25 Oct

Democrats In Worry Mode – “Everything Was Going Great” Until Republicans Started Gaining Support

                                       

Whoa boy, the Democrats are in major spin mode now that the election is so near. On Saturday the ill-conceived “foreign money” talking point reared its head again from the queen bee of stupid, Nancy Pelosi:

Before introducing President Barack Obama at a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser in Minneapolis on Saturday, Speaker Nancy Pelosi bemoaned the massive amount of money that shadowy conservative third-party groups have poured into this year’s election.

Everything was going great and all of a sudden secret money from God knows where — because they won’t disclose it — is pouring in,” the California Democrat told about 100 donors at the fundraiser, according to a White House pool reporter in attendance.

Yeaaaah.

Everything was going just swell until those damn Republicans started trying to ram Socialism down everyone’s throats…..oh wait, that was Obama and pals. And that was about the time the support for Democrats began to nosedive. Allah:

Go here and scroll alllllll the way down to see how long ago it was that the generic ballot started to tilt towards Republicans. Even lefty pollsters like PPP were showing a lead for the GOP as far back as August 2009. If you want to throw that poll out because it was taken at the height of anti-ObamaCare townhall fever, no problem: Gallup found the GOP ahead in November 2009 and, as you’ll see, more pollsters started to follow suit shortly thereafter. (Rasmussen, which polls only likely voters, has had Republicans ahead for ages.) Which is to say, the big red wave has been building for a long, long time, first gathering strength during the ObamaCare debacle and then racing towards shore when Recovery Summer turned into Double-Dip-ish Fall.

The day before this incredibly stupid remark by Peloisi, Obama made another remark that isn’t just stupid, but a lie:

Job growth between 2001 and 2009 was the most sluggish since World War II, more sluggish than it’s been over the last year.

Uh, I don’t think so.

…the average unemployment rate during president Bush’s terms was 5.3 percent, as opposed to 9.6 percent. Also, between September 2003 and July 2007, there were 45 months of uninterrupted job growth. We are talking about 7.8 million jobs created during that time.

It’s true that President Bush didn’t create these jobs, because government can’t create sustainable jobs. It is also possible that these jobs were only the product of the housing bubble. But whatever it was, it wasn’t sluggish job growth.

More importantly, if we look at the Bureau of Labor Statistics data, in 2010, total job changes by months we see the following. After a few months of job growth between January 2010 and May 2010 (total growth: 1 million), the last four months have been bad for total employment. In June 2010, employment decreased by 175,000 jobs, in July 2010 by 66,000 jobs, in August by 57,000 jobs, and in September 95,000 jobs. That’s a total loss of almost 400,000 jobs.

Interestingly, these jobs were lost in the public sector.

~~~

Adding up private-sector job changes between February 2001 and January 2009, we find 7.6 million jobs. In 2010, the number of private jobs created amounts to 938,000:

Finally, while net private job creation between 2001 and 2009 is negative, it’s not at bad as it has been since February 2009.

Why let facts get in the way?

Lie about unemployment, lie about Republican donors, and now….call some Americans the enemy.

Worst President evah!

About Curt

Curt served in the Marine Corps for four years and has been a law enforcement officer in Los Angeles for the last 20 years.
This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Congress, Conservatism, Dem Congress Reckoning, Economy, Immigration, Nancy Pelosi, Obamanomics, Politics, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Monday, October 25th, 2010 at 3:49 pm
| 587 views

33 Responses to Democrats In Worry Mode – “Everything Was Going Great” Until Republicans Started Gaining Support

  1. plainjane31 says: 1

    NP wants Dems to return a majority to Congress so they can continue redistributing the wealth (but not hers, that is)

    In related news, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pleaded with voters to “return a Democratic majority to Congress so we can continue our work toward a redistribution of the nation’s wealth into more equitable shares.”

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2613718/posts

    ReplyReply
  2. Pingback: Tweets that mention Democrats In Worry Mode – “Everything Was Going Great” Until Republicans Started Gaining Support -- Topsy.com

  3. So What says: 2

    You want to know who’s giving the money? I want to see Ovmits sealed records ALL OF THEM. While that is happening, dont forget Kerry’s stellar military record ALL OF IT

    ReplyReply
  4. Pingback: Democrats In Worry Mode – “Everything Was Going Great” Until Republicans Started Gaining Support » CWNews

  5. Greg says: 3

    That chart is telling us that from 2000 through 2008–which includes the boom years of the fabled economy-stimulating tax cuts–we actually had a net loss of 673,000 private-sector jobs?

    ReplyReply
  6. Missy says: 4

    Yikes, he’s even losing that cool with college voters:

    On college campuses where Barack Obama made politics cool again, most students have moved on.

    They’ve quit bugging their friends about change, they’re no longer trying to sign up new voters and the knock-on-door day trips now draw only the most hard-core.

    One statistic from Rock the Vote, the most aggressive organization behind youthful political participation, illustrates the difference between now and 2008 — just 280,000 young voters signed up in its midterm elections voter drive, a fraction of the 2.5 million who eagerly put their name on voter forms two years ago.

    The bottom line: From coast to coast, universities that brim with liberal ideas and idealistic students won’t be sending nearly as many voters to the polls on Nov. 2. And that’s bad news for Democrats.

    ~~~
    Colorado State University campus, voter registration drives resulted in 20,000 new voters in 2008. This year, only 1,200 came through.

    University of Virginia. In 2008, 6,171 people registered to vote; only 2,714 this year

    Virginia Tech, in 2008 7,402 people registered this year, 1,441

    University of New Hampshire, record-breaking numbers in 2008…1,600 forms, this year
    just 150 new student voters.

    “UC-Davis recorded 1,633 votes in the 2008 election, a turnout of more than 60 percent of registered voters. This year, Stanionis said he’d be “astonished” if more than 15 or 20 percent of registered voters at the campus precincts show up.”

    He did get decent numbers campaigning in Madison, aka Little Berkely and in colleges in Ohio and Massachusetts, he seems to want to show up in big venues in friendly territory to insult American voters from a safe perch avoiding the heckling that didn’t sit to well with him earlier. :roll:

    But generally, the ranks have thinned for college Democrats, many of whom said in interviews that they’ve been getting about half as many like-minded students to their meetings and campaign trips as they did in 2008.

    Whereas 70 percent of students said they “definitely” planned to vote in 2008, only 35 percent said they’ll do so this year, according to a new Harvard Institute of Politics poll. And even in 2008 there was a fairly large discrepancy between those who said they were going to vote and those who actually did — about 51 percent.

    Other polls suggest Obama’s star power has simply diminished among students. What was a 60 percent approval rating in May 2009 is now 44 percent, according to an Associated Press-mtvU survey from late September.

    Young people also are marching to the right, identifying with Democrats at just a 9-point margin over Republicans, a Rock the Vote poll from late August reported. In 2008, that margin was twice as big.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44093.html

    ReplyReply
  7. Hard Right says: 5

    673,000 over 8 years? That’s 84,125 per year. So tell me idiot Greg, what happened in 2001 around September? Oh yeah. A terrorist attack that sent an already weakened economy into the dumper. That couldn’t possibly accoutnt for any of those losses now could it? Or how about the dems taking over Congress in 2006? Or how about the CRA and the dems forcing banks to loan to people who shouldn’t be lent to finally causing the collapse of the mortgage/housing industry?

    BTW moron, the thread is about rank hypocrisy on the part of dems which you didn’t even try to defend against. That’s because you know we’re right. The dems got all kinds of donations from overseas and anonymously. IIRC they got 20k from a terrorist organization. That one slipped out, but almost all others did not.

