Across the country, Republicans are scratching their heads and wondering, “How in the world did we end up with Scozzafava?” How did the GOP pick someone who is in favor of card check and had been approached by the Democrats to be their nominee? How did the Republicans in upstate New York choose a candidate who, according to one rating system, is more liberal than 43% of New York State Assembly Democrats?
The answer lies in Scozzafava’s close friendship with fellow Assemblywoman and Clinton County Chairperson Janet Duprey. “Dede and Janet Duprey are soul mates when it comes to voting,” said Mike Long, chairman of the New York Conservative Party, in an interview with NewMajority. Going against the wishes of her county’s delegation, Duprey abruptly switched her vote to put her pal Dede over the top.
When Rep. John McHugh resigned to become the Secretary of the Army, Republicans in NY-23 hastily prepared a candidate selection process that assigned weighted votes to the county chairpersons of the district’s eleven counties.
As the county chair for Clinton County, where 11% of the district’s Republicans live, Janet Duprey wielded power over 11% of the district’s ballots. Unfortunately for Duprey, Clinton County Republicans were dead set against the Scozzafava nomination.
In the first ballot of the candidate selection process, Scozzafava led the pack of three contenders with 45% of the ballots cast. Initially, Duprey consented to the wishes of her delegation and cast her vote for Paul Maroun, who was viewed as more conservative. In the second ballot, however, Assemblywoman Duprey abruptly changed her vote to Scozzafava, sealing Scozzafava’s nomination.
Duprey has since acknowledged that her delegation had wanted Maroun as their nominee, admitting that “the Clinton County committee members… voted for the candidate they supported. Paul Maroun received the majority of the votes.” Janet Duprey later justified her shift by saying that “it was clear that Dede was the winner… Everyone wants a winner.”
Republicans in upstate New York were aware that the Conservative Party would not support Scozzafava’s nomination, but likely nominated her despite this on the grounds that the Conservative Party would probably not be able to come up with a viable candidate.
“I was willing to support any other [Republican] candidate running [in NY-23], and I let it be known to the Republican Party, but they went with her. They just assumed that we weren’t going to be able to mount a serious campaign… now she’s going to come in dead last,” said Michael Long.
Indeed, Scozzafava’s candidacy is becoming a lost cause – internal polling from both the Republicans and the Democrats show her in third place. “As it stands, Scozzafava’s campaign is in a lot of trouble,” said Steven Greenberg, a Siena Institute pollster, to NewMajority. A picture of a poorly executed Scozzafava campaign event sums it up – her votes are flowing swiftly to the Conservative Party.
Polling numbers have changed dramatically over the last few weeks due to the massive amount of cash being spent in the district, and the furious pace of campaigning that this is allowing. The Washington Post reported that the Club for Growth alone spent $700,000 in support of Hoffman’s campaign.
“$200,000 to $300,000 owns the TV market up here [in NY-23]… it’s easy to spend money in upstate New York. Money is coming in from the DCCC, the NRCC, the Club for Growth… Every time you watch TV, you see a commercial for one of the candidates. Every time you check your mail, you see a direct mail envelope from the campaigns,” noted Greenberg.
Greenberg said that an October 1st poll made it look unlikely that Hoffman could win the election. However, just two weeks later, Hoffman’s poll numbers have risen dramatically. “Hoffman is now competitive,” he added. “It will come down to the wire.”
89 responses so far
1 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 1:44 pm
…….This race is shaping up to be a win win for the Democrats……….Best case scenario; they win the seat and the civil war in the GOP accelerates……Worst case; another serious Club for Growth Republican nut in Hoffman(because Scoff is probably toast) heads to Washington and civil war accelerates.
2 balconesfault // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:27 pm
The Club for Growth and the RNC combining to spend over a billion dollars to elect a Democrat is a solidly Republican District.
Priceless.
3 joemarier // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:30 pm
Great reporting, Tim!
4 Chekote // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:33 pm
How did Scozzafava happen? Because after the 2006 and 2008 debacles, the GOP has failed to take time out to develop core principles defining what the party stands for. Scozzafava is not any type of Republican. Go Hoffman!
5 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:39 pm
Chekote // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:33 pm
………..Don’t you love em……….is there something in the water where they live do you think?……MTB’s perhap
6 Chekote // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Where have you been Otto?
7 Chekote // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:52 pm
The problem is that the GOP is putting all its chips on Obama and Dems failing. I still think a responsible political party MUST present a core set of principles that unify the party and MUST have an agenda dealing with current issues. Betting on the opposition failing is NOT ENOUGH.
8 balconesfault // Oct 22, 2009 at 3:08 pm
I still think a responsible political party MUST present a core set of principles that unify the party and MUST have an agenda dealing with current issues.
This is true – but there is one additional burden the Republicans must currently bear.
After 8 years of a Republican President, largely backed by a Republican majority in Congress (along with, as we see now, a considerable number of Blue Dog Dems who are willing to side with Repubs on many economic issues – consider Ben Nelson of Nebraska being the critical 50th vote for Bush on his second tax cut bill) – the nation was far far worse off than when Bush took office.
The Republicans have to deliver a narrative of how returning Republicans to power won’t just accelerate the trends we saw throughout the first 8 years of the decade, but will somehow reverse those trends.
9 Churl // Oct 22, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Also sprach balconesfault “…the nation was far far worse off than when Bush took office.” Maybe, maybe not, but Bush is gone now, and we will see in 2012 if the country is better off than when Obama took office.
The test has started, the clock is running. I’ve gone long in popcorn futures.
10 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 5:14 pm
ireign // Oct 22, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“The nation was in a recession when Bush took office.”
……….It was not…….there is a precise definition of what constitutes a recession (do you know what it is?) and when Bush took office in January 2001 the US economy did not satisfy these criteria……the US did not slip into recession precipitated by the dot com bust a very short one until after Bush took office which was mainly mitigated by the massive public spending increases that occurred over the next two years and cheap money from the Fed…….the tax cuts had little to do with it…….and the 9/11 attacks had only marginal impact on the economy……just check the stats if you want to correct your lies …….And appointing Paulson was one of the few things Bush did right…….he wasn’t perfect but if Snow had still been at the Treasury god knows what would have happened.
