From the Wall Street Journal's "Washington Wire" column:
WSJ.com: After touting June['s disappointing] employment gains as the "10th consecutive month of job creation," Bush's team trumpets this week's drop in unemployment-insurance claims. The nonpartisan Bureau of Labor Statistics attributes the drop to a technicality [relating to the timing of the auto model-year changeover], but "We're not an economic-reporting firm, we're a campaign," says Bush policy director Tim Adams.
Just keep that in mind *whenever* you hear a number reported by the friends of George W. Bush.
Posted by DeLong at July 8, 2004 09:08 PM | TrackBack | | Other weblogs commenting on this postHow refreshingly honest of Tim Adams to point out that when Bush is campaigning truthfulness and accuracy are beside the point.
Posted by: Dubblblind on July 8, 2004 09:15 PMdubblblind, i was going to say the same thing. I do believe this might be an unprecedented admission by the backbone administration....
Posted by: howard on July 8, 2004 09:22 PMCould someone explain the phrase "backbone administration" to me?
Posted by: EH on July 8, 2004 10:53 PM[[
Could someone explain the phrase "backbone administration" to me?
]]
Irony and sarcasm do a very poor job traveling over the internet.
If you had heard his voice you would need no explanation.
Posted by: anon on July 9, 2004 02:23 AMBackbone?
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/09/politics/campaign/09records.html
Posted by: kharris on July 9, 2004 05:24 AMBrad, here's why your use of the word lier is always wrong and belittles your intelligence:
http://pep.typepad.com/public_enquiry_project/2004/07/you_lefties_nee.html
Posted by: Adrian Spidle on July 9, 2004 06:34 AMEr, yeah. Every other administration has reported the moving 4 week average at this point in an election year. Or something.
I don't dispute that new claims are bad information due to these bumps, but they are very commonly cited bad data.
Posted by: Jason Ligon on July 9, 2004 06:40 AMIf you really want to see some political fun with numbers, Wait until next week when OMB releases the midsession review of the budget. The Bush folks Administration will try to take credit for a deficit that actually is way above 2003 and a new record high because it is less than what they said it would be in February. Does anyone really think that the February number wasn't artificially inflated for political reasons?
Posted by: budgetwonk on July 9, 2004 06:46 AMRe: Backbone. I'm reminded of the comment about Kurt Waldheim-- he didn't need a backbone because he had an exoskeleton.
Posted by: Matt on July 9, 2004 07:33 AMWhat wounds me with this statement, of course, is that it isn't the campaign director or the media guy who says this, but the policy director. Gar.
Posted by: Jonathan Dursi on July 9, 2004 07:55 AM"Backbone" of a fascist. America is ruled by idiots. Our leaders are a joke.
You younger readers on this blog, do something to make your voices heard. Write letters, give speeches, talk about how anybody that eats the Bill of Rights is equal to Osama.
Posted by: phil on July 9, 2004 07:57 AMSo what will Adams say next week, when the faulty auto plant seasonal causes initial claims to shoot savagely higher again?
"We're not a campaign, we're an economic reporting firm?"
Posted by: Billmon on July 9, 2004 08:25 AMNot to take anything away from the fine explanations offered by others, the reason i began to call the bush administration the "backbone administration" was that, during the run-up to the war in iraq, bush, in a press conference or photo op or something along those lines urged the members of the security council to show some "backbone" with respect to iraq.
it was such a perfect embodiment of the shallow ersatz Texas swagger of the man that i began, to my friends and on blog comments, to refer to the "backbone administration," always, as anon notes, always dripping sarcasm.
billmon, welcome back to work!
Posted by: howard on July 9, 2004 09:09 AMThe nonpartisan Bureau of Labor Statistics attributes the drop to a technicality...
What, there's a federal agency that still hasn't been shamelessly politicized by the Bushies? Look for this oversight to be corrected toot sweet.
Posted by: Cheney's Third Nipple on July 9, 2004 10:37 AM"Brad, here's why your use of the word lier is always wrong"
Hey Spitboy, and here's why your use of the word lier is always wrong:
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?lier
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?liar
Just more of that Bush "honor and integrity" that he's restored to the office of the Presidency.
Forget Clinton's stain.......Bush stains the office far more every morning when he walks in.
Posted by: marty on July 9, 2004 02:19 PMThanks Howard. (I got the irony and all, it's just kind of an awkward phrase and I figured it must come from a specific incident.)
Posted by: EH on July 9, 2004 10:53 PMAs a Texan who survived a Bush governorship, it's been hard for me to understand what would ever make anyone believe that a Bush administration would tell the truth. We learned here that to understand Bush, one has to take everything he says and reverse it. Whatsamatta? You guys up there needed all four years to figya that out?
Seriously -- look at everything he says and watch the reverse come true.
Of course, you could blame it on the CIA...
Posted by: Bean on July 10, 2004 08:28 AM5007 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra on August 7, 2004 07:33 PM3073 Why is Texas holdem so darn popular all the sudden?
http://www.texas-holdem.greatnow.com
981 get cialis online from this site http://www.cialis.owns1.com
Posted by: cialis on August 10, 2004 01:39 PM446 ok you can play online poker at this address : http://www.play-online-poker.greatnow.com
Posted by: online poker on August 10, 2004 03:10 PM5873 Get your online poker fix at http://www.onlinepoker-dot.com
Posted by: poker on August 15, 2004 03:59 PM5487 black jack is hot hot hot! get your blackjack at http://www.blackjack-dot.com
Posted by: blackjack on August 16, 2004 09:44 PM