Maybe Rachel Maddow watched one too many clips of Bill Clinton during the '92 campaign claiming George H.W. had "driven the economy into a ditch" and that things were as bad as they'd been since the Depression. In the course of trying to lower expectations for Obama to the max on her show tonight, and tracing the history of the economies previous presidents inherited, Maddow claimed that "Clinton took the oath during an economic downturn."Uh, no. He took office in the midst of an economy that was growing at a fast pace. Don't take my word for it. "Fast pace" was the way economic growth was characterized at the time by the . . . New York Times.
View video here.
Story Continues Below Ad ↓
No argument there. But in the course of her walk down Economy Lane, Maddow attempted some historical revisionism at the expense of H.W. Let's call her on it. Here's what she said when it came to Bill Clinton.
RACHEL MADDOW: Clinton took the oath during an economic downturn, but that was a romper room compared to today's down-crash.Wrong. So what's the truth about the economy Bill Clinton inherited? Here's the headline and opening paragraph of the New York Times story of January 29, 1993, reporting on the state of the economy in the last quarter of 1992. That would be the last quarter of H.W.'s presidency and the one immediately preceding Bill Clinton's entry into office.
U.S. SAYS ECONOMY GREW AT FAST PACE IN FOURTH QUARTERWe'll look for Rachel's retraction tomorrow.
By ROBERT D. HERSHEY JR.,
January 29, 1993
The economy grew at a faster-than-expected annual rate of 3.8 percent in the final quarter of 1992, the strongest performance in four years, the Commerce Department reported today.
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Dizzy Rachel
January 7, 2009 - 22:07 ET by Sergeant ROCKThe MSM engaging in revisionist history? I don't believe it!
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Rachel, Rachel, Rachel. The
January 8, 2009 - 11:28 ET by kgRachel, Rachel, Rachel. The only down turn was the words the liberal press used. The economy was actually picking up. Just days after Clinton was sworn in it was widely reported the robust rebound in the economy by that same liberal media. I realize you and the rest of the liberal media has trouble with the truth and facts..
"Forget change, I want improvement!"
A Female Olbermann
January 7, 2009 - 22:21 ET by SkipperMLMEverytime I hear her, all I can think of is how her, mannerisms, facial expressions, mouth twinges, head bobbing-turn tick, and contents look and sound just like Keith. It’s like she went to an Olbermann school of journalism. And is her hair style starting to look like his?
Female Olbermann?
January 7, 2009 - 22:24 ET by Sergeant ROCKHardly. Olbermann lacks the intelligence and wit that Coulter has. Also, in spite of her sharp delivery, what she says is largely fact or at least reasonable enough to consider.
Olbermann, on the other hand, is just a raving lunatic blathering incoherrent musings with little reason or rationale based on fact.
So, your assessment doesn't hold water.
Bolton/KEYES 2012
Sgt. Rock
January 7, 2009 - 22:39 ET by thebutlerdiditI think you mis-read that. I think it was that MADDOW is like KO, not Coulter. Coulter is smarter than both of them. Of course, so is my inbred chihuahua.
Duh!
January 7, 2009 - 22:46 ET by Sergeant ROCKIndeed. I'm way past my bedtime.. my apologies.
Bolton/KEYES 2012
I am the same way in the
January 7, 2009 - 23:34 ET by thebutlerdiditI am the same way in the morning. I just get going good in the afternoon/evening, so morning is not a great time to get coherent thought from me.
Mark - but Bush did inherit a ..
January 7, 2009 - 22:41 ET by Gary HallMark. Exactly - but Bush #2 did inherit a serious economic downturn from Clinton, along with a smorgasboard of on-going world conflicts. Certainly nothing that the media wishes to replay for the public. (;~/ gary
BBbbbuuuut
January 7, 2009 - 23:08 ET by NorthCoasterClinton years were sooo great economy wise. (sarc off)
Assigning blame
January 7, 2009 - 23:18 ET by trak65I don't place that much stock in assigning presidents blame for a few bad quarters, which are inherent to the economic cycle. As we often hear, not a dime is appropriated without House approval. So, we should look at the year-by-year federal deficits as a percentage of GDP and think about who controlled the House of Representatives.
For example, from 1996 to 2007, spending was basically set by an (R) House of Representitives. The surpluses (deficits) were:
95 (2.2%); 96 (1.4%); 97 (0.3%); 98 +0.8%; 99 +1.4%; 00 +2.4%; 01 +1.3%; 02 (1.5%); 03 (3.5%); 04 (3.6%); 05 (2.6%); 06 (1.9%); 07 (1.2%).
