False Equivalence, Once Again
From Politico:
The Republicans "helped" to create this situation? They created it all by themselves, and it is the height of partisan dishonesty to suggest otherwise. And it is they, not the Democrats, who are really looking for an escape path, by aiming blasts at the President, right?
But oh, no, it is the duty of the mainstream press to blame Democrats equally for every bit of the corrupt, destructive agenda that is all the Republican party has had to offer for decades. Otherwise, no one would vote for Republicans, and no votes for Republicans is something which our mainstream press primarily exists to prevent.
"Washington’s political mood darkened dramatically Tuesday, as the debt ceiling crisis showed signs of spinning out of control and Republicans began looking for an escape path from the default showdown they helped create.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) set the day’s tone early with a blast aimed at the president but implicitly undercutting House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s efforts to craft a $2 trillion deficit-reduction package with the administration."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) set the day’s tone early with a blast aimed at the president but implicitly undercutting House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s efforts to craft a $2 trillion deficit-reduction package with the administration."
The Republicans "helped" to create this situation? They created it all by themselves, and it is the height of partisan dishonesty to suggest otherwise. And it is they, not the Democrats, who are really looking for an escape path, by aiming blasts at the President, right?
But oh, no, it is the duty of the mainstream press to blame Democrats equally for every bit of the corrupt, destructive agenda that is all the Republican party has had to offer for decades. Otherwise, no one would vote for Republicans, and no votes for Republicans is something which our mainstream press primarily exists to prevent.
Comments
"We’re in a summer that only Salvador Dali could paint, a reality so twisted that one almost yearns for the simple verities of the War on Terror or even the invasion of Iraq. Then as now, to be serious one must be a "hawk." (The dove is a weakling, a loser, and the owl for practical purposes does not exist.) So let’s review some of the strange and mysterious faces of this ugly, vicious bird.
The debt ceiling was first enacted in 1917. Why? The date tells all: we were about to enter the Great War. To fund that effort, the Wilson government needed to issue Liberty Bonds. This was controversial, and the debt ceiling was cover, passed to reassure the rubes that Congress would be "responsible" even while the country went to war. It was, from the beginning, an exercise in bad faith and has remained so every single second to the present day.
Today this bad-faith law is pressed to its absurd extreme, to force massive cuts in public programs as the price of not-reneging on the public debts of the United States. Never mind that to force default on the public obligations of the United States is plainly unconstitutional. Section 4 of the 14th amendment says in simple language that public debts, once duly authorized by law and including pensions, by the way, "shall not be questioned." The purpose of this language was to foreclose, to put beyond politics, any possibility that the Union would renege on debts and pensions and bounties incurred to win the Civil War. But the application is very general and the courts have ruled that the principle extends to the present day.
What is going on in Congress at this moment already violates that mandate. It is an effort to subvert the authority of the government to meet and therefore to incur obligations of every possible stripe. It is an attack on the concept of government itself – as the "Tea Party" by its very name would no doubt agree. It therefore paints those deficit hawks who are using the debt ceiling to take budget hostages as enemies of the United States Constitution.
The President, though supposedly a constitutional expert and though sworn to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution, will not say this. Instead he appears to treat the Constitution as an optional matter, to which he will not resort, in the hope that by negotiating with the hostage- takers he can reach some reasonable outcome that will preserve everyone’s good name."
My own feeling is that there are no good names left to preserve.
Too bad, huh?