It's the Economy, McCain

A "mountain of dismal economic news" released today will not help a McCain-Palin ticket that has no economic plan more sophisticated than "What Bush did" and "drill, baby, drill."

[T]he Labor Department said new applications for unemployment insurance rose by 15,000 from the previous week. That broadly missed expectations for a fourth-straight week of declines, and heightened worries that the average American — already feeling the effects of the weak housing market — will have even less means to spend. ... Economists are predicting the eighth straight monthly payrolls drop, and a rise in the unemployment rate.

That typical Americans have less to spend is evidenced by the absence of spending, as shown by poor retail sales figures last month. Crude oil prices dropped, but not as much as analysts expected. All of this contributed to another stock market plunge. If John McCain continues to cling to the Bushian belief that the economy is strong, he might have to worry that even the reddest of the red states will turn bright blue in November.

Will McCain come up with a realistic plan to turn the economy around? Listen for one tonight when McCain accepts his party's nomination.

< Kilpatrick Pleads, Resigns | Jack Abramoff Gets Reduced Sentence >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And the Dow is down 300 (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:34:20 PM EST
    on news of Palin's nomination.

    But, hey, the oil companies are making enough money that the price of gas at my favorite off-brand place has dropped from $4.05 or so a month ago to $3.39 today.

    Just like two years ago, Big Oil is manipulating the price of gas to make sure the Republicans don't get hammered further.

    But, hey, we don't have to listen to Doddering Old Man McSame - the NFL kicks off the season tonight, just in time to preempt McCain.

    Giants tonight, right? (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:40:31 PM EST
    I'll be watching NFL, TYVM!

    Gas should drop again soon. Wonder how low it will go?


    It won't go low enough fast enough (none / 0) (#15)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:12:20 PM EST
    to keep up with the rate that people are falling behind in this economy.

    Yup - Redskins at Giants (none / 0) (#21)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:21:36 PM EST
    and you know there will be the whole extended orgy* of "MEET YOUR SUPER BOWL CHAMPIONS AND SEE THE HARDWARE!" pre-game, so it likely will run long.

    * Hope that word doesn't set off the pron filters and get me in trouble with TL.


    If McCain had a single brain cell... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:36:34 PM EST
    ...he would co-opt middle class tax cuts for himself.  I believe, were he to do this, simply say to working Americans "Your taxes will be cut and offset by small increases to the upper income brackets", then he would win.  Seems a no-brainer, but, alas, the brain seems to be a no show.  Maybe he'll surprise us.  And maybe bats will fly out of his rear.

    C'mon, you know that the bluebloods (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:38:43 PM EST
    would have McSame's head were he to even allow the idea of a tiny, tiny tax cut to enter the outer limits of his consciousness, let alone endorse one.

    And, the members of the Ownership Society don't care about the middle class, because they own everything worth owning.


    Of course I realize this (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Dadler on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:43:08 PM EST
    But where would the blue bloods cast their vote?  You think they want Obama more than they'd take an economically imperfect McCain?   I'm telling you, it's a no-brainer, but like I said...they have no brains.  

    You'd be getting this whole (none / 0) (#24)
    by scribe on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:25:26 PM EST
    "Traitor to his class" thing they used to (and some of the geezers still do) throw at FDR, re-vivified and thrown at McSame.

    After all, McSame did prep at the ultra-elite Episcopal High, Alexandria, Va.


    I agree (none / 0) (#25)
    by Cairo Faulkner on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:27:43 PM EST
    It's very odd that he has not done this, especially given he opposed the Bush tax cuts originally. He obviously leaned Bushward on taxes to secure his base.

    If he were wise he'd go relatively wonkish tonight on the economy. He can't beat Obama when it comes to oratory; he can't beat Palin for that matter. He should stand up and feel people's pain. Obama did this well, but the empty suit meme still exists.

    So I expect a more substantial, raw economic based speech. But I expected more biography/introduction from Palin, instead it was attack dog (with lipstick), so maybe they won't do this.


    Maybe not (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by TChris on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:29:45 PM EST
    I expect him instead to remind us that he was a POW.

    A POW? (none / 0) (#30)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:34:41 PM EST
    Really?  Well, that's certainly news to me.  Do you have a link?  :>)

    I am not sure McCain is capable of giving a (none / 0) (#33)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:41:14 PM EST
    solid, wonkish speech on the economy.  Recall, it is not his thing and I am really convinced it is not.  He could have chosen Mitt Romney as his running mate, a notable financial genius.  Instead, he choose the ... with lipstick.  Romney was governor of my state.  He had a difficult time here but every governor does.  It is the dynamic here that the legislature tries its darndest to make every governor appear weak.  They are quite effective at that and it matters not whether the governor is a Republican or Democrat. McCain had other more accomplished women to choose from also who would have complemented his weakness-the economy.  

    Oh well, too late now.

    Aside from the Obama phenomenon, and after all is said and done, the economy will rule this election.  Based on that alone, I could never support the Republican ticket.      


    Well I can't argue with this one (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by cawaltz on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:37:59 PM EST
    More bridges will be falling apart under McCain because they just can't stop repeating the GOP mantra of cutting taxes.

    as stated by me starting (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:53:17 PM EST
    last october and followed several times this year.  The stimulus artificially propped the economy up and the world economy is slowing tremendously as well.  Unemployment will most likely reach 6.2 by the end of the year and would be closer to that without the stimulus.  I recall McCain saying that he is not an economist and not an area of expertise for him.  There is no greater crisis in the US than the impending crash in the economy although national security and a 3 am phone call seem to get more play.  People in the heartland are feeling it and it is going to get worse while congress and the president continue with their do-nothingness.  

    Job losses every month, foreclosures, unscrupulous loans, politicians calling americans "whiny" about economics, job freezes, buyouts and lending freezes.  Surely Fred Thompson was suffering from a bruised head the other night when he said the economy is fine.  More importantly, the American people have heard him and Gramm and Foxnews repeatedly tell them there is nothing wrong with the economy and surely they live in a different America.  

    In all of the posts today i have not seen one mention of Iraq or Afghanistan which is ironic because it was a big part of the convention last night.  People don't think we won or lost, what they think is that we are spending BILLIONS rebuilding a country while our infrastructure is falling apart.  What they see is BILLIONS being spent on rebuilding Iraq and they posed no threat to us and had no WMD, while they buy generics and cut coupons and spend twice as much on gas as they were a few years ago an expense that was not expected or budgeted for.

    George Bush said in 2003 and asked for in appropriations 74 billion dollars for the Iraq war.  It is estimated to cost us 1 TRILLION.  What most Americans want is for our gov't to come to its senses, declare victory and cut off the funds.  One trillion dollars invested in infrastructure would have unquestionably avoided this recession and the foreclosure, credit and financial crisis.

    The difference between dope and hope is the letter d, which of course is the first letter of deficit and denial.....

    You know that is a brilliant idea (none / 0) (#23)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:25:16 PM EST
    Let's just declare victory and get the heck out of Iraq.  I honestly think this is a great idea.  I think it could be sold to the American people quite easily, no matter the party affiliation.  After all, what is victory??

    yes, what is victory? (none / 0) (#31)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:35:29 PM EST
    Saddam is gone and according to Bush they have a functioning government and minimal fighting.  What are the other requisites for declaring victory?  More bleeding of american taxpayer dollars to fund the Iraqi economy?  According to the press releases by this administration things have turned around, yet we still have our troops in harms way and of equal importance away from their families.  Kids are growing up without their fathers or mothers and can you imagine not being there for any two years of your childrens' lives?  I simply cannot fathom the thought and cannot imagine the hardship it would cause on my family.  I would imagine tens of thousands of american families have been fractured by this war and it is time to for us to start the healing process here.  Two years we are keeping kids from a parent and we are not threatened in any way.  Seems to fly directly into the "defense" argument.

