Posted on 02/16/2012 8:16:03 AM PST by SeekAndFind
It's not just the economic numbers that are looking up for President Obama. A new New York Times/CBS News poll puts his approval rating at 50 percent, his highest mark since May 2010 (except for a brief bump after Navy Seals killed Osama bin Laden in May). That's a couple of points better than the RealClearPolitics average as displayed in the chart, but the uptrend is clear.
Now, let’s assume the economy continues to grow—not gangbusters, but something along the lines predicted by economists in the recent Wall Street Journal survey. We’re talking slow-but-steady 2.5 percent GDP growth and a slowly falling unemployment rate of 8.0 percent by year’s end. That level of unemployment, by the way, is about what White House economists are predicting, along with average monthly job growth of about 167,000. Subpar numbers, but a lot better than what we saw in 2011: 1.7 percent GDP growth, average unemployment of 9 percent, and average monthly job growth of about 150,000.
With the recovery ever-so gently accelerating, what would be the Republican argument—fair or not—that Obama doesn’t deserve reelection? Maybe something along these lines:
1. Better but not nearly good enough. The pace of the Obama Recovery has been only about half that of other post-WWII recoveries. Sure, the unemployment rate has fallen to its lowest levels since Obama took office. But that’s in good part due to a massive collapse in the size of the labor force, not rapid job growth. Income growth is still tepid at best. And just look at the housing market! You call this a recovery!? It’s still mourning in America, at least the part outside of Washington and Wall Street. Obama’s stagnant, declinist New Normal is unacceptable for the Last, Best Hope on Earth.
And many voters might agree. A recent survey of consumer sentiment found expectations about the job market at the highest levels in the history of the survey. There’s lots of room for disappointment here.
2. The Big Spend was a Big Bust. Obama’s policies don’t deserve much, if any, credit for the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression. Obama’s signature economic achievement is the trillion dollar stimulus. In Money Well Spent? — The Truth Behind the Trillion-Dollar Stimulus, the Biggest Economic Recovery Plan in History, journalist Michael Grabbel notes that Vice President Joe Biden said the stimulus would “literally drop kick us out of the recession.” But Grabell concludes that the “poorly designed” stimulus “ultimately failed to do what America expected it to do — bring about a strong, sustainable recovery. The drop kick was shanked.” Indeed, it was only after stimulus money dried up that the economy began to perk up. And economies eventually will recover on their own, and recover more quickly, if government empowers the private sector rather than trying to usurp it. See: Reagan Recovery.
3. The recovery isn’t “built to last,” not with all that debt. Obama added $5.3 trillion to the federal debt to juice the economy—and this is the best his old-fashioned Keynesian policies could do? You could call it a “sugar high,” but it doesn’t even qualify as a sugar buzz, really. And now Obama wants to add another $7 trillion in a second term, according to his new budget, just to keep the wheels grinding along. The “built to last” economy is a “built on debt” economy and thus unsustainable. Just ask the Europeans.
4. Obama is President (Didn’t) Fix It. When Obama came into office, healthcare and other social insurance spending were on a trajectory to bankrupt America, banks were too big to fail, and the tax code was stifling American competitiveness. And which of these problems has been solved or substantially dealt with? None. The healthcare cost curve wasn’t bent, banks are bigger than ever, and Obama’s investment and corporate tax hikes are about manufacturing fairness rather than growth or jobs.
5. Obama wants to “win the future”—with crony capitalism. It was government meddling in the private sector that created the housing bubble and financial crisis. But rather than learn that lesson, Team Obama wants to double down on “state capitalism,” whether through new policies to try and reinflate the housing market or venture socialism/industrial policy in the “clean energy” sector.
The primary purpose of state capitalism, whether in Beijing or Washington, is to cement political power, not produce economic growth. What did Obama do after passing the stimulus in 2009? Next up was massive regulation of healthcare and Wall Street. State capitalists fear Schumpeterian creative destruction because they cannot control it or squeeze campaign contributions from it.
Economic freedom, on the hand, creates prosperity by unleashing the imagination of the individual and rewarding his or her effort. As analyst Ian Bremmer puts it, “Creative destruction invests liberal capitalism with a self-regenerating dynamism. … Human beings value opportunities to create prosperity for themselves and their families, and free markets have proven time and again that they can empower virtually anyone.” Crony capitalism only empowers politicians, bureaucrats, and entrenched interests.
Would voters find these arguments persuasive? With the economy humming along at 4 percent growth and unemployment under 6 percent—both White House 2012 predictions back in 2009—maybe not. But in Stagnation Nation? They just might.
Obama is not the son of an extremely popular former Pennsylvania Governor and 2012 is not gonna be a communist landslide year like 2006.
I think RS would be fine. I think he’s a stronger opponent than Romney or Gingrich. Rust belt Blue Collar Catholic is a good profile for taking on Obama.
I like Paul Ryan a lot but I don’t see why he would do so much better.
Any other candidates position on entering the race is irrelevant unless no one wins a majority of delegates. And in such a case I think it’s more likely a current candidate would get the nomination. I’d put 95% odds that either Santorum or Romney will be the nominee.
Santorum has an opportunity right now to win the majority of delegates. Vote splitting with Gingrich is his largest obstacle, if Newt were to quit the race would be over. I think Romney’s attacks will fail this time, Santorum doesn’t have Gingrich’s baggage or likability problems.
I still like Marco Rubio the best. His speeches are quite impassioned and uplifting and he seems like a good hearted person as well.
They can win by hauling out the old Reagan line that “I will get Government off of your back”.
We won’t be telling you what car to buy.
We won’t be telling you what lightbulbs to buy.
We won’t be micromanaging your health insurance.
We won’t have bureaucrats inspecting lunches at your kid’s school
etc. etc.
Till date I don’t hear any of that from them.
The economy is not improving.
With the impending Iran crisis, Syria falling to Islamists, and Bambi’s proposals for unilateral nuclear disarmament, I wouldn’t rule out a strong national security candidate. The GOP might even try someone like
Schwartzkopf, Peter Pace, or Tommy Franks.
“With the impending Iran crisis, Syria falling to Islamists, and Bambi’s proposals for unilateral nuclear disarmament ... “
The problem as I see it is, the average voter has no clue who the muslim brotherhood is, or that Egypt is a mess now. That same voter is only vaguely aware that there is some kind of trouble in Syria, and could care less about Iran unless the price of gasoline spikes. Unilateral nuclear disarmament? The average American voter won’t even hear of it, and if he or she does, that person won’t understand it.
I sincerely believe that.
Now, if you disrupt cell service to their smart phone, or somehow crater Facebook.... you are going to have some seriously angry voters.
That's something Santorum won't say and won't do.
Santorum in 2006: " This whole idea of personal autonomy, well I don’t think most conservatives hold that point of view. Some do. They have this idea that people should be left alone, be able to do whatever they want to do, government should keep our taxes down and keep our regulations low, that we shouldn’t get involved in the bedroom, we shouldn’t get involved in cultural issues. You know, people should do whatever they want. Well, that is not how traditional conservatives view the world and I think most conservatives understand that individuals can’t go it alone. That there is no such society that I am aware of, where we’ve had radical individualism and that it succeeds as a culture."
Well, Ronald Reagan thought that the government SHOULD leave the people alone to live their lives as they think best!
"I'm convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority. Very simply, they want to be left alone in peace and safety to take care of the family by earning an honest dollar and putting away some savings. This may not sound too exciting, but there is something magnificent about it. On the farm, on the street corner, in the factory and in the kitchen, millions of us ask nothing more, but certainly nothing less than to live our own lives according to our values — at peace with ourselves, our neighbors and the world."
Another thing that doesn’t happen in healthy, growing economies is for gasoline consumption to go down.
Why Is Gasoline Consumption Tanking? (February 10, 2012)
http://www.oftwominds.com/blogfeb12/gasoline-tanking02-12.html
An Iranian (or North Korean) high-altitude EMP blast could certainly do that...
Then you're in deep trouble. You're talkin' about me. And I'm doing everything I can to keep going at least another 30 years.
There is no economic recovery... only lies from liars and fools.
LLS
We need bumper sticker lines, not talk about "creative destruction" which require explanation upon explanation.Obama plans to win with the limousine liberals and the minorities. And single white women, no doubt. There are a lot of them. But,
Can your grandchildren afford what Obama is promising you?
When your parents get old and sick, do you want the government to decide what treatments they are allowed to have?
Gas prices high enough for you?Does you son have a chance for a good job if the government won't let companies work and oil companies pump?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.