Bush = Romney, Repeat, Rinse
Should Be Like Fish in a Barrel
Bush was awful. Romney wants to bring back his policies. Why is that hard to get across?
I don't read many New York Times editorials any more, simply because I'm through the phase of my life when being fully informed meant reading them, but this one from today is actually rather good on Obama's speech yesterday:
There is no meaningful difference between the trickle-down economics of George W. Bush, rejected by the country in 2008, and the plans supported by Mr. Romney and his Republican allies in Congress. All the elements are there, from the slavish devotion to tax cuts for the rich, to a contempt for government regulation, to savage cutbacks in programs for those at the bottom.
“If you want to give the policies of the last decade another try, then you should vote for Mr. Romney,” he said. “You should take them at their word, and they will take America down this path. And Mr. Romney is qualified to deliver on that plan.”...
...And it is there that Mr. Obama still has not made his case. Mr. Romney’s entire campaign rests on a foundation of short, utterly false sound bites. The stimulus failed. (Three million employed people beg to differ.) The auto bailout was a mistake. (Another million jobs.) Spending is out of control. (Spending growth is actually lower than under all modern Republican presidents.) He says these kinds of things so often that millions of Americans believe them to be the truth.
It is hard to challenge these lies with a well-reasoned-but-overlong speech...
Yee hah, the indent function is working!
So, two points here. First, the Bush-Romney connection, and second, Romney's lies.
The record of Bush economic failure is so long and clear that this should be really easy. You have a series of ads called "what really happened" or something. You show Bush talking up tax cuts and prosperity for all, then you show the graphics demonstrating that the top 2 percent did great but median wages actually fell. You show Mitch McConnell saying the Bush tax cuts produced revenue, then you show the evidence that the opposite was the case. You show Bush talking up jobs, then you show the chart proving that his number of created jobs was the lowest of any president from Truman to him. And so on and so on and son. The material is almost literally endless. And you show Bush saying X in 2002, then Romney saying his version of X in 2012.
This idea of attacking Bush directly gives Democrats the vapors for some reason. That mystifies me completely. Bush is still blamed by 68 percent of Americans, Gallup found just this week. Now, 68 means not just liberals. It means most independents. Actually, it means vitually all independents, and maybe even a couple dozen Republicans. That, if you ask me, is a target as fat as a Christmas goose. Were Republicans so reticent about Carter? They're still kicking the poor guy, and he's 90 or whatever. This is just the easiest shot in the world.
On the lies, just go straight at them. Show Romney saying the stimulus didn't work, then show 10 Republican members of Congress at ceremonies cutting ribbons or whatever at places built with stimulus money. "You've heard this before" is theme of this campaign. Again, link to Bush.
There's just so much material here. Nothing good happened economically under Bush. Not one thing. Unless you're super rich, but even then you lost millions when the market tanked under him. And Romney wants to do the same things Bush did. And this is supposed to be hard to communicate??