Billy Jeff soothes jitters over economic slowdown by calling for economic slowdown
posted at 1:04 pm on January 31, 2008 by Allahpundit
Look on the bright side. If trends continue, this’ll be one issue both parties’ candidates will agree on this fall.
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”?
She warned you, didn’t she? As for BJ, I’d say this officially makes it his best month since, oh, January 1998, and that’s not counting this curious yet delicious morsel served up by the Times this morning. You owe it to yourself to read it all. Multimillion-dollar influence peddling, willful blindness to human rights abuses, the principals caught by reporters in not one but two major lies — and the Clenis right in the middle of it all. It’s conservative catnip, although I can think of one liberal who’s enjoying it even more than we are. Expect to see him mention it tonight if Hillary dares to toss the Tony Rezko thing at him. “Business as usual” for the Clintons indeed.
Update (Bryan): I have to say, as much as I loathe Billy Jeff and all, ABC is misrepresenting what he said. Sure, he uttered the line about slowing down the economy, but he followed that with an explanation of why that’s a bad idea.
“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.
“But if we did that…” is the beginning of his counter-argument. He goes on to serve up pipe dreams about how green tech like 100-mile-per-gallon cars will create more jobs, which seems unlikely. He’s also off in the weeds when he declares that anything is “the only way it will work.” That’s classic Clintonian fallacy: A complex problem, if it’s even a real problem, requires a complex set of solutions, supposing it’s even something we could solve.
The bottom line is that, for whatever reason, ABC actually played Clinton’s “slow down the economy” line unfairly and ended up downplaying his argument against the far left on global warming. I’m sure that will be too much mental jujitsu for the Clinton-hating, “conservative media” nutroots to handle.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Just offer them a chest full of basketballs.
BobMbx on April 9, 2013 at 6:03 PM
who to believe…..
PappyD61 on April 9, 2013 at 6:04 PM
If you want something done right, send Susan Rice.
steebo77 on April 9, 2013 at 6:04 PM
……….an government with a charismatic leader that lies or….
PappyD61 on April 9, 2013 at 6:05 PM
Barack will blink. He’ll offer something of substance behind closed doors. No way this escalates to war.
BKeyser on April 9, 2013 at 6:07 PM
Send Obama over there; maybe he’ll bore him to sleep with his speeches.
squint on April 9, 2013 at 6:08 PM
and they say Palin is dumb. Allah when is the last time we had troops in NORTH korea?
unseen on April 9, 2013 at 6:08 PM
It’s tomorrow in North Korea right now…
Seven Percent Solution on April 9, 2013 at 6:10 PM
North Korea didn’t go for a comprehensive common sense balanced approach to not bombing anybody?
Apparently the Obama Campaign needs a better focus group consultant in North Korea.
forest on April 9, 2013 at 6:11 PM
Did you even click on the link. He was quoting Chuck Hagel.
RickB on April 9, 2013 at 6:12 PM
the difference between Korea and Iraq and Afgan is we have a treaty with SK and we would be the defenders not the attackers. the public is weary of empire building in far off corners of the world. empire building done poorly and for no reason it seems. A korean conflict is about defending an ally and friend.
unseen on April 9, 2013 at 6:12 PM
It’s a good thing Obowma has that party tonight…
Seven Percent Solution on April 9, 2013 at 6:12 PM
no I didn’t and I didn’t see any quotes around it either.
unseen on April 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM
There’s a key distinction in the public opinion I think between Yes South Korea should be defended as an ally of the US and No the US should not keep nearly 30,000 troops along the DMZ trip wire for 60 years as little more than cannon fodder while the ROK goes from war-ravaged refugee to economic mini-superpower more than capable of meeting the great majority of its military/security needs.
Sacramento on April 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM
It would seem more likely that China would intervene on the NorKs’ side if we did simply leave South Korea to defend for themselves, our presence may give China second thoughts about intervening.
fourdeucer on April 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM
ok clicked the link still didn’t see where it mentioned pulling troops out of north korea.
unseen on April 9, 2013 at 6:15 PM
Must have delivered it to the wrong general. How’d that work out for ya?
jake49 on April 9, 2013 at 6:16 PM
We should pull all of our troops out of Korea and most other countries across the world, and then when someone attacks us our response should be BARBARIC. That’s what military policy should be.
thphilli on April 9, 2013 at 6:23 PM
I guess the wording wasn’t sufficiently stern, or something.
msmveritas on April 9, 2013 at 6:25 PM
Distinction in public opinion or not, the US keeps 30,000 troops on the DMZ because the US is still at War with North Korea.
SWalker on April 9, 2013 at 6:29 PM
Why give anything to Barky, it’s not as if he will respond back forcefully; the norks have his number just as everyone else does.
Bishop on April 9, 2013 at 6:30 PM
This just goes to prove the demo-rat socialists running our nation into the ground now believe everyone (including the NORKS) are just as stupid as the low information voters that got Obummer elected not once, but twice!
Problem with BS talking point spinners (like most demo-rats are) is they eventually start to believe their own BS spin…problem with that is doing so in such a delicate foreign affairs situation like we now find ourselves in with the NORKS BS spin can get us and South Korea blowed up!
SMART POWER INDEED!!
Liberty or Death on April 9, 2013 at 6:35 PM
The GOP has Bark’s number?
Cudda fooled me.
Bruno Strozek on April 9, 2013 at 6:35 PM
Why in the world did they not try the reset button Hillary carries around??
HotAirian on April 9, 2013 at 6:37 PM
Maxwell Smart Power!
Bet they met in the cone of silence.
Marcola on April 9, 2013 at 6:43 PM
Fortunately there are no Muslims involved front and center to paralyze you into submission. It’s all up to leftard common sense and how they feel about social justice.
BL@KBIRD on April 9, 2013 at 6:47 PM
It got busted during that Benghazi dust-up.
antipc on April 9, 2013 at 6:48 PM
Should have sent Dennis Rodman. He talked to Li’l Kim and his wife personally. Sheesh.
Philly on April 9, 2013 at 6:49 PM
Says ‘South’ now; corrected?
Midas on April 9, 2013 at 6:59 PM
Jeez, the libertarians are ‘slow’. We have an international treaty with South Korea. We always honor our treaties. Period. Financial pointyheads will always complain. Thats in their nature. Lol.
tommy71 on April 9, 2013 at 7:01 PM
Isn’t that a contradiction?
JetBoy on April 9, 2013 at 7:08 PM
For nearly two decades the U.S. stalwartly fought for the six party talks. The bipartisan consensus in the foreign policy establishment is and was that bilateral talks would quickly turn into pure blackmail sessions, and the potential for crises (and danger to the world) would grow larger. America fought for those talks for twenty years, un Democrat and GOP administrations, precisely because the alternative would endanger alliances and, potentially, populations.
So in come the Obama smarty-pants. And look where we are: they give in, and commence bilateral talks (even if they aren’t calling them that formally). The Japanese are scared out of their minds, because the Americans have been secretly negotiating with their craziest enemies, and the NORKS are threatening world peace.
There is no imbecility too far off the balance-beam for these Democrats.
MTF on April 9, 2013 at 7:12 PM
North Korea is full of it, they aren’t going to do anything more than try to test a few missiles (that might get shot out of the sky by Japan, assuming they make it that far), and irradiate their own lands. I gotta say, Obama is actually handling a foreign ‘crisis’ pretty well for once. China has been flexing its muscle against a lot of our allies in the region lately, particularly against Japan over the Senkakus. Obama is using the North’s belligerence as cover for bolstering the defenses of our Pacific allies, and calling out the Kim regime as a bunch of blowhards in the process.
Lawdawg86 on April 9, 2013 at 7:17 PM
I’m betting Obama sent an IPod with all his speeches and a box of DVDs that only work in the US.
Should have sent him your recipe for Getman Shepard Soufflé, you limpd!ck jug eared jackhat.
RovesChins on April 9, 2013 at 7:22 PM
…no food…no peace
KOOLAID2 on April 9, 2013 at 7:53 PM
How about offering them Dennis Rodman and a player to be named later?
Happy Nomad on April 9, 2013 at 8:29 PM
yes.
Just pointing out how easy it is to get them “confused” when talking about the conflict. not trying to say Allah thought there were troops in North korea.
unseen on April 9, 2013 at 8:33 PM
Not sure I can follow this let the South do it…blah blah twice as many people, blah blah 40X larger wallet. Would the South want to risk what they built or would they make a sweet sweet deal with China as their new protector? My bet, the latter. Smart power indeed, inside The Great Wall.
Limerick on April 9, 2013 at 8:53 PM
Hmm.
slickwillie2001 on April 9, 2013 at 9:13 PM
A North Korea crisis might be a good thing. It will collapse like a house-of-cards, and perhaps the “international community” (of hypocrites) can get off their backsides and end the NK concentration camps.
NK as a society does not have far to fall, so I recommend kicking away the stool and letting them hang.
The Norks are not completely nuts. Nobody has done anything to provoke them. They hope to get some freebies to keep their pantomime on the road. They can probably launch a few missiles but I doubt they can hit anything. A first launch with a nuke would be instant death for them, they have to know that. And Obama would love to be credited with saving the free world, so he’ll be ready with his finger on the buzzer.
The only thing we know they have done for sure is to fire at some SK fishing boats and worry some islands, so I don’t think nuclear is the next stage (even if they can do it). They probably need gas money for the launching trucks.
virgo on April 9, 2013 at 10:20 PM
good point.
unseen on April 9, 2013 at 10:27 PM
Deterrent
Fry the little bastard. No one will really care.
Unite the peninsula into one Korea under the flag of South Korea.
Give the infrastructure reconstruction contracts to China.
China will kiss off Lil Kim, the Koreas will again be united.
The World will be at ease and no one will mess with us for a long time to come.
jpcpt03 on April 10, 2013 at 2:01 AM