Newsweek Wonders: "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb ...

I write this as an unabashed supporter of Obama from early 2007 on. I did so not as a liberal, but as a conservative-minded independent appalled by the Bush administration's record of war, debt, spending, and torture.

So, "from early 2007," this self-described "conservative-minded independent" became an "unabashed supporter" of a junior senator with two years of totally undistinguished performance at the national level and a record as an Illinois state senator of largely voting "present."

To give you an idea of the unlikelihood of this, only 20 percent of conservatives voted for Obama in 2008.

Sullivan wants Newsweek readers to believe he's part of that one fifth. Those that have been following him in recent years know that he's less conservative than Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
Maybe that's why Sullivan didn't vote for him.

But the real laughs in this piece began a tad later when Sullivan actually defended Obama's - wait for it! - economic record:

When Obama took office, the United States was losing around 750,000 jobs a month. The last quarter of 2008 saw an annualized drop in growth approaching 9 percent. This was the most serious downturn since the 1930s, there was a real chance of a systemic collapse of the entire global financial system, and unemployment and debt—lagging indicators—were about to soar even further. No fair person can blame Obama for the wreckage of the next 12 months, as the financial crisis cut a swath through employment. Economies take time to shift course.

Sounds almost exactly like the Democrat argument pathetically espoused for years: Obama inherited a bad economy and had nothing to do with causing it.

Believing this requires one to completely ignore the Democrat takeover of Congress in January 2007, a 4.4 percent unemployment rate at the time, and that the recession Obama "inherited" and therefore can't be blamed for began eleven months later.

But overlooking the past wasn't Sullivan's only sin in this piece. He also liked to cherry-pick data to support his pony in the race:

The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That's not enough, but it's far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration.

So Obama's job performance should be measured from the bottom of employment well after he took office because he wasn't to blame for the recession he "inherited," but Bush's job performance starts from the day he was inaugurated despite him inheriting a recession from Bill Clinton.

If we use Sullivan's methodology of discounting an inherited recession and starting the clock from the job market's bottom to analyze Bush's record, we find that well over four million jobs were created.

But that's silly. No matter how you cherry-pick the data, the reality is that Obama was inaugurated with a 7.3 percent unemployment rate that is now at 8.5 percent having skippered an economy that experienced a net loss of 2.5 million jobs with him at the helm.

Sullivan didn't see it that way. And that wasn't the only cherry-picking he did:

In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost. Overall government employment has declined 2.6 percent over the past 3 years.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Hardball
• Fact
• Checking
• Conservative
• Criticism
• Of
• Obama
• Conservatism
• Barack Obama
• Election
• Politics
• Economy
• Newsweek

[cwoodn]

Andrew Sulliven is nothing less than brilliant here! He is so right on target! Can't wait to read the Newsweek piece he wrote. And Mr. Sullivan is a Republican!

[centercity1]

Are they referring to George Carlin? Anyway the Ragen administration wasn't all the great. 225 of Ragen's administration were arrested or quit or were investigated by the CIA and FBI including the Attorney General for violating the ethics code and criminal activity.