Burnt Orange Report

"...of course this is all dependent upon the situation in Iraq and the economy"

As a Conservative, and as a student who will enter the job market in the not too distant future, I fervently hope the economy rebounds, and, happily, it appears to be doing so. However, I am sincerely curious as to what your position on the other side of the spectrum is. A booming economy in Nov. 2004 virtually kills any chance of Bush being defeated. Incumbents just don't loose in good economic times ... not in the past hundred years, anyway. So, Byron, what do you Liberals want? Do you want the economy to improve, in the belief that that is inherently good, or would you rather see unemployment remain high through 2004 in order to beat Bush. How do you view the news that seems to indicate an economic revival?

I'm not trying to be hostile here, either. I can see how someone would view Pres. Bush's re-election as a greater long-term threat to the economy than anything in the here and now, and believing that present pain is well worth the long term gain from electing a Democrat. I strongly disagree, but I can see how someone would rationally make the argument. I'd just like to know how you view the recovery: a positive good, a mixed blessing, or a bad thing if it causes Bush to win four more?

Sherk

I am new here and have some thoughts about the Dean thing. So what if Dean fails to lift some of the few remaining Texas Dems? It is just as likely that as many Democrats in the North will ride his coattails to victory. I am tired of this lowest common denominator kind of reasoning (although not to a Ralph Nader point). Texas Democrats are just about dead, so why should I base my vote on who can keep the remaining Democrats on life support? Dean still inspires me and I think he could be a great leader for our country. Thank you for providing this excellent blog and good night.

It is true that much of Clark's support comes from independents and even Republicans. But then again, itsn't that the same strategy that the national party tried in 2002 and got us where we are today? What happens if Clark attracts those independents and the Democrats stay home because they see him as a paper candidate, which to date he still is?

It is also true that Dean draws significant support from Independents and even Repubicans, and aslo Greens, and the upset Libertarians. He also is pulling about equal support (in the NH poll posted on the Blog today) from men and women, where Clark's is mostly men.

I understand the idea of going at the opponent's base of support, but what happens if we leave our own behind yet again in a effort to put up a candidate we 'hope' will deliver, even when we ourselves aren't enthused? Does this sound familiar at all?
>>>>
I'm looking for some stats on the gay issue.

Found the information.

According to page nine at NGLTF worksheet, Dean's stances on gay issues are shared by most of the serious contenders.

Worried about Domestic Partnerships? Then you should be worrying about every single Democrat running.

Worried about Civil Unions? Then don't vote for Dean, Gephardt, Kerry, Kucinich, Braun, or Sharpton because they all support it. Edwards and Lieberman support states freedom to create civil unions, meaning they are cool with Vermont. Even Clark, whose issues are not even on his website, supports civil unions after much hunting around.

And the only ones openly supporting "marriage" are Kucinich, Braun, and Sharpton, who you don't have to worry about.

The other listed issues there are not divisive in the public eye, and they are mostly in line with each other.

So if one is worried about Bush attacking the Dem. nominee because of civil unions, he's going to do it to any of these guys, regardless if they signed a bill into law or not.

Are we afraid to address the reasonable middle of America on equal benefits for homosexual partners in away that doesn't set off 'marriage bells'?

Sherk,

You ask a good and fair question. My response would be that I, and I think that most liberals hope that the economy rebounds sooner rather than later. However, I (along with most liberals) tend to believe that it's unlikely that the economy will in fact fully recover until a radically different policy is taken by the leadership in Congress and the President. Most liberals (myself included) see little leadership from Bush on either the economy or Iraq. In regards to the economy, the Bush answer is tax cuts for the wealthy, more tax cuts for the wealthy and then some more... that may create more jobs.... in China. Sure, there are signs of an economic recovery, just it's a jobless recovery. Who cares how the stock market is doing when you don't have a job? Maybe not you but your husband/wife/brother/sister/aunt/uncle/cousin/friend, etc. I have way too many friends that have recently graduated from college, but are either looking for work or are working in jobs in which they are vastly overqualified for (and underpaid). Who cares about the stock market when more net jobs have been lost under George W. Bush than under any president since Herbert Hoover?

As for Iraq, my answer is the same. Yes, I want things in Iraq to go well. I want us to be successful. I want Iraq to have a peaceful Democracy, and I hope and pray for the safety of our troops. But my answer there is similar to the economy. I believe that it's extremely unlikely for things to really turn around in Iraq until we have a new commander-in-chief that hasn't alienated and lied to the international community. Only when we have an administration that will be able to command the support and the respect of the international community (and be willing to share authority over Iraq, and rebuilding / oil contracts with other nations) do I feel that a success in Iraq is likely (and while we're at it, an administration that had a roadmap defining success would be nice, too).

