More mainscream media bias

October 12, 2006


By Larry Elder
© 2006

Can the Bush administration get just a little bit of credit?

The unemployment rate just dropped from 4.7 percent to 4.6 percent. The Washington Post, not exactly a Bush administration cheerleader, recently wrote "that just about every worker with the skills and desire to work can find a job." Yet the same article cited its own poll that shows only 39 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of the economy, with 59 percent disapproving.

The tax cuts, as tax-cutting former President John F. Kennedy predicted, sparked the economy. Kennedy once said that it may sound "paradoxical," but in order to increase tax revenues, we must decrease tax rates. Under Bush, "tax collections have increased by $521 billion in the last two fiscal years," reports The Wall Street Journal, "the largest two-year revenue increase – even after adjusting for inflation – in American history." Even with the irresponsible spending, this puts the deficit at 2 percent of GDP, well below the recent 40-year average of 2.7 percent. Inflation and interest rates remain low. And labor analysts just revised upward the figures on job creation, adding an additional 810,000 jobs!

But what about giving Bush credit?

Nonsense, the Los Angeles Times now editorializes, credit our Energizer-bunny economy. You know, it just goes, and goes, and goes, irrespective of the president behind the wheel. After calling unemployment and inflation "reassuringly low"; after noting that "growth is steady"; after calling the recent record Dow Jones averages a "tribute to the resilience of the U.S. economy"; and after pointing out that "hourly wages in September were up 4 percent from a year earlier" – the Times editorial gave the Bush administration no credit.

But, take a look at quotes from past editorials from the Times:

July 17, 2003: The White House's deficit of 2003, as well the one projected for the next year, "isn't as bad is it seems. It's worse."

Sept. 20, 2003: As Bush's unfulfilled spending promises continue, "Bush risks not just his personal credibility but the nation's security, economic future and natural resources."

Oct. 6, 2003: "The administration's tax cuts are the economic equivalent of steroids; they may quickly pump up economy, but the long-term effect on fiscal health will be dire."

Jan. 29, 2004: "The unreal quality of the Bush administration's economic program reached new heights last week."

June 2, 2004: " ... President Bush risks fiscal meltdown by addressing the federal budget deficit as if there's no day after tomorrow," and criticized Bush policies "that would further inflate the deficit. ..."

Now let's talk ethics. A recent poll, in the wake of the Rep. Mark Foley, R-Fla., scandal, gives Democrats higher marks for "ethics" than Republicans.

Consider the last 30 years, when the House instituted post-Watergate ethics guidelines. The tally, as of late 2004, over the same period, comes to 70 House members who faced investigations for ethical misconduct: 55 Democrats and 15 Republicans.

Recall how Democrats defended former President Clinton against accusation after accusation. The president's defenders dismissed allegations by former Arkansas state staffer Paula Jones, who accused then-Gov. Bill Clinton of sexual misconduct. Clinton defender-in-chief James Carville said, "If you drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you'll find." But after pleading guilty to lying under oath and becoming the first sitting president to be found in contempt of court, Clinton settled Jones' "non-meritorious" civil sexual harassment case out-of-court for $850,000.

Kathleen Willey, a former Democratic contributor, claimed on "60 Minutes" that the former president took her hand and placed it on his genitalia. Incredibly, feminist Gloria Steinem wrote that it was not sexual harassment because when Willey asked him to stop, he did. Call this the "one grope rule."

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer for Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton's gubernatorial campaign, accused him of rape. Yet Clinton defenders simply dismissed her as a liar, just as they dismissed, minimized or attacked others claiming to have had affairs with the married Clinton. Mistresses include Arkansas "saloon singer" Gennifer Flowers. Clinton initially denied having an affair with her, but later admitted, under oath, to one sexual encounter. The president, of course, famously wagged his finger and denied intern Monica Lewinsky's claim of a sexual relationship. Meanwhile, Clinton defenders played hear-no-evil, see-no-evil, speak-no-evil.
In the case of former Republican Rep. Foley, he promptly resigned after the revelation of sexually explicit messages to a former page. Despicable? Yes. Rape? No. In any case, the Republican Party dumped him faster than you can say "Ken Starr."

