The left's answer is always to call the other guy what you are

 Zack Beauchamp for Vox:

Biden is a steady leader but in a poor position to handle a crisis; Trump is a demagogue who is more likely to raise tensions rather than lower them.

 

 

People forget that Joe Biden came in fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire in 2020 and was still neck-and-neck with Bernie in the primary popular vote until March 14th

 

 

 

 

 

Democrats ended up with Joe because the alternative was a lefty, Bernie, who would surely lose to Trump.

The same calculus applies today. Possibly win with cognitively challenged Joe, or lose with lefty Kamala Harris.

Joe was extremely unpopular in Iowa and New Hampshire.

Joe endeared himself to Iowans by calling them fat liars.

 

 

And he endeared himself to New Hampshireites by calling them lying dog-faced pony soldiers.

The common thread is the projection. It's Joe who is the liar, along with all his accomplices in the DNC and the media.

 

The entire Democrat and media establishment, but I repeat myself, has been lying to the nation to protect one man, Joe Biden, and they trot out Obama with this liberal projection to gaslight the voters one more time

Biden Fights for Ordinary People While Trump Is Out for Himself -- Barack Obama, X

This hopium peddler sat idly by while hopeless ordinary people had to join the greatest exodus from the labor force in the history of the post-war.

 

Now millions of illegals have been brought in under Joe Biden to take their place at much lower wages.

 

Democrats to ordinary people: You're chumps!

 

 

Ann Coulter: Antifa is 90% white (in addition to being violent, angry, self-loathing liberal projectionists)

Ya think? WaPo: "It's possible that Clinton supporters did not show up on Election Day"

The latest tally shows Hillary not getting 8.361 million votes in 2016 which Obama got in 2008. No matter what Trump's coalition was in 2016, its size shows little variation from 2008 and 2012. There was no sea change of support for his candidacy.

The answer for Clinton's loss is in the disarray among Democrats because their candidate was so horrible, which is why the media have portrayed Trump that way. It's liberal projection syndrome all over again. Hillary Clinton was the worst candidate for president in at least a generation. "More sooty baggage than a 90-car freight train" was how Camille Paglia put it 3 years ago. Democrats should have listened to her.

WaPo, recognizing that the proper comparison is with 2008, not 2012:

Absent final turnout numbers, it is still too early to assess whether these shifting vote patterns are the result of differential turnout among Clinton and Trump supporters or the result of genuine voter conversion. It’s possible that a sizable chunk of Latino Clinton supporters, in addition to white women, African Americans, and Asian Americans, did not show up on Election Day. It’s also possible that a significant portion of these voters were willing to overlook Trump’s incendiary remarks and vote for him based on other factors, like the need to shake up “politics as usual.”

Crack-smoking Jeb Bush supporters in the US House float Paul Ryan for president at a brokered convention

Well, at least you know they think Jeb! is already dead.

But then you also know what kind of Republican they think Paul Ryan is.

Gabba.Gabba.Nay! Not.one.of.us.

The Hill reports here:

'A small chorus of voices even floated new Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) as a possible nominee if no-one captures the majority of the 2,470 delegates by the time the convention kicks off. ... “I have broad disagreement with Donald Trump. If he is our nominee, I think he loses, I think Republicans lose the Senate, he puts the House at risk and sends the party into the wilderness for the next decade,” said Rep. David Jolly (R-Fla.), a Jeb Bush backer who this week called for Trump to quit the race. “If there is a mechanism to make sure somebody other than Donald Trump wins the nomination, I think that is a good thing for Republicans.” Fellow Florida Republican and Bush supporter, Rep. Carlos Curbelo, agreed: “I wouldn’t support Donald Trump for president if he were our nominee. I would support any reasonable idea to find a better nominee.” ... “I’m thinking about running to be a delegate because I think we may well be in a brokered convention,” [Rep. Luke] Messer [IN-6], another Bush supporter, said in an interview. “In that scenario, who knows? You may have Paul Ryan end up being president.” ... “I really think the Speaker is setting himself up to be considered for the nominee in the case there is a brokered convention,” said [an unnamed] GOP lawmaker, who already has endorsed in the primary.'

These assholes made a big deal of Trump taking the pledge when it's they who should be taking it. The Republican Party. Full of liberal projection syndrome.

If anyone knows a thing or two about firing up the crazies, it's John McCain

"[Trump] fired up the crazies".

The liberal projectionist, quoted here.

Feminists derailed infrastructure stimulus spending in 2009

The liberal projectionists who brought you the War on Women have been waging war on the men.

Seen here:

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders . . . suggests that the government invest heavily in infrastructure, which would create a lot of blue-collar jobs.

That was actually an original part of Barack Obama's stimulus plan, but it was derailed by feminists within the Obama coalition who thought it would produce too many jobs for men. Christina Romer, then-chair of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, reported: "The very first email I got ... was from a women's group saying 'We don't want this stimulus package to just create jobs for burly men.' "

Enjoy the music here.

LA Times Floats ObamaCare Weasel Word Excuse: We Only Meant SOME Could Keep Their Insurance

Here:

Still, many are frustrated at being forced to give up the plans they have now. They frequently cite assurances given by Obama that Americans could hold on to their health insurance despite the massive overhaul.

"All we've been hearing the last three years is if you like your policy you can keep it," said Deborah Cavallaro, a real estate agent in Westchester. "I'm infuriated because I was lied to."

Supporters of the healthcare law say Obama was referring to people who are insured through their employers or through government programs such as Medicare. Still, they acknowledge the confusion and anger from individual policyholders who are being forced to change.

-------------------------------------------------------

The fact is, the 40 million who have private insurance acquired either individually or through their own small businesses are being thrown under the bus first for political reasons. They are not an afterthought, but the key target.

To really understand why, however, one must realize that the oft-stated goal of providing health insurance through ObamaCare to benefit the 30 million uninsured is just a smokescreen, as if sacrificing the one group for the other roughly represents a fair trade. The reality is that ObamaCare is specifically designed to benefit women, a key fact about the law which shows its political meaning in the context of what the Democrats name the Republican war on women and doesn't get enough attention even among conservative opponents of the law.

Employer plans will have to conform to ObamaCare guidelines later, it is true. But since they represent a much larger constituency, Obama has unilaterally and unlawfully delayed key provisions of his own law which affect them in an attempt to phase in the draconian changes to health insurance slowly until after it's too late. The last thing Obama wanted as the poorly crafted law took effect was everyone up in arms at once. Better to boil the frogs slowly, and start with the most important opposition first, which is the Tea Party, which has been the most sensitive group to Obama-inspired federal interventions in American life, beginning with opposition to the mortgage forgiveness schemes in February 2009 which gave birth to the Tea Party and culminating in mobilization efforts to oppose health insurance reform schemes in the House and Senate late that same year. When ObamaCare became a fait accompli in March 2010, all the energy went in to retributive political action, which reached its crescendo with the history-making Republican take-over of the US House in November 2010.

Since then the effete who still constitute the majority in the Republican Party have done nothing to challenge the incremental imperial assaults of the president against the powers reserved to the Congress by the constitution. Looking back at them all now, one might even say that Obama's many transgressions against the separation of powers were all calculated to inure the people to the fact of them in order to smooth the way for more of the same when he needed it the most with respect to ObamaCare. Some older Republicans like Larry Kudlow, instinctively if not self-consciously, have recoiled from this, laughably calling for all provisions of ObamaCare to take effect as scheduled in the law, in the hope that the political consequences would be so profound that Republicans would win in 2014 and be able with large majorities to overturn a presidential veto of a law scrapping ObamaCare.

Seeing more acutely the threat to their very existence, however, the Tea Party has wanted the funds to ObamaCare cut off NOW. But neither camp has exerted enough influence among Republicans as a whole even as Obama methodically racked up that impressive record of tyrannical offenses against Congressional prerogatives, from the Libyan intervention without Congressional consultation to recess appointments when Congress wasn't in recess. In the face of all that the most contemptible members of the Republican establishment like David Frum instead have gone to war against these voices within their own party, in effect helping Democrats turn up the heat on the frog pot.

