WaPo: Another day, another four Pinocchios to Team Obama
posted at 11:21 am on June 22, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
What is this, eight Pinocchios in two days? Team Obama could go for the hat trick, but the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler gets the day off tomorrow. Yesterday’s tetra-Pinocchio-palooza involved Team O’s double-down on their Bain attacks by calling Romney a “corporate raider.” Today’s perfecto focuses on David Plouffe’s inability to get math correct in several talk-show appearances last Sunday, when the campaign advisor and surrogate tried to claim that Massachusetts created six government jobs for every private-sector job during Romney’s term, as well as some first-class political paranoia:
“There was an amazing article the other day, I believe it was in The Wall Street Journal, where Republicans in Congress are openly saying, ‘we’re not going to do anything until the election with the economy, because we want to help Mitt Romney.’ With an economy that needs help right now, with the middle class struggling, it’s an amazing thing.”
“For all of this talk about government, for every private-sector job created in Massachusetts by Governor Romney, six public sector jobs.”
As Kessler points out, that’s not at all what the WSJ article said. Republicans, anticipating that the election will win them more seats, want to hold off on major decisions until they have more strength and bargaining power. In fact, the article has Republicans on record specifically denying Plouffe’s claims:
Rep. Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), chairman of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said some Republicans were willing to see major fiscal decisions postponed until next year, because they are bullish about Mr. Romney winning and the GOP making gains in the Senate.
“Why not wait for the reinforcements?” asked Mr. Jordan. …
Democrats accuse GOP leaders of deliberately dragging their feet on legislation that might help the economy, as it might also boost President Barack Obama’s re-election prospects. Republican leaders deny that. They blame Democrats for blocking GOP efforts to extend tax cuts and avert scheduled military spending cuts.
The WSJ article also notes that Democrats have been delaying action for their own political reasons related to the election:
Indeed, senior Democrats have political reasons of their own to avoid compromise on major budget issues before the election: They don’t want to undercut their ability to make a campaign issue of Republicans’ support for curbing the growth of Medicare and other popular entitlement programs.
Some Democrats say they would rather let taxes go up and spending cuts kick in than accept a lame-duck budget deal that lacks what they would view as sufficient concessions by Republicans.
Apparently, Plouffe has trouble reading for comprehension. That’s nothing, however, compared to his difficulties with math. Back to Kessler:
As for Plouffe’s claim about the Bay State’s employment gains, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows Massachusetts added 22,400 private-sector jobs during Romney’s tenure. That means the state would need to have created 134,400 public-sector jobs in the same period for the White House adviser’s claim to be true.
That’s not even close to what happened. Massachusetts gained just 5,300 state-government jobs while Romney was in office. As such, the state added more than four private-sector jobs for every state-government job. This is pretty much the reverse of what Plouffe claimed.
The best reasoning we could find to support Plouffe’s claim is that the rate of public-sector job growth for the state (4.7 percent) was about six times that of private-sector gains (.79 percent) during Romney’s tenure. But this is very different from having six times the numberof new government jobs, which is what the White House adviser clearly implied when he said, “for every private-sector job created in Massachusetts by Governor Romney, six public sector jobs.”
In other words, either Plouffe is an idiot, or he’s lying his rear end off. You can take your pick, but Kessler’s four-Pinocchio rating makes it pretty clear which way he’s leaning.
Related Posts:









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
As I just posted HotairLib has their whole head up their six o clock.
hamradio on May 24, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Who wrote the speech? Or are you just praising the messenger?
mixplix on May 24, 2013 at 2:57 PM
Connect the dots: journolist meeting by invitation only at the White House on, what Tuesday?, “big”speech by Obama on Thursday, lame stream media fawning over speech on Friday. Who would have seen that coming, huh?
parke on May 24, 2013 at 2:58 PM
They need the “war on terror” in order to further erode our Constitutional freedoms and to deflect criticism from the administration’s and Federal government’s ongoing corruption.
They are just trying to massage it so that they don’t offend the Muslims, international Libtards and their own sensibilities anymore than necessary.
A few Muslim terrorists here and there are quite expendable to this Administration despite their sympathies for them. These drone attacks also do much deflect any potential criticism that the Administration is weak in dealing with such matters.
Dr. ZhivBlago on May 24, 2013 at 2:59 PM
MSNBC is nothing but a left wing propaganda machine serving their master, Obama.
rplat on May 24, 2013 at 3:07 PM
I believe that he was officially nominated 10 days after he was sworn in. Wow! The WON really worked long hours that week and a half to earn that POS medal. During those ten days he ordered NO DRONE STRIKES to keep his peaceful record clean.
fred5678 on May 24, 2013 at 3:22 PM
Obama: Don’t worry about that Ben Ghazi guy. I killed Bin Laden, and Bush didn’t!
And Obummer still wants to close Gitmo? Good luck with that–not even Upchuck Schumer was willing to hold trials in New York!
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:24 PM
They just changed the definition of terrorist. They used to be jihadis from the Middle East–now they’re Minutemen in Arizona and Tea Partiers in Ohio.
Steve Z on May 24, 2013 at 3:29 PM
Erika, sometimes your writing shows signs of rivaling even the Master of Snark himself, Allahpundit. Good work!
KS Rex on May 24, 2013 at 3:45 PM
I love how crazy Al invoked the Nobel Peace Prize in praise of a speech that spoke about dropping bombs on people’s head. Maybe it was the “fewer” bombs than before that raised this to historic levels.
Do they even know or care that they are morons.
marnes on May 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM
His speech made less sense than Bluto’s Animal House Speech and was far less entertaining. Nothing less than base rallying time. Never thought I would say this, but Code Pink was the best part.
DDay on May 24, 2013 at 4:01 PM
Sperling posted this at the Examiner on May 23 about this “historic speech of Obysmal’s:
You see, we are just not working hard enough to “work with the Muslim American community” who are a “fundamental part of the American family.” Watch out, too, because Obysmal is again trying to limit the impact of the Internet.
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM
That Chris Hayes is a bit of a twink, isn’t he?
onlineanalyst on May 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM
Obama apparently gave two speeches yesterday and I watched the other one.
myiq2xu on May 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM
Nah. I’d detest the little pissant s.o.b. if he was white…or Asian…or any one of the myriad of made-up racial divisions.
Solaratov on May 24, 2013 at 11:00 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2