Maybe this election will be remembered as the "It's the jobs, stupid" election, but who knows? It certainly is the central issue the public cares about, and it certainly seems to be the subject that the campaigns are fighting most viciously on the airwaves. This is probably as it should be, a presidential campaign waged on the "No. 1" issue in the political realm. But Mitt Romney, it seems, wants to use one yardstick for his own jobs record and another for Barack Obama's. Stunningly, he is attempting to use both at the same time, hoping nobody will notice.
Thankfully, the "Plum Line" blog over at Washingtonpost.com did notice, and labeled the Romney arguments "surreal."
The Romney campaign reportedly just sent out some spin on Obama's jobs record as president versus his own jobs record as governor of Massachusetts. The talking point Democrats have been using (which his Republican opponents had previously been using) is that Massachusetts was "47th out of 50 states in job creation" during Romney's term -- and it is quite obviously getting under Mitt's skin. So he's conveniently rewriting his own record to make it look better. This is what spin is for, of course, but Mitt has just opened the door for a realistic comparison of the numbers, even if the Romney team (or the Obama team, for that matter) hasn't realized it yet.
After slamming Obama for a "net loss" in jobs, the Romney camp then offers up this gem:
Governor Romney Inherited An Economy That Was Losing Jobs Each Month And Left Office With An Economy That Was Adding Jobs Each Month. After taking office at a time when the state was losing thousands of jobs every month, Governor Romney's focus on fiscal responsibility helped create an environment where job growth returned to Massachusetts. Job growth increased throughout his term and the state added over 40,000 payroll jobs during his final year in office -- the best year of job growth in Massachusetts over the past decade. Household employment grew by nearly 50,000 under Governor Romney and the unemployment rate declined to well under 5%
In other words, don't blame Romney because things were bad when he took office; instead, look at the fact that by the time he left things were on a much better track and once he turned things around, jobs were added. While he's trying to measure Obama's job performance with a "net loss" yardstick -- in other words, Obama hasn't created as many jobs during his term as were lost during his term. Which, of course, measures job losses and gains from Obama's first day in office -- precisely what Romney is telling reporters not to do for his own record. The sheer level of chutzpah is astounding. Romney is, in essence, saying, "look at my collection of apples -- and then please compare it to Obama's oranges." The disconnect is starkly obvious.
The Obama team really should pounce on this. Send out a press release that copies the above paragraph under "this is what Mitt Romney is saying," and then offers up the following rebuttal:
President Obama Inherited An Economy That Was Losing Jobs Each Month But Now Presides Over An Economy That Is Adding Jobs Each Month. After taking office at a time when the country was losing three-quarters of a million jobs every month, President Obama's focus on fiscal responsibility helped create an environment where job growth returned to the United States of America. Job growth continues to steadily increase throughout his term and the country has added over 4.2 million private-sector jobs during the past few years -- two and a half years of unbroken private-sector job growth. Since President Obama stopped the disastrous job losses he inherited, the unemployment rate has come down a full two percentage points.
Instead of Romney's apples compared to Obama's oranges, this paints a very accurate picture instead -- and it is precisely what Obama has been saying all along: don't blame me for the first year's hole we all had to dig our way out of; look at my record since we turned things around.
Even if Obama only serves one term in office, and even with some disappointing job creation before the end of the year, he is still probably on track to leave office with a (very small) net gain in jobs -- which further undermines the yardstick Romney's trying to use (Romney's point will degrade over time, to put it another way). If Obama posts a few decent job growth numbers in the next few months, this will become pretty obvious to anyone who can do basic math.
