AP's Romney 'Fact Check,' Part 1: Candidate's 'Economy Is Worse' Claim Is Supported by Mountain of Facts
First let's get the obvious out of the way. It's not a secret to many readers here that yours truly's opinion (and not that of NewsBusters or MRC) is that GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney would be a completely unacceptable candidate. For those who didn't know that, now you do.
Nonetheless, when Romney says things which are either definitely or arguably true and Associated Press "fact checkers" Calvin Woodward and Jim Kuhnhenn make a point of asserting otherwise as if they get the final word, a defense is necessary.
In their "fact check" piece, the AP pair, with the help of two other contributors, disputed five statements Romney made in his campaign kickoff speech. By my count, Romney is definitely right on three, one items is a split decision, and the wire service should be considered fully correct in just one instance.
The most important of AP's "fact check" errors is its headlined determination ("Romney miscasts economy in GOP debut") that Romney was wrong when he said the following: "When he (Barack Obama) took office, the economy was in recession. He made it worse. And he made it last longer." The AP pair's counterargument is truly pathetic:
The gross domestic product, the prime measure of economic strength, shrank by a severe 6.8 percent annual rate before Obama became president. The declines eased after he took office and economic growth, however modest, resumed.
... A case can be made for and against the idea that Obama's policies made the economy worse than it needed to be and that the recession lasted longer than it might have under another president. Such arguments are at the core of political debate. But Obama did not, as Romney alleged, make the economy worse than it was when he took office.
AP is conceding the possibility that Romney's "made it last longer" argument might be correct. Mitt is certainly entitled to his opinion in this matter, and in believing that the recession could have ended earlier, he's far from alone.
Now let's look at the candidate's claim that Obama made the economy "worse." As seen above, the AP's entire counterargument is that the economy is currently "bigger" than it was in January 2009, and the debate is over. Horse manure.
While that's true (pending revisions) that the economy grew by almost 7% between the first quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2011 , "bigger" (and objectively true or false term) is not the same as "better" (a judgmental term which must be weighed on the available evidence, after which sincere people may still disagree). In fact, Democrats throughout the Reagan and Bush 43 growth years were constantly arguing that the economy was "worse" for any number of specious (and often factually wrong) reasons, ranging from "the rich are getting richer" to "the new jobs are McJobs" to the creation of so-called "urban sprawl" to "minorities and the poor are being left behind," blah-blah-blah.
The evidence that today's economy is "worse" than it was in January 2011 -- evidence which I believe most people would agree clearly support that contention -- is mountainous (all figures are seasonally adjusted from the government's Household Survey unless otherwise indicated):
- Woodward and Kuhnhenn themselves note that the unemployment rate has gone from 7.8% in January 2009 to May's just-reported 9.1%. Except for those who value sloth, that's a 1.3-point, 17% change in a "worse" direction.
- The civilian labor force has shrunk by 492,000, even though the civilian 16-plus population has increased by almost 4.6 million. Baby Boomer Social Security retirements don't explain that away.
- The labor force participation rate has dropped 1.5 points to 64.2%, the lowest rate in 27 years, while the employment-population ratio has fallen 2.2 points to 58.4% -- and it's not because there's been a sudden surge of voluntary housewives and househusbands.
- 2.42 million fewer people are working than were in January 2009, while 199,000 fewer are working compare to when the recession ended. Remember, this is per the Household Survey; the Establishment Survey's comparable numbers are -2.52 million since January 2009 and +550,000 since the recession ended. Here's a task for Woodward and Kuhnhenn: Figure out why there is such a post-recession disparity between the two surveys -- and for heaven's sake, do a better job that Paul Wiseman's pitiful effort on Thursday, where he compared numbers coming from the different surveys as if they came from the same data source.
- 13.9 million Americans, 1.93 million more than in January 2009, are counted as unemployed.
- 6.23 million Americans, over 530,000 more than in January 2009, say they are "not in the labor force, (but) want a job now."
- Of the 550,000 jobs added since the recession ended per the Establishment Survey, 90%, or 495,000 of them, have been added at temporary help services. Seriously. Again per the Establishment Survey, temp employment is up by 277,000 since January 2009, while total employment is down by 2.52 million (i.e., non-temp employment is down by 2.8 million). If this took place during a conservative or GOP administration, "The Temping of America" would have been an hour-long documentary topic at every establishment media broadcast outlet by now.
I believe that economy's marginally larger size in the first quarter of 2011 compared to the first quarter of 2009 is far more than offset by the negative factors just cited. I believe that the vast majority of Americans presented with the complete set of information just noted would agree.
The AP's Woodward and Kuhnhenn almost seem to believe that Mitt Romney shouldn't even be allowed to hold the subjective but highly evidence-supported opinion that the economy is worse, and that it's the policies of the Obama administration which has made it so.
On AP's first criticism, it's the former Massachusetts governor in a rout.
Romney 1, AP 0.
Part 2 will go up later this evening.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Ok, so who DO you prefer?
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 7:00pm.
Which one, of the presently declared candidates or the ASSUMED ones, do you prefer?
I'd also like to know. We are
Submitted by goldwater89 on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 7:21pm.
I'd also like to know.
Whether the Tea Party likes it or not, Romney is going to be our nominee next year. He's the only one who has a chance of beating Obama. Hopefully they won't throw a tantrum and nominated a third party candidate who will only siphon away votes from Romney. Let's not make the same mistake we did last year in Delaware. That seat was ours for the taking, but no, the Tea Party had to nominate someone who at had no chance in hell of winning and now we've got a Marxist.
Romney in the WH will be no less fatal to America than Obama
Submitted by Dave. on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 9:00pm.
The only difference is we will tip over a few short months later with Mitt.
Romneycare is a flaming disaster, and his inexplicable support for Crap and Tax is totally unnaceptable to any American that still values freedom, liberty, and true free enterprise.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
If Romney wants to live in a White House ...
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 10:29pm.
he had best get himself 30 gallons of white paint and tend to his present domicile, 'cause the only way he's getting into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is as a guest.
goldwater, your nuts. You
Submitted by bassndude on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 10:19pm.
goldwater, your nuts. You have been listening to to much MSNBC. That is the typical inside the belt way thinking. Democrats would like to see nothing more than Romney as the Republican nominee.
In reality, Palin could beat Obama. Any number of people. If the election were today, Daffy Duck could beat Obama.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Hilarious!
Submitted by NL207 on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 10:27pm.
Romney will get his clock cleaned in the primaries.
He will ride RomneyCare to political oblivion.
Indeed
Submitted by Free Stinker on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 10:32pm.
We have Cain, and possibly DeMint, Bachman, and Palin to chose from. Why would we pick Romney?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
There isn't a single poll
Submitted by goldwater89 on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 11:14am.
There isn't a single poll around that shows Cain, Demint, Bachmann, or Palin anywhere near Obama. Like I said before, Romney is the only one who actually has a chance of winning.
Romney's chance
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 11:21am.
I wish him the best of luck but I think like McCain the media would devour him once he got the nomination.
Romney's chance of winning
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 11:40am.
Are even less than John McCain's. Let me spell out some reasons why....
1) McCain didn't have RomneyCare in his background while promising to repeal Obamacare.
2) McCain was not known as a flip flopper on things like abortion. It's not that abortion should be the focus of the race, but politically-timed flip flops are what helped kill John Kerry.
3) Romney couldn't beat Ted Kennedy for a Senate race or John McCain for the nod 3 years ago. He's not exactly known for being a winner.
4) McCain was not Mormon.
5) More conservatives are fed up than ever before, and while most would reluctantly vote for him, he won't raise money off them. Those oh-so-important independents never spend any money on politics. To rally the base he would be forced to choose someone like Palin or Cain as VP - and then the media would promptly attack him for going too far right.
6) Even with double digit unemployment, high gas, and a dysfunctional Congress, Obama still beats or is tied with every Republican challenger. He is still a lot more popular than we think, and he will be every bit as hard to beat as he was in 2008.
7) Where has Romney been the past few years? What accomplishments can he brag about, what has he done to help stop Obama? McCain had a Senate career, including support for our troops, to run on.
8) The last reason, with so many better choices in the primary system, Romney will have to spend a lot of money to get that far and then limp out of there A) his dirty laundry all teed up for the left and B) conservatives ticked off that he won.
I've already begun the grieving process, coming to terms with our loss in 2012. The Obama/Clinton machine will eat Romney's lunch, he'll get destroyed in live debates, he'll suck up to the media, and then he will lose by a ten point margin on election night.
NewsBusters is not ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 8:43pm.
... about opining on presidential preferences, at least as far as its writers are concerned.
If you want to follow my preferences, go to BizzyBlog -- and I'll resist providing links to relevant posts in fairness to NB.
Suffice it to say, as I already have, that Mitt Romney is unacceptable. The only reason I disclosed that is so those who already know that wouldn't have to reach for the smelling salts when I defended him against AP falsehoods.
Not totally unacceptable to the Obambi alternative
Submitted by Tomorama on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 9:59pm.
As a former Romney supporter (I helped out in his Governors race and his LT Governor Kerry Healey when she ran and lost to the horrid Devalue Patrick) I get the disdain by some at his frequent flip flops, but I also understand the point of not making the mistake of choosing someone that has no chance against Obama.
Really don't care if others disagree on this, but I would take Romney over Obama if I had too and the tea party head agrees with that as well.
That being said, not hammering you for speaking your mind in the context of explaining that you are no fan of Romney, as a blatant media lie is a media and NEEDS to be exposed and you prefaced your point as needed.
That is afterall the FOCUS of this site....................
My wish is that someone posts the EXCELLENT article at the NY times on Herman Cain titled - "A G.O.P. Hopeful Gathers Momentum as More Voters Like What They Hear".
That to me was stunning how spot on it was and how respectful and factual it was.
I detest the paper and 99 percent of the leftist drivel, but that was a GREAT article and feature on whom I hope is the next President of my United states - Herman Cain.
That Tom was the story of the day IMHO.
Tomorama ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 11:44am.
... the item was well-written indeed. I'm going to resist posting on it, and I think you'll understand why.
Given that it was written by Kate Zernike, just about the most rabid anti-Tea Partier in the media last year, I can't help but think that one of three things is going on:
1. "I know something you don't know (about Cain), and I'm saving it for when it matters."
2. "it would be great if Cain got the nomination, because he'll lose on his advocacy of the Fair Tax."
3. "At crunch time, Republicans won't vote for a black guy for president. So you go, Herm."
The "Product Description" at Amazon for Zernike's 2010 book "Boiling Mad," which I believe is the same as the inside cover jacket, says that "the Tea Partiers' grievances are rooted in the present, a response to the election of the nation's first black president and to the far-reaching government intervention that followed the economic crisis of 2008-2009."
Sorry, after that, I'm not going to give Kate credit for fairness and balance.
exactly right Tom
Submitted by Hoosier Conservative on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 11:49am.
I don't know when conservatives will stop being naive about the odd article that appears well-written coming from AP. They always have an agenda with it.
Herman Cain
Submitted by GregE on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 10:30pm.
Herman Cain
Winning
Submitted by Richard.Halavais on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 7:24pm.
Christine O'Donnell lost Delaware because the old guard Republican, RINO party failed to support her, preferring instead the liberal, failed, RINO who she beat in the primary. In the words of Pogo."We have met the enemy and he is us." Until we purge the party of liberals in conservative clothing we'll continue to suffer defeats. The old party leaders have lost their manly attributes and now are simply trying to compromise. Only trouble is, they compromise our country away.
Purging the moderates?
Submitted by goldwater89 on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 7:44pm.
Purging the moderates? Imagine what an independent voter thinks when he or she hears something like that. Mike Castle would have been 10 times better than the current Marxist. Sometimes you have to take what you can get and move on.
He did not say "moderates",
Submitted by bassndude on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 10:21pm.
He did not say "moderates", he said liberals. Do you make a habit of misquoting, misstating and twisting others words? Or is it you have a reading comprehension problem?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal/troll!!
Oh, excuse me, "Liberal."
Submitted by goldwater89 on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 11:20am.
Oh, excuse me, "Liberal." Good grief, people like you are the reason why the party is in complete disarray. So is every Republican who isn't on the far-right a "liberal"? God forbid someone not be a complete ideologue.
Chris Norman, goldwater89---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 10:52pm.
makes articulate, cogent, and reasonable statements, about the inherent mistakes and possible ramifications involved in labeling anyone even a microscopic bit to the left of one's personal conservative leanings, as a RINO.
Statements like "Good grief, people like you are the reason why the party is in complete disarray", even if meant as hyperbole, might well contribute to said disarray. :o)
MD
Romney
Submitted by Curly on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 7:23pm.
Romney will not be the candidate in 2012 - if he is - it is a sure loss to BHO and the clown circus. 4 strikes against Mitt: 1. Global Warming - he is a fool on this. 2. Romneycare - Obamacare - big albatross. 3. Duller than a 1200 page novel - no pizazz, wit, or ability to sting BHO a la Trump ( who couldn't win either) 4. He is a Mormon - I don't care - but a huge percentage of the electorate will not vote for a Mormon, sorry, that is the way it is.
