« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Romney, the un-McCain: Obama indifferent, or worse, to economic suffering

Finally, a Republican has the guts to make a moral case against Democratic Party economic policies

Significantly on the day before President Barack Obama made the defining statement of his presidency that the  ”private sector is doing fine”, Mitt Romney became the first GOP presidential nominee in memory to eschew the usual, non-judgmental, Republican line against the economic policies of our “honorable friends on the other side of the aisle” as merely being “wrong” about how to foster economic growth:

They concluded that we would all forget how long the recovery took once it had happened.  So they decided to go ahead.  The idea that they knowingly slowed down our recovery in order to put in place Obamacare, which they wanted and they considered historic, but the American people did not want or consider historic, is something which I think deserves a lot of explaining. Because I think the president’s responsibility is to put people back to work and to get people out of poverty and to help people have good jobs and have prospects for a brighter tomorrow.

David Horowitz, former radical leftist and author of “How to Beat Democrats” and yours truly have been calling for the day when Republicans other than newly elected tea partiers would get over their fear of the Main Stream/Drive-By/Obama media and acknowledge the obvious import of the fact that, continually, over the past 40+ years, the Democratic Party has advocated and enacted economic policies that have always failed to foster economic growth. Yes, many Democrats are young and/or ignorant and truly believe that the policies advocated by George McGovern, Tip O’Neil, Hillary’s Bill Clinton before Newt got custody, Nancy Pelosi and Barack Hussein Obama are best for the poor, middle class and the economy as a whole.

But the truth is that the leaders of the party of Jefferson and Jackson long ago divorced themselves from the conventional economic goals of most Jeffersonians and Jacksonians. Yes, they want the private sector to produce enough wealth for them to spread around to fund well-paid government bureaucrats to regulate business and dependent victims at a “Life of Julia” subsistence level so they can declare the private sector as “fine”; but they too often forget that for wealth to continue to be created, those that create the wealth and the jobs that come with it must have the incentive to take risks to start and expand businesses.

The prospect of Obamacare (Reform before Recovery) taxes and regulations, oil moratoriums seized upon by oil spills (yet another crisis Rahm admonished not be wasted) and not ended even if found in contempt of court, and EPA regs that shut down power plants and the coal industry; do not foster economic activity. Most Democrats aren’t too stupid to understand this, hence the perfect reasonableness of Mitt Romney’s doubling down on Obama as Marie Let them Eat Cake Antoinette.

Gone are the days when the Doles, Bushes and McCains of the world are the face of a GOP that looks the other way at the obvious indifference of Democrats to the economic suffering of Americans that want more out of life than a Food Stamp card, even while being called racist, sexist, homophobes and evil Bain capitalists that want widows and orphans thrown out on the streets, by those same Democrats.

As Horowitz, the former Radical Son (and author of the eponymous title) of communists and editor of Ramparts magazine in the psychadelic 60s that famously converted to the GOP in the early 80s to support President Ronald Reagan’s support for the Nicaraguan anti-Communist Contras, pointed out in his 2002 book (and chapter of the same, How to Beat Democrats, title in his autobiographical 2003 Left Illusions):

Democrats win elections because they understand a simple fact: the key to American politics is the romance of the underdog…Republicans play right into the Democrats’ trap because they approach politics as a problem of management…[Meanwhile] Democrats are busy attacking Republicans as servants of the rich, oppressors of the weak, and defenders of the strong.

How ironic then is it that the former CEO of Bain Captital is the Republican that appears poised to take on the party of envy and class warfare on moral grounds.

The private sector is fine?

The problem is the need for more federal, state and local government workers? It gets increasingly impossible to caricature Democrats with truly impossible analogies.

This week, the author of the Stimulus that was supposed to keep unemployment under 8% that passed right before the current, continuous and ongoing post WWII record streak of 40 months above 8%, told America that the private sector is fine because his Administration had “created” over 4 million jobs. Yet, there are now less total Americans employed than on the day he took the oath of office as President of the United States.

Not since the Great Depression has this been the case during any four-year period of American history, which may explain why the inadequacy of the regularly reported U-3 unemployment rate hasn’t been discredited before now. So what about “net” jobs created does Obama not understand? Were not sure, but we do think the loss of his job after Election Day will concentrate his mind on the subject and unleash a desperately needed recovery worthy of the name that President Obama took for granted would have arrived in time to erase our memories of his and the Democrats’ forced-fed socialization of health care with a last minute assist from former President Bill Clinton as Lobbyist-in-Chief.

We don’t know if Obama didn’t and doesn’t “care” about the poor or if he intentionally brought the economy down so as to make Americans more needy and thus receptive to “free” health care. We don’t read hearts here at DeVine Law and we certainly don’t suspect that Obama and the Democrats would have done anything but hurt the economy even if they weren’t occupied with cheating Scott Brown out of a “no” vote on Barack’s signature legislation. We also recall that even in the selling of Obamacare, the President himself famously told the daughter of a centarian seeking a pacemaker to essentially forget about it at their age and just take a painkiller and go home. Did you feel that cold breeze emanating from the man who faked being a Kenyan thru his publisher after Law School?

What we do know is that Obama and the Democrats were in 2009-10, indifferent to the suffering of Americans due to the financial and housing crises and resulting Great Recession.  Thank you Mitt Romney, for speaking the moral truth to an amoral Democratic Party that cares only about their own power and couldn’t care less about empowering the happiness pursuits of We the People, unless that happiness is received from a government bureaucrat.

Mike DeVine

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

Atlanta Law & Politics columnist –  Examiner.com

Editor of  Hillbilly Politics and Co-Founder and Editor of Political Daily

Charlotte Observer and Atlanta Journal-Constitution op-eds archived at Townhall.com.

COMMENTS

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

    I think so.

  • gekster

    and the rest is good as well

  • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

    I remember your January column had more to do with how Newt sucked more than Mitt. I like this one a lot better because it speaks to Mitt’s great qualities instead of the ‘Barack sucks more’ meme.’ This is one of your best, GC.

  • Viet71

    – Can’t be bought or sold.

    – Moral.

    – Well educated.

    – Wants what’s best for America.

    – Will turn around the economy.

    We haven’t had a president like this since Reagan; and before him, John F. Kennedy.

    The Left is coming around to Romney. Several diaries the last couple of days on FDL arguing Repub presidents are no worse than Dems.

    Romney will find the middle ground. RS should follow.

  • aesthete

    For that matter, so did Hoover and Wilson. Wouldn’t call them outstanding Presidents.

    It all depends on what Romney thinks is “best for America”. Mayor Bloomberg in NYC thinks that regulating my salt content is best for America. Al Gore thinks that combating global warming is best not only for America, but also for the world. Rick Santorum thinks that banning various voluntary acts and setting up government programs to fulfill Christ’s mission is what’s best for America.

    Frankly, I don’t know what Romney thinks is best for America. Whether he’ll be a great President or not (and whether he “turns the economy around” or not) depends entirely on the answer to that unspoken question. Judging from his record in MA, I’m not jumping for joy.

    At any rate, I don’t think RS should move to where Romney is at. Romney should move to whereRS is at, and we should evaluate accordingly. Romney’ll have enough suck-ups and cheerleaders when he’s in office; I don’t think that he needs another nearly so much as he needs constructive criticism when he goes off the rails.

  • acat

    Two other moral, well-educated, best-interest-of-America types.

    For Romney to be a Reagan, we need control of the Congress – both houses – in Conservative-led GOP hands. .. then we can send legislation to Romney and actually make some changes.

    Mew

  • aesthete

    Another Bush would be an unmitigated disaster for conservatism.

    We need to stop saying nice things about Bush, and acting as if he were a conservative President. He wasn’t, and should be remembered for his deeds moreso than the misplaced hopes that conservatives placed on his errant Presidency.

  • Vegas_Rick

    I always love reading your work. Even when I disagree. This is one of those times. While I am still not a fan, I have been pleasantly surprised at some of Romneys more pointed criticisms of the One. He’s certainly showing alot more backbone than I had given him credit for.

    If he keeps this up, I may have to join the fan club. :-)

  • Vegas_Rick

    This is NOT one of those times. Sheesh!

