Many of us would agree that, for the past few months, Politifact has taken a sharp turn in its ruling standards in their pursuit of being "Fair and Balanced™". Personally, I think it's fine as long as the same standards are applied throughout, and I can live with it.
However, it is an entirely different matter when we have double standards to rulings for the two parties.
In the latest rulings on SOTU, such as this and this, I noticed that they are basing their rulings by using the argument that the President shouldn't claim full credit to the things that has happened.
Except he didn't.
Yet the rulings on his statements used the "claiming credit/responsibility" for the good things that's been happening as a factor.
All the while, we have many past rulings where the "responsibility/blame" had been explicitly placed by the Republican Presidential Candidates, as well as many Republican-aligned individuals, but the same standard doesn't apply to them or their statements.
It is okay to rate Rep. Eric Cantor's statement that "The budget submitted by Obama will add more to the debt than the outstanding debt of the previous 43 presidents combined" as true even though the President and Administration shouldn't shoulder the sole responsibility for legacy costs from the previous policies.
But it's not okay for the President to state the nice things that's happening in our country because he's claiming credit for something he doesn't deserve the whole credit (even though he didn't really claim it all for himself).
I'm not going to go into the whole 2011 Lie of the Year fiasco because it's pointless to beat on a dead horse, but the double standard in the latest rulings are just a bit too much to my liking.
Below is the letter I've sent Politifact regarding the subject.
Dear Editors,
I am a little bit troubled by a few of your latest ratings, specifically ones you have states that partly the ratings are given because the President is claiming whole credit where he's only responsible for part of it.
However, if you look at the actual text and speech on these matter, you will see that the President never attempt to take full credit of these issues. He merely stated that these things are made possible because the legislation he signed, not because it's solely due to his legislation.
It's like starting a campfire. While there are plenty of factors surrounding the ordeal, such as the humidity, wind speed, etc., that will determine how hot the campfire will be. However, none of it will happen without that initial spark, the strike of the match, that lights it.
If you apply the same logic you have used in the latest ratings, over the fact that the President is sharing the whole credit with the entire country (by using the word "together" instead of "my administration"), many of your previous ratings will need to be modified as well, since a lot of them contain almost explicit implications of who is responsible, while the responsibility is shared.
One prime example would be Rep. Cantor's statement in 2010 regarding the President's role in the National Debt:
"The budget submitted by Obama will add more to the debt than the outstanding debt of the previous 43 presidents combined."
Yes, it is true that the budget is submitted by Obama. The statement also implicates the President (and the Administration) is solely responsible for the budget, when he's not. And yet, this statement, along with many other ratings on statements where the responsible party is explicitly named.
I admit I'm a Democrat, and I support the President's policies. However, it still doesn't change the fact that a different set of standards are being used in these latest sets of rulings. Unless you're planning on changing the overall standards of all future rulings, it is not a good thing is have such double standard, where you disregard the responsibility portion of statement when it is part of the statement in question, and then apply a different set of standards on the President's SOTU address regarding claiming credit, when he didn't claim it.
Thank you for your time