I always like BG because he had a strong libertarian streak. His militant anti-comminunism stance gets him lumped into the “right-wing reactionary” category by those on the left who don’t understand the difference between economic conservatives and religious conservatives.
Problem with BG is that his libertarianism was used to play the race card in '64. LBJ had an easy time using that against him.
Goldwater didn’t counter this effectively. On the national level, it’s never been prudent to be taken as obviously racist. Goldwater obviously wasn’t, but perhaps because he was playing his own Southern Strategy at a time when Jim Crow was still in play he came across that way. Not smart.
To the extent that WMDs come into play, yes, it’s a valid topic. I think a strong case could be made that finding WMDs would cement Bush’s chances to win beyond doubt, but not finding them seems to have very little effect in ensuring he that won’t.
Thats the thing with a negative event isnt it? Iif some are found, its a definite event and thus newsworthy, a non-event by definition is much harder, you need something to make it an ‘event’ like a commission or somesuch. And that isnt going to happen if they can help it, it will be a dry report with lots of words in it.
Politically they cant lose on this issue really unless something nasty surfaces like clear evidence of coverups or the like.
Otara
Sure, but the economy was still going downhill- which could only hurt Bush and help Clinton- and Perot had not yet disintegrated, which caused most of the anti-Bush vote to move to Clinton.
Bush is running 52-54% against all of the challengers, and in the course of the next year:
- The economic news is only going to get better, and therefore unemployment is only going to go down
- The War in Iraq will be pushed more and more into the background as it gets passed off to the new Iraqi government to deal with.
There’s no bad news on the horizon for Bush- the American people support his handling of the war (60% approval), and if people don’t care now that WMDs weren’t there, they won’t care in a year, either. Hell, even with the recession barely over, Bush gets a 50% in approval on his handling of the economy, which is only going to get better as the economy rebounds.
Add to that the fact that the Democrats are veering into the area I’ve only seen occupied by liberals* on this board- shrill, nasty, and full of hypochondriacal conspiracy theories about how Bush engineered 9/11 and the War on Terror to implement his new Fascist state- and I think Bush could get re-elected even if he was caught in bed with Michael Jackson and a ten-year-old boy.
[sub]*This is not meant as a slam at all liberals, or even all liberals on this board. If you think this slam applies to you, e-mail me for confirmation, or maybe, just maybe, apply some introspection towards your life and posting style and that whole “flies with honey” thing.[/sub]
John C., the ‘recession’ has been ‘over’ for two years now. I don’t know whether ‘the economy’ as it affects real people will get better or not - I’d say the odds are maybe 3-2 in favor of its getting better, only because it’s so stinky right now. I personally suspect we may have just got a positive blip due to the refi boom, and that will wear off, if it hasn’t already begun doing so.
(Pardon all my quotes; my sentiment is that if ‘the economy’ gets better, but real human beings are, by and large, having a harder time finding suitable work, then we have a disconnect. Like Molly Ivins, I believe we need a ‘Doug Jones Index’ to measure how the average American’s doing.)
People support Bush’s handling of the war right now, because we just captured Saddam. If that turns out to be the key to peace and prosperity over there, it’s nothin’ but good times ahead for Bush. I don’t see that, either: nobody’s yet even proposed a possible solution to the fundamental problem of Sunnis, Shi’ites and Kurds. There are political costs to both staying and leaving too soon.
This isn’t to say that I think Bush is going to lose, only that he’s vulnerable. The Dems still have to nominate someone who can capitalize on those vulnerabilities. I don’t know if Dean’s that man or not. But it’s already starting to look like him or nobody. Right now, I’d regard Bush as at least a 2-1 favorite.
Well, it is certainly true that you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Shit, of course, works best of all.
As to the economy, I offer the opinion of the dreaded Mr. Paul Krugman, who has some expertise in the matters of economics
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/30/opinion/30KRUG.html
In essence, he suggests that the “economic turnaround” which the Bushistas are so eager to declare is narrow and shallow. I have not the expertise in economics to analyse his opinion, but only suggest his expertise might compare favorably with the redoubtable Mr. Corrado.
Frankly, in my ignorance, I am largely of the opinion that Presidents don’t have the power to improve the economy, but only the power to FUBAR. As well, what little I do know suggests that a policy of massive tax cuts coupled with a needless military adventure is the sort of policy that would have the ghost of Mr. Keynes screaming from his grave. A policy that cuts us off from more revenue while we take what we have and set fire to it seems less than optimal.
