On Shutdown Budget Deal, Rightbloggers Agree: Planned Parenthood is Evil
The compromise throws the big-spending Democrats into reverse, and gives Republicans who had promised sweeping cuts a small, face-saving victory. Now on to the next pointless battle!
Before that, though, rightbloggers had to figure out how they felt about it. Some thought it a big win; others felt betrayed. But one thing they mostly agreed on -- the modern equivalent of Cato the Elder's famous non sequitur: Planned Parenthood must be destroyed!
Jawa Report was ready to rumble, in part, because the government "boasts some of the highest gas taxes in the country -- Yet can't seem to get a road to 'stay' repaired for any length of time before they do it again." Maybe a shutdown would help!
Just in case, though, some pushed the line that it was actually Obama who wanted the shutdown. This was the thesis of a Wall Street Journal editorial, and the insinuation of Republican Senator Mike Lee. "Of course Barack Obama wants a government shutdown," said Surber. "It is his re-election campaign." "Obama seems to really want a showdown," said neo-neocon. "Now, why do you think that might be?"
The Last Tradition beseeched the GOP not to "give Obama the shutdown he desperately wants." Why? Because "Obama is on his death bed, politically," TLT claimed, and "he won't get bump if a shutdown is averted. And he'll unhappy if the shutdown doesn't happen. Keeping him unhappy is better for the conservative cause." Well, at least this guy has his priorities straight.
When the deal went down -- $38.5 billion in cuts, to be revisited later -- rightblogger opinion was divided as to whether it was good or bad for their side. Generally big-time, mainstream conservatives were more likely to count it a great success for Republicans.
National Review's Andrew Stiles agreed: "All told, [Obama] got $78.5 billion less than he originally requested," he said. "... [Harry Reid] ended up with $33.8 billion less spending than he wanted." If GOP Speaker of the House Boehner didn't act like a victor, said Stiles, it wasn't because he wasn't one, but because "unlike Obama and Reid, the speaker didn't quite feel the need to pat himself on the back over it."
When Stiles' colleague Andrew McCarthy quibbled that "the GOP just caved on its promise to cut the relative pittance of $61 billion in spending," Stiles retorted, "I would argue that the actual number is less relevant than the question of who has the political advantage heading into the much larger fights over the debt limit and the Ryan budget."
So, really, any reduction would have been a victory. (Also employing a low bar: agconservative at RedState, who said "Is [the cut] a miniscule amount compared to what we need? Yes. However for those pointing to how small it is they are forgetting that is way better than zero..." No doubt!)
Some smaller fry were convinced. "Sounds like the Democrat Party realized that the tide of public opinion had turned against them," said Full Metal Patriot, "and that shutting down the government would come back to haunt them in next year's election."
Patriots express their concern over federal spending.
"The numbers are small, to be sure," said American Thinker's Thomas Lifson, "but this number was a tactical, not a strategic engagement. The key to the matter is momentum, principle, and precedent, which set up the strategic environment for 2012." $38.5 billion means Big Mo! Lifson also thought Obama cut the deal because he was scared that the shutdown would be blamed on him, along with "pictures of families near military bases unable to pay the rent or buy groceries, going into paycheck advance lenders and payting 22% interest in order to put food on the table" -- which is the first time we've heard a rightblogger speak disparagingly about payday lenders.
But there were plenty of rightbloggers who found the half-a-loaf less than delicious.
"It seems the GOP folded on everything in exchange for a rounding error of cuts," said Andrew Breitbart's Big Government. "Oh well, progress of some kind."
"Boehner caved," said Weasel Zippers. "BOO HOO HOO! BOEHNER AND WUSSYPANTS REPUBS WUSS OUT...AGAIN!" bellowed Angry White Dude. "Boehner is the wrong girlyman for the job. Orange on the outside, yellow on the inside!" "The only thing Boehner will ever be successful in delivering," said Dan Riehl, "is the very thing Republicans have been criticized about for years - Democrat-lite."
The least pleased constituency was the Tea Party people, who had apparently believed all the November yak about massive cuts to the goldurned gummint.
The Tea Party Patriots denounced the "Hollow Victory." "Surprised? Don't be," said Tea Party Handbook, "[Boehner's] part of the Washington problem. He's a Progressive polictician!" Also, "Meet the Old Boss - Same as the New Boss," etc.
Cooler heads tried to prevail. The Tea Party "must choose between purity of principle and maturity of method," explained Ken Marrero, whose mission seemed to be convincing TP people not to primary Republican officeholders, which some of them were threatening to do ("It's Time John Boehner Goes Crying off into the Sunset" -- Left Coast Rebel). "Lives are videos, not snapshots," Marrero poetically waxed. "In the event of disagreements, allies deserve the benefit of the doubt. On most things we should be privately aware of their mistakes and publicly silent."
In case that didn't take, Marrero tried a harder line: "You can take a different road," he warned. "If you do, don't be surprised to find it crowded with bullies reading Rules for Radicals. You might also start preparing for your turn wearing the target costume." Ha! Not feeling so revolutionary now, are you, Joe Tricorner?
The treatment worked on some. "I'm starting to be swayed that last night wasn't the stink up that I originally was so disgusted with," said Spartanburg Tea Party, "but still think GOP Leadership is the suckage."
But most rightbloggers of the mad-as-hell persuasion stayed mad, and the big reason had nothing to do with money: It was because the Republicans had failed to cut funding to Planned Parenthood.