I Miss My MTV

MTV officially turned 25 years old the other day, but you wouldn’t know it from watching the channel. That is apparently a closely held secret at the network which doesn’t want its target audience of adolescents to know that it was around long before most of them were born.
I was part of MTV’s target audience back when it first came out in 1981. I was turning 16 that summer and my family had just hooked up to cable TV for the first time. I had a little black and white television in my room that was permanently tuned to MTV throughout my latter high school years and I absorbed as many videos as I could.
I still remember coming home from school one evening shortly after our cable was hooked up and having one of my friends call to excitedly tell me that one of the Go-Gos videos was on.
Interestingly enough, back when it was getting started, MTV was relatively commercial free. I naively thought this was because we paid for cable and therefore didn’t have to watch commercials. Now I realize it was more likely due to the fact that the fledgling channel had not lured advertisers away from the big three networks at that early stage. But very soon I noticed that they would have the video jockeys or VJs hawking Snickers bars in between videos and before long there were just as many ads on cable as anywhere else.
MTV had a huge impact on my musical tastes during that time. I became a huge fan of The Police largely because of the video for “Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic.” Other favorites included Cheap Trick, the Go-Gos, J. Geils Band, Loverboy, Asia, Joan Jett, John Cougar (Mellencamp) and Rick Springfield. I also became very familiar with many other groups that I otherwise would probably never have been exposed to such as Adam Ant, Duran Duran, Madness, Men at Work, The Pretenders, Flock of Seagulls, Squeeze and many others.
When I went off to college in the Fall of ‘83 I missed out on the next couple years worth of MTV since freshmen and sophomores in the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M were not allowed to have televisions in their rooms. By the time I got a TV in my junior year, MTV had changed significantly. All the original VJs I was familiar with were gone and they were busy phasing out the whole VJ format. Furthermore, the random and unstructured stringing of videos together that had at first seemed so novel and fresh was now being replaced with niche blocks of video programming with a heavy concentration on rap, heavy metal and alternative music, none of which particularly appealed to me at the time.
So my MTV viewing became much less frequent and by the time they introduced Beavis and Butthead as a regular feature on the network, I was about through with it. I had no interest in the reality programs that they pioneered or the inane Spring Break programming that would last all summer. I feel very fortunate that I totally missed out on seeing the Jackass series (which later became a movie that I have avoided seeing even though Richard Roeper of Ebert and Roeper fame gave it “thumbs up” the same year that he gave Lord of the Rings a thumbs down - Moron!).
Now, even the alternative VH-1 channel rarely shows videos. I feel disconnected from the current music scene because I don’t get to see the videos and can’t even find radio stations that will play current day music most of the time.
So I guess I am just too old now because I find MTV to be unwatchable. Thus I can understand why MTV would avoid celebrating its 25th anniversary. Because the folks like me who would care about it have pretty much the opinion best articulated by Beavis and Butthead: MTV Sucks.

End this madness

It is good to see that there are still some Republicans who do have a conscience.

Urging President Bush to turn all U.S. efforts toward "ending this madness," a leading Republican senator Monday broke with the Bush administration and called for an immediate cease-fire in the Mideast.
"The sickening slaughter on both sides must end and it must end now," Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel said. "President Bush must call for an immediate cease-fire. This madness must stop."

Unfortunately, even if Bush does call for a ceasefire at this point, it is clear that he is so weak diplomatically that we will be ignored by both sides.

CNN is just now reporting that the Israeli defense minister is claiming that the three-week bombing campaign has killed 300 Hezbollah fighters out of an estimated 2,000. Assuming that this is true, the question is whether it was worth the more than 500 civilian deaths, not to mention the wanton destruction of Lebanon’s civic infrastructure. And then one has to wonder if Hezbollah hasn’t gained 10 times that number of recruits since the Israeli bombing campaign began.

This was a seriously short-sighted move by the Israeli Defense Force and one that will most likely weaken its position in the Middle East for years to come. The mass destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure will no doubt end up being repaired with much of the money coming from U.S. taxpayers. If there was any justice in the world, every penny of that money should come from the billions in foreign aid that we send to Israel every year. However, they will likely need all of that aid and more due to the precarious situation that this military misadventure has placed them in.

Beating my head against the wall

I have to admit that arguing with my friends over at All Things Conservative sometimes makes me feel just like the penguin in this cartoon. But sometimes that’s just what you have to do.

Look out, Nacho!

Last week the local E-N political cartoon Nacho Guarache ran a series of strips that tried to make light of the current crisis in the Middle East by having a “sleeper cell” of Hezbollah terrorists move in next door to the lead character.
In the final strip, seen above, we see Nacho smugly noting that he resolved the situation by calling on his friend, the Rev. John Hagee, “who knows some people.” The final frame has the cartoonish terrorists fleeing an onslaught of missiles fired by several Iraqi jet fighters.
Hagee is a local right-wing fundamentalist preacher, recently profiled by the Wall Street Journal, who take a hardline stance in support of Israel.

The thing that struck me about this Nacho cartoon, however, was that to be true to the actual situation in Lebanon right now, the Israeli fighters probably would have shot their missiles at the building where the Hezbollah militants were staying, thus killing not only the three terrorists, but also Nacho and all of his friends and family. I wonder if Leo Garza, the strip’s talented author, considered such an outcome when he penned the strip? Probably not.

The Israli response to the Hezbollah situation so far has been about as effective as going after cockroaches with a sledge hammer. A lot of incidental damage and very little evidence that you are actually eliminating the real problem.

Hezbollah made me do it

Over the weekend, an Israeli airstrike in Southern Lebanon struck a residential building in Qana killing 56 civilians, mostly children.
The outrage over this latest massacre of innocent civilians is almost deafening overseas and it forced the hawkish Israeli government to agree to a 48 hour ceasefire (which they promptly broke) to allow any other civilians time to flee the area.
If they had agreed to the ceasefire last week, perhaps this would not have happened. And yet, as disturbing as this latest tragedy is, it has done nothing to sate the enthusiasm of those here in the U.S. who believe Israel has the right to bomb the hell out of the entire country of Lebanon (and any other country it chooses) as payback for the actions of a small (but growing) band of militant Islamic extremists.
A ceasefire would be a sign of weakness, they argue, and would only allow Hezbollah to recharge its batteries and recoup its strength.
Besides that, they say, the attack was justified because Hezbollah was firing rockets from that area. In other words, the ‘devil’ made us do it.

I’m not sure what the Israeli government thinks it is actually accomplishing with this sustained attack on the Lebanese countryside. So far, Hezbollah does not appear to have been crippled - as is the stated goal of both Israel and the U.S. - however the image of both countries has been severely tarnished in the eyes of the rest of the world and that could mean even worse problems for us down the road.
As the Washington Post notes today the crisis could undercut Bush's long-term goals in the region.

The Israeli bombs that slammed into the Lebanese village of Qana yesterday did more than kill three dozen children and a score of adults. They struck at the core of U.S. foreign policy in the region and illustrated in heart-breaking images the enormous risks for Washington in the current Middle East crisis.
With each new scene of carnage in southern Lebanon, outrage in the Arab world and Europe has intensified against Israel and its prime sponsor, raising the prospect of a backlash resulting in a new Middle East quagmire for the United States, according to regional specialists, diplomats and former U.S. officials.

Although the United States has urged Israel to use restraint, it has also strongly defended the military assaults as a reasonable response to Hezbollah rocket attacks, a position increasingly at odds with allies that see a deadly overreaction. Analysts think that if the war drags on, as appears likely, it could leave the United States more isolated than at any time since the Iraq invasion three years ago and hindered in its foreign policy goals such as shutting down Iran's nuclear program and spreading democracy around the world.

"The arrows are all pointing in the wrong direction," said Richard N. Haass, who was President Bush's first-term State Department policy planning director. "The biggest danger in the short run is it just increases frustration and alienation from the United States in the Arab world. Not just the Arab world, but in Europe and around the world. People will get a daily drumbeat of suffering in Lebanon and this will just drive up anti-Americanism to new heights."

Bombing the U.N.

