# 24 Care About The Economy = Vote Republican---Right?

Ummmmm-- Wrong! I doubt Joe the Plumber or Sarah the Saks/Nordstrom/Neiman/Marcus shopper has looked at the following data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis which is part of the Department of Commerce. Note- this office is controlled by the Bush administration so no whining that these are "biased" numbers. This numbers may be surprising and uncomfortable for some but they can't be blamed on the "liberal elite".

Here is the data:

Growth of GDP:

Kennedy 1962-1965 (D)
The economy grew each year of the Kennedy administration with an average 5.6% GDP yearly growth.

Johnson 1966-1969 (D)
The economy grew each year of the Johnson administration with an average 4.2% GDP yearly growth.

Nixon 1970-1977 (R)
The economy grew in six of the eight Nixon (and Ford) years and fell in two years. The average of those eight years was 2.3% GDP growth.

Carter 1978-1981 (D)
The economy grew in three of the four Carter years. The average of those years was 2.8% GDP growth. Note slightly better than Nixon!

Reagan 1982-1989
The economy grew in seven of the eight Reagan years. The average rate was 3.5% GDP growth.

GHW Bush 1990-1993 (R)
The economy grew in three of the four Bush years. The average rate of growth was 1.8% GDP growth.

Clinton 1994-2001 (D)
The economy grew in each of the eight Clinton years .The average for those years was 3.5% GDP growth.

GW Bush 2001-2008
The economy grew in the first seven years and data will probably show shrikage in 08. In the first seven years the growth has been 2.9%.

Conclusion
The economy grew in 19 of the 20 years in which Democratic Presidents submitted a budget and in 23 of the 28 years in which Republican Presidents submitted a budget.

For the twenty years for which Republican presidents submitted budgets, the average rate of GDP growth was 2.9%.

For the twenty years in which Democratic presidents submitted budgets, the average rate of GDP growth was 3.92%.

Unemployment:
Kevin Drum formerly of CalPundit and WAshington Magazine used Department of Commerce data unemployment rates by party of the President for the period from 1948 through 2001. He used "lag times" of 3, 4 and 5 years in assigning responsibility for economic performance to a President. In each case, unemployment was lower in Democratic administrations than in Republican administrations. The GW Bush years are just ending so we don't have calculations on lag time but in his first 7 years Bush had roughly the same unemployment rate as Clinton. It is important to remember that Clinton inherited high unemployment from GHW Bush and GW Bush interited low unemployment from Clinton. Think what GW is leaving behind!

Deficit:
Growth of the federal deficit has grown under GW Bush more than under any other administration since 1960! See attached table.

Of course there are other economic indicators which indicate the health of the economy but one simply needs to open the paper to see how precarious the economy is at the end of an 8 year Republican presidency and when during 12 out of the past 16 years the Republican have controlled both Houses.

It is conventional wisdom that Republicans are better for economy than Democrats but like a lot of CW it turns out to be wrong.

I am sure that Palin and the McCain campaign will continue to try to frighten folks with the "S" word but the truth is our Democratic presidents have been good for the economy.

Americans Are Fair and Balanced

I don’t have a TV so I only recently heard the story of the attack on a McCain supporter. Indeed just after I heard the story the “victim” had already confessed to the hoax. She was not attacked by anyone, certainly not by a "big, black man" who victimized her because of her politics.

Frankly I did not think an isolated act of violence in Pittsburgh or a hoax perpetrated by poor, sick young woman could have any impact on the election. Turns out the vice president of Fox News thought otherwise. In a blog entry John Moody, the guy who is in charge of the content of Fox News, posted a blog on the Fox website

"It had to happen.
Less than two weeks before we vote for a new president, a white woman says a black man attacked her, then scarred her face, and says there was a political motive for it."

What “had to happen”? Does Moody think it was obvious that a black man would attack a McCain supporter or does he think it is inevitable that a white female McCain supporter would accuse a Black man? Either way Moody seems to see racial relations as dangerously divisive.

"If Ms. Todd’s allegations are proven accurate, some voters may revisit their support for Senator Obama, not because they are racists (with due respect to Rep. John Murtha), but because they suddenly feel they do not know enough about the Democratic nominee."

Huh? Moody believes that if an African-American man in Pittsburgh committs a crime on a McCain supporter that some Americans would be forced to reevaluate Barak Obama?! I’m confused- is Moody suggesting that Obama was not really visiting his grandmother in Hawaii and instead was stalking ATM machines in western PA?

Oh my that’s just too silly. I guess Moody thinks that some voters will distrust Obama because he is the same race as the criminal? ! That makes as much sense as concluding that voters will question Palin because the crazy lying woman in Pennsylvania is a white woman like Palin. WHAKCO!!!!! And Mr. Moody, despite your protestations- -grouping people together because there are of one race is an essential element of racism.

Moody's assertions are scary because this man is the boss at Fox news. He views us--his audience or potential auidence- as fearful of the other and willing to cast aspersions based on race alone. Think how this must impact his decisions about content and style on Fox News. Can we trust this man to be fair and balanced?

He also wrote:
"If the incident turns out to be a hoax, Senator McCain’s quest for the presidency is over, forever linked to race-baiting."

Yup- he is really saying that McCain’s campaign could be destroyed by one crazy chick. He is wrong- wrong, wrong, wrong.

Americans are too smart to reject Obama because some people of his race commit crimes and we are too smart to reject McCain because one of his volunteers is a seriously disturbed racist.

Moody's brief blog post explains the fear based journalism of Fox News that is contributing to disrespectful divisions in our country. CBS fired Dan Rather. Let’s see what Fox does with Moody.

I have more faith in my fellow citizens than Moody has. They deserve more wisdom from their news desks than Moody can provide. I hope lots of people have simply had too much too much of unfair and imbalanced behavior and will unite around a candidate who can inspire us.

Examples of Fox coverage.

I’m Sick of Divisive, Dishonest Destructive Media Manipulation

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
Carl Sagan

Obviously an Obama presidency will not vanquish the overwrought, pompous media demigods but if he wins perhaps FOX, National Review Online and others will spend more time talking about issues that matter- like the economy, the budget, foreign policy. Certainly an Obama win will discredit the incessant focus on Bill Ayers and the demarcation of certain sections of the country as“pro-America”. I truly hope that a victory by the Democratic ticket will increase the level of respect and improve the quality of public discourse.

One of the best things about living in the “information age” is the ability to cross check references on any and every subject. Of course the information consumer must separate the reliable resources from junk science and extremist rants. My guess is that most people rely on one to three sources for most of their information. It is not enough to have numerous sources we also need balance. Alas it is much easier to reject entire information sources as “elite liberals” or “liberal media” than it is to research, analyze, listen and discern.

I seek balance in my information. I listen to various points of view on a frequent basis. I grew weary of Rush Limbaugh- long before his repeated incidents of prescription drug abuse and quite awhile before his third divorce- but I read NRO and Instapundit. Even though I weary of their numerous commercials for tax lawyers who specialize in resolution of IRS tax liens, Fox News is a prest button on my car’s satellite radio.
Much, not all, of what is broadcast on Fox News fails to meet the standard for “fair and unbalanced” news.

“Obama and Friends: History of Racialism.” (Six sections of this video can be found on youtube) is a representative example of the standards at Fox News. It was viewed by three million people.

One of the “consultants” who collaborated on the documentary is David Bossie. On camera Bossie uses innuendo, guilt by association and assertions without evidence to portray Obama as a dangerous man but it is actually Bossie who has been discredited in the past. In the mid nineties he was an investigator for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. He was fired for editing tapes of Webster Hubbell. He edited the tapes to create the impression of billing irregularities in the law firm where Hubbell worked with Hillary Clinton. Editing to create a false impression, he cut out sections that cleared Hillary of any wrong doing. He is a liar. Bossie was canned by Republican Congress bosses. Bossie has been strongly condemned by Republicans for unethical conduct. President George H.W. Bush, filed an FEC complaint against Bossie's group after it produced a TV ad inviting voters to call a hot line to hear illegally and probably doctored tape-recorded conversations between Clinton and Gennifer Flowers. Bush said of Bossie's organization, "We will do whatever we can to stop any filthy campaign tactics"; and that his son, George W. Bush, sent a letter to 85,697 major donors urging them not to contribute to the group.

There are many other incidents of Bossie’s unethical actions and self promotion. His “work” is so slimy and his contributions to the documentary doo not meet standards for research or accuracy that would be required in a high school journalism class. Any news organization that uses Bossies’ work fails the “fair and balanced test.”

Bossie has fewer credibility problems than another or Fox’s “expert” panelists, Andy Martin. Martin is such a whacko that he was barred from admission to the Illinois bar in the 1970’s in part because his Selective Service records showed his thoughts exhibited “a paranoid flavor and a grandiose character.” There are many examples of his bigotry. In 1983 in his personal bankruptcy case he called a judge a,, “crooked, slimy Jew.” In court papers he said, “I understand how the Holocaust took place, and with every passing day feel less and less sorry that it did.” Martin has been barred from filing Federal lawsuits without preliminary approval.

Martin ran a TV commercial in New Hampshire that accused George W bush of using cocaine and admits to being behind the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim and, as a lame excuse for spreading lies he says, “when the facts aren't all there.... you are allowed to draw an adverse inference." Ahhh- no you’re not. Just because someone refuses to talk to you it is not ok to make up stories about them.

Despite his instability Fox allowed him to assert that Barak Obama was organizing people to overthrow the government and that the presidential candidate is linked to Castro. I am not making this up!

Martin and Bossie were major sources for the hour long documentary in which Hannity asserted that not much was known about Obama’s time at Harvard. Whey didn’t Fox he interview or give air time to any of the people who elected Obama as head of the Law Review? Several of his classmates and fellow members of the Law Review went on to work in the Bush administration but I guess Fox rejects them as “liberal elites.”

I know that it is entirely possible that an Obama presidency will actually fuel the Fox fire of sensationalistic attacks and fear based journalism but a strong turnout for Obama will be evidence that the majority of our fellow citizens are not willing to be bamboozled anymore.

#21 She Blinded Me With Science

Science and politics are always linked. At the first level there is the science inside the lab, next there are multiple layers of politicking within the scientific community and finally, when science is related to public policy, politics are unavoidable.

In 1990 George H. W. Bush said, " Now more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research . . . government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.” Yup- that's reasonable. During Papa Bush's administration no one was demanding that Biblical teachings be used as the metric for evaluating scientific findings. Reasonable people were running things and there seemed to be general agreement with Galileo that, "the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how heaven goes.'

Well things sure have changed during the eight years GW bush has been in office. Six thousand scientists—including 49 Nobel laureates and 154 members of the U.S. National Academies of Science have questioned whether scientific integrity at federal agencies has been sacrificed to further a political and ideological agenda. (US News and World Report 2005) As Don Kennedy, then editor of Science, wrote in early 2003, “There is growing evidence that the Bush Administration “invades areas once immune to this kind of manipulation.” In August 2003, the Democratic staff of the Government Reform Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives assessed the treatment of science and scientists by the Bush Administration in the report, Politics and Science in the Bush Administration. The report cited numerous instances where members or appointees of the Bush administration “manipulated research process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings.” Climate issues and stem cell research have been the most prominent points of contention but there have been many more.

I resolved several years ago to make sure science was one of the areas I considered when making my next choice for president. It’s been a busy election year and I confess that I have not actually paid that much attention to the candidates positions on science- other than McCain’s muddy statements on stem cell research. I have to hand it to Governor Palin for re-awakening my awareness of the importance of science in the next administration.

Yesterday in her first policy speech Palin described some solid ideas for improving the lives of children and adults with disabilities. Sadly she also demonstrated her lack of understanding of scientific research when she mocked research on fruit flies. “Maverick” Palin takes advantage of every opportunity to demonstrate disdain for government programs and express outrage at government spending but her for fruit fly critique was a cheap shot, meant to inflame voters. We can’t move forward in addressing real problems by resorting to creating controversy where there is none. And--ahhh- fruit fly research helps to further her own cause- children with autism and other neurological disorders.

