New York Times columnist Paul Krugman has a brilliant solution for Barack Obama to improve his sagging poll numbers: spend more time blaming George W. Bush for the recession.
"The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments," Krugman wrote Monday.
"The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations."
Don't be surprised if such thinking gets this guy another Nobel Prize (h/t NB reader Jeff):
It’s instructive to compare Mr. Obama’s rhetorical stance on the economy with that of Ronald Reagan. It’s often forgotten now, but unemployment actually soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cut. Reagan, however, had a ready answer for critics: everything going wrong was the result of the failed policies of the past. In effect, Reagan spent his first few years in office continuing to run against Jimmy Carter.
Mr. Obama could have done the same — with, I’d argue, considerably more justice. He could have pointed out, repeatedly, that the continuing troubles of America’s economy are the result of a financial crisis that developed under the Bush administration, and was at least in part the result of the Bush administration’s refusal to regulate the banks.
Here come's the money shot:
But he didn’t. Maybe he still dreams of bridging the partisan divide; maybe he fears the ire of pundits who consider blaming your predecessor for current problems uncouth — if you’re a Democrat. (It’s O.K. if you’re a Republican.) Whatever the reason, Mr. Obama has allowed the public to forget, with remarkable speed, that the economy’s troubles didn’t start on his watch.
Honestly, in what country does Paul Krugman live, and do they have newspapers, televisions, and Internet access there?
After all, to claim Obama and Company have been remiss in taking every opportunity to blame the recession on the previous administration is as factually dishonest as saying the Washington Nationals won the World Series last year.
Obama's campaign was largely based on pointing fingers at George W. Bush whenever possible, and he and his minions have continued to do so for approaching 365 days since Inauguration Day.
To state anything to the contrary lacks any basis.
Of course, this is by no means surprising, for Krugman has a long and indistinguished history of making things up when it fits his agenda.
Seems to be quite common with today's Nobel Laureates, doesn't it?
Has blatant dishonesty become a prerequisite for this award?