A Better Stimulus

56 responses so far

• 1 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:30 am

  Rush has clearly being designated as the Bush replacement and Frum is falling for it. The GOP did offer an alternative which – scored by former Clinton administration methodolog y – costs less and creates twice as many jobs. “Me too” opposition is not the path to power.

• 2 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:43 am

  Any idea where I can find this GOP wonder plan? I am unable to find it. And what does “scored by former Clinton administration methodolog y” mean? I though all things Clinton was bad,bad,bad.

• 3 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:46 am

  Rasmussen just released a poll showing that support for the Stimulus Plan as slipped to 42%. This is another pork-laden bill like TARP I. I am waiting to see whether McCain will make good on his threat to “name names” “make them famous”.

• 4 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:05 am

  One mans Pork is another mans Infrastructure project. A bridge to nowhere in Alaska supported by Palin and Stevens is pork. A Bridge in Minneapolis that wont fall down any time soon is infrastructure. Know the difference. Still waiting on that link to the new GOP Superplan.

• 5 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:20 am

  I think Obama should invite Rush to the White House for a chat. That would really put him front and center in the GOP.

• 6 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:21 am

  Here is a poll just released by Rasmussen regarding the Obama Stimulus Plan:

  http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/general_business/public_support_for_economic_recovery_plan_slips_to_42

  “However, support among unaffiliated voters has fallen. A week ago, unaffiliateds were evenly divided on the plan, with 37% in favor and 36% opposed. Now, 50% of unaffiliated voters oppose the plan while only 27% favor it.” So the indies oppose this plan 50% to 27%. Does this mean that they listen to Rush too?

• 7 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:23 am

  “Now imagine if the GOP did not have such a knee-jerk opposition to spending and actually thought strategically.” This has to be the most ridiculous statement to date given all the “strategic spending” Bush and Rove did trying to build a permanent Republican majority.

• 8 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:38 am

  Rassmusen has a well known right tint. Here is Gallop.

  Despite all the focus on the plan, public opinion on the subject is virtually identical to where it stood three weeks ago. A Gallup Poll conducted Jan. 6-7 found 53% of Americans in favor of Congress passing a major economic stimulus program (then estimated at $775 billion) while 36% were opposed.

  Linky to GOP superplan please.

• 9 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:48 am

  suey. Ras was among the most accurate pollsters for the 2008 presidential election. Gallup was about 10 points off. His poll numbers are recent. The poll you mentioned was taken when no specifics were on the table. The devil is in the details, my friend. Want a linky? Here is Rush’s (I know how much you like him) bipartisan plan:

  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123318906638926749.html

• 10 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:55 am

  suey. Here is the link you requested:

  http://johnboehner.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HouseGOPEconomicRecoveryAlternative.pdf

• 11 dragonlady // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:49 am

  Suey, how do contraceptives stimulate the economy (no pun intended)? The GOP was intially open to infrastructure spending but even the CBO says this bill won’t accomplish much of that. They used Obama’s own economics advisor’s plan. Bush spent us into quite a large deficit and you see where we are now. Why do you think the Dems plan is going to fare better?

• 12 dragonlady // Jan 29, 2009 at 10:59 am

  Perhaps instead of drinking the neo-Keynesian spending kool-aid like the article suggests above, the GOP should return to being the party of fiscal responsibility by flattening the tax system, and actually attempt to balance the budget after the economy recovers. Clinton worked with Republicans in Congress to get this done. With social security, Medicare, and more entitlement programs the Dems will probably ram through, it may be increasingly difficult to run just on tax cuts.

