Simply curious
Had Mitt Romney been sworn in on Monday as president, would his supporters be trumpeting the news of the day — jobless claims at five-year low, and the market has rebounded to where “Traders and investors looked to this major milestone as a sign that the bull market has finally beaten the nasty bear that shredded trillions in investors’ wealth” — as signs of a turn-around now that a Republican is in charge?
I do not subscribe the theory that all things good and bad rest solely on the shoulders of the president, but remarks of that nature frequently show up here in comments and in letters to the editor.
So just asking.
January 24, 2013 - 3:50 PM
Of course. BOTH sides do such things.
I think we all know that the very air would have smelled sweeter to them had they prevailed in November. Of course every possible item of good news would have been attributed to the new day in America. That is the nature of believing in your candidate and in your party. No one needs the “other side” to agree with them, they only need to believe in how they vote, act and speak. I see nothing wrong with that, for (what I cannot guess are not) obvious reasons.
No doubt that Romney and the GOP would be trumpeting the news as evidence that entrepeneurs had more confidence about the future solely as a result of Romney’s election.
If Romney had been elected, the tone of reporting would be markedly different. How will Romney deal with trillion dollar deficits? How will Romney combat nearly 8% without jobs? More vets homeless than ever before.
WOMEN IN BINDERS…BEWARE!!!!
If Romney had been elected, the tone of the reporting would be markedly
different…”Most Homeless Vets in History” “Nearly 8% Still Need Jobs”
“Nation Anxious as Rich White Male Prepares Spending Cuts”…and
WOMEN IN BINDERS..IT COULD HAPPEN!!!
Sorry for the double post..one was posted 45 minutes before the other and appeared almost simultaneously…thought I did something wrong when #4 didn’t appear.