Scot's comparison of Obama's cancer death ad with Romney's welfare ad shows the direction in which he leans. Clearly, the implication in the Obama ad was a stunning stretch. The assertion in the Romney as was one of opinion. Many people believe that the new welfare directive does, in fact, gut the work requirement. Just because a website disagrees with that opinion, doe not make it any less true. The new rule DOES allow states to get around the requirement. This is factual. I call it gutting the work requirement, even if some left wing sites disagree. NEW PARAGRAPH: The sad part is, though, that most "fact checking" sites have an agenda. They tend to check facts out of a desire to support one side or the other, under the guise of objectivity. By all means, read up on the issues. But be wary sites claiming to be objective, because they usually are not.

Just because you believe this does not make it true. Typical Tea Bagging move - discrediting anything you find inconvenient.

I'd add Snopes.com, and, though to the left of center, mediamatters.com. Factcheck.com, though, gave its 'pants on fire of the year' to the utterly true observation that Paul Ryan's voucher plan would end Medicare as we know it. Skepticism and multiple sourcing, those basics of good journalism and research, remain, even when you're doing it yourself. Also, it's not uncommon for an assertion to be made in one blog, referring to another and another and then back in a circle, never to a more primary source. That's not confirmation; that's a red flag.

Ah, Richmond, I think it shows the way you lean. The end-the-work requirement thing is just a candard. Scot

You are a cockeyed optimist...there, I've done it. The unfortunate fact is that a significant number of voters are moved to vote at the last minute by ads that stretch the truth or tell outright lies. These ads are run and paid for because they are effective. Because they are effective, both sides to it. With the advent of Citizens United the expenditures have expanded exponentially. Once upon a time a politician who was caught lying would have paid a price or, at least, would have been embarrassed. No more, it seems. He is criticized for lack of technique rather than lack of standards. Then there is the truth masquerading as a lie…not often seen these days, but delicious. Raising his pointed finger in the air, the southern pol shouted, "I have clear evidence that my opponent is a practicing heterosexual and I dare him to deny it!" If we asked only perfect people to go into public life, there would be a dearth of candidates. That there would be any who would offer themselves as such is frightening. That's not my point. But Citizens United is and will be overwhelming in its consequences and I fear for the loss of my sense of humor.

Ah, make that canard.

Facts do lie and I quote Mark Twain' who said, "there are three kinds of lies, Lies, damned lies and statistics". Sorting truth from fiction as it seeps into my consciousness 30 seconds at a time just is not going to happen. That is a fact for me and most Americans who, when approaching that voting lever, do not realize that their subconscious absorbtion of lies presented as facts will decide their vote. Millions of Americans believe that Mr. Romney killed a helpless woman by denying her health care. That indelible belief has already decided their vote. Jurists who read newspapers decide upon guilt or innocense before they hear the "facts". Mr. Obama told voters in Iowa yesterday that Mr. Romney was going to close their wind turbine industry down. Newpaper columnists fill the air with what has become an epithet. "Neo conservative now describes evil people who would deny children medical care and poor people food. By the way, "Neo" from the Greek Neos only means new, not filled with evil. Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney both know the truth and that, my friend, will not set you free.

Profox: I think that orginates from Disraeli. My own feeling is that the race will hang about where it is until the debates. The undecideds will watch one or two of those and make up their minds based on who seems more truthful and plausible.

Aha! now we know where Scot goes to "separate facts from fiction" -- the "highly informative" Center of Budget and Policy Priorities: one of its priorities has long been deploring Proposition 2 1/2. Yes, first it details the facts "Over the two and a half decades Proposition 2 ½ has been in effect, Massachusetts' level of property taxation has declined...from 76 percent above the national average to 13 percent above the national average..." Then it outlines the prejudice, noting all the terrible cuts in what we all know are nothing but well-managed essential Massachusetts services. LOL However, you're right about the ads, Scot. It's unfortunate that by running the inaccurate welfare ad, the Republicans badly hurt their ability to take the high ground when attacking the awful "Mitt kills cancer woman" ad.

Given all of the lies the Obama campaign is spewing these sites should be required.

I would also add: http://newsbusters.org/ Good site that looks at how badly the MSM is in the bag for Obama

There is nothing impartial about Newsbusters- it's run by the Media Research Center. The Media Research Center is a conservative content analysis organization based in Alexandria, Virginia, founded in 1987 by conservative activist L. Brent Bozell III. Its stated mission is to "prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values" and to "neutralize [that bias's] impact on the American political scene".

