City Journal Winter 2016

Current Issue:

Winter 2016
Table of Contents
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Nicole Gelinas
The Problem with “Four Sore Years” « Back to Story

View Comments (14)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.

Showing 14 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
Every time Romney or Ryan say "four years," the voters think back to 2008 and 2009.

The American economy plummeted from December 2007 to bottomed in June of 2009. Bloomberg put the loss at $14.5 trillion for global companies. "A second Great Depression" was the common worry.

Maybe these guys want to talk about Libya again ??? Get Todd Akin or Scott Brown up on stage with them?

Who is managing message for this campaign?
I guess you have not been following the Obama
campaign. Their mantra is that President Obama "inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression," I think the public is well
aware of the fact the economy sputtered at the end of President Bush's second term. No question the Republicans have not done their due diligence with the economy. The malfeasance is bipartisan (e.g.,The Sarbanes–Oxley Act). To be really transparent Romney could mention the impact the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 had on the mortgage crisis. The wood started to rot on Bill Clinton's watch. And we all know how the media loves to inoculate him from any criticism.
The problem with your suggestion that Romney state that “…President Bush missed the financial economic meltdown.” is that it’s a bit short on facts. The sub-prime mortgage problem that was the catalyst and centerpiece of the economic meltdown wasn’t “missed” by President Bush. Not only did he issue well more than a dozen warnings publically but he twice send legislation to congress to reign in the excesses of the program. All these attempts either fell on deaf ears or were defeated by Democrats (See: Frank, Barney) in Congress. That on top of the fact that the sub-prime mortgage program was created by bad Democratic legislation passed by Jimmy Carter, exacerbated by Bill Clinton’s rule changes and used by none other than Barak Obama, among many others, to sue banks to force more sub-prime mortgages. The media meme that it was President Bush’s fault is just that, a media meme.
No, YOU are missing the point! Obama has made it WORSE in his four years! Contributing factors go all the way back to the Clinton years, but we could have been mostly clear if the Obama stimulus would have focused on the economy, instead of just paying back his cronies and campaign contributors.
I agree with Gilbert that a good majority of our issues come from Congress and it is up to us to make better decisions on who should be elected to those posts. The president can only do so much. Instead of us thinking top-down, we need to think bottom up!
One more thing: when Obama submitted his budgets to Congress -- they were so extreme that NO Democrats voted for them, not even self-proclaimed socialist Bernie Sanders (Vt.).

He got Zero votes. That's how hard Left he is. You don't compromise with someone like that: don't let the camel get its nose in the tent, as the Arabs say.
With respect, Nicole, I don't think it serves the Republicans to play the even-handed game when the Democrats are refusing to take Any responsibility for the last four years. You should never play by Marquis of Queensbury rules when your opponent is using gutter tactics.

This is also known as "trimming the boat": it's been listing to port for much too long, and we need to throw our weight to starboard, vigorously.

The housing bubble was a Democrat-cased disaster. The Wall St. guys were making lemonade out of lemon mortgages forced upon banks by the Dems. So even the two years you allude to are really more their fault than anyone's.

I hope all you Republicans will support R's in down-ticket races, as well as the top two R's. And consider kicking some cash their way to help make this a landslide: we need to send the socialist crowd a stinging rebuke. Good hunting, all.
In some cultures, would be Rulers line up and take their turn at extracting a magnificent sword from an ancient stone. In others, the wannabe Ruler must slay a fearsome beast to prove his worth. In ours, the existing Ruler and his Challenger must compete to see who can tell the most convincing lies. And with all due respect to Susan Katz, presidents have little ability to make our economy live up to anyone’s expectations, so Susan’s disappointment is attributable more to her gullibility than to a realistic assessment of present day American politics. Presidents and those who lust after the job are expected to lie about how they will create more employment, reduce taxes, feed the poor and keep America strong. We know they’re lying and they know they’re lying, but we evaluate them based on their ability to tell the most convincing lie.

Part of America’s “Most Convincing Liar” reality show involves consulting economists to prove you listened to advice from recognized sages. Americans love it when their Rulers pretend to be appropriately humble by seeking wisdom from impartial experts. And though we no longer insist our consulting Wise Men appear wearing austere black robes with long gray beards, the effect is the same. Economists use their so-called science to put forth alternative plans for fixing whatever mess we find ourselves currently in. But there is nothing remotely scientific about economic science, it’s simply a profession followed by trained sociologists possessing advanced math skills. And, decades ago, economists learned it’s prudent to tell current and prospective Rulers whatever they want to hear with a sufficiently esoteric theory to support their advice. Friedman or Keynes, take your pick depending on your politics.

We elected Obama because he was black and not because he had any great wisdom concerning business or the economy. We may soon discard him because he failed to display leadership in a subject he never mastered. 400 years from now, Obama may be referred to as Barack the Dreamer or Barack the Witless, one of many former Rulers of the defunct American Empire. Should Romney gain the White House, America will still be $15 trillion in debt with a real unemployment rate of 13 to 15%. We’d be better off as a nation by insisting our Rulers swear to follow the Hippocratic Oath: ‘First, do no harm”.
A better response would have been for Romney to explain that will reform those Big Government establishments that created the problem. "Bush didn't tame FNMA or Freddie and their subprime loans. He didn't attack the CRA. He didn't protect the dollar, and he let Congress spend, spend spend. These things wont happen on my watch."
Biden's admission during his debate with Ryan that "during the past 4 years the middle class was buried," that things came to light. Surprisingly the 6 years you are referring to coincides with the Democratic take over of the Congress and the Senate and Harry Reid have yet to pass a budget. Thank goodness in 2010 the Republicans retook the House of Representatives to save Obama's Presidency. Actually it was the policies of Democratics Frank's and Dodd's who caused the subprime mortgage crises in mid-2008 that became the beginning of the end. What ever happened to Obama's promise of "Hope and Change?"
Great article and, from where I sit, absolutely correct.
Thanks, your good..real good, perfectly laid out. Lets see if he picks it up..
Gilbert W. Chapman October 17, 2012 at 9:17 PM
If I had been standing where Romney was, I would have shifted the blame to Congress, where it belongs.

Let's face reality . . . Obamacare, by example, is as much a horror show created by Pelosi, Reid & Company (including the Republicans who never proposed an alternative), as it is Obama's.

Until Congress does its job, no president is going to succeed, whether his name is Bush, Obama or Romney.

No . . . I don't like Obama; but, when a president is trying to accomplish something with at least 500 (of 535) political hacks and degenerates, how can any man succeed?
"Katz asked: “What is the biggest difference between you and George W. Bush, and how do you differentiate yourself from George W. Bush?”"

Governor Romney should have answered, "Ex-President Bush is not running in this elution. What the American people want to hear is how my policies will benefit America, compared to the past four years under the Obama administration. We cannot endure for more Obama years.