It hard to understand how anyone can argue with a straight face that unemployment under Bush is comparable to that under Clinton. Clinton inherited from Bush the senior an unemployment rate of 7.4% in 1992 which he reduced to 3.4% in 2000 at the end of his administration. Pres Bush took the unemployment rate of 3.4% rate inherited from Clinton and increased it to today's rate of 6.7%. (US Labor Dept numbers.) The numbers are what they are. Unemployment was cut in half under Clinton and then nearly doubled under Bush.
Even if one stops prior to the current economic crisis and compares the 5% unemployment periods of both administrations as in this blog, the media emphasis is not unreasonable. Clinton reduced unemployment to the then 5% level while Bush increased unemployment to his then 5% level. Reduction in unemployment = good. Increase in unemployment = bad. That is not media bias -- it is fact.
In reference to some of the responses to this post, I think that this blog should do what the liberal blogs do and force you to register if you want to leave a comment. If they don't like it - your comment will never see the light of day. Conservatives are just too naive in their belief that America is a free country with the right to free speech.
Keelaay,
It's hard to understand how anyone of intelligence can point out how much 'Clinton' improved the economy while 'Bush' destroyed it without also pointing out that Congress actually holds the economic purse strings.
1994 began the Republican revolution, with the democrats losing power of Congress for the first time in decades. This also began the amazing economic expansion of which you credit Clinton.
In contrast, Bush was in office very briefly when the democrats regained control of Congress. It was at this same time that the low unemployment rate started to rise.
Your claims that Clinton reduced unemployment while Bush increased it are completely inaccurate. The Republicans were in power during economic expansion and Democrats quickly put an end to that as soon as they took over the fiscal reins.
As for your assertion that there is no media bias... obviously you didn't even read the two statements. The statistics within them are nearly identical. Dan Rather makes excuses for 'Clinton's' 5.6% unemployment, calling it "still low overall."
Later, he tries to paint 'Bush's' 5% unemployment rate as alarming, saying "the economy is getting hit by some body blows." Interestingly, those body blows were lower than the "still low overall" numbers with Clinton.
CBS is/was Rather biased.
"Bush was in office very briefly when the democrats regained control of Congress." Very confusing-your definition of very briefly. Let me see. Bush came in in 2001 and the Democrats won a slight majority in 2006???? More interesting, this majority, Senate Dems 49, Rep 49 with 2 Ind. House: Dems 233, Rep. 198.
Clinton was reducing unemployment from the 7% he inherited from the gitgo - that began before the Republicans gained the house and Senate majority. Notice the decline stopped when the presidency was alsoadded to Rep majority.
FIGURES DON'T LIE, BUT LIARS FIGURE!!!
i like peanut butter
Commenting by HaloScan
