So, will our legacy media will ever get around to covering Reid’s do-nothing Democratic Senate?
Archives for August 28, 2012
Yesterday, Jennifer Rubin began her must-read post, Is the liberal echo chamber a trap?, quoting one of the Gipper’s favorite sayings, “It isn’t so much that liberals are ignorant. It’s just that they know so many things that aren’t so.”
“There is”, she observes,
. . . no better phrase than that to describe President Obama, hermetically sealed in leftist bubble to a greater extent than any Democratic president in history. He doesn’t imagine that there are facts or interpretations that lead his opponents to opposite conclusions. He therefore assumes they are dimwits or liars.
Liberals like Obama believe that a Keynesian “stimulus” must work because that’s what they’ve been taught in college and heard repeated by liberal politicians and policy wonks. No matter that such stimuli, while working well on paper, tend to work as well in the real world. (See, e.g,. our recent guest post.)
The liberal worldview notwithstanding, the New Deal did not lift the nation out of the Depression, indeed, FDR’s big-government agenda prolonged it. Japan’s lost decade wasn’t lost because of spending cuts and regulatory relief. And Obama’s “stimulus” may well have delayed our recovery from the most recent recession.
And then, there are things which liberals should know about the economy, but don’t — because it doesn’t fit their narrative. The economy rebounded in the 1980s despite the Gipper’s failure to offer a government “stimulus” and continued to grow in the 1990s despite the successful Republican filibuster of Bill Clinton’s “stimulus.”
Obama refuses to confront these facts, repeating instead his nostrum about Mitt Romney wanting to return us to the failed policies of the past. Given that Romney’s economic agenda more closely resembles Ronald Reagan’s than it does George W. Bush’s, it would be correct to say that the Republican nominee wants to return to the successful policies of the past. [Read more…]
Maybe a focus group reaction to this ad helps explains why Obama is not acting like a winning candidate:
“Almost everyone in the group said they voted for Obama in 2008,” reports Scott Conroy of CBS NEWS, “but they were about evenly split between Obama and Mitt Romney in the 2012 race, with several still undecided.”
The group watched “more than a dozen negative TV ads funded by both presidential campaigns and outside groups”; a majority singled out the above spot “as the most effective ad of the current cycle.” Via Mary Katharine Ham who notes that “only four of the 23 swing voters found ads from Obama and his allies more convincing than those from Romney and his allies.”
The National Review’s Daniel Foster, who watched (what I believe was) this focus group in action, reported their reactions to the two major-party presidential candidates:
When asked to describe Romney in one word, they said things like “stiff,” “experienced,” “educated,” “accomplished,” “articulate,” “untrustworthy,” “a leader,” “successful,” “privileged,” “question-mark,” and “ethical.” A mixed bag, right? Sure, but look at what they call Obama: “narcissist,” “polarizing,” “trying,” “having hope,” “incapable,” “lost,” “polarizing,” “socialist” (!), and most damning of all, “disappointing.”
Starker still: Almost all of them voted for Obama in 2008. Almost none of them are committed to doing it again.
At least since George Stephanopolous’s question on contraception in the 2012 ABC/Yahoo!/WMUR New Hampshire GOP primary debate, Democrats have been eager to accent social issues, believing the contrast between their positions and those of their partisan rivals will show how out of touch the Republican Party is with 21st century voters, particularly in suburbs.
They want to highlight that contrast because if wavering voters cast their ballot on economic issues on their concerns about the growing size and scope of the federal government, they would overwhelmingly pull the lever for the GOP. When it comes to their support of big government, Democrats are out of touch with the American people.
And yet, they still the votes of many socially liberal Americans who favor a more limited role for the government.
These Americans, especially entrepreneurs in blue enclaves like Hollywood, well aware of the burdens of federal, state and local regulation on their enterprises tend to define the GOP not by its economic agenda (which they largely share) but by their peers’ perception of the party as a bastion of intolerant social conservatives, unwilling to welcome minorities, particularly gay men and lesbians into their ranks.
Last year, when I spoke to the gay man who had hanged Sarah Palin in effigy in the course of the 2008 presidential campaign about his 2011 bid for West Hollywood City Council, I heard him level the same kinds of complaints against a meddlesome city government that Tea Party protesters level against government at all levels. How do we get Americans, like Mito Aviles, aware of the burdens of big government, to support the GOP?
Mito is not alone. Others know that, to borrow a great man’s expression, in the present economic crisis, government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem. “When asked about the best solution to the spurring economic growth,” Ed Morrissey reported last month, “21% of likely voters said they favor an increase in government spending, while three times as many, or 64%, believe the government should cut spending.”
Doesn’t sound like a populace favorable to yet another “stimulus”. [Read more…]