Barbara: Are you sure on that? I've read a lot of their work and have never seen them mention Prop. 2.5. Begolfing: They call out both side, which is why it's good for partisan who might somehow think only the other side every distorts anything. ;) Scot

Just go there, put Proposition 2 1/2 in its search engine. The Center also helps fund the Massachusetts Budget & Policy Center, which as you probably know is the reincarnation of TEAM, which was funded by the Mass Teachers Association and other unions. Heck, I call out both sides, but that doesn't mean I'm not a right-winger :)

any of these work for the Red Sox so we can see who is lying? :)

Here you go,Scot. The Center uses our Prop 2 1/2 as an example of why other states, like New Jersey, should not do property tax limitation. From its website: "Advocates of reducing property taxes often cite Proposition 2 ½, the strict property tax cap Massachusetts adopted in 1980, as a model for reform. Most recently, New Jersey Governor Christie has proposed a cap similar to Proposition 2 ½, which limits property tax revenues in Massachusetts to 2.5 percent of a community's assessed value and caps annual growth in a community's property tax revenue at 2.5 percent. Unfortunately, proponents typically overlook Proposition 2 ½'s harmful impact on Massachusetts, as well as the reasons why similar measures could prove even more damaging in other states." Now it will analyze Ryan's plan without, I predict, noting the status quo effect on the poor. When something collapses, the poor are on the bottom of the pile. You also won't find much dynamic analyis of tax increases or cuts.

Scot, what if a new president came in, and drafted an executive order which said that states could modify the ACA requirement that all people must buy health insurance? Would that NOT be gutting the insurance mandate? Of course it would. That is what the President did with wlefare reform-he allowed states to modify the work requirement. Thus, it is now optional, whereas before, it was mandatory. NEW PARAGRAPH: Here is another look at some of these "fact checking" websites: http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/lies-damned-lies-and-fact-checking_611854.html

The Weekly Standard? God help us all. Talk about a shovel full of ____

Scot I may be a pessimist but we have reached a point in our political climate where facts are no longer facts, but merely opinions. It really doesn't matter from which side, left or right. If science says something they don't like, well then it is merely science's opinion. If the CBO says something they don't like, it is only an opinion. If I tell CBO accept all of my assumptions as fact then it is a fact, whether those assumptions are made by Ryan or Obama. Facts today are simply someone else's opinion and if I don't like it I can reject the facts. It's a brave new world where we can be right every time because we say so. I knew an old time gangster many years ago and he said, "the facts are what we say they are." He was right then and I just didn't know it, now the rest of the political world and the public have caught up. If they say it's true, then it is true. Simply amazing.

Call ME a cockeyed optimist, but I think that reporters, having humiliated themselves and their profession by refusing to vet Obama in '08, will be doing some of their own fact-checking as they did in the past. CNN's Wolf Blitzer, when talking about the Ryan Medicare plan, is careful to note that it wouldn't apply to people over 55, thereby declining to Mediscare seniors. That refusal to be used in the service of Obama may catch on!

A candy-colored clown they call the sandman Tiptoes to my room every night Just to sprinkle stardust and to whisper: "Go to sleep, everything is alright" I close my eyes Then I drift away Into the magic night I softly sway Oh smile and pray Like dreamers do Then I fall asleep To dream my dreams of you

I suppose from some perspectives it is just fine that I get to keep my Medicare and my children and their children get to support the health insurance industry. For me it is not as simple as I've got mine the heck with everyone else. The argument that Mr. Ryan makes is that because it doesn't have any impact on me I should be okay with the dismantling of the program. I think however that Mr. Ryan will find that not all of us see everything in terms of how much it costs or that it impacts someone else so we don't care. It does matter. Raise my premiums, raise my taxes, but I prefer to keep Medicare and Social Security just as they are. Unlike some I'm willing to pay for what I get and for what future generations get. I'm not ready to sell my soul for a buck. (NP) Yet less we confuse facts with opinion the entitlements in question are costly yet I have no qualms and I think many others would agree, that they have no qualms in paying the price necessary for a secure old age for our citizens as all are not as fortunate, talented or well off as the rest of us.

Is it possible that Attaturk doesn't know that Medicare is going bankrupt, that it won't be there AT ALL for people under 55 unless someone has the courage to lead reform, risking attack from the the Mediscare strategy of the Obama campaign?

Sadly, the election is much more about attitudes than facts. That's why facts don't matter. The "Food Stamp President" charge focuses attitudes on racial stereotypes, as does the welfare work lie and the attack on Medicaid (though facts point to Medicaid as supporting middle class elders in nursing homes as much as poor people). Romney's Medicare ad points to benefits for people "not like you"... Where do we go to fact check for racial bias?