The Command Post
2004 US Presidential Election
July 18, 2004
Kerry | Kerry Gambling On Negative Perception Of Economy

Kerry is gambling that his negative message about a struggling economy and loss of jobs will resonate despite rising public optimism. The Associated Press reports:

Kerry and Edwards have a bigger selling job than Reagan had in 1980 when he defeated President Carter or Clinton had in 1992 when he beat the first President Bush.

In June 1980, three-fourths of Americans disapproved of Carter’s handling of the economy at a time of rising inflation and little growth.

In June 1992, three-fourths disapproved of the elder Bush’s economic performance when the economy was just starting to revive.

An AP-Ipsos poll this month found that voters were about evenly divided about the current president’s handling of the economy, with 49 percent approving and 50 percent disapproving. Also, consumer confidence has been on the rise.

In a twist on the old Reagan question, those in the AP poll were asked: “Compared to four years ago, is your family’s financial situation better today, worse today or about the same?”

Four in 10 respondents said better, 34 percent said the same and 26 percent said worse.

In July 1992, only one-quarter of Americans said they were doing better than four years earlier.

“By far, Kerry and Edwards have a harder case to make,” said Marlin Fitzwater, a spokesman for Reagan and the elder Bush.

“In 1980, it was a successful argument for President Reagan because everybody in the country felt the weight of the failing economy on a daily basis. It was a truly fearsome reality to see how inflation was taking hold,” Fitzwater said.

From California Yankee.

Posted by Dan Spencer at July 18, 2004 09:44 AM | TrackBack

While there’s really no question as to whether the economy’s improving, I know one quick way to cripple it and send the whole country back to the days of Carter - elect John Kerry.

I’ve heard enough of his spending proposals (more for prescription drugs, $67 billion more for education) and tax increases (canceling all the progress of the last 4 years) to know he wants the entire US to resemble Taxachusetts.

But don’t take my word for it, ask someone from Mass. how wonderful it feels when your entire paycheck goes to pay for grandpa’s Viagra. Ask them about the wonderful services and incredible schools that every single one of them enjoys.

And ask yourself this one question:


If the answer is a firm and resounding NO!, then John Kerry’s your man. Now get out there and vote!!!

Posted by: torpedo_eight [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2004 11:05 AM


You must have missed the 500 billion dollars Medical Spending under the Bush administration.

Posted by: Dody Gunawinata [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2004 01:12 PM

Dody, There’s no doubt that the Bush administration is spending us into the ground. With that in mind, everything Kerry proposes is ON TOP of what’s been spent. Apparently the billions and billions down the rathole of public education isn’t enough for Kerry - he wants more.

He wants more military, more aid, more health benefits, more SS benefits - and now obesity is an illness?

Posted by: torpedo_eight [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2004 05:24 PM

It doesn’t seem to matter what topic Kerry decides to campaign on, it has become apparent that they will lie and spin regardless, and the media will be right there to assist them in any way possible.

To change horses in the middle of THIS stream, would be suicidal.

Posted by: No Party [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2004 05:40 PM

I am as fiscally conservative as any Republican.

However, NO DEMOCRAT and no one here (including Dody, sorry but it’s True) displays the guts or economic knowledge to state a TRUISM.

1) The deficits are a VERY SMALL as a part of the Gross National Product ( and are declining)!

2) Tax reduction worked to produce long term growth under both Kennedy and Reagan. Those structural changes under Reagan carried over into and were a major factor of growth in the 1990’s.

(One example—Reducing Top Tax Rates from the existing 70% and Boy did the Communists HOWL and SCREAM on that. They lost)!!

This proven macro-economic strategy is working again under George W. Bush.

3) The Democratic B.S. on high end tax reform is a deliberate lie that all Democrats MINDLESSLY REPEAT. The facts are simple…. those who pay the majority of Income Taxes should get the most relief.

4) a) The Real Fact that No DEMOCRAT will acknowledge is that their welfare state depends on unjustified class warfare which buys votes with government handouts.

b) In addition, high tax states like N.Y. and Taxachusetts could easily relieve their over-burdened population if they did not tie their Tax Rates to the Feds.

c) Reducing Federal Rates forces those states to reduce the bloat in state government bureacracies. They really hate that!

5) Proposed Solutions:

Federal Taxes:


b) Put a Maximum of some Percentage…. say 10% on all Income from All Sources including Income earned Overseas by business and individuals.

6) Other Taxes:

a) Reduce the consficatory and damaging FICA to a Maximum of 5% and give all Americans MORE IMMEDIATE SPENDABLE CASH in their pockets. (10% More, immediately).

b) Permanently eliminate all Federal and State Estate Taxes.

c) Permanently Eliminate all DOUBLE Taxation of stock dividends

d) Eliminate permanently the “Marriage Penalty”.
There would probably be No Marriage Penalty if all deductions etc. as mentioned above are eliminated.

e) Give a Home Ownership Credit equaling their Down Payment to ALL First Time Home Buyers and apply it to ownership in apartments. HUD and FHA properties, etc., etc. This would be a DIRECT Credit against Federal or State income Taxes, preferably BOTH.

This MUST have a “FIRM 5 year expiration” time frame.

Need I write more? By the way, these are some of the things that those of us with a genuine understanding of what makes economies work are proposing for the administration. Some are parts of proposed laws now.

Posted by: leaddog2 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2004 07:39 PM

leaddog2 - Thanks for the Excellent post!

I’d only add re:

1) The deficits are a VERY SMALL as a part of the Gross National Product (and are declining)!

With the Clinton recession, 9/11, and the War on Terror, the deficit is only 1% higher that at it’s highest point in previous years, AND it’s declining at a faster rate than anticipated.

2) Complaints that the Bush Administration is spending too much seem to be centered around two “new” government programs: prescription drugs and the “No child is left behind” education program. These two initiatives cut the political legs out from under the Democrats and they KNOW it!

However, the LARGEST cost to the government so far is actually in the area of Defense - a) recovery from 9/11; b) fighting the World War on Terror (and it is a World War - no mistake), and c) Homeland Security. Without these very expensive expenditures and the success of these actions, any discussion on the rest of the Federal Budget is a waste of time.

In short, Bush is fighting a war on two fronts - politically at home and militarily abroad. If he doesn’t win the one at home, he won’t be in office to win the one abroad. When it comes down to that choice, I don’t care how much his administration spends to achieve victory.

Posted by: Jim [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2004 09:06 PM

This is what they tried and succeeded with in ‘92 - Anyone else remember the “this is the worst economy since the Great Depression” speeches by Clinton while he was campaigning? Anyone who bothered to actually LOOK at the figures would have seen it was a recession, and a mild one, and that things WEREN‘T terrible and we were about to have 25+% unemployment (and the Dust Bowl, and all that other fun that went with the Great Depression) … but not that many people bothered to do even basic research. And that the recession was essentially over before the elections… that sure didn’t get mentioned, did it?

Will they try the same thing this time? Will people be able to see the BS for what it is? Kerry tries so hard to spin this stuff … I keep lowering my expectations but he just underperforms to new levels.


Posted by: JLL3 [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2004 10:09 PM

..hey;can someone tell me what % is 500 bl of 8 only wish that was my gnp to deficient ratio….

Posted by: Rob_NC [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 18, 2004 11:03 PM

All I have to do is look around to see a strong economy. On Friday afternoons you can’t hardly get on the roads for the campers and boats headed to the lake. Every second truck has a trailer with 2 or 4 ATV’s on it. Land in my area is selling like crazy for recreation and $300.000 homes. One construction company selling outbuildings can’t keep up. In his second year in business he will do nearly $1,000,000. The Ag, and small manufacturing sectors are the strongest in years.

If you own any small business and have half a brain or an accountant with half a brain Bush’s tax cut saved you money. The real gripe the Dems have is that the tax cuts helped businesses, large and small but small more than large because of $caps, more than wage earners. Middle class wage earners didn’t get much of a break, but middle class businesses sure did.

I really can’t beleive that Kerry Edwards will get any traction on this.


Posted by: Chads [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 19, 2004 09:05 AM

The only negative perception will be promoted by the media. Did anyone else see the story on the History Channel last weekend. It was about conspiracies. I’m not one for jumping on conspiracie theories, but SOME of what was said and shown made a lot of sense. Especially the part about the media moguls being members in the once a year meetings of the The Bilderberg Group, an annual convention of Western political and economic elites. It actually does exist. It is thought of as a modern-day Illuminati-style conspiracy by some, where persons with power discuss and arrange control of the world. Sadly, it really makes some bizarre things make sense. Like the liberals and the liberal medias pressure for a socialist society and their one sided negative view of anyone that tries to protect the foundation of the United States. Clinton’s attempt to turn our military over to the UN, etc.

Posted by: No Party [TypeKey Profile Page] at July 19, 2004 11:48 PM

Casino Fortune has offered Donald Trump $400 million for a stake in his casino company.

Posted by: slim [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 6, 2004 04:38 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

Remember me?

(You may use HTML tags for style)