Obama and Romney caught in a tough position with the question, "Are we better off than we were four years ago?"
Both President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney, upon the start of the Democratic National Convention, have been asked the question - "Are we better off than we were four years ago?"
I think this is a very common and understandable question to ask presidential nominees. However, I also think it's a very difficult one to answer.
President Obama was recently asked a similar question - if he had to grade himself in his first term as far as the economy is concerned, how would he grade himself and he responded with "incomplete". Of course, the Mitt Romney team has jumped on this like a high-on-speed nymphomaniac on a giant carrot, thinking it's a dildo. Many liberals cringed when they heard the president utter that one word. My question is - how was he supposed to answer it?
Considering the state of the economy at this current time, if Obama gave himself an A or a B, he'd be laughed at by Romney and company, and the public would probably be scratching their heads and thinking he's a complete liar. If he gave himself a D or a an F, the Romney team would have gone on about it more than an immortal Energizer bunny and voters would likely have thought, "Well, if he's giving himself a failing or close-to failing grade, why should I trust him with four more years?" Giving himself a C grade may have been the most reasonable as far as receiving minimal backlash is concerned, but he'd still run into problems with the Romney team, as they'd likely say something along the lines of, "He just graded himself average. Do we really want an average president? We're America! We deserve the best and that's what I'm going to give you." "Incomplete" could be a tricky word, I suppose, and Obama may want to fine-tune that response a bit, however, I think it's a much more accurate and honest response than if he had given himself an actual grade. What he could say is, "Look... It took much more than four years to put us in the greatest recession since the Great Depression. I've been here for not even four years now. As numbers have consistently shown, we're on the right track. However, we're not where I want to be, where we need to be just yet. Give me another four years and we'll not only continue this improvement, we'll put America back where she was prior to being hit with the recession!"
On the other side of the political spectrum, Mitt Romney's job is somewhat easier, however not as easy as most would think. The fact of the matter is that things have improved since Obama came into office. The economy has not improved as much as the Obama Administration would have liked, but it has stabilized. Many seem to have a short-term memory and forget how dreadfully awful things were when Obama stepped into office and in the first three months he was in office. If things had continued on that pace, we would have quite possibly run into another Great Depression. However, that didn't happen. While the unemployment rate is much higher than anyone would like, we have come out of the recession and have seen things stabilize over the course of the past 2-3 years. Mitt Romney was even asked about this by Laura Ingraham and admitted that things did in fact improve under Obama.
In January, the two shared the following discussion on Ingraham's show:
Ingraham: "You've also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president's argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it's getting better?"
Romney: "Well, of course it's getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery."
Ingraham: "Isn't it a hard argument to make if you're saying, like, okay, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we're seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway?"
Romney: "Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth."
So what does Romney say now, since he's already admitted that things have been turning around under President Obama? That, while yes, it's true, he can speed up the recovery process? Romney's response(s) to such questions has become even trickier with the likes of Ohio Republican Governor, John Kasich, declaring that things have improved quite significantly in his state, but that we're still in need of a new leader in Washington, D.C.
Both candidates appear to have very little room for error when asked the question - "Are we better off than we were four years ago?" Whether one or the other will find the right answer, which persuades both the media and the public, will be very difficult in my mind. At this point, the two men are probably more set in finding an answer which diverts the media's attention away from it and doesn't lose them many votes in the process.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/04/790251/romney-of-course-its-getting-better/
I think this is a very common and understandable question to ask presidential nominees. However, I also think it's a very difficult one to answer.
President Obama was recently asked a similar question - if he had to grade himself in his first term as far as the economy is concerned, how would he grade himself and he responded with "incomplete". Of course, the Mitt Romney team has jumped on this like a high-on-speed nymphomaniac on a giant carrot, thinking it's a dildo. Many liberals cringed when they heard the president utter that one word. My question is - how was he supposed to answer it?
Considering the state of the economy at this current time, if Obama gave himself an A or a B, he'd be laughed at by Romney and company, and the public would probably be scratching their heads and thinking he's a complete liar. If he gave himself a D or a an F, the Romney team would have gone on about it more than an immortal Energizer bunny and voters would likely have thought, "Well, if he's giving himself a failing or close-to failing grade, why should I trust him with four more years?" Giving himself a C grade may have been the most reasonable as far as receiving minimal backlash is concerned, but he'd still run into problems with the Romney team, as they'd likely say something along the lines of, "He just graded himself average. Do we really want an average president? We're America! We deserve the best and that's what I'm going to give you." "Incomplete" could be a tricky word, I suppose, and Obama may want to fine-tune that response a bit, however, I think it's a much more accurate and honest response than if he had given himself an actual grade. What he could say is, "Look... It took much more than four years to put us in the greatest recession since the Great Depression. I've been here for not even four years now. As numbers have consistently shown, we're on the right track. However, we're not where I want to be, where we need to be just yet. Give me another four years and we'll not only continue this improvement, we'll put America back where she was prior to being hit with the recession!"
On the other side of the political spectrum, Mitt Romney's job is somewhat easier, however not as easy as most would think. The fact of the matter is that things have improved since Obama came into office. The economy has not improved as much as the Obama Administration would have liked, but it has stabilized. Many seem to have a short-term memory and forget how dreadfully awful things were when Obama stepped into office and in the first three months he was in office. If things had continued on that pace, we would have quite possibly run into another Great Depression. However, that didn't happen. While the unemployment rate is much higher than anyone would like, we have come out of the recession and have seen things stabilize over the course of the past 2-3 years. Mitt Romney was even asked about this by Laura Ingraham and admitted that things did in fact improve under Obama.
In January, the two shared the following discussion on Ingraham's show:
Ingraham: "You've also noted that there are signs of improvement on the horizon in the economy. How do you answer the president's argument that the economy is getting better in a general election campaign if you yourself are saying it's getting better?"
Romney: "Well, of course it's getting better. The economy always gets better after a recession, there is always a recovery."
Ingraham: "Isn't it a hard argument to make if you're saying, like, okay, he inherited this recession, he took a bunch of steps to try to turn the economy around, and now, we're seeing more jobs, but vote against him anyway?"
Romney: "Have you got a better one, Laura? It just happens to be the truth."
So what does Romney say now, since he's already admitted that things have been turning around under President Obama? That, while yes, it's true, he can speed up the recovery process? Romney's response(s) to such questions has become even trickier with the likes of Ohio Republican Governor, John Kasich, declaring that things have improved quite significantly in his state, but that we're still in need of a new leader in Washington, D.C.
Both candidates appear to have very little room for error when asked the question - "Are we better off than we were four years ago?" Whether one or the other will find the right answer, which persuades both the media and the public, will be very difficult in my mind. At this point, the two men are probably more set in finding an answer which diverts the media's attention away from it and doesn't lose them many votes in the process.
http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/09/04/790251/romney-of-course-its-getting-better/
Comments
Post a Comment