Tag Archives: politics

Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld Rip Richard Engel’s Silly Saddam Remarks

Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld had some fun Thursday evening bashing NBC foreign correspondent Richard Engel for absurd comments he made on the “Today” show this week. As NewsBusters reported Tuesday, Engel that morning told NBC’s Ann Curry: If there had been no invasion Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the, into, by, by a lot of European countries, he was being welcomed in Eastern Europe in particular. He was heading in a, in a direction of accommodation. On Thursday’s “O’Reilly Factor,” substitute host Ingraham and guest Gutfeld had a field day with what the former labeled “The Dumbest Things of the Week” (video follows with transcript and commentary): LAURA INGRAHAM: In the “Back of the Book” segment tonight, “The Dumbest Things of the Week.” Is NBC News making excuses for Saddam Hussein? Regardless of your thoughts on Iraq, one thing most people agree on is that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing. But some are wondering if NBC’s chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engle, doesn’t miss the good old days when Saddam was still around. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) RICHARD ENGLE, NBC CHIEF FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: If there had been no invasion, Saddam would still be in power. He was probably getting more moderate. He was being welcomed into the — into — by a lot of European countries. He was being welcomed in Eastern Europe, in particular. He was heading in a direction of accommodation. The sanctions regime that was holding him in place was starting to fail. So, I think it would be somewhat of a basket case, but it would be — Iran would be a lot more contained. (END VIDEO CLIP) INGRAHAM: Joining us now from New York is Greg Gutfeld, host of “Red Eye” and the author of “The Bible of Unspeakable Truths.” So Greg, as far as I can tell, Saddam was on the verge of having his own reality show. GREG GUTFELD, HOST, “RED EYE”: I mean, you have to figure out he said he would be more moderate. You have to ask him, what does he mean by moderate? Was he talking about alcohol intake? Was he going to cut back on his booze? Or was he going to only gas half as many Kurds or tell his sons they could only rape women every other weekend? Pr maybe he was becoming more environmentally friendly and was going to use renewable car batteries when he electrocuted his citizens. So we need — we need to give specifics on what he meant by moderation. INGRAHAM: I think he was clearly going green, Greg. He was making inroads with Eastern Europe. I don’t know what countries in Eastern Europe? Poland? Old Czechoslovakia? What countries was he getting close to? I just don’t recall that. GUTFELD: He does have a point, though. He said that, if we didn’t have the war, Saddam would be more accommodating, which is true because you are more accommodating when you are not dead. It’s really hard to buy somebody dinner when you’re dead. So, in effect, he’s actually correct by accident. INGRAHAM: Well, Iran — Iran might not have been the problem it is today, but the idea that he — it was going to be Saddam the milquetoast if we didn’t invade. I just — I was desperately looking to follow that logic. But you know, when NBC is involved, Greg, all bets are off. All bets are off. GUTFELD: Yes. Can’t stomach victory. You’ve got a war that you’ve won. Enjoy it. INGRAHAM: Winning is not fun. We’re supposed to be America on our knees, begging for mercy all the time. You don’t understand that. We need to apologize, Greg. Get used to it. GUTFELD: I am. Believe me. I’m married. To give readers an idea just how absurd Engel’s comments were, even the liberal Mediaite found this segment to its liking. Now that’s saying something.

See the original post:
Laura Ingraham and Greg Gutfeld Rip Richard Engel’s Silly Saddam Remarks

Kanye West Bashes Bush While Apologizing To Taylor Swift On Twitter

Rap star Kanye West bashed former President George W. Bush on Saturday while apologizing to country singer Taylor Swift for his appalling behavior at last year’s MTV Video Awards. Our story begins with West making a fool of himself – again! – when he interrupted Swift last September during her acceptance speech for best female music video of 2009 (right). With the 2010 Awards quickly approaching, West must have felt it necessary to make amends. As People.com reported moments ago, West took to Twitter early Saturday morning issuing a bizarre stream of consciousness apology: “I wrote a song for Taylor Swift that’s so beautiful and I want her to have it,” he said on his Twitter Saturday morning. “If she won’t take it then I’ll perform it for her.” West’s actual Twitter account doesn’t show any of these tweets. However, the People links do indicate the activity being reported suggesting West has since taken them down: Nearly a year since he first apologized to Swift, the hip-hop artist is still offering up I’m sorries, calling her “justa lil girl with dreams like the rest of us” on his Twitter . “She deserves the apology more than anyone,” he Tweeted , before thanking the creators of Twitter for making a public platform for expression.   ” We’re both artist[s] and the media and managers are trying to get between us. Everyone wants to capitalize off this [in] some way.”  Maybe even more delicious, MTV.com reported some other tweets People missed: Expounding on the backlash he received, he wrote, “If you Google a–hole my face may very well pop up 2 pages into the search. … There are people who don’t dislike me … they absolutely hate me. People tweeted that they wish I was dead … No listen. They wanted me to die, people. I carry that.” I was indeed hoping his face would appear in such a Google search. Unfortunately, no. But I digress: Kanye went on to say that the media vilified him. He alluded to his claim during a 2005 NBC telethon for Hurricane Katrina that “George Bush doesn’t care about black people,” as a point for which the media was looking to pay him back. He noted that in the VMA aftermath, the media played the race card and turned it into an angry black man versus innocent white girl issue. “Even though the NBC telethon was widely praised y’all didn’t think they was just gone let me get away with that did y’all???!!!” he questioned, rhetorically. “The media has successfully diminished the ‘receptive’ audience of… KANYE WEST. …taking a 15 second blip the media have successfully painted the image of the ‘ANGRY BLACK MAN.’ The King Kong theory. With the help of strong will, a lack of empathy, a lil alcohol and extremely distasteful & bad timing … I became George Bush over night.” I was wondering when he’d take to bashing Bush. For those that have forgotten, this was West during the aforementioned Hurricane Katrina telethon in September 2005: I hate the way they portray us in the media. If you see a black family, it says they’re looting. See a white family, it says they’re looking for food. And you know that it’s been five days because most of the people are black. And even for me to complain about it, I would be a hypocrite because I’ve tried to turn away from the TV, because it’s too hard to watch. I’ve even been shopping before I’ve even given a donation. So now I’m calling my business manager right now to see what is the biggest amount I can give, and just to imagine if I was down there, and those are my people down there. So anybody out there that wants to do anything that we can help with the set up the way America is set up to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible. I mean, the Red Cross is doing everything they can. We already realize a lot of people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way, and they have given them permission to go down and shoot us…George Bush doesn’t care about black people. Makes one wonder how much alcohol and “extremely distasteful & bad timing” it took for West to again make an “a–hole” of himself. Actually, it should now be apparent that this isn’t that difficult for him. 

See the original post here:
Kanye West Bashes Bush While Apologizing To Taylor Swift On Twitter

Open Thread: George W. Bush Talks About Patriot Golf Day

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: George W. Bush talks about Patriot Golf Day: Thoughts?

Go here to read the rest:
Open Thread: George W. Bush Talks About Patriot Golf Day

Liberal Radio Host Asks Christian Conservative: ‘How Many More Children Will Have to Die Before You Guys Back Off?’

Nationally syndicated liberal radio host Thom Hartmann is no Keith Olbermann — he’s not allergic to conservatives on his show. But that doesn’t mean he’s kind, or even fair. Focus on the Family has a new “True Tolerance” campaign focused on stopping school bullying — against everyone — but without programs that promote moral acceptance of homosexuality. FOTF’s Candi Cushman appeared on CNN this week to debate this, but Anderson Cooper wasn’t half as rough as Hartmann on Thursday afternoon. He mentioned that gay teens are much more likely to attempt suicide than straight teens and then just asked Cushman, point blank: “How many more children will have to die before you guys back off?” This, in itself, is a form of bullying. You must accept left-wing lesson plans formulated by Obama “safe schools” czar Kevin Jennings and his group GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network) or you favor gay teen suicide. Like a typical liberal, Hartmann wants the liberal, secular worldview on sexuality taught because it’s based on “science” and the opposing conservative view is infected by religion, which must not be allowed to inform a viewpoint anywhere in a public school. He lectured Cushman: The reason why I don’t want your viewpoints promoted in school is, a) they’re not based in science, they’re based in religion, and I believe in a separation of church and state, and b) taken to the extreme, maybe not yours but many of the people in your movement, what they do is they cause more kids to commit suicide…I think that you and the work that you’re doing and the people who you’re associated with are creating an environment that is killing our children.  Hartmann has provided yet another example of how liberal talk radio is not a reasonable or civil space to discuss and debate issues. It’s far too often a forum for mudslinging of the most vicious kind.

The rest is here:
Liberal Radio Host Asks Christian Conservative: ‘How Many More Children Will Have to Die Before You Guys Back Off?’

American Academy of Pediatrics: Media Portrayal of Sex ‘Unhealthy’

Calling media portrayals of sex “unhealthy,” the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has issued new guidelines calling on all media outlets to present human sexuality in a healthy, scientifically accurate manner. At the same time, the group pomoted the use of contraceptives among teenagers and denigrated abstinence-only education.   “There is a major disconnect between what mainstream media portray – casual sex and sexuality with no consequences – and what children and teenagers need – straightforward information about human sexuality and the need for contraception when having sex,” the AAP  said .    “Television, film, music, and the Internet are all becoming increasingly sexually explicit, yet information on abstinence, sexual responsibility, and birth control remains rare,” said the AAP.   The organization, with 60,000-plus members, said that because children and young adults spend an inordinate amount of time interacting with various media, it was important for the portrayals of sex in that media to be accurate and responsible.   “American children and teenagers spend more than 7 hours a day with a variety of different media. Those media are filled with sexual messages and images, many of which are unrealistic,” the AAP said. “Talk about sex on TV can occur as often as 8 to 10 times per hour. Between 1997 and 2001 alone, the amount of sexual content on TV nearly doubled.”   This proliferation of inaccurate sexual messages has had documented effects on youth sexual behavior, the AAP reported. Kids exposed to sexual material on television are almost twice as likely to engage in sexually risky behavior at a younger age than youth whose parents limit their exposure to sexually saturated media.    Other studies have shown that exposure to sexualized media content doubled the risk of teen pregnancy. “Clearly, the media play a major role in determining whether certain teenagers become sexually active earlier rather than later, and sexually explicit media may be particularly important,” the AAP stated.   These negative trends are happening at a time when public sexual education has favored a scientifically unfounded, abstinence only approach, said the organization, adding that as public policy has avoided providing youth with accurate information about sex, the media have become the sexual educator of “last resort.”   “Because so many sex education programs have recently been focused on abstinence only, the media have arguably become one of the leading sex educators in the United States today,” the AAP said. “Yet, parents and legislators fail to understand that although they may favor abstinence-only sex education (despite the lack of any evidence of its effectiveness), the media are decidedly not abstinence only.”   In fact, the American media can be among “the most sexually-suggestive media in the world,” according to the AAP. The effect of this is that media can act as a “super-peer” on youth, exerting an influence on sexual behavior stronger than that of a child’s parents.   One major problem – labeled “dangerous” by the AAP – with the media’s portrayal of sex is the lingering myth that access to contraception affects sexual behavior patterns. Because the media play such a large role in providing information about sex to young people, this dearth of accurate information about contraceptives leaves teens at a disadvantage as they become sexually active.   “The United States is the only Western nation that still subscribes to the dangerous myth that giving teenagers access to birth control – and media represent a form of access – will make them sexually active at a younger age,” the AAP explained.    In response to these twin problems, the AAP called on media to do two things: remove some inappropriate sexual content from programming likely to be viewed by children and substitute it with accurate, educational information about sex.   “Pediatricians and child advocacy groups should encourage the entertainment industry to produce more programming that contains responsible sexual content and that focuses on the interpersonal relationship in which sexual activity takes place,” the AAP said.    “Similarly, Madison Avenue and advertisers need to be encouraged to stop using sex to sell products,” said the group.   In addition to changing media programming, the AAP also called for comprehensive sex education in schools and increased advertisements for contraceptives.   “Pediatricians should urge the broadcast industry to air advertisements for birth control products,” the AAP said.    Dr. Vic Strasburger, the policy’s lead author, said that scientific studies showed that increased advertising for birth control would lead to “one thing and one thing only” – increased use of contraception.   “The research is quite clear, the media represent one access point for children and teenagers about birth control and giving teenagers access to birth control does one thing and one thing only – that is it makes them more likely to use birth control when they begin having sex,” Strasburger told CNSNews.com.    “As parents and as adults, we couldn’t be doing a worse job,” Strasburger said. “We do a terrible job of preparing kids to be happy, healthy, sexual adults.” Crossposted at NB sister site CNSNews.com  

Continued here:
American Academy of Pediatrics: Media Portrayal of Sex ‘Unhealthy’

CNN’s ‘Glass One-Quarter Full’ Spin: Emphasize Private Job Gains

The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its “all-important” jobs report on Sept. 3, the morning before Labor Day weekend. CNN rapidly found the ” bright spot ” in a report that showed a net loss of 54,000 jobs and a higher 9.6 percent unemployment rate . “American Morning” co-anchor Kiran Chetry announced the report by saying “It’s good news, but it’s not good news.” Still, she maintained the mainstream media’s spin by focusing on private-sector jobs gains of 67,000 even though that is cold comfort to the 14.9 million people who are unemployed. That CNN segment ignored negative information that would have provided important context. The BLS reported that there are still 1.1 million discouraged workers (too discouraged to even look for work) and another 1.3 million people working part-time who want full-time work instead. Chetry and fill-in co-anchor Ali Velshi discussed the breaking news report with two guests who were even more upbeat: Leigh Gallagher of Smart Money magazine and Shawn Tully of Fortune magazine. Tully told CNN viewers, “This is actually not such bad news because we are looking at unemployment rates in the U.S. we really haven’t seen since the early 1980s. And in the early 1980s the comeback was extremely strong, unemployment dropped very, very sharply. In the U.S. we’ve never had 10 percent unemployment rates for long periods.” Conservative economists argue that Reagan’s tax cuts were part of the reason the unemployment rate dropped and the economic comeback happened. President Obama has not proposed dramatically cutting tax rates and, in fact, seems willing to let the more modest tax cuts of President George W. Bush expire at the end of 2010. Tully told CNN “we’re now in the upcycle,” and said a double-dip recession was unlikely. Gallagher happily noted that the unemployment report beat expectations. But neither CNN host nor their guests pointed out how high real unemployment is or how many jobs we would need per month to “catch up” the 8.4 million jobs lost in the recession. According to CNBC’s Rick Santelli the increase of 0.1 percent to a 9.6 percent unemployment rate just means “real unemployment is in the teens.” Bloomberg said that the underemployment rate is now 16.7 percent . CNBC’s Erin Burnett also brought context to the story on MSNBC, saying that news was “definitely better than expected,” but cautioned that it doesn’t make up for what has been lost. “I would note though, we obviously lost 8.4 million jobs during the financial crisis so to catch up with that you need to have 200,000 jobs or more [added] a month,” Burnett said. The media’s desperate attempts to positively spin jobs reports since Obama was elected contrast with the way they tried to talk down the economy during the Bush presidency. ABC, CBS and NBC failed to criticize Obama even while on his watch the most jobs had been lost in a year since 1940 . The mainstream media have also given Obama a pass on grandiose promises about how many millions of jobs the stimulus package would create. Contrast that with the media’s coverage of unemployment under Republican President George W. Bush when unemployment was roughly half of what it is now. In Feb. 2006, when 193,000 jobs had been added and the unemployment rate dropped to 4.7 percent: the lowest rate since July 2001 . CBS and ABC evening shows ignored the drop in unemployment, while CNN found “mixed” news in the report. A January 2006 Special Report from the Business & Media Institute found that the networks in particular emphasized layoffs in a year that 2 million new jobs had been created . Negative stories about corporate layoffs and outsourcing made up more than half the stories on jobs or unemployment. Like this article? Then sign up for our newsletter, The Balance Sheet .

67% of NYC Residents Oppose Ground Zero Mosque According to NYT Poll

A new poll released by the New York Times Friday is sure to rock the liberal media’s world: “Two-thirds of New York City residents want a planned Muslim community center and mosque to be relocated to a less controversial site farther away from ground zero in Lower Manhattan.” Another finding likely to particularly upset the shills at MSNBC:  One-fifth of New Yorkers acknowledged animosity toward Muslims. Thirty-three percent said that compared with other American citizens, Muslims were more sympathetic to terrorists. And nearly 60 percent said people they know had negative feelings toward Muslims because of 9/11.   Here are more of the surprising details: Over all, 50 percent of those surveyed oppose building the project two blocks north of the World Trade Center site, even though a majority believe that the developers have the right to do so. Thirty-five percent favor it. The poll, however, reveals a more complicated portrait of the opposition in New York: 67 percent said that while Muslims had a right to construct the center near ground zero, they should find a different site. Most strikingly, 38 percent of those who expressed support for the plan to build it in Lower Manhattan said later in a follow-up question that they would prefer it be moved farther away, suggesting that even those who defend the plan question the wisdom of the location. And this is the point the mosque’s backers in the media – in particular the shills at MSNBC such as Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Ed Schultz – have missed: this issue isn’t about Constitutionality or rights.  Most people outside the liberal press are intelligent enough to understand that developers have the right to build this mosque if its zoning is approved. They just question the wisdom of doing so. If an overwhelming majority of New Yorkers can understand the difference between having the right to do something and whether or not it would be appropriate, why can’t media members? 

Continue reading here:
67% of NYC Residents Oppose Ground Zero Mosque According to NYT Poll

David Brooks Writes Alternate History in Which Obama Cuts Taxes, Vetoes Big Spending Bills

This is a sad time to be David Brooks, the New York Times house conservative. The souring economy (along with other poor administration decisions) has caused a big drop in the popularity of his beloved Barack Obama with his party facing electoral disaster at the polls this November. So what to do? Why, engage in fantasy by writing an alternate history in which an all-wise Obama cuts taxes and vetoes big spending plans passed by the Democrat congress. Here is some of the comedy gold Brooks dreamed up in his alternate history universe: …He told his aides to put away the history books and reject the New Deal comparisons. Unlike in 1932, Americans today have a raging distrust of Washington, he observed. Living through a crisis caused by excessive debt, they will viscerally recoil at the prospect of federal debt without end. “Somehow,” Obama concluded, “we have to address the crisis without further terrifying the American people.” The stimulus package, he continued, should rely heavily on cutting payroll taxes. This, he argued, will send a quick jolt to the economy without concentrating power in Washington. It will deliver a sharp psychological boost to the middle class. It might even be bipartisan. Obama noted that John McCain had a $445 billion stimulus plan along these lines and his fellow Republican senator, Mel Martinez, a $713 billion plan. Yes, in this Brooksian alternate history the same Barack Obama who won’t even extend the Bush tax cuts will go completely against his proven character and cut taxes. And now more from the fantasy world whirling around inside of Brooks’ fervid imagination: In March, Congress passed an omnibus spending bill, stuffed with earmarks. Obama vetoed it. As for ObamaCare, it was put on the backburner by the politically savvy Obama in this alternate history: April brought the cruelest fight: whether to spend the rest of the year getting health care reform or a new energy policy. Obama decided to do energy first. The economy was uppermost on everybody’s mind. Americans were wondering where new innovations would come from, what new jobs would emerge.   Left out of this alternate history is Brooks’ real history of gullibly swallowing the economic excuses of this administration in early 2009. Here is how Brooks was wooed with his very own wall chart by Obama bigwigs back then after he very briefly objected to the policies back then: The White House has produced a chart showing nondefense discretionary spending as a share of G.D.P. That’s spending for education, welfare and all the stuff that Democrats love. Since 1985, this spending has hovered around 3.7 percent of G.D.P. This year, it’s about 4.6 percent. The White House claims that it is going to reduce this spending to 3.1 percent by 2019, lower than at any time in any recent Republican administration. I was invited to hang this chart on my wall and judge them by how well they meet these targets. (I have.) In my own alternate history, a skeptical David Brooks tells the Obama insiders: You expect me to buy into your absurd projections because they are on a chart? That’s really laughable so why don’t you take your chart and stick it where the moon don’t shine. Of course, that happened only in the alternate history. In real life, that chart could still be on David Brooks’ wall.

Read more from the original source:
David Brooks Writes Alternate History in Which Obama Cuts Taxes, Vetoes Big Spending Bills

NewsBusted’s Jodi Miller: Please Help Support NB

Are you a “NewsBusted” fan? You ARE? Wonderful! Then you probably know our friend Jodi Miller. Jodi has one simple request to make: please make a generous tax-deductible contribution to NewsBusters so we can upgrade and improve the site to meet record-breaking demand. With help from Jodi and all of you, NewsBusters has become one of the most prominent center-right blogs on the Web. Give yourself a pat on the back for that one. But we know we can do more. There’s still plenty media bias to be exposed and combatted. Click here to see changes we’re making to the homepage, and then here to contribute to NB. You can also donate via PayPal (just make sure to put “NewsBusters” in the description field). You can see Jodi’s special announcement on the right sidebar. Thanks in advance for your generosity!

More here:
NewsBusted’s Jodi Miller: Please Help Support NB

9.5% Unemployment and Chris Matthews Doesn’t Get Why People Miss Bush

Despite unemployment at 9.5 percent and millions of people having lost their jobs since Barack Obama was elected, Chris Matthews just doesn’t understand why anyone would miss George W. Bush. Without naming this week’s PPP poll finding Ohioans would vote for Bush over Obama by the tally of 50 to 42 percent if a presidential election was held today, Matthews in the first segment of “Hardball” asked his guests, “Why would you want that back?” When Time’s Michael Scherer tried to explain logically why voters are disappointed with what Obama has done since Inauguration Day, Matthews wasn’t having any of it (video follows with transcript and commentary): CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Here`s the point. Why are the voters now in these polls — now, some of the polls are robocall polls. They`re not the most reliable polls. But I`m seeing enough evidence to think there`s something going on. When people say — independent voters say they`d rather have Bush back — MICHAEL SCHERER, TIME: That`s right. MATTHEWS: — after Iraq and taking this economy — doubling the national debt, bringing the deficit out of nowhere, when Clinton left it with a big, fat surplus, why would you want that back? SCHERER: Take — MATTHEWS: What`s your reporting tell you? SCHERER: What a lot of these voters are voting for — these are independent voters. You know, the miracle of Obama in 2008 wasn`t that he got elected, it was that he got elected in a lot of states like Indiana and North Carolina that didn`t go Democrat very often. He did that by grabbing independent voters who were sick of President Bush, who thought the country was going in the wrong direction, and he offered a broad promise of hope and change that hasn`t been delivered. That`s what he`s suffering for. And I think in a place like Ohio, where you`re talking about that poll, what people are saying is, “Look, you know, we weren`t being treated well with the last guy. We`re not treated being well with this guy. We`ll take whatever we can get.” Exactly. Matthews either forgot or was dishonestly ignoring that this is why the Democrats won in 2006 and 2008: the country was unhappy with Republicans and just wanted to vote “D”. Now, the country is unhappy with the Ds: DAVID CORN, MOTHER JONES: There has been a message problem out of the White House. When you have polls showing that people don`t believe the stimulus has created jobs or saved jobs and you have Republicans echoing and — and reemphasizing that particular lie, and it sets in, well, that`s something that actually, I think, is within the realm of control for the White House. MATTHEWS: There are two choices when you vote, D or R. If the people push R, does your reporting tell that they know they`re voting for more lackadaisical administration, like Katrina, more hawkishness and neo- conservative fighting of wars that are wars of choice, not necessity? Do they know they`re voting for that kind of thing? And they`re voting for a guy who was so sloppy on fiscal policy, refused to veto a single spending bill, that we doubled the national debt? Do they know that