Media figures referring to "Obama bear market" did not refer to "Bush bear market"
SUMMARY: While media figures and outlets continue to use the term "Obama bear market" to refer to the decline in the stock market since President Obama's inauguration, a Media Matters review for the term "Bush bear market" found no uses of that phrase from the end of 2005 through the end of his presidency, despite there having been a second bear market.
While media figures and outlets continue to use the term "Obama bear market" to refer to the 20 percent drop in the stock market since President Obama's inauguration, a Media Matters for America search of the Nexis and Factiva databases* for the term "Bush bear market" found no uses of that phrase from the end of 2005 through the end of his presidency, despite there having been a second bear market.
Moreover, while the search found 10 instances of the term being used during all of Bush's presidency, in one instance, the reference to the "Bush bear market" was made in the context of saying it would soon be over; two were made by longstanding and consistent critics of the Bush administration, American Prospect columnist Robert McIntyre and financier George Soros; and six do not appear to be references to the stock market at all, but, rather, arose from late-2005 predictions by CNBC host Larry Kudlow and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol that Bush's popularity slide had halted and would soon rebound.
By contrast, a search of the Nexis and Factiva databases** for the term "Obama bear market" during Obama's first 50 days in office found 10 instances of media figures and outlets referring to an Obama bear market, including the Associated Press, CNN host Lou Dobbs, New York Daily News columnist Michael Goodwin, Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace, Bloomberg News, Fox News host Sean Hannity, Fox News political contributor and managing editor of The Washington Times' digital media operations Jeff Birnbaum, and the Dayton Business Journal. Those 10 also include a Slate.com article explaining both sides of the debate, and a St. Louis Post-Dispatch column defending the administration.
- In a March 10 AP article headlined "Stocks turn in worst performance for new president," AP business writer Madlen Read wrote:
Is this the Obama bear market? Or hangover from the Bush administration?
Some investors blame the slow-motion crash on Wall Street's disappointment with the government's $787 billion stimulus plan, its seemingly endless bailouts and the lack of specifics on how to rid banks of toxic assets.
Others say Obama inherited a recession destined to become the worst since World War II. And they note the market was already in awful shape at the tail end of the Bush administration, down 44 percent from the market's 2007 peak to Inauguration Day on Jan. 20.
Either way, Wall Street has not exactly rolled out the welcome mat for Obama. Stockholders have lost $1.4 trillion during the young administration.
- During the March 9 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight, in response to senior White House correspondent Ed Henry's assertion that "we still don't have those details" from Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner's plan to purchase toxic assets from struggling banks, Dobbs responded: "Don't have details? Geithner doesn't even have his top 17 deputies in place at Treasury and the stock market has lost 20 percent since this president was sworn in. He has his own bear market. That's the definition of a bear market, a 20 percent decline. This is now the Obama bear market." From the March 9 edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
HENRY: Obviously, there are other issues out there the president does have to tackle, but as you were talking about with Candy [Crowley, CNN senior political correspondent], I think a lot of the pressure is really on the treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner. There were some high expectations about a month ago, as you know, when he first rolled out what was supposed to be the next phase of these bank bailouts. Wall Street, but also people on Main Street criticized there was not enough details there. Here we are about a month later, and we still don't have those details, Lou.
DOBBS: Don't have details? Geithner doesn't even have his top 17 deputies in place at Treasury and the stock market has lost 20 percent since this president was sworn in. He has his own bear market. That's the definition of a bear market, a 20 percent decline. This is now the Obama bear market, and there is not a -- there is this sort of silly antics on the part of his press secretary to talk about rooms on fire. You know, a silly analogy and not worthy of the White House or a spokesman for it, in my opinion. Thank you very much, Ed Henry. Appreciate it.
HENRY: Thank you.
- In a March 8 New York Daily News column, Goodwin wrote: "But the tone of the President's own attacks on industry and his spending and tax policies are increasingly worrying Wall Street and much of the business world. With the stock market reaching lows not seen in more than a decade, including a 20% drop since Inauguration Day, headlines like 'Obama's bear market' are suddenly routine."
- During the March 8 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Wallace asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ): "The stock market has dropped 20 percent since the Obama inauguration. Can this now fairly be called the Obama bear market?" Later in the show, Wallace said to Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume: "Brit, John McCain didn't want to answer the question, but I'll ask you. Is this the Obama bear market?" From the March 8 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: The stock market has dropped 20 percent since the Obama inauguration. Can this now fairly be called the Obama bear market?
