A Phrase for Obama: "The McCain-Bush Economy"

posted by John Nichols on 10/13/2008 @ 11:44am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (37)

Subscribe Now

The new Washington Post-ABC News poll is out, and the numbers are astounding.

No, we're not talking about Barack Obama's lead, although let's be clear that a 53-42 advantage over John McCain among likely voters -- and an even stronger 54-41 lead among registered voters -- is impressive.

But those numbers simply confirm an advantage that has been consistent ever since the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates put convention theatrics -- including GOP vice presidential pick Sarah Palin -- behind them are started debating. In fact, the Real Clear Politics "poll-of-polls" give Obama an only marginally less-striking 7 point lead over McCain.

What is astounding is the right-direction/wrong-direction question.

Pollsters frequently ask something along the lines of this WP-ABC inquiry: "Do you think things in this country (are generally going in the right direction) or do you feel things (have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track)?"

First, let's get some perspective:

Going into the 2004 presidential election, the split was 41 percent "right direction," 55 percent "wrong direction." Hardly pop-the-corks numbers, but fair enough for an incumbent party. And George Bush held onto the White House, while Republicans kept the Congress.

Going into the 2006 congressional elections, the split was 30 percent "right direction," 68 percent "wrong direction." When more than two-thirds of Americans say things have gone awry, that's good news for the opposition party. And it was that year, as Democrats retook the House and Senate and expanded their hold on governorships.

O.K. so where do the numbers stand this year?

With just three weeks to go until the election, only 8 percent of Americans say their country is headed in the "right direction."

For the first time in the history of the WP-ABC poll, 90 percent say "wrong direction."

In the depths of the the mid-70s downturn and recession -- when the country was also dealing with a little crisis called "Watergate" -- only 75 percent said "wrong direction" on the eve of the 1974 election when voters severely punished Republicans who then controlled the White House.

In the angriest election in recent American history, the 1992 contest between Republican President George H.W. Bush, Democrat Bill Clinton and Reform (no, it's not a new word) Party candidate Ross Perot, the "wrong direction" number on the eve of the election was 76 percent.

So let's understand one thing: Americans are prepared, at an unprecedented level, to vote for a radical shift in direction.

And let's understand something else: American wants that shift to be away from the direction in which McCain supporter, fund-raiser and fellow partisan George W. Bush has been steering the ship of state.

Bush's approval rating has sunk to the lowest level in his tenure.

Only 23 percent, less than a quarter, of Americans approve of the president's handling of his job. A mere 7 percent "strongly approve" of Bush, while a stunning 58 percent "strongly disapprove."

The sources of that disapproval are many.

But one issue now tops all others: the economy.

At the start of the year, economic concerns were in competition with worries about the war in Iraq for top billing -- 29 percent economy, 20 percent Iraq.

Now, 53 percent of those surveyed say the economy is "the single most important issue in your choice for president."

Only 6 percent say Iraq.

Barely 1 percent mentions the issue that the right tried to put on the agenda this year: immigration.

So let's put the pieces together:

* 9 out of every 10 Americans say the country is headed in the wrong direction.

* What's got them bugged? It's the economy, stupid.

* Who do they think screwed things up? George Bush.

* Who voted with George Bush 90 percent of the time? Who backed Bush's rush to deregulate, to free up trade and to otherwise leave working Americans economically defenseless? John McCain

Add the answers up and the results are as devastating as the new polls numbers.

The McCain campaign knows this.

That's why the Republican nominee, his aides (a group that includes former White House political czar Karl Rove and most of his team) and and their media echo chamber is working overtime to come up with another issue, another concern, another anything: Bill Ayears, ACORN, the New Party, race, ethnicity.

The Democratic nominee should let others counter the smears.

For the next three weeks, Obama should repeat the mantra that matters:

"The Bush-McCain economy..."

Comments (37)

it's the stupid economy...

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/13/2008 @ 11:57am
And that one other pesky approval rating:

CONGRESS

at 9% (that's NINE percent)

But 9 is good if you must be in the single digits.

