Outlook Is Positive, Bush Tells Tx Forum ['Why, O why, is Bush immune from the economy?']

New York Times ^ | Wednesday, August 1, 2002 | By ELISABETH BUMILLER with EDMUND L. ANDREWS

[JohnHuang2]

WACO, Tex., Aug. 13 — President Bush said today that he was optimistic about the long-term health of the beleaguered American economy as he heard from a selection of 240 carefully chosen guests who praised his policies at an economic forum created to showcase his concerns. Continues.

==============================================================

'Why, O why, is Bush politically immune from the economy?'

Frustrated Democrats scratch their heads in bewilderment.

'Why isn't Bush being blamed for the economy?', they wonder.

Indeed, through most of July, the political stars appeared to come together for Democrats. With November looming, Dems could hardly dream up a better political scenario to run on: The stock market was plunging; millions were losing their life's savings; 401(k)s were shriveling; consumer sentiment was sliding; GDP/job growth was limping along; the dollar was free-falling, etc., etc.

The political landscape, against the steady moroseness, would be transformed, with Democrats reaping the benefits, the "experts" predicted. Democrat strategists were giddy, party leaders were dancing and doing cartwheels as political observers heralded the end of Bush's post-9/11 honeymoon. Most contemplated a steep drop in the President's approval ratings, in the range of 15-20%. By early August, Bush's presidency would be on life-support, they thought -- buried under an avalanche of relentlessly miserable news.

The latest Gallup poll tells another story, however. Defying all predictions -- indeed, political gravity, itself -- it shows the President's approval rating holding steady at 68%, sky-high by historical standards and remarkable given the overwhelmingly gloomy ink and airtime.

Particularly disconcerting for Democrats, two trends in the survey data which, at first blush, appear wholly counterintuitive: Bush's sustained popularity and a spike in consumer pessimism.

Asked if they think economic conditions are getting worse, 55% of respondents said yes, a sharp increase from 34% in May. The percentage of those who think the economy is getting better has shrunk from 54% in March to 32% currently.

'Conventional wisdom' says presidential popularity is directly related to the health of the economy.

It's the economy, stupid!

No President presiding over a sluggish/recessionary economy remains popular for long. Eventually, political gravity takes over, his numbers tumble to earth, they tell us.

Apparently, they've never met El Hombre de Tejas. Much to the chagrin of his ill-wishers, the President's ratings seem stubbornly resistant -- bulletproof, even.

Comparisons are being made to Ronald Reagan, dubbed the 'Teflon President' by the media.

So why the 'disconnect'? 'Why, O why, is Bush politically immune from the economy?', Democrats beg to know. 'Why don't voters hold him accountable', they demand.

Answer: Voters are holding Bush accountable.

For the War on Terror, that is.

You see, unlike the brainless twits in Washington, folks in "fly-over country" are blessed with something called commonsense. While babbling buffoons search for clues to why Bush remains hot property, voters discern the big picture. Their good judgment tells them America is at war, that wars aren't free, that events like 9/11 affect the economy, with vast ripple effects; that the country, psychologically/economically, has yet to emerge from under the fallout.

They also know Bush is doing his best, given the lousy hand he was dealt: An economy already in tatters, thanks to the excesses of the Clinton era. The economy Bush inherited from Clinton shrunk in the first three quarters of 2001.

Then came September 11. Nothing would ever be the same again.

With America at war, Washington's pet political theories go out the window. Principles which apply during times of peace are irrelevant during times of war. With 3,000 murdered Americans, it's no longer the economy, stupid.

While recession eventually gave way to recovery, beginning in the fourth quarter of '01, the economy was hit by a second wave of attacks over the summer.

This time, the attackers didn't bear names like Mohammed Atta or Abdulaziz Al-Omari; nor were they terrorists, strictly defined. But, as far as the economy goes, Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers and Jack Grubman and Andrew Fastow may as well be followers of Osama bin Laden for the havoc they wreaked.

Like the 9/11 terrorists, these corporate criminals were hijackers, too -- commandeering, not jumbo jets, but giant companies, running them straight to the ground. Like Mohammed Atta, they wielded box-cutters, stabbing and goring workers and investors in the back.

But they, too, will soon get their comeuppance.

"I can assure you of one thing", said the President yesterday at the Economic forum in Waco, Texas. "If somebody broke the law, they're going to be held accountable."

"I say as plainly as I can to CEOs: If you break the law, we will hunt you down. We will arrest you, and we'll prosecute you".

Well said, Mr. President.

Anyway, that's...

My two cents
"JohnHuang2"

[JohnHuang2]

Wednesday, August 1, 2002

Quote of the Day by tractorman

[billhilly]

"The latest Gallup poll tells another story, however. Defying all predictions -- indeed, political gravity, itself -- it shows the President's approval rating holding steady at 68%, sky-high by historical standards and remarkable given the overwhelmingly gloomy ink and airtime.

There it is John. The overwhelmingly gloomy ink and airtime, designed to serve the interests of the democrats this fall. There's just one problem. The dogs ain't eatin the dog food. The packaging is enticing, but inside it tasts like s--t.

[JohnHuang2]

The dogs ain't eatin the dog food. The packaging is enticing, but inside it tasts like s--t.

Amen -- well put.

[JohnHuang2]

Gotta run. Y'all have a nice day.

[chainsaw]

Why isn't Bush being blamed for the economy?

Because it isn't Bush's economy, it is Clintons trickle down economy.

The democrats are trying hard to pin this on Bush, but every time the facts go back to the mid and late 1990's.

[laredo44]

Like the 9/11 terrorists, these corporate criminals were hijackers, too -- commandeering, not jumbo jets, but giant companies, running them straight to the ground. Like Mohammed Atta, they wielded box-cutters, stabbing and goring workers and investors in the back.

One thing that has been bothering me (as I return from my tinfoil drawer after yet another successful forage for appropriate headgear) is a parallel I keep seeing to Atlas Shrugged. Rand has heros of capitalism wreck an increasingly socialist economy by withholding their talent. In most cases, the collectivists nincompoops are fully up to the task dismantaling the companies that had been well run by the capitalists. In one case, however, that of the copper mining company, it's owner had to engage in deliberate sabotage prior to disappearing because the company had such a strong position.

Does anyone else see that many of these former high flyers contributed heavily to the Democrats? Have the socialists infiltrated the infrastructure of capitalism and are now trying to destroy it from within? Loral selling secrets to the commies. Global Crossing being used as a piggy bank for Democrat campaigns. There's much more.

Flame away.

[joyful1]

I am disgusted, just when I thought I couldn't be disgusted anymore by the creeps at the DNC/news media.

Bush's economic forum has been labeled as nothing more than a "campaign event" without substance! There was no mention of it at all in the news section, just a story and picture in the business section with a featured AP hit piece by a Tom Raum who rips Bush to shreds with each vicious word.

Well, I remember how these same biased perverts fawned on Bubba when he and Gore held their forum. It's obvious. For these corrupted hit men, any means justifies the end. The end is to destroy Bush and bash his poll ratings down the the gutter.

[varon]

'Why isn't Bush being blamed for the economy?', they wonder.

I also believe that enough voters realize that the downward slide of the economy started at end of Clinton era and at very beginning of Bush's reign.

Most importantly, in addition to the war on terrorism, any "blame" is being deflected unto the corporate shysters. As long as a corporate executive shows up in cuffs on the TV news now and then or additional shenanigans in accounting procedures are revealed, Bush will sail through with his skin intact as well he should as none of this is of his doing.

[Zack Attack]

My own theory as to Bush's continued high poll numbers is not that he's doing such a fantastic job or that he's immune from the economy, but just take a look what people have to compare him to from recent memory. :-)

[Salvey]

I am disgusted, just when I thought I couldn't be disgusted anymore by the creeps at the DNC/news media

These bastids in the print and electronic media are, plain and simple, agents and lackeys of the DNC, providing billions of dollars of free advertising to the democRATS. I can't believe that these kinds of abuses were envisioned by the Founding Fathers.

[Wondervixen]

>> 'Why isn't Bush being blamed for the economy?'

Maybe because after Clinton blamed Reagan & Bush 41 for the imaginary mess of '92, the American people finally understand economies are the result of what the previous administration seeds for them.

You notice that when things rosied up in '94, Clinton couldn't take credit fast enough?

[eeriegeno]

laredo, Tinfoil hat my foot! You are right on the money with your thought. Herr Klinton set up all of today's scenario using his willing accomplices in the DNC, media, and corporations. That's why Bush is not getting the blame for a tanking economy. I do, however, blame the Bush administration for not agressively going after the ones (Rubin, Ebbers, Lay, Stewart, and many, many more) who were responsible for this crash. The DOJ should NOT wait for the pols in the ethics committees to grandstand and claim that they are conducting a legitimate investigation.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Bet there's only a dozen or two who are not financial advisors or economists who would agree with you (I do, BTW).

[Quilla]

The media is having a field day with this one. CNN's Headline News crawler this morning read - Bush, GOP donors, and others meet at economic forum.

Disclosure: Since I do not have a direct line to the DNC fax, I subject myself to 20 minutes of Headline News for the daily dose of spin.

[MeekOneGOP]

Good job - as usual - JH2!

Like the 9/11 terrorists, these corporate criminals were hijackers, too -- commandeering, not jumbo jets, but giant companies, running them straight to the ground. Like Mohammed Atta, they wielded box-cutters, stabbing and goring workers and investors in the back.

Just about what one might expect, with this as their adored leader:

"A presidential executive order issued during the Clinton
administration hamstrung the FBI so badly that bureau
lawyers decided it would be illegal to infiltrate Osama bin
Laden's terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, a senior
FBI official during the Clinton administration said Saturday."
(June 1, 2002)

____________________

"I don't believe 9-11 happened because of an intelligence breach," Quayle told Fox News Channel's "Hannity & Colmes."

"I think it was really a policy breach. It was the inaction of the previous administration, by and large, that al Qaeda -- and bin Laden in particular -- thought that they could hit the United States, and there would be a retaliation maybe of a cruise missile but nothing more than that," he explained.

The comments make the former vice president, who served under President Bush's father from 1989 to 1993, the highest ranking former U.S. official to suggest that the Clinton administration should get the lion's share of the blame for not preventing the 9-11 attacks.

[LS]

John, I disagree with the presumption that the economy is bad. ASPECTS are bad, aspects are good, and aspects are so-so. "Limping along?" Well, no. Last quarter "limped along," but if you look at the annual, we were at between (depending on the stat you use) 5.4% and 6.1% for the first quarter, and about 1.3% for the secong. That is a two quarter growth of between 6.7% and 7.4%, or an average annual growth of 3.35% to 3.7%---not too shabby. We'd all prefer something between 4-6%, however.

Last quarter's stats, reported last week, were:

PERSONAL INCOME ROSE

CONSUMER SPENDING ROSE

INTEREST RATES REMAINED AT NEAR POST-1930s LOWS

JOBLESS CLAIMS FELL

PRODUCTIVITY CONTINUED TO RISE (much more slowly---about 1.5%, but still up). [BTW, my friends, the 1.5% is about what Europe's productivity averaged during the 1970s].

Now, what fell? SOME corporate profits---thought not all. Some inventories rose slightly (which is a "down" sign).

The market, obviously, although it made a big comeback before U.S. Air. This was a bankruptcy in waiting, and it was actually horrible timing that it took place at such a time as to break a rather strong rally.

Housing starts stagnated in the last quarter after a HUGE burst in the winter and sping. The burst, however, I think was due to the VERY mild weather we've had in the midwest and east, allowing builders to continue to work through much of the winter. In that context, they may have "outrun" demand, which normally gets somewhat pent up during the winter. It is obviously also related to the low interest rates.

So, John, part of what is happening is that people understand that ALL of the economy is not "limping along."

Now, as to the war on terror, I actually think Bush has been quite fortunate on this because it has not been a good couple of months:

1) The cases against Padilla and Moussai (sp?) have not gone well. "Smoking guns" were not produced, although there is no question these people are deadly killers, and will in the end be convicted. But Ashcroft was stupid (and that's being generous to a guy I like) to have made such a big deal out of Padilla.

2) Whenever we go against Iraq, and whatever is in motion, the President is giving the impression of dribbling out allegations just to keep Saddam in front of the public, rather than save his ammo to make a "big" case against Saddam at the right time. This has the effect of "crying wolf"---unless Bush has some REALLY BIG evidence (which he may) that he is storing up.

2) All these Arabs claiming we can't use their bases is just one more obstacle we need to overcome, and the obviously leaked report that we might seize airbases of so-called "friendly" countries is a real powderkeg.

3) Leak, leak, leak. This isn't Bush's fault, but this stuff is really damaging to an effective war effort, and doesn't speak well of SOME of the people in State or the Pentagon.

4) The "friendly fire" incidents in Afghanistan have left a bad stain on what was a pretty effective war.

All in all, John, I'd say that Bush doesn't get ENOUGH credit on the economy, and is getting too much good will on what has been a bad 60 days in the war on terror. My only optimism lays in the fact that I know we don't know everything that is going on, and if Rummy says we got 30% of Al-Queada, then likely we got 60-70% and OBL himself.

[LS]

I do think that Justice and the SEC looked at these people, but like many in the Clintoon years, there is just not the evidence there that would stand up in court to make it worth while. That is why you saw Adelphia's people go to jail. You can bet if DOJ had CLEAR evidence, they would parade these guys before the cameras in a second.

[jackbill]

he heard from a selection of 240 carefully chosen guests

Why can't President Bush just select his "guests" at random like Clinton did for his "forums" and "town hall meetings"? (/sarcasm)