Did the DNC put their foot in their mouths using a Chinese “news” agency to attack Romney?
Our old “friend” Stephanie Cutter, Øbama deputy campaign manager, in yet another Romney attack, cited “a strongly worded anti-Mitt Romney editorial” from the official state news agency (read it: propaganda wing) of the Chinese Communist Party, Xinhua. (UPDATE: Joe Biden also cites this Chinese article to attack Romney.)
I know what you are thinking. Yes, even though parts of it read like a Democrat press releases or talking point memos, or a New York Times editorial, once you get past the obvious “why is the DNC citing ChiCom controlled news agencies?”, the rest of the article makes you wonder who is really being criticized. Sure, they lambasted Romney for “China battering”:
“While addressing a rally in the U.S. state of Virginia on Thursday, Romney, just as what he has done along his campaign trail, opened fire on China, claiming that it was Beijing’s undervalued RMB currency that forced U.S. manufacturers out of job.
What is more sensational is that this millionaire GOP candidate has vowed to declare China a currency manipulator on the first day of his presidency if elected.
Yet it is rather ironic that a considerable portion of this China-battering politician’s wealth was actually obtained by doing business with Chinese companies before he entered politics.”
And the latter is, of course the “money line” that Cutter wants you to hear and stop reading, but if you take the time to actually read the rest of the article, it is a real stretch to apply most of it to Romney: it actually turns out to be a criticism of Øbama’s policies:
“However, the U.S. economy is still undergoing one of the lousiest recoveries in history, while its unemployment rates remain staggeringly high and trade deficits with China continue to rise.”
“It has also become a handy tool for U.S. politicians who try to court the votes and support of ill-informed voters by ratcheting up antagonistic sentiment towards China, while truly serious social and economic woes within the United States have been left unfixed.”
Isn’t it obvious who is really making the “outsourcing” attacks? Who is supposedly in charge of the economy? You sure can’t say Romney is. And more:
“To cure its economic ailments, the United States needs to put its own fiscal house back in order, substantially slash its tremendous military expenditure, and optimize its economic structure.”
Now that sounds more like a condemnation of the past four years of this administration than anything else. But that isn’t the message Xinhua wants to put across. Notice how the name of Øbama is only mentioned in a Romney quote? One can understand why China doesn’t like “China battering”, and seeks to defend against it, but it is the Democrats who squeal loudest about job outsourcing, while Romney’s criticism is focused on the monetary manipulation of the Chinese yuan to further advantage the Chinese economy.
Could the lack of serious criticism of Øbama himself by Xinhua reflect a likely Chinese preference for the acquiescent, apologizing-for-America and bowing-to-foreign-leaders Øbama and his “disarm America” (directly and indirectly) as opposed to a pro military Romney? Could Øbama’s rank ineptitude in fixing the American economy (ironically borrowing from China to fund his schemes) be more beneficial to China than an economically revitalized economy under Romney?
If, as they claim, “a considerable portion of this China-battering politician’s wealth was actually obtained by doing business with Chinese companies before he entered politics”, that would be in China’s favor. Why would they be criticizing Romney and not the Democrats and Øbama in particular?
Perhaps because these claims are an exaggeration or aren’t really true? What is “a considerable portion”? They don’t say. Isn’t anyone buying a cheap Chinese DVD player “doing business with Chinese companies”?
Here is an interesting point: a search of Xinhua’s site for “Obama” reveals news from the Middle East, a pro Øbama article, another attack on Romney, lots more ME news, more pro Øbama post convention news (here and here), and it continues on and on. Check for yourself. You really get the impression that the Chinese are hesitant to criticize Øbama too much. Or at all.
Considering that Øbama has done more than any other president to put us in China’s thrall, and China’s subtle appreciation of that, do you think it might have been a mistake (on several levels) by the Democrats to cite Xinhua?
Maybe they should stick to reading and citing domestic propaganda sources, like the NYTimes and the Washington Post….
Birds of a feather.
Bingo, Tim, short and to the point
This is another “miss” by Rinomney,the Chinese currency tricks don’t hurt anyone & if he doesn’t know that,he’s a fool. He’s just saying things he & his handlers think the public wants to hear. He’s just a power hungry rich guy who is somewhat less dangerous in the Big Chair than Pretty boy Obama.
In a nutshell:?It has also become a handy tool for U.S. politicians who try to court the votes and support of ill-informed voters by ratcheting up antagonistic sentiment towards China, while truly serious social and economic woes within the United States have been left unfixed.?
Comrade Cutter is a Regime shill; talking point is too good a description of her. I have heard her disregard questions and bull forth with her Obama campaign rhetoric. She would cite anything that she thought would advance Obama.
That China would prefer Obama over Romney is self-evident. Obama is ideologically closer to Communism than any other American politician. Obama is deliberately crashing the US economy; the only real winner would be our greatest creditor, China. Taking over the US, economically and physically, without firing a shot, is a cherished goal of any population rich country. Anyone remember Japan’s “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere?”
With American military hobbled and neutered, China could easily expand throughout the Pacific and complete the destruction of capitalism. We already have QE-Infinity. China is busily buying the Treasury bonds sold to support it and thus Obama’s reelection. How better and easier to takeover a country than if you own it?
Chilling . . .