|
Media Infiltrations: Republicans and the Populist Temptation  Wall Street Journal February 9, 2010 Why Taxing Stock Trades Is a Really Bad Idea Wall Street Journal January 6, 2010
"What has been your worst blogging experience? "That's a guy who actually stalks me on the Web and once stalked me personally." "I'm saying this...guy's a jerk."
 The Happy Body Aniela and Jerzy Gregorek What I'm listening to:  Langley Schools Music Project What I'm watching:  Star Trek What I'm playing:  Speed Racer Order these from Amazon.com at Amazon's normal low prices... and a fraction of your order goes to help support this site. Thanks!
Thanks to Irwin Chusid, public editor.
|
Chronicle of the Conspiracy
Join us as we discover, document, expose and challenge the bad people, the bad institutions and the bad ideas that stand in the way of wealth creation -- and show you how to fight back!
Saturday, September 04, 2004
WHAT'S IN A NAME? Reader Jason Maxwell has come up with what is assuredly the source for Paul Krugman's erroneous claim about the GOP convention that "during the first three days, Mr. Bush was mentioned far less often than John Kerry." It's a graphic from the New York Times showing counts of various key words at both parties' conventions, based on the first three days of the GOP convention. Yes, it shows (truly? who knows...) that the Republicans said "Kerry" more than the Democrats said "Bush." But that is not what Krugman said, now is it?So far no reply from Gail Collins on this. "Public editor" Dan Okrent has responded, but so far says he won't bother to deal with this. I'll persevere.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:01 PM |
link 
OH, AND THEN THERE'S REALITY... From the Miscellaneous Objections blog, a report from a Manhattan sushi bar packed with liberals Thursday night, heckling every line of George Bush's convention speech. The bottom line:
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: Bush-hatred is far, far stronger than Clinton-hatred ever was.Thanks to reader David Duval for the link.The punch line here, however, is this: Everyone at the table expected Bush to win. No anger. No denial. Just acceptance.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:54 PM |
link
IS "THE DAN" A LITTLE JEALOUS? Newsosaurus rex Dan Rather on Fox News' ratings during the GOP convention:
Mr. Rather suggested that the ratings may not be ideal for the Republican Party come November.And I tip my hat to reader Jill Olson, for yet another one."I tip my cap to Fox," he said. "I'm sure people in the party are saying that's a great audience and on a channel that's friendly to us. But the wise ones know that this is preaching to the converted. And if they want to reach independent or swing voters, the way to do that is through the over-the-air networks."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:52 PM |
link
HILLARY: A TOUCH OF CLASS From Keith Burgess-Jackson's blog:
Hillary Clinton gave a press conference to discuss her husband’s impending bypass surgery. Near the end, she mentioned that they have “good health insurance.” She added—I saw it coming—that she hoped everyone else in the country would have good health insurance in the near future. What a classless remark, I thought. She couldn’t resist politicizing, or making political hay out of, a family emergency. Bill and Chelsea must be really proud of her. Then, a minute ago, Chris Matthews of MSNBC’s Hardball described Clinton’s remarks as “classy.” Unbelievable.Thanks to reader Jill Olson for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:50 PM |
link
ARE THERE 527'S IN LATVIA? If not, George Soros may have to find another way to take over this small country. Thanks to reader Jill Olson for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:20 AM |
link
Friday, September 03, 2004
AP'S BOOGATE Here's the whole chapter-and-verse on the affair of the AP wire story that erroneously stated that after announcing Clinton's heart problems, "Bush's audience of thousands in West Allis, Wis., booed. Bush did nothing to stop them." Read the whole story -- it's an amazing example of press bias. But be sure to listen to this audio-clip so you'll have no doubt of what really happened. It's an open and shut case of a liberal reporter just flat-out lying. Now the only question is how many liberal bloggers (and liberal New York Times columnists) are going to cite this new urban legend as reality.Thanks to Bruce Bartlett for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:56 PM |
link
MILLER VERSUS MEDIA RealClearPolitics has posted a transcript of the explosive interview of Zell Miller by MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Read the whole thing if you missed it on Wednesday night -- it's one of those rare moments when someone being interviewed by a media bully stands up to him. A sample:
MILLER: Get out of my face....If you are going to ask me a question, step back and let me answer.Thanks to colleague David Gitlitz for the link.MATTHEWS: Senator, please.
