Skip to Content

Not caring about your credibility must be very liberating

The economic recovery continues at a frustratingly slow but steady place, as reflected by the latest jobs report. Here's how the New York Times summarized it:

The report showed persistent but modest improvement in the American economy, and broad-based gains in just about every industry except the government.

The story was headlined: "Modest growth in jobs seen in final report before election"

Of course, the New York Times is a crazy liberal rag, desperate to cover up President Obama's dismal performance. So let's see how the Wall Street Journal described it:

U.S. job growth accelerated in October while the unemployment rate ticked higher as more Americans sought work, offering signs of a steady but slow recovery.

Truth is, you have to have blinders on not to see the report for the slightly good news-slightly bad news that it is.

Now here's the headline, subhead and first couple of paragraphs  on a press release I received this a.m. from the Republican National Congressional Committee:

Days Before Election, Higher Jobless Rate Reflects Minnesota's Continued Suffering Under Obama-Walz Economy

With 23 Million Out of Work, It’s Time To End Democrats’ Stimulus Spending Spree And Focus On Growth

Washington --- The national unemployment for the month of October was announced today at the unacceptably-high rate of 7.9 percent, confirming that four years of Democrats’ big-government expenditures are hindering job creation and strangling small businesses. Minnesota families cannot afford to be buried any longer under staggering debt or constrained under the out-of-touch Obama-Walz economic agenda.

“The price paid for four years of the Democrats’ failed policies is a sky-high unemployment rate and millions of Americans out of work,” said NRCC Communications director Paul Lindsay. “The only way to get this economy moving again is to end the Obama-Walz big-government spending spree that has led to the worst economic recovery in American history.”

Yup, in Minnesota, we all call it the Obama-Walz economy. Curiously, in other states the economy is named after President Obama and whichever incumbent Democratic congressman we view as most vulnerable.

Yes, I understand. They are the Republican National Congressional Committee. Their job is to elect Republicans and defeat Democrats in House races. They are not obligated to give even the slightest nod to fairness, balance or really to accuracy. They live in a universe in which facts that do not portray all Democrats as tax-and-spend-crazed Bolsheviks simply do not exist.

But every once in a while it's nice to pass along a bit of a raw political press release to eyes that don't normally see them and to think for a second about the level of curiosity, skepticism and intellect one has to assume about the audience to think that such tripe might be persuasive.

If you'd like to read the full press release, it's here, except this one is headlined "Days Before Election, Higher Jobless Rate Reflects Ohioans' Continued Suffering Under Obama-Sutton Economy." As the note on top of the link makes clear, 75 virtually identical press releases, changing only the name of Obama's co-czar of the economy, were emailed out to 75 different congressional districts.

Get MinnPost's top stories in your inbox

Related Tags:

About the Author:

Comments (18)

Why do CNN and NBC

say that we have fewer employed now than on inauguration day? P.S. The government has no money but the money they take away. They cannot and will never created jobs. Only the private sector can. Any thinking the government is here to help people is just silly.

The government has

no money at all, except for that which it is obliged to spend in the public interest.

Every dollar the government takes in, it spends.

If you want to have an intelligent debate, then talk about what we get in return for what the government spends and argue over whether we get the full value of our money. But don't pretend that the government "can't create jobs" because its function is to suck money out of our economy, never to return a penny of it. That's just counterfactual and makes you look uninformed.

By the way, there are institutions that are adept in making billions of dollars of people's hard-earned money disappear, never to be seen again, with a devastating effect on the whole economy. They're called banks.

"They cannot and will never created jobs."

So says another TrickleDown type, that's never drank a bottle of GatorAde.....

Willingness to lie with

Willingness to lie with abandon is a kind of a rite of passage for entry into high level Republican politics. Read Leo Strauss and this:

http://www.thebaffler.com/past/the_long_con

It's the Karl Rove playbook...

...that informs the strategy and tactics of the entire GOP apparatus, from local and state to national levels. They feel it was a resounding success, and they have doubled down on it.

Here is one way of expressing it: it doesn't matter how nonsensical your appeals are. Even if your claims are so idiotic they insult your audience, it matters not a trifle. Ignore the outraged howling.

If you simply repeat those assertions enough, people cannot help but start to think there is some substance to them. If you keep repeating same ad nauseum, a significant number of people will become actual champions of your nonsense.

These right wingers bank heavily on an ignorant, impressionable electorate that can't think their way out of a wet paper bag. Why should they support education ?

stupid press releases

Democrats put out just as many stupid press releases as Republicans do. No one makes a decision on how to vote based on a press release. The bottom line will be the voter's personal situation, his income, his job, and prices at the store and gas pump. If the voter is satisfied with the status quo and wants more of it, he will choose Obama. If the voter is hurting, and wants change, he will vote for Romney.

Fair and Balanced

The old "Your guys are doing it, too!" red herring.

The Romney campaign has ben willing to lie, and to do so with great enthusiasm. All political campaigns have, at least, stretched the truth. The difference now is that there is no shame to these lies: "We're not going to let our campaign be run by fact-checkers." It's not about persuasion, it's about morality. Why do we want someone as President who sees no reason to tell the truth?

As far as the "change" Romney is offering, let's not forget that it would amount to "changing" right back to the policies that brought us the Great Recession. Was it that much fun that we would want to do it again?

