Top marks to Matthew Dowd among the Allen’s Alley of characters on the talking heads programs this weekend. On ABC’s This Week Mr. Dowd, after noting the retrospective or nostalgic quality to last week’s Republican National Convention, reminded us that the winners of presidential elections tend to be the candidates who’ve painted the brighter but still believable picture of America and its future.
Obama political advisor David Plouffe’s performance just a few minutes earlier strongly suggested that the question that the Obama campaign wants to ask, rather than answering Ronald Reagan’s famous “Are you better off than you were four years ago?”, is “Are you better off than you would have been if Bush were still president?”
The emerging picture of the two campaigns is that the Romney campaign wants to run against the Obama economic record of the last four years and the Obama campaign wants to run against the Bush economic campaign of the previous eight years, joining it with Romney’s plans. While accomplishing each of those tasks may be necessary for victory, will they be sufficient? I don’t believe so and I certainly hope not.
Gov. Romney needs to explain how tax cuts and trade war with China will put 23 million people to work. The president needs to explain how his stalled jobs bill will accomplish that. Or what else he plans to do. And how he plans to accomplish whatever he plans under the conditions that are likely to prevail in Congress in the next term.
Nostalgia is all well and good but whether it’s nostalgia for the New Deal, the 50s, or the 90s today’s conditions are different from the conditions then and we need to address today’s problems with today’s solutions. Time’s a-wastin’. Chop chop.
The candidate who took the position of job creation by any means necessary would have easily come out on top. That is all non-wealthy Americans care about at this point, not deficits or climate change or the yuan. Odd that neither party or candidate seems interested.
I don’t know how much or in what context Obama will talk about jobs, but Romney threw the word around over 20 times in his address last Thursday. I agree he hasn’t given a power-point presentation of specifics on how he plans on going about generating the 12 million new jobs he has promised. However, the generalities seem pinpointed on taking the obstacles to job creation away, or at least reducing them — regulations, bureaucracy, lack of confidence, expanding energy resources etc., which at least sets the table for investment interest leading to jobs, IMO.
I agree, however, that jobs is what is front and center on most people’s minds, especially those out of work, or wanting better paying working opportunities. It’s pretty dismal out there, at the moment.
Something else to be considered in this election is 11% — this election’s most important number…and if not, why isn’t it? by zeroHedge.
@jan- I dont remember anything specific about regulations. Are you just referring to repealing the ACA and Dodd-Frank? What will he do to cut bureaucracy?
Steve
The only things that a President or Congress can do is set an environment whereby the real job creators, the private sector, can prosper.
Those who create headwinds hinder job growth. Those who allow for economic gains for job creators, well, allow job growth to occur.
It’s actually not rocket science. Those who demand detailed point by point central plans are just pissing up a rope. And they are not businessmen, nor entrepreneurs, nor job creators. They are the problem.
This has been my life for the last 15 years. And Romney is a better investor than I am. He understands this. Just set the environment and let the people who can do, do. Obama will be trying to dictate growth in his own image if re elected. Ice will be effed. And so will so many others. It will be an unnecessary national tragedy.