The mormon thing...
Submitted by ClintACK on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 9:20pm.
It's ridiculous that anyone would make a big deal about Romney's religion.
Unfortunately, it's also entirely true.
Newsweek is already hard at work.
Anyone expect them to be called out for the raw bigotry on display on that cover?
(Re: 1 & 2: both are strikes against him for the nomination, neither hurts him in the general election, since he's still well to the right of Obama on both issues.
3 is an issue many good candidates have --- it's one of the reasons I fantasize about Chris Christie as the VP candidate, taking on the traditional "attack dog" role.)
5th
Submitted by paulnashtn on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 9:19pm.
And don’t forget that he is 4 square for ethanol subsidies
Don't vote republican.
Submitted by ladeflippinda on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 9:59pm.
The Republicans, as well as Democrats, don't have a clue or have the desire to really fix things.
True conservatives should move to the Libertarian Party and help restore liberty to our land.
Ok. Who is your choice for
Submitted by NC Cop on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 10:04pm.
Ok. Who is your choice for presidential candidate?
Huh?
Submitted by Cowboy on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 10:37pm.
BLS: Employment status of the civilian population
Employed (not seasonally adjusted)
May 2010: 139,497 thousand
May 2011: 140,028 thousand
44,250 jobs per month
It takes 125,000 to 150,000 jobs per month to maintain unemployment at a steady rate.
But unemployment supposedly went from 9.3% to 8.7% ???
Employed (seasonally adjusted)
May 2010: 139,353 thousand
May 2011: 139,779 thousand
35,500 jobs per month
But unemployment supposedly went from 9.6% to 9.1% ???
Not necessarily suspect
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 11:38pm.
May is typically a month of a lot of hiring, so you would expect the NSA rate to be a bit lower. In January OTOH, you'll note that the NSA rate is higher than the SA rate (Jan. 2011 was 9.8% NSA vs. 9.0% SA).
That doesn't get to what I think your question is, which is why has it gone down when employment hasn't gone up that much. Answer: the labor force is shrinking, and many of those who were counted as unemployed just gave up, reducing the number of reported unemployed enough to bring the %s down.
employment goalpost
Submitted by Agnostic on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 11:27am.
Also, the administration used the 2000 Census numbers to change the expected workforce figures to improve the numbers a little.
Romney is the new Bush.
Submitted by big.league.slider on Sun, 06/05/2011 - 11:56pm.
I remember in 2000 that candidate GW Bush gave lots of campaign speeches describing how conservative he would be as president. He did not come across as being completely credible, but in the end I held my nose and pulled the lever for him. In the 2004 election, I did not make the same mistake. Nor did I make that mistake with McCain in the 2008 election.
If Romney, or Huntsman, or Gingrich, or Huckabee, or Jeb Bush, or Giuliani, or Trump, or Barbour is the GOP nominee, I will not vote for them. I'm tired of GOP elected officials, like Boehner and McConnell, that don't have the stones to stand up to the Dems and their minions in the MSM and labor unions.
Palin, Rubio, Ryan, Christie, Cain and West have all demonstrated that treating the MSM dolts as irrelevant, and calling Obama and the Dems out on their scare tactics works.
My vote is only 1 out of 110,000,000. But it still counts, and I vote on principle. So I won't sell it out to the highest bidder.
You forgot to mention these
Submitted by jdhawk on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 12:08am.
You forgot to mention these important facts about the failed duhbama administration:
We have more people on welfare of all kinds than at any time in our history. For examples, we have a record number of people on food stamps and the number of people that are on them has risen for 37 months straight. We have a greater number of Americans that pay no federal taxes whatsoever than ever before. And, within that group, we have a greater number of Americans that get money back from the IRS than ever before.
We have a housing industry that is in double dip recession levels. We have a banking industry that is getting worse instead of better. With every news headline about the housing industry going further and further into the doldrums, the stinko bad paper that was proscribed from the balance sheets of banks in March of 2009, is getting more and more stinko. Meanwhile, we have 2 million foreclosures ongoing with 4 million more mortgages either waiting in line to go into foreclosure or in some measure of distress.
Probably more important than all of the above bad news is a sprendthrist congress that is speding 42 cents of every dollar that it doesn't have. Meanwhile, the debt on a year over year basis is soaring and the national debt is already at ruinous levels.
If a dimocrat wins the presidency with the above going on, even if its Romney, we are all doomed. That is, I see years of recessionary levels not unlike what FDR and the dimocrat congress of that day did to Americans.
Oh, I didn't forget ...
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Mon, 06/06/2011 - 1:06am.
... I just didn't want to turn the post into a book.
Tom Blumer, lots of double talk by you
Submitted by tombaker on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 8:02am.
Tom Blumer says:
NewsBusters is not about opining on presidential preferences, at least as far as its writers are concerned.
The only reason I disclosed that is so those who already know that wouldn't have to reach for the smelling salts when I defended him against AP falsehoods.
You say its not the place of Newbusters writer's to push out their advocacy on Presidential candiates. BUT you do, you are, you continue. Its totally self serving to suggest your total dismissal of Romney, is needed so your buddies will think better of you when they read your article.
Do I now need to assess your political advocacy of candidates, as a measure of how truthful your Newsbusters writings here ?? YES. Blumer offers out his filter on Newsbusters, and the filter is reflected in what is written or not written. We can trust that all future Blumer wittings on Newsbusters will reflect in tone and writing (what is included and not included), that Romney is unacceptable as a candidate. So Newsbusters pointing out bias of people like George S., Chris Matthews, Carvell, Beguella and other Democrat campaign staffers working in the media, will in no way effect how they accord themselves....RIGHT? Bias is fine, just don't let it slip out like Blumer did? Tease it out, draw them in, and push em over to your website to give them the real meaning of why Newsbusters staff believes Romney is unacceptable. Bias is a word only applicable to Liberals? WTF is that. MRC endorsed too. Seriously WTF
Blumer you have put political advocacy into the mix at Newsbusters, which should stand on merits and not slants. Blumer hears something unfair....but heck its goes along with his advocacy on his own website, so its actively omitted here. GREAT, we all can now guess what Blumer really thinks and why he writes specifically on one item, and actively avoids others. Great...so now Newbusters is agenda driven, with protestations from Blumer that he is really trying to be fair in his Newsbuster duties surrounding the candidates. Blumer just slipped, his agenda against certain candidates was only supposed to be linked. Unacceptable
So tar and feather Romney as being totally unacceptable, because what? He is Mormon? Great we have a Blumer as religious zealot deciding what religion is worthy or not. Osmond Brothers singing on Andy Williams Christmas specials not wholesome enough, yah yah these Mormons are all crazy....I watched HBO to prove it.
Its naive to think health care and its costs are not a significant thing to address. I am sure you can come up with a system that is perfect on day one, and not need continued management by those responsible for its stewardship.
So Blumer, your article written for Newsbusters remains with your slant, you can still update it, remove it.
I realize there is a tiny minority of people that think Mormon's are not worthy of elected office, but I do not expect that to be the undercurrent of what Newbusters puts out, pretty sure that is what Blumer is saying by inference. Don't think that's wrong, as after he declares Romney as unacceptable he just clams up.
Integrity in the Media, is a real obligation....saying you are a conservative does not relieve you of the duty of integrity, Newsbusters now tags its articles with by authors saying they believe that Romney is unacceptable.....that is journalistic slant and it lacks the integrity we readers are due. Hello?
GOP presidential contender Mitt Romney would be a completely unacceptable candidate.
Right in the first line....no bias going on here....but remember I said completely so there is no question of my advocacy....good job Blumer, we understand how the organization works, nice work telling us to find out more at your website...we can get a full load there.
Do you have any idea of the
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 8:18am.
Do you have any idea of the difference between news and commentary?
And accusing Tom of finding Romney unacceptable because he is a Mormon is really beyond the pale.
I'm just offering my own assessment. I'm sure Tom doesn't need me or anyone else to assist in slapping you down.
Seriously, what pap
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 8:29am.
Perhaps I should have let Romney twist in the wind and done nothing to stop four clear errors by the wire service which serves as the nation's de facto gatekeeper go unrefuted. But no good debunking goes unpunished I guess.
If you want to find out why I believe Romney is unacceptable -- actually my term is "objectively unfit" -- go to BizzyBlog and rip into me all you wish.
Hint: It has nothing to do with his religion, whatever it happens to be.
Otherwise, comment on the media critique contained in the post. Your comment is a rambling, incoherent waste of time.
And as Motherbelt noted, you don't get the difference between news and commentary.
pap, indeed---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 06/08/2011 - 1:45am.
as in PAP - DS.
Preeminent Acute Palin - Derangement Syndrome.
It has left tombaker bereft of the ability to make sense on any subject.
MD
delete
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 06/07/2011 - 8:15am.
delete