So, basically, us liberals want the best for America now and in the future. If Bush can do that, then great. Obviously, he'll never meet my barometer for "success", but for the sake of America I wish the best for our troops and for our economy. Having said that, however, I believe that Bush's policies on the economy and in Iraq are miserable failures, and I have little hope that his policies will have a significant positive effect on either job creation or the situation in Iraq. Regardless, I hope that the American people will be able to see the reality of Bush's failure's in a campaign where he'll outspend our nominee by tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars trying to spin his failed policies.

" Texas Democrats are just about dead, so why should I base my vote on who can keep the remaining Democrats on life support? " - Johnathan

Uhmm... well as someone who's done a lot of work for Texas Democrats, i find your statement extremely shortsighted. I appreciate your passion for Dean, but don't forget that Democrats like Charlie Stenholm, Max Sandlin, Jim Turner, Nick Lampson, Chet Edwards, etc. may be conservative, but if we ever want to win the House back, we'll need to elect more folks like that. They may not agree with you all the time, but they're votes for Nancy Pelosi to be our next speaker. And if we want a Democratic president to be able to accomplish something in his administration, we'll need a Democratic Congress because we know what Republicans did when they controlled congress and we had the presidency. They go out and impeach President Clinton for lying about sex, yet hardly notice when President Bush lies about war. Lying about the premise for war is a far more serious crime than oral sex in the oval office, if you ask me. I doubt that a GOP congress would behave any differently to a President Howard Dean or a President Wesley Clark. We need to kick them out and it starts at the top.

"It is true that much of Clark's support comes from independents and even Republicans. But then again, itsn't that the same strategy that the national party tried in 2002 and got us where we are today?" - Karl-T

"I understand the idea of going at the opponent's base of support, but what happens if we leave our own behind yet again in a effort to put up a candidate we 'hope' will deliver, even when we ourselves aren't enthused? Does this sound familiar at all?" - Karl-T

Well to the concern that we're abandoning our base of support to win the middle... I think that it's key to do both. Dean excites the liberals. DLC folks like a conservative like Lieberman. In order to win, we need someone in the mold of Bill Clinton that can excite the liberal base, but also win significant cross-over support among independents and cut into the GOP base to an extent. So far, I see Clark as best able to do that. Sure, Dean's shown some ability to do that. But I think on a more limited basis. He may be popular with Independents in New Hampshire, but what about in Louisiana?

As for gay issues. I think it's much less about the issues. Most of the contenders will support most of what the gay community wants up to marriage (which they shouldn't.. it's a bad move politically). I think what matters much more is perception. For example, Howard Dean can be easy labeled (unfairly in my opinion, but it could stick nonetheless) as a pro-gay marriage Vermont elitist liberal out of touch with mainstream American values... Wesley Clark supports many of the same positions as Dean, but his background allows him to escape that label.

Even further, someone like Wesley Clark would, in my opinion, have a much easier time ending "Don't ask, Don't tell". I could imagine Clark saying something like "I've been in the military my entire career and I've served with many gays and lesbians and they are brave and courageous men and women, and we ought to recognize their contributions, and join our British allies who served bravely beside us in Iraq in ending our discriminatory policy against them". Howard Dean couldn't do that. He'd probably push the policy through, but he'd get scarred on it in a way that Clinton was (although I think we've progressed enough that it would be a lesser flap, but then again I'm getting way ahead of myself). Anyway, that's just my thoughts on the matter, Karl... you're more than welcome to disagree... which I'm sure that you will...

Well, first off:

The Economy: The public doesn't vote based on scientific and up-to-date measures of the economy. They vote on how the economy "feels", which roughly translates out to "How worried are you about keeping your job?" and "How quickly do you think you could find a new job?" and a little of "Do you think your raise this year is going to be more than a pittance?"

The real problem there for Bush (as it was for his father) is that people's perception of recovery lags behind the actual recovery by up to a year. If Bush wants people to feel the economy is doing better, he needs roaring job production now, and every quarter until the election.

He's not going to get it.

Dean and the South: Frankly, I think it's really too early to say. There's a lot of factors in play: First off, Dean does have some independent and GOP appeal (his centrist fiscal credentials and NRA ratings come in handy). Secondly, with a souring economy and a general feeling that Bush and the GOP are either selling out or screwing up (the deficit, the economy, the war), GOP turnout is likely to be depressed. Third, Dean is likely to create high Democratic turnout, even in the South.

Whether Dean results in more "R" votes than "D" votes, especially compared to other Dems, isn't really clear.

As for coattails: If Clark doesn't shape up, Dean's the only one who will have them anywhere. Better something than nothing.

Sherk,

The key is your phrase "booming economy."

It's a straw man to argue, as some have done, that Democrats hate Bush so badly they want a bad economy. With good reason, you can say that Democrats are expecting the economy to be poor or barely recovering next year.

We're looking at the largest U.S. budget and increasing trade deficits. We're looking at the possible rise of interest rates, low consumer confidence, a jobless recovery, and the export of high tech jobs and manufacturing jobs. I see people in my profession in Texas at 30% unemployment. People that are finally finding jobs are taking significant paycuts that they won't probably won't recover, like the manufacturer employees of the 80s. Insurance costs are expected to rise over the next year.

Exactly how are we going to have a truly recovering economy next year, let alone a booming one? There's a lot of ground to make up to have a true recovery. When the number of employed increases for a month, yet the unemployment rate drops, you know that someone is playing with the numbers and that jobs are worse than the numbers say.

I think a good question, Sherk, is exactly what are the Dems going to do to make it better?

Byron et. al,

Thanks, I appreciate your candor. The gist of your responses seem to be that the economy isn't recovering, and won't recover as long as Bush and his policies are in place. Frankly, I am glad that that is your position, and not that you would rather see the economy tank just to defeat Bush. I'd much rather believe that both parties want what is best for America, and simply disagree over how to get there, than that one side is evil and seeks power above all else.

I will dissent, however, in arguing that the economy appears to be doing quite well. It has a ways to go yet, but the momentum is definitely positive. Unemployment is always, sadly, a lagging indicator in any recovery, but when the recovery gets going, the unemployment can radically drop. Witness 1983-84. The economy was still recovering from the '82 recession (far deeper and more painful than the '01 recession), and growth appeared weak in 1983. We all know how well the economy was doing in late 1984, and it more or less didn't look back until 1990.

Take a look at the news: every week new businesses seem to handily beat their earnings forecasts. That does eventually translate into new investment and jobs, although not immediately, as firms wait to make sure the increased revenues aren't temporary blips. Unemployment is edging down, the stock market is well up for the year, and each new (consumer/business/investor/someone else) survey indicates high levels of confidence. All the leading private and public sector economists are predicting 4-6% growth in the 3rd quarter. Recall, these aren't political organizations, they are investment firms that stand to loose a lot of money if their forecasts are wrong ... and they are all predicting a lot of growth in the US economy in the immediate future.

As for your comments, Tx Bubba, I agree: the deficit sucks, and at $375 Billion it is too big, (although rising growth cut that from the $450B number forecast earlier this summer) but the reason it is a problem is because it means the government is sucking resources out of the productive (private) sector of the economy. I would happily slice three hundred plus billion from the federal budget, and return that money to the taxpayers.

The trade deficit is a positive good. The bigger, the better, and historically higher trade deficits result in higher growth. I won't go in to the intricate details of why this is the case here, but in short, buying goods and services than we sell leaves foreign nationals with surplus US dollars which they have to spend somehow (unless they keep them abroad, which is a great deal for us: $.06 slips of paper for real goods and services), which means that they invest more in the United States. Really, show me a time when a trade deficit hurt the US economy. It hasn't happenned.

As for interest rates, you have to understand how the Fed Lowers rates: by printing money. Basically, the more money the government creates, the more banks have to loan out, and the lower the interest rate. This usually causes inflation, unless the money flows overseas, which a lot of it has, since many in many countries the US dollar is accepted as currency (which, as I said above, rocks for us since it gives us lots of seniorage profits), but even given that, the Fed has been printing a LOT of money. It is natural to expect interest rates to rise as the Fed throttles back on this artificial and potentially dangerous stimulus, and not a sign of economic weakness.

As for myself, FYI, I am a Ph.D. econ. grad student, so I will claim some measure of knowledge about what I am talking about. Like I said, I believe the economy is clearly recovering today, and in 2004 will be booming. The business cycles and the political cycles seem to be aligning, to the great benefit of Pres. Bush, although I doubt that you would agree with me that his policies have helped turn the economy around :)

Sherk