Saturday essay: MoveOn’s deceit |

Saturday essay: MoveOn’s deceit

An outfit called, founded by Silicon Valley types, did a hatchet job on President Bush in a full-page ad in The New York Times. We return the favor, not with the broadsword but with a stiletto.

Among the many charges, the only one amenable to strict factual analysis within the ad oh-so-cleverly was titled “Mis-State of the Union”:

“George Bush: ‘Our first goal is … an economy that grows fast enough to employ every man and woman who seeks a job.’

“The Truth: Bush is the first president since Hoover to preside over an economy that has lost jobs, not created them — more than 2.9 million since 2001.”

The Trib: In President Clinton’s last full month in office, December 2000, employment was 135.8 million, 5.7 million unemployed. In January 2001, the month Bush took office, 136 million were employed, 6 million jobless. In Bush’s first full month in office, employment was 135.8 million, unemployment 5.9 million.

In August 2003, the latest month statistics are available, employment was 137.6 million, 8.9 million jobless.

While 2.9 million more are unemployed, 1.6 million more are working compared to January 2001. As for February 2001, 1.8 million more are working.

These statistics compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor show a net increase in jobs, but not fast enough to keep pace with growth in the labor force.

MoveOn should move on.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.