Political Animal
Blog
As Mitt Romney’s atrocious record on job creation continues to draw attention, even from other Republicans, Democrats are starting to focus more of their energies on the Republican frontrunner’s more glaring vulnerability.
Today, for example, the former governor will campaign at a NASCAR race in Loudon, New Hampshire. The Democratic National Committee released a new video to honor the occasion.
In case there are any doubts, this has the benefit of being true. During Romney’s only service in public office, his state’s record on job creation was “one of the worst in the country.” Massachusetts really did rank 47th out of 50 states in jobs growth on Romney’s watch (and unlike President Obama, Romney didn’t inherit an economic crisis). There was a reason Romney served one term and then quit — he was not all popular with his constituents and probably would have lost a re-election bid.
And that’s just his public-sector record. In the private sector, Romney made a living slashing American jobs — a record that’s also starting to gain wider attention.
On the campaign trail, Romney keeps making this worse. He not only seems to find unemployment funny, he’s also arguing that jobless Americans have to bear a greater burden because corporations need another tax cut.
Despite all of this, Romney has decided to not only build his entire campaign around the jobs issue, but also position himself as a champion of the unemployed. This morning’s DNC video is a hint of what’s to come — labeling Romney as “the anti-jobs candidate” will be a pretty straightforward exercise.
As a purely political matter, unemployment is obviously a key obstacle for the president’s re-election. Is Obama lucky enough to have Republicans nominate the candidate whose weakest issue is jobs?
Facebook
Twitter
hell's littlest angel on July 16, 2011 10:12 AM:
Well, "compassionate conservatism" worked for Bush. Bullshit's a good product if you know how to sell it.
jdog on July 16, 2011 10:17 AM:
Yes, but consider the alternatives. Who would be a more robust candidate than Romney? I see crazies (Bachmann, Paul, Perry) and uninspiring (Pawlenty); Huntsman might be the most intellectually challenging, but he does not appear to be getting traction at all.
I search my memory for a more uninspiring, ridiculous group of candidates; I can think of an occasional such candidate (Buchanan), but not a group so thoroughly absurd top to bottom.
The likely outcome is an Obama re-election; but if events go terribly South for him, it bodes extraordinarily ill for the nation, and quite frankly, most of the world.
delNorte on July 16, 2011 10:30 AM:
I wonder how hard they had to search to come up with a picture of Mitt holding a mike in that position with a grin like that on his face. Must be the college interns work on the weekends at the DNC.
Mike Finley on July 16, 2011 10:39 AM:
It is true he is weak on jobs. At the same time, who do they have who is better? Will Rick Perry provide the solidity and competence that Mitt Romney can't?
Danp on July 16, 2011 10:41 AM:
Key quote from the Marketwatch.com link
"The only ones that did worse? Ohio, Michigan and Louisiana. In other words, two rustbelt states and another that lost its biggest city to a hurricane."
c u n d gulag on July 16, 2011 10:42 AM:
Romney:
"When I was Governor, we finished as high as 47th in jobs in the US!"
HUZZAH!!!
And the imbeciles who vote will say, "Hey, tain't bad, Ah finished 128th outter 129 in my Middle School Class, so he muss be good!"
David Bailey on July 16, 2011 10:47 AM:
Is Obama lucky enough to have Republicans nominate the candidate whose weakest issue is jobs?
Perhaps. But Obama is already lucky enough that the Republican field is pretty much wall-to-wall weak. Name a Republican (other than Huntsman) and she/he has weaknesses a mile wide and bottomlessly deep.
It's a pity the Democratic party isn't worth a damn at messaging, though. I have no idea what's going to happen in Congress in 2012, but anything less than a 75% Democratic majority in both houses means that Democrats are hopelessly overmatched when it comes to selling their message, because the Republicans have been working tirelessly for more than a decade to give Democrats a winning message, which is:
Republicans are all clueless idiots.
DAY on July 16, 2011 11:31 AM:
This is like having to choose which brand of cigarette to smoke- all environmentally toxic, bad for your health, and will kill you in the long run.
So- if you are a Republican- you pick the one with the best packaging and the biggest advertising budget.
rrk1 on July 16, 2011 3:39 PM:
A real political party would long ago have cast the insane Rethugs as the imbeciles they have become, and asserted strong message control to neutralize the mighty Wurlitzer of the right wing. But our so-called Democratic party is not a real political party, and thinks it can win elections by pretending to be a lighter version of the other party. And of course taking money from the same corporate interests.
So many of us 'left-wingers', which is a laughable concept to begin with in this country, vote for the Democrats because we know the alternative is far worse. It's a binary system, and we're stuck with it, definitely for worse. Obama is the best Republican president we've ever had, and we thought we were electing a progressive/liberal. Well the laugh is on us, and what's worse, it looks like we have to 'elect' him again because any of the alternatives is such a catastrophe that the country likely won't survive a government completely controlled by crazy ideologues.
Anonymous on July 16, 2011 9:48 PM:
I am convinced that the so called progressives, who pretend to know more than President Obama, and who passionately despise him, are really in cahoots with the teabaggers.