Romney vs. Obama: gaffe for gaffe

You're fired.  But a private company will
rehire you at half-salary

By Richard K. Barry

I'll admit I cringed when President Obama made that comment about the private sector doing fine. It's easy to understand what he meant, but I have to think the moment the words were out of his mouth, he wished he could have taken them back. Whether or not "the markets" have recovered from their 2008 lows may be an interesting point of view from the perspective of economic policy, but an unemployment rate of 8.2 percent, or whatever it is this month, does not suggest the private sector is doing fine.

As well, job cuts among public sector employees has had a huge impact on the national economy, but there had to be a better way of saying what Obama said. Some statements from candidates come and go, this one, I fear, will be with us in ads and speaking points right through until November.

But, because Mitt Romney is an ever helpful chap, he did blunt the damage done with his own boneheaded comments on public sector employment, as you may have noticed. Campaigning in Iowa last Friday, Romney said this about President Obama:

He wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more fireman, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.

Almost instantly, the Obama campaign put out a new ad saying that "Romney economics" would lead to fewer teachers, firefighters and police officers." And later tweeting, the Obama campaign added, "the last thing our country needs is to have fewer teachers in our schools."

Predictably, the Romney campaign responded on Saturday saying that the Obama team is attempting to "manufacture outrage after President Obama's disastrous comment yesterday when he said "the private sector was doing fine."

Again, I understand what Obama meant, though it was badly played, and he'll pay for it. Romney's comments are interesting, though, because of his failure to understand something basic about public sector employment. It's always okay to go after faceless bureaucrats and the idea of "fat-cat," lazy government workers. It is not okay to go after cops, fireman and teachers, the kind of people who every voter knows by name in their community. Everyone has a brother who is a cop, a father who is fireman, a sister who is a teacher - everyone, apparently, but Mitt Romney and the crowd with which he runs. He doesn't make these kinds of distinctions because this is not his experience.

People employed by the government are simply the enemy, no matter what they do. In a perfect Romneyian world, all services are privatized so private equity firm investors can make a buck, everything is contracted out to the lowest bidder.

But that's not the world most of us live in. That's certainly not the world most voters live in.

So who had a better week in terms of gaffes? Maybe Romney comment for comment, but what Romney said is part of a larger pattern which betrays a fundamental weakness in his character and his candidacy. Every time he opens his mouth he proves he doesn't get it.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)