McCain says today that Phil Gramm doesn't speak for him when he calls the United States a "nation of whiners" suffering from a "mental recession" but today is also the day that McCain sent Phil Gramm to speak for him to the Wall Street Journal editorial board. There whole question of whether or not the current economic downturn is real or else some kind of mass hallucination doesn't strike me as a minor economic policy issue -- if McCain doesn't agree with his top economics surrogates about it, he probably needs a new team.
« Sexy Names Watch | Main | Why John McCain is So Awful »
Who Speaks for John McCain
10 Jul 2008 04:28 pm
Comments (25)
McCain can't even remember well enough to agree with McCain on anything. His opinions are strictly whore de jour.
McCain says today that Phil Gramm doesn't speak for him when he calls the United States a "nation of whiners" suffering from a "mental recession"...The whole question of whether or not the current economic downturn is real or else some kind of mass hallucination doesn't strike me as a minor economic policy issue
I think it's really only the "nation of whiners" line that sent McCain scurrying to distance himself. Gramm and McCain seem to be generally aligned on overall story: a lot of people are suffering because gas prices are high and the housing market is in the crapper, but we're not in a recession yet and the fundamental outlook for the economy is strong.
Gramm was taking a somewhat more pollyanna-ish angle on it today, but I don't think there is any fundamental disagreement here; Gramm according to the Wash Times "expects Mr. McCain to inherit a sluggish economy if he wins the presidency" and said "We may have a recession; we haven't had one yet".
McCain doesn't do new.
"whether or not the current economic downturn is real or else some kind of mass hallucination"
Does it really make a difference? If people believe there's a downturn, they will act in a way that creates a downturn. In economics, perception pretty much is reality. So I'm not really sure what Phil Gramm is talking about. Especially since his wife worked for Enron, where there was no distinction whatsoever between perception and reality. And when perception turned, so did Enron's fortunes.
This kills McCain on the economy, right? It shows that he surrounds himself with people that hold a view much more closer to the Bush administration than any shift to compassion and concern over the crisis recently exhibited by McCain.
http://www.political-buzz.com/
McCain doesn't do new.
Does McCain agree with any of his econ advisors? If so, which ones? McCain and Holtz-Eakin were on totally different pages for their deficit reduction sloganeering a few days ago. What happened with that?
The real problem is that John McCain doesn't seem to know what his policies are, let alone what his advisers' policies are.
Who speaks for John McCain?
We can't know in advance.
Speaking of 'who speaks for McCain?', how many of those 300 economists who signed on to a brief, general policy statement months ago agree with their names being tacked onto detailed policy mumbo-jumbo proposals they have never seen?
That sound like a kind of campaign fraud to me. If it is, sounds like good cablenews fodder to me.
Anyone get around to checking with them.
Kevin Drum asked recently, I wanna know.
Some of McCain's "base" would rather I accept Whatever he says and ignore the truth. Or sweep it all under the rug, because an Obama story will sell better. Or better yet, maybe I should just chuckle at Mccain's ill conceived "wit" and forget he wants to continue Bush's destructive policies.
However, I did not find it amusing when McCain dodged Karen Tumulty's critical question about Gramm by suggesting he'd send him to Belarus.
Mccain was traipsing all over this country during the primaries touting dr. phil's excellent opinions. Now Gramm doesn't speak for him? I guess he doesn't have a prominent role in his economic agenda either? And how would we ever believe Gramm wouldn't be a prominent member of a potential McCain administration? How dishonest is this all going to get?
I admit some is faux outrage, but more of it is accumulated frustration with journalists who won't hold this McCain campaign accountable.
I mean, contrast the coverage of the Jesse Jackson nonsense to this! It's remarkable.
If we're not technically in a recession right now, it's more because of the constant tweaking of CPI which makes inflation look lower, which in turn makes real GDP look better.
If we used the similar calculations to those used in the 1970s, we'd be solidly in a recession. But back then, CPI figures were a lot more realistic. Today, they're weighted to look better than they should no matter what.
Phil Gramm doesn't speak for John McCain.
In other news, the Cossacks don't work for the Czar, the apple falls far from the tree, and the swallows have no idea how to get to Capistrano.
Hey Yglesias, your old (redirect) site isn't working. Maybe didn't pay the bills?
Anyone up for a cable talk show with Phil Gramm and
Wesley Clark taking turns not speaking for their candidates?
Before she lost her head, didn't Marie Antoinette once hold an attitude remarkably similar to Gramm's? Something about cake?
This isn't just posturing. It's how many of the economic elite actually think. So long as their share of the pie is increasing, the economy really is doing just fine and anyone who disagrees can just shut up.
This is why anybody who argues that an Iran war can't happen because the oil spike would be disastrous for the US economy doesn't realize the reality.
The people who control the power don't care what happens to you. They aren't going to be inconvenienced no matter what oil costs. They're going to profit much more by the war than any extra expense they may have to pay - and most of them won't pay anything more because it's paid for them by the US taxpayer.
You think a Senator pays for his own gas?
Get serious.
Do you have a proof reader? - obviously not but you really should get someone to look over your posts before you post them - there or their - pretty basic and it undermines your posts when you make such mistakes. Hey, we all do it from time to time but I would hope that working for The Atlantic required some basic standards.
Hey, we all do it from time to time but I would hope that working for The Atlantic required some basic standards.
It doesn't.
Poor Matt, getting trashed all the time for typos and failures to proofread. You'd think by now he'd get it and spent a minute or two looking over his writing. But then maybe he doesn't read the comments.
Oops! Poking fun at somebody for typos and then making one myself. Sigh. "spend," not "spent."
"They're going to profit much more by the war than any extra expense they may have to pay - and most of them won't pay anything more because it's paid for them by the US taxpayer"
You've hit on the fundamental reality of of how the world works. Too bad that few of us can see it. But some of us make money off it.
"But then maybe he doesn't read the comments."
He doesn't. He's said so.
He doesn't give a rat's ass about this blog or he'd get off his fat ass and call his bosses and complain about the fucking server errors that produce fifteen redundant posts in every fucking thread.
Matt just doesn't give a shit that all this makes him look like a moron.
Comments closed July 24, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Surely there will be as much noise in the media about this as when Obama's Austan Goolsbee supposedly went to Canada to spin on NAFTA (which turned out to be a completely misleading story, but still). Or when Obama used the word "bitter". Right?
Posted by El Cid | July 10, 2008 4:34 PM