False equivalence, again.

Santorum told specific falsehoods about euthanasia practices in the Netherlands because he wanted to score political points in the debate over health care policy. His was a more sophisticated version of Palin's death panels canard.

Obama used an urban legend, the same one previously used by Reagan, to make a point about the GOP's alleged resistance to alternative energy technologies. Does anyone really think that his point was to say what Rutherford B. Hayes thought about telephones? Of course not. He was making a point about luddites in general.

Obama's sin was repeating a supposed historical fact without checking its accuracy. At worst, he conveyed a false impression of President Hayes's attitude toward new technologies. His basic point about people, in general, being resistant to change is fair (and accurate, IMHO). Santorum, on the other hand, told falsehoods about the Netherlands in an effort to scare people away from Obama's healthcare policies. Is one offense, worse than the other? That's for each person to decide, but they are not equivalent.