  • luvnthebigsites

    Its not just content that gets my recommendation— Headline, style, timing, picture, and last but not least “narrative”. You are getting better… in my humble, constant reader opinion FYI.

    I am sending a “Real” recommendation to the electronic circular file that is the “contact link” (heh)… Asking that your Toon name goes green and that you can post to the left side of our screen. I think you have earned it. ;)

    /Salute.

  • acat

    Bush 2.0 did a lot of good stuff. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts. Tax cuts. I’d be very happy if Romney gets to replace Ginsberg and Breyer, eh?

    Bush 2.0 did a lot of less-than-good .. NCLB, which *could* be used for good by a strong executive … but is mostly an excuse to waste money and grow buck-passing bureaucratic empires.

    Bush 2.0 did a lot of stuff that’s just plain stupid and statist … Medicare Part D.

    I don’t see a reason, in all of this, to kick him any harder than, say, Nixon or Bush 1.0 .. neither of them were anything to write home about … unless it’s the term “compassionate conservative” that’s the root problem… and I can’t help it if you don’t like the label.

    I agree. Bush 2.0 was no conservative. Neither was Gerald Ford, and he mostly did okay ..

    Mew

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

    day and btw,

    Gamecocks host Sooners tonight in game one of their best 2 of 3 Super Regional series, the winner of which advances to the College World Series.

  • aesthete

    than Bush 1.0, Nixon, or Gerald Ford (all of which were much better Presidents, IMO). I don’t recall seeing “Miss me yet” signage for any of those three.

    A cool detachment coupled with some minor distaste is in order for the Bush Presidency, IMO.

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

    but I have long admired many of Mitt’s qualities as a leader. more later my friend and thx for the kudos.

  • zachv

    Great post gamecock

  • acat

    To get to Nixon or Ford, ya sorta gotta go past Reagan .. and Bush 1.0, while not a bad president, suffered by proximity to Reagan.

    Remember “stealth justice” Souter? Bush 2.0 did better… right?

    Far from perfect, couldn’t communicate his way out of a paper bag, and made some long-term poor choices, but .. I think better than Nixon.

    Mew

  • http://www.unifiedpatriots.com/ pilgrim

    ..

  • macphisto96

    If Romney is sincere about shrinking government and making it far more efficient then he could go beyond Reagan with a GOP Congress.

    I think the key is to minimize cuts to services that the American people care about while eliminating unnecessary intrusions. If we can get to 60 Senators in 2014 (a possibility) then the opportunity to eliminate some departments like Education may exist. If Romney kills the DoE, how will he be looked at?

    Romney has the background to find efficiencies, to trim, and to hold accountable. A strong GOP majority could bring massive reform to the Federal bureaucracy. If he can do that and figure out how to solve the SS and Medicare issues, he could go beyond Reagan. Sacrilege, I know, but I think Romney has a chance to be a great President who can help save the Republic for the future.

    I’m not wearing rose colored glasses, but I hope that’s what he proves to be.

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

    more later

  • APA Guy

    American Indies…fiscal moderate Dems…undecided voters…listen up:

    This wasn’t a “gaffe”…IT’S EXACTLY WHAT HE THINKS.

    Obama doesn’t give a rip whether the private sector rebounds. If he did, he wouldn’t be out there railing on about raising taxes on private-sector job creators. Instead, he is out there trying to lobby for more funds to employ through governmental means.

    His “stimulus”? An $800 billion conglomeration of public-sector temp jobs.

    His health care law? A $1.7 trillion exercise in socialized health care.

    His views on the economy? That we should take from the private sector and give to the government to create a new class of dependent temp government workers who HAVE to vote for us to keep their “jobs”.

    WAKE UP, those of you who still foolishly support this man. His views on matters economic couldn’t be clearer if they were stenciled on his forehead.

    Oh, BTW GC…more luv for you…rec’d for terrific message and content!

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

    a rotten Dem Party pod.

  • APA Guy

    …and that these past few drops have been passive-aggressive snipes at him.

    I think Morris is correct :)

    Looking forward to your next read!

