Former President Bill Clinton was in Denver, Colorado, stumping for his wife yesterday.
In a long, and interesting speech, he characterized what the U.S. and other industrialized nations need to do to combat global warming this way: “We just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.” At a time that the nation is worried about a recession is that really the characterization his wife would want him making? “Slow down our economy”? I don’t really think there’s much debate that, at least initially, a full commitment to reduce greenhouse gases would slow down the economy….So was this a moment of candor?
He went on to say that his the U.S. — and those countries that have committed to reducing greenhouse gases — could ultimately increase jobs and raise wages with a good energy plan. So there was something of a contradiction there. Or perhaps he mis-spoke. Or perhaps this characterization was a description of what would happen if there isn’t a worldwide effort…I’m noquite certain.
Or perhaps you should actually read the entire goddamn statement that you posted on your own freaking blog (my emphasis):
“Everybody knows that global warming is real,” Mr. Clinton said, giving a shout-out to Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, “but we cannot solve it alone.”
“And maybe America, and Europe, and Japan, and Canada — the rich counties — would say, ‘OK, we just have to slow down our economy and cut back our greenhouse gas emissions ’cause we have to save the planet for our grandchildren.’ We could do that.
“But if we did that, you know as well as I do, China and India and Indonesia and Vietnam and Mexico and Brazil and the Ukraine, and all the other countries will never agree to stay poor to save the planet for our grandchildren. The only way we can do this is if we get back in the world’s fight against global warming and prove it is good economics that we will create more jobs to build a sustainable economy that saves the planet for our children and grandchildren. It is the only way it will work.
How much clearer could this be? Clinton actually said that it would be unwise to slow down our economy as a method of combating global warming, if for no other reason than developing countries would be unlikely to follow our lead. He said that the better way to go about it would be in creating alternative fuels that could create a more sustainable economy.
Are major political reporters in this country honestly this stupid? Aren’t they embarrassed to be publishing this crap? When even the very dim bulbs at the Corner call you out on stuff like this, you know you’ve really stepped in it.
UPDATE: Oh for God’s sake:
Wow, I hardly know how to take this. This morning, trying to understand what former President Bill Clinton was driving at when he made a statement about effort to combat global warming, I posted a quote of his, put it in context, provided video links, and asked what he meant.
It was perfectly clear what he meant, doofus: he said it wouldn’t be smart to slow down our economy to stop global warming. Even the insane folks at the National Review understand this.
The Clinton campaign did not provide for me, as requested, an explanation of what he meant.
Because they mistakenly assumed you had reading comprehension skills beyond the third-grade level, they probably didn’t see why they had to.
Instead, the response from the Clinton campaign is to post an item on its “fact” hub and accuse me of “parsing.”
I will plead guilty to “parsing” — the dictionary definition of the word — “To examine closely or subject to detailed analysis, especially by breaking up into components” or “To make sense of; comprehend.”
But I suspect the Clinton campaign thinks of the word “parsing” in its more colloquial sense — as in “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”
I guess I should defer to their expertise. Apologies for taking a confusing public comment from a former president about a major world issue and trying to make sense of it.
No, you should apologize for taking what was an absurdly clear statement and intentionally mucking it up just to draw the oh-so-coveted Drudge Report traffic to your page. You should also apologize for giving the Republicans yet another set of bogus “Al-Gore-said-he-invented-the-Internet!!!11!!1!” talking points to use against Democratic candidates, which you dutifully reprinted on your blog shortly after they were posted.
Wowsers. Just say sorry and stop embarrassing yourself, buddy.