1992 Revisited

Twenty years ago, we experienced a definitive Presidential race that shared a number of initial similarities to the current 2012 race.  The President, George H. W. Bush was a one-term incumbent seeking re-election.  We were in the midst of a recession (though a relatively mild one that was essentially over before the primaries even began).  And the candidates for opposition party were all considered to be second-string contenders, because none of the party’s assumed “A-list” candidates were interested in running.

The reason the A-list Democrats stayed out of the 1992 race was the stratospheric approval of President Bush immediately following Operation Desert Storm.  America won a decisive military victory against Saddam Hussein, and President Bush’s approval ratings peaked at over 90%.  He was considered untouchable and unbeatable.  No one wanted to endure the humiliation of losing the race in a landslide.

President Bush’s Achilles Heel turned out to be the economy, which had grown soft during the last half of 1991.  And there was the “Read my lips: no new taxes” pledge that the Democrats had coaxed him into breaking by promising to use the additional revenue for deficit reduction.

The real surprise of the primary season turned out to be Arkansas governor Bill Clinton.  He was relatively unknown outside of his home state, but when the press realized that he had what it took to be a political superstar, they immediately promoted him to the top of the Democrat contenders list.  They helped him escape scrutiny over numerous accusations of adultery by providing him with a prime time “60 Minutes” interview on Superbowl Sunday in January 1992, which allowed Clinton to portray himself as a man who struggled with the same weaknesses and faults as every married man, and who was being unfairly victimized by women wanting to take advantage of his sudden surge in popularity.

After Clinton won the nomination he and his running mate, Tennessee senator Al Gore Jr., launched a full-throttle attack against President Bush, blaming him for the current recession and tying the country’s economic woes to his broken pledge to not raise taxes.  Yes – as hard as it is to believe these days, twenty years ago the Democrats actually blamed a tax increase for slowing down the economy.  “It’s The Economy, Stupid!” became the Democrat battle cry.  The press dutifully reported these attacks without seriously scrutinizing them, and began highlighting the struggles of average Americans trying to cope with “the worst economy in fifty years.”

It was when President Bush responded to Clinton’s allegations and attempted to reassure Americans that the economy was slightly off track but no where near the critical state that Clinton was implying, that the press wholly turned against Bush.  A questioner at a “town hall debate” surprised the President when he asked him how much a gallon of milk cost.  When Bush couldn’t answer the question, the press and the pop culture media pounced and declared him to be a Washington DC elitist who was miserably “out of touch” with America. They were also anxious for “change” after 12 years of Republican control of the White House.

Bill Clinton’s passionate promises to undo the policies that created the “decade of greed,” which were a stark contrast to George Bush’s low-key ‘everything is going to be okay’ approach, left voters dissatisfied with the Republicans.  The third party candidacy of Ross Perot split undecided voters and gave the electoral college, and the presidency, to Bill Clinton even though he won only 43% of the popular vote.

Fast-forward to today.

A significant number Republican voters have been dissatisfied with the party’s front runner, Mitt Romney.  He is a “loser” from the last presidential election and has yet to attract 50% of the vote in a primary or caucus.  The other candidates haven’t fared any better; only one of them (Newt Gingrich) has attracted 40% of primary voters, and Newt is easily the most hated of the Republican candidates by the mainstream media.  Rick Santorum and Ron Paul both appeal to core constituencies, though neither of them has shown an ability to attract a broad base that could translate into a majority of voters.  Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, none of the Republican candidates has morphed into a political superstar.

But their opponent is a first-term president desperately trying to overcome an awful economy (by nearly every measure it truly is the worst economy since the end of WWII) as well as a record that includes confusing and unpopular legislation, unfocused foreign policy, and poor overall approval ratings.  However, the current occupant in the White House is a Democrat.  And not just any Democrat, but one who was swept into power on a wave of news media adulation and pop culture myth-making that promised America a leader who would “fundamentally transform” the nation and redefine politics as we know it.

I think it’s safe to say that the press hasn’t given up on their man just yet; therefore we won’t be seeing them saturate the pre-election airwaves with reports highlighting the plight of retirees who lost a huge chunk of their savings in the 2008 stock market crash and are now having to provide for themselves and their extended family (who moved back home after losing their home to foreclosure) on a 1.5% annual investment return; or of homeowners who have seen their equity value plunge and are now struggling to keep up with mortgage payments on an underwater loan; or white collar workers who have been out of work for two years with no hope of employment in sight; or any of the other tales told by citizens whose situations serve as marks of a severely weak economy.

Whoever the Republican nominee is, I am pretty sure that he will be left alone to carry the full weight of any kind of attack focusing on the current state of our economy.  Unlike twenty years ago, the press will be reluctant to talk about our current economic problems; their reporting will be confined only to highlighting occasional good news.  The only way this could change is if the economy suddenly took a gigantic turn for the worse, and things got so bad that the press would be ridiculed if they did not devote a reasonable amount of time to reporting it; above all things, the press cannot stand ridicule, so they would probably abandon President Obama in such a case simply out of self-preservation.

The Obama Administration will probably counter a Republican attack with an overall positive message about fairness and responsibility.  President Obama will admit that he has made mistakes and that he has not made as much progress as he had hoped he would.  But he will also claim that his attempts at reform have been stymied by the system itself, which is inherently unfair and is shielded by its overlords against reform, because real reform would end the lop-sided distribution of wealth by the system which keeps the “1 %” rich and powerful, and the other 99% poor.

The President will ask for four more years to really, really reform the system and create a government that takes care of all its human and natural resources and gives everyone a fair chance, while ensuring that no one earns more than their fair share or damages the planet while making a profit.

But aside from that, the President and the Democrats will characterize the Republican nominee as the kind of man who benefits directly from the old system that rapes the planet and lines the pockets of Wall Street gazillionaires, a la Saul Alinsky’s tactic #12.  They will paint the Republican party as the personification of the old system itself.  Vote Republican, and you will ensure that the rich remain rich, and the poor remain poor.

And President Obama can be fairly certain, I think, that no one will be allowed to ask him how much a gallon of milk costs.

Whether or not the public accepts President Obama’s re-election pitch, or ignores the Democratic establishment’s “conservatism = racism/destruction/greed” spin and returns a Republican to the White House, remains to be seen.

A reminder as we ponder the Giants win over the Pats in the Super Bowl
Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
  • Ohh, look. A link to the Alinsky manifesto….

    This writer claims to be concerned Obama is using a tactic from Alinsky… bad bad Obama. He’s a socialist you know, and a Muslim born in Kenya.

    Where did the right get the idea that targeting on Obama and lying to “redefine” what he’s accomplished and what his goals are… where did the right get the idea to target him that way…. from Alinsky!

    13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.  In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities.

    One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’…

    •  Hmmm, over 1200 words and that’s what you got from it?

      And undoubtedly think you were being clever?

      It amazes me we could ever lose an election anywhere to people this stupid.  I blame 40 years of federal control over public education.

    • MichaelLaprarie

       Holding an executive to both his promises and his performance record, as well as highlighting his abundant ties to cronyism and special interests, is one thing; deliberately smearing someone based on myths and stereotypes is quite another.  Holding President Obama accountable is legitimate and is not an Alinsky-inspired tactic.  But if (or more likely, when) the Republican nominee (I’m assuming it will be Romney) is portrayed as Gordon Gekko and blamed for everything wrong with the country, then we will be seeing Alinsky.  Democrats have repeatedly used this tactic (“Faux” News, conservative ideas = “racial code words” etc.) and undoubtedly they will use it again.

  • The media is definitely leftist and pro-Obama, and has been moving left for decades, but this is also reflected in the declining in public confidence in the “mainstream” media outlets.  There is a certain effect they have, certainly, but it is diminished and diminishing rapidly.

    Incumbent Presidents with no “hot” war ongoing are judged almost exclusively by their economic performance.  Only rarely are Presidents reelected with weak economies, but Reagan most recently proved it is possible if the perception is one of robust growth.  But the public perceives not by media but by what is around them.  Are neighbors or relatives out of jobs?  Are more businesses opening or closing in their area?  How secure do they feel about their own jobs and futures?

    Obama will spin a pack of lies to justify his failed Presidency, and has already begun – aided by mindless drones like Stephen, of course – but people do know what they see every day, and that will decide.

    • MichaelLaprarie

      I agree.  The media can spin unemployment numbers left and right, but unemployment doesn’t exist in a vacuum.  If the other fundamentals (higher manufacturing output, increased consumer spending, increased consumer confidence, robust GNP growth, etc.) aren’t there, and people are still seeing hourly cutbacks, salary/benefit freezes, and slow hiring, compounded by increasing costs in utilities, fuel, and food, they are not going to believe that things are getting better every day.  If/when that happens, Obama will be in serious trouble.

  • Commander_Chico

    Alinsky or not, Romney pretty much is the personification of the system that’s been raping the average American worker for years.  If you don’t believe the Chickster, just ask Newt.  Amid all of his flip-flops and panders as a politician, moving money from the pockets of American workers to transnational stockholders is pretty much Romney’s one proven vocation in life.  Cayman Island tax shelters and Swiss bank accounts, what a real American he is.

    But I think Romney/Rubio will win because Obama has been such a failure in delivering the change in the system he promised, from his failure to prosecute the CDO fraudsters to his continuation of the total surveillance state.  It’s a choice between the same and more of the same.

    Since Romney is such a wooden phony and obvious plutocrat that nobody but Bain Capital cronies will vote for him, only against Obama, his choice of running mate is key.  I still bet on Rubio, but if not he will need a VP figure that will generate enthusiasm, not just among the bible-beating birther base, but more broadly into Obama’s own territory.   Watch women like Susana Martinez, the Governor of New Mexico, Nikki Haley, Rep. Mary Bono, or a guy like Bobby Jindal.

    The obvious countermeasure to this is to dump Biden and promote Hillary.

    Remember next November, Chico told you.

    • herddog505

      Commander_ChicoRomney pretty much is the personification of the system that’s been raping the average American worker for years.  If you don’t believe the Chickster, just ask Newt.  Amid all of his flip-flops and panders as a politician, moving money from the pockets of American workers to transnational stockholders is pretty much Romney’s one proven vocation in life.

      First of all, asking Newt anything beyond the time of day is a process fraught with peril as the man is rapidly proving himself to be thoroughly hateful, spiteful, and petty.

      That aside, your complaint about Romney basically boils down to the fact that he’s a successful businessman who does the same things that successful American businessmen do and have done for years.  In short, he’s rich and you are so consumed with envy over it that you’ve turned his success into evidence of villainy.

      If there’s a “personification of the system that’s been raping the average American worker for years” in this race, I suggest that you look no further than one Barack Hussein Obama, the “community organizer” and crony capitalist who creates nothing, builds nothing, and hires nobody, but rather specializes in rigging the system so that money corruptly flows NOT to American workers in successful businesses but rather to his fatcat cronies as well as slapping regulation after regulation on business such that it’s a damned sight cheaper to hire one man and make him do the work of two or else leave the US altogether and manufacture someplace where the environment is more friendly to business, like Red China.

      The left likes to beat up on Romney because he allegedly likes to fire people, but being able to fire people requires that he be able to do something that Barry has never done in his life and which he makes hard for anybody else to do:

      Give somebody a real job.

      Oh, I suppose that I should say that I work in a company that owes its existence to “transnational stockholders”, so I really don’t have a problem with them.

    • MichaelLaprarie

      (This reply should have gone after your next comment, not this one.)

      Chico, I disagree with your analysis of Bain Capital but you do make a good point.  If Romney is the nominee he will be portrayed by the White House as a contemporary Gordon Gekko who raids corporations and lines his own pockets with stolen assets – never mind the fact that Obama’s new fan boy, Warren Buffett, operates one of the largest and most successful investment capital firms in the country and earned his multi-billion dollar fortune by absorbing dozens of companies into the Berkshire Hathaway empire.

      There is a huge difference between the investment malfeasance of the 80’s (corporate raiding, greenmail, etc.) and running a successful investment/venture capital firm.  Venture capitalists fund start-ups or provide money for successful start-ups to transition to medium-sized companies.  Some investment firms buy distressed companies and restructure them to eliminate losses and strengthen profit centers.  Other investment firms (like Berkshire Hathaway) buy successful businesses and provide additional capital and management expertise to make them even more profitable.  There is nothing fundamentally evil about any of this.

      Allowing unprofitable, poorly managed companies to flounder for years or decades by continually borrowing money or selling bonds gives us corporate basket cases like General Motors, which was bailed out by the government primarily to save its retiree benefits packages and union pension funds.  Pouring money into floundering businesses that only have a “Hail Mary” shot at turning themselves around gives us politically attractive companies like Solyndra (Woo-hoo! “Green energy”!) which had to rely on government money because its “Hail Mary” plan was so flimsy that private investors wouldn’t touch it.  And in the end, Solyndra’s employees ended up just as jobless as those who were let go after buyouts and restructuring by Bain Capital.

      But we can be damn sure that we will see plenty of media sob stories about employees that Mitt Romney “fired”, and damn little about the thousands who lost their jobs at failed government-subsidized companies, or retirees/pension funds that lost a lot of money due to the government-rigged restructuring of Chrysler and GM.

      • Commander_Chico

        The charge against Romney is the opposite of what Buffet does.  Buffet specifically buys companies for long-term value and holds them within Berkshire Hathaway.  If he has to cut employees, it’s with an eye to preserving the companies, not to plunder them.

        The indictment of Romney is that he took profitable companies, borrowed against their value to acquire them, cut employees and things like product development and capital improvement to increase dividends in the short-term, in some cases took companies public, pumped the shares and then dumped them, paid Bain tons of money in dividends and fees, then left the companies carrying massive debt, which caused them to go bankrupt.


    • jb

      An interesting analysis that I agree with, for the most part. But I don’t think Obama will see any need to dump Biden, and I actually think Hillary is genuinely tired of politics. Although when 2016 rolls around, who knows?

      •  If Hillary doesn’t get on the 2012 ticket I suspect she’s through with politics.

        There are other up and coming women in the Democratic Party who can carry her torch.

  • herddog505

    I had forgotten just how dishonest the dems and MiniTru (BIRM) were in ’92.  On the other hand, it was and is nothing new: claiming that things are terrible, that the GOP candidate is an elitist (and / or stupid), and that greedy Wall Street is behind all our troubles, is the democrats’ modus operandi

    I hope that Adjoran is right and that enough Americans have caught on to MiniTru’s dishonest role in all of this to not be swayed by the steady stream of bullsh*t that we’re about to get hosed with.  I suspect that he is: Barry’s approval numbers do not augur well for his chances.  His only hope is to claim that the GOP candidate will be even worse.  Hmph!  So much for hope and change: Barry’s de facto slogan is now, “It could be worse!”

  • EricSteel

    Actually I miss the Democrats. The Democratic Party used to believe in freedom and Democracy, it used to believe in a sane fiscal policy, it used to believe in America.

    There once was a Democrat who said,”the era of big government is over” and worked with Congress to balance the budget. Today’s Democrats can’t spend enough money, want to grow government bigger and bigger, and can’t even submit a budget let alone balance one.

    There once was a Democrat who said, “ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country”. Instead we have a Democratic party that should be called the Gimme Party.

  • Commander_Chico

    @herddog –

    I think Newt’s criticisms of some (not all) of Romney’s activities in leveraged buy-outs are valid.  When you use borrowed money to buy a company which is a going concern employing workers, even if it’s not fabulously profitable, then pay yourself a huge amount from the borrowed money, strip the assets, fire the workers, and leave a debt-ridden hulk, you’re not helping, you’re a locust.
    There’s a question of whether activities like Romney’s, in abandoning long-term viability, jobs and industrial capacity in favor of quick-buck Gordon Gekko schemes, have been harming the USA.  Even as a matter of corporate governance philosophy, I wonder whether majority stockholders plundering assets and leaving behind debt aren’t on the edge of the law and their duty to the corporation itself.  Personally, I would be too squeamish to suck all the blood out of a going concern and toss workers out to boost my own bank balance.  So I’m not envious, I’m doing OK right now without firing people.

    Gingrich was holding little back in his criticism of Romney, saying that, in at least some instances, the Bain model has meant “leverage the game, borrow the money, leave the debt behind and walk off with all the profits.”
    “Now, I’ll let you decide if that’s really good capitalism. I think it’s exploitive. I think it’s not defensible,” he said.
    Gingrich continued that what Romney engaged in “is not venture capital.  Venture capital is when you go in and put in your capital and you stick it out,” 
    Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/18/gingrich-calls-romney-bain-capital-exploitive/#ixzz1lblLwyqK

    • herddog505

      Again, I’m not especially inclined to listen to Newt Gingrich’s criticisms of Mitt Romney.

      As for corporate raiders etc., I’d say that nobody likes them.  On the other hand, it’s impossible to know the end of the path not taken.  Let’s say a nasty ol’ corporate raider borrows money to buy and strip ABC Corp.  He makes a fat pile of cash.  What does he do with it?  Does he stick it under the matress?  No: he finds something else to invest it in, perhaps XYZ Corp. which will do better as a result of the cash infusion.

      Corporate raiding is nothing new, yet our economy (and that of every other capitalist or semi-capitalist economy in history) has seemed to stumble along with it.  It would have been nice had a raider come along and bought out GM and Chrysler; had he done so, perhaps we, the taxpayers, wouldn’t have been saddled with billions in new debt.

      • Commander_Chico

        Well, Mitt had money in Cayman Islands tax shelters and Swiss banks, did that benefit the USA?   It was taken from going concerns which employed people in the USA.

        I also think that looting is questionable under corporate governance principles and fiduciary duties of boards of directors designed to protect minority shareholders – what if you’re left holding the bag after Romney runs his game and takes off with the assets?

        Again, it’s not something I’d want to be doing, it’s as sleazy as selling Enzyte.  Both make money that in your theory can be reinvested.

        Bain reduced Dade’s research and development spending to 6 to 7 percent of sales, while its peers allocated between 10 and 15 percent. Dade in June 1999 used the savings as part of the basis to borrow $421 million. Dade then turned around and used $365 million from the loan to buy shares from its owners, giving them a 4.3 times return on their investment.
        A Dade executive, who requested anonymity, said he confronted new CEO Steven Barnes after a boardroom meeting within a week of the distribution.
        “You really think it’s a good idea to borrow, you know, one times sales?” he asked.
        “Oh. Yeah. Yeah. You know, that’s fine,” Barnes responded. “You know companies do that all the time.”
        The executive then told Barnes, “Well, that’d be like me going out and borrowing the amount of money I make in a year and then trying to pay it off and pay for my house and feed myself and everything else. That doesn’t make sense.” The executive said he let it drop after that.
        In August 2002, Dade filed for bankruptcy.
        This was not an isolated case.
        * Bain in 1988 put $5 million down to buy Stage Stores, and in the mid-’90s took it public, collecting $100 million from stock offerings. Stage filed for bankruptcy in 2000.
        * Bain in 1992 bought American Pad & Paper (AMPAD), investing $5 million, and collected $100 million from dividends. The business filed for bankruptcy in 2000.
        * Bain in 1993 invested $60 million when buying GS Industries, and received $65 million from dividends. GS filed for bankruptcy in 2001.
        * Bain in 1997 invested $46 million when buying Details, and made $93 million from stock offerings. The company filed for bankruptcy in 2003.
        Romney’s Bain invested 22 percent of the money it raised from 1987-95 in these five businesses, making a $578 million profit.
        While I have not investigated all of Romney’s Bain investments and there may be cases where he made money and improved businesses, there’s little question he made a fortune from businesses he helped destroy.
        Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/ad_mitt_mistakes_jRmd2LHaPIb0bbNn1ZkgaJ#ixzz1lcjQcNkv

        • herddog505

          I note that several of the companies listed went bankrupt years after being bought.  Therefore, it may be a question less of “raiding” and more of investing in a struggling company that just couldn’t quite make it over the long haul.  Additionally, the companies mentioned went bust in the early 2000’s; the economy was not especially good during that period (I lost my own job at about that time, along with several of my other coworkers when our company, which had been in business for decades, almost went bust).

          How do we define “helped destroy”, by the way?  Did he go in and start immediately laying people off, selling assets, and shutting down facilities?  Again, given the time lag, this doesn’t seem to be the case.

          • Commander_Chico

            Rome wasn’t wrecked in a day.  The charge is that the massive debt Romney left the companies with made them unable to continue operations – pretty much bankrupted them. 

          • herddog505

            Well, then, by that standard we need to look up the CEO’s of GM and Chrysler from a decade ago and have some sharp words with them.

          • lasveraneras

            Well, gosh, then just replace the word “companies” with “USG” and you have a perfect description of the current state of the Imperial Federal Government.  And, so far, all this has been accomplished without the expertise of Romney.  Just think, though, with all the “Rome-wrecking” experience he has gained at Bain and in Taxachussetts, he, without a doubt, is the man to finish the destruction so ably initiated by The Won who preceded him!

  • ackwired

    I think you are right about one thing.  The election will be all about the economy.  Since the US economy has been improving for most of Obama’s term, and seems to be improving at a faster rate as the massive fraudulant debt is worked through, I think Obama will win if the European economy does not over-ride the American economy.  If Europe doesn’t get their act together, then Romney will win.  Either way, you will find plenty of reason to whine because most of the media does not agree with your ideology.

    • 914

      Stuck on Stupid! I name thee Ackwired!

    • herddog505

      That would be the media that is telling you just how gosh-darned much the economy is improving under Barry, eh?

      Unemployment rate, Jan 2009: 7.8%
      Unemployment rate, Jan 2012: 8.3%

      Underemployment rate (U-6), Jan 2009: 14.2%
      Underemployment rate (U-6), Jan 2012: 15.1%

      US civilian labor force participation rate, Jan 2009: 65.7%
      US civilian labor force participation rate, Jan 2012: 63.7%


      God save us from further “improvements”.

      • 914

        To half wits like ack, Improvement means more Government handouts for his free loading ass..

        • ackwired

          I see you’re still stuck on stupid.

      •  Amen. 

        A few more such “improvements” would constitute “bad luck” in the Heinleinien sense.

      • ackwired

        January was the month that he was inaugurated.  The numbers continued to get worse for a few months, and then slowly began to get better.  Sorry.

        •  The numbers are worse than when he was sworn in, and will get worse between now and election day despite fudging and a shrinking percentage of the work force being counted.

          • ackwired

            Rodney, I know you just play gotcha.  I did not dispute that the numbers were worse than when he was inaugurated when Herddog said it.  If the numbers get worse between now and the election that would be a reversal of the trend.  It might happen, but not because you say so.  You better hope for Europe to drag things down.  That is your best chance.

          •  CBO predicts unemployment will return to the 9% range by November.

          • ackwired

            That would certainly help your cause.  Good luck with it.

        • herddog505

          That’s why I chose Jan ’09.

          And, yes, things DID get worse after he came in.  They got quite a lot worse.  They got worse after he blew through billions of dollars in stimulus.  They got worse after he blew through billions of dollars in bailouts.  They got worse after he ballooned the debt.  They got even worse they he claimed they would even had we done nothing at all.

          This is not a record of success, nor is it a record of things getting better.

          • ackwired

            The point is that the trend is positve and that is what the electorate usually looks at.  Corporate earnings have been very good throughout this thing and unemployment has been trending down for some time (although it leveled off and quit dropping for some time).  The only thing Obama could have done to accelerate the recovery is to increase the deficit, and I think virtually all economists except Krugman felt that would have been dangerous.

            Republicans may be able to sell your story.  I think it’s a tough sell.

          • herddog505

            The only people “selling” are the libs.  Gallup finds that, contrary to BLS reports, unemployment actually rose slightly from 8.5% in December to 8.6% in January.

            Underemployment rose from 18.3% to 18.7%.


            That’s right: nearly one in five American workers are either working part-time when they want (need) full-time jobs or else are outright unemployed.  What a miracle worker Barry is!

            Somebody else (apologies that I can’t find who to give them credit; MichaelLaprarie?) had an excellent point about these statistics: there is a very large number of Americans who are unemployed, underemployed, or know somebody who is in one of those situations.  All the happy-happy talk in the world from Barry and MiniTru won’t change that.

            Speaking of idiocy from Barry and Co., that fool Jay Carney had this to say today about the low labor utilization rate:

            “A large percentage of that is due to younger people getting more education, which in the end is an economic positive,” Carney said. “This increase in the number of people leaving the work force has been a trend and a fact since 2000, because of an aging population, which is not to say this is wholly — that’s not to say that I would wholly disregard as an issue.” Carney had been asked about the 19 million underemployed or unemployed Americans, and about people who had left the work force.

            “I think some of those who, I suppose, don’t wish us well politically have tried to make a point about this,” he also said. “The facts are that in these most recent numbers, this is not an issue of people leaving the work force; the numbers are positive across the board.”


            And I thought Robert Gibbs was unbelievable.

            Incidentally, Americans are hardly bullish on the economy:

            Nationally, the Economic Confidence Index was -37 in 2011, down from -28 in 2010. The Index is based on the average differences between Americans’ assessments of current conditions (11% excellent or good and 48% poor in 2011) and their views of whether the economy is getting better (29%) or worse (66%).


            In other news, the chocolate ration was increased from 30g to 20g.  All across the nation, there were spontaneous and irrepressible demonstrations of joy and gratitude to Obama…

          • ackwired

            I had a 30 year career in sales.  Believe me, you are selling and you are selling hard.  You’re also pretty good at it.

          • herddog505

            Thank you, but I don’t regard myself as selling anything, unless it’s the sort of selling that one does when he’s trying to “sell” a trip to the ER to somebody who’s been beaned on the head and doesn’t realize how badly he’s been hurt.

            Barry is bad news for the country.  MiniTru’s efforts to portray things as getting better because they aren’t quite as bad as they were a year ago when they are worse than they were three years ago amounts to a con job.

            One can argue whether or not Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum would be good presidents.  One can even argue whether they would be worse than Barry.  One CANNOT argue, however, that Barry has been bloody awful, and I further suggest that it seems to me very difficult to argue that any improvement in our national situation is due to his efforts.  DESPITE his efforts seems closer to the mark.

    • MichaelLaprarie

      Absolutely it will be about the economy.  But in contrast to 1992, the media won’t go on the offensive against the incumbent and the poor economy.  That will be left up to the Republicans, and the media will focus on questioning the “divisiveness” and “negative campaigning” of those attacks.

      As I wrote in an earlier comment, the people will be able to see through the media spin.  Regardless of what unemployment numbers the MSM trumpets, if people can’t see things demonstrably getting better, they will ignore the media and look for alternatives to the way things are being run now.

  • Leave it to akwired to describe a stagnant (1.7% growth, soon to be downgraded to 1.6 or 1.5%) economy with a shrinking percentage of the labor pool employed as “improving.”

  • GarandFan

    I’m still waiting for the Obamassiah to run on his record.


    • 914

      Barry is undoubtedly waiting til right after the election to tout his sterling economic success’es, cause we all know he don’t like to brag!!

    • herddog505

      Oh, he IS running on his record!  It’s just that what he claims doesn’t always jibe with reality.  Barry says that he’s had (IIRC) twenty-two months of job growth.  HUZZAH!  Except… the unemployment rate now is higher than it was when he was elected, while the workforce utilization rate is lower.  He “saved or created” four million jobs (I think that’s the latest figure)… at a cost in “stimulus” money of around $200k / job.

      Yep, Barry’s got a GREAT record.

      Just don’t ask too many questions about it.

    • MichaelLaprarie

      Obama is already running on his record – sort of.  Have you seen his “Promises Kept” ads?  However, at least some of the MSM isn’t buying it – http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-01-04/fact-check-obama-promises-ad/52380628/1

  • jb

    LOL. Another Alinsky fantasy.

    Hm, I guess we on the Left should check out this Alinsky cat. Maybe after we finally get around to this Barbara Streisand we keep hearing about.

    • The right SAYS the left follows Alinsky so they have a plausible excuse for doing the same…

      …. but since the left DOESN’T follow Alinsky we know it’s all just more right wing lying and bullshit.

      You see “Alinksy” is a ferrun soundin’ name, and the right knows how ferrun soundin’ names scare the rural rubes…

      Why, I bet that Alsinksy was a COMMUNIST – and Obama the Socialist Muslim from Kenya likes them Commies…

  • Pingback: Michelle's Livin High on the Hog in Dublin! - Page 11 (politics)()

  • misstrix

    looks like nobody had any trouble remembering who was actually responsible for the plight of retirees who lost a huge chunk of their savings in the 2008 stock market crash. but nice try.