Originally Posted by IvanVic
Of course the media attacked president Bush. But unemployment was reported at a very low rate during most of his term, how does that fit into the conspiracy?
Not to say there IS a conspiracy -- but certainly the MSM felt they had enough talking points to attack Bush on, without falsifying or cooking employment numbers.
If Obama can control the reporting of the unemployment figures with a snap of his fingers, why was it over 8% for the last 3.8 years when he promised that the stimulus would keep it below 8%?
Perhaps because they previously did not have an employment pretext with which they could actually cook the numbers with some plausible deniability. Also, it could just be strategy. It's hard to keep cooking numbers every month under scrutiny -- but a one-shot deal, especially after one suffers a disastrous and humiliating debate loss, might be deemed the perfect time.
Again -- I'm not necessarily asserting that there is a numbers-cooking conspiracy, but given the timeliness of the numbers report, to totally discount it as a possibility confers its own bias.
And as I remarked earlier -- I tend to give more credence to Jack Welch's opinions, in regard to the economy, than I do yours or mine.