The very idea that a respectable media outlet would choose Rush Limbaugh to rule on media bias says all you need to know.
It is to retch.

Rush Limbaugh? You gotta be kidding me.

oh yeah…Zed!

And, you should hear the Rs J post election about how the MSM was in the Obama bag all along. I wish I’d kept track of # of minutes spent on McCain campaign vs. Obama’s, esp since the former was self-destructing. Does anyone think that the MSM would waste a nanosecond on Obama if he were 8 points behind in the polls?

What, if anything, does this say about the credibility of a CBS program like 60 Minutes?

I predict that Bill O’Reilly will be very, very upset that he’s not on this list.

“What? I’m not on the top tier list of wingnuts at CBS? Incredible! Yet more proof of the fear I instill in the mainstream press.”

oops, some letters got deleted. Should be: Rs on WJ, post election …

The news media are not simply trying to boost ratings - they are deliberately defending and advancing the interests of the GOP, because that’s where their financial interests lie.

not just the GOP - also the D corporatists.

That list looks like a fine assembly of patriots for Bush’s Mission To Mars.

Heh.

obama who?

How about his mission to the Sun?

Now I know why CBS news ratings are in the tank.

That one.

The list is a veritable who’s who list.
So many right wing people.
But, I thought last night KO said “You don’t matter anymore.” ???

from bernhard: Doubleplusungood Economy News

That looks like a list of people on my teevee every night on every channel–cept Drudge and Limbaugh who are on my radio.

actually the Tucker Carlson inclusion says everything about fair and balanced, don’t it

so married to it they would even consider a featherweight like ol Tucks

there are some names missing, must have had a scheduling conflict with the Federalist/Heritage annual cross burning/bbq

Rather’s Bush AWOL report was all true. One piece of questionable evidence (that may have been created and planted by one or more of right-wing operatives from that list) debunked the whole true story.

I *LOVED* that commentary.
Because it is true.
Ignorance gains credibility through any repetition other than humor.

I can’t wait to hear more.

me too, Ely. is anyone liveblogging the trial ? Is Charles Johnson on the witless list ? would love to be around for that one :D

Pretty soon there will have been zero job creation during W’s 8 years. I’ll see if I can dig up the 1/00 data.

IMHO R’s have been cooking the unemployment books for years. In the next few months we may start to hear the real numbers.

o/t
Cannibalpalooza Continues . . .

DeMint uses Toobz to go after McConnell

Expulsion from the Senate requires a two-thirds majority — 67 votes — to pass. If McConnell doesn’t press for Stevens’ expulsion during the November special session, DeMint plans to introduce a motion to expel in January, GOP staffers say.

“It takes only one senator to offer an expulsion motion,” said a Republican aide familiar with DeMint’s plans. “We deserve ridicule if we don’t follow through on our promises. … This is a test of McConnell’s
leadership.”

I am now on the SchadenfreudeCR patch :D

Like fucking Thornburgh was a balanced choice rather than a partisan, wannabe republican hack?

Well, still 4.4 million jobs ahead of Jan 2001, when W was inagurated, so I guess we won’t lose that many in the next two reports. But job creation under W will probably be among the lowest for an 8 year period.

from hugh’s list:

298. Bush job creation (not)

Bush job creation. Looking at Bureau of Labor Statistics seasonally adjusted numbers for nonfarm jobs (defined as those not involving farm work, general government, private households, or nonprofit organizations serving individuals), in its first 7 1/2 years (from January 2001 to June 2008 (est.)), the Bush Administration created 5,171,000 jobs or 57,450/month. 150,000 to 200,000 per month would be expected to accompany an economic expansion. During this same period, the economy lost 3,577,000 manufacturing jobs. These are the jobs that traditionally have had good wages and benefits and now account for only about 13.5 million of the nation’s 137.6 million nonfarm jobs (or less than 10% of them).

By contrast in the 8 years of the Clinton Administration (from January 1993 to December 2000), 22,760,000 nonfarm jobs were created or ~237,000/month (more than 4 times the Bush rate). At the same time, manufacturing jobs showed a modest increase of 387,000. Despite his protestations to the contrary, these numbers paint a dismal picture of job growth during the Bush years.

i should mention that hugh hasn’t updated this item yet with today’s new numbers, but i expect he will be momentarily.

If they had been cooking the books, they never would have published these #s for the last couple of months, right before the election. I talked with a lot of govt data drones when I was working. They are really dedicated, and have received no additional resources to do their jobs as the economy has become more complicated. I doubt you could find a W hack to do that kind of work.

Also, I know someone who runs a firm that databanks the govt econ data and she sez there’s no hanky panky whe knows about.

If so, it’s probably the only area not politicized by W.

So if Toobz is booted, does Bible Barbie get to appoint herself? Gaaaack.

Bernard Goldberg? The same Bernard Goldberg who wrote a book blasting Rather and CBS after he left CBS? That Bernard Goldberg? Yeah, that would have been a “righteous” investigation all right.

Should have known Hugh would have something on unemployment. That seems closer to the mark than the stats I have seen.

Meanwhile, on the cutting room floor, shards of respectability lay all swept into the corner.

I know W’s way below Clinton, but I’m more interest in whether it’s a record low for any 8 year prez in the post WWII period.

The still unanswered question concerning Dan Rather and CBS is whether or not he and Mary Mapes were shown original TANG documents initially but were snookered by someone who substituted fake documents to discredit them.

oh, it’s even better than that -

in her climb to the Governorship, she made a promise to place any replacement decisions in the hands of Alaskan voters. she kept it. there will be a special election

we all shine on . . .

That only adds Raygun and Nixon to the list. Also would it be a percentage or an absolute number.

is there any evidence of the numbers being cooked? seems more likely that the way different numbers are defined and reported by the press is more likely to shape opinions? bernhard has discussed the difference between u3 and u6 for example.

but there are other issues (for example the number of people we lock up) that also affect the unemployment numbers without anyone have to fudge anything.

ah, thought you wanted the numbers for the start of bush’s term.

I believe you. But I think that the numbers of underemployed, the chronically discouraged, etc. have been way, way, way underreported.

My personal experience is that the more education and experience I have, the more difficult it is to find work, so even when I have been employed full time, my job did not reflect my qualifications. The Mr. just spent two months trying to find a part time gig so far beneath his level of experience, it’s a joke. Just our experience.

yo Eli, this would be funny if it weren’t, like, true.

no hanky panky, but they do not include folks whose unemployment benefits have run out

and I don’t think they include much on the underemployed

right ?

Nope, after Murkowski appointed his daughter they rewrote that law. Of course, being Alaska, they did a halfassed job, so she still might be able to make a temporary appointment for the remainder of the session, but the full term slot requires a special election. She might be enough of a narcissist to run in that, but I don’t know if she’s got the votes to win, after so conspicuously losing this week.

So Barbie v. Begich?

Oh, they have the votes up there for her. Hell, she is the Guvnah AND they voted a convicted felon to the senate. Must be the permafrost or something.

This will be the wingnuts’ revenge.

You’re absolutely not alone in that.
Lots of people in that boat, along with a lot of those over 40 or so, who don’t get hired because they’re overqualified or ‘don’t fit our needs’ or some other HR excuse for hiring the 20-something kid who won’t stay more than a year anyway. And if you’re older and do get a job, a lot of companies will try to slot you into part-time or lower paying jobs, because of course you’re only doing it to supplement your social security.

Yeah, that’s really my point, though. Cook the books sounds conspiratorial–and on some level I think it is conspiratorial because the numbers don’t reflect what I see around me–but I think the lense through which data is analyzed may be be calibrated to suit interests other than mine. In that sense, the books are cooked, IMO.

By the way, I am so far out of my natural element talking about economics that my opinions should probably be weighed lightly.

Assuming I did my calculations correctly (& am liable to make mistakes on doing this kind of thing), here’s the data
Nixon 13% (taking the 8 years of his “term”)
Carter 13% (4 years only)
Reagan 18%
Bush 2% (4 years only)
Clinton 21%
Bush 3% (assuming drop of 500,000 in next 2 months)

Just threw up a little in the back of my throat.

Thanks

but they do not include folks whose unemployment benefits have run out

That is absolutely incorrect. The employment survey is completely independent of the unemployment benefits data. For the former, they contact a statistically designed sample of the population to ask them what their employment status is.

As for the underemployed, people too discouraged to look for work, they also collect data on those. Not usually reported by the MSM, but it’s there for you to see. Here’s the link to that table
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t12.htm

I started noticing the trend when I was in my early 30’s, actually, so I should have been at just about the best age for hiring. The Mr is in his early/mid 30’s now with more education and experience than I have, and the problem is the same.

I just know I’m gonna regret asking this, or feel silly somehow, but, where’s Ford? I remember that being a bad period!

am so far out of my natural element talking about economics

lol. me too. just trying to learn something.

This reminds me of when Nixon wanted Senator John C Stennis of Mississippi to listen to the infamous Watergate tapes and verify the White House’s transcript as opposed to simply turning over the tapes.

Well, this idea got some transaction by the corporate media, until it was disclosed that Stennis was damn near stone deaf.

I included him in Nixon because I wanted to look at the 8 years. That was the reason for the note in parentheses.

Thanks for that clarification. Seems I remember asking you about that some time ago.
Here’s what I’m experiencing. There seems to be fewer jobs on the job sites, and many of the ones I do see are ridiculous. You can’t imagine how much they want, the variety of duties for a wage so low. Also, the temp agencies are hardly getting any requests for workers.

Seems like another area of the economy is liable to fall on hard times
http://www.scholarsandrogues.c.....a-victory/

Yep. My new plan of action (when kiddies are old enough for school) is to have my own business. Not what I ever wanted for my life, but what can I do? Gotta eat!

According to the govt data, temp help jobs are down 34% in the past year.

Also think Conference Board collects data on help wanted ads. It used to reflect newspapers & I don’t know how they’ve coped with the fact that most of the postings these days are online, and not all at newspapers, so I’m not going to google it. But you can if you want to figure it out.

I agree. It might just be me, but, for example, I just don’t find Jon Stewart as funny when he’s roasting Ds as when he’s raosting Rs. And since I think there’s a lot of stuff wrong with the Ds, I’m ready to laugh.

GM loss for Q4 is 2.5 Billion. Trading temporarily halted.

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. I’m kidding. Kind of.
It’s enough to know that the agencies I work for have all but shut down. I hear the weariness and drepression in their voices.
My other problem is that one of our two cars has died. Kinda makes it hard to get to a job, if I can find one.
But, I think we found a clunker that a friend from church will sell to us on the cheap. But, we don’t have the cash. Now, I just got off the phone with my writing partner and she’s gonna make severaly weekly payments on the car for me, if we can make that kind of arrangement with the owner.
I’m looking up. I’m not going to let this get to me.
We will prevail.

Jumping in without reading - sorry, it is a busy teaching day. Did anyone else find the happy admission of what they had embargoed until after the election (Palin not knowing anything about NAFTA or Africa, etc.) also an admission of how much they manipulate the news for the benefit of one party? It might not have changed the attitude of Palinites (one of whom told my husband that it didn’t matter what she didn’t know because God would direct her ways and actions), but isn’t it information that we should know? (I know that we all guessed it, but still, the level of ignorance always goes higher than what my cynical self guesses.)

It makes it easier to teach today’s students about the divine right of kings in merry old England than it was even 15 years ago, and that is a sad fact indeed.

We do what we have to. :)

more yesterday on u3 vs u6 in Barry Ritholtz’s post: Undercounting Under-Employment

I agree. RFK Jr said during the last election 2 yrs ago that is you included those off the unemployment rolls that unemployment rate was close to 25%. They have been cooking the books the entire 8 yrs. Bush pushed the housing market to get reelected.

Here’s a very good letter to Pres. Elect Obama posted on raw story. I don’t agree with everything, but some of it makes sense to me.

http://wanguy2k.googlepages.com/dearpresidentobama

I’m wondering what lies they spread on Stevens opponent through email, snail mail, phone calls, radio & tv.

IMHO R’s have been cooking the unemployment books for years. In the next few months we may start to hear the real numbers.

I find job numbers more informative than unemployment numbers because unemployment numbers measure the recently unemployed and not the whole group of unemployed out there. I prefer looking at job numbers. It’s important to remember that initial job numbers are mostly estimated with little underlying data so it takes a couple of months for real data to come in and for the numbers to firm up. The problem is that in dynamic situations the initial numbers are not very accurate.

I will go as selise suggests to revise my entry at 298 on Bush job creation. But if I remember correctly, Bush’s job creation numbers had already dropped below 5 million last month. I can not begin to tell you just how shitty a number this is. Economists during the bubble went through all kinds of gymnastics to explain away what has been throughout the Bush Presidency a vast and ongoing failure. And I found it obscene that a dingbat like Palin was pushing the line that the Republicans would create jobs. Like so much else of the McCain/Palin platform, it flat out ignored and lied about the Republican record.

Good link. Thanks.

Eisenhower, Reagan
Nixon didn’t serve two terms.
If you include Nixon you’ll have to include Truman.

unemployment numbers measure the recently unemployed and not the whole group of unemployed out there

That’s what I thought. One can feel the mass loss of jobs over the last years fundamentally changing the job market in spite of the low unemployment numbers. I believe my lyin’ eyes. The economy is a mess and has been for years.

Interesting that Reagan and the Clintons are effectively even. I always saw the Clinton “surplus” as bogus because if the Clintons had not screwed up healthcare (intentionally or negligently) the Clinton surplus would have been much less or non-existent. So Clinton economics based on minimalist spending on social programs produced a surplus but I am startled by the sameness of job creation in both administrations.

Great post and I’m way late to the party here, but I really think you should go back and bold “Elliot Abrams”

I mean - they were seriously considering having a man who knowingly and wilfully lied under oath to Congress and is to this day unapologetic about it on the panel? Oy.

I was trying really hard to not bold *everybody*.

Limbaugh, Novak, Drudge, Coulter: How could you get more incredible fair-minded republicans than that? CBS just made a case for their own credibility or lack thereof. BTW, has the real story ever come out. I’ve always thought that a fake document was placed in the hands of Rather by a repub. spy. Why else would the exposure have happened so quickly?

For those concerned with the unemployment rate — The funny stuff with the unemployment rate was done during the Reagan administration. The definition was changed. Check and you will find the details.