Yeah right, Mitt

Mitt isn't quite as much of a liar as Newt—at least this time around.

This is an amazing fact: Fox News—Fox News!—says Romney's case on women and jobs is skewed. Here's an excerpt:

ROMNEY: "This is an amazing statistic. The percentage of jobs lost by women in the president's three years, three and a half years — 92.3 percent of all the jobs lost during the Obama years have been lost by women." — Hartford, Conn., on Wednesday.

LANHEE CHEN, Romney campaign policy director, on the Obama administration Wednesday: "They've done a tremendous amount of damage to American women in this economy."

Source: FACT CHECK: Romney's skewed case on women's jobs
Published April 11, 2012 / Associated Press
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/04/11/fact-check-romney-skewed-case-on-women-jobs

You know, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics (Mark Twain I think). Fox news adds:

When Obama took office, unemployment for men (8.6 percent) was already sharply higher than for women (7 percent). The rate peaked for men at 11.2 percent in October 2009 and for women at 9 percent a month later.

Since then, the gap has nearly closed. Last month, the rate was 8.3 percent for men and 8.1 percent for women.

Here's an economist at the Bureau of Labor Statistics commenting on MSNBC:

Brian Davidson, an economist at BLS, told First Read: “The math they use is correct; the terminology is completely wrong.”

Davidson noted that women actually make up a larger share of the workforce now than they did in Jan. 2008 before the financial meltdown, and since January 2009, it is a statistically insignificant change.

In January 2008, women made up 48.8 percent of the workforce; in January 2009, 49.5 percent; now 49.3 percent.

FACT CHECK: Romney's women jobs-loss claim paints incomplete picture
By Domenico Montanaro, Deputy Political Editor, NBC News

So where did these job losses come from? 64% (over 3 in 5) came from the public sector. That's right: government jobs. The Republicans want to do what to government? Make it smaller? Lay off more public-sector workers. Right?

So over 3 in 5 of the net job losses for women came from smaller government, and therefore women should vote for Mitt? Dude, most women are smarter than that. Next question: in which states did these public-sector female job losses occur?

This is so embarrassing (for them), but check out the chart at left. It's from the Atlantic -- Why Mitt Romney's ‘Economic War on Women’ Charge Could Backfire by Jordan Weissmann Apr 11 2012, 5:27 PM ET

The takeaway from this chart is: All those job losses for women Mitt's been talking about? 3 in 5 are from smaller government. Over 70% of those are in Texas (the "Rick Perry effect"?) and in states that went Republican in 2010. Look what the GOP has done for women's jobs in state and local governments; imagine what would happen with Mitt in the White House!

Unemployment figures worsened for the first 8-9 months of Obama's term, then they got better.

Mitt, guys like you make me feel embarrassed to be a Republican. I wish you'd tell the truth. "Yeah, we're for smaller government, which means even more job losses at the state and local governments, (and coming soon: federal government!)..."