Thursday, January 31, 2008
|
|
Bill Clinton's Political Acumen Strikes Again
|
|
Posted by:
Mary Katharine Ham at
10:11 AM
|
In the week that the economy has become the No. 1 issue for voters, Bill suggested this in Colorado:
In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: "We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions 'cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren." At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? "Slow down our economy"? I don't really think there's much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?
He went on to revert to Hillary's questionable talking point about adding "green jobs," so one wonders if it was candor or he misspoke. Of course, he was right the first time. Democratic solutions to greenhouse gas problems almost certainly would slow down the economy, a point which they conveniently ignore in favor of fluffy rhetoric about saving the earth.
That's what I appreciated about Mitt Romney's and Huckabee's answers on greenhouse gases in the debate last night. Republicans have to have a position on global warming. Pretending it doesn't exist, period, is a losing battle. We can dispute the science and tie environmentalism to security through energy independence, but we can't ignore that many, many voters care about leaving a cleaner earth. We have to find the right way to address that, and schooling Democrats about the economic consequences of their plans is a good place to start.
|
|
I love to bash ol Billy boy too, but I saw the full video - this is exactly the kind of thing OReilly complains about all the time - out of context much!?
The full video clearly shows that he says "Well, you COULD do this... slow down the economy" - then the next sentance is "BUT, that would be a really bad idea..." - then he goes on the prattle about all the great green technology we will make money from.
But the Mary the Ham is just blowing smoke here - she either didn't see the video herself (ok, big goof, don't make that mistake again) OR - she saw the video and cherry picked the one line and left out the other AND THEN she claims he "He went on to revert to Hillary's questionable talking point about...." when in fact the next thing he said was the "But that would be a bad idea..." line - in which case she has completely and falsely fabricated this story out of her own desire to manipulate people, and that's not right. |
|
|
Is democrat crap being served by the MSM to uneducated people who yearn to worry about uncoroborated lies. They should worry about the loss of freedom and their liberty. |
|
when the proponents of it stop flying around in private jets to meetings in far away lands. You have a bunch of left wing elites, former communists, and rich european human debris having these gatherings all over the world, apparently for the purpose of telling us work-a-day plebs what we need to drive and how we need to live. They never come back with any solutions on how to stop pollution in 3rd world countries like Mexico, or India. It always seems to come down to taxing the f*** out of Americans. Sorry, color me paranoid, but it still sounds like bunk to me.
Greenland is turning green again. So what? Why the hell do you think it was called Greenland to begin with? It was green once upon a time, and then it froze. It's a natural cycle. Giving in to manufactured hysteria by opportunistic control freaks is not going to change the weather. No, I'll go kicking and screaming, baby style into any global warming prevention activities. |
|
|
CO2 is fertilizer for all things green. It is not a pollutant. I'm all for cleaning up the enviroment but don't fall into their insanity about CO2. |
|
|
At least up to the point Bill announces his support for the Church of Gorebal Warming. |
|
|
|
To tell us that McCain's 50 cent/gal new gas tax will help SLOW DOWN the economy.
Go DNC Joe!!!!!!!!!! |
|
Kudoes to Mary K. Ham. An issue like global warming is NOT an ideological issue. Just because the much disliked Al Gore has a certain position doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist. I've been "agnostic" on the issue, but there is a great deal of evidence (check out Greenland, which may at long least become "green" in the bad sense) that something ominous is going on. Republicans as the anti-environmental Party are, as MKH indicated, pursuing a losing strategy. McCain said today that we have an obligation to leave the planet a cleaner, better place than the one we found at birth. That's a winning strategy. We need a commitment to intellectual integrity, which means basing our views on the facts, not on convenient slogans.
steve maloney
ambridge, pa |
|
|
|
He did not misspeak. The media is distorting him, again. Here is the full context of his quote. It has the OPPOSITE MEANING FROM WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTING:
“And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, ‘OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.’ We could do that.
But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.” |
|
|
Did you even bother to read the actual quote or did you merely regurgitate what you read somewhere else? This is why the "new media" is a terribly unreliable place to obtain information. The quote was truncated and reported inaccurately. You should publish a retraction. |
|
|
Lord I hate the notion of defending Bill on anything, but the fact is that ABC not only took the quote ou of context, they removed if from within a larger sentence intended to prove the opposite point, that in fact Bill is not in favor of this. There is plenty of legitimate comments that we can jump on. We don't need to excise incomplete phrases within larger sentences to draw a conclusion. That makes us no better than those we criticize. |
|
the corner has some updated info on this - your readers should check this. Looks like a Hugh/article6 episode all over again...
|
|
|
It is nice to see that the Democrats who defended him are finally waking up to the facts that 1) he is not a master politician and 2) he had nothing to do with the 90s economy. |
|
Slowing down the American economy in favor of Red China's, India's and any other larger nation that might conceivably get an economy to rival America's is the goal of the Gorebal Warming crowd.
I want to know who slipped him the truth serum. |
|
|
Without GOP voters, so McCainiacs, be careful what you wish for. You may get him nominated, but you won't get him elected. A vote for McCain is a vote for Hillary. |
|
|
For a start, how about pointing out that those who actually signed the Kyoto agreement are failing miserably. We, on the other hand, have made strides in reducing carbon emmissions over the same time period and will probably be a major exporter of green technologies in the next 5-10 years. Exactly how out of touch are out candidates? This isn't exactly obscure information. This would be an excellent platform for advancing the argument for how unbridled litigation not only kills the economy by tying up the energy companies in court, it hurts the environment. You campaign "advisors" should put down the polls long enough to survey the landscape in the real world. There are real problems whose solutions are on our laps waiting to be employed. Yeah but Rasmussen says nothing about that. |
|
|
|