The Weekly Standard missed the “nuance”

From :


Obama: ‘I Think We Are Better Off’

Obama last month: ‘Well I don’t think they are better off than they were four years ago.’

10:11 PM, Nov 1, 2011 • By DANIEL HALPER

In the 1980 election, Ronald Reagan encouraged voters to ask themselves, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Today, Barack Obama was asked a similar question by the CBS affiliate in Minneapolis–”If he felt that we were better off today than we were four years ago…”

“Well, you know, I think that we are better off now than we would have been if I hadn’t taken all the steps that we took,” President Obama replied.

Interestingly, the president’s answer today seems to contradict a statement he made last month:

“Well I don’t think they are better off than they were four years ago,” Obama said in reference to the American people on October 3. “They’re not better off than they were before Lehman’s collapse, before the financial crisis, before this extraordinary recession that we’re going through.”

Did you catch the nuance? President Obama didn’t retract his statement that the American people aren’t better off today than they were four years ago. Maybe even he realizes that trying to claim that we are better off now is a whopper even the biggest stoner in town couldn’t believe. But he’s trying to claim that we’re better off now than we would have been if he hadn’t been elected and put his policies in place. That, he knows, cannot be proved, but it can’t be disproved, either. Damn, he’s a great speaker, quick on his feet and clever — and nuanced — with his responses.

Too bad that has nothing to do with being President, because he’s really lousy at that job.

5 Comments

  1. But he’s trying to claim that we’re better off now than we would have been if he hadn’t been elected and put his policies in place.

    That’s what the economists say.

    That, he knows, cannot be proved, but it can’t be disproved, either.

    Only if you assume that economists are unable to measure, say, the effects of a stimulus.

    [format error corrected - pH]

  2. Damn, he’s a great speaker, quick on his feet and clever — and nuanced — with his responses.

    Too bad that has nothing to do with being President, because he’s really lousy at that job. >danapico

    ++++++++++++++++++

    ??? Who says that skill has nothing to do with being President?

    I’ll choose quick any day over doofus. I think it says something about his brain.

    Obama has had the misfortune of being President in an extremely difficult time — would the old guy and the woman who can’t name a newspaper have done any better?

  3. BB wrote:

    Obama has had the misfortune of being President in an extremely difficult time — would the old guy and the woman who can’t name a newspaper have done any better?

    Well, they couldn’t have done any worse!

Comments are closed.