Free Markets, Free People

New York Time editorial declares war on GOP [update]

I sometimes wonder what world the editorial board of the New York Times calls home.  It certainly isn’t the one the rest of us live in.  But I guess it is necessary to live in an alternative world to be able to push narratives like it pushes in an editorial today.  The NY Times has decided, to use a poker term, to go “all in” on Obama’s “right-wing extremism” and “dishonesty” meme. 

Referencing the Obama speech yesterday, the editorial board says:

Mr. Obama provided a powerful signal on Tuesday that he intends to make this election about the Republican Party’s failure to confront, what he called, “the defining issue of our time”: restoring a sense of economic security while giving everyone a fair shot, rather than enabling only a shrinking number of people to do exceedingly well. His remarks promise a tough-minded campaign that will call extremism and dishonesty by name.

Remember Obama, who’s answer to the “defining issue of our time”, submitted each of the two years (I’m talking about his budgets) has gone a collective 0-511.  That’s right, the two budgets he’s submitted to address the “defining issue of our time” hasn’t garnered a single vote in two years.  

Why?  Primarily because neither of the budgets convinced a single legislator of either party, to include the President’s own, that they addressed that issue at all.

Yet he presumes to lecture the GOP on the failure to confront this issue?  And the NYT somehow manages to buy into that nonsense?

The GOP budget at least passed the House.  The NYT presumes that no negotiations are possible because, again, it buys into the Obama claim that the GOP won’t compromise.   Nonsense.  Compromise doesn’t mean wholesale capitulation.  In an negotiation or compromise there are lines drawn over which the two parties won’t give in.  Each side has them.  The NYT and Obama, naturally, want to characterize the lack of movement as GOP intransigence.  But the Democrats are equally intransigent.  They want more money in taxes.  The GOP continues to point out that taxes aren’t the problem.  The problem is spending.

Says the NYT:

Mr. Obama has, in recent months, urged Republicans to put aside their destructive agenda. But, in this speech, he finally conceded that the party has demonstrated no interest in the values of compromise and realism. Even Ronald Reagan, who raised taxes in multiple budget deals, “could not get through a Republican primary today,” Mr. Obama said. While Democrats have repeatedly shown a willingness to cut entitlements and have agreed to trillions in domestic spending cuts, he said, Republicans won’t agree to any tax increases and, in fact, want to shower the rich with even more tax cuts.

Ronald Regan agreed to raising taxes in return for what from the Democrats?

Spending cuts.  In fact as I recall, his deal was 1 1/2 to 2 times the spending cuts to the tax increases.  Guess what never happened?

That’s right – spending cuts.

So call it a lesson learned.  What the GOP is pointing out that until the spending cuts are implemented and take effect, there is no reason to discuss revenue increases.

That’s a common sense approach that best safeguards the citizenry’s money and is based on a history that says the Democrats don’t keep their word about spending cuts.

I don’t blame the GOP for refusing to compromise on taxes.

Finally, and I’ve flipped the paragraph order in the editorial, consider the NYT lede:

President Obama’s fruitless three-year search for compromise with the Republicans ended in a thunderclap of a speech on Tuesday, as he denounced the party and its presidential candidates for cruelty and extremism. He accused his opponents of imposing on the country a “radical vision” that “is antithetical to our entire history as a land of opportunity.”

There has been no search for compromise with President “I won”.  None.  And it is amazing to see smaller and less intrusive government being characterized as a “radical vision” that is “antithetical to our entire history”.  It is the basis of our entire history up until the welfare state came into being.

“The land of opportunity” was such because of a lack of government interference, not because of it.  Obama and the left continue to attempt to rewrite history in a manner in which they redefine the words and key phrases that characterized our nation differently than they’d like prior to the institution of the welfare state.

The radical vision is that which Obama, the NYT  and the Democrats continue to push, not the GOP.  They don’t seem to understand that the majority of the American people have come to understand that we just can’t afford their radical vision and that government control of more and more of our lives is not a “good thing”. 

If there is anyone out of touch with the American people it is Mr. 0-511. He hasn’t a clue.

And neither does the New York Times editorial board.

UPDATE: A further thought sparked by a comment by The Shark.  If compromise is what Obama and the Democrats really want, they’ve had two opportunities to actually force that or at least make the argument they attempted it.  For two years the GOP House has passed a budget.   The way the Congress works is the Senate then passes its version of the budget and the two houses of Congress get together and hash out the differences (known commonly as “compromise). 

