Steve Benen picked up on something interesting:
Mitt Romney sat down with CNBC's Larry Kudlow, and made a curious observation. He said voters who want a strong economy should vote for him, but Americans "ought to give, whichever president is going to be elected, at least six months or a year to get those policies in place."
At first blush, that may sound fairly reasonable. A president takes office, he or she needs time to put a team in place, craft an agenda, and get to work. What's more, we generally don't see the results of economic policies immediately; the agenda needs to time to take effect. In Romney's mind, six months to a year seems fair.
This does seem very fair, but why wasn't this the case in 2009?
President Obama was not even a month off the swearing in and Republican politicians and talking heads started asking where the jobs were. It was as though they had been asleep up until January 20, 2009 and didn't notice the economic havoc wreaked on our nation by one George Bush. As matter of fact, it got so bad that when people tried to say the economy was bad when Obama took office, the right started a new defense - "there you go blaming Bush".
So if Romney does win, by February of next year should we start asking why he hasn't turned the economy around? Do the Republicans want their standards applied towards their man, or is that something just reserved for Democratic Presidents. It's a very serious question and one I hope the GOP gets asked.