I'm off to the great state of Maine for a niece's graduation.
Meanwhile, I think this post from Rachel Maddow's blog demonstrates how Romney and his team play the blame game when it suits them. Romney's people claim that a lousy Massachusetts economy and tanking job numbers when he became governor were responsible for his poor economic record. Massachusetts saw some improvement in four years, just as Romney voluntarily decided not to seek a second term [he started his run for the presidency at that time.]
Irony is most certainly dead.
"Romney's staffers had to know that when they appeared on the Sunday shows yesterday [June 3], they'd hear questions about Massachusetts being 47th out of 50 states in job creation during Romney's tenure. And what was their explanation? Romney inherited a bad situation, and when he left, things were marginally better.
Seriously, that's their defense.
Eric Fehrnstrom told ABC, "Can I just say, on the jobs question, because this comes up repeatedly that Massachusetts was 47 out of 50 in terms of jobs growth. Actually, when Mitt Romney arrived, Massachusetts was an economic basket house." Kevin Madden, naturally, took the same line on "Meet the Press." On Fox News, Ed Gillespie went so far as to suggest the job losses in Romney's first year shouldn't be held against him.
He wasn't kidding.
This comes on the heels of Fehrnstrom arguing 10 days ago that Romney inherited a "recession" and an economy that was "losing thousands of jobs every month" in 2002, and a Romney campaign press release last week that argued, in all seriousness, 'Governor Romney inherited an economy that was losing jobs each month and left office with an economy that was adding jobs each month.'
David Axelrod's response seemed wholly appropriate given the circumstances: 'They're kidding, right?'
Look, this isn't complicated. Romney is trying to create a standard for success that only he's allowed to use. After all, what's President Obama's defense on the economy? He inherited a disaster but helped turn things around. After one term, conditions weren't excellent, but they showed clear improvement after four years. An economy that was losing jobs was, finally, adding jobs.
And what's Romney's defense of his jobs record in Massachusetts? He inherited a mess but helped turn things around. After one term, conditions weren't excellent, but they showed clear improvement after four years. An economy that was losing jobs was, finally, adding jobs."
28 comments:
After taking over as governor with high unemployment Romney reduced Massachusetts growing debt and reduced the unemployment rate to 4.5% when Romney left office.
After spending hundreds of billions of dollars and adding trillions to the US debt, Obama has managed to increase the unemployment rate at 8.2%.
The democrat talking points are that Obama created 4.5 million jobs. How can that be true when we still have a 8.2% unemployment rate, spent almost a trillion dollars to create no permanent jobs, but we did destroy a bunch of old cars, and gave the auto unions have of the company.
Romney may not be the ultimate answer but he is certain to be better then the "do nothing but blame others" president we have now.
Unfortunately I do believe the Obama/Hillary ticket will win, I just hope I am wrong.
He actually performed his Presidential functions for about six months, the rest of the time he has campaigned and did fund raisers. The country needs a leader not another rock star.
"After spending hundreds of billions of dollars and adding trillions to the US debt, Obama has managed to increase the unemployment rate at 8.2%."
If you're determined to write silliness like the above, I suggest you deposit this sort of comment at a comedy site.
"Romney may not be the ultimate answer but he is certain to be better then the "do nothing but blame others" president we have now."
skudrunner, you missed the entire point of this post, which is that ROMNEY BLAMED WHAT HE INHERITED-- THE POOR ECONOMY AND JOBLESS RATE for his poor job creation as governor. You and your fellow conservatives seem not to be able to get this very simple point.
I got the message it is just skewed.
4.5% vs 8.2% Unemployment. Balanced budget vs adding trillions of debt.
Most governors, and presidents for that matter say, they inherited a bad economy and in fact most did. Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush and now Obama say the same thing. The difference is there has been little improvement under this administration. He took over with unemployment at mid 7% and now it is low 8%. He had a decisive majority in both houses of congress, he gave away almost a trillion dollars and what are the results. Some smashed cars and 8.2 unemployment with a decreasing participation rate.
Liberals blame Bush yet democrats had the majority in congress in 2006 and kept it until 2010. Since congress writes the laws and sits on the committees, was it really all Bush's fault.
Skud... did Romney blame the situation he came into when he was elected on the prior administration?
That is the only salient point of Shaw's post.
You, like many conservatives, fail, or refuse to deal with that central truth, because it undermines your attack points on President Obama.
The performance of President Obama in office, at least in this post, is not germain. This post is solely about one point... Romney, and his surrogates, argued that he should not be held accountable for the first part of his admin because of the poor performance of his Republican predecessors.
Why should Romney not be held responsible for the whole of his tenure from day one, as he has argued for President Obama?
We'll all await any type of answer from you, Silver, or any other conservative...
"and when he left, things were marginally better."
It's an honest answer, and one Obama cannot honestly provide, because after three years, nothing is better, not even marginally.
Sadly, Obama will go down in history as the first president to be a net job loser. Think about that, after Hoover and FDR and the great depression, Obama will be the only president to preside over a net loss of jobs, even with his stimulus that kept all those government workers on the rolls.
OK, I went back and reread. You're accusing Romney of hypocrisy.
Horrors! Hypocrisy? From a politician? Right here in River City?!
Silver, again, you are wrong on the facts... things are at least marginally better.
Is our economy still in recession?
Are we losing jobs every month, or are we seeing a net gain?
Are we seeing a lessinging of the foreclosure epidemic?
Is the stock market higher?
Are corporate profits higher?
Are corporate balance sheets better?
