All my circuits are blown on this one I can’t even swear at it.  It is proof that God has abandoned the up-keep of his creation.

The AP “fact checks” Clinton’s convention speech.  I’ll ruin the surprise: no actual facts are checked.

Before the Fisking it’s important to just count the number of claims about politics that are presented as obvious truths without any repeat any evidence or argument to back them up. 1. “The inflexibility of both parties is to blame for much of the gridlock.” 2. “The problem with compromising in Washington is that there are few true moderates left in either party.” 3. is a little more abstract, but the piece faults Obama for “ensur[ing] the tough compromises would not get made” on Social Security and the debt.  Why are “tough compromises” necessary on these things at this time?  I dunno.  Neither does the AP.

As always, the centrist scam is to hide a very particular political agenda behind “objective” analysis.  If the parties aren’t working to enact the corporate consensus, they are inflexible partisans.  Amazingly, this consensus can be found on every corporate media entity.  What an astounding coincidence.

Enough sarcasm. ThinkProgress did its best on this turd but only got to about 15% of what’s wrong with it.  Not good enough.  Prepare to Fisk.

Clinton Claim: Obama be compromisin’ Republicans be obstructin’.

AP Fact Check: 1. The first “fact” is that Rahm Emanuel exists.  No mention of anything he did.  Just that he exists.

                          2. The “grand bargain” didn’t happen because Boehner couldn’t get Republicans to vote for it and Obama     was criticized by some Democrats.  CRITICIZED.  BY SOME DEMOCRATS.  Clearly a party is holding up legislation if some of its members are criticizing it.

                         3. Simpson-Bowles wasn’t enacted in legislation, even though the Republicans torpedoed the actual commission, and even though Obama adopted most of it for his own proposal.  The AP acknowledges these things.

Good job, AP.  Your fact check of the claim that Democrats compromise and Republicans are obstructing the machinery of government only ignores all the instances in which Republicans have been doing so to an historic extent.  Recite it with me: record Senate filibusters debt ceiling ransoming record number of executive agency confirmations denied.

Now I’m just a simple country lawyer, but it seems to me that evaluating a claim that a party has been obstructionist needs to grapple with the objective ways in which that party has been historically obstructionist.

Clinton Claim: Health care spending has increased at a lower rate since Obamacare has been enacted.

AP Fact Check: 1. It’s mainly the economy

                          2. The two main cost-saving measures have yet to kick in

                          3. Anyway who gives a shit people still pay a lot for health care amirite

The only “fact check” here that has any logical connection at all to Clinton’s statement is the point about the economy.  Interesting that the article can’t even keep it’s claims straight across paragraphs; first it’s due to “uncertainty”, then it’s about the economy being “lackluster”, which suggest two completely different mechanisms in how health care spending is affected.  Either way though both should have been even more prevalent in 2009, when the rate of spending increased, than in 2010 and 2011, when it decreased.

Goddammit is there one fucking thing in here that isn’t undone with elementary logic.

Clinton Claim: Romney’s campaign said “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers.”  Remember that, America.

AP Fact Check: We remember when Clinton lied about Monica Lewinsky so it’s hypocritical for him to call out a campaign basically stating it will lie as much as it possible can.

Guess not.  As logically insane it is for a “fact check” operation to be running political smears, THIS ISN’T EVEN A FUCKING CLAIM TO FACT CHECK IT’S JUST A FUCKING TRANSCRIPT OF-

Y’know let’s just move on to the last one.  Because there is no larger order to which we are beholden and we all die alone, let’s just do it for kicks.  Just to see if there’s one goddamn thing of value in this fucking thing.

Clinton Claim: Voter’s anger at the economy is understandable, but a political reaction to them wouldn’t be prudent.  Voters were angry about the economy in ’94 and ’95, right before a huge economic expansion.

AP Fact Check: Clinton’s comments ignore the role his policies had in later economic troubles.  The tech bubble eventually popped, and Glass-Steagall repeal set the stage for the ’08 collapse.

Those things did happen, AP, which have what to do with anything?  Clinton makes a point about the political timetable moving too quickly to adequately judge economic progress and you bring up the bad parts of Clinton’s economic record? Is your point that voters should look five to ten years into the future to look at the economic effects of who gets elected, and then compare that to what they think would have happened under the other guy?  But wait: if they’re looking into the future, then how can they change what’s going to happen?  Unless it’s only a possible future . . .

That’s right.  The only way to read the AP fact check article in a way that doesn’t make it out to be completely mendacious is to imagine the intended audience is a nation of Kwisatz Haderachs.  Centrism at its finest.

Soonergrunt at Balloon Juice points to the author, Matt Apuzzo, and his high-larious defenses of his work on the twitter box.  LolCentrists for everybody!  Oh wait just for Matt Apuzzo.

Matt Abuzzo fact checks Clinton brings up Monica

Matt Abuzzo can’t fact check the colors in a four crayon box they give him at Olive Garden