Politics Blog

The dictionary definition of an economic “recession” is two consecutive quarters of negative annualized GDP growth. In addition, professional economists also would consider a two-quarter period of extremely weak growth, which is then bracketed by a negative quarter, to be a “recession,” even though, technically, the “two consecutive negative quarters” mantra would not have been met. For example, there’s no question in any economist’s mind that the country experienced a recession back in 1990, even though there was only a single quarter, that year, in which negative real GDP growth was posted.

Anyway, on to the real gist of this post:

We all heard the laments regarding the “Bush recession” from liberals, partisan Democrats, and the “mainstream media,” remember? And, of course, it was frustrating to have to sit there and take it. Bush inherited a rapidly-degenerating economy (that’s not a statement of fault, mind you; it’s just historical fact), and the complete bursting of the dot com bubble, in September 2000, made things even worse.

Well, as it turns out, there never was a recession under George W. Bush!

The BEA has completed its standard, comprehensive retrospective on the country’s macroeconomic data for the past few years. And the results, you ask?

Real GDP Growth (annualized):

Q1 - 2001 = (.50)
Q2 - 2001 = 1.2
Q3 - 2001 = (1.4)
Q4 - 2001 = 1.6
Q1 - 2002 = 3.4
Q2 - 2002 = 2.4
Q3 - 2002 = 2.6
Q4 - 2002 = .70
Q1 - 2003 = 1.9
Q2 - 2003 = 4.1
Q3 - 2003 = 7.4
Q4 - 2003 = 4.2
Q1 - 2004 = 4.5
Q2 - 2004 = 3.0

There’s no freakin’ recession there!

I’ll be waiting anxiously for the stream of corrections (or at least the explanatory “clarifications") from our “mainstream media” outlets. For obvious reasons, however, I won’t be holding my breath.

Note: Fact checkers proceed here.

-- Jayson

The Bush campaign still hasn’t answered the one question they have to.

-- PoliPundit

Yesterday, Roger L. Simon had a moving story about his father and their conversations about Vietnam and how the Democratic convention made him think about those. He wonders, if his father were alive today, what he would have thought of the Democratic party on stage in Boston. It is a lovely tribute to his father, and it really made me think about how much the Democratic party has changed in such a short time – and not for the better.

-- Lorie Byrd

Cross Your Fingers Everyone…

Scott Rasmussen has the race closing from a three point to a one point Kerry lead.

Newsweek, which had Kerry up two before the convention, now has Kerry up seven…however, if you adjust the numbers to the 2000 turnout, the two candidates are only three points apart.

If oil prices fall this week and payrolls come in as expected, then August could be our best month in a while.

-- Alexander K. McClure

Betsy’s Page has an excerpt from an informative piece by one of my favorites, Fred Barnes, about Bush’s campaign strategy. Betsy observes that Democrats will most likely be grousing about how mean and negative the Republicans are, all the while reaping the benefits of all those anti-Bush ads being run by the Democrat-friendly 527 groups.

-- Lorie Byrd

For those who were not able to see Bush’s speech in Springfield, Missouri yesterday, New England Republican has some great excerpts posted. He also has one of those funny, surprised Hillary pictures posted.

-- Lorie Byrd

I suspect that Zell Miller’s explanation in the Wall Street Journal for why he didn’t attend the Democrats’ convention in Boston is a preview of what his speech to the Republicans in New York will sound like. At least, I sure hope it is.

Today, it’s the Democratic Party that has mastered the art of division and diversion. To run for president as a Democrat these days you have to go from interest group to interest group, cap in hand, asking for the support of liberal kingmakers. Mr. Kerry is no different. After Hollywood elites profaned the president, he didn’t have the courage to put them in their place. Instead, he validated their remarks, claiming that they represent “the heart and soul of America.”

No longer the party of hope, today’s Democratic Party has become Mr. Kerry’s many mansions of cynicism and skepticism. As our economy continues to get better and businesses add jobs, Mr. Kerry’s going around America trying to convince people that the roof is about to cave in. He talks about “the misery index” and the Depression. What does he know about either?

And when it comes to taxes and services, you’d be pressed to find anyone more opposed to the interests of middle-class Americans than John Kerry. Except maybe John Edwards. Both voted against tax relief for married couples, tax relief for families with children, and tax relief for small businesses. Now Mr. Kerry wants to raise taxes on hundreds of thousands of small-business owners and millions of individuals. He claims to be for working people, but I don’t understand how small businesses can create jobs if they’ve got to send more money to Washington instead of keeping it to hire workers.

Worst of all, Sens. Kerry and Edwards have not kept faith with the men and women who are fighting the war on terror–most of whom come from small towns and middle-class families all over America. While Mr. Bush has stood by our troops every step of the way, Messrs. Kerry and Edwards voted to send our troops to war and then voted against the money to give them supplies and equipment–not to mention better benefits for their families. And recently Mr. Kerry even said he’s proud of that vote. Proud to abandon our troops when they’re out in the field? I can hear Harry Truman cussing from his grave.

I still believe in hope and opportunity and, when it comes right down to it, Mr. Bush is the man who represents hope and opportunity. Hope for a safer world. And opportunity for Americans to work hard, keep more of the money they earn, and send their kids to good schools. All the speeches we heard this week weren’t able to hide the truth of what today’s Democratic Party has become: an enclave of elites paying lip service to middle-class values. Americans looking for a president who understands their struggles and their dreams should tune in next month, when we celebrate the leadership of George W. Bush.

-- Lorie Byrd

Heh, heh!

-- PoliPundit

After all the hoopla of the Democratic National Convention and the fun of seeing Kerry in the Teletubby suit, the bleeping botched balloon drop, and Te-Ray-Za’s “shove it” moment, now is probablya good time to remember that there is still a war on and to turn to more serious matters which remind us exactly why it is so important that John Kerry never be elected President of the United States. Terrorism Unveiled does a great job of monitoring the news from the Middle East, and other stories about the war on terror in general, that other outlets don’t pay much attention. This is one story I found there that I had not seen anywhere else.

-- Lorie Byrd

So, I drove my SHO Taurus to Big-O to get some new tires. And I’m just sitting there with nothing to do. And then I saw this GQ magazine lying around. So, I picked it up and started scrolling through it. It was the December 2003 issue. And I was minding my own business. Just flipping through the pages. Checking out the ads and the pictures of the sexy models. And then I froze. I stopped dead in my tracks. And . . . .

I laughed out loud!

Why?

I stumbled across an article on Gen. Wesley Clark. The title, you ask? “General Electric.” The byline? Well, put down whatever you might be drinking before I say it. Okay? Good. The byline of the article was . . .

Wesley Clark looks an awful lot like a Democratic savior: A mainstream progressive with military bona fides and the cojones to take on a flag-hugging President. Of course, there’s also the little issue of his never having run for anything in his entire life

I’m not going to bother wasting bandwidth Fisking this nonsense. In so many ways it actually Fisks itself. But I’m blogging on this for a real reason:

Kael Syndrome is not just a glib phrase that I throw out there to try to look cool. It’s an actual state of being for millions of Americans; many of whom are editors, reporters, or writers for “mainstream media” outlets. These people work almost exclusively with and around liberal Democrats. They go to cocktail parties solely with liberal Democrats. They dine almost exclusively with liberal Democrats. Many of them never have had an in-depth conversation with a conservative, unless it related to a work assignment or some other non-social setting. Simply put, they’re divorced from mainstream America – and just plain reality, to be blunt and truthful about it – to a point of outright absurdity!

And, believe you me, the parallel universe in which they reside is about to get much, much colder.

-- Jayson