As hard as it might be to believe, the Daily Beast's Andrew Sullivan has become a bigger cheerleader for President Obama than virtually anyone else in the media including the shills on MSNBC.
On Wednesday, he actually penned a drooling, gushing, sycophantic love letter to the current White House resident saying - and I'm not making this up! - "If you voted for Obama in 2008 and don't in 2012, you never really voted for him in 2008":
Unemployment is lower now than it was when he took office, and moving downward. Next year's IMF-predicted US growth is higher than any other developed country. Compared with austerity-ridden Europe, where unemployment is still climbing, Obama's, Geithner's and Bernanke's leadership has been stellar. The US has never exported as much as now as a percentage of GDP ever. Given the catastrophe Obama walked into, and the froth-flecked obstructionism of his opposition, he's had a remarkably successful, historic first term.
"A remarkably successful, historic first term?" Is that why Obama's favorability rating is below 50 percent with most Americans believing the country is on the wrong track?
How does Sullivan create the appearance of a "remarkably successful, historic first term" despite the President's failures?
By lying about Obama's record, of course.
"Unemployment is lower now than it was when he took office?"
No, it's actually the same as when he took office at a rather dubious 7.8 percent rate that likely won't be the case when the Labor Department reports October's numbers Friday.
And how about this doozy later in the piece: "But take his second term away? Back to ballooning, rather than shrinking deficits."
Is that what we've seen in the past four years? Shrinking budget deficits?
Quite the contrary, Obama has presided over the largest budget deficits in history.
As such, how much of a shill must one be to put in print verifiable lies?
I'd say Sullivan should be ashamed of himself, but he clearly lost any shame he possessed years ago.
(HT @jamestaranto)
