Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Economy: Does It Take a Clinton to Clean Up After a Bush?
Townhall.com ^ | November 29, 2007 | Larry Elder

Posted on 11/29/2007 12:46:41 PM PST by Kaslin

"There seems to be a pattern here. It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush."

So said presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., during a speech -- specifically on the economy -- before a crowd in Knoxville, Iowa. Okay, we understand campaign sloganeering -- purportedly funny lines and the like during the campaign season. But shouldn't the Associated Press, in reporting Clinton's line, provide the reader with a little information?

Let's look at what incoming President Bill Clinton "cleaned up" when he took over from President George H. W. Bush in late January 1993. Despite the relentless economic news by the traditional media, Clinton entered office with an economic recovery two years old. During Bush-41's last year in office -- 1992, the year voters elected Clinton -- the economy grew 3.2 percent. President Clinton's average economic growth during his eight years was 2.4 percent.

Now look at what incoming President George W. Bush faced. The economy peaked in September of 2000. Many economic indicators, such as industrial production, peaked in September 2000 -- Clinton's last full year in office -- and continued to slide through January 2001, when Bush took office. The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), a non-profit organization the government uses to determine economic cycles, states the recession began in March 2001, some six weeks after Bush took over. So when W entered the White House, he dealt with an economy entering a recession -- a recession that, according to the NBER, lasted until November 2001.

Sen. Clinton's quip elicited applause from her audience, but how many in the crowd knew about the economic conditions Clinton enjoyed when entering office, or the downturn W confronted when he did so? Small wonder that so many remain ignorant about this when the Associated Press, in covering Clinton's economic speech, provides no information.

Harvard, along with the Project for Excellence in Journalism, part of the Pew Research Center for People and the Press, recently put out a study confirming the type of liberal bias in the media that denies information to consumers of news.

The study found that Democrats got more news coverage than Republicans -- 49 percent of the stories versus 31 percent. It also found the "tone" of the coverage for Democrats was more positive, 35 percent compared to 26 percent for Republicans. "In other words," the study says, "not only did the Republicans receive less coverage overall, the attention they did get tended to be more negative than that of Democrats. And in some specific media genres, the difference is particularly striking."

In 11 newspapers -- including The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, USA Today and Wall Street Journal -- front-page stories about Democrats had a "clear, positive message" 59 percent of the time, and only 11 percent had a negative tone.

For the top Democratic candidates, the difference was even more striking: Barack Obama received coverage that was 70 percent positive and 9 percent negative, and Hillary Clinton's was 61 percent positive and 13 percent negative. On the other hand, only 26 percent of the stories on Republican candidates were positive and 40 percent negative.

Democratic candidates received 49 percent of television's evening network newscast stories, while Republicans got 28 percent. And 39.5 percent of the Democratic coverage had a positive tone, while 17.1 percent was negative. But for Republicans, only 18.6 percent of the network evening news coverage was positive and 37.2 percent negative.

But perhaps you didn't hear about the Harvard/Pew study. When it was released, only 20 news stories about the report could be found in a Nexis search, and most of those made no mention of the extreme levels of bias.

Back to the Associated Press coverage of Sen. Clinton's economic speech. The Associated Press could have and should have written something like this:

"While Clinton's quip elicited applause from her audience, the actual facts say something different. Her husband, President Clinton, inherited an economy that in its last full year averaged 3.2 percent growth. So, in reality, her husband inherited an economy in a recovery, not in a recession. Similarly, President George W. Bush inherited an economy that was, according the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER), the non-profit organization the government uses to determine economic cycles, heading toward a recession."

Okay, okay, wake me, I'm dreaming.


TOPICS: Editorial; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bernardschwartz; charlietrie; hillary; hollywoodgala; johnhuang; johnnychung; larryelder; lippobank; lippogroup; lippopacific; loral; missileguidance; peterpaul; striesand
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

1 posted on 11/29/2007 12:46:42 PM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Clean up” as in “steal all of the stuff in the White House”.


2 posted on 11/29/2007 12:48:25 PM PST by Question Liberal Authority (Al Gore and Osama Bin Laden have the same position on global warming, for the exact same reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Kaslin

This is a joke right?


4 posted on 11/29/2007 12:49:46 PM PST by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I love ammo. Bookmarking to send to the under 30 crowd.


5 posted on 11/29/2007 12:49:47 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Bush had to clean up all the pizza stains in the WH when he took office. Clinton’s verminn left it like a pigsty.


6 posted on 11/29/2007 12:50:06 PM PST by golfisnr1 (Democrats are like roaches - hard to get rid of.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy

Why do you say that?