Governor Palin promised to help children and adults with disabilities but does not seem to understand that research on fruit flies is critical to advancing our knowledge of the human health. That is not defensive rhetoric from the “elite liberal media” it is just the truth. Here is a link to a National Institute of Health 2000 newsletter that described the value of fruit fly research.

Here is a quote from the article: “ fruit flies are essential workhorses in thousands of biomedical research laboratories around the world. Decades of study have revealed that the tiny insects, which bear little resemblance to people, nevertheless share much of our genetic heritage. Fruit flies possess strikingly similar versions of the genes that promote normal human development and, when altered, contribute to disease.”

Here are links to three recently published studies of human illness that relied on fruit fly research.

Published 2008: on human immunity and immune disorders-


Published 2007: on autism-


Launched 2005: on birth defects-


Has the campaign failed to make credible science advisors available to Palin or does she simply not care about the veracity of her words?

My 17 year old son knows that research on fruit flies is basic and important- he learned that in sophomore bio.

I don’t need my candidates to blind me with a wealth of scientific knowledge but I can’t endorse a ticket that assumes I will turn a blind eye to the scientific incompetence Palin demonstrated yesterday.

Want to see the old 80's video She Blinded Me With Science?


Excerpt of Sarah Palin's policy speech.

I tried to find a video of her speech on the McCain campaign website but it is not there!

#20- Because I Agree With Adam Smith

When my parents divorced one of the many things they fought over was a handsome collection of beautifully bound leather books. My dad actually read the books but my mom just liked the way they looked on the bookshelves. She won the book battle in the divorce wars but the books, along with a couple of oil paintings, remained a point of contention for many years- probably still are. Once, years ago on my of my rare return trips to Tulsa, I pulled one of the books from the shelf and took it upstairs to read. To tell the truth I thought it was a snoozer but I struggled through, scanning some parts and carefully reading others. Mom went ballistic when she discovered I had taken the book home to California but she calmed down when I sent a leather bound and engraved photo album of the kids to fill the gapping hole on the third shelf. I don't think she has ever really missed Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" because I know she never read it.

Smith's book is not exactly a family read aloud but with all this talk of Joe the Plumber, taxes and the "S" word I found myself thinking about the book and wondering what the Father of Capitalism would think now that our MBA President has nationalized banking and greatly altered (some say erased) free market capitalism. So I was delighted today when I found a quote from Smith at the Daily Dish.

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. . . . The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. . . . It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion. "

Let me repeat that- the Father of Capitalism thought it reasonable for the rich to contribute a larger proportion of their income to the nation than the poor. Think about it- a progressive tax system is not a radical commie idea but isactually a foundational element of successful capitalism!

I like capitalism. I know it is flawed- I read The Tragedy of the Commons- but I still think it is the best system available. But it only works when greed is balanced by morality. Yes- I do think paying taxes is the morally correct- even patriotic thing to do.

Our national infrastructure is falling apart. Bridges are crumbling, levees are unsafe, far too many of our fellow citizens lack affordable medical care, we don't have high speed rail and we have never fully funded improvement programs for public schools. We have to get serious about fixing up the commons and we also have to address the giant deficit (thanks George).
Paying taxes is part of the solution. Like Colin Powell said last Sunday, as he was leaving the NBC studio.

"Taxes are always a redistribution of money. Most of the taxes that are redistributed go back to those who pay it, in roads, in hospitals and schools. Taxes are necessary for the common good.........I don't want my taxes raised. I don't want anybody else's taxes raised but I also want to see our infrastructure fixed. I don't want a 12 trillion dollar national debt and I also don't want to see an annual deficit that is over 500 billion dollars heading toward a trillion."


So I have to agree with Senator Obama, Adam Smith and General Powell, it is not unreasonable to re-examine the tax structure of our country to assure that we are contributing our fair share to the common good.

Maybe, like my mother, Senator McCain and Governor Palin have never actually read "The Wealth of Nations." We need more than pretty bookcovers- we need substance, even if it is tough going.

#19- Obama Understands the Bubbas

This post is really an expansion of reason # 8 which focused on Obama's ability to unify the country. When I wrote that post I was focusing on Obama's ability to work with both parties. In this post I am thinking about the relationship that presidents have with the public.