11 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Chekote // Oct 22, 2009 at 2:50 pm
“Where have you been Otto?”
……..Britain, Italy, France and other awful places
12 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 5:19 pm
11 ireign // Oct 22, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“The nation was in a recession when Bush took office”
……..It wasn’t…….there’s a precise definition of what constitutes a recession…..do you know what it is?
…….Paulson was actually one of Bush’s better decisions……he made a couple of mistakes notably letting Lehman go down but otherwise he did the right things along with Bernanke…….one hates to imagine what would have happened if Snow was still at the Treasury.
13 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 5:21 pm
11 ireign // Oct 22, 2009 at 4:51 pm
” The nation was in a recession when Bush took office”
………Another porky…..it wasn’t
14 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 5:23 pm
11 ireign // Oct 22, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“The nation was in a recession when Bush took office”
……It wasn’t
15 balconesfault // Oct 22, 2009 at 5:34 pm
The nation was in a recession when Bush took office.
You do realize that there is a very specific definition for “recession”, having to do with two consecutive quarters of negative GDP growth?
By that definition, there was no recession in 2001.
What exactly did the Bush tax cuts do for the economy? This is a serious question. Because if we look at 2000 to 2001, we see:
total non-farm employment: 131.78 million (2000) 131.82 million (2001)
so far, so good, right?
how about:
total private non-farm employment: 110.99 million (2000) 110.71 million (2000)
Yes – this will no doubt come as a shock to you – but our private sector lost jobs from 2000 to 2001 … while our public sector gained jobs. To the extent that the US avoided a recession, it appears we did so by increasing the government workforce by 1.5% in a year.
In fact, here is a trend for the total goods producing jobs in America from 2000 – 2004 (in thousands):
2000 24,649
2001 23,873
2002 22,557
2003 21,816
2004 21,882
I might be misguided or naive, but I always thought the basic point of supply-side economics was that investors would go out and create good production-related jobs that not only put people to work but also strengthened the US economy on a global basis. Instead, we saw constant slippage in productive jobs, and it continued to get worse over Bush’s second term, which ended with 21,419K goods-producing jobs. Almost a 15% decline.
But government jobs over the same time period climbed from 20.79 million in 2000 … to 22.50 million in 2008. Almost a 10% increase.
Bush’s economics failed, by virtually every measure. The Bush Tax Cuts seemed to stimulate Wall Street speculation and real estate explosions and derivatives trading, and not actual investment in the things that most people would agree we want to be investing in.
On the other hand, rather than simply throwing more money at rich people with the hope they’ll do something good for the economy with it … Obama’s stimulus funds puts targets out there for things that have potential to improve our economy long term – renewable energy, upgrades to our transmission grid … I’m betting that in 4 years we’ll see more private sector goods-producing jobs as a result of private industry chasing those funds. And hopefully we’ll have something besides another financial-sector boom-bust cycle to show for it.
16 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 5:44 pm
11 ireign // Oct 22, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“The nation was in a recession when Bush took office.”
……Er….no
2001 Recession
It lasted eight months (March-November 2001). It was caused by the Y2K scare, which created a boom and subsequent bust in Internet businesses. It was aggravated by the 9/11 attack. The economy contracted in two quarters: Q1 -1.3% (-.5%) and Q3 -1.1% (-1.4%).
17 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 6:04 pm
er
18 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 6:48 pm
e
19 Churl // Oct 22, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Folks, the Bush administration is no more. It has left the building, joined the Choir Invisible.
Of course the lefties like to string up their favorite scarecrow and make it dance again to spook the kiddies. It can be amusing to watch but, while the remotely-animated straw-stuffed George Bush effigy is an amusing distraction from today’s travails, it ought not to divert us from the real worries of conservatives: to whit, the ongoing depredations of the Obama bunch.
20 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 6:58 pm
11 ireign // Oct 22, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“The nation was in a recession when Bush took office. ”
……….It wasn’t……..there was NO negative growth in 2000……there were two quarters of very modest (like -1.5%) quarters negative growth in 2001 AFTER Bush took office…..if your nose was wooden it would reach from Washington to Baltimore.
……..Reversing this neg growth had little to do with tax cuts and a lot to do with cheap money from the Fed and a massive increase in Govt expenditures that occurred mid 2001 to 2003 and beyond
………Actually appointing Paulson was one of Bush’s smarter decisions…..he made some mistakes notably allowing Lehman to fail but on the whole he and Bernanke did the right things……Bush was in a state of paralysis while all this was going on so one trembles to imagine what would have happened if Snow had still been treasury sec.
21 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Churl // Oct 22, 2009 at 6:48 pm
” Folks, the Bush administration is no more. It has left the building, joined the Choir Invisible.”
………Unfortunately they left dog shit all over the Persian rugs before they left……And as anyone with familiarity with dog shit knows it takes a little time to remove the waste matter and much longer to remove the odor……….OOOHHHHH President Obama you became President in January……WHHHYYYY DIDN’T YOU CREATE A MILLION JOBS A MONTH IN FEBRUARY and every month since then……your a failure………and the GOP wonders why people think it is largely composed of fruitcakes.
22 Bipolar Politico Tells “Hard-Core” Conservatives: You Better Start Singing Kumbaya | The Crowbar // Oct 22, 2009 at 7:10 pm
[...] Even Tim Mak on RINO David Frum’s website Newmajority.com opposes Scozzafava: Across the country, Republicans are scratching their heads and wondering, “How in the world did [...]
23 balconesfault // Oct 22, 2009 at 7:27 pm
Folks, the Bush administration is no more. It has left the building, joined the Choir Invisible.”
………Unfortunately they left dog shit all over the Persian rugs before they left…
Not only that – but the Republican position seems to be, as Obama goes to work cleaning up the mess … feed the dogs more next time
24 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 7:28 pm
ireign // Oct 22, 2009 at 4:51 pm
“The nation was in a recession when Bush took office”
………And just so I don’t have waste my time arguing with you Pinnochio…..
2001 Recession
It lasted eight months (March-November 2001). It was caused by the Y2K scare, which created a boom and subsequent bust in Internet businesses. It was aggravated by the 9/11 attack. The economy contracted in two quarters: Q1 -1.3% (-.5%) and Q3 -1.1% (-1.4%).
25 sinz54 // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:00 pm
ireign:
Don’t be baited!
All the polls show that the overwhelming majority of American voters are glad that Bush is out of office. And he left office with a dismally low approval rate.
Continuing to defend the Bush record is a political non-starter. Republicans fall into that trap repeatedly: Liberals just keep saying “What about Bush?” and Republicans rush reflexively to defend the Bush record, something that the public has already made up its mind about.
“Churl” has it right: Bush has been out of office 9 months. As months go by, the economy is more and more Obama’s responsibility. Americans didn’t elect Obama to whine about the mess he walked into. If he didn’t want to walk into a mess, he shouldn’t have run for POTUS.
Bush is a private citizen. Let him go.
26 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:32 pm
sinz54 // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:00 pm
” If he didn’t want to walk into a mess, he shouldn’t have run for POTUS.”
……Leaving aside the fact that irreign was lying about Bush in 2001 ……..Obama’s not whining…….just pointing out it was a total f****** shambles………and shambles take a bit of time to sort out…….and it’s being sorted becasue were going to see about 2.5% growth in the second half of this year……although I know you’d have much preferred him to fail even if it hurt a lot of people
27 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:37 pm
21 ireign // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:28 pm
…….the economy was not in recession when bush took office which is what you said!!!………the recession such as it was was pretty mild and getting out of it had little to do with tax cuts which weren’t enacted until after it had ended…..neither was there the remotest chance of it sparking a global recession as you claimed.
“Bush prevented a global depression and should be praised and not villified.”
……..Sorry Pinocchio
28 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:39 pm
24 ireign // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:36 pm
…….Pinocchio I’m afraid your rather silly bluster isn’t going to disguise the fact that you got called on a little nose stretcher…….but bluster away it’s really amusing
29 sinz54 // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:45 pm
ireign:
I should live so long.
For the foreseeable future–I’m talking about now through 2012–the public has made its judgment about the Bush Administration.
We don’t need to try to rehabilitate Bush in the public’s mind to win elections. How much time did Reagan spend in 1980 trying to rehabilitate Nixon’s image? It wasn’t necessary to rationalize the Watergate affair to win the 1980 election, was it?
In 1992, did candidate Bill Clinton tell the voters “I believe Jimmy Carter was a good President and that looking back that even conservatives will find a lot to like about him”???
A candidate like Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts who passed sweeping health care reform legislation into law, isn’t going to remind the voters of Bush. There are other good Republican candidates who wouldn’t be associated in the public’s mind with Bush.
So why, oh why, do you insist on reminding everybody about Bush?
If you want to defend the PATRIOT Act or even the Iraq War, go ahead. Just leave the name and the person of Bush out of it. Please???
LET HIM GO.
30 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:46 pm
26 ireign // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:39 pm
“We are in the midst of a serious recession. Without the Bush/Bernanke bailouts, we might be in a global depression. Bush did prevent a global depression in 2008 ”
………Loosing the thread are we?
“If you want to blame Bush for anything it would be appointing Paulson who unlike Bernanke did not do a great job dealing with the financial collapse”
………Paulson and Bernanke worked as a team and as I recognized above were major players along with the current treasury sec Geithner in averting a global meltdown……not that Bush had much to do with it as he was MIA most of the time…..
31 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Sinz wrote: “Americans didn’t elect Obama to whine about the mess he walked into. If he didn’t want to walk into a mess, he shouldn’t have run for POTUS.”
The purpose of pointing out the mess Bush caused is not to shield Obama from responsibility for his own decisions on the economy, but to create more realistic expectations of how long it’s going to take to clean up Bush’s mess.
Unemployment was at 7.6% in Reagan’s first year, and it rose to 9.7% at the first midterm, but that obviously didn’t hurt Reagan’s reelection in ‘84 when unemployment was still 7.5% – practically where it was when Reagan first took office. That’s because most people still felt Carter had screwed up badly and that accrued to Reagan’s benefit in ‘84.
Similarly, the screw-ups of Bush and the GOP will most likely benefit Obama and Democrats for quite some time.
32 ottovbvs // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:53 pm
ireign // Oct 22, 2009 at 8:41 pm
And yes, tax cuts usually spur growth and the 2001 tax cuts helped prevent a steeper recession
………Since it’s obvious you don’t have too strong a grasp of economics……you should know it’s been scored and the tax cuts are estimated to have had only a marginal effect on the subsequent bubble expansion which was mainly driven by consumer borrowing because money was cheap and public spending.
” ottoBS- you should thank me for working hard and providing for your welfare checks. A simple thank-you will do.”
…………since I suspect my income is greater than yours as minor apparatchik in the Republican infrastructure……and I probably pay more taxes than you do, I’ll take that under advisement
33 balconesfault // Oct 22, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Sinz wrote: Bush is a private citizen. Let him go.
As I wrote very early in this thread:
The Republicans have to deliver a narrative of how returning Republicans to power won’t just
accelerate the trends we saw throughout the first 8 years of the decade, but will somehow reverse those trends.
This is the problem that McCain ran into – no economic ideas to differentiate himself from the Bush years except for “no earmarks!”
It is unquestionable that Bush left the economy in a shambles as he walked out the door. The trajectory over 8 years was less jobs – particularly less jobs in the private sector … greater deficits … a falling dollar …. and by the end, a negative GDP growth.
People will remember this. And any Republican candidate who tries to distance him/herself from this record is going to run into the ireigns of the Party.
I look forward to seeing what those new ideas will be, to convince voters that any future Republican Administration won’t be another Bush term.
34 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:22 am
ireign // Oct 22, 2009 at 9:03 pm
Yes, my parents both taught economics but you with your elementary education know a ton:-) “[I]t’s been scored” By whom? Are you still referring to the tooth fairy?
Given that you claim to be “retired” and I am going to doubt that you make more than $200,000…
……….And the fact that your “parents” taught economics makes “you” an economic expert…..genetic then?
………..$200,000?…….you do pretty well Pinocchio as an apparatchik in the Republican noise machine
35 sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:26 am
balconesfault:
The only way to get out of this dilemma–a GOP base that still loves and defends Bush and Cheney while the rest of the country has washed its hands of those two–is to attract more folks into the GOP who are not part of its traditional base.
It’s very important for the GOP to start winning more local and state races outside its traditional South-Mountain base. The GOP has to start attracting more folks that won’t be afraid to say–inside the GOP–that Bush screwed up and a shift in direction is needed. And who won’t be afraid to lobby for greater attention to be paid to the Northern states, to suburbs, and even to cities (e.g., Rudy Giuliani).
balconesfault:
That is the crux of the matter, isn’t it. And I wish David Frum would initiate a discussion thread on just that topic: What should the GOP do and say to put Bush behind it?
The Dems faced a similar issue in the 1980s: After Mondale and Dukakis, how can we convince the country we’re not just a bunch of doctrinaire Northern liberals? They found their answer in Bill Clinton, a moderate from the South.
The GOP needs to open up its party and run Presidential candidates who do NOT come from their firm base. It’s doable. Romney was governor of MA, and Pawlenty is governor of MN.
But such candidates could never be nominated by a party dominated by rural Southerners. Right now, over on RedState.com, they want Sarah Palin for President. That’s why they need to bring in folks like me (a Northeastern center-rightist), who won’t be afraid to say Palin is wrong for the party.
36 sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:34 am
balconesfault:
To get new ideas, you first have to attract fresh blood into the party. No new ideas can take root in a party dominated by white Southerners. They’re comfortable with the old ideas.
The Karl Rove strategy of “Red states plus Ohio,” while it enabled Bush to eke out two narrow Electoral College victories, has left the GOP nearly extinct in the Northeast and the Pacific Northwest, among other places. The party has to be rebuilt there. The more Republicans there are outside the South and the Mountain States, the more the political center of gravity will shift toward a more moderate and even cosmopolitan stance. Even a conservative Republican in the Northeast has to pay more attention to suburbia–which includes lots of single women–and cities than to rural areas, because that’s the constituency he’s got. You end up with a fiscal conservative/social moderate like Rudy Giuliani.
37 balconesfault // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:40 am
Sinz: The GOP needs to open up its party and run Presidential candidates who do NOT come from their firm base. It’s doable. Romney was governor of MA, and Pawlenty is governor of MN.
Ahh … but will the GOP as it is currently configured ever be ready to accept a Bartlett-acolyte … someone who believes that under certain economic conditions an increase in taxes may be necessary to right the ship?
Or are tax cuts a rachet, such that any willingness to give back any ground after any tax cut for any reason will label a politician as an apostate, earning them permanent derision from the base?
Because the rachet formula means that government must be on a trajectory to always be able to do less than it did for the previous generation – and that is a very difficult platform from which to expand the base in any way, shape, or form.
38 sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:55 am
balconesfault:
Perhaps I didn’t explain myself too well, let me try again:
Tip O’Neill said famously that “All politics is local.” You don’t need to have a position on the Federal capital gains tax or on Afghanistan in order to run for Town Council of some town, or to run for mayor or state Attorney General or lots of other races.
I believe the GOP should stop focusing on the 2012 presidential campaign–they may even need to punt on it–and focus on rebuilding the party bottom up, at the local, city, county, and state levels of the Northeast, the Pacific Northwest, and other Blue and Purple areas. Focus on getting more Representatives elected to the House of Representatives too.
That will make it easier to get new blood into the Republican National Committee and the national conventions. Folks who won’t be satisfied with the old dogmas.
39 balconesfault // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:02 am
I believe the GOP should stop focusing on the 2012 presidential campaign–they may even need to punt on it–and focus on rebuilding the party bottom up, at the local, city, county, and state levels of the Northeast, the Pacific Northwest, and other Blue and Purple areas. Focus on getting more Representatives elected to the House of Representatives too.
If that was intended as a response to my passage you quoted … I have to think that you believe that the anti-tax fervor isn’t so strong right now that it won’t also dominate every Republican primary at the local, city, county, and state level. As for the House of Reps … do you really think the Club for Growth is going to stand for the Repubs running any candidates willing to compromise on tax issues?
40 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:08 am
sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:26 am
“The only way to get out of this dilemma–a GOP base that still loves and defends Bush and Cheney while the rest of the country has washed its hands of those two–is to attract more folks into the GOP who are not part of its traditional base.”
……….Sinz this is not just about Bush………At this moment the GOP in rough terms represents about 40-45% of the electorate…….that’s the 20% who id as Republicans and a little more than half the independants who are either fleeing self id’d Republicans or Republican leaning independants……….the 20% movement conservatives are basically in control of the party…….these people are MARRIED to a set of ideologies on climate change, gender issues, stem cell research, immigration, antipathy to internationalism, supply side economics, etc etc. Since you express certain of these opinions yourself that is not too hard to understand surely. They are MARRIED to them and not only that but a host of other irrational beliefs about the president. That bit of focus group research that Democracy Corps published demonstrated just how tenacious that committment is. These positions do not have anything like majority support. Bush is just a popular symbol of all this. What he did was destroy the Republican reputation for effective management. It’s hard to believe Palin, Beck, Gingrich, Limbaugh and co are going to restore it. Basically the GOP has ridden into a doctrinal canyon and can’t get out of it. This is causing the party unravelling we’re seeing in NY 23 and NJ.
41 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:23 am
balconesfault // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:02 am
sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:55 am
……..The fault lines in the GOP are obvious to anyone with half an eye……..they are structural and geographical…….contests like the one in NY 23 are just the playing out of these structural conflicts……I think we’re just at the start of the process for all sorts of reasons associated with societal changes within America (which they have either resisted or ignored) and external forces like the relative decline we’re going to experience over the next thirty years……..the GOP is going to survive but it’s probably going into a period of eclipse
42 Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:25 am
It is not surprising that our consulting left wingers are so anxious to keep attention on George Bush (”Unfortunately they left dog shit all over the Persian rugs before they left…” and so forth).
But it is surprising that those ostensibly interested in “building a conservatism that can win again” are suckered into a George Bush debate when the current subject of interest is Obama and his inability to deliver the Change that he told us we had been Hoping for.
43 balconesfault // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:37 am
It is not surprising that our consulting left wingers are so anxious to keep attention on George Bush
It is because fundamentally … the Republican Party isn’t offering anything different from George Bush. Oh, you hear people talk about the Medicare Drug Benefit … but right now the Republicans are attacking Democrats over making moves to cut the cost of Medicare, so you can say that they’re no different at all.
The Wishbone T formation in football worked for a very short time at the college level – until teams learned to defense it. If a school went 3-8 running the Wishbone-T last year, and fired their coach … it’s unlikely that anyone is going to get themselves hired for the job by going and telling the athletic director and alumnis “I’m going to run the Wishbone T as well … but I’m going be more committed to it”.
44 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:42 am
Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:25 am
“to deliver the Change that he told us we had been Hoping for.”
……….WE?…….since you are a movement conservative who supported Bush and almost certainly voted for McCain and his ditzy vp nominee……..where does the “we’ come in?……you just wanted a continuing supply of dogshit for some unaccountable reason.
45 Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:45 am
ottovbs, I use “we” in the sense of the American electorate, from which I have yet to be banished.
46 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:46 am
balconesfault // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:37 am
“I’m going to run the Wishbone T as well … but I’m going be more committed to it”.
……….Churl and all the other conservatives forget that basic mantra of business management:
“If you always do what you always did……you always get what you always got”
47 Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:48 am
otto and balcones, I can understand your desperation to keep the focus on Bush, but Obama is in charge now and he gets credit for the good things that happen and blame for the bad ones. And things are not looking so rosy, now or in the immediate future.
48 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:49 am
Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:45 am
‘ottovbs, I use “we” in the sense of the American electorate, from which I have yet to be banished.”
……..The American electorate had got tired of dogshit and wanted to clean it up…….you for some unaccountable reason wished to continue living in the midst of it.
49 Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:52 am
otto and balcones, keep it up guys but remember, the winning idea back in the day was not “It’s the George Bush, stupid.”
50 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:56 am
Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 10:48 am
“otto and balcones, I can understand your desperation to keep the focus on Bush,”
………I’m not at all focussed on Bush…….he’s actually been replaced in the public consciousness as the standard bearers of Republicanism by even more idiotic people like Palin and Beck…….Things are looking a damn sight rosier than they were in January of this year
51 Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 11:08 am
otto, I’m glad that things are looking rosier. The growing numbers of unemployed will be happy to hear about it too.
52 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 11:22 am
62 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 11:08 am
OttoBS-nice that you call people liars yet you appear to be the liar. Previously, you said you were retired and now you claim you make more money than me.
…..Pinocchio………..Would you like to show me where I said I made more than $200k a year?……..I surmised I paid more taxes than you did and because maybe I earned more than you did……it was a guess aimed at pulling your chain because how could I possibly know ……..I’m pleased to hear you’re making more than me………unless you’re lying of course and we’re never going to know are we…….and btw it’s a mistake to think that all retirees are pensioners of the state
53 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 11:28 am
Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 11:08 am
“otto, I’m glad that things are looking rosier. The growing numbers of unemployed will be happy to hear about it too.”
……..But those unemployed would be the victims of the Bush Recession which commenced in December 2007 a full 14 months before he left office……..I know partisans like you pretend you can turn it off and on like a light switch but if it’s so easy why wasn’t Bush able to do it in 14 months before he left office…..in fact it was accelerating……most people of course live in the real world and know it doesn’t work like that so do stop being silly.
54 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 11:39 am
61 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 11:07 am
“I am not sure why you, OttoBS, or Balconesfault should be lecturing Republicans. ”
……….Comprehension problems again I’m afraid……I personally am not lecturing anyone or prescribing remedies……I’m just describing a process that is unfolding and must be obvious to anyone with an ounce of objectivity or analytical skills…….I’m not sure there are any remedies…….it’s a process that has to play out and all the silly bumper sticker stuff from partisans like you are chaff in the wind that isn’t going to make a dimes worth of difference…….there are forces at play that have been building for at least two decades and are basically unstoppable.
55 Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 11:41 am
otto, I don’t think that Hooverization is going to work this time. FDR and crew could blame their failures on Herbert Hoover and get away with it because there was limited information available. Back then the average folks got their view of the world huddled around the radio listening to the dulcet tones of FDR emanating therefrom.
It is different in these days of modern times.
56 sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:07 pm
ireign:
I continue to disagree with you on the following:
1. The ONLY reasons McCain was able to squeak through to the GOP nomination were crossover voting in key states like New Hampshire; and the conservative anti-McCain vote being split among Huckabee, Fred Thompson (their early favorite), Romney, and even Ron Paul. The conservatives destroyed their clout by falling in love with Thompson way back in the summer of 2007, only to see his campaign crash and burn months later.
2. Am I “stereotyping” white Southerners? You do agree that’s the base of the GOP right now, yes? According to the Gallup poll, a majority of self-identified Republicans believe that the planet Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is false. According to other polls, a majority of them still approve of Bush and Cheney (and you can see that reflected on RedState.com and in your own posts). A majority of them still believe the Iraq War was worth fighting.
Whether you personally agree with views or not, you must admit that such views are out of phase with most of the rest of the nation, as the polls confirm. Modernist Christians have long since accepted an ancient Universe, an ancient Earth, and the evolution of species. And that’s the problem: On many issues, the GOP base takes stands that separate it from most of the rest of the electorate. Hence they cannot reach out to the rest of the electorate with ideas the rest of the electorate will seriously consider.
57 sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:21 pm
ottovbs:
I don’t believe in “unstoppable forces.”
In a two party system, if the incumbent Dems screw up, or the public tires of them after 8 or more years, or if the Dem candidate is just personally weak, there’s only one other place to go.
Looking back over the elections of 2006 and 2008, the Dem victories weren’t caused by any “unstoppable forces” but by bad decisions made by the Republicans, both policy-wise and electorally. If the U.S. had found all that horrible WMD in Iraq that Bush had said was there, the Republicans would never have lost in 2006.