In political terms, ObamaCare is a key element in the larger class war being phased in first on the constituency which primarily makes up the Tea Party, the independent-minded traditionalist Americans who fend for themselves and support themselves without help from the nanny state or from a nanny employer, people who are more likely to start businesses, get married, and pay their own way and raise their own children. In a word, what has historically been the Republican base. All the rhetoric from Democrats over the period has been aimed at the these people by design, for a political reason, in order to freeze, personalize, and polarize them, painting them in the most horrific terms as the party of violence (January 2011 Giffords shooting), racism (March 2010 protests in DC), and terrorism (government shutdown in October 2013), among other things. As usual, the complete opposite of what they are, in keeping with what we used to call liberal projection syndrome and which still shows up in inaptly named government programs like the Affordable Care Act, which will not be affordable, will provide insurance but not care, and which was passed more as a partisan assault than a traditional act of Congress.

Health insurance reform under ObamaCare, by contrast, primarily benefits women as a class, whose health care costs are by nature higher and constitute the most obvious first inequality which shows up under health insurance. ObamaCare seeks to alienate women further from their natural condition by simply decreeing that this reality no longer exists. ObamaCare first and foremost puts their premiums on an equal footing with men's, craftily supplanting men as providers of health coverage to their wives through their employer plans and masking the costs women would otherwise have to absorb by themselves if they were paying for them. And then ObamaCare does much more, paying for their maternity care, and without coverage caps, their mammograms, their birth control and abortions, their lactation services and breast pumps, and letting baby mamas everywhere keep their kids on their plans until they reach the age of 26 (their kids reach 26, not the baby mamas). In effect ObamaCare seeks to solidify women as a natural Democrat Party constituency as dependent on the Democrats who provided it as the poor are who support them now because of massively expanded social welfare transfer payments.

If ever there was a public program designed to drive a stake through the heart of the traditional family, ObamaCare is it. That's why it is striking first at the people most likely in our society to take responsibility for themselves and where the idea of the traditional family is strongest. And to the extent that many within the Republican Party sympathize more with the transformational idealisms of female equality than with the realistic conceptions taught by history and nature explains better than anything why we are where we are.

The political party the Tea Party decided to support, unfortunately, hasn't proved itself worthy of them. There's still a little time left for Republicans to prove otherwise, but it is fast running out.

Rich Liberals Pay People Under The Table. Doesn't Everyone?

The Washington Post has drunk the KoolAid offered up by The New Yorker that there is an enormous underground economy out there where child-walkers and nannies get paid under the table helping to account for as much as $2 trillion in unreported income. $2T! Imagine it!

This must be part of a softening up campaign underway to raise taxes on the middle class. After all, we can afford to pay, they lie to themselves. But in all my long life in the middle class, I have known exactly two persons who could afford a nanny, one of whom can't anymore. She is an MBA who worked in an industry that actually made things. People stopped buying those things, and she lost her very good job. The other one deals in trouble. She is a liberal insurance company lawyer who still has hers. As for the child-walkers, I have known exactly none. In fact, I've never even seen one, not in Colorado, not in Illinois, and not in Michigan where I now live.

This is a liberal fantasy projected onto the rest of the country. It is rich liberals, denizens of America's great cities, who hire the nannies and pay the child-walkers, all under the table. The rest of us drive our own kids to school or walk them to the bus ourselves, clean our own homes, and do all the other things of daily living for ourselves. We can't afford to hire anybody. In fact, we're plundering our retirement accounts just to maintain our former standard of living. You know, the one we had in the years B.O., Before Obama. For many of us in the years A.O., our income has been cut in half because we got fired after long, productive careers. The nearly 30 million people who filed first time claims for unemployment in 2009 were a response to the 2008 election, not the effect of you know who. Employers knew what was coming, and boy, were they right. That contractor I'd like to hire and pay cash to replace the windows with the broken seals will just have to wait, about four more years is my guess.

In 2011 over 80% of wage earners made less than $60K per year, but we are somehow supposed to be the ones paying all these people under the table for services we can't afford? That's 122 million wage earners out of 151 million who are shelling out all this dough? You know, the same ones who've canceled cable, stopped eating out, jacked-up all their deductibles and learned a hundred ways to make red beans and rice.  

They used to call it liberal projection syndrome back in the day when education was good enough to transmit subtlety. Now we just call it bull.

This 47% Explains Why Democrats Want To Go Over The Fiscal Cliff

It's funny how 47% keeps coming up.

That's supposed to be the number of people who wouldn't vote for Romney because they were "the takers". 47% also turned out to be the percentage which actually ended up voting for Romney. And now it turns out that 47% is also the percentage of all the wages earned in this country by the middle class last year, which now stands to lose the most when Democrats shove them over the fiscal cliff because Obama won. They didn't show that ad of Paul Ryan shoving that lady in the wheelchair over the cliff for nothing. When you suffer from liberal projection syndrome, every time you accuse someone else you're just telegraphing what you intend to do yourself.

Nearly $3 trillion of the $6.2 trillion of wages in America in 2011, 46.8%, was made by people making between only $20,000 and $75,000 per year, and the only thing standing in the way of their taxes going up is President Obama's insistence that his victory means everything and the Republicans' victory in the House means nothing.

Democrats and liberal Republicans both cast their greedy eyes on those eleven compensation intervals piled up all together starting near the bottom of the income ladder in blue in the chart because not coincidentally those eleven together just happen to represent all the income aggregates which are also the largest of all, each in excess of $200 billion in 2011. We're talking about 71 million wage earners in this country out of 151 million who make all that money, which, oh my gosh, is also 47% of the workers.

Hm.

You'll look in vain for any aggregates among the very rich coming anywhere close to that kind of money, quite simply because there just aren't enough rich people in America to pile up tranches of $200 billion. Oh, there's  830,000 people accounting for, say $184 billion, who make between $200,000 and $250,000. Your dentist, probably. And then there's 275,000 Americans who make between $500,000 and $1 million. They account for just $183 billion. Some of these people probably own your favorite restaurants.

No, all the big piles of dough the Democrats "need" are "down low" because that's where all the people are, and the Democrats are comin' for you!  

So get ready all you people out there who voted for Obama, your taxes are going up big time, from this:

2013 Bush tax brackets

to this:

2013 Obama tax brackets

Have fun stormin' the castle!

Yuval Levin Notices Obama Suffers From Liberal Projection Syndrome

Here:

"[Obama] speaks as though the problem—our unsustainable entitlement state—were the solution, and as though the solution—a budget that restrains the growth of spending, modernizes and reforms our collapsing entitlement and welfare programs to avert their collapse, and charts a path toward economic growth—were the problem. In this upside-down, inside-out world, Barack Obama accuses Paul Ryan of putting the future of America’s younger generation in danger and inviting American decline.

"A psychologist might call this projection."

Keith Olbermann Suspended For Donations to Democrats

He who accused Fox of shilling for political causes has been doing it himself, contributing monies to three Democrats: Conway, Grijalva and Giffords.

The Democrat Way: Projecting failings onto others which are more true of oneself, aka hypocrisy, the pot calling the kettle black, and liberal projection syndrome.

Lovely.

CNN has the story here.

Incompetent Democrats Waste Their Opportunities

Democrats are presently suffering from an acute case of Liberal Projection Syndrome. They blame the minority Republicans for what is more true of themselves: inability to pass Democrat legislation into law, even though Democrats have controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House continuously since January 2009. The truth is the Democrats are deeply divided over many issues, so much so that they cannot govern.

It would be comical if it weren't so pathetic. Indeed, for six months between July 2009 and February 2010, Democrats enjoyed a supermajority in the Senate, if you count the two so-called Independents, Joe Lieberman and the Socialist from Vermont as part of their caucus, which they are. The Senate Democrats could have acted on anything without fear of a filibuster during that time and passed whatever the House had sent them, and sent it on in turn to Obama for a signature.

Is it Republicans' fault that Democrats in the House couldn't agree on their healthcare legislation until just before Thanksgiving? Is it Republicans' fault that Senate Democrats couldn't craft their own bill until Christmas? For bills which were said to be waiting for years in Henry Waxman's desk for just such a moment as this, they sure did take a long time to sell among their fellow Democrats.

