the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
President Obama’s latest clarification-inducing comment came Wednesday, and it’s eyebrow-raising to say the least. Speaking on employment and the economy, the silver-tongued president declared, “Just like we’ve tried [the Republicans’] plan, we’ve tried our plan, and it worked. That’s the difference.”
Moe, who has graphically shown the fallacy of Obama’s “it worked” claim, summed up his rebuttal by declaring that “the only way that you can possibly justify suggesting that Obama’s economic program ‘worked’ is if you define ‘not working’ as ‘the country is now on fire’.”
Given this obvious state of affairs, Democrats, media, and apologists (but I repeat myself) have once again entered full-on spin-and-clarification mode, claiming (yet again) that their skilled orator and effective communicator in chief has been taken out of context, and that he was actually referring to something else, like the economic policies of President Clinton and his Republican Congress. Of course, a look at the transcript – combined with Obama’s penchant for taking credit for policy successes where (to put it charitably) none is due, makes this claim unlikely at best.
After a year full of victories for big government legislation in Congress, the forces of statism seemed to have met their Waterloo with the farm/food stamp bill. The more people learned of the profligate food stamp spending and the market distorting, risk-inducing agriculture programs contained in the bill, the more they spoke out against this monstrosity. Speaker Boehner has refused to bring the bill to the floor so far.
Seeing their political stock rapidly diminish, the bipartisan coalition of government-run agriculture took a page out of Rahm Emanuel’s playbook and decided not to let the crisis of the summer drought go to waste. They are using evocative imagery of dead crops and the fear of higher food prices to shove this $957 billion behemoth through Congress. Amazingly enough, the Washington Post of all news outlets has injected some much-needed clarity into this narrative.
But don’t tell that to DC’s chattering class who would have you believe there isn’t any difference between Dewhurst and Ted Cruz. They claim this campaign is just about which kind of “conservative” we will get in Washington — a “veteran conservative legislator” (read: guy who make nice with leadership), or a new member of the “doesn’t-play-well-with-others” caucus.