Posted on 10/29/2014 5:09:30 AM PDT by Kaslin
Liberals have this terrible and annoying habit of congratulating themselves for their intellectual heft merely because they hold liberal views. Once this arrogant notion reigns, it's tough for liberals to acknowledge when one of their own says something so remarkably untrue and stupid that it makes you wonder just how ignorant is the liberal really.
At an event for Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley in Boston on Oct. 24, Hillary Clinton told the assembled Democratic faithful: "Don't let anybody tell you that, you know, it's corporations and businesses that create jobs."
This makes about as much sense as "Don't let anyone say that it's governments that tax people." In attempt to dig out of this rhetorical face-plant, Clinton contended at an event in New York on Oct. 27 that she had "shorthanded this point" in a way that confused the public about what she actually meant. But now listen to her "clarification:"
"Our economy grows when businesses and entrepreneurs create good-paying jobs here in an America where workers and families are empowered to build from the bottom up and the middle out -- not when we hand out tax breaks for corporations that outsource jobs or stash their profits overseas."
That sounds like a hundred Democratic Party stump speeches, creating the evil Snidely Whiplash corporate villain. It also affirms the obvious fact that business creates employment -- at least in a free market economy. That's not a "clarification" of her incredibly stupid gaffe. It's not fixing a "shorthanding." It's a badly disguised retraction.
To Republicans, this sounded like a more illiterate version of Barack Obama's lame 2012 campaign dismissal of that free market economy when he told business "You didn't build that." Entrepreneurs should always credit their success to government-funded highways and teachers, and never to their own skills in the marketplace. It attaches Clinton to Obama's radical waist, and that's not good when he's sporting the lowest-ever approval ratings for an incumbent president.
Team Clinton knows, however, that it can get away with all of this, at least within the "objective" press. There was no coverage of this ridiculous gaffe on ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR or PBS. CNN twice obsessed over whether Hillary and Sen. Elizabeth Warren should have hugged or posed together at the Coakley event, ignoring the idiotic remarks. The same diversion bubbled up Saturday with weekend talk-show host Steve Kornacki on MSNBC.
The New York Times reproduced the stupid remark in a Sunday story, albeit on page A-13, in paragraph 10, when the reader has lost interest. But that was better than the competition. There was no coverage in The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, or USA Today. Even the local Boston Globe skipped over the remark. Reporter Akilah Johnson just offered campaign boilerplate from Hillary, such as: "We cannot possibly rest between now and Nov. 4. ... You don't want to wake up the day after this election and say, 'I wish I could have done more.' "
Ken Thomas and Philip Marcelo filed a story for the Associated Press, and skipped the stupidity entirely. This was their chosen Hillary quote to reproduce, touting Coakley in a close race: "From my perspective, it shouldn't even really be a race. It should not even be close, but we're living during an election season where it's close everywhere ... and that's why Martha needs you."
The people who complain that our news media consumption is too "polarized" -- and their assumption that conservatives depend too much on alternative media -- fail to acknowledge how our traditional "news" media are consistently burying Democrat gaffes they don't want anyone to hear about. When Hillary says something stupid, they want it to be just like that metaphorical tree that falls silently in the forest. Peace and quiet is comforting.
If you compare/contrast her quote and my re-assessment ... they actually both say the same thing.
Cankle of the brain.
No problem!
The illiterates and communists she speaks to and who support her don't know the difference and would deny it if they DID know.
She'll go to her grave believing she's right about this, no matter how much she publicly attempts to extricate herself AGAIN!
“Liberals have this terrible and annoying habit of congratulating themselves for their intellectual heft merely because they hold liberal views.”
The pretentious punks, here on “Main Street”, hold their noses up about five feet high because they’re “brilliant, intellectual, Progressives geniuses” in the face of all those “knuckle-dragging, gun-loving, ignorant Christian morons”, while those Christian morons a few generations ago brought forth a constitution that was intended to protect us from such things which is now being undermined by them.
(How irritating.)
IMHO
How the “Democratics” view history: 1. The Automobile
Around the turn of the 20th Century, Democrats in the US government built several super highways throughout America, 6 lanes wide and made of cement. One road lead to an empty field in Dearborn, MI.
Henry Ford, walking by that empty field decided to build a factory that manufactured automobiles. He was heard saying, “Well, the Democrats already have the road and, you know, everything and stuff.”
Has America declined to such a point that it will elect a senile socialist President who is the lesbian wife of a philandering ex President?
I dunno. Not too many people can turn $10,000 into $100,000 overnight. She may know more than you think. ;)
A conservative commits a gaff when he utters the truth (”43% will never vote for me”); a leftist commits a gaff by uttering an obvious untruth (corporations don’t create jobs)
We're electing what she symbolizes - a variation of what Obama also symbolizes: "Life is hard, and it's all white men's fault."
I’m impressed.
I wish our broker was that good.
Hillary did not flunk economics, she never took the course.
Her ignorance of the subject it total.
People should take the lesson of Obama’s early exchange with Joe the Plumber and take Hillary at her word here. If she’s elected, expect similar results to Obama’s.
She did so well because she was reading The Wall Street Journal. Just like millions of other readers who saw their $1,000 investment grow to $100,000 overnight.
I saw a clip of that speech that was about a minute long. It was long enough for her to make 3 or 4 other silly points.
The thing I remember, and want to ask the FR-public about, was that she had a new speech delivery method. She was standing behind a pulpit-like lectern, and she was moving her hands out, up, and down to center in a motion that drew a heart-like shape. It was a semi-preacher cadence.
I think she’s been coached and is trying out a new stump speaking style, different from Ms. Screechy and Ms. Bug-Eyed Glad-to-Seeya.
Anyone else notice?
She’s right; inside info on cattle futures is what makes money and creates jobs, not greedy corporations.
She knows what she needs to know about economics. The rest is for the little people.
Her followers are idealogues and no amount of logic will change their closed minds about what she truly is.
I live in the People’s Republic of New Jersey. A few years ago, I went to a baseball game with a neighbor of mine. Somehow, the subject of politics came up (probably during a lengthy pitching change.)
When I told him I was a conservative, his (quite sincere) reply was, “I don’t understand. You’re a really smart guy. How can you be a conservative?”
As if “smart” and “conservative”were polar opposites. My reply was, “I’m conservative because I’m smart.” End of discussion.
Wow - it was only $1,000.00.
She’s missing her calling - she should be on Wall Street.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.