I'll publish the text of my comment to this risible conjecture here for posterity's sake:
The problem Mr. Cooper alleges for President Obama's economic policies is the problem President Bush encountered vis-a-vis terrorism. Because there were no large-scale terrorist attacks on American soil month after month the threat slipped further from people's minds. Somehow the MSM never credited Mr. Bush on that account.
However, the reasoning w/rt Obama's poll declines cannot hold. First, there has not been a month after month series of good economic news to encourage the notion that Obama's policies are working. The projections of several months ago have only gotten worse on unemployment and capacity utilization. That has happened in spite of the promises the Obama Administration made regarding the efficacy of their plans.
Additionally, the fiscal stimulus set upon by the Democrats has barely taken hold. There are no "shovel-ready" projects of import available due to bureaucratic holdups.
Therefore, the lack of even more negative news (e.g. systemic failure) has been generated by the monetary policies that the politically independent Fed has taken. Since Obama cannot claim those were his policies without admitting the politicization of the Fed, it seems highly dubious to credit Obama with their successes, such as they are.
What is interesting is that the JournoList would test this trial balloon for explaining Obama's dip in the polls when Occam's Razor suggests otherwise. But keep up the good fight. Pravda and Izvestia would be proud.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment