I sometimes wonder how these lying scumbags look themselves in the mirror without despising what they see. Then I realize they're leftards and thus are sociopaths without conscience so they are entirely unaffected by morality.

This is why so many of them lie so convincingly - they have no guilt to give them away.

Yup, you can see those Hooverville tarpaper shacks going up all over the Midwest, due to ABCP, and Canada will be using energy efficient "Bennett buggies" to get to work.

Dustbowl politics get a retread with some "Hoover leather" aka cardboard.

The political histrionics of data manipulation is getting tiresome, especially when some are in the process of getting re-elected.

Next they will be trotting out a New Deal and exhume FDR.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht BGS, PDP, CFP

Commander in Chief

Frankenstein Battalion

2nd Squadron: Ulanen-(Lancers) Regiment Großherzog Friedrich von Baden(Rheinisches) Nr.7(Saarbrucken)

Knecht Rupprecht Division

Hans Corps

1st Saint Nicolaas Army

Army Group “True North”

Show this comparison table to a liberal and he/she will tell you the Bush administration doctored the numbers while the Clinton years numbers are real.

Denial and liberalism, inseparable...

So we can expect this to lead the CBC news tonight ?

You know, fairness and honesty in reporting, providing Canadians with a balanced view of the world.

One of the neat things about Democrats in the White House, is how the numbers of poor and homeless suddenly drop. Then, once a Republican is installed, ALLOFASUDDEN they are out there in massive numbers!

In all fairness I am not sure if the difference between some of those stats is statistically significant. However one thing we can say for sure, its not the economy, stupid...

Oh that MSM. Wonder if they'll like the recession that they are trying to make? Hope it hits them in the nards.

Surely even you, of preconceived notions, might concede that on top of apparently cherry picking the years, the comparison also studiously avoids some of the other important conomic metrics such as national deficit and debt, debt to GDP etc....

Additionally, even using the years in question, it neglects to point out who controlled Congress at that point.

I think very, very few of even the most fervent supporters of the Bush White House would even dare to suggest that at the end of his Presidency he will leave the US economy stronger than it was when it began. No, those opinions are largely confined to the fringe right blogger class.

Additionally, even using the years in question, it neglects to point out who controlled Congress at that point.

I seem to recall Clinton getting a lot of credit for the economy during his tenure, without mention of the Congress in control during his presidency.

I think very, very few of even the most fervent supporters of the Bush White House would even dare to suggest that at the end of his Presidency he will leave the US economy stronger than it was when it began. No, those opinions are largely confined to the fringe right blogger class.

While Clinton inherited an unprecedented post-Cold War 'peace dividend' to add to his economic prowess, Bush inherited the aftermath of the dot-com bubble and the after-effects of 9-11. Although the decision to pursue the Iraqi war was primarily of his administration's doing (although perhaps his hands felt tied there, too), those other effects came about more due to previous administration(s).

I think the data table aptly demonstrates that some key indicators show the US stronger than during Clinton's presidency, yet back then the media had only glowing reports of Clinton, and now they have only (seemingly) negative reports of Bush.

I just know this is not true and on top of that you are a lier, lier lier pants on fire....I want to hear what (the inventor of the internet) Al Gore has to say about this. He'll set you straight. He knows and can use the same unflawed logic to convince you to pay him big bucks to save the world from GW.

Tory Watcher, you may recall that the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency was 2000. The tech bubble burst a year earlier, and in 2001 9/11 caused a market crash almost as big.

The economy right now is stronger than it was then, no question.

That said, it isn't as strong as it was last year. The ABCP debacle is going to cost us some more pain before its done.Please note that the ABCP situation was not part of a Bush policy, the seeds of that were sowed in the 1990s.

Tory_watcher says "I think very, very few of even the most fervent supporters of the Bush White House would even dare to suggest that at the end of his Presidency he will leave the US economy stronger than it was when it began. No, those opinions are largely confined to the fringe right blogger class."

Actually, what you said above is nonsense. Spare us emotional nonsense v.v. "daring" to suggest anything. You don't know - you were given data that makes an argument. If you wish to refute, then provide data instead of spurious statements.

So I guess the elephant in the room, namely that $9 trillion debt and the 900 lb gorilla, namely the massive trade deficits, I guess they, creatures of Bush, can just be ignored? Don't believe a severe recession is on the way? My my, you rightwing canuck bushbots are comical, I must say. The guy is in his 8th year in power, you have to give him some credit for the mess the USA is in. Stop trying to blame others.

Don't waste your breath Canuckguy - these types just can't accept facts. If the economy is poor under a right wing admin, they "inherited it" from the evil Dems, if it does well, it is 100% their doing. You can never win.

That said it is not merely comical but farcical that supposed "conservatives" are cheering the current state of the US economy.

I guess I didn't understand that "conservatives" were such huge fans of profligate spending, massive trade deficits, massive budgetary deficits and a ballooning national debt.

Who knew?

To "Shamrock" I (derisively) point you to any comprehensive collection of data on the US economy, from the Congressional Budget office to the OECD or any of the private firms that provide analytical data on the US economy. There are simply far too many to even begin to cite.

Perhaps I should have added that I was speaking of fervent supporters with training in or knowledge of business or economics.

Oops

For the record, the US trade deficit was negative and growing during all 8 years of the Clinton Administration. It is wrong to say that the trade deficit was a creation of Bush.

The US federal debt, at 70% of GDP, is not high be historical standards.

Look at the graphs here:

http://www.filteringcraig.com/2005/09/

I don't think anyone is saying the economy was poor under Clinton. The chart posted by Kate clearly indicates that. What they are getting across (at least to me) is that the current economc performance is comprable but the impression that one is left with from the MSM reporting is that we are in a recession/depression and that things were hugely better under Clinton. They simply were not.

The press loves to push the impression that Clinton was and is hugely popular as well. He never won the popular vote, however. Bush did -- even with all the negative press. Clinton didn't -- even with all the press fawning over him and covering up his corrupt practices.

Hey, maybe if Bush sold military secrets to the Chinese like Clinton did, he could bring more money in for his nation.

Yes, the U.S. is trillions in debt. How about European countries pay for their own security for once? How about Africa forgetting about the billions in aid packages for once? How about the UN coping without U.S. support? None of the billions spent every year in security and aid for other nations ever wins Bush any cred anyways -- he might as well save his country some money.

The trade surplus/deficit has been a function of several factors interacting. The fact that China has chosen to provide it's goods on a subsidized basis by artificially keeping its currency undervalued, a US dollar that had been overvalued against most of the world's currency and the fact that the American consumer chose to access their home equity to spend it on shiny things produced elsewhere all were major contributors to this phenomenon. I would speculate that there will be a substantial shift in the balance from big time deficit to marginal surplus based on a reversal of two of those market conditions, dried up home equity access and the relative position of the US dollar versus the major world currencies.

For much of the past two years the Senate and House have been under the control of the Democrats.

The majority of state governors are Democrats.

Virtually every big city mayor in America is a Democrat.

So, you can Bush bash all you like, but the only conclusion I can reach is that if Bush is to blame for every ill befalling America (which are damned few by any metric), you had better point fingers at the Dems who couldn't be bothered to stop it.

Tory and Canuk can stomp their feet all they want but they are the same as American Idol contestants who can't sing. No matter how much you tell them they can not sing, they just do not believe you. I can not wait to see the look on the faces of Bush/McCain/Harper haters when we sweep the elections this season.

Why does this analysis compare the middle of Clinton's presidency to the end of Bush's?

Clinton had 4 more years to try and get it right. Check out Wells' blog; you'll see a comparison of Clinton 2000 vs. Bush 2008, which is more fair, and much more flattering to Clinton.

At Canuck and Tory-Watcher, you are correct that the debt has certainly grown under Bush. I am also not a big fan of simple discrete statistics like those used in the thread. There are no trends discussed.

My background is in economics and I am not a Bush fan in that regard. He should have seriously cut US spending along with his tax cuts.

However that being said, don't come on here with your self righteous BS and hypocritcal attitute and pretend that somehow you could have done better. Don't come on here like you are some economic guru because if you knew what you were talking about you'd be recommending significant tax and spending cuts in regards to the US government budget along with open trade, and purging of government subsidies to big business and labour.

I'd like to see anyone try and perform those serious but necessary treatments in regards to the US economy with the political climate and media climate that currently exists in the US, which is a highly socialized country, regardless of what the left wing mob says.

Finally while Bush wasn't able to manufacture a lot of the economic restructuring that is necessary in the US, one thing is for damn sure. Obama with his ineffective proposals of increasing taxes including those on investments, increasing government spending, and his threats of dismantling free trade agreements is most certainly a recipe for economic ruin Chavez style.

