Monica Crowley falsely claimed that "unemployment ... remains at historical lows"
SUMMARY: On The McLaughlin Group, Monica Crowley falsely claimed that "unemployment, which is starting to tick up, still remains at historical lows." In fact, every state except West Virginia has a higher unemployment rate -- some significantly higher -- than its historic low. Moreover, the current national rate of 6.1 percent is higher than when President Bush took office in January 2001, when it was 4.2 percent, and is just two-tenths of a percentage point below the highest rate of the past 10 years.
During the September 21 edition of the syndicated program The McLaughlin Group, in a discussion of Sen. John McCain's claim that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," Fox News contributor Monica Crowley falsely claimed that "unemployment, which is starting to tick up, still remains at historical lows." In fact, according to the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), every state except West Virginia (with unemployment equal to its historic low) has a higher unemployment rate -- some significantly higher -- than its historic low. Thirteen states' current unemployment rates are at least double their historic low, including Connecticut, whose 6.5 percent unemployment rate more than triples its historic low. Moreover, not only is the national unemployment rate not a "historical low[]," but the current rate of 6.1 percent is higher than when President Bush took office in January 2001, when it was 4.2 percent. According to the BLS, the national unemployment rate is now just two-tenths of a percentage point below the highest rate of the past 10 years, when it reached 6.3 percent in June 2003.
From the September 21 edition of The McLaughlin Group:
McLAUGHLIN: McCain says the fundamentals of our economy are strong. Is that a gaffe? Watch.
McCAIN [video clip]: This foundation of our economy, the American worker, is strong.
McLAUGHLIN: Question: Is McCain solving the problem he created when he says that the American worker is the foundation? Presumably, the collective fundamentals of the economy. Does that give him cover, Monica?
CROWLEY: Well, he tried to clean up his initial comment, there. But what you didn't play, the second part of his clip was, the fundamentals of the economy are strong, and then he said but we are in very very difficult times, which nobody played, including you. He was talking about -- he tried to say he was talking about the American worker, but there are elements in this economy, which is vast and complex, that do remain strong. That is worker productivity. Unemployment, which is starting to tick up, still remains at historical lows. Exports remain very high. There is a more favorable trade balance going on, which is producing this growth that we saw in the last quarter of 3.3 percent. I'm not saying that politically it was a very smart thing for him to say. He tried to clean it up, and he wasn't entirely wrong when he made that comment.
Quite amazing how accurate this group has been...
U.S. Civilian Unemployment Rate Forecast
Percent Unemployed Seasonally Adjusted.
Month Date Forecast
Value 50%
Correct +/- 80%
Correct +/- 0 Aug 2008 6.10 0.0 0.0 1 Sep 2008 6.2 0.3 0.5 2 Oct 2008 6.3 0.4 0.6 3 Nov 2008 6.4 0.4 0.7 4 Dec 2008 6.5 0.4 0.7 5 Jan 2009 6.7 0.5 0.8 6 Feb 2009 6.8 0.5 0.8 7 Mar 2009 7.0 0.5 0.9 8 Apr 2009 7.1 0.6 0.9
I only watch her for the articles...
I think she got the target wrong. George Bush is not running for reelection and the numbers reflect his governance. if she wants to back McCain, i would recommend she uotes numbers more specific to McCain's governance as senator for Arizona, Unless it is a blank sheet of paper.
Nice impression of a right wing talking point spewer. For a minute there I thought you were serious.
Rick
Such a wonderful personality as Monica should expect a little sexism towards her due to her past comments also. Just kidding...;>)
Once she referred to spokeswomen for Hillary as: Clinton Ladies Intervention Team and this coming from....Crowley Useless No Talent.
The unemployment number is not subject to partisan opinion.
The number is what it is, and right now it's higher than usual, not lower.
Period. Anyone who says differently or tries to equivocate is a bald-faced liar.
She must have meant that it was ticking upward from it's historical lows of ----
THE CLINTON YEARS !!!
Junior has never seen unemployment numbers as low as Bill's. The funniest thing I've ever heard was when a friend of mine recently said that Junior will go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents ever.
Hell, I still can't acknowledge that he's even a President.
"...a friend of mine recently said that Junior will go down in history as one of our greatest Presidents ever."
Hey, Rick, how's life as a powerful political insider going?I just got back from helping out a local MoveOn group make phone calls to members in WA. It was a little party on one of these man=made islands in the harbor that I figured were solidly Repub. Dirtbags like me are barely allowed to cross the bridges onto these , but I was impressed with the mix of people, and that the hosts, an older couple with a boat slip in their backyard, weren't drinking the Kool Aid.Liberals are pretty undercover in the O.C. ,so it's nice to find out I'm not alone here.
Your comment reminded me that one of the guys there mentioned that his Republican co-workers are already suggesting that W. will be remembered for saving the U.S. economy. Ouch, my head!
BTW, I got some reinforcement to the well-supported wisdom that Dems, while better at running things than the GOPpers, aren't nearly as organized at winning elections. Most of the group was calling MoveOn members to get them out to HQ in Richland, WA, but several people on the list informed us that they were in Walla Walla, 75-100 miles away from Richland. Will Rogers wasn't kidding. ;0)
If Ronald Reagan can get credit for winning the cold war I won't be at all surprised if 15 or 20 years from now the Reps are trying to re-write history and give Bush credit for saving the economy, bringing peace to the middle east, ending our dependence on foreign oil, solving global warming and saving a littler of puppies from a burning building.
Yeah, I thought so too Snoopy. Obama really handeled that well. In fact, I thought his entire interview went well. the contrast between him and McCain is starkly clear.
Obama came across as a real thinker. Well thought out answers and some clear ideas on what he would do if he is (God willing) elected President. Unfortunatly, he is going to be very constrained in what he can do by the melt down on Wall Street. I hope he can get something done.
McCain looked tense, and old.
Obama looked like what he was promising to be, a change.
They both took jabs at each other but that is no surprise.
Don't get sucked into the hero myth. Obama will only get as much done as we push him to do.
A few years ago, the media was capable of holding a number or two in its head, and only tripped when it attempted to execute a simple piece of logic using those numbers. Now it can't even hold the numbers.
Why is that stupid blonde thing on my TV as opposed to, say, a rusty pipe or a salamander? Rusty pipes work cheap.
Rusty Pipes...isn't he a fellow at the Arrogant Enterprise Institute?
if you took economics 101 you would know that 5% unemployment is full employment. 1.1% does look too bad no matter which way you turn it. having trouble? move to west virginia.
That number doesn't tell the real story Paleocon. When you factor in those whose benefits have run out (they drop off the rolls when that happens) plus those who have stopped looking because there is nothing out there then the real rate is probably somewhere around 8.5 to 9 %. That, in my opinion is the true measure of unemployment.
Jim, when Paleocon says "economics 101" he may actually mean "Sean Hannity economics 101", as it sounds pretty close to what I heard on Hannity's radio show one morning.
He started with the unemployment rate (let's say it was 5%) and made the jump to cipherin' that meant 95% employment. Hannity then made up some numbers for people working under the table and illegal aliens, and by the time he was finished had it worked out to something like 125% employment.
I don't think Hannity even thought of it, but I'd suggest that everybody who's had to take on a second job during the Bush administration effedctively cancels out an unemployed person, so we may really be up around the neighborhood of 150% employment.
I know what you're saying Col. I was trying to give Paleocon the benefit of the doubt. I remember when I was in school that 5% was the accepted figure for a full employment scenario. Now? I think those econ101 books need a re-write and Paleocon and Hannity need to go back to school. BTW, nice to see you on this board as well as TP.
I don't post at TP. Is there a Col. Sanders impostor impersonator running around?
My bad Col. I could swear that I saw you on there a few times.
So basically you're just saying ignore it because you don't believe it's a problem. That attitude is exactly why republicans will lose house and senate races along with the presidency this year.
"if you took economics 101"
And if you hadn't failed out, you would have eventually come to realize econ 101 is nothing but idealized models that have little to do with the real world.
For shit sakes, dude, slavery could be considered full employment.
paleocon said: "if you took economics 101 you would know that 5% unemployment is full employment."
so what. thats not the point of this thread. MC claimed we are at historic lows when the truth is any empirical look at the ACTUAL DATA show that bushes economy is is not near historic lows (of the clinton admin) but getting higher and farther away from historic lows with every report.
you cant just change the yardstick in the middle of measuring. 5% is not the HISTORICAL low, its a "ful employment" stat from an econ 101 book. Historical lows would be the 4% rate Bush inherited and has since squandered . . . he hasnt had a reduction in unemployment for 19 months.
Right you are, mhughen. And, as Tweety pointed out, JFK used 5 & change % unempoloyment to bash the Republicans over the head in the '60 campaign.
just like 'the long term fundamentals of our economy are strong'.
whichever idiot utters similar words do not know what they are talking about.
it's like saying I will be still be alive after 10 years when I have a fever (add a head ache too) now. Sure it helps that I am not going to die with fever but does it really help in understading why I have fever?
The truth is, Jim, that Republicans have been pushing the Trickle Down Theory since the 1920s. In fact, that's when they actuallt CALLED it Trickle Down. Naturally, it fell into popular disfavor with the Stock Market crash of 1929 and its subsequent Great Depression. It wasn't untill 1980 that the Reagan folk reclaimed it from history's trash heap, dusted it off, and renamed it Supply Side Economics. It was bullsh!t in the Twenties, bullsh!t in the Eighties, and is still bullsh!t today.
And we keep falling for it.
Well, as the old saying goes: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... can't get fooled again.
You just don't have the right perspective - it works just fine - for THEM. ;)
"unemployment, which is starting to tick up, still remains at historical lows."
Funny, but I heard Sean Hannity say the exact same thing just the other day. I wonder where Monica Crowley got her information. Is this a Republican talking point floating around in right wing circles...or does she listen to Hannity? Regardless of the falsity of her assertion it has obviously entered the Republican echo chamber. So I guess that means it's a fact...and reality be damned.
Ask them what a dollar buys, then ask them what the minimum wage pays.
They can kiss my ass.
Why would she ever tell the truth ? Why is she allowed on TV ?
Crowley, former Nixon lackey. Plagiarist. http://www.slate.com/id/1003470/
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/07/03/right-wing-radio-talker-monica-crowley-caught-plagiarizing/
Liar http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8UsCWH9UeM Idiot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEmgJ5bdE8c
Fearmonger/Warmonger http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/04/18/monica-crowley-and-the-neocon-kool-aid/
Does Crowley actually write the words she says on the air?
Nice to be reminded that the Ditzi Chicks remain well represented - this poor lady speaks from a severely limited script, evidently acquired very early in life, narrow and doctrinair - perhaps her masters' adoption of Socialism in high finance will dent her arrogant certainty - most prolly just confuse her.