Eugene Robinson: Now it's the Democrats emulating Reagan

[Monkeyleg]

While most of the civilized United States this past week was paying tribute to President Reagan on his 100th birthday, pockets of leftist columnists couldn't help but try to trample his grave.

Most of these sniveling mattress stains just slung a lot of mud and waited to see what would stick. Not Eugene Robinson. He tried (cleverly, he no doubt thought) to remake history, and portray today's Democrats as the heirs to Reagan's legacy. Of course, to do so he needed to do a bit of mud-slinging anyway. He also needed to ignore, distort and outright lie.

Dissecting his column from today would take hours. Instead, just enjoy it for yourself here.

[longeyes]

What is critical right now is not which leader of the past we revere most and for what reasons but getting clear on what must be done now and finding the will and the way to do it.

[Perd Hapley]

OK, Microbalrog. 

[MechAg94]

The leftists are just doing what they do a lot these days.  They know they have no positive arguments they can make for their own ideas so they try to tear down and confuse the icons of the opposition.

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.  Many of those leftists had no problem criticizing Republicans for spending too much money under Bush II, but now they are actually defending the huge spending increases by Obama and Pelosi.  They see no problem with flipping their commentary to defend whatever it is Democrats are doing now. 

[mtnbkr]

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.  Many of those leftists had no problem criticizing Republicans for spending too much money under Bush II, but now they are actually defending the huge spending increases by Obama and Pelosi.  They see no problem with flipping their commentary to defend whatever it is Democrats are doing now. 

The reverse is true as well.  Republicans who were previously supporting Bush's spending are now slamming Obama for his spending.  They see no problem flipping their commentary...oh.wait.

Chris

[makattak]

The reverse is true as well.  Republicans who were previously supporting Bush's spending are now slamming Obama for his spending.  They see no problem flipping their commentary...oh.wait.

Chris

This could be hypocrisy, but I'm willing to give a little room for consistency when you take into account the vast difference in the size of the spending.

I don't think someone is necessarily hypocritical when they support spending $1 trillion but balk at spending $10 trillion.

[AZRedhawk44]

I don't think someone is necessarily hypocritical when they support spending $1 trillion but balk at spending $10 trillion.

Even the Democrats aren't spending $10 trillion.

They added about twice (in 2 years) what Bush-II tacked on during his 8 year tenure while fighting a controversial war.

Between both of 'em we're still trillions more in debt and both should be publicly flogged for squandering the riches of future generations and selling our posterity into servitude.  I think the blue-blood GOP and the Democrats carry equal culpability in that regard.

[makattak]

Even the Democrats aren't spending $10 trillion.

They added about twice (in 2 years) what Bush-II tacked on during his 8 year tenure while fighting a controversial war.

Between both of 'em we're still trillions more in debt and both should be publicly flogged for squandering the riches of future generations and selling our posterity into servitude.  I think the blue-blood GOP and the Democrats carry equal culpability in that regard.

I'm aware, I was just trying to make the point that one can support spending but balk at more spending than what they previously supported.

Looked at the debt clock this morning. I am still getting shivers down my spine.

[HankB]

The reverse is true as well.  Republicans who were previously supporting Bush's spending are now slamming Obama for his spending.  They see no problem flipping their commentary...oh.wait.

Chris

I'm sure there are some GOP partisan hacks and RINOs who were uncritical of Bush's spending, but I remember an awful lot of Republicans criticizing Bush for his fiscal policies . . . including some of the more prominent talking heads on TV, as well as on talk radio and in print; even the Mallard Fillmore comic strip hammered the GOP on this issue, saying, IIRC, that Republicans were spending " . . . like drunken democrats."

The difference is, though he didn't make a habit of it, Bush did on occasion get some stuff right; I've yet to see that from Barack Hussein Obama.

[lee n. field]

. Not Eugene Robinson.

Would this be the light-in-the-loafers bishop, or someone else?

[Perd Hapley]

Would this be the light-in-the-loafers bishop, or someone else?

That was my first thought, too, but then I remembered that Monkeyleg's favorite journalist is this other Eugene Robertson. Don't you remember that he's always telling us about him?

[Monkeyleg]

Eugene Robinson isn't my favorite journalist, he's one of a long list of hacks.

BTW, why isn't anyone discussing the leftist media's volleys at Reagan? That was the original topic.

[MicroBalrog]

This could be hypocrisy, but I'm willing to give a little room for consistency when you take into account the vast difference in the size of the spending.

I don't think someone is necessarily hypocritical when they support spending $1 trillion but balk at spending $10 trillion.

"We already know who you are.  Now we're haggling."

[Perd Hapley]

Eugene Robinson isn't my favorite journalist, he's one of a long list of hacks.

But you talk about him all the time.   

[Monkeyleg]

He's in my face all the time, as the local newspaper prints his column 3-4 times a week.

I have to remember to cancel my subscription to that paper.

[MicroBalrog]

He's in my face all the time, as the local newspaper prints his column 3-4 times a week.

I have to remember to cancel my subscription to that paper.

The first step is admitting you have a problem.

[Monkeyleg]

The first step is admitting you have a problem.

It's not my problem any longer, as it's now the newspaper's problem. They just lost a customer, which is something they can't afford to have happen very often.

[KD5NRH]

They added about twice (in 2 years) what Bush-II tacked on during his 8 year tenure while fighting a controversial war.

There's also the issue of how much debt they're adding to.  When my credit card balance is under $50 or so, I don't mind deficit spending for a latte.  It's a lot different when it's equal to or greater than my next paycheck is expected to be.