Does Bill Want Hillary To Lose?
January 31st, 2008 at 12:37pm Matt Margolis
I mean, seriously, who advocates (publicly) for the slowing down of the economy?
Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.
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”?
It’s pretty sad that a strong economy takes the backseat to fighting so-called global warming. Clinton’s explanation for his comments was pretty weak as well. I believe, however, that this attitude is not shared by a majority of our representatives in Congress. There’s a reason why the Senate overwhelmingly rejected the Kyoto Protocol — because it was obvious that the treaty would have devastated our economy. But, then again… that was before Bush was elected, before Al Gore made global warming the Democrats’ number one issue… Perhaps Democrats are much more likely to appease radical environmental special interests…
Entry Filed under: Campaign 2008, Democrats, Environment
46 Comments
1. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | January 31st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
“I mean, seriously, who advocates (publicly) for the slowing down of the economy?”
John McCain, CARBON CAPS
2. hermie | January 31st, 2008 at 1:20 pm
This is what George Soros has been trying to do so that he can make billions by driving down the dollar. With his friends like Al Gore and John McCain, it just might happen.
3. Brian | January 31st, 2008 at 1:28 pm
The conservative vitriol against McCain is starting to remind me of liberals and Bush.
Sad.
4. Presidential election 200&hellip | January 31st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
[…] Bill Want Hillary To Lose? January 31st, 2008 Hillary Clinton for President wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptFormer President Bill Clinton was in […]
5. Tractatus | January 31st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
And then Clinton continued:
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.
Gee, you guys–who are always whining about how conservatives are being quoted out of context–wouldn’t happen to be quoting Bill out of context, would you? Why yes, yes you would be. What a shocker.
6. Rich | January 31st, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Brian- Pay no attention to most of the morons spouting off about McCain. These are no doubt liberal spoofers here trying to drive a wedge in our party. They are very scared of McCain. I mean seriously, most of these posters coming out of the woodwork have not shown up until the past week. Take them with a grain of salt because there is a reason why they sound like the Bush bashers. They are the Bush bashers.
7. GOP4ME | January 31st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
Well this certainly is the smoking gun that supports our contention that the global warming “debate” is more about imposing a political agenda than serious concern for the environment.
“Tank the economy, make people more dependent on the government and addict them to hand-outs = Ensure a perpetual demoncratic majority”.
careful lefties, your slip is showing and showing quite badly.
8. Brian Gregory | January 31st, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“SO-called global warming?” Come on, Matt, don’t be a party-line warrior. The GOP as a whole is embarassingly bad on that issue.
On McCain: conservative “leaders” like Limbaugh give our ideology a bad name. They need to shut up. Criticizing a lifelong Republican and falsely labeling him doesn’t help anyone. Idiots like him are just looking for chances to get their names tossed around the blogosphere. We have to phase them out…far-right wingers have no business telling ANYONE what to think.
9. Zach | January 31st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
“Idiots like him are just looking for chances to get their names tossed around the blogosphere.”
Thats a pretty weak theory. Rush gets his name tossed around the blogosphere without “Criticizing a lifelong Republican and falsely labeling him” quite a bit the way it is..
10. Kahn | January 31st, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Since our manufacturing base is the most efficient, it can be argued that more manufacturing should be moved here.
If you move manufacturing to a less efficient nation, more energy is used, more materials are wasted, and more pollution occurs. That was the trouble with Kyoto - it penalized the efficient western industrialized nations while placing few if any restrictions on eastern and souther “developing” economies. The plan was to limit the efficient and less polluting while not limiting the wasteful and polluting ones.
In raw numbers, yes we appear to pollute more. BUT, we produce FAR FAR more with the energy we use and the waste we cause than any other nation on the planet. So, if you actually want to cut down pollution - you should produce in the United States.
Math.
11. Brian Gregory | January 31st, 2008 at 2:27 pm
“‘Thats a pretty weak theory. Rush gets his name tossed around the blogosphere without “Criticizing a lifelong Republican and falsely labeling him” quite a bit the way it is..’”
Unfortunately…he’s an embarassment.
12. Retired Spook | January 31st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
We have to phase them out…far-right wingers have no business telling ANYONE what to think.
That’s for sure, Brian; the Republican Party don’t need no stinkin’ free speech.
13. Brian Gregory | January 31st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Is that what I said? No. I said that they have too much influence in the party. And they do. They can think whatever they want, but our elections shouldn’t be focused on catering to them.
14. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | January 31st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I don’t understand all this vitriol that conservatives have regarding McCain; I’m sure when he called Social conservatives “racists” last year, he meant that in a good way. When McCain stuck his thumb in the eye of fiscal conservatives when he voted against the Bush Tax Rate cuts, he did so because it was “tax breaks for the rich” and all fiscal conservatives are beholden to wealthy fat-cat contributors.
When McCain formed the Gang of 14 to thwart the Constitutional duty of the Senate to advise and consent on Judicial nominees, it was because he knew that strict constitutionalist don’t know that the Constitution is a living breathing document; meant to change with the times.
McCain’s attempts to limit free speech through McCain-Feingold are simply because he doesn’t want the “loud voices” of conservatives to drown out the populist reason of the enlightened liberals. You don’t need a voice if you’re just going to use it to challange conventional wisdom.
To our veterans; when one distorts his own record, he’s a hero. When many challenge the veracity of that record; they’re “dishonest and dishonorable.”
McCain puts the Nation before the individual; duties before rights; and denigrates the concerns of individuals as “self-interest.” That makes him a “new-kind-of-conservative” or “liberal” in everyone else’s dictionary.
I guess I do understand the vitriol, after all.
15. Retired Spook | January 31st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Is that what I said? No.
I’m sorry, but here is what you said:
I don’t consider myself a “far-right winger”, but, unless you want to amend the Constitution, they have as much right as anyone else to speak their piece, just as you have every right to ignore what they say. Sorry; attempting to exclude someone from saying what they believe simply because you don’t agree with them is just not what this country is all about.
16. neocon | January 31st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
But it is what they are all about.
17. Ricorun | January 31st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Tractatus (re: comment #5), thank you for that. While I will admit that nothing would delight me more than to see Clinton’s candidacy come to an end, I fully agree that what the Bill part of “Billary” said, re: “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.”
I happen to agree with that. Not just a little, but a lot. I am convinces that’s what it will take. And it’s not just me and not just Clinton that is saying that, Gingrich is too — as are many, many others. Lefties bitch, whine, and moan about the necessity (presumed or otherwise) to drastically reduce carbon emissions, but if it’s not practical it simply isn’t going to work. Likewise, righties bitch whine and moan about how global warming is just a pile of BS and therefore feel justified to ignore all the other considerations involved (like peak oil, national security, and economic stability) under the assumption that it couldn’t possibly be practical. My feeling is that neither one is right. My feeling is that the transition to renewable fuels doesn’t have to hurt. Okay, it might hurt a little at first, just like any other investment. But even the short term effects can be mitigated, and the potential pay-off is enormous. Assuming we don’t procrastinate too long.
Whether any one person believes that GW is real or not, the fact remains that most of the rest of the world believes it is. Moreover, most of the rest of the world understands that no matter how much we in the US drill for more oil in ANWR, or the Gulf, or anywhere else, that’s not going to change things dramatically on the world scale (in fact, I would argue that it won’t change things dramatically on the domestic scale either). Investing in nuclear power might help in the short run, but doing so is VERY capital intensive and it takes a long time (a decade or more) to get a plant on-line. And uranium is not a renewable fuel. So to one degree or another, those proposed solutions amount to kicking the can down the road. In other words, the resources will eventually run out and thus have little future trajectory (that’s a little simplistic, but I’m trying to be pithy). Perhaps more importantly, they provide little by way of solutions to the rest of the world. And to the extent that we choose to invest heavily in those alternatives, we lessen our ability to invest in others — which do have a better trajectory and which are marketable to the rest of the world). So the question becomes… how realistic is it to invest in energy conservation and renewable fuels?
Obviously, that question cannot be answered in any sort of absolute way. And as far as I know, no one has offered a comprehensive cost/benefit analysis on the whole energy question. Well, maybe Cheney has, but he’s not saying. Anyway, allow me to offer the following report:
http://nextten.org/pressreleases/NextTen-2z.pdf
It is an analysis of how California’s efforts to conserve energy, reduce emissions, and promote renewable fuels has impacted the state’s economy. According to it, California ranked second in 2004 of all states in terms of lowest GHG emissions per capita (Texas ranked 40th) (pg. 16). At the same time, the average household in CA pays only a little more than half of what the average household in TX pays for electricity (pg. 21). I can vouch for that, too — I lived in Austin for several years back in the late 70s/early 80s, and my electric bill now is STILL below what I paid back then. At any rate, those statistics show that increased efficiency saves money. And as chart 3 on pg. 18 shows, you can cut emissions and still grow the economy — if you do it right.
CA has been emphasizing energy conservation for quite some time. And they’ve done all the things many people hate to even contemplate because the smack of government intervention — mandating tighter controls on tailpipe emissions, mandating the conversion to renewable fuels, incentivizing the conversion to smart grids and the sale of energy-saving appliances. A while back our local power company provided discount coupons for CFL bulbs that made them so cheap you’d have to be brain dead not to stock up. They also offered discounts if you’d let them put a (semi) smart meter on your AC. I did that, and I’m glad I did that. It’s saved me quite a bit of money and it has not altered my lifestyle not one little bit. The local water company staged a “toilet drive” a while back — you bring in a low efficiency toilet and they’ll swap it for a high efficiency one. Brand spanking new toilets for free? Works for me. Actually, it didn’t. My toilets were already high efficiency. But I got sucked into it (so to speak) anyway because my sweetie’s toilets weren’t. So “we” (I) pulled out her toilets and carted them on down to the local DWP HQ. We got there a little before they opened. And even by that time the line of cars was easily a mile long. Apparently free toilets were all the rage, lol!
Maybe we’re all a bunch of commies out here in CA. But I don’t think so. I’m sure there are some, but not all of us are. For example, my representative is Garry Miller, one of the more conservative members of congress. The districts around mine are represented by Brian Bilbray (it used to be Duke Cunningham), Duncan Hunter, and Jerry Lewis — i.e., some of the most conservative members of congress. People think of CA as true blue through and through, but that’s not true. There are a lot of places that are very crimson red. Nonetheless, it is definitely true that Californians are, by and large — Democrats and Republicans alike — pro-environment. Apart from the fact that there are some spectacularly beautiful places in CA, I think a lot of it has to do with the realization that the CA environment is rather fragile. We have this mountain range running down the middle of the state that tends to trap all the crap on the windward side, where everyone lives. And before they started doing something about it, it got pretty nasty, especially in the LA basin. I think that opened a lot of people’s eyes. Likewise, much of our water supply depends on the snowpacks in those mountains, and in the Rockies. If we lose that runoff we’re pretty screwed. I guess you could say we realize that we’re pushing the envelope, and that the laissez-faire “I’m gonna do what I want and screw everyone else” kind of attitude isn’t going to work anymore. Not on energy issues anyway. To my mind, it’s not about socialism on this issue, it’s about necessity. And necessity, as they say, is the mother of invention.
It’s frustrating, and sometimes I feel like a broken record. But I really, truly do feel that there has never been a better time than now to invest in alternative fuels. While there is no such thing as a sure thing, we’re talking about a HUGE issue here. The risks are relatively negligible, especially with respect to the potential payoff: it could be ENORMOUS! That may sound like wishful thinking, but I honestly don’t believe it is. For one thing, EVEN IF you think global warming is just a pile of smoke and mirrors, the fact is that virtually every other nation in the world disagrees. Whatever else can be said, the market potential is freakin’ HUGE. To my mind, we’d be IDIOTS (intentionally all caps) to ignore that and instead get captured into narrowly arguing just about how much we agree about the science of global warming. Beyond that there are national security issues, oil peak issues, oil demand issues, and the impacts they could have on the economy — not only domestically but worldwide. To borrow one of Mark’s favorite catch phrases (but hopefully with more substance)… THINK! Lol!
18. Tractatus | January 31st, 2008 at 4:30 pm
My feeling is that neither one is right. My feeling is that the transition to renewable fuels doesn’t have to hurt. Okay, it might hurt a little at first, just like any other investment. But even the short term effects can be mitigated, and the potential pay-off is enormous. Assuming we don’t procrastinate too long.
…
EVEN IF you think global warming is just a pile of smoke and mirrors, the fact is that virtually every other nation in the world disagrees. Whatever else can be said, the market potential is freakin’ HUGE. To my mind, we’d be IDIOTS (intentionally all caps) to ignore that and instead get captured into narrowly arguing just about how much we agree about the science of global warming.
My sentiments exactly. We should be seizing this tremendous opportunity instead of getting caught up in the screaming match the crazies want to have.
19. keefer | January 31st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
The conservative vitriol against McCain is starting to remind me of liberals and Bush.
Sad.
Know what’s really sad, Brian? What’s really sad is that conservatives such as Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, and Ingraham point out liberal tendencies in McLame’s record, and it gets labeled “conservative vitriol.”
That’s what’s sad, and your analogy is way off base…
20. keefer | January 31st, 2008 at 5:31 pm
…far-right wingers have no business telling ANYONE what to think.
Riiiight, we should all listen to far-left wingers, huh?
