Today's job numbers show the need to "be real" this year

Today's job numbers show the dangers of the centrist strategy of staying on the surface of "The Economy" and "Jobs" as an issue.

One of the basic issues in the recent primaries was between the movement for a progressive populist message that addresses core problems beyond Bush, and the centrist approach of "look at how bad Bush has done with the economy."

These job figures are meaningless in the big picture. But if things keep improving in the sense of quarterly employment forecasts, Bush will be able to effectively neuter the Democratic chances. All he has to do is gloat and point to the numbers and say "See? I really do know what I'm doing. Them Democrats is just complaining fer political reasons."

And a lot of moderates are going to buy it.

The only way to have a chance to really sell a Democratic agenda is to talk about what is really happening and offer a progressive alternative that acknowledges and deals with the core issues like corporate power, anti-trust, workers' rights and other ways the economy has been distorted over the last 25 years.

That is all. Fire when ready Griddley.

It is the whole bag or worms I dislike.The Rep always use the good figures and we use the bad for elections.

by discussing the larger issues...
I am listening to CNN spin right now :puke:

We better decide what issues we are strongest on and repeat them over & over...make bush jump to our tune...not the other way around.....

kinda like Dennis...he has just stuck to the issues ....

I wish.........*sigh* ................

Peace
DR

I said this on an earlier thread to a chorus of deaf ears.

Good luck.

O

a good one?

Increase in Temp jobs of 300k is equal to toal increase of 300k - so no new full time jobs.

Economist Mag says overstated by 100k.

Service Job - MCJob - is the Bush future - and this is not an issue?

Outsourcing is good is Bush mantra - and we can not point out the lie?

GDP growth and base numbers fit a 2% growth world - per Goldman/Sachs economists - and we can't point out the Bush credibility gap?

As the economist mag said today, folks will believe when they see their neighbors and themselves better off - and that is not going to happen with Bush in office.


corporate power, anti-trust, workers' rights go right over most folks heads - and are trumped by a 30 second lie in an ad by Bush or his 527 friends - and since the media is owned by the GOP these days - Kerry must keep it simple - Kerry will get 10 seconds for every 60 seconds the media gives Bush, and the jobs issue can be done in 10 seconds.

I say ride the jobs issue through out the whole of the election!

Now was that a flame!????

peace

:-)

Like the third quarter GDP number, this is an outlier.

All the more reason to stay on the "Bush Knew" attack until we win in November. We now have AA, Hollywood and many others backing up the "Bush Knew" mantra so maybe we should ramp it up a bit. Why not get moveon to place a gauntlet of "Bush Knew" spots until middle America finally "gets it"?

Maybe it's time to introduce middle America to MIHOP too?

>>I say ride the jobs issue through out the whole of the election!<<


I dfon;t disagree. But it depends on how the jobs issue is defined. As you correctly pointed out, it's not just a raw numbers game.

It's what's happened to the nature of jobs, among otehgr factors, that matters. And Bush can't be solely blamed for that. It's been going on fopr a long time.

I'd very much like to not find out just how dangerous the centrist "hydroplaning" electoral agenda is without Clinton and a roaring tech boom to back it up.

Eventually, many of the things that the weirdos on the left have been screaming about for years will be taken as gospel truth by the mainstream pols (who will, no doubt, take full credit for having discovered the problem). Thing is, that kind of "fringe"-to-mainstream migration usually only takes place after things are too far along to do much about them.

Not saying anything you don't already know, of course. I'm trying out a new, "low-bile" political direction, so I think I'll go have a drink or nine and try to convince myself that all we have to do is let Bush implode under the weight of his own hubris.

Good to see you still around, Armstead. :hi:

Bush claiming credit for the recovery is like a rooster claiming credit for making the sun rise.

The fact is, a recovery was inevitable, with or without tax cuts. It just so happens that this recovery has been slower and weaker than usual. And, thanks to the Bush tax cuts, we will be facing massive structural deficits for years to come.

Compare this to what Clinton did. Clinton inherited an economy that was much weaker than the one Bush inherited. Clinton had to deal with huge deficits -- Bush was the first president in over three decades to inherit a surplus. Unemployment levels were higher when Clinton took office than when Bush took office. Now Clinton may not have been responsible for the economic recovery of the 1990s, but he managed it far better than any Republican president has done. He reduced the deficit, began paying off the national debt, and instilled confidence in the economy, which resulted in the longest period of economic expansion in history. A virtual cycle of low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment. Contract this with Bush, who has very little to show for motgaging this country's future on a multitrillion dollar tax cut.