Posted by bleedingheart at 10/13/2008 @ 12:00pm
"only 8 percent of Americans say their country is headed in the "right direction."

Wow...so most of them are HERE!...LOL

LVLIB, PONTI, HAPPY, Darin, RED/RIO....

and of course bleedingheart in his "super-secret disguise as a Naderite!"

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/13/2008 @ 12:07pm
mask,

check this out:

HTTP://WWW.WLWT.COM/VIDEO/17686606/INDEX.HTML

™™™™ SURREAL ™™™™

<i>it's the eye of the tiger, it's the cream of the fight

risin' up to the challenge of our rival and the last known survivor stalks his prey in the night

and he's watchin' us all in the eye of the tiger

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/13/2008 @ 12:13pm
The 9% congressional approval rating is amazing. Double compound - the die hard party liners on the right just have a generic hate for the D majority. The people who elected the dem congress to end the war got stuck in the Pelosi/Reid runaround.

I'm a lefty, and I lean Democrat as the lesser of two evils in our corporatocracy, but Pelosi is a disgrace. She needs to get swept away with all of the other garbage. If you live in Frisco, please vote Sheehan.

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/13/2008 @ 12:17pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/13/2008 @ 12:13pm

McCain/Palin better watch it...

everytime they get a new rock theme song...

the band that sang it tells them to cease and desist!

LOL

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/13/2008 @ 12:20pm
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/13/2008 @ 12:17pm

Sorry, HAL, ain't happening. And by 2010, the fervor over Sheehan will be even less.

Obama wins he props up Pelosi for his entire term. If McCain wins, that may be the only good news...Dems will want a REAL pitbull to go against him as Speaker and Pelosi will "retire to spend more time with her grandchildren"!

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/13/2008 @ 12:22pm
Your article is appropriately named but your perception is COMPLETELY WRONG. Nobody wants to admit that Black people vote for Black candidates. It's not racism, it's a fact. The other dirty little secret is when white voters realize this, most will back Hillary. Hillary will win New York and California. Obama will get all of the Black vote and a smattering of the white, Clinton will get the rest. What people say in front of the camera and write on paper is one thing, what they do in the privacy of a voting booth is another. As strange as it may seem, "Flyover country" and the deep south will give Obama hope but the liberal strongholds will give him a ticket back to the senate.

Posted by bleedingheart at 01/30/2008

So..... Was someone from Obama's campaign behind the scenes assuring Rev.Wright this was simply Obama's public stance, that his true ideals hadn't changed? Like the NAFTA/Canadians situation...

Posted by bleedingheart at 03/18/2008 @ 4:00pm

This article is just WRONG! The media is pro-Obama. Nothing would make the press happier or increase advertising revenue more than "THE-FIRST-AFRICIAN-AMERICAN-PRESIDENT"! The Clintons are old news, the establishment wants new blood. Just read the articles on THIS site! No dude, Obama will be the next president even if vanden Heuvel has to follow each and every one of us into the voting booth to make sure!

Posted by bleedingheart at 02/08/2008

Way to KVH. A day late and a dollar short! Interesting you didn't publish this while the media, including THE NATION!, were beating Hillary bloody. HYPOCRITE!

Posted by bleedingheart at 06/04/2008 @ 08:26am

IS B.H. FRANK?!?!???!?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/13/2008 @ 12:35pm
I want socialized medicine, just like Fidel!!

Posted by bleedingheart at 02/19/2008 @ 8:17pm

OR PONTI?!?!?!?!

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/13/2008 @ 12:36pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/13/2008 @ 12:22pm

You're right, of course, about Obama and Pelosi. Sad, but true. So...a pitbull if McCain wins? Kucinich?

Posted by HAL9000 at 10/13/2008 @ 12:52pm
Posted by HAL9000 at 10/13/2008 @ 12:52pm

No, likely Hoyer, Pelosi's #2.

Mind you, again,, this will only happen if McCain wins. With Obama, Obama will set the agenda and Pelosi will simply be the face of the House. Any trouble getting votes, Obama will speak directly to "waverers" and maybe be gracious and let Pelosi take some credit.

But there's practically nobody that thinks Nancy Pelosi is a good Speaker, I think she even lost DARLADOON sometime back.

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/13/2008 @ 12:58pm
Your prejudice is showing JOHN NICHOLS:

George Washington could be President right now and only an idiotic minority would consider the current turmoil "the right direction." Please stop offering falacious arguements to manipulate us into your way of thinking. Its unbecoming of a journalist and most of us already don't like Bush anyway:and besides, we are smarter than that.

Chip

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/13/2008 @ 2:02pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/13/2008 @ 2:02pm

Oh, right, CHIP, because "none of this is Bush's fault"...right?

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/13/2008 @ 3:23pm
Chip,

Is there no relationship between the policies advocated by President Bush and our current "wrong direction"? It's not all a coincidence.

Posted by Be Good at 10/13/2008 @ 3:32pm
Hey RED/RIO....who controlled Congress in 2006?

The "Undemocrats"?!?!?!

Posted by Maskdelta at 10/13/2008 @ 4:17pm
When you hire a guy, like Bush,who failed at business it is understandable that he would lead us into economic problems.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/13/2008 @ 4:24pm
It is catchy but not very original. But the bigger problem is that it's a lie. Thanks, Mr. Nichols, for the trite little column of garbage.

Posted by whysoangry at 10/13/2008 @ 4:48pm
I am not sure which is the worse crime here, the supremely poor editing job done on the article or the assertion that blame for the current mess of money and credit can be placed at the feet of President Bush and Senator McCain. I will opt for the former since Mr. Nichols isn't asserting the latter per se. He is simply pointing out that America is not smart enough to see through Senator Obama using the argument as a ruse to get you to support him. You should be angry at yourselves for being suckered in since the blame in this case is patently misplaced. President's fault? Not even maybe. Congress' fault? Sickeningly so, if blame of gov't there must be, but you're labeling the wrong goat. Republicans and Democrats FAILED to act years ago. It so happens that Senator McCain and 19 others saw it coming but FAILED to persuade their colleagues on BOTH sides of the aisle. Add to this that WE Americans lost our own way, got soft, got spoiled, forgot the Republic and voted ourselves into entitlement and comfort. For this we should be cowed. For this Congress should be summarily fired. The truth is that there is no good choice this time around. Pick who is in your view the "lesser of evils." Vote for him on the merits of that decision, not because you want someone to blame.

Posted by Aikiwi87 at 10/13/2008 @ 4:57pm
I am not sure which is the worse crime here, the supremely poor editing job done on the article or the assertion that blame for the current mess of money and credit can be placed at the feet of President Bush and Senator McCain. I will opt for the former since Mr. Nichols isn't asserting the latter per se. He is simply pointing out that America is not smart enough to see through Senator Obama using the argument as a ruse to get you to support him. You should be angry at yourselves for being suckered in since the blame in this case is patently misplaced. President's fault? Not even maybe. Congress' fault? Sickeningly so, if blame of gov't there must be, but you're labeling the wrong goat. Republicans and Democrats FAILED to act years ago. It so happens that Senator McCain and 19 others saw it coming but FAILED to persuade their colleagues on BOTH sides of the aisle. Add to this that WE Americans lost our own way, got soft, got spoiled, forgot the Republic and voted ourselves into entitlement and comfort. For this we should be cowed. For this Congress should be summarily fired. The truth is that there is no good choice this time around. Pick who is in your view the "lesser of evils." Vote for him on the merits of that decision, not because you want someone to blame.

Posted by Aikiwi87 at 10/13/2008 @ 4:58pm
Apologies for the double tap.

Posted by Aikiwi87 at 10/13/2008 @ 5:10pm
lvliberty-Many of the new democrats in congress are conservative democrats.Interesting fact.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/13/2008 @ 6:53pm
>>>"The Bush-McCain economy..."<<<

I like that, JOHN NICHOLS!