    Now that leftists are about to lose they are desperately lashing out trying to score points any way they can.

    ReplyReply
  8. Doug says: 6

    @Greg: and with Øbama’s various stimuli and bailouts, we only had a net loss of 2,991,000 private sector jobs?

    ReplyReply
  9. Nan G says: 7

    Everybody already see this chart?

    Heh!

    I wonder if you can coordinate Obama’s false charges against the Chamber of Commerce, Rove, and others with the lines on this chart?

    And, what ever happened to that horrid witch the lawyer with the illegal alien client?
    Sorta went dark, didn’t she?
    See, she didn’t help the chart, either.

    It’s the spaghetti strategy: Throw it all against the wall and hope something sticks.

    Bill Clinton gets 1/2-empty auditoriums.

    Obama has to throw in a free concert to fill his stale public speeches.

    I heard today some Rhode Island Dem candidate (Frank Caprio) told Obama to ”take his endorsement and really shove it.”

    ReplyReply
  10. Greg says: 8

    This paragraph preceded the chart shown up above, in What is the President Talking About?, the linked article by Veronique de Rugy:

    “Now, let’s look at private-sector jobs exclusively. The president says that between 2001 and 2009, job creation was sluggish, “more sluggish than it’s been over the last year.” Here again, I am not sure how he comes to this conclusion. Adding up private-sector job changes between February 2001 and January 2009, we find 7.6 million jobs. In 2010, the number of private jobs created amounts to 938,000.”

    Actually, I don’t know what the heck Veronique is talking about. 7.6 million private-sector jobs created over 8 years works out to 950,000 jobs per year. She’s comparing 950,000 per year with 930,000 private-sector jobs created during 2010–a year that’s not even over yet, and has come during a prolonged deep recession–to make the point that the previous administration was doing strikingly better?

    In the paragraphs immediately before that one, she makes these odds statements:

    “In June 2010, employment decreased by 175,000 jobs, in July 2010 by 66,000 jobs, in August by 57,000 jobs, and in September 95,000 jobs. That’s a total loss of almost 400,000 jobs.

    “Interestingly, these jobs were lost in the public sector. That may be why in this video, Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, only uses private-sector job growth to discuss the Obama administration’s role as job guru.”

    Have I misunderstood conservatives entirely? I was under the impression that private-sector jobs were what they were most concerned about; that growth in the private sector was an especially good thing. I’ve also apparently misunderstood their feelings about public-sector jobs. I figured job losses in the public sector would be something they’d generally approve of.

    Maybe I need to reread Lewis Carolls Through the Looking Glass, just to refresh my mind on how backwards logic works.

    ReplyReply
  11. Missy says: 9

    September 2003 and July 2007, there were 45 months of uninterrupted job growth. We are talking about 7.8 million jobs created during that time.

    Adding up private-sector job changes between February 2001 and January 2009, we find 7.6 million jobs.

    Nice catch Greg. I see the job losses started when the dems took over Congress in 2007. 45 months into 7.8 million appears to be pretty strong job growth immediately following the Clinton recession, dot.com bust the 911 hit and throughout two raging wars. All this prior to the yoke of Pelosi/Reid setting up shop. Amazing!

    No wonder they are trying to spin themselves out of their record.

    ReplyReply
  12. Randy says: 10

    October 26, 2010
    The Big, Blue D Stands for ‘Devil’
    By Kyle-Anne Shiver

    Whom does the Democrat governor of Illinois think he’s fooling? Conservatives are haters? Oh, please. Not the lying hate card again.

    Whenever Democrats are scared down to their woolies that Uncle Sam’s gravy train is about to get a new force of conductors — who actually check for tickets and promise to balance the books — their conservatives-are-haters reflex goes into overdrive. And it doesn’t take a triple-digit IQ to see through this tacky ruse.

    This reverse use of the hate card is so silly, really, when anyone with half a grain of true historical knowledge and an ounce of common sense knows that the big, blue D stands for “devil.”

    And, of course, the devil lies. Any second-grade Sunday-schooler knows that, honey.

    Don’t believe me? Take a little trip down Democrat memory lane.

    When the all-Democrat, devilish slave masters dressed themselves up as high society, donned the big-hooped skirts, the fashionable sideburns, and waistcoats, they flaunted their “goodness” in America’s finest high society. They preened and pranced, all the while claiming that they were the good white people who gave their slaves far better lives than they could have had in the jungles of Africa. These Democrat do-gooders even trumped up a whole junk-science disciple (sounds a bit like “global warming,” doesn’t it?) to show that the black man’s brain was inferior to the white one and that they — the slavers — were the paragons of virtue for putting free clothes on the backs of apes.

    When Abe Lincoln ran as the first Republican president, the devilish Democrats took out the hate card faster than they could flip their bullwhips at a black man’s back. Abe is a hater! Wants to rob us of our private property rights! He’s really just a Negro, all dressed up to look white! The whole Dixie Democrat stronghold refused to even put Negro-Abe on the ballot in their states.

