This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Media Can't Save Barack From Obama Economy
by John Tamny, Toreador Research and Trading (Guest Contributor)
With the Obama economy limping along thanks in part to the Administration’s policies in favor of extreme dollar weakness, there’s growing speculation as to his re-election chances in 2012. Will a difficult economic situation that includes high levels of unemployment make Obama a one-term president? History says no given the power of incumbency.
Added to that, another popular narrative of late points to an Obama victory owing to the supposed economic illiteracy of the electorate, along with a media that will provide our weakened president with positive media coverage no matter the state of the economy. Of course the problem with this bit of theorizing is that Americans aren’t stupid, and after that, past elections suggest that those same Americans tend to tune out the media.
Ronald Reagan’s two terms in office tell the tale here. As USA Today media reporter Peter Johnson has put it, “Over the course of his campaigns and eight years in office, Ronald Reagan’s press peaked and fell but was always negative. … In his re-election bid in 1984, 91 percent of his coverage was negative.”
The above is important. Despite a rising economy and millions of new jobs, the media invariably stuck to a number of gloomy themes during the Reagan years, including the rising homeless population, twin deficits, and a generalized assumption that the supposed economic gains of the 1980s were only being enjoyed by the wealthy few. Amidst this constant negativity, Reagan was returned to office in 1984 with one of largest landslide victories in electoral history.
To gain access to our best stock picks and most extensive buy/sell lists, click here to sign up for our free weekly newsletter Investment Advisor Ideas.
Back then, stocks confirmed what voters already knew — that the economy was doing very well. Despite a major recession brought on by Paul Volcker and the Federal Reserve’s needless flirtation with quantity money targets in the early 1980s, the Dow Jones Industrial Average still returned 134 percent during Reagan’s presidency. Markets and the Electoral College told the truth about an economy and presidency that the media regularly tried to cast in a negative light.
To put it simply, voters aren’t dim and they know when the economy is performing well. Conversely, when the economy is acting badly, voters are well aware once again.
For evidence supporting the above, we must first journey back to Jimmy Carter’s presidency. As William Greider put it in Secrets of the Temple, “Despite the aggravations of inflation, President Carter had presided over one of the longest and most expansive periods of economic growth in postwar history, four years of recovery starting in 1976.”
So while GDP, the frequently faulty measure of economic health, was rising during Carter’s presidency, neither the stock markets nor the electorate were fooled. The recession during the Carter years was the falling dollar, as evidenced by spikes in gold and oil. A falling dollar is always recessionary for limited capital flowing into hard, commoditized assets, and away from innovative ideas that fund our economic advancement.
Though the media certainly preferred Carter over Reagan heading into the 1980 elections, the electorate felt differently and handed Reagan a 44-state landslide. The economy was weak, voters knew it, and the Reagan Revolution began.
Moving to George W. Bush’s presidency, GOP partisans continue to talk about “52 months of uninterrupted economic growth”, along with mostly low unemployment that prevailed during his presidency. But thanks to a falling dollar that once again drove gold and oil skyward, voters expressed their displeasure.
Luckily for Bush, the dollar’s most substantial decline began after the 2004 elections, thus saving him from certain defeat. But by 2005-06 the dollar was in freefall, real estate was the hot asset much as it was during the Carter years, and as capital flowed into the proverbial ground as an inflation hedge, voters knew something was amiss on the way to voting out happy talking modern Republicans who wouldn’t know a supply-side principle if it smacked them in the head.
Of all people, the usually brilliant economist Thomas Sowell opined about the Bush economy in 2006 that the “liberal media and intelligentsia are strenuously trying to preserve the vision of poverty and economic distress”, but in truth, the voters didn’t need a media that disliked Bush to tell them something was wrong. They knew things weren’t right, the symptoms (rising gold, oil and all other commodities) of a weak dollar were the telltale sign of a weakening economy, and the Republicans rightly experienced major losses in 2006, followed by the White House in 2008.
