The New ForeignPolicy.com
Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call

McCain calls 'fundamentals of our economy' strong

Mon, 09/15/2008 - 6:02pm

I see that Matt Yglesias is hammering John McCain for saying this morning that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong," and so is Barack Obama (although the latter is conveniently omitting McCain's following remarks, "but these are very, very difficult times."). Watch him here:

It is a pretty tone deaf thing to say on a day when the Dow loses more than 500 points -- its worst session in seven years. And it is looking increasingly false, Donald Luskin's horribly timed best efforts to the contrary.

But still, is what McCain said any different than what Obama might be saying a year from now if he's in the Oval Office and -- as many expect -- things continue to go south? What's he going to tell the American people then? "This economy is going down in flames! Head for the hills and hide the children!"

Blake Hounshell | Permalink |

| Comments? Login or register

( filed under:

Decision '08

)

What are the "fundamentals"?

by kidzib on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 5:21pm

Obama has been making mention of McCain's line on the "fundamentals" of our economy being strong for quite some time now. McCain hasn't stopped using it, so he obviously has a vastly different meaning of the term. Both candidates should be asked in the debates what exactly they mean by "fundamentals." If Obama wants to define the issue ahead of time, he should pre-emptively declare "fundamentals" to be the regulatory underpinnings of the banking and financial sectors. That way, the new congress can pass fresh regulatory measures in early 2009 and President Obama can honestly claim a year from now that the fundamentals are strong once again and the economy is on track to rebound successfully. He can then just wait out the rough patch, take credit for the recovery, and gain a few seats in the Senate in 2010. If the Democrats can increase their number of Senate seats to 57 in this election then they will be in very good shape to secure a filibuster-proof majority in the next midterm elections.

McCain just pre-empted...

by kidzib on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 5:59pm

From Ben Smith @ Politico: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/McCain_camp_Fundamentals__American_people.html?showall

"Fundamentals" = "The American people."

Pretty weak if you ask me. Who in their right mind is going to argue that the American people are weak? Other than, you know, Phil Gramm and Donald Luskin...

Obama on "Fundamentals"

by kidzib on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 6:34pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IW_LzurwsGM

Fundamentals for Obama are family savings, low unemployment, etc. Stronger than McCain's definition for sure, but still not completely developed.

well, I am an Obama

by Sam on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 6:18pm

well, I am an Obama supporter but I shall say I am so embarrassed by the way he is leading his campaign these days. He should start talking about what he would do, if he was in the Office This Morning, what he would do, what decisions he would have made. who he would have talked to, and how he would have addressed the American People about it. This is what a leader should do, not attacking his opponent who has nothing to do with what is happening now. and the irony is, McCain among all republicans is the most centrist, most close to democrats that we could have had on the republican ticket.

not true

by kidzib on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 6:39pm

The Obama campaign is one of the slickest and best managed campaigns in American history. McCain is the 5th most conservative Senator in the United States (95th of 100): http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/lib_senator_ratings-2007.html

Yes but

by Lure D. Lou on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 9:24pm

if Obama doesn't get out in front of events such as those that happened today then he will surely lose momentum and credibility....Blaming McCain for the economic crisis is a non-starter...individual Senators have little weight compared with the Fed and the gangster MBAs who have looted the treasury...why is it that the Dems always nominate Bambi to do battle with the big bad Republican wolves? Obama needs to connect the dots from Bush Economic policies to the fact that milk and gas costs twice as much as they did when he took office...problem is to avoid tripping over Clintonomics.

Bottom line: the economy is never coming back to where it was....which candidate has the guts to say it and to tell us what we need to do about it.

That is a key problem I have

by jgarzik on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 10:51pm

That is a key problem I have with both campaigns, and why I am seriously considering the option of not voting for either candidate.

