The Only thing that is Ridiculous, is this Kessler Fact Check: http://wapo.

st/ok2d7T The Washington Post Fact Checker Glenn Kessler this morning proved once again how ridiculous fact checks are that dont take into account a candidates history, profile and character and which dont take the time to probe a candidates positions by say, actually asking the candidate. Kesslers hyperbolic, over the top, fact check of the DNCs assertion that Mitt Romney supports private Social Security accounts considers none of these factors, failed to actually talk to the Romney campaign about his current position despite repeated suggestions that he do so and uses the weakest of evidence to assert that Romneys position on privatization is clear. One should of course start from the proposition that Mitt Romney, in his nearly two decades pursuit of various public offices, has rarely been clear. Mitt Romney has changed positions fundamental positions on everything from a womans right to choose to gay rights to TARP, Health Care and beyond. Romney lacks convictions and changes his views with the political winds depending on the audience hes in front of and the office he is running for. To believe his weak-tea denials and dodges of his support for private Social Security accounts is to ignore his profile as a valueless, conviction-less flip-flopper which is exactly what Kessler did. But at its core, Kesslers fact check cites the flimsiest of evidence to support his claim that Romney doesnt support private Social Security accounts. Both sources of evidence are typical Romney mushy declarations followed by vagueness and uncertainty. Kessler cites a passage from Romneys 2010 book No Apology where Romney actually says that personal accounts (privatization) could still be considered but would need to be phased in. Well phased in, voluntary private

Social Security accounts was exactly what George Bush proposed in 2005 that was so soundly rejected by the American people the same plan Romney called a good idea in 2007. Kessler cites a passage where Romney says he would prefer that such accounts be added to Social Security rather than diverted from it. Well Id prefer to be 65 and have six pack abs but running for President isnt just about what you prefer but what you would do and what you would sign. Kessler leaps to the conclusion that Romneys supposed preference represents a renunciation of private accounts when it obviously does not. The obvious question of course, one Kessler chose not to ask the Romney campaign, is what would he sign? This was a central question around the Ryan-Republican plan to end Medicare as we know it. There too Romney tried to dodge the question but ultimately admitted he would sign the RyanRepublican legislation to end Medicare and move to a system of vouchers. Even if Kessler were right and Romney would now support private accounts on top of Social Security why hasnt he advocated for that on the campaign trail? Why just a single line in a book written nearly two years ago? If Kessler believes Romneys supposed preference for accounts on top of Social Security is proof positive that he no longer supports private Social Security accounts why isnt Romney advocating for them on the campaign trail? In the debates? Did Kessler ask the Romney campaign this question? Apparently not. Kessler also cites a video from a New Hampshire town hall in August. Kessler snipped a short portion of the back and forth Romney had with a voter on the issue of privatization where he appears to reject the notion but actually simply dodges the question by, among other things, noting he had not mentioned it in his remarks. The rest of his remarks, which Kessler did not show, are a jumble where he eventually calls the term privatization value-laden and appears to be rejecting the term more so than the

concept. He even says with respect to privatizing Social Security no ones going to sign up for that term. Well, thats the oldest dodge in the Republican playbook on this issue. For years Republicans have rejected the term privatization while supporting the concept. Theyve referred to the idea as personal investment accounts or personal retirement accounts. Rejecting the term is a far cry from rejecting the idea. And lets compare the strength of his comments over time just from Kesslers own fact check - which have been much more strongly supportive of privatization than not. In 2007 Romney called the Bush privatization plan a good idea and extolled the earning potential of stock market accounts for Social Security while in his book he talked about accounts being phased in and what he prefers while in New Hampshire he tried to dodge the question and settled mostly on rejecting the term. An exceedingly generous interpretation of where Mitt Romney stands on privatization, particularly given his penchant for flip-flopping, would be that his position is unclear or that he is trying to have it both ways (typical Romney, right?). But to declare Romneys position which such certainty, as Kessler does, on the weight of this flimsy evidence and considering Romneys history of prevarications and equivocations on this and other issues, is well, ridiculous.