Liberal Quagmires Or Why There Will Be A Second Bush Term

Toogood Reports ^ | April 16, 2003 | Lisa Fabrizio

[My2Cents]

The word of the Clinton/Gore era was "crisis." There was a "health care crisis," a "child care crisis," and "education crisis," etc. Now it's "quagmire."

[Stand Watch Listen]

Related Article

Wishing The Nation Ill - The Democrats' Dilemma
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: April 16, 2003; Author: Paul E. Scates

[Notforprophet]

All good comments, except I must respectfully disagree on one front: The President DOES have an effect on the overall economy. If it doesn't get significantly better by election time, look for the Dems to use that as their biggest platform. No matter how much you try to disregard the significance, it will be a chain around the neck of W unless he leads the turnaround, which he obviously can do.

While the economic policies of any Administration can and do affect the market and economy, most policies don't show results immediately. For instance, the tax-cuts and 'trickle-down' economics of the Reagan administration didn't bear fruit until four years after the Gipper left office - it can be argued that the boom of the 1990's was a direct result of the fiscal and economic policies of the 1980's.

BTW - Welcome to FR. :)

[David Noles]

All good comments, except I must respectfully disagree on one front: The President DOES have an effect on the overall economy. If it doesn't get significantly better by election time, look for the Dems to use that as their biggest platform. No matter how much you try to disregard the significance, it will be a chain around the neck of W unless he leads the turnaround, which he obviously can do.

YOU ARE SO WRONG. IT IS SECURITY FIRST BECAUSE EVRYONE HAS SEEN THAT WITHOUT IT , THERE IS NO CHANCE OF A GOOD ECONOMY. AS LONG AS BUSH IS PERCIEVED AS DOING A GOOD JOB WITH OUR NATIONAL SECURITY HE WILL NEVER BE BLAMED FOR THE ECONOMY. THE MEDIA AND LIBERAL PARTY WILL TRY , BUT IT WILL BE IN VAIN. YOU HAVEN'T LEARNED THAT ELECTIONS DON'T REPEAT THEMSELVES. 04 ISN'T GOING TO BE A REPLAY OF 92 OR ANY OTHER YEAR.

[b4its2late]

BTTT

[wayoverontheright]

However, if President Bush does aggressively push his plan for immediate and significant tax-cuts and its passage stimulates the economy and spurs job-growth as he (and I) believe it will, then this major issue will be off the table as the WMD of choice for the Left.

There's another, little discussed, ace in the hole here. Iraq is sitting atop 10% of the world's oil. Due to sanctions and the aged extraction technology, Iraq has been pumping about 30% of what it could be pumping. In a matter of weeks extraction will begin to increase exponentially, and increased export will begin.

The return of Iraqi crude to the world market will affect crude prices immediately and drastically, such that under a dollar per gallon gas is possible by the fall. A decrease of the magnitude I think we will experience will fuel inject world economies and literally turbo-charge the engine of the world's largest user of petroleum. For OPEC, already weakened by the Russians' refusal to play ball, Iraqi oil represents the final death blow to the cartel, further pressuring prices downward over the longer term.

These could be huge developments for the US economy going forward, possibly greater in impact than the tax cut, and we don't need Senate approval for this one.

[okie01]

"If it doesn't get significantly better by election time, look for the Dems to use that as their biggest platform. No matter how much you try to disregard the significance, it will be a chain around the neck of W unless he leads the turnaround, which he obviously can do."

There is, however, a problem with the Democrats' plan.

If the electorate sees the President as trying to do something about the economy -- which he is -- and sees the Democrats as obstructing his efforts -- which they are -- history says they will reward the one making the effort and punish the one doing the obstructing.

Richly and severely, respectively.

For further detail, see FDR and the GOP, c. 1936.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

The economy is always one of the most important issues.

People have compensated, they have adjusted to the new economic realities, but I haven't seen much actual recovery and nothing that looks like improvement.

The election is his to win or lose, depending on the next year's economic story and whether or not he stays with his conservative base and doesn't start reaching across the aisle and catering to the demented hate-mongering lefties.

There's something about republicans that seems to make them self destruct just when it seems they are poised to win.

[Cicero]

In favor of W's re-election, I would add his father's "read my lips" factor. The Dems tricked the elder Bush into supporting a major tax rise with the promise that they wouldn't use it against him. We all know what Dem promises are worth.

I am also somewhat fearful of the economy. We know that Bush has nothing to do with our current economic problems, which began the year before he was elected and were caused a) by the business cycle; b) by long-standing Fed Reserve excesses; and c) by the clinton bubble. Nonetheless, the media will all unite with the DNC and the Dem candidates to Blame President Bush, and it's possible that that could cost him the election. Previous history records that the sitting president is always blamed for economic setbacks, regardless of whose fault they may be.

If Bush can win in a period of major economic trouble, which I'm sorry to say is what I expect, then he will be a very great president indeed.

The third positive point is that Bush may in fact be such a great president. He has shown himself to be a man with consummate political skills as well as genuine patriotism and honesty, who can communicate with the American people over the heads of a viciously unfriendly press. Maybe he can even do that in the midst of a great depression. The alternative would be that another FDR will arise and use the sufferings of the depression to move the country in the wrong direction.

[Ancesthntr]

The return of Iraqi crude to the world market will affect crude prices immediately and drastically, such that under a dollar per gallon gas is possible by the fall. A decrease of the magnitude I think we will experience will fuel inject world economies and literally turbo-charge the engine of the world's largest user of petroleum.

These could be huge developments for the US economy going forward, possibly greater in impact than the tax cut, and we don't need Senate approval for this one.

You're absolutely correct. The economy always does well when the price of fuel goes down, and it does act as a tax cut of its own. This real effect of a gas price cut, added to the confidence-raising effect of having the war over (and the side benefit of a lower threat of terrorism), will help the economy a bunch. BTW, gas is already on its way down in price. I fill up at Sam's Club here in TX, and the member's price is down to $1.379 from a peak of $1.489 only a couple of weeks ago.

[AndyTheBear]

A difference it seems the author missed is the behaivor of Democrat leaders and other liberal icons, which was more pronounced leading up to the war. Seems to me they have said and done too much to sweep under the rug; moreover they no longer have a choke-hold on the distribution of information to the genral public.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Eh?

I'm still a mite deef from all the shoutin!

[discostu]

He didn't say the President doesn't have an effect, he said the President isn't directly responsible. Which is exactly the truth, while the President can effect the economy he's only one of many factors and by no means the most important. The A#1 measure of an economy is consumer confidence, if that's low people won't spend money and the economy will tank, if it's high people will spend money and the economy probably won't tank.

[discostu]

Very true, this slashing of his tax cut is his greatest weapon. If the economy shows some positive signs but doesn't actually recover he can turn it right around on them "I tried to fix the economy but they wouldn't let me, so make sure you kick out a bunch of Democrat Congressmen while re-electing me". If they're hoping a down economy will save them their best bet is to give him everything he asks for and pray it's not enough to overcome other weaknesses in the economy. Of course since they don't beleive in God praying is right out... guess they're screwed.

[Davea]

Another thing that is different from 92 is that I'm seeing older Democrats ,FDR types, vowing to never again vote Dem because of what they saw and heard from the Anti-War types and certain Dem leaders. I beleive swing voters will also move away from the Dems. This war has reaped so many dividends(sp) on so many levels it's amazing.