• 13 MSheridan // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:04 am

  Like several other posters on this site, I admit I have no idea what the ideal fix for the economy would be at this moment in time. I certainly don’t think the Democratic proposal is even close to ideal. However, that doesn’t mean that I can’t see that a proposal comprised entirely or mostly of tax cuts is very imperfect. First, even if it were granted that broad tax cuts would strengthen the economy down the road, they would do extremely little to help the unemployment/liquidity situation right now. Second, although I do agree tax cuts on those closest to the financial edge would have a long-term stimulative effect and were not completely absent from the Republican plan, there was still too much supply-side “voodoo economics” (remember, that was Bush Sr.’s phrase for it, not mine) in the alternative plan to make it possible for me to see the Republican offering as a responsible effort. The economy continually grows over time, but aside from bubbles (which pop and thus can be ignored) it has historically grown more slowly in periods of very low taxes and high spending like the last three Republican administrations and even then it’s not necessarily possible to say it would have grown at all were it not for the stimulative effects of the spending. I have yet to see a fact-based response to the seemingly proven assertion that the U.S. economy and average income grows faster, on average, during Democratic administrations than it does during Republican administrations. http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/03/american-politi.html

• 14 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:18 am

  Bush did not invest in infrastructure, that”s why we have falling down bridges, bursting water mains a an Electrical grid that can’t sustain a winter storm (1 million without power as I type) Bust invested in War. and shipping cash overseas in air force transport planes. The normal control levers are all used up. No more interest rate cuts. No private capital to invest. No easy credit from banks. So what can you do? You either cut taxes and hope that the saved cash finds it’s way into the economy. Bush tried that and it did not work. In a climate we find ourselves in people will just save the money against worse times to come or blow it on Chinese made crap. So the other alternative is to throw some money at infrastructure. That gives you jobs relatively quickly and builds the potential for more jobs down the line. For instance if you build high power lines from the high wind central plains to the population centers you can them make and install wind farms to make the electricity. Is there enough good infrastructure in the bill as presented to the house? No there is not. It needs to be about 75% o it. I can understand the help for the states. If the central government does not help then your property taxes will balloon. The health care portion is the same. Is there pork in it yes there is. Hopefully most of that will be stripped at the Senate committee stage. I would strip the individual tax cuts at this stage and introduce them later. I would use that money for tax cuts to small business for investment purposes.

• 15 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:26 am

  sorry about the spelling. I was typing way fast.

• 16 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:27 am

  suey. WWII got this country out of the Great Depression not infracture spending. This does not mean that I don’t support infrastrutcture spending. I would like to see money go to to improving our electrical grid especially if we are to make a move to more electrical vehicles. Read “The Forgotten Man”.

• 17 suey // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:32 am

  Chekote, I agree. Is this situation the same as the great depression? I am not well versed in that era of US history having grown up in the UK.

• 18 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:41 am

  A Republican Congressman pointed out that the stimulus package includes measures which could steer government checks to illegal immigrants/undocumented workers. How long before some in the conservative intelligentsia will accuse the GOP of being “mean” to Latinos? 10….9….8….7….

• 19 Chekote // Jan 29, 2009 at 11:42 am

  suey. Too long to reply to you question about the Great Depression. Gotta get to work before I lose my job.

• 20 buzzricksons // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:15 pm

  “Is there pork in it yes there is. Hopefully most of that will be stripped at the Senate committee stage.”

  The politics of “hope”, ladies and gentlemen. Nothing in there to recommend any house-member vote for it, though. At least, not if that person is a serious legislator for whom combating pork-barrel spending is a concern.

• 21 dragonlady // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:16 pm

  Suey, like Chekote, I’m not against infrastructure spending–we do need to pay attention to it. However, it really doesn’t not stimulate the economy as much as everyone thinks and here’s a good post that explains why:
  http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/07/infrastructure_is_so_stimulati.php
  I prefer to address infrastructure as part of a comprehesive energy security plan (the GOP should really be able to outmaneuver the Dems on this–if they can’t, we’re in deeper trouble than we know). As far as stimulating the economy with spending on items other than tax cuts, I’m with MSheridan in that I won’t pretend to know what would do it. But I’m partial to Megan McArdle’s conclusion (which economically makes sense but politically may be a nonstarter).

• 22 dragonlady // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  MSheridian, did the economy do better under Carter than Reagan? Also, yesterday’s Democrats (JFK was for tax cuts) are not today’s Democrats.

• 23 gerrysh // Jan 29, 2009 at 3:51 pm

  C’mon, Mr. Frum, don’t you even visit National Review online or any real conservative site any more? The idea that the federal government can spend the country out of recession is thoroughly discredited again and again.

