June 29, 2004

NO ONE VOTES THEIR NEIGHBOR'S POCKETBOOK (via John Resnick)

Election-year economy (David Keene, 6/30/04, The Hill)

What’s happening now as month after month of good news comes out is reminiscent of the Democratic reaction to the Reagan economy back in 1984. First, the Democrats of that era predicted that the recession Reagan inherited would persist because of Reagan’s wrongheaded dedication to cutting taxes — every believing liberal Democrat knew wouldn’t work.

However, when things turned around and the economy began to pick up a real head of steam, Walter Mondale, the John Kerry of the day, pooh-poohed the recovery. He proclaimed that while the rich were benefiting from the tax cuts, the only jobs being produced as a result of the Reagan recovery were for “hamburger flippers.”

Before it was over, Mondale was promising to raise taxes and give the American people the sort of Democratic economic policies he and his fellow liberals just knew that voters craved. He lost 49 states.

This year Kerry is repeating Mondale’s mistakes of 20 years ago.


The main difference being that Mr. Kerry won't carry his home state.

Posted by Orrin Judd at June 29, 2004 6:46 PM
Comments

Pessimism can only create Government jobs.

Posted by: John Resnick at June 29, 2004 6:53 PM

Given all the specualtion on how a Kerry win would be bad news for Hillary Clinton, you have to wonder if the missus' remark in San Francisco on Monday that the Democrats plans to take more of people's money when they get in power isn't some not-so-covert effort to grease the skids for Kerry towards some sort of Mondalian landslide defeat.

Posted by: John at June 30, 2004 12:56 AM

John:

I wondered the same thing - and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that her remarks are NOT on video.

Posted by: jim hamlen at June 30, 2004 10:19 AM

John:

The problem with that analysis is that most Democrat-watchers see a White House run in Hillary's future - and if her "we will take it" remark won't help Kerry's chances, it can hardly help hers. Thanks to the Internet, people's memories are better, and this comment, like Mondale's "We'll tax their asses off" at the '84 convention, is likely to have resonance beyond the typical shelf-life of political statements.

If she didn't say it to sink Kerry, why did she say it? Your guess is as good as mine: red meat for the party faithful, an attempt to get the spotlight off Michael Moore back on the Clintons - maybe it was just a clumsy way of repeating the Democratic wisdom that tax cuts are bad for the economy, right as things are proving otherwise. Hilary has never been terribly eloquent, which is why it was Bill's job to get elected and hers to provide support and damage control.

Her best chance for the Presidency, ironically, comes from the "you get two for the price of one" riff that she floated in 1992 - residual support/nostalgia for her husband and a Democratic desire to see him back in the White House. That means if Bush gets re-elected and things improve, that the Clinton legacy may seem less rosy than it does now. In other words, it may not be in her best interest to sink Kerry - but if she helps him get elected, when will her time come? Considering her age, possibly never.

Posted by: John Barrett Jr. at June 30, 2004 11:55 AM

I still say she won't ever be President unless she divorces Bill. If he is sucking up Kerry's space, what will he do to hers?

Posted by: jim hamlen at June 30, 2004 1:49 PM
« LESS NEO, MORE CON, AND A HEFTY HELPING OF THEO | Main | WHY AREN'T THEY AMERICAN?: »