7 posted on 11/29/2007 12:50:54 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Hill of Crap Clinton

"It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush"

All you and your skank whore husband did for eight years was lower the moral standards of the nation, mismanage the tech boom and ignore national security.

You left 'ends justifies the means' values. You left a (true) recession. You left 9/11.

Sooner than we think people will examine the critical years 1992-2008 in extreme detail, no longer mesmerized by the insanity of our time.

You've led America and the world to hell. History will revile you both.


8 posted on 11/29/2007 12:51:37 PM PST by I see my hands (_8(|)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

One way or the other Clinton is always following Bush......


9 posted on 11/29/2007 12:51:52 PM PST by Ben Mugged (Thanks Mom for not considering me a "choice".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: golfisnr1

Other stains too.


10 posted on 11/29/2007 12:51:59 PM PST by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
Townhall must have been purchased by soros... what comes out of their place these days is dnc tripe.

LLS

11 posted on 11/29/2007 12:52:48 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Had the economy been as strong as it is now with a year to go before election 1992, the elder Bush would’ve won in a Reaganesque landslide.

The two economies aren’t comparable.


12 posted on 11/29/2007 12:54:43 PM PST by A_Former_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

There is one thing Bubba didn’t have to contend with in 1992: The Internet. Everything she says is deconstructed within seconds after it leaves her lips. She cannot stand scrutiny in the old media. She cannot withstand scrutiny in the new.......


13 posted on 11/29/2007 12:54:50 PM PST by Red Badger ( We don't have science, but we do have consensus.......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

???


14 posted on 11/29/2007 12:54:52 PM PST by wideawake (Why is it that so many self-proclaimed "Constitutionalists" know so little about the Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

And people wonder why voters go for style over substance. Headline readers all, I guess.


15 posted on 11/29/2007 12:55:45 PM PST by sageb1 (This is the Final Crusade. There are only 2 sides. Pick one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Question Liberal Authority

The question is, who cleans up a bush after a Clinton?


16 posted on 11/29/2007 12:56:42 PM PST by dblshot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Any economic boom falsely attributed to Slick was due to his being forced at times, to adhere to largly conservative principles.

If the Beast is elected she will find it impossible to match, let alone “clean up” (clean up what specifically, witch?) after the the robust economic growth ignited by the first term Bush tax-cuts.

Implementing any shade of socialism will “clean up” the economy in the same way that a projectile spew of vomit that missed the sink, cleans up the bathroom.


17 posted on 11/29/2007 12:57:13 PM PST by EyeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Hillary still wishes someone had “cleaned up” Monica’s blue dress.


18 posted on 11/29/2007 12:59:39 PM PST by airborne (Proud to be a conservative! Proud to support Duncan Hunter for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

...well if we learned anything from the first eight years of Clinton, they’re really good at changing the numbers and making it look like things are going better than they really are...


19 posted on 11/29/2007 1:04:37 PM PST by Tzimisce (How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

Right. After voters kicked Democrats out in 1994, Clinton realized the only way he could accomplish anything was to cooperate with Newt Gingrich and “Contract with America” reforms.


20 posted on 11/29/2007 1:07:31 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee ("A politician can't give you anything he hasn't first stolen from you.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Clinton...the POS between the Bushes.


21 posted on 11/29/2007 1:09:45 PM PST by Ann Archy (Abortion: The Human Sacrifice to the god of Convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

22 posted on 11/29/2007 1:11:40 PM PST by MarkeyD (Just another country bumpkin looking forward to Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarkeyD
Better graphic.
23 posted on 11/29/2007 1:13:40 PM PST by MarkeyD (Just another country bumpkin looking forward to Fred!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: aflaak

ping


24 posted on 11/29/2007 1:13:52 PM PST by r-q-tek86 (rich, berserker, shield biting, mushroom eating, soccer ignoring business owner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I see my hands

That pretty much sums it up quite accurately!


25 posted on 11/29/2007 1:14:46 PM PST by Ignatz (There's no place like 127.0.0.1....there's no place like 127.0.0.1....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Why mess with the economy that was totally good under the 7 years of President Bush?


26 posted on 11/29/2007 1:19:11 PM PST by Wiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy

Any economic boom falsely attributed to Slick was due to his being forced at times, to adhere to largely conservative principles......Wrong. Clinton inflated all figures by 30% and that could not withstand the economic model we were TOLD we were experiencing.


27 posted on 11/29/2007 1:19:34 PM PST by Safetgiver (So simple, even a Muslim can do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MarkeyD

Send that to the article’s editor :)


28 posted on 11/29/2007 1:19:51 PM PST by Wiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: dblshot

Taxpayers


29 posted on 11/29/2007 1:21:33 PM PST by SMARTY ("Stay together, pay the soldiers and forget everything else." Lucius Septimus Severus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dblshot
The question is, who cleans up a bush after a Clinton?

