So, the great debt ceiling debate and controversy is over for now and the post mortems are being written as to who won and who lost. Although the devil is in the details and we really don't know much of the details, it is a wait and see game now. From my standpoint, the inclusion of some trigger mechanism to force cuts under threat of across-the-board cuts is the best aspect of the agreement, if it works as one thinks it intuitively should. I can live without the balanced budget amendment debate because as experience at the state level has proven, it leads to all sorts of accounting gimmickry and deferring this or that to the next fiscal year, and so on. To me and most rational people, a "balanced budget" is spending no more than one takes in- no robbing Peter to pay Paul and only limited borrowing. It sounds good, but it really doesn't work at the state level and it really won't work at the national level. Besides, we need an approved budget first before it can be "balanced."
As part of these commentaries are some rather nasty comments and accusations being bandied about by some on the Left. The Tea Party is a particular target of this vitriol starting with "Vice President" Joe Biden and his "terrorist" comments (actually seconding Congressman Doyle of Pennsylvania). The New York Times upped the ante and said the Tea Party is waging "jihad" on American democracy. Once this whole thing played out- and most rational people knew that it would- we also knew that the Left would come out with the emotionally charged, class warfare accusations and that the Tea Party would be demonized. That is classic behavior from losers.
And what is the great sin of the Tea Party? They demanded fiscal constraint and sanity when it came to deficit spending. When the national debt approaches that of your entire economy, you are on very dangerous ground, more dangerous than holding the debt ceiling "hostage," as the Left characterized the tactics of the Tea Party. The fact is that as soon as this Congress was sworn in back in January, raising the debt ceiling was forecast as the next big debate in Washington, and those forecasts were true. So, is using the debt ceiling to instill really "dangerous," "crazy," "un-American." "undemocratic," etc. We admit that Bush increased the debt with his deficits, but in an even shorter time, Obama and Pelosi have triped down on that debt. And contrary to some commentary, this criticism of Obama has nothing to do with the color of his skin.
Michael Lind of Salon seems to have "figured" it all out. According to his analysis, the Tea Party should be called the Ft. Sumter Party because in his mind, the Tea Party is a collection of white, southerners who aim to "paralyze, sabotage or, in the case of the Civil War, destroy American democracy" in order to get their way. He provides some pie charts that prove absolutely nothing and parenthetically dismisses that the #5 state for Tea Party activism is California in his formulation. The key point is that in the mind of some Liberals, as far as the Tea Party's insistence on fiscal restraint, it is nothing more than a continuation of the Civil War. That is truly warped, delusional thinking- the thoughts of a loser. Along those same lines, DeWayne Wickham of USA Today calls those of us who happen to disagree with Obama's profligate spending of engendering an era of "Jim Crow, Jr." He obviously has taken a page from the book of my favorite moonbat, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. So if you insist that government get spending under control, you are a subtle racist.
I found it ironic that some of these editorials were published on the same day that a released Gallup poll indicated that a greater percentage of Americans indentify themselves as being "conservative," more so than in any other previously published survey. And the Daily Telegraph, providing a British/foerign view of the controversy, noted that one-third of the American population agree with the core values of the Tea Party, primarily shrinking an enlargening federal government and bureaucracy.
The words and thoughts of people like Lind, Wickham, the New York Times, Salon and the whole Liberal blogosphere as well as politicians like Doyle, Pelosi, Biden, Wasserman-Schultz and even Obama are those of losers. If using the budget, debt ceiling, FAA authorization, or the naming of a post office are used to rein in the size, scope, and spending of Congress, then that is the playing field that Liberals have built. When they lose on their own field, the vitriol is to be expected. They are not only losers, they are sore losers.