« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Red meat ‘economy’ portion of ‘improving economy’ dooms Obama

Red meat that both Romney and the base can eat on the way to the crucial selection of who will wield federal executive power 

Would you re-visit a barber, in a town with other barbers available, that you had initially hired for a trim around the edges but who instead shaved your head, merely because your pate was technically “improving” due to ongoing natural growth three weeks later? I didn’t think so, and you know, Rome began “improving” immediately after the last flame turned to embers and Nero fiddled his final chord.

Despite the near flawless application of James Carville’s, It’s-the-economy, stupid-Rule to every presidential election outcome since at least 1976, even many bona fide conservatives in the NY-DC Media are buying into the inevitability of the re-election of an incumbent chief executive who is supposedly “liked” by most Americans and presiding over an acceptably improving economy.

Don’t believe a word of it. They don’t manufacture mirrors that make America’s three-year old haircut look good, much less $4/gallon+ gasoline while at home for a summer stay-cation.

Too many Americans crave a return to the  entrepreneurship they enjoyed for two decades before the 2008 housing bubble-induced collapse, whose silent cell phones still ring louder than misleading U-3 unemployment rates driven downward more my men applying for disability than by private sector hires (if everyone in the “labor force” delayed filing their third application at the nearest Wal-Mart for four consecutive weeks, Barack could boast of a 0% unemployment rate); to be fooled by relative “improvements” unworthy of the description.

Yet, only three days removed from Leap Day and more than eight months before Election Day, George Will thinks Cadillac, contraception and moon colony gaffes will weigh more heavily on the minds of at least 270 electoral collegians worth of voters than thin wallets. Did he miss the seemingly consequential-at-the-time Playboy heart lust, Tuscumbia states rights speech and “I didn’t inhale” gaffes that were outweighed by empty wallet space? How about Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and bitter clingers?

Admittedly, President Barack Obama has kept his promises to fundamentally change America, bankrupt coal companies and lower the oceans (seriously, the Earth has cooled down since Inauguration Day 2009), but do a majority of Americans really “like” skyrocketing energy prices, Chevy Volts and Michelle’s pre-K school lunch gauntlet? Not likely.

Yes, enough Americans haven’t given up and still adapt to prevailing conditions with what Liberty remains in their hands despite the usurpation of much of our Rule of Law-protected property rights by “the ObamaCare Secretary shall decide” and EPA Rules, so that the economy hasn’t disappeared. But will Americans re-hire a man merely because a scab begins to form on the sore during his periodic retreats to 18 holes? Again, not likely.

Improving? Yes, much like changes in hospital patient evaluations from critical to serious. Moreover, would voters wish to risk a return to three years of debt ceiling-busting and currency-threatening, un-stimulating reforms in exchange for a one year focus on jobs? Did I say not likely? Yes.

But for the sake of argument, let’s say that the wizards of smart are right and that a more realistic goal for the Republican Party would be to “focus” on winning control of the Senate and retaining control of the House, exactly how would that increase the likelihood of making its reduced goals more attainable? Would campaign promises that GOP congressmen would protect voters from an Obama they don’t fear more than a Rick, Mitt or Newt, really be persuasive? In a word, no.

March came in like a lion in years past foretelling the second terms of Carter and Bush41, only to yield to recession-inspired Reagan and Clinton first terms secured in November.

So, what accounts for all the gloom and doom from so many in the conservative chattering class even before March inevitably goes out like a lamb? Is it ignorance or could it be more about the desires of a cautious conservative minority cadre for months of easier camaraderie with their liberal majority panel show comrades?

Its always safer to predict a president’s re-election, all other factors being equal, but what compels so many to predict, despite the risks of self-fulfilling prophecies, if not misplaced pride?

The latter deadly sin, much as America’s economy in three years, hasn’t improved much either, since Eve bit the apple.

Mike DeVine

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor - Hillbilly Politics

Co-Founder and Editor - Political Daily

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

More DeVine Gamecock rooster crowings at Modern ConservativeUnified Patriots,  and Conservative Outlooks. All Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

COMMENTS

  • Viet71

    I’m guessing he’ll get the nomination and give Obama a good run.

    He’ not a favorite here, and he leaves me flat (but I’d vote for him).

    Seems to me that’s where your diary points.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    that it is about the economy means that Obama is likely to lose to any of the three.

  • Viet71

    Meant that of the three, Romney has hands down the most business experience and education (Harvard J.D., MBA). Meant that if the election turns primarily on the economy, Romney is in the best position to beat Obama. Seems to me your diary by implication leads to that conclusion.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    the least bold.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    experience as what best leads to a better economy. There are many liberal business men.

  • acat

    Capitalism continues to work quite nicely, despite the vast pantheon of morons, imbeciles, and upperclass twits allowed to operate companies.

    Mew

  • carolina

    in his ‘platform’.
    Newt has the best.
    Santorum is in the middle.
    Romney’s built-in class warfare against the “rich” will neuter any growth incentives. We would likely be better off with BO’s proposals – because they won’t pass the GOP House. Romney might actually snooker the GOP into supporting his bad policies, which would be a BIG mistake.

    We would be better off to take the Senate, and leave BO in office.
    The electorate is smarter than most folks believe …… and it will be interesting to see how the electorate navigates this tricky decision between 2 probable sets of bad policy.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    tee

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    the status quo is unacceptable for 4 more years no matter the Machiavellian scenarios…

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    w/i ObamaCare…

  • http://barbershopvalues.com daconia

    Finger to my forehead, a salute to one of the finest writers around. I always enjoy your posts.
    I disagree that “it’s the economy, stupid.” It’s not the economy, it’s a government whose boot is on everyone’s throat. Of course, the boot on all those businesses throats is why the economy is doing a John Galt.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    smile

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    Kristol writes the definitive refutation of George Will/beltway GOP fatalism (that a certain gamecock tried to write earlier…Obama can be beaten, as if:http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/will-s-wrong_633080.html

  • trickamsterdam

    Kristol’s been trying to push someone else into the Race from the beginning and continues to fantasize about it.

    I never watch what people say, I watch what they do.

    What Kristol DOES is act like no one of these four can beat Obama.

    Now does that mean they “can’t win” (i.e., no chance at all mathematically)? No, but Santorum probably has the best chance at about 45% (because he’s immune to Obama’s class warfare attacks and has a better chance in OH and PA than the other three).

    The rest all have less than a 40% chance (IMO). That’s why I say Romney’s “unelectable”. Of course he has a mathematical chance, but he’s such a heavy underdog, it’s impossible to take him at all serious.

    Not having read either column, I suspect that’s the point G. Will was making. Sure, Romney could win. But he won’t.

  • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

    true

  • Risky

    … it doesn’t mean that the GOP can’t completely, um, foul it up.

    The election won’t be won between the bedsheets or on the moon or by triangulating your Cadillacs.

    Santorum should needs to find his inner Trappist on some topics, Newt needs to convince people that he thinks this election is about america, not Newt and Romney needs to stop trying to avoid offending anyone and start offending the right people. I still vainly hope for Mitt to try out some lines like:

    “they said I fired a lot of people, well I’d had a look at the federal payroll and I think my experience is going to be useful”

    “I think it’s time you elected someone who someone who can read a balance sheet not a tricky par four”

    “you might not fancy electing a guy from Wall St now but leave the deficit go to hell for another four years like this and the president after next will need to be a bond salesman”

    Ok tone it down but you get the idea………

  • Flagstaff

    in one respect: He implies a zero sum game–we can emphasize and win either the White House or the Congress, but not both. We know life isn’t zero-sum. We can do both.

    As for this passage,

    “But whatever differences conservatives have in March about candidates, strategy and tactics should not affect our determination in the fall, when there is a Republican nominee, to turn our energies to defeating President Obama.

    Why? Obamacare. Iran. Debt. The military. The Court.”

    Krystol exhibits a shortage of imagination. This is just the beginning of a list of issues where we can best Obama in the campaign. I say beginning, because he omits Energy, Election Fraud, Intrusion in the Marketplace, Excessive Regulation, Wasteful Spending, Social Security, Medicare, Border Security, an Even-handed Attorney General, Leadership, Experience, and I could go on if I had time.

    Although I have aften decried the handicap we face due to the leftist-forward-leaning-progressive-MSM, we do have an advantage that even that and George Soros’ money can’t buy, and that is WE ARE RIGHT. Our arguments have weight and depth which can counter the shallow reasoning of the Left. No matter how many times they tell us “The sky is green,” we only have to say “The sky is blue, look at it for yourself,” once to gain a convert, IF THE POTENTIAL CONVERT CAN BE INDUCED TO LISTEN.

    Excellent blog you have here, Mike.

  • Pingback: Super Tuesday: The Legend, The Whippersnapper or The Hedgehog | Sago