"It takes X years for a president's economic policies to take effect!"

Where X is, of course, a variable.

I just thought I'd remind everyone of that, because if Obama wins and there's an economic boom, we'll be told that it's all the result of Dubya's brilliant policies, just as the bad economy during Dubya's years was the effect of Clinton's policies, and the good times under Clinton were the effect of Reagan's policies, and the bad times under Reagan were Jimmy Carter's fault. Making this argument requires that X be a very fluid variable.

They never mention the other variable, Y, the one that explains how the economic upturn that began at the end of Jimmy Carter's term and continued into the beginning of Reagan's first term was all due to the wisdom of Saint Ronnie, but I'm sure that Y is hidden in there somewhere.

Be prepared for this.

Since a blind monkey with a lobotomy would be able to do a better job then the gang of incompetent criminals there now.

Which would, of course, enable the Dubya supporters to give him credit for it.

Not that there will be many Dubya supporters left by then.

That's because they automagically "kick in" AFTER a GOP term.

And the opposite is true for Democratic policies.

This is what I've learned from RW nutcases.

I was willing to accept it for a while, but then it was like well the guy has been in office for 7 years now, surely his policies have had time to take effect.

Then I thought, what the economy needs is a blow job every once in a while to keep it happy.

whatever you want it to equal as long as it justifies putting the blame for screw-ups on the opposition. And since it can't be proven, it can't be disproven, either.

Political logic is so convenient that way.