    Any litigator could (none / 0) (#37)
    by befuddledvoter on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:45:48 PM EST
    make a strong argument that we are the victors in Iraq.  You just marshall the facts that support your position and remind people that "victory" does not mean a democracy like ours.  It means overthrowing a brutal dictator so that the country can then choose its own form of government, compatible with its own culture and norms.  It is not for us as Americans to decide the precise form of government.  One size does not fit all.

    The GOP's game plan is to (none / 0) (#41)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 05:00:22 PM EST
    declare the surge worked (they did that already), announce in late Sept or Oct that we can pull troops out of Iraq, publicize that their "tough on terror" policies worked in spite of the foot dragging by those leftie Democrats, withdraw troops that were already due to return (or set the schedule to start next spring) and win the election.  Repubs, Indies and moderate Dems who are still unsure of Obama will heave a big collective sigh and vote for the experienced POW who claims he won't raise their taxes but will still keep them safe from the bad guys.  After McSame is Prez, we'll get some troops home by replacing them with the more expensive mercenaries but the goal won't change - make the American public pay for security and infrastructure/capacity building in Iraq, while the oil proceeds go to the Iraqi government and American & international oil interests.

    Republicans win elections by lying to key constituents who were not fully backing them.
    GHW Bush - No new taxes.
    Dubya in 2004 to seniors - I fixed Medicaid for you (liar, but the bill didn't come until the Jan after he was reelected)
    2008 - No increased taxes, and just let big daddy take care of those terrorists and the war.


    As the Dow drops 350 points (none / 0) (#2)
    by steviez314 on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:33:32 PM EST
    The economic s**tstorm is being upgraded to Cat 5 and will soon overtake Palin's speech in importance.

    And no, Phil Gramm, it was not a mental 350 points.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:51:08 PM EST

    The average unemployment (none / 0) (#11)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:55:19 PM EST
    The average unemployment rate in the Bush years lower than the fabled Clinton years is dismal news?  

    Keep it up (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 03:58:36 PM EST
    the endless parade of Republicans declaring "the fundamentals of our economy are strong!" is what keeps fueling the political success of the Democrats.

    Unfortunately for the Republicans, people tend to cast their votes based on what they see happening around them, not based on the latest numbers game from the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.


    Depends on where you're talking about (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:00:37 PM EST
    There are some upper income soft Democrats (Formerly liberal Republicans) in places like Northern Virginia and suburban Philly who can go for arguments like this.

    It won't play well in Western PA or Ohio, though, that's for sure.


    Do You Think They Might (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by flashman on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:17:41 PM EST
    be intelligent enough to "go for" real unemployment data that clearly shows the numbers decreasing monotonically during the Clinton administration ( from 7.3% in 1992 to 3.9% in 2000 ) then becoming a roller coaster during GWB?  The rate has, from the time Bush took office, always been higher than what Clinton passed off.  Think they might be able to understand that?

    Depends entirely on which part (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:21:11 PM EST
    of the WSJ they actually read. If it's the editorial page, forget about it. Otherwise, probably.

    I Don't Read WSJ At All (none / 0) (#34)
    by flashman on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:42:24 PM EST
    And yet I can sense "shuch and jive"

    Can't type it (none / 0) (#36)
    by flashman on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:42:52 PM EST
    but I can sense it :)

    I would LOVE (none / 0) (#14)
    by CST on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:01:41 PM EST
    For this to be McCain's argument.

    Don't worry everyone, you really ARE better off now than you were 8 years ago.  I plan on doing nothing more to help you.

    Too bad the American people disagree.


    Let's completely overlook... (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:16:42 PM EST
    ...that the unemployment numbers have been fudged to not count those who have simply given up trying to find work or don't have a job but aren't receiving any benefits.  

    Not really an accurate reflection of the true rate of unemployment.  


    As a rule of thumb... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by desertswine on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:33:54 PM EST
    I use, is if the govt says that the unemployment is 5%, I usually double it to figure the real unemployment.

    So the way to fix the economy is (none / 0) (#16)
    by Slado on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:14:50 PM EST
    to burden buisness and the rich with a giant tax increase?

    Just want to make sure I have the record straight.

    McCain's policy to to be better then Bush.  Cut taxes and spending.

    Not cut taxes and spend more.

    That's his arguement.

    Obama's is to cut taxes for the little guy but increase them on the companies and rich that drive our economy.

    We get to choose.

    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:17:27 PM EST
    McCain's basic plan is to offer more Republican ideology, except that for some unstated reason it will work better than when Bush did it.  Because apparently, Bush just wasn't as honorable or as mavericky as McCain, and therefore his tax cuts didn't work.

    Fred Thompson imitation (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by nalo on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:31:01 PM EST
    McCain doesn't have an argument on the economy.

    He doesn't understand the economy and bargained away his simple understanding to the Bush neoconservatives.  At one point McCain used to say we can't cut taxes during a war.  Now he parrots Bush's line of "go shopping, no consequences".  Well after 4 more years of Bush, we're hurting.


    that depends (none / 0) (#22)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:24:03 PM EST
    if you count asking Big Business to stop offshoring in Bermuda and the like to AVOID taxes (which to me is the most unpatriotic thing in the world) than yes, I think that money should be taxed.  I bet we wouldn't even have to raise taxes if we stopped allowing American companies with a po box in Bermuda to pay taxes on that earned income.....

    for example in 2002 (none / 0) (#38)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:51:03 PM EST
    Tyco International, a diversified manufacturer with headquarters in Exeter, N.H., says that being a Bermuda corporation saved it more than $400 million in 2001.

    I know, I know it goes to the shareholders the hard working smart americans that are investing in these companies.......

    There are hundreds if not thousands of examples just like this yet the middle class consistently gets hosed with the tax burdens.  I wish our corporations who fly that American flag atop their buildings would take a bit more responsibility and honor to those same flags....


    Especially in a time of war (none / 0) (#42)
    by nalo on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 05:03:36 PM EST
    What happened to sacrifice and buckling down?  Republicans, who at on time claimed to like conservative principles, are now the part of big government and free handouts.

    We need to get a Democrat back in White House.


    I realize that I'm in the minority (none / 0) (#44)
    by Slado on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 05:25:41 PM EST
    I thought I'd just throw it out there.

    To me their are other things gov't can do to help the economy (like regulate mortgages better) that have nothing to do with Obmam's tax plans.

    If you add up the price tag on his promises no country could afford them.  No matter how prosperous.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 05:43:14 PM EST
    It's true of course, that if we did all those things tomorrow the price tag would be unacceptable.  But I think people understand it won't all happen by magic.  We'll see what proves to be politically feasible off that list of promises.

    The thing to remember is that virtually everything promised by the Democrats is a pro-growth policy of one sort or another.  For example, it costs money to expand the student loan program, but improving our educational system definitely has a payoff at the end of the day in terms of training more skilled workers and growing the economy.  So there's a price tag, but the idea pays for itself over time.  The problem with the Republicans is the belief that tax cuts are the only tool for growing the economy, when in reality they're a very blunt instrument.


    If you say so (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 06:51:42 PM EST
    It seems to me that a Republican article of faith is that the only way to stimulate the economy is to hand out large sums of money to wealthy people and businesses in hopes that they will invest it.  It seems to me that when you put additional money in the pockets of working-class consumers who tend to spend everything they earn, that most certainly has the effect of stimulating the economy.

    Horror stories are constantly told of how increasing the minimum wage will inevitably result in all sorts of job cuts, yet that effect invariably fails to show up in the real world.  But the reason I seldom bother to even engage in this argument any more is that the Republican position seems to be deeply grounded in ideology, rather than empirical evidence, and so there's just no changing it.


