WN IT.
Posted on 08/10/2011 5:00:04 AM PDT by Kaslin
"Is this a wakeup call to Washington?" NBC's David Gregory asked Sen. John Kerry on "Meet the Press," referring to the S&P downgrade.
"Well, it's a partial wakeup call. I believe this is, without question, the tea party downgrade."
Shortly after pointing fingers and assigning blame, Kerry went on to lament how Republicans insist on pointing fingers and assigning blame in this national crisis.
Over on the other channel, at least Obama political consigliere David Axelrod waited a while before getting to the same talking point: "The fact of the matter is that this is essentially a tea party downgrade. The tea party brought us to the brink of a default," he explained on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Many on the right bristle at this, and they have many of the facts on their side. After all, the tea party's only been protesting excessive spending and borrowing for two years. Some liberals want us to think that it was Washington's failure to raise taxes to pay for the massive increase in federal spending under Obama that caused the downgrade.
But that's not what S&P says. "Standard & Poor's takes no position on the mix of spending and revenue measures that Congress and the administration might conclude is appropriate for putting the U.S.'s finances on a sustainable footing."
Rather, what offended the fiscal pundits of S&P was the "brinksmanship" in Washington that failed to deliver a $4 trillion budget cut. That's why we had the "tea party downgrade." What's odd is that if the tea party didn't exist, there would have been no deficit reduction -- and little demand for it. Democrats fought spending cuts during the budget showdown last year (remember Harry Reid's cowboy poet subsidy?), and wanted a "clean" debt-ceiling hike.
And one could go on defending the tea party and the GOP in typical Beltway scoring fashion. The president's first 2012 budget was a train wreck that would have exploded the deficit more. We're well past 800 days without a Democratic budget from the Senate, while the House Republicans passed a serious budget -- the Ryan plan -- that would have avoided all of this months ago. Obama's second "plan" was a frivolous speech. And so on.
But the usual Beltway scorecard is inadequate. First of all, we all deserve blame. This is a national foul-up of historic proportions and no party or constituency can completely avoid culpability.
And that definitely includes the tea party. A of lot people talk as if the tea partiers came out of the ground, like fully grown orcs, shortly after Obama was elected, ready to inflict "terror" and "take hostages" (to use the preferred lingo of the supposed lovers of civility).
This ignores the prehistory of the tea partiers. They're largely core conservative voters who held their noses while spending ramped up for a decade under George W. Bush. Many rationalized their support for Bush against the backdrop of the war on terror or their fondness for the man generally. But when Obama removed what little conservatism there was in Bush's "compassionate conservatism," massively hiking spending even more, they rebelled. Enough was enough.
Liberals see it as hypocrisy. Tea partiers see it as finally getting serious, which is why they keep threatening to "primary" any Republican who wavers from the new sobriety.
If you've ever known anyone with a serious addiction, the easiest thing for friends and family to do is pretend it's not a big deal. Who wants to have a confrontation? Far easier to let things slide and have a good time. "Let's have a nice Thanksgiving without any arguments, OK?"
The tea party is like the cousin who's been through AA and refuses to pretend anymore. As a result, he spoils everyone's good time. For the enablers, and others in denial, he's the guy ruining everything, not the drunk.
Uncle Sam is the drunk and the tea partiers are the annoyingly sober -- and a bit self-righteous -- cousin. Measured by spending, and adjusted for inflation, the federal government has increased by more than 50 percent in 10 years. Some have enabled the drunken spending, others continue to deny it's even a problem.
The tea party is sounding the wake-up call. If America didn't have a problem, then there really would be good cause to be furious with the forces of sobriety. Nobody likes a party-pooper, especially the people hooked on partying.
The fact is many people on the right were dead set against his TARP bailout and said so at the time.
Nor did all of W's spending and expanding of gov. pass w/o serious discussions on the right.
The deadly election of 2006 showed the dissatisfaction on the right of what the gop was doing.
Jonah is too close to the beltway fishbowl.
LOL. Classic JF-in Kerry. who by the way served in Vietnam
This is definitely how tea partiers see it. The disappointment of the GWB/GOP Congress years, followed by TARP and Porkulus, spawned the tea party, which is basically a bunch of conservatives who are mad as hell and not going to take it any more. It's not hypocrisy. The time to find out if it's real is when we get power back. If we settle into complacency, then we're hypocrites. If we remain vigilant, we are not.
One of the biggest problem we have on the political side of this issue is that we didn’t ride herd enough on supposed conservatives (or conservative-leaning moderates, at least) about spending when they were in control. Oh, to be sure, there was always talk about the government spending too much, and spending on useless and counter-productive things, but as long as the debt was grown SLOWLY, it all kind of got swept under the rug.So, to a lot of the folks out there, it’s a “pox on both of your houses” situation, and they’re not wrong, even if there is a difference in degree as to how bad the various sides are.
Any serious reform is going to have to take on herds of sacred cows, and not all on one side of the aisle. I don’t think the current crew in DC is capable of doing that without some changes imposed from the outside.
Kinda reminds you of Nero blaming the Christians for the burning of Rome.
A little revolution every now and then is not a bad thing. In this case the establishment is in dire need of a wake-up call; too much royalty mentality in both parties.
I think Jonah nailed it. Here's what he actually wrote about Tea Partiers:
"They're largely core conservative voters who held their noses while spending ramped up for a decade under George W. Bush. Many rationalized their support for Bush against the backdrop of the war on terror or their fondness for the man generally. But when Obama removed what little conservatism there was in Bush's "compassionate conservatism," massively hiking spending even more, they rebelled. Enough was enough. Liberals see it as hypocrisy. Tea partiers see it as finally getting serious, which is why they keep threatening to "primary" any Republican who wavers from the new sobriety." -Jonah Goldberg
Jonah didn't say that all Conservatives blindly followed George W. Bush's drunken spending and faux Conservativism, but he accurately assessed that most Conservatives held their noses for awhile because they liked the guy and rationalized that it would have been even worse under Gore or Kerry. Good article.
WN IT.
Bingo.
Obama could get one step ahead of them by going on another apology tour...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.