The Obama team really should jump all over this, because it reinforces the negative image of Romney they're trying to present to the public: of a man who will talk out of both sides of his mouth and say anything to get elected. Put together a quick ad:
[Start ad with background image of Romney's head with two faces, as the Roman two-faced god Janus] "Governor Romney is trying to use one set of numbers for himself, and another for everyone else. It's typical how he wants to have things both ways, in fact. A recent press release [Show Romney's bullet point text here, in stark black-and-white] stated that Romney "inherited an economy that was losing jobs each month and left office with an economy that was adding jobs each month." Romney wants reporters to measure his record by one yardstick, but refuses to measure President Barack Obama's record using the same yardstick. Obama inherited a national economy much worse than Romney did in his state. [Show graph of job losses and gains since Obama took office] Since then, Obama has turned the economy from losing almost 800,000 jobs per month into an economy which has shown two and half years of private-sector job growth. Obama's job creation record is better than Romney's, when you use the same measure. [Pan slowly out, on an image of a table with a pile of apples next to a pile of oranges] But Romney doesn't want you to figure that out -- he wants one set of numbers for himself, and another for the president. He thinks you won't notice how he's juggling the numbers so he can talk out of both sides of his mouth on the issue. He thinks you're not smart enough to notice."
Romney's using such a ridiculous double standard plays into a lot of things all at once. It paints him as a one-percenter, since we all know one-percenters have their own creative accounting methods that the rest of us don't use. It plays into Romney as the man who will say anything to get elected. It plays in to the flip-floppiness of Romney. It plays into the "fairness" theme that Obama's been hitting recently. Most importantly, it gives an enormous green light to the Obama team to make the point that Obama should only be held accountable for job growth since we stopped falling off the fiscal cliff he faced on Day One. "We're just using Romney's standard," is all that needs be said anymore when these statements are challenged.
To achieve all of this, all the Obama team has to do is run an ad and point it out, to spur the political chattering classes to talk about it. Maybe my suggested ad is too wordy. Maybe the point could be better made. But it's definitely a point worth making. Romney himself just opened a very wide doorway -- "let's use this standard to measure job creation" -- and if Democrats push hard through this doorway, it is going to pay off throughout the entire campaign. From this point on, whenever any Republican (Romney or a surrogate) tries to slam Obama's job-creation record, all a Democrat will have to say is: "Well, let's put it in perspective, shall we? Let's just use the standard that Mitt Romney uses to measure his job growth performance as governor, that's fair, isn't it?" If used repeatedly, and if followed up with a raft of stats to prove the point, the media will eventually even pick up on the trend and start asking Republicans themselves: "Well, how can you say that when Romney measures his own performance differently? Why is Romney allowed to use this double standard?"
So, to the Obama team and Democrats in general: when your opponent presents such a gigantic hole in his logic -- a moon-sized crater, in fact -- it behooves you to take advantage of such a monstrous opening. Romney has just entirely changed the debate over jobs. He has now put his marker on the table for how job growth is to be measured. Hold him to his own standard! Tie this standard to him until election day! Drive the point home, every chance you get. The only recourse Romney will have in response is to disavow his own campaign's talking point. In other words, to flip-flop. Making this about as perfect a political opportunity the Obama election team could ever hope to get. The only question is whether they'll realize it, and start immediately using it.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Become a fan of Chris on The Huffington Post
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
Robert Simpson: Why Mitt Romney's Flip-Flopping May Turn Out to Be a Political Asset
Brian J. Siebel: Mitt Romney Is the Inequality Candidate
The Crimson White: A Conservative Case for Marriage Equality
Romney has been toweled off and Febreezed, but he is still oddly fragrant. This may put off the rare undecided-voter-in-a-state-that-matters. One way to even up the odds is to invite Obama to join the pissing war. Especially if you are bursting with Citizens United Sweet Tea. It doesn't matter if you stink if the other guy does too. The Axelrod Press Conference gives an idea of what to expect.
Obama can't mount a completely symmetrical counter pissing offensive, and he would be foolish to try. Obama can deflect Romney's apples and oranges statistics attack by turning the battle into a social values contest. The best arguments against Romney's business world view were made by himself (in moments of clueless candor) and even more cost effectively by his ill shod Republican Party Opponents. The advertising footage they released cannot be suppressed nor credibly denied.
Romney business career enriched the Romney Family, the hell with everybody else. I like firing people. Let the US auto industry die. Romney treats the working class like he treats his dog.
From The Book of Rove: "Attack thine enemies strongest political asset and smite it." Obama has read the book.
That's all Team Romney needs to say.