MILLER:You know, I wish we... I wish we lived in the day where you could challenge a person to a duel... Now, that would be pretty good. Don‘t ask me—don't pull that...
MATTHEWS: Can you can come over? I need you, Senator. Please come over.
MILLER:Wait a minute. Don't pull that kind of stuff on me, like you did that young lady when you had her there, browbeating her to death. I am not her. I am not her.
MATTHEWS: Let me tell you, she was suggesting that John Kerry purposely shot himself to win a medal. And I was trying to correct the record.
MILLER: You get in my face, I am going to get back in your face. The only reason you are doing it is because you are standing way over there in Herald Square.
MATTHEWS: Senator, Senator, can I speak softly to you? I would really like you to...
MILLER: What? No, no, no, because you won‘t give me a chance to answer. You ask these questions and then you just talk over what I am trying to answer, just like you did that woman the other day.
MATTHEWS: Well, Senator...
MILLER:I don't know why I even came on this program.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 3:00 PM |
link
NOBEL SUMMIT Here are the results of a questionnaire from the Wall Street Journal to the Nobel Prize-winning economists attending a summit meeting in Germany. Two observations. First, it's interesting that the Journal says "We asked them, among other things, which country in the world comes closest to getting economic policy right today. It was a tie between Norway and the U.S..." Odd, then, that 10 Nobel economics laureates recently signed an open letter supporting John Kerry, which declared "President Bush and his administration have embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation. John Kerry understands that sound economic policy requires a substantial change in direction, and we support him for President."
Second, in reading the responses to the questionnaire, I'm struck by the diversity of opinion among this group of experts' experts. Ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous, it's not all that different than what you'd hear at a cocktail party when the discussion turns to economics or politics. For example, to the question "What do you consider the world's single greatest economic challenge today?" George Akerlof (whom Paul Krugman often quotes) responded, "How to deal with global warming." But Milton Friedman (whom I often quote) responded, "Holding down the size and scope of government."
Thanks to reader Jill Olson for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 2:32 PM |
link
SEEK MEDICATION IMMEDIATELY From today's edition of the Wall Street Journal's premium email service, "Political Diary":
Quote of the Day IV"SPLITTING [a coping mechanism defined as]: Black-or-white, all-or-nothing perceptions or thinking, in which persons are divided into all-good idealized saviors or all-bad evildoers... Typical of borderline personality" -- from the Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy, presented by Political Diary as a public service for readers of Paul Krugman's New York Times column today (see www.merck.com/mrkshared/mmanual/tables/191tb1.jsp).
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:52 PM |
link
"THE FAMILY HAS IT. I DON'T HAVE IT"
Thanks to reader Michael Pollard for the picture.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:34 AM |
link
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
America has done this kind of work before and there have always been doubters. In 1946, 18 months after the fall of Berlin to allied forces, a journalist wrote in the New York Times, "Germany is a land in an acute stage of economic, political and moral crisis. [European] capitals are frightened. In every [military] headquarters, one meets alarmed officials doing their utmost to deal with the consequences of the occupation policy that they admit has failed." End quote. Maybe that same person's still around, writing editorials. Fortunately, we had a resolute president named Truman, who with the American people persevered, knowing that a new democracy at the center of Europe would lead to stability and peace. And because that generation of Americans held firm in the cause of liberty, we live in a better and safer world today.Thanks to reader Dick Sheppard for pointing this out.
Update... Reader Jameson Campaigne responds:
Fun, but bad history since the Times (was not Henry Hazlitt still writing economics commentary for them then?) was correct.The American occupation's economic policy was a total (managed economy, price controls and so on) failure ... it was only thanks to the Germans Ehrhard, his teacher Roepke, and Adenauer -- who boldly decontrolled everything over a weekend when the Americans were not paying attention -- that Germany quickly recovered (after a stabilization crisis lasting about six months).
Bush should not be giving Ameican economic policy credit for saving Germany ... credit for military occupation and later breaking the blockade of Berlin, for sure, but the State Department and Treasury (Morgenthau) were trying to destroy Germany!
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 7:58 AM |
link
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
Krugman asks,
"Why are the Republicans so angry? One reason is that they have nothing positive to run on (during the first three days, Mr. Bush was mentioned far less often than John Kerry)."I downloaded every speech from the first three days of the convention. After removing "Barbara Bush," "Laura Bush," "Jenna Bush," "George H. W. Bush," and "George P. Bush," I counted 181 incidences of the name "Bush." There were only 76 mentions of the name "Kerry." Who knows from what left-wing website Krugman uncritically lifted this egregiously false statistic and entered it into the "newspaper of record." Or perhaps this explains it. All I know is that I intend to be very aggressive in getting Times "public editor" Dan Okrent and editorial page editor Gail Collins to make Krugman run a correction.
