Mitch McConnell pulls the pin; kaboom still to follow

I wrote nothing celebratory last Friday about the economy's creation of nearly a quarter-million jobs for two cautious reasons: one, the GOP's unsequestered malignancy has yet to work its contractionary black magic; and two, any good economic news is sure to be met with renewed determination by same to render it bad, asap.

Congressional Republicans will tolerate much. They'll tolerate a cesspool of an image, a joke of a budget, an internal cadre of posturing nincompoops hellbent on wrecking the party. What they won't tolerate is a dynamic economy under a Democratic president. And 236,000 new jobs is bumping too close to economic vitality for their political comfort.

Hence Mitch McConnell's foreboding remark yesterday:

We all anticipate that the president’s request of us to raise the debt ceiling, which we’ll probably do sometime, this will generate another, hopefully, another discussion about solving the real problem.

So much for last month's artifice:

"We’re not going to take a stand on the debt ceiling. We’re going to take a stand on the sequester," said a Republican senator, who requested anonymity to discuss his party’s strategy.

Senator Anonymous' declaration was unbelievable then, and merely proves the axiomatic now: there is no honor among thieves or political assassins or minority-leading terrorists of economic confidence-butchering extortion--"which we'll probably do sometime"? 

We're always looking for Republicans' rock bottom. There isn't one.

Comments

[shsavage]

Then there's this: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/13/fox-news-guest-to-msnbc-hannity-is-so-upset-that-the-economy-is-rebounding/ Clearly, the GOP has some major destruction to accomplish, providing they can figure out how to do it without leaving fingerprints. I personally doubt that the impact of the sequester will be as bad as the prophets of doom (PBO included) has predicted. It's just too small a slice of the overall budget.

[Robert Lipscomb]

Study, on a micro level, of the lead-up to the Civil War suggests that it was all avoidable. On a macro level, it is obvious that it was inevitable. The Civil War settled the 150 year old question of whether slave states could use states rights to impose slavery on the non-slave states. Most discusssions of the Civil War fail to acknowledge the extent to which the slave states went to impose slavery (e.g., Fugitive Slave Act)onto the other states.

The question now before us is whether or not the United States will be a socialist democracy. To their credit, the GOP recognizes there is no in-between, no middle ground. One cannot be "a little bit pregnant".

To Obama's credit, he seeks some kind of middle ground, especially during the recovery from a depression. The GOP correctly sees this as their last good opportunity to vanquish their opponents.

I do not see, at a macro level, how a political war can be avoided.

[Peter G]

As a historical note Robert, the drive to extend slave holders rights did not end at your northern border. Many's the slave hunter that crossed into Canada waving papers that claimed Upper Canada as their hunting ground. Mostly, but not entirely, unsuccessfully.