't know if he supports the equal pay act known as the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the first bill signed into law by President Obama.
Even that puts him one up on Zero, who apparently, DOESN'T.
Carnifex said:
"I predict [Obama] might get 30% to 40% of the total vote."
My bet is that it will be much closer. The country is not what it once was. People who look at the government as a dispenser of goodies instead of a taker of taxes will vote for him, and the number of such people daily increases, by Democrat design.
There are fewer jobs. But less unemployment. It's magic.
Jacques Cuze: super-Alinskyite.
roeschi drops another insulting turd: smaller government = war on women.
"It's a historical pattern, Stevenson told us, not an effect of Obama's policies."
It's a GOVERNMENT pattern, and as far as I know, the President is ultimately in charge.
While private businesses were laying off huge swaths of their workforces in 2008, "the worst economic disaster the country had seen since the Great Depression", federal and state governments were responding with furloughs that were taking months to even implement due to union work rules. Furloughs? As IF cutting back a few hours each week was ever going to be enough.
Anyone with a lick of sense knew that was akin to spitting into the wind.
Our too big, always inept, government spits OUR TAX MONEY into the wind.
Obama's fault, or is it our own damn fault for putting up with this?
Pettifogger said...
I predict [Obama] might get 30% to 40% of the total vote.
My bet is that it will be much closer. The country is not what it once was. People who look at the government as a dispenser of goodies instead of a taker of taxes will vote for him, and the number of such people daily increases, by Democrat design.
True to a certain extent, but he's hemorrhaging support from groups that he can't afford to lose - Catholics, Indies, Hispanics, yoots. I'm betting his real approval among blacks is around 60%.
Zero's policies are ramping up inflation, and welfare is no different from Social Security; it's a fixed income and it's going to hit all those little Obamatrons hardest which is going to kill him this Fall.
He neglets to say that most of those jobs were in the public sector...the one he wants to tear apart.
edutcher - Show us any polling that suggests President Obama is losing support from Latinos, Women, Blacks or his standard supporters.
You constantly post garbage that is nothing more than your own personal opinion, with no related facts.
Post the links to what you say.
"Mittens doesn't know if he supports the equal pay act known as the Lilly Ledbetter Act, the first bill signed into law by President Obama."
Facinating.
Apparently Obama doesnt know if he supports it either.
http://freebeacon.com/hostile-workplace/
"It's important for Romney to start on January 1, even though Obama wasn't inaugurated until January 20. Why? Because if you started on February 1, you'd end up with women accounting for something like 300% of all job losses, and that's ridiculous enough that it would give the whole game away. Even the rubes wouldn't buy that."
Kinda stung when you called Jesse Jackson a racist, didn't it? I personally didnt think anyone would be stupid enough to fall for that, not with google around. I was wrong.
"Jacques Cuze: super-Alinskyite."
???
How so?
Funny. Mother Jones huh? So a link to fox news is gold for you too then?
Love said...
edutcher - Show us any polling that suggests President Obama is losing support from Latinos, Women, Blacks or his standard supporters.
Gallup monthly tracking. You can find it yourself.
About 4 paragraphs down.
Romney frightens Love. Romney's going to "tear apart" the public sector. How, Love, by ever so slightly decreasing the rate of growth of public sector spending? Ooh, scary stuff.
Have no fear, Love, the state will continue to buffer the terrible blows of reality as you live out your cotton batting life.
ed - notice how in Jan/Feb 09 Obama had +40 on Gallup. Apparently tons of Republicans wanted to give him a fair shot to see if he was different. But he started immediately governing as a left-wing socialist and that support bled off fast.
Ann
What about thhis statement:
"Between January 2009 and March 2012 men lost 57,000 jobs, while women lost 683,000 jobs. This is the reverse of the recession period of December 2007-June 2009 (with an overlap of six months) which saw men lose 5,355,000 jobs and women lose 2,124,000 jobs,"
This tells us that many more jobs were lost when Bush was in office than Obama.
Who you blame depends on who you like. Obviously the jobs lost under Bush mean nothing to you or anyone here. But jobs lost under Obama are super serious and reflect on his job performance.
Come on... get real.
Not really OT: If it is a GOP "war on women", why do women make less for the WH than men do?
http://freebeacon.com/hostile-workplace/
You can't claim it is due to high levels of risk as they are all desk jockeys. It could be that more men are in higher positions --- but, gee, who can fix that issue up easily enough but won't?
But jobs lost under Obama are super serious and reflect on his job performance.
Given that he's the President and he's made the problems worse --- yeah, it's all on him.
Do you want a cookie?
Even if the numbers are accurate, it's impossible to compare that to the untold "jobs saved". Impossible.
"Obviously the jobs lost under Bush mean nothing to you or anyone here. But jobs lost under Obama are super serious and reflect on his job performance."
