Reply #19: OK. I agree with most of that.

[Frodo]

The "human component" is THE part that "counts" AND/BUT/UNFORTUNATELY it is the hardest to quantify. For every example we give of a specific town, or profession, or family - they'll have another one that looks great. That's the problem with trying to talk about the economy by saying "well, I don't have a job". There are millions of people working here, and some hundreds of thousands will be doing awfull even in a great economy and hundreds of thousands will be doing great in a downturn.

Republicans used to make the same sort of cracks about Clinton's nine million new jobs ("I know, I have four of them"). Any time there is an improvement in any of those numbers, the opposition has to find a way to blunt it.



Of course I "sound like a cheerleader" if you are comparing me to those who are saying that things continue to get worse. They want so much to take down Bush, and they know that a terrible economy is the easiest way to do it (it having worked wekk against a Bush before) that they DESIRE the numbers look bad. But not just "bad", not even just "recession" bad. He's got to look like Hoover. If I just look at how things are and say "they AIN'T great, but it doesn't compare to Hoover" I'm a republican spinmeister?

I want to deal with reality and how we will adress it in the campaign. Some "wishful Wanda's" want to keep fighting the old battles.