While I agree with Mr. York’s conclusion that Barack Obama will be reelected, it will not be “due to the fact that we are all a lot more politically and economically sophisticated than we used to be.” [Publisher Arnold York’s column “So where are we now?” published Sept. 13] Rather it will be for two reasons: The mass media do not report fairly but serve as Pravda and Izvestia for Obama in whom they are deeply invested after their fawning endorsement in ‘08 (see MediaResearchCenter.org for multiple examples); 2. Obama has increased dramatically the number of people cashing government checks, believing they will vote to continue the cash, that is, legalized bribery. Pretty potent combination!
The statement, “The economic numbers have been at best mediocre,” qualifies for the euphemism of the year. As Obama pointed out in 2008, “If you don’t have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from.” This is Obama’s record. For the first time in our history, our credit rating was downgraded. Our country has the fewest people in the labor force in more than three decades. Long-term unemployment is the highest in 75 years. We have the most people on food stamps in the history of our country.
As a senator, Obama called Bush unpatriotic for raising debt $4 trillion in eight years; Obama has added $8 trillion in less than four years, more debt than all 43 prior presidents combined!
And it is even worse than it appears. For the last two years of the Bush presidency, it was the Democrats who controlled Congress and the budget. Before the Democrats took over in January 2007, we had 52 straight months of job growth. Unemployment was at 4.6%. Obama voted for every spending bill while in the Senate, and, as president, Obama has conducted spending to the highest percentage of GDP in 60 years. “Mediocre” does not do that justice.
Richard M. Coleman