• 24 larryo // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:32 pm

  dragonlady – the outcome of the 2001 tax cuts was the weakest employment growth in decades. The 2003 tax cuts didn’t fare much better, resulting in job creation that was “well below historical averages.” When Bush’s White House proposed the 2003 cuts, they promised that it would add 5.5 million new jobs between June 2003 and the end of 2004. But “by the end of 2004, there were only 2.6 million more jobs than in June 2003.” As Paul Krugman has pointed out, the belief that Bush’s tax cuts successfully stimulated the economy is a form of mythology. CAP’s Michael Ettlinger and John Irons wrote in September, “Economic growth as measured by real U.S. gross domestic product was stronger following the tax increases of 1993 than in the two supply-side eras” that followed Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts and Bush’s 2001 tax cuts. Indeed, employment growth was much stronger post-1993 than post-2001. The average annual employment growth was 2.5 percent after 1993 and just 0.6 percent after 2001. Unfortunately, the supply-side myth that tax cuts cure all still lives on today, as conservatives complain about progressive approaches to fixing the mess left by Bush.

• 25 MSheridan // Jan 29, 2009 at 4:54 pm

  dragonlady, no, of course I wouldn’t make that assertion. However, not only did I use the words “on average,” but Carter’s economy was something of a special case. He inherited the still lingering effects of the 1973-74 stock market crash and the 1973 oil embargo and then had to deal with the 1979 oil embargo during his term. Further, although it is not generally denied that the policies of then head of the Fed Reserve,Paul Volcker, were largely responsible for ending stagflation, they had other effects on the economy as well:
  [quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcker ] Paul Volcker, a Democrat, was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve in August 1979 by President Jimmy Carter and reappointed in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan.

  Volcker’s Fed is widely credited with ending the United States’ stagflation crisis of the 1970s. Inflation, which peaked at 13.5% in 1981, was successfully lowered to 3.2% by 1983.

  The federal funds rate, which had averaged 11.2% in 1979, was raised by Volcker to a peak of 20% in June 1981. The prime rate rose to 21.5% in ‘81 as well.

  These changes in policy contributed to the significant recession the U.S. economy experienced in the early 1980s, which included the highest unemployment levels since the Great Depression. These conditions were predictable by Carter when he appointed Volcker, and these circumstances contributed, predictably, to the defeat of Carter. Volcker’s Fed also elicited the strongest political attacks and most wide-spread protests in the history of the Federal Reserve (unlike any protests experienced since 1922), due to the effects of the high interest rates on the construction and farming sectors, culminating in indebted farmers driving their tractors onto C Street NW and blockading the Eccles Building. [end quote]

  Forces external to Carter’s policies savaged the economy during his tenure. Blaming him for what happened is akin to blaming Obama right now (or McCain had he won) because he’s inherited a different mess. Arguably, you could blame Carter for appointing Volcker if you thought that was a mistake, but then you’d probably want to blame Reagan for keeping him on after 1980.

• 26 Elisabeth // Jan 29, 2009 at 5:21 pm

  David, you are right. I particularly like what you say about high-speed rail. There is something to be in favor of!

  Thanks for a great site.

• 27 MSheridan // Jan 29, 2009 at 5:25 pm

  Also, dragonlady, although JFK may have been for tax cuts, the war in Vietnam and his assassination prevented him from doing much about it–the very high taxes we’d had since WWII only started to come down in 1964 under LBJ, when the top marginal rate dropped 14 points to 77% (the first time it had gone below 80% since 1939). LBJ dropped the top rate another 7 points to 70% in 1965. However, as he raised it back up to 75% in the war year of 1968, LBJ doesn’t get a lot of conservative love for dropping taxes more than any president for 30 years. Nixon dropped the top rate back to 70%, Ford left it unchanged, and Carter left it unchanged. It wasn’t until Reagan that taxes dropped again. Although taxes had been consistently high since our entry into WWII, under Democrats and Republicans, Democrats were the party that received the blame. That may even be fair, but given the fact that from Reagan to the present no Republican President has avoided unprecedentedly massive deficits, whether their party controlled Congress or not, and the one Democrat President managed to balance the budget and leave a surplus, the idea that Republicans are the party of fiscal conservatism seems to be an exploded myth. It’s too bad, really, as it would be a good thing for the country if there actually were a large mass of fiscal conservatives, as the word used to be understood.

