I have been directed to this site many times by Google to hear the sound of a fisher cat but site can’t find this. Help?

Posted by Marcia Peña on 21 September 2008 @ 12am

Much like Obama needs to do a better job of getting out the message that he’ll cut taxes more than McCain will for everybody but the superrich.

The problem with this particular message is that Americans aren’t stupid. When is the last time Democrats lowered ANYONE’S taxes?

By the way, are you seriously suggesting that there is a direct correlation between the White House and the stock market?

Posted by I.Publius on 21 September 2008 @ 8am

I have been directed to this site many times by Google to hear the sound of a fisher cat but site can’t find this. Help?

I cannot help. I’ve never heard a fisher cat in my life. There was a recording of a barking fox on my site, but I removed that after dozens of websites linked to it, claiming that it was the cry of a fisher cat.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 21 September 2008 @ 11am

The problem with this particular message is that Americans aren’t stupid. When is the last time Democrats lowered ANYONE’S taxes? By the way, are you seriously suggesting that there is a direct correlation between the White House and the stock market?

Are you seriously suggesting that there is no legislative body in the nation that is headed by Democrats that has lowered taxes recently? I’ll do you the courtesy of assuming that you’re not speaking literally as I imagine you’ll do the same for me.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 21 September 2008 @ 11am

I. Publius wrote,

The problem with this particular message is that Americans aren’t stupid. When is the last time Democrats lowered ANYONE’S taxes?

Do you have data showing that Republicans are more likely to lower a given person’s taxes?

By the way, are you seriously suggesting that there is a direct correlation between the White House and the stock market?

Yeah, I’ve seen this around, and while I do think it speaks somewhat to the incompetence of the Bush administration, I don’t really credit Clinton with driving up the stock market, and I can’t say that the thrust in the stock market helped a middle class that was shrinking at the time.

Besides, I’m not sure that we want to highlight the economic boom during Clinton’s years because much of that was growth in the finance sector that’s currently looking pretty damn shaky, specifically the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act which tore down the walls between investment banks, commercial banks, and insurance companies (which was passed with a veto-proof majority from a Republican legislature, but sadly, I’m not sure that’s relevant in a discussion about messaging).

Posted by Ben C. on 21 September 2008 @ 11am

I’d LOVE to see proof of any Democrat-led legislative body that lowered taxes recently. If one exists, I’d be willing to wager that it was in the deep south, where most Democrats are of the Health Shuler, Zell Miller variety (IOW, anywhere else, they’d be Republicans.)

Waldo, if you weren’t speaking literally, what’s the point of the blog entry? The only logical reasons that you’d want to “get this message out” is that you either 1) believe there’s a correlation, or 2) think enough Americans are stupid enough to believe there might be.

Posted by I.Publius on 21 September 2008 @ 4pm

I am disappointed by the lack of fisher cat sounds.

That is all.

Posted by MB on 21 September 2008 @ 6pm

Listen, I’m just not going to googling around for every recent news article about Democratic legislative bodies that have lowered taxes. Life’s too short. Likewise, you and I both know that there is a relationship between the presidency and the health of the economy. The strength of that correlation has been the subject of debate among political scientists and economists for many years. (Michael Kinsley had an article on the topic in Slate just a few days ago.) I neither stated nor implied that there is a “direct correlation,” so I’ll just conclude with the same words that Kinsley used:

Finally, as economist Greg Mankiw points out in his blog, reacting to a similar calculation by Alan Blinder (both of them former chairs of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers), correlation is not causation. Maybe economic statistics are better when the president is a Democrat for reasons having nothing to do with the president’s skill in handling the economy. My own feeling about that is that as long as the pattern continues, who cares why? Correlation will do just fine.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 21 September 2008 @ 10pm

Those who understand the DJ recognize the drawbacks of the comparison and it is pretty easy to poke holes through that as an argument for or against a politician. I think that most Americans are stupid enough to believe, as I. Publius was saying; but most Americans are stupid enough to believe anything, and most party faithful are willing to do anything to see their party in control. That both sides use half truths in their commercials to smear the other side is a testament to this.

Posted by tom on 22 September 2008 @ 8am

Oh but of course Democrats are the tax and spenders, just like they’re the ones who want to socialize all aspects of our lives! When’s the last time a Republican tried to use socialist tactics to subvert the freemarket econo…oh right. Wednesday.

Hey so, maybe we can be generous and say that all of this whitewashing, conclusion-drawing-by-stereotype is 99% bullshit? Or would I Publius like for us to spend the rest of our lives calling him and his political bretheren Communists?

Posted by Sam on 22 September 2008 @ 12pm

Bill Clinton took a busted economy,reeling from John McCain’s last deregulatory brainstorm (S&L bailout) and left office with a budget surplus, on course to pay off the national debt by 2013…

And today as Baby Bush winds down his “administration” we find our financial markets socialized, our national debt doubled (and possibly tripled), 600,000 people unemployed since January and on record with a budget deficit that just went from $500 billion/yr. to “unknowable”.

Yeah, good thing we had the Republicans in charge.

Posted by Bubby on 22 September 2008 @ 1pm

Bubby, you’re smart enough to know that 1) After the 90-91 recession, the economy was already on the rebound before Clinton took office, and 2) he didn’t have a balanced budget until Newt & Co. forced one on him.

Nice try.

Posted by I.Publius on 22 September 2008 @ 10pm

It’s no secret, the budget does better when the president and the congress are from opposing parties. It’s a lot easier not to spend money when no one can agree on what to spend it.

Point to “Newt & Co” all you want, we’ve seen what happens when Republicans control both the oval office and the capitol. I’m actually a little worried about having the Democrats control both houses of congress and the office of the president, but the Republican party is sick and needs a chance to reform itself, and Barack Obama will make an excellent president.

I don’t know that I’ll be voting Webb next time around, though.

Posted by Ben C. on 23 September 2008 @ 10am

No Webb vote on a budgetary basis, specific to him? Or just as a general vote for split gov’t? If the former, why?

Posted by MB on 23 September 2008 @ 9pm

Giving the President credit and not talking about which party is in control of Congress makes this a very silly point. Sorry you lack a cause to your effect

Posted by burt not ernie on 23 September 2008 @ 10pm

I encourage you to read the discussion before commenting.

Posted by Waldo Jaquith on 24 September 2008 @ 8am

I did read your “correlation is fine” quote and others. Go ahead and keep saying “the economy does better with a democratic no i don’t know why” as an ad.

Posted by burt not ernie on 24 September 2008 @ 8am

MB,

My complaints about Webb are perhaps the subject of another discussion, but they’re not budgetary in nature. My general belief is that when the Democrats are in the majority, then I’m interested in trying to move the party leftward. That may very well mean losing a few seats, but when we’re in the majority is when we have seats to spare.

Posted by Ben C. on 25 September 2008 @ 1pm