A most disturbing story today
about an Israeli bomb or bombs that struck a long-established U.N. facility in southern Lebanon killing four unarmed U.N. peacekeepers.
The Israeli’s are saying it was an accident, and perhaps it way, but My Gosh! that was some accident. If initial news reports are correct, the U.N. observers called an Israeli military liaison about 10 times in the six hours before they died to warn that the aerial attacks were getting close to their position. Despite this, they were killed when an Israeli bomb made a direct hit on their bunker.
And then there is this bit of news:

Lebanese security sources told CNN Wednesday at least three precision-guided bombs were dropped by Israeli aircraft on the U.N. observers' bunker.
A Western diplomat familiar with preliminary U.N. assessments of the scene also said that it appeared the munition that hit the bunker was precision-guided.

A direct hit by three precision guided missiles???!!! And this after they had made nearly a dozen desperate calls to their official Israeli contact saying ‘please don’t shoot us.’??!!?? The U.N. facility was clearly marked as such and well know for some time.
So somehow I find it hard to believe that this was just a case of “oopsie!” by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). So when U.N. Secretary-general Kofi Annan calls it an "apparently deliberate" Israeli airstrike, it seems like he may have some justification.

And recall that this is not the first time the Israeli’s have claimed to have accidently attacked a friendly target in the midst of a battle.

War supporters are taking the position that Israel can do no wrong and are dismissing any suggestion that the attack was anything other than a mistake. However, if it was truly a mistake, what does this say about Israeli claims that they are trying to limit civilian casualties with surgical strikes against Hezbollah military installations? It would seem instead that they are just shooting the hell out of anything and everything over there.

It is high time for this military escalation to be wound back down. Unfortunately, the first stab at a peace deal has ended in failure, which is really no surprise considering this administration’s pathetic track record with diplomacy.

Election year grumbling

This is supposed to be a good year for Democrats. By every measure, the signs are pointing toward big Democratic gains in the mid-term elections. President Bush’s approval rating has been stuck in the mid-30s for a couple of months now, the war in Iraq is every bit the quagmire that Democrats warned it would be, gasoline prices are edging toward $4 a gallon and the domestic economy, while not currently in recession, is nothing to write home about.
And yet I’m still in a particularly pessimistic mood about Democratic prospects this year. Maybe it is because I’m living in a Red State where the Democratic candidate for governor is in serious danger of coming in fourth behind Kinky Friedman. Or maybe it’s because I see all the big time liberal bloggers out there right now obsessing over defeating a Democrat - Joe Lieberman - who should he lose his primary race will probably turn around and run as an Independent - and win.
If I had to make a prediction right now, I would say that Democrats will probably fall short of taking either the House or the Senate. I don’t doubt that they will pick up seats this year, but probably not enough to wrest control away from the Republican yahoos who have been screwing things up so royally. I hope that I am wrong, but I would have to bet that the Republican’s advantages of incumbency and corporate financing will continue to prop them up.

From very bad to worse

More than 100 people a day are dying violent deaths in Iraq, according to the U.N.

An average of more than 100 civilians per day were killed in Iraq last month, the highest monthly tally of violent deaths since the fall of Baghdad, the United Nations reported today. The death toll, drawn from Iraqi government agencies, was the most precise measurement of civilian deaths provided by any government organization since the invasion and represented a dramatic increase over daily media reports. United Nations officials also said that the number of violent deaths had been steadily increasing since at least last summer. In the first six months of this year, the civilian death toll jumped more than 77 percent, from 1,778 in January to 3,149 in June, the organization said.

The news is so bad that it is finally forcing some Republican lawmakers to actually face reality!

Faced with almost daily reports of sectarian carnage in Iraq, congressional Republicans are shifting their message on the war from speaking optimistically of progress to acknowledging the difficulty of the mission and pointing up mistakes in planning and execution.

"It's like after Katrina, when the secretary of homeland security was saying all those people weren't really stranded when we were all watching it on TV," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.). "I still hear about that. We can't look like we won't face reality."

The shift is subtle, but Republican lawmakers acknowledge that it is no longer tenable to say the news media are ignoring the good news in Iraq and painting an unfair picture of the war.

Oh, my! It is no longer tenable to just blame the media??? I know a few conservative bloggers who will be most unhappy to hear that news.

Some Republican lawmakers are even beginning to sound like Sen. John Kerry or Rep. John Murtha!

Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.), once a strong supporter of the war, returned from Iraq this week declaring that conditions in Baghdad were far worse "than we'd been led to believe" and urging that troop withdrawals begin immediately.

