Re: The Clinton Playbook

Posted by Bo
January 23, 2007

Again you state that he had to resurrect his presidency in 1998. Clinton was very popular during the whole Monica thing. Why do insist on perpetuating this lie?

Posted by Attaturk
January 23, 2007

This is laugable:

You said:

"In late 1994 and early 1995, President Clinton was in free fall. His aides despaired. They worried he might never recover from the shellacking the Democrats took in the 1994 mid-term elections. His approval ratings were mired in the 30's, and seemed unlikely to rise."

Now you say you were right...

What is true, however, is that Clinton's first-term approval rating did drop into the 30s, with a low of 37% in June 1993. And his disapproval rose to 54% in September 1994

Which supports not a single one of your assertions in the prior post.

You see what the "Internet" does is stop you from getting away with sloppy excuses.

Admit you were wrong and accept it like a professional, not like you're Glenn Reynolds.

Posted by ice weasel
January 23, 2007

Why even bother posting a sneering "correction" like this? You know, you might be able to gather some empathy if you had only said what was obvious, "I didn't research the piece, I just wrote what I felt (or what I was paid to write) and hey, I got busted. Sorrry folks."

Instead, you insult the people that actually have facts on their side and you, from your vomitous perch, continue to spew.

I wonder why print is dying.

Oh, because even when it tries to move into th 21st century, it sumbles, like this.

Seriously, take some time off. Maybe take a refresher at a local community college. Or maybe look into one of those air conditioner repair courses. It's supposed to be a lucrative field.

Posted by Jim
January 23, 2007

So lead your "correction" with a dishonest smear of those plebes who have the gall to criticize you, and only in a second paragraph do you (barely) admit that the factual basis of your argument was wrong.

Really Jay, stay the hell away from Klein. His delusions are apparently contagious.

Posted by jjcomet
January 23, 2007

Thanks for pointing out again that your earlier post was completely inaccurate, then trying to argue that you really didn't claim what you just claimed, but something else that that would have been accurate if you had actually claimed it. You are pathetic, Jay - how many times in school did your dog eat your homework?

Posted by Moe Szyslak
January 23, 2007

Still a liar!

Posted by A.R.
January 23, 2007

Wow, Jay, you just totally won this argument, at least in the eyes of the vital "don't know what 'mired' means" demographic.

If only the liberal blogosphere had your bold intellectual independence. Because if there's anyone who isn't a total slave to reality-detached groupthink, it's Washington pundits!

Posted by Anonymous
January 23, 2007

And:

the left is as full of unthinking Ditto-heads as Limbaugh-land.

I mean, just screw you, okay? We're unthinking because we have factual corrections to your pile of lies?

Posted by General Zod
January 23, 2007

People point out that you were factually inaccurate, and you respond with name calling. nice. And Jay, June 1993 is not the date you were referring to in your first post. Nice try to cover your ass, but it doesn't work.

Posted by Stlinquirer
January 23, 2007

Wow-comparing fact-based commenters to unthinking dittoheads form Limbaugh-land. That's going to win you some friends.

Let's just be clear - the setup of your last post was all about airing how Clinton was really struggling. If it was about Bush struggling, you might have mentioned things like it's been more than two months since the President's approval ratings have sniffed 40% or that his net approval has sniffed -20% or since he could dare to dream of disapproval levels as low as 54%

Posted by Doc
January 23, 2007

Mr. Rosen, your earlier post could be partially put down as, perhaps, a bout of early-morning sloppiness compounded by the desire to make a point without looking into all of the particulars, but this rebuttal of your commenters is an embarassment. What are you going to say next, "I never said Clinton's approval numbers were in the 30's when he gave his 1995 SOTU speech, just that they had been in the 30's sometime during the preceding 48 months?" Admitting your glaring inaccuracies, then trying to find verifiable supporting facts would be the intellectually honest way of correcting your earlier mistake. Try it.

Posted by joe
January 23, 2007

Are Rush Limbaugh Dittoheads generally known for their attention to factual accuracy?

That was a particularly graceless way of saying you were wrong, and the people who corrected you were correct.

Jeez, you'd think all of those cocktail parties would at least teach you some manners.

Posted by bitter
January 23, 2007

Any chance on fixing your error about Bob Dole sitting behind Clinton during the States of the Union? You'll find that Harry Reid will not be behind Bush tonight. It's somewhat pedantic, but it would be best in any argument to not have a glaring error like that.

You can even berate those of us as dittoheads for wanting you to be accurate if it makes you feel better. Something sneering and condescending would be fine, as long as you fix the error.

Posted by TomT
January 23, 2007

What you said wasn't true, though. Why don't you just admit that?

Posted by Mike
January 23, 2007

Once again, the people with the facts on their side are somehow to blame. Nice.

Carney, you make Deborah Howell look contrite.

Posted by Memekiller
January 23, 2007

We point out faulty data you used to make a misleading post. This makes us unthinking ditto-heads for accusing who accuse you of being too easy on Bush. Accurately stating facts is not about right and left, but journalism. Try it some time.

Posted by cervantes
January 23, 2007

"What is true, however . . ." is not what you said. In other words, what you actually said is not what is true, however.

