President Clinton made the strongest political case for Barack Obama to be re-elected.
He knocked down the Republicans point by point.
This one was particularly good:
"In Tampa the Republican argument against the president's re-election was pretty simple: `We left him a total mess, he hasn't finished cleaning it up yet, so fire him and put us back in,'"
And this:
"I like the argument for President Obama's re-election a lot better. He inherited a deeply damaged economy, put a floor under the crash, began the long hard road to recovery and laid the foundation for a more modern, more well-balanced economy that will produce millions of good new jobs, vibrant new businesses, and lots of new wealth for the innovators."
Keep going, Bill!:
"...since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What’s the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!"*
*PolitiFact on Clinton's speech
"Since 1961 … our private economy produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million."
Our ruling:
Clinton’s figures check out, and they also mirror the broader results we came up with two years ago. Partisans are free to interpret these findings as they wish, but on the numbers, Clinton’s right. We rate his claim True.
Mr. Obama knows how to cooperate/compromise--the GOP doesn't:
"One of the main reasons America should re-elect President Obama is that he is still committed to cooperation. He appointed Republican secretaries of defense, the army and transportation. He appointed a vice president who ran against him in 2008, and trusted him to oversee the successful end of the war in Iraq and the implementation of the recovery act. And Joe Biden did a great job with both. He appointed cabinet members who supported Hillary in the primaries. Heck, he even appointed Hillary."
And here's why we can't let them take back the White House:
"In order to look like an acceptable alternative to President Obama, they couldn’t say much about the ideas they have offered over the last two years. You see they want to go back to the same old policies that got us into trouble in the first place: to cut taxes for high income Americans even more than President Bush did; to get rid of those pesky financial regulations designed to prevent another crash and prohibit future bailouts; to increase defense spending two trillion dollars more than the Pentagon has requested without saying what they’ll spend the money on; to make enormous cuts in the rest of the budget, especially programs that help the middle class and poor kids. As another President once said - there they go again."
The rest of his pointed, credible, rousing, excellent speech is HERE.
From Factcheck.org:
CHARLOTTE, N.C. — Former President Bill Clinton’s stem-winding nomination speech was a fact-checker’s nightmare: lots of effort required to run down his many statistics and factual claims, producing little for us to write about.
Republicans will find plenty of Clinton’s scorching opinions objectionable. But with few exceptions, we found his stats checked out.
32 comments:
Ah, Big Dog Bubba. Love him or hate him he remains the master and granddaddy of politicians.
He was a man who understood how to get stuff done... a lefty that knew he needed to govern from the center.
President Obama sure do need some coaching from Big Dog.
"Republicanism today is failed arithmetic. Clinton is really bringing this home - intellectually. It is not a series of platitudes; it is a series of arguments rebutting last week's entire convention arguments. It has far more policy substance than Romney's or Ryan's speeches. And it has the added benefit of being true."
This says it all about the Republican Party:
Former President Clinton was prominently featured at the Democratic convention while former President Bush was prominently absent from the Republican convention.
The GOP is ashamed of what their own president, over 8 years, did to this country.
That is the worst indictment I took away from these two conventions.
I don't have to hear what President Obama says in his acceptance speech.
What the GOP did by leaving out their most recent former president AND, may I add, their super star "Pit Bull with Lipstick" says volumes about what they've done to this country.
skudrunner,
Whether you get your opinions from FAUX or Foxx, it doesn't matter. Your claim that the Democrats in the last two years of Bush's presidency caused Bush's economic disaster is a "Pants on Fire" LIE.
At least you're consistent: I can always count on you depositing lies, misrepresentations, exaggerations, and more lies.
No wonder you support Romney/Ryan.
FROM POLITIFACT:
Officially, the recession started in December 2007. In the first quarter of 2008, GDP fell by seven-tenths of 1 percent. It rebounded briefly to 1.5 percent growth in the second quarter of 2008, then got really rocky in the third quarter of 2008. During that quarter and the following two, GDP fell by 2.7 percent, 5.4 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively. If you date the "nose dive" to the first quarter of 2008 -- the earliest quarter with negative growth -- that was a full year after the Democratic takeover.
And if you compare each quarter of 2006 (the last under GOP control) to the equivalent quarter of 2007 (the first under Democratic control), the pattern does not always favor the GOP. In both the first and fourth quarters, the 2006 level of growth under the GOP exceeded the 2007 level of growth under the Democrats. But in the second and third quarters, the Democrats did better in 2007 than the GOP did in 2006.
We asked an ideological cross-section of economists what they thought of Foxx's claim.
Karen Campbell, a macroeconomics policy analyst with the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that in her view, "no statistical causation between political party in power and economic growth was established" by Foxx's statement. Measured by economic growth, "the economy did not technically begin a nose dive when the Democrats took over."
Economist Gary Burtless of the liberal Brookings Institution wonders what Foxx would say if the shoe were on the other foot.
"The longest post-World-War-II business expansion ended in March 2001, one and a half months after a Republican Administration took office," Burtless said. "That new Republican administration also had the good fortune to have a House of Representatives and, at first, a Senate that was controlled by the same party. According to Rep. Foxx’s reasoning, the recession that began after March 2001 must have been 'caused' by the political change-over in control of the White House. Of course, I think this reasoning is specious, but it is equally ludicrous to claim that the recession which began in January 2008 was 'caused' by a change in political control of Congress that took place in January 2007."
cont.
Most of the economists we spoke to agreed that the recession was caused most directly by long-term trends, especially a bust in housing prices and high energy prices, rather than by political factors.
"The Democrats can be blamed for setting the economy on a bubble-driven path in the 1990s, but the Republicans cannot escape blame for continuing this path and allowing an even larger and more dangerous bubble to develop in the first decade of the 21st century," said Dean Baker, an economist with the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research. "Is Rep. Foxx claiming that if we just left the Republicans in control, the housing bubble would still be growing so that we would have an even greater disaster to look forward to at the point when it finally collapsed?"
Alan Reynolds, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, said that it's conceivable that fear of the Democratic takeover could have spooked the financial markets and pushed the economy into a recession by depressing household wealth, bank capital and the ability of firms to raise funds in equity markets. In reality, though, the Dow Jones Industrial average actually rose from about 12,100 just before Election Day 2006 -- when the Democrats took back the House and Senate -- to a high of 13,930 in October 2007, which was 10 months after the Democrats took control of Congress. (The Dow then fell precipitously until early 2009.)
"Anyone who tries to link the ups and downs in business to something happening in D.C. is obligated to explain what it is that happened," Reynolds said. "Otherwise, it's likely random luck. Politicians are not as important as they like to think they are."
We agree. The evidence shows that the economy did not "nose dive" for at least a year after the Democrats took control of Congress, and experts of various ideological backgrounds agree that long-term trends in the housing and energy markets played a bigger role in directly causing the recession. While what happens in Washington can certainly influence the economy, it is only one of many factors. We believe it is the height of partisan wishful thinking to imply that one party's accession to power in Congress is to blame for a major recession. Pants on Fire!
Simple truths will prevail. Bill Clinton explained everything so that everyone could understand. He accomplished this without malice, and called out every lie, while defining why they were lies. Bill went line by line addressing every issue without skipping a beat. I knew I was voting for Obama, but now I know without a shadow of a doubt the reasons why. All Dems have the ammunition they need to defend our President....Bill Clinton and plain facts.
USA Today had a different fact check result, but what the heck...
Bill Clinton is the greatest politician of our time, and he showed why last night. Obama pales in comparison.
Clinton was a good president because he was smart enough to continue Reaganomics. President Obama is doing the opposite of what Clinton did, so really Clinton made a case for reelecting himself, and at this point, I'd take him, if the Constitution would allow it.
Shaw... we are not going to bound by fact checkers...
Like Lisa, the GOP has openly decided to rely on false facts...
I don't fault the GOP for not featuring Bush...
The Dems have never been big on featuring their formers, either...
We know Carter has been persona non grata, but I believe Gore pretty much ignored Clinton...
@Shaw, you hit on some of the powerful parts of the presentation. I though President Clinton gave a great speech; the first 20min were especially good. The segments on cooperation were outstanding. They spoke to voters who might still be swayed and to politicians in both parties that have failed us recently.
Those segments specifically chastised the congress and maybe a hint pointing to a road map that Obama might consider if re-elected; or where he thinks some voters in the middle would hope he Obama would go (as he himself changed course).
The speech ran a little long unless the listener is a policy wonk (many of us are). Past hallmarks of Clinton’s speeches are a pat on his own back and a bit of a state of a state of the union flavor (he didn't disappoint) but I wouldn’t grade him down for that.
Overall, I gave him an A+ over the first 20min (one of the best in a long time) and a B the last 25min.
For years, GOP partisans like Skud have complained when Dems posited responsibility for the recession on Bush and the GOP.
They claimed Obama would never own up to his responsibility for that recession, chiding him for blaming Bush all these years.
But where was that feeling when Reagan took office in 1980 and blamed Carter all through the 1984 elections?
Was Reagan a complaining wimpy whiner who could not take responsibility?
When Clinton pushed the policies that eventually led to a huge economic expansion, all we heard from the GOP was that Bush the Elder had set the stage.
These guys are hysterical. When it suits them, they are ready to claim credit retroactively. And when it suits them, they are ready to assign blame retroactively.
But let Obama, or a Dem do that, and they cry foul.
Wonderful way to look at it...
Here's the best tweet i saw last night after the speech...
"I'm kinda disappointed Obama didn't throw a cape over Clinton's shoulders James Brown style when it was all over"
SF, I hadn't seen your post when I submitted my own. I also came away with the feeling that it could have been a re-election speech for Clinton, and that tone is not a bad thing.
I realize others may not have felt the same thing when listening to the speech. I think part of that feeling for me might stem from the clear differences I see between Clinton and Obama that made the speech sound more about Clinton.
Part of that feeling may be that (my view) Clinton gave a speech that laid out where he wanted the country to go; that is, with a Dem president cooperating they way he was able to with a Republican Congress. I think he sees the real possibility of a Dem President and a Republican House and Senate.
The stimulus program "cut taxes for 95 percent of the American people."
Bill Clinton on Wednesday, September 5th, 2012 in his Democratic National Convention speech
Bill Clinton says Barack Obama cut taxes for 95 percent of people through stimulus
PolitiFact:
Ahead of the 2008 election, the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center analyzed the effects of Obama’s tax proposals for workers. The center determined about 95 percent -- more precisely, 94.3 percent -- of tax filers would receive a tax cut under Obama's plan based on the tax credit to offset payroll taxes.
The 5-percent sliver of workers who wouldn’t qualify included couples who make more than $250,000 or a single person making over $200,000
The tax cut expired at the end of 2011. Obama won another round of tax cuts for most workers in a December 2010 tax deal with Republicans in Congress. Those tax cuts -- worth about 2 percent a week -- expire in 2013.
However, Clinton left out an important qualifier: It’s a tax cut for 95 percent of working families.
Not everyone works -- think seniors or the unemployed, for example -- and when you account for those people, the percentage of people who get a tax cut drops to approximately 75 percent.
That’s still tax cuts for many Americans, but not close to the 95-percent range. We rate Clinton’s statement Half True.
And as if to buttress my point, SF chimes in to credit Clinton for following Reagan's policies.
Really SF??? Then how come not one single GOP member of the House supported Clinton's plan to raise taxes to lower the debt and increase gov't revenue?
How come the said that move would 100% completely crash the US economy? We're they supporting the Reagan view, or rejecting it?
The courage Clinton and the Dems showed then, uniting in the face of another crowd of obstructionists was heroic... and made us all a lot of cash in the 90's...
ROMNEY: "Under Obama’s plan (for welfare), you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
Mitt Romney on Monday, August 6th, 2012 in a campaign ad
Mitt Romney says Barack Obama’s plan for welfare reform: "They just send you your check."
Our ruling
Romney’s ad says, "Under Obama’s plan (for welfare), you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check."
That's a drastic distortion of the planned changes to Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. By granting waivers to states, the Obama administration is seeking to make welfare-to-work efforts more successful, not end them. What’s more, the waivers would apply to individually evaluated pilot programs -- HHS is not proposing a blanket, national change to welfare law.
The ad tries to connect the dots to reach this zinger: "They just send you your welfare check." The HHS memo in no way advocates that practice. In fact, it says the new policy is "designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families."
The ad’s claim is not accurate, and it inflames old resentments about able-bodied adults sitting around collecting public assistance. Pants on Fire!
Silverfiddle... "so really Clinton made a case for reelecting himself, and at this point, I'd take him, if the Constitution would allow it."
Careful what you wish for Dude, you might just be stuck without a voice or a vote someday.
And when the GOP wants something mean, dirty, and disgusting, they always have The Coulter to deliver for them:
When a follower responded to Coulter, asking if Fluke was "the most exciting speaker at the DNC tonight," Coulter responded, "They're spicing things up with a live abortion on stage!"
Not satisfied with that gem, The Coulter continued with her usual sewerage:
@AnnCoulter
Ann Coulter
Bill Clinton just impregnated Sandra Fluke backstage...
SF: "Bill Clinton is the greatest politician of our time, and he showed why last night. Obama pales in comparison."
Yeah. I remember how great the GOP thought Bill was in his second term. The "respect" for him was palpable. /snark/
Bill Clinton To Mitt Romney: Barack Obama Is My True Heir
"At The New Republic, Tim Noah noted under the headline, Clinton is Better Than Obama at Explaining Why Obama is Better Than Clinton:
The underlying awkwardness here is that Obama, even if he never gets re-elected, has already achieved more--simply by passing Obamacare—than Clinton did in eight years. In his speech, Clinton waited too long to make the health care argument for Obama's re-election, but when he made it, he made it intelligently and forcefully."
Not until after FDR died did the Constitution get changed (by Republicans) so a president can only serve two terms.
Another act of Republicans enforcing voter suppression.
skudrunner: "The president can't write laws..."
Hold it right there.
Almost every day you come here nagging, whining, complaining about what a complete failure President Obama has been because he, in your opinion, has accomplished nothing in 4 years.
Then you have the brass to use "The president can't write laws..." to excuse George Bush's failures?
Are you really a commenter at PE or a comedy act?
@ a nice anon "At The New Republic, Tim Noah noted under the headline, Clinton is Better Than Obama at Explaining Why Obama is Better Than Clinton:"
Noah is a wordsmith. That is one of the better post speech quotes I have seen.
In the end, very few of these convention speeches are going to matter much when America goes to vote. Unfortunately, nine times as many households had the NFL football game on TV last night as did Clinton's speech at the DNC convention. It reminds me how little things can change in this country, no matter who is elected.
The simple fact is that not enough people care and this means both parties of congress and the revolving door at the fed can keep yucking it up with Wall Street while the rest of us are bent over.
At this point, the easiest and tangible change I see that can be made is the reversal of our sliding K-12 educational system as it benefits both parties.
I think there is more chance for changes to occur on local and state levels than via the federal government. I hope we continue to see more focus locally on these types issues.
The Presidential elections are seldom as important as those of us who pay attention hope they might be. Abortion is here to stay. Increased taxes will not destroy us. We will maintain a strong defense. Houses are no longer a finacial investment, but a roof over ourt heads. Going forward, we will have a safety net for the very poor. Some physicians (God bless them) will treat people at reduced costs or for free.
"To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow ... Creeps in this petty pace from day to day."
skudrunner, the President doesn't write laws Congress does he signs them, lets them become law w/o his signature, or or vetoes them as you say say.
He can however issue executive orders and create czars... etc.
"Now that he has four years of failure under his belt..."
Demonstrably untrue.
"Oh I forgot, democrats don't believe in personal responsibility because the government will provide all."
Bullshit.
Dave: You asked an honest question so I'll give you an honest answer: The GOP didn't care about the debt back then, and Clinton proved how we could grow our way to fiscal surpluses.
Funny how times have changed, no?
I knew Bill Clinton, Bill Clinton was a Commander in Chief of mine, and Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton.
SF, neither you nor anyone else can make a comparison between Clinton's and Obama's presidencies.
The only thing the two presidencies have in common is the unhinged hatred the GOP directed toward Messrs. Clinton and Obama.
For some reason Republicans believe only they should run the government--all three branches.
How did that work out with GWB?
Shaw: You get no argument from me, or tea partiers for that matter, that Bush and the GOP had their opportunity and pissed it away. they acted just like democrats, which is why support McCain was so anemic.
Q Shaw: SF, neither you nor anyone else can make a comparison between Clinton's and Obama's presidencies.
Of course we can't, because their presidencies are vastly different.
Clinton was a successful president; Obama is a dismal, Carteresque failure.
Keep telling yourself that SF, and maybe you'll believe it.
Keep clapping to keep Tinkerbell flying.
I've heard the GOPers repeat that hundreds of times. It gives them some sort of comfort as they see Mr. Obama continue to keep his lead over Romney.
SF: "...they acted just like democrats, which is why support McCain was so anemic."
GWB acted like a conservative. They're tax-cut and spend pols, and they threw us into the abyss.
You can't escape history. It is real.
Paul Ryan won the Chicago Marathon?
Who knew?
oh snap! the GOP convention was waaaaay better than the show the Democrats are putting on.
"...since 1961, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24. In those 52 years, our economy produced 66 million private sector jobs. What’s the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 million!"
Awhile back I post with a chart showing the impact of recent presidents of both parties on growing the deficit. The results are right in line with what Clinton pointed out about job creation during Republican administrations.It was very reveling. Republican administrations consistently grow the deficit by much more than Democratic administrations. And BTW, the only president to balance the budget and then run up a surplus in recent decades was a Democrat.
S.W.A.,
Your fact-filled comment will create cognitive dissonance among the conservatives who visit here.
This will make them very uncomfortable; and therefore, force them to point out to you that Mr. Obama hasn't produced a real birth certificate.
Post a Comment