Patterico's Pontifications


Newt: Clinton Speech Made Obama Look Bad

Filed under: 2012 Election,General,Obama — Patterico @ 1:01 pm

Which is true, if you think about it:

The Clinton speech at the Democratic National Convention was “eerily anti-Obama, if you just listen to the subtext,” the former House speaker said on CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning.

He added: “Here’s Clinton saying, ‘I reformed welfare because I worked with Republicans; you didn’t, Mr. Obama.’ He didn’t say it that way, but think about it: ‘I had the longest period of economic growth in history; you didn’t, Mr. Obama. I got to four balanced budgets by working with Republicans; you didn’t, Mr. Obama.’”

The comments follow recent efforts by GOP candidate Mitt Romney to use the economic success of the Clinton years as a counterpoint to the lackluster job growth during Obama’s tenure. On NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Romney said Clinton “really did elevate the Democrat convention in a lot of ways and, frankly, the contrast may not have been as attractive as Barack Obama might have preferred.”

Clinton may — I say may! — not have intended to make Obama look bad. But when you look at the facts and what he actually said . . . he did.

27 Responses to “Newt: Clinton Speech Made Obama Look Bad”

  1. Forward!

    Patterico (83033d)

  2. … to the rear, march!

    Colonel Haiku (d96bbb)

  3. In light of current conditions, and the events leading up to them over the period since the last Presidential Election,
    how difficult is it to not make Obama look bad.

    It’s that old “lipstick on a pig” thingie.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434)

  4. Reagan got us out of a huge recession — enough to drive inflation from double digits to zero — in two years, even though the Democrats back-loaded his tax cuts which dragged the recovery out.

    And he did so with an opposition House the whole time. Obama had a rubber-stamp Congress for two years and didn’t get squat done.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  5. #4

    Reagan got us out of a huge recession — enough to drive inflation from double digits to zero — in two years, even though the Democrats back-loaded his tax cuts which dragged the recovery out.

    And he did so with an opposition House the whole time. Obama had a rubber-stamp Congress for two years and didn’t get squat done.

    but werent the Republics obstructionists – off course they were – even with a fillerproof (sp) majority.

    Joe (a00dc1)

  6. 5- Is that the response of someone who has over-medicated themselves with their Med-Pot?

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434)

  7. Joe,

    In this case, the point is that Obama had a fillibuster proof Senate until the Kennedy Seat the people’s seat was filled by Scott Brown. It didn’t matter if the GOP were being “obstructionist” because the math was in the Democrats’ favor no matter what the GOP did or said.

    It’s funny, though, how you characterize the GOP as “obstructionist,” as if they’re simply not entitled to oppose the Obama agenda.
    We’re all grownups here—if the Congressional members of the GOP were happy to acquiesce to Obama’s policy agenda, they wouldn’t be Republicans in the first place, rather, they’d be Democrats.This notion that Republicans are not “entitled” to have a different point of view from Obama is so revealing of the left wing totalitarian impulse.

    Yet when the shoe is on the other foot, and a Republican occupies the White House, the left wingers are always screaming about “Speaking truth to power !” and how “Dissent is patriotic !”

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  8. Joe:

    I think you mean “filibuster.” Opposing the other party is kind of, you know, what Democracy is all about. Especially when anyone with a mind can see that the legislation is a death-knell for the country.

    Here’s an easy primer on the left: If Democrats and the media say that Republicans should reach across the aisle and compromise, what they really mean is: DO NOT OPPOSE US!

    And that is probably more than you ever learned in any civics class you slept through in your entire life.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  9. #6 & 7 & 8 Ag80 & Elephant Stone & AD
    Could neither of you recognize the irony/absurdity in the claim the Republics were obstructionists. I thought the sarcasm was obvious.

    Joe (a00dc1)

  10. Not with the trolls we get around here.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  11. In other words, we don’t know you, and you might be a great poster, but believe me, we’ve seen so much silly crap posted here, we’re often skeptical.

    Ag80 (b2c81f)

  12. I got to four balanced budgets by…

    … a sleazy accounting trick that would get the officers of any business that tried it arrested and convicted of fraud and probably lots more.