It is true, however, that Saturn has rings. It is true, however, that Thomas Menino is the Mayor of Boston. It is true, however, that you are obviously a graceless jerk who is incapable of admitting error and who resorts to mindless name calling when he is caught in one. A man in your position ought to have the emotional maturity of at least a 13 year old, but you seem to be mired at around 6 or 7.

Posted by Jim
January 23, 2007

Just to restate Carney's perspective: People who insist on accuracy and stick to facts are "unthinking".
And they wonder why that wacky 'crankosphere' is so contemptuous of Beltway Establishment types.

Posted by NTodd
January 23, 2007

This blog sucks worse than Atrios'. But the comment section is much better.

Posted by Holden Caulfield
January 23, 2007

Is Jay an actual carney?

Not bad for someone who just finished mopping up some eight-year-old's vomit from the third car of the TIlt-o-Whirl.

Posted by salvage
January 23, 2007

AHAHAHAHAHA!!

Are you really this stupid or are you just stupid enough to think we are?

Either way you should at least grow up and admit when you're wrong.

Posted by Anonymous
January 23, 2007

Idiot

Posted by Gomez
January 23, 2007

If you don't get things right, we will not tire of reminding you. Pay heed. We are smarter than you. You have not had a thought we haven't thought first.

Posted by Sinfonian
January 23, 2007

What really bothers me is that people like this who propagate lies and rumors as fact, or prop up their arguments with head fakes and strawmen, have actual paying jobs in the MSM, while bloggers (and others) with actual, fact-based insight end up on the sidelines.

Time ought to be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by jayackroyd
January 23, 2007

I really don't understand this. Journalism is supposed to be about accuracy. The proper response to someone who points out an error is to say "Thank you" and then correct the error.

It's really unseemly to sneer at people because they correctly identified an error.

Posted by Anonymous
January 23, 2007

Stick to snide comments about butt-sex, Jay.

Posted by GeeWhy
January 23, 2007

Will you run a correction on your correction?

Posted by jon washington
January 23, 2007

Mr Carney,

When you say this:
"some Swampland readers seem to think my earlier post about President Bush's State of the Union address was too sympathetic to Bush, which proves nothing but that the left is as full of unthinking Ditto-heads as Limbaugh-land."

it truly misses the point many of the comments I read was making. There was a challenge to your journalism and the facts your laid out to support your point. They were wrong. I think it is too easy to write off your readers and label them as ditto heads to avoid having to deal with your own errors. I agree that a point you made was that Mr. Bush ability to overcome a lot of the negativity he faces will be hard to do...but that point should not have to rely upon historical error on your part. Whatever happened to the ability to say I made a mistake and moving on?

Posted by Hesiod
January 23, 2007

I see you still haven't gotten the hang of this "blogging" thing.

For years, we bloggers have heard whiny criticism from the "mainstream media" that we are a bunch of unwashed, uncensored, unedited rumor machines, who are more apt to make flase claims that do some actual cogent and fresh analysis.

Over the years, however, we have developed a self-correction mechanism called "comments," etc. People point ouit your errors, embarrass you, and make you more careful the next time you post something.

In other words, you have to become your own fact-checker and editor.

So, it would behoove you to start checking your facts and backing them up before posting a comment on this blog, rather than whine about criticism you get for posting unsubstantiated BS and your off-the-top-of-your head conventional wisdom.

Don't blame us for correcting you. Aknowledge your errors, or the imprecision of your language, and do better next time.

Posted by Taste the Cheesesteaks
January 23, 2007

Jay, you continue to mislead. You say you were wrong and that "when Clinton delivered his 1995 State of the Union, his approval ratings were not "mired in the 30s" but had risen into the 40s."

But saying that they "had risen into the 40s" implies that they were consistently in the 30s during 1994. But that's STILL not true.

How embarrassing.

Posted by Florida
January 23, 2007

So his 1995 approval ratings were "mired" in the 30's because his 1993 approval ratings were briefly at 37%, even though by 1995 they'd risen above that level?

Wow, this Beltway logic makes my head spin.

Posted by DirtyEffingHippie
January 23, 2007

See? You can't get away with sloppy reporting here. There is nowhere to hide in the blogosphere when you have an active comment section. It's not quite the same as being able to ignore published letters to the editor, is it?

Keep trying, you've almost arrived at a retraction.

BTW, comparing us to Limbaugh fans - who can barely read, let alone write- won't get you any special presents in your X-mas stocking this year.

Ain't blogging fun, Jay?

Posted by Devil's Advocate
January 23, 2007

Yes, Jay, "the left is as full of unthinking Ditto-heads as Limbaugh-land". They are so "unthinking" that they immediately smelled something rotten in your article and, did their research, and found numerous inaccuracies in your piece.

Why Times is paying you to write such sloppy, unresearched, pieces, on this blog is beyond me. Go back to J school.

Posted by nitpicker
January 23, 2007

Shorter Jay Carney: Pointing out my errors makes you a ranting whackjob.

Posted by Dungheap
January 23, 2007

"My point was that Bush is looking to the past, including to Bill Clinton in 95 and 98, for models on how to resurrect a presidency."

Resuurect a presidency from what? Clinton enjoyed favorability ratings in 1998 in the low 60s, seldom dropping into the fifties and peaking in the 70s. Clinton didn't need to resurrect his presidency. He was doing quite well, notwithstanding the David Broders of the world.

Oh, and by the way, your origntial post didn't mention 1998 at all. Or 1995 for that matter.

