Clinton Tries Football Analogy To Explain Politics

Despite having the better policy positions on most, if not all, issues, the Democrats have not performed as well as the Republicans in the spin war. Those who are paying attention realize that it makes no sense to vote the Republicans back into power in response to our current economic problems. Those who wish this are as delusional as the Russians who wish for the return of Stalinism. Bill Clinton has tried to get the message across by using a football analogy:

“When something is really important to us – like football – we care about the facts,” Mr. Clinton told an audience on Thursday he traveled through Southeastern Conference territory in Arkansas and Mississippi, campaigning for Congressional candidates. “If ever there was an example of not watching the game film, this is it. The game film shows the facts.”

Mr. Clinton is a devoted college football fan and his beloved Arkansas Razorbacks are ranked No. 12 in the country. He has started peppering his campaign speeches with football analogies, which he uses to remind voters that they should hold Republicans accountable for their role in the budget deficit and the country’s economic condition.

Place all the blame on Democrats? “You can only do that if you don’t watch the game film,” Mr. Clinton said.

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. 1
    Clinton says:

    Clinton Tries Football Analogy To Explain Politics: Source: — Thursday, October 14, 2010De…

  2. 2
    Mike B.T.R.M. says:

    While there may not be a whole lot of value in playing the blame game, I distinctly remember asking you  when I first started visting your site: “When do you think it would be fair to blame Obama for the unemployment numbers?”  Your answer was approximately 2 years, well we aren’t at two years yet but that was in Spring 2009 when they passed the unemployement curing stimulus bill.  I’ll admit I expected double or triple digit inflation to have already occured by now which it hasn’t yet.  Now, IMO , sky high inflation is inevitable but I’ve become quite uncertain of a time line for it to go off.   Now I’ll ask an update from you, for all the alleged “damage” the Bush administration has been to the economy, when should we hold Obama accountable for not bringing unemployment down? 6 more months, never, or declare victory that it isn’t even worse and go home?

  3. 3
    Ron Chusid says:

    Your recollection is quite far off. My prediction was far closer to two decades than two years considering how much damage the Republicans did to the economy. I recall pointing out to you that unemployment will remain high for several years because of the following factors:

    1) Some companies went out of business and therefore will not be rehiring
    2) Other companies downsized, and therefore will not be rehiring
    3) Those companies which have survived have found ways to be more efficient with less employees, and therefore will not be rehiring as many people

    The economy, thanks to Obama, is doing far better now than most predicted it would when he took office. Bush nearly caused a full blown depression, which Obama helped prevent. Unfortunately it was also anticipated that this would largely be a “jobless recovery” and unemployment would remain high for several years.

  4. 4
    Ron Chusid says:

    You might also be confusing predictions as to the technical end of the recession and when unemployment numbers would be down. The recession did technically did end within the first two years of Obama’s term (as would be expected based upon historical lengths of recessions) but this is quite different from predicting that unemployment would be down. The only way to get the unemployment rate down in only two years would take levels of government spending which neither of us would want.

  5. 5
    Mike B.T.R.M. says:

    It was quite awhile ago and I didn’t at the time save the quote so I could be off on my recollection. I am certain I asked the question, but judging by your answer today, I would say it sounds like even if Obama were to get re-elected and we were here 4 years from now with 9% or higher unemployment, it still wouldn’t be that Obama’s “spend money that you don’t have” policy towards prosperity didn’t work, it would be things beyond the control of this present government that would be responsible.   One might conclude then that while the government can wreck an economy (Bush), it isn’t capable of making a weak economy strong (Obama) , it can at best, mitigate the damage.  Oh that we could somehow limit the power of the government’s ability to damage our own economy!

  6. 6
    Ron Chusid says:

    The evidence is already in that the stimulus did help the economy. The only problem is that in retrospect it looks like those who argued that he should have spent more were right.

    It doesn’t make much sense to take a situation primarily caused by Bush and to try to shift the blame to the person who inherited the situation. This is especially true when the only solutions offered by the Republicans (essentially more schemes for transferring more money from the middle class to the ultra-wealthy) would only worsen the situation.

    Considering the limited influence the government has over a market economy, it is definitely true that it is far easier for government to screw things up than for it to strengthen the economy. Best way to limit the power of the government to damage our economy is to keep the Republicans out of office as long as they are pursuing their current policies.

  7. 7
    Mike B.T.R.M says:

    I just came from a lecture that, among other things, addressed how much of our communication comes from both voice inflection and body language. Something blogs are devoid of but for an emoticon or too 🙂  – When people can openly and honestly debate an issue and not come to the same conclusion in a face to face meeting, how much more difficult is it to iron out a difference of opinion on a blog? Thus I rejoice at any sign of consensus with someone of an opposing view.  I, of course think that Obama’s policies  at their very best, might have delayed things from getting worse only to have pay for the delay in the future with interest. However, I’ll consider your statement that it is far easier for the government to screw things up rather than strengthen the economy as something of which we are in harmony.  Thanks for your feedback and your ideas.

Leave a comment