Back in the early mid-1980s as unemployment started to plummet, after having spiked up to over 10%, critics of then-President Ronald Reagan’s economic policies said most of the new jobs created were at fast food joints like McDonalds. Indeed, given that some of his critics were leading figures in the media, the term McJobs quickly gained currency:
Since the 1980s, McJobs had become synonymous with low-paying jobs with no growth opportunities. Analysts felt that such jobs imparted a few skills to workers that would be more or less of no use to them in the future
Well, with unemployment still high today, the unemployment rate now one full point higher than the highest rate promised if the president’s “stimulus” plan passed (and at the highest rate forecast should that plan have been defeated in Congress), Jim Hoft reminds us that “McDonald’s created one quarter of the jobs last month.” For some reason, I don’t think the critics of Reagan’s plan (or their ideological heirs) will be offering the same criticisms of Obama’s plan.
Please note that I’ve circled the part on the chart (based on estimates from the president’s economic team) of the unemployment forecast in the absence of the plan. They said it would peak at 9%–which is the latest figure offered by the Labor Department.
To be sure, even as the unemployment rate has increased, private employers like McDonald’s did great hundreds of thousands of new jobs. Ed Morrissey helps us unpack this apparent ambiguity: (more…)
Since Barack Obama has taken office, the SEIU-backed rallies against responsible Republican reforms in Wisconsin have been the closest thing on the left to the Tea Party rallies against big government on the right. Like most rallies, theirs have attracted a number of extremists shouting angry slogans and hosting mean-spirited posters.
Last March, when a handful of Tea Party members protesting the president’s health care overhaul called “Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) . . . a ‘Homo Communist’“, that unhappy Massachusetts Democrat said his GOP colleagues needed “to do more to ‘differentiate themselves’ from the hateful speech spewed in the healthcare debate’s final hours.”
Now, Zombie alerts us not to conservatives using “Communist” as a slur, but to actual participants in an rally “co-sponsored by the SEIU” proudly proclaiming themselves as Communists: ”Not only did the SEIU help to organize the rally in conjunction with communists, they marched side-by-side with communists, while union members carried communist flags, communists carried union signs, and altogether there was no real way to tell the two apart.”
Just wondering, if Barney doesn’t do more to “differentiate himself” from these Commies, does that mean they are representative of Democrats, given Communist participation in a rally of one of that party’s key allies?
Earlier this week, a reader sent me Ben Smith’s Politico post on what he deemed, “The Gay Republican tide“. I found the blogger’s word choice interesting:
This year’s iconic Conservative Political Action Conference was beset by controversy over the inclusion of a gay Republican group — but that was just the start of gay demands for acceptance in the broader conservative moment, according to an OUT story calculated to inflame social conservatives:
Emphasis added. Granted Smith may have penned this post in a rush, as we bloggers often do. That said, as is, his word choice suggests that gay Republicans have adopted a confrontational tone with the GOP. That may have been true in Log Cabin’s early years, but today, we’re not so much demanding acceptance as finding a welcome.
Yeah, there still remain social conservatives loath to include us in conservative conclaves, but, by and large, we’ve found a welcome. Conservatives today are more concerned with the size of government than they are with the private lives of individuals — and pretty much have been for the past forty years, only the media do seem to dwell on the presence of religious conservatives in the movement as if said indviduals define it, rather than represent one aspect of it.
A reader sent this to me. Jim Geraghty has a similar one on Campaign Spot.
When the loudest critic of your policies achieves his only success because of them. Well, I might quibble a bit with the caption. It’s not his only success, but his greatest one.
Sure seems that way…
Osama Bin Laden spent the last five years living in the room of his mansion where he was shot and killed by U.S. forces, according to Pakistan security officials.
The claims were made by the terrorist leader’s wife, who apparently told interrogators that she and her husband had not left the same room for the past half a decade.
I’m kind of enjoying the image of Bin Laden collecting urine in mason jars and having 6-inch long fingernails.
UPDATE (from Dan): But, Bruce, here’s the difference: Hughes chose to hide out. Seems Osama lacked that choice. From everything I’ve read, it seems that he never once emerged from the compound. The aggressive search that begun in 2001 forced him into hiding. He must have been quite miserable in his last years, dependent on couriers for contact with the outside world.
Back in 2004, when Michael Moore’s movie, Fahrenheit 9/11, was released, the guest list at the Washington premiere read like a Who’s Who of leading Democrats:
The Fahrenheit 9/11 premiere was organized by Clinton White House social secretary Capricia Marshall, and the attendees who praised the movie included DNC Chairman Terry McAuliffe, Sens. Tom Daschle (D), Tom Harkin (IA), Max Baucus (MT), Ernest Hollings (SC), Debbie Stabenow (MI), and Bill Nelson (FL), as well as Reps. Charles Rangel (NY) and Jim McDermott (WA).
Jimmy Carter invited the filmmaker to sit in his box at the 2004 Democratic National Convention and dubbed Moore’s movie one of his two favorites. Now, Moore has been making some crazy statements about the death of Osama bin Laden, hinting at some bizarre conspiracy theories involving White House deception.
So, given Democrats’ past embrace of Mr. Moore, some might think it really shameful that the supposedly responsible leadership of the Democratic Party has not repudiated him.