Andrew Sullivan has a post up spelling out the appeal of a Gingrich v. Obama race. This last sentence seemed strange to me: "Say what you like about the man [Gingrich], but he has ideas, says arresting things, and most of all, would make the clearest possible contrast with Barack Obama in the general election."
The idea is that Romney would say anything to get elected, and Gingrich would just be Gingrich.
I don't see why people think this about politicians. I think we've seen ample evidence that every one of these candidates would say anything to achieve their ultimate goal of being elected. But the Gingrich point about the "clearest possible contrast" with Obama was especially surprising. Gingrich has been going around saying that Obama wants more people supported by the government while he wants more people supported by their own jobs. Since the election is going to be largely about the economy, we're going to hear more of that. How can anyone call that "the clearest possible contrast"? It's a compeltely fabricated contrast and it muddies the actual differences between them.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think that over the course of the next 6 months or so the economy will be less of an issue. M2 was having a period of growth starting around July and then leveled off a few months ago, but is again growing a bit as of the last release.
ReplyDeleteThis is just my opinion, but I feel that we will be seeing an increase in investment, a decline in unemployment and an increase in aggregate demand before the general election comes around.