• 28 dragonlady // Jan 29, 2009 at 8:42 pm

  MSheridan, thanks for proving what economic-minded people know: the economy and business cycle is much more complex than just which party is in office. We can’t just point to who’s in office (like I did to Carter) to judge what’s going on economically. Deficits by themselves are not harmful unless they get too big. So if we can’t balance the budget maybe we can keep those deficits at bay by a constitutional amendment (give Congress the ability to override it with a supramajority in emergencies like times of war). I don’t have any answers, but I would like to see debates on drastically reforming our tax system like replacing income/payroll taxes with either a flat tax or national sales tax (exempt food, housing, and medicine from being taxed so lower income folks wouldn’t be hurt), or some combo of the two. Think about it: no loopholes exist, everyone pays including businesses, paperwork is minimal, and success is not penalized. In the case of sales tax, consumption is taxed–that would set people’s priorities straight and even fits in with the green philosophy on being less of a consumeristic society. And oh yeah, we can save Social Security and Medicare. I’m sure there are pitfalls to the approach but I’m just throwing out ideas for discussion.

• 29 MSheridan // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:38 pm

  dragonlady, you are of course correct that the party in office is not a completely determinant factor in the health of the economy. In this world, there may be no such thing. I would also freely concede that our latest President is not personally responsible for the economic crisis we find ourselves in (although I believe the unnecessary and mostly foreseeable costs of his war of choice in Iraq have contributed to the DEPTH of the crisis). However, as I’m positive you’d agree (and I know we probably have fairly limited common ground), the party in office does have some effect on events. If it didn’t matter who was in charge, we’d have no reason to care. I’d also agree with you that deficits are not automatically fatal unless they grow too large so long as the economy is expanding fast enough or they will greatly speed economic expansion (although I was under the possibly false impression that was originally a Keynesian position to take). As for the tax reform suggestion you put forward, I think I’ve seen reference to it elsewhere (FairTax proposal?) and I’m under the impression I would oppose it strongly if I knew even more about it, but like you I’d certainly like to hear and read the debate so I could make a truly informed decision on that.

• 30 lukang // Jan 29, 2009 at 9:49 pm

  It struck me the other day that political conservativism creates a paradox when it come to governance. While Democrat politicians may be as self-dealing as any other, those Democrat leaning bureaucrats who staff the government are generally earnest in executing their duties, largely because they believe in big government “helping” people. On the other hand, Republicans appointed bureaucrats, especially in the Bush administration, appear to have often been primarily ideologically motivated or, worse, incompetent or even subject to cronyism under the guise of ideology. If the belief is that government is the problem is pervasive in the bureaucracy, then such a belief tends to undermine competency (since pride in work is an essential element in competency). I agree that the free market and individual initiative should not be shunted aside in favor of government, but to the extent Republicans win power, they must show the ability to govern wisely and capably, even if our guiding principles mean less government. Only that way will the public’s faith in Republican administration, for the good of the country, be restored.

• 31 fact based // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:44 am

  I am in shock but I totally agree.

• 32 fact based // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:50 am

  I find it particularly pitiful to hear folk like Laura Ingraham to urge cuts in capital gains because “the stock market will go up the next day” while at the same time they claim they are for the folk on main street not wall street.

  I also heard her make an argument that no economist believes: that the poorer folk save the proceeds from a tax cut while the wealthy spend it. I guess that is the case for those extended unemployment benefits as well.

  Also I never heard Rush et al say that the states that voted for Gore could get stronger environmental regulation and we would split the difference so the bush states would get less regs. After all the country split 50/50. That serious people repeat his nonsense is shocking. Maybe in 2005 45% of the troops should have been withdrawn from iraq reflecting the kerry vote

• 33 Kaz // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:45 am

  Frum, your previous post misses many very important points:

  1) Many conservatives, particularly fiscal conservatives, no longer identify themselves as Republicans precisely because the party leadership has acted more like Democrats over the past 8 years: More deficit spending, larger government, more earmarks, more pork.

  2) The majority of Americans get their information from, and make decisions based on what they hear from three powerful instititutions: The mainstream news media, the entertainment industry, and our education institutions. All of these institutions are dominated by liberals who believe in and support bigger government. The voice of conservativism is relegated to talk radio, blogs, and Fox News.

  3). Americans are completely ignorant of financial and economic issues. They have no concept how big our national debt is, the peril entitlement programs face, or who really pays the bulk of taxes in the country. Phrases like “tax cuts for the rich” shape attitudes and opinions, although their based on a misconception that “the rich” are paying less than their “fair share”.

  4) Hedging on basic principles doesn’t make you “moderate”, it makes you a hypocrite. I believe stealing is wrong, except… I believe smaller government is better, except…I believe taxes should be reduced, except…People don’t want leaders who hedge on their principles, they want leaders who can provide a logical rationale of why their principles make sense. Reagan did this and won.

  5) Frederic Bastiat wrote the essay What Is Seen and What Is Not Seen in 1848. Americans have a hard time grasping the fact that what may sound logical and good on it’s surface may in the end be foolishly disasterous. How much news coverage of the recent stimulus bill is spend examining the potential economic consequences 3, 4, 5 years down the road?

• 34 larryo // Jan 30, 2009 at 9:12 am

  Kaz, you wrote: “People don’t want leaders who hedge on their principles, they want leaders who can provide a logical rationale of why their principles make sense. Reagan did this and won.” But, of course, Reagan lied repeatedly, and when he got caught he claimed he couldn’t remember – shades of Alberto Gonzales. He said his heart told him one thing, but the facts said another. Reagan sold arms to Iran to fund an illegal insurgency in Nicaragua. Reagan raised taxes repeatedly during his second term, recognizing that all the supply-side economics was twaddle. Why don’t you recognize that? It’s obvious enough now, isn’t it?

• 35 buzzricksons // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:40 am

  I put a post up here yesterday wondering if this behemoth of slothy pork isn’t a set-up for Obama to veto and tell his congress “back to the drawing board”, which will make him a hero to all. Funny it’s gone; it wasn’t in any way offensive. Perhaps the “journalists” running this site are mining the comments for ideas for their paying gigs. I hope so!

• 36 Bulldoglover100 // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:40 am

  FINALLY a piece that deals with reality!!!!
  The Republican party is listening to Rush? Really? The educated arm of this party? or those who are content with Sarah the Stupid as President?
  We MUST deal with the real problems of this country and if we do not? and we do wind up sending Palin as our nominee in 2012? Say good by to the GOP

• 37 Bulldoglover100 // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:43 am

  If Frum is removing posts from this site? Then I will no longer bother posting here and it will just be one more indication that the GOP does not care what ALL Republicans think.

  Shades of Sarah “The Stupid” Palin? sounds like if this is true.

• 38 gerrysh // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:47 am

  Reading “Bulldoglvoer100″ reminds me -”Stupid is as stupid writes.” Sarah Palin has accomplished more than a pathetic whiner like you has a right to dream. I will be proud to vote for her if she is on the 2012 Republican ticket.

  You are a lousy troll. Any time somebody pretends to be a Republican, but can’t do anything more than trash the most successful Republicans, the proof is there.

• 39 Kaz // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:17 pm

  Reagan got snookered by David Stockman the Democrat controlled congress. I would have hoped this would be a lesson for subsequent presidents but apparently is wasn’t. In 1982, Reagan thought he signed on to get $3 of spending cuts for every $1 of tax increase. He later recognized all he ever got were the taxes. “Congress never cut spending by even one penny, ” In 83 Reagan agreed with GOP senators to slow the growth of spending on Social Security and cut $40-billion from the program and cut Medicare spending by 10 percent. He got steamrolled by the Democrats. Even with all of “Reagan’s tax increases”, taxes as a percent of GDP fell throughout his term.