Neither Obama nor McCain is leading; neither is enumerating with emphasis the major callenges we will face in the next 4-8 years: Potential loss of American hegemony, the rise of China and India, the American demographic and entitlement crisis, a potentially-global recession, and dealing with climate change.

On that last, note I said "dealing with" climate change; even in the most rosy estimates where all American environmentalists' demands are met, climate change will still be with us and with other peoples of the world. It is inexcusable not to vocally recognize this, and prepare populations for nasty storms and other fun our ever-changing Earth throws our way.

no global Warming?

by gabeh73 on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 12:51pm

so your abandoning global warming all together and going with cliamte change now? How comical.

I'm not sure I understand

by jgarzik on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 3:13pm

I'm not sure I understand your comment?

My point was that neither Obama nor McCain seems to be doing much thinking about dealing with the effects of climate change.

Obama's crowd crows "stop global warming", which is silly because you cannot stop climate change.

McCain's crowd crows "global warming doesn't exist", which is silly because climate change has always existed, and an increasing body of evidence demonstrates that man has had an additional effect on climate change, on top of the normal sources (volcanos, sun, weather effects, etc.)

Neither talks much at all about the practical reality of the situation: some populations will endure the effects of climate change, even assuming theoretically that we solve all worldwide pollution problems tomorrow.

Populations will be forced to migrate inland, or elsewhere. Crops will wither in some areas, and thrive in new areas, stressing food distribution networks and potentially populations. Competition over basic water resources will increase.

All this will occur regardless of any/all environmental efforts of man, and we should be prepared.

(Note on tone: I'm not trying to fortell wild disasters here; merely noting that some climate effects are inevitable, and that the US presidential candidates are not admitting this basic fact)

McCain is for cap and trade

by gabeh73 on Wed, 09/17/2008 - 9:21am

McCain has repeatedly said "global warming is a real problem, I'm for cap and trade"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgYxXO0aZb4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQMxIwpK_es

Obama has repeatedly said he is in favor of cap and trade.

so your characterization of the two is not accurate. They are actually pretty similar.

Now that the evidecne coming in keeps refuting "human made CO2 as the causal factor in global warming" and in fact temperatures have gotten cooler for almost a decade now...the people who wished to use "global warming hysteria" to start massive new government regulations,global carbon taxes in any form and steps toward world governence have changed tactics and now recite the talking point dogma of "climate change". Similar to the "war on terror" a war on climate change and a war on drugs can never be won and can always be used to justify more relinquishing of individual rights if you have enough idiots who buy into the premise.

Bloomberg

by Paul Gauthier on Mon, 09/15/2008 - 10:10pm

Mayor Bloomberg:

"I do agree that fundamentally America has an economy that is strong," he said. "America’s great strength is its diversity, its hard work, its good financial statements, its broad capital markets,its enormous natural resources" and its work ethic, he said.

"I'd rather play America's hand than any other country," he said. "Without problems? No."

Come Now

by RufusJSquirrel on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 12:56am

I don't expect the president or a presidential candidate to paint things in an excessively negative light. But I don't expect them to yammer on about fundamentals being strong when they're clearly not. You have Fingar saying we're heading for steady decline (for perfectly good reasons we can already see at work), the financial markets coming apart at the seams and real wages heading south for nearly a decade.

It's not hell in a handbasket but it also definitely isn't "strong". I agree that things are being a little overplayed - and I am always about six months behind being comfortable with predictions - but things are not exactly looking good. To pretend otherwise does absolutely no one any good.

What we're looking for here is a solution. And if you can't even see a real problem, how are you going to fix it?

Morale

by jgarzik on Tue, 09/16/2008 - 3:16pm

It is difficult to balance between explaining the reality of the situation, and convincing people not to lose all hope.

McCain would be under fire for insulting the American populace if he describes the fundamentals of America (note, I excluded the word "economy") as weak.

It's also true that the current crisis disproportionately impacts financial services; you don't see huge layoffs and collapses in the tech, industrial, and health care sectors for example.