Fact-checlomg President Obama

Grasping for something to criticize President Obama for in response to his executive action on prosecutory discretion in deportation of undocumented immigrants, Republicans have seized on the talking point that he "changed his position" on whether he has this power to act.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution had its PolitiFact checker look into the president's previous statements, and they rated as Not True his recent statement that his position has not changed.   I disagree with that rating.

He did make statements last year to the effect that he is not king or emperor, that he does not have the power to enact comprehensive immigration reform.    That is still his position and, most likely, what are the true facts.   Only congress can enact laws.

Obama's recent executive action will affect up to 5 million immigrants, but these exceptions are explicitly stated as temporary and all come under the category of an executive decision to delay deportation for certain categories (here 5 years, have a child who is an American citizen, no criminal record, etc.).   It does not change or violate the law.

The gray area of disagreement about the truth of his disclaimer about position change is this:   While his original statement about not being king was made in response to questions about comprehensive reform, he did continue to use the same line later on when he was questioned about deportations.

So there is some technicality to saying his current action is a change.    But when deciding how to rate a statement, PolitiFact has discretionary leeway to rate it in varying degrees of true or untrue.    I would have rated this as "half true."    My reason is that the original statement in its context was true, but it then got repeated -- perhaps inadvertantly -- in other contexts that made it not true. 

Often in deciding these gray areas, PolitiFact shows its bias -- in my opinion, anyway, and they often lean to the conservative side -- again, in my opinion.    They often seem to decide it on the basis of inferred intent, whether the person meant to deceive.   In this case, I don't think there was deliberate deception.    I think Obama just trotted out what had become a stock answer and didn't notice that the question had changed.

Of course, this isn't worth a hill of beans in the real world.  It only matters if the Republicans can used it to attack -- and thus divert attention from the real issues.   But what else do they have to talk about?    Just bluster and false issues.

So I rate this whole thing as a 4 + Bah humbug ! ! ! !

Ralph

PS:   A day after I wrote this, the AJC again did a fact-check on a politician.   This time it was former senator Rick Santorum.   Again, it was one of those gray areas that depends on context.   This time, however, PolitiFact rated Santorum's statement "Half-True."    See what I mean?