Clinton Channels Bush On The Subject of Quote Expertise Unquote
So, perhaps you've heard that every economist in the known universe has said that the "gas tax holiday" advocated by Clinton and McCain will save the average person about 30 bucks. The slimy, mendacious response of the Clinton campaign? Sometimes the president has to buck the "quote experts unquote." So looks like Clinton is taking the same attitude to science and expertise that the Bushies have taken for the last seven years: if you don't like the consensus of scientific opinion, ignore it. It's just "elite opinion" after all. But apparently anybody who has even the vaguest idea of what the facts are like now counts as elites. It's not hard to figure out how much you'd save, and nobody has disputed the thirty dollar figure. So Clinton's response here makes no sense whatsoever. It's as if she'd said "I'll give everybody a five dollar tax break!" and economists had said "Uh, that's not going to make any difference," and she'd responded "Sometimes a president has to stand up against those pointy-headed intellectuals!" Idiocy. It's not like the conclusions of the experts run contrary to the conclusions of common sense here. Even us dumb regular folks can see she's full of shit on this one. She might as well have said "I've got your quote common-sense unquote right here."
What a slime bag.
So, perhaps you've heard that every economist in the known universe has said that the "gas tax holiday" advocated by Clinton and McCain will save the average person about 30 bucks. The slimy, mendacious response of the Clinton campaign? Sometimes the president has to buck the "quote experts unquote." So looks like Clinton is taking the same attitude to science and expertise that the Bushies have taken for the last seven years: if you don't like the consensus of scientific opinion, ignore it. It's just "elite opinion" after all. But apparently anybody who has even the vaguest idea of what the facts are like now counts as elites. It's not hard to figure out how much you'd save, and nobody has disputed the thirty dollar figure. So Clinton's response here makes no sense whatsoever. It's as if she'd said "I'll give everybody a five dollar tax break!" and economists had said "Uh, that's not going to make any difference," and she'd responded "Sometimes a president has to stand up against those pointy-headed intellectuals!" Idiocy. It's not like the conclusions of the experts run contrary to the conclusions of common sense here. Even us dumb regular folks can see she's full of shit on this one. She might as well have said "I've got your quote common-sense unquote right here."
What a slime bag.
posted by Winston Smith at
7:45 AM
8 Comments:
Yep. Acting dumb for sake of getting elected.
Just out of curiosity, when your candidate of choice says something stupid, are you going to give him equal treatment? How about those idiocies McCain has been dishing out? Or is this simply turning into an Anti-Shrillary site
I can't speak for WS, though I'd suggest you look around a little, aa, before you ask for things that he has already done. As for me, I plan to go easy on Obama, my guy. Enough people are flaying him already. I do plan to hit McCain every chance I get - or anyway until my arm gets too tired, since there are so many absurd things about him. Hillary? Depends how stupid she gets.
I have, numerous times and for a number of years. It really does appear that it's getting a bit shrill where Clinton is concerned...to a much higher degree than McCain or Obama (though I do realize that WS supports Obama and expect a bit less on that front). Considering some of the whoppers McCain has been putting out...yeesh. Still, I hope for a bit more, dare I say it, balance than I'm seeing at the moment. Lies.com has sorta gone down the same route though to a greater extent (though jbc doesn't post as often any more).
Anyway, FWIW.
Well, Aa, I always appreciate efforts to keep me on the straight and narrow. I've criticized Obama, though not as vociferously--I think that's largely because he's been more honest and civil. Hillary's sins have been more visible to me of late, though I see McCain stumbling around and bumping into things in my peripheral vision. It doesn't look pretty, but I've been too busy and preoccupied to give that much attention.
Just for the record, two things:
1. I only claim a certain degree of objectivity, though more is always better (I think)
2. This blog is really only an outlet into which I direct energy that would ordinarily be spent yelling at the television. So it should only be taken so seriously.
Those quasi-excuses only go so far, of course.
By way of explanation and excuse, let me say that I really, really do share what I take to be Obama's view that dishonesty and downright meanness are important factors in our political discussions. And, so, dishonesty and meanness are the things that tend to grab my attention. Hillary's seemed like the most salient offender to me of late, and that's what's captured my attention, such as it is.
I do agree, though, that I've probably been to fixated on that.
Er, and by 'to', of course, I mean 'too'...
WS,
That's about what I'd assumed and you answered with your usual honesty (no snark intended). And I always appreciate that about you.
~Aa
Thanks, Aa. I appreciate the compliment.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home