McCAIN: I think -- I'd leave -- like to leave that up to the experts. But I do believe that a $1.2 trillion stimulus package, add that to a $750 billion TARP, add that to this $480 billion supplemental, add it to another TARP that's coming down, massive deficits, and we are committing generational thrift -- theft.
We are laying a debt on future generations of Americans. And we had a proposal of spending $410 billion for a stimulus. Yet, after two quarters of economic growth, positive economic growth, we would have ordered a path to balanced budget.
What we're doing is phenomenal, not only as far as the debt is concerned, but the transfer of what the free-enterprise system does over the government. It's the biggest since Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
WALLACE: And do you think that is contributing to the decline in the market, the messages that the Obama administration is sending about its agenda?
McCAIN: I think so, but I -- I'm always a little nervous about allowing short-term market activity to drive our conclusions.
But I don't think there's any doubt, talking to friends of mine on Wall Street and people that I know, that this is not a positive signal. All of this spending, all of this debt, all of the policies that will now, in the long term, cause us to have a negative GT -- GB --
WALLACE: GDP.
McCAIN: -- GDP growth, according to the Congressional Budget Office, over time.
[...]
WALLACE: Well, as we've been discussing, the stock market is officially in bear territory, down exactly 20 percent since the Obama inauguration.
Brit, John McCain didn't want to answer the question, but I'll ask you. Is this the Obama bear market?
HUME: Well, it's kind of a bear market within a bear market.
- In a March 6 Bloomberg News article headlined " 'Obama Bear Market' Punishes Investors as Dow Slumps," reporter Eric Martin wrote: "President Barack Obama now has the distinction of presiding over his own bear market. The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 20 percent since Inauguration Day through yesterday, the fastest drop under a newly elected president in at least 90 years, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The gauge lost 53 percent from its October 2007 record of 14,164.53, slipping 4.1 percent to 6,594.44 yesterday."
- On the March 6 edition of Fox News' Hannity, Hannity stated: "And our headline this Friday night: Welcome to Day Number 46 of 'Obama's Bear Market.' Now, that's what some news organizations are calling it tonight as the Dow Jones industrial average actually finished up about 30 points today at the end of a disastrous week." From the March 6 edition of Fox News' Hannity:
HANNITY: And our headline this Friday night: Welcome to Day Number 46 of "Obama's Bear Market." Now, that's what some news organizations are calling it tonight as the Dow Jones industrial average actually finished up about 30 points today at the end of a disastrous week.
According to Bloomberg News, the Dow has now dropped faster during the first six weeks of the Obama administration than any other administration in at least 90 years. But is that a surprise after weeks of talking down the economy?
- On the March 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Birnbaum said: "Well, I think that we're, without question, in the Obama bear market, literally. Since he was inaugurated, there's been a 20 percent decline in the Dow Jones industrial average. That's the definition of a bear market. And, in fact, the Dow is down 30 percent since his election." From the March 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Bret Baier:
BRET BAIER (host): President Obama in Columbus, Ohio, today talking about the state of the economy on a day when new unemployment figures show that the unemployment rate is now at 8.1 percent. It hasn't been that high since 1983, when it reached 8.3 percent before jumping to 10.8 percent under President Reagan.
So what about the economy and what this administration is doing? Let's bring in our panel -- Jeff Birnbaum, managing editor digital of The Washington Times, Judith Miller of the Manhattan Institute, and syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer.
Jeff, we get a lot of email on this show, and a lot of people ask is what the administration doing helping or hurting?
It's a tough question to answer now --
BIRNBAUM: It's a very -- yeah.
BAIER: -- but let's talk about the economy overall.
BIRNBAUM: Well, I think that we're, without question, in the Obama bear market, literally. Since he was inaugurated, there's been a 20 percent decline in the Dow Jones industrial average.
That's the definition of a bear market. And, in fact, the Dow is down 30 percent since his election.
- A March 6 Dayton Business Journal article stated:
Thursday was a record day for the stock market, but not in a good way.
Only the closing bell stemmed the downward flow on Wall Street. The Dow finished at 6,594.44, a 281.40 point or 4.1 percent drop. Nasdaq closed at 1,299.59, down 54.15 points or 4 percent. The S&P 500 closed at 682.55, a 25.72 point or 3.6 percent drop.
Thursday's close represented 12-year lows for both the S&P and the Dow.
In early Friday trading, the Dow rallied more than a hundred points, but has since lost those gains.
Tom Mangan, senior vice president and portfolio manager of Alpha-based James Investment Research, said a number of factors have brought the stock market back to 1997 levels. He said there is concern about the economy and investors are feeling that President Barack Obama and his administration have not done anything to support them.
Mangan, who has more than 30 years of experience in the industry, said this is the first time he has seen the market react this way.
"I've never seen a market more political, more afraid of Washington," he said.
Mangan said investors are calling this the "Obama bear market," because the Dow has dropped nearly 20 percent since Inauguration Day.
Two other articles referred to the debate over the term "Obama bear market" to discuss its merits:
- In a February 20 Slate article describing the myriad "debates swirling around the Obama presidency as it heads into its second month," chief political correspondent John Dickerson described both sides of the debate over responsibility for the stock market decline:
Stock Market Decline
It's an Obama bear market: After Obama's inauguration, the Dow Jones industrial average dropped 332 points. It tanked again last week after Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner announced his plan for bailing out the banks and tanked some more this week after Obama announced his housing plan -- an 800-point slide in a month. By the end of the week, the market was at its lowest level in six years. Even if you think the business cycle is responsible for much of this, weren't Obama's policies -- the stimulus bill, the bank bailout, and the housing plan -- supposed to do something positive?
Obama's not to blame: The market is reacting to long-term economic conditions. If you want someone to blame, it should be George Bush. The conditions are the result of his policies. Or, if you don't want to blame an administration, just look at the financial sector -- a big component of the Dow Jones industrial average. Two years ago it accounted for a third of total corporate profits. This year it has no profits and its share prices are cratering, hence the Dow is down. Bank stocks may trade based on what Obama has been proposing, but those have lost so much value they're not responsible for throwing off the entire Dow. Sure, Obama's policies may not have convinced the market that recovery is around the corner, but they haven't even been put into practice yet.
- In a March 10 St. Louis Post-Dispatch column, business columnist David Nicklaus defended the administration on this particular point: "Stocks have fallen so far, so fast since Inauguration Day that some people are calling this the Obama bear market. That's not completely fair. Major indexes are down 20 percent since Jan. 20, but this is really just another leg of the downturn that began in October 2007, when Barack Obama was still a long-shot presidential candidate. The nastiest bear markets always tease investors with hopes of a recovery, as this one did in December and early January, before plummeting to despair-inducing new lows."
However, a search of the Nexis and Factiva databases did not find any occurrences of media figures or outlets using the term "Bush bear market" from the end of 2005 through the end of his presidency, despite the fact that there was a second bear market.
One occurrence of the term was used to criticize the Bush administration:
- In a December 30, 2003, USA Today article, columnist Matt Krantz wrote: "Mired in the Bush bear market. The Nasdaq is still 764 points below where it was when President Bush was inaugurated. On average, the Nasdaq has fallen more than a point every trading day Bush has been in office."
In one instance, the reference to the "Bush bear market" was made in the context of saying it was or would soon be over:
- In a July 20, 2002, New York Post article (retrieved from the Nexis database), reporter Paul Tharp wrote:
Pros say the worst of the bear market is over.
If everyone's talking about how the bear's had his fill, it's time to buy stocks -- or so say the optimists.
After yesterday's record selling wave, trading professionals are taking aim at finding a bottom of the rout and declaring the death of the Bush bear market -- the worst in 30 years.
"I'd say, don't panic. There are good reasons why the worst may very well be over," said David Burnham, managing director of Burnham Securities.
"We've already dropped from the 10,000 level, and I don't see a comparable decline of that magnitude anywhere going forward," he said.
Another respected market watcher, Hugh F. Johnson, chief investment officer of First Albany, thinks it's time to make a case for a bull market.
"I think there's strength in the 8,000 level but I don't know if this is the bottom, or if the bottom is 5,000," said Johnson.
"But it's been true that when people talk a lot about the bear market, it's usually over."
Two other occurrences of the term "Bush bear market" were made by longtime critics of the Bush administration.
- In a June 28, 2002, Wall Street Journal article, reporter James R. Hagerty wrote:
George Soros said in an interview that he wouldn't be surprised if the dollar loses a third of its value over the next several years.
