These are the kinds of things we read from fair and balanced journalists while Democrats are in the White House:
WASHINGTON — The latest jobs report means the economic shape of the presidential battlefield is now largely set, with an economy that no longer appears headed back toward recession, but in which growth continues at a sputtering pace.
Wow, "sputtering." That sounds bad, right? 163,000 jobs created last month = "sputtering?"
Now take a look at this job growth chart:
You see that dense area in W's admin from '04 to '06 that everyone talks about as his good years? You see those similar dense areas under Clinton and Reagan that everyone talks about like it was a Golden Era? See all those months of zero job growth and 100,000 jobs gained, and 150,000 jobs created? Yeah, me too.
So yeah, is it just me or do those dense areas look a lot like Obama's entire term in office post-recovery? Or close enough to it that the rhetoric being used to talk about Obama's "sputtering" economy these days seems pretty out of whack?
The way me and many Americans see it, the middle class has been limping along for decades. What we see now, month to month, is the real "Morning In America," just devoid of the spin we see during Republican administrations or pro-Republican economic administrations (Clinton) where our country's brand of underemployment is somehow talked about like it's patriotic, normal, and good for prosperity (Freedom!).
This is what we read in the paper about job creation when Republicans are in the White House running for re-election:
Jan 10, 2004: The Labor Department said yesterday that 1,000 new jobs were created last month, well below the 130,000 to 150,000 many economists had expected from the holiday shopping season. The December level was down from the 43,000 new hires in November, a figure revised lower from the original 57,000.
...
To end his first term with a net growth in jobs, Bush needs the economy to create 200,000 to 300,000 jobs each month to net the 160,000 or so needed to employ new entrants in the work force, according to economists.
Oh, how the expectations change. Isn't it interesting.
When a Republican was in the White House, fully 3 years after 911, all he was expected to do in order to be in good shape was have a net job creation record. Something Obama has already done in the private sector and which he'll almost certainly do overall by election day, despite drastic, dangerous, and unnecessary Republican cuts to teachers, firemen, police officers and other government jobs:
The American economy only has to add another 316,000 jobs to get back to where it was in January 2009, when the president was sworn in.
But since Obama will likely reach that milestone, it's "not important," it's not "something Americans care about." These are the standard phrases used by corporate talking heads to signify that this is how Americans should feel about it.
Under Obama, the country wasn't recovering from 911, as horrible as that was when it happened under Bush. He was recovering from a serious serious economic Recession, honestly a mini-Depression. We're seeing numbers now, only 3 years after the crash, that consistently rank at levels that journalists were calling for in 2004 during the election season.
The reality is, Obama already brought back the real "Morning In America," the way of life many Americans, despite their meager living conditions, used to brag about as something uniquely great and uniquely American. And yes, as liberals, we all know that now it's time to start improving the middle class's lot in life rather than sitting back and accepting the last 30 years of post-globalization decline as a return to a "healthy" normalcy. But let's not pretend that Obama's job creation record is somehow not something to be proud of. It is. You couple it with Obama's record on everything else, and it's incredible - superhuman.
In 2004, Obama's record would have met the journalist's expectations, and the economy wouldn't have been an issue for them in the news. It would have been about the president's supposed "strengths," ie terrorism issues. It's just that with a highly competent, successful Democrat in office in 2012, the expectations are now much much higher, and of course tailored to fit a certain framework to fair and balance out the election for a 2nd rate candidate like Romney. Of course in a way, higher expectations are a good thing, but people need to remember how little is expected of Republicans like Romney, once they're elected, especially in terms of looking out for the middle class. They need to remember how to truly fair and balance out these issues before they vote.
This whole double standard thing is of course really frustrating for progressives like you and me. But it's also in my opinion a serious problem in our politics. It really warps the playing field in the favor of failure (ie Republicans). People end up thinking good leaders like Obama are deficient in areas where they're actually on par with or even superior to their predecessors, especially in the context of global events. This leads to Americans making very bad choices at the ballot box, over and over.
So don't let them tell you Obama's economy is something it's not. It may not be as spiky and dynamic (post recovery) as some of the riskier economies of Clinton and Bush which ended in disaster, but it's certainly not "sputtering" - not unless we admit America has been "sputtering" as a way of life for decades. And yes, maybe we have. But laying "Morning In America" on Obama's shoulders is considered by many to be a great complement. Maybe not by me, but where's the fairness in these elections? Where's the honesty? Journalists?