That's a nice "no true Scotsman" fallacy in your second sentence there, Brad. But I get what you're saying.
Yes, the fact-checkers called the Obama campaign on several things. The one that really amused me was when they tried to claim that the Obama Recovery was in any way more impressive than the Reagan Recovery. Ha! But, Dear God, the clear majority of the Romney campaign was based on falsehoods. IIRC one fact-checking organization figured that 65% of their ads were false. And they bragged about it- "We're not going to let the fact-checkers dictate our campaign strategy." Remember that cute comment? That is insulting as hell- they expect us to buy any lie they spew.
Of course, the latest ploy is to claim that the fact-checkers are themselves partisan, which is on the face of it untrue to anyone who puts in the effort to read the evaluations. Certainly, I would doubt MSNBC's or Fox's "fact-checkers". But groups like Politifact and FactCheck are pretty reliable. They both present explanations for their ratings, which you can read and decide if you agree. Usually I do agree, occasionally I don't.
Frankly, though, this is all the fault of the American electorate. The candidates never even really tried to counter the other sides' falsehoods, because the issues are complex and our attention span isn't long enough to make the effort worthwhile. They just took the hit and moved on to their own talking points. Pathetic.
I'm a right-of-center moderate. But I have to tell you, the Republicans are loosing me because they are getting so extreme and so dishonest. The day a foam-at-the-mouth Tea Party wingnut called me a RINO, they lost me. I've voted Democrat twice in a row, now. I often call myself a "Schwartzeneggar Republican", which means among other things that I'm very green, so you can imagine that the Republican hostility to the environment annoys me. Otherwise I have a bit of a libertarian streak on most social issues, but I'm very conservative on fiscal policy, business, foreign policy, most anything else, etc.
There was a really neat graphic on the xkcd comic website that showed how there are NO moderate Republicans left in the House. Zero. In fact it's majority extremists. (This is clearly the major factor in why Obama failed at so much he tried to do, and I'll "no true Scotsman" back at you- if you don't see this, well, you might need an eye exam.) Radical Republicans scare me (just as much as do radical Democrats- Nancy Pelosi, anyone?) I especially do not want my country to degenerate into some sort of farcical Iran-modeled Evangelical theocracy, or even worse some sort of callous Objectivist paradise. And if the current extremist Republicans ever get power you'll see both.
Where are the damned moderate Republicans ?!?! At least moderate Democrats DO exist.
The U.S. has many times been called a center-right nation, and I've come to believe that I am in many ways the "average American" in my political views, as I mentioned above with the Schwartzeneggar thing. Yes, some of that is self-contradictory- that's America for you. A couple of elections back there was this debate among political wonks about whether the republicans should trend moderate or even more extreme. Unfortunately, the bloated gasbag commentators like Limbaugh won out, and they shifted even more toward extremism. Why are they listening to an ENTERTAINER whose entire schtick is to say the most ridiculously extreme tripe that he can think of, anyway? If they are losing the middle (people like me) I think they need to rethink the issue again.
I can fix the United States in two steps: make our voting Australian-style, and craft an Amendment overturning Citizens United (the worst Supreme Court decision since Plessy v. Ferguson). This would favor moderates, who presumably would be capable of working together, instead of two polarized groups of extremists who only cause gridlock.
Really- does ANYONE think Citizens United was a good call?