News, analysis and interviews with politicians and observers. Several other top campaign officials, and with russians who had ties to the kremlin. On sunday, this tweet describing in the clearest terms yet what this meeting was about. This was a meeting, the president tweeted, to get information on an opponent, totally legal and done all the time in politics and it went nowhere. Adding lastly, i did not know about it. Now remember, when the New York Times was first breaking news of this meeting, the president Helped Don Junior Draft a statement that claimed it was about adoption policy. After that was proven to be a lie, the president s story began evolving, to use a polite term. This is a year ago in paris. I think from a practical standpoint, most people would have taken that meeting. Its called Opposition Research or Even Research into your opponent. Ive had many people ive only been in politics for two years, but ive had many people call up, we have information on this factor or th
a lot of republicans don t like the deficits under president trump, but higher under obama at this point. economic growth, certainly, just trying to crawl out of the recession there. president trump has ever right to be happy about 4.1 gdp in the last quarter. that is why when the president is on the campaign trail, he says look at the numbers. why aren t we doing better? i purposely didn t mention the kind of numbers we re achieving because i didn t want to be accused of exaggeration. if i would have said 4.1% gdp, they would have it would have been major headlines. by the way, it s going a lot higher. you can mark my words. you know, if i get the trade deficits down, they never tell you this, if i get the trade deficits down bring them down. if i bring the trade deficits down, we could pick up three and four points in gdp. nobody says that. nobody says that. now, again, the direct
killed it. the first format lent itself to that approach. right. this format clearly didn t. no, it definitely didn t. the other thing to keep in mind with women and why they didn t move as much after that debate is a lot of us, me included, if you look at what women are concerned about, it is not just gender and social issues. it s the economy. and for all his flubs and aggression in that debate, romney did have a few fairly clear effective moments. why aren t we doing better? we can do better if i m elected. don t pass the debt and deficit onto your kids that i think resonated. stan greenberg s done a lot of research tested after these debates on women and what they care about. the economy was a big issue. and we don t think of that. he really cleaned up, mika. romney did, even though he lost the debate on points for a lot of people, he won by i think the cbs poll by 30 points on who can handle the economy. and the outcome surely not as clear as the last one because you can
meltdown started in the housing market. barney frank said there wouldn t be a meltdown. but he makes it sounds like it s all republicans that led to this mess. voo he wants to avoid housing because he hasn t solved the foreclosure crisis. he wants to emphasize wall street and financial issues because it drives his narrative which is class-based politics. is he correct it was the bush tax cuts that led to the economic melt downthat we saw in 2008? there is a linkage there? to both candidates are going to do the mudslinging. the point is, where are we now? we are several years into the recovery. americans don t feel any better off. we are still losing our jobs and our homes. why aren t we doing better? what does have it to do with the fact that banks were frivolous in some of their