Get on Message, Bill
Bill Clinton has been accused of hurting his wife's political campaign in a variety of ways, to include hogging the limelight, sheer nastiness and below-the-belt rhetoric, and just reminding everyone every day that he will be going back to the White House too, if Hillary gets elected.
Now, just as Democrats have begun to once again use the economy as a political hammer to George Bush's head, (after ignoring for six years the high growth, low inflation, low unemployment prosperity) and have begun using the 'R' word again, here comes Bill Clinton to confuse matters.
Now "recession" is not an undesirable but inevitable result of Republican economic policy as much as it is a goal to be pursued by all. And a noble, even an earth-saving goal at that. Talk about moving the goalposts just as your own team's kicker approaches the ball. From Jake Tapper of ABC, quoting WJC:
"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"?
Clinton goes on to say that the U.S. and Europe and Japan and Canada.... "the rich countries", can't do it alone.
"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.
So, if the poor countries join us in the effort to cut emissions they will "stay poor", admits Clinton. But...
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.
So, if I've got this right, we will intentionally slow down our economy so we can then transform it, while in a recessionary state, into a sustainable one, so we won't have to force ourselves to intentionally slow it down again anytime soon...you know...to save the planet for our children and grandchildren. And it turns out, all we have to do to effect this transformation...the one that "will create millions and millions and millions of jobs", is of course to "vote for her. She'll give it to you. She has the right energy policy." Why had no one thought of this before?
Just one more, slightly incoherent quote from the slick one:
"And guess what? The only places in the world today in rich countries where you have rising wages and declining inequality are places that have generated more jobs than rich countries because they made a commitment we didn't. They got serious about a clean, efficient, green, independent energy futureâ€¦
I'm sure there must be some statistical, factual basis for this assertion somewhere, (because Bill wouldn't lie) although I'm aware that most all of the European Kyoto signatories are failing to meet their emissions cuts commitments, and many are still actually increasing their CO2 emissions at rates higher than those in the U.S.
Wait a minute. He didn't say any of these unspecified countries have actually reduced their greenhouse gas emissions. He just said they had made a commitment to do it, that we hadn't. Now they have rising wages and declining inequality. They're not reducing emissions, but they're well intended. Why can't we follow the lead of our European friends and do better at meaningless posturing while continuing to pursue our own country's best economic interests?
Of course, we can do better. And it's easy. Bill's bottom line message is this: "Vote for her. She'll give it to you." Because she just has so much to give.
To paraphrase Jonah Goldberg; Why mess with the pursuit of happiness when you can elect to have it delivered?