Prepared to spin

Here is an interesting addendum to the blustering last week about the supposed treason by media outlets reporting on the Treasury Department’s program that tracks terrorist financial activities:

That Times Leak Was No Surprise
Before you jump in with those heaping scorn on the New York Times for using a leak to reveal the secret Treasury program to search financial transactions for terrorist activities, know this: The Treasury Department expected it to leak. When the program was developed in 2003, a press plan was included. The goal: Get out front with the spin that there are safeguards to prevent snooping on private accounts, that it is legal, and that there are big benefits to it. "These three elements needed to be in the first-day story," says an insider. The plan worked. When the Times told Treasury it was running the story, top Treasury aides were OK'd to talk to the Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Los Angeles Times, which presented the three points. "It was a textbook case of very good PR management," says the insider.

So not only did the administration not try and keep the story from being published by refusing to cooperate with the media, they had a plan all ready on how they would spin the story once it leaked out - which they assumed would happen all along.

Radical Right

Just got “Conservatives Without Conscience” by John Dean for my birthday. Dean, legal counsel to Richard Nixon, makes the same point I’ve been making for sometime - today’s so called “conservatives” are not conservative at all. They are radicals.

Dean summarizes the book in this Boston Globe op-ed piece:

Contemporary conservatism and its influence on the Republican Party was, until recently, a mystery to me. The practitioners' bludgeoning style of politics, their self-serving manipulation of the political processes, and their policies that focus narrowly on perceived self-interest -- none of this struck me as based on anything related to traditional conservatism. Rather, truth be told, today's so-called conservatives are quite radical....
I can find nothing conservative about the Bush/Cheney White House, which has created a Nixon ``imperial presidency" on steroids, while acting as if being tutored by the best and brightest of the Cosa Nostra.

I’ve just started reading the book and the opening chapter talks about how conservatives today are not even sure how to define conservatism. But even though people are not sure how to define it, they have a good reaction to the term and more people are willing to embrace that label than the villified term “liberal.”
I’ve noted many times how I tend to be “conservative” in my personal habits, but “liberal” in how I treat other people. How you treat other people is the key, in my opinion. I can forgive people for their own personal foibles, but I have a hard time when they are in turn intolerant of the foibles of others.
If being conservative means being prudent and efficient with government resources, then I am all for it. But if it means spending billions on military misadventures overseas while being tightfisted with spending here in our own country, then I have a big problem with it.
It grates me the way many conservatives today hyperventilate about patriotism and go on and on about how much they love their country, when in truth the only thing they really love is the symbolism (like the flag) while actually despising most of the people and the institutions that make up the country.

Is Bush losing it?

Or is this just how he normally expresses himself when not reading from a prepared text?

One of those pesky open microphones caught President Bush in a foul-mouthed tirade against Hezbollah the other day.

"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over," Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the closing lunch at the Group of Eight summit.

Generally, it is a sign of a poor intellect when someone has to routinely resort to using swear words in their conversations. It means they don’t have a proper command of the language to adequately express themselves and so they fall back on these common words that are considered offensive in polite society. It is sad, really, to know that this is how our President talks to foreign leaders when he is not being scripted by his handlers.

Middle East mess

Civilian casualties in Lebanon are up to 86, including 16 children just today. And the Israelis don't seem to have any intention of letting up anytime soon. President Bush isn't even bothering to suggest that they use restraint on civilians anymore.
In fact, most conservatives act like this is great news. Why is that? Never mind that the escalation has caused the Dow Jones average to plummet, wiping out all of the gains for the entire year, and as oil prices surge towards $80 a barrel we could soon find ourselves paying $4 a gallon for gasoline.

But none of this phases most conservatives - not the civilian deaths nor the economic carnage back here in Bushland. I think Kevin Drum comes closest to explaining the conservative response:

"...most conservatives simply take the uncomplicated stance that Palestinians are terrorists and that Israel should always respond to provocation in the maximal possible way. The fact that this hasn't worked very well in the past doesn't deter them."

And apparently all Lebanese and all Syrians are terrorists, too. Not to mention all Iranians, most Iraqis and just about anyone of Arabic descent. Therefore, civilian deaths in those countries do not matter and they don't merit human treatment when captured by our side either.

It is a sad situation over in the Middle East right now. The folks who touted the Iraq war as some kind of boon to Democracy across the region have a lot of explaining to do right now. Instead of a domino effect of democratization springing up everywhere, we have increased militancy by terrorist groups that are threatening to overthrow the more moderate governments in those countries, not unlike the way Hamas did in Palestine.

Hatfields and McCoys

I’ve been hesitant to comment on the latest fighting in the Middle East, knowing that when I do I will probably be attacked for being anti-Israel or some other such nonsense. But I am thoroughly disgusted right now with the Israeli response to the aggression from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Israel is the strongest and most developed country in the region, both economically and militarily, and thus they should be setting the example for others to follow. By this I mean that they should use more restraint in dealing with these militant groups yapping at their heels and not meet every provocation with an equal and more devestating provocation.
And yet Ehmud Olmert, the new Israeli PM, has let loose the dogs of war at the latest provocation by the militants on their border. Many people will say this is entirely justified, but I believe it will only further enflame tensions in the region and force Israel into an ever increasingly defensive posture. It is unfortunate, because Ariel Sharon would probably have had more leeway to use restraint, but it appears that Olmert feels it necessary to take the “eye for an eye” approach to a whole other level. I just have one question, though. When has “getting tough” like this ever worked to resolve all their problems in the past? I have no sympathy for the Hamas and Hezbollah militants, but wreaking havoc on the entire Lebanese population will only serve to radicalize that population as it has done to the Palestinians and will ultimately drive more and more people into the arms of the militants. Al Quaeda, I’m sure, is overjoyed at the prospect.

I essentially agree with this commenter from TPM:

The larger points in the current Israel/Palestine/Lebanon crisis are two: Olmert's apparent lack of "maturity" as PM for lack of a better word, and seeming inability to measure his govt's response, has escalated the situation close to a point of no return. Given the harsh rhetoric and extreme measures being taken it appears the the situation is being run by the war-makers in the cabinet and there seems to be no countervailing voice of reason, moderation or diplomacy. The other is that the crisis has exposed in stark relief the US' utter inability to influence the situation. Bush has nothing to offer, having bought wholesale into the rhetoric of "terror"-he can't ask for moderation, he can't use any bargaining chips, he can't bully Olmert in any of the ways his predecessors have done.

Bush’s response during this ordeal has been truly pathetic.
The most he will do is to meekly ask Israel to “try to limit civilian casualties” as they continue to step up their attacks.
“Hey guys, Try not to kill too many innocent civilians over there, OK? Thanks.”

Maybe someone else will step up to the plate and try and talk sense to these people. It’s obviously not going to come from this administration. We have done nothing to promote peace and stability in the Middle East and have, by contrast, only stirred the pot of resentment with our unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

Poll: Americans want Democrats in power

Woo Hoo!!

With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.

Let’s just hope that this pans out on election day.

The same poll also shows President Bush’s approval rating has slipped back into the mid-30s after climbing briefly back up to the low-40s.

We need a new law

So Robert Novak has now acknowledged publicly what Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew long ago, that White House consigliere Karl Rove was one of his sources for his infamous column that exposed one of our covert CIA operatives.
And yet, even knowing that Rove blabbed to Novak, Time Magazine’s Marc Cooper, and who knows how many other reporters, it still appears that he will not be charged in connection with this crime. How can that be?
The most obvious explanation is that Fitzgerald has determined that the law has so many provisions and loopholes in it that he cannot make a case stick against any of the conspirators for reasons he has yet to reveal. This has resulted in great fanfare in conservative circles (along with sighs of relief), but it should garner a different reaction from folks who care anything about the security of our nation. The law needs to be changed.
We cannot tolerate having our covert agents and their operations left vulnerable to exposure by politically malevolent presidential administrations in the future. Once the outcome of this case is final, we will need to draft a new law to better protect our covert operatives so that they will never again become pawns in a vengeful political game.

Tangled Up Tubes

Sen. Ted Stevens, the Octogenarian Republican from Alaska, gave a hilarious reason last week for why he is opposed to net neutrality.

Now, Steven’s explanation has been immortalized for all time in a remix version set to some snazzy electronica music.

Who’s on First?

