Rage on the Left
Twice in recent years pleasant social events have been shattered by RAGE-FILLED OUTBURSTS WHEN LIBERAL MEN OF A CERTAIN AGE LEARNED THAT I DISAGREED WITH THEIR VIEWS. In each case the rage with which perfectly polite disagreement was expressed suggested to me that more than political differences were involved. As time has passed, I have come to believe that the reactions I received represented a rage at the dying of all that which these men had embraced in the absolute certainty of the righteousness and soundness of their views, and their right to have them automatically accepted as the approved model for all right thinking people.
In the first instance, some years ago, I was a guest at the lovely Maine lakeside lodge of a relative of a college roommate. At the conclusion of a perfectly pleasant dinner in which the conversation was not at all political, MY HOST ASKED QUITE UNEXPECTEDLY WHAT I THOUGHT OF (THEN) PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH. I SAID I LOVED HIM. (And I do. I think that he is a decent gentleman who tried in every way to perform his responsibilities honestly, no small matter in such a thoroughly base age in which he was unremittingly slanderously vilified.)
MY HOST ROSE RED-FACED FROM HIS SEAT, AND SMASHED HIS FIST ON THE TABLE, SHOUTING, "HOW COULD YOU BE SO CLOSE MINDED?" ….
I do believe liberals don’t really understand much of anything especially irony.
Whose policies caused the Downgrade?
Rather than quickly spending its newly-earned wealth, the provincial government has put its tax revenue toward paying the bills. S&P gave special credit to Saskatchewan for its “low-and-declining debt burden.” As of March 31, the province’s fiscal year-end, Saskatchewan’s debt totalled $4.6-billion, representing 38 per cent of this year’s projected operating revenues and only 8 per cent of its gross domestic product. Canada’s federal debt-to-GDP ratio sits at around 35 per cent.
Low debt burden. She adds:
SASKATCHEWAN IS GOVERNED BY THE RIGHT-OF-CENTER “SASKATCHEWAN PARTY”, WITH TAX REDUCTION, LOW RESOURCE ROYALTY POLICIES THAT ENCOURAGED POTASH DEVELOPMENT, AND ENTICED ENERGY INDUSTRY INVESTMENT AWAY FROM NEIGHBORING ALBERTA.
So, I guess we can call that a “tea party upgrade”.
Of course the Democrats want to blame the TEA Party because they insisted on spending reduction and fought tax increases while the Democrats fought spending reduction and insisted on tax increases.
Here’s the Democrat explanation
Mr. Obama’s longtime political adviser, David Axelrod, made clear that DEMOCRATS WOULD SEEK TO BRAND THE RATING AS A “TEA PARTY DOWNGRADE.” He said Mr. Obama had been willing to compromise on issues sacred to liberals by curbing spending on entitlements, but the deal foundered because “Republicans are having to respond to this very, very strident group that is pulling them away and believes that compromise is a dirty word. That is a prescription for failure.”
Put aside for a moment the fact that OBAMA’S WILLINGNESS TO COMPROMISE WAS ENTIRELY THEORETICAL; NEVER DID HE PUT SUCH A COMPROMISE PLAN ON THE TABLE. His FY 2012 budget proposal was anything but a compromise; it included no entitlement reform and projected massive deficits for as far as the eye could see, and therefore received not a single vote in Congress.
What is most ludicrous is the Democrats’ effort to distract attention from the fact that they controlled Congress from January 2007 until January 2011. THE FIRST CONGRESS THAT HAD ANY ABILITY TO BE INFLUENCED BY THE TEA PARTY MOVEMENT HAS BEEN IN OFFICE FOR ONLY SIX MONTHS. Do the Democrats seriously expect anyone to believe that S&P’s downgrade of U.S. debt arises out of something that Republican Congressmen have done in the last six months?
Yes, I know it doesn't make any sense. But when all you have for the next election is to say "it's not my fault," common sense is not your stong point.
What will Obama do?
What should the president do Monday? I think Amilya Antonetti, chairman & CEO of AMA Productions, has it right. IN A NOT-TO-BE-MISSED INTERVIEW WITH NEIL CAVUTO (h/t Instapundit), SHE BOILED IT DOWN TO ONE WORD: “APOLOGIZE.” He should say he’s sorry for his failure of leadership. Sorry for his utopian economic illiteracy. Sorry for putting ideology above political wisdom.
That would be the manly, the honorable thing to do. Admit he was wrong about what needed to be done to fix the U.S. economy.
WHAT WILL HE DO? HE WILL BLAME STANDARD & POOR’S. OR GEORGE W. BUSH. OR THE TEA PARTY. OR ALL THREE.
I have another idea. I think he will admit the blame saying he should have held out for tax increases more than he did which in essence is blaming the Republicans but sounding like he is taking responsibility.
And here is Amilya Antonetti’s interview with Neil Cavuto. Don’t miss it, she lays it on the line.