THE BUSH-MCCAIN ECONOMY!!!

THE BUSH-MCCAIN ECONOMY!!!

THE BUSH-MCCAIN ECONOMY!!!

Posted by Metteyya at 10/13/2008 @ 6:56pm
It did take more than Bush to get us into this mess,but Bush does have a history of failing at business and spent too much time borrowing and spending us into a massive debt and is,in great part,responsible for this mess.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/13/2008 @ 7:02pm
Why do we keep stepping over the big big alligator in the middle of the floor? We have de industrialized the country, Oreck can't do by himself. Here is a simple bumper sticker "Sell it here build it here". We have legalized previously criminal behavior, shipped jobs to china and now borrowing money from them for our wars. We have been channeling Ghengis Kahn and electing plutocrats with fascist tendencies. Let's electe the intelligent guy this time.

Posted by lachatte at 10/13/2008 @ 7:21pm
Comrades! Rejoice! Tomorrow, the government begins the process of wresting control of 5 major banks from the greedy grasp of the capitalist pigs. When Dear Leader Barack takes the oath of office, he'll also take the keys to Well Fargo, BofA, Citi, Mellon, and State Street. With control of the banks, Dear Leader will control all industry! The glorious workers councils are forming now! Let all voices proclaim the new Socialist States of mid-North America. Capitalists beware. The righteous anger of the oppressed will not be appeased. The wealth redistribution squads will be trained soon, and will appear in your neighborhood soon. None will escape. Egalitarian justice will be dispensed! All Hail Dear Leader!

Posted by sntauri at 10/13/2008 @ 8:16pm
Posted by sntauri at 10/13/2008 @ 8:16pm

LOL, this one was pretty good :)

Wrong track leaves 359 degrees of direction to argue about. It does not mean the country is in favor of radical change.----Posted by Derwood_the_Troll at 10/13/2008 @ 12:50pm

Derwood's logical gyrations are absolutely priceless however...

Posted by warn_this_person at 10/13/2008 @ 8:50pm
Interesting video on liberal openmindedness in Manhattan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQalRPQ8stI

Posted by pontificus at 10/13/2008 @ 9:30pm
"Why is it so impossible to just agree that both sides, democrat and republican alike are major fuck ups who stopped being interested in the well being of Americans a long long time ago?

Is it just that hard to admit you're wrong about something?

Grow the f@%$ up."

Posted by madlib at 10/13/2008 @ 7:13pm

Madlib: Your choice of language tells me that you are angry or frustrated at something I wrote. Or maybe that is your way. But if you read what I wrote (either time, sorry about the double post) without the blood pounding in your ears, you will see that I did in fact agree with you that democrat and republican alike made poor decisions and failed to see this mess coming. And I'll go a step further. The reason you state is one with which I agree as well. Our "statesmen" have lost sense of their prime directive--to act for the common good rather than legislate for their own job security. You're spot on there I think. So then, if we are in agreement as to villain and motive does this mean that you'll be joining me poolside, or may I continue to splash about in the shallow end?

Posted by Aikiwi87 at 10/13/2008 @ 10:07pm
This economic tsunami doomed McCain. He's trying to run as a reformer but yet, still appeal to the base of the Republicants. He is coming off like an incredible phony.

Posted by koroviev at 10/14/2008 @ 02:04am
I think the McCain/Palin continuation of the Bush Doctrine alienated moderate Republicans even before the economic tsunami. However, I'm certain the Republican apologists here will maintain the opinion that a rising tide...floats all yachts. The rest of us working-class, moderate Republicans hope like hell our little dinghy doesn't get swamped.

Posted by javaman222 at 10/14/2008 @ 09:50am
How can someone be a 'reformer' but continue on with his predecessors same old 'failed' policies??? Anyone who is using their brain knows those policies have been proven time and time again to not work. So all that means to a lot of us that it's going to be the same old 'smoke and mirror's' policies under McCain. He doesn't have one new idea that I have ever heard about. The economic disaster is going to only get worse under his leadership.

Posted by ganddw42 at 10/14/2008 @ 10:10am
"Who is responsible for revenue and spending-Congress

Who is responsible for oversight-Congress

Who is responsible-Congress"

Well LL has done a 180 degree flip from his overexpansive conception of executive power. He also neglects to mention that the Republicans in the Senate and a veto-wielding Bush made it impossible for the Democratic-controlled Congress to do much of anything.

"Oh yeah, we've had the Dems in control of the Congress."

But it was Bush who made a practice of putting political loyalism above merit in staffing his departments.

Posted by brunowe at 10/14/2008 @ 12:07pm
I have long hoped that when a jerk is called a jerk because of his actions and words he might understand he is being called a jerk BECAUSE HE IS ONE and not because he is tall or short, fat or skinny, blond or bald, or white or brown or black.

Today we see so much "political correctness" what's being said is 'pap'.

Posted by tucanofulano at 10/14/2008 @ 4:30pm
Say what you will, but the repugs were at the helm when the wheels came off the wagon. Are they 100% at fault ? No, there is plenty of blame to go around. Clinton was on the deregulation bandwagon right along with the repugs back in '99. However, the average American is going to zero in on the party that has held control for most of the past 30 years and has held power for the last eight. People vote their pocket and the repugs got caught with their hands in our pockets.

Posted by macdon1 at 10/14/2008 @ 7:46pm
I haven't read all the comments, but no one seems to be talking about the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the problem, to say nothing of the loss of life and the huge disruptions to these benighted countries. Years of wars and massive deficities to finance them, followed by an economic meltdown that financially effects the majority of retirees and the middle class, is certainly going to affect the approval ratings of the ruling party. If you are at the helm of the ship that goes on the rocks, who do you think is going to be standing in front of the board of inquiry?

DS-SA

Posted by donliz at 10/15/2008 @ 05:06am
"Secondly cite how many spending bills have been vetoed by Bush during 2001-2003"

First, the Democrats controlled the Senate for just over 1/2 of 2001 (starting 5 June) and 2002. In fact, the Bush tax cuts were passed during the period in 2001 when the Republicans controlled the Sentate. Second, the veto threat was always there.

"Care to provide even one quote from me wanting shift budget authority from Congress to the Presidency?"

That's a loaded question, since your assertions are that Congress didn't have certain powers involving oversight, subpoena power and the power to control when we go to war.

Posted by brunowe at 10/15/2008 @ 12:42pm
Lachatte is right. There is a fundamental flaw in our economy that goes beyond Bush's ineptitude. It is the rush to quick profits and the failure of business and government to look to the long term.

They build stuff cheaper overseas (in part because they pay starvation wages and don't give a damn about the environment, but also -- as in the case of Japan -- because they do research, invent, and work smarter). So let them build all the stuff, and we'll buy all the stuff. We'll just put it on the credit card.

This has been going on since Nixon and has only gotten worse under Reagan and the Bushes.

Now we're looking at an election which will probably be closer than the polls indicate, and for two reasons: there's still a good deal of racism in this country, and it only gets worse when it's combined with "elitism." That is, Joe Sixpack and the Hockey Moms would rather vote for somebody they could swill beer with than somebody who is smarter than they are and could do a better job of pulling America out of the mire we've created for ourselves.

Once again, Nader has got the best grasp on reality of any of the candidates. But I don't think Nader would make an effective president. For one, he would have no party affiliation to help him with Congress. Two, he lacks the personality to win legislators over to his way of thinking. And, three, Nader has got good ideas, but he has no history of effective administration, which is a large hunk of what a president does.

Of the Democratic pols available to do the job, I think Obama is probably the best choice. Of the Republican pols available -- McCain, Romney, Guiliani, Thompson, and Huckabee -- the choices are laughable. Or, to invent a word for Steven Colbert -- cryable.

Posted by elcomputo at 10/15/2008 @ 8:32pm