4 Pinocchios

 

Washington Post gives Obama’s latest Romney Ad 4 Pinocchios or if you prefer, Liar Liar, pants on fire. Emphasis mine:

The Pinocchio Test

The Obama campaign fails to make its case. On just about every level, this ad is misleading, unfair and untrue, from the use of “corporate raider” to its examples of alleged outsourcing.  Simply repeating the same debunked claims won’t make them any more correct.

 

Four Pinocchios

 

I already ripped the ad “Come and Go”. The Washington Post adds some more regarding the usage of ‘Corporate Raider’:

So how does the Obama campaign justify this phrase? It cites a single Reuters story from last August, about a campaign stop in New Hampshire, written by a stringer, Jason McLure, who was previously based in Africa. Buried in the article is a reference to Romney as a “former corporate raider.”

Then they rip the other prominent claims:

Regarding the outsourcing claims, we have frowned on these before. The Obama campaign rests its case on three examples of Bain-controlled companies sending jobs overseas. But only one of the examples — involving Holson Burns Group — took place when Romney was actively managing Bain Capital.

Regarding the other claims, concerning Canadian electronics maker SMTC Manufacturing and customer service firm Modus Media, the Obama campaign tries to take advantage of a gray area in which Romney had stepped down from Bain — to manage the Salt lake City Olympics — but had not sold his shares in the firm. We had previously given the Obama campaign Three Pinocchios for such tactics.

The best is the bit about outsourcing, which I focused on in my debunking. Emphasis added is mine:

The claim that Romney outsourced jobs as governor is equally overblown.

This concerns Romney’s veto of a bill that would have prohibited Massachusetts from contracting with companies that outsourced the state’s work to other countries. Lawmakers were especially concerned about a $160,000-a-month contract with Citigroup to operate a system of electronic food-stamp cards that included a customer phone service center in India.

Both the liberal editorial page of the Boston Globe and conservative editorial page of the Boston Herald urged Romney to veto the amendment, saying it would cost the state money. Romney agreed, saying the measure did not protect state jobs — the call center might have moved from India to another state — but “had the potential of costing our citizens a lot more money.” The Democratic-dominated Massachusetts legislature did not override his veto, even though it overturned 117 others, suggesting that there was little real support for the measure.

When the food-stamp contract expired, the Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance insisted that those jobs be returned to the United States. But they ended up in a call center based in Utah — just as Romney had predicted.

As we mentioned, we recounted this ancient Massachusetts history before, giving the campaign Two Pinocchios. So we were very surprised the Obama campaign cited that critical Fact Checker column as a source for the ad in its back-up materials.

 

About A.P. Dillon

A.P. Dillon is a freelance journalist and is currently writing at The North State Journal. She resides in the Triangle area of North Carolina. Find her on Twitter: @APDillon_
This entry was posted in Campaign 2012, Obama, The Articles and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to 4 Pinocchios

  1. Funny how that same Washington Post has a front-page story the NEXT DAY about how Bain, under Romney, was doing that very same outsourcing that Mr Factchecker here is claiming Romney wasn’t there for.

    Kind of strange – that’s what that is.

    Like

  2. Pingback: The Morning Links (6/22/12) | Lady Liberty 1885

Comments are closed.