Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Defending the indefensible

Andrew Sullivan again goes to bat for the Obama Administration, this time over its measley $100 million budget cut:
Yeah, it was pathetic in the grand scheme of things. But I thought it was a good sign that Obama understands totally valid concerns about future debt.
So, Obama is ratcheting up the national debt to new heights, but it's cool because he understands that it's bad. And that's a relief? It would be tempting to be more charitable if he were operating out of ignorance.

Sullivan then bashes Glenn Reynolds -- aka instapundit -- for having the temerity to criticize the cuts:
He's all upset that Obama's lame notion of cutting a mere $100 million from the federal budget is pathetic given the scale of the deficits ahead. He's right about that, which is why I'm relieved Obama is talking seriously about entitlement reform and has offered some small progress on military bloat. But is this the same Glenn Reynolds whose only criticism of spending when the GOP was in power was ... pork, just as puny and unserious as Obama's $100 million? Yes, it is!
This actually underlines just how insulting Obama's proposed cuts are. If you click on the second link in the Sullivan quote it's a story about a single instance of pork worth $700 million. That's right, eliminating that one project would save seven times more than what Obama has proposed cutting across mutliple government agencies. Sad.

1 comment:

Paradigm Shifter said...

I love getting my monthly copy of The Atlantic, but Andrew Sullivan's blog has tested my resolve to profess enjoyment of the magazine over the last year. It's hard to take his journalistic chops seriously when he seems to be such a shill for Obama. This last post you highlighted just furthers my opinion.

Perhaps it should be Andrew Sullivan, and not my suggestion of Dr. Evil, as to who becomes the next WH Press Secretary when Gibbs finally gives up trying to spin the indefensible.

Paradigm Shifter