I pointed this out on my blog, but do you wonder why the News went all the way back to 2000 rather than stopping at 2003? I opined that it was to give Granholm/Cherry some cover is the article didn't delineate how many of those 950,000 jobs were lost under Granholm. Thus, it pulls Engler's administration in with the current disaster, albeit implicitly. Be that as it may, it was still a dishonest tact.