Democrats running as if Mitt Romney were president

The Democratic National Convention was full of angst about how “middle class” Americans are having such a hard time, how “the system is rigged against them” (as Elizabeth Warren put it), how the rich control everything, and other evocations of national misery.  But if things are so bad and electing Obama will solve the problems, why hasn’t he done anything about them so far?  As someone has noted, the Democrats are sounding like they are running against an incumbent President Romney.  But their guy is the one in office!  Their rhetoric is geared against the status quo–but they are the status quo!

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Always the victim and never the victimizer…

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Always the victim and never the victimizer…

  • Helen K

    +1 J. Dean

  • Helen K

    +1 J. Dean

  • Rich Shipe

    Isn’t that possible if the audience you are appealing to is increasingly post-modern? What do you all think?

  • Rich Shipe

    Isn’t that possible if the audience you are appealing to is increasingly post-modern? What do you all think?

  • Michael B.

    It’s acceptable for an elected leader to suggest that there is still a lot of work that needs to be done.

  • Michael B.

    It’s acceptable for an elected leader to suggest that there is still a lot of work that needs to be done.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    As long as we have a few dollars left in our pockets there will always be “work” that needs to be done.

    He had his chance and spent a lot of money. It’s time for a change.

  • http://theoldadam.com/ Steve Martin

    As long as we have a few dollars left in our pockets there will always be “work” that needs to be done.

    He had his chance and spent a lot of money. It’s time for a change.

  • Jon

    They don’t want to own their aweful record over the last 3.5 years, so they complain and shift the blame.

    Now they even blast Romney as if he’s in charge of foreign policy over the embassy attacks!

  • Jon

    They don’t want to own their aweful record over the last 3.5 years, so they complain and shift the blame.

    Now they even blast Romney as if he’s in charge of foreign policy over the embassy attacks!

  • Don

    Not only that but they have also controlled the Senate for how long? Maybe since 2007? They even had the House and Senate majorities for at least two years. If things are so bad why are they blaming the minority party?

  • Don

    Not only that but they have also controlled the Senate for how long? Maybe since 2007? They even had the House and Senate majorities for at least two years. If things are so bad why are they blaming the minority party?

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The answer is pretty obvious. It’s the fault of that evil rich obstructionist Republican legislature. If they weren’t fighting against the anointed one, we would have our utopia now with free iPhone 5′s for everyone.

  • Dr. Luther in the 21st Century

    The answer is pretty obvious. It’s the fault of that evil rich obstructionist Republican legislature. If they weren’t fighting against the anointed one, we would have our utopia now with free iPhone 5′s for everyone.

  • DonS

    Liberal politics, at least the way they are practiced today, is rooted in anger and envy. Emotion drives the vote turnout, and so you’ve got to convince your base that, even though you hold the office, the enemy is still thwarting and undermining you, and you need more power and more time to bring justice to society.

    The more they screech, the more evidence you have of their desperation and knowledge that they are losing the campaign.

  • DonS

    Liberal politics, at least the way they are practiced today, is rooted in anger and envy. Emotion drives the vote turnout, and so you’ve got to convince your base that, even though you hold the office, the enemy is still thwarting and undermining you, and you need more power and more time to bring justice to society.

    The more they screech, the more evidence you have of their desperation and knowledge that they are losing the campaign.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Look, I’m far from convinced that Obama is doing the right thing(s) about the economy. But most of the arguments here sound like the same partisan so-and-so.

    But if things are so bad and electing Obama will solve the problems, why hasn’t he done anything about them so far?

    Um, is anyone arguing Obama hasn’t done “anything”? No, he has done some things.

    The question at issue this election is whether those things (1) are working, but have yet to finish their work, or (2) aren’t working, and never were. Now, one could argue that Obama hasn’t done the right things. Sure. But, again, it’s not that he’s just sat there, twiddling his thumbs. No, most right-wingers would have been fine with that.

    Still, I’d like to hear from people who follow Veith’s line: how long does it take to fix an economy? We all knew things were going south in the months before the 2008 election. At what point in the past four-ish years should things have gotten better?

    And does this apply to everything a President does? During the 2004 election, we heard a lot about how you shouldn’t switch horses in the middle of a pre-emptive war. So Bush needed more time to fix all those problems. I guess wars don’t count towards the “gotta get it done in four years” expectation. But economies do?

