Bush tries to avoid economic woes that beset his father

Associated Press ^ | 8-12-02 | TOM RAUM

[Oldeconomybuyer]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush is intent on avoiding the economic policy pitfalls that tripped up his father. Tuesday's economic forum in Texas is part of that effort, intended to show him engaged with the nation's problems even as he vacations.

[Oldeconomybuyer]

This "AP News Analysis" could have been written by Terry McAuliffe. I am constantly amazed at the liberal bias in the news media.

[Seeking the truth]

It would be interesting to compare this reportage with AP's report on the Clinton Economic Summit (1993?), where he did much the same thing holding a big, ole meeting of economists.

I would guess they reported it somewhat differently.

Was this when the term "focused like a laser" on the economy was born?

[SEGUET]

Strange how both #41 and #43 have been visited by similar economic crisis though - granted different causes - but basically the same effects - seems as if history is repaeating itself in this regard.

[prov1813man]

Is anyone doing an analysis of the difference in "spread" between McCough-ups speech and Racicot's response ? Something tells me I know the results.

[kaktuskid]

Of course the previous tenant in the WH cooked the books about how "good" the economy was.

[Pokey78]

Is it any coincidence that the word 'analysis' begings with the letters A-N-A-L?

[SEGUET]

"Of course the previous tenant in the WH cooked the books about how "good" the economy was."

I think we and the share-holer's of the world, all will get kind of use to use to recognizing the old "Book Cookers" out there - when the CEO's have to pony up to the bar in the next couple of days -

You didn't believe anything that Clinton said - how could we know that ole GW and his staff were so darned gullible. Makes you wonder

[kaktuskid]

The economy was falling in 2000...NASDAQ started falling then (esp after the gov't went after MSFT)

[j271]

This AP story is marked as "News Analysis", but it doesn't have any more editorializing than yesterday's Reuters story about the summit, which was supposed to be straight "Business News".

[Helms]

....the economy was really better and that is the truth. I hate that low life traitor Bill Clinton but the economy was better.

I have a somewhat different take- it took the GOP 1994 win to put us on track and the IT boom prior to the yr 2000 and a year later was bound to turn down. Computers are now a commodity. The 90's were a disgusting decade of corporate mergers and the growth of corporate oligarchies.

Besides the media continued to hype the economy during Clintons last dire 2 years in office when he was under a type of White House arrest- kinda like Arafaty.

[jackbill]

Perhaps you should read yesterday's Washington Times editorial "The Clintonistas' economic reality gap" and you will know where the "cooking the books" comment came from. For two years (1999-2000) the Commerce Dept. cooked them, making the economy look much better than it really was.

http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20020812-97558627.htm

The editorial mentions Bob Novak's latest column. He was the one who exposed this originally. It's available.

[SEGUET]

"it really bothers me that Pres Bush hasn't gone after the crooks."

Since when do you nail your buddies and major contributors.