I have another early-morning appearance on CNN’s “American Morning” today, scheduled to pop up sometime shortly after 7 a.m. EST. The topics du jour are Mitt Romney’s campaign kickoff and this double-entendre-laced scandal on Capitol Hill that you may have heard about.
UPDATE: Well. CNN’s Ali Velshi did NOT like my observation that barring a sudden drop in the unemployment rate between now and November 2012, the unemployment rate for every month of Obama’s presidency will be higher than it was for every month of Bush’s two terms. He dismissed it as a “talking point” and told me, “you have to come better armed than that.” He noted that Bush didn’t have “the Great Recession.” (I do seem to remember some sort of tech bubble bursting as the decade dawned, and some sort of intense economic disruption from a big event in fall 2001, but perhaps my memory’s hazy.)
Attempting to get a word in edgewise, I tried to point out that this is a central point of the traditional argument of challengers against presidential incumbents: “Are you better off now than you were four years ago?” For eight years, Democrats painted the Bush years, with their 4 to 6 percent unemployment, as the bad old days of economic deprivation. (Here’s a letter from Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle bewailing high unemployment and the tough job market in December 2003, when the unemployment rate was 5.7 percent.) Sure, Obama and the Democratic Congress inherited a tough economic circumstance — but with large congressional majorities able to pass the stimulus and the health-care bill, most Americans haven’t felt any significant improvement in their lives.
I suppose either you find the comparison of the economic performance under Bush and under Obama relevant, or you don’t. It seems that the pro-Obama argument relies on the notion that the Great Recession just happened, and there just wasn’t much Obama could do about it over a four-year period. (Of course, if there was nothing that could be done to really mitigate it, that more or less undermines the central argument of liberalism that sufficient government spending can create economic growth.)
When the video is up, I’ll post it, and let you decide for yourselves.
Jim, I was watching this morning while you were on CNN. While I may agree with you that candidates will use what ever - shall we say spin instead of lies? (calling it spin seems to somehow sanitize the lie) - it's not a reporters place to use it. Being a very senior senior, I have seen and heard people do all sorts of weird things with numbers in order to support their objective, which is what I heard from you this morning. And for a reporter to suggest numbers such as you did this morning is completely misleading and unfair to the people. That is, of course, unless your first objective is to spread false light on a particular person or Party. If you really want to discuss the unemployment rate in an adult and responsible manner, I would suggest you discuss the REASON jobs are no longer in America but on foreign soil. However, that would require one to point out the policies that encourage corporations to export jobs, and the greed at the executive level to pocket a kings ransom of their corporations income. And to regurgitate the same old false talking points of "it's the taxes, stupid" is NOT the reason, and is not being responsible. Trickle-down-economics doesn't work; never has. Belief in and allegiance to America, the American way and the American people is what works.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd you complain about "spin" and "talking points?" Your entire diatribe is nothing but!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseParagraphs can be your friend.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@gKen
Jim Geraghty is not a reporter. He is a commentator/blog host. He gives his opinions for a living. What Mr. Geraghty said is a very simple and basic verifiable fact. What I'm hearing from your argument is that you want to ignore the facts and just feel that things are different than reality. Amazing that a self professed "very senior senior" like yourself isn't a little more educated and informed than you seem to be.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse@gKen
Jim Geraghty is not a reporter. He is a commentator/blog host who gives his opinions for a living. What he said is an incontrovertible fact. He doesn't have to spin it at all. And certainly, one cannot dismiss it simply because it doesn't fit with their worldview.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAli Velshi was a religion major in college. Jared Bernstein, until recently the chief conomic adviser for VP Joe Biden, majored in music. Is it any wonder we are so screwed?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseJim,
Remind me again why national review started allowing comments?
Great job this morning. I saw it live, and was shocked when Velshi snapped at you, as though you had said something silly as opposed to something undeniably true and extremely relevant.
Pointing out in the first month of Obama's term that unemployment is higher than the Bush average would, indeed, be unfair. But after two and half years, he owns this economy, whether Velshi likes it or not.
I'm sure you noticed, but Stan Greenberg (I think that's the name), a Democratic pollster, came out today and said that the, "It's still Bush's fault!" narrative is an absolute bomb among voters.
Will it ever be fair to point out that none of his promises on the economy (or anything else for that matter) have came true?
But it still works for at least one objective CNN reporter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe wonderful thing about the "great recession" argument is, the longer the economy remains sluggish, the worse the great recession was from the outset. And the longer the economy remains sluggish, the more Obama's policies saved us from being in an even worse position now.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse