WaPo Grouses 'GOP Field Vague On Economic Remedies'

The field of candidates for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination are "offering a series of one-size-fits-all economic pitches that fall short of addressing important nuances and competing demands posed by the nation's diverse fiscal landscape" according to unnamed "analysts," Washington Post staffer Michael Fletcher noted in the lead paragraph of his October 10 front-page story, "GOP field vague on economic remedies."

Fletcher proceeded to insist that "divergent circumstances call for the kinds of tailored economic strategies that the GOP candidates have mostly avoided" thus far while the GOP field has "focused on items central to Republican orthodoxy" such as "reducing taxes, cutting government spending, jettisoning regulations and promoting free trade."

Of course, at no point did the Post staffer hint that President Obama's economic pitch has relied on liberal Democratic orthodoxy: increased government spending, higher taxes, and taxpayer subsidies to favored questionable economic enterprises such as green energy and high-speed rail.

What's more, an economic policy centered on reducing government's intrusion into the market is by definition a policy that doesn't lend itself to different approaches by region. The idea is to reduce federal involvement in directing the economy, not meddling in it in different ways for different regions.

"So far, the candidates have been playing it a little bit safe and have been tapping into the general anxiety that people feel,"  former New Hampshire Republican Party Chairman Fergus Cullen complained to Fletcher.

Yet on some level, doesn't every presidential candidate, especially those working to unseat an incumbent, capitalize on the "general anxiety that people feel" while offering a broad vision for their agenda?

It just seems that the Post has a problem with an economic agenda that is centered on freer markets and more limits on government.