You can't swing a dead cat these days without hitting some pathetically liberal media member claiming that despite how bad things are now they'd get worse if Republicans won in November.
Exhibit A: New York Times columnist Bob Herbert's article Saturday.
In it, he somewhat honestly told his readers about the misshaps of the President he personally helped get elected.
Fair enough, but the conclusion - almost like a talking points memo from the very Party he unashamedly supports! - was that things would get a lot worse if Republicans took back Congress:
People feel that the country is going to hell, that the system itself has broken down, and President Obama and the Democrats have been unable to assuage that awful feeling. [...]
The Democrats are in deep, deep trouble because they have not effectively addressed the overwhelming concern of working men and women: an economy that is too weak to provide the jobs they need to support themselves and their families. [...]
With the nation losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month in early-2009, the president and his allies in Congress could have rallied the citizenry to participate in the difficult work of nation-building here at home. He could have called on everyone to share in the sacrifices that needed to be made, and he could have demanded much more from the financial and corporate elites who were being bailed out with the people's money.
Makes sense, right? Just wait:
The Democrats are facing an election debacle because they did not respond adequately to their constituents' most dire needs. The thing that is really weird is that a strengthened G.O.P. will undoubtedly make matters so much worse.
The unemployment rate was 4.6 percent when the Democrats took control of Congress in January 2007. It's now 9.6 percent.
Over 7 million Americans have lost their jobs since the Democrats took over Congress.
And shills like Herbert have the gall to claim conditions would worsen if Republicans were back in power.
Hey Mr. Herbert: how about proving your point with actual data rather than inflammatory rhetoric?
I know, I know - that would be too much like journalism for a shill like this.