For the last few months, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign has had quite a bit of success driving the major political discussions of the day. Team Romney says Hilary Rosen's comments matter, so for a short while, the political world obsesses over Hilary Rosen. They say Cory Booker's comments matter, so for a short while, the political world obsesses over Cory Booker. They say Solyndra matters, so for a short while, the political world obsesses over Solyndra.
This week, President Obama's campaign wants to know if they can work the refs, too.
At issue is a development we discussed yesterday: the Romney camp prefers a double standard when it comes to the candidates' records on jobs. When evaluating Romney's one term as governor, his campaign argues, what matters is that the governor inherited a recession. The state showed marginal improvements after four years, they now argue, moving from an economy that was losing jobs into one that was adding jobs. Can Obama use the identical standard? Of course not.
In one of the most jaw-dropping quotes of the year, Ed Gillespie went so far as to argue on Sunday that Romney's entire first year as governor shouldn't count. Asked about the fact that Massachusetts ranked 47th in job creation during Romney's tenure, Gillespie complained, "[Democrats are] averaging out over the four years. So, they are bringing down the gains of his fourth year in office, which shows the real impact of his policies, and diluting it with the first year in office."
What's breathtaking about this, of course, is the double standard. It matters that Romney inherited a recession, but it doesn't matter that Obama inherited the worst global crisis since the Great Depression. It matters that Massachusetts was adding jobs after Romney's one term, but it doesn't matter that America is adding jobs after Obama's one term. Romney's first year doesn't count, but Obama's first year does count. Creating averages based on four-year totals is wrong when it's applied to Romney, but necessary when it's applied to Obama.
Even by the standards of the Romney campaign, this is as shameless as it is ridiculous.
For Obama's team, the apparent goal is to find a way to make the media care.
The effort began in earnest yesterday.
President Obama's senior campaign adviser, David Axelrod, is crying foul over the Romney campaign's comparison of the two presidential contender's economic records, accusing the Romney campaign of "breathtaking hypocrisy" by employing a double standard.
"It's breathtaking hypocrisy for them to say, 'you really can't include [Romney's] first year [as governor of Massachusetts] because he took over at a tough time,' " Axelrod said in a conference call on Monday. "That's not the standard by which Gov. Romney has held this president ... the question is, are they kidding, and do they expect people to take this seriously?"
This effort continues today, with the Stephanie Cutter video featured above.
The question is whether the political world will care about this, the same way it cared about Hilary Rosen and Cory Booker. That's exceedingly unlikely, but in the interest of fairness and accuracy in covering the 2012 race, the Obama campaign can at least hope that they've gotten reporters attention on this point for the months ahead. If so, and the candidates are held to one standard instead of two, it has the potential to change the way the central issue of the year is understood by the public.
Leave a Comment:
"It matters that Massachusetts was adding jobs after Romney's one term, but it doesn't matter if America is adding jobs after Obama's first year."
The Dems don't really know how to work the ref. It doesn't do any good for Axe to complain about hypocrisy. The Rs send scores of messages out to every journo in their email box with catchy and well-crafted messages usable for a quick lede. Every GOP flack puts his shoulder into pushing the meme-of-the-day -- that's why these things spread so quickly. They are tried out on scarborough and politico and every journo who counts gets the emails, all day long. About 50 of them, until they can't ignore it. And by then "everyone" is talking about it, so no journo can ignore it.
Dems are pathetic on this kind of messaging. They need to learn.
I'm glad that they are ' in your face' with the media. they need to be.
"... the question is, are they kidding, and do they expect people to take this seriously?"
The answer is of course they're serious, and yes they do expect "their base" to take it seriously. What I'd like to know is will moderate republicans and independents actually fall for the okey-doke or will they see it for the sham that it is and vote for this President again?
Rule of thumb: most people are stupid. Most of them will fall for it. There's no other way the country would be in the mess it's in if this stuff didn't work on the Useful Idiots.
Gee Disgusted, thank you for confirming my worst thoughts about US....
