from PBS NewsHour
“I think the president means well, but his policies have failed, and to point that out — nothing wrong with that. That’s politics,”
So Jeb plays nice guy but in this talk with Cavuto on FoxNews, he makes the big statement that the eventual Republican nominee will run on – “The President’s policies have failed!” Nevermind what the CBO and numerous economists have said about those policies: Without the stimulus and other measures promoted by the President and his Administration, such as the payroll tax cut which the Republicans want to end, the American economy would be in far worse condition.
Two problems for the President – One, the economy was much closer to depression than anybody knew back in Jan 2009 and therefore the stimulus was less than conditions called for. Number Two, and perhaps more important, the President does not appear to like being confrontational. No matter what rightie pundits and pols say about Obama “constantly attacking” them and their ideas, reality says he has not fought back as strongly as the American public wanted to see in their President.
Is this a graph of ‘failure’? Please note that following the dip in GDP due to the recession of 2008-2009, the economy’s growth is now paralleling its earlier track. Yes, I know that 2011 has shown a decrease but one might argue the decrease is due more to Republican obstructionism than the ‘failure’ of the Administration’s policies
Mr Bush is correct though, in saying that Republican candidates must present ‘real’ ideas to the American public if anyone of them is to have a chance at beating Barack Obama in the next election cycle. So far, the candidates seem to think that attacking every action the President takes while constantly referring to God and American exceptionalism are sufficient – I don’t think so.
Deeper in the PBS NewsHour article we see a fine example of the Republican noise machine making up something. Using the technique known as “quote mining”, commonly found in the fight over teaching the Theory of Evolution, where a few words spoken or written by an opponent are taken out of context, thereby completely changing the meaning of the speech or essay from which the words were extracted.
“…the vice president has also come under attack from some Republicans for comments he made at Sichuan University in Chengdu, China, which they say expressed support of China’s one-child policy.”
When one reads the complete statement by Biden, it is 180 degrees from “support of China’s one-child policy”
Biden: “But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.”
The Vice President says he “understands” why China instituted the policy but he also says it’s, “Not sustainable” in a following sentence. Doesn’t look like he “supports” the idea at all.
Nice work Republican Noise Machine