Republicans Deny Science, History, Math and Reality – Then Want Us to Take Them Seriously?

1655473_10152243638377489_709549125_nOnce upon a time I used to have healthy, productive debates with some of my Republican counterparts.  We still rarely agreed on several key issues, but with basic common sense issues (climate change and evolution, for instance) we usually didn’t disagree all that much.

Well, that’s all changed.

The Republican party seems hell-bent and determined to be the party of stupid.

In my opinion, their economic policies have always been based off fantasy rather than reality.  And while I say that’s my “opinion,” facts are also on my side.  It’s pretty much indisputable that since the dawn of trickle-down economics that wealth distribution in this county has become a major problem.

Sure, it’s been great for the rich – they’re wealthier than they’ve ever been before.  But they’ve grown that wealth on the backs of everyone else.  While their wealth soared, the middle class fell further and further behind.

It’s like I’ve said about trickle-down economics plenty of times:

Trickle-down economics: Convincing poor people that they can become rich by giving rich people more money.

But sadly, the Republican denial of economic reality is actually one of the least ridiculous things about them.

It seems Republicans struggle with basic things like dates and history.  I can’t count how many Republicans I’ve met who claim President Obama caused the recession.  I’ve talked to plenty who actually think our economy is worse now than it was five years ago.


Six years ago we were shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs every month.  Now if we create less than 100,000 it’s considered “bad news.”  We’re approaching five straight years of continuous private sector job growth.  The stock market was plummeting toward a low around 6,000.  Now it’s over 17,000.

And if you want to be one of those people who says, “Yeah, but a lot of the jobs are low-paying and wages are stagnant,” that’s fine – but you can’t blame President Obama for that.

Again, the rich are doing great in this country.  Corporate profits are up.  I would say Obama’s economy has done a pretty good job at making sure the rich have the means to “trickle-down” those riches to the rest of us.  Even though Republicans like to ramble on and on about him being a socialist.  Well, if he’s indeed a socialist, he’s one of the worst ones – ever.  Heck, there are a lot of capitalists who would love to follow his kind of “socialism” because it’s been great for capitalism.

All we need is for those “job creators” to start trickling that stuff down.

Oh, that’s right, trickle-down economics is a scam.

Then there’s the new movement where it seems science has become a dirty word to Republicans.  More and more of them are starting to believe that creationism (you know, that belief where the “evidence” is simply saying, “It’s in the Bible!”) is every bit the scientific theory as evolution.

Then there’s the growing conservative theory where millions of these people believe that around 95% of the world’s scientists have concocted this elaborate climate change hoax to continue getting grant money so they can enjoy their lower-middle class lavish lifestyles.

Seriously, that’s why they say scientists have created climate change – to keep grant money flowing in.

Because it’s quite the lavish lifestyle to live for months on end on a ship, in arctic climates, sharing rooms with people who don’t bathe regularly.

This is the way I look at it:

  • It’s real and we must act now to try to save our planet
  • It’s not real, but we should still act as if it’s real because we only have one planet to live on

Honestly, what’s the worse that’s going to happen if we became completely reliant on green energy?  Cities completely powered by the sun and wind?  Homes powered by solar panels?  Cars that run on water?  True energy independence?  Fresher air?  Cleaner water?

The horrors!

And don’t even bring up history with conservatives, it can drive you mad.

I can read our entire Constitution and a conservative can read our entire Constitution.  When I’m finished I’ll have read a document that’s completely absent of the words “Christian” or “Christianity.”  When the conservative is finished reading it, they’ll read the exact same document absent of the words “Christian” or “Christianity,” yet still maintain we’re a Christian nation.

It would stand to reason that if our Founding Fathers had wanted this nation to be founded upon Christianity, that would have been mentioned at least once.

Show them the Treaty of Tripoli, written by one of our Founding Fathers John Adams, where it clearly states, “As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..” and it still won’t make one bit of difference.  Show them documents where Thomas Jefferson (another Founding Father) advocated strongly for the separation of church and state – it won’t matter.

Republicans will still insist that this nation was founded on Christianity and will continue to try to interject their religious beliefs into public policy.

And I’ve still never had someone explain to me how we’re a nation of “freedom” and “liberty,” yet we’re supposed to be based off religion.  You know, being that religion is about control – not freedom.

Once upon a time science, history and math were tools you used to prove your side of an argument.  Now, to many conservatives, they’re all apparently liberally biased.