All of these measuring sticks are better now than when Barack Obama. Are they where we want them? No!
But to say they are not better, indeed to say as you did, that nothing is better, is just not true.
And like Skud, you also did not deal with the crux of Shaw's post because she is right and to do so would indict the lies that the GOP has used to tar Obama since he took office.
SF,
Your talking points are showing.
According to the Bureauof Labor Statistics, at the beginning of 2009 there were 139,877,000 people employed. By May 2012, that number has risen to 142,287,000 for an increase of 2,410,000 employed people. So, unless two people started working the same job in the last 3+ years, there has been a net increase of more than 2.4 million jobs during Obama's presidency.
"
"Romney may not be the ultimate answer but he is certain to be better then the "do nothing but blame others" president we have now."
skudrunner, you missed the entire point of this post, which is that ROMNEY BLAMED WHAT HE INHERITED-- THE POOR ECONOMY AND JOBLESS RATE for his poor job creation as governor. You and your fellow conservatives seem not to be able to get this very simple point."
Thank you Shaw for pointing out the glaring similarities between Obama and Romney.
Gary Johnson for President 2012!
RN, like Nader, Anderson, and Wallace before him, Johnson has no chance.
Only in Ross Perot did we have someone with seemingly a realistic chance at the nomination until he imploded during the campaign...
Both Romney and Obama are blaming their predecessors when it comes to slow or negative job growth in their first term as governor and president, respectively.
This simple way of speaking the truth can get even easier:
Dodd-Frank can be simplified from an over two thousand page bill that doesn't work to a short bill focused on two words: capital requirements.
Anybody have some additional truths the left, right and center can agree on?
In the end we agree on far more than we disagree on, but focusing on disagreement is SO easy to do.
Jerry: You're mixing absolute and seasonally adjusted numbers. Nice trick, but smart people don't fall for it. He is still over 1,000,000 jobs down.
As of January...
http://money.cnn.com/2012/01/11/news/economy/obama_jobs_record/index.htm
So unless he's added 1.6 Million jobs since January 2012, he is a net job loser.
Shaw - Johnson would stand one hell of a chance if; 1) he was not ignored by the media, and 2) he was taken seriously by those who profess to advocate liberty yet vote for just a different shade of statism every time.
Ya gotta love the proficiency of the two party system. The one thing they have in common for sure is to safeguard the two party statist power grid.
And the supposedly intelligent electorate is a very willing accomplice.
Oh,mthey get it. They just don't want to acknowledge it.
SF,
I thought about that after I posted that comment and you are probably right. However, give that the country was hemmoraging close to 800,000 jobs per MONTH when he took over, and he immediately turned that around, he is not doing too bad now. I have no doubt that we are in better condition now than we would have been if McCain had won.
However, give that the country was hemmoraging close to 800,000 jobs per MONTH when he took over, and he immediately turned that around, he is not doing too bad now.
That's an honest answer. We were indeed on a downward trajectory when he took over.
RN,
The media is stopping Johnson?
All he needs is money, like everyone else in the race.
I wonder why he can't raise enough money to pay for TV ads?
This is the same reason you gave as to why Rand was ignored, it's the medias fault. Cry, cry, cry.
If you have the money, the media will pay attention, and run his ads.
Yada, Yada, Yada anon.
Blame it on the media, blame it on Obama, blame, blame, blame.
Where's the blame for Republicans (who you voted for) who not only created this mess, but won't do anything to help get us out of their mess?
The do nothing Republican House, gives Obama no choices, and nothing to act on.
Yada, Yada, Yada, anon.
Or could you be the TAO of infamous re-known?
TAO is real, unlike JMJ who you invented so you can blast lefties.
A Rand tactic to be sure.
The reappearance of the troll. Hey Shaw, the dude is actually quite hilarious.
I'm pretty certain you realize however what a bad name he is giving liberals in general.
LMFAO!
PS: Shaw, had 23 spam comments on RN USA this morning, the same the troll copied and pasted here.
anon, I see you are following me around blogistan. Good. I must be doing something right to have you chasing me from my site to the the progressive sites I visit. The 23 spam comments you left at my site this morning replete with your filthy language and personal smears will of course did not get posted. But keep up all the trouble you o through if it gives you some perverted sense of satisfaction.
Next time I leave town and don't take the laptop, I'll have to close down comments.
Anon, I've asked everyone to NOT attack my commenters. Why do you insist on being rude?
Why do you insist on printing the lies of a blog attacker? I would think you would not want anything to do with such scum, but that reflects on you.
Anon... Keeping it simple for you;
1) Provide proof for all to see that I am a blog attacker.
2) Factually point out my lies. I, like you are entitled to my interpretation of ALL data available.
3) Whether you realize it or not the tripe you deposit here, attacking Shaw speaks to your lack of character, not hers.
Indeed anon, I truly feel sorry for you. I' ve never before witnessed the obvious level of hate you must feel.
Anon, I deleted the following comment from my site. I post it here for all to see the depth of your lack of character as well as the hatred you spew.
"So glad you had to read all my messages. What else does a fired jackass have to do, but read the truth about himself. Being fired is proof you are a lying , scum, LOSER"
One thing you have given me anon for which I thank you, that is to expose all individuals with your philosophy of life and living for the vacuous, spineless, and valueless individuals you are.
Shaw, forgive me this one last time. But the hate for which you and all principled liberals, as well as principled conservatives and libertarians rail against is precisely this type of baseless accusations against any individual for which there is no substantive evidence that supports it.
Post a Comment