Is it Republicans' fault that the two Democrat controlled chambers could not reconcile the two bills before the Massachusetts special election in January to fill the seat vacated by Senator Kennedy and which stood vacant only briefly from August 25 to September 25, 2009? Is it Republicans' fault that President Obama after all this time still cannot produce a piece of legislation, a healthcare bill on paper, which his party can pass?

And now there's word from TheHill.com that scores of bills passed and sent up by the House do languish, waiting for Senate action:

Exasperated House Democratic leaders have compiled a list showing that they have passed 290 bills that have stalled in the Senate. The list is the latest sign that Democrats in the lower chamber are frustrated with their Senate counterparts. An aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) says the list is put together during each Congress, but that this year’s number is likely the largest ever. However, he said Pelosi blames GOP senators, not Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) or Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).

If the last year has proven anything, it's that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama resemble none so much as Moe, Larry and Curly for their fecklessness, vulgarity and ineptitude, but without the humor. You might even say their ability to lead has been highly misoverestimated, if you know what I mean.

Liberal Projectionist in Chief

The Hill reported last week on Wednesday that President Obama told the GOP to "stop trying to frighten the American people" about the jobs situation:

Obama to GOP: 'Stop trying to frighten the American people'

By Sam Youngman - 12/09/09 01:14 PM ET

President Barack Obama told House Republican leaders to "stop trying to frighten the American people" even as he and Democrats said they see a possibility for bipartisan cooperation on job creation legislation.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters that Obama made the admonition during a bipartisan meeting at the White House on Wednesday . . .

Then we fast forward one week to today with the president trying to frighten the American people with the crazy claim that "health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget" unless we "do this" health care bill, in this report from ABC News:

ABC's Karen Travers reports from Washington:

President Obama told ABC News’ Charles Gibson in an interview that if Congress does not pass health care legislation that will bring down costs, the federal government “will go bankrupt.”

The president laid out a dire scenario of what will happen if his health care reform effort fails.

“If we don't pass it, here's the guarantee….your premiums will go up, your employers are going to load up more costs on you,” he said. “Potentially they're going to drop your coverage, because they just can't afford an increase of 25 percent, 30 percent in terms of the costs of providing health care to employees each and every year."

The president said that the costs of Medicare and Medicaid are on an “unsustainable” trajectory and if there is no action taken to bring them down, “the federal government will go bankrupt.” . . .

“Because if we don't do this, nobody argues with the fact that health care costs are going to consume the entire federal budget,” the president said.

Oh how the pot(head) doth call the kettle black.

"The Essence of Contemporary Liberalism is the Ability to Believe in Nonsense"

When Democrats call the Republican Party the Stupid party, it's just Liberal Projection Syndrome at work (project onto others that which is instead more true of oneself). 


Michael Graham of The Boston Herald proves it in this meditation, "Yes, There is Santa: He's No Liberal Myth," for Christmas:

I’ve never understood the discomfort Massachusetts liberals have with public celebrations of Christmas. After all, it’s the season of believing, and let’s face it: Liberals will believe anything.

If you thought the “fire never melted steel” crowd was nuts, check out the new study from the bipartisan Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. They find that liberals and Democrats are far more likely to believe in ghosts, psychic powers and astrology than their conservative/Republican counterparts. About 50 percent more Democrats than Republicans say they have spoken to the dead.

Or as it’s known at Democratic Party headquarters, “voter outreach.”

Byron York, writing about this Pew study in the Washington Examiner, calls the results “startling.” The word I would use is “obvious.” The essence of contemporary liberalism is the ability to believe in nonsense.


There's much more at the first link above. Don't miss it.

Liberal Projection Syndrome

ABC News is reporting that President Obama is warning people not to jump to conclusions about the Ft. Hood shooter:

President Obama warned today against "jumping to conclusions" regarding the motive for the shooting and ordered flags to be flown at half staff until Veteran's Day, saying that the "entire nation is grieving."

You mean like you calling a police officer "stupid"?

Just another case of Liberal Projection Syndrome: accusing others of that which thou doest thyself.