that`s what R means when they vote R this November? SCHERER: When I was in Indiana — I was in South Bend, Elkhart, Joe Donnelly, very tough reelecting, won with 67 percent — MATTHEWS: Yes. SCHERER: — of the vote — MATTHEWS: I liked that part. SCHERER: — a couple years ago — he is dealing with voters who were telling me Barack Obama`s not the guy I voted for. I thought he was going to turn the economy around. He didn`t turn the economy around. I didn`t know he was going to do this health care thing. I thought he was going to change Washington (INAUDIBLE) Washington change. That`s what they were voting for. It has nothing to do with the wars, the other — MATTHEWS: Well, that`s the reelection talk, right. SCHERER: No, but these are independent voters. These are people — you know, they`re not high-information voters — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: When Obama was running for reelection or running for election, the economy wasn`t in the tank. It went in the tank during the transition. Doesn`t anybody remember that? It was the last quarter of the Bush administration that everything went to hell. Once again, it’s tough to determine whether Matthews’ memory is suffering or he’s just dishonest. The recession officially began in December 2007, and the financial crisis started in September 2008 – the THIRD quarter almost two full months BEFORE Election Day: SCHERER: Obama went to Elkhart, Indiana, in February of 2009, couple weeks after he gets in office, he says, I`m going to pass the stimulus. It`s going to help you. I`m going to keep my promise — MATTHEWS: Right. SCHERER: — to Elkhart. Elkhart`s unemployment now is over 13 percent and it`s been rising again this summer. MATTHEWS: Because it was rising when he came in. SCHERER: It was rising — (CROSSTALK) CORN: — probably would be higher now if Obama hadn`t — (CROSSTALK) CORN: And you know, this is — this is the administration`s obligation, and Democrats on the Hill are livid because they don`t think the White House is living up to this obligation of making a stronger case – – MATTHEWS: There`s so much — CORN: — making the case that you just made! MATTHEWS: Let`s make the points through the numbers. Unemployment when Bush came in was 4.2 percent. When he left office, it was up to 7.6 percent, way up from where he came in. When Bush came into office, we had a $281 billion Clinton-led surplus. When he left, we had a $1.2 trillion deficit. And he doubled the national debt. Those are the facts on the table. Yes, but unemployment is now at 9.5 percent and likely climbing. There are currently 3.3 million fewer people on non-farm payrolls than in January 2009 making today’s labor markets FAR WORSE than they were when Obama took office. But that’s only half the story, for the Democrats have controlled Congress since January 2007. As this is a Congressional election, it is a referendum on what the Party controlling the House and the Senate have done since they took over. Here, the numbers are even more glaring, as the unemployment rate that month was 4.6 percent. Over 7 million people have lost their jobs since the Democrats took over Congress. As for fiscal policy, the last budget created by the Republican-controlled Congress had a deficit of $160 billion. This year, with Obama and Democrats controlling everything, we’re on pace for close to a $1.6 trillion deficit, or TEN TIMES 2007’s shortfall. But Matthews doesn’t want to share those numbers with his viewers:  MATTHEWS: Let`s go back to the politics again. The voter out there, he can only choose between what he had and what he has. You`re saying he`s going to choose what he had in Elkhart, Indiana. SCHERER: They`re not voting for Bush in Elkhart. They`re voting — they`re voting because they`re — (CROSSTALK) MATTHEWS: Their memory of what? SCHERER: No, they`re disappointed with what they have. Indeed, because no matter how you slice it, in most parts of the country, things are worse today than they were when Obama was inaugurated and FAR WORSE than when the Democrats took over Congress. But don’t expect a shill like Chris Matthews to report that in an election year.

Read more here:
9.5% Unemployment and Chris Matthews Doesn’t Get Why People Miss Bush