Paul Wells catches Kate in a, well, let's be polite and not call it a lie but a massaging of the truth:

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

"I'm looking at this chart and I'm kind of wondering why it compares Bush's performance in March of the last year of his second term with Clinton's performance in March of the last year of his first term. To be sure, "a Hill staffer" of Freddoso's acquaintance comes up with a persuasive reason transparent fig-leaf: there's a quote from a Democrat saying a good thing about the economy in 1996 and a quote from a Democrat saying a bad thing about the economy in 2008. Therefore the obvious comparison between the two presidents' performance must not be attempted.

Because, you know, it's a funny thing. If we run the chart again, this time with numbers from March of 2000, it looks a little different. To wit:
[Comparing the last year of the presidency of each]

1. U.S. Unemployment Rate - Clinton: not 5.5% but 4.0%; Bush - 5.1%
2. Number of Long-Term Unemployed - Clinton: comparable stat N/A; Bush - 1.28 million
3. Average Weeks Unemployed - Clinton: not 17.3 weeks but 12.8 weeks; Bush - 16.2 weeks
4. Median Weeks Unemployed - Clinton: not 8.3 weeks but 6 weeks; Bush - 8.1 weeks
5. Not in Labor Force because discouraged over job prospects - Clinton: not 451,000 but 258,000; Bush - 401,000
6. Democrats calling for Extended Unemployment Benefits? - Clinton: not "No"; Bush - Yes
7. President’s Party Affiliation Democrat Republican [OK, she got that one right]

Well, this is embarrassing. If you compare apples to apples, Clinton's apples look better. This makes the comments on Kate's site even more poignant than they so often are, including the one from "Warwick," who opines: "I sometimes wonder how these lying scumbags look themselves in the mirror without despising what they see. Then I realize they're leftards and thus are sociopaths without conscience so they are entirely unaffected by morality." And Fred, who writes: "You know, fairness and honesty in reporting, providing Canadians with a balanced view of the world."

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

So will the "rightards" here start pining for the glory days of Clinton and fiscal conservativism? or prefer the cool of the earth with their heads buried? We all know the answer to that one. Ideology and Liberal Hatred Syndrome wins out over the reality-based world every single time.

@ Ted,

That's nice but it's completely not the point Kate was making. The point is that if Bush was a Democrat the media would be using those same numbers as a foundation for calling him a hero for saving us from the economic disasters of 9/11, dot-com and the current morgage crisis.

Otehrwise those number don't mean much, even though some people like yourself think they do. There is no analysis, no trending, no logistic regression etc for example. No causation. No one points out that during the Clinton years welfare was reformed in a manner that decreased benefits thereby increasing motivation to work, not to mention the significant spending cuts and tax increases...

The USA's national debt as a percentage of GDP, the most logical measure, is actually lower than some European countries'. This is despite our having a great military and them having pathetic ones. Our debt/GDP ratio was actually much higher after World War II. The Democrat media just talks about the size of our debt while ignoring the massive size of our economy. If Obama wins, they will invent an "Obama Miracle" just like they did the "Clinton Miracle." We will be regaled with stories about how the great man turned it all around.

...political histrionics of data manipulation...

LOL, I haven't heard that word in a while! Also good to see that 'shenanigans' is making a comeback.

Ted,

to make a fair and honest comparison one must factor in the events of 9/11 that hurt the US economy, all the money spent on preventing terrorism, the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the high cost of hurricane Katrina and a few other serious events that affected the US economy very negatively.

The tsunami cost the USA a lot of money in aid, and Bush also gave more to help Africa than any other US president.

Nothing as big as the above happened during the Clinton years, and I'm only providing a partial list!

Despite all these terrible events at least twice in the last couple of years the Stock exchange has broken records ( positive ones of course ) and the USA's economy kept growing.

So even if Bush's number are a little below Clinton's ( which they are not in a significant way ), considering what the USA has gone through in the last 7 years, anyone who is honest must admit Bush did a pretty good job in rough times while Clinton did an ok job in easy times.

and by the way, Kate's point was not who has better numbers but how the MSM is treating differently a conservative administration versus a liberal administration that have very similar numbers.

Ted is a perpetual point misser.

the point is TED --- the MSM would be crying like a dog tied to hayrack if the Bush numbers were worse than the Clinton numbers. but they ignore them when they are better and trash Bush without reference to Billy Sputz off.

It should also be pointed out that a professional Journalist er at least someone paid to be a journalist - Paul Wells - also completely misses Kate's point. Blinded by bias, defending his hero WJC.

Friend of the USA, in a fair and honest comparison you can't claim that Bush had no control over his response to 9/11... Nobody forced him to spend hundreds of billions on two wars, the creation of huge bureaucracy (homeland security), and throwing money into the "security" contractor black hole, etc...

Sean S,

although it is true Bush's response to 9/11 is his own making ( to an extent ).

in a fair and honest comparison you can't claim Clinton had anything as devastating to the US economy during his days in power as the events of 9/11 ( not the response to it, but the event itself ) or Hurricane Katrina.

Even Ted Turner - definitely a liberal - has conceded recently on Charlie Rose that even though he does not like Bush there was some bad luck that made Bush's job difficult.( not his exact words, going from memory here )

The quality of employment in the US definitely has gone down since the Clinton years. And, as someone who just returned from the SFBay and Silicon Valley areas yesterday, let me tell you, the shit is quickly hitting the fan. Thousands of layoffs, empty hotels, even the freeways are barely congested anymore as people don't have jobs to drive to.

Median family income in the US fell from $61,000 in 2000, to $60,500 in 2007. Yes, that's 'right', after 7 years of failed economic policy in the US, the median American family actually makes less today, than they did in 2000. And that's using the US government's own inflation statistics, ie: CPI, which, themselves, are quite suspect.

To say the US isn't in recession, or actually pulled out of the recession that started in 2000 is pretty ludicrous.

Geez, Ted - you're generally smarter than that. Wells, well he's not.

I think one of the first times he linked here was during the Emerson crossing, when he asked his readers why I was wasn't condemning Harper, as I had done with Paul Martin when Belinda crossed.

Except I hadn't criticized Paul Martin at all.

Facts, unchecked in that case. In this case, it's a complete flyover of the underlying point being made, But others have already pointed that out.

for all you left wing liberals. pay attention. bush is not a conservative.

Please keep in mind that the comparison came about because of statements that were made about the economy during both administrations.

Having said that, Bush looks as though he will end up with close to a negative job growth number by 1/20/2009. The majority of this is due to the fact that his administration was the first to feel the full effects of the Information Age. One trenchant effect is the ability of businesses AND governments to exercise better and more exacting control over their hiring and firing. It's an effect no one really cares to discuss, as it can make economic stats like the unemployment rate have much less relevance (good or bad).

And again, I repeat, let Africa pay for its own aid packages, Europe pay for its own security, and the UN pay for itself, totally, without U.S. $. Bush can save his country some money. He never gets any cred anyway for all the aid and security he gives to other countries . . .

Hasn't anyone come across any examples of what Republicans were saying about the economy in 1996 and what they're saying now?

Because that would be, like, you know, comparing Democrat spin with Republican spin. Comparing one item always leaves me feeling a little unfulfilled.

For Langmann, cal2, Gord Tulk et al. I am completely missing your point on how Ted and Paul Wells missed Kate's point. If Kate's point was supposed to be that the MSM would not report good republican/bush numbers but they would boost good democrate/clinton numbers, than does Wells' apple to apple comparison not negate Kate's point? Why would the MSM report "positive" news that is based on misleading comparisons?

Also, Friend of USA, et al. I looked at those 1996 numbers and thought they were pretty good considering that Clinton had come into power at a time of a substantial market disruption (remember that recession that turned Bush Sr. skyhigh approval ratings into an election loss?) 4 years later those number were even better. Bush Jr. inherited a solid economy, weathered a few notable instances (some he had no power over, some of his own doing), cut taxes and raised farm subsidies and defence spending, substantially increased the debt load of the country and benefitted from an oil surge (one can argue that this was his own doing) and China's super hot economy that has benefitted all countries. Yet, instead of unemployment numbers improving they have decreased.

Shhhhhh, Wheatsheaf. Don't spoil their "Vast Lieftwing Media Conspiracy" with things like facts and arguements. Invented conspiracy theories like this are textbook:

- pick and choose anecdotal evidence that supports your claim

- ignore contrary evidence: you know like the fact that "The Media" was no friend of Clinton's in his last years and you could find all the same economic doom and gloom recession headlines the right whines about now as being signs of bias: the first Bush-era recession in 2001 was being predicted, nay screeched, about for years and years, but you can never let the facts of history get in the way of a good partisan attempt at inventing a good bogeyman.

- "massage" statistics so they seem on a superficial level to support your conspiracy. Kate compares statistical apples and oranges just like the 9/11 Truthers point to certain heat tests and extrapolate to the World Trade Centre. Good facts and statistics become tools of the partisan diatribe; bad facts and statistics become "biased information" perpetrated by "The Media" because of "Bush Hatred Syndrome".

- repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat the conspiracy theory, ad nauseum, to drown out any contrary facts

Going back to tory_watcher's comments at the beginning of this thread - who exactly was in charge of Congress by the end of Clinton's tenure?

I'm not arguing in favour of Bush - he's a socialist when it comes to spending, in my books. But the media likes to pin negatives on conservatives, even when they 'produce' (that's a bit of a stretch, but the media like to pretend that a President, all by his lonesome, has that kind of power) numbers as good (or better, at times) than liberals. I think the original post makes it pretty clear that the media seems to be pining for a recession to show that 'their guy' Clinton is much more of a success story than 'someone they didn't vote for'.

- pick and choose anecdotal evidence that supports your claim
---Ted

Anyone here is surprised a leftist would consider the events of 9/11 " anectodal evidence" ?

What the hell are you talking about Friend?

What the hell are you talking about Friend?

How do the "events of 9/11" relate to the myth of media bias?

Do people ever get the point? Wells obviously doesn't.

Look at those two graphs and what you see are near identical numbers.

The treatment of near identical numbers should be treated by the media in near identical ways regardless of who is in the white house, no?

And as for Paul Wells' foolish analysis, you don't compare the economy by what year a president is in because the economy doesn't care. You compare an economy by the business cycle. The fact is in two near identical situations, the media treated them differently and the only variable that was different was party. The year of the presidency is only useful if you are trying to give credit for achievement which isn't the point. Wells' numbers would change the point only if, under his chosen date, the media were reporting negatively on the economy in the date he chose for Clinton which obviously isn't the case.

First of all, you shouldn't be giving credit or taking the mickey out of politicians based on the business cycle at all. But if you are commenting on the economy, you don't spin the facts based on the party in power - especially in the news section. Two identical situations shouldn't be treated differently unless you are engaged in propaganda instead of journalism - but Wells misses this.

This isn't about which of Bush or Clinton's numbers are point-oh-oh-what better or worse. It's about how the media covers those numbers differently depending on who is in power.

This is about a decades long disparagement of how the media cover different parties REGARDLESS OF WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE ECONOMY. Over long periods of time, the proportion of negative stories on the economy to positive stories flips depending on which party controls the white house and regardless of what is happening in the economy.

This has been documented many times by many people. I stand by my point and add that the problem isn't made better by economic illiteracy in media. Those numbers at the top of this page are not statistically different - only the COVERAGE is different.

Take any two relatively similar points in time, one during a GOP and one during the Dems and I'll bet you an analysis of the coverage will substantially favour the Dem every time. And don't even try to deny it. That is the point. Wells, you missed it.

Did I say graph? I meant chart.

Ted,

"So will the "rightards" here start pining for the glory days of Clinton and fiscal conservativism?"

You'll have to go back before Clinton to find fiscal conservatism. You won't find it in the last several presidents (Clinton or either Bush.)

That is due as much to the bi-partisan house and senate that is not interested in doing what needs to be done and the fact they like pork to an horrifying degree.

Neither party has any fiscal conservatives although if there were, the media coverage would be different based on party...

Hans Ruprecht: "Yup, you can see those Hooverville tarpaper shacks going up all over the Midwest"

Um, Hans, you might want to google "California Tent City" to see hundreds of people living in tents because they couldn't afford their houses. No one is going to build a tarpaper shack when you can buy a serviceable tent for a couple of hundred dollars. Oh, and in Michigan, houses are going for $1,000 (that's ONE THOUSAND dollars) in foreclosure auctions.

And while you're googling, you might try "Bill Fleckenstein" - this guy's as rabid a capitalist as there is, and he makes a very strong case that the US economy is already in recession, and it's likely to get worse. GE blasted a hole in the stock market today - the Dow's down 241 points as I write this. You can expect to see other finance related arms, like GMAC, to post disappointing numbers over the next six months.