Obama and his liberal followers are nothing but a bunch of cry baby's ......Obama has no balls, he is a weak weak man.......
Ew...., Cry baby? So you're telling us you look up to lying wanna-be alpha male bullies whose response, when the truth is told about their bullying methods, is to charge the other as a cry baby. That's some chest-beating there, tough guy.
I'd bet Obama is a better athlete than your boy Rmoney, who was just a cheerleader like your other boy W. Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha...
I guess you alpha male wanna-be's just can't handle real man, stuff. Like the truth about your failed ideas of the last 30+ years.
Im no Romney fan, but at least he has held a job and provided for his family unlike Obama who gets his money donated to him by stupid liberals like you
Who donates Obama's money?
Do you think when people exchange money for Obama's books that is considered donating? You must not be a very good capitalist.
Is getting paid to provide legal advice an act of donation?
you're just a troll right, like professionally? you're not funny, so you can't be satire, and you're extra dim, so you
can't(well I guess you can) just be a stupid conservative, is that it?Don't feed the trolls. Don't retort, just report.
I am a small business owner who has worked all my life for my income I dont depend on the government or give speeches like a used car salesman to further my career . Nor do I blame anyone for my failures I accept them and move on, unlike Obama and his followers
No, you're not. You are a minimum-wage slave who answered an ad for 'bloggers' and are now just tossing word salads for whatever the going rate per word is. Smeg off.
The problem for you jackass is that nobody is crying. They're pointing out that your boy, you know the lying big tough guy cheerleader alpha male vulture capitalist, is lying. Mitt Romney is just a liar. That's all. I guess you like that and you don't like people pointing that out. I suppose you could redefine cry baby to be someone who points out lies and then you would be correct to call those liberals who call Mitt Romney a liar, cry babies. But you don't get to be the dictionary. You don't even get to be on the committee. And so, you are not correct. Maybe you should just head on back to Fox or redstate or National Review and listen to the manufactured lies that sends all that dopamine to you little conservative brain. They are located in this direction:
-------------------------------------->>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Last post was aimed at the idiot who considers himself a capitalist, not MeddlingMonk.
(By the way, how many business owners do you know that you think are really capitalists? That love business competition? I don't think any of them do. I think, given the chance, they'd set up monopolies that they were in charge of. Because business people don't really like competition. And they do everything they can to get our government to give them monopolies. That's what lobbyists do. You're not a capitalist, big guy. You're a fraud who probably doesn't realize his own hypocrisy or his own odious opinion of others. To wit, your thinking that liberals are cry babies and demand handout. You're an ass.)
Well, obviously. But thanks for clarifying for the thick of skull.
I wouldn't call that "working the refs." It's pointing out the truth, fairly and honestly.
Also I heard Mcdonnell of Virginia say that Romney had a democratic legislature that(not his exact words) obstructed his policies.What do they think the Pres.has been up against? Pres.Obama also has had banks and corporations working with the republican congress to hold the job's market in check.And was'nt there a tea partier congressman that sent out emails telling business' not to hire?Considering all of this obstruction the Pres has done a pretty good job on the economy.
I'd say the R-money team just got pwned!
Actually, as Desert Beacon explains, Romney's record was even worse. Rather than 'starting out in a hole, Massachussets was about even with the rest of the country in 2003, with an unemployment of 5.8% -- the nation was at 6.0%. And yes, he finished at 4.5 but the nation was at 4.6 because of the housing bubble.
Please. Does Obama really want this comparison? Mass was last in the nation for creating jobs and Romney took it to 47th. More importantly Romney understands that jobs are a result of prosperous business, not Central Planning.
Right. That's why Romney picked winners and losers (not very successfully) with loan guarantees when he was governor of Massachusetts, went hat in hand to the feds for a bailout of the Olympics, and pushed through the prototype for the hated Obamacare, complete with Unconstatootional mandate.
The ability of you Republicans to make yourselves believe anything the members of the Inner Party tell you to believe--with a deep and abiding fervor that makes you insist anyone who disagrees with your mandated delusion de jour is delusional--is both your greatest strength and your greatest weakness.
