Group items tagged

I think that looking at the historical economical failures and successes of democratic and republican economic policies is a good way to come to a conclusion about which candidate would actually help the economy. The candidates themselves are just spewing rhetoric about tax cuts and the middle class, so this third party analysis of economic growth under Democrats vs. Republicans is really interesting. Check it out.

It is sometimes extremely hard for me to understand the argument for conservative economic philosophies, because while they might seem great paper, have NEVER worked. "Trickle down" economics tend to stagnate the economy, not help it. While I definitely read a lot of liberally biased news sources, I still find that unbiased analysis of economic policy points to liberal policies almost every time. Jonah, if a person is still undecided, I would say they are definitely not going to vote on social issues. If social issues were more important to them than the economy, they would absolutely have already decided who to cast their vote for. It is very clear where the candidates stand on social issues, but is much less clear to the average undecided voter who is "the best candidate to help the economy."

It's great to see the economic facts laid out in this way. I read an article earlier written by two economists who quantified the effect of tax increases on the wealthy and found that tax increases had little effect on job growth or the economy. Again, this article proves that "trickle down" economics isn't based on facts. I wonder why it is so compelling. Of course people would rather believe that independent investment would benefit the economy more than government investment. It's part of the American mythology. The only way to bust a myth is with facts like these.

I like this article because it shows that Romney is finally focusing on a part of the election in which he has experience and knowledge. Voters are most concerned with the election and if Romney can show that he can fix it then he will increase his chances of winning, which is why this move is smart. I do; however, think that he should establish that he has his own economic plans and distance himself from Ryan's ideas, as those tend to scare away prospective voters and are absurd.

great post. I agree with mabel also because Romney's plan for the economy needs to be way more convincing than Ryan's for him to win the election.I think its very important that the candidates really lay out a play for what needs to be changed. I do think it is necessary for Romney to separate himself from Ryan's economic plan. Romney has taken no stance on Ryan's economic plan for severly cutting government expenses leading to believe he does not agree with this plan because if he did he would give his support.

I agree with what all of you have said about Romney needing to focus on the economy in order to win. The other night I was watching the news and they were going through different poles. One of the questions was who people trusted with the economy, and Romney was up by almost 20 points. It seems to me that the economy is the most important issue in this election, but Romney still can't seem to edge ahead. That shows to me that his campaign has made a big mistake by not focusing on the economy.

This article, about Obama's relationship with the economy, discusses the reality of policy work and the difficult task of assessing how he has handled the deterioration of the economy after the financial crisis. What is interesting in this article are the several dichotomies and contrasting, multi-faceted issues that are often highlighted when discussing the recession. First, there is Obama's assumption that with enough "policy help... on the way," the economy could sustain itself and not follow "the disturbing pattern of financial crises." Thinking that strong and focused policies could completely prevent the well-known aftershocks of an economic crisis left the Obama administration unprepared for "the downturn" that was "fundamentally different from a big, relatively brief recession." The article quotes Obama saying that his main mistake as President has been losing sight of the fact that there is more to fixing a problem then creating laws. Another interesting contrast mentioned in this article is that Obama has not failed in presenting the reality of the economy to the public, but "the story he and his advisers told themselves" was falsified. Related to the first point, Obama and his administration decided how they thought the economy would survive and while the information they used and told others was not factually inaccurate, they consumed and interpreted the facts incorrectly. This altering of understanding obviously has had large impacts and the article concludes by saying that while Obama says he has "done as well as could reasonably have been expected," the truth is he mistakenly avoided harder-to-accept concepts and construed them in an unrealistic way.

I'm sure that sometimes the conflicting desires of presidential candidates do interfere with economic recoveries. On one hand, they want to present a positive image of the economy, especially if they've been in office for a while. On the other, sometimes they have to take drastic measures to help the economy's recovery. It seems to me that these two things would necessarily conflict with each other, and I wonder which one is prioritized most often.

