It’s the Economy Again, Stupid
It’s difficult to predict whether Barack Obama will soon emerge as a contender.
President Barack Obama is in trouble now that the election process toward November has started for the Republican Party. He does not have an opponent yet to throw his best darts and his weakest flanks against the economy, which has transformed itself into the weapon of choice of Republican candidates. Until days ago, those candidates were dedicated to bringing together conservative votes with divisive arguments about abortion, same-sex marriages and biblical interpretations of how the educational and health systems should be.
It is difficult to predict whether Obama’s competitor will soon emerge from the lengthy Republican electoral process that began this week in Iowa and ends in August in Florida with the National Convention. But from what I heard from Iowa, the two best positioned are Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, and Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania. Obama can already guess that he will be accused of all things related to the economy, in particular, for creating a large government deficit, a consumer of resources and taxes.
The Republican candidates, after months of fraternity-type competition to see who was more conservative, know that to regain the presidency they have no choice but to point to the Achilles heel of the government, as former Democratic President Bill Clinton did in 1992 to win the White House from George H.W. Bush. At that time, Bush’s re-election seemed certain by his successes in foreign affairs until Clinton, with his motto “it’s the economy, stupid,” put on the table what matters the most and mobilized the voters during a recession.
After three years, Obama treads water, even to insist on accusing Republicans of obstruction and the weights of the past. In recent surveys, economists accuse him of little maneuverability to move the country forward and predict that his re-election is not guaranteed. The criticisms are many. The economy has not rebounded, the deficit has increased, consumer confidence remains low and even worse, he failed to resolve the serious problem of unemployment, which is still about 8 percent, a figure that has not allowed any president to win re-election.
Obama would prefer that the Republican candidate is defined in the elections this coming Tuesday in New Hampshire or those of Jan. 21 in South Carolina or at least Jan. 31 in Florida. Thus, he will have a direct target of flesh and blood and won’t be blaming abstract groups of senators and house Republicans of obstructing all plans to bring the country out of recession.
But despite the fact that Mormon Romney and Catholic Santorum are front runners in Iowa and Republican Michele Bachmann abandoned the race, we cannot rule out others.
Like Clinton in 1992, President Obama and the Republicans know that the economy is again the key to winning elections. Stupidity would be left in debt to other issues that are also important such as immigration, health and education.
President Barack Obama is in trouble now that the election process toward November has started for the Republican Party. He does not have an opponent yet to throw his best darts and his weakest flanks against the economy, which has transformed itself into the weapon of choice of Republican candidates. Until days ago, those candidates were dedicated to bringing together conservative votes with divisive arguments about abortion, same-sex marriages and biblical interpretations of how the educational and health systems should be.
It is difficult to predict whether Obama’s competitor will soon emerge from the lengthy Republican electoral process that began this week in Iowa and ends in August in Florida with the National Convention. But from what I heard from Iowa, the two best positioned are Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, and Rick Santorum, former senator from Pennsylvania. Obama can already guess that he will be accused of all things related to the economy, in particular, for creating a large government deficit, a consumer of resources and taxes.
The Republican candidates, after months of fraternity-type competition to see who was more conservative, know that to regain the presidency they have no choice but to point to the Achilles heel of the government, as former Democratic President Bill Clinton did in 1992 to win the White House from George H.W. Bush. At that time, Bush’s re-election seemed certain by his successes in foreign affairs until Clinton, with his motto “it’s the economy, stupid,” put on the table what matters the most and mobilized the voters during a recession.
After three years, Obama treads water, even to insist on accusing Republicans of obstruction and the weights of the past. In recent surveys, economists accuse him of little maneuverability to move the country forward and predict that his re-election is not guaranteed. The criticisms are many. The economy has not rebounded, the deficit has increased, consumer confidence remains low and even worse, he failed to resolve the serious problem of unemployment, which is still about 8 percent, a figure that has not allowed any president to win re-election.
Obama would prefer that the Republican candidate is defined in the elections this coming Tuesday in New Hampshire or those of Jan. 21 in South Carolina or at least Jan. 31 in Florida. Thus, he will have a direct target of flesh and blood and won’t be blaming abstract groups of senators and house Republicans of obstructing all plans to bring the country out of recession.
But despite the fact that Mormon Romney and Catholic Santorum are front runners in Iowa and Republican Michele Bachmann abandoned the race, we cannot rule out others.
Like Clinton in 1992, President Obama and the Republicans know that the economy is again the key to winning elections. Stupidity would be left in debt to other issues that are also important such as immigration, health and education.
Next article![]( "Coalition Growing in Response to US Threats")