So. Your argument is that Romney is a better Central Planner than Obama?
Heh.
A prosperous business is not how you make jobs for a country. You can't watch out for the bottom line when you want to employ people. A prosperous business is great for the bosses-- not the masses.
Hence Romney failing to take his business expertise and turn it into a prosperous state.
Boy, do you not get it. Jobs are a function of demand, especially from the once prosperous middle class which is now downsized and delevering. Hence, a drop in demand creates a drop in employment. A business manager is aiming at profits, not job creation, and will slash or out source employment whenever possible. Need to practice with some books Shooter.
For Obama's team, the apparent goal is to find a way to make the media care.
Good luck with that.
I think all progressives can and should shoulder some of the blame for the media's lack of courage in confronting Romney and the right on all manner of issues. The matter of ther double statdar has come up before when Romney said he should be judged by a performance standard unemploment rate of 6.0. He then said, at a different venue, that the president should be judged by a standard of nothing less than 4.0". Neither the nmainstream ews outlets nor the Obama campagin made a peep, so I am not surprised he would do it again. They know precisely what they are doing.Team Obama has allowed the Republican's to define his economic record, which is a major mistake. They did so because they didn't want to look insensitve to the many people still out of work which, is also a misstake. There are 33 states with unemplomeny records lower than 8.2. Therer are 11 with rates at or lower than 6.0. Therer are 9 with rates at 5.6 or lower.
Axelrod " the question is, are they kidding, and do they expect people to take this seriously?"
As has been pointed out here , effective messaging has NO question mark in it , the dems need a big hammer 24/7 , not duct tape questions the msm can just ignore
While it is early in the campaign , obama has disappeared again , just in time for the wisconsin election , this is how he has chosen to govern though , hiding in the closet when his wall st handlers tell him to , Axelrod and Mrs Cutter are effective in their own right , but she stumbled a lot on sundays THIS WEEK , the dem leadership have no one to hammer the gop , they are to frightened to do so , voting for the gut less is not fun to think about
"The press is free to he who owns one" - 18th Century Brit whose name I cannot recall
Look at who owns the media, who pays the reporters, who is their boss. And then suggest that in the name of "fairness" these reporters not do what the guy who can fire them and then they join the ranks of the journalistically otherwise-unemployable wants them to do, and then ask yourself if that is a serious proposal. We are not going to get any slack from the media because those who own the media have made their decision. It's just that the rest of them aren't as blatant about it as Murdoch and Ailes.
A. J. Liebling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._J._Liebling
I question the value of these pre-election skirmishes when we are starting the summer vacation months. Who is really paying attention to these battles? The candidates will spend millions of dollars in ads for independent voters who most likely are not paying attention. I would expect the ads will ramp up beginning in September.
But the president has the power of his office to make the country pay attention and he can do that by forcing Congress to stay in session until they pass a jobs bill. No one will hear Mitt Romney if Obama steals all the media coverage. Obama should be on the offensive with Reid and Pelosi on a jobs bill. It hurts both parties if they cannot go back home and campaign, but the Dems would have the upper hand if Republicans walk away instead of staying in session.
The problem as I see it is that the Democrats can not let the Republican Propaganda Machine run wild for three months without challenging their nonsense. They've already let them get away with too much and it's going to build up hard-to-dispel images in voters minds. Obama needs to call the lie to each and every one of the Republicans' toxic lies.
I really believe if the American people truly understood the nastiness of Republican intentions for the country, Republicans could be extincted. But I have my doubts Democrats are savvy enough for the fight.
Conservatives can argue about who's doing the whining, but the facts speak for themselves
Under the Gillespie standard - excluding the first year's numbers - private sector job growth was 1.5 times faster under Obama than Romney, 3.97% vs 2.63%, even though Obama is less than half way through year three.
Check the numbers for yourself at the BLS Regional and State Employment and Unemployment Archived News Releases and Table B-1. Employees on nonfarm payrolls by industry sector and selected industry detail [In thousands]