• 40 larryo // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:18 pm

  gerrysh – Sarah Palin is successful? She is an international laughing stock, and you should attend to what Bulldoglover has to say – he is telling you for whom the bell tolls. You ought to go back and read what Frum said when he started this blog – he invited comments from all sides of the political spectrum because he knows that what has brought the Republican Party to its knees is this ideological commitment to a separate reality, of which your post is a typical example.

• 41 Jeffersonian // Jan 30, 2009 at 1:02 pm

  Mr. Frum you and so many other supposed conservatives miss the most important point. It’s all ILLEGAL. Yes! ILLEGAL. There is no enumerated power for “bailout”, not one for “job creation”, not one for economic policy. Too many think in the paradigm of the present manifestation of governance, and then go about having lively discussions concerning tax cuts, and stimulus, when really the discussion should be can they(Congress) do it? You want an answer, read Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. Go ahead, cite me the power. As for worrying about how they(Republicans) look, does one think that had Jefferson or Washington, or any of the others who seceded from Great Britain we would even have this Republic? Rather let Republicans decry the crimes being committed and rally the troops. This is principle.

• 42 sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:32 pm

  Kaz: The reason that Reagan got no spending cuts, is that he ran right into Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill, who told him to his face that if Reagan wanted to get his tax cuts and defense buildup through Congress, he would have to agree to forfeit cuts in social programs. Remember that the Democrats still controlled the House during both of Reagan’s terms.

• 43 sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:34 pm

  Larryo: As I’ve said many times before, one should be firm in principle but flexible and pragmatic in policy. The Presidency is a results-oriented job. So I suggest you compare the inflation rate, interest rate, and unemployment rate at the end of the Reagan presidency in 1988, with the corresponding rates at the end of the Carter presidency in 1980. The reason why Reagan is remembered fondly is that he actually left the economy in better shape than when he found it. Carter did not (and neither did George W. Bush).

• 44 sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:39 pm

  Suey: You’re not going to get jobs quickly if you attempt to throw money at infrastructure. Know why? Because the strict regulatory environment put in place by YOU liberals makes it possible to delay any infrastructure project for years (or even cancel it)–if the environmentalists don’t like it, or the people living in that area don’t like it, or if it doesn’t employ enough blacks or enough Hispanics or enough Muslims or enough transgendered people or enough Martians. Numerous important infrastructure projects have been delayed or killed in Massachusetts where I live, for just those reasons. It’s been fun to watch liberals like Ted Kennedy arguing against a wind farm for Massachusetts, simply because he’s afraid it would spoil the view from his house. Which makes a mockery of the Left’s enthusiasm for wind power. The Left calls for wind power–while simultaneously touting the “democratic” ability of NIMBY to block it anywhere.

• 45 sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:44 pm

  larryo: The 2001 tax cuts were carried out against a backdrop of 9-11, which nearly drove the economy into recession all by itself. Foreign air travel was down 25% (and domestic air travel wasn’t much better)–the hotel business collapsed, rental car companies went out of business, travel agencies went out of business, etc. The tax cuts plus Greenspan’s dramatic interest rate reductions were all that kept the U.S. economy afloat. Besides that, the U.S. stock market had entered into a bear market in Clinton’s last year in office, and of course 9-11 accelerated that. By mid 2002, the stock market was down 48%, wiping out trillions of dollars in paper wealth.

  Why don’t you ask yourself what the effect of the bear market and 9-11 would have been on the U.S. economy, if there had been no tax cuts. (Greenspan had almost run out of rope–interest rates were around 1%.)

• 46 sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:57 pm

  Gerrysh and Larryo: Sarah Palin has definitely been a successful mayor of Wasilla and successful governor of Alaska. Her approval rating up there has always been very high (higher than Obama’s national approval rating is now). But not every successful governor can be a successful President. Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush, just to name two examples. And Alaska is quite different from the urban and suburban states the GOP is trying to peel off from the Democrats. I don’t see what appeal Sarah Palin would have beyond the Red States that vote reliably Republican anyway. Larryo: As a patriotic American, I don’t take direction from foreign countries as to whom to vote for. Gerrysh: The issue isn’t whether people like you will vote for her. We know you will. The issue is whether people in the key suburbs of non-Red States will vote for her. Does she have any vote-getting appeal at all, north of Virginia?

• 47 gerrysh // Jan 30, 2009 at 4:42 pm

  Thomas Sowell wrote:
  One important clue may be a recent statement by President Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, that “A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.”

  ’nuff said

• 48 suey // Jan 30, 2009 at 5:39 pm

  sinz54 Palin took over Wasilla when it had a budget surplus. She built a sports center on land the town had not properly purchased. That led to a 20 million deficit by the time she left. If that’s success then I am a China-man. As to her favorable ratings. If my governor took $3000 per person including children from the oil companies and gave it to me the I would be pretty happy too. Typical family $12,000 tax free per year (depending on oil revenue based on 2007). A bribe can buy you anything I guess. And the answer to your question if people outside of the base states will vote for her the answer is in her national approval ratings at the end of the election.

• 49 larryo // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:06 pm

  sinz – now, you know and I know that Carter’s economic problems were not entirely of his own making, so that comparison is not really fair, is it? Compare the national debt at the end of the Carter administration with the national debt at the end of the Reagan administration. Please, sinz – this claptrap is not up to your usual standard. You must have been hung up for a comeback.

• 50 larryo // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:17 pm

  sinz – 9/11, and the 2001 tax cuts and Greenspan’s manipulations saved the economy! Honestly – this is disappointing. And discouraging. On September 12, 2001 we were at war. I don’t suppose it ever occurred to you that, a state of war having been declared, someone in the hierarchy ought to have at least mentioned wage and price controls, because everyone knows what war does to the economy such as ours if you don’t impose wage and price and anti-profiteering controls. But no – we had, at the helm, people who were ideologically opposed to any kinds of economic regulation and were tight with the war profiteers, so instead of taking into account that we were in a state of war, these blockheads turned a blind eye to the perfectly foreseeable consequences of their negligence. And you want to tell us that low taxes and interest rates kept the economy afloat? Was it afloat, or was it circling the drain?

• 51 larryo // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:25 pm

  And finally, sinz, if that jibe about letting foreign countries tell you who to vote for was about Sarah Palin being an international laughing stock, you will quickly see, I suspect, the difference between the policies negotiated by someone who is internationally liked and respected and those advanced by someone who everyone on the planet with any influence thinks is a clown. Thoughtfulness is a trait to be highly encouraged in the most powerful executive in the world, I hope you agree, and Sarah Palin cannot tell you which newspaper(s) she reads. That can only be true if she reads none at all. Don’t you know which newspapers you read?

• 52 gerrysh // Jan 31, 2009 at 12:31 pm

  We need to give credit where credit is due. Only a genius like Barry O could come up with this new plan to increase revenue without raising taxes. Simply nominate forgetful people to high federal positions, so they remember how much they owe Uncle Sam and and forced to pay up.

  (BTW, the troll has been outed. No need to feed it.)

• 53 larryo // Jan 31, 2009 at 4:56 pm

  BTW, jerrysh, when Mr. Frum opened this forum up, he made it plain that he sought submissions from across the spectrum of political opinion, so if there is any troll here it is you.

• 54 gerrysh // Jan 31, 2009 at 5:21 pm

  If I wanted the opinion of a dolt, I would have asked for yours, larryo.

  Here’s a little education for you. Being a troll has nothing to do with a point of view. It’s the dishonesty in posting, or example, when someone says that they are a Republican, but then trashes every successful Republican out there.

• 55 gerrysh // Jan 31, 2009 at 5:22 pm

  BTW, it’s no use asking, but I’ll note that larryo owes me an apology.

• 56 larryo // Jan 31, 2009 at 7:49 pm

  Bluster and blather – surely, even you can see how discredited you are.

You must log in to post a comment.