Posted by Dan
January 23, 2007

What I don't get is why this place even runs on an open comment setup?

I mean if you're going to show such hostility towards your commenters then why allow comments to begin with?

Posted by Karelian
January 23, 2007

Astonishing how thin-skinned you seem. Yolu really have been totally insulated from the real world, haven't you?

People who write for an internet audience have to be prepared to deal with corrections and criticism. You can't respond with childish name-calling when you are busted for making a false claim.

Astonishing what kind of fragile princesses Time has placed in senior management positions. This explains a lot about why the corporation is unable to deal with changing times.

Posted by R G Williams
January 23, 2007

Busted. Just plain Busted.

Posted by Stealth
January 23, 2007

Here you go, Jay, a nice comparison of Reagan, Clinton, Nixon, and W.

Clinton more popular that Reagan? P'shaw!

Posted by DBJ
January 23, 2007

Is it too difficult to say, "I made a mistake - Clinton was not mired in the 30s? His situation was entirely different than that faced by George W. Bush."

That would be easy, right? Oh, wait - that would undermine your whole comparison, wouldn't it? Far better to attack the commentators and try to distract from the fact that your original posting is structurally unsound without your flawed "facts".

But, hey, you're the Washington Bureau Chief... what do I know?

Posted by TBH
January 23, 2007

Mr. Carney, since you're a journalist, this is not a COMPETITION between you and your commenters about who is more "thoughtful" or who can BRAG about having a more legitimate view of the social world.

It's not about you, it's about producing truths that serve the public good.

Sure, the comments might sometimes get obnoxious and hostile, but it's just because we get disappointed that you guys couldn't care two figs for the public good.

And these insinuations that the rabblement couldn't possibly grasp reality certainly don't reflect the professional ideals of journalism either...

Posted by Stealth
January 23, 2007

Ah, no links I see. Best blog ever!

http://preview.tinyurl.com/hldue

Posted by celo
January 23, 2007

Jay, you had me at "unthinking". Seriously, maybe that name-calling will get you in the good graces of the far-right crazy blogosphere, but it won't convince any of us that you are right.

More intelligence, less spinning.

Posted by alw
January 23, 2007

Why the depressing second sentence, "What is true, however. . . " The salient purpose -- indeed only purpose -- of a correction is to state what wasn't "true" in the initial report. It's both redundant and insulting to add, all the rest of the article, however, was true. You notice that corrections don't usually do this, if only because it would reach a reductio absurdum.

But even worse than noting other things which "are true" in an article, is to point to various random facts -- not in the actual article being corrected -- and not that these "however" *are* true. So while the thing that I said is inaccurate, here's something close to it, which I didn't say, which is true. But the whole point of the correction is precisely the word 'mired'.

Posted by Dumbfounded
January 23, 2007

The guy went on his gut and was wrong. It happens, but man Time seems to make an art of spraying gasoline on a small flame up.

You don't have to be part of the blogosphere or whatever to go back and google up Clinton's approval ratings for his state of the union.

Just take the minor minor wrist slap and move on. I don't understand how that is so hard to pull off.

Posted by joe
January 23, 2007

There's a bigger point here than the flubbing of a single fact, Jay. There is the idea, which you DC press types have been pushing for a decade, that Bill Clinton was a deeply unpopular president. You've internalized this frame so deeply into your view of the world that it leads to not only make dumb but insignificant errors like this, but to mischaracterize all sorts of important, overarching narratives.

Tell the truth - you were genunely surprised to see that your figures were wrong, and your detractors were right. It went against what you'd "always assumed" to be true, what "everyone" you talk to on a daily basis "always assumed" to be true. You made that mistake in the 1990s, and you continue to make it now.

You're the Washington Bureau Chief for Time Magazine fer chrissakes, and your fundamental understanding of your bread and butter sphere of understanding is this warped?

It seems to me that a misapphrehension of this magnitude could quite easily lead to faulty coverage of politics, which, in an outlet as important as Time Magazine, could have serious repercussions for the country.

It's good that you've admitted you got this wrong, however snippily and belatedly. I think the responsible thing to do now would be to ask yourself why you got it wrong.

Posted by Matthew S. J. Mezger
January 23, 2007

65% disapproval for Ghengis Bush. Does making up stuff about Bill Clinton ease the pain? it's always has...Go ahead then, lie all you want.

Posted by Swift Loris
January 23, 2007

And let's not overlook the appalling equation of Lewinsky with the Iraq war as a "distraction."

Posted by The Old Man From Scene 24
January 23, 2007

We're "ditto-heads" for pointing out your absurd made up poll numbers?

Clinton's approval ratings briefly dipped into the high 30s in 93, yet you claimed he was "mired in the 30s" in 1994 and 95 and then you insult the people who point out your fabrication. Classy.

Posted by Jim C.
January 23, 2007

You write a bogus piece and when fact-checked, you lash out as if you didn't screw up?

Jay, this paragraph was pure Stephen Glass:
"In late 1994 and early 1995, President Clinton was in free fall. His aides despaired. They worried he might never recover from the shellacking the Democrats took in the 1994 mid-term elections. His approval ratings were mired in the 30's, and seemed unlikely to rise. When Clinton delivered his State of the Union address in January 1995, his first with Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole seated behind him as Speaker and Senate Majority Leader,"

Falsehood. Falsehood. Falsehood.