I don't take any joy in seeing that there's a recession; I want a better job, and there doesn't seem to be anything out there. But ignoring the facts is just stupid. As other commentators have pointed out, the US economy got very highly leveraged over the last 8 years. Now, we are going to go through a "de-leveraging" process; it won't be pretty. The US Fed will do everything they can to pump more money into the economy; this will cause further falls in the US dollar, and further raises in the real US inflation rate (not the doctored government numbers). Treasury notes now offer negative yields - never a good sign. You can whistle past the graveyard all you like; I've protected all my assets.

Well then Warwick, compare apples to apples on the business cycle then. Two/three years out of a recession (1996) is not a comparable point in the business cycle with 7 years out (2008). One is rising and one is faltering so obviously you would not have the same coverage. Only someone who is completely daft or blindly partisan or both would say that the only difference between 1996 and 2008 was the party in the White House,

So if any of you cared for truth and accuracy then you would compare the coverage from 2000 to the coverage of 2008. Surprise surprise, when looking at reality instead of carefully edited and massaged facts, you quickly see the joke of "The Vast Leftwing Meia Conspiracy"(TM).

From 1998 at least until well into 2001 but certainly before 9/11, "The Media" were screeching that the economy was teetering on the edge of collapse, that the bubble was imminently going to burst, that recession was just around the corner. How selective our memories when the facts don't mesh with our biases.

Don't be afraid of facts, Warwick, Kate, et al. Truth is not the enemy; although it is certainly no friend to ultra-right conspiracy theories.

Paul swipes back again:

UPDATE, Friday: Kate's complaining that I missed her point. It might help if she had one. Clinton was premature when he said in 1996 that the economy was the strongest in 30 years. He was indeed a fibber. On the question of budget balance, for instance, it was at that point only the strongest in 15 years. It wouldn't be the strongest in 30 years until 1998. After that, well... look for yourself. Oh, and remember Reagan's "Morning in America" speech? Unemployment that month was 7.2%, higher than in every month of the Clinton presidency except the month of his inauguration. U.S. unemployment last month was higher than at any point in the last 45 months of the Clinton presidency. Those leftards can't do anything right.

AND his got links. To facts.

Damn you, you wingnut conservative knuckledragging Clinton. Damn you all to hell!

Ted,

"Two/three years out of a recession (1996) is not a comparable point in the business cycle with 7 years out (2008)"

That all depends on how long a business cycle it is. They aren't the same - some are 3 years. Longer ones - like the last few - are longer than average.

That is information that is only known in hindsight which the media covering CURRENT events would not be privy to.

The media have been calling for a recession and trash-talking the US economy for the entire time Bush has been in power regardless of the economic conditions. They trashed it on the way down and at the bottom (as you would expect,) but kept bashing it all the way up. Yes, we're at the end of a cycle now but in case you missed the last half-decade, the doom and gloom isn't new.

They were ample stories about how all the jobs were being lost while the US was piling them on. Throughout the entire business cycle, the media have been highly negative.

I'd bet that news coverage in 2005 was 65% negative (and yes, that is a guess.)

Contrast the proportion of negative to positive THROUGHOUT the terms of Clinton and Bush and you will arrive at the same thing. Bias.

Power corp et al is just whinning cause all the money is moving west. I do a run from Vancouver BC to L.A. then to Edmonton and all I see everywhere is help wanted signs. The only recession is back east as people pull there money out of scummy liberano holdings and move it west.

"Contrast the proportion of negative to positive THROUGHOUT the terms of Clinton and Bush and you will arrive at the same thing. Bias."

Agreed: "The Media" has a bias for the simple, superficial, cataclysmic, dramatic, anti-government narrative.

If you were to count up the negative Clinton stories honestly, it is obvious that they are comparable. The negative coverage over Iraq is nothing compared to the negative coverage over Lewinski in terms of nastiness and shere volume. At least the Iraq coverage - which for at least 2 years was unequivocable POSITIVE (see conspiracy theory rule #2 above re ignoring contrary facts) - is important enough an issue with lives at stake to merit that kind of all consuming coverage.

Ted - Sorry, I will not let facts get in the way of a good story again. Me bad.

Ted,

For the most part, the coverage of Iraq has been non-existent since the tables slowly started turning (pretty much the day Rumsfeld got the axe.)

Agreed that the Lewinski coverage was asinine, unfair and over-the-top as all sex-scandals are and that goes triple for the US who tend to be hypocritical prudes about such things. The media are biased against conservatives but when it comes to scandals, they can't help themselves (although when some low-level schlep gets busted, party affiliation is infinitely more often mentioned when the guy is GOP rather than Dem.) At the time, I said the Star inquisition would come back to bite the GOP in the arse. A lot of the legalistic nonsense that the Dems came up with to bash Bush can be attributed to that precedent.

The media chooses who it likes and trashes all others. You could contrast the media's gang stomping of Hillary now that they've anointed Obama the chosen one.

Right now the media bash Hillary more than McCain. Once Hillary is buried, the media will ramp up it's venom on McCain. Count on it.

Media bias is fact. Ethics, not so much. If I was a journalist I'd introduce myself to people I met as something less scummy - like a lawyer or a Con Artist.

It's one thing to be a Wells who is paid for comment and opinion. Bias is the job. I give him due credit for sure ability to spin and change the subject.

Hard news isn't supposed to be like that. That's what I find so scummy and offensive. People like Galloway and that CBC hack who manipulated film clips of Harper and the like. The horrifyingly negative, unreasonable coverage of Israel is another point. When it comes to ethics and honestly, so many of them don't even try. I repeat: I have no idea how they look themselves in the mirror.

Ted,

"Only someone who is completely daft or blindly partisan or both would say that the only difference between 1996 and 2008 was the party in the White House,"

Fine. Chose 2005. Same thing applies.

"From 1998 at least until well into 2001 but certainly before 9/11, "The Media" were screeching that the economy was teetering on the edge of collapse"

No, that would be late 1999. Prior to that, the media was full of tales about how "old-economy" businesses (you know, like mines and resource companies) are dead and that companies like Nortel and JDS would rule the world forever. The media was shilling crap about everything being different this time and Al Gore was taking credit for inventing the internet (seems he likes to write fiction.)

Hell, compare Jan 1999 with Jan 2007 and count up all the economic stories in the US and count'em up for Pos/Neg spin. I'd bet that my point would hold a hell of a lot better than yours.

Democrats on the Economy in 1996:

“Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.” (President Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996)

Democrats on the Economy in 2008:

“The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover." (Senator Charles Schumer, Press Release, March 7, 2008)

Funny how Wells fact checks the first without even mentioning the second or even why there may be some context in it.

And Ted, this may provide some enlightenment as to the choices in dates.

I had forgetten about the Corner link. I'm sure it was the name Charles Schumer that got by blood boiling yesterday.

Correction: Wells mentioned it, dismissed it and moved on without addressing the lie of it.

Republican's governed from 1981 to 1993 and when Reagan left, the US had the largest debt in its history. Your figures are 3 years after Bush(1). I was in the US in '93, and there was still a pile of people hurting from the recession that started in '91. What's that debt at now? I didn't see it in your graph.

You wouldn't be cherry picking a bit now would you?

Oh yeah, and if you think this was a winter, you haven't lived anywhere near as long as I have. I live right on the edge of the ocean on the East coast, and that's where you will get the most extreme weather. I've seen winters 3 times as bad. We didn't have a day this year that I couldn't have bulled the old Blazer through to the promised land. (The City)

Love Hugger

Warwick: "The media was shilling crap about everything being different this time"

Yep, the most dangerous words in investing are "it's different this time". It never is, and the basic facts of economic life always assert themselves - eventually. As Richard Russell puts it "the market always does what it's supposed to do; it just doesn't do it WHEN it's supposed to."

Ted insists we do the comparison a certain way but still refuses to acknowledge that much bigger and much more damaging events to the US economy happened while Bush was in power than happened while Clinton was in power.

Events that Bush had no control over.

Why are leftists leaving out the cost of 9/11 and Katrina and half a dozen other big events that DID NOT happen while Clinton was president?...

afraid of facts maybe?

@ Ted:

A) Go back and read what I actually wrote.

B) Look up the definition of recession so you actually know what you are talking about and then get back to me.

Kevin B hit it on the head. It's not surprising no one responded to him.

Republican,Democrat?? Liberal , Tory. No difference.

KevinB

Yup. The thing that peeved me so much about the "it's different this time" crowd was that I was working at Trimark at the time (before it was sold to AIM) and we were getting yelled at constantly because we refused to buy names like JDS and Nortel at insane prices while they were going up.

We lost a lot of business doing the right thing and received exactly no credit for it when we were proven right.