Josh Marshall, TPM: ‘4 Years Ago’ Could Work for Obama

[highplainsdem]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/09/4_years_ago_could_work_for_obama.php

I generally despise the counter-intuitive pundit take (pace TNR). But I think there’s a chance this renewed focus on the ‘4 years ago’ question could backfire on Team Romney. The best campaign posture for Romney is on the present. Because, let’s face it, 8+% unemployment sucks. I would go so far as to say that anything that gets the debate off the immediate present is a bad thing for Romney.

Context is Obama’s friend. We’re not doing great? Sure, but remember the catastrophe I got handed? Fine, we’re not where we should be. But look how far we’ve come.


George W. Bush is still very unpopular and gets a high degree of blame for the economy, despite leaving office almost four years ago. The latest ABC/WaPo poll shows 54% blame President Bush for the country’s economic woes, compared to 32% for President Obama. Republicans, wisely, have been trying for some time to say Bush is old news, an excuse, etc.

Casting the debate over where the country stands compared to four years ago also plays into the Obama camp’s push to say Romney is Bush redux. Again, good for Obama, bad for Romney. And lest we forget, Romney is (rightly) closely identified with Wall Street, ground zero of the calamity.

-snip-

[Bad Thoughts]

1. Finally,

some who says we should not be afraid of this question. It works in our favor.

[MADem]

2. Of course it will work--no "could" about it.

Think back--who didn't feel that weight on their chest, that feeling like they were being strangled, every time BushCo abrogated yet ANOTHER basic right?

And the Congress we have is loaded to the gills with BushCo assholes who continue to be obstructionist jerks.

RMoney IS Bush--without the chain saw and without an experienced (if malevolent) staff.

[ProSense]

3. There is a reason

Republicans are hiding Bush: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021258428