I have heard that the "bubble" that Obama has been in during his 4 years in the white house has really had an effect on him. I was watching CNN the other night and James Carville, one of my favorite analysts who worked in the Clinton administration, was on doing some after debate coverage. He talked about how presidents are constantly surrounded by people telling them that they are doing a great job and sheltered from negativity. Although I'm sure this is an over simplification of what goes on at the white house, I'm sure there is some truth to the fact that it is easy to become out of touch as president.

I chose this article, from The Economist. It's long, and pretty boring, but I think it addresses the issue of Obama's economic record from an (as far as I can tell) objective standpoint. Obama and Romney are making conflicting claims about the state of the American economy under Obama, both of them citing statistics, and, unsure of who to believe, I went in search of an article like this.      The article neither adulates nor lambastes Obama, which I think adds to its credibility. Interestingly, it seems to support Mitt Romney's characterization of Obama as a starry-eyed idealist, saying "Mr. Obama's personal priorities carried the day... Mr. Obama has always portrayed himself as a pragmatist, not an ideologue. In practice, though, he usually chooses bigger government over small."      The articles casts Obama as having arrived to the Oval office with unrealistic goals, but still having made progress despite not living up to those goals. These unrealized goals, though, can still be used against him by the Republicans to win disillusioned Obama voters over to the right.

The point Cody brought up about unrealized goals, but goals with progress, is one that I see being key to the arguments both sides are making. It's a good summary of what's at the heart of Obama's hope to "finish the job" and Romney's sad portrait of the last four years. I think the article really gets at the tough place he is in: are we supposed to criticize or praise Obama for doing basically everything a president should do, but not delivering what he promised? The way it talks about the mini-recession that occurred just because of the transition sort of sells me the claim that a lot of went wrong can't be pinned on him. Granted I don't know that much about economics, the decisions he made for sections of a tanking economy (stimulus, etc.) seemed level-headed, and seemed like they came from a pool of options limited to a "Democrat" choice and a "Republican" choice. Also, debt vs. deficit?

I thought it was interesting to read the description of Obama's unique position as a president influencing the US economy. Comparing him to FDR's response to the Depression shed new light on the difficulty of Obama's position and the complexity of his response. Being reminded that the months between FDR's victory and his inauguration were the worst months of the Depression put perspective on Obama's need to both quickly gain credibility and take some serious risks. It was interesting to read that The Economist felt that his stress tests were more effective because they were tougher and more transparent that those set up in Europe. In fact, the only clear criticism they make is that he didn't take the risk to spend a lot of money on the mortgage crisis. I would have thought a more conservative magazine, like The Economist, would think the government should have spent less. It is interesting to think that with all these complicated decisions, Obama's biggest mistake may have been that he promised too much. I think that might be right. Listening to him now, he seems to understand that. His speeches are less inspirational, but in may ways more realistic.

As the election approaches, some Americans are begging to wonder what stance each candidate has concerning marijuana legalization. The article points out that more than 70% of voters are in favor of medical marijuana but a reason for marijuana prohibition could be for excess use of marijuana for those who already illegally use marijuana. I believe the "black market" created by the use of marijuana in so many Americans could be used to stimulate the economy if marijuana were legal. If marijuana was controlled by the government and taxed liked alcohol the profits made would be tremendous. The millions of dollars our government spends locking people up for marijuana possession could be used on other things that would help to promote the welfare of our nation. Due to the growing support of Americans, marijuana legalization is now not so far from reach and could possibly be a deciding factor in the upcoming election. Thoughts anyone?