Moving to the present, no doubt most in the media worship President Obama, and because they do they’ll strive mightily to create the impression that all is well, or at the very least that the economic malaise isn’t Obama’s fault. They would have a point, though for reasons none could articulate. Simply stated, the Bush bailouts remain a big weight on economic growth for failure always authoring capitalism’s advancement, not to mention that the Bushies handed Obama a dollar that was already severely debased.
Basically the Bush bailouts of banks and car companies “in the name of free markets” disallowed the initial economic cleansing necessary for a massive snapback, and then once in office, Obama’s economic team poured gasoline on the fire; most notably with policies meant to mimic the Bush economic disaster in the form of nosebleed spending and an even weaker dollar. The economy is weak, its weakness by definition has Washington and the Obama administration’s fingerprints all over it, and no matter how the media spin that which isn’t working, Obama is in serious trouble.
What’s unknown is if there’s a Republican who truly knows why the Obama economy sags, and who can talk about anything other than tax cuts which, at this point, are not the point. Specifically, is there a Republican who can explain to voters that $100 trips to the gas station are the direct result of the Administration’s currency policies, not to mention that a weak dollar decreases the very investment that drives company formation and job creation.
If such a Republican exists Obama will be a one-term president. If not, the Republicans don’t deserve to retake the White House.
»
- advertisements -
"Well played. Facts are to libs as krypton is to superman" Well said. +1
That attribution of the 90’s budget surplus to Clinton always makes me laugh.
Jessica Simpson was more responsible for those surpluses than Clinton was.
Commercializing the Internet, the dot com boom, commoditization of PCs, welfare reform and a Republican congress is mostly what did it, although the Republicans ultimately failed and were assimilated. I do remember something Clinton said about the era of big government being over (right!).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yv7MZr-JkEM
Clinton did however, succeed in spreading the bottom of the barrel all over the suburbs and previously nice to live in communities with his Section 8 housing voucher program and regulatory push on Fannie and Freddie to buy lower quality mortgage loans.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/may/31/news/mn-42807
You’ll be seeing a lot more of these nice folks on your streets soon.
Yep...But it was Clinton and the Republicans that created NAFTA and allowed more free trade agreements to follow. The U.S. became a consumer nation and out sourced our much needed jobs and tariff revenue to third world countries. From that point on, deficit spending ramped up as two sources of government revenue demished..income tax and tarriff's. Trade deficits have brought this country to it's knees.
DEBT under Reagan/Bush 1980-1992 +300%
DEBT under Clinton 1992-2000 +30%
DEBT under Bush 2000-08 +200%
...the numbers dont lie baby!
Free Lunch Tax Cuts Dont Work...except run up DEBT!
Or as David Stockman Says "Republicans Bankrupted America"
Numbers don't lie, but liars do present numbers with inappropriate correlations.
It's the Congress that spends, not the President. Try your analysis again based on who controlled Congress, not who was President.
Bingo! Cigar goes to Nels.
(I love it when they walk into their own net!)
Well, I'm off to buy some PMs. Gotta get 'em buried before nightfall.
:D
"It's the Congress that spends, not the President. Try your analysis again based on who controlled Congress, not who was President."
Exactly. I get to the point of mania sometimes.
There are people on here (otherwise intelligent people) who have absolutely no clue. One of them who I had a falling out with actually said its the Presidents budget that gets approved (or words to that effect)...I patiently said...its a budget request he sends up...a proposal...nothing more.
It went right over his head.
Its almost like some people desire a king or a dictator...if thats the case, there's plenty of places for them to move to.
Dumbocrats always deify their leaders. FDR,JFK,RFK,WJC, and BHC. I still remember the greek columns behind Barak, like he was some kind of God. They are ultimately disappointed like now. After the meteoric fall of their choices, they stay home in the next election out of shame. That is until a generation passes, then another Godhead appears.
They don't like thinking. It's easier for them to say Cheney did it, he's Satan, or Bush, or Clinton, whatever. They say they want a "better" economy, society, government, but they aren't even willing to try to find out how it is supposed to work. They are the sheeple, who are spooked in one direction or another by the herd dog, or led by the Judas goat.