If Romney wants to offer an historical comparison for the Obama Great Recession, just note that this is the first recession without a recovery since WWII. http://thecitizenpamphleteer.wordpress.com/2012/05/31/the-lost-recovery/
Unfortunately, Team Romney is going to have a near or actual recession by this summer to hammer the President with.
As expected, the 1Q GDP estimate was revised below 2%, first time unemployment claims continue to rise, announced layoffs are up over 50%, the ATP private hiring estimates were over 30,000 below expectations and the administration is already playing the lowered expectations game with the BLS official jobs report tomorrow.
Piling on this weakening US economy is the EU recession and the far too little reported bursting of the Chinese building bubble.
This could get bad.
What President Obama calls a “jobs” plan is really just stimulus redux: a typical Keynesian-style set of infrastructure, school construction, teacher pay, unemployment benefits, and temporary tax breaks that have demonstrably failed in the two-and-a-half years since the $825-billion Recovery Act.
Obamanomics has left the economy with a growth rate just a fraction above 1 percent, nearly 2 million fewer Americans working, and an unemployment rate higher now than when he took office. Government cannot “grow the economy” (as if it were a field of strawberries), and it cannot create private sector jobs. It can only maintain conditions conducive to growth — limiting government spending and regulation, keeping tax rates low, and removing the uncertainties caused by feckless public policies. . . Lindsey Burke
My spending is your income, and vice versa. People are saving and paying down debt instead of spending on other things. This is a fact and the reason the recovery has been so slow. Given that changing this is very unlikely, the only institution available to spend/put people to work is government spending.
Infrastructure spending has worked every single time it has been used in history. It helped Germany be the first out of the depression in the 30s.
For a better understanding of these fundamentals, read up on Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize winning Economist.
Finally, it is evident that many government programs introduce moral hazard into the marketplace, undermining initiative and the taking of responsibility for actions. From welfare programs for the poor to welfare programs for the rich (the socialization of losses under the bailout programs being the most recent example of the latter), ubiquitous government intervention makes all of us more likely to seek a handout.
The list of ills that public choice theorists have identified leads one to a general three-step principle that, if followed, can help to minimize the impact of government intervention. In capsule form:
1. Negotiation (as occurs in market exchange) is always preferable to adjudication.
2. If negotiation fails, adjudication that clarifies rights is always preferable to regulation or legislation.
3. Only if both negotiation and adjudication fail should one turn to regulation or legislation.
J.D. Foster, Ph.D.
Meanwhile, the Private Sector now has more people working in it then when Obama took office, with a 35,000 net gain.
Private-sector jobs lost to "trough" (bottom of recession): .....4,212,000
Private-sector jobs gained since "trough": .....4,248,000
The Dow Jones has increased by over 60%, Corporate Profits are at record highs with Private Sector profits hitting an all time high in Q3 2011 at $1.97 trillion. 88% of growth since the end of the recession has gone to corporate profits, meanwhile only 1% has gone to wages.
So, to put things in better perspective. The President has never raised taxes, in fact he's extended the Bush Tax Cuts, and passed $288 billion in additional tax cuts through his stimulus, he avidly supports free trade, and the Government work-force is 607,000 jobs smaller than when he took office, with no pay increases since 2009.
MIND. BLOWN.
Like Apples and Oranges.
Mitt created 100,000 Apples.
Mitt squished 400,00 Oranges.
Mitt is a Lemon.
It's actually even more perverse for governors and mayors, because they frequently achieve job gains by bribing businesses to relocate from other states and cities, which process doesn't even result in net job gains.
As horrible as it sounds to some of those that don't understand, increasing spending on infrastructure would go a long way toward recovery. Infrastructure spending has never failed.
This puts money into people's pockets, people spend that money. One person spending money is another persons income. Then that person spends their income and so forth. The more spending, leads to an increase in demand. An increase in demand leads to the need to increase production. An increase in production, leads to an increase in hiring.
The money comes back to the government by decreasing corporate loopholes and actually raising taxes on people who make the most.
Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman, has a great book out called End This Depression Now.
Actually, I have too positive a view of the ability of Dem surrogates to stay on point and provide those numbers in every media interview they give. Stuff like this has to be hammered home repeatedly, and (sadly) Dems are just not that great at doing so...
-CW