Keith Devens .com

Unfortunately, it's almost all bunk. The economic "facts" it boasts are either simply not true, disingenuously misleading, or entirely irrelevant.

See here: http://www.plec.blogspot.com/#108326935965021435

Wouldn't it have been nice if Clinton's claims had been so closely scrutinized by other liberals, such as constantly saying, "The worst economy in 50 years" and nobody mentioning Jimmy Carter?! How many people had "exited the work force" under Clinton? Why do the same liberals who say Bush couldn't have been in office long enough to affect things positively, forget that bad things such as the recession and the 9/11 terrorists started during Clinton's reign? They whine about Florida and don't mention that with Gore running with 8 years behind him with "God", and supposedly so many advancements in everything - economy, jobs, etc., that he blew it so badly that the election would even be so close? Or, that it was Gore who started the legal stuff in Florida and wanted to pick and choose where to recount votes so it was only in counties where the Democrats were typically strong, and ignoring counties where Democrats usually didn't fare as well? Why didn't he want to recount ALL the votes? Or, that several organization - mostly leaning left - have conducted vote count studies, and nearly every one of them, if not all, said that Bush would have won no matter what the Supreme Court decided? Or, that they didn't think there was any partisanship when a nearly all Democratic Florida Supreme Court bent the laws to give Gore more leeway, but cry partisanship with the Supreme Court? Or, that with Clinton they were all saying that dodging the draft outright didn't matter at all, but now GWB is terrible because he was in the National Guard rather than dodging it completely or throwing (or not throwing, depending on the day) medals over the White House fence.

I could go on, but the liberals will never get it, and that is good for the Republican Party as they watch the Democrats continue to self-destruct.

That was awesome

Matt:

I suppose you think you've raised hell (as does Kieth).

I certainly agree with a number of the things you say: Al Gore is a putz; Bush is not responsible for a recession that began only one month after he took office; a lot of liberals are cranks wearing blinders; Democratic leaderhsip ain't all that.

But you raise a laundry list of issues that have nothing to do with the points I make in this discussion...Jimmy Carter? National Guard? What the hell are you talking about?

The point is that this freelance Bush ad (see above)--which has been so widely lauded as telling Bush's <i>real</a> economic record--relies on misrepresentations of economic statistics and grossly incompetent analysis. The author of the ad can't even calculate a simple percentage growth?!?

You have just revealed yourself to be at least as equally susceptible to partisan crankery. Rather than evaluate the evidence presented in the ad with a balance, critical eye, you have blindly accepted it as Truth because it conforms to your preconceived beliefs and biases. Rather than evaluate the arguments I put forth, you go off the handle about things that have nothing to do with the discussion at hand.

So what is "IT" in your comments that liberals are missing? The ability of voters to swallow half- and mis-truths? Again we agree: that is good for the Republican party.

Adam, just to clarify: I thought Matt made an awesome rant (which I enjoyed), and I agree with much of it, but I know it didn't have anything to do with what you posted. To be fair, I'm going to have to go over every claim in the ad and try to verify it, and then look at what the article you posted says and try to verify it. I haven't gotten to do that yet.