Even the most casual observers of American politics know by now that this presidential election will revolve around the economy. Considering that the last election was an election to decide, “Who will be best suited to fix this economy”, it is only natural that as we are, over 3 years later, worse off then before, that people should now ponder, “Who will be best suited to fix this economy, the guy who brought us from bad to worse or the new guy who understands private enterprise?”
Once again, we are in the midst of an election rooted in economic issues. However, the liberal media is willing to do whatever it takes, no matter how transparent and outlandish, to skew the conversation to a safer tone for the Democrats.
In a recent Time Magazine article, Michael Crowley questions whether Romney is “too focused on the economy”. While I have my reasons to give, I’ll jump to the obvious answer to this question (SPOILER ALERT): No, he is not.
In his article, Crowley cites that with “comical discipline”, Romney refocuses the attention at every turn on economic issues. He further draws laughable comparisons to relatively-recent elections that were largely rooted in economic issues: the elections of 1980 and 1992. Both of these elections ousted the incumbent president and rested on the failings of the previous administration. Central to Crowley’s point is his assertion that while the elections dealt largely with the economy, there were other issues with which to contend. Reagan was able to highlight the numerous failings of the Carter administration with regards to the Iran Hostage Crisis and weakness in foreign policy. Clinton was able to capitalize on a less-than-enthusiastic fervor for George H.W. Bush, and juxtaposed the image of the saxophone-playing babyboomer with the unexcitable Bush. But throughout it all, the central issue most connected to every voter was the economy.
Because there were other topics to discuss in the aforementioned elections, Crowley wrongly assumes that Romney is a one-string-banjo because he has been able to tap into the palpable concern every American has about the economy. While the liberal media may hope to divert attention from the economy, the fact remains that the economy was what Obama was hired to fix, it’s what he has made worse, he seems to have no ideas on how to fix it, and it is what affects people the most in their daily lives. So, no, Americans don’t want to know what Romney’s favorite color is, we want to know what will be done about this train-wreck of an economy.
The liberal media has egg on its face from having anointed Obama before they could see how big of a failure socialism really is; this is odd, because any history book would have informed them of that fact. Rather than address the failures of the Obama administration, the liberal media has tried a variety of tactics to refocus the narrative of this election. They’ve gone from, “It’s Bush’s fault”, to, “Things aren’t so bad”, to now, where they’re apparently saying, “The economy? Are we still on this?”
Furthermore, the liberal media should be careful about what they wish for, because if Americans start shifting their focus to issues besides the economy, the current regime might be pressed to answer some tough questions. If they want, perhaps the enraged masses could focus their attention on wondering why the president has bypassed Congress to grant amnesty to illegals, so that they may compete in the job market with Americans. Or perhaps voters would like to know why the president has exerted executive privilege to cover up illegal activities, which either means that he A) has exercised an authority that he can’t apply because he’s not involved and thus, the privilege doesn’t apply or B) is involved in the illegal activities and has some explaining to do.
Or, if we are to discuss something other than the economy, perhaps we should discuss the costly cronyism of Solyndra. Then maybe we should discuss any number of foreign policy missteps, like the Obama administration’s support for the radical Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Or, if they would rather, we can go back to discussing Obama’s radical roots and bring Jeremiah Wright out of mothballs; after all, it was the liberal media telling us to move on and focus on something else other than his radical past. There’s just no pleasing some people.
Overall, Crowley’s assertions are just one more desperate ploy by a liberal mouthpiece that is tired of seeing the cracks in the foundation of “The One” widen. Romney is not singularly focused on the economy, there are plenty of other failures to discuss. But even if he were only playing that card, that would be the only card he would need, because that is what is most pressing. We need a president who, with laser-like focus, will work to improve the economy through fostering private enterprise and who will be more committed to doing so than golfing, or hob-nobbing with deadbrained celebrities on the taxpayers’ dime.
This November, it would do the Obama Camp well to remember that nobody conscripted him to do the job, so the American people are tired of hearing about how he inherited a bad economy or how nothing is his fault. He asked for the job of fixing the economy. Now, just like any employee must do for their boss(es), he must show what we pay him for. Romney brings up the economy because it’s time for a job review, and Obama must be willing to explain why crippling our economy is actually beneficial to us; although, admittedly, it’ll probably be a hard sell. Obama’s failure on the economy is the only card Romney needs to play; but, it’s nice to know he has others.