Our Leaders, after offering as much comfort and balm as possible to those who need it least, walked away without extending unemployment benefits to the desperately needy. Perhaps they felt they had sufficiently addressed the problem by offering lectures on bootstraps and entrepreneurship. Or perhaps they are the heartless and craven tools of the ruling class. It hardly matters to a man who has to decide which of his children to buy shoes for. He might derive the opinion that the Tighty Righties are blithely unconcerned as to the well-being of persons who cannot qualify as Presidential Pioneers, persons who have failed in thier duty to write large checks in support of All American Goodness.
As well, JC’s stance on the publics indifference to war inadvertently reveals a breathtaking cynicism: the people don’t care that we have been bullshitted into war, a situation he greets with aplomb. We are, I take it, to regard this malaise as a good thing. I, for one, have eaten quite enough horseshit for one season, he can have my serving as well.
His sanguine estimation of public approval for GeeDubya overlooks a crucial fact, and that is that the public, by its very nature, wants to approve. We are presented by a GeeDubya who wraps his every gesture in the flag, and references 9/11 as the reason he salts his eggs. When was the last time you saw a speech by Fearless Misleader that was not a pep rally on a military base?
American’s want to rally 'round, we want to be patriotic and supportive. Under these circumstances, a Presidents approval rating is naturally sky-high, as it was about a year ago. As was Bush I’s approval a year before an unknown hick governor from Arkansas handed him his ass. Some 40% of the public would sooner vote for Carrot Top that GeeDubya. Perhaps some spin could applied, perhaps these numbers are only the hysterical effete liberals, so recently powerless and irrelevant.
If I have impressed Mr. Corrado that I am shrill and nasty, I beg him to consider how emotional and unreasonable we of the left can be. Something about sending our children off to useless and ignoble wars upsets us deeply, we lack the calm and rational perspective so dear to the Pubbies. Perhaps it is related to our unfortunate tendency to give a damn.
I, for one, would not have it otherwise. In my time on this damp blue rock, I have noticed that those of us who are entirely cynical invariably describe themselves as hard-headed and realistic.
Nicely said, 'luci.
RTFirefly said:
Perhaps you could explain in detail what makes the current economy ‘stinky’? Because it looks to me like this is the second-best economy in my lifetime. GDP growth last quarter of 8.2%. Unemployment at 5.9% (half the European average, and almost 3 points lower than Canada’s), consumer confidence at 91%. The stock market up 2500 points in a year and a half. Interest rates and inflation at historical lows. Productivity gains at record paces. Low inventories, major business re-investment starting.
So, please tell me where the stink is. I mean, I know the anti-Bush crowd desperately needs to believe that the economy sucks because that’s the only thin hope they have to put a Democrat into the White House. But to paragraph the old saying - if wishes were horses, we’d all be knee-deep in horseshit.
elucidator: Y’know, a Krugman quote would have held some weight with me a couple of years ago. But ever since he became a New York Times columnist, he has slowly gone of the deep end. The man is little more these days than a raving partisan hack. Everything he says about economics these days is spun to make Bush look as bad as possible. And he’s been predicting economic disaster and a stalled recovery ever since the recovery began. As it gets stronger, and the base of recovery grows broader, the man continues to look more and more like someone who has completely lost his judgement.
I should have known that Sam would catch me out, trying to fob off a two-bit lecturer (who styles himself a “Professor”) at some hick junior college (Princeton, IIRC) as some sort of expert. I have little doubt you could have ripped his essay to shreds and tatters, if time were not so pressing. Perhaps, later, you will have the leisure to address the man’s premises, rather than his psychological well-being.
Since when have you ever let someone’s credentials stop you from dismissing them as partisans when they are on the right? I can’t count the number of times you have dismissed outright claims from the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Inistitute, and other Republican-leaning organizations. But when the partisan comes from the left, suddenly it’s all about appeal to authority with you, huh?
Krugman isn’t just mildly biased. He’s a stark-raving loon. I’m shocked by the degree to which this formerly brilliant man has become a spittle-flying polemicist.
Well that certainly rebuts your point, elucidator. How could you have been so wrong? For shame, for shame!