    HEY — someone had to say it.

    Joe: Just FYI, yeah, Ag80 is right. When your intention is snark, it pays to make it clear until we know your typical stance on things 😉 The amount of abysmally stupid stuff we see blathered here makes a serious take on your comment far less improbable than you’d realize.

    IGotBupkis, Purveyor of Fine Cynicism Since 2008 (aacc3d)

  13. Joe,

    No offense, friend, but as aforementioned by the previous posters, we get a lot of trolls and people pretending to be Republicans. There’s a guy named “Moderate Republican” who often spews all the MSNBC lefty talking points.

    Also, you had several spelling errors in your one sentence, therefore, I was less likely to assume you were being intentionally sarcastic.

    Elephant Stone (65d289)

  14. This was my instinct, glad Newt was paying attention so the rest of us could save our brains for the grocery budget.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  15. With MSNBC and Jay Carney in the world, sarcasm and obvious dont cut it anymore.

    SPQR (4befcb)

  16. I’m now not sure the place you’re getting your information, but good topic. I must spend a while finding out much more or understanding more. Thanks for magnificent information I was looking for this info for my mission.

    phentermine (acdb72)

  17. I am not sure obama had much of choice but, putting trust in clinton always has a down side. Whether obama wins or loses matters for hillary. If he wins the party damage will be so massive by 2016 that the race would be settled by the republican primary. If he loses he will finally own his failures, and she can run without his baggage. Bill kept her name in the game with his speech.

    dunce (15d7dc)

  18. The Clinton’s are so 37-seconds ago.

    AD-Restore the Republic/Obama Sucks! (2bb434)

  19. This makes me think of the whole “Clinton Machine” aspect of politics that we were talking about four- and 10-years ago, how their political team had a specific way of digging dirt and shutting down scandals, etc.

    And of course, there’s the “Chicago Way” of politics, as practiced by Obama and his enablers. It seems like dirty tricks, unethical behavior, criminal activity and scummyness is the hallmark of this sort of thing.

    Is there any analogous historical Republican “Machines” that have driven candidates into office?

    Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b)

  20. Comment by Pious Agnostic — 9/10/2012 @ 6:44 am

    Definitely yes, though I can not give you specifics. I think there was a gov or mayor in RI once who was reelected despite being convicted of some felony.

    Tyrants can be found under all kinds of labels. Sincere public servants (prone to error as they are) can be as well, but currently harder to find them under the Dem label.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  21. You can tell the politicians to the Right of Barry Davisovich ibn Dunham know its over:

    They’re all playing “footsie”.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  22. My apologies to everyone that did not see my sarcasm.

    by the way – i am sure it is the republican obstructionism that has kept harry reid from producing a budget for nearly four years.

    Joe (a00dc1)

  23. The part I loved the best of Clinton’s speech was when he bowed to Obama. Talk about bringing up the whole bowing to the Saudis thing. Almost as good as Obama scratching his nose with his middle finger

    matt (c06307)

  24. Clinton was not tryiong to make Obama look bad. He said the difference between him and Obama was at what point they took office. He claimed

    1) He (or the Democrats) lost control of Congress because of the economy – nothing to do with convicing people the Democrats were more partisan than the Republicans – they weren’t fooled – they interpreted ALL REPUBLICANS voting against something as that being a bad idea, not as meaning that Republicans were hyperpartisan, and Democrats less so because not all of them voted the same way, as Clinton wanted them to think.

    Also scaring people with his attempted passage of health care reform, with alliances based upon residency, drafting people into bad health plans if they didn’t make a choice before the quotas for the good ones were used up, and the individual mandate which raised living expenses if somebody became unemployed.)

    2) The economy got better but people didn’t notice it.

    3) By 1996, they did.

    4) The timeline is just a little different with Obama because this is a worsee recession..

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  25. Hey there, You have performed a fantastic job. I’ll certainly digg it and individually suggest to my friends. I’m sure they will be benefited from this site.

    youtube profits (3a67a9)


    Diane Campbell (995b81)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1173 secs.