February 13, 2009

The Republican attack on Obama continued

Sully's take:
"The GOP has passed what amounts to a spending and tax-cutting and borrowing stimulus package every year since George W. Bush came to office. They have added tens of trillions to future liabilities and they turned a surplus into a trillion dollar deficit - all in a time of growth. They then pick the one moment when demand is collapsing in an alarming spiral to argue that fiscal conservatism is non-negotiable. I mean: seriously.

The bad faith and refusal to be accountable for their own conduct for the last eight years is simply inescapable. There is no reason for the GOP to have done what they have done for the last eight years and to say what they are saying now except pure, cynical partisanship, and a desire to wound and damage the new presidency."
Just a reminder that Sullivan is a conservative who voted for Bush in 2000, so it isn't as if he has no concerns about fiscal responsibility. But he is dead on here. Those who followed the Cheney model of "deficits don't matter" when times were good have very little if any credibility to speak to this issue. Judd Gregg could have been the guy to reform some of the problems with entitlements to really address our long term fiscal health. Republicans, as I continue to argue, and stress that these are the Republicans in charge, not the Republicans as a whole--are more ready to allow economic disaster than to give democrats any credit for finding any kind of a solution. All due respect to LB. I really respect that there are conservatives of conscience and principle. Those in Washington right now are not those.

And if these people weren't bad enough, the man who would have been President is chiding Obama for not being bipartisan enough. SOF heard a Republican on NPR say today that the problem was that Obama spoke to Democrats and "consulted with them" but did not compromise. At that point, I believe I let loose a string of expletives thinking of how even the Republicans admit that Bush didn't consult with anyone on his objectives and can't think of an example where he even considered compromising. After all, he was the decider, and Republicans loved that. Obama took out spending, dropped aid for contraceptives, added more tax cuts, and he doesn't compromise?

Republicans are not acting in good faith, and should not be considered as intellectually honest brokers in this fight. They are more interested in political games than addressing issues in our economy. That is clear. If I ever hear a Republican accuse Democrats of being unAmerican, I believe I will remind them of this moment. And then throw up on their shoes.

4 comments:

Bootleg Blogger said...

I think it's likely enough repbubs will get on board. If so, it will be interesting to see if there were changes in the bill that met their "principles" or if the right earmarks were added.

I recently had a conversation in which the claim was made that "Obama called for bipartisanship but then there weren't any republicans included in the drafting". This sounds like more dittohead second hand spewing but I thought I'd ask if you know if there's any "truth" to this.

I do think Obama shouldn't have emphasized working across the isle so much. While great in principle, it is being used as almost a minority veto.

Later- BB

Streak said...

I agree, BB. My bottom line is that any conservative who defended or tolerated Bush on any of this stuff has no credibility with me. Steve stood up to him early in the process and called him on the torture and other bs.

That sets the bar incredibly low. Unless Obama goes into the Senate and physically beats a Republican, I am not going to listen to much of this.

LB said...

Streak, here are two interesting stories. http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/gop-votes-against-then-embraces-stimulus-2009-02-18.html

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa090218_mo_buckingstimulus.2d00436f.html

There are so many different responses by the governors any interpretation of their action is plausible, for instance:

1). The debate is over and the bill is passed so there is no reason not to take the money as the governors/representatives are acting in the best interests of their state. Its not as if not taking the money will prevent it from being spent elsewhere.

Or 2). The governors are proving by accepting any money that partisan attacks are more important to them than conservative principles.

Or 3). The governors and representatives are being arrogant and irresponsible for not doing what is best for their constituents.

Or 4). The governors and representatives are to be lauded for standing up for their principles by not taking money.

Or 5). Something else I haven't thought of.

I have no strong feelings one way or the other, just thought it was interesting.

Streak said...

LB, interesting stuff. I am really ok with GOP governors taking the money. After all, if they opposed a new regulation, or funded mandate, they would not have the choice there.

I do get annoyed when people like the SC Governor question the legitimacy of Crist when he supports the stimulus. Oppose it. That is fine. But when you then question others in that manner, you look like a partisan tool.

Oh, and the one thing that does bug me are the GOP Representatives going back to their home states taking credit for stimulus money coming home, but voted against the bill. That bugs me.