The billionaire philanthropist and financier said stock markets "could go much lower," too, if the U.S. quickly slips back into recession -- something he still hopes can be avoided. Citing his own books, lectures and articles, he also outlined steps that he said could prevent what he calls "the Bush bear market" from turning into a global economic crisis.
After years of rising against other major currencies, "it seems that the trend in the dollar has been reversed," Mr. Soros said. Against the euro, the dollar has fallen about 10% so far this year. Trends in currency markets tend to last several years and involve major swings, he said, so a drop of around a third in the dollar's value from recent levels "would not be unprecedented."
- In a January 29, 2001, American Prospect column, contributing editor and Citizens for Tax Justice director Robert S. McIntyre wrote:
The Bush Bear Market?
As soon as the U.S. Supreme Court chose George W. Bush as our next president, the stock market fell precipitously. Wall Street analysts who had been loudly insisting on the need for a Bush victory suddenly began to find all kinds of new reasons for the market's problems -- poor corporate profits, weak consumer spending, energy price jumps, and high interest rates, among others. All plausible. But few analysts were willing to admit the obvious: Bush's plans to reverse the tight fiscal policies of the Clinton years with big upper-income tax cuts and hugely expensive privatization of Social Security have made Alan Greenspan and the Federal Reserve more reluctant to cut interest rates.
Neither Kristol nor Kudlow was talking about the stock market when he used the words "Bush bear market."
- In a November 7, 2005, Weekly Standard editorial, published online on October 28, 2005, Kristol said that the Bush administration's slide in popularity had reached its nadir: "Last week, the Bush administration's second-term bear market bottomed out. ... With the dénouement of the [Harriet] Miers fiasco and the [Patrick] Fitzgerald investigation [of the CIA leak case], President Bush's beaten-down political fortunes should be ripe for a rebound. As we've said before, the recipe for starting a rally is straightforward: Get back to basics on the economy, the courts, and foreign policy. Go on the offensive in all of these areas. To regain the ground that was lost and to forge further ahead will require energy, discipline, and boldness from the Bush administration, and from the president himself."
- Kristol echoed his editorial during his appearance on the October 30, 2005, broadcast of Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: Bill Kristol, are you the leader of the radical right wing of the Republican Party, and did the president cave to you?
KRISTOL: It would be an honor to be leader of such a distinguished assemblage of people but, no, and no, Ms. Miers decided that it had been the wrong pick, I think, from the beginning and withdrew, which was wise.
WALLACE: We should point out that you were also the only one among all of us last Sunday who predicted that this would not ever get to the hearings, that she would withdraw.
KRISTOL: Yes. I just thought it couldn't get to a hearing. Well, sometimes one is right. Sometimes one is wrong.
But I will say this. I think the Bush second term bear market bottomed out last week with the Miers withdrawal and with Scooter Libby's indictment. And I actually think there's a lot of upside now. If you could buy -- you know, buy Bush is my notion right now.
He will nominate, I think, Judge Sam Alito tomorrow from the Third Circuit for the Sandra Day O'Connor seat, or someone like Alito. Alito is a very distinguished, well respected --
- Kristol then referred back to his earlier assessments in a November 14, 2005, Weekly Standard editorial, published online on November 4:
Last week, I suggested that the Bush administration's second-term bear market had bottomed out. Since then, we've been pummeled by polls showing Bush in continued decline. Perhaps my bullish call on Bush was a bit early. Or perhaps it was wrong. Which is it?
That's up to the Bush administration. Over the next few months, the Bush team will put this bad year behind them, and regain their footing. Or it will be a long 39 months -- a very long 39 months -- for Bush and his supporters.
- On the November 6, 2005, broadcast of Fox News Sunday, Kristol referred to his earlier assessment to contrast it with his other, accurate predictions over the past two weeks about Bush's Supreme Court nominees:
[host Chris] WALLACE: Well, before we get to the president's troubles, I can't let the predictions of one of our panelists over the last two weeks go unmentioned, unnoticed. Let's watch. Here they are.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTOL: I think the Miers nomination is going downhill fast, and I expect her to withdraw in the next two weeks before the hearings.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KRISTOL: He will nominate, I think, Judge Sam Alito tomorrow from the Third Circuit.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: Bill, the Redskins are favored by three points against the Eagles tonight. Will they cover the spread? This is very important.
KRISTOL: You know, I predicted last week that -- I said buy Bush, the Bush bear market is over. I'm glad you didn't show that one.
- On the December 4, 2005, broadcast of Fox News Sunday, Kristol said that he stood by his earlier claim that Bush's popularity slide had reached its bottom: "I think five weeks ago I said the Bush bear market had bottomed out. ... I'm just reporting, you know, in a fair and balanced way that he's bottomed out and is coming up a little in not just the FOX poll but in Rasmussen":
[Brit] HUME [Then-Fox News Washington managing editor]: And on the other hand, you have commentators saying the president has now announced we're pulling out. That's what this is. This is a -- we're now into the pull-out phase. I think that's a doubtful interpretation, but the president has clearly changed the atmosphere.
MARA LIASSON [National Public Radio national correspondent]: Yes, and I think he framed the debate as between victory and retreat, and retreat in his eyes is any timetable, any schedule that's not his, and his is going to be conditions-based, as he explained, and it's going to be based on his advice that he gets from the military commanders.
But I think that's how he's framed it, and he's told the American people that he wants to win, which he believes is one of the criteria that they want also, and that he wants the troops to come home, but not on any timetable other than the one that we assume he's going to start applying after the December 15th elections. And I think that might be effective at putting the Democrats in a box. We'll see.
[host Chris] WALLACE: So, Bill, I mean, that's the question, I guess. I mean, is the president, who's been, I think we'd all agree, very much on the defensive on Iraq policy for some period of time -- is he back on offense?
KRISTOL: Yes, I think he's beginning to be back on offense. I think five weeks ago I said the Bush bear market had bottomed out. And it was a little ...
WALLACE: We're really still flogging this.
KRISTOL: No, I'm flogging it, because I'm going to be vindicated on this. You know, he's had a little bit of a bounce up in the polls, if we care about the polls, in the last month, and both ...
WALLACE: You told us last week not to care about the polls.
KRISTOL: I don't care about them. I'm just reporting, you know, in a fair and balanced way that he's bottomed out and is coming up a little in not just the FOX poll but in Rasmussen.
- On the November 16, 2005, edition of CNBC's Kudlow & Company, Kudlow stated why he believed Bush's popularity slide would soon reverse: "I'd say that Bush's bear market is over because the US economy is strong. There's going to be a budget and tax cut bill and Iraqi troops will be withdrawn next year" (retrieved from the Nexis database):
KUDLOW: Welcome back. We've got Representative Harold Ford from Tennessee. We've got Jeff Flake from Arizona. We've got pundits Gene Sperling and Richard Rahn and we've got money manager Neil Hennessy.
And let me just say Gene Sperling's book, because he thinks sometimes I pick on him and I do not; he's a welcome guest here -- it's called "The Pro-Growth Progressive and Economic Strategy for Shared Prosperity." There you go, Gene. Now, Gene, let me start with you. I want to ask you -- I had this theory; I don't know that you'll agree or disagree. Let me -- I say Bush is bottoming. I'd say that Bush's bear market is over because the US economy is strong. There's going to be a budget and tax cut bill and Iraqi troops will be withdrawn next year. Is Bush bottoming, Gene Sperling?
Mr. SPERLING: Well, I hope things are getting better, but Larry, I got to do a little history correction here. Number one, these are facts. The deficit improved all eight years consecutively under President Clinton. Second, investment boomed all eight years. Third, wages went up for all quintiles across the -- for -- during those eight years. Fourth, capital gains were cut in the context of making our tax code more progressive and dividends were still taxed as ordinary income. Those are the facts that I don't think some of your guests want to recognize.
KUDLOW: Well, those are good facts. Those are good facts.
*Nexis search was for "Bush pre/4 bear market" across the source News All (English) from 1/20/2001 to 1/19/2009. Factiva search was for "Bush w/4 bear market" on The Wall Street Journal and Wall Street Journal Sunday sources from 1/20/2001 to 1/19/2009.
**Nexis search was for "Obama pre/4 bear market" over the source News All (English) from 1/20/2009 to 3/10/2009. Factiva search was for "Obama w/4 bear market" on The Wall Street Journal and Wall Street Journal Sunday sources from 1/20/2001 to 1/19/2009.
Seems that "Bear" market is rather charitable. 'Obama's Market Crash' might be more accurate
Do you honestly think this or are you just being pithy in a forum, attention-whore kind of way?
Attention-whore.
But I like to think that it's in a knowledge-gaining kind of way. When you're ignorant, a good way to gain some knowledge is to toss out inane statements as bait for real-world intellect. Plenty of that around here, and I have hopes that Cheney et al are gleaning some of it to apply to real life.