The American League has won eight straight All Star Games since 1996 and it looks like they will win another one tonight.
Here is the lineup:

American League
Ichiro Suzuki, Mariners, RF
Derek Jeter, Yankees, SS
David Ortiz, Red Sox, 1B
Alex Rodriguez, Yankees, 3B
Vladimir Guerrero, Angels, LF
Ivan Rodriguez, Tigers, C
Vernon Wells, Blue Jays, CF
Mark Loretta, Red Sox, 2B
Kenny Rogers, Tigers, P
National League
Alfonso Soriano, Nationals, LF
Carlos Beltran, Mets, CF
Albert Pujols, Cardinals, 1B
Jason Bay, Pirates, RF
Edgar Renteria, Braves, SS
David Wright, Mets, 3B
Chase Utley, Phillies, 2B
Paul Lo Duca, Mets, C
Brad Penny, Dodgers, P

I’m not even familiar with half the players on the National League team. I’m also disappointed that the defending National League Champion Houston Astros are not represented in the starting lineup. Of course, the World Series Champion Chicago White Sox were likewise shut out of the starting lineup for the American League.
But the lineup the American League does have looks like a modern update of Murderer's Row.
The Post article notes that since MLB began awarding homefield advantage for the World Series to the winner of the contest, the American League has dominated the series and swept the World Series the last two years.

Conservatives heart Kennedy-McCain

Conservatives are rallying behind Ted Kennedy on immigration reform.
Yes, you read that right.

A group of 31 prominent conservatives signed an opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal that essentially agrees with the major tenants of the Kennedy- McCain Immigration Bill.

Funny how these pro-immigration conservatives have to run in tight packs like this to keep from being picked off one-by-one by the ravenous anti-immigrant hyenas of the far-right. They also try and couch their support for rational, common-sense immigration reform as if it were blessed in advance by Saint Ronny himself.

Unfortunately, this Congress has already squandered its best opportunity to get immigration reform legislation passed this year before we slouch into the mid-term election cycle.

Do nothing Congress

I suppose with the group of right-wing yahoos currently running things in Washington, this is pretty much a blessing: Congress has many unfinished tasks.

US lawmakers returning today from a weeklong break will resume work on a long list of unfinished -- and possibly insurmountable -- tasks that could help decide whether voters will reelect them in November.

I’m not sure who other than sadomasochists could possibly justify returning these Republicans to office in November. Even a hardline conservatives like former House Republican leader Dick Armey is disgusted by this Congress’ inability to get anything done.

``I'm not sure what this Congress has accomplished," said Dick Armey, who is now with FreedomWorks, which advocates lower taxes and less government.

In the first two-thirds of the 2006 legislative session, the Boston Globe reports, Congress has passed two major bills: renewal of the Patriot Act and an extension of $70 billion in federal tax cuts. That’s it. What a pathetic record of non-accomplishment. Political scientist Larry Sabato sums things up pretty well:

``Historically, this is certainly not a Congress that will be remembered," said Larry Sabato, of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. ``There is just not much there."

Instead of tackling serious issues like the dozen spending bills that have to be addressed by Oct. 1 or legislation needed to shore up pension protections for 44 million workers, we have watched lawmakers waste time posturing over flag burning amendments and gay marriage.
Republican lawmakers should be happy that they are not working in the private sector or else they would have been laid off a long time ago.

Nothing to brag about

Think Progress spells out what should be obvious to everyone. The Bush administration has presided over an anemic economy while at the same time exploding our national deficit. Recent efforts by the administration to put their economic accomplishments in a good light suddenly pale when placed in the proper context.

Let’s set aside for a moment that the “fact sheet” conveniently ignores the 22 months of jobs losses that proceeded August 2003. Instead, let’s put Bush’s job record since August 2003 in perspective:

1. Monthly job growth since August 2003 is 50% lower than the average of President Clinton’s entire term. Since August 2003, job growth has averaged 160,000 per month. During Clinton’s eight years in office job growth averaged 236,000 per month.
2. Real wages have fallen since August 2003. The average worker’s real wages were twenty cents lower in June 2006 than they were in August 2003.

Any way you slice it, Bush’s economic policy has resulted in slower job growth and lower wages. That’s nothing to brag about.