New York Times takes note of Mitt Romney's job creation double standard

Ever since the Obama campaign put Mitt Romney's abysmal jobs record as governor of Massachusetts under the microscope, the Romney campaign has demanded that Willard be judged by a completely different standard than President Obama: instead of looking at Romney's entire term, the campaign says the only thing that's relevant is a snapshot taken towards the end which they claim would put Massachusetts 30th in the nation in jobs growth. (In truth, Romney's job creation record was below the national average every single year of his term in office.)

Now, 30th out of 50 shouldn't be anything to brag about, but as I pointed out on Monday, the alternative for them is 47th out of 50. Thus, "we were in the middle of the pack" (their, words, seriously) is their rallying cry. But as ridiculous as that is, it's equally ridiculous to judge President Obama by a completely different standard'especially when unlike Mitt Romney, President Obama inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression.

At Daily Kos, we've been making that case, as have others like Greg Sargent and Steve Benen, and now the New York Times is calling out Romney's hypocrisy. Michael Shear:

Mr. Romney frequently says that Mr. Obama has presided over an economy that has lost hundreds of thousands of jobs. In a recent news release, the Republican campaign said,  'Under President Obama, the nation has lost 552,000 jobs.'

But that statistic includes Mr. Obama's first year in office, and especially the months of February, March and April, when monthly job losses from the economic collapse were at 700,000 or higher.

Just ignoring February of 2009, before any of Mr. Obama's policies ' including the economic stimulus ' had been put into place, would wipe away all 552,000 lost jobs, giving the president a record of creating 172,000 jobs.

If Mr. Romney's team were to ignore Mr. Obama's first year in office ' as Mr. Gillespie suggested should be done for Mr. Romney's first year as governor ' then the president would have added about 3.7 million jobs to the economy.

Of course, Mr. Romney's campaign is unlikely to change its rhetoric or strategy. His bid for the White House depends on the idea that Mr. Obama has made the economy worse. Because the country has been adding jobs for nearly two years, Mr. Romney's argument depends on the steep job losses in Mr. Obama's first year in office.

As Shear aptly explains, the question here isn't whether Mitt Romney is full of it. The question is whether Romney will be able to sell his baloney to the general public'and the media at all levels will play an important role in determining whether Romney succeeds.