I’ve just gotten to a point where I can’t take most of these people seriously anymore.  Republicans seem to have created this world where “truth” lies not in what’s actually real but in what they want to be real, and it’s a sad sight to behold.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • TaxPaying American Voter


    • Jim Walker

      throw down your rights and come out with your hands up we are the democrat elite here to protect you by controlling every part of your life

      • TaxPaying American Voter

        I don’t need a ficticious book and conservative bluehairs to tell me it’s not right to sodimize sheep. For some reason SOME people have to be reminded EVERY Sunday . Their memory AND morals are shorter than their genetalia.

      • Jim Walker

        your infatuation with sodomizing(see how its spelled moron) sheep and republican genitalia tells a lot about you sir

      • TaxPaying American Voter

        Hit a nerve. Bullseye.

      • Jim Walker

        bulls eye is on the wrong end for you I think you mean sheep ass

      • Brian

        Wow. There you go with the sheep obsession. You and ewe go get a hotel room for God’s sake.

      • Kovah88

        Seems like the one who knows how to spell a word would be the one more infatuated with it than the one who doesn’t.

      • Brian

        Wow! From that you infer an infatuation?? I know Jim the following is nuanced and that is difficult for a conservative to grasp, but stay with me here. The secret here is to realize TaxPaying’s comments really had nothing to do with sheep. He employed a device which was old even when Socrates commented on around 470 BC. I’m sorry that I introduced Socrates, but I’m not going to explain him. You’ll have to look it up (yeah, right!). The device is Reductio ad absurdum (or reduce to the absurd). So TaxPayer was taking an outlandish examples of moral turpitude to counter this implicit assumption that you folks have that, but for some hoary book and the its daily consultation, we would just about do anything. But that isn’t the case because most people are imbued with a conscience. My theory though is that there are people who would do unthinkably heinous things, but for a strident moral code delivered by stern religious leaders. They say that observation is mostly reflection. I think you completely missed the point by TaxPayer because you are not equipped with a conscience. You probably do have to be reminded on a weekly basis to not do bad (noticed I did not say ‘do good.'”

      • Brian

        Wow! From that you infer an infatuation?? I know Jim the following is nuanced and that it is therefore difficult for a conservative to grasp, but stay with me here. The secret here is to realize TaxPaying’s comments really had nothing to do with sheep. He employed a device which was old even when Socrates commented on around 470 BC (sorry for the reference to what must be for you an obscure figure). The device is Reductio ad absurdum (or reduce to the absurd). So TaxPayer was taking an outlandish example of moral turpitude to counter this implicit assumption that you folks have that, but for some hoary book and the its daily consultation, we would just about do anything. But that isn’t the case because most people are imbued with a conscience. My theory though is that there are people who would do unthinkably heinous things, but for a strident moral code delivered by stern religious leaders. That is because they do not have a conscience and the only thing to stop them from harming the rest of us is either the grace of a lack of interest or something has forcibly stopped them. They say that observation is mostly reflection. I think you completely missed the point by TaxPayer because you are not equipped with a conscience. You probably do have to be reminded on a weekly basis to not do bad (noticed I did not say ‘do good.'” Oh, and by the way: If you are going to cite some grammatical pecadillio. So in your tiny retort, you managed to pack in a lot of mistakes and bad stylistic choices, you little hypocrite.

      • robingee

        Doesn’t injecting religious rules into our laws control people’s lives? Especially when a lot of us don’t even believe in that religion, or any religion?

        How do Democrats try to control your life?

      • Brian

        This is the conservation ploy: Rudely appropriate the very things that in fact the democrats are fighting to protect, so that you seem like you are the protector against democrats who are hell bent to take them. Call it refined projection. But the truth is, it’s the conservatives who don’t bat an eye at the worst type of instrusion imaginable. It’s the conservatives who are keen to use the great powers of the government to strip the rights of those they detest. And let’s be clear here, they reveal a mindset that hates everything and only temporarily appears enchanted with this or that person or group only because they have a common enemy. That is the secret to understanding conservatives: At any one time, they are obsessed with, in a panic over, trying to destroy an enemy. They don’t realize that even if they were to destroy the enemy, they would find another. They would not stop until they have succeeded in killing all, including themselves. They are without love, acceptance, understanding, compassion. They are filled to the brim with hate, distrust, obsession, dishonesty, delusion, fear. Nothing, but nothing good will ever come of such a stance. And it really doesn’t matter if you try to claiim moral high ground by dismissing your “opponents” view points by calling them baby killers.

