Found on Crooks and Liars:

As Eric Fehrnstrom suggested, I went to Mitt Romneys campaign site to look for his “detailed plan.” This is what I found. Basically, it says that if we just believe in America hard enough and clap our hands, Tinkerbell will live.

There’s also a “full plan” in PDF form you can download. I don’t have time to dissect it right now, but if you’re in the mood, have at it. Just thumbing through it, a whole lot of it appears to be “filler” about what Obama is doing wrong, not specifically what Mittens says he will do better (other than clap his hands and believe).

Paul Krugman writes,

So the Republican electoral strategy is, in effect, a gigantic con game: it depends on convincing voters that the bad economy is the result of big-spending policies that President Obama hasn’t followed (in large part because the G.O.P. wouldn’t let him), and that our woes can be cured by pursuing more of the same policies that have already failed.

For some reason, however, neither the press nor Mr. Obama’s political team has done a very good job of exposing the con.

People have been told over and over again that President Obama has gone on some unprecedented spending spree, and that this is why the economy remains sluggish. And in large parts of the country that’s all they hear. I’d make Rachel Maddow’s show, and Krugman’s column for that matter, available in every American household if I could. Of course, you can lead a fool to Krugman’s column, but you can’t make him read it.

What do I mean by saying that this is already a Republican economy? Look first at total government spending — federal, state and local. Adjusted for population growth and inflation, such spending has recently been falling at a rate not seen since the demobilization that followed the Korean War.

How is that possible? Isn’t Mr. Obama a big spender? Actually, no; there was a brief burst of spending in late 2009 and early 2010 as the stimulus kicked in, but that boost is long behind us. Since then it has been all downhill. Cash-strapped state and local governments have laid off teachers, firefighters and police officers; meanwhile, unemployment benefits have been trailing off even though unemployment remains extremely high.

Krugman links to this chart with data from FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data).

Gee, I wonder why the recovery is slowing down now? [/sarcasm]

The problem, of course, is that propaganda is winning out over reality. It’s like someone I quoted recently who believed that Obama had cut back her Medicare benefits, but when asked to name which benefits she had lost could not name any. And that’s because her benefits had not been cut. And then you’ve got the middle-income teabaggers who are certain Obama raised their taxes, when in fact their taxes were cut.

That same obstructionist House majority effectively blackmailed the president into continuing all the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, so that federal taxes as a share of G.D.P. are near historic lows — much lower, in particular, than at any point during Ronald Reagan’s presidency.

But facts that contradict Republican mythology must be brutally suppressed, so few Americans ever will hear this.

Elsewhere — E.J. Dionne has a “why can’t we all just get along” column, suggesting that if we can all agree on some common goals maybe we can find common ground. I think this proposition is naive, on several levels. For example, he writes, “We want all Americans to share prosperity and to reverse the trend toward widening inequality.” Um, from what I’ve seen, today’s self-described “conservatives” are just fine with income inequality.

But late in the column Dionne says a true thing —

Forgive me for noting that conservatives seem to believe that the rich will work harder if we give them more, and the poor will work harder if we give them less.

Yeah, pretty much. The theory is that “job creators” respond only to carrots and the poor only to sticks.

I just want to say on the record that I don’t begrudge Ann Romney and her dressage horses, any more than I resent people who play polo or compete in show jumping or other equestrian events, or own thoroughbred race horses. I’m never going to be a participant, but I like to watch.

The only thing about the Romneys and their horses that bothers me is that Mr. Mittens calls his horses “it.”

Romney said April 10 in a clip with Sean Hannity, who’d just asked him about his wife’s horses and the needed break from the campaign riding gives her: “She has Austrian Warmbloods, which are – yeah, it’s a dressage horse, it’s a kind of horse for the sport that she’s in. Me, I have a Missouri Fox Trotter. So mine is like a quarter horse, but just a much better gait. It moves very fast, and doesn’t tire, and it’s easy to ride, meaning it’s not boom-boom-boom, it’s just smooth, very smooth.”

I never heard a horse owner call his horse “it,” and not “he” or “she.” Seems odd.

It’s also odd that when Sean Hannity brings up the subject of the Romneys’ horse habit that’s OK, but when the New York Times does it, its a hit piece.

No wonder Republicans are livid with the early coverage of the 2012 general election campaign. To them, reporters are scaring up stories to undermine the introduction of Mitt Romney to the general election audience – and once again downplaying ones that could hurt the president.

“The New York Times has given Obama the longest wet kiss in political history, and they have done him a favor again,” former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour said. “The New York Times does a huge expose that Ann Romney rides horses. Well, so does my wife, and a few million other people. Watch out for equine performers!”

To me, the New York Times story was more of a puff piece than an expose. Sample:

Mrs. Romney took up dressage at age 50 as a therapy for multiple sclerosis, but it soon became her passion. Riding, she has said, “sings to my soul.”

IMO the only part of the story that might rise to the level of expose was mostly about Mrs. Romney’s riding instructor, who is being sued for selling someone a lame horse. The horse belonged to the Romneys (who were named on the suit originally but dropped from it later) but was in the care of the instructor who also acted as sales agent.

What’s wrong with the Romneys owning some horses? I really don’t see anyone on the Left making a big bleeping deal about the horses, but the Right seems to think there must be some nefarious reason why the New York Times blabbed about the horses. But then, what was wrong with John Kerry going windsurfing? I never understood why that was an issue, either.

You’d think that people who glorify the rich as “job creators” wouldn’t be so uncomfortable with the trappings of wealth. But then, these are the same people who think it is scandalous that President Obama plays golf a couple of times a month and has been photographed wearing a tuxedo.

Part of the Right’s issue is that while the Romney horse story was featured prominently in the Times, a new book that discusses the President’s pot-smoking in his college days was buried on page A-15. But President Obama had “exposed” the pot thing himself awhile back, in a book he wrote. So it was already public knowledge. (See also Steve M.)

And, frankly, I’m puzzled why anyone under the age of 70 would still be scandalized by college-age pot smoking. If they caught him smoking pot now, yeah, that would be an issue. But, what, thirty years ago? Please.

I don’t think most Americans resent wealth, so merely pointing out that the Romneys are very, very wealthy is not going to dissuade many people from voting for him. There are many, many flaws in Romney that the public needs to see before the election — like the fact that some of that wealth cost other people their jobs. That’s an issue. The fact that Romney is genuinely out of touch with what most other Americans are going through is an issue. The horses are not an issue.