« Why Bolton's role directly threatens the guys who are supposed to approve him | Main | Compare and Contrast: Why Bolton's Appointment Would Be Counterproductive »

May 02, 2005


" The president's foreign policy has become stunningly successful and the economy is strong and growing despite soaring gas prices and a shaky stock market. "

What's the Weekly Standard smokin?

Economy is strong? Tell that to the average American.

Foreign policy is stunningly successful? On what grounds can they make this statement?

Elections in Iraq went better than everyone thought they'd go, but there's practically no security. Americans see violence. Violence in Iraq is reported every single day. It's not biased either. You can't bias something like "Today, 4 Americans were killed in an insurgent attack in Mosul."

Social Security has hurt Bush, but the Weekly Standard is missing crucial aspects. Consumer confidence is down. More and more people feel like he lied to get us into Iraq. The Bush administration were so confident about their stunningly successful foreign policy, that they tried to hide the fact that terrorist attacks have gone up in the last year.

That would be Fred Barnes, and if that's what the Bush supporters think, it's more evidence they're so out of touch with reality that it'll hit them especially hard. But you have to understand that for ther top 1%, the economy's okay.

It's the rest of us that pay for gas while the rich get their tax cuts and estate planning taken care of.

They really do want to do away with the New Deal.

What's the Weekly Standard smokin?

The same thing they are always smokin'. The Weekly Standard is a right wing opinion magazine, headed by William Kristol and Fred "the memo story turns out to be yet another instance of crude liberal bias" Barnes. So, Weekly Standard criticizing the Bushies is a "man bites dog" story.

Thanks, Kelly; that is the point. Business Week, while more mainsteam, isn't exactly Democratic Underground, either. When these folks say it's time to bail on SS 'reform', it's time to bail. Although, I haven't caught Kristol saying it.

What are they smoking? They really, truly have no idea how likely it is that there will be a recession, a technical one, with negative gdp growth stretching over (what is it?) 3 quarters. Or, best case, growth in the sub-3% range, which will feel like a recession to most people. (like it did just a few years ago)

This "reality" is a liberal wish fantasy to them, because their economic policies are fail safe. It's gonna be a shock.

I'm not an economic expert by any stretch, but I'm trying to figure out how we'll be able to grow enough in the longer term without the perfect storm of unsustainable debt stimulus and speculation we've had in the last ten years.

A week or two back, Krugman wrote a column about this delusion some Republicans have re: the economy -- he says they actually refer, without irony, to a "Bush boom". His conclusion was that they speak only to one another (all wealthy shareholders), and have no awareness of how bad the job market is/has been for Bush's entire term. I agree with Crab Nebula, too: worse times are coming -- worthless growth at best, real recession at worst. You can imagine where public attitudes will go then.

As for Iraq, the GOP and the DC pundit class unilaterally bought into the "purple fingers trump all" thesis. I don't think they've quite processed the past week or so yet, which has seen that theory come crashing to the ground. Note, however, from the polls: Americans on the whole never bought into this idea, and certainly not in light of recent events. Iraq is an unholy mess, getting unholier and messier.

Almost the most amazing part of the Post story was the idea that anyone took the '04 election results as evidence of realignment. A 2.4% victory (following a .5% loss)? A hair's-breadth margin in the EC? Gains in the House based only on extraordinary re-districting? The best case would be in the Senate, but even there, it was close races in GOP-favoring states that brough the result. What caused anyone sane to promote this concept to begin with? Is it just because Karl Rove started pushing the idea prior to 2000, and people feel obligated to make themselves believe it?

Good points, demtom. As you know, i thought the realignment stuff was mythical from about 11/3/04 onward, including in the semate. but those that win the wars write the history.

Until reality catches up, of course.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad