Politico is portraying the tax cuts as a divisive issue hurting Democrats' election chances, as they face a united Republican front.
That's not just spin, it's vertigo. Gunga Din never carried that much water for one side.
Pelosi indicated that she might hold off a vote until after the November elections, when any Blue Dog Democrats who've lost their races will be less attached to their campaign rhetoric. Exhibits A and B: outgoing Senators Voinovich and LeMieux and their "aye" votes on yesterday's small business lending bill.
Senator John Cornyn, smelling Pelosi's obvious weakness and putting the boots to her: "My preference would be permanently, but if we can only do it temporarily, then, you know, I'm for doing whatever will keep the economy moving and put people back to work."
Senator Bob Corker, bragging about the GOP's unified message: "We need to change the debate totally from picking at each other over tax policy and which program gets cut."
Senator Orrin Hatch, standing firm for bedrock Republican fiscal principles: "I'm open to the art of the doable."
The WSJ link claims that Dems "do not want to vote for any tax increases" (a variety of polling shows that voters see a distinction and aren't buying that spin); that the stimulus was "supposed to have the economy roaring back by now" (said who? The most robust claim was keeping unemployment below 8% - and how even a "failed stimulus" would result in public clamor for high-end tax cuts, the writer does not explain); that the Dems were supposed to be laying back, riding high, and coasting towards a winning election (everyone knows that minority parties nearly always win midterms, and this election will be no different); that the Democrats shortsightedly failed to "pre-emptively embrace the tax question intelligently enough to help the economy" ("intelligence" meaning "agreeably doing what the Republican leadership probably can't get done against a 'bluff," even after the Dems' supposed strategic armageddon"); that "it is hard to find a Democrat who likes the Obama plan" (inside the WSJ offices, that's surely true); and that "the only thing worse than being accused of voting for $700 billion in tax increases is being accused of doing nothing and allowing $4 trillion in tax increases" (even if we pretended that there's any scenario in which GOP campaign ads would not be accusatory anyway, what mythical voter is believing this tiger-or-the-tiger premise?).
Shorter version: the article is hogwash. If the Democrats' only options are theoretically bad, worse, or superdoubleghastly, maybe the WSJ could explain the real-life reactions and behavior we're seeing.
4 comments:
Politico is portraying the tax cuts as a divisive issue hurting Democrats' election chances, as they face a united Republican front.
That's not just spin, it's vertigo. Gunga Din never carried that much water for one side.
Pelosi indicated that she might hold off a vote until after the November elections, when any Blue Dog Democrats who've lost their races will be less attached to their campaign rhetoric. Exhibits A and B: outgoing Senators Voinovich and LeMieux and their "aye" votes on yesterday's small business lending bill.
Senator John Cornyn, smelling Pelosi's obvious weakness and putting the boots to her:
"My preference would be permanently, but if we can only do it temporarily, then, you know, I'm for doing whatever will keep the economy moving and put people back to work."
Senator Bob Corker, bragging about the GOP's unified message:
"We need to change the debate totally from picking at each other over tax policy and which program gets cut."
Senator Orrin Hatch, standing firm for bedrock Republican fiscal principles:
"I'm open to the art of the doable."
This WSJ lays out the choices - all bad - for the Democrats. But, yes, punting until after the election might be the best option.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703440604575496223092291204.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
The WSJ link claims that Dems "do not want to vote for any tax increases" (a variety of polling shows that voters see a distinction and aren't buying that spin); that the stimulus was "supposed to have the economy roaring back by now" (said who? The most robust claim was keeping unemployment below 8% - and how even a "failed stimulus" would result in public clamor for high-end tax cuts, the writer does not explain); that the Dems were supposed to be laying back, riding high, and coasting towards a winning election (everyone knows that minority parties nearly always win midterms, and this election will be no different); that the Democrats shortsightedly failed to "pre-emptively embrace the tax question intelligently enough to help the economy" ("intelligence" meaning "agreeably doing what the Republican leadership probably can't get done against a 'bluff," even after the Dems' supposed strategic armageddon"); that "it is hard to find a Democrat who likes the Obama plan" (inside the WSJ offices, that's surely true); and that "the only thing worse than being accused of voting for $700 billion in tax increases is being accused of doing nothing and allowing $4 trillion in tax increases" (even if we pretended that there's any scenario in which GOP campaign ads would not be accusatory anyway, what mythical voter is believing this tiger-or-the-tiger premise?).
Shorter version: the article is hogwash. If the Democrats' only options are theoretically bad, worse, or superdoubleghastly, maybe the WSJ could explain the real-life reactions and behavior we're seeing.
Post a Comment