Can you provide such a reference?

Thanks.

The first major article posted on the Media Matters website is an attempted exposé of the often-heard conservative claim that the last economic recession began during the Clinton administration — or, in other words, that it was already underway when George W. Bush took office in 2001. The article painstakingly traces the history of this claim through numerous statements by Bush administration officials and conservative commentators, presenting all this as a “successful three-and-a-half year media campaign” that has led to polling results showing “62% of Americans think the recession began under Clinton.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/12/19/politics/main258392.shtml

Bush did talk down the economy during his transition period, and that could be construed as trying to lay blame on Clinton. But he wasn’t blaming Clinton per se., I believe he was calling it as he saw it, accurately as it turns out. Bush has never gone out of his way to dispel the notion of a “Clinton Recession”, nor has he chastised those in his administration who have used the term.

That said, the reporter should retract his assertion (fat chance) and I do think Bush, on the whole, is a classier guy than Obama. But they both such fiscally.

Which, by the way, is NO. And I think it has been sufficiently proven on this thread.

Regards,
Peter H.

And so far there is no evidence that he had nor did members of his Administration . . .

It seems the answer to the question I post in the title is “No.” As that title indicates, I’m looking for Bush’s comments in the first year of W’s presidency. So far, no one has come forward with anything even remotely suggesting that the then-president blamed his predecessor for the economic downturn he inherited.

Au contraire, mon SonicGrenouille. NewsBusters.org has compiled a veritable treasure trove of incorrect (read: fake but accurate) information that the Soros-owned-and-funded Media Matters has spewed.

And gee, News Busters has never been wrong or spun a story to match it’s POV. Here’s another Oopsie. Once again, it’s the accuracy of the information that matters, not the source.

I’ll grant Don Evans’ remarks as being only ONE Republican who mentioned “the Clinton recession,” but the other two are moot. And there is no mention at all of GWB using the phrase “inherited recession” or “Clinton recession.”

One out of three. After eight years of GWB’s presidency. It pales in comparison to what The Snob has been saying for less than three months.

Regards,
Peter H.

Au contraire, mon SonicGrenouille. NewsBusters.org has compiled a veritable treasure trove of incorrect (read: fake but accurate) information that the Soros-owned-and-funded Media Matters has spewed.

And the attempt to compare Soros vs Murdoch is tenuous at best. Soros is a multi-millionaire Marxist who has not only brought down one government through his shady business deals (UK Prime Minister John Major in the 1990s), but also has invested leftist groups like Media Matters, MoveOn.org and others with plenty of capital to try and besmirch anyone who dares oppose him, i.e. Bush, Cheney, Rove et al.

Murdoch has been a fair business owner who gave money to both Hillary Clinton and John McCain during the 2008 primaries (I forget if he gave any to The Snob or not). And he also does not allow his own personal predilections to shade any news put out by Sky News, Fox News, the Wall Street Journal or the Sunday Times of London. He is not agenda-driven the way Soros is.

Regards,
Peter H.

Media Matters is owned and operated by George Soros, and also is affiliated with HuffPo, DK and DU.

That’s a stupid argument and you know it. Liberals use that same argument to discount Fox News and the WSJ “It’s owned by (evil) Robert Murdoch”, or better yet, any scientist who disagrees with the catastrophic Global Warming dogma is labeled a tool of “Big Oil”. In each case, it’s the accuracy of the information that matters, not the source.

CHENEY: There’s growing evidence out there, Tim, that the economy is slowing down. We’re seeing it in automobile sales and a lot of other areas, earnings falling off for corporations, and we may well be on the front edge of a recession here. …

RUSSERT: Do you think we’re on the front edge of a recession?

CHENEY: I think so. …

and…

HANNITY, 5/6/03: Now here’s where we are. The inherited Clinton/Gore recession. That’s a fact.[12]

HANNITY, 7/10/03: The president inherited a recession.[13]

HANNITY, 12/12/03: They did inherit the recession. They did inherit the recession. We got out of the recession.[14]

HANNITY, 1/6/04: And this is the whole point behind this ad, because the president did inherit a recession.[15]

HANNITY, 1/15/04: Historically in every recovery, because the president rightly did inherit a recession. But historically, the lagging indicator always deals with employment.[16]

HANNITY, 1/20/04: Congressman Deutsch, maybe you forgot but I’ll be glad to remind you, the president did inherit that recession.[17]

HANNITY, 2/2/04: He did inherit a recession, and we’re out of the recession.[18]

HANNITY, 2/23/04: The president inherited a recession.[19]

HANNITY, 3/3/04: The president inherited a recession.[20]

HANNITY, 3/3/04: Well, you know, we’re going to show ads, as a matter of fact, in the next segment, Congressman. Thanks for promoting our next segment. What I like about them is everything I’ve been saying the president ought to do: is focusing in on his positions, on keeping the nation secure in very difficult times, what he’s been able to do to the economy after inheriting a very difficult recession, and of course, the economic impact of 9/11.[21]

And Donald Evans, Bush’s Secretary of Commerce talking about the recession…

“The president inherited a Clinton recession and turned it into the early stages of Bush prosperity,…”

And then there’s this.

IMO his is kind of a useless post. The blame game can be played all day long without any real enlightenment or thought provoking info or ideas being shared back and forth. Can we find something more pertinent to discuss?

(and yes, I know, I’ve played the game too, so I’m a hypocrite).

Not a reliable source. Period.

Regards,
Peter H.

Source, for what it’s worth – Media Matters. They’re often loony, but this sounds about right.

My take? The fundamentals of any recession are put into place long before the recession happens. It is not necessarily wrong to pin some responsibility on the previous president, be it Bush or Clinton. The pin that pricked the DotCom bubble, causing it to burst, was the lawsuit filed by the the DOJ against Microsoft in 1998. That is what started the loss of over exuberant confidence in the tech sector, and started the two year slide that ended in the 2000 recession. So yes, Bush inherited a recession that was cause by economic conditions set up during the previous administration, and Obama inherited a recession that was building to inevitability during the Bush years. That said, you have to also recognize that, in a free market economy, many of the mechanisms that create the conditions for economic downturns are far beyond the scope and control of the person who happens to be president.

Regards,
Peter H.