It's just an opinion

…of course, and of no more value than yours, but I'd suggest that a voter who is hurting (presumably you mean “financially” or perhaps “occupationally,” not physically or emotionally) would be stupid to vote for Romney. Nothing I've seen in Millard's campaign suggests to me that he's the least bit interested in, much less knowledgeable about, the lower 80% or so of the population in terms of income.

If Mr. Romney is elected (he might be), and brings change (he might, if elected), I don't think it will be change that benefits that voter who's concerned about prices at the grocery store or the gas pump.

But that's just my opinion.

Aren't there more choices than that?

If the voter is drowning and Romney pitches him a rope attached to an anchor, will the voter grab it?

Earlier today

the Romney campaign Facebook page posted a graphic comparing the impact of the Romney and Obama tax plans. Not surprisingly, it claimed a loss of 700,00 under Obama's plan and a gain of 7,000,000 under Romney's. The latter claim supposedly is the result of work from the Baker Institute forPublic Policy, released August 3, 2012.

More lies! The cited support for the Romney Tax Plan was not authored or sponsored by the Baker Institute for Public Policy. To the contrary, the author specifically states at the very beginning that "This work is the result of unpaid expert analysis I provided to the Romney campaign. The views and conclusions, as well as any errors, in this research are solely my own. They do not reflect the views of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy . . . or any other institution with which I have an affiliation."

http://bakerinstitute.org/publications/Diamond-RomneyTaxReformPlan-08031...

As for that other claim, about Obama's tax plan?

" 'Seems odd that the researchers didn’t consider the scenario in which the additional tax revenues are used for deficit reduction,” said Moody’s chief economist Mark Zandi. “It seems to me that is the more relevant scenario. And my sense is that if they did, the results would be very different.'

Indeed, the Ernst & Young study forecasts based on two different assumptions: That the higher revenues are either used to finance across the board tax cuts, or to finance new government spending. It’s only in the latter scenario that the analysts forecast significant economic contraction."

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/republicans-twist-flawed-stud...

The only private sector creatres Job Myth!

Ike got his Interstate system with Tax dollars: (Those were (GOVERNMENT FUNDED JOBS)
The research for Nuclear Energy/Bomb (THESE WERE GOVERNMENT FUNDED JOBS)
Defense spending is Tax Dollars (THESE ARE GOVERNMENT FUNDED JOBS)
Tax Supported Research that lead to successful fracking (WERE GOVERNMENT FUNDED JOBS)
Those assisted living homes for the aged (GOVERNMENT FUNDED JOBS)
The new bridge on 35 W (GOVERNMENT FUNDED JOBS)
National Parks (GOVERNMENT FUNDED JOBS)
FEMA (GOVERNMENT FUNDED JOBS)
NASA Research (GOVERNMeNT FUNDED JOBS)
Look at all these jobs that by some folks imagination "Don't exist!"

Can we quit talking like babbling idiots one of these days and actually start paying attention to the facts?

Bad news

The government has no money. Never will. Half of all working Americans pay no federal tax. Of the half that do, the top percentile pay the freight for everyone else. Having the feds pick and choose winners and losers is immoral. There is no money left for the smarter than everyone else crowd to spend. Large government is a goal only the worse of us desire. Apparently those of one particular party have NOTHING to contribute without more and more money. Money is rarely the solution. Equality is the enemy of Justice.

Interstate Highways

I've heard of a family in Wisconsin that made quite a lot of money from construction work on the Interstate Highways. I think there name was "Ryan," and if I'm not mistaken, one of the grandchildren of the company's founder went into politics. His name rings a bell, for some reason.

Seems like the math wouldn't work

If the people working at FEMA. NASA, the National Parks, etc. are paid full salaries by the government which then collects, say, 18% of those salaries back in taxes, isn't the government operating at about an 82% loss for each job? Eventually it would seem that the government would run out of money. When the government collects that same 18% from private business paid employees, they would appear to operate at a consistent 18% gain from each job. Certainly government jobs are necessary, but private sector jobs would seem like the best way to generate revenue.

Suprised

I was suprised by the content. When I saw the headline, I mistakenly assumed the article was about Michelle Bachmann.

If you Changed the Names

This press release would fit pretty easily in the attacks that the DFL made on Norm Coleman. Both are about equally honest/dishonest.

Oh, Snap!

Not the devastating "You guys did it, too!" comeback again!

Seriously--what does things that were said about Norm Coleman have to do with this article? Is the article implying that all Democrats are necessarily more honest? If not, then you're just trying to distract, or change the subject.

It is possible to call someone out for doing wrong without giving a catalog of equally wrong things committed by someone else. There are such things as moral equivalencies, but bringing them up constantly, as if their omission somehow shows a flaw in the argument, is as pointless as it is tiresome. The goal for news reporting should be accuracy. Striving for balance is a waste of time ("Okay, that's a bad thing a Republican said. Now, in 1836, Andrew Jackson said . . .").

Funny

How the PR and commenters continue the same screeds unbiased by any facts. BusinessInsider had a graph showing job creation 2009-2012 exceeded the job creation 2001-2005. The major difference is there was more government hiring and job creation by Bush and under Obama job creation in government declined, so who is the fiscal conservative?