Much like Obamas “clinging to guns and religion” comment than some people in this thread defended so vigorously in the past Gramms comment is true, yet it was a very very stupid thing to say.
I’ll accept that I’m not necessarily being very clear tonight. More later, tomorrow possibly.
But the difference is that Obama’s statement was played over and over again. The question is whether or not , this will receive the same coverage or will McCain’s Telfon once again prove slick?
Man, McCain was funny trying to duck that birth control question.
Gramm apparently has forgotten how to look at things as a campaigning politician – even though it may be true that in the world of macroeconomics, we are not in a recession, a politician would know that “Joe Bluecollar” doesn’t give a rat’s arse about GNP, all HE knows is his plant closed, his pension’s tanked, and his former CEO’s off to Aspen. That in the big picture things eventually will turn for the better (we hope!) does that guy no good NOW. (That I know the Market has always ended “up” over the long run doesn’t make opening my retirement fund’s statements any less scary!) Now, Gramm may have been trying to “talk up” the situation, and retort to what he may see as people who predict the End of The World; he even recognized the fact that a sluggish economy made that a tall order. But he phrased it quite badly.
On the other, lesser dispute mentioned in the OP – 
I can find absolutely NO fault with Ms. Fiorina making a critique of health plans that rather cover Viagra than contraception. It’s absolutely a valid observation and leaves me to wonder who would find that “controversial”.
Y’know, this campaign has become a throwing-under-the-bus competition (OK some people throw *themselves * under said bus, Right, JJ?); I wonder if by October each candidate will be just plain plumb out of spokespeople, advisors, consultants and strategists willing to speak one word in public…
The economy has grown, but the benefits of the recent growth have gone to the wealthy while the standard of living for most americans has remained flat.
On the whole, globalization helps the economy; it just doesn’t help everybody in that economy.
Of course it doesn’t help everybody. What does? But Gramm is talking about the globaliztion trend of the last few decades. Do you think most Americans would be better off if we had not participated in that trend? Remember, it’s not just a matter of there being globalization or not-- it probably would’ve happened with or without us. The only choice we had was to “protect” our economy from it or participate in it with everyone else.
Ah, Carly. Spying on fellow board members and news reporters, too. Yeah, she’ll fit in fine with Bush III.
I think the OP’s point was that when McCain was asked he agreed with the point, he didn’t so much dodge the question as get run over by it. (Shown in the video link.) He’s got to coordinate better with his people or he’s going to keep getting blindsided like that.
Well it was also said by Obama himself and not one of his surrogates, and Im pretty sure the Obama campaign is running with this one.
We did participate and most Americans are no better off.
I think globalization is good. But when Gramm talks about it as an unequivocal good, it shows him to be out of touch. The greatest benefits have gone to him and his rich friends.
Page not found | Harper's Magazine Heres a nice Harpers article describing how the numbers the government uses to explain the economic conditions have been slowly cheapened over time. Since Kennedy each administration has found a new way to slightly distort the numbers ,which include unemployment, inflation and growth or lack of it. We quote the statistics like they have meaning and can be related to the real world. This article says unemployment is in the 9 to 12 percent range,inflation is at about 10 . It is clear that these numbers are more like the economy feels.
We have shed jobs for 6 straight months. The cost of living is affecting peoples life styles. Wages are dropping. Foreclosures this month went up only 53 percent. Yet the economy is doing well? It is not a psychological impression. It is experience and fact that depresses most Americans.
No, they didn’t. They are actually down 3% from last month. Yes, they are up 53% from the June of last year, but that’s not going up 53% in a month.
Really? No better off than 30 years ago (the timeframe he is talking about).
But the real question isn’t whether we’re better off or not, but whether we would have been better off not participating.
He didn’t say it was an unequivocal good. He said we have benefited greatly. We have.
From what I’ve heard, she’s actually on the Veep short list, too. At least she has lots of experience in illegal spying and all that. Should fit right in.
-Joe
Do you think it would be a smart thing for McCain to say at a town hall meeting? “You’ve all benefited greatly.”
As you well know, what’s true and what’s politically advantageous to say are not the same thing.
Depends on which town. In most cases it probably wouldn’t be smart.
It would be nice, though, to have a town hall meeting type discussion about globalization. I hear Obama talk a lot about “free and fair trade”, and I’m not really sure what “fair” trade is and how that differs from plain ol’ protectionism.
It’s probably just me, but it seems that in every case you’re tuned in accutely to just what McCain means by whatever he says, and by the same measure are tuned out of what Obama means by anything he says. I could tell you what I think he means by fair trade since I suspect it is the same thing I mean by it. But I might make just as little sense to you as he does, so there’s no point in bothering you about it. Isn’t it maybe time, from your point of view, just to write Obama off as some mysterious character who cannot communicate and hasn’t said or done a praiseworthy thing since January? I don’t know why you hang in there in some undecided status unless it’s just a sort of “hope springs eternal” kind of thing.
Carly “The Hatchet” Fiorina? Potentially the republican VP (and under the aging McCain, potentially president)? Well, her “destroy the organization I run for personal profit” management style does match the current administration’s SOP pretty well…
On the other hand, her being on the ticket would be about the only way to make my dad not vote republican. (He was a victim of her senseless hatchetwork - despite being so vital to his project that his workgroup covertly hired him back as a (badly-treated, underpaid) contractor within weeks, despite that being forbidden.)
I’m not in an undecided status. And we’re not talking about something McCain said, we’re talking about something Gramm said. I’ve followed Gramm for a long time, and I’m pretty familiar with his views.
From what I’ve heard Obama talk about with “fair trade”, much of it is pretty conventional and uncontroversial-- ie, enforcing existing agreements. I mean, who wouldn’t be for that? The part I have difficulty understanding, in terms of the “free” part of “fair trade”, is the requirement for labor and environmental laws. Those look protectionist to me-- things that he says are necessary to protect US jobs. But maybe I’m missing the classical liberal angle there.
Oh, one other thing. Like 4 years ago when it wasn’t sufficient to be for Kerry (you had to also hate Bush), it appears that it’s not sufficient to be for Obama-- you have to hate McCain as well. I don’t hate McCain. That’s probably what you’re seeing.