Top Economist: U.S. Avoids Recession, So Far
OrthodoxNews
Top Economist: U.S. Avoids Recession, So Far
Jim Meyers Thursday, May 15, 2008
The U.S. economy is not in a recession and will likely avoid one this year,
declares UCLA economist Edward Leamer in an exclusive interview with
MoneyNews.com's Financial Intelligence Report. Leamer, director of the
university's Anderson Forecast and one of the country's leading economists,
first warned about the housing bubble three years ago.
Currently, Leamer tells FIR that he expects U.S. economic growth will
produce "a disappointing outcome rather than a catastrophic one."
Leamer explained why he doesn't see a recession now or in the immediate
future:
"To have an official recession, there has to be a lot of job loss. Those who
are calling for a U.S. recession are predicting that the unemployment rate,
which is now at about 5 percent, will be 6 percent or more by the end of the
year. This would require at least 1.5 million workers to be laid off.
"If you look around to find sectors where those workers might lose their
jobs, the traditional sectors are construction and manufacturing. Outside of
those two sectors there isn't much job loss. We think that construction is
poised to lay off a lot of workers. But manufacturing is not."
During the recession of 2001, the U.S. lost 3 million manufacturing jobs and
none have come back, Leamer noted, so there is now little fat in
manufacturing jobs to cut.
"It just doesn't seem likely that manufacturing can slough off enough jobs
to make this a real recession," Leamer told FIR.
"There are not going to be enough layoffs to qualify as a traditional
recession, but there will be some uncomfortable elevation of unemployment...
"So, even in the face of strong public opinion suggesting we are already in
a recession but absent any data that would constitute a decisive attack on
our no-recession forecast, we are nervously holding firm - no recession this
year."
The weak dollar and rising exports are also helping the manufacturing
sector, said Leamer.
"This is the other silver cloud on the horizon, and a reason to be
optimistic about the U.S. economy. Exports could be the driver that will
pull us forward in the year ahead.
"Exports alone are not typically strong enough to save the economy from an
incipient recession. But exports are a very positive aspect of the situation
right now."
Historically, a recession is accompanied by a big drop in orders for
production, but that "isn't here yet," Leamer said, another indication that
a recession will be averted.
Asked if a sluggish economy would weaken demand for commodities such as oil
and bring about a drop in its price, Leamer observed:
"Weakness in the U.S. economy will come with some reduction in the global
demand for oil and a decline in the price of oil denominated in euros, for
example, but also a decline in the value of the dollar as investors look to
other countries.
"The net effect of these two opposing forces could well be, surprisingly,
higher oil prices in dollars, not lower."
There is one factor that could lead to lower oil prices - the co-dependence
of the U.S. and China.
"This could easily unwind in part because the U.S. consumer cannot continue
to overspend," Leamer told FIR.
"As the U.S. consumer slows spending, this could cause slowdowns in China
and across Asia. If that occurs, you could see weaker demand for energy
inputs and all the other commodities. Then there could be significantly
lower energy prices, in euros, anyway.
Leamer also said a slowdown in China is "inevitable."
"Think of it as a business model change. China's business model has been to
sell products to the United States and also give us loans to afford their
products. How long is that business model going to last? Either the lender
or the borrower is going to rethink this relationship sometime."
Leamer warned that stagflation is likely, due to "not much optimistic upside
potential for economic growth and a lot of problems on the inflation front
with a declining value of the dollar."
"I think that the Federal Reserve and its policies will inevitably lead to
rising prices but not have much effect on growth," Leamer said.
Leamer also said that the stock market has "overreacted" to the recession
risk. As a result, the market has undervalued U.S. equities.
As a result, Leamer said, now is a "good time to buy."
Joe Orthodox
> http://tinyurl.com/5rjp6m
>
> Top Economist: U.S. Avoids Recession, So Far
>
> Jim Meyers Thursday, May 15, 2008
>
>
> During the recession of 2001, the U.S. lost 3 million manufacturing jobs
> and none have come back, Leamer noted, so there is now little fat in
> manufacturing jobs to cut.
>
LOL. That's supposed to make people feel better? "I lost my job at the
Ford plant but I did land this dream job as a Wal-Mart greeter!"
>
> The weak dollar and rising exports are also helping the manufacturing
> sector, said Leamer.
>
A weakening dollar, rising energy costs, and declining salaries are
enough to contribute to a pissed electorate that's wiped out three
Congressional seats in dark red districts.
--
"If you had a European prime minister who experienced what we’ve
experienced it would be expected that he would retire or resign." -
William F. Buckley, Jr.
OrthodoxNews
"Joe Orthodox" <j...@joenolikeyourspam.net> wrote in message
news:482cd8ec$0$4064$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> OrthodoxNews wrote:
>> http://tinyurl.com/5rjp6m
>>
>> Top Economist: U.S. Avoids Recession, So Far
>>
>> Jim Meyers Thursday, May 15, 2008
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> During the recession of 2001, the U.S. lost 3 million manufacturing jobs
>> and none have come back, Leamer noted, so there is now little fat in
>> manufacturing jobs to cut.
>>
>
> LOL. That's supposed to make people feel better? "I lost my job at the
> Ford plant but I did land this dream job as a Wal-Mart greeter!"
***He's writing about the overall situation. You are being specific. The
world can't possibly be nirvana for everyone. There will always be at least
one person who will want to smoke another joint.
>
>
>>
>> The weak dollar and rising exports are also helping the manufacturing
>> sector, said Leamer.
>>
>
> A weakening dollar, rising energy costs, and declining salaries are enough
> to contribute to a pissed electorate that's wiped out three Congressional
> seats in dark red districts.
***America has been the biggest and the best in the world for far too long.
You know that as well as I do. It's impossible to bring the rest of the
world up to our standards. It seems that a worldwide correction is underway.
***Unless the government nationalizes the oil industry, Congress nor the
president can do a darn thing about high energy prices...EXCEPT, cut the
environmental/court restrained red tape and go after our own supplies for
our own country. (Maybe stopp selling Alaskan oil to Japan would help, too).
John Galt
"Joe Orthodox" <j...@joenolikeyourspam.net> wrote in message
news:482cd8ec$0$4064$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> http://tinyurl.com/5rjp6m
>>
>> Top Economist: U.S. Avoids Recession, So Far
>>
>> Jim Meyers Thursday, May 15, 2008
>>
> [snip]
>>
>> During the recession of 2001, the U.S. lost 3 million manufacturing jobs
>> and none have come back, Leamer noted, so there is now little fat in
>> manufacturing jobs to cut.
>>
>
> LOL. That's supposed to make people feel better? "I lost my job at the
> Ford plant but I did land this dream job as a Wal-Mart greeter!"
What will make them feel better is retraining for a better job, I'd suppose.
>
>>
>> The weak dollar and rising exports are also helping the manufacturing
>> sector, said Leamer.
>>
>
> A weakening dollar, rising energy costs, and declining salaries are enough
> to contribute to a pissed electorate that's wiped out three Congressional
> seats in dark red districts.
Yep.
I was thinking about this today in the context of the glee the progressives
are displaying regarding their Congressional hopes. It appears we're headed
back to either Carter or Reagan, depending on who takes the White House,
where the Democrats are firmly in control of both houses by party, but the
ideological divide remains close to 50/50.
To summarize, those dark red districts didn't elect progressive Democrats --
they elected conservative Democrats, and if they start voting like
progressive Democrats, their careers will be short.
JG
Joe Orthodox
> "Joe Orthodox" <j...@joenolikeyourspam.net> wrote in message
> news:482cd8ec$0$4064$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>> OrthodoxNews wrote:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/5rjp6m
>>>
>>> Top Economist: U.S. Avoids Recession, So Far
>>>
>>> Jim Meyers Thursday, May 15, 2008
>>>
>> [snip]
>>> During the recession of 2001, the U.S. lost 3 million manufacturing jobs
>>> and none have come back, Leamer noted, so there is now little fat in
>>> manufacturing jobs to cut.
>>>
>> LOL. That's supposed to make people feel better? "I lost my job at the
>> Ford plant but I did land this dream job as a Wal-Mart greeter!"
>
> What will make them feel better is retraining for a better job, I'd suppose.
Yes. The question comes down who pays for it. One component of supply
side economics (in the early days) that's hardly mentioned today is that
it put heavy emphasis on a well-trained and dynamic workforce and there
was no aversion to the government investing in this training. Programs
like Pell grants and student loans were emphasized. It's a short term
cost that pays off in the long run by having a skilled worker paying taxes.
Joe Orthodox
>> to contribute to a pissed electorate that's wiped out three Congressional
>> seats in dark red districts.
>
> Yep.
>
> I was thinking about this today in the context of the glee the progressives
> are displaying regarding their Congressional hopes. It appears we're headed
> back to either Carter or Reagan, depending on who takes the White House,
> where the Democrats are firmly in control of both houses by party, but the
> ideological divide remains close to 50/50.
Divided government, between the executive and legislative branches,
seems to have historically turned out better results. I'm thinking a
McCain presidency and a Democratic wipe out of the Republicans in the
House and Senate would be best for the country.
John Galt
Agree on all points, but Pells and student loands aren't retraining per se.
Retraining is covered by the community-college programs started by Clinton
and expanded by Bush.
JG
John Galt
Probably so. We seemed to be more balanced when our local legislators are
somewhat populist and when the Executive carries a big veto stick.
JG
Alexander Arnakis
<j...@joenolikeyourspam.net> wrote:
>
>Divided government, between the executive and legislative branches,
>seems to have historically turned out better results. I'm thinking a
>McCain presidency and a Democratic wipe out of the Republicans in the
>House and Senate would be best for the country.
My gut feeling is that McCain isn't going to come off well in the fall
campaign. He doesn't look either healthy or articulate. The comedians
are going to have a field day with him.
The "doddering" image of McCain may even be enough to overcome the
residual racism that's the biggest worry for Obama.
There's still going to be divided government, even if the Democrats
sweep Congress and the White House. The reason is that the Democrats
themselves are not monolithic. Lots of them will be more or less
socially conservative, and together with the remaining Republicans,
they'll be able to block some of the more radical proposals (I'm
thinking particularly of the gun issue here).
John Galt
"Alexander Arnakis" <inv...@address.none> wrote in message
news:ck2r24dgr50n3ciq7...@4ax.com...
Right. There is no serious indication that the voters have suddenly become
liberal. There's about to be a very strong message sent to the GOP to return
to core principles, and if the GOP is smart, they'll take the message,
return to basics amid some vocal mea culpas, and realize that they have a
very strong bench of 30-something legislators who will be ready in eight
years who are largely untainted by the borrow-and-spend behavior of the last
eight years. (Thinking Bobby Jindal and Paul Ryan, for two.)
They'll be helped because the Dems will overreach almost immediately. They
have a very noisy activist left-liberal arm that generates a lot of the foot
soldiers for these campaigns, and they'll expect to be "paid" by seeing
progressive priorites rammed painfully down GOP throats. Pelosi, for her
part, has been smart enough to temper them over the last two years, but if
there's a Democrat in the White House, the cacaphony to push leftist
priorities will be unbearable, I would think.
Historically, this scenario never ends well for the party in power.
JG
>
nick cobb
This subject line is baloney! The gov. came out the other day stating
inflation only rose .7% - what a crock. The US has been in an
increasingly more severe recession since last Fall. Foreclosures, gas &
food prices, loss of jobs (which the gov pads), etc., etc., etc. If
people really knew how bad things were, there would be riots!
John Galt
"nick cobb" <ni...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:dChXj.2058$r82...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> This subject line is baloney! The gov. came out the other day stating
> inflation only rose .7% - what a crock. The US has been in an increasingly
> more severe recession since last Fall.
There is a definition of recession, which is two consecutive quarters of
negative GDP growth. We're not there.
Foreclosures, gas &
> food prices, loss of jobs (which the gov pads), etc., etc., etc. If people
> really knew how bad things were, there would be riots!
People judge "bad" by the own personal circumstances, not statistics. As
long as the biggest medical problem of the US underclass is obesity-related
diabetes, no riots.
JG
++
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:06:22 -0500, Joe Orthodox
><j...@joenolikeyourspam.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Divided government, between the executive and legislative branches,
>>seems to have historically turned out better results. I'm thinking a
>>McCain presidency and a Democratic wipe out of the Republicans in the
>>House and Senate would be best for the country.
>>
>>
>
>My gut feeling is that McCain isn't going to come off well in the fall
>campaign. He doesn't look either healthy or articulate. The comedians
>are going to have a field day with him.
>
>
Yep, suggesting an unpopular war will last only until we "win" it is
only slightly less fodder for instant dismissal than his 200 year war.
>The "doddering" image of McCain may even be enough to overcome the
>residual racism that's the biggest worry for Obama.
>
>
I don't think the majority of Americans think color when they see Obama,
so he has already won that battle over prejudice.
>There's still going to be divided government, even if the Democrats
>sweep Congress and the White House. The reason is that the Democrats
>themselves are not monolithic. Lots of them will be more or less
>socially conservative, and together with the remaining Republicans,
>they'll be able to block some of the more radical proposals (I'm
>thinking particularly of the gun issue here).
>
>
McCain has alrady learned one lesson, but a bit late. He is campaigning
without the word Republic, which has become an epithet to many, glaring
in the background of his speeches and he has been promising inclusion of
democrats in his programs.
>
>
>
nick cobb
Charles Hohenstein
Alexander Arnakis <inv...@address.none> wrote:
> My gut feeling is that McCain isn't going to come off well in the fall
> campaign.
I remember your gut feeling about Hillary Clinton. :)
--
Charles Hohenstein (to reply, remove Gene Robinson)
"The sad huddle of affluent bedwetters, thumbsuckers,
treehuggers, social climbers, homophiles, quavery ladies,
and chronic petition signers that makes up the current
Episcopal Church . . ." ---Thomas Lipscomb
John Galt
> You don't get it. The numbers from the gov are bogus!
Evidence is required for such a statement to be taken seriously.
JG
John Galt
"Charles Hohenstein" <chohensteG...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:chohensteGeneRobinson...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
> In article <ck2r24dgr50n3ciq7...@4ax.com>,
> Alexander Arnakis <inv...@address.none> wrote:
>
>> My gut feeling is that McCain isn't going to come off well in the fall
>> campaign.
>
> I remember your gut feeling about Hillary Clinton. :)
Well, yea.
My gut feeling is that McCain will end up looking like the grownup in the
room, but time will tell.
JG
OrthodoxNews
source of your righteous statistics. You can't produce them because they
exist only in your warped mind!
"nick cobb" <ni...@snet.net> wrote in message
news:kMjXj.2074$r82...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
OrthodoxNews
"++" <fri...@spambot.com> wrote in message
news:k9udnWvB6o-nXbDV...@rcn.net...
>
>
> Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:06:22 -0500, Joe Orthodox
>><j...@joenolikeyourspam.net> wrote:
>>
>>>Divided government, between the executive and legislative branches, seems
>>>to have historically turned out better results. I'm thinking a McCain
>>>presidency and a Democratic wipe out of the Republicans in the House and
>>>Senate would be best for the country.
>>>
>>
>>My gut feeling is that McCain isn't going to come off well in the fall
>>campaign. He doesn't look either healthy or articulate. The comedians
>>are going to have a field day with him.
>>
>
> Yep, suggesting an unpopular war will last only until we "win" it is only
> slightly less fodder for instant dismissal than his 200 year war.
>
>>The "doddering" image of McCain may even be enough to overcome the
>>residual racism that's the biggest worry for Obama.
>>
> I don't think the majority of Americans think color when they see Obama,
> so he has already won that battle over prejudice.
***I hope you are right, but let's not hold our breath. The Dems are getting
into it quite negatively. Can'w wait to see what happens after the
conventions.
OrthodoxNews
"John Galt" <whoisj...@bluebottle.com> wrote in message
news:xdlXj.132081$Tj3....@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
OrthodoxNews
>
> "Charles Hohenstein" <chohensteG...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> message
> news:chohensteGeneRobinson...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
>> In article <ck2r24dgr50n3ciq7...@4ax.com>,
>> Alexander Arnakis <inv...@address.none> wrote:
>>
>>> My gut feeling is that McCain isn't going to come off well in the fall
>>> campaign.
>>
>> I remember your gut feeling about Hillary Clinton. :)
>
> Well, yea.
>
> My gut feeling is that McCain will end up looking like the grownup in the
> room, but time will tell.
***Grownup or not, McCain is too low key. He hasn't got the rhetorical
abilities of Obama. Obama will orate circles around McCain.
OrthodoxNews
> inflation only rose .7% - what a crock.
***You can back up your assertion with official statistics that prove
otherwise? I'll bet not.
The US has been in an
> increasingly more severe recession since last Fall. Foreclosures, gas &
> food prices, loss of jobs (which the gov pads), etc., etc., etc. If people
> really knew how bad things were, there would be riots!
***You can't avoid the negative publicity about the economy, Nick. It's
everywhere on the evening news and in the 24/7 cable news networks. There
are no riots. Your assertion is the crock.
John Galt
"OrthodoxNews" <Orth...@nospam04.net> wrote in message
news:g0kvm...@enews1.newsguy.com...
No question, but oratory is not impressive to mature voters of character. At
some point, you have to bring some meat to the table, and this is what Obama
has studiously avoided to date.
JG
>
>
John Galt
We never do.
JG
Alexander Arnakis
>
>I don't think the majority of Americans think color when they see Obama,
>so he has already won that battle over prejudice.
>
I can tell you that people from the South, of the "boomer" generation
and older, still look at things through a racial prism.
The difference between now and the 1950's is that, now, people won't
openly admit to their prejudices. These come out in the privacy of the
voting booth.
Focus groups have repeatedly shown that a good number of people still
think that Obama is "foreign," an anti-American clone of Rev. Wright,
and a secret Moslem. Many are convinced that he's a programmed
"Manchurian candidate" who will sell out the country once he's
elected.
There's simply no other way to explain the 41-point Hillary Clinton
blowout in West Virginia. Those were poor Appalachian whites -- a
demographic Obama must try to win over to get elected. Picking Jim
Webb -- the tribune of the Scots-Irish -- for VP might go a long way
toward mollifying these voters.
Alexander Arnakis
<chohensteG...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>In article <ck2r24dgr50n3ciq7...@4ax.com>,
> Alexander Arnakis <inv...@address.none> wrote:
>
>> My gut feeling is that McCain isn't going to come off well in the fall
>> campaign.
>
>I remember your gut feeling about Hillary Clinton. :)
Gut feelings can change. Hillary was riding high until the Ocober 30
debate.