  • Anthonij

    It’s all so strange and equally disturbing… as if we’ve gone back to the Middle Ages…

    • meatwad_SSuppet

      It is a case of the over all policy trumps all other facts. No matter how far away from reality their fantasy is they still demand we all try and live it. They have had centuries to prove to the world their religious superiority, and failed, for a very good reason.

  • Sunny Ray

    They should be put to jail for trying to make laws based on religion, some are already effective and should be brought to the supreme court. The first amendment is very clear about that, they are criminals!

    • Brian

      I agree that it is very harmful (fatal?) to the Republic, but as far as I know there is not criminal code attached to any part of the constitution. I think it would be good if there were. Look at the 4th amendment the one against search and seizure without a warrant. There is no criminal penalty if law enforcement breaks this, so the courts created a rule known as the poison fruit rule which excluded most exculpatory evidence which was obtained in violation of the 4th. They did this recognizing that there was a constitution prohibition against and act but absolutely no repercussions if that prohibition were violated Of course conservatives decry this as soft justice that let’s criminals go on technicalities. Congress is ignoring their responsibilities. If they made it a crime to violate the 4th then you could still perserve the admissabiliity of ill-gotten evidence, but law enforcement would be disinclined to violate the admendment because they could be personally culpable.

  • Matthew Reece

    “It’s pretty much indisputable that since the dawn of trickle-down economics that wealth distribution in this country has become a major problem.”
    It goes back farther than that. I would point to the shift from money backed by gold and silver to money backed only by the weapons and threats of the state, which occurred in stages from 1873 to 1971.

    • Then you would be wrong. Monetarism and the gold standard were the cause of ever-increasing, devastating financial and economic instabilities which we only got away from because of the move to true fiat currencies. Look up Paul Krugman on the subject of why Britain does better than France after 1929, and the same guy on the subject of Bretton-Woods and the Great Moderation.

      Lots of people (Ezra Klein, Nate Silver, Brad DeLong, Ben fricking Bernanke and Alan Greenspan, ffs) have publicly debunked the Tea Party’s obsession with gold.

      • Matthew Reece

        I recommend reading Murray Rothbard on this subject. The Tea Partiers are largely misguided, but the Austrian School anarchists are not. A study of recessions since the 19th century will show that recessions before the Federal Reserve were less frequent and less severe than those between 1914 and 1932. The era of Keynesian stimulus has been an improvement over central banking only, but the damage done by recessions is still worse than with a laissez-faire approach.

  • FD Brian

    I love the argument of the naysayers about global warming “all those scientists are paid by the government to tell us global warming is real” but they’ll believe the other 5% who are all paid by the oil companies.

    • dlmo78

      My thing is this: Is global warming happening? Yes. Are humans causing it? I don’t know. Will green energies reverse global warming? I don’t know but we should still go to green energies for energy independence and cleaner air, water, and soil. There global warming arguments irrelevant. Buy green energies.

      • FD Brian

        sounds logical to me,DLMO78

      • Linda Smith

        Are humans causing it? Of course they are! One major example of humans causing it are the idiots who buy huge SUVS and only drive them on the road or mostly on the road and never off the road! These idiots don’t need an SUV for a large family. They need a small station wagon with a very roomy interior. Many of those people are morons who will never learn!

      • robingee

        It’s their right as a free American to drive a giant gas guzzler! I live in NYC and there are a shit-ton of Cadillac Escalades and Lincoln Navigators here. They are so huge they can barely squeeze into a gas station.

      • Brian

        Here is my two cents. The cost of gasoline is far greater than its price. It is a national strategy to keep the price of gas at a level where consumers will continue to buy it and thereby support all the industries tied to use of the combustion engine. But the cost involves using armed forces to ensure access to the sources. The cost involves the government socializing the risk for the oil companies. The cost involves the payback that the oil companies surely pay back to the generous friends in Congress. The cost involves the loss of national treasures, seafood and wildlife lost as the result of oil spills. If the price of Gas were set to approximate its true cost, then we could do away with the type of cowardly policy which attempts to do my legislation (CAFE) what the market would do very well, thank you. If gas were, say $10.00 a gallon you could still allow SUVs, put the pressure would certainly be on to provide more transit options and technologies. All I’m saying is that we have elected to have our service men and woman die not for liberty but to ensure we have this apparent cost savings. And that accounts for the beating of the heart we induldge in over the troops. It’s guilt or willful ignorance.

      • Sue Roediger

        If gas was $10 a gallon …. the folks making $7 an hour would be screwed. They wouldn’t be able to by gas and the cost of riding the bus would rise as well.

  • Jim Walker

    the democrats kill babies rewrite history and control the masses thru lies and unconstitutional laws

    • No, they don’t “kill babies”. They may support women who wish to terminate a pregnancy, but a zygote or a fetus is not a “baby”. I’d wager that some actual, as in already born, babies definitely suffer, and perhaps even die, due to lack of health care and food… both of which they could easily obtain through programs that *Republicans* want to abolish. So who’s killing babies?
      No… the manic need to control every aspect of the lives of Americans is most definitely a need of the radical Right.

      • Jim Walker

        you mean control like what insurance I have what guns I own what my kids learn in school that kinda control hmmmm whos party is that?!!

      • Since it’s Republicans that try to remove scientific theories such as the theory of evolution, and historical events such as the civil rights movement from textbooks, then that’s precisely the kind of control I mean.
        As for insurance, have you been forced into an insurance plan with a company not of your choosing? Had you no choice in that decision? Really?
        And guns? Get over yourself… the only regulation being attempted is for military type weapons and high-capacity magazines. The only reason those things exist is to shoot a lot of people in a short amount of time. If you have no plans to do that, then you should have no issue with them being outlawed. Nobody’s trying to take away regular weapons so quit crying about it.

      • Jim Walker

        wow I can see your indoctrination is complete.military type weapons lol civil rights removed from text books bahahaha. god bless you you poor thing.

      • He does, thank you very much. And it never ceases to amuse me how the indoctrinated radical right are constantly finger-pointing and claiming that anybody who doesn’t agree with them is indoctrinated. My father was a Marine Corps Vietnam vet… a patriot (a trait he passed on to all of his children), an educator, and a registered Republican. Were he alive today, he’d be appalled at the rewriting of history that’s been occurring, originating in Texas. It’s not a myth, it’s happening and children all over the country are now being taught a biased view of history. It’s nauseating.

      • Jim Walker

        show me one credible source on this re-writing history.why did you not follow your fathers lead and stay on the good path.what do you think your father would say about Obama?look deep in your heart and tell me he would not be ashamed of you for being so easily mislead.sounds like you was raised better. what went wrong

      • I could have the Almighty come down from Heaven and tell you something but if it was something that you didn’t want to hear (I don’t know, like feed the poor, heal the sick, love thy neighbor), then you wouldn’t believe it. So it’s pointless to try to convince you of anything.
        And I don’t recall mentioning anything at all about President Obama, so that’s not relevant to the discussion. Actually, nothing you say is relevant to the discussion, so I’ll not be responding to you again.
        The main reason I did so was to tell you that my father was always very proud of me, regardless. Oh, and that I’m also a registered Republican, asshole. I just don’t allow myself to be spoonfed bullshit by the radical right. I weigh all of the factors and make up my own mind, as my father taught me to do.
        So go ahead, give me your best shot troll, as I know that you will absolutely *have* to get in the last word. That’s what you people love to do, after all. Have a nice day. Or don’t. Makes no difference to me. *shrug* You’re nobody. ;o)

      • Jim Walker

        wow did I hit a nerve baby? or are you mad because you cant defend your position? hmmm your last word seems to be about two paragraphs mostly name calling and telling me in many many words how you don’t care lmao you don’t hide your true feelings very well do ya darling

      • Brian


      • Jim Walker


      • gian keys flat mom

        geeeeeeee,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,is it enjoyable to read ( above) a registered republican excoriating you?

      • robingee

        Why would you type out “hmmmm” – that’s a sound people make when they are thinking of what to say. It’s like typing out a cough or a sneeze. Weird!

      • robingee

        How did Obama mislead anyone? Mislead them about what issues?

      • robingee

        So it’s not military-type weapons? And what textbooks have “civil rights” removed from them?

      • robingee

        You get to choose your own insurance. You get to shop for the one you want now. With an employer you get what they give you.

        Did someone come and take your guns away? Which guns?

        What are your kids learning in school that Democrats are teaching them, that you don’t want them to learn?

      • ShelleysLeg

        Aren’t you the one up top obsessed with spelling? “WHOS” usually has an E on the end, given that sentence, if you can call it that.

    • Bill

      These troglodytes reach into your home and bedroom to tell you when and how you must and must not: have sex, have babies, survive with kids, go to war, and die. They simply aren’t interested in you unless you believe as they tell you to believe, and they certainly don’t want to hear from you between having the babies and sending them off to war, when they suddenly become interested in your kids again. These people are the lowest form of human life, polluting the intellectual gene pool and setting evolution back to our cave-dwelling forebearers.

      • Jim Walker

        best description of a democrat yet.but you are wrong on one part they care very much about indoctrinating our youth to be slaves of the state

      • I do believe that was describing your GOP. *nod* And yes, it was a good description.

      • robingee

        What is a “slave of the state?”

    • robingee

      Examples? Thanks!

    • Brian

      Republicans eat poopy poop and, and and they smell like insects.

      That is basically how you sound. And I’m sure the drivel you spout out isn’t something you can claim authorship of. What’s worse, it’s pure projection.

      And let’s note the absolute, really silly, tone bereft of all specifics.

      Democrats kill babies huh? Get a clue. As California Governor, Ronald Reagan signed the ‘Theraputic Abortion Act” of 1967. Two million abortions would be performed on the basis of that law.

      So Republicans don’t have any concern over people when they are in the fetal form then they have at any other stage. If you look at the history of the abortion issue, you will note in the aftermath of Roe v. Wade, it was basically only the Catholics that were opposed, most of them being traditionally democratic. Must protestant demonations deliberately opted out. The only people i’ve ever known to have had abortions, were all republicans. Before Roe v. Wade, they were booked a trip to, say, Japan and come back, well, barren. That only changed when Jimmy Carter declared that he was pro-choice and the Republicans and Evangelicals decided to make abortion their issues after 5 years of either being mute to or openly supportive

      Now let’s talk about controlling the masses. What defenses do the masses have against centralized control? I can think of a few: 1. Inviolate access to voting places and ensured integrity of the process. 2. Access to verified information and accountability to those who convey it. 3. A good education for the entire citizenry. A transparent executive and legislative process. 4. A democracy whose direction is set more by ordinary citizens whose 1 vote is the same as the 1 vote a tycoon is given. A culture which values academic achievement and is realistic about the need to and cost of investments in the future at a scale comparable to the challenge. A healthy understanding of the role of government that isn’t purely cynical and anarchist. A healthy skepticism of the benevolence of corporations which, because they are government only by stakeholder’s interest, are predictably not going to value and revere things that have nothing to do with a revenue stream and which can only be checked by government.

  • Gregg Davis

    My brother has fits over the notion that some people might make money from climate change. I don’t get it. He has no trouble with people getting rich from exploiting fossil fuels that damage the air, land, and water, but the idea that some people might get rich selling solar panels is just too much to bear. Then he’ll complain that windmills have killed bald eagles, yet coal chemicals poisoning water supplies and killing whole miles of rivers–no problem.

    • robingee

      I don’t see why they worship these oil companies so much. Because they see money-making as “patriotic” and going green as “liberal hippie crap?” That’s the only connection I can make.

  • Sunnysmom

    Just tried to have a decent conversation with a GOP friend the other day about the work of Dr. Jane Goodall and I made the mistake of bringing up the genetic similarity of chimps and humans. My friend got Jesus butt-hurt and immediately said “well, that’s not what the bible says.” *Facepalm* How can you possibly continue a conversation after that??

  • Bill

    No, they don’t want “us” to take them seriously. They aren’t talking to “us” at all. They’re talking to their constituency, a body of intellectually challenged individuals who actually listen to them and do take them seriously. That’s why they exist, and they continue to get their voices amplified by media, conflate issues, take dark money, and prosper from it all.

    • Eg Kbbs

      They demonstrate that there is a big difference between lack of learning and stupidity.

      Lack of learning can be easily remedied.

      But they have announced that their minds are closed no matter what evidence is presented. Then, for good measure, they decided to censor information so it wouldn’t even get presented (as in moves to block scientists from being on panels at the EPA).

    • Eg Kbbs

      Interesting change over just a few decades. They started out asking for the evidence.

