We’ve extensively documented how supposed “man of the people” Rep. Tim Ryan, Ohio’s Democratic nominee for Senate, is a complete fraud and hypocrite. With the sheer volume of receipts in mind, you’d think even the Democrat apologists at Politifact could see right through him, too.
But apparently, that’s not the case.
In the latest episode of “fact checkers ride to a Democrat’s rescue,” Politifact dissected a recent campaign ad from Ryan’s Republican opponent J.D. Vance in which Vance correctly pointed out that Ryan has two faces – the fake “independent” one he puts on for the voters back home, and the beholden one he puts on when he’s on Washington, D.C., where he votes with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and President Biden 100% of the time .
Before we get to the so-called “fact check,” let’s take a look at the ad:
There’s actually nothing untrue in the ad. But Politifact took issue with Vance’s comments about Ryan’s working relationship with Pelosi, saying he left something out of it:
They wrote that an allegedly “important” omission was made in the Maddow clip Vance shared, that Ryan once mounted a challenge to Pelosi’s leadership, and that he “has disagreed with her on some topics”:
The clip omits an important “but;” Ryan went on to say that despite his love, it was time for a new Democratic leader in the U.S. House — Ryan himself. The clip was from 2016, when Pelosi was vying to remain the House minority leader after Trump’s presidential win.
Although Ryan votes with Pelosi’s priorities most of the time, he has disagreed with her on some topics.
Politifact later noted, however, that Vance was right about how Ryan had voted in lockstep with Pelosi and Biden, but gave the ad a “half true” rating because Ryan once challenged Pelosi and prior to Biden’s presidency he took different positions than Pelosi on rare occasions.
It was a truly pathetic “fact check” and as Fox News media reporter Joseph Wulfsohn observed, it “may be the most nonsensical yet.”
Spectator editor Stephen L. Miller quipped in a helpful translation: “‘The ad is correct but the ad didn’t mention things unrelated to the ad.'”
If the fact-checking industry is wondering why so many people don’t trust them and simply look the other way when they weigh in, they can look to this one in particular as yet another on a long list of reasons why they are viewed in most corners as completely useless as a tool for keeping public figures accountable for their statements and actions. After all, when the fact-checkers have to be fact-checked, you know there’s a problem with fact-checking.
Flashback: CNN’s Daniel Dale Sounds the Final Death Knell for Fact-Checking