…

Worst.President.Evah. Including Carter

RobG on January 31, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Dude. I remember Carter. That’s saying an awful lot.

RobG on January 31, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Dude. I remember Carter. That’s saying an awful lot.

Think Progress

This morning, ABC’s Jack Tapper published this sensational headline: “Bill: ‘We Just Have To Slow Down The Economy’ To Fight Global Warming.” The Republican National Committee quickly latched onto the story…

Nader/Perot… the winning ticket for annoying Democrats!

“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.”

Billy Jeff wasn’t being stupid for once.

(NOTE: Former President Bill Clinton made a mistake in citing Osama bin Laden and 19 others from Saudi Arabia were responsible for 9/11; actually, it was 15 out of the 19 hijackers who were from Saudi Arabia.)

This is so nice of ABC to go out of their way to help keep Billy Jeff from looking stupid.

They would definitely do that for Bush, certainly.

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.

Well done, Bryan.

Let nobody ever accuse you of being unfair.

Thank you for proving that, unlike the left, we have the ability to be fair to our opponents.

I thought my respect for you could not get higher.

I was wrong. :-)

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.

Nice catch, Bryan.

All you peasents into the rice paddies (except for the elites like Billy Jeff).

Why don’t institute McCain’s $5/head of lettuce strategy?
That’d slow ‘er down real good! Of course, that would require kicking out all those (illegal) Democrat votes.

ABC must’ve also consulted with McCain on how to pull it off.

Canadian Imperialist Running Dog on January 31, 2008 at 1:43 PM

Bottom line: The government should keep its tax pickin hands off of the free market.

He saying job growth is tied to alternative energy programs.

Kini on January 31, 2008 at 1:37 PM

you mean all these jobs:

Economist Anne Smith testified to Congress that her state-of-the-art economic modeling estimates that Warner-Lieberman would cause net reduction in 2015 GDP of 1.0% to 1.6% relative to the GDP that would otherwise occur. That loss rises to the range of 2% to 2.5% after 2015. Smith found that the annual loss in GDP would increase to the range of $800 billion to $1 trillion, which is serious money. By 2020, Smith estimates losses of 1.5 to 3.4 million jobs – and that is net jobs, after adjusting for the new “green” jobs that might be created by the bill.

now I know, not all economists will agree, but if the cost of doing nothing is 0, and the cost of creating green jobs is a net loss of 1.5 million jobs or more, I’m pretty sure I know what I’d do.

terryannonline on January 31, 2008 at 1:34 PM

The way I read it, he’s saying everyone else doesn’t have to play by the rules, but we do and Hillary has the plan by generating an alternative energy program to generate jobs.

He saying job growth is tied to alternative energy programs.

“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.”

By extension, he is implying the following things:

a) both our children and grandchildren are incapable of dealing with a small change in temperature by adaptation.

b) our children and grandchildren will be stupid, and unable to come up with any sort of solution on their own.

c) our children and grandchildren deserve a lower quality of life, with less economic growth

But the curtain has parted, and the real agenda is revealed: Economic equality (whith whom, I’m not sure).

“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 future… If you want that in America, if you want the millions of jobs that will come from it, if you would like to see a new energy trust fund to finance solar energy and wind energy and biomass and responsible bio-fuels and electric hybrid plug-in vehicles that will soon get 100 miles a gallon, if you want every facility in this country to be made maximally energy efficient that will create millions and millions and millions of jobs, vote for her. She’ll give it to you. She’s got the right energy plan.”

Can anyone help me decode what he saying here?

Let your freak flag fly, baby!!!