Lately many people have been second-guessing the Obama administration’s political strategy. The conventional wisdom seems to be that President Obama tried to do too much — in particular, that he should have put health care on one side and focused on the economy.Ya gotta feel for guys like Krugman. They are forced to argue one minute that Obama's stimulus was a big success (that 2 million "jobs saved or created" idiocy) and in the next they explain that it was a failure only because the stimulus was "too small." Which is it, Mr. Nobel Economics Winner?
I disagree. The Obama administration’s troubles are the result not of excessive ambition, but of policy and political misjudgments. The stimulus was too small; policy toward the banks wasn’t tough enough; and Mr. Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan, who also faced a poor economy early in his administration, did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations.
But the big whopper comes here:
Obama didn’t do what Ronald Reagan... did — namely, shelter himself from criticism with a narrative that placed the blame on previous administrations."What? He didn't blame previous administrations?
That's all Obama has done. When did he NOT blame Bush for all our ongoing problems? Just yesterday:
“We have had one year to make up for eight. It hasn’t been quick, it hasn’t been easy.... But we’ve begun to deliver on the change you voted for.”
I think what Krugman really wants to believe is that it should be all Bush's fault that the economy sucks a full year after Obama's predecessor went into retirement. Things were so much more fun when Bush could be blamed for everything.
This is sad, in a way. The twisting in knots. The flailing. The dumbstruck looks.
"It's all Bush's fault!" It all made sense back then.