And in the 80s, there was still a vast Soviet Empire which posed a direct threat to the United States, but it didn't prevent President Reagan from articulating and advancing a comprehensive economic agenda. He was somehow--we can only wonder how--able to communicate this economic strategy to the American people, even through the recession of '82, even while winning the Cold War.
I understand the importance of the war on terrorism (really the war on islamo-fascist nutbags.) I support it. But the President has appeared to suggest that the economy should take a back seat to the war if necessary. I am simply asking the question why the President can't do both at the same time. Does one have to come at the expense of the other? Is there no way to effectively communicate and advance a sound economic policy and a sound war policy at the same time?
If he doesn't find a way to do it, we may have a liberal Democrat for a President in 2004, then how will the war on terror be? How safe will we be if a Democrat selects the next Secratary of Defense? In other words, domestic security, economic growth, and political success are all linked. That's my point. Hopefully the President will prevail on all fronts. I certainly hope so. It's 3 years now of a bear market.
Ok, What would you like Bush to do or say about the economy? He doesn't need to say anything to me about it. We are darn lucky the economy isn't worse off than it is. Hopefully, Bush is working behind the scenes to get the Senate back. If he gets it back, then the policy wonks can tweak the economy with tax policy.