The day in shamelessness
*UPDATED*
Get a load of this headline:
Bush Raps Democrats on Spending
While it isn't news, the first sentence appears to be what I hope becomes standard journalistic practice:
President Bush never picked a spending fight when his party ran Congress, but with Democrats now in charge of the budget, he's dug in for a challenge. . .
Overall, Democrats are pressing to spend about $22 billion more on domestic programs than Bush wants. Education, health research and low-income housing grants are among the issues on which Bush and Democratic leaders disagree.
Given the budget's scope, a difference in the range of $20 billion is "trivial in economic terms," said Sidney Weintraub, an expert on trade and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Sure, there's something sick and twisted about the GOP's sudden dedication to spending cuts when it's for things like education and medical care. But what really gets me is what this says about Fearless Leader and his opinion of Republican voters. A) He's insane and actually believes what he's saying, B) he knows it's nonsense but doesn't care as long as people buy it, or C) counts on Republicans to be either rock-stupid or zealots. Whatever the case, 25-30% of Americans are still buying it, and that's sad.
In other news of the shameless, Larry Craig desperately needs to stop publicly embarrassing himself. Seriously.
UPDATE: The spending story could involve more shamelessness than I first thought. The link I included still reads the way it did when I wrote this post. But there's another, newly-edited version of it on the wires now. What's different about it? Well, most of the stuff I quoted is gone. Here's what's left:
Bush never vetoed a spending bill when his party ran Congress, but he's dug in for a challenge now.
And it isn't the opening sentence any more-- it's been demoted to make way for three classic Bush tough-guy quotes.
What's gone from the story?
*Comment that Bush's first spending veto in six years is to stop education, health and housing.
*The only quote that gives the spending any broader economic context.
Get a load of this headline:
Bush Raps Democrats on Spending
While it isn't news, the first sentence appears to be what I hope becomes standard journalistic practice:
President Bush never picked a spending fight when his party ran Congress, but with Democrats now in charge of the budget, he's dug in for a challenge. . .
Overall, Democrats are pressing to spend about $22 billion more on domestic programs than Bush wants. Education, health research and low-income housing grants are among the issues on which Bush and Democratic leaders disagree.
Given the budget's scope, a difference in the range of $20 billion is "trivial in economic terms," said Sidney Weintraub, an expert on trade and economics at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Sure, there's something sick and twisted about the GOP's sudden dedication to spending cuts when it's for things like education and medical care. But what really gets me is what this says about Fearless Leader and his opinion of Republican voters. A) He's insane and actually believes what he's saying, B) he knows it's nonsense but doesn't care as long as people buy it, or C) counts on Republicans to be either rock-stupid or zealots. Whatever the case, 25-30% of Americans are still buying it, and that's sad.
In other news of the shameless, Larry Craig desperately needs to stop publicly embarrassing himself. Seriously.
UPDATE: The spending story could involve more shamelessness than I first thought. The link I included still reads the way it did when I wrote this post. But there's another, newly-edited version of it on the wires now. What's different about it? Well, most of the stuff I quoted is gone. Here's what's left:
Bush never vetoed a spending bill when his party ran Congress, but he's dug in for a challenge now.
And it isn't the opening sentence any more-- it's been demoted to make way for three classic Bush tough-guy quotes.
What's gone from the story?
*Comment that Bush's first spending veto in six years is to stop education, health and housing.
*The only quote that gives the spending any broader economic context.
posted by Matt Sandwich | 1:33 PM
<< Home