Problem is, Carl, that history or not this particular election is a no-contest in favor of the Republican as far as economics goes. I’ve had a taste of Obama and I don’t like it at all. He had four years to start progressing towards a solution, and I don’t see any in sight. If he were a lowly NFL coach he’d have been fired 2 or 3 seasons ago.
Aside from that, history has a funny way of being interpreted. I’m going to let the history argument go because quite frankly it’s too involved for me to want to get into at the moment. The only thing I will say is that there is significant lag time economically speaking between the genesis of a problem or solution and when that bubble bursts or solution kicks in. That can easily cross administration and party lines. But as I said, I don’t want to debate that. All I want to know is, are you defending Obama as having a better understanding of business environment and economics than Romney? [/quote]
I agree with you re: the importance of past administrations. It is far more important to choose between the two individuals standing before us now than to choose between the parties as they were decades ago.
But, they whole notion of policy taking shape over time and not manifesting itself right away seems to take a lot of the edge off of criticisms of Obama’s (or anyone’s) Presidency. If Romney is voted in and the economy continues to improve, will anyone on the right be willing to give this argument a second look? Probably not.[/quote]
A great example is George W. Bush. He took over right before the .com bubble burst and was President when the housing bubble burst. How much of the blame should Bill Clinton assume for the .com bubble and how much blame should Obama take for not fixing the fall out from the housing bubble?
I think this could make for a very interesting debate by both sides.