Joe Orthodox
>
> To summarize, those dark red districts didn't elect progressive Democrats --
> they elected conservative Democrats, and if they start voting like
> progressive Democrats, their careers will be short.
>
> JG
>
I would qualify that as *socially* conservative Democrats. The folks in
these Southern and Appalachia regions are typically left leaning on
economics and right of center on social issues. They can go either way.
A problem the Republicans have today is that they've played the gay
marriage and abortion cards into the ground and those voters aren't
biting like they used to -- in fact the gay marriage thing is off the
table in most of the swing areas because they've already passed anti-gay
marriage amendments to state constitutions. (Likewise, the Democrats
beginning in the early 70's dissed those social conservatives and paid
the price for it even though those voters were in agreement with liberal
economics -- the Dems seem to have regained their footing in the last
few years while also the demographics are changing to where a tempered
McGovernesque coalition of white collar, suburban college educated
voters combined with minorities and women has become a winning
coalition. It's like a liberal version of the Goldwater realignment,
though it was much longer in the making). Back on topic... Give these
blue collar whites a populist, red meat, gun toting Democrat and that
guy's got an advantage over his Republican counterpart. The only way
the Reps were able to win for the last 14 years was by nationalizing the
local elections and tying Dem opponents to an unpopular liberal
politician elsewhere. It's now a failing strategy.
(Sorry to break this reply out in separate posts)
John Galt
> John Galt wrote:
>>
>> To summarize, those dark red districts didn't elect progressive
>> Democrats -- they elected conservative Democrats, and if they start
>> voting like progressive Democrats, their careers will be short.
>>
>> JG
>>
>
> I would qualify that as *socially* conservative Democrats. The folks in
> these Southern and Appalachia regions are typically left leaning on
> economics and right of center on social issues.
I can't speak to Applachia, so you may be right, because it tends to be a
union area. I disagree with you on the South. Unions have never been strong
there, and as such I see little trust in left-leaning economics. Very much a
"God helps he who helps themselves." (And I'm sure most in the South think
that's a biblical quote.)
> They can go either way. A problem the Republicans have today is that
> they've played the gay marriage and abortion cards into the ground and
> those voters aren't biting like they used to -- in fact the gay marriage
> thing is off the table in most of the swing areas because they've already
> passed anti-gay marriage amendments to state constitutions.
Yep. Social conservativism isn't conservativism, and one of the themes
that's resurgent in the last few years has been personal rights and personal
privacy. That SHOULD play into GOP hands, but it doesn't, because the GOP
has been appeasing social "conservatives", who'se interest is the violation
of personal rights and personal privacy.
JG
Alexander Arnakis
<j...@joenolikeyourspam.net> wrote:
>
>I would qualify that as *socially* conservative Democrats. The folks in
>these Southern and Appalachia regions are typically left leaning on
>economics and right of center on social issues. They can go either way.
Exactly. The Republicans, under "geniuses" like Lee Atwater and Karl
Rove, brilliantly exploited this, and the Democrats let them do it.
The Democrats, if they're smart, will leave the "God, guns, and gays"
issues at least to local option, and concentrate on the core issues of
the economy and foreign policy. This is not to say that the social
issues aren't important, but that the government can't do much about
them. For example, if women are determined to have abortions, they'll
get them, either by traveling to places where abortions are legal, or
by simply getting illegal abortions. For opponents of abortion, the
more effective course (instead of politics) would be moral suasion and
the changing of the sex-saturated culture, so that women would not
have inappropriate pregnancies in the first place, or if they did,
would not be so determined to abort.
Unfortunately, there are small, but vociferous, elements of the
Democratic coalition, such as NARAL, the Brady Campaign, the gay
activists, and the teachers' unions, which push the party in fringe
directions on social issues. These groups must be shunted aside if the
Democrats hope to be a permanent majority party.
> A problem the Republicans have today is that they've played the gay
>marriage and abortion cards into the ground and those voters aren't
>biting like they used to -- in fact the gay marriage thing is off the
>table in most of the swing areas because they've already passed anti-gay
>marriage amendments to state constitutions. (Likewise, the Democrats
>beginning in the early 70's dissed those social conservatives and paid
>the price for it even though those voters were in agreement with liberal
>economics -- the Dems seem to have regained their footing in the last
>few years while also the demographics are changing to where a tempered
>McGovernesque coalition of white collar, suburban college educated
>voters combined with minorities and women has become a winning
>coalition. It's like a liberal version of the Goldwater realignment,
>though it was much longer in the making). Back on topic... Give these
>blue collar whites a populist, red meat, gun toting Democrat and that
>guy's got an advantage over his Republican counterpart. The only way
>the Reps were able to win for the last 14 years was by nationalizing the
>local elections and tying Dem opponents to an unpopular liberal
>politician elsewhere. It's now a failing strategy.
