From Jim Gilliam's blog archives
February 25, 2005 6:51 PM
Frank Luntz's strategy for the Republicans opens with this stunnner:
So how does a President with a national job approval rating hovering at 50%, an economy that lost more than a million jobs over his four years in office, a war that has cost more than a thousand American lives and counting, $50 a barrel for oil, and a national mood that is downright sour still secure more than enough votes to win re-election? And what does it portend for the Republican Party in 2006?
The answer? Credibility. George W. Bush had it. John Kerry did not.
!? Luntz has no shame!
More from the archive in Bush
Next Entry: "Unauthorized Use of Bill O'Reilly's Column" (03.02.2005)
Previous Entry: New project (02.24.2005)
Read the 14 comments.
It wasn't credibility that won Bush the election. It was that transmitter/receiver he wore on his back during the debates.
I'm amazed that the SCLM hasn't made more of a stink about Bush cheating. I guess it was "straightforward" cheating,though, because he obviously made little effort to hide that enormous bulge on his back.
Fri Feb 25 2005 7:28 PM
I meant "RF receiver", not "transmitter/receiver".
Fri Feb 25 2005 7:29 PM
... Paul, you can't be serious, can you?
Can we all get over the conspiracy theory? It's sophmoric in nature and involves no logic or open-minded...
Sat Feb 26 2005 10:45 AM
Oh, and btw... Just to set the record straight, the 4 years Bush was sworn in as Commander in Cheif, there was actually a net gain of jobs. At the time of the debates, there was a net loss (althought not as big as a year before) but by the time he was sworn in again, there was a net gain.
Just to set the record straight...
Sat Feb 26 2005 10:47 AM
Citation please Aaron, if you really want to "set the record straight."
Sat Feb 26 2005 12:32 PM
Tom from Madison:
I have a citiation [below]. It shows a net loss of private sector jobs. Overall, there is a small gain due to GOVERNMENT JOB increases. Bush and his apologists ought not be bragging about that!
Considering the magnitude of the Federal budget deficit, the Bush record on jobs is astoundingly bad. The US "recovery" is funding job creation off-shore where labor is cheap, environmental regs are lax, and employers don't have to pay benefits.
<<<Private Sector Jobs: Net Four-Year Loss
News reports suggested that January job data spared President Bush from joining Herbert Hoover as the only president to see a net job loss during a four-year term. However, under Bush's watch, private sector jobs dropped 760,000, according to January 2005's anemic job growth projections. Bush's public reputation was spared only because of growth in government sector jobs, a cushy buffer missing during the Hoover days.
In January 2000, when President Bush took office, there were 111,622,000 private sector jobs in the US. Projected numbers for January 2005 are 110,862,000, a net loss of 760,000 private sector jobs. In comparison, in January 1997 there were 101,639,000 private sector jobs -- meaning 9,983,000 were created during President Clinton's second term of
Sun Feb 27 2005 8:51 AM
Um... Bush took office in January 2001, not 2000... I don't know if that's a typo on the original author's part or if that makes those numbers false, but hey..
And anyway, my point was not "Look at that positive job growth!!!"... just "setting the record straight"
I get sick of seeing people on the news get layed off and make some kind of political comment about Bush being responsible. Blame congress, if you blame DC. They have far more responsibility over 'job creation' that the President. Although, even congress has reletively little direct control over it.
Sun Feb 27 2005 9:07 PM
By that logic, just blame market forces. Everything else is just man's feeble attempt to wrangle them.
A healthy mix of responsibility should be in order, to include agreeably uncontrollable market shifts, but also the creation and administration of policy, or lack thereof. The degree to which either really affects an economy is open to debate. This is a sensible approach to dealing with understanding unemployment, and the fault should therefore include Bush.
After all, it is not the market that has made all investors wary of the dollar with record-breaking deficits. Just last week S.Korea nearly sparked a financial disaster when it sent signs it would begin dropping its dollar reserves. Nobody wants to hold dollars when its value consistently sinks like a stone in water. The "bank run" is imminent, and when it happens and the stock market is gouged of value, safety in lieu of liberty will be the last thing on the mind of all the spiral-eyed Bush supporters.
But I digress.
Back to who's responsible for job loss. As Aaron submits, the legislative body is more culpable of anemic job creation.
Well, then the Bush-led, Republican-dominated Congress is "far more responsible" it. Your druthers still don't paint that rosey of a picture for the path Republicans are taking us down.
See you in the cheese line.
Sun Feb 27 2005 9:34 PM
Excuse me for taking a bit more optomistic approach, but you seem to preach doom and gloom. I am, admitably, no expert on the national economy, and even less so when it comes to international economic influence. However, I simply refuse to live my life assuming the worst...
There are many opinions on the state of the dollar in America; indeed I've heard economic masterminds talk about the BENIFIT of the falling dollar...puts America on more even trading playing-field with the rest of the country (ie. Instead of Intel outsourcing that Software Engineer job to India and only having to pay him 12k a year, not it costs 25k a year because of the currency difference)
I am not stating that this is what I believe, simply that there are many different beliefs on the issue and you shouldn't assume that "the 'bank run' is imminent" just because a man of different political pursuation is running things....
Mon Feb 28 2005 3:55 PM
Tue Mar 1 2005 4:16 PM
Tue Mar 1 2005 5:42 PM
Ed McMahon has left the building.
Tue Mar 1 2005 8:07 PM
You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong no matter who does it or who says it.
Mon Mar 14 2005 8:34 AM
Didnt Malcom X also say "By any means necessary
Sun Mar 20 2005 11:56 AM