Third Party & Independents: Archives

Remember there’s a reason they call it a “bounce”…

But I do have to agree that Bush has a slight advantage now. The Iowa Electronic Markets are favoring him 55/45 this morning, which seems about right.

The GOP pulled off two feats of misdirection. First of all, they turned the focus from Bush’s miserable record to Kerry’s alleged character flaws.

Secondly, they managed to exploit 9/11 and sell people on the idea that there is one big “war on terror” that includes Iraq, and the only option is to accept or reject it (that is, the neoconservative version) wholesale. Have to give them credit: they are masters of the “big lie”.

Of course that doesn’t mean that the game is over. A lot of the attacks were based distortions and half-truths, and I am optimistic enough to think the media may actually help set the record straight. I also believe that emotional appeals wear off if they are not reinforced.

Why do you think the media will ‘set the record straight’ when it has failed to do so for either campaign so far? Kerry has been using misdirection and half truths for months against Bush and the only place I see actually doing a good job of refuting it is factcheck.org. The same goes for the Bush campaign’s misdirection and half truths against Kerry. No campaign has the high ground here, not even the Greens, Libertarians or Reform party. It’s called politics.

As they say, faith is believing in something despite all evidence to the contrary.

Rhinehold,

I did say help set the record straight.

I would argue that the media has been pretty aggressive about challenging left-wing propaganda. When Fahrenheit 9/11 came out there were stories even in “liberal” publications like Newsweek telling people not to trust it. (And I think that some of the criticisms were distortions themselves…)

Farenheit 9/11? I’m talking about the Kerry campaign, meaning Kerry and Edwards themselves, getting up and midirecting/distorting/telling half-truths.

For example:

Kerry says new jobs are paying $9,000 less than the old ones. That’s not a fact.

Kerry also said “wages are falling” when in fact they are increasing. It’s true wages haven’t kept up with inflation for the past several months. But even after adjusting for inflation they’re still higher than when Bush took office.

Kerry claims US suffers greatest job loss since the 30’s, which is not true

Comparing the current job slump to the Great Depression is ludicrous. In the 1929-1933 economic disaster an estimated one in four American worker were idle. There’s been nothing remotely like it since. In the Bush slump unemployment peaked at 6.4% before it started to decline due to strong economic growth. The unemployment rate has been higher than that in seven of the nine previous slumps going back to 1950. The worst unemployment since the Great Depression actually was in Ronald Reagan’s first term, when it peaked at 10.8% in November and December of 1982.

Kerry based his claim on raw numbers of jobs lost, but he still got it wrong. The standard measure of payroll jobs — what the Bureau of Labor Statistics calls “total nonfarm employment” — declined by just over 2.7 million between its peak in February 2001 and August 2003, when it hit bottom. That’s fewer jobs lost than in the much more severe Reagan downturn, when more than 2.8 million jobs were lost.

Furthermore, Kerry’s distortion is even worse when population growth is taken into account.Measured as a percentage of peak employment, Bush’s job loss was just over 2% of all jobs, compared to more than 3% in the Reagan downturn.

Analysts at the labor-funded Economic Policy Institute state that this was “the worst hiring slump since the Great Depression,” but they were careful – as Kerry and many other Democrats are not – to make clear that they were speaking only of private sector jobs, not total jobs. But the EPI statement is itself misleading, ignoring the fact that government hiring grew even while private-sector businesses shed jobs. As a result, looking only at private jobs makes the job picture look more bleak than it really is. It is true that nearly 3.3 million private sector jobs disappeared between the peak of employment in February 2001 and the depth of the job slump in August, 2003. And that is the highest number of private-sector jobs lost during any slump since 1939 when records first were kept. But that ‘record’ is due mainly to population growth, not to the severity of this downturn.

Furthermore, many of the government jobs that EPI’s analysis ignores are better than the private sector jobs that disappeared. For proof of this, look no further than the 50,000 federal airport security screeners who now work for the Transportation Safety Administration, replacing low-wage contract employees.

I’ve yet to see the media do anything but parrot the Demoratic line about the ecomony even when the evidence shows otherwise. Ignoring the recession that Bush inherited, the .com bubble bursting and the 9/11 attacks while talking about the ecomony is intellectually dishonest yet I don’t see the media doing much of anything to point out the obvious misdirections and half-truths that have been spewing out of the democratic camp for nearly a year.

The chattering classes told us that Kerry’s lack of convention bounce was no surprise, since the race was so close with few undecided. How does this logic apply now? I have long believed that Bush will win by 3-5%. This is the “natural” level for him. His numbers have been depressed until now. How?

Bush has been under sustained attack since last November. The Democratic primary candidates got a lot of press and they used their moments in the sun to attack Bush more than each other. 527s were in full attack mode and most of them were anti-Bush. Bush haters thought everyone hated Bush, just like Clinton haters thought everyone hated Clinton. They overplayed their hand. Most Americans like their president unless absent very good reasons not to like him. Aggressive attacks can temporarily drive poll numbers down, but it only takes a little good news to restore them. Despite the spin, the underlying new this year was good.

The economy is growing and adding jobs. The “net job loss” charge makes no sense from an economic point of view. (lag time for any policy to take effect means most of the job loss happened at the end of the Clinton policy.) Besides with unemployment dropping (5.4% this week) voters they see friends going back to work and even labor shortages developing in construction and other major industries. The job claim sounds like something from a 1970s election. The Democrats are asking, “What are you going to believe me or your own eyes.” People aren’t buying it.

We have problems in Iraq, but the bad news is having less impact. Cynical as this sounds, unless Americans are involved, fighting doesn’t make big news here. Besides Kerry’s Iraq plan is very similar to Bush’s and voters trust Bush more on the security issue.

The final reason President Bush is winning is John Kerry. Even people who support him don’t like him and the more they see him, the less they like him. In contrast, most people like GW Bush “as a person”. The race is not between Bush and a hypothetical good candidate. It is between George Bush and John Kerry. George Bush looks like a guy who would buy you a beer. John Kerry would ask his driver to hand you a glass of prune juice.

Interesting economic numbers, Rhinegold. Given the Bush administration’s performance, no doubt you’ve made a fortune with OEX calls and using margin to leverage stock buys. After all, it’s 2004, three years beyond 9/11. Of course, the stock markets only reflect future expectations. Wait long enough, and the 401k’s & their mutual funds, etc., and the stock markets will be back to even, or even better. In the meantime, the Bush administration has created, what, at least 22 million jobs since 1992.
The unemployment number is a relatively minor one- it polls a smaller pool than nonfarm payrolls, & only includes people who have lost their jobs in the past six months & are still actively looking- but despite the caveats, it is looking a little better. Before buying more of those OEX calls, take a hard look at nonfarm payrolls. The trends are poor, and that number is still way too low for this point of a recovery. While unemployment numbers are lagging indicators, and it is normal for the press & public to continue to cry ‘recession’ based on unemployment numbers long after a recession ends, the ecomonic weakness has proceeded beyond that point, and the unemployment numbers are disappointing. When, during his acceptance speech, Bush crowed about creating over one million jobs in the past year, what did you think? Did you cringe? Anyone who understands that number would blush in shame for President Bush.
Yes, comparing the current situation to 1929 is ludicrous, agreed. Pointing out that this is the worst job performance since Hoover is, however, accurate.
Where will the next four years of a Bush administration lead us? Guess we’ll have to wait for the debates, because the acceptance speech offered almost no new ideas, and the ideas trotted out again from four years ago have been ignored the the Bush administration & a Republican congress. There’s no point wasting time on that.
Interest rates are very slowly, but surely, trending up. The deficit and tax cuts handcuff a future Bush administation’s ability to do anything about the economy.
I’m not sure what a Kerry administration will bring. As fascinating as the poll numbers & bounce might be, there are still two debates, and the possiblity of a positive or negative ‘October surprise.’ No one would bet on a post-convention bounce. But…
People do traditionally vote their pocketbooks when their actually in the booth. Given the economic performance we’ve seen these past four years, why would anyone want four more of the same?
And if you seriously think it will be better, please share the hot tips for margined stocks & call option you’re undoubtedly already buying.

Lordy, has anyone heard that Bush might be a gay homosexual?

Kitty Kelly Bush Book Rumors
Posted by A Whisper Campaign for Truth at September 5, 2004 02:38 PM

Before getting too excited about this little grenade, it might be useful to read what the Columbia Journalism Review has to say about Kitty Kelley.

Known for her catty “biographies,” she is to journalism as Michael Moore is to documentaries — a grain of truth and a boatload of BS.

I think I messed up the link to the Columbia Journalism Review. Sorry about that.

FactCheck Update: No, Kerry’s figures are actually mostly correctp

It’s in a link in the middle of the article you posted.

Woody,

Secondly, they managed to exploit 9/11 and sell people on the idea that there is one big “war on terror” that includes Iraq, and the only option is to accept or reject it (that is, the neoconservative version) wholesale. Have to give them credit: they are masters of the “big lie”.

Or… they accurately attempted to pursuade voters of their belief that there is one big ‘war on terror’ that includes Iraq. If you disagree with that, it isn’t necessarily a ‘lie’, Woody. Or should I start saying that everything Kerry believes is a lie?

It’s almost as if the left believes in an absolute truth that isn’t subject to interpretation.

Stephen, you are again being misleading. The only numbers that have been corrected remark to the shrinking middle class. I did not claim that that assertion was either false or incorrect. I was speaking about the $9,000 per year less per job statement and the assertion that the US is suffering the greatest job loss since the great depression. Both charges that were false then and are still false now.

You’ve effectively accused me of saying something I didn’t say and then showing me how the more current numbers were revised to show I was wrong to attempt and invalidate the entire point of the comment, which was that no one is countering Kerry when he is wrong. Which he is!

You’re making my point for me, thanks!

Oh, and Don.

1. It’s Rhinehold, not Rhinegold.

2. This is not the worst job performance since Hoover, I just pointed to the proof from Factcheck.org that clearly debunks that claim. You say that it’s accurate yet show me now proof why I should believe you when I have research done by a non-partisan group that shows very clearly that it is indeed NOT acccurate.

I understand that most elections in the past 30 years operate under the ‘say a lie long enough and it becomes the truth’ but that doesn’t mean it passes muster.

Rhinehold, don’t get so cocky yet. The article confirms that more people are in poverty, that the median income has dropped, that the middle class has shrunk as opposed to how it was before, and that another five million more people have lost their insurance. You got a couple points, but those points are worthless to argue unless they build to an overall point for your candidate, which is economic improvement. Taking these figures into account, Neither you nor Bush have much of a case for that.

Rhinehold,
Please accept my apologies. Sorry about mispelling the name. I feel bad about that, so again, my apologies.
I’ve checked factcheck.org Are you referring to the article from 12/03/03? I must be missing something. The article quotes percentage declines for job losses in recessionary periods within a presidential term. It appears the Bush presidency will end with a net loss of approximately 800,000 over four years. Obviously you are under no obligation to point out my misunderstandings or oversights. If time permits, let me know which presidency showed a greater loss.
Again, pardon the spelling.