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    These Clinton swipes are from both a personal and practical standpoints. The first is the Clintons know an Obama re-election would be a disaster for the country and thus the Democratic Party in 2016. Hilary would much rather take her chances with Mitt Romney, incumbent versus the ghost of Barack Obama’s failures. The second is very personal. Don’t ever believe for a minute that Slick Willie has forgotten Axelrod and Plouffe putting “Bill Clinton is a racist on the street”. Revenge is a dish best served cold. The great thing because Ol’ Slick Willie is the best fundraiser in the Democratic Party, the Chicago good squad can’t coerce him to stop, can’t pull him off the road, and can’t force him into Corey Bookerish hostage videos. Oh Slick will do those laughfest reversals but you won’t see hostage videos. In fact, notice Clinton surrogates like Ed Rendell, Paul Begala, James Carville, and Lanny Davis have joined in to pop the Obama campaign in the privates the last couple of days. I say buy some popcorn.

  • tnfriendofcoal101368

    Typo because there is no “good” about them. Really Axelrod has no redeeming qualities.

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

    un-tethered by a Newt would be just as bad as Obama.

    The problem is the Democratic Party writ large.

  • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

    I shudder to think how much worse things would be under another President Clinton. I think Hillary has a killer instinct to go after anyone in her way, plus she would have had Bill providing the “snake charm” to whatever she had in mind to accomplish.

  • garfieldjl

    However I don’t mean it in a good way, I’m still very angry with the stunts Romney pulled in the primary.

    He isn’t the greatest thing to come along since Reagan either, far from it.

    I do like the fact he hasn’t gone full tilt and running to the left as fast as he can, but I for one don’t trust him. The scary part is that Obama is far worse than Mitt Romney and we definately can’t survive four more years of the Marxist.

    Btw, people you need to give McCain some credit, currently he is actually going after Obama due to the National Security Breaches that put our servicemen and women in danger. I firmly believe McCain’s accusations, that the breaches were from the White House in an attempt to help Obama get re-elected to be correct.

    Anyways I like some of the rhetoric that Romney is dishing out currently, but I don’t necessarily believe him.

  • acat

    Hillary has Bill, Obama has … Axelrod? Jarrett? Clinton would have not made some of the amateurish mistakes Obama made….so would have been more *effectively* bad for the country.

    This is somewhat mitigated by the observable fact that Bubba Clinton, after defeating Ken Starr, didn’t veer as hard left as he could have… Whether Hillary would have shown the same restraint is .. unknown, but not unthinkable.

    Mew

  • clowngirl

    unless, of course you accept the definition of “gaffe” as being “when a politician accidentally tells the truth.

    Obama didn’t misspeak or use less than artful phrasing — he said what he really thinks and — as you’ve eloquently demonstrated — showed how little he cares about the welfare of working, tax paying Americans.

    Calling it a “gaffe” is just a way of dodging that reality and crediting the President with having concern for the private sector as well as insight into the economy with he just doesn’t possess.

  • APA Guy

    …so by definition, it couldn’t have been a gaffe :)

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

    imho
    I don’t consider the machinations of Bill Clinton and Hillary worth my time or anyone else to analyze except to see that they are corrupt liars trying to fool people into voting Democrat to fund their mob and to see that they care not for the general welfare of the US as evidenced by their policies.

    Dr. Krauthammer’s diagnosis:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/07/krauthammer_on_clinton_apology_a_raving_psychotic_speaking_in_word_salad.html

    What we need to be about the business of is showing the vast gulf in integrity and correct policies between Republicans and ALL Democrats. The gulf exists.

  • Dave_A

    I think about how many on the right were worried that nominating the man would ‘play right into Obama’s 99% rhetoric’…

    Well, Obama has gift-wrapped him a way out of that & Romney’s running with it like a fumble on the other team’s 5yrd line…

    Thanks to ‘The Private Sector is Doing Fine’ – combined with the Obamas acting like they’re the royal family of America for the past 4 years (with the posh vacations disguised as state-visits & veggie-garden exhibition, etc – at least when Bush went on vacation, he went HOME to his ranch)…

    Romney can stick the ‘Elitist’ tag on Obama with super-glue – and by defining the narrative, it will be damn hard for Obama to stick it back on him…

    Hell, Michelle Antoinette doesn’t even say ‘let them eat cake’… Her version is let them eat spinach (cake would make us proles fat, after all – and we can’t have that)!