      Now that the evidence is against what they want, they deny the science.

  • fairness_rules

    Genuine facts mean nothing to them. They care only about their “own facts”, the ones they “wish” were true.

  • Photowrite2000

    Excellent article, Allen! My only criticism, as a former newspaper copy editor, is your use of the now popular phrase “based off.” I’ve noticed this is used a lot nowadays, and I have a couple of speculations as to why, but I won’t get into that. It will probably gain enough currency to be acceptable soon. But until then, it still sounds exactly opposite in meaning to what you want to say. I think you should be saying “based on,” as in the notion that a concept is based or founded on a previous proven fact. As in the idea that like a structure, an argument’s building blocks are built on a solid base. This is where the traditional use of this phrase comes from. I think saying “based on” rather than “based off” more solidly connects one’s arguments to their factual basis. But I’m just a picky old grammar nerd. Carry on with the excellent work!

  • Jovina

    Churches involved in politics should lose their 501(c)(4) rating and pay taxes. Same for these dark money groups spending billions of dollars on elections and not registered or paying taxes.

  • Mary Anne

    While Republicans are certainly guilty of denying facts to push an agenda, Democrats are also comfortable focusing on ideology above science. Republicans seem to often assume that their personal experiences dictate reality, while Democrats assume that the “lived experiences” of any individual dictate reality. Though the Democrat approach results in greater empathy, it is no more scientific than the Republican one.

    For example, Democrats push the idea that gender and sex have different meanings with gender being determined by the brain and sex by the genitals. While this may be true, the science doesn’t exist to back it up. The relatively few studies done on transgenderism seem to indicate that there is a biological basis, but there is much work to be done in the field and it is far from conclusively proven that the concept of brain gender is based in reality.

    • Kaia

      The science does exist to back it up. Just because something is rare (0.1-0.2% of the population) does not mean it does not exist. And due to the lack of persons in it, there have not been a ton of scientific studies. Yes, this is true. But all recent studies completed have shown a discernible biological link.

  • Linda Smith

    No one would vote Republican, especially conservative Republican unless they’re a fucking asshole! I don’t care what they have to say because their opinions don’t amount to jackshit!

  • Ampsie22

    If three Repug/tea party would believe in climate change it would be a Miracle!

  • 7eloiro7

    The Treaty of Paris of 1783, which is a formal recognition of our
    independence from Great Britain, which was negotiated by Ben Franklin
    and John Adams. Its first words are, “In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.” The words or validity of this treaty are in no way in dispute.

    One final point, John Adams did write in 1798, after the first
    ratification of The Treaty of Tripoli, in a letter to the officers of
    The First Brigade of The Third Division of The Massachusetts Militia,
    “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
    wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

  • stefi

    My sister shared this article on her Facebook page and got this reply from one of our friends that “claims” she is Conservative. She just began freelance writing but somehow became an expert in a matter of months, I thought I would share her “vast” knowledge with you: Great op-ed. I can appreciate his sarcasm. Very well written for an opinion piece, however it is lacking in any of the “facts” that he claims in the beginning that he can cite to base his opinion on. As a freelance writer I give it a B (might have been higher but for the “stupid” comments which tanked his credibility) for entertainment value but a D- on substantive facts. It was cute though. I got a chuckle out of reading it. Thanks for sharing.

    • Hali

      In her anti-liberal articles (or maybe I should say “stories”) she has no problem calling names. But it’s not credible for others to do so. After all, she has writing for…about 3-4 months now. That makes her an expert.

      • Shae

        I wrote the comment and I think that my evaluation was spot on. He writes extremely well but the story lacks substantive facts to back his opinion. I think if he added some and laid off the opposition bashing that the article would have more credibility. Oh.. and I never claimed to be an expert on any subject matter but thank you for considering me as such.

      • Hali

        Maybe you missed this paragraph. The facts: “Five years ago we were shedding hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. Now if we create less than 100,000 it’s considered “bad news.” We’re approaching four straight years of continuous private sector job growth. The stock market was plummeting toward a low around 6,000. Now it’s over 16,000”
        Though it would have been nice of him to cite, you can look them up yourself.

      • stefi

        An expert or an evaluator??? Does a few months of experience make you a credible evaluator???? You’re not even a conservative so I’m not sure why you are their mouthpiece.

  • GOP is not the “party of stupid” . The GOP is the party of “we think *you’re* stupid”.