Krugman says,
"The convention opened with an invocation by Sheri Dew, a Mormon publisher and activist... Ms. Dew is no more moderate: earlier this year she likened opposition to gay marriage to opposition to Hitler."Does Krugman have a problem with that? Then why did he liken opposition to the Bush administration to opposition to Hitler in the introduction to his book, The Great Unraveling? Why did he repeat and amplify the comparison in the new introduction to the paperback edition?
Krugman criticizes Republicans whom he claims have made outrageous accusations against George Soros, the guy whose money funds the Democrats' hatred. Yet Krugman sympathizes with his buddy, the anti-Semitic Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad when he rails against what Krugman calls "the machinations of Jewish speculators" -- Krugman cites Soros as an example.
Here's the best line. It's the one where Krugman explains his own febrile hatred of George Bush:
Nothing makes you hate people as much as knowing in your heart that you are in the wrong and they are in the right.Update... In addition to 181 incidences of the name "Bush" in the first three days of the GOP convention, there were also 13 incidences of the expression "this president," 49 incidences of the expression "the president" and 25 incidences of the expression "our president." This raises the number of mentions of Bush to 268.
To be fair, I found additional references to Kerry as well. He was once referred to as among two "senators from Massachusetts" and once as "the senator." That raises his total from 76 to 78.
Thus Krugman is even more spectacularly in error than I originally thought when he said "during the first three days, Mr. Bush was mentioned far less often than John Kerry."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:10 AM |
link
Thursday, September 02, 2004
IT SURE IS! Sylvain Galineau sent in this ChicagoBoyz link, saying "This one's for you."Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:06 PM |
link
LAND OF OPPORTUNITY Our old friend Reuven Brenner reminds us that "Land of Opportunity" -- one of the dominant themes of the Republican National Convention -- is also the title of an article he wrote six years ago for Forbes. Check it out -- it's the same philosophy and ideals Arnold Schwarzenegger was talking about Tuesday night.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:59 PM |
link
SO WHAT IS HE AN EXPERT AT? Even this liberal site has to admit that "Krugman Is No Islam Expert":
Paul Krugman ought to stick to economics. In his op-ed in the Times Tuesday, Krugman pontificates off the deep end in Iraq...Thanks to reader Thomas Kearny for the link.Isn't it time to realize that we could do a lot worse than Mr. Sistani, and give him pretty much whatever he wants?...Memo to Paul: Read a few books about Iraq before you mouth off. Or are you one of those, like Leslie Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations, who want to divide up Iraq into three states, regardless of how bloody it will be? As someone said before the Iraq war: You break it, you own it. Well, we own it. And we have a responsibility, together with the international community, to make sure that Iraq gets the best government it can. That certainly doesn’t mean one run by Krugman’s ayatollah.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:01 AM |
link
JOKE OF THE DAY
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:22 AM |
link
Wednesday, September 01, 2004
NOW WE KNOW WHAT KRUGMAN'S NEXT BOOK WILL BE Byron York reports for National Review Online:"What's going on in this country is that a radical movement...that had been building for several decades, finally found their moment and their man in Bush."Thanks to reader Mike Tocci for the link.Krugman said he and other liberals had been "asleep" and unaware of the true dimensions of the danger during the years in which President Bill Clinton found himself facing a variety of scandal allegations. But Krugman said there is a "complete continuity" between today's politics and the "campaign of slander and innuendo" against Clinton. "There's complete continuity going back, really, I think — but this is my next book — you really need to go back to Goldwater. A lot of this has to do with civil rights, and the people who don't like them."
