JONATHAN CHAIT SEPTEMBER 24, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Mitt Romney says that president Obama will have the economy back on track by 2012:
"I think President Obama will be difficult to beat in 2012, because I think an incumbent has extraordinary advantages. He will pull out all the stops, although he's pulled out so many stops at this point that there might not be a whole lot more to pull out in terms of federal reserve, interest rates and stimulus and so forth.
But he will do everything he can to get the economy going back again, and most likely -- at least in my view -- the economy will be coming back.
Analytically, I think this is mostly wrong. The Federal Reserve is not acting with urgency to increase economic growth. And Obama has long lost any ability to get Congress to help stimulate the economy.
But the interesting part of Romney's remarks is the implicit concession that government activism, including stimulus, can help restore the economy to health. I have no doubt that Romney understands this is true. But he seems to have forgotten the Republican line that the stimulus has either had no effect or made the economy worse.
10 comments
Chait, are you really this dishonest or just stupid? I guess you need to adapt the style that suits your readers. Isn't the truth better than pure spin. Here is the rest of the Romney quote -- contradicts everything Chait inferred: "He will, you know, you can expect Vice President Biden to come out and say it was the President's great economic accomplishment that the economy has turned around, and of course, most of the people in this room will recognize it was in spite of much that was done in Washington that the economy has turned around. Recessions do end. The economy recovers. It always has. It always will. That being said, however, they will take credit for the fact that things are getting better. That will help the President's reelection effort. I think, however, that the American people have established a perspective on the President which is going to be lasting -- that he has not understood the nature of America, in some respects, that the values I've described of love of liberty, of freedom, of opportunity, of small government -- that those values he doesn't share. And I think it's going to be possible to beat him, but not easy."
- mr_rationale
September 24, 2010 at 10:31am
That's right Scarlet, things will get better. I just know they will.
- rayward
September 24, 2010 at 10:46am
Rationale contra spin is like Ted Bundy coming out against murder. Those two paragraphs jostle against one another uneasily, as if Mitt Romney realized he needed the obligatory passage for the right. It doesn't at all nullify what Jonathan quoted, though. As I have said often out here, hermeneutic skills are in short supply. Rationale is the poster child for the lack of hs. Speaking of spin and shape-shifting, Romney is the absolute master of these abilities. Why doesn't rationale come out against Romney? Oh, I forgot: that would only be wrong if a Democrat did it. People, you should listen to the hypnotically beautiful song Son by The National. I have it on as I am typing this. It soars above the tripe that rationale writes.
- liberal reformer
September 24, 2010 at 11:07am
Exactly, libref. The rest of the quote doesn't at all contradict anything Chait said. Mittens is trying to cover his ass from about 43 different angles here -- Things will improve, sure. But it won't be Obama's doing! And he will say it is! But it won't be! It will be in spite of him. But he'll get the credit unfairly! But we'll know the truth! And he's a bad guy who doesn't understand America. But he still will be tough to beat! Oh, I think I can beat him. But it won't be easy.
- W_Bombay
September 24, 2010 at 11:38am
I love this bit from the excerpt mr_rat provided: Obama "...has not understood the nature of America, in some respects, that the values I've described of love of liberty, of freedom, of opportunity, of small government -- that those values he doesn't share." Right -- as a black man, he intuitively prefers slavery to freedom.
- Fishpeddler
September 24, 2010 at 11:59am
Chait mistakenly inferred (1) "interesting part of Romney's remarks is the implicit concession that government activism, including stimulus, can help restore the economy to health. I have no doubt that Romney understands this is true" Instead Romney says (2) "most of the people in this room will recognize it was in spite of much that was done in Washington that the economy has turned around. Recessions do end. The economy recovers. It always has. It always will." How do liberals live with the cognitive dissonance of those statements? Do liberals have a greater tolerance for dissonance? Is liberalism merely a form of mental illness?
- mr_rationale
September 24, 2010 at 1:40pm
Everything Romney says and does must be interpreted in terms of his chances for winning the 2012 GOP nomination. In those paragraphs, he was clearly just pumping up his credentials for taking on Obama. If Obama and the economy are perceived to be weak, Romney won't stand a chance against the populist nihilists (Palin/Newt). If the economy is perceived to be strong or getting there, and Republicans are nervous that Obama might actually be reelected, they'll go with perceived competence to give themselves a prayer. Cue Mitt. In other words, Romney's making a political argument to Republicans that, look, this Obama fellow shouldn't be underestimated. His implicit point is that to take down Obama they're gonna need their big guns, and "who but Romney would be up to the task!" he needn't add.
- thetraytiger
September 24, 2010 at 3:19pm
Is rationale a form of mental illness? The cognitive dissonance exists in the statements, which were made by ... uh, Mitt Romney. I think that r. is manifestly a masochist. Why else would he constantly advertise his stupidity out here and get batted around for it?
- liberal reformer
September 24, 2010 at 5:15pm
I think I get it, now! See, the economy will recover because it always has and it always will. Therefore, it doesn't really matter what policies the elected officials enact. The economy is all powerful, and it will survive no matter what. But the policies will affect the quality of life for "the American people", higher taxes means less take home pay, etc, so all we really need is to elect someone who is committed to ensuring the best quality of life for "the American people".
Really, Mr Chait? I think the dog whistle in the second half of the citation, his "the American people" understand American values but Obama does not, is far more noteworthy than his faux pas regarding his discussion of Obama's policies. Kenyan Anti-colonialism FTW B*tches!!!
- GSpinks
September 24, 2010 at 6:43pm
I don't really see this as a gaffe. Romney knows that government deficit spending will boost the economy. And he probably knows that Federal Reserve has nothing it can do, and that Obama has no control over Congress. The expected federal deficits will probably be enough to get the economy growing by 2012. So he's just hedging his bets, if it's true, he was just lowering expectations. If he's wrong and the federal deficit was not large enough, then he can campaign that Obama should have gotten the economy fixed by know and the clear answer is tax cuts (primarily for the rich but some middle class ones thrown in). By 2012, people won't care who is right, they'll just go for the guy with a plan.
- vips73
September 25, 2010 at 8:38am