Today, DNC Chair Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz had a tough time on Fox News Sunday. She exemplified the double standard that some Democrats hold regarding President Obama. For instance, in the clip below, she maintains that Mitt Romney was accountable for all jobs lost by his portfolio companies during his tenure as CEO of Bain Capital. While Mitt Romney was not CEO of each individual company, but merely an investor in them, I think it is fair that one could hold him partially accountable for both jobs lost and gained at these companies.
In other words, I agree with Representative Wasserman Schultz on her first point.
That said, she applies a double standard regarding the government’s loan guarantee to failed solar company, Solyndra. Like Romney, Obama was not CEO of Solyndra, but he presided over the federal government when the DOE provided a loan guarantee to that company. Therefore, by Wasserman Schultz’s own standard, President Obama was also ultimately responsible for the failed investment in that company, and the resulting layoffs that ensued from that failed investment. Of course, she failed to acknowledge that fact during her interview.
The DNC Chair cannot have it both ways.
In the clip below, Representative Wasserman Schultz also asserted that President Obama had to contend with an unemployment rate of over 11% at one point. Now either Representative Wasserman Schultz is lying or is stupid because the national unemployment rate has never been even close to 11% during the Obama administration. It peaked in October 2009 at 10.0%.
Wasserman Schultz then falls back to the usual “Obama inherited a tough economy three years ago, and the Republicans have been obstructionist for one year” arguments.
Are people still buying these arguments at this point? Especially given that President Obama’s economic team predicted unemployment today would be in the 6% range?
Source: Council of Economic Advisors, economy.com, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Reflections of a Rational Republican 
Glad Wallace called her out and made her look stupid because Wasserman Schultz ran circles around Sustern a couple nights ago when she tried to catch her in the same b.s..
I think your analysis is bang on yet again, Sean. To me I see it as yet another example of hardcore Dems knowing zero about business and how it works as well as the continuing double-standard and hypocrisy they seem to demonstrate almost daily.
and p.s., why does she always seem to look and sound like she’s drunk? Too many 100-meter dashes in a 90-meter room? haha
Because she probably is. Plus, she’s the first runner up because Wiener wasn’t available.
Hahaha! You said “wiener”!
Obama inherited this economy. If McCain had been elected things would be no better, to blame Obama for the economy is simply wrong. I don’t begrudge Republicans for trying, Democrats do the same thing, but Obama came into power during the worst recession since WWII. He’s been President in a time that would be tough for anyone. I don’t think the American people will forget that the housing bubble, the collapse, and the horrific imbalances which caused this recession have nothing to do with Obama. One can still criticize actions he took, but in a case like this the President can only make a marginal difference, the recession has to run its course, the imbalances have to work themselves out.
While I don’t criticize Romney over Bain (though I’m not surprised Democrats and even Republicans try to use that), I don’t see how that can be compared to anything Obama did. I don’t know much about Solyndra except it seems to be a failed attempted to manufacture a scandal against Obama because some government money went to a company that failed (though in a recession it’s pretty likely some companies will fail). I think you’re stretching here Sean, I think Wasserman-Shultz is pretty effective.
Scott,
Obama certainly inherited a bad economy, but he’s had THREE YEARS to get unemployment back to where it started at 7.8% when he first took over. The country is still at 8.5% despite the Administration’s own predictions that it would be lower at this point even in the absence of a stimulus. Blaming Bush now for Obama’s failure to get unemployment back below the point where it was when Obama started is ridiculous. Blaming the last guy for one year of economic weakness is one thing, but three quarters into your presidential term is simply disingenuous. By the President’s own admission, if he didn’t turn the economy around in three years, it would be “a one-term” proposition. Americans should hold him to his own standard.
On Solyndra, Obama presided over an administration that blew half a billion dollars of tax payer dollars on an obviously bad investment. To say that he bears no responsibility here simply ignores his position as leader of the country. Schultz is nothing but a hypocrite on multiple levels, and it shows.
“I don’t know much about Solyndra except it seems to be a failed attempted to manufacture a scandal against Obama because some government money went to a company that failed (though in a recession it’s pretty likely some companies will fail).”
Two bigger issues with Solyndra other than a bad loan here:
1) The Obama admin knew full well in advance this was a bad loan, yet they pushed it through for political reasons anyways. I’m sure Republican admins have been guilty of this, too, at some point but the fact is this happened now, as you say, during the worst economy since WWII from a President who proclaimed he was going to “Change Washington”, “reduce the influence of lobbyists”, and clean this sort of thing up. Clearly he plays on it as well.
2) Even that’s not as bad as what I think is the even bigger issue: the Obama admin protecting one of their key donor/bundler’s investments and leaving taxpayers to hang if the deal (that they knew would go south) went south. There’s absolutely no excuse for that and it’s arguably even illegal.
Scott,
” Obama inherited this economy. ” I agree with you. Obviously it has been too tough for President Obama to handle. The good news is we can fix that in November.
” If McCain had been elected things would be no better, to blame Obama for the economy is simply wrong. ”
You can’t know that .Obviously McCain would have made different decisions. Things would have been better or worse, they certainly would not have been the same . My guess is that unemployment under President McCain would be 1.5% lower right now and Democrats would be calling for his head and probably getting it . Obama has benefited from two facts that have allowed him to remain popular with his dismal record . First a lot of people are emotionally invested in his historic Presidency. Second, the public blamed Republicans for the recession and since he is in the other party, his grace period is really long. Think of Obama as an NFL coach brought in to turn around a franchise . He has had 3 nearly winless seasons in a row .His forth season is getting better, but I doubt it will be good enough to keep him from being fired by the owners, the voters.
” One can still criticize actions he took, but in a case like this the President can only make a marginal difference, the recession has to run its course, the imbalances have to work themselves out. ”
Imbalances work themselves out faster when the President does not engage in open warfare with the private sector . Imbalances work themselves out faster when a President does not run up huge debts by using a $ 787 Billion stimulus as a slush fund to reward political favorites .
Solyndra is as bad as it sounds . Donors to the Obama campaign are linked to Solyndra. Officials within the government warned the administration against it . But as is a constant, politics trumped good policy .
How about we judge Obama against the expectations he and his people raised? Unemployment not rising above 8%. 4 million new green jobs . These are his standards, not mine .