Brian, are you related to David Gregory? You sound just like him…
21. steveGA | January 31st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Mark,
As has been pointed out by now, your quote from Bill Clinton was taken out of context. When the quote is read in full, anyone with basic reading comprehension can see Clinton said exactly the opposite of “slow down the economy”.
Given that you routinely decry the alleged lies and slander directed towards GWB, and given that you have an ongoing series of posts about left-wing media bias, I find it incredibly hypocritical of you to engage in the very same tactics. (Why am I not surprised?)
However, you can prove me wrong: admit that the full quote says the exact opposite of what you claimed Bill said.
I’ll be waiting…
22. keefer | January 31st, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Herk, your post, #14, was great!
Ya know, it would be different if McLame’s attempt at “unity” were taken seriously by the other side, the left. Unfortunately, their idea of “unity” is “agree with us, and we’ll call it unity.”
23. Herkimer X. Arbuthnot | January 31st, 2008 at 6:28 pm
steve,
I guess it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.
24. neocon | January 31st, 2008 at 6:48 pm
What hasn’t been mentioned yet is the MSM’s love affair with McCain in the past that may come back to haunt them and end up putting another Republican in office.
The MSM has sung his praises so often for being the “maverik” that now they will have a difficult time trying to redo that image in their effort to elect a Democrat. And you know they will.
25. Retired Spook | January 31st, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Brand spanking new toilets for free?
Rico, was the question mark simply a Freudian slip?
BTW, here’s how Paul Farrell at MarketWatch sees the alternative energy market from an investment viewpoint.
Still, $20 Trillion ain’t exactly chicken feed as long as you pick the right horse and remember to jump off before it leaps over the cliff.
26. Rich | January 31st, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Look everyone bashing McCain needs to answer a few simple questions. Who do we have that is running that is better? If the staunch conservative wing of the party was really so powerful, how come candidates like Brownback and Tancredo withered away? Why was no money pouring in? Why does Romney need to spend 45 million of his own cash to keep limping along. I agree McCain is definitely not my top choice, but what else do we have right now? Hell Newt Gingrich couldn’t even get into the double digits and so kept out of the race. The problem is after 8 years of constant propaganda the conservative label has become a bad name in much of the country. I’m not happy about it, you’re not happy about it, but there is no use crying over spilled milk at this point. I’d like steak, but I’f im gonna starve I’ll settle for a peanut butter and banana sandwich. All the purists out there are gonna have to come to the realization that staying home is not an option. If Romney makes a comeback as much as I don’t like him I will definitely support him because the bigger picture is too important. I’ve heard enough of the “Clinton Cackle”.
27. neocon | January 31st, 2008 at 7:03 pm
Well, not 30 seconds into the Dem debate it was mentioned that for the first time a woman and a black man are competing.
I am sure glad they mentioned that because I hadn’t noticed.
28. Brian | January 31st, 2008 at 7:05 pm
keefer,
You know what’s REALLY sad? How conservatives such as the ones you mentioned continue to attack McCain for not being “conservative enough”, while at the same time giving Romney a pass for his transgressions.
It’s sad how they act like they don’t know that Romney once called McCain’s immigration bill “reasonable” and stated that it was “not amnesty”.
It’s sad how they’ve forgotten that Romney was staunchly pro-abortion and pro-gun control. Until, of course, it stopped being convenient for him.
And - in perhaps the greatest irony - all of these conservatives lamenting for another Reagan didn’t seem to notice the news on Drudge Report that Nancy Reagan favors McCain.
Last time I checked, this is the REPUBLICAN party, not the Conservatives-Only party. Which means that it’s absurd to claim that only the staunchest, die-hard conservative candidate can be the nominee of our party.
Take a look back at the 2004 RNC convention. You know who the speakers were? McCain, Schwarzenegger and Giuliani - the moderate Republicans. Remember that this convention was also aired in primetime. Do you think this was a coincidence?
If people like Rush and Hannity don’t like it, they can go form their own party. Give the Republican party back to the rest of us.
They make me ashamed to call myself a conservative.
29. neocon | January 31st, 2008 at 7:08 pm
>>Last time I checked, this is the REPUBLICAN party, not the Conservatives-Only party. Which means that it’s absurd to claim that only the staunchest, die-hard conservative candidate can be the nominee of our party.<<
That’s actually a very good point Brian.
30. Rich | January 31st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Ugh- Watching the dem debate and Hillary just mentioned Jesus Christ. Give me a break.
31. neocon | January 31st, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Hillary just mentioned again that a woman and a black man are running for President.
It’s a good thing the Dems aren’t divisive.
