Funny? Down to earth? Forthcoming?
Wow! I've never seen him display those qualities. Too bad our intelligence service isn't able to find this side of him.

Oh, he was hilarious. Due to the length of the q & a, he also joked by asking if anyone in Cleveland had a job.
Unfortunately, the answer is "Actually Mr. President, fewer people in Ohio now have a job than when you took office. Sir."
The statistics are:
- 5.8 percent: Cleveland unemployment rate, Jan. 2006
- 4.5 percent: Cleveland unemployment rate, Jan. 2001

- 5.3 percent: Ohio unemployment rate, Jan. 2006
- 4.0 percent: Ohio unemployment rate, Jan. 2001

- 31.3 percent: Cleveland poverty rate, 2003
- 24.3 percent: Cleveland poverty rate, 2001

This President is neither all good nor all bad, but recently, if I'm to believe Wizbang!, he's the second coming of the Messiah.
What has happened to the fair, funny, insightful blog that was Wizbang!? It's become a sycophantic apology for W.

He is viewed that way, Mac, only when you compare him to Ted Kennedy (D-Chivas) or Harry Pelosi and Nancy Reid and Flip Flopper Kerry.

My point exactly, Robert. Instead of facts and a true discussion of pro and con, let's throw three moonbats into the mix and run for cover. Ignore the real point and run some jive at it.

I agree that when compared to this lot, W. doesn't look so bad, but that wasn't the point.

The point is that global warming is a fact and this administration will deny it unconditionally. It's only science, and we all know that if God could make the world in six days then He can wave a celestial wand and fix the mess we've made of His creation.

The point is that AIDS is a global epidemic and the Bush administration will suggest abstaining from sex as the solution, while reducing funding for research, and denying an application for an HPPV vaccination--because it might increase the rate of pre-marital sex.

The latest budget proposal drastically reduces funding for cancer research, yet cancer kills more people every single year.

Ohio's unemployment rate has increased every year over the last five, but, oh, yea, that's the set of facts you chose to ignore and instead threw the moonbats into the mix...

Good golly--why can you not admit that this administration has made some mistakes? Is the guy SO BAD that one chink in his flight suit will cause him to fall to earth?

Uhh can't you trolls come up with anything new? There is mold growing on your "talking' points.

Mac,

Just curious, where did you get your employment/poverty stats? Can you provide a link? I'd like to see the years in between the ones you've given.

The LAST time W was funny, down-to-earth and forthcoming... http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/008864.html

Uhh can't you trolls come up with anything new?

Hey, we're just staying the course. We're about to turn a corner.

Peter-
Linkage:
www.lbo.state.oh.us/fiscal/budget/RevenueForecasts/Forecasts126/House/EconomicConditionsandOutlook.pdf

Gov. Taft's report here:
www.obm.ohio.gov/finrep/monthly/021006mfr.pdf -

Additional documentation here:
http://www.jobbankusa.com/News/Unemployment/unemploy31905a.html

Poverty statistics here:
http://www.csuohio.edu/cps/poorestcity.htm

Uhh can't you trolls come up with anything new? There is mold growing on your "talking' points.
Posted by: jhow66 at March 20, 2006 07:31 PM

Yesterday, there was lots of discussion on Wizbang about whether George Bush has lied to the American public. Some idiot named Falize demanded direct proof the Mr. Bush has ever spoken a falsehood to the American public. Well Falize (and all you other morons that still haven't realized you've been duped by George Bush), here is what Mr. Bush said in yesterday's speech in Cleveland:

"First, just if I might correct a misperception, I don't think we ever said -- at least I know I didn't say that there was a direct connection between September the 11th and Saddam Hussein."

And here's what he said on March 21, 2003.

"The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

There is your lie. Now, bring on the Republican "talking points" to defend Bushie McFlightsuit.

The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Where exactly does it claim an direct connection between Saddam and 9/11? Kind of a stretch.

I see: armed forces in Iraq...are CONSISTENT with... taking action... against terrorist organizations... INCLUDING Sept. 11.

We all know Saddam supported terror. We all know terrorists were in Iraq. Nowhere does he say Saddam planned 9/11.

Mac:

Thanks for passing along the links. As quickly as possible, I want to address your stats:

- 5.3 percent: Ohio unemployment rate, Jan. 2006
- 4.0 percent: Ohio unemployment rate, Jan. 2001

In reading the Governor's report, there was no evidence to support your 2006 number. According to the Governor's monthly report:

The unemployment rate fell to 4.7%, the lowest since July 2001.

So I'm not sure where you gleaned that number (5.3%), but it's inaccurate according to the report. I also find it more than a tad disengenuous to compare Jan 2006 to Jan 2001 without giving light to 9/11, an already weakening economy in Jan. 2001 (more on that in a moment), and on top of the beginnings of the dot-com bust. In short, the nation was already tumbling toward a recession in January 2001.

According to the 2005 Biennial Budget Forecast:

Ohio's economy by some measures began to slow earlier, in 2000, and recovery here has been slower and more halting than in other parts of the country.

Fair enough. Economic recovery is slow here in Wash. state as well. In fact, we have a saying for it: Washington is the last to go into a recession and the last to come out of a recession. The important point is, the recession began in 2000 before Bush took office. Are the GOP-controlled houses to blame? Quite possibly. But that's a subject for another time.

Furthermore:

The unemployment rate peaked in 2003 then began to decline. But in Ohio, unemployment climbed in the second half
of last year (2004) to more than 380,000 in November, highest in more than a decade, and the unemployment rate here reached a new cyclical peak before falling back at year-end.

The good news is that the unemployment number continues to decline, according to the Gov's Report.

I'm unable to access your poverty articles via the Cleveland PD web site and the poverty PDF has been of little help in locating the numbers you cited, so I can't address your citation of stats in context.

All I would say is this: To cite these stats and make this statement "Actually Mr. President, fewer people in Ohio now have a job than when you took office, sir." is factually incorrect (unless I've positively overlooked something and I don't think I have). And, like I said, it lacks the context and perspective of 9/11, and the weakening economy and dot-com bust that started in 2000.

Personally, be they Democrat or Republican, I think a President's economic policies have little or no affect on the economy for at least his first 3-4 years in office.

Mac stated

Unfortunately, the answer is "Actually Mr. President, fewer people in Ohio now have a job than when you took office. Sir."

So, it's the President of the United States responsiblity, and his alone, to create jobs in Cleveland, OH ? What a fine example of the problems with our education system you must be.

The fact of the matter is that it's not where you are but rather where you're headed that matters. The point being that *national* employment rate has steadily been heading down since sometime around '03. Of course, this has much less to do with who's occupying the oval office than many partisans like to claim.

You may now return to the usual rhetoric...

- MikeB

I agree with you MikeB and I live in Michigan which has the worse unemployment in the nation. The moonbats like to blame it on Bush (as with everything) but they don't see (or want to see) what damage the Auto Unions have done to the industry. Michigan's economy is based almost entirely on the Auto Industry. When union workers make $26.00 per hour plus full benis and pensions for life - for sweeping the floor - something has to give, and it finally has.... parts makers are going bankrupt. Some US auto makers may follow. Ohio can be put in the same boat - they depend far too much on the Auto Industry. Foreign car makers don't have this problem because they don't have unions to contend with - and their workers make as much money and are more productive. Until the union workers realize what's happening and back off, they'll be the next ones working at McDonalds. And just to throw another nugget at you, the Mich. legislature just apporved a minimum wage increase. So now inflation can partner up with Michigan's "Single Business Tax" to make it by far the worst state to do business in. No wonder our unemployment rate is well above 6%. But our moonbat Governor Granholm has an answer, we now have grants to cities so they can become cool. I kid you not - they're called "Cool City Grants." That'll bring in more jobs.... lol.