My guess is one of two things: either Kerry thinks he can persuade people that the good news comes as a result of people anticipating his becoming President (Bill Clinton gave a statement to this effect prior to his election in 1992) or he thinks the media will ignore the news until his election, when he can claim credit. Clinton could do this 12 years ago because the media was more one-sided than it is now; whether the Internet and the blogs and talk radio and the O'Reilly Factor (and the list goes on) will let run on Clinton's playbook today is highly doubtful. At least I doubt it.

Watch the media focus on the 0.1% increase in the unemployment rate rather than the jobs increase.
The March number will probably be revised down but notice the Jan and Feb numbers were revised up.
I agree with John that the Dems will try to portray the economy is weak but I think this Bush administration is more on the ball than the '92 version and will get its message out better.

What else does he have?

David:

First principles: "America is an absurdly wealthy society but not all of us share equally in that wealth; therefore, it will be the policy of my Administration to transfer wealth from the few haves to the many have-nots. "

It's absurd, but it's honest.

I thought it was absurd when Clinton portrayed the 92 economy the worst since Hoover. Sure, they did pull it through, but only barely (Perot), and because the economic/market timing really did not help Bush Sr. But looking at the numbers in 2003-2004 vs. those in 1991-1992 make you realize just how much better the economy is now than then, and that comparisons are just not apt. No comparison.

It may not be honest, but even the Dems understand that they've got to run on "I'll begger your neighbor for your benefit" rather than, "I'll begger you for your neighbor's benefit."

"I'll begger your neighbor for your benefit"

Isn't that a lot like "I'M THE NEW COURT FAVORITE! HOW DO I KNOW? I GET TO BRING THE BOWSTRING FOR LAST WEEK'S COURT FAVORITE!"

It's utterly destructive that the economy has become a presidential issue.

Capitalism necessarily brings ups and downs; the cycle will always exist. But we have created a situation in which the person who happens to hold office during one of the downs is vulnerable -- no matter what his value on all other matters, like the stuff presidents are actually supposed to do.

It's bad too because as candidates use "the economy" as a platform plank -- and as voters accept it -- the perception of the president-as-king becomes more dangerously entrenched, and with it the notion that the country is "run" by the people we pick to "run" it. The whole "president as CEO" idea is ultimately anti-freedom.

John, I don't think it's whether Kerry follows the Clinton '92 playbook, the established media are simply so anti-Bush that he'll need every cent of his war chest to drown them out.

The unemployment rate nudged a tenth of a percent higher to 5.7 percent, based on a separate survey of U.S. households. That occurred because more job seekers renewed their searches last month, but were unsuccessful.

After months of claiming the household survey couldn't *possibly* be showing rising employment, it is now unimpeachable evidence that unemployment went up and people still can't find jobs, with a bonus of being used to vindicate the 'discouraged worker' theory that was being advanced for why unemployment went down.

Following up on my above post: Conservatives should always protest when "the economy" is brought up as an election issue -- not least when the economic situation is made out to hurt a Democratic candidate.

Arguing the intricacies of economic data for the purpose of scoring political points only feeds the perception that the government is supposed to run our lives.

"what else does he have?"
First whether absurd or not what OJ said is the engine for the Democratic Party since 1932.
Second if the economy is going well and Bush is communicating that clearly, the Anti-War movement will explode in the next 5 months. Especially if there is another terrorist act in the US. It's this second gamble that will cause significant permanent splits with remaining conservative Democrats.
And lastly, despite what OJ has said the Democrats with support from Labor Unions, and Blacks might run to the right of Republicans on immigration.
A Party of peace, pinkos, punks, and perverts.

tomcat:

I don't get it--why isn't the nature of the economy a political question?

David:

Yikes! The first time I read your quote, I'd swear it said "...bugger" - must be Friday.

"I don't get it--why isn't the nature of the economy a political question?"

I never said it isn't. Obviously it has been turned into a political issue, and that's my whole point: It shouldn't be.

If we quit assigning to presidents so much power over "the economy," perhaps we can get back more of the freedom that's been given up. Conservatives, of all people, certainly shouldn't be mindlessly engaging in arguments about a president's culpability in the economy, because then they're conceding to leftists a key premise in the broader debate about the scope of government's role.

When a conservative exalts Bush because the economy happens to be turning around in April 2004, they unwittingly grant that the president SHOULD be running the economy in the first place. I'm saying that we should stop this arbitrary little game now; once we've used it to score one-time political points, we've helped entrench it for the future ... and put ourselves at the perpetual mercy of the inevitable ups and downs of a capitalist market. Also, as I said, we'll have forsaken crucial principle in the bigger argument with the left.

We either believe in a free market, or we don't.

(I'll grant that a president should be applauded for rolling back government intervention -- Bush pushing tax cuts or Clinton signing welfare reform, for example. But it should be done by emphasizing the ROLLBACK part, not by giving in to the "steward of the economy" part. These moves should be characterized as a laudable move toward LESS government tinkering; not characterized as the "right kind" of tinkering. That's a crucial distinction.)

tomcat:

Ah, I see. We don't. We never have. Even freeish economies need an entire system of laws to function and they need to be taxed, regulated, etc. They aren't magically good.

I agree to a point; I'm not an anarchist. So I will submit, then, that it is a matter of degree: Perhaps the president has some role in the economy, but it has grown far too large in practice ... and even larger in perception.

The bottom line: Americans shouldn't be holding the economy against the person who held office during the down time of 2001, any more than they should exalt the person who happened to hold office during the up time of the '90s.

tomcat:

And on all of that we agree.

Tomcat: All good points. I would only add that, to the extent a President implements policies which reduce the role of an already overly- intrucive government in our lives (such as cutting taxes, HSA, etc) then he's worthy of some praise. These days, part of the presidents job is to get the government out of the way of the economy so it can do what it's supposed to. Unfortunately, much of the "getting out of the way" ideology has to originate from the oval office.

Which brings us to the need to stamp out the regulatory state. Not only is it obviously unconstitutional (which is, by the way, a surprisingly uncontroversial opinion), but a regulator's job is to regulate. Democrats or Republicans (and the permanent civil service is overwhelmingly Democrat) they're not happy if they're not sticking the nose of government into things that shouldn't concern it.