An old trial lawyer once told me, "Juries don't decide cases based solely on fact, evidence and law. They reach their verdicts based on 'impressions.'" In the battle for "impressions" over the economy and ethics, Democrats – with the complicity of the liberal mainscream media – think they're winning. Let's wait until the jury returns with its verdict.

Plus they never mention how he wants to build the 700 mile 4 billion dollar wall along the mexican border,,,,



this guy is a class act

i think that border is longer than that


resinman

The Border they are talking about is Texas.
But before the bill was signed they again messed with it, and they can actually use the money earmarked for the fence for other projects... Also they have the option got a fertual fence... Meaning sensors cameras ect.. We already tried that once and it didn't work.

I suppose that FOX news is a straight shooter, NOT! I don't know where you get all your "facts" from, but I'm suspicious they might smell like Manure! Although the Times editorials sound right on the money, whats up with an 8 trillion, yes I said trillion with a "T", National debt. Bullshit your way past that. Come up with some archaic quotes that will straighten out our great grandkids debt obligation, not to mention the balance of trade deficit. Yeah that Bush is a real fiscal conservative, a real genius. I hope you have grandkids so they have to pay on the national debt, in fact I hope the Democrats win and repeal all the insane Bush tax cuts and make them retroactive. That would cost me maybe a couple of hundred, wonder what it would cost you?

Med ...

That national debt was not made over night. How long did the Democrats have control of the House & Senate? ... Ummm ... 50 years or so?

I agree that Bush is a conservative in name only. To date, he hasn't vetoed even one spending bill. I also agree that his immigration policies suck. With that said, the Democrats have a terrible record on spending and they also have done nothing to curb our immigration problem.

On the tax cuts ... In your opinions, Dank and Med, what accounts for our low unemployment, low interest rates, largest percentage of home ownership in history and the all time record stock market figures? Also, in your opinions, what effect would rolling back the tax cuts and making it retroactive have on the economy?

Vi

PS: Med ... you continue to make assumptions about me. Why are you insisting that I'm "rich?" To date, I don't believe that you've had access to my financial statement, so what are you basing THAT opinion on?

Your aristocratic holier than thou don't tread on me I love Bush stop the taxation rhetoric. Your either Rich or an Idiot! I prefer to think you rich with idiotic tendencies. I could be wrong on one or the other, but not both!

Med I know Vi personally, I can tell you that he isn't rich, yeah he has money and he is an older gentalman in his mid to late 60's and still works selling real estate, which is a commission job.

I can say that we have been friends for many years, but we are on opposing sides of the fence politically.

I myself am a 44 year old Unemployed Construction Worker. who has medical problems that make it to where I can not work for a living. (Extreamly bad back and non-responcive Hepatitis C)

Do what I do med, pat Vi on his gray little head and move on with your point.

Sorry to step in, I wouldn't like to do it for real. Step into a room with you three guys.

Newspapers are controlled by the Government, if the Government tell them they can't print it then they can't print it. Certain newspapers will hold special biased for different Governments. Our present labour government famously won the election after The Sun newspaper turned it's back on the Conservative party and TOLD their readers to vote labour. Not just their readers but people all over the country as The Sun's backstabbing made national news. I did not like Tony Blair (still don't), he's a smarmy cunt that smiles too much. If you are a normal worker in this country, on minimum wage, you are losing something like (at least quite close to...) 30%. Does this pay for housing which is sorely needed in this country, especially with the influx of immigrants that our system is straining to carry? No, it pays for refurbishment of city centres and pay-outs to immigrants to leave the country. I've always thought of myself as middle-right, despite how much I like the idea of a Liberal Government. When we were under the Conservative government (who's nickname is the Tory party, Tory means robber or thief, I think... not sure of exact definition) our workers were much better off. The Labour government gives you more only to take even more away from you. I've found that the lefties I've met in my time have been annoying, boring, and usually (this is only MY experience) dress like tramps. Please take everything I've said generally, this isn't personal.

And your point is???

Vi

On top of my head!