Free from all those nasty commercials. Free from all that political junk
mail. Free from all those phone calls pushing one candidate and trashing another, though I did appreciate President Clinton calling me. I felt honored, but I still didn’t pick up. I haven’t picked up in two months which have been jammed with so many unwanted calls that I almost cancelled my land line. Unfortunately I often need it to locate my cell phone.
AND FREE FROM THE TASK OF DEFENDING BARACK OBAMA FROM THE ONGOING ONSLAUGHT OF THE REPUBLICAN SMEAR CAMPAIGN.
Yeah, and don’t tell me about how Romney was smeared as well. Romney was portrayed as a very wealthy guy out of touch with the average American and our concerns, an image he cemented with his behind closed-doors speech to big donors in which he indicated at least “47%” of us think of ourselves as “victims” expecting government to solve our problems. That is not smearing him. That’s who he is.
Carl Rove complains that Romney was portrayed as “a rich guy who only thinks about himself.” O. K., that’s not complimentary, but I don’t think it prompts hatred. Not compared with Obama being profiled as a secretly foreign-born, anti-American Muslim socialist who made-everything-worse as president. That’s more than smearing; it’s sliming.
So, despite the fact that this has been a “six billion dollar status quo election”……. (Same president, same Democrat “managed” Senate and Republican “controlled” House ) ……. I feel so much better that I can begin to focus on what is happening in terms of addressing our nation’s problems, rather than defend Barack Obama’s last four years in office. (*1)
I have had criticisms of the president; but I was so busy clearing away Republican distortions and lies I never got around to them. In any event, I’m glad he has been given a second chance to do better on a number of fronts, and I think he will. But more of that in upcoming weeks.
And more election reflections, too. I have plenty to think about.
One more thought for today:
The #1 Issue was the Economy: I find it ironic that, according to just about everyone, the economy was the key issue, but I found the economy almost never talked about in any real way during all of those months of babble. Obama didn’t want us to dwell on the slow recovery and Romney didn’t want to detail how he would improve it. Better to just be the Un-Obama, he seemed to think. Perhaps he recalled how the rope-a-dope worked for Ali vs. Foreman so many years ago.
I often heard how the Obama campaign had sidetracked Romney from talking about the economy, but when Romney did talk about it, he never really said anything. Maybe he liked being sidetracked. He did indicate that he had created 100,000 jobs through Bain Capital, but never gave any proof and stopped saying that when pressed. (If that were true, don’t you think each of us would have received in the mail a multi-colored booklet highlighting all those jobs?).
Otherwise Romney just made assertions like when he became president he would create 12,000,000 jobs, but never how he would do it. As it turns out, that is what many economists predicted anyway. No matter who would be elected. Maybe even me. (Thanks again for your vote, reader.)
So maybe Obama will “create” all those jobs, but if so, than Republicans will not give him credit but instead point to the natural cycling of the economy that Obama cashed in on. And there would be some truth in that.
The booming economy during the Clinton years had already begun to turn around right before his first election, but not enough so the public really noticed. So, George Bush was out (whom I think of as Bush the Better), and Clinton was in and got to ride the rising tide. In short, praising or blaming presidents for the shape of an economy imagines much greater powers than they have and ignores luck, lots of luck. (*2)
Given the shaky world economy, we can’t assume continued improvement in our own, but it would be ironic, and unfair, had Romney been elected and the improvement be called the “Romney Recovery.” In that case, the Republicans would have forgotten economic cycles. Fareed Zakaria points that out in a Washington Post piece that should cheer you up about our economic future, if you don’t think too much about it.
His is a lonely view compared to most you might read right now, especially with THE FISCAL CLIFF looming. But save that other reading until later. For now, take Daniel L. Reardon’s advice: “In the long run the pessimist may be proved right, but the optimist has a better time on the trip.” (*3)
Have fun this weekend.
(*1) I do realize the election produced significant changes, but not in terms of the balance of power in our central government. For example, in keeping Obama in office the composition and politics of the allegedly apolitical Supreme Court figure to change down the line.
(*2) I know Democrats would argue Clinton did a number of things to prompt the growth of the economy and a budget surplus. My point here is his policies didn’t turn the economy around; it was turning before he took office.
(*3) I don’t know who he is or was, either. If curious, you’ll have to do your own search.