I hate arguments like this:
When castigating Democrats for attacking Bush’s jobs record, Robert Samuelson seems to have conveniently forgotten that Bush has been predicting job growth specifically tied to his economic policies for the past three years, and Democrats are reacting to his promises.
One would think that you could remember that the President promised job creation based his policies when complaining about Democrats attacking the President’s policies for not creating jobs.
I think it is fair to make a criticism of Bush’s policies in regards to them not living up to the lofty predictions this administration made regarding rising employment. But that is not what Jesse and the Democrats are doing. Instead, they are essentially engaging in a dishonest argument that can not be disproven.
Because we do not know what the employment rate (and, conversely, the unemployment rate) would be if Bush’s tax cuts HAD NOT BEEN PASSED, there is simply no way to refute the argument the Democrats are advancing. No one with half a brain would argue that the employment rate would be lower if the tax cuts had NOT BEEN PASSED, and Jesse, as one of the smarter people out there, knows this.
As it is inarguable that the recession started prior to Bush’s policies took place, there is no way to avoid the fact that the economy itself and the impact of 9/11 caused the job losses. However, the Democrats are not content to state that Bush has not done enough to help job creation, and instead they rely on arguments such as the previous one which state either that Bush has done nothing or, when they are feeling really pluckish, to state that Bush’s policies have caused or added to the job loss.
Either way, it is a lie.
*** Update ***
Steve Verdon has a great post in response (in addition?) to this post, and it is based on research rather than the rhetorical devices and election-year sloganeering that Jesse and others seem to rely on with recurring frequency.