Obama is running. Bush isn't. You're really still trying the "mess I inherited was worse than anybody realized" angle? Smacks of extreme desperation.
"fact checkers" an oxymoron if there ever was one.
"Women's jobs"? Is that like "women's work"?
Sexist!
Better to say, "were lost by women," which is passive voice and all, and implies many women were careless with their jobs.
Romney campaign says that 92.3% of the jobs lost under Obama were women's jobs.
Then Politifact rates it as "mostly false" because "Second, by choosing figures from January 2009, months into the recession, the statement ignored the millions of jobs lost before then, when most of the job loss fell on men."
Except that the Romney campaign says that the losses under Obama were 92.3% women. As those losses were specifically under Obama no prior job losses (under Bush) need be counted. They didn't say under either or both, they just said under Obama. So the statement is true without qualification. It doesn't matter when the recession started. It doesn't matter when it ends.
I used to work for Best Buy's corporate offices. Best Buy is an extemely left wing company ("Christmas" = banned, Rainbow gay flags hung around the corporate campus....good).
In previous "reorganizations" it was mostly white hetrosexual males who were released. The big cutbacks a couple of weeks ago....gasp...they actually fired many females.
So yes, in tough times, you eventually have to let go of people in protected classes.
So both sides appeal to women and the loss of beta male jobs concerns no one in the political world at the moment. This will remain true until most guys realize they are beta males.
context, you must consider CONTEXT!!
(its either "Bush's fault or "Bush's legacy")
context, you must consider CONTEXT!!
(its either "Bush's fault or "Bush's legacy")
Accurate but fake?
Whenever I hear a guy, like Obama, going on about his defense of women in the face of "wars" on women, I actually hear and see a guy who doesn't like women, or even "domestic partners" of the LBGT type, very much. Something rings like a protest too much.
You need look no further than the original Obama proposal for taxing "the rich." There he exempted single filers under $200,000, but only allowed exemption of $250,000 for "couples." Hello?
Ya' see ... all y'all wives and domestic partners of the "bottom" variety need to stay home and tend the provider ...or pay a penalty of no exemption for 75% of your income efforts.
Got it yet?
Note that PolitiFact gave Obama a "mostly true" score about oil production increasing under his administration (which they had nothing to do with).
The "narrative", Ann, is everthing.
On a side note.
Women working in the Obama Administratiion make on average 18% less than men in comparable jobs.
It does not look like he will be taking it lying down. Read that letter from Chen. It is -brutal-.
The Allies won WWII. Politifact rules that is "True but False". Nobody wins in war.
The Brewers sausages run to Miller Park to open each season. Politifact rules that is "True but False." They're not all really sausages.
Even Miracle Max is better at logic than PoliFact. "'mostly dead' is 'slightly alive.'"
"Women account for 92.3 percent of the jobs lost under Obama."
is a factually correct statement, but it is a lie in that it gives the impression that all job losses for this recession took place under Obama
The root of all our problems is that liberals are unable to comprehend simple English sentences.
We can bind up the wounds which afflict America simply by sending liberals to remedial English classes.
"Between January 2009 and March 2012 men lost 57,000 jobs, while women lost 683,000 jobs. This is the reverse of the recession period of December 2007-June 2009 (with an overlap of six months) which saw men lose 5,355,000 jobs and women lose 2,124,000 jobs"
This tells us that many more jobs were lost when Bush was in office than Obama.
It does, if you assign the jobs lost in the first six months of the Obama administration to Bush, and if you take a rather .... elastic understanding of the words "when Bush was in office" such that it includes six months when Bush was not in office.
It's reached the point where I take "I am a liberal" to be tantamount to announcing "I am stupid".
Always keep in mind that the 'RATs took over in January 2007 so even if Obama's policies were not responsible for a Jan 2009 snapshot, the DemocRATs certainly were! We should evaluate the economy starting at the time when Pelosi opened the gates to the treasury.
Fake but accurate.
True but false.
This. Unbelievable.
"Accurate, but misleading."
Oh that wiley Romney and his devious accuracy!
Two plus two is four. Maybe. Maybe not.
Aidan
Politifatuous.
U can pick out any timeframe and make the numbers say what u want.. Sign of a desperate person to answer the war on women ain't us.. wrong
Their problem is that they completely forget that there can be simply facts. They are not doing "news", they always push narratives, and for so long that they unlearned the art of writing cold facts. I do not think they consciously lying, I think the situation is much worse: they forget what "true" means.
Orwell is a genius.
http://www.articlerich.com/Article/Web-Design-in-Adelaide--Acts-as-a-Business-Card-for-the-Business/2050255
HI Anne. How come I wasn't aware of this? As what I've heard Obama is doing a great job with employment.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा