Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (588425)	7/7/2004 8:53:48 AM
From: Andrew N. Cothran	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Wednesday, July 07, 2004: A TALE OF TWO JOHNS: The more I think about John Kerry's choice of John Edwards yesterday, the more I wonder if the Dems aren't in a bit of trouble. First, consider what Kerry gains from picking Edwards: youth, enthusiasm, and a bit of sizzle (to use the Wall Street Journal's phrase). All important things for a campaign, to be sure, but nothing substantive. Liberal pundits who favor the Edwards pick also argue that Kerry gains a surrogate who can "reconnect" with rural and working class voters in the Rust and Bible belts. Or as Bob Kuttner condescendingly put it in today's Boston Globe, Edwards will be able to "enlist culturally conservative, white, working class voters who may be gun-toting, abortion-hating, Arab-bashing, tub-thumping fundamentalists." And people wonder why Democrats ever lost touch with this constituency. Edwards is a very likable guy and it's probably true that he will generate a connection - either real or imagined - with some rural and working class voters. Whether he can pass that connection with voters along to John Kerry is another matter altogether. In the end voters will still have to look up at the top of the ticket and pull the lever for an aloof, patrician New Englander as their choice to run the country. The other thing Kerry assumes by picking John Edwards is his "Two Americas" message. Granted, it's a lot better than Kerry's brand of class warfare populism, and it will unburden Kerry from dealing with those overzealous speechwriters who keep forcing him to use the phrase "Benedict Arnold CEO's." Still, it's class warfare nonetheless and it's now going to be a central theme of the Kerry campaign. Now match these gains from picking Edwards against the biggest issues in this election: Iraq and the economy, in that order. Both are improving, and that's bad news for any Democratic ticket, no matter who's on it. But what Kerry's pick indicates to me most is that he still doesn't get it. The ghosts of 9/11 and national security are going to loom large in this election and by selecting Edwards, Kerry is essentially saying he thinks he's fine on the issue of national security. He isn't, and his 20-year voting record proves it. Liberals are fawning over Kerry's for having the "courage" to pick someone as charismatic as Edwards as a tacit acknowledgment that Kerry recognizes his weakness as an aloof, stand-offish personality. And he is both of these things. Kerry's true weakness, however, isn't so much his personality as it is his position on national security. There are indications he recognized this weakness as well (flirtations with McCain, Biden, Cohen, Clark, et al), but in the end Kerry decided likeability was more important than enhancing his credibility on national security. Maybe this will end up being a smart political decision on Kerry's part. People do want to like their president. I happen to think it's a mistake, not only because it's a longshot to think John Edwards is going to have enough charisma for the both of them, but because after 9/11 people want a leader who's top priority is protecting the country. T. Bevan RealClearPolitics.com

To: Neocon who wrote (588425)	7/7/2004 9:28:47 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Cmon Neo! If your going to use Cato as a source, don't neglect their best work; The Republican Spending Explosion: cato.org The Repugs have made the Dems the party of fiscal responsibility. "borrow and spend" IS NOT superior to "tax and spend"!

To: Neocon who wrote (588425)	7/7/2004 10:24:36 AM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Hey, Neo... Re: "Yet, if even the high end of that forecast proves to be accurate, the 1990s will be the lowest economic growth decade since the Great Depression...." It's a good thing that prediction (from 1995) turned out to not come true....

To: Neocon who wrote (588425)	7/7/2004 7:38:15 PM
From: Steve Dietrich	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

<<You are right about Bush. I failed to think through the revision of the dates of the recession. I apologize.>> No problem. <<But I was more referring to the take off in GDP growth, not receipts.>> Hold the phone. We've been talking about the deficits. You've said the growth in GDP, not tax increases, balanced the budget. But receipts started up before GDP did. This kills your argument. So now you want to change the subject to something else. (And to be clear, i'm not saying GDP growth didn't matter, just refuting your claim that the tax increases didn't matter.) << Fable 2: The Reagan Tax Cuts "Caused" the Budget Deficit to Explode in the 1980s>> Revenue fell after Reagan's tax cut. Revenue growth was stronger under Carter than under Reagan, and much stronger under Clinton. <<For xupply- siders, the main issue was marginal tax rates, which, incidentally, remained historically low under Clinton,>> But if you graph gdp growth and marginal tax rates, you see they've fallen together over the years. Our gdp never grew faster than during WWII and tax rates were never higher. Since then both have drifted down. Supply side is snake oil. You want to tie marginal tax rates to the business cycle, to gdp growth. The connection just isn't there. Look at the data. If anything the correlation is the opposite of what you'd like it to be. Steve Dietrich