"You better put some ice on that."
30 posted on 11/29/2007 1:24:02 PM PST by Question Liberal Authority (Al Gore and Osama Bin Laden have the same position on global warming, for the exact same reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
You didn’t bother to actually read the article did you?
31 posted on 11/29/2007 1:25:55 PM PST by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Further verification that Hillary is a liar.


32 posted on 11/29/2007 1:29:16 PM PST by freekitty ((May the eagles long fly our beautiful and free American sky.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: golfisnr1
Bush had to clean up all the pizza stains in the WH when he took office.

Pizza stains weren't the worst of it.

33 posted on 11/29/2007 1:30:21 PM PST by AU72
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: EyeGuy
SHE wants to clean OUT the economy and remake it according to HER preferences. Slick tried the same thing with his tax increases. Much of Slick’s tax increases were thwarted by other developments. His CEO tax encouraged the rise of stock options and his unlimited Medicare tax led to the rise of Subchapter S corporations. With the internet and PC boom along with conservative tax cuts on investments, the economy blossomed.

However, SHE means business. SHE will not blunder like Slick and Bush. SHE will have an extremely Marxist Congress to perform her bidding. The results of this Marxist trifecta will be a staggering tax increase, an unprecedented growth in entitlements, nationalization of many industries (health care, student loans, mortgage lending, media, and energy), price controls through global warming restrictions, explosion of racial preferences, unchecked growth of litigation, open southern borders, and powerful rise of unions. All of these changes will be permanent, changed only by a tidal wave of opposition.

Please vote wisely next November. Remember who the real enemy is.

34 posted on 11/29/2007 1:35:17 PM PST by businessprofessor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: sageb1
Bookmarking to send to the under 30 crowd.

The kids around the thanksgiving table ignored all of the political discussion as usual. "Universal healthcare" "national debt" "raised taxes" "Social security"....all went right over their heads.

What snapped them to attention, I noticed,... what REALLY perked up their ears: I said, "That's ok...we're gonna make these kids pay for your check, grampa!...." "No worry, Hillary is going to sign these kids up here to pay for your free healthcare." "Barack Obama is going to take enough from these kids to pay for ma's social security check."

That really surpried me how much they actually got into it when it was placd on those, true terms.

And it WILL be them paying for all this garbage.

Are any of the candidates talking/framing it thataway?

35 posted on 11/29/2007 1:47:21 PM PST by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
"There seems to be a pattern here. It takes a Clinton to clean up after a Bush." So said presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., during a speech -- specifically on the economy

The lie that just keeps on giving - Clinton inherited a growing economy and passed on a slowing economy.

36 posted on 11/29/2007 1:51:39 PM PST by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sageb1

Why do you say that?

Why not say that?


37 posted on 11/29/2007 1:54:54 PM PST by Bitsy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

bttt


38 posted on 11/29/2007 1:57:50 PM PST by petercooper ("Daisy-cutters trump a wiretap anytime." - Nicole Gelinas - 02-10-04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin; Obadiah; Mind-numbed Robot; Zacs Mom; A.Hun; johnny7; The Spirit Of Allegiance; ...
For the top Democratic candidates, the difference was even more striking: Barack Obama received coverage that was 70 percent positive and 9 percent negative, and Hillary Clinton's was 61 percent positive and 13 percent negative. On the other hand, only 26 percent of the stories on Republican candidates were positive and 40 percent negative.
You can cite statistics like that until the cows come home, but it goes right over people's heads because we have all been brainwashed with the propaganda that journalism is objective - and people just don't see why journalism should be slanted, or why journalism should be all slanting the same way.

There are reasons, actually pretty simple reasons, why this is the case. First, "Why would the various newspapers and broadcast networks be unified?" The answer to that is that newspapers in the founding era were diverse, and they did not have efficient means of gathering news which the rest of the population did not hear first from other sources. That changed with "the wire" - the (1848) advent of the Associated Press. The AP succeeded in monopolizing the transmission of news by telegraph - and when its monopoly was questioned on the grounds that it produced a concentration of propaganda power, the AP sold the story that the AP was "objective."

The AP transformed the newspaper business into a true news business delivering information which was not otherwise available to the general public. But, all protestations of objectivity notwithstanding, the Associated Press has one inherent bias: that the news - simply because it is new and known first by the AP - is important. What if the news wasn't important?

