Democrats argue for and against the same point on Meet the Press

Democrats have a particular knack for shamelessly making completely conflicting arguments at different times, as political conditions of the moment require. They’ll passionately argue a point one day, and just as passionately argue the exact opposite later, as needed for principle-free political effect. If the DeMSM held them accountable for any of this, it wouldn’t work, but we know (and they know) that’s not going to happen.

A particularly egregious example of this occurred this morning on Meet the Press.

Here’s Congressman Barney Frank, in response to a point by Senator John Ensign of Nevada, condemning “bloated spending” during Republican control of the White House and Congress:

SEN. ENSIGN: … But the other thing, to get back to what Congressman Frank said, is that, you know, we’re going to be laying off teachers and firefighters. You know, that’s just fearmongering. We’re not going to be doing that in any of the states. The states have grown, in their budgets, faster than population growth, faster than inflation for the last several year–actually, probably about the last 15 years. Their budgets are bloated, the federal government’s budget is bloated. What we should be doing is cutting back.

REP. FRANK: Well, first of all, on the bloated spending, this comes from a man whose party controlled the federal government–House, Senate and White House–for six years. We’ve had it for two. And in fact, we didn’t have the presidency. So the bloated spending, once again, you’re getting…

But just a moment later, here’s Senator Claire McCaskill:

SEN. McCASKILL: I, I, I do think that there was some spending in the [so-called stimulus] bill that was makeup for a starvation diet under the Bush administration, some important priorities of our party; frankly, of the American people. …

Was the federal budget in the last eight years “bloated” or on a “starvation diet”? Two Democrats, sitting at a table right across from each other, can make both arguments at the same time, all for political effect. It’s all about scoring points at that moment; without any regard for intellectual consistency or truth. And in any case, it’s ridiculous to suggest that irresponsible spending now is justified by alleged irresponsible spending in the past.

Incidentally, why does Congressman Frank assume that the first budget items states are going to cut will be cops, firefighters, and teachers? What responsible elected official is going to put those things at the bottom of the budget priority list? Frank appears to have a pretty low opinion of state and local officials. Of course, Senator Ensign is right, this is just pure fear-mongering. But for Frank, whether it’s true or not is irrelevant.

Comments are closed.