Posted by pva
January 23, 2007

Jay,
Maybe I'm not very bright, but I fail to see how the war in Iraq is not an issue that matters to Americans. On the contrary, it seems that Bush's low approval ratings are a direct result of his mishandling of an issue that matters a great deal to Americans.

Posted by Clark Barr
January 23, 2007

Oh, Jay, I hear Pravda has some job vacancies. Why don't you put your stenographic talents to their use?

Posted by Moe Szyslak
January 23, 2007

Is this where we find nudie shots of Phoebe Cates? Cuz, that'd be good.

Posted by jayackroyd
January 23, 2007

And look at this:

"President Bush's State of the Union address was too sympathetic to Bush"

I didn't see anyone who said this. The bulk of the comments pointed out that there is really no comparison between Clinton's poll results and Bush's.

There's no sympathy issue here. It's a question of getting facts right. In this case, the proper comparison is to Nixon, undone by a disastrous war and a criminal attempt at asserting executive power. Nixon was unable to revive his administration after he hit the 20s.

This is the Lil Debbie defense. "Those mean liberals can't even tell when I'm sticking it to Bush." complete with the sneering, thin-skinned defensiveness.

Look Jay, this is about being accurate. If you're not accurate, people will point it out. The truth really doesn't have a liberal bias.

Posted by dratty
January 23, 2007

Despite what you say that your 'point' is, what you SAID in your previous piece was "In late 1994 and early 1995, President Clinton was in free fall. His aides despaired. They worried he might never recover from the shellacking the Democrats took in the 1994 mid-term elections. His approval ratings were mired in the 30's, and seemed unlikely to rise"

Mired in the 30s and seemed unlikely to rise. Gee that doesn't seem to be making a point that his approval ratings were in the 30s CLOSE TO 18 MONTHS BEFORE AND RECOVERED.

And yes, in ONE POLL his disapproval rose to 54% in September. However in THAT SAME POLL that was taken just prior to the election, his approval/disapproval ratings were exactly equal at 46%.

My God, Jay. You were wrong, you didn't research, and your original post didn't put forth the point that you claim to have wanted to make at all. Do you really think that we don't have the ability to read?

Oh and by the way, how does a Presidency need resurrecting from approval numbers in the high 50s to low 60s (Clinton '98) or the low to mid 60s (Clinton '99)?

Finally, no Jay, we weren't upset that you were 'too sympethetic to Bush'. You can be as sympethetic or as unsympethetic as you want. You can shed tears for Bush if you want. What you CAN'T do is spew out a bunch of phony facts to support your opinion and think that you're not gonna get called on it.
Calling us names isn't gonna make it any better.

Face facts, Jay. You're the Washington Bureau Chief of Time Magazine and you don't even know who sits behind the President at the SOTU.

Posted by Mike M.
January 23, 2007

The point of your post was that Clinton was in as bad a shape as Bush was and he used the State of the Union to turn things around. You claimed Clinton's numbers were in the 30s. But all you have is one instance where he's at 37. Bush has been sub-40 for months and CBS has him at 28! So, you were wrong. Bush is in far worse shape than Clinton was and that hurts the entire thesis of your original post.

Posted by A Hermit
January 23, 2007

"he left is as full of unthinking Ditto-heads as Limbaugh-land"

It's that kind of false equivalence which has so many progressives pissed off at the traditional media.

Sorry Jay, but sometimes the facts really do have a liberal bias.

In this case you were factually incorrect and your analysis was weak. You got called on both errors. Don't get snotty with those who corrected you, just try to do better next time.

It's nice to see a big mainstream magazine like Time trying to step into the 21st century like this, but you're going to have to learn the ropes.

Regards

A Hermit

Posted by Anonymous
January 23, 2007

The complaint was not that you were unsympathetic to Bush, it was that you apparently felt you could say anything as long as it was about someone named Clinton.

Your facts about Clinton were simply wrong. He was not comparably unpopular to Bush right now, not at any time.

I know it is gospel in the media that Clinton was an unpopular president, but the facts simply do not back this up. You just happened to get caught today because your rhetoric:

"In late 1994 and early 1995, President Clinton was in free fall. His aides despaired. They worried he might never recover..."

was backed up by precisely one objectively verifiable fact:

"His approval ratings were mired in the 30's"

and your one fact is completely wrong.

If you intend to continue doing political writing you need to educate yourself about the facts of political history, not the spun story that everyone in your profession adheres to.

Posted by Johnny K.
January 23, 2007

I think we must head back to middle school for a moment. You had a hypothesis (much like any middle school student) - Clinton resurrected his presidency, why not Bush? Here, you are doing fine. You are totally allowed to have whatever hypothesis you want (for example, Bill Clinton is evil, or whatever other rubbish). The only problem is when you tested the hypothesis to see if it worked (like any middle school student), it didn't. You didn't actually find any facts to back it up. Now, having taught at a the middle school level, let me explain how the next step works (because you seem to be confused): If you throw out your original hypothesis and look for a new one (say, if Bush starts thinking about the country's good and not about double-downing on his busted bet in Iraq he could rebound) you could still earn an "A." However, if you continue to push your original failed hypothesis and have a tantrum at the people who pointed out that you are factually wrong, you will get an "F." (And you will find yourself sitting by yourself at lunch and being picked last for dodgeball.)

