Assessing Right Wing Assessments of Phony “Liberal Mythology.”

This was posted at The Weekly Standard this past week, and I found it interesting. This is kind of a microcosm of how the far right thinks liberals – or at least the folks they refer to as “liberals” – actually think. It actually reveals the level of delusion most on the far right suffer under, which is substantial. Keep in mind, according to his biographical blurb at the end, this guy has written a book about political campaigns. The first thing I learned about political campaigns was “know your opposition.” He obviously knows nothing about his.  

The article lists the top ten “myths” we liberals supposedly live under. As usual, this is posted in its entirety, with my comments IN RED. You can click on the article’s title to see the original.

Mugged by Mythology 

Liberals believe the darnedest things.

SEP 12, 2011, VOL. 16, NO. 48 • BY JEFF BERGNER

Sometimes talking with liberals is perplexing. You never know what claim they will make next or what name they will call you. Take David Axelrod’s response to Standard & Poor’s recent credit action: He calls it the “Tea Party downgrade.” Amazingly, he blames the United States’ loss of its AAA bond rating on the one group that has sounded the alarm about our fiscal crisis. How did the president’s leading adviser come up with a label so detached from reality? 

Continue reading

The Professional Left is Killing Us; Example #1

Okay, if you want an illustration as to why the left can’t win an election, this is one major example. This post, from Daily Kos, received more than 1300 comments, so I assume that it was read/seen by a lot of people, although not enough to swing an election. But the complete and utter horseshit contained therein points to an understanding of politics that is so vapid, it’s killing us. And by killing US, I mean the progressive movement.

Now, I’m not picking on “MinistryofTruth” in particular; he/she/it is far too typical. But our side has to win elections, and we can’t do it if the loudest segment of our political side keeps on whining and pissing and moaning, and refusing to understand how to win elections.

The post can be found here. I pulled this, in its entirety, from the site this morning (August 29), and I’m not sure when the update was added. Follow along. As always, my comments are in RED.

Dear Hippy-Punching fanboys, this is BULLSH!T, if you want me to work to re-elect Dems, knock it off

by MinistryOfTruth

Continue reading

Jane Hamsher — Are You NUTS???

This is, without a doubt, the stupidest fucking post I have ever read on a left wing blog. I left it intact, and added my comments, which are in bright red.  If Hamsher objects, she knows how to contact me.

Continue reading

Everyone Should See This Short Video

Robert Reich is a genius. Pass this on to everyone you know who thinks the economy is complicated. It’s not. 


Breitbart Should be Ashamed. If Only…

It seems Andrew Breitbart can't handle criticism on his own blog, because he's blocked my comments there, so I'll put it on mine. More people will read it anyway.

If you consider yourself a journalist, or even just a truth-teller, and you EVER have this asshole on your program, or quote him in your news article, you should be ashamed. This guy is the uncle we all have and won't talk about, who has strong opinions about everything and everyone, and shares them with everyone, true or not.  Breitbart 2

Most of the shit he posts is made up of pure lies. Once in a while, he gets a fact right, and he actually expects us to believe everything else he's ever said, even when it's been proven wrong repeatedly. He was the linchpin in the James O'Keefe bullshit stories that brought down ACORN,  which were later proven wrong. He was the one who first proffered the story that Shirley Sherrod was a racist, which was proven wrong, and for which he's been sued. He keeps on saying things that are untrue regarding the Pigford settlement, and a lot of other things, too numerous to mention. (I've written about these bullshit stories and the one on NPR on this blog, HERE and HERE, which is one reason, I'm sure, why he blocked me on Twitter, as well.)

But as bad as he's been in the past, what he did today should certify him as a completely untrustworthy douchebag. 

Continue reading

Why the death of bin Laden matters — and why it doesn’t

I heard commentary earlier today, on our local DC news radio station, that bin Laden really didn't matter anymore from an operational standpoint for al Qaeda.  The fact that his compound didn't have modern communications, this analyst said, demonstrated he wasn't really in charge, and was only a "spiritual leader."

I disagree with this analysis.  Bin Laden had not, in fact, employed advanced communications since the mid- to late-1990's, after he discovered NSA was tracking his communications and whereabouts thanks to his use of satellite phones.  Yet, he signed off on and played a pivotal leadership role in planning and training for 9/11, from tents and caves in Afghanistan.

If anything, I think bin Laden's living conditions demonstrate that, far from being hunkered down, too fearful, bombarded and cut off to have involvement in al Qaeda's operations, he was in fact living in comfort and likely continued to serve a pivotal and active role in that organization.

So, in my opinion, the death of bin Laden will serve as more than a "feel-good moment" for the Western world.  It is a critical and damaging blow to al Qaeda.

Continue reading

Obama Releases Original Birth Certificate. Now STFU and Create JOBS GOP!

Here you go….


Now, GOP, fix the goddamn economy. Assholes. 

Learning the Right Lessons From the Budget Battle

In reading leftie blogs and watching my Twitter feed over the weekend, I’m afraid a lot of progressives are taking the wrong lessons away from the first stage of the budget battle in Washington this year. 

The issue isn’t that so many useful programs were cut and that the GOP are bastards. If you didn’t know the GOP are bastards going in, turn in your membership card.  We should already KNOW that when the denizens of the current incarnation of the GOP get into office, they will screw the poor and anyone else they can, in order to funnel money to their rich benefactors. That is not a shocker.  What’s shocking is that we keep letting them do it.

And that’s the issue. In a nutshell, what you should be learning from this budget fiasco is that allowing the current incarnation of the Republican Party to hold office right now is a very dangerous thing. And we should be looking at the only solution available to us at the moment; electing more Democrats.

Yeah, I know the drill; a lot of Democrats are “too conservative.” Those “Blue Dogs” screw up everything.  And if I hear “Obama doesn’t fight enough” one more time, I think I’ll scream.

What the hell do you expect from him? Do you expect him to go on TV and call Republicans ugly and insult their mothers? He's the President of the United States, for Chrissakes. 

Continue reading

Obama’s Created More jobs in Two years Than Bush Did in Eight

On April 1, I Tweeted the following statement, and it was not a joke:

More jobs created under Obama in 2 years than were created in eight under Bush.

When I made the initial statement last Friday, some silly person (by the tone of the messages, I suspect this was a male, but I could be wrong) who claimed expertise on the subject because his anonymous handle included the word “math” immediately jumped on it and threw up some numbers of his own. Here’s his reply:

137M employed when Bush took office, 142M when he left. We're now at 139M. Where's your math?

He kept on me, even after I explained that it was pretty much impossible to cite “my math” in 140 characters or less. Seriously, some folks think they can “prove” their statements simply by declaring them true in less than 140 characters. He claims he was getting his numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and his simplistic answer was actually stunning. His claim of 142 million employed? He got that from the January 2009 report, which indeed lists the total number of employed individuals as 142 million.I give him a little credit for at least blaming Bush for January. Many folks basically use the December number as the cutoff. 

But he’s looking at the wrong number, anyway. The number to look at is “non-farm payroll.” That is the number the BLS uses. When they claim the economy grew by 216,000 jobs in March, they’re using non-farm payroll numbers, not the total number of employed. 

But regardless of which numbers he cites, he’s still wrong, because he doesn't understand what I said. The first mistake he makes is his false assumption regarding time. I said “in 2 years,” not “since January 20, 2009.” I also don’t use BLS raw (easy) numbers as my sole source, because they don't tell the whole story. But just for the hell of it, let’s start off with BLS numbers. I refuse to cite numbers beginning with February 2001 and ending with February 2009, though, because presidents aren’t magicians. They don’t take office and immediately influence job creation. I think a more accurate measure is to use fiscal years, especially since the stimulus, passed by Democrats with ZERO Republican support, didn’t become law until April 1, 2009, and nothing but the tax cuts actually took effect then, anyway. The first stimulus money started being distributed in June.  But since I’m being fair, I’m not going to give Bush credit/blame for the first months of his administration, either. I was going to use the beginning of each fiscal year as a comparison, but then I realized that October 2001 was right after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which might be unfair to Bush. We’re not talking about his incompetence with regard to security, but rather his incompetence with the economy. So, I’m going to go with July 2001. That works, because the numbers aren’t influenced by 9/11, and July 2009 is about when the stimulus money started reaching its recipients. I would also note that most economists agree that the Bush Recession ended in June 2009, so July seems like a relatively fair beginning and ending period.

In the July 2001 report, the total nonfarm payroll was 132.4 million. Eight years later, in the July 2009 report, it was 131.4 million. So, even without giving Bush credit for the rest of the fiscal year, the net loss of jobs under Bush in eight years was over 1 million, even just using raw BLS numbers. The number in the March 2011 report, which was just issued last Friday, is 130.7 million. I know what you’re thinking; it’s still a negative, right?

Wrong. First, I’ll remind you, I’m using the July numbers as a courtesy to Bush. But you can’t simply use raw BLS numbers and compare one month to another month, because it doesn’t tell the whole story. That brings up the second false assumption my critic makes. I spoke of “the number of jobs created,” not the net jobs gained. There is a difference.The fact that some folks can’t read basic English, or insist on jerking their knee when they’ve been told something they don’t believe, doesn’t make me wrong. Even using the pure raw numbers, Bush shows a net loss of 1 million, and Obama’s shows a net loss of 700,000, and that number is shrinking rapidly, and will probably be in the positive territory by early summer. So, even using the simple-minded math this guy seems to prefer, I’m still correct. But there’s more.

