Hillary Clinton economic speech drew media yawns, but Scott Walker threw red meat while Donald Trump and Ted Cruz threw tantrums. And a pundit says we should ignore pundits…. (More)
“The measure of our success must be how much incomes rise for hardworking families”
The Wall Street Journal has an open access transcript of Hillary Clinton’s economic policy speech. After explaining how technology, globalization, and other changes have hurt working families, she offered a clear statement of her priorities:
So, all of these trends are real and none, none is going away. But they do not determine our destiny. The choices we make as a nation matter. And the choices we make in the years ahead will set the stage for what American life in the middle class and our economy will be like in this century.
As president, I will work with every possible partner to turn the tide to make these currents of change start working for us more than against us, to strengthen, not hollow out, the American middle class. Because I think at our best, that’s what Americans do. We are problem solvers, not deniers. We don’t hide from change; we harness it.
The measure of our success must be how much incomes rise for hardworking families, not just for successful CEOs and money managers and not some just arbitrary growth targets untethered to people’s lives and livelihoods.
Her campaign website contrasts her vision with the GOP WHannabes, and Salon’s Simon Malloy explains that she offered “a generous dollop of progressive themes.” But Politico’s Ben White whined “Is that it?”
Well here’s the deal. If she’d given a laundry list of policy proposals, the press would lament that she’d given “another laundry list” that “lacked vision.” So she gave them a clear policy vision – raising incomes for working families – and they complain that she didn’t give a laundry list. What. Ever.
“Americans want to vote for something and for someone”
So declared Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker in joining the GOP WHannabes yesterday. The New Republic’s Brian Beutler says Walker is “is incredibly dull. Not just plodding-speaker dull, though he’s often that, too, but an actually boring person,” but The American Spectator’s Aaron Goldstein panted “Six Reasons Why Scott Walker Will Be Elected President.”
For the record, “reason why” is redundant … just because.
“I’ll make you swallow all your words”
Speaking of redundant, Donald Trump wants the FBI to investigate this “threat” posted on Twitter:
Sigue chingando y voy hacer que te tragues todas tus putas palabras pinche guero cagaleche @realDonaldTrump
— Joaquín Guzmán Loera (@ElChap0Guzman) July 12, 2015
That translates to “Keep f–ing around, and I’ll make you swallow all your words.” Maybe that’s a threat. Maybe it’s not. This, on the other hand …
…Trump, however, would kick his ass!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 13, 2015
… is clearly not a threat. Just because.
“The notion that we would manipulate the best-seller list to exclude books for political reasons is simply ludicrous”
“The notion that we would manipulate the best-seller list to exclude books for political reasons is simply ludicrous. Conservative authors have routinely ranked high on our lists – Glenn Beck, Bill O’Reilly, most recently Ann Coulter, just for a few examples,” Times spokesperson Eileen Murphy said in a statement. “We have also ranked policy books and memoirs in the past by Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, among many others.”
“I can’t speak to the statements by Amazon or Harper Collins – though obviously publishers are always trying to get their authors on our list – but we are confident in our conclusion about the sales patterns for the Cruz book for the week in question.”
Amazon’s statement is irrelevant, as the Times doesn’t include online sales in its bestseller formula. As for producing evidence, the Times keeps its bestseller formula secret … to make it harder for publishers to game the formula. And as the Times statement notes, other conservative books make their bestseller list. But they should spotlight Cruz in their W[h]ines of the Times section.
“It’s a history that should lead any political journalist to question just how much the ever-increasing tonnage of pre-primary coverage really adds anything useful to our understanding of the process”
The history of primary elections, by contrast, suggests that they might as well take place on a different planet. The presidential nominating process usually involves a number of contestants. It moves by fits and starts; candidacies can rise, fall, revive and collapse with breathtaking speed. Again and again, months, even years of assumptions are thrown into a cocked hat by a sudden surge or implosion of a campaign. It’s a history that should lead any political journalist to question just how much the ever-increasing tonnage of pre-primary coverage really adds anything useful to our understanding of the process.
Except, of course, for stories about why we should ignore stories about the primaries. Those add to to “our understanding of the process.” Just because.
Good day and good nuts