Not a perfect record, but the Dems are now going into their 3rd year of running congress, and I think can be fairly held "more responsible" for deficits in 2008 and beyond when they are calling the shots. The 2009 deficit is projected at unprecedented levels of maybe 10% of GDP (the only fair measure) -- much higher than any in recent history.
"We'll look for Rachel's
January 8, 2009 - 00:18 ET by R D Helm"We'll look for Rachel's retraction tomorrow."
LOL-That's okay, Mark. I have things to do between now and when Hell freezes over. :-)
-Dave
“Them that’s going get on the wagon. Them that ain’t get out of the way.” -Because enough is enough.
Breitbart
January 7, 2009 - 23:50 ET by jaywlHey, go over to Gary Grahm's rant at http://bighollywood.... to get a full measure how much crap like this pisses normally sane people off. Its great. As for Madcow, I think she needs a real good, ah, with a man.
The Highest Rated Show On MSNBC. . .
January 8, 2009 - 00:15 ET by Asian Conwhich isn't saying much. Take a look at MSNBC's lineup. Matthews, Maddow and Olberman each airs about 4 times during afternoon to primetime hours. FNC's talent, about twice in the same timespan and they double the ratings of MSNBC and CNN combined. So, basically, nobody gives a crap what these twits have to say. I gotta commend you guys here at NB to be able to stomach these guys on a daily basis.
MSNBC is not a profit based organization. It is a propaganda wing for the DNC. If they cared about profits at all, they would try to find some balance in order to boost their dismal ratings. Ever wonder why all these liberal boobs have shows on satellite radio instead of terrestrial? Because no station on free radio is willing to have these walking disasters drive their stocks down. You think anybody is paying a monthly fee just to listen to Maddow or Bob Costas or Alan Colmes? No. Their paying to listen to Stern and sports talk, Hannity, Rush, Elder, O'Reilly.
"For The First Time In My Life, I Am No Longer Proud Of My Country Because It Seems Like, Socialism Has Made A Comeback"
Well actualy AC
January 8, 2009 - 00:38 ET by general companyYou think anybody is paying a monthly fee just to listen to Maddow or
Bob Costas or Alan Colmes? No. Their paying to listen to
Stern and sports talk, Hannity, Rush, Elder, O'Reilly.
I have been a satellite subscriber since it has been avalible, and it is all about the music for me.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
I Forgot About The Commercial Free Music, GC.
January 8, 2009 - 00:57 ET by Asian ConStill, it hasn't caught on with the masses. Why do you think that is? I understand the fee is pretty reasonable. Personally, I have no need for it. I think the kooky commercials and jingles on the radio is part of the charm. It reminds me of people in the 1940's and 50's, before TV caught on, huddling up in front of the radio to listen to their favorite shows.
I remember when Howard Stern signed his 500 million dollar contract for Sirius. Can you believe that? He expected his 10 to 20 million listeners to make the jump with him. When they didn't, he called his fans a bunch of cheap bastards, LOL.
"For The First Time In My Life, I Am No Longer Proud Of My Country Because It Seems Like, Socialism Has Made A Comeback"
I thought about getting it,
January 8, 2009 - 01:24 ET by thebutlerdiditI thought about getting it, but since I am home most of the time, why bother? I just do the Radio Time thing on the computer, and find a show I want, and the schedule of when it's on. Usually you can find what you want nearly any hour of the day. And it's free, of course. I like that it is the go to place to find out which stations have livestream. I love listening to the commericals from stations all over the country.
To Me, The Radio Is Like Water. . .
January 8, 2009 - 01:36 ET by Asian ConIt's free, so why pay for it? I think they intended satellite radio to be the cable TV of the radio world. However, with IPOD's and file sharing on the net, there's really no need for it. Like I said, the commercials are part of the radios charm.
"For The First Time In My Life, I Am No Longer Proud Of My Country Because It Seems Like, Socialism Has Made A Comeback"
I dont drink much water
January 8, 2009 - 02:12 ET by general companyLike I said, the commercials are part of the radios charm.
I dislike them weather it be on the TV or radio, infact I am quite sure I havent listen to a compleat commercial in years. I have a remote for my TV and satellite radio.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
Not sure why it hasnt caught on
January 8, 2009 - 01:35 ET by general companyBut I highly recomend it. It is cheap ~100 bucks a year and rates drop by the number you have (car/house/work). They have folks like Dylan, Petty, BB King, and Bonamassa and many other DJ their own shows. I learn a ton from folks like these. Stations dedicated to music types and even some dedicated to popular bands. But then I am a music junkie, I buy a lot go watch live and even build some noise makers myself.
"Television is a freak show" Bernie Goldberg
nyt = truth?
January 8, 2009 - 03:52 ET by notonmywatchwhy use the NYT as the arbiter of truth? bad move.
Why not use the actual figures as the arbiter of truth, and back it up with the NYT
being in the NYT doesn't make it true.
I take your point but cited
January 8, 2009 - 06:06 ET by Mark FinkelsteinI take your point but cited it as a source Maddow and other liberals would respect.
That's outrageous. I clearly
January 8, 2009 - 07:01 ET by The Smokin FrogThat's outrageous. I clearly remember that the S&L debacle was finishing up. We paid a fortune for three years to clean up that mess, and Hillary Clinton contributed to causing it. She kept Jim McDougal's 2 defunct banks afloat, while Bill was governor, and we got stuck with the bill. Then Bill Clinton ran on how bad Bush made the economy. There was a mini recession that lasted less than a year and ended just before the election.
But people believed Clinton anyway. Ross Perot contributed to Clinton getting elected. After he was elected, and we were not paying for S&L any longer, the country started to boom again. But the people believed the lie anyway.
It's All Dirty Politics
How funny
January 8, 2009 - 08:35 ET by ArelI think that Rachel needs a history lesson. This economic downfall didn't start with GHW it actually started with Jimmy Carter. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was passed into law by President Carter which was intended to ensure low income families recieve housing loans. It also came with fines and penalties if the banks didn't make these loans even if the banks felt the loan was high risk. Then came all these activist groups like ACORN (remember them?) bullying the banks that didn't give out these high risk loans and so began the subprime mortgage loaning.
In 1993 under "Slick Willy" Freddie and Fannie were made to increase their number of subprime loans and guess who guarantees these loans............you guessed the the American taxpayers. Right before Clinton left office Freddie and Fannie were actually instructed to increase the subprime mortgages until they equalled half of what they carried because he felt backed by taxpayers it was doable.
The result is what we are dealing with to date. Bailouts, no regulations as to how the bailout money is being spent and more hands out asking for help. What ever happened to good old fasion bankruptcy?
Rachel "It's Pat!" Maddow
January 8, 2009 - 09:43 ET by marpelRachel "It's Pat!" Maddow apparently wasn't born during the Jimmy Carter administration and didn't study it in school. Actually, you had to survive through that instead of read about it. It was the darkest time, economically, since the Great Depression. I really don't think we ever recovered from that horror show.
Did anyone notice that Carter was placed way off at the end of the photo op at the White House yesterday? Too bad he was even invited...
Most media are engaging in revision concerning the economy
January 8, 2009 - 09:55 ET by ArminiusSince Barack Obama became president-elect, many in the mainstream media have claimed he will inherit the greatest economic crisis since FDR.
Interestingly, many in the media made similar claims before Ronald Reagan was sworn in as president. For example, according to the January 19, 1981 issue of Newsweek, “When Ronald Reagan steps into the White House next week, he will inherit the most dangerous economic crisis since Franklin Roosevelt took office 48 years ago.”
Is Obama really facing an economic crisis greater than Reagan faced 28 years ago?
The misery index (the sum of the inflation rate and the unemployment rate) was 21.98 in June 1980. It was down to 10.07 when Reagan left office in January 1988. The misery index was 7.77 in November 2008.
Given that the misery index was nearly three times as high when Reagan became president than it is today, it appears the claim that Obama will inherit the greatest economic crisis since FDR is quite an exaggeration.
Source: http://www.miseryindex.us/raw_data.asp
An accurate Clinton '92 campaign slogan
January 8, 2009 - 10:26 ET by Jack ColemanIt's How The Economy Is Perceived, Stupid
That's ok, Maddow can ...
January 8, 2009 - 13:40 ET by SentryDanThat's ok, Maddow can invent any facts she wants, after all, she is a liberal. Liberals are allowed to invent facts that are convinent for their purposes even if there isn't anything to back them up.
Remember folks, Freedom isn't Free. It was bought with the blood and sacrifice of the men and women who are serving and who have served in the U.S. Armed Forces.
For those who fought for it, Freedom has a flavor that the protected will never know.