How many liberal myths can a mainstream news announcer cram into one innocent, 90-second, top-of-the-hour news briefing? On WABC’s New York affiliate one recent December evening, I counted eight.
First the news reader (as they more appropriately call them in Japan) cheerfully announced that seasonal hiring—inventory control agents, sales clerks, deliverymen—was way up this year compared to last year; that increased holiday spending was a sign the economy was improving; and that goods being purchased in the U.S. are unfortunately being made more often overseas.
There’s three myths right there: (1) elevated part-time hiring reflects economic health; (2) consumer spending drives growth; and (3) trade imbalances are harmful.
(1) That retailers are hiring more temporary help isn’t a sign the economy is thriving; it’s a sign there are more underemployed workers taking part-time work below their skill level. If permanent, full-time employment were stable, we wouldn’t see such a leap in short-term hiring during peak economic season. Increased part-time hiring also reflects employers’ reluctance to take on “full-time,” 30-hour-a-week employees whom they must soon provide health insurance per Obamacare. read more »
Democrats haven’t passed a budget in years, yet somehow it’s Republicans’ fault that the country is about to go over a fiscal cliff.
Harry Reid’s Democratic-controlled Senate has, for three consecutive years, refused to pass a federal budget or even bring a proposal to the floor as required by law. In 2011 Reid announced that passing a budget would be “foolish” because of ongoing negotiations over other fiscal matters. Senator Chuck Schumer declared that proposing budgets was “not the point” of the Senate. read more »
Can we please filibuster Democrats’ attempts to curb filibusters every time they control the Senate but don’t have a supermajority?
In anticipation of another two years of Congressional gridlock, Democrats are once again fervently trying to block Republicans from using the Senate filibuster to stop their horrific agenda. read more »
No modern American president has ever been granted the opportunity President Obama received to preside over explosive economic growth while in office if he had simply left well enough alone.
Consider this: Politically speaking, if a president assumes office during a recession, the luckiest time for him to do so is around twelve months in, when the economy is near rock-bottom and ready to come roaring back. If he plays his cards right, he can take credit for some of the recovery by claiming that his policies contributed to it. What’s least fortunate is to assume office near or before the start of a recession, because then the downturn occurs entirely under his watch and everyone blames him for it.
Harry Truman took office two months into the 1948 recession—a precarious position, because unemployment plunged for a year under his watch before recovering. Eisenhower assumed office six months before the 1953 recession and was forced to serve as the face of twelve months of decline.
Mitt Romney doesn’t need to win Ohio to win the presidential election, he needs to do well enough overall that he ends up winning Ohio. There’s a huge difference.
First, remember that correlation is not causation. Ohio voters do not cause voters in other states to vote one way or another, such that securing Ohio votes secures votes in other states. Ohio reflects a larger trend.
The Electoral College scenarios by which Romney can win the election start to proliferate at the point where he’s doing so well generally that the most likely outcomes include him snagging Ohio. The site 270ToWin reports that there are 161 combinations of swing states Romney can win to reach 270 electoral votes, but that 8 out of the 10 most probable ways involve winning Ohio. Nonetheless, Romney should concentrate on doing well generally, not spending all his time in Ohio. read more »
Mitt Romney may have been too polite in Monday night’s presidential debate to critique the Obama administration’s mishandling of the Benghazi terrorist attack, but I’m not.
Immediately after presidential candidate and potential Commander-in-Chief Romney opined on the Libya attacks last month, Democrats tripped all over themselves to condemn him for opening his mouth:
Watchblog.com declared, “Republicans Have Embarrassed Themselves Over Benghazi.”
OpEd News announced, “Mendacious Mitt Politicizes Benghazi.”
Joan Walsh bemoaned “Benghazi madness,” which she labeled “the latest right-wing conspiracy porn.”
Conservative commentators have been suggesting that last night’s townhall debate at Hofstra University was filled with liberal plants, but I fear it was stocked with something more insidious: uncommitted voters.
Last night’s audience could have been brimming with bright, informed citizens who pay attention to daily events and engage in critical thinking about politicians’ claims, but weren’t quite convinced that either candidate would address their concerns.
Instead the audience came off like dazed sleepwalkers who recited their questions off cards as if someone else had handwritten them in crayon.
Thus, we were treated to such penetrating probes as:
Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008, but I’m not sure if I will in 2012. Why is everything I buy so expensive?
President Obama, why don’t women who make different life choices earn the exact same salaries as men?
Governor Romney, are you really George W. Bush in disguise?
We also had this dinger:
“Doesn’t the Laffer Curve predict that lowering marginal federal income tax rates boosts government revenue?”
Just kidding! How will voters who haven’t made up their minds between Reagan Lite and Saul Alinsky, Jr. ever understand the Laffer Curve?
One uncommitted voter ventured, “Mr. President, your energy secretary Steven Chu said it’s not his department’s policy to lower gas prices. Is this true?” read more »
Contrary to popular opinion, which is being grossly distorted by the detestable misreporting of left-leaning pollsters, Mitt Romney is not floundering in the race against President Obama.
Every time you read a story about how Romney must “reverse course” after a “disastrous month” of “Obama momentum,” realize that this narrative was entirely created by biased pollsters and a complicit media seeking to sway election turnout.
Left-leaning pollsters are actively trying to discourage conservative voters and donors, put the Republican ticket on the defensive, and suppress GOP turnout. What’s the proof?
Modern-day pollsters weight their raw sample results to match the electorate by expected turnout for key demographic groups. Almost every poll showing Obama ahead of Romney in swing states by double digits uses a weighting model that predicts Democratic turnout equal to or greater than it was in 2008. Specifically, these polls overweight demographic groups that flocked out en masse for Obama in 2008 and underweight anti-Obama groups. read more »
Just as President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” gaffe was, contrary to his defenders’ insistence, worse when experienced in context, his “I actually believe in redistribution” remark is more alarming when examined in toto.
Last week Mother Jones released a videotape of Mitt Romney at a Boca Raton fundraiser telling his audience that the 47% of the American population who pay no federal income tax see themselves as victims, automatically support Obama, and cannot be swayed by targeted campaign efforts.
The media went wild over Romney’s statement, accusing him of not caring about half the population and of attempting to carve out an electorate who support his elitist economic policies.
Has Mitt Romney sewed up the 2012 election and begun issuing policy pronouncements via the Office of the President-Elect? That’s what you’d think to hear mainstream news commentators tell it.
Witness the media uproar over Romney’s absolutely true, courageously firm observation that President Obama’s State Department is more interested in sparing the feelings of Muslim terrorists than standing up for American values.
Rather than evaluating and refuting his charges; rather than critically reexamining Obama’s approach; rather than considering the repercussions of the President’s conciliatory stance toward our enemies; liberals… blamed the crisis on someone who doesn’t even work for the government.
Rachel Maddow cried that we were in the middle of a tense, hair-trigger confrontation requiring suave diplomatic prowess, and that Romney may just have sent rioting protestors over the top. read more »