    Problem (none / 0) (#55)
    by coast on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 08:44:26 PM EST
    I agree that if your pay a price today it should pay dividends in the future.  But Obama's plan falls short by focusing the burden on the few.  If he were to say that we all need to pitch in rather than play to the typical class warfare crowd I would actually might lean his way.  Unfortunately, his tax plan in simple terms is a redistribution of wealth program.  Cutting taxes for those who make little is fine.  However many already don't pay taxes.  For those that do his plan will cut their taxes, which is fine with me.  But his excessive use of refundable credits is where he misses the mark.  In addition, McCain took alot of shots for his $5M comment.  Rightly so.  It was way too high a number to define wealthy.  But I have yet to hear anyone question Sen. Obama's stance that $250K is his level for defining wealthy.  As a CPA, $250K in income for a small business owner is not uncommon.  These people are certainly not wealthy either.  They are your typicall middle class families.  Final note, if $250K is Sen. Obama's threshhold for wealth, how will he justify making $400K a year if elected President?

    if 250K (none / 0) (#57)
    by of1000Kings on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 09:47:43 PM EST
    is enough to buy your 16 y/o a $30,000 SUV then you're rich...

    I am still interested... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Oje on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:33:47 PM EST
    in not underestimating (or inflating) Palin for the rest of the general election.

    As to what she brings to their ticket on economics, I am going to have to say that her "hick" origins have the making of a kind of worldliness, as her speech attempted to connect Alaska to the management of national and global natural resources. Alaska is still, a hundred years after the Gold Rush, something of a colony. Their major economy (fish, oil, gas, metals, travel) relies on the in-flow of capital (and federal dollars, earmarks) to sustain the extraction and export of resources.

    To me, Palin is going to have the lifelong knowledge that comes with living in a developing state (playing on the meaning of that word in its national and global meanings). She seems to focus on economic development and natural resource extraction in a way that references "frontier" laborers' ("my husband the union member") contributions to (and anxiety with) big global/national businesses. With American laborers increasing acclamation to a "global economy," she may be able to hit themes that exploit working people's vague sense that America is becoming just another colony in the system of transnational capitalism.

    Her "Alaska first" tagline and rhetoric in her governor's race will easily translate into an America (country) first tagline and rhetoric in the general election. She is going to speak about the transformative and uplifting wonder of capital investment (/snark), and she will probably have specific stories to tell that involve more than commuting on a train between Washington, D.C., and Wilmington, Del., on a daily basis.

    Palin can't help McCain on this one (none / 0) (#35)
    by nalo on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:42:34 PM EST
    Romney, eh, maybe?

    Palin took a town with no debt and ran it up to $20m by the time she left office.

    She's only been in the governer's office for 2 years.  Basically got a high popularity rating by giving everyone a free gift of $1500.  To use your conservative terminology, Alaska's a welfare state, in that they get more money in from in from the federal government(like the earmark she tried to say no thanks but decided to keep anyway.) Trying to sell her plane on ebay is kind of interesting, but won't help to turn our economy around.


    Team Obama is playing this right (none / 0) (#32)
    by MyLeftMind on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:38:11 PM EST
    Obama on the GOP convention: "You're hearing an awfully lot about me -- most of which is not true -- but you're not hearing a lot about you."
    Obama didn't hit back on Palin's attacks during her speech: "I'll let Gov. Palin talk about her experience. I'll talk about mine."
    Axelrod on Palin's claim to be a political outsider: "For someone who makes the point that she's not from Washington, [her GOP-written speech shows] she would fit in very well there."

    The best thing we can do right now is mirror this message on blogs and talk shows, especially AM radio where the message will really make it's mark.  They're hoping the "liberals are jerks" theme and the hatred of lefties will override blue collar and middle class American's concerns.  And it will if they gain enough momentum off Palin.  It's time for regular people to call in saying they don't buy it, they want substance, not finger pointing.  

    Good point (none / 0) (#39)
    by nalo on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:58:09 PM EST
    Obama's also linking healthcare/education and the economy.

    Spiraling health care and college costs are affecting those in the struggling economy the earliest.  

    John McCain's plan for getting universal health care?  The emergency room!  Seriously, they guys are either so stupid or have thought so little about economic issues that they literally don't have a plan for the future.  (just repeat 'Maverick' three times and click your heels and it's all fixed!)


    since sen. mccain, (none / 0) (#40)
    by cpinva on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 04:59:53 PM EST
    by his own admission, "don't know much 'bout economics", i wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a killer plan from him, other than "reduce taxes on the rich".

    unfortunately, sen. obama isn't exactly a stellar thinker, with regards to economics, either. while his tax plans have some merit, especially with respect to the looming SS shortfall, they do nothing to address the core issues of an economy in deep recession.

    unless sen. obama gets some clinton class economic advisors on board, obama-mccain will be two economic virgins, fumbling in the dark.

    Well Obama seems to be giving (none / 0) (#43)
    by nalo on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 05:13:11 PM EST
    Alan Greenspan the cold shoulder, which sounds like a good idea to me.

    Which of his economic advisors don't you like?


    I have mentioned Fannie Mae and (none / 0) (#46)
    by Grace on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 05:54:19 PM EST
    Freddie Mac here before.  Originally, only McCain wanted to let them "go out of business."  Obama supported a taxpayer bailout (which is what the Democrats have been supporting).

    A taxpayer bailout could reasonably cost $1 trillion.  That's a LOT of money!  

    Apparently, Obama has been thinking this over and I see that his position has turned towards McCain's:  Obama on Fannie Mae

    I don't believe McCain is as dumb about economics as everyone else seems to think.  

    (McCain's original editorial:  Take taxpayers off hook for rot at Fannie, Freddie

    I think McCain's not too bright (none / 0) (#51)
    by nalo on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 06:19:38 PM EST
    He graduated at the bottom of his class. McCain does take decisive positions (that are often not his.)  Most of his articles seem to be written by others.  Mark Salter got into trouble for writing one about Barack Obama that apparently McCain didn't even know about.  McCain's Georgia position was Randy Scheunemann's, who lobbied for Georgia.  

    Obama's very bright, he graduated at the top of his class.  He makes decisions slowly after talking to a lot of people.  This sets him for criticism like in the WSJ Op-ed  you quote(who I consider biased) or with Fox News (who I also consider biased) for flip-flopping on the surge working(!).

    McCain can be criticized for being impulsive and Obama can be criticized for being measured.  They're both flip-floppers, although McCain is more stubborn about compromising--he'd reverse his entire position instead of compromising in between.

    I prefer Obama on economic issues because he'll listen to (mostly) Democratic advisors and not Bush advisors.  He's smart, he thinks everything thoroughly and in shades of grey, talks to a lot of people, and admits he made a mistake.


    wow (none / 0) (#47)
    by connecticut yankee on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 05:57:07 PM EST
    Geez, I cant believe they called Obama "uppity".   The GOP needs to get its congressmen back on message.

    They don't have issues (none / 0) (#53)
    by nalo on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 06:27:07 PM EST
    on their side, so they got to go with this trash.  The news media lets them get away with.  The One commercial has a lot of obvios anti-Christ themes which work together with the madrassa terrorist/Manchurian candidate themes from Fox News that have been floating on the right wing message boards.  Of course, the Republican's are able to work the refs better in the "liberal media" narrative, so what're you going to do?

    Obama's just got to play the Jackie Robinson role and keep talking about the economy. The polls look good.


    President and the economy (none / 0) (#56)
    by coast on Thu Sep 04, 2008 at 09:00:13 PM EST
    Does anyone besides myself believe that the President (any President, Democrat or Republican) actually has very little to do with whether the economy is strong or weak?  I think it has much more to do with the Congress and their actions considering they hold the purse strings.  Much of our problems today have very little to do with any particular Bush economic policy.  It has everything to do with the fact that our government spends more than it receives.  The deficit is what is going to bring this country to its knees.  And this will not be solved by either candidate's economic policies as they are today.