    And what, exactly, are supposed “conservatives” doing arguing that the economy is the President’s responsibility, anyhow?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Look, I’m far from convinced that Obama is doing the right thing(s) about the economy. But most of the arguments here sound like the same partisan so-and-so.

    But if things are so bad and electing Obama will solve the problems, why hasn’t he done anything about them so far?

    Um, is anyone arguing Obama hasn’t done “anything”? No, he has done some things.

    The question at issue this election is whether those things (1) are working, but have yet to finish their work, or (2) aren’t working, and never were. Now, one could argue that Obama hasn’t done the right things. Sure. But, again, it’s not that he’s just sat there, twiddling his thumbs. No, most right-wingers would have been fine with that.

    Still, I’d like to hear from people who follow Veith’s line: how long does it take to fix an economy? We all knew things were going south in the months before the 2008 election. At what point in the past four-ish years should things have gotten better?

    And does this apply to everything a President does? During the 2004 election, we heard a lot about how you shouldn’t switch horses in the middle of a pre-emptive war. So Bush needed more time to fix all those problems. I guess wars don’t count towards the “gotta get it done in four years” expectation. But economies do?

    And what, exactly, are supposed “conservatives” doing arguing that the economy is the President’s responsibility, anyhow?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jon said (@6):

    Now they even blast Romney as if he’s in charge of foreign policy over the embassy attacks!

    No, they blast Romney because he seems to think he’s the one in charge of foreign policy, and thus made some really ill-considered remarks about the embassy attacks. It was craven opportunism, and he really should have shut up about that particular thing at that particular moment.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Jon said (@6):

    Now they even blast Romney as if he’s in charge of foreign policy over the embassy attacks!

    No, they blast Romney because he seems to think he’s the one in charge of foreign policy, and thus made some really ill-considered remarks about the embassy attacks. It was craven opportunism, and he really should have shut up about that particular thing at that particular moment.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@9), it’s too bad you continue to wear your partisan blinders. Your comment might have been an insightful take on politics as they are practiced. But instead it was merely a potshot at “liberals”, with your apparently failing to note anything like that happening among “conservatives”. Oh well.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@9), it’s too bad you continue to wear your partisan blinders. Your comment might have been an insightful take on politics as they are practiced. But instead it was merely a potshot at “liberals”, with your apparently failing to note anything like that happening among “conservatives”. Oh well.

  • DonS

    tODD, the three comments you posted are all partisan. Or at least you seldom seem to make similar criticisms of Democratic politicians. Saying someone is “partisan”, as if that means their viewpoint is worthless, is hardly a substantive rebuttal. Besides, this is the second time you have chided me for sticking to the topic of the post, which was about the Democratic National Convention, not Republicans.

    As to Dr. Veith’s comment that the DNC was “full of angst”, I was stating my opinion as to why. Democrats today are all about the politics of anger and envy. Refute that, if you can.

  • DonS

    tODD, the three comments you posted are all partisan. Or at least you seldom seem to make similar criticisms of Democratic politicians. Saying someone is “partisan”, as if that means their viewpoint is worthless, is hardly a substantive rebuttal. Besides, this is the second time you have chided me for sticking to the topic of the post, which was about the Democratic National Convention, not Republicans.

    As to Dr. Veith’s comment that the DNC was “full of angst”, I was stating my opinion as to why. Democrats today are all about the politics of anger and envy. Refute that, if you can.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS said (@13):

    tODD, the three comments you posted are all partisan.

    I very much disagree. I’m quite clearly not advocating for any particular party in them. Instead I’m advocating for principles and adherence to them, as well as suggesting avenues by which one could legitimately and consistently criticize the President (in addition to suggesting that these avenues are largely being ignored by other commenters).

    I said I didn’t think Obama was doing the right thing. I said one could argue that Obama hasn’t done the right things.

    But if you’re going to argue that he hasn’t fixed the economy as quickly as he should have, I think you should be able to support your argument by specifying when the economy should have been fixed. I also want to know if there’s actually an expectation that a President wrap things up in four years on any given topic.

    Because it seems to me people are just complaining about Obama without much of a cogent argument, except that he’s not the Republican candidate? I appreciate cogent arguments if they are consistently wielded. But political commentary as little more than cheering on a team? I don’t really respect that.

    And, Don, please, “sticking to the topic of the post”. It would have been equally as relevant (and accurate) for you to note that politics itself, almost completely irrespective of who is doing the politicking, is about anger and envy. You rarely hear actual principled arguments anymore (again, as on display here), but instead pom-poms shaking to “Our Guy is the best! The Other Guy is the worst!” But to you, it’s all the “liberals’” fault, it would seem. Or maybe you agree that “conservatives” do it, but doggone it, you’re just too principled to go so completely off-topic with an statement like that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS said (@13):

    tODD, the three comments you posted are all partisan.

    I very much disagree. I’m quite clearly not advocating for any particular party in them. Instead I’m advocating for principles and adherence to them, as well as suggesting avenues by which one could legitimately and consistently criticize the President (in addition to suggesting that these avenues are largely being ignored by other commenters).

    I said I didn’t think Obama was doing the right thing. I said one could argue that Obama hasn’t done the right things.

    But if you’re going to argue that he hasn’t fixed the economy as quickly as he should have, I think you should be able to support your argument by specifying when the economy should have been fixed. I also want to know if there’s actually an expectation that a President wrap things up in four years on any given topic.

    Because it seems to me people are just complaining about Obama without much of a cogent argument, except that he’s not the Republican candidate? I appreciate cogent arguments if they are consistently wielded. But political commentary as little more than cheering on a team? I don’t really respect that.

    And, Don, please, “sticking to the topic of the post”. It would have been equally as relevant (and accurate) for you to note that politics itself, almost completely irrespective of who is doing the politicking, is about anger and envy. You rarely hear actual principled arguments anymore (again, as on display here), but instead pom-poms shaking to “Our Guy is the best! The Other Guy is the worst!” But to you, it’s all the “liberals’” fault, it would seem. Or maybe you agree that “conservatives” do it, but doggone it, you’re just too principled to go so completely off-topic with an statement like that.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, DonS (@13), one more thing:

    you seldom seem to make similar criticisms of Democratic politicians

    Well, do you see a lot of arguments here made in favor of Democratic politicians? I don’t.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Oh, DonS (@13), one more thing:

    you seldom seem to make similar criticisms of Democratic politicians

    Well, do you see a lot of arguments here made in favor of Democratic politicians? I don’t.

  • Barry Arrington

    From Oh Brother Where Art Thou:

    Governor Pappy O’Daniel: “We need a shot in the arm. You hear me boys? . . . Election held tomorrow . . . Stokes would win it in a walk!”

    Junior O’Daniel: “Well, he’s the reform candidate, Daddy.”

    Pappy O”Daniel: “Yeah.”

    Junior O’Daniel: “A lot of people like that reform. Maybe we should get us some.”

    Pappy O’Daniel: “I’ll reform you, you soft-headed son of a bitch. How we gonna run reform when we’re the damn incumbent?

    Seems like Obama has figured out what Pappy couldn’t.

  • Barry Arrington

    From Oh Brother Where Art Thou:

    Governor Pappy O’Daniel: “We need a shot in the arm. You hear me boys? . . . Election held tomorrow . . . Stokes would win it in a walk!”

    Junior O’Daniel: “Well, he’s the reform candidate, Daddy.”

    Pappy O”Daniel: “Yeah.”

    Junior O’Daniel: “A lot of people like that reform. Maybe we should get us some.”

    Pappy O’Daniel: “I’ll reform you, you soft-headed son of a bitch. How we gonna run reform when we’re the damn incumbent?

    Seems like Obama has figured out what Pappy couldn’t.

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Funny enough: Obama had a Congress comprised primarily of his own party men for two years…

  • http://enterthevein.wordpress.com J. Dean

    Funny enough: Obama had a Congress comprised primarily of his own party men for two years…

  • Fws

    The problem with this post is the underlyng thesis that the president is the one in power governmentally. Cnstitutionally who has the purse strings? Ahem.

  • Fws

    The problem with this post is the underlyng thesis that the president is the one in power governmentally. Cnstitutionally who has the purse strings? Ahem.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X