See, at no point in Bush’s eight years could it be said that the economy added a net of more than 4 million jobs, even using just the BLS raw numbers. At one point, at the height of the bubble economy, there were 135.3 million non-farm employees, which means in the last two years of the Bush fiasco, the economy overall LOST 5 million jobs. If I wanted to be a real prick, I could point to just private sector employment. If I did that, then the economy lost 7 million jobs during the last two years of the Bush era. In fact, though, it was the public sector jobs that Obama created and/or saved with the initial part of the stimulus package that prevented us from hurtling toward 15% unemployment, and which set the stage for a boom in private sector jobs. At the time, some local districts were looking at laying off half their teachers, as well as lots of police officers and firefighters, until the stimulus bailed them out. If you don’t think that had an overall positive effect on private sector jobs, than you must be a Right Winger. Those teachers, police and firefighters spend a lot of money in the economy. That’s why it’s just too simplistic to simply add and subtract one number from another and declare "well, that's the truth. Period."

Obama deserves credit for the jobs the stimulus created, even as the rest of the economy was shedding others. For example, according to most economists NOT hired by the Fox News Channel, the stimulus package alone was responsible for 2.5-3 million jobs. In addition to the teachers, police and firefighters who got to keep their jobs, it’s estimated that the Cash for Clunkers resulted in nearly 500,000 jobs. The fact that many of those jobs were offset by the continued loss of jobs in other areas of the economy caused by the Bush recession does not change that fact. 

If I use annual figures, the only positive Bush years were 2004, 2005, 2006 and (barely) 2007.  And 2006 and 2007 were only positive because he was having the Fed print money in the hope that he could hide the mortgage meltdown that actually started in late 2005 (and which I predicted on my old blog back in 2003). That means half of his Administration found the economy in the shitter. Using just numbers from FY 2010 and FY 2011 so far, Obama beats that track record by a mile, even if you subtract temporary census workers from the mix. In fact, when you remove the census workers from the mix altogether, Obama has seen 13 straight months of positive job growth; a record Bush didn’t accomplish until September 2004. Between March 2010 and March 2011, the private sector has seen its first positive annual job growth in more than four years, adding nearly 3 million jobs, all told. If Obama had continued doing the same things Bush was doing in the last year of his presidency, we would have lost 2.5-3 million jobs more than we did, and most economists estimate that the unemployment rate would have ended up north of 15%.

But Obama and the Democrats acted fast, and they stopped the bleeding. (Yes, I know; in a perfect world, the stimulus should have been larger.) He has also turned the economy into a job producer again. It’s not enough to just count the number of jobs that were created; it’s also necessary to count jobs that weren’t lost. I will grant you, the overall job numbers still look anemic, but the fact that nearly 3 million jobs have been created in the private sector over the past year alone points to major progress. Companies are making more profit than ever, and they have begun hiring again. I’m still feeling a little wary, especially with the GOP bozos who are in charge of the House, but the positive growth should start feeding itself as the employment picture catches up to the economy. And the 3 million private sector jobs created in the last year, combined with the 2.5-3 million jobs created with the stimulus package put him up near Bill Clinton in job creation territory, even though he’s just started his third year.

Once again, George Bush’s record on jobs was an overall negative, when you look at his record honestly. The effects of the Bush recession didn’t magically end on January 20, 2009. As you can see if you look at the actual numbers, job numbers bottomed out in late 2009, just as the stimulus was taking effect, and they have been showing a positive trend since. When you add in the jobs that were proven to have been created by the stimulus package, there is no doubt that Obama’s job creation numbers are better in the last two years than Bush’s were in eight years. Every job created under Bush disappeared, while the jobs created during the Obama era seem to be here to stay. He’s created new jobs and new industries that promise enormous growth in the future, so that record will get even better.

Like I said:

More jobs created under Obama in 2 years than were created in eight under Bush.

Just Call Republicans The Party of Fiscal Irresponsibility

Let's talk about “fiscal responsibility,” shall we?

Republicans love to use that term, don’t they? They became the “Party of No”™ by whining and complaining about the deficit pretty much every day, and using that as a rationale for trying to kill everything.  Suddenly, they are so incredibly worried about the huge debt our kids will be left with; it’s almost touching, unless you consider the incredible hypocrisy involved. 

You see, more than 90% of the current level of national debt was laid there by Republicans. They can seek to blame others for it, but the bottom line is, the only reason there should be concerned about the deficit now is because of the foundation the Republicans have laid at our feet. Their concern about our children and grandchildren might be touching, except for the fact that Republicans have already stuck them with higher taxes than would otherwise be necessary, had they not been fiscally irresponsible for the better part of a generation.

Continue reading