    Historically speaking, it took less than a Chicago minute for those Democrat slaveholders to secede from the Union and start a war that came within a hair’s breadth of killing America. Their loss, when it finally came, was so ignominious that anyone would have thought the devil had got his due and would slink from history’s pages without raising his head again — at least not in polite company.

    But those Democrat devils have got so many heads, it’s nearly downright impossible to slay ‘em all. They rose again. Oh, yeah. Since outright slavery was abolished by the evil Negro Abe, they first killed him, then morphed their evil ways into a little system — almost like slavery — called Jim Crow.

    Now, any decent person would think that at the very least, these Democrat devils would have known better than to try to sneak back into American high society afterward, but these folks have so much diabolical pride that they didn’t even bat an eyelash before jumping right back in, still preening like do-gooders. They were always looking out for the black man, don’t you know. Trying to keep him separate for his own good.

    The devilish Democrat line hasn’t changed much; it’s just dressed up a little for public consumption. When Democrat-devil LBJ concocted his plan to change the color of the old racist beast’s spots, he stumbled onto a winner that’s lasted half a century and shows no real sign of letting go.

    LBJ ushered in the age of condescending racism. Now, condescending racism is the same old ugly beast as slavery and Jim Crow. It’s designed to addict the still-inferior black man to the slavers’ handouts. Since real shackles were outlawed, old LBJ had to come up with something else. Republicans had been beating the equal-civil-rights drum for decades, and cunning LBJ saw time running out on the old Jim Crow system. A whole new order was called for, and it had to be good.

    It was. A very, very superior-minded man, Thomas Sowell, has amply demonstrated in his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies, that until the Great Society (the new Jim Crow) was enacted, black incomes were rising dramatically. Black education levels were catching up fast. The middle-class black community — though still separate — was as strong as or stronger than its white counterpart. Out-of-wedlock pregnancies in the black community were just a sliver above the tiny percentages in the white community. Well, it took less than a decade of LBJ’s diabolical plan to see all that destroyed, and presto! The devil’s party had got the majority of blacks right back on the plantation, held firmly in place there with the invisible shackles of addiction to handouts.

    The federal housing ghettos promptly took the place of the old slave quarters, where no white man dared to tread — not even police officers. The welfare office and the food stamp office became the new slave master’s rations queue. ACORN took the place of the overseer. And the most diabolical part of all was that the new system was even better than Jim Crow at producing more numbers of dependent offspring. That’s right. The black nuclear family that had thrived under Jim Crow, with just a tiny percentage of illegitimate births, suddenly disintegrated under LBJ’s diabolical plot to give more in handouts for the more dependent kids a black (slave) could produce. And voilà. The black community now keeps itself voluntarily in slavery with a never-ending explosion of out-of-wedlock births. To top that off, Democrat devils ushered in control of the public schools by teachers’ unions. They promptly destroyed public education in America, insuring that the black ghetto (slave quarters) will go on and on and on.

    And here we are, full circle after all these years. The Democrat devils are out there in full force right this minute, trying to scare the daylights out of their slaves and herd them to the voting booths. They’ve even got their half-black overseer out on the stump, sounding downright “articulate” and looking downright “clean-cut.”

    And they’re all screaming, “Conservatives are haters!” at the top of their little devilish lungs.

    It’s as though they really do believe they can make evil into good and good into evil with nothing more than a thrust of their lying tongues.

    If the election of Barack Obama has taught this country a single worthy thing, it’s this: souls come in only one color. Just like the African continent has discovered to its dismay and disgust, the color of a man’s skin doesn’t mean a thing. It’s just like Martin said it was. The only thing that counts is a man’s character.

    So, whether led by a white demon or a black demon, that big, blue D just stands for “devil” — like it always has.

    And lying is the devil’s middle name.
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/the_big_blue_d_stands_for_devi.html

    ReplyReply
  13. OLDPUPPYMAX says: 11

    Voter/election fraud will be BREATHTAKING!!! How many seats will be stolen by the left??

    ReplyReply
  14. Hard Right says: 12

    So Greg, why won’t you mention how hypocritical the dems are on the issue of campaign donations? Why are you deliberately trying to derail the thread?
    Because you know the dems have stepped in it yet again. You being the mentally ill drone just have to try and come to their rescue. Too bad you’ve failed at that too.

    ReplyReply
  15. B-Rob says: 13

    @ Missy —

    Sorry to bust your bubble, but the recession started in March 2001, when Bill Clinton was, if I recall correctly, chasing tail with Anthony Hopkins in Brasil.

    http://www.nber.org/cycles/cyclesmain.html