Well, since you don’t have the credentials, let me quote from some who do:
- Bill Dudley, Chief Economist, Goldman Sachs
Or there’s this: 2004 Economic Forecast Best in 20 Years, Conference Board Reports
I could go on - just do a Google search for “2004 economic forecast” and see what you come up with. Mostly, it’s gushingly positive. Except, of course, for that voice in the wilderness, Paul Krugman. He alone predicts disaster, at least until a Democrat is in the White House. Doesn’t that suggest that perhaps his opinion is at best a little tainted?
Stoid:
Personally, no, I would not base my vote for or against a candidate based on my opinion of the people who intend to vote for that candidate. My criteria for voting is twofold:
- What candidate best serves my interests
- What candidate do I trust most as a leader
As for who I intend to vote for (if the election was held today), please see the salient snippet from my last post on this thread:
The “smug/shrill/condescending” label that I suspect the lefties are currently wearing is similar to the “mean” label that gets attached to conservatives.
After all, there’s a good reason Bush labelled himself a “compassionate conservative” in 2000. And if you’re still not convinced, ask yourself this: On the whole, did the Clinton-bashing help or hurt Republicans? Before you answer, consider that Clinton (despite his scandals) was a two-termer who - if allowed by law to run again - most likely would have kicked the crap out of GWB in 2000.
All I’m saying, Stoid, is that the Dems have themselves an image problem, and it would behoove them to address it if they are interested in victory. As I’ve said before, the best way to address it would be for the Dems to marginalize the “Democratic wing of the Democratic Party” as effectively as the Pubbies have marginalized the Falwell/Robertson/Buchanan right. If those guys want to go Green, so be it, but I suspect that after a few more Republican ass-kickings and complete irrelevance, they might sacrifice a little of their ideological purity, because there’s no substitute for winning.
The points a Democratic candidate could legitimately make as a member of the loyal opposition were laid out by Sam Stone above. Personally, I support the war and am generally satisfied that we are making steady progress, but I have plenty of complaints about its implementation. I think Bush is a lousy orator and has done a mediocre job articulating to the world what this nation should be for, not just what it is against. And in a war in which the ultimate goal is to steer the political culture of the Middle East toward moderation against a wall of authoritarianism, fundamentalism, economic stagnation, corruption, and backwardness, I think this is rather important.
Sadly, the Democrats have decided to make the same mistake, only articulating what they are against (Bush), but not offering a credible vision of the post-9/11 milieu America finds itself in. I think it’s regrettable that the politics of anger have seized the day in the Democratic Party, and that those who practice such politics have hitched their wagons to Howard Dean’s rising star.
Awww, Sam please! An economist from Goldman Sachs tells me that the investment horizon is rosy with promise and I am to turn a deaf ear to the Apostate Krugman in favor of the opinion of a man whose business is selling stock? You deride my objectivity, and then present such a clearly biased source without caveat? Is this another example of droll Canadian irony?
But I can hardly engage in meaningful debate on a subject I am admittedly ignorant about. Suffice to say that if it should be proven that an economic recovery is imminent (perhaps that’s the wrong word…) and it is entirely due to the brilliant theory of GeeDubya, I should be happy to enthusiasticly endorse and support him for the position of Treasurer, or to head the Council of Economic Advisers. Clearly, his record as a businessman speaks of one who is creative and bold, and undeterred by persistent failure.
No Sam, it indicates that yours is. Try this, for instance. Krugman is hardly the only one pointing out that that the ‘recovery’ is more bubble than actual.
http://www.dodgeglobe.com/stories/122903/opi_1229030012.shtml
For that matter, Krugman isn’t even saying that the DOW isn’t going to go up in 2004, he’s saying that it will. But that it won’t really result in improvements for more than a tiny minority of Americans. The electoral consequences of a “jobless” recovery is virtually the same as no recovery at all. A recovery that doesn’t result in rising wages and reduced unemployment will quickly stall because consumers won’t be able to buy the goods that are being produced.
Your ‘gushing’ cites don’t disprove that, they merely ignore that. And in doing so commit the classic error of the amateur. Because they don’t understand the difference between correlations and causes, they make the mistake of believing that correlations that have held true in the past (rising DOW correleates to middle class prosperity) will still be true even when the factors that caused the correlation in the past (productivity gains were shared with labor rather than just increasing profits) are absent.
Krugman knows stuff that you don’t. Calling him names doesn’t change that.