I believe marijuana legalization is not widely recognized as being an aspect that can stimulate our economy, but if more American's were open to the option many economists predict that the savings made by the U.S government would be in the tens of billions of dollars... PER YEAR(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/economists-marijuana-legalization_n_1431840.html). If marijuana were legal it would be one of the largest grossing cash crops along with corn and wheat. Despite Marijuana being illegal it already generates a lot of money that could be used to help pay for schools,roads,public buildings...ect instead of being an "under the table" deal for the most part. Marijuana legalization would not be just for your everyday pot-head, Hemp productions would go through the roof ranging from products like paper to clothing. Some of our founding fathers including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp, and the first draft of The Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper. The benefits as a result of Marijuana legalization would be tremendous for our struggling economy. In conclusion I disagree Eli, Marijuana legalization has the potential to play a big role in government relatively soon.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I can't help but agree with Eli that this may not be a key issue in the election (this one, at least). The party radicalization our group has been talking a lot about informs my opinion on this. With the growing rift between Democrats and Republicans, and the increasingly radical that are now accepted as mainstream, it seems unlikely to me that legalization will be taken as seriously as it should. Before all of the logistics that Miles brings up could even get debated, I think the issue itself would get wrapped up in a huge amount of party rhetoric (free enterprise, policing moral values, etc.) and the dialogue would get shut down. It seems like the only big topic that can get any traction in terms of debate is the economy/jobs. Even things like climate change and immigration aren't being talked about constructively, so I see legalization going the same way. I think the points you brought up about it are totally true, I just imagine the candidates losing sight of an issue like this.

I get so worked up when super-wealthy people act like they are somehow being persecuted when the Democrats asked them to "pay their fair share." I think this op-ed piece does a great job of explaining the frustration with the current socioeconomic divide. The author writes that "It is no accident that in America today the gap between the very rich and everyone else is wider than at any time since the Gilded Age." Although we can sit around and pretend that people "need to learn" from the rich. In reality, a of government policies are making it much harder to go from poor to rich, or even middle class. As the author describes the holes in the current American system, "Exhibit A is the bipartisan, $700 billion rescue of Wall Street in 2008. Exhibit B is the crony recovery. The economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty found that 93 percent of the income gains from the 2009-10 recovery went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. The top 0.01 percent captured 37 percent of these additional earnings, gaining an average of $4.2 million per household." This article doesn't blame Romney or Obama, it just explains why people are starting to have problems with the idea of the "1%." I personally don't think the outcry is against the actual members of the 1%, but rather agains the policies that it make socioeconomic inequality greater.

I think that what Mr. Potepan said in the talk really applies here. The idea is that when money is mobile, the economy is flourishing, but once the money gets locked up in the super-rich's bank accounts it doesn't help anyone because it's not being invested. It's always interesting to see historical examples of theories like these, and the thing about Venice seems like it illustrates Mr. Potepan's point well.

I agree with Cody that the point of the article is that successful states are those that give everyone access to economic opportunity and that inclusiveness as opposed to exclusiveness makes for a more prosperous country. The "book of gold" is a powerful image for the special access and privilege the elite had in Venice that continues today in access to better education tax breaks, etc. That access is something people don't want to give up. The African-American president at Brown who didn't want to give up legacy at admissions, since she had a granddaughter shows how once you have privilege, you don't want to let it go.

This piece begins to shake out the specific effects tax cuts have on economic growth. With so much general back and forth arguing about this, it is useful to look at the graph included in this article and try to understand what it really tells us. The graph that maps the economic growth between 1987 and 2005 clearly shows that the economy grew dramatically after the Bush and Clinton tax increases and dropped dramatically after the Bush tax cuts. But, what is most interesting is the discussion about other factors affecting the economy. Paul Ryan says that the increase was affected by the tech boom, lower trade barriers and peace. According to the conservative economists, the economy had already slowed before Bush's tax cuts and surprisingly, Glen Hubbard, who helped write Bush's plan is quoted saying that, " tax cut's don't translate quickly into higher growth. According to the Tax Policy Center, a "highly regarded" non-partisan group, "it's hard to make the argument that tax rates have a big effect on economic growth." So, this makes me wonder, what exactly are Ryan and Romney proposing and why do they think it will improve the economy? One very interesting point that is made is that tax cuts did make a difference when to top marginal rate was 70%..who knew that it was ever that high. According to this article, between, 1940 and 1980, taxes were that high at tech top. That is very different than today's 35%.

I don't have much to add here, but I fully support at tax rate of 70% or so after someone's income has reached a certain mark. That will never happen in America, but if we look at a lot of other countries in the world with high taxes, they have far fewer expenses to pay for (i.e. education, healthcare, etc.)

This is interesting. It's important to be thinking that there obviously were other factors going on during all these periods, but with all the discussion of - like John says - whether tax cuts actually work or not, this graph is an interesting way of understanding their role in the economy.

As the election approaches, each candidate is doing anything in his power to obtain more votes. In Colorado,Florida and Nevada the Latino voting population could possibly determine who wins the 2012 election. President Obama has a "leg up" on Romney with the Latino voters, but will Romney be able to do anything to make himself more appealing to Latino voters? If not, how devastating will the outcome be for his campaign?

They are chasing the latino votes, definitely. Their discussion of this in the last debate was interesting - Obama accused Romney of considering the Arizona immigration law as a "model for the country," which as far as I can tell just isn't true. Who knows with Romney, though - he certainly has been associating with the guy who designed that law. In response to John's point, I think the Romney campaign is kind of forced to stick to the economic aspects of gender discrimination and Hispanic issues. The fact is that the Republican party has a worse record on rights for minorities, so they're playing up their statement that the improved economy under Romney would help get rid of the gender/racial inequities in the country.

It's clear now that the Republicans have a serious problem with Latino support. I wonder how they will deal with this problem in the future. I think bipartisan immigration reform could be a big deal. I see that being the big issues in the next couple years. It seems like demographically, if the Republicans can't get any support from people of color, are going to have an issue as Latinos are the largest growing population in America.

This article addresses a point that hit home with me from the Democratic National Convention: Obama brought up climate, but did not champion it in the same style and with the same conviction that he used to. Even while I was struck by his lack of gusto on the subject, the article is surprised that he brought it up at all. This issue has seen barely any coverage at all, with Romney in particular suggesting that even caring about climate change is shallow and ungrounded. He has continued to basically ridicule Obama's (self-proclaimed) devotion to the issue, which is not typical even for mainstream republicans. Obama himself has been almost entirely silent on the issue for the entire campaign (he brought up the term once in 2012). This article makes a really good partner for the first one Eli posted, which dealt with the variety of issues that the radicalization of parties has effectively silenced the debate over. As with the issue of immigration, we see the Republican Party leaning extremely right and making any productive discussion of the issue difficult. If Romney himself treats climate change as a joke and mocks environmentalism as a cause, how can the sides even begin to discuss specific issues of policy? I am honestly really doubtful of Obama's stance as an environmentalist: after the failure of one of his recent cap-and-trade policies, the term "climate change" was entirely avoided in his speech. I remember Dan saying in class that if Obama didn't claim to champion these issues during his presidency, you wouldn't be able to tell by his policy. From this article's description of his rhetoric for the last year, I would say that now he is neither talking the talk nor walking the walk, leaving his affiliation to this cause simply to the fact that he is a Democratic candidate and climate change is a "Democratic issue". To me, there is concrete proof that neither candidate has been taking climate change seriously this election. If both candidates are treating this

I recently heard an interview with Michael Lewis who wrote an article for Vanity Fair that involved spending a lot of day to day time with Obama. One of the things he talked about was Obama's view of his ability to use his position as president as a "bully pulpit." Obama told Lewis that his experience had been that he, in particular, was such a lightning rod for negative response, that when he took a position conservative journalists and politicians automatically responded so negatively that it was more useful for him to operate more subtly. I would imagine that he was using his speech at the convention to let voters know that he still wants to do something about climate change, and takes it seriously. Hopefully, he will be in a position to do this when he is not thinking about re-election.

I think the way Obama has treated climate change as an economic issue is very compelling. One of the main issues that people have with renewable energy is that isn't currently economically sustainable. I think Obama can work on the issue of climate change with the economy in mind and that is what he is doing. The issue that Obama faces on bringing the climate change issue into the economic realm is the Solyndra investment that the government made under his administration. Obama needs to walk the fine line between championing climate change and doing what's best for the economy.