I may be an optimist, but at least it keeps me from feeling sorry for them.
I think he's being pithy, but sometimes I type with a lisp...
I think it's obvious from his screen name. I cringe even at the idea.
If it is a crash it started on the Bush/Cheney watch from their stealing from the people to help their pals in business. Wall street should not be tied to the adminstration. The Constitution says We the People... not We the Corporations.... So the corporations need to come second not first anymore.
Perhaps, although Bush-Cheney market crash would be even more accurate.
and...
Bush-Cheney-Graham market crash would be evern more accurate still.
now eddie. be fair.......frank somehow had power during a republican controlled congress and killed regulation........
sorry i cant say that with a straight face.
I thought I told you not to come in here spouting off your idiocy...
Obama INHERITED the disaster left by the Bush regime!
A certain chunk of the media is not doing its job by telling the truth (Or are they?)... and are obviously in bed with the Repub....er the Rush Limbaugh party.
I find it beyond laughable that dunderheads like you come in here and spout off the rightwing talking points...
yes and your idol's had no hand in setting things up. right. and im bigfooot
Sure. And the Republicans, who controlled both Congress and the White House until 2006, are blameless. Obama, who has been in office for six weeks, is to blame for everything.
I think this was debated, to virtually no end, the other day. Um, the market has been in serious decline for over two years. Fine, blame Obama for everything under the sun. So if things turn around you will be the first to Praise Obama for his successes,... right?
And while you are at it, perhaps you can thank John McCain for convincing his Republican collegues to pull _their_ earmarks from the recent Omnibus Bill.
Oh, wait ....
The people sure showed the MSM when it elected Obama. Now the MSM is showing Obama who is in charge of the the discussion.
If this is the kind of silly, backward, mindcrap that our media churns out when we are on the abyss, then we are all doomed. Think I can get a HAM radio on Ebay?
Just this morning Chuck Todd acknowledged that the American public gets it, even if the media doesn't.
This is Bush's legacy. It's not Obama's war in Iraq, it's not his bad economy either.
I still believe that the Bush Administration did some things so poorly just to screw the incoming Democratic administration.
"My first thought when I heard about it was that the insurgants don't want the US to leave." - shaggles
In fact, previously captured al Quada communications indicat they want the U.S. to stay in Iraq a long, long time.
IDCIYR.
It Doesn't Count If You're Republican
Yesterday when the Dow gained over 300 pts. I channel surfed the cable channels (CNN, FoxNoise, and MSNBC) constantly to see if anyone would give President Obama and his Administration a little credit for it, and found not one that did. "ALL" the credit was given to Citi and the so-called profit the company made in the last two months.
Hmmm, I wonder how the Republicans blamed President Obama and his Administration (on Monday) for the poor performance of the Dow, but became silent (on Tuesday) with the Dow's 300 pts. gain. What is going on with the Republicans and MSM? Will MSM and the Republicans blame President Obama & his Administration without ever "crediting" them when things turn around? Uh, oh.
"If it bleeds, it reads". Since when does the universal media creed not apply when Obama is president? Seems like liberals want a re-shaping of how news is presented now that Obama is president so that only good news is the order of the day. Save the bad news for Bush.
The media did not blame this crisis on Bush, ever. When he was president (as is always the case with the prex is a Republican) the "economy is a complex process that the president has little direct control over." Now, however, IT'S OBAMA'S FAULT. (Never mind that this mess started to unfold before he wven won the nomination, let alone the election.)
OTH... When things are good (like under Clinton) we're back to "the economy is a complex process that the president has little direct conbtrol over." Unless he's a Republican... in which case it's "Proof that the president's tax cuts (or whatever econ policy) worked!"
With these guys, the evidence only matters if it supports their preconcieved notions. Which is: Republicans handle the economy better. This despite the fact that the last two decades do not bear that out, and neither does any long term analysis. So I ask again...
WHAT liberal media?
"Liberal Media" is what the Limbuagh type cons put out there time and time again through the years to brainwash the public into believing it. That's what that crowd is all about: trying to brainwash the public with their crap.
There is no "beral media". That is just a slogan that the repub cons want the American public to buy into.
There is no liberal media. That is just some smoke the cons blew so they could stuff the media to the gills with their team as a "balancing" effort.
well ill agree with you for once. the bad news is for bush......why cause his administration set up the house of cards that collapsed.