I don't know if some of them don't like to think or can't think for themselves. I do know some of them were suckered by their hatred of Bush and now realize it.
I can't say that I was all that enthused about McCain...just another in a long line of me-too'ers waiting his turn, I voted for him only because I knew in my heart what Barry was...it was the lesser of two evils for me...I have always mistrusted McCain because of McCain-Feingold. I also think he's a little mentally unbalanced on the war front aspect of things, being a POW?, I don't know...he could have been just as bad or worse, we'll never know.
What I do know is we have a poser now, an imposter...who will say or do anything for the specific moment in time he is saying or doing it...he's so incredibly incompetent he doesn't even realize when he insults people while trying to ingratiate himself to them...it did not and does not go unnoticed by the people who matter...
http://www.blackfive.net/main/2011/06/president-obamas-terrible-mistake.html
yes a grievous error and i wont make apologies for the man who mispoke but i do also know ive made more than a couple not tiny misteps along the way
and all you can do - once youve realized what a boneheaded move you made was - is to try to make amends and hope the aggrieved party allows/accepts it
which is what the president did here
following the links from the one you cited i read obama personally telephoned the hero's father and apologized
not one of the c-in-c's most shining moments but what do you expect from a -any- pol? me? not much and surprises to the upside very rare indeed
peace
His address to the 10th. was from a prepared text. If he did not proof read it beforehand thats on him, not a staffer.
After having stood with the grieving parents in the MoH ceremony one would think he would have a modicum of respect for both the dignity of the previous occasion and the intelligence of his present audience.
He disregarded both for self.
The immediate family has accepted the apology, the larger family has not.
Well done, as usual, nmewn.
P.S. Both "parties" are shit, imo.
Thanks.
"P.S. Both "parties" are shit, imo."
Man I know...it sucks...but I really do think, if nothing else, the TP is keeping the heat on as far as the fiscal issues, which is all it ever was.
Any of them that come out with "social issues" will be pilloried by me, count on it...the fiscal nightmare is what needs to be addressed now for all of us and those that will follow us...to hell with the distractions.
Crap. Republicrats bankrupted the goobermint. Excellent, by the way. Both parties bankrupted America: bipartisan open borders importing poverty and sweatshop labor, and one bipartisan job/wealth exporting "free trade" deal after another.
"Your team sucks!"
"No, your team sucks!"
What a monumental waste of time.
Ding-ding! Give the man a banana! :-)
The only way for Obama to "win" is to have his team of stooges, "run against" another team that is led by a truly abominable person.
That person must be so revolting to most, and yet appealing to the other roughly 40% of elligable voters (= people that will actually show up, excluded are the homeless (of course)) that there's the idea of a "race". When Obama's team prevails in this "epic battle" the world will breathe a sigh of relief. (At least, that's the idea.)
Who might this person be, you might ask?
If a strategy works, why change it?
http://www.popcrunch.com/sarah-palin-picture-gallery/
"Your team sucks!"
"No, your team sucks!"
Well, the one thing Republicans have had going for them for the past 50 years is that they may suck, but not as much a Democrats.
They've always been on my street. They is me.
The fact that you are here probably means you won’t be on the streets anytime soon.
And not that some good doesn’t come from most any bad government idea, the fact is that way more bad comes from government imposed charity than good and none of it is in the constitution.
And thousands of communities across the country have problems they shouldn’t have because of these bad government ideas.
This started in 1913, and really got going under Johnson (welfare/warfare state). It has been continued by every administration and Congress ever since regardless of party, you cunt.
I second your sentiment, the last phrase I treble.
Johnson started his political career as a Roosevelt supporter, rare in Texas in those days. He saw his Great Society programs as putting the capstone on the Rooseveltian edifice.
When told that the government couldn't afford to pay for them and that they would ruin the country, he replied "I can get them through this congress, and I may never have the chance again".
agree
I am more disappointed by the media, more than politics, legal system, health care and......