According to ABC reporter Claire Shipman, dreary economic news and a slow Christmas could be a real plus for the Democrats. Filing a segment for Wednesday's "Good Morning America," Shipman lamented, "It may be that no amount of hall decking can convince Americans to be jolly about the economy this holiday season."
However, the GMA correspondent saw good news in this for the Democrats. She asserted, "Traditionally, of course, problems in the economy would help the Democrats." After allowing that GOP candidate Mike Huckabee's "populist message" could resonate, Shipman gushed, "Among the Democrats, John Edwards has the message that's most consistently appealing to people suffering from economic woes." Not wishing to leave any Democrat behind, she rhapsodized, "But at the same time, the Clinton brand has a strong economic reputation."
Over on NBC's "Today" show, co-host Meredith Vieira continued the negativism. She asked CNBC reporter Erin Burnett, "But is the conventional wisdom that we are heading towards a recession?"
Ms. Shipman's fawning over Democrats shouldn't surprise viewers. This is, after all, the same reporter who sized up the Clinton vs. Obama race as a battle between "hot factor" and "fluid poetry."
A transcript of the segment, which aired at 7:15am on December 12, follows:
ROBIN ROBERTS: Diane, Oprah not the only factor influencing, potentially influencing this campaign. According to a new ABC News/Washington Post poll, the economy is playing a major role now, too. For the first time, Americans are saying the most important issue in the race is not the war in Iraq, but the economy. Senior national correspondent Claire Shipman has the details for us. Good morning, Claire.
CLAIRE SHIPMAN: Good morning, Robin. This is an issue that's been building for sometime and now voters appear ready to take it to the primaries. It may be that no amount of hall decking can convince Americans to be jolly about the economy this holiday season. Homes under siege --
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER; More calls for mortgage reform and a freeze on foreclosures--
SHIPMAN: Predictions of recession--
CHARLES GIBSON: The Federal Reserve today tried to spur the country's economy--
SHIPMAN: Pain at the pump--
UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: We got high gas prices.
SHIPMAN: Indeed, a new ABC News poll shows for the first time in the 2008 campaign, the economy beats Iraq as the number one issue voters care about. And only 28 percent say the economy is in good shape, the lowest number in four years.
WENDY BOUNDS (GMA contributor): We're heading to this final stretch of the holidays. I think it's inevitable that unless you have a loved one who is fighting overseas, that inevitably, your attention is going to turn to your pocketbook.
SHIPMAN: The drum beat of bad news is producing national jitters.
JOHN DOUGLASS: It’s just, again, a lack of confidence. What's around the corner? We don't know.
SHIPMAN: But for many who are literally facing foreclosures or heating oil prices up another nine percent, it's more than uncertainty.
BOUNDS: I think people really are feeling a pinch. People thinking, wait, my mortgage is going to go up $300 or $400, I've got to think about what I'm spending.
LISA HARPER: We are spending less. By this time last year, I would have had tons of gifts under the tree.
SHIPMAN: Some just couldn't even find the words.
DOUG RICE: Can I say that on TV? [ Laughs ] Pretty bad.
SHIPMAN: And candidates, especially the Democrats and the surging Mike Huckabee, are grabbing the economic turf.
MIKE HUCKABEE: Many of them are having to work two jobs.
HILLARY CLINTON: Increasingly, I see that the economy will be front and center.
JOHN EDWARDS: There are structural problems in our economy.
BARACK OBAMA: Some economists are now predicting a possible recession.
ROBERTS: So, Claire, which of the candidates likely to benefit from this new focus on the economy?
SHIPMAN: That's what everyone wants to know. Traditionally, of course, problems in the economy would help the Democrats. Now, Mike Huckabee, with his populist message, could be an exception to that. Among the Democrats, John Edwards has the message that's most consistently appealing to people suffering from economic woes. But at the same time, the Clinton brand has a strong economic reputation. Robin?
—Scott Whitlock is a news analyst for the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Once again: Clinton
December 12, 2007 - 17:14 ET by mattmOnce again: Clinton inherited a growing economy and bequeathed a falling one to his successor. The only possible way the "Clinton Brand" could have a good reputation on anything is through false advertising...which appears to be the MSM's job.
Exactly!!!
December 12, 2007 - 17:22 ET by BourbeauMore importantly for the MSM, don't let facts get in the way of spewing the Democrat talking points. Let's not give any positive assessment to the GWB economy, driven by his tax cuts which has been his single biggest achievement. Just focus on the hype that Democrats are noted for - if you spew negativity long enough on any particular subject, sooner or later the public believes you know what your talking about. Cases in point: jobs; war on terror; economy; social security; Hillary's experience; and the list goes on. It doesn't matter what the facts are; it doesn't matter that the Democrats don't have an alternative plan; all that matters is they can conjure up more negativity then anyone else in the universe - they have turned it into a science.
Include:
December 12, 2007 - 17:33 ET by Gat New YorkIf they want that economic legacy they should also include the massive corporate corruption that was going on under the watchful eye of Attorney General Rammin' Reno. It should include the dot.com debacle. And it should include the lost savings and 401K pensions that happened on his watch.
Your "spin" just redlined
December 12, 2007 - 17:35 ET by JerYour "spin" just redlined the bs tachometer, but your creativity deserves applause.
Jer
Jer. I'd be curious to see you explain..
December 12, 2007 - 17:46 ET by Gary HallJer. I'd be curious to see you explain that spin.
Gary...the obvious
December 12, 2007 - 18:06 ET by JerGary...the obvious implication of the statement is that Clinton was handed a vigorous economy and proceeded to run it in the ditch.
Even those who were loathe to give Clinton credit for any positive accomplishment [e.g. O'Reilly] were forced to concede he deserved praise for his handling of the economy.
If I drew an improper inference, then I'll retract the comment, with apologies to mattm.
Jer
jer
December 12, 2007 - 18:32 ET by Gary HallJer. I don't know if your premise is all that obvious. Clinton inherited what he inherited, and Bush inherited what he inherited. Did Clinton help create the boom of the 90's through his policies? Certainly most would argue that his free trade stance (which the liberals despise as neo-con voodoo economics) openned the door. Did the Bush tax cuts which fully hit the street in 2003 help pull us out of the lull, and constructively add to the growth of the last 4 years? These are great discussions. The media should entertain them. We might all learn something.
On the other hand, the MSM's consistent presentation has not only hid the obvious facts of these many economic cycles, they continue to project to the readers and viewers nothing but fear. What Mattm stated was quite factual. Period.
Whether one seeks to take that information and run with it to either blame Clinton for the disaster that was left to George Bush, or to praise the first Bush for sending Clinton a recovering economy is, in my mind a rather worthless effort - always too short sighted.The larger lesson to be learned is that these cycles of boom (the dot.com and corporate and accounting fraud that marked the late 90's) or the real estate boom which began in the late 90's and continued way past the point of sanity, in the present, are going to be often followed by periods of gloom. Certainly some part of the economy will be in recession - following any exceptional period of sustained growth.
Though not mentioned in the specific Clinton praising episode, the MSM continues to support the belief that Clinton left massive budget surpluses as far as one could see and then Bush came in and immediately turned them into massive deficits. One should note that almost all of the return to deficits was caused by the economic reversal well rooted before Bush took power in 2001. My analysis suggests that from 2001 thru 2003, approximately $982 billion of the sum (delta) of the shift from surplus to deficit was economic in nature. That $982 billion is net of the Iraq War Cost and tax cuts thru 2003, year end.
The media would do best to understand what is is, and to stop with the partisan presentation of economics. (;~>
...Clinton was handed a
December 13, 2007 - 13:32 ET by mattm...Clinton was handed a vigorous economy and proceeded to run it in the ditch...
As a generalization that's true. Look at the facts. The 1981 recession was an inheritance from the Nixon/Ford/Carter era of tax and spend Libonomics. Once supply-side Reganomics kicked in, the economy boomed. It slowed down a bit AFTER the 1990 tax increase that Bush compromised on, but was Coming back long before Mr. Slicky took office. Eight years later the stock market was in free-fall, economic growth was plummeting and the Accounting scandals were beginning to surface...
It was so bad that the Dems and their media pals had to warn about the republicans "talking down the economy." That was one of their talking points in 2000. Why complain about "talking down" the economy if it's not "down"? This was an obvious admission that the economy WAS tanking...under Clinton.
So, once again, the statement is true: ...Clinton was handed a vigorous economy and proceeded to run it in the ditch...
You can deny all you want, Jer, but the fact remains, ...Clinton was handed a vigorous economy and proceeded to run it in the ditch...
matt, I mentioned that in
December 12, 2007 - 17:58 ET by motherbeltmatt, I mentioned that in another thread; it can't be repeated too
often. The economy was already turning when Clinton took office, after
having campaigned on "the worst economy in 50 years." He got the
benefit of the dotcom bubble and the economy did so well that his tax
increases couldn't cripple it. Thus was born the assertion that
raising taxes "stimulates" the economy.
And now his wife is talking down an economy with a 3.9% growth rate. She says it's stalled. She's going to fix it...how? taxes on the wealthiest Americans.
Which was demonstrated by
December 13, 2007 - 13:36 ET by mattmWhich was demonstrated by the fact that the media was falling all over themselves crediting the economic surge of 1992 with the fact that Clinton's election made everyone confident again... It was like magic - elect a democrat and BANG! everything's perfect overnight - even before they take office....
Anyone who wants to talk about "spin" ought to check out how the Clinton machine practically invented spin...they thrived on it...and their still spinning today...
"For the first time,
December 12, 2007 - 17:17 ET by Insane Chipmunk"For the first time, Americans are saying the most important issue in the race is not the war in Iraq, but the economy."
so whatever is the #1 issue in the polls will equal "something is wrong here". especially under a Republican president. Iraq is now being viewed by the population as going well, so obviously it goes down in importance.
Let's say most people were happy with Iraq, the Economy, global warming etc and so the #1 most important issue was something like "toilet paper not soft enough". The main stories of the day would be how the administration is keeping everyone but Halliburton from having soft TP.
This stuff makes me sick
December 12, 2007 - 17:40 ET by timotheIt's hard to believe and maybe even harder to explain that the American press would actually try to hurt the American people by constantly misreporting the economy, just so they could give their political party a leg up in the next election.
But that is exactly what they are doing, isn't it?
The Economy
December 12, 2007 - 17:56 ET by DFLowerBut is the conventional wisdom that we are heading towards a recession?"
The MSM has only been harping on the recession for what 7 years now? It's no wonder that some people have begun to believe them.
Clinton Non-economy
December 12, 2007 - 18:06 ET by ScrapironOld, Retired and glad of it. I love how ignorant people try to pass of the 90's as a good economy. The Klington regime destroyed over 40% of the U.S. military, got rid of trillions of dollars worth of equipment (where did the money go?) and left the country open to the attack that happened on 9-11 + several around the world in the 90's. In addition there were dozens of major financial markets thay had two sets of books (Algorabge's WorldCom) and crashed leaving millions of Americans without their life savings and retirement accounts. Many CEO/CFO's were indicted, tried and convicted but the people didn't recover a penny on the dollar that they lost to the con men in the Clinton administration, Algorbage was the leader of the con on WorldCom and god only knows what else, oh they both sold top secret equipment to the Chicom for political donations and got caught. No matter, just remember the Chinese missile that hits your home town will be guided there by a system sold to them by the Clinton Administration. Good economy my a**, a total disaster is more like it. Ignorance of history is a choice that can get you in the poor house or killed. Want to try it, elect Shrillary. She has publically announced that she will do away with your ability to leave your life's work to your family when you die. Forget the misspelling and verbage, I'm too P.O.'d to type.
Clinton and the Economy
December 12, 2007 - 18:53 ET by johnbarrySocialists such as Clinton Obama and Edwards wish to buy the electorate with its own money. They offer more and more government programmes administered by a mushrooming bureaucracy. Higher taxes as -envisioned by the Democrats- will suck the lifeblood out of the US economy. Clinton is no centrist. Unemployment rates are high in countries such as France and Germany because corporate and individual tax rates are too high. These rates are the product of Socialist thinking akin to the approach espoused by Clinton. The GOP approach to taxation is the correct one. Republicans can win on a policy platform of low taxation.
But wait, there's more!
December 12, 2007 - 19:19 ET by nkviking75The "Clinton brand" is one I'd expect to see pitched by Billy Mays or some Australian dude (do all Aussie immigrants get gigs pitching no-name products on TV?) and only available through this special TV offer. Bubba's biggest talent... OK, his biggest political talent... is taking credit for other people's accomplishments. Clinton benefitted from good timing (being president when the computer industry and the internet really caught fire) and a Republican Congress.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
Say what?
December 12, 2007 - 21:13 ET by GalvanicSHIPMAN: That's what everyone wants to know. Traditionally, of course, problems in the economy would help the Democrats.
Tell that to Jimmy Carter. Didn't he lose to a guy named Reagan while the economy was steeped in double-digit inflation?
Not sure....but I think her
December 12, 2007 - 21:38 ET by JerNot sure....but I think her [not particularly well expressed] point may have been that a "bad" economy, or the perception of same, generally inures to the benefit of the party "out of power". Thus, to Reagan in 1980, and possibly to the Democrats next year.
Jer
Jer
December 12, 2007 - 21:55 ET byi do believe you are right, even though the POTUS has little power to provide for a good economy but can tank the economy with policies generally favored by the left. People paying attention will 'get' this. It's why the USSR went down.
"everytime you take a shower you are a mass murderer" -- the Profff
botg.. Of
December 12, 2007 - 23:33 ET by Jerbotg.. Of course there will occasionally be factors over which the President has little control, yet will profoundly affect economic conditions for the better or worse. One can only hope a President will possess the intelligence and judgment to know when, how, or even whether to react to any such unforeseen events so that the deleterious consequences can be limited, or favorable conditions may continue, as the case may be.
As one who leans [slightly left], I'm not prepared to embrace your argument that the economy is more likely to be "tanked" by "leftish" fiscal policy. That both sides are quite capable of creating economic mischief appears to be eminently suppportable by the historical record.
But there is little doubt that a relentlessly stagnant economy played a crucial role in the ultimate demise of the Soviet Union. Even more important, though, was the fortuitous confluence of two dominant personalities simultaneously occupying the world stage at a uniquely critical point in history--Ronald Reagan...resolute in his convictions regarding the true nature of the Soviet empire, and determined to spend the money necessary to reassert American military strength; and Mikail Gorbachev...a visionary leader who demonstrated an unprecedented and stunning willingness to choose "butter" over "guns". Those facts provide the backdrop for everything that occurred thereafter. And the rest is history.
[But the "left" wasn't completely wrong about the Cold War, or the eventual Soviet implosion. Maybe we'll have that conversation another day.]
Jer
sorry Jer
December 12, 2007 - 23:39 ET bybut tax and spend and disincentivising investment in the economy though sometimes practiced by RINOs is more a left-leaning economic ideal
but it is late for me so adieu
GoHunter08