Posted by IMU
January 23, 2007

All you unthinking ditto-heads need to stop insisting that poor Mr. Carney accurately present historical data. It’s quite uncivil of you.

Posted by Cletus
January 23, 2007

In the era of George W. Bush it seems that people have a hard time admitting mistakes. Mr. Carney fits the profile quite nicely.

Posted by Anonymous
January 23, 2007

WANKER!

Posted by Brian
January 23, 2007

the left is as full of unthinking Ditto-heads as Limbaugh-land.

Yeah, the left is unthinking.

If we'd misread all the polling data and even flubbed a 10th grade civics question like "who sits behind the president?" then maybe we could be as smart as you are.

Seriously, do you get *paid* for this?

Posted by r€nato
January 23, 2007

The meta-analysis of this blog post and the subsequent comments:

there is a chasm wider and deeper than the Grand Canyon between Beltway types and us Dirty F'ing Hippies out here in Left Blogistan.

Of course, to Jay Carney it would seem like Clinton was deeply unpopular during the impeachment. Inside the beltway, he was - despite all polls to the contrary, which consistently had Clinton in the high 50s and even 60 percent approval. Surely that still grates upon DC insiders, who hate to concede the point as far as how out of touch they were (and are) with the rest of America.

All you need to know about the reality distortion field which exists inside the Beltway, is contained in the infamous words of David Broder to Sally Quinn: "[Clinton] came in here and trashed the place, and it's not his place."

Posted by Celo
January 23, 2007

eerily, this blog has become very interesting to read. Kinda like Dilbert.

Posted by eric
January 23, 2007

How long before the Comments here are closed and/or deleted?

Posted by TBH
January 23, 2007

One thing "Time" can be congratulated on (in spite of itself, of course):

These comment threads are extremely amusing.

Posted by Pendergast
January 23, 2007

Just a thought: when you mention your commenters on this page (and their comments), try to put into perspective the comments that name-call you back (which they have every right to do, so I'm not knocking them) as the gentle and tender 'right back atcha' of an old friend rather than the dispeptic glabberings of your imagined bugbears, and look to the corrective natures of your more enlightened comments for guidance, hopefullness and helpfulness, and that glimmering of truth you once knew so well growing up.

Posted by Marc
January 23, 2007

ditto ditto ditto ditto ditto.

if it's actually the case that something is true, it's really not so bad if people repeat it.

the sky is often cloudy, if not blue. you were wrong, embarassingly, demonstrably so. see how that works?

Posted by howard
January 23, 2007

i had intended to avoid this blog - i think joe klein and karen tumulty and jay carney and ana marie cox are part of the problem of contemporary journalism - but naturally, the little ruckus here caught my attention.

i think we have, in this second posting, a perfect example of why it is that contemporary journalism has a problem: its practicioners do not trouble themselves sufficiently to do research and learn the facts. instead, they rely upon memory and spin and what each other thinks.

then, when called it, they get downright snotty.

so here's what i think, Jay: if there is any subculture in america today that deserves the label "ditto-heads," it's the beltway punditocracy that you represent. you all say the same things, over and over and over, whether they are true or not, whether they make sense or not, and then you all snear when mere readers call you on it.

Posted by Never a Clinton Supporter -- That's Not the Point
January 23, 2007

In your bio you state you would like in your next life to write for SI. I know Time Inc. mags have been having a bloodbath, but couldn't you put your bid in over there now? Ink-stained wretches in sports have a stronger tradition of keeping statistical annals than do Beltway pundits. And you sure could use some reference books to help you with your work. Not just you—it's the same with nearly anyone who's attained your professional stature ontificating about Washington. If you all THINK the events happened, and the numbers went down, in a certain way, then, by golly, they did. and there's no fact-checking in your increasingly barebones newsrooms. at least the unwashed on the Internets are subject to a wiki effect.

Posted by Colbert's Apprentice
January 23, 2007

Just because you facts were wrong, the "unthinking" dittohead "factinistas" slam you.

Don't the bookish, reality- obsessed crowd get you down, Jay.

What's important is that in your gut, Clinton was mired in the 30s. 1993..1994..1995. Who cares?

We need more people who aren't concerned with what year came when, but the larger truth, which is that Clinton was always unpopular but was able to weave magic spells on the American people.

Posted by Hesiod
January 23, 2007

Here's an idea -- Maybe President Bush should have an illicit affair with a twenty-something White House intern, and then be impeached over covering it up?

Maybe his approval rating will shoot up into the 60's like Mr. Clinton's did afterwards.

Because, at that point, the Washington Chaterring classes will finally treat him with the disdain and contempt he truly deserves. Thus elevating him enornmously in the eyes of the rest of America.

Posted by Deacon Blues
January 23, 2007

Please, oh please, keep posting Jay. It's hilarious watching you guys being bludgeoned with the truth; you sputter and spew defenses back at us that basically amount to an "oh yeah?". And you guys get *paid* for this? Too funny. I would advise you to get your facts straight before you hit "send", but why change the habits of a lifetime? Chances are, after a few more weeks of this, Time will be draining the "Swamp" anyway, so I'm just going to sit back and enjoy it while I can.

Posted by Moe Szyslak
January 23, 2007

I'd listen to that Sinfonian guy up above-- he won in Jeopardy.

Posted by LittlePig
January 23, 2007

Most of the comments in the previous post were addressed to your factual error in regards to President Clinton; they had nothing to do with being "overly sympathic to President Bush".

But then again, reality has a known liberal bias.

Posted by memekiller
January 23, 2007

Carney's incivility is not what this nation needs right now. He is so consumed by irrational blog hatred that reasoned analysis is no longer possible.

This kind of sneering, shallow, reflexive partisanship is exactly what's driving us to the blogs. I'd even go so far as to call it shrill. Back to Atrios to discuss policy...

Posted by eric
January 23, 2007

Even Josh Marshall thinks your errors are "Pretty sad".

Jay, how about a real correction to stop the bleeding?

Posted by C
January 23, 2007

When you walk down the street in DC, and hear someone laughing (seemingly at you), think of me....

Posted by HeavyJ
January 23, 2007

Jay, it seems as though someone made you angry by merely pointing out an actual fact. What does this say about your status as a journalist?

P.S. How the word "unthinking" applies to a reader correcting a clear factual error is mysterious at best. You should apologize.

Posted by Edward Hutchinson
January 23, 2007

Jay, you're really increasing my confidence in the accuracy and fair-mindedness of TIME's Washington reportage. WTG.

Posted by Anonymous
January 23, 2007

The more I think about this follow-up the more it feels particularly outrageous.

I spent most of my life getting educated or working as an educator -- eleven years spent studying -- very seriously and often tirelessly -- in college and for a Phd, and now ten years teaching and getting tenured at one of the top five or six research universities in the country. My whole professional life is committed to the values implicit in education and research. I'm sure this goes for a lot of the other readers and commenters of this post.

The anger about the first post was based on egregious misstatements of fact. To rankly characterize the various voices that corrected your misstatement as simply "the left" and then "unthinking Ditto heads" strikes me as both nasty and stupid. It's meaningnless except as insult. I use myself as an example because I was taught to always stand up to a bully, even if it means asserting your own value as a person.

Posted by dratty
January 23, 2007

The sad thing is that, I guarantee, Jay will be on MSNBC or CNN at some point today to discuss the SOTU and, regardless of the factual errors pointed out here, will spout THE EXACT SAME 'FACTS' to either Matthews or Blitzer.

Thinnk I'm wrong? Well I'll take that bet. Wait and see.

Posted by jayackroyd
January 23, 2007

Oh, one more point about blogger etiquette. When you quote a commenter, you should link to the comment. I strongly suggest you read some Glenn Greenwald posts. His site is an exemplar of polite and reasoned discussion. He thanks people for corrections, even as insignificant as typos, and he links to the comments he responds to.

Posted by Left Wing Dittohead
January 23, 2007

Jay Carney....which proves nothing but that the left is as full of unthinking Ditto-heads as Limbaugh-land...

Except we have been consistently right about... just about everything. Some of us can even do this without thinking about it too much, and while chewing gum!

Jay, I would not try this at home. It's for professionals only. Amatuers like you could get hurt. Just keep doing it at work, like you have been.

Posted by Taste the Cheesesteaks
January 23, 2007

"In your bio you state you would like in your next life to write for SI. "

I can see Jay Carney's first story for SI:

"It is undeniable that Mark McGwire was the best pure hitter to ever wear the Yankees uniform in the outfield. But if he is looking for a path to Cooperstown, he should look to Mark Schmidt who had his own scandals with performance enhancing drugs."

If Jay feels it to be true, then it must be so. And anyone who says otherwise is just a stinky poopyhead. Jay writes for TIME MAGAZINE, dambit! Respect the cocktail weenies!!!

Posted by rod
January 23, 2007

Jay, when you are in a hole, stop digging.

Posted by carsick
January 23, 2007

Oddly, the reason I stopped reading Time and got rid of my decades long subscription has just been exhibited once again. Misleading the reader with "remembered" "facts" (I thought journalists had fact-checking as one of their tenets) and a condescending attitude about the reader's intelligence.

Glad to see nothing has changed. Keep saving trees with your decreasing subscriptions. It may end up being the least you can do.

Posted by Gustavo Pena
January 23, 2007

Having grown up in a newsroom of a major daily (Dad was an editor) I read through all of the prior post's comments with wonder and amazement. I wondered how it felt ot be the "know-it-all" from a previous media age being destroyed for shodddy reporting by a pack of newshounds.

Now, I know, poor Jay doesn't feel a thing because he has created his own alternate reality. Can he point to five comments that claimed he was to sympathetic to Bush?

The commentary was limited to Jay's lack of basic reporting skills; his sloppy research or lack thereof; his false analogy between a generally popular president and an extremely unpopular one; basic SOTU seating arrangements; and finally the idea that it is very hard too find any Americans who are not on the Bush payroll who actually have any faith or trust in the man.

So Jay sets up a strawman of collective displeasure with his too "sypathetic to Bush" B.S. and then accuses his readers who in ways from tart to mean destroyed his previous post as being no more than "ditto-heads."

Come on Jay, its a new world...you're going to have to toughen up and work a lot harder to earn people's trust and respect. Face up to it.

Posted by r€nato
January 23, 2007

Carney strikes a blow for truthiness!

Posted by Bob
January 23, 2007

No Credibility.