    ReplyReply
  16. Hard Right says: 14

    Ummmm, wrong Brainded rob.

    http://old.nationalreview.com/nrof_luskin/luskin200405050850.asp

    The unemployment rate bottomed at 3.8 percent in April 2000, and started deteriorating steadily from there (during the Clinton administration).

    The fed funds rate — the overnight interest rate administered by Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve — peaked at 6.5 percent in 2000, and had to be lowered in an emergency move on January 3, 2001, “in light of further weakening of sales and production” (during the Clinton administration).

    As the chart below shows, GDP growth fell off a cliff in the third quarter of 2000 (during the Clinton administration). Despite the shock of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, growth started to revive in the fourth quarter of 2001 (during the Bush administration).

    Stop feeding us the Media Matters lies because they don’t fly here.

    ReplyReply
  17. Hard Right says: 15

    Almost didn’t see what thread this was.
    Now Brainded Rob is trying to derail the thread.

    Braindead, what do you think about the dems attacking the GOP for anonymous campaign contributions when the dems were far more guilty of it years ago? How about addressing that instead of trying to threadjack?

    ReplyReply
  18. Missy says: 16

    @B-Rob:

    Oh my goodness, wouldn’t you think it would be a whole lot less confusing if that silly Fiscal Year(FY) budget thingy would go from January 1 till December 31 every year instead of from October 1 of the previous year to September 30 of the present.

    Why, if that FY stuff went from January to December you could actually blame Bush for Clinton’s depression now couldn’t you? But using October1 to September 30 that didn’t allow the new president his own budget until over 9 months into his first year. That would be October 1, 2001 for President Bush, when did you say that depression started again?

    ReplyReply
  19. B-Rob says: 17

    Hard Right and Missy —

    The National Bureau of Economic Research has been dating business cycles (i.e., recessions) since the 1920s. They use employment data, GDP, etc. to calculate when a recession begins and when it ends. They measured the recession from March 2001 through November 2001. There was no recession under Clinton because, among other things, GDP growth was NEVER negative for more than one quarter.

    I know your cons BELIEVE that there was a recession under Clinton, and I know you BELIEVE that Clinton handed Bush a shrinking economy. But factually and analytically speaking, your belief is unfounded.

    ReplyReply
  20. Missy says: 18

    Does anyone else notice that brob seems to have a hole in his boat or somewhere? 8-O

    ____________________________________________

    David Brooks comes back in from the wilderness.

    No Second Thoughts
    By DAVID BROOKS

    When times get tough, it’s really important to believe in yourself. This is something the Democrats have done splendidly this year. The polls have been terrible, and the party may be heading for a historic defeat, but Democrats have done a magnificent job of maintaining their own self-esteem. This is vital, because even if the public doesn’t approve of you, it is important to approve of yourself.

    In fact, I would go so far as to say that Democrats have become role models. They have offered us lessons on how we, too, may continue to love ourselves, even in trying circumstances.

    Lesson one. Think happy thoughts. Never allow yourself to dwell on downer, depressing ones.

    Over the past year, many Democrats have resolutely paid attention to those things that make them feel good, and they have carefully filtered out those negative things that make them feel sad.

    For example, Democrats and their media enablers have paid lavish attention to Christine O’Donnell and Carl Paladino, even though these two Republican candidates have almost no chance of winning. That’s because it feels so delicious to feel superior to opponents you consider to be feeble-minded wackos.

    On the other hand, Democrats and their enablers have paid no attention to Republicans like Rob Portman, Dan Coats, John Boozman and Roy Blunt, who are likely to actually get elected. It doesn’t feel good when your opponents are experienced people who simply have different points of view. The existence of these impressive opponents introduces tension into the chi of your self-esteem.

    Similarly, the Democrats and their enablers have paid lavish attention to the Tea Party this year. It’s nice to feel more sophisticated than those hordes of Middle Americans, who say silly things like “Get government off my Medicare.”

    On the other hand, Democrats have paid little attention to the crucial group in this election — the independent moderates who supported President Obama in 2008 but flocked away during the health care summer of 2009 and now support the GOP by landslide proportions.

    Losing friends makes you sad. It is better to not think about why these things happen.

    Lesson two. Always remember, many great geniuses were unappreciated in their lifetimes.

    Democrats are lagging this year because the country appears incapable of appreciating the grandeur of their accomplishments. That’s because, as several commentators have argued over the past few weeks, many Americans are nearsighted and ill-informed. Or, as President Obama himself noted last week, they get scared, and when Americans get scared they stop listening to facts and reason. They get all these crazy ideas in their heads, like not wanting to re-elect Blanche Lincoln.

    The Democrats’ problem, as some senior officials have mentioned, is that they are so darn captivated by substance, it never occurs to them to look out for their own political self-interest. By they way, here’s a fun party game: Get a bottle of vodka and read Peter Baker’s article “The Education of President Obama” from The New York Times Magazine a few weeks ago. Take a shot every time a White House official is quoted blaming Republicans for the Democrats’ political plight. You’ll be unconscious by page three.

    Lesson three. Always remember: You are the hero of your own children’s adventure story.

    Some low-minded people could look at events this year and tell a dull, prosaic story. They would say that parties that promote unpopular policies tend to get punished at election time, These grubby-minded people would point out that Democratic House members who voted against health care are doing well in their re-election bids, while those who voted for it are getting clobbered.

    But many Democrats have a loftier sensibility. They see this campaign as a poetic confrontation between good (themselves) and pure evil (Karl Rove and his group, American Crossroads).

    As Nancy Pelosi put it at a $50,000-a-couple fund-raiser, “Everything was going great and all of a sudden secret money from God knows where — because they won’t disclose it — is pouring in.”

    Even allowing the menace of secret money, embracing this Paradise Lost epic means obscuring a few inconvenient facts: that Democrats were happy to benefit from millions of anonymous dollars in 2006, 2008 and today; that the spending by Rove’s group amounts to less than 1 percent of the total money spent on campaigns this year; that Democrats retain an overall spending advantage.

    But legend rises above mere facticity, and this Lancelots-of-the-Left tale underlines a self-affirming message — that Democrats are engaged in a righteous crusade against the dark villain who tricked Americans into voting against John Kerry.

    In short, it’s hard not to be impressed by the spirit of self-approval that Democrats have managed to maintain this election. I say that knowing it may end as soon as next Wednesday, when, as is their wont, Democrats will flip from complete self-worship to complete self-laceration in the blink of an eye.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/26/opinion/26brooks.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

    ReplyReply
  21. B-Rob says: 19

    Missy —

    What the HELL are you talking about “Clinton’s depression”? What do the federal budget cycles have to do with the recession cycle? You are making no sense whatsoever!

    Hard Right —

    GDP “fell off the cliff” during the third quarter of 2000? Really . . . I seem to recall that GDP shrunk -.2% in the third quarter of 2000 and during the fourth quarter, as I recall, it was a positive 2%! And it was something like 6% during the second quarter of 2000! Which is why GDP for that year was well above 3%. It has been a while since I looked at the exact numbers, but I bet I am correct.

    I think you bought in too much to George W. and Cheney’s claims during 2000 that we already were in recession. We weren’t, but they wanted even back then to blame Clinton. It did not work, however, because NBER said that the business cycle did not slow until the second full month of the Bush admin.

    Don’t get me wrong — I am not “blaming” Bush for the two recessions that occurred on his watch; presidents do not control the economy. But to claim that the March 2001 recession should be moved forward in time and put on Clinton’s tab is simply nonsense.

    Another thing, Missy — if Pelosi and Reid are “responsible” for the December 2007 recession, then the GOPer Congress is responsible for the March 2001 recession. After all — if Congress gets the blame, and not the sitting president, then the GOPers own the 2001 recession part and parcel since they held the majority in both the House and the Senate.

    ReplyReply
  22. Hard Right says: 20

    Ummmm braindead, I lived thru that time. I know the recession started under Clinton and the article I posted also proves it. Unlike you I wasn’t is high school or jr. high.

    AGAIN, what is your opinion on the dems accusing the GOP of raisng money from overseas which is what the dems have been doing for years?
    Stop trying to threadjack.

    ReplyReply
  23. B-Rob says: 21

    Hardhead, you moron, I am not “jacking” the thread. I am simply correcting the obvious falsehoods you and others printed on this space. As for you disagreeing with NBER and you declaring, unilaterally, that the recession started under Clinton, I am reminded of the old saying: “A cat can have kittens in an oven. You can call them biscuits if you want to, but that doesn’t make it so.” You can say the recession started under Clinton and you can claim that the moon is made of Swiss cheese; but neither claim is true and both would expose you as a doofus.

    ReplyReply
  24. Hard Right says: 23

    Again braindead, I lived thru it. You want to rename the kittens, not me. Saying the recession started under Clinton IS A FACT-period.

    Yes you are trying to threadjack just like Greg tried. This thread is about dem hypoocrisy. Now answer the question:

    AGAIN, what is your opinion on the dems accusing the GOP of raisng money from overseas which is what the dems have been doing for years?

    ReplyReply
  25. Nan G says: 24

    “Everything was going great and all of a sudden secret money from God knows where — because they won’t disclose it — is pouring in,” Pelosi said.

    Really?

    Is this just another one of the Democrat diversions?

    Probably they don’t want you to notice that HOUSING is taking a double dip.

    Unemployment is still huge.

