Backed into a Corner.

So McCain’s gaffe about ‘the fundamentals of our economy’ in the wake of Wall Street’s implosion has backed the White House into a corner.

At today’s White House press briefing, Dana Perino couldn’t offer the Bush administration’s boilerplate statement on the strength of the economy.

Instead, White House press secretary Dana Perino said “a mixed picture” of positive and negative developments have led to “challenging times” for the U.S. economy.

“It’s not clear-cut, in terms of all the — is it all positive, is it all negative,” Perino told reporters at the daily press briefing. “There’s a mixed picture. But we do have the strength to be able to deal with it.”

Perino refused repeated entreaties from reporters to be more direct in answering whether the fundamentals of the economy are strong.

“I answered it the way I was going to answer it, and I’ll answer it the same way again,” Perino said, adding a moment later: “I know as soon as I say something you’re going to turn it around and it will be a part of the 2008 campaign, and I’m not going to play the game.”

If she says the economy is strong, the Obama camp paints McCain as possessed of the same obliviousness that has made the Bush administration so ineffective. If she says that the economic outlook ain’t looking too hot, the Obama camp shows McCain as so out of touch that even the Bush administration understands the gravity of the situation.

G.D.

G.D.

Gene "G.D." Demby is the founder and editor of PostBourgie. In his day job, he blogs and reports on race and ethnicity for NPR's Code Switch team.
G.D.

Latest posts by G.D. (see all)

  • DAEvans

    I know this is an election year, but don’t we have a sitting president? I know he is completely in a fog about any event that is not his doing, and he is even in a fog about what he has started, but shouldn’t George do something, or is his total lack of concern more then that, is his incompetence showing?

  • ModerateMom

    Apparently he had to cancel his trips to “focus on the economy” today. He’s doing this on Thursday? Why not Monday? Why not 6 months ago? We may be officially saying goodbye King George in January, but he checked out a long time ago.

  • scott

    Why should the government bail out folks that got home loans when they shouldn’t have gotten them in the first place and by extension bail out the corps that are now holding those collateralized debt obligations? The corps bought the CDOs b/c they thought they were a good investment and they were wrong. Right now, other than the financial services sector I think the economy is fundamentally sound.

  • “Right now, other than the financial services sector I think the economy is fundamentally sound.”

    That is a truly weird sentence. But I’ve gotta admire your ideological devotion, fam. Good show.

    Still, the panic from the stock markets is spilling out into ‘safer’ investments, like money market accounts. There’s a chance that regular folks will start to withdraw their savings and start a run on banks.

  • quadmoniker

    Scott: For once, we agree. For a president who likes to talk about how the free market works, the number of bailouts is ridiculous. Of course, my solution to that is that the free market actually doesn’t work without checks and balances at all. I think all of this is caused by the massive Republican deregulation efforts of the past generation.

    As far as home loans, though; not every homeowner who is suffering now is someone who shouldn’t have gotten a loan. There was widespread lying and fraud on the part of some mortgage brokers and lenders; they lied about some applicants’ incomes and applicants didn’t even know it. There are some people who were virtually handed free money, and though you can make an argument that they should have known they couldn’t pay their mortgage, it’s pretty easy to convince yourself that you will come up with the money somehow when someone is offering you your dream home. Also, falling home prices have affected people who were otherwise financially stable.

    “The economy is fundamentally sound,” is presidential spin. About which fundamentals, specifically, are you speaking, Scott?

  • scott

    Where am I wrong then? It is easy to make snide comments but harder to prove your point, assuming you can.

    Yes formerly high oil prices have slowed the economy. The US economy never reached the point of a recession so I have a hard time saying the economy is not sound.

  • Mike

    I live in midwest, the economy has gone down hill for 7 years. All good jobs are gone. The expression “You cannot buy a job” applys. Other parts of the country are good. Who knows now.
    Basic greed and wall street both parties are to blame.

  • quadmoniker

    But you said the fundamentals of the economy are “sound.” What fundamentals are you talking about? Do you know what the “fundamentals” of the economy are? Real wages? No, they haven’t grown in years (that’s part of, incidentally, what helped cause this credit crunch, people have been borrowing to make up for their falling wages.) Job growth? No, it’s not keeping pace with the population.

    If you want more examples of the fundamentals’ woes, http://www.slate.com/id/2200291/.

    Just because we haven’t entered a recession yet doesn’t mean we’re not going to, or that we’re in good shape fundamentally. You can’t use something that hasn’t happen to prove something else affirmatively. That’s a logical fallacy.

    But I’m starting to suspect that you’re one of those people who doesn’t let facts get in your way.

  • dan

    income inequality, the shift of wealth to a small minority, and the fantasy that we will always have cheap energy is an indication that there are problems with the economy. Lots of paper money disappeared this week. We still spend billions on war, trade goods, and we are borrowing it. We import too much oil, and we have borrowed too much in financial markets, using equity to by imported goods. Outsourcing jobs and increasing service and government jobs does not make the economy sound, but a good garden can certainly help. Sadly, we are heading toward winter.

  • scott

    quadmoniker:

    The Slate article is good and gist seems to be that “on balance, the fundamentals of the U.S. economy are less than sound” which is hardly the “economy is not sound” answer you seem to want to hear. I am willing to admit that the economy maybe be less sound than I think it is. As the article also says, “it depends on which fundamentals you want to emphasize.”

  • Scott- to echo QM’s question, which fundamentals are you talking about?

  • scott

    shani-o:

    My view is that the main problem has been high oil prices which have caused problems with production, sales and inflation. Now that the economy has slowed a bit and oil has dropped. We were talking about oil at $140 (some of which was speculation) and now it is around $100 the economy will pick back up. To me, this has been an economic slowdown which does happen in a market economy. If we had entered a recession I would certainly admit that the economy wasn’t sound.

    Maybe my real difference is my view about the degree to which some of the fundamentals the Slate article refers to have been damaged. I see any damage as temporary and not something which is long lasting damage. I’m old enough to remember the double digit inflation and economic stagnation of the Cater years which was truly a time when the fundamentals of the economy were not sound.

  • quadmoniker

    Scott:
    You are right, by most measures, it’s not as bad as the Carter years.

    Your attribution of the economic troubles to high oil prices runs counter to what almost every economist says, however. The problems that caused the housing market and the credit crunch are deep and long. High consumer prices are due, in part, to high oil prices, but the fact that wages for American workers haven’t been keeping up with inflation for a long time is a bigger problem.

    Incidentally, high oil prices do nothing to explain the failures of Bear Sterns, Lehman Brothers, Fannie and Freddie, and now AIG. All of that is attributable to the really shady things going on on Wall St. And let’s not forget that a few years ago, economists predicting $100 a barrel oil predicted the end times.

  • quadmoniker

    Quick modification, I should have said it’s not as bad as the Carter years, YET. The Wall Street failures seem reluctant to slow down.

  • ladyfresshh

    All of that is attributable to the really shady things going on on Wall St.

    quad: Who expected wall street to regulate themselves fairly? In the end the fault lies with the congress/administrations that deregulated these companies.

  • quadmoniker

    LF: I never expected Wall Street to regulate themselves fairly. That’s the government’s job. And that’s what I said earlier:

    “Of course, my solution to that is that the free market actually doesn’t work without checks and balances at all. I think all of this is caused by the massive Republican deregulation efforts of the past generation.”

  • tasha

    @ quad: i knew i read that somewhere…

    lol!

    thanks