I’ve always said that elections don’t make re-alignments; administrations do. If Obama can succeed in Afghanistan and at delivering robust non-inflationary economic growth here at home, he could cement a liberal regime in Washington for years to come. But if he fails, then he will end up regarded by historians as an aberration like Jimmy Carter.
58 balconesfault // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:29 pm
churl: Back then the average folks got their view of the world huddled around the radio listening to the dulcet tones of FDR emanating therefrom.
Or from listening to Father Coughlin…
59 sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:33 pm
ireign:
Right after the 2008 GOP convention, McCain had pulled slightly ahead in the polls (and Dems on FiveThirtyEight.com were getting nervous). The GOP charges that Obama was an empty suit had been effective. And the public still saw McCain as a man of integrity.
But then less than a month later, the U.S. economy fell off a cliff. What the public now saw was a Republican President and Republican Party who had been blind-sided by the economic collapse. And they saw McCain flailing away uselessly, trying to do something to fix it but only revealing his own lack of depth on economic issues.
Under the Bush policies, the two traditional strengths of the GOP–fiscal responsibility and national defense–had been shaken; the first by the economic collapse on Bush’s watch, the second by a bloody war in Iraq originally undertaken to find WMD that turned out not to be there.
It had nothing to do with “cycles.” It had to do with hard evidence that the Republicans were not managing the nation well.
BTW, finally, I am not a Democrat. I am a registered Independent. I do not associate myself either with Bush’s mistakes or with the creationists of the Deep South or with the hippie-dippy New Age loons who infest Pelosi’s San Francisco.
I’ve talked about how the GOP base is white Southerners. The fact that the Speaker of the House is from hippie-dippy New Age San Francisco, tells you where the heart and soul of the Democratic Party are. That’s why I’m a registered Independent.
60 balconesfault // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:34 pm
ireign – give it a rest … Otto made the claim that he probably made more than you before you revealed to the list your 6 figure income. This personalization was kind of silly from him to start, and you pursuing it is getting very silly.
61 balconesfault // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:45 pm
ireign, ireign. Looking back, I find the following from you:
“ottoBS- you should thank me for working hard and providing for your welfare checks”
Otto could be just as trunculently calling you out as a liar if he’s not on welfare. Whatever.
62 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 1:11 pm
71 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:29 pm
“Ottobs- “…..Pinocchio………..Would you like to show me where I said I made more than $200k a year”
…..Pinocchio……….You didn’t answer the question, of course, just responded with a load of largely incorrect speculation…….what really intrigues me is why someone with your apparent lack of maturity would be paid over 200k a year……..you could work on a trading desk of course where immaturity is not uncommon but the preponderance of evidence suggests you are Republican professional …….if so I’m glad to see the GOP is wasting its money.
63 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 11:41 am
……You forget……this is a two edged sword…..people are much more well informed about Republican incompetence and irrationality than they were in the thirties.
64 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 1:18 pm
sinz54 // Oct 23, 2009 at 12:21 pm
ottovbs:
“I don’t believe in “unstoppable forces.”
…….You should do……they are almost invariably much more important than political platforms
65 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 23, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Churl wrote: “I don’t think that Hooverization is going to work this time. FDR and crew could blame their failures on Herbert Hoover and get away with it because there was limited information available.”
You’re making the wrong comparison. As I described above, Reagan is a more apt comparison.
Unemployment was at 7.6% in Reagan’s first year, and it rose to 9.7% at the first midterm, but that obviously didn’t hurt Reagan’s reelection in ‘84 when unemployment was still 7.5% – practically where it was when Reagan first took office. That’s because most people still felt Carter had screwed up badly and that accrued to Reagan’s benefit in ‘84.
Similarly, the screw-ups of Bush and the GOP will most likely benefit Obama and Democrats for quite some time.
66 Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 2:05 pm
otto, I do not forget that information is a multi-edged sword.
I’m perfectly happy to let ideas, rants or whatever compete in the open.
67 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 23, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Sinz wrote: “Am I “stereotyping” white Southerners? You do agree that’s the base of the GOP right now, yes? According to the Gallup poll, a majority of self-identified Republicans believe that the planet Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is false. According to other polls, a majority of them still approve of Bush and Cheney . . . ”
The GOP is not suffering because of white Southerners’ belief in creationism or because of approval of Bush and Cheney. Creationism is just not a salient issue in politics. And, as Otto pointed out, Bush and Cheney have been replaced by much worse: Beck, Limbaugh and Palin, none of whom are Southerners, and only Palin has an open belief in creationism.
The GOP is suffering because: (1) it’s economic policies have ruined the country, (2) it started and mismanaged an unnecessary war, (3) it has no new ideas for the problems facing the country, and (4) its most prominent supporters seem absolutely crazy, angry and, sometimes, even bigoted.
68 Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 2:33 pm
spartacusisnotdead, “Reagan is a more apt comparison.” Exactly. Carter’s bumbling incompetence and persistent whinging allowed Reagan’s win, limiting Carter to one term.
We may be on track for that sort of outcome in 2012. Time will tell.
69 Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 3:06 pm
In fact, spartacusisnotdead, there are further Carter / Reagan similarities. The electorate in 1976 was completely fed up with Nixon (Ford was merely a temporary place holder) exactly the electorate of 2008 was similarly tired of George Bush. Carter was elected based on the fact that he was not Nixon and for his ability to coo and murmer soothing sounds about openness, world peace and so forth.
During his administration, it was noticed that he was short on competence and long on spite and, with the economy in a complete mess, being the not-Nixon and saying nice things was insufficient to keep the voters happy. Hence his ouster.
Obama, of course, ran as the non-Bush and surpassed even Carter in his campaign cooing and murmuring.
Now, however, he is the big man in charge and the economy is getting sicker and his petulance at the insurance industry, Chamber of Commerce, Fox Newset c. makes him look he is out-pettying Carter.
This is not a good plan for re-election.
70 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 2:33 pm
“spartacusisnotdead, “Reagan is a more apt comparison.” Exactly. Carter’s bumbling incompetence and persistent whinging allowed Reagan’s win, limiting Carter to one term.”
……..Wrong again……it was the Johnson/Nixon inflationary chickens coming home to roost…….the oil crisis playing out………and apparent (and indeed real) US powerlessness in the face of the Iranian hostage taking that were principally responsible for the failure of his presidency…….I’m certainly not going to argue that Carter was the greatest US president but he had some pluses to his credit notably reducing US oil consumption, the camp David accords and his appointmen of Volcker to the Fed who basically cured inflation (and was subsequently fired by Reagan)……..the fact is Presidents are very often the prisoner of events as GHBW was so that he, quite undeservedly, was also a one term president……..or as in Clinton’s case that he had the luck to be in office during the PC revolution…….Your opera buffa version of events doesn’t bear a lot of resemblance to real life as in this:
” The electorate in 1976 was completely fed up with Nixon”
…….He was forced from office for criminal acts…….he had been re-elected in 74 by a landslide
71 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 23, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Churl,
In your analysis of the Nixon-Carter transition and Carter’s 1-term presidency, you seem to have overlooked a major disadvantage of Carter’s. For reelection, Carter faced Reagan, who was offering a solution for the country’s ailments and that solution seemed like it could, in fact, work.
Obama’s GOP opponents are not offering solutions to real problems such as high unemployment, health insurance or even reduce the federal deficit. Instead, their energy is dedicated to stopping Obama from turning this country into fascist Nazi Germany. When the GOP does bother to talk about problems other than fascism, it can only offer the same old tax cuts (see Jeb Bush’s comments), which have already proven to be a failure.
I’m not predicting who will win in 2012. I seriously don’t have a clue on that. I just believe the GOP has done about as much harm to itself as it did to the country, and that harm will probably have electoral consequences that go beyond 2010 and 2012.
72 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 3:57 pm
87 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 3:23 pm
……..Pinocchio…….do we have to have another public demonstration of your fatal propensity to bluster…..you said I had lied in claiming that I had an income greater than 200k a year……I never claimed any such thing and asked you to cite where I had……you never did……Amen
73 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 4:16 pm
GOP Surges……Democrats in trouble
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/10/23/cnn-poll-gop-favorable-rating-lowest-in-25-years/
74 ottovbvs // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:28 pm
ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 4:54 pm
“OttoBS-every political analyst in the country acknowledges the climate is such that the GOP stands to gain a good number of seats in 2010.”
……The climate? ……..So why is the GOP so popular…….why are Democrats ahead by 6-11 points in most of the generic congressional ballots…….as for the analysts some have predicted large Republican gains but then like most of the media they are invested in script writing to political junkies like you and me interested ……..at the moment I would say the odds are the Dems maybe lose half a dozen house seats but probably pick up a net three senate seats…..not a bad exchange……there is certainly no evidence whatsoever of a wave election building as there was in the run ups to 2006 and 2008…..but go on believing it if you want……you don’t have too much contact with reality for someone picking up 200k a year.
75 Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Spartacus, I agree with you, the right currently has no Reagan who could topple Obama in 2012.
And there will never be one if the squishy ideas of Frum and Chums come to dominate the Republican party’s candidate picking apparatus.
76 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 24, 2009 at 12:39 am
Churl,
I’m not sure which squishy ideas of Frum you’re referring to, but it’s worthwhile to remember that Reagan was nowhere near as conservative as today’s conservatives believe. Both as Governor of California and as U.S. President, Reagan endorsed the then-largest tax increases in history. He also was much less bellicose and aggressive in foreign policy than any of today’s GOP rhetoric would suggest. And, of course, he was never the angry fearmonger that today’s prominent conservatives are.
Compared to the standards of today’s conservatism, Reagan was probably way more squishy than Frum would ever be.
77 ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 9:15 am
95 ireign // Oct 23, 2009 at 5:33 pm
” The fact that the GOP is unpopular is not of major concern.”
………..As you are totally impervious to any sophisticated, or indeed intelligent, reading of these very different polls (eg. “congress” whoever is in control is always fairly upopular), preferring bluster and name calling, it’s perhaps not surprising you think the GOP’s massive unpopularity is irrelevant to their electoral prospects.
” If you had any political acumen, you would realize that Democrats are not ahead on ay credible generic ballot ”
……….Innumerate as well as immature……….the Dems are about five points ahead on Pollster ’s congressional generic “average”……….I’d be surprised if the Dems don’t lose a few seats in the house, as I said, but given the number of Republican retirements (8 or 9?), the continuing zaniness, and the fact the economy will be in full recovery by the fall of next year and the Republicans have given lots of hostages to fortune in opposing recovery, as of now, I’ve no doubt the Democrats are going to pick up at least three senate seats whatever Rothenburg (who is something of a weather vane) says…….but go ahead and bet your money.
78 ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 9:21 am
Churl // Oct 23, 2009 at 9:52 pm
“And there will never be one if the squishy ideas of Frum and Chums come to dominate the Republican party’s candidate picking apparatus.”
………For once I’m with you Churl…..let’s have lots more Toomeys, Santorums, Inhofes, Palins, De Mints, Bunnings, Pences, Ensigns, Vitters, Gingrichs, Rubios, Hoffmans……..the more the merrier……..the fact that these guys are the future of the GOP must be enormously encouraging for you.
79 Churl // Oct 24, 2009 at 11:08 am
ottovbs,
The future of the GOP will become clearer when we get a look at the economy in 2011 – 2012. Maybe even in 2010. If things keep going as they are, even your list of the lefties’ favorite bogeypersons might look good to voters.
Time, as always, will tell.
80 ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Churl // Oct 24, 2009 at 11:08 am
“The future of the GOP will become clearer when we get a look at the economy in 2011 – 2012. Maybe even in 2010. If things keep going as they are,”
……..You seem unaware that with the exception of unemployment, the universally acknowledged lagging indicator, just about every economic barometer from home sales to corporate profitability is pointing north, that the Fed chairman has declared the recession likely over, that just about all economists are anticipating growth around 2.5-3% in the second half of this year, and 65% of the stimulus has yet to kick in……..time will of course tell but if economic improvement is the criteria then the preponderance of evidence suggests time is very much on Obama’s side……not that empirical evidence plays a overly large part in making your value judgements I know.
81 Churl // Oct 24, 2009 at 1:59 pm
otto, I’m quite aware of the things you mention.
Home sales were up, we’ll see if they stay up without the $8,000 subsidy.
Profitability is up for those outfits still in business, let’s see how business formation and capital investment rates progress.
65% of the stimulus has yet to kick in. Porkbarrel I.O.U money from the stimulus will start to gush in time for the 2010 elections, I’m waiting to see what the consequent rise in deficits or taxes will do to future economic growth. (I know, I know Bush ad infinitum et nauseam, but Obama is in charge now and deficits are soaring on his watch.)
But, to someone unemployed without prospects for a new job, the fact that somebody else gets a $8,000 check to subsidize buying a house or that the folks from the local union hall are getting good wages from stimulated dirt moving isn’t much comfort. You can’t make payments on your under water home mortgage with leading indicators.
So, for Obama’s future electability, unemployment had better not lag too much.
82 ottovbvs // Oct 24, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Churl // Oct 24, 2009 at 1:59 pm
…….I know you long for the economy to remain in deep recession but try and get beyond the silly buzz phrases because you’re going to be disappointed buddy trust me……..the US economy once it gets on a roll is extraordinarily dynamic; it’s already in recovery mode and I wouldn’t be surprised to see well over 4% growth in next years first half; the stimulus much of which is going into socially desirable concrete (it’s huge and I know something about concrete) over the next year not nature walks as you fondly believe will provide an additional boost to already recovering consumer spending; and the weak dollar is going boost exports to a world that is also in full recovery mode……….I’m not making all this up……why the f*** do you think oil is back at $80 and the Dow at around 10………if the Republicans are relying on the economy being in the tank next summer let alone the summer of 2011 to revive their fortunes they’re out to lunch believe me…….but if it keeps you warm at night……You probably think he’s the anti christ but you should read old Bartlett’s new book, he’s that rare thing today an intellectually honest conservative economist.
83 Churl // Oct 24, 2009 at 7:27 pm
otto, perhaps by pouring concrete we will march behind our Leader to a glorious future. Or not. We’ll see in due course.
As to exports improving due to the weak dollar, it has been weaker in the past without much of an effect on exports. Oil is back over $80 per barrel perhaps because of the weakness of the dollar of which you speak. Indeed oil exporters are mumbling about dropping the dollar as their contract denominating currency. As to the DJIA in the 10k range it may or may not be another bubble. Again, we will find out.
You are a little off in reading my mind, however. Try stock picks, you might be better at that.
84 ottovbvs // Oct 25, 2009 at 9:32 am
104 Churl // Oct 24, 2009 at 7:27 pm
“otto, perhaps by pouring concrete we will march behind our Leader to a glorious future. Or not. We’ll see in due course.”
……so you’re hoping for substantial economic recovery in the next year?………..It’s going to happen whatever’s in your mind beside bumper stickers
85 Churl // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:00 am
otto, I am indeed hoping for a substantial economic recovery in the next year. I would like to continue eating, for example.
But what I hope for, or what anybody hopes for is irrelevant. Clapping for Tinkerbell always works in performances of Peter Pan but the real world sometimes has harsh and unhoped for outcomes.
There are certain initial conditions in the economy, certain policies are being implemented and certain external influences exist. We’ll see how it all shakes out. I remain pessimistic.
86 sinz54 // Oct 26, 2009 at 9:23 am
ottovbs: The economic recovery isn’t going to reduce unemployment for quite some time to come. One reason being that the major effect of the stimulus package is ebbing.
ottovbs:
You frequently cite structural and demographic shifts over the last 20 years in support of your theory of continuing Democratic dominance in Washington. But you should realize that some of those same structural and demographic shifts are also contributing to chronically high unemployment over the next 20 years, a la France.
87 ottovbvs // Oct 26, 2009 at 10:19 am
sinz54 // Oct 26, 2009 at 9:23 am
“ottovbs: The economic recovery isn’t going to reduce unemployment for quite some time to come. One reason being that the major effect of the stimulus package is ebbing.”
………Er…..how would that be since only about 30% of it has been spent?…… Romer didn’t say the major effect of the stimulus would ebb until mid 2010……why would that be………clearly you don’t understand that of the 800 billion only about 280 billion has so far been spent in tax cuts and transfer payments to states……..the bulk of it (some 4oo billion) is going to be spent principally on public works projects over the next 14 months………this is huge……as a benchmark compare it with the highways bill that gets passed every five years and is the largest single federal public works appropriation…….the highways bill is around 500 billion to be spent over five years ie. roughly 100 billion a year…..whereas the stimulus is going to inject about 350 billion over just over a year…….I don’t dispute for a moment that the US has structural employment problems but that’s a far cry from saying the unemployment rate is going to be hovering around 10% indefinitely…….it’s probably going to take a few years for unemployment to drop to around 6% but by the middle of next year it definitely be recovering quite strongly due to recovering consumer spending, the stimulus, and growth in export oriented industries……and guess what…… Obama will get the credit
88 ottovbvs // Oct 26, 2009 at 10:28 am
Churl // Oct 25, 2009 at 10:00 am
“But what I hope for, or what anybody hopes for is irrelevant. Clapping for Tinkerbell always works in performances of Peter Pan but the real world sometimes has harsh and unhoped for outcomes.”
……..Nothing to do with Tinkerbell………just making an intelligent estimate based on empirical evidence………as your last para concedes this has moved from the arena of political rhetoric to the technical…….economics is not an exact science but given the expertise that exists today amongst govt policy makers you can be reasonably assured of outcomes……..be as pessimistic as you like……the US economy is clearly on the move and will be in full recovery mode by next summer
89 Churl // Oct 26, 2009 at 5:15 pm
otto, “the US economy is clearly on the move and will be in full recovery mode by next summer”.
Any quantitative definitions of “full recovery mode”? Sounds a bit vague to me, as it might to many folks who would like jobs again or to save their businesses.
You must log in to post a comment.