"The sky is falling," they say, over and over again.
Here's part of a screed Tulsa Today had the bad judgment to publish earlier this week. The writer is Joan Swirsky, a New York commentator who has absolutely no connection to Tulsa.
But like a lot of wingnuts, she can whine with the best of them:
From the moment Barack Obama was inaugurated on January 20th, the leftists who control Congress have – at his behest – gone on a drunken binge of runaway spending vis-à-vis an $850-bilion [sic] faux “stimulus” program that rewards failure and punishes success. It is already clear that The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act should be renamed The American Relapse-And-Needs-Resuscitation Act, as is evidenced by both the simultaneous plunge of the Dow and the president’s polling numbers, as well as an epidemic case of buyer’s remorse.Couple of minor problems here. First, who are these Congressional leftists? Our writer names none. Second, a government stimulus bill is, by definition, spending. In any case, it's far too early to declare the plan a failure. In fact, it's barely begun.
Third, the Dow Jones average is not an indicator of the success or failure of this or any other government program. Fourth, the president's polling numbers have not plunged, nor does the polling indicate a significant shift in Obama's popularity.
Other than getting almost everything wrong, Swirsky's analysis is spot on.
Good work, Joan. And kudos to Tulsa Today for advancing the cause of inane right-wing whining.
6 comments:
Hmmm. I'm only genuinely curious about one thing; I'll ask it and then leave you alone.
You ask: ...who are these Congressional leftists? Our writer names none.
The quoted writer wrote: ... the leftists who control Congress...
from which I would conclude that she means that at least Democratic Party congressional leadership tilts leftward, or possibly the Democratic congressional majority in general, as it is obvious that the Democrats control Congress.
I'm just curious: do you think that the majority party in Congress is not leftist? Or that their leaders are not leftist?
It's often been my experience that people on the left are completely convinced that they are moderates. I'm just wondering if that's your position here; that Congress's current majority party and its leadership are moderates.
Alternative Tulsa – I’m sure that I am going to get creamed for saying this, but I think that your post could have had a much greater impact without all of the mud slinging and name calling. I know that often it is a reaction to how those on the right treat those on the left, but it seems to me that just doing what they do is like sinking to their level. Be the better person and take the moral high ground. The points that you make will have more power and authority that way and not look like the rantings of a partisan to those who disagree with you.
Man of the West – Many, if not most, of the currently elected Democrats in the state are not what I would consider “leftist.” In fact the guy who got me into blogging used to refer to Oklahoma Democrats as basically Republican-lite. He was an admitted and proud leftist and he did not consider most OK Democrats as leftists at all. Myself personally I think Democrats like the Borens’ and Gov. Henry are not leftists at all. They are left leaning centrists, but not leftists.
This also brings up the question – Is there a difference between a leftist and a liberal? I think that there is, but the terms get thrown around interchangeably.
No doubt Oklahoma Democrats are a different breed--at least quite often.
But I'm curious about whether or not Democrat party leadership--or maybe the Democrat party majority--in congress is perceived as leftist by the people doing the writing here. It wouldn't shock me at all to find that they think of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as moderates, for example. I'm just curious as to whether they really do think that.
As to whether there is a difference between leftist and liberal, I haven't really gone there. I've defined, for purposes of my blogging, "conservative", "liberal", "socialist", and "communist." You can find all of those on my archives, if you're interested. I don't claim that they carry any official weight; they are just there so my paucity of readers will have some idea what I mean when I use those terms.
I may get around to "leftist" soon. I may not. I'm not sure the distinction between "leftist" and "liberal" is pointed enough to warrant writing a separate definition, as, in practice, most liberals I encounter definitely lean left, the only question is "how far?"
I just got to wondering this afternoon:
That turned out to be a complete fantasy, of course, but what's new today is the astronomical cost of the Iraq folly, now estimated to be $1.2 trillion—yes, trillion!
Is over a trillion bucks still astronomical?
And then, I couldn't help but wonder why, if:
The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service is out with a new accounting of the cost of Bush's war in Iraq—a mere $10 billion (that's with a "b") a month.
Throw in the Afghan war, and the Bush military machine is burning through a cool $12 billion each and every month.
Even in the surrealistic world of federal spending, these are big numbers.
You would: ...keep waiting for Oklahoma's Congressional leadership to get riled up about the blood and treasure we are expending in Iraq.
Why would they get riled up--about the treasure part, anyway--if, as you say,
...a government stimulus bill is, by definition, spending.
I mean, Bush was spending, was he not? Surely, by this reasoning, he should be credited with at least trying for something of an economic stimulus? Which, of course, made me wonder why you'd never want to see a headline like:
Iraq War Costs U.S. $12 Billion Per Month
Sounds to me like you'd be happy that the cost of something was going through the roof during the Bush years. After all, ...a government stimulus bill is, by definition, spending.
Isn't it? Or does the object of that spending make a difference? Is it possible that too much spending on the wrong thing would be a bad thing? Possibly not stimulating at all? Or perhaps not a good idea even if it did have a stimulating effect?
Just curious. Hope I'm not wasting your time.
What I don't get is why David Arnett hates me. WHAT malfeasance have I ever done to him?
Its so intresting blog
thanks for sharing ,,
___________________
victor
More Movies More Fun & Entertainment
Post a Comment