Bill Clinton: Praising Romney's business record doesn't connote endorsement
ROBYN BECK/AFP/Getty Images
Appearing on CNN on Thursday, Clinton said of Romney: "A man who's been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold." Conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh crowed that the former president had "basically endorsed" the presumptive GOP nominee.
But at a rally in Paterson to support Rep. Bill Pascrell, Clinton said his remarks got "twisted around."
"I said, you know, Governor Romney had a good career in business and he was a governor, so he crosses the qualification threshold for him being president," Clinton said. "But he shouldn't be elected, because he is wrong on the economy and all these other issues.
"So today, because I didn't attack him personally and bash him, I wake up to read all these stories taking it out of context as if I had virtually endorsed him, which means the tea party has already won their first great victory: 'We are supposed to hate each to disagree.' That is wrong."
Popular in Politics
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 673 Comments
- Christie: Keep politics out of Oklahoma disaster relief
- House passes GOP bill to speed Keystone XL pipeline approval
- Obama to view Oklahoma tornado damage Sunday
- Former Miss America might challenge McConnell
- WH says criticism of its handling of IRS story is "legitimate"
- Drones, Gitmo part of broad Obama counterterrorism speech
- Officials on Benghazi: "We made mistakes, but without malice"
Charleskaye said, "I've been saying for months that what Clinton did to boost the economy and get to a budget surplus (with the obvious help of a republican congress), was reduce gov spending/borrowing, shrink the gov, social welfare reform/reductions, incentives for private (not gov) investments, are all conservative principles and are what Romney has stated he is planning to do.... Democrats love Clinton so much and tout the economy under his watch, why not duplicate the success?..."
--------
Presidential administration is not a formula, or simply "duplicating success", since each president faces a situation unique in important ways.
In January, 2009, there was no formula. Most Americans were not sure what would happen with the US economy and system of government after eight years of GOP "free market" policy, including a reduced government profile and deregulation in blind faith that all would be well.
And all was not well. After a lackluster two terms, the GOP's "free market" showcase on Wall Street had come to a complete debacle, severely crippling the economy. The general disaster scene paralyzed managers on Wall Street, as the economy lost 2.6 million jobs by the end of 2008.
To restore economic stability and create a sense of public trust and forward progress was a massive undertaking, yet Obama has achieved many major goals steadily, across a broad front. In health care, foreign policy, banking reform and education Obama made important contributions to the American people. Three years later, a far better picture emerges than the wreckage the GOP left behind for Obama to manage. In and of itself, Obama's is an enormous achievement.
Yet, all the more because it was achieved in the face of desperate GOP opposition. Despite a GOP element in congress determined to oppose Obama and recovery from his first days in office, Obama fostered a feeling of unity and purpose without exploiting or promoting partisan divisions. By any measure of presidential achievement, and despite the obstruction of an embittered party, bankrupt of ideas, this is the very definition of presidential success.
But the destructive, anti-patriotic and selfishly partisan GOP campaign meant full cooperation of all in congress was out of the question. Important legislation barely passed or was stalled, hindering Obama from achieving some objectives. That is not a demerit on Obama, but a measure of the difficulty he faced, unique to his administration.
Clinton and Obama share a belief in results over ideology. Clinton repeatedly stressed his approach is neither liberal nor conservative, but what is right for the American people. Clinton's policy is multifaceted-- trusting the counsel of his treasury secretary Robert Rubin, he signed the GOP bill which deregulated Wall Street. Yet, Clinton's humanitarian values led him to push for a national healthcare policy that would cover most Americans.
Obama policy also is not doctrinaire. Obama kept Bernanke and promoted Geitner and Summers to help manage the recovery, yet admonished Wall Street audiences that a free market is not free license to exploit the consumer and investor. Against powerful opposition from banks and funds, Obama passed banking reform legislation and created a federal consumer protection bureau.
Clinton and Obama agree that in a democracy, government is the instrument of the people, contrary to simplistic GOP rhetoric about "people vs. government". Both Clinton and Obama understand the question is not a false dichotomy between public enterprise and private enterprise, but an intelligent cooperation of the two. Like Clinton, Obama believes a dynamic and prosperous economy comes from creative, intelligent and flexible policy in the service of the American people.
Once we had a surplus G.W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress could not wait to give it to the rich. For the first 6 months Bush was in office, he did nothing but push to give the rich tax breaks. He seemed determined to run deficits again, which is what he did for 8 more years, leading to an accumulation of $6 trillion more in debt and two wars we could not pay for.
There are three good books that every voter should read: Winner Take All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned It's Back On the Middle Class by Jacob Hacker and Paul Pierson, Throw Them All Out by Peter Schweizer, and Greedy Bastards by Dylan Ratigan. These books will open your eyes up to just how CORRUPT Congress has become. Congress does not represent the real American middle class, they represent their own financial interests and the financial interests of their "big money" campaign contributors. That is why we (the voter) need to THROW THEM ALL OUT.
Congress (both Republicans and Democrats) has set themselves up as the PERMANENT POLITICAL CLASS. They believe they are the "elite" class and are "entitled" to special privileges and are "above the law(s)" that govern the rest of Americans. They hold the voter in contempt because we are so easily swayed by slick ads paid for by "big money" campaign contributors and are easily fooled by the "party line". And we (the voter) foster their beliefs by electing them term after term without checking their voting records or their financial dealings while they are in office.
We (the voter) need to get smarter. We need to RESOLVE that we will vote EVERY incumbent Congressperson out of office when they come up for reelection. EVERY ONE OF THEM!!! They have ALL betrayed our trust, and do not deserve their office. Congresspeople SHOULD feel that they have a DUTY to the real American voter and taxpayer instead of the "big money" campaign contributors.
But it is not enough to send newly elected Congresspeople to Washington with THEIR agenda. We need to send them to Washington with OUR agenda instead of the "empty promises" they feel they have to give to get our vote. And we need to watch their voting record and their financial dealings while they are in Congress. Maybe we will even find a few who are "worthy" of a second term.
Where have you been. The next thing you will be saying is that we were better off under Bush in 2008 with the Dow at 7200 and gas at $5 a gallon.
LOL
2008, DOW closes at 12606.30 and The U.S. average for gas prices dipped to $1.75 a gallon.
When it looked like Obama and his followers were going to be put into power, it all changed.
The Irony.
LOL!
The same guy who called Obama " Another thug from Chicago" in 2008.
The Irony.
To iamproteus: You Nose-pickers really get upset when you're caught re-writing history. Go back to digging with a clean finger
***************
I certainly hope you are not, in fact, a female... you're certainly a disgusting creature.
Especially when you have no real answer!
7luckyseven said, "Will someone please explain what the heck (Pres. Clinton) is talking about here?"
------
Not difficult. Clinton said disagreement should be possible without the hatred he sees spewing from GOP-aligned media organs and fringe groups. From any context, Clinton meant disagreement between Democrats and the GOP.
Doubtless, the GOP must be in desperate need of morale to twist the context so far. Clinton has said Romney "crosses the threshold", but he also said (directly quoted from the CNN video)--
"I think, however, the real issue ought to be what has Gov. Romney indicated in the campaign that he would do as president. What has Pres. Obama done, and what has he proposed to do. How do these things stack up against each other? That's the most relevant thing.
"There's no question that, in terms of getting up and going to the office and, you know, basically performing the essential functions of the office, a man who's been governor and had a sterlling business career crosses the qualification threshold... but they have dramatically differing proposals and-- it's my opinion, anyway-- that the Obama proposals and the Obama record would be far better for the American economy and most Americans than those Gov. Romney's laid out. That's what the election ought to be about."
Likewise, anyone who knows Bill Clinton and the record of his administration also understands many substantive issues of values and policy separate him from the GOP and Romney, in particular. Clinton's statement is a gesture of respect, like sparring partners shaking hands.
To his credit, Clinton's statement also says more about Clinton's definition of fair play and reasonable discourse than anything Romney-- or those of his party-- have said about Obama.
Frankly, this is a story that is a non-story. None really believes Clinton even partially endorsed Romney.
-------------------
Romney's Fuzzy Jobs Math--
http://www.thenation.com/blog/167877/romneys-fuzzy-jobs-math
Point out his plans. Point to the bills he has sent to congress. Name the policies and outline them. You can't. There is nothing there."
--------
As another poster asked you, "Where have you been?" Your professed ignorance of Obama's achievements proves nothing about Obama, himself. See post "AS YOU WERE SAYING"
Someone should read them the definition of cooperation!