>
There is a Democratic politician that fits the "populist, red meat,
gun toting" label -- he's Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Obama would be
wise to put him on the ticket as the VP.
Joe Orthodox
> There is a Democratic politician that fits the "populist, red meat,
> gun toting" label -- he's Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Obama would be
> wise to put him on the ticket as the VP.
>
It would seal the deal.
--
"When the histories are written, I’ll bet that the Old Right and the New
Left are put down as having a lot in common and that the people in the
middle will be the enemy." - Barry Goldwater
Stephen Adams
>Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>> There is a Democratic politician that fits the "populist, red meat,
>> gun toting" label -- he's Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Obama would be
>> wise to put him on the ticket as the VP.
>
>It would seal the deal.
I tend to agree.
-Stephen
--
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Stephen Adams
malchu...@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Alexander Arnakis
>Joe Orthodox <j...@joenolikeyourspam.net> writes:
>>Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>>> There is a Democratic politician that fits the "populist, red meat,
>>> gun toting" label -- he's Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Obama would be
>>> wise to put him on the ticket as the VP.
>>
>>It would seal the deal.
>
>I tend to agree.
>
Right now, the conventional wisdom is that he'll pick Kansas Governor
Kathleen Sibelius. Sibelius would appeal to women (the residual
Hillary Clinton constituency), and she's been effective working with
Republicans to govern Kansas. But she's a standard liberal when it
comes to social issues, and she won't help at all with the Appalachian
white working class. One plus she has over Webb, from Obama's point of
view, is that she endorsed him early, while Webb hasn't endorsed yet.
Maybe Obama is also afraid that Webb will upstage him.
As far as the loss of a Senate seat for the Democrats goes, Democratic
Governor Tim Kaine would get to appoint Webb's successor, at least
until a 2009 special election. If Kaine appoints a "placeholder," such
as Chuck Robb, with the understanding that he would serve for one year
only, then Kaine himself can run for the Senate seat in 2009 (his term
expires in January 2010, and he can't succeed himself as Governor).
The selection of the VP is exceedingly important for both parties this
year. Actually, McCain has more of a problem in this regard than the
Democrats do. If he picks Huckabee, he solidifies the Christian-right
portion of his base, but he turns away the secular independents. On
the other hand, if he picks Romney, he alienates the Christian right.
He could just "punt" and do a unity ticket with Lieberman, but then he
would alienate just about everyone except the hawkish
neoconservatives.
John Galt
"Alexander Arnakis" <inv...@address.none> wrote in message
> On Fri, 16 May 2008 22:22:42 -0500, Joe Orthodox
> <j...@joenolikeyourspam.net> wrote:
>>
>>I would qualify that as *socially* conservative Democrats. The folks in
>>these Southern and Appalachia regions are typically left leaning on
>>economics and right of center on social issues. They can go either way.
>
> Exactly. The Republicans, under "geniuses" like Lee Atwater and Karl
> Rove, brilliantly exploited this, and the Democrats let them do it.
>
> The Democrats, if they're smart, will leave the "God, guns, and gays"
> issues at least to local option, and concentrate on the core issues of
> the economy and foreign policy. This is not to say that the social
> issues aren't important, but that the government can't do much about
> them. For example, if women are determined to have abortions, they'll
> get them, either by traveling to places where abortions are legal, or
> by simply getting illegal abortions. For opponents of abortion, the
> more effective course (instead of politics) would be moral suasion and
> the changing of the sex-saturated culture, so that women would not
> have inappropriate pregnancies in the first place, or if they did,
> would not be so determined to abort.
>
> Unfortunately, there are small, but vociferous, elements of the
> Democratic coalition, such as NARAL, the Brady Campaign, the gay
> activists, and the teachers' unions, which push the party in fringe
> directions on social issues. These groups must be shunted aside if the
> Democrats hope to be a permanent majority party.
The idea of a "permanent majority party" is at odds with the entire American
experiment. If that ever happens, I;ll be found outside the US, in a place
that still values democracy.
JG
OrthodoxNews
***I can't think of a single country outside the U.S. where this value is
practiced. Enlighten me, please.
Stephen Adams
>On 17 May 2008 19:42:30 GMT, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>>Joe Orthodox <j...@joenolikeyourspam.net> writes:
>>>Alexander Arnakis wrote:
>>>> There is a Democratic politician that fits the "populist, red meat,
>>>> gun toting" label -- he's Virginia Senator Jim Webb. Obama would be
>>>> wise to put him on the ticket as the VP.
>>>
>>>It would seal the deal.
>>
>>I tend to agree.
