Some time ago our local Congressman Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield) decided to remove me from his message list on Facebook. I can't say that I blame him. I would regularly let him know where he was wrong, and wrote many times that the political game the GOP is playing is pretty obvious. He especially didn't like me calling him on the GOP's "Just Say No to the President" strategy.
We're still "friends" (I think), but we're not good enough friends for him to let me know what he's thinking. The spririt of democracy lives strong in our congressional district ;-).
Anyways, although I haven't been there in months I decided to take a look at Rep. McCarthy's site. What do I find? This passage from Bob Woodward's book, The Price of Politics ...
Yeah, Rep. McCarthy is trying to blame President Obama for the looming sequestration deadline, which mandates automatic spending cuts if a budget deal isn't reached by March 1, 2013.
Why is Rep. McCarthy pointing to this passage from Woodward's book? Because the GOP knows the results of sequestration could be devastating to the economy. So he's trying to set the tone for the next news cycle: "Obama to blame for ruining the economy" (or something like that). This strategy has been in the works for some time now (more on this below).
Citing senior Obama advisors - Rob Nabors and Jack Lew - as the source of the sequestration idea is McCarthy's way of finding scapegoats on an issue that the GOP has wanted for some time now. The reality is the Republicans have not only refused to consider President Obama's budget proposals - which include tax hikes on America's wealthiest population - but Rep. Paul Ryan even praised sequestration as a way to impose automatic spending cuts that the GOP wanted all along.
Now the GOP wants to blame President for sequestration in spite of the fact that they have steadfastly refused to consider his policy proposals, and then voted for a sequestration bill they wanted all along. This takes some real chutzpah.
Chutzpah, for those of you unfamiliar with the term, is best explained as a blind arrogance that pushes the kid who killed his parents to ask the court for leniency because he's now an orphan. The GOP's chutzpah on the sequestration issue is especially appropriate since the GOP's strategy since President Obama entered office in 2009 has been to say no to every major policy initiative from the White House and then blame the president for not fixing the economic mess left by his predecessor.
This is a key point made in Robert Draper's book, Do Not Ask What Good We Do.
In his book Draper outlined how Rep. McCarthy met with his GOP colleagues the night of President Obama's 2009 inauguration and pledged to sabotage President Obama's agenda by demonstrating "united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies" (which I discuss here, here, here, here and here).
That night Newt Gingrich even suggested sabotaging the president would sow the electoral “seeds of 2012” (a claim Gingrich has not denied). From there the Party of No was born, with Kevin McCarthy at the helm (the strategy continues, as Newt Gingrich explained this morning).
So this is what we have. President Obama wanted congressional Republicans to work with him to fix our wrecked economy in 2009 (which includes tax hikes on those who did fabulously well after helping to crash the economy in 2008). But Congressman McCarthy and his GOP colleagues preferred to sabotage the economy to create a crisis-like atmosphere that they desperately want to pin on President Obama. After making it clear that they would not help President Obama fix the economy the GOP then accepted and voted for sequestration (August of 2011) with the goal of pinning the outcome on the White House.
With the sequestration deadline of March 1, 2013 around the corner congressional Republicans are refusing to entertain President Obama's budget proposals, again. You might think that they would budge a little since President Obama convincingly won re-election, with a mandate to raise taxes on America's richest class. Think again.
Let me leave you with this question. Which is worse? Proposing a sequestration plan that the GOP worked for, and wanted in the first place, or proposing a plan that undermines a newly elected President and places the interests of a political party above country?
- Mark
We're still "friends" (I think), but we're not good enough friends for him to let me know what he's thinking. The spririt of democracy lives strong in our congressional district ;-).
Anyways, although I haven't been there in months I decided to take a look at Rep. McCarthy's site. What do I find? This passage from Bob Woodward's book, The Price of Politics ...
Yeah, Rep. McCarthy is trying to blame President Obama for the looming sequestration deadline, which mandates automatic spending cuts if a budget deal isn't reached by March 1, 2013.
Why is Rep. McCarthy pointing to this passage from Woodward's book? Because the GOP knows the results of sequestration could be devastating to the economy. So he's trying to set the tone for the next news cycle: "Obama to blame for ruining the economy" (or something like that). This strategy has been in the works for some time now (more on this below).
Citing senior Obama advisors - Rob Nabors and Jack Lew - as the source of the sequestration idea is McCarthy's way of finding scapegoats on an issue that the GOP has wanted for some time now. The reality is the Republicans have not only refused to consider President Obama's budget proposals - which include tax hikes on America's wealthiest population - but Rep. Paul Ryan even praised sequestration as a way to impose automatic spending cuts that the GOP wanted all along.
Now the GOP wants to blame President for sequestration in spite of the fact that they have steadfastly refused to consider his policy proposals, and then voted for a sequestration bill they wanted all along. This takes some real chutzpah.
Chutzpah, for those of you unfamiliar with the term, is best explained as a blind arrogance that pushes the kid who killed his parents to ask the court for leniency because he's now an orphan. The GOP's chutzpah on the sequestration issue is especially appropriate since the GOP's strategy since President Obama entered office in 2009 has been to say no to every major policy initiative from the White House and then blame the president for not fixing the economic mess left by his predecessor.
This is a key point made in Robert Draper's book, Do Not Ask What Good We Do.
In his book Draper outlined how Rep. McCarthy met with his GOP colleagues the night of President Obama's 2009 inauguration and pledged to sabotage President Obama's agenda by demonstrating "united and unyielding opposition to the president's economic policies" (which I discuss here, here, here, here and here).
That night Newt Gingrich even suggested sabotaging the president would sow the electoral “seeds of 2012” (a claim Gingrich has not denied). From there the Party of No was born, with Kevin McCarthy at the helm (the strategy continues, as Newt Gingrich explained this morning).
So this is what we have. President Obama wanted congressional Republicans to work with him to fix our wrecked economy in 2009 (which includes tax hikes on those who did fabulously well after helping to crash the economy in 2008). But Congressman McCarthy and his GOP colleagues preferred to sabotage the economy to create a crisis-like atmosphere that they desperately want to pin on President Obama. After making it clear that they would not help President Obama fix the economy the GOP then accepted and voted for sequestration (August of 2011) with the goal of pinning the outcome on the White House.
With the sequestration deadline of March 1, 2013 around the corner congressional Republicans are refusing to entertain President Obama's budget proposals, again. You might think that they would budge a little since President Obama convincingly won re-election, with a mandate to raise taxes on America's richest class. Think again.
Let me leave you with this question. Which is worse? Proposing a sequestration plan that the GOP worked for, and wanted in the first place, or proposing a plan that undermines a newly elected President and places the interests of a political party above country?
- Mark
2 comments:
He removed me too!! We should call him out in an op Ed in the Californian!
LOL! Sorry, but according to Facebook social rule #29342 (aka We FB people don't have a real life) states: If you were not friended or were unfriended in the virtual world, you are not their friend in real world. LOL :)
But on a serious note, I say you take Julia's idea.
Post a Comment