As it looks like Romney is pulling away with it in Florida, I can’t help but think Sarah Palin is right. Let’s keep things going a while longer. Gingrich is making Romney a better candidate, but not good enough.
I know this was posted earlier in the Corner but I think it’s worth revisiting. When Romney was on Laura Ingraham’s show last week he was asked if the economy is getting better. He replied.
Of course it’s getting better. The economy always gets better after the recession. There’s always a recovery. There’s never been a time anywhere in the world where an economy has never recovered. The question is how is recovered by virtue of something the president has done or has he delayed the recovery and made it more painful? And the latter, of course, is the truth.” “The president’s policies have made the recession deeper and have made the recovery more tepid and more difficult on the American people. This is the worst recovery that we have seen from a recession since Hoover. And President Obama wants to take credit for things getting better, he’s in fact made things worse. He’s made this recovery take much longer, but, will our economy get better someday? Of course it will.
When Laura asked Romney if that’s a hard argument to make — that “Obama is making the economy better, but vote for me,” Romney replied: “Do you have a better one Laura?”
Well, I do. First, while Ingraham was right and smart to ask the question that way, Romney should have rejected the premise that “Obama is making the economy better.” The whole upshot of his position is that the economy isn’t getting better because of Obama, it’s getting better in spite of Obama and the president’s policies are a drag on what should be a roaring recovery.
Moreover, if he wants to know how to talk about an improving economy under an unpopular president, there are several thousand hours of remarks from Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama he can crib from. He could say something like “Sure, the headlines are better, but if you go around this country and ask people if they feel like there’s a recovery, their answer is no.” Or he could say, “It’s not a recovery until the millions of people who’ve been chased out of the workforce entirely feel like it’s even worth looking again.” Or, “It’s not a recovery for the millions of people underwater on their mortgages.” Or, “Hey look, I’m a numbers guy. And I won’t lie that there are some improving numbers out there, but those numbers aren’t people and if you ask people what they think of the economy, if you ask them ‘Are you better off than you were 4 years ago’ the answer is a loud ‘No!’”
I’m no political consultant, but it seems to me that these are the sorts of no-brainer responses that come naturally to natural politicians. Mitt Romney is not a natural politician. If duking it out with Gingrich for another month makes him a better politician, then even if you don’t want Gingrich to be the nominee you should probably vote for Gingrich.
The stock market is doing fine. If your principal (only?) source of income is from investments, as is the case with Romney, I'm sure the economy doesn't look too bad.
If you've been out of work for 14+ months, however....
And kudos to Goldberg for at least leveling *something* of a critical eye at Romney.
(The logic of the last sentence might be dubious, but at least we're getting some scrutiny of the candidate the editors want as our standard bearer....)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou aren't reading NRO enough, there has been plenty of criticism lobbed at Romney. Yes, the editors have endorsed him but everyone is getting a fair hearing and there has been no shortage of criticisms directed at Romney.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs I've said before, there is nothing tendentious about a poor assessment: growth is nowhere near where it should be for recovery, BLS numbers belie troves of underemployed and discouraged workers, and — here's the important part — business remains terrified of Obama's regulatory caprice. This country isn't even treading water; it's in a dead man's float.
I want the GOP nominee to beat Obama. But if it's Romney and he can't communicate what I wrote above, he'll have a hard time winning the election.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor heaven's sake, Romney can't communicate that message because it's flat out not true. At this point in Reagan's presidency, unemployment was 9.5%. Today it's 8.5%. And as to regulatory uncertainty you've got it exactly backwards:
External Link
Obama’s White House approved 613 federal rules during the first 33 months of his term, 4.7 percent fewer than the 643 cleared by President George W. Bush’s administration in the same time frame, according to an Office of Management and Budget statistical database reviewed by Bloomberg.
....The average annual cost of regulations under Obama [is] about $7 billion to $11 billion, compared with the $6.9 billion average from 1981 through 2008 in current dollars, according to the OMB data....Those numbers [...] encompass the expense of new regulations, and do not take into account the economic benefits of healthier children, safer roads or fewer industrial accidents.
....Of the 7,247 mass layoffs last year -- those involving at least 50 workers -- 18 were the result of government regulation, according to department data. Of the 3,114 mass layoffs in the first half of this year, 11 were related to government regulation. By comparison, 1,053 mass layoffs were attributed to business demand.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDrum? He can re-frame it all he likes. Growth is anemic and can't be explained away. Listen to what business leaders and CEOs say and do: job creation remains low because they're sitting on the fence. And Drum kind of forgot to mention that unemployment from the early Eighties recession rose and fell sharply in the space of two years. Obama's on his fourth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot sure what any of that means. It doesn't matter if Drum wrote it, or Satan himself - it's sourced and full of actual numbers. If you click through you'll see that business leaders are not - in fact - saying and doing what you suggest they are.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI respectfully disagree on several levels.
Firstly, I don't think this protracted boxing bout is helping either Mitt or Newt hone their skills for the general. They are both immersed fully in primary mode...focused entirely on showing the deficiencies of their opponents within the GOP. If anything, this is preventing them from focusing their sights on Obama and his failed policies.
Secondly, I can't emphasize enough how misguided Palin's advice is. You don't vote to extend a process. You vote to express your opinion about who is best fit to lead the party and the country. Democracy isn't a game.
I do agree, however, that Romney's answer on the Ingraham show was not the best. For this reason, I welcome a quick resolution of the primary so that our nominee can focus on Obama.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou vote to extend the process so that our nominee isn't decided by three blue states.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI vote to increase the chances of victory for the candidate I support.
You raise a valid point regarding the primary process and whether there is a better way to organize it. But that's a separate issue. It is flawed to think you should use votes to correct a perceived deficiency in the process.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYour posts are akin to what I suppose cirrhosis would feel like for me.
Painful but impossible to ignore.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhy does it have to be Gingrich? Why not Santorum? Santorum is more conservative than Gingrich, so if it's a Mitt v. [insert conservative here], it should be the real conservative...Rick Santorum. Gingrich is a big ideas guy, which means he wants to imposes his big ideas on the nation. That is not conservative, it's just a grandiose thinker who may tend to fall more to the right than to the left, but who, at heart, still believes in the government as an instrument to wield power, and conduct experiments, over the rest of us.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe GOP Establishment doesn't want a conservative atop the GOP ticket---EVER.
National Review clearly agrees, given the vow of omerta they've taken relative to Santorum. They have decided it is a two-man race, regardless of the number of candidates actually running.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRick Santorum is a social conservative. Fiscally, he is a moderate at best. He is pro-ethanol subsidies, pro union and was part of the big government Congress that helped us lose the House and Senate in 2006. Can you say compassionate conservative? I say this as someone who voted for him both times he ran for Senator in PA. When Toomey ran against him in the primary, I chose Toomey. But in the same sense of ABO will get me to vote against my conscience for Romney, once Santorum won the primary I held my nose and voted for him.
We have to remember that being socially conservative doesn't make one a conservative. You could argue that other than on the issue of abortion, President Obama is center right on social issues. The one thing I give the man credit for is that he truly seems to be a wonderful family man. Same can be said for Santorum. But that doesn't mean either is fit to lead our country.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat is a well-considered observation about what is wrong with Romney's messaging, Jonah. Mitt does not inspire confidence as a potential opponent to Obama. Mitt is so cautious lest he offend the current administration that he fails to see or understand the pitiful state of the economy as experienced by the average formerly productive, tax-paying, playing-by-the-rules John Q. Public.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf Mitt is our nominee, we are going to have the same race we did in 2008 - an election where our nominee won't take it to Obama and fight.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd the results will be the same, we lose the presidency, along with losses in the House, Senate and in the states.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I can’t help but think Sarah Palin is right."
I realize the Goldberg family has put cash in the bank courtesy of Sarah Palin, but good God, do you really believe this? You think it will upset liberals if Newt Gingrich wins Florida?
With respect to Romney's statement, perhaps we should examine the reality of this recession. When Obama came to into office, we were losing between 500k-750k jobs per month. Today, we're adding jobs. If you don't think that the Obama campaign isn't going to spin that into a positive, then you're you're not paying attention.
Romney is saying, "Yep, the economy is getting better; the economy ALWAYS gets better after a recession. The problem is the economy isn't getting better quickly enough and the recovery isn't robust enough".
Is Romney supposed to argue that the economy is getting worse? Really? Here's a clue: What happens when Romney says "Obama has destroyed this economy", and then Obama responds, "Hey, when I took over in January of 2009a, we were losing 750K jobs each month. Now, we're adding between 80K-170K jobs each month."?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseDo you think that Obama is going to simply say that Romney qualified his statement? Of course not. I'll tell you what he'll say right now, "I mean, Mitt (because he will not address Romney as Governor), even you said that under me the economy was getting better. How is it that you will be able to improve upon what I have done where I have employed teachers, firefighters, policemen, and helped people stay in their homes and not lose jobs in one of our most venerable industries?"
As for your last paragraph, Obama will say that anyway (by the way, how do you do bold and italics?). He has already done so: Didn't you catch his SOTU where he proclaimed that he was adding "millions of jobs" during his three years from his policies and conveniently left off the millions more jobs that he lost during his tenure?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat, Scoot, Palin's crazy because she doesn't believe that three primaries should decide the nominee for 50 states? She's crazy because she thinks it's insane to declare a person that's won a single state the inevitable nominee?
She's the crazy one?
No wonder she's started calling you all 'liberals'.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, she's crazy because she's a conservative, and even worse, she fails to worship the moderate messiah.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse