By DAVID BEILSTEIN
IN the July 9 issue of National Review, Jonah Goldberg in an editorial piece called on former Gov. of Massachusetts Mitt Romney to run against George W. Bush — more specifically, against the 43rd presidents spend-adrift-policies.
A similar argument from Jonah Goldberg is posted here.
Goldberg sprints to make the case the Obama Administration is running a campaign narrative based on Mitt Romney being the third term of the Bush Administration. Goldberg highlights spending according to GDP in both Bush and Obama administrations and supplemental numbers, to show, that Barack Obama has bet on Bush spending double, whilst clinging to the coattails of being the outsider of Washington, DC fiscal norms.
Goldberg then does a good job showing it is President Obama who has been the third term of President George W. Bush spending-wise, and that Obama, in no small terms, is George W. Bush on steroids.
I concur. The people who will decide the election Nov. 6 are still leery of George W. Bush. Some of that leeriness is illegitimate, some legitimate. No need to parse words there. Mitt Romney needs to illustrate in clear and concise terms that Obama has double-downed on Bush spending — and the congressional spending of the Bush years. Nevertheless, things drifted from bad to worse on account of such policies under Bush, and have not improved under President Obama’s regime.
The narrative needs to be reframed by Romney … Obama is a continuation of Bush 43. Romney needs to write the narrative Obama has defended with failure, profligate spending upon profligate spending, impoverishing the vulnerable amongst us. The admittance of such a statement is not only true — which should be the mother’s milk of good politics — it will spring support of voters leery of the GOP in favour of Romney after years of GOP mixed signals on economic matters.
This will be somewhat difficult for the Romney campaign because of the deep roots between the Bush’s and Romney. But a legitimate campaign that rallies an America to a different and needed interpretation of government domestic policy, will need to contrast what George W. Bush did fiscally, and that which highlights the norm of American fiscal sanity.