    More Americans on Food Stamps than ever.

    Failing schools because all the teachers do is propagandize.

    ReplyReply
  26. B-Rob says: 25

    Missy —

    You are citing a six year old opinion article. I, in contrast, cited to the NBER, the entity (led then by GOPer Martin Feldstein) that has been dating recessions since the 1920s. NBER is THE AUTHORITY on recessions. They set the recession date as March 2001 and despite much lobbying by GOPers since 2001, they have NEVER CHANGED THE DATE. These are the facts, not a magazine’s post hoc op-ed.

    Indeed, the articles main argument that the recession started under Clinton is based on a false premise — that GDP “bottomed out” in 2000. It didn’t. In fact, it dipped in the third quarter of 2000, but was positive again in the fourth quarter. Run the numbers yourself:

    http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?SelectedTable=1&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Freq=Qtr&FirstYear=2000&LastYear=2002&3Place=N&Update=Update&JavaBox=no#Mid

    Again — I use the Bureau of Economic Affairs’ numbers and the NBER’s conclusion. These are the benchmarks of when a recession begins, not some op-ed in a magazine. Give it up, sister . . . .

    Hard Right —

    I know of about three situations from the mid 1990s when the Dems were accused of raising funds from foreigners; we know who they were (Charlie Trie and Johnny Chung, Buddhist nuns and monks) because the Dems had records of who the money came from. Why? Because the monies were given under false pretenses to Dem Party campaign funds. They had records and names attached to the amounts given.

    There are no records ANYWHERE of who is funding the various GOPer “non-profit” ad campaigns. And those entities will not disclose who is giving the money, either. The US Chamber of Commerce has foreign members and for all we know, their money is backing the ads. Hell, the Chinese government itself could be running those ads but we would not know, now would we?

    ReplyReply
  27. Hard Right says: 26

    Ummm Braindead, the article I posted has the NBER admitting they were wrong to say the recession started under Bush. Let me repeat that-the NBER said they got the date wrong on when the recesion started.

    So they MIGHT be taking in foreign contributions, but there is no proof of that right? If there is no proof, why should they have to produce anything? If I were to accuse you of being a criminal and demanding your arrest, there would have to be proof before you could be arrested, right? So why are scumbags like Axlerod saying the CoC needs to prove they aren’t guilty?
    Might want to check this link:
    http://factcheck.org/2010/10/foreign-money-really/

    B, I’ll elaborate on the “foreign money” the dems (Obama) were taking in. Just one of many examples was money from Gaza. Hamas controlled Gaza. They then lied about returning the funds. There was no proof in their donation records that they returned them and the donors denied receiving the funds back. Then there are the Obama campaign donation records.

    http://biggovernment.com/pgeller/2010/10/11/foreign-contributions-investigating-obama/

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html

    The big one, which the links above touch on, are Obama’s website that allowed blatant donation fraud. I saw this for myself during the campaign. Yet the media sat on it and continues to do so.

    http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2008/05/obamas-donation-website-accepts-illegal.html

    You may not like the sites chosen, but trying to find anything from the lefty sites or MSM is a waste of time. They don’t want people to know their obama is guilty of what they are accusing the CoC of.

    ReplyReply
  28. Missy says: 27

    This is delicious:

    Midterm blowout: 50 or more Dem seats set to fall in the election

    Republicans are headed for a blowout election win that seems certain to seize more than enough seats to knock out the Democrats and take control of the House.

    The Hill 2010 Midterm Election poll, surveying nearly 17,000 likely voters in 42 toss-up districts over four weeks, points to a massive Republican wave that, barring an extraordinary turnaround, will deliver crushing nationwide defeats for President Obama’s party.

    http://thehill.com/house-polls/thehill-poll-week-4/126001-blowout-50-or-more-dem-seats-set-to-fall

    and this…..

    CHICAGO (WLS) – Former President Bill Clinton’s ‘get out the vote’ rally for Democrats at a downtown Chicago hotel was the most unenthusiastic WLS veteran political reporter Bill Cameron has ever witnessed.

    Clinton was an hour late for the Tuesday afternoon rally at the Palmer House and droned on for another hour, sending dozens of the few hundred Democrats in attendance for the exits.

    ReplyReply
  29. Missy says: 28

    LOL! :lol:

    As usual, the Washington-wise Howard Kurtz has produced another cogent analysis of communications in the nation’s capital — “White House goes into bunker mode.”

    According to Kurtz over at his new Daily Beast online domicile, as the S.S. Obama cruises toward its midnight rendezvous with a gigantic electoral iceberg on Nov. 2, the president’s communications aides are running around on deck, frustrated that their alternative storyline isn’t gaining traction in the cacophonous world of modern political babble.

    It’s like “spitting in the ocean,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer complains to Kurtz.

    There can’t be more than two or three breathing Americans who haven’t heard …