This article stood out to me, because it is exactly why I see Romney's plans as a completely the opposite of what American needs: they aren't any different than George W. Bush's. Americans saw what happened under George W. Bush, and nobody wants to go back to that. This line in the piece really summed up why Romney is doing so poorly, "To win the kind of victory that conservatives seem to think they should be winning, the Republican Party needs two things: A domestic agenda that offers more to hard-pressed families than just generic conservative rhetoric about the genius of capitalism, and a foreign policy program that reflects the hard lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan." As a liberal, I would never vote for Mitt Romney, but I do understand that the economy is not where a lot of people wanted it to be after Obama's first term. The question is: can Romney do a better job? I see a lot of similarities between Romney's policies and George W. Bush's policies, so I think that the economy would do worse. If other Americans, like the author of this article, see the same similarities, I don't see how Romney can win in November.

I think it is interesting, and absurd, how the Republican Party has looked for things to blame on some of their failings on. That being said, I also think it is unfair that past President's records affect prospective candidates chances, on either side of the political spectrum. Just because Romney is in the same political party as Bush dos not mean he will do similar things(even though he probably will do some). I agree with Anna that Romney and Ryan need to separate from Bush to establish that they are not the same and will not have the same results. Regardless of their policies I believe that candidates should be evaluated on their merits, and while the past should be considered, and their merits alone. To me, that is what this article is really saying.

Cameron, I agree with your idea - that parties can shift, and individual candidates shouldn't be bound into the economic principles of their party - but until Romney provides substantive plans for the economy, all anyone is going to hear from his campaign is the same conservative "free market" rhetoric that they heard from the Bush campaign. What he needs to do is lay out a specific plan and note what he's learned from the economic failure under Bush and how that has shaped his plan.

This editorial written by Danielle Pletka, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute criticizes Romney's foreign policy speech on Monday October 8th for offering little in the way of either vision or specifics to separate himself from Obama. Plettka writes that Romney, "sensed an opening" in foreign policy after the Obama administration appeared to bungle the September 11 Libyan attack. She says that Romney needs to show voters that "he's not simply George Bush retread" itching to declare war on Iran and Syria. It is interesting that this conservative thinks that no Republicans have made a case that they will actually do anything differently than Obama. She suggests that Romney help voters connect American global power with prosperity, its dominance of the world's important waterways with flourishing trade and the exporting of democratic ideals with more open "nourished markets. She refers to the importance of the US's "benign" influence since WWII. Look up benign..it doesn't mean the war, death and violence we seen in Iraq and Afghanistan . What she means is that the U.S. has never interfered for 'malevolent" reasons. It's hard to imagine how the US would be perceived as benign in all of the military intervention.

This article shows pretty well a lot of what we've seen of Romney. It seems like his campaign is just based on criticizing Obama, and since there's an opening in the foreign policy area he's moved away from the economy. He's looking for criticisms to make without offering substantive policy proposals, and I think that's because Obama's policies are basically centrist policies. It's a weird situation that Obama, as a moderate, has this unique ability to inspire so much vitriol among the conservative right, and Romney's trying to capitalize.

I'm in the foreign policy group for the issues project at school, and I can tell you with certainty that the differences between Obama and Romney in terms of foreign policy are very small. It is more of a philosophical difference. In reality, the troops will leave Afghanistan in 2014, we will most likely not send troops to Syria or Iran, and we will continue to support Israel, regardless of who is president. Romney is really just trying to create a contrast between his foreign policy and Obama's, but there aren't any major differences, so he has latched onto this whole Libya thing.

This is a nice bit of Romney retrospect, investigating what I looked at as his greatest asset during the race: his past as a successful businessman. In an election where the economy is inarguably the most important issue to voters, I saw his business savvy as something that would resonate with a lot of people. These authors are suggesting reasons why business success does not always translate well to politics. A convincing one, brought up early on in the piece, is the idea that CEO's and "money men" are required to interact with people below them in their respective hierarchy in a fundamentally different way. Namely, businessmen are not as used to people telling them what they don't want to hear. Another Romney-specific point a commenter raises is that Romney is not a businessman in the same way as a manufacturing CEO or someone like that: he is a "deal-maker," less involved in leading a company than striking enormous deals with other men like himself. The idea that a country is a business, and should be run by a businessman, seems like an easy train of thought to arrive to when our economy still struggling from a recession. This article brings up some interesting contradictions to this part of the Romney campaign. While I looked at his experience (not counting his superwealth) as an asset to a man promising to fix the economy, the article pointed to ways that this can actually hurt him. An interesting one has to do with the basic dynamics of the election: where a businessman needs to sell a good product, a president has to address people and communities as the things that need to be "fixed." This is where elections become personal, and where I saw Romney struggling to connect. This kind of thinking led to the infamous 47% comment: in the eyes of a businessman, discounting a part of a company implies nothing personal. To the rest of America, he was talking about friends and neighbors. This is where I believe he failed: running a country is fundamen

When Romney mentioned he would quickly do-away with PBS as President during his debate with Obama, he not only upset those who take advantage of this great resource, which directly benefits children, but also once again showed his ignorance of crucial facts. He pegged PBS as an unnecessary expense of the federal government and made it seem like getting rid of the organization would have a great "impact on the nation's debt," both of which are greatly inaccurate facts. This PBS statement discusses the oddity of Romney's comments well and explains clearly that there is no need for PBS to become a "political target."

I saw a really interesting survey - in this article. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/romneys-attack-on-big-bird-sows-confusion-abroad-and-feeds-it-at-home/?smid=tw-share. It says, " The results of that survey, which asked respondents to estimate what share of the federal budget was spent on certain programs, found that just 27 percent of Americans knew that the money for PBS and NPR was less than 1 percent of government spending. Remarkably, 40 percent guessed that the share was between 1 and 5 percent and 30 percent said it was in excess of 5 percent - including 7 percent who said that more than half of the federal budget was spent on television and radio broadcasts." I just wanted to note this. It's interesting how programs like PBS are being used by the Republicans as an example of government excesses while they're actually a tiny percentage of the federal government, compared to, say, Social Security and Medicare/Medicare (60% taken together).

If we focus on something specific like Sesame Street, it is clear that cutting funding to these kind of programs would disproportionately affect poor people something I find that a lot of Mitt Romney's platforms do; I loved Obamas statement that Romney policies were "thinly veiled social Darwinism." Anyways, over the summer, I read Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell. There was an entire chapter on the success of Sesame Street to actually get kid's to pay attention and retain the educational information that they are being presented with. Low income families don't have the same means as middle class or upper income families to provide intelectually stimulating material to their kids. Because of programs like Sesame Street, both a child in a low income family and a child in an upper-income family can watch the same educational programming on PBS. Low income children need this programming more! By the time low income children are in kindergarten, there is a ton of evidence that they are already so far behind upper-income children educationally that they just can't compete. With access to programs like Sesame Street, this achievement gap can start to become smaller. Will a high-income kid be affected by the loss of Sesame Street? Probably not. This attitude seems to correlate with a lot of the problems I have with Mitt Romney's platforms. On the surface level, they may seem like good ideas but they disproportionately affect low-income people.

There has been a lot of talk around this election that has been about how bad Obama's term has been. People are always so negative when it comes to polotics and when something does not work right away they jump to conclusions. Here is an article about something positive that Obama has been doing. It is nice to see evidence of success from Obama's term. With four more years he could do a lot of good for this country and its future.

I agree with John. I cannot remember any talk about Race to the Top or the Clean Car program in a debate or a commercial. When you consider that voters think education is an important issue, certainly not as important as the economy and jobs, but very important, it seems like Obama's campaign should have highlighted this success. Race to the Top involves policies that reflect many of the same ideas given by the Republicans and is pretty controversial with the Teacher's Union. That may be why they haven't brought it up. I wonder how the auto-workers and the automobile industry feel about the Clean Car program. It may have been that these programs were not supported by important, Democratic groups.

I read an interesting piece on environmental sustainability being actually cost effective. It talked about how Regan go people on board to confront the holes in the ozone layer by talking about the economic impacts of more people getting skin cancer with such a thin ozone layer. I think the climate change debate has the potential to go in that direction. Storms like Hurricane Sandy cost the economy tremendously, and it is pretty clear that storms of that proportion are happening due to climate change. I think the economic impact of climate change could certainly change the debate. Maybe Obama should go in that direction.

I believe that the biggest part of this election is in the social and civil rights issues. This article outlines the effects of a Romney win or Obama win on the Supreme Court. One of the fews direct powers a president has is appointing new Supreme Court Justices when one retires.With with four of the nine members over the age of 70 there is a high likelihood of a few retiring in the next for years. If Romney wins he will most likely appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court and that would threaten the Roe v. Wade decision in turn effecting the rights of women. There has been lots of talk about economic issues and the impact of the new president on the economy, but I believe that this issue of appointing Supreme Court Justices is far more important and basic civil rights could potentially be threatened as a result of the election

I agree that it is important to make the connection between the election of a new president and their effect on the Supreme Court. Even though the members elected might not have a huge effect on economic issues that have dominated the election, the impact the Supreme Court will have on individuals' rights is great.

I agree that this is an important issue, but I just can't see Roe V. Wade every being overturned, yet maybe I'm totally wrong. It seems just so irrational. Luckily, we won't have to deal with this problem...

This article is from the website of a conservative think tank, The Manhattan Institute. It's interesting to read a conservative criticize Romney for being out of touch with the American people when he focuses his economic argument on only the "four sore years" of the Obama administration. She highlights the number of times Romney referred to 4 years during the debate missing his opportunity to acknowledge that Americans know that the economy crashed well before 2009. She aptly states that Americans remember well the "white as a ghost" President Bush, "the panicked Congress", the "helpless" GOP standard bearer, McCain. She also points out that Americans are feeling like we already hit bottom and that it's not the time to focus only on the negative. Given that she seems more nuanced in her thinking, I was particularly interested to read her criticisms of Obama's reaction to the financial crisis, especially, according to her, his missed opportunity to encourage states to fix their pension and benefit problems, by bailing them out temporarily with the stimulus money.

I am glad you posted this, as it offers a different type of critique of Romney. I read an essay like this from another conservative think tank criticizing Romney's energy policies and they both have expanded my perspective, it seems that more disparaging reviews of candidates from within their parties are more productive. It's interesting to consider what Romney would be like as a more positive candidate and how he might end up like an Obama from 2008. The benefits of an optimistic, or at least more constructive, campaign are great. This article also highlights something which comes up a lot for me when thinking about the election, in which candidates really under-estimate their constituencies' intelligence. There is definitely a difference between selling the perspective you want to use to win and ignoring the reality of what people know.

After the election, it's pretty clear that "four sore years" didn't work. I wonder if there was really much else Romney could have focused on. I think Romney dug himself more holes than he holes he really dug for Obama. There were Republican governors running for reelection talking about how great the economy was while Romney was running for president talking about how bad it was. It really shows how you can spin a situation any way to suit you.

This article stood out to me because of how badly Romney attacks the Obama campaign. Romney takes a shot at the president by saying, "If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn't you feel that way now that he's President Obama?" I enjoyed the article because it shows that Romney has a plan that he thinks will genuinely work, but I dislike like fact he was not giving the Obama administration credit for anything positive. Romney briefly gives Obama credit for giving Seal Team 6 the order to take out Bin Laden, but then blames him for making every American less safe because of his failure to secure Iran's nuclear threat.

I enjoyed reading this article because it shows that Romney is doing something I have wanted him to do for a long time, which is humanize himself. This election is going to be won by speeches and connection with voters. President Obama is, by far, one of the best speakers I have ever heard and that is why he gets a lot of his votes. While I am slightly upset that Romney attacked Obama in such a harsh manner, I don't get the sense that that was it's main purpose. The way I see that speech is that it was an attempt to reason with and connect to voters in a way Romney has not done before. I posted before about the importance of connection and I still believe that it is charisma and connections that will provide an edge in this election and I am happy to see Romney is starting to realize that.

Cameron, I really don't see Romney winning on his ability to connect on a human level with the electorate. Obama will beat Romney on likability right up until election day and that will not change. I don't think that Romney going down the route of telling his life story help him that much either. Much of what was said about him was an attempt to make it look like he is a normal, which he frankly is not; he won't even release his tax statements. Romney will win on coming across as someone that is ready to take on the economic problems not on who is more likable.

The Obama Campaign finally responds to the attacks made by Romney about his inability to "keep America safe". This post is important because Romney attacks Obama's National Security during his term in office, claiming Obama did not do a good job of keeping Americans safe.

The comment that the author cites from adviser Michèle Flournoy, that Romney has "no credibility since he's been both for and against our Libya policy," seems like a strong tactic for Obama to be using. This can't be the only aspect of Romney's foreign policy stances that the President could target as not very resolute. The other thing I can't help but think about whenever foreign policy is brought up during the debates is the unequal position the two candidates are in. The claim that you cite Romney making, that Obama has failed to "keep America safe," is an impossible claim for Obama to make about Romney. He has had no substantial hand in foreign policy as governor of Massachusetts. His foreign policy record is made up of things he has said, while Obama's is made up of things he has done and real circumstances he has led the country in. He has much more to criticize by default. In this way, I don't see accusations by Romney or defenses by Obama as that informative during debates and campaigning.

This article is very interesting because of the timing of Romney's softer tone in the critique of Obama so soon after many voters heard about the 43% comment Romney made. I think if Romney wants any chance of winning, he really needs to watch what he says and make sure he isn't made out to seem like more of a bad guy in the media. Although Romney compliments Obamacare he still points out what he does not like about it, showing his strong stance on what he thinks is positive and what needs change. It is unique that Romney is pointing out positive aspects of Obama care, because the GOP have often used Obamacare as one of the reasons why he should not be president again.

Yeah, this is an interesting call for Romney. I'm happy about it, but it certainly does seem calculated, especially his response of that he wants to keep "the part about pre-existing conditions." The phrase pre-existing condition is such an agitative buzzword, and it seems that this is a move intended to remove that specific buzzword from Obama's arsenal of rhetoric intended to pump up the base.

I agree with what you said John about how this could be part of a Romney tactic of moving towards the center and I am curious what aspects of Obama's policies and ideas Romney would consider taking on. It's interesting to think about this in the context of your comment Eli, because it seems like a lot of the concepts that Romney latches onto simply don't work with the reality of a policy or with the Republican platform. Saying that he supports coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions could make Romney more appealing on a human level, but if it is so detached from his general stance, it ends up being useless. I think a more well-thought out focus on centrists could be really beneficial.

This is an old op-ed piece from one of my favorite economist's, Paul Krugman. I think what he says still rings true. When we hear politicians talk about debt, it always seems so simple; countries borrow money and then owe that money. Krugman explains that it isn't that simple. Ever since reading this piece, I've had a much different take on the idea of "national debt." Let me know if guys find him convincing.

I really like this guy. To me, he paints a really compelling picture of what is becoming a massive issue in this election, and the way he shoots down the image of the US "deep in hock to the Chinese" is both funny and really troubling. Honestly, the way the idea of national debt has been explained to me in the past has been, according to Krugman, entirely fictional. I agree with you, Eli, that politicians talk about debt in this way intentionally: they are able to convince people like me, with no background in economics, of very simple truths that line up with their platforms. That being said, Krugman does leave me with a lot more questions than answers. I am unclear about a lot of the mechanics of his description (the US owing money to itself, how these massive "debts" are even paid off), but it seems to me like the general message is that it isn't a really big deal. From what I can tell, this is a pretty convincing message.

Krugman says "Deficit-worriers portray a future in which we are impoverished by the need to pay back the debt." They think it's like a mortgage-that's how i see it. He says that we don't have to pay it back, just make sure it grows more slowly than the tax base. We owe it to ourselves, but I still think national debt is money owed that needs to be paid back and can inhibit economic growth. Dollars paid to the debt could be used for tangible things like infrastructure and education.