Krugman described the conspiracy as "the coalition between the malefactors of great wealth and the religious right." He offered no further details about who, precisely, is in the conspiracy but said that "substantial chunks of the media are part of this same movement."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:43 AM |
link
"LOOK AT THIS AS A SCIENTIST" I'm quoted in The Hill , talking about the "Land of Opportunity" theme of the Republican National Convention. Talking about John Kerry's claims that newly created jobs pay $9,000 less on average than the old ones they replace,
Some economists say it’s impossible to tell yet whether the economy is creating "good" or "bad" jobs. Donald Luskin, chief investment officer of Trend Macrolytics in California and a conservative blogger, said, "If you look at this as a scientist, there are no statistics that allow one to draw a conclusion one way or another. There is nothing [the Department of Labor] publishes that answers the question." Luskin called Kerry’s $9,000 figure "in essence, a lie."...Luskin added that the Ownership Society is a "valid and important message" but "it's hard to believe something as complicated as that could get processed in a campaign year as nasty as this."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:10 AM |
link
Tuesday, August 31, 2004
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
Now there's another way you can tell you're Republican: your faith in free enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people, and faith in the US economy. And to those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say, "Don't be economic girlie men!"
The US, the US economy remains the envy of the world. We have the highest economic growth of any of the world's major industrialized nations.
Don't you remember the pessimism of twenty years ago, when the critics said that Japan and Germany are overtaking the US? Ridiculous! Now they say that India and China are overtaking us. And don't you believe it.
We may hit a few bumps, but America always moves ahead. That's what Americans do. We move prosperity ahead.
We move prosperity ahead. We move freedom ahead, and we move people ahead. And under President Bush and Vice President Cheney. America's economy is moving ahead, in spite of the recession they inherited, and in spite of the attack on our homeland.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:05 PM |
link
DID HE HEAR THERE WAS FREE BUFFET? Michael Moore writes to Editor and Publisher, correcting them and asserting his "rights":
"Your article is not quite true," Moore wrote. "I may go back inside. It is my right as a writer to be there. I followed all the rules, both of the convention and those put forth by USA Today. I was given official credentials. The New York City police assured me that they would guarantee me my right to be there with my credentials."
Thanks to reader Jill Olson for the follow-up (and the headline).
Update... Here's Moore's first column for USA Today. Snore. Not especially provocative, not funny. Paul Krugman he ain't. He ain't even Al Franken.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:32 PM |
link
USA TODAY'S FAILED EXPERIMENT IN GONZO JOURNALISM Michael Moore couldn't take the heat at the Republican convention. It's better with all those adoring suck-ups in Hollywood and Cannes, one can imagine. But then again, Ann Coulter couldn't take USA Today's editing of her reports from the Democratic convention, either. I guess it's back to straight news for McPaper.
Following all the commotion last night, Michael Moore will not be returning to Madison Square Garden for the Republican National Convention, E&P has learned. According to editors at USA Today, which is publishing his daily column this week, Moore told them that he was choosing not to return again.Thanks to reader Jill Olson for the link....Last month, Ann Coulter, who had been hired by USA Today to write a column at the Democratic National Convention, quit after the editors requested many changes in her first submission.
After entering the Garden Monday night with USA Today credentials, Moore was criticized by Sen. John McCain in his speech, setting off prolonged boos and taunts in the arena.
"We had hoped we would be able to put Moore in place where he could actually listen to speeches and not disrupt anything," Ken Paulson, USA Today editor, told E&P today. "The idea was not to put him in the line of sight while giving him the opportunity to observe. Now Moore doesn't plan to return to the convention. I think he saw the down side of his attending. We will have the four days of his column and I hope people will take time to read what he wrote.
"We never want to be the story. Ann Coulter tired of our editing suggestions and she quit," Paulson added. "We are just a newspaper trying to be balanced day in and day out."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:20 PM |
link
THE LIBERTARIAN WING From Jill Stewart's op-ed in the Wall Street Journal today:
It's no coincidence that four moderate Republicans -- Mr. Schwarzenegger, John McCain, Rudy Giuliani and Colin Powell -- are the most popular political figures in America. The Democrats can point to no corollary Big Moderates with that level of authority. Each of these superstars is first and foremost a pragmatic problem-solver who can't be bought and speaks his mind. The Democrats must dig deep into their ranks to find the same.Reader Caroline Baum sagely says, "In other words, the GOP would be more appealing if they lost those awful social conservatives and were more like.... libertarians!"