    … Obama’s economy storyline several times by now: You know, about the eight years of failed you-know-whats by you-know-who, about the huge hole Obama inherited after spending $750 million of other people’s money to buy responsibility for the presidency and how the national ship isn’t sinking as fast as it was 22 months ago. Never mind all those new 0’s on the national debt. And the still missing Recovery Summer. And Guantanamo. And DADT.

    And who crashed the national car into the ditch? And who wants the keys now? And who has to get in the back seat? And something about a Slurpee, moving forward?

    In fact, there’s a little-known theory that Osama bin Laden isn’t hiding in a Waziristan cave for fear of American attacks, but to avoid exposure to Obama’s economy yada-yada even one more time.

    Obama has several problems. The worst is he’s the Real Good Talker.

    That’s how he made his first national splash at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, as the Real Good Talker. That’s been his strong suit, thanks to Teleprompters that enable him to read the words while focusing more on delivery. Like some MLB pitcher going to his trademark fastball way too often.

    To put it bluntly, it’s arrogance. Prof. Obama is so sure that he’s right — and, therefore, so is his insular staff — that he keeps on talking full speed because if he just explains his thinking one or two or 30 more times using the same metaphors and jokes, even the dimmest of his pupils is bound to get it. And to realize that what they thought they wanted isn’t really what their president knows they need.

    That’s why last year Obama wasted 59, as in nearly five dozen, town hall meetings selling his colossal healthcare bill to the public and to dozens of Democratic House members, who are now inching fatalistically forward in the sad line toward Tuesday’s political firing squads.

    For 22 months of the Obama Era now, frightened Americans have been watching their friends, families and neighbors lose the onetime givens in American life — jobs, homes, savings, spouses and hope.

    And they’ve been telling every pollster and reporter and Republican, “It’s the economy, Mr. President.” And until the last few weeks the president’s response has been, “No, it’s not, stupid.”

    American voters are never the most attentive. Through most waking hours, they collect fragments of information from an amazing array of sources — TV, online, radio, co-workers, cellphones, family, neighbors.

    Again without paying attention, over time those bits and pieces coagulate into an impression. And once that impression sets, it’s like a deep grass stain impervious to even New, Improved Tide, regardless of verity. Was Gerald Ford clumsy? Is George W. Bush smart? Does Bill Clinton have an eye for ladies?

    Despite all his Great Society social legislation, Lyndon Johnson paid for the nation’s impression of the awful Vietnam War and the searing social poison that spread everywhere back home. Richard Nixon denied he was a crook, but that same public wasn’t buying it by then.

    The other night, David Letterman said he woke up that morning, went to let the dog out, but instead found an uninvited Obama in the backyard talking about the economy. And millions laughed, revealing they shared the same set impression about the predictably tireless talker just weeks before the midterm elections that will be a referendum on him.

    And that impression is that Obama may be a Real Good Talker. But he’s a Real Bad Listener.

    In Kurtz’s credible scenario, the vast diversity of competing info sources has diminished the presidential bully pulpit such that the chief executive has to shout to be heard. Every few hours Obama or Mrs. Obama or Joe Biden or Mrs. Biden leave carbon footprints all over the country making the same tardy case to choirs of supporters who are, by definition, already convinced.

    If Obama visits Ohio much more, he’ll need a driver’s license. He’ll be back there again and elsewhere this weekend, demanding of crowds, “Are you fired up?” As someone’s father once said, “When everyone around you is shouting, the way to be heard is a whisper.”

    As inattentive as they are, American voters can also be very forgiving of contrite politicians.

    After soundly spanking a liberal Clinton in his first midterms by delivering both houses of Congress to the GOP for the first time in four decades, voters watched that savvy former governor run back to the middle of the road that he had originally promised. And two years later, in 1996, those voters eagerly reelected him over another old white Republican legislator.

    Though their ranks are much thinner now, Obama’s surviving supporters should hope that he focuses on the defeats next Tuesday, not a few slim successes. And that he finally listens to the same civics lesson as Clinton heard 16 years ago. Judging from the differing personalities of the engaging Arkansan chief executive and the aloof Illinois legislator, that may be a vain hope, however.

    When’s the last time you heard someone from Harvard admit they were wrong?

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2010/10/obama-communications.html

    ReplyReply
  30. Smorgasbord says: 29

    Lie about unemployment, lie about Republican donors….

    I have often wondered if Obama can remember the last time he told the truth. I don’t know anyone who can.

    ReplyReply
  31. SMORGASBORD: hi,FROM what I read, previous comments, why GOD not allowed to send money to REPUBLICANS, IF MOHAMED was allowed to send to OBAMA?
    IS PELOSIE talk against a double STANDARD?
    WE all know about what’s good for the goose… what the .

    ReplyReply
  32. Smorgasbord says: 31

    @ilovebeeswarzone: You know the liberal’s mindset: All for one, and I am the one.

    ReplyReply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>