Republican presidential candidate John McCain cites three absurd-sounding examples of pork-barrel spending in a recent ad. But he appears to have chosen these three because they’re easy to mock, not because he had significant involvement in removing them from the budget.
In the latest debate among the Democrats, Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama sparred over their plans for health care and Social Security. We found both presidential candidates guilty of exaggerations and questionable claims.
John Edwards’ new ad says that when he’s in the Oval Office, he’ll tell Congress to act within six months to make sure all Americans have health insurance or “I’m going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you.” First he’s going to have to throw out the Constitution, though.
Mitt Romney casts himself as tough on illegal immigration in a new ad in which he says that, as Massachusetts governor, “I authorized the State Police to enforce immigration laws.” He doesn’t mention that his order never took effect.
Rudy Giuliani insists he was “absolutely accurate” to say that men with prostate cancer have a 44 percent survival rate in England, despite being contradicted by FactCheck.org, major news organizations and several cancer experts.
At a Democratic debate in Philadelphia, Sen. Hillary Clinton ducked some questions and gave misleading answers to others.
In a new radio ad, Rudy Giuliani falsely claims that under England’s “socialized medicine” system only 44 percent of men with prostate cancer survive.
Tongues were sharpened before Sunday night’s GOP presidential debate in Orlando, with the candidates drawing blood right out of the gate. We found them factually challenged in several areas:
Have you heard about how Al Gore claimed to have invented the Internet? What about how Iraq was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center? Or maybe the one about how George W. Bush has the lowest IQ of any U.S. president ever? Chances are pretty good that you might even believe one (or more) of these claims. And yet all three are false. At FactCheck.org our stock in trade is debunking these sorts of false or misleading political claims,
In this article we examine two examples of what we call “fact-free” advertising, which we see in abundance. These ads seek to associate the candidate with a string of positive words and images but are void of specifics.