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:12 PM |
link
BUSH'S HISPANIC BOUNCE Robert Musil reports on the state of post-convention bounciness, and Bush's chances with Hispanic voters -- turning an anti-Bush Washington Post story on its head:
To get an idea of how badly deluded the media coverage has been, consider Hispanic voters -- arguably the most generally misunderstood group of voters in the country, if they can even be meaningfully called a "group." For example, the Washington Post recently reported on a poll that found that Kerry claimed support from 60 percent of all Latino registered voters in the 11 states surveyed while Bush had 30 percent. The Post chipped in this bit of analysis:The findings suggest that, at this point in the campaign, Bush is falling short of his goal of notably improving on the 35 percent share of the Hispanic vote he received four years ago, although his advisers said they believe he is still on track to do so.Are the President's advisers really this out of touch? Do the Post's findings suggest that the President really falling short on his goal of notably improving on his share of the Hispanic vote? Well, no - on all counts...Mr. Bush's 2000 Hispanic bounce didn't go away. It got bigger. In fact, Mr. Bush's support grew from 28% support among registered Hispanic voters right out of his 2000 Convention to 35% support among actual Hispanic voters on election day. The Post poll suggests that he will do considerably better than that in November.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:02 PM |
link
WELL, MAYBE THEY CAN TAKE OVER FOR US IN IRAQ Bloomberg reports, "Europe is slipping further behind the U.S. in competitiveness as the leaders of Germany, France and Italy, weakened by election setbacks, fail to take advantage of the economic recovery to reduce taxes and over-regulation." Well, now we know why those "foreign leaders" support John Kerry. There are always two ways to close any competitive gap.
Thanks to reader Jill Olson for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:30 AM |
link
HE'S ONLY KIDDING, FOLKS... ...and he's an economist, so when he does, it's not very funny. But if you don't like the Kerry/Krugman approach to health care, try another "K" -- Arnold Kling. He calls it "The Castration Solution." Now don't all speak at once.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:25 AM |
link
THE MYSTERIOUS ORIENT Those clever Chinese... buying more oil than they need, and paying the highest prices. A Merrill Lynch analyst: "It appears to be a hoarding phenomenon and we think it has to run its course, and when it does pass, prices should gravitate much lower, somewhere down towards $30 per barrel." Diabolical. Thanks to Noel Sheppard for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 12:21 AM |
link
Monday, August 30, 2004
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
There were so many brilliant passages making the most of Bush's strengths, so many ways that he found just the right judo to turn his weaknesses into powerful counterattacks, it's hard to pick just one to mention here. I think my favorite was the way he turned the growing media hysteria of Bush-loathing into an opportunity for virtue:
And since September 11th President Bush has remained rock solid.It doesn't matter how he is demonized.
It doesn't matter what the media does to ridicule him or misinterpret him or defeat him.
They ridiculed Winston Churchill. They belittled Ronald Reagan.
But like President Bush, they were optimists; leaders must be optimists. Their vision was beyond the present and set on a future of real peace and true freedom.
Some call it stubbornness. I call it principled leadership.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 11:01 PM |
link
DECIDING WHAT UNDECIDED VOTERS THINK Here's a rather astonishing new Zogby poll. Polling just undecided voters, 35% lean toward Bush while only 10% lean toward Kerry (just slightly more than the 8% that lean toward Badnarik!).
It's not because Bush is seen as such a success, either -- 77% of undecided voters disapprove of Bush's job performance, and 53% believe that "someone else" should be president. That said, 67% "like" Bush, and 52% "dislike" Kerry (lucky for the GOP that Bush is such a nice fellow, and Kerry is such a stiff). And Paul Krugman isn't going to like this -- 40% of undecided voters watch Fox News, and 54% prefer getting their news from the Internet as opposed to newspapers.
Thanks to reader Noel Sheppard for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:58 PM |
link
THERE REALLY IS ANOTHER CHOICE
Hard to remember sometimes, but there is another viable political party in this country -- the Libertarian Party. Fringe kooks, you say? I dare you to visit the web site of Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian candidate for president, and tell me that his ideas don't make sense. Here's one picked at random -- a recent position paper on what it takes for minorities to get ahead in America.
Establishment politicians don't have solutions that work in the real world because they aren't asking the tough question: "What, in these days of diminishing prejudice, stands in the way of minority progress?"Libertarian Steve Mariotti, mugged for the paltry sum of $10, decided to teach inner city teens how to become successful business men and women so that they wouldn't have to steal. His organization, the National Foundation for Teaching Entrepreneurship (NFTE), gave Kansas high school student Monique Landers their annual award when she started her own hair braiding business called "A Touch of Class." The Kansas state government wanted to put teen age Monique in jail for braiding hair without a cosmetology license, which takes a year of schooling and several thousand dollars in tuition to obtain.
