The New Republic

Another thing that I'm surprised is not an issue (not yet anyway) is the economy.  Despite 7 years of unparalleled growth (with hiccups in 9/2001 and 4th q 2007, I was certain that the Democrats would latch onto the economy as soon as there was any sign whatsoever of strain.  Note that in 2006, when the economy was roaring, they claimed that even though the economy was roaring, the "middle class" didn't benefit.

I'm sure that Bush will be made responsible for the economy sucking in 2008.  Cyclical recessions and expansions be damned.  It's all Bush's fault!  What the hell do they teach these dummies in college these days in place of Economics?

- jwl2672

January 26, 2008 at 2:59am

JW stole my thought, but I think it will be the economy.

But JW, you're take on the economy is plain wrong.  First, let me charge up multibillions of dollars on my credit card and I'll show you a good time too.  Yes, recessions/expansions are cyclical, but compare 2001 to 2008:

In 2000: budget surplus to pay for those $300/$600 tax rebates

             homeowner equity to tap into (via refinancing or mortgages)

              high dollar value

              low energy costs

In 2008: budget deficits, with baby boomer retirement entitmenets about to kick in

             most homeowners have already refinanced, and much less equity to borrow against

             dollar is weak

              energy costs high

Clearly if we have another recession, it's going to hurt a lot more this time.  The Dems just need to make a nexus that should be obvious to anyone with a brain: you can't spend billions of dollars a *week* for *years* and not have *any* effect.  This was the only war we cut taxes (mostly on the rich) to pay for.  We should have a surplus from the tax revenue increase an economic expansion brings, instead we just have a smaller, but still big, deficit.  

And that nexus is going to bring Iraq back into play, Marty (even if things remain relatively calm from the surge).  Baby boomers don't sacrifice, they take.  Where's the pot of gold?  

- Lymon1

January 26, 2008 at 9:23am

So anti-war GOPers are voting for McCain as well as those who (according to The Stump) see illegal immigration as the biggest issue? Sounds like a lot of those folks should consider just going Dem blue. We've got room for them, I'm sure.

- ackyri

January 26, 2008 at 2:36pm

Yes, the economy is likely to be a big issue.  The mess we are in is due in good measure to the failure by Washington watchdogs to stop the tricks and gimmicks of the mortgage and credit card industries before things got out of hand.

- nbarry

January 27, 2008 at 10:06am

Yes, the Democrats are so principled.  When the populous is in favor of the war, they vote for it and give the war positive lipservice.

When the polls seem to go south against the war, the Democrats are now against it.  And always have been.

But, wait-wait.  Now the war is going well.  A new general and a new strategy is making a difference.  We are-- my gosh-- winning.  Now the war is not a factor in the polls.

And, now the Democrats, well, they can't swap once again and say they're for the war.  So now, they just don't bring it up.

- ChanRobt

January 27, 2008 at 9:42pm

The best evidence that the war is no longer an issue is that only five people bothered to weigh in on this thread.  And I went twice.

- ChanRobt

January 29, 2008 at 1:51am