32. neocon | January 31st, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Well according to Hill, the Republican candidates are vested in Bushs Iraq policy. I thought they were vested in the Iraqis future of peace and liberty.
At least we know the Dems aren’t.
33. neocon | January 31st, 2008 at 8:31 pm
How will the Dems rebuild our world image when they don’t care about anyone else other than Americans?
34. neocon | January 31st, 2008 at 8:33 pm
LOVE IT!!!
Hillary just said that she did her due diligence and really struggled with her vote for the war.
But she has previously stated that she was lied to.
Can we have scorecards. Or better yet, can we have a debate thread?
35. Ricorun | January 31st, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Oh shoot… apparently I didn’t turn off the bold face. Sorry about that.
36. Ricorun | January 31st, 2008 at 9:10 pm
Upon closer inspection I suppose I should take back my comment, “I wouldn’t dispute anything in that link you provided”. To be honest, I’m not sure I’d agree with the numbers the author provided. I’m not saying they’re wrong, I’m just saying I haven’t checked them out. But in principle I think what he says is correct.
37. Retired Spook | January 31st, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Rico,
I wasn’t trying to shoot down your previous comment by linking to the MarketWatch article; just provide a little perspective. There’s a lot of cool stuff in the alternative energy pipeline, and obviously a LOT of money to be made. Since I’m at that point in my life where I’m not eagerly searching out high-risk investments, the ultimate prize would be to see abundant global availability of clean, economic energy sources during my lifetime. If that happens and has a positive effect on global climate, that would be the ultimate twofer.
38. Brian Gregory | January 31st, 2008 at 10:15 pm
The far-anything is bad. The far-right is just as dangerous to common sense and moderation as the far-left. It’s fairly dumb to say that Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. point out “liberal tendencies,” when really their bread and butter is screaming about how the liberals and the RINOs are causing the destruction of American society, blah, blah, blah. Listen, the left-wing pisses me off as much as the next guy, but partisan bullcrap is just plain nonsense. Republicans need to open their eyes and realize that the “big tent” which so many of your Limbaugh types have railed against happened to have won a FEW more elections than our current Pat Robertson mold (anyone else remember 2006?). I used to be as fierce a partisan warrior for the GOP as anyone in here. Then I realized that that party is as broken and confused as the Democrats. Open your eyes…don’t be ignorant…that’s all I’m saying.
P.S. I wasn’t the one who brought up the “vitriol.”
39. Jeremiah | January 31st, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Brian Gregory,
The far right is bad, the far left is bad, the middle (independents) doesn’t stand for anything….So what to do?–
You might characterize me as a ‘far-right extremist’ but I’ll take far right over the dangerous left … any day.
–Jeremiah–
40. keefer | February 1st, 2008 at 4:51 am
They make me ashamed to call myself a conservative.
Well, you shouldn’t–because you aren’t…
41. Brian | February 1st, 2008 at 6:23 am
keefer,
Thank you for - once again - proving my point about conservatives.
42. coulterfan | February 1st, 2008 at 8:00 am
>>Well according to Hill, the Republican candidates are vested in Bushs Iraq policy. I thought they were vested in the Iraqis future of peace and liberty.
See, that’s a clear distinction. The GOP is vested in Iraqis future and health care for ALL Iraqis (written in their US-drafted Constitution). They are willing to bankrupt the US in order to do it.
In contrast, the Dems are vested in AMERICANS’ future of peace and liberty!
43. coulterfan | February 1st, 2008 at 8:02 am
>>Ugh- Watching the dem debate and Hillary just mentioned Jesus Christ. Give me a break.
No kidding!
At least the Republicans NEVER mention Jesus, Christianity, or their FAITH!!!
44. coulterfan | February 1st, 2008 at 8:05 am
>>How will the Dems rebuild our world image when they don’t care about anyone else other than Americans?
I think Bill Clinton’s administration is viewed a little more favorably in the world than the Bush go-it-alone-be-damned-with-the-UN-and-”Old Europe”- and-anti-Geneva-Convention-pro-torture-global-warming-denying policies. . .
45. coulterfan | February 1st, 2008 at 8:08 am
>>Hillary just mentioned again that a woman and a black man are running for President.
>>It’s a good thing the Dems aren’t divisive.
How is that divisive?
I guess it does drive a wedge between racist, sexist homophobes and the rest of Americans, who are VERY diverse!
America is the MOST diverse and tolerant nation on Earth. . . why should all our leaders be white men?
46. Tractatus | February 1st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Still no admission that the thrust of this post was dead wrong. Why am I not surprised?