This is up on Drudge at the moment:
Yes, the viciousness is being directed at Democrats for not being spendthrift enough.
It's too early to tell whether President Bush and congressional Republicans have outmaneuvered the Democratic congressional majority, but it's looking that way. Old Media doesn't like it, and their inability to successfully buck up their side, one bit.
In the Washington Post's "Dems Blaming Each Other For Failures," Jonathan Weisman and Paul Kane are clearly critical:
When Democrats took control of Congress in January, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) pledged to jointly push an ambitious agenda to counter 12 years of Republican control.
Now, as Congress struggles to adjourn for Christmas, relations between House Democrats and their colleagues in the Senate have devolved into finger-pointing.
..... In the past few weeks, the House has thrown wave after wave of legislation at the Senate -- on energy, Iraq war policy, the housing and mortgage crisis, and middle-income tax cuts offset largely by tax increases on the wealthy.
Most of it has died quietly, a predetermined fate that both sides could foresee before the first vote was cast. Yet they went ahead anyway.
The Wall Street Journal may have a reputation for leaning right, but that's because of its editorials, not its day-to-day reporting. David Rogers' "Intraparty Feuds Dog Democrats, Stall Congress" (link appears to require subscription) is a case in point, as he rips the Dems' inability to get along (bold is mine):
Democrats took control of Congress last January promising a "new direction." A year later, the image that haunts them most is one symbolizing no direction at all: gridlock.
Unfinished work is piling up -- legislation to aid borrowers affected by the housing mess, rescue millions of middle-class families from a big tax increase and put stricter gas-mileage limits on the auto industry. Two months into the new fiscal year, Democrats are still scrambling just to keep the government open.
President Bush and Republicans are contributing to the impasse, but there's another factor: Intraparty squabbling between House Democrats and Senate Democrats is sometimes almost as fierce as the partisan battling.
A commenter at a different post informs me that this is probably an alltime record for budget delay. What I believe is the previous record, the infamous Clinton-Gingrich showdown in 1995, occurred during November of that year.
In the WaPo's "Democrats Bow to Bush's Demands in House Spending Bill," Weisman, who in August 2005 infamously managed to turn news of a strong Employment Situation Report (+207,000 jobs) into a mini-diatribe on Iraq, calls out the Democrats for "surrender" (bold is mine):
Democratic leaders tried to put the best face on their surrender on domestic spending levels, promising that the final bill will reflect their priorities, if not their preferred funding -- "the president's number, our priorities," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). She noted that the bill would increase funding for children's health programs, nutrition and medical research at the National Institutes of Health.
Alexander Bolton at the Hill, in "Dems Cave on Spending," also appeared quite frustrated (bolds are mine):
Senate and House Democrats backed down Wednesday from a spending showdown with President Bush.
The Democrats’ capitulation Wednesday on the total domestic spending level is the latest instance of Bush prevailing on a major policy showdown.
The new majority might have realized it couldn't just keep coasting forever if Old Media had spent the year critically evaluating their performance instead of continually singing their praises and/or making excuses for it.
If the endgame outcome turns out to be as good for the President as now anticipated, maybe, as a show of gratitude, he should make sure that Old Media reporters are on the White House Christmas card and gift lists.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Interesting
December 13, 2007 - 17:35 ET by bluefeetbrewsthat it all came down today, or at least over the past couple of days. I wonder who/what finally pushed the snowball down the hill and when it will stop rolling... The MSM surely won't remain so critical for very long- after all, they do have an election to win.
HELLSTORM!
December 13, 2007 - 18:54 ET by viluzionI seem to remember Drudge using that term to describe two of the hurricanes that devasted the U.S. this season. He is a bit of a sensationalist.
Well then, we'll just have
December 13, 2007 - 22:49 ET by dscottWell then, we'll just have to shove more snowballs down that hill, don't we??? Heheheehe That snowball stops rolling when someone stops pushing. So will Repub candidates have the fire in the belly to shove? Fred showed some fire, but is he or any of them up to it????? The one who can show us some fire in the belly is the nominee for the Repub Party and the future POTUS. Otherwise there is No fire, no gravitas, no vision, and no leadership.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
WASH POST: Dems Blaming
December 13, 2007 - 17:35 ET by Chris NormanWASH POST: Dems Blaming Each Other For Failures...
Does The Post include itself in the mix?
The headlines should
December 13, 2007 - 17:48 ET by MidAmericaThe headlines should read:
President Bush and Republicans Save the Democrat Party. Dem proposals if, enacted, would bring swift rebuke at the box office.
the budget battle
December 13, 2007 - 17:59 ET by soosanthis isn't the first time the President has taken their cheap shots and led them all forward boldly - he's the real deal as commander and chief - I for one will miss him. For a guy they call stupid he seems to be way ahead of the opposition on this issue.
What is this "New Majority" baloney ?
December 13, 2007 - 18:12 ET by JayTeeThe Dems don't have a Majority, never have in 2007. The MSM is using the wrong label, Calling less than 60 Senators a "New Majority" is like calling "Terrorists" as "Insurgents".
A Majority means enough votes for a VETO proof majority in the HOUSE and the Senate, or at least one of the two.
Pelosi's supposed "Mandate" was about 150,000 votes in San Francisco, the same votes she got last time she ran. It was a "Local" election, where as Bush's 53% was a "National" mandate.
Based upon performance and current congressional "Ratings" there will be no increase in Democrats in the next election to pursue a REAL Majority (IMO).
My Advice for Democrats seeking a "Majortiy"......Act like an American who supports the troops, Act like an American that wants a Secure Border, and vote accordingly, you Big dopes.
What good is a Free Press, if it is a False Press ? David Foote GoE
Some new entries for the
December 13, 2007 - 18:22 ET by MikeBSome new entries for the Democrat Newspeak English Dictionary:
Partisanship (n): 1)When Republicans will not bend over and take it you-know-where for Democrats' socialist ideas. 2) When Republicans do not let the Democrats have everything they want.
Compromise (v): When Republicans let the Democrats have everything they want in a bill and the Republicans get nothing.
Polarizing (adj): When conservative ideas get injected into the political environment. syn: see hate speech
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
sniff sniff
December 13, 2007 - 18:23 ET by candanceSucks to be on the other end doesn't it?
But alas, you all are right - they'll whine for a few days and then get back to important business of brainwashing voters.
Yep
December 13, 2007 - 19:12 ET by Ran56The "Party of defeat" hums right along!
Vote them out! The Rocky
December 13, 2007 - 19:27 ET by wiwfVote them out!
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
Bush kicks their ass
December 13, 2007 - 20:04 ET by planetrepublicanBush kicks butt! They all think he's the stupid one? Stupid is as stupid does and I would say the Dems are the stupid ones now-a-days. I am sure going to miss this man, especially if we get a REAL stupid s--t in there next time.
Missing the Psychology
December 13, 2007 - 23:12 ET by Lame CherryI would ask bloggers to recall past leadership and be serious about it. For example LBJ running the Senate used to strong arm people literally walking them down the hall and put them into a headlock.
Remember Trent Lott, quite passive and no one behaved.
Think of Tip O'Neil in the House, about a tough a man as there was and he pretty well held Democrats together.
Now look at Nance Pelosi, and consider she is a liberal female and what they were like in school. She came in and antagonized her own people in a clique fight. She absolutely turned blush pink when Bush complimented her at the State of the Union.
Hoyer is ineffective, Murtha has been castrated...........and who is the only dominant male left after she ruined her own bed in being proven wrong on Iraq and looking like a fool? George W. Bush
This is into just about 43 being right. This is psychologically about a very dominant male in George Bush literally by presence moulding Nance into his and the Democratic males backing off in being scared.
It frankly is the most outstanding thing I have ever witnessed since Reagan and Clinton.......they though had more approval and Bush is just whacking the Congress on his own.
Nance Pelosi and that effeminate Harry Reid have lost this on presence alone. I will point out that George Bush is Texan as in Western in mentality. There are nuances there as deep as the toughs which inhabit the midwest. They raise men there and what the world is seeing is a man dominating a woman who does not know what she is doing along with a bunch of leaderless mob democracy males not knowing what to do without leadership.
What God has Bush accomplishing is a miracle as Democrats can not be forced to do a thing and yet he has stopped them cold numerous times.
What this says about liberal women is exactly what I have pointed out here time and again. They deeply desire a man to tell them what to do and how to behave. Nance has found this in 43.
In addition on this learning curve, we are seeing a new phenomina of weak liberal males actually incapable of doing anything against a strong Conservative and actually are mirroring him in posture.
I would not put it past happening if 43 had a few more years to watch a video of bully Jimmy Webb such a loud mouth before actually cowed by George Bush.
One will notice all the brashness is gone from him as 43 has thrown a saddle on him too.
agtG
*HIC IACET ARTORIVS REX QVONDAM REXQVE FVTVRVS
Hey, Cherry, What About This???
December 14, 2007 - 08:07 ET by planetrepublicanLame Cherry said this: "What this says about liberal women is exactly
what I have pointed out here time and again. They deeply desire a man to tell
them what to do and how to behave. Nance has found this in 43."
Question for you. If you believe this what would happen if Hillary,
most liberal woman that ever hit the pike, got into the presidency, and you had
an alpha-male like Ahmadinejad trying to browbeat her and us? Isn’t this an excellent reason not to vote
for Hillary or any of the Dems for that matter?
I have one budget-question
December 14, 2007 - 05:30 ET by sarcasmoAnd perhaps a numbers-guy like Tom can help me on it. This isn't really a Democrat or Republican question, it's instead a spending question.
Did total domestic discretionary spending (adjusted for inflation...) this year go up compared to last year (people like me lose yet-again) or did it go down (I finally win, for once)? The fact that it's hard to find-out and we're instead mired in the politics of the 2 different parties' priorities suggests -- once again -- the "I lose" option is the one I'd have to pick if I had to bet.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
If you will check Tom's
December 14, 2007 - 09:03 ET by dscottIf you will check Tom's blog: http://www.bizzyblog.com/2007/12/12/if-washington-needs-a-reason-to-restrain-spending-this-would-be-it/ you will find he already addressed that question. The answer is for the first two months of the budget on autopilot, i.e. the Continuing resolution, the spending has gone up. Why???? That would SS and Medicare.
The segway of course is the reason the Dems desparate attempts at raising taxes. All their pet vote buying scams are being put on hold because of paygo, their own rule which they euphemistically and deceitfully tried to paint the AMT and the Bush tax cuts with. Every month the bill gets bigger saved or mitigated only by the Bush tax cuts. The Dems deceitfully wanted to use the AMT elimination as a stealth tax increase. The Senate derailed that attempt by yet again instead indexing tax year 2007 for inflation. This is also why the Dems are determined to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010. They want two rounds of tax increases!
The ugly little secret which neither the Dems nor the MSM wants to talk about is this: Everyone who pays the AMT is denied the benefit of the Bush tax cuts, no exceptions. In other words the upper middle class (yuppies) never benefited from the Bush tax cuts, only the poor and the average joe middle class. Indexing of the AMT is necessary to keep the average joes, the middle class, benefit of the Bush tax cuts. The rich are paying an even higher rate than those subject to the AMT. So the upshot is what the Dems really wanted to do is screw over the middle class, the average joes by either repealing the AMT with an onerous replacement or not index it and then blame the Repubs for not helping them repeal the AMT. The Dems got caught in their own sleazy little plan when certain Dem Senators grew a conscience and worried they would get the boot in a vital election year and the crafty Repub leadership (W) decided now was the time to hang tough.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
So the answer is...
December 14, 2007 - 10:04 ET by sarcasmo"I lose, yet again." Thanks for the link. We need more politicians to have backbone and enforce fiscal restraint.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul. (All purpose anti-slander-link, sadly-needed these days...)
Losing doesn't mean you
December 14, 2007 - 11:00 ET by dscottLosing doesn't mean you have lost Sarc, it only means we need to change tactics in order to win. The Continuing Resolution has effectively put the brakes on any "new" vote buying scams via earmarks and the like. A stalemate can be a win if it means you vastly reduce the amount you have been losing by. In a war Sarc, we will win some battles and lose some, however the outcome is still yet to be decided.
W just gave a press conference this morning, he is demanding the Dems not break for Christmas until they either have passed and signed the 11 appropriation bills as required by law or pass a ONE YEAR Continuing Resolution bill to run the budget on autopilot until Congress gets it's act together. Given the Dem leadership incompetence to this point, there is no way they will get 11 appropriation billed passed and signed by the break. That means they must pass a Continuing Resolution bill to keep the government running. To not to either means the government must shut down or Congress must stay in session until ALL 11 appropriation bills are passed and signed into Law.
The onus is on the Dem majority to govern, failure to do so means gross incompetence on their part. IMO, the Dems would be smart to can their entire leadership and put someone in charge to get the job done. Failing that, Joe Lieberman needs to declare his Independent status and affliate with the GOP in order to get new leadership. The bottom line is the Dem's talk in the 2006 election about a "new direction" was false advertising.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.