"It's the Economy Stupid": John McCain Admits He Isn't Ready to Oversee Economy
By jjfuller72 Posted in Archived — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
So "The Economy" constantly ranks up there among the top issues/concerns among voters of BOTH parties. With the Iraq issue being far less polarizing of late, the Economy, Illegal Immigration, and Healthcare look to be the key issues for the general election. Additionally, this New Hampshire Fox News Poll last month had the Economy and Illegal Immigration as the two most important issues to GOP voters with the Economy being by far the most important issue.
Additionally, unlike many issues listed, the status of the economy is something that touches EVERY American in some real and powerful way (as opposed to Iraq, or abortion, or foreign policy, or those without healthcare insurance).
In the financial world, the news of an imminent recession has been dominating the headlines (including the sinking strength on Wall Street). Just yesterday, Bush met with the economic advisors and the Fed Chairman to discuss these issues. The press conference afterwards was not terribly positive.
So is a McCain presidency a good fit for a good economy? Back in 2003 many didn't think so. His new economic plan isn't impressing many. And let's not forget what the Club for Growth thinks about McCain's economic record (Their main points are that "John McCain is No Supply-Sider" and that he has a "Tenuous Record as an Economic Conservative")
Those are the words of others . . . but what does McCain think of himself in relation to the ecomony?
Just one month ago, a piece from the Boston Globe (who has since endorsed McCain) led off with this:
SALEM, N.H. -- John McCain, who happily volunteers he doesn't know much about economics . . .
Later in the piece:
McCain stood before a line graph showing the increase of the alternative-minimum tax, a low-budget campaign's alternative to the PowerPoint presentation Mitt Romney uses when talking about economic policy, a subject McCain has said he feels he is unknowledgeable and that filling the void would be a priority when selecting a vice-presidential nominee.
So McCain wants to bolster the ticket because he's weak on the #1 issue and at a time that recession is a real concern? Sounds scary to me.
Yet further:
Like Mike Huckabee, who joked recently that he "may not be the expert that some people are on foreign policy, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night," McCain suggested to reporters Monday that American consumer culture offered a short cut to expertise. "The issue of economics is not something I've understood as well as I should," McCain said. "I've got Greenspan's book."
Sorry John, but if you haven't gotten a grasp of economic issues after 71 years of life, and after 3+ decades in politics, something tells me that you're not ever going to "get it" . . . even if Greenspan's book is really good.
If we really are headed toward recession in the next few months, do we really want John McCain as our nominee to put up against Hillary or Obama? I think we have much better options to have at the TOP of the ticket.
With stuff like this:
"I voted against the Republican tax cut plan, which is an irresponsible tax cut that will further undermine the nation's struggling economy at the expense of middle-class American families."
Not sure what book he got that out of, but I'm guessing it was written by a liberal Democrat.
He is just flat unacceptable on the economy. If it weren't for the cover provided by the Huckster's even worse positions on economics, more would come to that realization.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Maybe he picked it up from a Michael Moore documentary. Or Al Gore's book.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
Are you only "pretty sure"? Because if you're not totally sure you might want to actually look it up and discover that Alan Greenspan worked as an economic adviser to Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford, and that Ronald Reagan appointed him to lead the Federal Reserve in 1987. [1] And while he is not, strictly speaking, a supply-side conservative the New York Times observes that he is a "life-long Republican." [2]
[1] http://www.infoplease.com/biography/var/alangreenspan.html
[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/17/business/17greenspan.html
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
is a candidate willing to admit he has a weakness.
McCain's past economic stances were a concern for me. Thanks for relieving my mind.
That he was right to vote against the tax cuts. He said as much only a week ago.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
He endorsed McCain and is leading his economic team. I suspect he is a likely Sec. of Commerce or Treasury in a McCain administration. That would reassure me a lot.
______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard
I would support Phil Gramm for president if Gramm promised to nominate McCain for Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
But making John McCain president of the United States is like giving a drunk the keys to your car.
This is what South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint said about the allowing illegal immigrants to collect Social Security benefits on work they did while they were in the country illegally and while using fraudulent Social Security numbers, an idea that McCain supported and voted for:
It makes no sense to reward millions of illegal immigrants for criminal behavior while our Social Security system is already in crisis. Why in the world would we endorse this criminal activity with federal benefits?
spiral
Are you paid by the Romney campaign on a per word or per post basis to spam the exact same comment in multiple threads? Or do you do this sort of idiot trick just because you're a noxious RomneyBot?
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
Romney has nothing to offer but negative talk about his fellow republicans. Just check what the majority of his supporters are posting about: John McCain. John McCain. John McCain.
If they believe that conservatives voters are going to succumb to negativity, they're dead wrong.
I made a comment about McCain's views on taxpayer funded benefits for illegals who get amnesty under McCain-Kennedy and you respond with a rant about Romney and Romney supporters.
Is that because you are uncomfortable discussing the issues? You prefer to attack commenters on RedState instead?
When I see a RomneyBot like you spamming the exact same comment in two different threads, what am I to think?
Ether a) Your're being paid to do it or
b) You're a clueless 'Bot.
What's a dead shame is that after having watched tonight's debate I beginning to think the Mitt is actually a pretty smart guy who has thought about the issues a whole bunch and I'm tending to agree with him a lot more. If the RomneyBot cult members would just stick with the facts of what the guy they back has to say and less with the bulls**t, I'd probably be less suspicious of the motives of said cult members.
______________________________________
Proud member of the Barry Goldwater wing of the party !
"Go ahead, make your jokes, Mr. Jokey... Joke-maker. But let me hit you with some knowledge. Quit now". -White Goodman
This is at least the second thread where you've thrown out this identical comment, and it really hasn't directly applied in either case. If you want to attack McCain, why not develop the argument into a blog entry that can be dealt with critically without throwing off the train of thought in a half-dozen threads?
There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet
This diary was about McCain and economic policy. So, this is an appropriate location for a discussion about the economic impact of McCain-Kennedy.
The Heritage Foundation reported that McCain-Kennedy would have substantially increased the size of America's welfare state.
I put it up a few minutes ago. I relied on the Heritage Foundation for the information on the cost to the US taxpayer of the proposed McCain-Kennedy immigration bill.
I'll jump over and read that entry now.
I was mostly annoyed that the same comment had been copied/pasted into multiple threads, when I thought that it could use further development and stand on its own merits.
But those other commentators are right, and it was not really outside the scope of this discussion. Please accept my apologies for my sharp reply.
Sincerely,
Caleb
There is no President but Lincoln, and Reagan is his prophet
That's not really a problem. The economy doesn't need to be managed. It needs to be left alone. The best thing he can do is keep the Bush tax cuts in place, which he's pledged to do and which his record suggests he will do, and do absolutely nothing else. If he actually manages to cut spending, which again, his record is excellent, it would just be an added bonus.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Seriously - I've been asking this for weeks and gotten zippo - maybe you can help me out:
If he actually manages to cut spending, which again, his record is excellent...
What record? What spending has McCain actually championed cuttung? I mean, I know he's all up in arms about "earmarks" and the like - but that really isn't cutting spending as that money is still going to get spent by someone (a bureaucrat, not a CongressCritter).
So, can you help a guy out here - becuase I've been trying, seriously, to understand where McCain gets this great cred as a Fiscal Hawk and I've come up completely empty.
Thanks in advance...
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I *really* need to get to sleep.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
He's very consistent at voting against increased spending, and he's never voted for a tax increase. He's also voted consistently for more openness in the spending process. It's pretty much that simple. It wouldn't be productive for me to start listing off one of literally thousands of votes he's taken on such issues, but just look it up, every group which rates these sorts of things gives him high ratings on spending issues, and I've never heard anybody challenge his assertion that he's never voted for a tax increase.
I know he's not that good on tax cuts, but frankly, all he has to do is keep the Bush tax cuts in place and he'll be doing pretty decent.
That said, I'm not necessarily a McCain guy, I'd prefer Rudy and generally like Fred (although I'm not much of a Huckabee or Romney fan). Basically, however, I'd be happy with a McCain victory because of foreign policy issues, which I think Huckabee is weak on and Romney is unpredictable on.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
First, I appreciate the answer - it's by far the best I've gotten to date. And I certainly appreciate that McCain has been rather consistent on trying to hold the line against increased spending. I wish he would put as much public effort into it as, say, peeing on the 1st Amendment - but no one's perfect.
That said, it's one thing to vote against increased spending (which is, of course, good) and quite another to actually propose, and champion, spending cuts. I would think with the amount of juice JMac is given as a "Budget Hawk" there would be laundry lists of things he's done in that regard and instead I've come up entirely empty.
If "consistently saying no to new spending" is the end-all-be-all Gold Standard for Budget Hawks these days then we FisCons are in really long overdue and desperate need of a recalibration.
Thanks again...
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
I see what you are saying, but if your definition of the days of fisi-cons being over would be defined by that position, I'd tell you then the days of Fisi-cons have been over since before FDR. No President in modern times has actually cut spending overall, and I don't believe any one has cut spending in regards to inflation either. (Of course, Reagan might have if it weren't for military spending, but none-the-less, he didn't)
I mean, if we actually held the line on spending, even taking into account inflation and population growth, spending would go down as a % of GDP over time.
John Bolton for President
"FEAR THE 'STACH!!!"
Let me start by saying that it's refreshing to see that the Romneyites have discovered a new boogeyman, or to be more exact, an old boogeyman who just happens to be a greater threat to them at this moment. For a while there I thought we'd never see the end of the 24-7, unrelenting, Huckabee hate-fest.
Second, let's cut through the crap here. The story in the Boston Globe refers to John McCain's acknowledgment that he is not an expert in the field of economics. Which in short means that he is neither a professional economist nor does he have any academic credentials in economics. Guess what? That happens to be true, not only of McCain, but also of the entire GOP presidential field. For example, Mitt Romney has an MBA and a law degree. Rudy Giuliani also has a law degree, as does Fred Thompson. Mike Huckabee, as nearly everyone knows by now, has a BA from Ouachita Baptist University and one year of seminary training. Ron Paul is a Medical Doctor with specialies in obstetrics and gynecology, alternative medicinal uses of gold, and anti-Semitic blood libel. (OK, OK, just kidding about the last two things, but seriously he is an ob-gyn.) All of the above information can be found at their respective campaign websites.
In short, none of these guys could pass for a professional economist. Not even if they read a lot on the subject. But here's the good news: what most of the professional economists agree on is that there are certain problems this country needs to fix ASAP. We need to reduce our trade deficit. We also need to invest in technology and infrastructure. But most importantly, we need to get spending under control and reduce/eliminate the deficit. If we don't do that the currency exchange situation will not improve, which will eventually lead to higher inflation. It could also spark a trade war with Europe, and make important resources like oil harder to obtain. (For the moment most Arab currencies are pegged to the dollar, but that could change if the dollar continues to slide.) So the question is, which presidential candidate is most likely to put political capital behind the effort to stop run-away spending. IMO, on that issue John McCain has a very strong argument.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
I especially loved your commentary on Ron Paul's training.
However, Romney's resume far exceeds the others in being trained in and understanding economics.
Take the current courses required for getting an MBA at Harvard Business School
http://www.hbs.edu/mba/academics/required.html
Financial Reporting and Control
Leadership and Organizational Behavior
Technology and Operations Management
Business, Government, and the International Economy
Strategy
The Entrepreneurial Manager
Negotiation
Finance II
Leadership and Corporate Accountability
I count 6 courses specifically with Ecomony or Economics in the title.
No other candidate on either side has an MBA with this calibre of economic training.
But that training pales in comparison to Romney's real world experience as among the most successful business men in modern America. He ran an international company that was highly successful (Bain operates in 30 nations).
He's got the economic experience of financially turning around the SLC Olympics.
And he's proven he can run a government in a fiscally conservative way.
He could become the most economically literate POTUS in American history.
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
PS. And since Romney graduated as a "Baker Scholar" (top 5% of the Harvard Business School) I think it's safe to say that he grasped the content of those courses quite well (again, as evidenced by his stellar career in consulting and business).
Jeff Fuller
http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/
See my disclaimer of Romney Support at my blogsite line above (essentially I'm an unpaid grassroots supporter/blogger).
... that he's not an extremely smart guy, Baker scholar and all that. But the MBA is a professional and practical degree designed to teach business leaders how to effectively run a corporation.
As for Romney being the most "economically literate" president in history, remember that George W. Bush has an MBA too, from the same school as Romney no less, and no one claims that he's an economist. (That's not an insult to Bush, just the truth.) In both cases Harvard Business school seemed to do a good job since both men went on to become successful businessmen with personal fortunes estimated in the millions of dollars. But neither man could teach economics at a major university, nor hold a fellowship at a research institution.
Hang all traitors and secessionists! Hang them high!
- Me
that they already use several of Romney's successes as business case studies throughout the country. He absolutely could teach economics at a major university. He is one of the most successful businessman in the US. My credentials pale in comparison to Romney's and I have taught classes at the University level several times after being requested. Mitt could get a job teaching at a major university tomorrow if he wanted.
Bush was lackluster at Harvard, while Mitt was a shining star. There is no comparison with Bush on academic and practical economic understanding. There is a major difference in the type of practical work that Bush did as compared to Romney. Romney was literally applying the broad spectrum of economics, strategy, and management theory he learned, while Bush operated in the CEO role, which is typically primarily setting strategy.
Exactly what education then is ideal for a president? Political science - ?
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
I remember when Bush was fighting for FL after the election, and everyone marveled at the potential all-stars he would appoint to his cabinet.
If we tried to elect the smartest man, we would not be looking for prior elected officials...
We elect leaders... those who can delegate, formulate, create, and decide.
Romney is an intellectual. I have no doubt that he is very bright.
But with his inability to have a core set of values, he will never be the leader he pretends to aspire to be.
You have to have a core set of values that you are not afraid of, and that you will not change when the political winds blow. Just ask John Kerry.
Romney has the most demonstrated leadership of any candidate on either side. He has delegated, formulated, created, and decided in the private sector his entire life; not to mention as governor in MA.
Your the first person I've heard say he is an "intellectual" and therefore you passively deny his practical, demonstrated, leadership.
Core values - those are pretty obvious from his family life, his business career, his ethics, his devotion to service, his desire to give back to his country, etc.
Obviously the flip-flop meme has stuck with you. I hope you give the guy another look because you may be worried that he was opportunistic with his political changes but you can not deny that he is a very unique candidate with talents that don't come around very often.
* PRIESTCRAFT is thus defined: “The stratagem and frauds of priests; fraud or imposition in religious concerns. Management of selfish and ambitious priests to gain wealth and power, or to impose upon the credulity of others.”
If he ran as a moderate Republican with ingenuity.
Instead, he read what he thought was a GOP playbook, while serving as Ted Kennedy's governor, and thought, "Hey, they won't know the difference..."
Say what you will about McCain, Rudy, or Thompson, or Huck's views... but at least you knew where they stood.
I agree he has business experiene. But as a politician, he is the what we hated when we elected Bush. A poll driven, politico who would do whatever it takes to get elected.
It is not just abortion. He has been all over the place on a myriad of issues. How can you trust a guy like that. In the end, isn't that was leadership (especially in the presidency) boils down to?
TRUST.