“Bring it on” dep’t

Romney says the improving economy isn’t to the President’s credit; his surrogate John Bolton says the same about the death of bin Laden. Be my guest.

The most important choice in politics isn’t what to say about an issue, and the most important victory isn’t winning the argument about an issue. What really counts is which issues are being talked about; if you can keep the conversation focused on topics where you hold the high ground, you win.

So I’m with Steve Benen: if the Republicans want to talk about whether Barack Obama deserves credit for an improving economy and for killing Osama bin Laden, Democrats should be happy to accommodate them.

Author: Mark Kleiman

Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out. Books: Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken) When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993) Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989) UCLA Homepage Curriculum Vitae Contact: Markarkleiman-at-gmail.com

4 thoughts on ““Bring it on” dep’t”

  1. For the party of the 11th Commandment and the Wingnut-Voltron effect, they’re surprisingly disorganized at the moment, no?

    And yet, I fear it is going to be close.

  2. If Democrats want to defend the proposition that permanently reducing the number of jobs in the economy, (Unemployment has only dropped because of people giving up.) was an “improvement”, I say bring it on indeed.

  3. I wonder why no one seems to be pointing out that the Dow increased from 8000 when the Obama administration began to 11,800 two years later, an increase of 3800 points (or 1900 points per year). Then the Tea Party took over Congress and the Dow has risen by only 600 points in the 12 months after that event. The Tea Party has slowed down the rise in stock prices threefold since it began controlling the House. Should not this be causing consternation among the capitalists to whom Romney is addressing much of his campaign rhetoric?

Comments are closed.