David Plouffe’s “Same Old War Horses”

Scarecrow, Digby, and Jon Walker rightly took David Plouffe’s promises that a 9% unemployment rate won’t hurt Obama’s reelection chances to task.

But I’m at least as appalled by this part of Plouffe’s statement:

The White House’s top political adviser, downplaying the significance of the unemployment rate in the 2012 election, said the Republican candidates are offering the same policies that caused the economic crisis and targeted one potential opponent — Mitt Romney.

“So all of them are basically just bringing out the same old war horses,” senior adviser David Plouffe said yesterday at a Bloomberg Breakfast in Washington. “Let Wall Street kind of run amok, cut taxes for the wealthy, starve investment in things like education, research and development.”

Let Wall Street run amok. Check.

Cut taxes for the wealthy. Check.

And while Obama hasn’t as obviously starved investment in education and R&D (indeed, the stimulus he doesn’t like to talk about increased investments in both), by insisting on deficit reduction at the same time as states have had (or pretended they had to) cut education and R&D to balance their budgets, he has allowed such cuts to happen on his watch.

It troubles me a bit that David Plouffe doesn’t even see the irony of his statement.  Sure, the Republicans will be running on all those things. But so will, to a large extent, Obama.

Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Reddit0Share on Facebook0Google+0Email to someone

11 Responses to David Plouffe’s “Same Old War Horses”

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
Emptywheel Twitterverse
emptywheel TIL: 3 years after insisting if you don't call Benghazi terrorism instantaneously terrorists win it's okay not to call terrorism terrorism.
bmaz @mattfwood @jujueyeball You may read, but you clearly have a comprehension problem. Now go away or I will block your ass.
bmaz @mattfwood @jujueyeball Truly, go away with your repetitive false baloney. I am done with you.
bmaz @mattfwood @jujueyeball Because Dan's point was that too much is being called terrorism and that it will hasten a police state w/less rights
bmaz @mattfwood @jujueyeball Now begone, I am done with your nonsense
bmaz @mattfwood @jujueyeball Neither you nor JuJu can tell the difference between definitional provisions and actual available charge provisions
bmaz @mattfwood @jujueyeball But hey WTF, if you think you know more than the AG, preeminent experts and experienced criminal attys, stay deluded
bmaz @mattfwood @jujueyeball You think maybe there is a reason the analogous case of Dylan Roof wasn't charged as "terrorism"? Of course there is
bmaz @mattfwood @jujueyeball Here is piece by Head of Brennan Center Nat Sec Dept stating the same thing+explaining why https://t.co/ut4SLf1tjT
bmaz @mattfwood @jujueyeball You're just dense aren't you? Here is article quoting AG Lynch that terrorism does not apply https://t.co/fi5iTOYeMq
bmaz @mattfwood @jujueyeball Right back at you
July 2011
« Jun   Aug »