She begins by outlining the fictional conversation with a pollster:
When the pollster calls and asks whether I think the country is going in the right direction, I will say "no." When she asks if I approve of the job Congress is doing, I will say "no." And when she follows up with a question on President Obama's performance, I will answer: "Sometimes good, sometimes bad. The guy drives me nuts at times."
But when they ask whether I want Republicans to take back Washington, I'll respond: "Are you out of your mind? We're still recovering from their last round of debauchery -- their fiscal irresponsibility, servility toward Wall Street, disrespect for science, contempt for the environment."While it's easy to dismiss the "disrespect for science" criticism (since Lefties define Science as "that which fellow Leftist "Experts" will say) and she's intimating hints of Green lunacy, she raising valid points concerning the characterization of the Republican Congresses that President Bush had from 2000-2006.
The Bush Congresses did not rein in federal spending. Rather, under GWB, the Federal gov't grew still larger than ever with the creation of the feckless Homeland Security Department (including every traveler's best friend, the TSA). Most recklessly, GWB expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage, adding tons of additional weight to an economy already overburdened by unsustainably expensive federal entitlement programs.
However, Harrop's charge that Republicans demonstrated "servility towards Wall Street" is simply false-- at least to the extent that she intends to say that there was an uncommonly high level of influence of Wall Street over Federal Policy. The reality is that Democrats get more funding from Wall Street than Republicans do. Heck, Democrats get more money-- period. In fact, 12 of the 15 biggest political donors favor Democrats, and 10 of those 12 give over 90% of their money to Democrats. But hey, it's always easier to MSU than actually get some facts.
Harrop continues in a manner that asserts her certain superiority as a Democrat:
Did you hear Mitch McConnell say the other day that 'there's no evidence whatsoever that the Bush tax cuts actually diminished revenue'? This is our Senate minority leader spewing absolute ignorance! He must be trying to yank more campaign money out of the fat cats. Or he's playing to the yahoos who believe they can have big tax cuts, Medicare, wars and balanced budgets all at the same time.The ignorance belongs to Froma Harrop in this case. Please note the Bush tax cuts occured in 2001, 2002, and 2003 in three separate rounds. Despite prognostications from all the usual quarters that Federal Revenues would decrease as a result, the actual data says differently-- even allowing for the temporary major setback of 9/11: