Bizarro World where bad means good and good means bad?

How in the World can this be passed off as objective journalism? This is so bass-akwards it makes my head spin. Now, while it may be true that Bush IS spending a lot, it certainly is NOT the case that a Kerry presidency will be more focused on a balanced budget. The economy.com "expert" who says a Kerry presidency will be like a Clinton one should scare off any voter. First of all, even if the "surpluses" of the Clinton era WERE real, it wasn't for anything he did, it was due to the Internet boom, which was NOT because of WJC. There will be more stories like this and it is scary. Since many 'sheeple' will start to believe it.

I can't even focus on what part of the "story" that pisses me off more. The part about a Kerry presidency will "bring down interest rates" (I guess the lowest rates in 40 years isn't good enough) or that the overall implication that a Bush presidency has been bad for the economy. The headline "Kerry Presidency Seen as a Boon for U.S. Markets" seems so assinine now after 2003 being one of the best years for the market in a LONG time. U.S. markets are in a boon right now. New jobs is the last piece of the puzzle, which based on today's report, may also finally be coming to fruition.

The media will spin the latest data as "dissapointing" or that "more" jobs were expected to be created than the 112,000 that were. Well, since the month previous was 1,000, and has been just revised upward to 16,000 (16 times BIGGER for the math-impaired) it stands to reason that even the 112,000 number of this month will be revised. Even so, 100,000+ new jobs and the unemployment rate dropping is not a bad thing! Even more of a crazy, conflicting left-spin is evident here where while doing exactly what I mention above, they say because of this interest rates will stay low. OK, so low job creation is going to keep rates low, and Kerry is going to keep interest rates low (per the first Reuters article), therefore, it follows that Reuters believes that a Kerry presidency will keep job creation low. But, I though (to continue the spin-speak) Kerry will be LIKE Clinton, who supposedly was the greatest job-creator ever. Didn't he create 459,345,457,867 jobs or something like that? When I try to use this kind of logic in Excel, I get a circular reference error. I wish the media had that function also.

So, either the author of the first "Kerry is a Boon" article would have you believe the past year was NOT good for U.S. markets and Wall Street, OR, that Wall Street was already beginning to price in a Kerry presidency about 15 months ago as they salivated over a return to Clinton-like budget management. Which of those two 'the Earth is flat'-quality statements is it? It can't be neither.