The reality is that on a typical day you probably cannot remember anything in the newspaper from exactly 5 years ago. There is only so much going on that is actually important, and reported daily developments ordinarily are of no enduring significance. And that means that the Associated Press in general, and the journalistic outlets which it supplies in particular, are inherently superficial. They are also generally negative, because the most dramatic changes are typically negative changes - simply because it is more dramatic to realize that a house burned down in less than a day than it is to understand that the nation's building contractors finish new houses every day, too. But there is less drama in the completion of ten months-long house construction projects than there is in the surprise demolition of the fruits of one such project.

In addition, since journalism is simply talk, journalism has an inherent tendency to promote criticism at the expense of action - to denigrate and second guess the businessman, the policeman, and the soldier. And to puff up the teacher, the plaintiff lawyer, the union leader, and the second-guessing politician by assigning them the favorable label of "progressive."

  Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate


39 posted on 11/29/2007 2:00:52 PM PST by conservatism_IS_compassion (The idea around which liberalism coheres is that NOTHING actually matters except PR.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer; Bitsy
This is a joke right?

Townhall must have been purchased by soros... what comes out of their place these days is dnc tripe. LLS

Did you two read a different thread and this comment on this one? Larry Elder's column factually and methodically refutes the myth that clinton inherited a recession and turned it into a booming economy and points out that Bush inherited a clinton recession and turned the economy around with growth oriented tax cuts. Yeah, sounds like a Soros joke to me.

40 posted on 11/29/2007 2:01:25 PM PST by VRWCmember (Fred Thompson 2008! Taking America Back for Conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Bush, then Clinton...then Bush...and now, possibly again...Clinton.

Is this a Republic or a Monarchy?


41 posted on 11/29/2007 2:02:34 PM PST by Signalman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion

BTTT


42 posted on 11/29/2007 2:04:20 PM PST by E.G.C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Bitsy
Why do you say that?

Why not say that?

What is it about the column that you find to be a joke?

43 posted on 11/29/2007 2:04:43 PM PST by VRWCmember (Fred Thompson 2008! Taking America Back for Conservatives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: wideawake
I’ve just seen Townhall op eds that tout rootie winning... mitt winning... and then this. It just seems to be less Conservative than in the past. It may just be me fed up with bias everywhere you look and listen.

LLS

44 posted on 11/29/2007 2:05:34 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

What she really means is “it takes a Clinton to clean out your wallet after a Bush tax cut”.


45 posted on 11/29/2007 2:05:45 PM PST by MEGoody (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Good stuff from Larry Elder. A few other things he could have mentioned:

Clinton’s Tax Increases were back-dated to be effective prior to his inauguration. This was one of the contributors to the very slow recovery in 1993-4. It wasn’t until the GOP was voted into control of Congress in 1994 that the economy really picked up.

One of the major contributors to the improvement in the deficit from Bush I and into Clinton’s first term was the fact that the Resolution Trust Corp. went from bailing out failed S&L’s (the Clintons know all about those) and taking those losses on the books of the Feds, to spinning out newly cleaned up S&Ls which helped generate a very nice “swing” in favor of the Feds by mid-decade.

Of course, we also know how the Clintons squandered the peace dividend: cutting back the military by around 40% and decimating the budget for the CIA — but that didn’t hurt our military readiness, did it?????

Yeah, so I’ll look forward to Hillary’s “clean-up” efforts following GWB’s term in office. What blanking gall!


46 posted on 11/29/2007 2:05:46 PM PST by ReleaseTheHounds ("You ask, 'What is our aim?' I can answer in one word: VICTORY - victory - at all costs...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: businessprofessor
Very educational post. Thank you. Now I will have to try to find a way to sleep tonight .
47 posted on 11/29/2007 2:08:15 PM PST by EyeGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic
Yes, but I am sick of these media titles and several biased op eds today... ALL from Townhall. Heck, I just heard ‘toon did an interview on CSPAN out Friday, where he says Ronald Reagan could and SHOULD have been impeached. I guess I am just boiling over today.

LLS

48 posted on 11/29/2007 2:08:16 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember
Just read my last two posts at the end of this thread... the headline screams anti-Bush but the body of the article is actually good. Two other op eds from Townhall were bogus today... so I guess I just vented.

LLS

49 posted on 11/29/2007 2:10:57 PM PST by LibLieSlayer (Support America, Kill terrorists, Destroy dims!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
As of 11/7/2000, I had lost over 1/3 of my retirement savings...........Thank you Bill!

As of today, I have not only recovered those losses but have realized a substantial increase in my investments.....Thank you GW!

50 posted on 11/29/2007 2:15:15 PM PST by Hot Tabasco (Visions of sugarplums dancing in your head are caused by bad drugs.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-62 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson