Noel Sheppard begins a Jan. 20 NewsBusters post by asking, "As we prepare to say goodbye to our 43rd President, an important question needs to be asked: will those suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome be cured on Inauguration Day?" Sheppard added: "Consider that Herbert Hoover left the White House in 1933, and he still gets eviscerated 75 years later."
But Sheppard didn't have to go back so far for evidence to support his theory. All he needed to do was examine whether his colleagues at the Media Research Center were cured of Clinton Derangement Syndrome when Bill Clinton left office.
Of course, that answer is an emphatic yes.
As we detailed at the time, MRC chief Brent Bozell was suffering from a full-blown case of CDS when Clinton left office in 2001, hosting a $125-a-plate dinner so his conservative buddies could heap abuse, claiming, "It's our way of celebrating the fumigation of Washington." Bozell also said of Hillary Clinton'selection assenator from New York: "We need fund-raising fodder. ... They left her behind for us."
When Hillary Clinton ran for president, CDS was back; Bozell and Tim Graham were right there with a book rehashing biased and misleading accounts of so-called Clinton scandals.
Sheppard himself is a CDS sufferer: He once theorized that a hostage crisis at a Hillary Clinton campaign office was "orchestrated" by Clinton "to make herself look battle-hardened."
But that's just one malady Sheppard suffers from. Not only does he have Global Warming Derangement Syndrome (as most recently evidenced by his embrace of a 9/11 truther published in Pravda simply for mouthing anti-global warming dogma) is also developing a full-blown case of Obama Derangement Syndrome. As we've noted, Sheppard was quick to blame Barack Obama's victory for a stock market drop immediately following the Nov. 4 election -- "there's no question this represented Wall Street's vote of no confidence in Obama's economic plans for the future" -- while failing to acknowledge that there was economic news that even the Fox Business Channel agrees played a decisive factor in the decline.
Sheppard does the same thing in another Jan. 20 post, suggesting the decline in stocks was related to Obama's inauguration. While Sheppard does note that "stocks normally do very poorly the first year of a new president's first term," he was also eager to point out "how the selloff accelerated after Obama finished his Inaugural address." At no point does Sheppard mention events in the financial world that actually drove the decline. As the Washington Post reported:
Disillusioned investors fled financial companies as fresh evidence mounted that the industry's problems are larger than previously understood, larger than the response so far mustered by the government and perhaps larger than the resources remaining in its rescue program.
Nevertheless, Sheppard pre-emptively bashed "the giddy Obama-loving media" for the possibility that they might not report it out of fear of "allow[ing] anything to dampen the celebration."
Fleshing out his earlier reference to Hoover, Sheppard also embarks on a strange revisionist defense of him:
Much like today's BDS, media hatred of Hoover conveniently ignores facts. Although the economy was in a recession in 1930, the Depression really didn't begin until 1931. This means that for all intents and purposes, Hoover only presided over two years of the Depression.
By contrast, as the GDP didn't surpass its 1929 output until 1941, and unemployment after peaking during Franklin D. Roosevelt's first year in office didn't return to more normal levels until 1942, Roosevelt presided over almost ten years of the Depression.
Regardless, to this day, Hoover gets all the blame for this horrible period in economic history, and Roosevelt gets all the credit for ending it even though the economy only improved once America entered World War II and went right back into a serious recession once the war ended.