No, Conservatives Don’t ‘Hate’ Stephanie Cutter
Here we go again. Those mean conservatives ganging up of a poor, helpless liberal from the Obama campaign, which happens to be the president’s deputy campaign manager. We don’t “hate” Stephanie Cutter, which Amanda Marcotte suggested in her October 23 post on Slate’s feminist “Double X” blog. Ok, let me walk that back – most conservatives don’t “hate” Stephanie Cutter. You’ll always find those hyper-partisans, on either side of the aisle, that will have deep-seated hatred for the other side. But for the rest of us – it’s not hate that drives our passionate responses about Stephanie Cutter. It’s the fact that she is dead wrong on most of the issues of this campaign. Oh, did I also mention that she engaged in deliberate misinformation.
First, Marcotte recommends Alex Sietz-Wald’s piece on Salon.com, which is a cesspool of American progressivism. Marcotte wrote that “she’s [Cutter] an attractive woman who looks younger than her 44 years and who appears to believe that none of these attributes mean that she should be taken less seriously than a man in her position. As with Sandra Fluke and the poor woman who asked a question about equal pay at the last debate, it seems that being an attractive female with liberal opinions in your reproductive years who speaks in public makes you a target.” No, it’s when you’re a deputy campaign manager that makes you the target. A title that shows that this isn’t your first time to the dance. The same goes for Fluke. She’s a seasoned political activist, who knew full well the chaos she was about to unleash when she gave that testimony on the Hill last winter. As Hyman Roth said, “this is the business we’ve chosen.”
“If conservative pundits don’t cut it out, they’ll soon find out that the era when pretty unmarried women were considered “girls”—expected to be quiet and let the adults do the talking—is waning rapidly. Over time, people are going to start noticing the correlation between the amount of hate aimed at a woman and her single, attractive status, and begin to piece it together, ” according to Marcotte. I’m sure The Hardy Boys are on the case. What correlation is Marcotte talking about? What hate does she speak of? This is pure liberal drivel.
Marcotte then cites “Seitz-Wald [who] quotes Rush Limbaugh, whose attacks on Cutter are pretty standard issue when it comes to his approach to any nice looking liberal woman with the audacity to flap her lips: assert repeatedly that said woman is only useful as a sex object, and angrily disavow the very idea that she might actually have some intelligence of her own.”
Well, let’s go over Cutter’s top three whoppers she’s said so far during this election.
Let’s start with her denial that she didn’t know any facts relating to Joe Soptic, aka cancer man, even though she had a conference call with him in May of this year.
Here she is lying about not knowing the details surrounding Joe Soptic’s wife.
A U.S. ambassador was assassinated for the first time in thirty-three years in Libya. The calls for more protection at our compound in Benghazi were ignored. The narrative surrounding the cause of the terrorist attack constantly changes. Yet, Cutter thinks this isn’t a foreign policy disaster. As Ed Morrissey noted, that our efforts with NATO to oust Qaddafi lead to the proliferation of terror networks in Libya. Love him or hate him – Qaddafi kept these people out.
By the way, this little kerfuffle in Libya is only an issue because Mitt Romney is politicizing the tragedy. Yep, how dare someone ask questions about the facts surrounding a terrorist attack on Americans. How dare Mitt Romney demonstrate that he could be a more competent commander-in-chief. Did anyone tell Cutter that this is an election?
Cutter: Well, okay, stipulated. It won’t be near $5 trillion but it’s also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he’s going to close. So it is going to cost someone and it’s going to cost the middle class. Independent economists have taken a look at this. There aren’t enough deductions for those at the top to account for the number of tax cuts that they get because of Mitt Romney’s policy so you have to raise taxes on the middle class. As Bill Clinton said, it’s just simple math.
Burnett: Okay, they’ll just say that you can do that. They’re are other studies. I know the one to which you’re referring, but there’s also the possibility of economic growth.
Cutter: Prove it. Erin, prove it.
Burnett: We can’t prove either side, that’s all I’m saying, but the one thing that I can say is not true is the $5 trillion tax cut.
Cutter: I disagree with you. You can prove it. So then they should just say that they’re counting entirely on economic growth to pay for a tax cut. Which is an interesting theory because that is what George Bush and let’s look at how that turned out, we had the slowest economic growth since World War II.
Burnett: They’re not saying entirely, they’re saying closing loopholes and economic growth, both. I understand you disagree with it.
Cutter: But that still leaves you at least a trillion dollars short. The math does not work with what they’re saying. And they won’t name those deductions, not a single deduction that they will close because they know that is bad for their politics. Now look, this is the center, this is the core of Mitt Romney’s economic policy. Last night, he walked away from it, said he didn’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. He does. That’s what lowering the rates amounts to.
Lastly, Cutter said that the Obama recovery has created more jobs than Reagan’s in the 1980s.
James Pethokoukis of the American Enterprise Institute had this to say on the matter.
From the end of the recession in June 2009 through July 2012 — the first 37 months of the Obama recovery — the U.S. economy has generated 2.7 million net new jobs. From the jobs low point in February 2010, the U.S. economy has generated 4 million net new jobs.
From the end of the 1981-82 recession through the end of of 1985 — the first 37 months of the Reagan recovery — the U.S.created 9.8 million net new jobs. And if you adjust for the larger U.S. population today, the comparable figure is more than 12 million jobs.