"If it bleeds, it reads".
Wrong again. The journalistic saying is "if it bleeds, it LEADS".
I've heard both versions used. You say potatoe........( Dan Quayle )
this coming from a guy who says the nobel prize is now worthless because it was given to Al Gore and Paul Krugman.
incidentally i have to make a correction to something i said a few days back.
i said how no conservative would ever be considered for a Nobel Prize....i was incorrect. what i should have said was no neo con would warrant such consideration. that is more accurate.
because there was an avowed conservative who did merit such consideration. not only did he get considered....he was nominated.....and not only was he nominated HE WON. the Nobel Peace Prize in fact. for mediating and bringing an end to a war between to Asiatic powers warring with each other. that year was 1904. the man: Theodore Roosevelt.
but then ill probably get the response along the lines of " TR wasnt a real conservative" well you can try that line of attack but it work. cause like Lincoln...TR used government power for good and not enrichment of himself and his buddies.
My point above was that for "every" negative thing that the Republicans (and You) create about Pres. Obama & his Admin. (over the past "six" weeks), there seems to be a past video (by the same people complaining i.e. Cramer, McCain, Cantor) stating the exact opposite. MSM show the negative comments 24/7 from the Republicans in newspapers, radio programs and on tv. Then a past video surfaces contradicting what the Republicans said, and the Republicans say how the Pres. is out to get them. This is a way for the Republicans "NOT" to be liars, huh? It's as if the "bully" Republican became the "victim" Republican picked on by President Obama, his Administration and the good old Democrats because of a "lie". Just too funny.
News Flash: The Dow is down by 23 pts right now. What's going on? Hmmm.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but when people have biased viewpoints, like you and myself, we see the news in different ways. I often try to put myself in the position of a liberal and wonder how they feel when certain topics are shaped to appeal to either a liberal audience or a conservative audience. The news is not the same as when I was growing up. There are too many pundits, on both sides, trying to sell their version of the news and it is often filled with personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic. It's a shame.
Well to be fair to Faux News. Bush never took on a "real buck stops here" policy and it could be said his presidency was the presidency of non-ownership.
We don't own 9-11. But we will make political hay from it.
We don't own torture. But we wrote the memo on how it was okay.
We don't the response to Katrina even after building a monsterous bureaucratic entity that was suppose to deal with this exact thing -- while spying on you. But the city was full of poor and non-white people.
We started a war with a country we did not have to -- a clash of cultures. But we really have not committed to anything.
The mantra of the Bush years we did not do it, no one saw us do it, it is not our problem even if it should have been. Maybe the MSM is amazed at a WH administration trying to fix a problem and so they just assume that it must have been theirs to begin with as why else would you try to work to a rational end. They have not seen it in 8 years, they just forgot.
"Bush never took on a "real buck stops here" policy" - ufleirx
That's because Bill Clinton inadvertently left his "The buck stops here" sign behind on the presidential desk. Naturally, Bush and company were certain that meant the buck still stopped with Clinton.
But who says the Repubs can't learn? In their present enlightened state they have the full belief that the buck stops with Obama.
This is a large snowball rolling down the hill. This is redistribution of wealth period. Class warfare etc. Government bonds. On and on and on.
Don't be fooled America! The miniscule amount of time that we have to endure so far has been all about what we knew was coming, "redistribution of wealth." The floodgates threaten to open even wider RIGHT NOW and more to come.
The Redistribution Captain! The Captain of Cost! Is here! Our Saviour, Lord Obama! hehe (that felt good)
Maybe the full depth of the definition of socialism is not yet in motion. If I were spelling the word, I feel like we would all be at "S-O-C-I".LIE,How about the"REDISTRIBUTION" of wealth that went on under BUSH with his tax cuts for the wealthy? Under BOY GEORGE,the top 400 wealthiest peoples income DOUBLED whle 4.5 million people fell below the poverty line in just his first term. Who knows what the figure is for his second term but it is almost certanly higherunder the current conditions. Now that is what I call REAL REDISTRIBUTION of wealth.
"whle 4.5 million people fell below the poverty line in just his first term"
THAT is a lie. More people have gone above and out of poverty since 1980 than have stayed part of it. What we speak of HERE is much different than back THEN even.
And no. THAT period of time altogether will not parallel Obama's FIRST year. Spending in another galaxy befre we know it.
