The media are kind to Obama

But they lie to us. Here's an example. "Mixed data reflect fragility of economic recovery" by Sara Murray, WSJ, Sept. 30, 2009

I realize she didn't write the headline, but the graphs don't exactly show a "recovery," more an occasional blip. In most of those cities, the home prices are still above 2000 levels, despite the dramatic drop beginning when the sub-prime mess revealed the folly of the constant government interference in the housing market by using it as a carrot for politicians of both parties and non-profits like ACORN to look good to low income people.

Only one city, Detroit, owned for decades by Democrats pushing wealth transfer, dropped below 2000 levels. The upticks recorded in July were tiny, with Minneapolis the best, Las Vegas the worst.

But back to "words matter."

I know I sound like a broken record, but if this article had been written during the Bush years, there would have been considerable differences.

"Consumer confidence drops, despite a tiny rise in home prices in a few cities during July, underscoring the disastrous decisions of the Bush administration in how to lead us to a recovery."

I shouldn't provide Obama any hints, but if the media were as vigilant with him as they were with Bush, I think he would be ahead of the game with rising poll numbers instead of dropping. They could have been corrective. Just by telling the truth, which they didn't do during the Bush years.