>>
>Right now, the conventional wisdom is that he'll pick Kansas Governor
>Kathleen Sibelius. Sibelius would appeal to women (the residual
>Hillary Clinton constituency), and she's been effective working with
>Republicans to govern Kansas. But she's a standard liberal when it
>comes to social issues, and she won't help at all with the Appalachian
>white working class. One plus she has over Webb, from Obama's point of
>view, is that she endorsed him early, while Webb hasn't endorsed yet.
>Maybe Obama is also afraid that Webb will upstage him.
Perhaps. I do think he will pick a mid-westerner, though as noted
above, I think Webb would seal the deal. Strickland from Ohio might
be a good choice, though the current scandal in OH might deter Obamma.
Winning Ohio and holding the rest of the Kerry states would win it for
Obama.
>As far as the loss of a Senate seat for the Democrats goes, Democratic
>Governor Tim Kaine would get to appoint Webb's successor, at least
>until a 2009 special election. If Kaine appoints a "placeholder," such
>as Chuck Robb, with the understanding that he would serve for one year
>only, then Kaine himself can run for the Senate seat in 2009 (his term
>expires in January 2010, and he can't succeed himself as Governor).
He could also 'cut a deal' and have his Lt. Governor appoint him as
US Senator. It's been done before. ;-)
>The selection of the VP is exceedingly important for both parties this
>year. Actually, McCain has more of a problem in this regard than the
>Democrats do. If he picks Huckabee, he solidifies the Christian-right
>portion of his base, but he turns away the secular independents. On
>the other hand, if he picks Romney, he alienates the Christian right.
>He could just "punt" and do a unity ticket with Lieberman, but then he
>would alienate just about everyone except the hawkish
>neoconservatives.
Condi Rice. :-) But seriously - he needs someone who is 'clearly ready'
to step in (to somewhat alleviate the 'age' issue), as well as someone
with 'Reaganite' (whatever the heck that means these days) credentials.
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Perhaps. I do think he will pick a mid-westerner, though as noted
>above, I think Webb would seal the deal. Strickland from Ohio might
> Winning Ohio and holding the rest of the Kerry states would win it for
> Obama.
>
#1 in politics is that you reward your friends and punish your
enemies. OK, Webb hasn't endorsed Obama yet -- but Strickland endorsed
and worked for Obama's rival, even standing there and nodding
vigorously when Hillary gave that "Shame on you, Barack Obama!"
speech. Obama won't forget this, nor should he.
>
>He could also 'cut a deal' and have his Lt. Governor appoint him as
>US Senator. It's been done before. ;-)
>
is a Republican -- that would flip the Virginia governorship to the
opposing party. And there's no reason he would cooperate in such a
deal.
John Galt
Come on. You just need two viable parties from which to choose where one
isn't a "permanent majority".
JG
>
Stephen Adams
>On 18 May 2008 19:56:37 GMT, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>>
>>Perhaps. I do think he will pick a mid-westerner, though as noted
>>above, I think Webb would seal the deal. Strickland from Ohio might
>>be a good choice, though the current scandal in OH might deter Obama.
>> Winning Ohio and holding the rest of the Kerry states would win it for
>> Obama.
>>
>I don't understand all this talk about Strickland on the ticket. Rule
>#1 in politics is that you reward your friends and punish your
>enemies. OK, Webb hasn't endorsed Obama yet -- but Strickland endorsed
>and worked for Obama's rival, even standing there and nodding
>vigorously when Hillary gave that "Shame on you, Barack Obama!"
>speech. Obama won't forget this, nor should he.
Simple - "Politics is the art of the possible." Nobody, nobody should
EVER make permanent enemies, especially not when they are on the same
team. This would be another way for Obama to say - "party unity" and
"bipartisan" with a resounding shout.
>>He could also 'cut a deal' and have his Lt. Governor appoint him as
>>US Senator. It's been done before. ;-)
>>
>The only problem with this is that Kaine's Lt. Governor (Bill Bolling)
>is a Republican -- that would flip the Virginia governorship to the
>opposing party. And there's no reason he would cooperate in such a
>deal.
Ah, sorry, didn't realize you had split parties in the Gov & Lt Gov
offices. My bad.
OrthodoxNews
"Stephen Adams" <ada...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:g0rre...@news1.newsguy.com...
***Can you imagine the return of the early years of the American Republic
when the loser became the vice president?
Alexander Arnakis
<Orth...@nospam04.net> wrote:
>
>***Can you imagine the return of the early years of the American Republic
>when the loser became the vice president?
You're thinking of the election of 1800. The following is from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1800
The election exposed one of the flaws in the original Constitution.
