George Bush now admits that he was convicted of drunk driving. On September 4, 1976, a state trooper saw Bush's car swerve onto the shoulder, then back onto the road. [The Bush camp spin that he was driving too slowly is simply a lie.] Bush failed a road sobriety test and blew a .10 blood alcohol, plead guilty, and was fined and had his driver's license suspended. His spokesman says that he had drunk "several beers" at a local bar before the arrest. Bush was 30 at the time. He now says that he stopped drinking when he turned 40 because it was a problem.

More troubling, Bush lied in denying such an arrest, and still won't take responsibility for his actions. His first reaction was to blame Democrats and Fox News -- the only openly conservative TV network -- for reporting the story. "Why [was this reported] now, four days before the election? I've got my suspicions." He refused to say what his suspicions are, though. Bush admits covering up the story, but seems to think he has no responsibility for the failure of his cover up.

In fact, just like Clinton with Monica Lewinsky, Bush has brazenly and repeatedly lied to cover up and minimize this arrest.

I showed those filthy terrorist rats they couldn't quite be the biggest disaster of the new century. Fuck you guys, you're #2. And you fuckers died, too.

Your problem is that for you everything has to be a strictly binary proposition: the bad economy either has to be solely Bush's fault, or it has to be solely somebody else's fault. Matthew's unemployment either has to be solely his own fault, or solely Bush's fault. What you call "talking out of both sides of my mouth" is what I call recognizing the subtleties of the situation. I actually *agree* with you that there is only so much a president can do to influence the economy, and that Bush inherited an economy that was already bad. That doesn't mean I can't disagree with some of Bush's economic decisions, though.

GEORGE W.

Are you willfully ignoring what I'm saying? When, in all of my comments, have I said that the economy is Bush's fault? Answer: never. I wouldn't have even commented in this post if I hadn't seen you lay into an unemployed person who probably feels bad enough as it is.

Our economy is a complicated thing, and no one person can be said to have all the responsibility for it. I *am* a bit concerned about our levels of deficit spending, as is the rest of the world, truth be told. But, no, to answer your concerns: I AM NOT BLAMING BUSH FOR MATTHEW'S UNEMPLOYMENT!

There are probably enough attainable jobs available, but generally people have some level of aversion to being underemployed.

I disagree with the notion that employment is entirely the President's responsibility. He is certainly a contributing factor -- no doubt, but there are plenty of economic factors involved, and even a shitty President can luck into presiding over a good economy (this is not a Clinton slam -- I respect him) and vice versa.

Historically, economies have gone through cycles.

We have just gotten off of a very long, ovehyped and overplayed growth period, so it should be expected that we take a few years at some point to have things level off. This probably would have even happened if big C had reigned for a third term.

(Note: I am by no means a Bush apologist. I too am disgusted by his overspending, his poor diplomacy, his poor choice of friends, his unspoken secrecy policies, his disrespect for others, ....long list...)

Does anybody want to comment on the fact that the economy hit the high point during Clinton's presidency? High point means that it started turning down while he was in office. We were already headed for a recession.

Perhaps we should also adress the "lost by 50,000 votes" and maybe learn a lesson about the electoral college. It's a flawed system designed by big states in the early days of the country, but even more important than the system is playing by the rules that were set. We can't change the rules in the middle just because we didn't like the outcome. I don't see anybody trying to change them now, but they probably will whine about it the next time a president wins by a close margin.

Now, I don't disagree with the majority of the points (they are, after all, facts). I do, however, think that he's getting a bad rap because he's not smooth with the media like Clinton was. I never said that I wanted him as a president, but I want to see a strong Democrat candidate that does something other than whine about the current presidency.

Oh, and yes, it is entirely possible these days to not be able to find a job. I was searching for a job this past summer, and every single job I applied for had about 15 other people applying, too... I'm glad I'm going to school again now, so I at least can get a job as a TA.