Throughout our nation, entrepreneurial African-American hair braiders have been similarly threatened. Would-be van operators and taxicab owners face prosecution unless they pay thousands, sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars, for a permit. In some areas, newcomers are routinely denied permits no matter how much they are willing to pay. Minorities, the poor, and the disadvantaged have a difficult time jumping these costly hurdles. Without the ability to go into business for themselves, their opportunities are much more limited than the average middle-class American. Employers can more easily exploit them when self-employment is not an option.
Only Libertarians recognize that the golden door of opportunity has been slammed shut by such regulations...
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:46 PM |
link
BUSH TAKES THE LEAD IN WISCONSIN... ...according to the latest Gallup poll. Could this "attack ad" seen along a Wisconsin highway have anything to do with it? And who said McCain-Feingold would suppress grass-roots political expression?
Thanks to readers Paul Anderson for the photo and Noel Sheppard for the link.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 3:23 PM |
link
|
Get new major postings to this weblog via email -- free. Click here to sign up! |
...two worlds collided yesterday: the Republican convention's calculated claims to patriotism and the presidency met elaborately planned and heavily Democratic street protests...Reader William Morrison weighs in with a multimedia response:
According to the Times, the Republicans are "calculated" and the Democrats are "great planners."I can hardly wait for Times "public editor" Dan Okrent to come back from vacation and put a fig leaf over this and dozens of other similar examples of how pro-Democratic bias is embedded in the very fiber of the paper's coverage of the election, the economy, politics, and everything else.I have come to expect biased news from the times but this takes the cake. Reading this "news analysis," you would have thought that the convention had come to a screeching halt, disrupted by a band of much better organized street protestors. I watched the NBC Nightly News last night and from what I could tell, the protestors walked by Madison Square Garden in a fairly orderly manner, with no disruption to conference organizers.
Here are two images. You tell me which is more "calculated."
Boy, Michael and Jesse...they're such good "planners." They look so organized don't they?
...and those nasty Republicans...look...they're so "calculated." They actually have the gall to put up an American flag at their convention. They must be doing that to evoke 9/11... how horrible.
It just makes me sick.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 9:26 AM |
link
DEFLATED INFLATION Bloomberg's Caroline Baum shows how housing costs -- the biggest single component in calculating the Consumer Price Index -- are rigged to make inflation seem lower than it really is. If you can't rely on government statistics, what can you rely on?
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 8:48 AM |
link
Sunday, August 29, 2004
A BACKBENCHER EVEN THEN...Whom is Jane Fonda looking up at adoringly? And whom is John Kerry looking down at longingly? Was it that perky little nose that captivated him? Or the money...?
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 6:23 PM |
link
YOU MAKE THE CALL...
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 5:35 PM |
link
AND SPEAKING OF JOBS... ...aren't we always? Here's reader Curt Van Emon:
Paul Krugman has repeatedly said that jobs are very difficult to find. How he speaks about jobs has always baffled me. It is not like jobs are sitting on a street corner and someone just picks it up and then they have one.Anyway, given how Paul speaks about it, I think it can easily be shown that he is greedy and very much part of the problem when it comes to the shortage of jobs for the poor. Paul has at least 5 "jobs". If he were to resign from 4 of them, then this would create 4 new jobs for Americans. Paul is greedy to have so many when millions do not have even one. He is "rich" in jobs and should be shamed into releasing them to the poor. Paul seems to pay some attention to you, could you ask him to do the fair and responsible thing?
Paul's jobs that I can think of are:
College Professor
New York Times columnist
Public tour speaker
Book author incl. textbooks and his autobiography, "The Great Unraveling"
Consultant (see Enron)
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 4:36 PM |
link
GIVE ME A BREAK In a review of three Bush-bashing books, Jacob Weisberg writes in today's New York Times Book Review,
"In the category of not naturally polemical writers pulled into the fray by the Bush presidency, one can also place Maureen Dowd, a New York Times columnist who is often reticent with her political opinions..."It gets worse. How about this howler, talking about why cable news shows supported the Iraq WMD theory so actively (without mentioning that the New York Times famously did, as well):
"The problem may be that libs don't look to politics for entertainment the way cons do, preferring their news straight up, without a twist."
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:36 PM |
link
SO WHICH JOBS CRISIS SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT? How many hundreds of op-eds and slanted news stories has the New York Times run to criticize the Bush administration because there aren't enough new payroll jobs? Well, now the newspaper of record has decided that there are too many jobs and not enough workers to fill them.
Posted by Donald L. Luskin at 1:21 PM |
link