Members of the Electoral College could only vote for President; each
elector could vote for two candidates, and the Vice President was the
person who received the second largest number of votes during the
election. The Democratic-Republicans had planned for one of the
electors to abstain from casting his second vote for Aaron Burr,
leading to Jefferson receiving one vote more than Burr. The plan,
however, was bungled, resulting in a tied electoral vote between
Jefferson and Burr. The election was then put into the hands of the
outgoing Federalist Party controlled House of Representatives. Most
Federalists voted for Burr in order to block Jefferson from the
Presidency, and the result was a week of deadlock. Federalist
Alexander Hamilton, who detested both but preferred Jefferson to Burr,
intervened on Jefferson's behalf, which allowed Jefferson to ascend to
the Presidency. Hamilton's actions were one cause of his duel with
Burr, which resulted in Hamilton's death in 1804.
Jefferson's victory ended one of America's most acrimonious
Presidential campaigns to date. The Twelfth Amendment, ratified in
1804, was added to the United States Constitution. The Twelfth
Amendment stipulates that electors make a distinct choice between
their selections for President and Vice President.
Jefferson's 22.8 point victory margin is the largest ever victory
margin for a challenger to an incumbent President.
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Ah, sorry, didn't realize you had split parties in the Gov & Lt Gov
>offices. My bad.
>
General) are voted on separately. Kaine won the governorship as a
moderate (he made much of his Catholic faith), but the Democratic
candidate for Lt. Gov., Leslie Byrne, was perceived as too liberal.
She's now running for Congress in my district, to fill the seat of the
retiring Republican Tom Davis. The primary is June 10, and my mailbox
is stuffed with literature from the candidates almost every day. (This
seat is almost certainly going to be a Democratic pickup come
November.)
veritas
<Orth...@nospam04.net> wrote:
>http://tinyurl.com/5rjp6m
>
>Top Economist: U.S. Avoids Recession, So Far
>
The only thing that is keeping the U.S. from sliding into recession is
the weakened dollar which has resulted in booming exports.
Companies like Boeing and Lockheed-Martin , Raytheon et al.
are suddenly very competitive compared to Airbus etc
Peter
++
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
This area can have both parties endorsing a candidate when that
candidate is perceived as truly representational of local interests.
ex. Warner, Wolf.
>
>
>
Alexander Arnakis
>
>This area can have both parties endorsing a candidate when that
>candidate is perceived as truly representational of local interests.
>ex. Warner, Wolf.
>
Warner, and the Democrats are certainly not endorsing Frank Wolf.
Actually, the Democrats have a strong candidate in Judy Feder, running
against Wolf. (She's a professor of public policy at Georgetown.)
*Some* Democrats and Republicans might cross party lines to vote for
an individual candidate they like, but this should not be confused
with party endosement.
Tom Davis (and his wife, Jeannemarie Devolites Davis) did a good job
representing local interests. That didn't stop them from being ousted
on account of partisanship. (Jeannemarie was actually voted out, and
Tom quit when he saw the handwriting on the wall.)
++
Elizabeth Taylor, who was able to attract the Democratic vote through
many terms, just by virtue of good governance andresponsive
representation of his constituency
Alexander Arnakis
>I wasn't referring to Mark Warner, but Senator John, onetime hubby of
>Elizabeth Taylor, who was able to attract the Democratic vote through
>many terms, just by virtue of good governance and responsive
>representation of his constituency
>
Yes, a lot of Democrats voted for John Warner, but he was obviously
never endorsed by the Democratic Party. This sort of thing never
happens. The only time you have "fusion tickets" is when third parties
join with major parties in supporting a candidate, such as when the
Conservative Paty in New York joins with the Republicans.
Digim...@starpower.net
> Alexander Arnakis wrote:
> >On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:06:22 -0500, Joe Orthodox
> ><j...@joenolikeyourspam.net> wrote:
>
> >>Divided government, between the executive and legislative branches,
> >>seems to have historically turned out better results. I'm thinking a
> >>McCain presidency and a Democratic wipe out of the Republicans in the
> >>House and Senate would be best for the country.
>
> >My gut feeling is that McCain isn't going to come off well in the fall
> >are going to have a field day with him.
>
> Yep, suggesting an unpopular war will last only until we "win" it is
> only slightly less fodder for instant dismissal than his 200 year war.
>
> >The "doddering" image of McCain may even be enough to overcome the
> >residual racism that's the biggest worry for Obama.
>
> I don't think the majority of Americans think color when they see Obama,
> so he has already won that battle over prejudice.
>
> >sweep Congress and the White House. The reason is that the Democrats
> >themselves are not monolithic. Lots of them will be more or less
> >socially conservative, and together with the remaining Republicans,
> >they'll be able to block some of the more radical proposals (I'm
> >thinking particularly of the gun issue here).
>
> McCain has alrady learned one lesson, but a bit late. He is campaigning
> without the word Republic, which has become an epithet to many, glaring
> in the background of his speeches and he has been promising inclusion of
> democrats in his programs.
>
>
>
> - Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
He may have won the battle but his mentor sure is a racist...