Monday Howler

Sometimes, it’s just too easy.

I was reading the headlines at Drudge, when I saw this one:

How the Tea Party Won the Deal

That seemed to me to be a bit…odd. No one denies the TEA Party is influential. That goes without saying. But we aren’t a “party”, for one, and to find that as a headline from a news source (and I use that term loosely) is a bit surprising. So I go on to read the article, and end up having to wipe coffee off my keys.

While the details of the debt ceiling deal remain fuzzy, this much is clear: Barack Obama may be president, but the Tea Party is now running Washington. How did this happen? Simple; this is what American politics looks like when there’s no left-wing movement and no war.

No left-wing movement?? REALLY??? If there were no left-wing movement, there would be no Obamacare, no government takeover of banks or carmakers, no push to have the UN regulate our guns, etc. And what the hell is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya, you moron?? It ain’t coffee klatches, you know. No matter what new term this administration gives them, we are still fighting wars in three theaters, and the one your Prez is solely responsible for pulling out of his ass is the one that has NO Congressional approval, you Kool-Aid drinking dolt.

The writer, from the Daily Beast, which should tell you something, goes on to say that the liberals are mad because the Prez agreed to cuts without raising revenues. Then he bring up the Bush tax cuts, because you can’t have an article without blaming Bush somewhere. He goes on to babble:

since the economy collapsed in 2008, only one grassroots movement has emerged in response, and it’s been a movement of the right.

Uh, no. The TEA Party has no affiliation. “TEA” stands for “Taxed Enough Already”, and though most of it’s members hail from the right, I can attest to personally knowing members who are democrats and liberals. This is the group that Nancy Pelosi called “astroturf”, remember? And has the author forgotten about the “Coffee Party”, rising in response to the TEA Party?

I had to read the next bit of tripe twice to really let it sink in.

Obama, like FDR, had a reasonably successful first two years: a stimulus package that while too small for the circumstances was still large by historical standards and a health care bill that while subpar in myriad ways still far exceeded the efforts of other recent Democratic presidents.

He credits the Prez with passing the Stimulus, which he had just blamed Bush for, but says it was too small for the circumstances. He does admit the healthcare bill has “issues”, but really nothing-to-worry-about-move-along-a-Dem-Prez-passed-it-so-it’s-ok.

Perhaps it’s because Obama didn’t take on Wall Street, perhaps it’s because with labor unions so weak there’s just not the organizational muscle to create such a movement, perhaps it’s because trust in government is so low that pro-government populism is almost impossible.

Didn’t take on Wall Street?? Labor unions are weak?? What the hell is he talking about? Was he not around when Obama was pushing for “Wall Street reform”?? And is he not aware of all the strong-arming by the NLRB to Boeing right now, and the “campout” in Wisconsin? I’ll give him the trust in government, though.

He goes on the blame Bush for the 2004 prescription drug bill, which the LEFT wanted, because (I am serious here), he wanted to be re-elected so he could perpetuate the War on Terror. I couldn’t make this up if I were drunk and on antihistamines.

The good news is that the Tea Party, more than Barack Obama, has now ended the neoconservative dream of an ever-expanding American empire. The bad news is that it has also ended whatever hopes liberals once entertained that roughly 100 years after Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, roughly 75 years after the New Deal and roughly 50 years after the Great Society, we were living in another great age of progressive reform.

American empire?? Ever-expanding? Our so-called “empire” has not expanded since …… yeah, that long. If he thinks we went to Iraq and Afghanistan for real estate, he is seriously deluded. One thing I do know: if “neocons” wanted to expand an “empire”, we would have done it on a more tropical area. And far closer to home. I’m looking at Acapulco.

But the thing that gave me the heaves was that “progressive reform” barf. He is one of those that believes that Socialism will work heeeeere. And what is he talking about when he says “another age”? He’s talking about FDR, and the New Deal. But he forgets FDR had a MASSIVE war going on, too.

The last paragraph made me smile, though:

Given the era of fiscal scarcity we’re now entering, those neocon and progressive dreams are now likely dead for many years to come. Meanwhile, the Tea Party’s dream of a government reduced to its pre-welfare state size becomes ever real.

That’s right, you idiot. We are in this era because government spent more money than it was taking in. And now the TEA Party is telling the gov’t that it, too, has to live within its means.

Honestly, does that writer even balance his own checkbook??