Except the Democratically controlled Senate hasn’t passed a budget in over 1000 days.  So who isn’t interested in compromise, Mr. President?  And why aren’t you exerting a little leadership and confronting the Senate about its dereliction of duty?  If “compromise” is so all fired important to you, why are you neglecting the easiest way of forcing it?

~McQ

Twitter: @McQandO

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

21 Responses to New York Time editorial declares war on GOP [update]

  • I’m not exactly sure how the GOP was supposed to confront this issue, seeing as the Dems control the Presidency and the Senate. But hey, lets ignore that! Lets also ignore that the Pres. cannot get a SINGLE vote for his budget. Lets also ignore that Harry Reid could ram a budget – ANY BUDGET – through the Senate, but he’s declined to do so. For over 1000 days. Lets forget that also. And down the memory hole with the fact that the GOP has in fact passed a few budget attempts to tackle the issue, you know, the “Ryan Plan” that the Dems so roundly demonize. And finally, lets just totally forget that Obama’s own team offered us “We don’t have a plan of our own, all we know is that we don’t like yours”. “Despise” is too mild a word to express how I feel about these people.

  • Bad Luck Barry’s “worst Presidential speech EVAH” confirms there is no lie he will not tell. The NYT proves there is no lie they will not suborn. “It’s ON.”

  • You’re gonna love this. Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/03/impeach-the-supreme-court-justices-if-they-overturn-health-care-law.html

  • From yesterday, “This Congressional Republican budget, however, is something different altogether. It’s a Trojan Horse. Disguised as deficit reduction plan, it’s really an attempt to impose a radical vision on our country.

    From 2003, “Bush’s new tax cuts, thinly disguised as an economic stimulus plan, fail every test – whether that of equity, economic stimulus, or responsible budgeting that addresses the nation’s needs. ”

    They are still running against Bush.

  • There’s a second side to every story: The original reason Democrats wanted to delay in the cost cutting promise was because it would put an extra burden on an already strapped population in the middle of harsh economic times. By the time is was for the Democrats to issue cost-cutting measures, it was decided that tax increases had done the job, and there wasn’t need for earlier cost-cuts suggested—besides it was thought that Reagan would just waste the money fighting Socialism/Communism in Latin America (which we’d already done unsuccessfully in Vietnam0.

  • There’s a second side to every story: The original reason Democrats wanted to delay in the cost cutting promise was because it would put an extra burden on an already strapped population in the middle of harsh economic times. By the time is was for the Democrats to issue cost-cutting measures, it was decided that tax increases had done the job, and there wasn’t need for earlier cost-cuts suggested—besides it was thought that Reagan would just waste the money fighting Socialism/Communism in Latin America (which we’d already done unsuccessfully in Vietnam).

    • Reagan? Is Obama running against Reagan now too? Maybe he should try running against Carter.

      • @looker “…it was decided that tax increases had done the job, and there wasn’t need for earlier cost-cuts suggested…”
        —————————————————————————————-
        Put up your CONTEMPORANEOUS record of that being “decided”, and by whom. When is a PROMISE a “suggestion”. What a stupid liar.

    • @tadcf Is there REALLY just NO lie you will not tell…???? Just curious.

      • The clueless one seems to think that ‘taxes’ come from some magic government lease, perhaps somewhere in a red state where there is a ‘tax’ mine or ‘tax’ well on Federal land. No spending cuts were necessary because the magic tax mine increased it’s yield so the promised cuts could be avoided. He probably likes to use the words “free government program” too and probably readily believes such things exist.

        • @looker People people. Please, it takes a village don’t you know… and somewhere some village is suffering without its idiot it seems.

      • @Ragspierre You know, I’m curious about his view on the activities of the democrats NOW in the midst of harsh economic times. Increasing government spending, which can only be paid for by the already cash strapped population in the middle of harsh economic times seems to be about the only plan the Democrats have. Perhaps that’s why he’d like to talk about Reagan, or possibly about slavery or the Native Americans at this juncture.

    • @tadcf “besides it was thought that Reagan would just waste the money fighting Socialism/Communism in Latin America” So let me get this straight… Your poster-girl Che is to be admired for murdering intransigent peasants because he was prepared to do that for what he believed in. But Reagan was “just wasting money” fighting what he believed in? You are still at school, right?

  • Here’s a little more on the Obama budget, oh, pardon,. the GENIUS Obama budget….the DEMOCRAT Budget
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obamas-budget-interest-payments-will-exceed-defense-budget-2019_635445.html