Breitbart.com editor Dana Loesch trashes 42nd President Bill Clinton's powerful and effective speech

Last night, Breitbart.com editor Dana Loesch attacked the former President Bill Clinton's effective speech at the DNC Convention in Charlotte. Prior to her conversion to the GOP, Loesch campaigned for Clinton

Big Government:

Bill Clinton was off his game tonight in one of the longest nomination speeches in the history of humankind.
The former president began his DNC speech mocking the the very idea of self empowerment and individual success.  
Unfortunately for Clinton, the facts work against him. Under Barack Obama, more people than ever before have been reduced to government dependency. Offering meager entitlements in exchange for a chunk of self sovereignty is not only bad for the economy, it's antithetical to the spirit with which America was founded.  
Clinton tried to claim credit on behalf of the Democrats concerning jobs and touted his own record -- that wasn't possible without a Republican controlled-congress which passed welfare reform and balanced the budget in spite of him, not because of him.
Clinton claimed Obama saved the auto industry, another lie:
The auto industry restructuring worked. It saved more than a million jobs, not just at GM, Chrysler and their dealerships, but in auto parts manufacturing all over the country

Here are the REAL facts from the Bill Clinton Speech that Loesch omitted (or spun) to make Clinton look bad, From Bloomberg:
Job Creation
The Claim: Clinton said that over the past half century almost twice as many jobs had been created when Democrats were in the White House as under Republican administrations. 

The Facts: Clinton’s math is correct. Using Bureau of Labor Statistics figures for the month each president took office, Democratic presidents presided over the creation of 42.3 million jobs and Republican chief executives saw 23.9 million.

Republican Tax Proposals
The Claim: Clinton said Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s tax plan would lead to middle-class tax increases, deep spending cuts or higher deficits. During his speech, Clinton said Romney’s plan could lead to $250,000 tax cuts for people making more than $3 million. Or, he said, it would “obliterate the budget” for education, clean air, clean water and national parks. Or, he said, Republicans would increase the deficit. 

The Facts: By noting the gaps in Romney’s proposal and structuring his argument as a list of possibilities rather than certainties, Clinton’s phrasing is more accurate than other Democratic statements. Obama campaign ads, for example, say Romney’s plan would definitely mean a middle-class tax increase.
Clinton used a number, the $250,000 tax cut for people making more than $3 million, which was first calculated by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center and reduced by an unspecified amount when the center considered other possible ways to structure the Romney plan.
What would actually happen under Romney depends on how he fills in the details, which he has so far not done.

Expanding Debt
The Claim: Clinton said that Republican policies quadrupled the national debt in the 12 years before he took office and doubled it again in the 8 years following his presidency.

The Facts: Clinton’s claim is largely true. The Treasury Department’s website,www.treasurydirect.gov, includes detailed historical data on the government’s public debt. Only annual fiscal year data is available for the period before 1997. Total public debt rose from $907.7 billion on Sept. 30, 1980, four months before President Reagan’s inauguration, to $4.1 trillion on Sept. 30, 1992, as the administration of President George H.W. Bush was coming to a close. Under Clinton, the rise slowed markedly, going to $5.7 trillion. On the second half of his claim, his math was a little off. Total debt rose from $5.7 trillion on Jan. 22, 2001, the first trading day after President George W. Bush was sworn in, to $10.6 trillion on Jan. 20, 2009, when Obama took over. That 86 percent jump isn’t quite the doubling Clinton claimed.


  1. Appears that you're obsessed with Dana. Just out of curiosity, is there a link anywhere on your blog to one well- reasoned argument for your "revelations" or is it entirely composed of hateful nonsense generated by an angst-filled overweight angry moron who has no sense of reality or history?

    Go live in Cuba or Egypt with your progressive friends and experience your third world dream and don't forget to ask your parents for spending money as you are probably in the basement currently eating free cupcakes and Twinkies. It's really sad that you support the very people who will turn around and squelch the free speech you enjoy to spew your filth. It's really sad that I have bothered to post a comment on your daft blog as you are no doubt incorrigibly steeped in your progressive mental disorder that will bring about your own distruction and I could have been doing something far more useful like wiping my ass in a more meticulous fashion.

    Don't keep up the work and think about waking up before your facist drivel influences some other ignoramous.

  2. The sad thing Anonymous is that you are the first person ever to read and comment on this site. So how can JGibson get upset with you. He has his first reader, and because of you I have now been here. And what is up with this stupid site. Who the hell designed this? It looks like someone threw up on this page.


Tweets by @JGibsonDem Tweets by @JPCTumblr