Always interesting what the media chooses to comment on, isn't it? Outlets are going after Allen West for his recent comment that he thinks the market is doing better because of the potential for a GOP candidate in the White House this November.
The New Times Broward-Palm Beach-- which, by the way, has started an "Allen West Fact Party series, in which we take claims made by the District 22 Republican and attempt to figure out whether they have a basis in reality" (thought: do they have one for Debbie Wasserman Schultz? The articles I found on her from the outlets seem to all make excuses for how some of her statements are really just misunderstood or aren't as dumb as the Republicans)--had two analysts break down West's comments, and found one who (surprise) actually thought West could be on to something.
The Maddow Blog, meanwhile, had an entry that provided additional analysis supporting the Democrats on this, including a Bloomberg chart that showed stock investors benefited more under Democrat administrations. It's based on Standard and Poor's 500 Index, which is ironic since S&P also downgraded the U.S. credit rating for the first time in history under a Democrat administration. I guess this story could be spun several ways, but, as the Bloomberg article points out, who's the party of Wall Street now?
Here's West's comments that started the whole thing. Listen and decide for yourself:
The Alberta Example: Spending Caps Are the Way to Prevent Unsustainable Fiscal Binges During Growth Years | Daniel J. Mitchell
Chicago's Fiscal Freefall: Moody's Cuts Chicago Credit Rating to Two Steps Above Junk | Mike Shedlock