Jobs added, unemployment up
Seems like a oxymoron, no? But not really:
Beyond government jobs, the report showed that the private sector created 231,000 jobs. Manufacturing continued to trend up, rising by 44,000. The industry, which is leading the economy’s recovery, has added 101,000 jobs since December. Construction, a sector that has been suffering, added 14,000 jobs in April…
Economists expect the unemployment rate to fall very slowly as discouraged job seekers who had stopped looking for work return to the labor force and are counted as unemployed. The size of the labor force rose by 805,000 in April, the Labor Department said.
The job increase is partly due to temporary census workers, but only partly. There’s been a real increase as well. Of course, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed—as every MSM paper on earth would be declaring in screaming headlines if it were George Bush who was president right now.
Speaking of Bush—is his reputation poised for a revival?
WTH? If my employer gives me a $500 a month raise and my monthly living expenses go up by $600, am I then supposed to dance in the streets over this great increase in my income? And Alice thought SHE was in Wonderland!
Speaking of Bush–is his reputation poised for a revival?
A revival by whom? The same Masochist-Wondustrial complex which finished every day praying for casualties in Iraq, flushed Korans in Gitmo, pictures from Abu Ghraib, and revealing successful CIA operations in the New York Times when they’re not forging memos?
By the people who are calling Arizonans Nazis for wanting to wrap up the smé¶rgé¥sbord of law-breaking by enforcing current laws, which apply to legal residents, against illegal ones as well?
This crowd can no more be appeased than could Hitler or Tojo. They have their eyes on their own caliphate.
Every bone-headed move Bush made, and there were lots, was motivated by a desire to get a pat on the head from the Masochist-Wondustrial Complex. His two major achievements – his tax cuts and his snatching Iraq from the jaws of disaster – were done in the teeth of such people.
The other good thing he tried to do – make a start on Social Security – was ridiculed off the stage by these same pathogens.
What they think of him – or conservatives – should never be of any interest. If ever they approve conservatives are probably on the wrong track.
Thanks, Neo.
That link was interesting. As one of the ‘loyalists’ referred to there — I’ve long believed that history would be kind to GWB, listing him not as one of our great presidents but as near-great, akin to Harry Truman — I found the article amazingly biased, given the subject matter they were trying to cover. (61% of historians called him “the worst President ever”?? Worse than Grant, worse than Hoover, worse than Buchanan? Where did they find such historians?)
More to the point, however, is that GWB himself is content to wait for the verdict of history — which says a lot about his character right there. His character also compares extremely favorably to that of his successor, a man who reacts badly to being criticized and isn’t above being petty and vindictive to his critics. President Obama will never, in his entire life, be criticized half as badly as President Bush was — and Bush still took the heat much better than Obama does.
As for the ‘gentlemen of the press’, who never missed an opportunity to bash Bush or to praise Obama — history will not be kind to them. They will be seen as the opportunistic vultures that they are, who don’t realize that their outspoken agendas are tarnishing their entire profession, perhaps irreparably.
I don’t think GWB will be seen the way Lincoln is today. However, I do think that, just as schoolchildren today have difficulty comprehending how much many of Lincoln’s contemporaries hated him — or why newspapers wrote such vile things about him — likewise people will one day wonder why so many Americans hated GWB, an honorable man doing a difficult job under impossible circumstances.
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
Daniel,
I also think that one day the value of the unseen antiterrorist programs established by Bush will be recognized. I know that some of the ministers here in Germany felt these measures were necessary (and worked well with people like John Ashcroft), even if the media and ACLU equivalents screamed.
Someday I hope people realize how Bush visited the wounded and the families of dead soldiers without using them for photo ops. He is a man of character.
Daniel: I wrote about that issue here and here.
Daniel-
All depends on who the future historians are, of course. More Howard Zinns?
GWB was sometimes wrong, but always decent, with a strong sense of duty. Unlike his successor: always wrong, always indecent, with a duty only to himself and Soros.
If Barry were a football coach, he would be explaining how his team losing 10 straight games wasn’t the real picture since they gained more yards than the opposition in 5 of those games.
I’ve become just flat out ashamed of this President and any Americans who supports him.
neo,
I just read the comments at your links. Russia and Iran didn’t figure in the discussions. Even the most thoughtful and intelligent people cannot predict which solved problems will be forgotten and which unsolved ones will rear their heads a few years down the road.
Dan – that is about what happened at my job this year. We get a 4% cost of living raise… and a 10% hike in insurance premiums. They canceled each other out.
Ditto for me Expat: Natan Sharansky wrote that a major but under-appreciated characteristic of leadership is “moral compass”. Whatever his shortcomings Bush’s moral compass is what one should have demanded of a leader of the free world. Compare this to Mr. I’ll grovel till you realize I am great Messiah.
The examples that show the contrast between Bush and Mr. Grovel are jammed home 24/7, although the media is trying hard not to notice. Among my favorites took place during a SOTU address when Bush’s mentioned of the “people of Iran” suffering under the tyranny of the Mullahs. Compare to Obama’s address to “the Islamic Republic of Iran” and his silence during the uprising.
Leader of the free world indeed.
Less appreciated was the speech Bush gave at the opening of his library (anyone who thinks Obama is a better speaker than Bush should have heard it). In this speech Bush outlined his efforts to support pro-democracy political dissidents worldwide. Compare and contrast to Obama’s Cairo speech “no nation has the right to force democracy on another”.
Now Obama is playing the race card to starve off a Republican deluge in November. Race baiting, that is a change we can believe in.
I wonder how many of those 60% of historians will say Obama, as many predicted, is our worse president, which he easily is? My guess most will say the opposite, being cloistered in the warm, comfy, politically correct world of academia, and knowing their economic and social welfare depends on living and believing lies.
BTW, Rubin Reports has a good summary on how our position in the Middle East has deteriorated since Mr. Grovel has been straightening out the mess left him by the previous administration.
From the WSJ article:
. . . Rising private-sector hiring is crucial since it holds the potential to pick up the slack that will be created as the effects of government economic stimulus fade later this year.
Is that dog around that eats poop?
Truman is the model. He was vilifed at the time, but he reinforced the principle of civilian control over the military and integrated the armed forces (thereby undoing the segregation imposed by his Democrat predecessor, Woodrow Wilson). Bush made mistakes. Lots of them. But every President does. Barry’s already made plenty of them, and doubtless will make many more.
But Bush’s effort to put the Middle East on a democratic path, if it pays off, will be far more momentous than Lincoln’s freeing the slaves. Freeing the slaves was just tidying up a lingering philosophical contradiction from colonial times in a country that had always been fundamentally democratic. Tidying up that philosophical contradiction had zero impact outside of the United States, so from a historical and geopolitical perspective, it wasn’t really all that important. The only other country that took the slightest interest in Lincoln’s policies was Great Britain. (Women’s suffrage (God help us) arguably had more impact, affecting half of the population rather than 10ish percent, although again with minimal geopolitical impact.)
Let us suppose that Iraq becomes prosperous, free, and democratic, as it is now bidding fair to do. Citizens of surrounding despotic Middle Eastern countries, looking at Iraq and seeing both the positive and negative control experiments, will almost inevitably then ask, “Why not us?” In that case, nightmare scenario for despots there, the Middle East may well turn away from its present course and toward freedom, democracy, and capitalism, much like Eastern Europe did after the fall of the Berlin Wall. In that case, Bush, contra his contemporary detractors, will be considered one of the greatest Presidents, for having single-handedly changed the course of history — for the better – in an entire region of the world, improving the quality of life there, removing them as a threat to us, and converting former adversaries into allies. That’s a damned impressive accomplishment. What President has done more? Not Lincoln (sorry Dems, who opposed him violently at the time, but Lincoln had precisely zero geopolitical impact). Not Wilson. Not Roosevelt. Not even Reagan, although he had more geopolitical impact than the others.
Leftists will guffaw at this analysis, but on reading it, I have no doubt their sphincters will contract for fear that the analysis is sound.
“”sphincters will contract for fear that the analysis is sound””
Funny thing how real life is always nothing like herd predicts. I think your analysis is dead on but you and I will probably not be around to see it.
Bush was trying to close the door to state games in isreal and in africa..
not making democracy… long ago i said this and that the crap will hit the fan..
iran is the last part of the doorway… turkey, iraq, iran, afghanistan, pakistan, india… make a one country wide line in the sand that makes transport of materials difficult.
that is presidents are trying to meet the objectives of the country… not build the philosophical casles that are used to move masses.
everyone acts as if the leaders have the same focus as the common man… he doesnt… he looks at maps, he looks at the bigger picture
want america prosperous..
well one thing is to maximize stability
and if you could stop the games in the middle east and africa, you can open up the trade and raw mateirals there, and costs would go down, and so on and so on.
but as long as russia can ship vast amounts of material over land, that stability cant happen. and without that stability, the benfiits that come with it are not available.
[oh if the socialists win, gwb will not have existed… he and ohers will be erased from history]
Occam, the problem with democracy in the Middle East is that it is a package deal. Iraqi democracy has to be protected from Iran and Syria while still in the cradle. Obama the petty leftist child would like nothing better than for Iraq to fail so he can give a “I told you so” speech and blame the whole thing on Bush, especially if he is rejected this November. Failure in Iraq would be a proof positive his wisdom, just as success there stands as proof of the inadequacy of his foresight and a testimony to Bush’s.
If Iraq survives the other autocracies in the Middle East are doomed and they know it. If Iran gets the bomb the game is up, as are, in all likelihood, several US ports. Obama is the worse possible man at the worse possible time.
I would like to know if there are any “historians” who would dare say anything as clearly obvious as that?
Bob, I worry about that too. All Buraq has to do is not screw up Iraq on its present course. His temptation, as you correctly point out, is to gut the effort and blame it on Bush as a way of galvanizing the comrades.
Trying to cheer myself up, I hope that Buraq has some uncertainty as to whether, even with the complicity of the MSM, he could preside over the im/explosion of Iraq without taking a big hit himself. That may be enough to keep him onside.
I hope.
Here is an Eric Hoffer quote, does it remind you of anybody?
“Our greatest pretenses are built up not to hide the evil and the ugly in us, but our emptiness. The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there.”