15 March, 2009

Happy Hour Discurso

Today's opining on the public discourse.

Remember how when the stock market was falling, it was all Obama's fault? Remember how it rallied last week? We didn't hear a damned peep about how awesome Obama is for turning the market around, which is the logical extrapoplation from right-wing theories that it's all the president's doing. Dana Perino explains why:

Wall Street had a nice little rally this week, but former White House Press Secretary Dana Perino hopes President Obama doesn't get too much credit.

Former White House spokesperson Dana Perino said on Sunday that the Bush administration, while presiding over the start of the current recession, nevertheless deserved some credit for the modest uptick that Wall Street experienced this past week.

Appearing on CSPAN's Washington Journal, the last of Bush's press secretaries said it was "not a secret" that the current economic mess started under her boss's watch. But, she cautioned, the public had yet to realize the full extent to which the past president's policies "alleviat[ed] the downturn." Take, for instance, the improvement in the Dow Jones Industrial average this week.

"You were just speaking earlier about the possibility that since we had a little bit of a better week on Wall Street does that spell a turnaround?" Perino said. "Can all the credit go specifically to President Obama? Well, I would say no. We are just going to have to take a while to let all of this settle down and let the policies that our administration and the new administration are trying to put in place have a chance to work."

I see. Just so we're clear, here's a helpful guide to the rules of market watching, as they relate to partisan politics:

When the market went down on Bush's watch before the 2008 elections, this was Bill Clinton's fault.

When the market went down on Bush's watch between November 2008 and January 2009, this was Barack Obama's fault.

When the market went down during Obama's first seven weeks in office, this was definitely Barack Obama's fault.

And when the market rallies on Obama's watch during the second week in March, George W. Bush deserves at least some of the credit.

Riiight. Go on, pull the other one, it's got bells on.

I wonder how she'd spin this little nugget:

Isn't it ironic? Don't you think? Good thing for these Republican voters that the bleeding heart liberals are in charge now, huh.

Today's losers losing their homes are Republican districts. At least according to the Center for Responsible Lending, who has just issued a new report that shows nine of the top ten districts with the most foreclosures are Republican and most likely to receive the bulk of any homeowner bailout, and thus, at least according to one On Air editor of a major cable network, fit the definition of "losers".

Things look a little better further down the list. However, only six of the 22 districts with more than 10,000 foreclosures projected are represented by Democrats, and only two of those have served a full term. So 20 of the 22 have been in Republican hands until very recently.

This, too, of course, is probably somehow the Democrats' fault. It always is. They may not know quite how, but of course, there's never a Con to blame.

And while Cons will scream until they're blue in the face that Dems' plans won't work, ask 'em for a counter-proposal and they choke:

Since President Obama unveiled his budget last month, Republicans have been relentlessly attacking his comprehensive proposals. Last week, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) said that Obama “should be focusing on the ‘economic crisis,’ as opposed to holding four-hour meetings on health care.” Today on ABC’s This Week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) kept up the drumbeat, saying, “It taxes too much, it spends too much, it borrows too much.”

However, host George Stephanopoulos repeatedly pressed McConnell for a comprehensive Republican alternative budget. Each time, McConnell simply attacked Obama’s plan. He said that he and his colleagues would be offering amendments to “reframe” what the Democrats have proposed, but don’t plan on offering a comprehensive plan:

McCONNELL: [W]e are going to offer a number of amendments to the Democratic proposal. […]

STEPHANOPOULOS: But shouldn’t you have a comprehensive approach that lays out the trade-offs? If you just have rifle-shot amendments, you don’t have to make all the trade-offs that you have to make in an overall budget.

McCONNELL: Well, we’re just sort of getting down in the weeds here about procedure. Through the amendment process, we would absolutely reformulate the Democratic plan. Whether you have a comprehensive approach or whether you offer an amendment is something a parliamentarian can debate.

No, Mitch, it's really not. You see, you're the ones whining about how what Obama's doing is wrong and you guys would do oh-such-a-better job. It's your fucking responsibility as lawmakers to show how your comprehensive approach would do a better job.

If you can't do that, it means you don't have a comprehensive approach. You can't do any better. So shut the fuck up.

It's no wonder Cons are even losing their radio audience. There's only so much dumbfuckery even the most dumbfuck-addicted can bear to swallow.

1 comment:

Woozle said...

We may need to take Obama to the woodshed over this, though -- assuming that the directive actually came from him and not from some underling. (It seems unlikely that Obama wouldn't know about something going on under his watch, but I'd prefer to hear it from him.)

In a nutshell: in response to a FOIA request, the White House's Office of the US Trade Representative has declared the details of a proposed international treaty to be classified for reasons of national security. What is this treaty about, you may ask -- is it about armaments? terrorism? air travel?

No, it's about effing intellectual property.

I haven't been able to find much in the way of confirmed details about the treaty, but I haven't spent a lot of time on it yet either.