1 yes, and I posted that news in the comments over at cowbytheudders.

2 If I'm not mistaken, he still has the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover. I don't keep up with the jobs tallies from moment to moment, but if you're bragging that he only has ONE OF THE WORST jobs records of all-time, then, well, I don't know what to say. The fact is, anyone who cuts taxes on the wealthy multiple times and still can't generate jobs is most likely doing something wrong. Since we're sacrificing the country's fiscal health in the future for the economy of the present, we at least should get a few jobs out of it. Any president can impatiently stimulate the economy with crude tax cuts. Bush's tax cuts provide little specific stimulus in the correct areas (Clinton's economic team was less crudely ideological about these things, and more analytical), so the wheels just aren't turning quite as well as they should be. I love how Bush supporters talk about these things in a vacuum. You'd think that in order to evaluate the president, you'd need to compare him to someone. Apparently not. They like to cite raw figures, without any mention of the fact that Clinton, say, created more than 10 million jobs per term while, unlike Bush, maintaining a healthy fiscal policy. With Bush, expectations are so damned low. Iraq isn't Vietnam. The jobs situation isn't as bad as it was during the Great Depression. Sure millions have lost healthcare. But think of Kenya! Far more people there without quality health insurance. Yes, Bush has no policy on global warming, even as frightening new data pours in about the vanishing arctic ice caps. But imagine being able to grow tomatoes in Alaska! We haven't caught bin Laden. Or even focused on it, really. But admit it. Sitting home alone with a box of popcorn, watching those video tapes, is better than anything you can rent at Blockbuster. It ain't so bad. Bush is DA GREATEST, man.

3 actually, no bragging. I think to much credit and blame is assigned to presidents where the economy and particularly employment is concerned. I would counter, however, that overzealous efforts to reduce the deficit during the Clinton admin resulted in a huge government surplus. Though it has been over 20 years since I studied macro, I do recall that government surpluses cause recessions...its better to have the money in the hands of the private sector. I would also argue that Clinton's distracted leadership (which was his fault and the fault of republicans who took advantage of his inability to keep it in his pants) added greatly to our being asleep at the watch. This helped contribute to 9-11, which further hammered an economy that was on a slide. I think it will be another two or three years before we find out if Bush and his policies, across the board, will make matters better or worse.