Perhaps the job market decline is related to the stock market bubble that burst prior to Bush taking office. It really would not have mattered who was in office as their are things that are beyond politics impacting us everyday.

Technological changes like being able to call India via VOIP made it cheaper to outsource jobs. Those major events will impact the economy regardless if a republican or democrat were in office. Clinton had the benefit of the stock market bubble inflating making people more wealthy than should have other been the case.

>"My issue with Kerry is that he appears to be a pathological liar."
>"If he would at least stick to the same story..."
>"How do you deal with a man who says, "I'll never lie to you" when you
>know he's lying?"
>
>Ahh, you just described George Bush
>
>
>
>
>>>I didn't say Bin Laden - I said 'Terrorists'. Reagan and Clinton both
>>>made limited attacks on terrosists. My point was that someone said
>>>Clinton should have dealt with them. How? Invade afghanistan. Reagen
>>>should not have left afghanistan in the state it was after the cold war.
>>>Which is a major point for the terrorists. They felt we abandoned them.
>>>
>>>And I agree that Bush is now trying to take out Bin Laden. That is good,
>>>but I also agree with Kerry in that Iraq is a distraction from the real
>>>goal of destroying terrorists.
>>>
>>Well, at least we have some basis of agreement to go along with our disagreement.<g> My issue with Kerry is that he appears to be a pathological liar. I don't think he even knows he's giving different answers to the questions posed! I can't get past that. If he would at least stick to the same story, I would have more faith in him. As I've said before, trust is the cornerstone of any relationship. How do you deal with a man who says, "I'll never lie to you" when you know he's lying? A real conundrum, isn't it?