In this AP "fact" check piece, we find a prime example of "non-partisan" "reporting" which has served to move the goalposts of our discourse to the right at every possible juncture.

As predicted by Eric Boehlert, they are trying real hard to offer some old-fashioned counterbalance, old-fashioned in the sense that they’re partying like it’s 1999 again.

Gist of the analysis: "Obama claims something, but it’s not 100 percent certain that it might turn out to be true."

The highlights of this analysis:

President Barack Obama had it both ways when he promoted his stimulus plan in Indiana and later at a prime-time news conference.

[snip]

That’s not to say the package steers clear of waste or parochial interests. Obama played to such interests Monday, speaking at one point as if he’d come to fill potholes.

A look at some of Obama’s claims in Elkhart, Ind., and the news conference called to make his case to the largest possible audience:

OBAMA: "Not a single pet project," he told the news conference. "Not a single earmark."

THE FACTS: There are no "earmarks," as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork — tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects.

For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill., $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other "priority procurements" by the Coast Guard.

Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on "roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on." He added, "And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart."

U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state.

OK, so what exactly is so non-factual about what Obama is saying here? ANY government spending of any kind, including tax cuts, could benefit a certain part of the population over the other. I would argue that the AMT fix that our bi-partisan friends Collins and Nelson just had to insert would be perhaps more "tailored to benefit specific interests." That would be called "opinion" and not "fact" but that’s not stopping these AP writers.

They go on:

OBAMA: "My bottom line is, are we creating 4 million jobs?" he told the news conference.

He said in Indiana, "The plan that we’ve put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years."

THE FACTS: Job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers.

The president’s own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error."

We report, you decide. I would say that between 3 million and 4 million would be a significant margin of error, you know, like 25-33%. But that’s not stopping the AP from "fact" checking.

Beyond that, it’s unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it’s clear when jobs are abolished, there’s no economic gauge that tracks job preservation.

OBAMA: "They’ll be jobs building the wind turbines and solar panels and fuel-efficient cars that will lower our dependence on foreign oil and modernizing our costly health care system that will save us billions of dollars and countless lives."

THE FACTS: The economic stimulus bill would allocate about $20 billion to help hospitals and doctors transition from paper charts to electronic health records for their patients. Research has shown that in some instances, electronic record keeping can eliminate inappropriate services and improve care, but it’s not a sure thing by any means. "By itself, the adoption of more health IT is generally not sufficient to produce significant cost savings," the Congressional Budget Office reported last year.

As Media Matters points out, this appears to be a GOP talking point making it’s way through the media, as it was featured on Drudge, a Bloomberg "analysis" and Rush Limbaugh. A talking point which of course is, wait for it, …… false.

OBAMA: "I’ve appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration, in terms of their taxes. … I made a mistake. … I don’t want to send the signal that there are two sets of rules."

THE FACTS: Two of his appointees, former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle for health and human services secretary and Nancy Killefer as Obama’s chief compliance officer, dropped out after reports they had not paid a portion of their taxes.

Obama previously acknowledged he "screwed up" in making it seem to Americans that there is one set of tax compliance rules for VIPs and another set for everyone else. Yet his choice for treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner, achieved the post despite having belatedly paid $34,000 to the IRS, an agency Geithner now oversees.

That could leave the perception that there is one set of rules for Geithner and another set for everyone else.

Y kant these reporters read! – There are "hundreds" of appointments and they come up with two plus one equals three instances.

As an aside, I find it absolutely fascinating that all of these tax issues just happen to be announced right when Obama is seeking to make appointments, you know the Internal Revenue Service run by Bush appointees who, never, ever, leak. (h/t Christy)

And last but not least:

OBAMA: "We also inherited the most profound economic emergency since the Great Depression."

THE FACTS: This could turn out to be the case. But as bad as the economic numbers are, the unemployment figures have not reached the levels of the early 1980s, let alone the 1930s — yet. A total of 598,000 payroll jobs vanished in January — the most in nearly 35 years — and the unemployment rate jumped to 7.6 from 7.2 percent the month before. The most recent high was 7.8 percent in June 1992.

And the jobless rate was 10.8 percent in November and December 1982. Unemployment in the Great Depression ranged for several years from 25 percent to close to 30 percent.

Any economist worth their salt acknowledges that the government has been fudging the unemployment numbers for years. To take these numbers out of context and not noting that the measurements of unemployment have drastically changed over the years is being disingenuous at best. This March, 2008 piece from the New York Times’ David Leonhart is an excellent primer.

How many of you want to bet that someone at Michael Steele’s office (he of a government job is not really a job" fame) faxed over some talking points to AP headquarters.

Of course, many of them over at the RNC either believe that the recession is a media invention or that the US is a nation of whiners. A majority of American citizens kind of disagree here.