LIE, Actualy what I SAID IS TRUE . what YOU AND YOUR right wing morons are trying to do is twist and spin the facts in your favor.You have to face the facts. It was your heros BUSH AND CHENEY that ran this TITANIC into the iceberg and now OBAMA has the job of salvaging it.
I'm curious LIE buster...
Are you wealthy?
Do you make more than $250,000 a year?
Are you personally worth more than $3.2 million a year?
If not... you have little to fear...
FDR brought the marginal tax rate of all $$ earned over $3.2 million to 91%... Obama is only raising it to 39%
I can see how a rich guy would complain and use whiny tactics to claim its re-distribution of wealth!
The society that we are all part of allowed those of considerable wealth to have said wealth... Personally... I'd love to see Obama raise it back to 91%...
The way I see it... if you can't survive on $2.4M (This is the $3.2M minus 25% or so for taxes that most everyone else pays)... then you sould not be allowed to have that money!
I hear the disgusting argument that middle class people are to blame for over spending beyond their means... well... if you soend beyond your means being worth more than a million a year... I will shed no tears for that fool!
I hear the disgusting argument that middle class people are to blame for over spending beyond their means...
Maybe if the right-wing supply-siders would stop outsourcing all the jobs, breaking organized labor and fighting every minimum wage increase, the middle class wouldn't have to "live beyond its means" just to have a roof over their head, clothes on their backs, food on the table, transportaion in ordert to get to work so they can earn that pittance, occasional medical care and a television so that they can still get their daily dose of right-wing propaganda. Just sayin'.
At some point you'll realize that Supply Side Economics is an aunsustainable pipe-dream, and that the alternative is not socialism, but rather broadly based propserity. So stop being such an idiot. Turn off the AM radio, STFU, sit back and watch. Four years of recovery, without any intereference from RW Billionaire propaganda, should be enough to change even your mind.
You're giving him more credit than I do. I doubt that he cares about reality; he gets his talking points and runs with them no matter what they say.
yeah real redistribution, my last paycheck had an extra 17.45 in from the tax cut that just went in place. care to guess how much of my 650 dollar check i have left of.......1.25. after paying all my bills to this point.....real redistribution there.....yep bring on the socialism.
and hey all you Bush defenders....guess who is getting investigated for violating international treaties and torture conventions.......thats right your idol W and Dick
and they UN is the one doing this investigation
Like having murders investigated by Charles Manson. That makes A LOT of sense!
I am sure all of THOSE bright globalists can get to the bottom of this as they pocket money.
im not sure of your analogy.
the head of the UN office who would be conducting the investigation is an Austrian.
the current security council members aside from the permenant ones are: Austria, Japan, Mexico, Turkey and Uganda.
could you please explain?
actually i was incorrect the elected security council members are libya, costa rica, croatia, vietnam, and burkin faso. the ones above are next year. sorry about that
All tax policy is a redistribution of wealth. We, adults, all understand that. I am just not sure if you are that ignorant and simple-minded or if this is purely a political thing for you.
i certainly understand the basics of it at least.
As a conservative (don't ask why I post here), it really is unfortunate that Obama was handed a flaming bag of crap for an economy, because I think regardless of what he does, positive progress is going to be VERY hard to come by. Until we learn that we need to produce product instead of just consuming it, we'll continue to be in this hole. I think everyone agrees with that, the only difference is how to realize that goal.
I also wonder where the "conservative" media types were when Bush was taking this country in a socialist nose dive during his last year and a half or so. It is really shameful that the so-called "conservatives" let Bush go, and while Obama wants to use the same economic strategies as Bush did recently, they go on the war path. I don't think we really expect a bias free media, just a consistent one. Call the game both ways, don't just favor one team.
Your more welcome here than you might think. A wide range of conservatives do post here, often driving the discusion. Those that get slow roasted repeatedly tend to show up with bogus posts. Those that argue cleanly usually can expect the same in return from the site positive regulars.
yeah me included.
i mean im a conservative and i try to argue as clean as i can, though i find often that some noe con defenders i just can't but help myself to be sarcastic, sardonic, and try to be witty.
Clown, you post here for the same reason i do. because you see the errors committed by many and are not numbed by those who seek to portray president obama as evil and bush as the greatest president in history.
Thank goodness. There is a lot of negative news to report...hehehe
lie....are you gonna answer my earlier question about the UN and your analogy?