No Matter The Cost

Let's do some conflationism, shall we? And let's use Jim Geraghty to do so.

Step One: WaPo tells us to relax about gas prices. Really, they're not that bad

In this post, Geraghty included this graphic from the Washington Post, arguing that the problem of high gas prices is mostly overblown:

And if you click through to the article and pull up the graphic there, you get this:

Gas prices are spiking, and a new poll found that seven in 10 of us find the issue very important ... But for most of us, a bigger number on the pump makes only a small dent in our annual expenses.

"So stop complaining all you bitter clingers" is the not entirely subtle message.

This old Dean Barnett article from 2008 is quite on point any time you hear non-bitter clingers spout off about gas prices.

Step Two: Sandra Fluke has given us the ol' woe-is-me lament that she and her fellow classmates can't afford (and shouldn't be expected to bear the costs no matter the cost of) birth control. Last I was seen on Geraghty's Campaign Spot was on this post in which we learned:

What is the cost of birth control? Planned Parenthood puts the cost at “$15–$50 a month.”

So, taking the midpoint of the Planned Parenthood estimates, we got to wondering...

Oh, you see where this is going don't you?

Of course you do. I re-worked one of the WaPo's graphics:

(BTW - I cleaned up a typo in that graphic the layers of editing at WaPo missed.)

What does this mean? Well. According to WaPo and Obama and those on the left, birth control is so expensive that I have to pay for Sandra Fluke's. And according to WaPo $4 per gallon gas it is not so bad, really.

So I'm pretty sure that chart must be lying. And sexist. And it probably has declared a war on all women. Some charts are like that.