Baseball Crank
Covering the Front and Back Pages of the Newspaper
May 21, 2012
POLITICS: Democrats Question Republicans' Patriotism Over Debt Fight

With House Republicans (and their few allies in the Senate) gearing up for another battle over whether to raise the national debt limit without doing anything to cut spending, Democrats (and their many allies in the media) are falling back on their favored tactic of attacking the other side's motives, this time accusing Republicans of deliberately harming the economy for partisan gain. This is either a sign of Democratic desperation or, perhaps, proof that the Democrats are so far down the rabbit hole they cannot even comprehend why anyone would want to reduce spending when the nation has spent itself so deeply into debt.

The irony, of course, is that Democrats are the first people to shriek and run to the media's self-appointed civility police when they feel their patriotism is being questioned; it's always a big applause line for Democrats to claim that they will never question anyone's patriotism...and also a big applause line when they do just that, as this video juxtaposing remarks by Barack Obama in June and July 2008 illustrates:

Of course, Obama has since done exactly what he once said was unpatriotic (adding $4 trillion to the national debt), and in less than half the time - and now, he and his allies are claiming that it's unpatriotic to try to solve the problem. Now, here's Barbara Boxer:

[Y]ou know, it's interesting that they're setting up a big fight, McConnell and Boehner, making it a crisis when it isn't a crisis and demanding more cuts when they didn't live up to the cuts they agreed to. Because they want to create a crisis so maybe say, oh, my goodness, maybe if we change everything, things will be better. Maybe we need a different president.

[CHUCK] TODD: They're doing this to try to help Mitt Romney?

SEN. BOXER: I think they're doing it to hurt the Democrats, to say that the Democrats are in control of the Senate and we're not doing the right thing when the facts show otherwise.

Chuck Schumer, quoted in an AP article helpfully entitled "Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama?":

"The last thing the country needs is a rerun of last summer's debacle that nearly brought down our economy," Schumer said in a statement. In an interview, Schumer added: "I hope that the speaker is not doing this because he doesn't want to see the economy improve, because what he said will certainly rattle the markets."

Josh Marshall of TalkingPointsMemo goes full-on tinfoil hat: "Unfortunately, its pretty much a certainty that republicans are trying to damage the economy to deny Obama reelection." Other liberal bloggers agree.

This a rerun of the rhetoric deployed from the Obama campaign on down last year:

Schumer and other top Democrats have said for months that GOP lawmakers may be trying to strangle the economic recovery for political reasons.

"Their strategy is to suffocate the economy for the sake of what they think will be a political victory," Obama's campaign manager, Jim Messina, wrote in an email to supporters last October, when Congress was debating a jobs bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said his Republican counterpart was not cooperating on that legislation "in hopes that he can get my job, perhaps."

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, chairman of the Democratic Governors Association, told The Associated Press last year that some GOP lawmakers, "through their intransigence, cleverly set up a situation for America's economy to fail, either by needlessly driving us to default, or needlessly driving us into massive public-sector layoffs."

This is not a new rhetorical strategy. In 2008, Joe Biden famously suggested in 2008 that Republicans were unpatriotic for opposing higher taxes. In 2000, we had the Clinton White House charging that Dick Cheney was "talking down the economy".

Predictable rhetorical hypocrisy aside, what the tone and content of the Democrats' attacks suggests is that they either can't or won't deal with the possibility that the problem at hand is too much debt, not efforts to reduce the debt. At this point, they're like junkies resisting rehab, denying that they have a problem and insisting loudly that the real problem is those guys trying to stage the intervention. It's true, of course, that brinksmanship over the debt ceiling is a less than ideal way to handle this situation, but it's the only thing tried that has accomplished anything at all under Obama. The Democrats who control the Senate have not passed a budget in three years (even though a budget resolution doesn't require 60 votes), and have stopped even proposing them for a vote. And they won't vote for the only Democratic budget on the table, as President Obama's budget got zero votes in the House and zero votes in the Senate, after last year also getting zero votes in the Senate. As Paul Ryan explains, this is because the Democrats simply don't want the public to see how much they propose to raise taxes and still not fix any of the nation's fiscal problems. It seems almost quaint to reflect that one of the major controversies of the 2004 presidential campaign was John Kerry's vote on an $87 billion war appropriations bill; today you can have a $111 billion projected increase in one of Obamacare's line items and the Administration barely feels the need to explain it, let alone return to Congress for votes. When the party controlling two-thirds of the branches responsible for taxes and spending won't attempt to fix the problem, the House has little choice but to use the only tools available to it.

We have serious fiscal problems caused by too much spending and not enough private sector growth to pay for it. As we have seen in Europe, the real question regarding our economic future and the federal government's creditworthiness is not what temporary political tempests arise around plans to fix the problem, but rather the question of whether the government will actually adopt such plans and whether they have a meaningful chance of success. That's the question the Democrats desperately want to avoid facing.

Posted by Baseball Crank at 11:15 AM | Politics 2012 | Comments (11) | TrackBack (0)
Comments

From 2001 through 2006 I heard Democrats repeatedly hammer home how outrageous it was that Republicans were challenging their patriotism... even though none of them could actually cite any examples of any Republicans in power doing such a thing. But now? The standard talking points are to accuse Republicans of being unpatriotic and of working against the country.

Once again it's an example of Democrats convincing themselves that Republicans are doing something evil, and then doing that same evil thing to "get even". They've created a cartoon of the Republican Party, and have responded by turning the Democrat Party into a cartoon.

Posted by: Jeff W at May 21, 2012 11:28 AM

Yup. Classic cargo-cult politics by which they imitate what they imagine the GOP to be and what they claim to hate most about Republicans.

Both sides do that at times, but it's an especially pernicious tendency among the Democrats.

Posted by: Crank at May 21, 2012 11:32 AM

You're being a little too charitable here. Obama actually could take on the bduget (entitlements) and save us from the abyss. But he's far too cowardly.

Congressional Democrats want to maintain power at any cost to the country, even proposing tax increases as a solution and then coming out with the Buffett Rule--4 whole billion-- as the fix. They're a dangerous joke.

I can't imagine the site-loonies actually defending any of this. So they'll try to deflect or change the subject completely.

Posted by: spongeworthy at May 21, 2012 1:05 PM

i think it's unpatriotic for democrats to insist we keep piling debt on the backs of future generations.

Posted by: Pierre at May 21, 2012 2:36 PM

i think it's unpatriotic for democrats to insist we keep piling debt on the backs of future generations.

Posted by: Pierre at May 21, 2012 2:36 PM

The "unpatriotic" and "deliberate harm" nonsense obviously goes too far. Unfortunately, Republicans hardly occupy the moral high ground on responsible spending and are no strangers to economic stimulus through military spending.

No worries, Romney will probably get my vote come January unless I sense he will commit to some unreasonably expensive military commitment with dubious security value.

Posted by: MVH at May 21, 2012 3:48 PM

Mr. Obama? You simply have 7.5 months left. EOM...

Posted by: Tina Rocha at May 21, 2012 4:08 PM

wow!!!! a troll free thread

Posted by: dch at May 21, 2012 11:23 PM

That can't last - it would be unprecedented

Posted by: MVH at May 22, 2012 9:42 AM

Sorry about that.

Posted by: MVH at May 22, 2012 11:19 AM

Jeff W.,
Let's not be coy here. Republicans have surrogates on radio, television, and other media outlets to question the other side's patriotism. Or did you never hear that critics of the Iraq Clusterfuck simply loved Saddam Hussein?

Defense spending is the third rail.

I'm not surprised a right-of-center, corporate-controlled Obama Administration was unable to solve the problems of his predecessor in 4 years. If you check this site's archives you'll see I wrote as much many, many times. (It's going to take decades).

It's been a while since I've been here. Is Crank still making believe the Tea Party is different than the Republican Party? Dick Armey put on a tri-corner hat and suddenly Crank was Mr. Magoo, unable to see it was the same person. High comedy.

Posted by: Berto at May 30, 2012 10:31 AM
Site Meter 250wde_2004WeblogAwards_BestSports.jpg