I have been shocked by how easily people have been duped by the Republican party's insinuations that Obama is not really an American. That he is unfit to serve as President because he is a Muslim or an Arab. Colin Powell was clearly offended by this and he beautifully expressed what I have been thinking that while it is true that Barak Obama is a Christian that shouldn't matter. Muslim are Americans too. they have the right to be President. Americans of Arab descent have the right to be president tool I have attached the photo to which Colin Powell referred in his Meet The Press endorsement. It is beautiful and painful. It is also painful to hear people questions Obama because of his "bloodlines." I have always understood that people cannot support Obama because they dislike "big government" that is usually associated with Democrats. (of course GW has given us the biggest deficits and more socialism than any President in my lifetime but that is another point for another post)

Sadly the focus of the attacks on Obama at the McCain-Palin rallies, in their ads, from Fox News or even from my own sweet godson is not on the budget, the economy or even the war. No the preponderance of political ads and news show chats have focused on religion and ethnic heritage. I can only infer that the people who post, view and circulate the youtubes and emails about these topics are overwhelmed with information and change so they fall back on simple, fear based thinking that spoon fed to them by Sean Hannity, Rush Limbagh and others. I am saddened by ignorance and lazy thinking. I understand that racism is most dangerous when it is expressed subtle ways- in statements like, "I am afraid of what Obama has planned for America. McCain wants what is best for Americans". Those staements are more destructive to unity and respect than some dimwit shouting "Boy" or by a bunch of idiots bringing monkeys wearing Obama tags to a Palin rallies.

Obama understands the people who fear "the other". He continues to reach out to them and will do so as President. I think his Presidency could actually help the Bubbas get beyond their fear and grow in their ability to listen to people from diverse backgrounds. If we are going to successfully address the many challenges our country faces everyone must respect view points that differ from their own.

Here is what Obama said in his Philadelphia speech about white people who are frustrated with affirmative action, talk of racism and their perceived lack of opportunity:

"Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union. "

That statement demonstrates the wisdom and compassion that we need.

#16, #17 & #18 Colin Powell Says It Much Better Than I Can

In a positive, clear and powerful seven minute statement Colin Powell mentions several reasons about which I have already written:

My #12 & # 8--Republican party's accusations that Obama is a Muslim demonstrate narrow, racist thinking that the Party has taken. Christopher Buckley referred to this destructive faction of the party as the "kooks". Powell is calm but firm as he describes how the Republican Party has moved away from him and why he cannot endorse John McCain.

My #7 & #14 Obama has style and substance to be a world leader. Obama has demonstrated intellect and temperament to be President.

He also states three reasons I have not yet addressed in my list.

#16 Sarah Palin is not ready to be president. This is not a liberal attack. This sentiment is shared by conservatives such as Christopher Buckley, Peggy Noonan, George Will, David Frum and Katherine Parker who have also denounced the choice of Palin. Palin's interviews with Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric were frightening. Clearly McCain knows she does not think deeply or clearly about important issues because he does not trust her to handle questions in a press conference. A 72 year old president needs a VP who is ready on day one and McCain did not select one as his running base. He pandered to his base and is probably surprised that many of the most conservative intellectuals have abandoned him due to this choice.

#17 John McCain's continued focus on Bill Ayers is divisive and trivial. It has proven to be a loosing strategy. When McCain brought Ayers up in the debate Obama pointed out that the boards on which they served together were bipartisan, funded by heavy hitters who were Republican! As the inflammatory and misleading "robo" phone calls have continued McCain refuses to denounce them and his numbers keep dropping. As General Powell said, "In trying to connect Senator Obama with a Mr. Ayers John McCain has gone too far" and"Senator McCain is not focusing on what matters to the American people." I think McCain's bank of ideas is so shallow and his ability to lead his party is so weak that he has nothing else to offer except more trivial and divisive rhetoric.

#18 John McCain could very likely make two appointments to the Supreme Court. Given his troubling capitulations to the Republican Party's far right wing we cannot risk who he might appoint to the court.