  • Dave_A

    But he was a LOUSY campaigner.

    The evil queen from ‘Game of Thrones’ said it best: ‘when you play… you win or you die’…

    McCain tried to be a bit too noble and it killed his campaign…

    That said, McCain is one of the best figures in the Senate to serve as ‘OPSEC Police’ – he has a tad bit of personal experience on the importance of sealing leaks & keeping classified info safe… ‘Keep the Faith’ and all…

    Leaks like that (burning the underbomber mole, Stuxnet, discussing the HVT list process) blow ops & get people killed… At a minimum, we have ruined a promising operative’s cover (preventing him from being used to infiltrate more enemy operations), and given Iran propaganda points to try and justify their nuke program as ‘deterrence’…

    Someone (or someones) needs to go to prison, and I hope McCain holds on to this like a pit-bull…

    Maybe he can get LTC West in on it too (on the House side) – they may have served different wars, but I can promise you both men have a very personal understanding of why you don’t bust OPSEC – especially to play politics…

  • trimulchio

    Some pundits say the Romney “attack” on teachers, firemen and cops was ill-considered, but property taxes and teachers’ unions are not as popular as police and fire . . . .

  • trimulchio

    nomination in ’08.

    Bill Clinton was a competent pol, who learned enough not to lose in ’96, first Democrat to not lose re-election since FDR.

    No heart, no core beliefs means you can triangulate to the right outcomes out of ambition and fear of failure.

  • trimulchio

    sure about his political skills after MA. Real success in the “social sector” as an LDS Stake-President and with the Winter Olympics.

    Certainly has the brains and leadership.

  • trimulchio

    remembered as being. There was no stimulous with the ’76 downturn (the correct approach) and he was skeptical about the ’74-’75 stimulous.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Though they were never enacted.

  • trimulchio

    simply NO federal role in Education under Article I, Section 8. It is FAR too unconnected to areas of federal concern to be nessesary and proper.” This is the only way to cut that can have real legitimacy.

  • trimulchio

    and if that is not the cover story, which Gov. Romney could then blow . . . .

  • anjinconsulting

    “[b]ecause I think the president?s responsibility is to put people back to work and to get people out of poverty and to help people have good jobs and have prospects for a brighter tomorrow.” It isnt the presidents resopnsibility to put people back to work. Or to get them out of povery, or even to help them have good jobs and have prospects for a brighter tomorrow. There is nothing in the constitution that implies that, let alone that states that.

    That kind of patronizing, nanny-state crap is anthema to the principles of the constitution. Free men pursuing their ambitions for life liberty and the pursuit of happiness only requires that the federal governement do the few things that it is tasked with.

    Dont get me wrong; I am certainly glad that Mittens is out there fighting because Lord knows it’s been a while since the GOP leadership challenged Capatin Zero on anything, but lets not lose sight of what this election is about.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Of an “Opportunity Society”, which would fit in well with a program of tax cuts, educational improvements, and spending reforms. Jobs, schools, families… Those create a brighter future for Americans, and the federal government just has to create the environment for this by minimising unecessary interference. Tax cuts and welfare-to-work would serve those purposes.

    No need to call him Mittens, give the guy’s name (and parents) some respect.

  • garfieldjl

    He could mean that the President’s job is to get people back to work by getting Government the heck out of people’s way so that businesses aren’t scared to death of hiring anyone, because they don’t know what new regulation is going to come out of DC next…

    I don’t know the context that Romney meant, but that could easily be the context.

  • sulmak

    nt

  • 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

    I would say that the Obama as Occupier strategy is dispossessed!

    Its the economy, stupid rule prevails…

  • anjinconsulting

    If that were his intent why would he say “…I think the president?s responsibility is to PUT PEOPLE BACK TO WORK and to get people out of poverty and to help people have good jobs and have prospects for a brighter tomorrow.”

  • Pingback: Renata Stepanik