Posted by redrichie
January 23, 2007

Get a haircut, Carney. Your brain is operating at too high a temperature.

Posted by myrna frap
January 23, 2007

Move away folks, it's just another feeble attempt to distract from the fact that our current President is the BIGGEST PRESIDENTIAL FAILURE of all time.

It's part of the Just Blame Clinton Syndrome.

Posted by crackpot
January 23, 2007

mire

mire
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mired; mir·ing
transitive verb
1 a : to cause to stick fast in or as if in mire b : to hamper or hold back as if by mire : ENTANGLE
2 : to cover or soil with mire
intransitive verb : to stick or sink in mire

Posted by brain blob
January 23, 2007

I just read the comments above. Some of it ispretty wonderful professional advice. He should thank his lucky stars. If Mr. Carney took just the ten most well-reasoned ones to heart and used their insights to become a better journalist, he could take the position he's in and lend something meaningful and historic to our sad national, official discourse. I'm afraid he won't.

Posted by DirtyEffingHippie
January 23, 2007

Jay, you're taking quite a beating here. Would you care for a bag of ice for the lumps you've received?

Just admit you were wrong so this senseless mugging can end, will ya?

Posted by Stuart
January 23, 2007

Clinton's approval fell below 40% in precisely 4 of about 200 Gallup polls in his entire Presidency. He hit 40% even, twice. None of these six instances occurred after January 1995, when he started a steady rise in the polls, to reach the high 60s, touching 70, toward the end of 1998 (the year of Lewinsky).

Bush, on the other hand, has reached the sunny side of 40% only two or three times in the past two years.

Who's mired in the 30s?

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/nixonbushchart_files/BNCapp_12756_image001.gif

Posted by Miri
January 23, 2007

Jay,

Stay away from the Washington coctail crowd. And don't listen to Joe Klein.

* Clinton's low approval was very early in his presidency before his policies had produced results. He had plenty of time to recover. The economy started booming and we won the war in the Balkans.

* Clinton was at his most popular during the Monica madness. He was unpopular with the Sally Quinn Coctail Guests but he was very popular with the American people.

Posted by r€nato
January 23, 2007

I bet Jay is looking forward to Rich Little's appearance at the WH Correspondents' dinner. I'm sure he found little humorous about Colbert's appearance last year.

Posted by I F Stone
January 23, 2007

Why do you listen to what anyone other than your pundit friends say? God knows the lefty blogosphere is filled with incivility. Hardly a respectable or serious individual amongst them, and it's certainly the case that you are invited to better parties and get to hobnob with the real movers and shakers.

(And a lot of the blogosphere are hippies and drive aging VW buses.)

Posted by Greg VA
January 23, 2007

One of Left Blogistan's chief complaints with the mainstream media (that would be you, Mr. Carney) is when it injects "narratives" into the mainstream discourse that are not actually supported by facts (see Gore, Al who "invented the internet").

This appears to be one of those moments.

Excuse us if we're a little testy. We're tired of having to rebut these factesque narratives with, y'know, facts.

Posted by Potato Head
January 23, 2007

A nice example of the wag's observation: "To say journalists are thin-skinned is an exaggeration. They have no skin." Of course, even that flatters you as a journalist, instead of a hack.

Posted by agave
January 23, 2007

Imagine the response if this post went more like:

"Many readers have pointed out that my figures were in error, so my equating Bush's situation with Clinton's does not hold up. I was going from memory and should have verified.

Thanks for the heads up!"

He'd be a frigging hero!
(sorta)
But, no. Just insult people instead.

.

Posted by Dave J.
January 23, 2007

Man, it's got to be tough, Jay, to have this crazy internet thing and be proved wrong in MINUTES, as opposed to the several days you used to have between publishing a column and being proved wrong. Tough breaks, man.

Posted by pippen
January 23, 2007

Mr. Carney, you can call us names all you like. You can dismiss the need for accuracy too. But never ever think we're going to let you get away with factual mistakes, especially those which can be found with a 10-second Google search. Think of this as a very cheap journalism education, because apparently the first four years didn't take. Just remember that -those- teachers wouldn't respond so mildly to be called "unthinking" and "dittoheads." They would have given you an F. Hmm. Maybe that would help. Mr. Carney, on that column, you get an F, with a D- for effort, and on the "correction," you get an F.

You never do discuss the actual context, that is, that Clinton rebounded from his lowest approval ratings (early in his presidency) because he was responsive to the populace and because he dedicated himself to doing a good job and ended up with historically high approval ratings. Bush, however, squandered the stratospherically high approval ratings provided by 9/11, ignored the wishes of the populace, and did a lousy job, and his approval ratings have gone down, down, down. He will no doubt end his presidency with historically low approval ratings.

That at some point Clinton's upward-bound ratings intersected on a graph with Bush's downward-bound ratings doesn't tell us much at all. The truth is, the mainstream press considered Clinton "unpopular" despite his being as popular as Ronald Reagan, and considered Bush "popular" despite his loss of the popular vote in the 2000 election and a majority disapproval during most of the last two years.

Is the populace wrong? I don't know... but one thing we are pretty good at out here in flyover country is figuring out who is doing a good job at his job. We thought Clinton did a pretty good job. We think Bush has done a lousy job. As for you... well, fortunately for you, pundits don't face polls OR grades, so I think your job is secure. All you have to do is put up with us mean commenters, because apparently your editor doesn't bother even to read, much less critique, your columns. Lucky you! Even the president has to account for his adequacy or inadequacy at his job... but you pundits are home free! Enjoy! And you should thank us, because we're the only ones who bother to read your work.

Posted by sdf (Stu)
January 23, 2007

Mired in the '30s.

From CNN, 1997 [http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/01/16/poll.clinton/]:

Clinton Approval Rating
1993 46
1994 47
1995 56
1996 62
Now [1997] 49%

(Yearly averages)

Mired in the 30s.

Posted by 1watt
January 23, 2007

You are the Washington Bureau Chief of Time Magazine?

Wanna borrow my Nic?

Posted by Joe Bacon
January 23, 2007

Congratulations, Jay! Atrios named you WANKER OF THE DAY!

You earned it, pal!

Posted by Aeolus
January 23, 2007

Time to set up the over/under line on when Swampland turns off this horribly revealing "comments" feature, or severely limits comments as most authoritarian right wing sites do.

If the line is set at two weeks, I'll take the under.

Posted by Eric Lipton
January 23, 2007

There was a time that journalists believed their job was to REPORT. Not write, the writing was secondary. Not opine, that was the job of editors or experienced reporters to provide CONTEXT to the news, not their opinion.

Thus, when a mistake was made, corrections were a matter of integrity. Not the small hidden notices, but a real attempt to rectify and error -- not unlike a surgeon who removes a missed peice of shrapnel or a painter who comes back to fix a "missed spot."

The Jason Blairs exist -- and the Jay Carney's survive -- because the quality of the words and size of the byline is what matters now. The tabloids won.

But the universe always finds a way to fix things -- the readers now have the strength and resources to make the corrections if you won't.

Jay Carney -- this is a VERY GOOD THING. It will SAVE corporate journalism from itself, and restore the integrity and dignity necessary to report FACTS. Sure, people may disagree and call names, but any time, as a reporter, editor, writer you get a chance to make something that was wrong, right -- you should seize it, say thank you, and move on.

As always, the technology behind blogging isn't software or networking. It's humanity. Be a human and use this blog for what you are good at. Reporting facts. Providing context for events through facts. And never post angry.

Posted by Jackson
January 23, 2007

Thanks for the glimpse of what political reporting would look like if Grandpa Simpson took a turn.

"You see, back in the '90s, we'd chase the president down the street with pitchforks. Then we greased him up to see who could catch him! One day, Joe Stalin and Mickey Rooney were the master of ceremonies, and they danced together in the moonlight...."

Posted by DirtyEffingHippie
January 23, 2007

(And a lot of the blogosphere are hippies and drive aging VW buses.)

Posted by: I F Stone | January 23, 2007

Hey!

I resemble that remark.

Posted by r€nato
January 23, 2007

this Swampland blog is an incredible resource.

Not for the blog posts, they are crap.

The comments are what keep me coming back!

Posted by sdf (Stu)
January 23, 2007

Oops that "Now [1997] 49%" should be "Now [1997] 62%."

Mired in the '60s.

Posted by Taste the Cheesesteaks
January 23, 2007

Well, what else should we expect from a blog whose title itself is based on a long propagated falsehood. DC was NOT built on swampland. Look it up.

Posted by jj
January 23, 2007

Paying attention to facts and correcting mistakes is not Limbaughesque.

Refusing to acknowledge that you are clearly, flagrantly wrong is.

Posted by Dean
January 23, 2007

Jay,
you may think you are, but you are not beyond reproach. Suck it up and give credit to us "ditto-heads" who corrected your sloppy journalism.

Posted by sdf (Stu)
January 23, 2007

I know accuracy may or may not be a highly valued commodity, and cutting and pasting is admittedly very hard work, but I'm gonna try this one more time.

From CNN, 1997 [http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/01/16/poll.clinton/]:

Clinton Approval Rating
1993 49
1994 46
1995 47
1996 56
Now [1997] 62%

(Yearly averages)

Mired in the 30s.

Posted by Kid Charlemagne
January 23, 2007

Ana Marie,

It's sad you have to hang with this bunch of losers but otherwise you will never be invited to all the right Georgetown cocktail parties!

Posted by r€nato
January 23, 2007

"The original site of the City of Washington, which encompasses all the lettered streets and extends from Rock Creek to the Anacostia, is best described as old farmers' fields and forests well watered with springs, two creeks and two rivers. Both the creeks and rivers experienced tidal fluctuations and seasonal flooding. In the early development of the city the draining of lowlands was not a priority. After deforestation and the cessation of farming, as the city developed the danger of inadequate drainage, especially around poorly executed building projects, became more apparent. However, the development of extensive mud flats and marshes came later in the 19th century caused primarily by the increased sediment carried by the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers due to increased settlement and farming upstream.

It is true that some visitors and residents of the city circa 1800 described parts of the city as a swamp, and that some memoirs of the city recalled a swamp especially along Pennsylvania Avenue. However, this was more of a characterization of parts of the city arising from the varied terrain, rather than a statement of geographical fact."

Posted by agave
January 23, 2007

Jay:

NO NO NO NO!!!!!

Bush IS a popular president!
His poll numbers are just low!

It was Clinton nobody liked!

AHHHHHH!

(head 'splodes)

.