I should add a caveat. I’ve no doubt that at least some of your cites aren’t making amateur errors so much as preying on your ignorance. The people at Goldman probably do understand the bubble as well as Krugman, but they know that they can snow you into giving them business, so they go for it.
I didn’t just quote Goldman, I quoted extensively from the Conference Board as well. I see both you and elucidator decided to ignore that.
And in rebuttal, you post a cite from an Op-Ed? I thought that was verboten. I mean, you used to run December into the ground when he’d do that, remember?
I’m heading for dinner now, but when I get back I’ll be happy to post a wide range of economic opinions contradicting Krugman.
Well, Sam, digest this:
First of all, I have to preface this with the unfortunate truth that unless the inevitable dollar crisis happens in the next year, Bush will probably win.
That said, as I pointed out before, the chief problem Bush inherited from Clinton was the current account deficit. IANAE, but I invest my own money, which has grown substantially over the past few years, on the scenario I am about to lay out, and that money has grown substantially precisely because I put my money where my mouth, and my mind, are.
But I’m not the only one. There are lots of guys out there who, unfortunately, can already afford their own 50 foot yachts. Taking it from right to left, among them are:
1 - Sir John Templeton: who figures the dollar will fall 40%, and predicts some pretty dire results from that:
2 - Warren Buffett, who recently said he’s investing in foreign currencies for the first time in his life:
http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/ac/Qus-economy-forex-buffett.RQh9_DOR.html
3 - George Soros:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2072100.stm
These guys put their money where their mouths and minds are, and have each made fortunes doing it. While I am agnostic on the question of whether there will be a crisis in the dollar in the next year, I also have one third of my non-401k assets in either gold, silver, or precious metals stocks, all of which would appreciate very nicely if the dollar does fall. Note also that the HUI, the Amex Gold Bugs Index, did better this year than any of the major stock indices.
To put it bluntly, it will be because of blind luck and nothing else if the dollar crisis doesn’t happen before the election.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: my hat for a President with a brain. (I like my house and my dog too much to give them up. Oh well.)
Tejota: By the way, since you’re using an Op-Ed for a cite, I had assumed that “John Atcheson” must be a respected economist or something. But Google searches turn up nothing but that and another highly partisan op-ed, and a blurb at the bottom of each one simply says, “John Atcheson has held policy positions in several federal agencies.”
Could you tell me what his credentials are?
BTW, that op-ed you cited is a piece of crap. Atcheson makes the claim that the Bush tax cut is 350 billion dollars a yar. He’s only off by a factor of about 2.5 on that, and his whole thesis is based around that number. And the non-sequitur mentions of “Ken Lay and his friends” pretty much indicates that what you’ve linked to is yet another twisted partisan polemic. Nice try, though.
Now for some comments from grown-ups:
“David Wyss, chief economist at Standard & Poor’s in New York, predicted GDP growth next year would hit 4.7 percent, in line with many private analyses.”
“Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo in Minneapolis, said that continued low interest rates, coupled with what he estimates will be $149 billion in tax relief in the pipeline for 2004, will provide the economy a strong tail wind.”
"A recent survey by the 600,000-member National Federation of Independent Business found the outlook among small business owners rising to the highest level since late 1983.
“Business optimism about 2004 is really strong,” said NFIB chief economist William Dunkelberg."
USC Economists predict job growth, stronger economy in 2004
Gee, I thought Krugman said it WASN’T broad based.
Economists Predict economic upswing, tighter labor market in 2004
Economists See Solid US Growth Into 2004
Really, I could post dozens like this, but I think you get the point. Krugman is WAY out on a limb in predicting doom for the economy. No other professional economists I could find predict anything but solid growth and a job recovery next year. Every single major indicator is pointing up.
Pantom: While I think the current account deficit is a real issue, there are plenty of signs that that is improving as well, and not getting worse. For example:
Current Account Deficit Narrows in Q3
Also, the U.S. government has been moving away from its strong dollar policies and allowing the U.S. dollar to slowly slide a bit, which indicates that they know it has to come down.
But overall, I agree that this is a serious issue, and I’m pulling 25% of my U.S. stock investments out next week and moving them into domestic funds here in Canada. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the Canadian dollar gain another 10% against the U.S. dollar this year.
A bigger question is exactly what this would do to the U.S. economy. Canada’s dollar lost 35% of its value over a period of ten years with relatively little damage. So a ‘soft landing’ is entirely possible.