Pork and hasty generalizations

The Wall Street Journal had an editorial yesterday tying Obama to Pelosi in an effort to link the stimulus bill with the ineffectualness of the lame duck Democratic controlled Congress. Loaded with innuendo to build up a case for a weak correlation, it bears warning that Obama and his stimulus may be as ineffectual as that Congress under Pelosi. Don't forget: pork, pork, pork. The main focus was Democrats spend money, and Republican minorities have succeeded and will probably continue to succeed in blocking Democratic governments from doing anything.

It begins by intertwining Obama and Pelosi with vague correlations: They both talked about change! They both had logos and buttons! They both broke gender or race barriers! Then comes the lie and unrepentant gloating over things probably best not to gloat about. It claims:

That was January 2007. Before the year was out, her approval ratings would be lower than George W. Bush's.

Under her leadership, Congress failed to pass a single appropriations bill until early November. Congress also failed to override the president's veto on what Democrats thought would be an easy win for an expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Most significant of all, Congress failed to force Mr. Bush to begin what Democrats had said was their real goal: a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.

Hah! Republicans were able to block children's health insurance and prolong the Iraq war! Take that! Some might argue that the low approval ratings of Congress (not Pelosi herself as the article implies), were mostly based on a frustration with the Republican minority and ex-President and their ability to keep doing things people didn't like, and stop the newly elected narrow majority from doing the things they want.

In regards to appropriations, after the 06 elections there was still a budget to pass from the previous Republican controlled Congress, making it funny to blame Pelosi for slow progress at spending money. The claim that there was nothing passed until November is just wrong. Look here or here, and you can look for yourself at some of the things that were passed, including two emergency supplemental war funding requests from GW.

Would you really consider it a black mark on Pelosi that Ex-President Bush and the Republican minority in Congress blocked passage of children's health insurance?

The next nail in Pelosi's coffin was $74 million for "peanut storage". Something which, after recent events, may now seem like a better idea.

What WSJ editorial would be complete without the famous catchphrase of suppporting the troops?

In many ways, Mrs. Pelosi's decisions would make it easier for Mr. Bush to get his war funding through her Congress. While the president argued for supporting our troops, Democrats were forced to defend pork.

As with the current Stimulus Bill, that passed today, the best and only critique that the bankrupt establishment that passes itself off as the conservative press has to offer is pork! pork! pork! I know the GOP had a soul searching moment, and reports were that they wanted to return to their roots, so apparently this is it. Welcome to the the age of the Republican who cried pork! Maybe next time Republicans control government, they can stray from their roots again and regain their priority place at the trough.

And though Mr. Bush was ultimately forced to accept more domestic spending than he would have preferred, on the central issue -- funding for the war -- he got what he wanted without agreeing to a timetable for withdrawal.

Thank you, WSJ, for reminding me again why I hate the man.

Just as she did with war funding, Mrs. Pelosi is once again putting her fellow Democrats -- Mr. Obama included -- in the position of defending the indefensible. And she let it all ride on a game of chicken. Her bet has been that a Republican minority would sooner or later cry "uncle" on a laundry list of pet Democratic spending projects rather than risk being painted as holding up vital economic legislation.

I read the whole article hoping for a glimpse of what, exactly was indefensible. I came away disappointed. A 60-40 mix of tax cuts and yes, spending. I never cease to be amazed at how rigidly Republicans in office refuse to agree to any non-defense related spending. I know you want to be a vegetarian after the first time you glimpse a slaughterhouse, but most of us grow out of it. Sometimes you might have to spend money on things other than war. Maybe one day Republican politicians and editorial boards will mature enough to debate stimulus spending on its merits rather than just saying it sucks, what a day that would be.

The article concludes by daring Obama to pass the stimulus without Republican support, and take full credit for it. Since that just happened, prepare to start hearing daily calls of "has the economy been stimulated yet? has the economy been stimulated yet? has the economy been stimulated yet?" A very nice position to be in: presiding over the formation of this financial clusterfuck and get voted out, and then by refusing to participate in Democrat's efforts to fix things unless they do it in exactly the way you want, you can then pass the buck for it all onto them. Brilliant.

The whole premise of the editorial is flawed. We are supposed to fear that Obama, the President, will be thwarted in most of his efforts while he has friendly majorities in the House and Senate. We are supposed to believe this because Pelosi and Obama are both Democrats and have other circumstantial similarities. Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, was thwarted by a Republican President, slim Republican minority, and the force of inertia of a Republican war. This means that Obama will be thwarted too, and crash and burn into unpopularity. Because of pork. Don't you see?