Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
McCain provides all the ammo an opponent needs
Posted by: mcq on Thursday, February 07, 2008

Republicans - be prepared to hear this a lot over the next 200 days:
“It appears as though Senator McCain will be the Republican nominee,” Mrs. Clinton said, speaking to hundreds of students at a suburban high school here. “And I have the greatest respect for my friend and my colleague Senator McCain. But I believe that he offers more of the same, more of the same economic policies, more of the same military policies in Iraq.”

She added that Mr. McCain “said recently he could see having American troops in Iraq for 100 years,” while she wanted them to start coming home “in 60 days.”

Mrs. Clinton referred to Mr. McCain later in her speech, suggesting that she is more qualified to help the country out of a recession. “Senator McCain has said he doesn’t know much about the economy,” she said.
No one is worse for John McCain than John McCain. Just watch.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Sock away as much money as you can before 2009; it’s going to be a long 4 years.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Nobody is worse for McCain than McCain.............yet Hillary and him sure promise to have a race to the bottom.

Troops in Iraq "for 100 years" vs "out in 60 days" are both pretty pathetic choices to have to decide on.

Basically my election comes down to this:

If McCain chooses an acceptable VP, do I vote for him in anticipation of his possible in-office death, or do I vote for Hillary in anticipation of laughing while she finds out the hard way for 4 years that governing is much harder than sniping from the sidelines? Or do I just do a 3rd party vote?

*SIGH*
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Maybe this failure to be elected president will be the last one for him, and he’ll just go the hell away...
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Sock away as much money as you can before 2009; it’s going to be a long 4 years.
And you say this because of the historical evidence that economic performance is worse under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents?

Or do you work for Halliburton?

Go search Google for comparisons between economic performance differences during, and lagging after, both Republican and Democratic Presidents.

Including the lag, or not, the following economic elements fared better under Democrats...

Stock market (higher)
Debt (lower)
Employment (lower)
Income (higher)
GDP (higher)
Inflation (lower)
Government spending (lower)
After tax income (higher)

I’ll give you a link to some lefty site, but I suggest that you look for yourself. There are plenty of sources that show the same thing, this site just shows the same data in a nice neat package.

I found a conservative blog that tries to debunk this. It was so bad that posting the link would seem like I was finding the weakest argument. Either this guy is not very good at this, or he knows his audience is not looking for a good argument, just ANY argument that will allow to maintain their fantasy that the country does better economically under Republican Presidents.

So go ahead and spend it, you’ll make more.









 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
My Captain, so much effort made on an assumption.

But I’ll take your bait; tell me, how were those Jimmy Carter years?
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
But I’ll take your bait; tell me, how were those Jimmy Carter years?
He would say that they were wonderful off course. ;)
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
And you say this because of the historical evidence that economic performance is worse under Democratic Presidents than under Republican Presidents?
No, I’m pretty sure he says it because of the specter of "Universal Health Care" that a Dem president is spoiling to pass, because of the looming possibility that they do something costly and stupid because of "GLOBAL WARMING *SCARY MUSIC*, among OTHER things that previous Dem presidents didn’t have on their plate.

 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
You believe, then, that a cut-and-runner would be a better choice because he would be less vulnerable from the far left?

 
Written By: rightwingprof
URL: http://rightwingnation.com
But I’ll take your bait; tell me, how were those Jimmy Carter years?
Yes, bring on the anecdotes. It helps you avoid the fact INCLUDING the Carter Years, the economy on average performs better under Democrats.

I surrender to terror.
 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://
Yes, bring on the anecdotes. It helps you avoid the fact INCLUDING the Carter Years, the economy on average performs better under Democrats.
What presidents were included? How far back are you going for data?

The key cause of economic failure is the policies of Democratic presidents such as FDR and LBJ. No doubt the Nixon years were fairly bad, but that’s ’cause what went before, in good measure the Great Society.

Likewise, Clinton’s years were good, but that’s mostly ’cause of what went before: Reagan’s defeat of the USSR in the Cold War, deregulation of oil, etc.

Correlating economic performance with a current presidency is questionable; what you need to do is establish causation. For example, W came into office when a mild recession was just ending, and the poor economy is recorded on his term, but the cause was the dot com mess during the Clinton administration (not that this was cause by Clinton, but it certainly wasn’t caused by Bush).
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
Correlating economic performance with a current presidency is questionable;
I agree in general, so you can ignore the statistics showing that economic performance is better under Democrats, with or without a 1, 2, 3, or 4 year lag.

But on what basis would you suggest that because a Democrat is coming into the White House, economic performance will be so bad as to make a comment like this...
Sock away as much money as you can before 2009; it’s going to be a long 4 years.
I don’t make my statement so much to sugegst that Democrats are better for the economy, but to point out that there is no reason to assume that Republicans are better.
 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
Yes, bring on the anecdotes. It helps you avoid the fact INCLUDING the Carter Years, the economy on average performs better under Democrats.
First of all, I never made ANY claims about the performance of the economy relative to anyone or anything. That was your feeble assumption.

Secondly, if you’re willing to dismiss the Carter years as a mere anecdote and not relevant to any discussion of the economy under Democratic rule, there is no point talking with you.

Finally, averages are often the tool of the fool. One can draw plenty of poor conclusions from an average.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
But on what basis would you suggest that because a Democrat is coming into the White House, economic performance will be so bad as to make a comment like this...
I made it, Captain Assumption, because I think a Clinton, Obama, or McCain presidency, coupled with a Dem Congress and a foolish electorate is going to be bad for my pocketbook. That I fully expect to pay more indirect and direct taxes in the next 4 years and that I expect this motley crew of self-serving jack*sses to structurally impair the economy even more than the government already has.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
I made it
Yes, Republicans have been making these assumptions for decades, and they have been more wrong than right.
Secondly, if you’re willing to dismiss the Carter years as a mere anecdote
No more, or less, than the Hoover years.
Finally, averages are often the tool of the fool.
As you look at EACH administration, individually, at all of the economic data foer the preiod of the Presidency, or including a lag of 1, 2, 3, or 4 years, the economy fares better under Democratic Presidents.
because I think
There is historical data to assist your thinking, but hey, your opinions can be based on whatever you want to base them on.

You put your money under a mattress, me, I’m buying, history indicates that I should do well. (history is not a guarantee of future of performance)

 
Written By: Captin_Sarcastic
URL: http://
history indicates that I should do well
And I wish you the best Cap, but oh boy, does the future scare the hell out of me. I was in a Drs. office today and Hillary was on CNN speaking to a group in Seattle or somewhere in the NW. In 5 minutes she made more promises than I can remember, healthcare, pre-k, guaranteed jobs, government support for small businesses that can’t afford her mandates... to name a few, and then she pledged federal support to reclaim and rejuvenate Puget Sound. Taxes are gonna sky rocket, and to my knowledge she has never recanted the ’were going to have to take more of your profits’ line from last year. She’s a dangerous woman - in my mind more dangerous than any man who’s held the seat. And she’s going to give everyone just what she promised... total government control.

Good luck with those investments Cap.
 
Written By: meagain
URL: http://
Captain, I don’t know or care what sort of crusade you are on to ’convince’ my of my errors, but bug off.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Captain Sarcastic

What you say may have some merit. The only thing you neglected to mention is that it takes anywhere from 4-8 years for a republican President to get the economy going right to where when the Dems take it over it takes them 4-8 years to destroy everything that the Republican did to build it up.



 
Written By: retired military
URL: http://
What you say may have some merit. The only thing you neglected to mention is that it takes anywhere from 4-8 years for a republican President to get the economy going right to where when the Dems take it over it takes them 4-8 years to destroy everything that the Republican did to build it up.
I really don’t know if it does actually have any merit, it may be akin to statistical coincendence of Republicans winning when the Redskins beat Dallas, but that said, your argument has been taken into account.

As you look at EACH administration, individually, at all of the economic data foer the preiod of the Presidency, or including a lag of 1, 2, 3, or 4 years, the economy fares better under Democratic Presidents.

I do know that people are selling off now, so I trying to pick off opportunities as they present themselves.
Captain, I don’t know or care what sort of crusade you are on to ’convince’ my of my errors, but bug off.
If you don’t want to read comments about your opinions, you may want to consider refraining from posting them on public blog message boards. Or maybe you could have a statements affixed to your posts stating, "These are my opinions, and I do not accept any commentary regarding my opinions except blind agreement".



 
Written By: Captin Sarcastic
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider