While the right doesn’t seem at all pleased with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-Ky.) proposed solution to the debt-ceiling crisis, opposition among conservative Republicans is far from unanimous.
The Wall Street Journal‘s editorial page, one of the more influential pieces of Republican media real estate, got on board with the McConnell plan this morning. After several hundred words about how much the editorial page doesn’t like President Obama, the WSJ argued:
The hotter precincts of the blogosphere were calling this a sellout yesterday, though they might want to think before they shout. The debt ceiling is going to be increased one way or another, and the only question has been what if anything Republicans could get in return. If Mr. Obama insists on a tax increase, and Republicans won’t vote for one, then what’s the alternative to Mr. McConnell’s maneuver? […]
Even if Mr. Obama gets his debt-limit increase without any spending cuts, he will pay a price for the privilege [under McConnell’s proposal].
For Republicans looking for an excuse to back the McConnell plan and get out of this mess, perhaps the editorial will offers some cover.
But what I found especially interesting about the WSJ piece came in the last paragraph of the editorial. (thanks to D.D. for the tip)
We’d far prefer a bipartisan deal to cut spending and reform entitlements without a tax increase.
Yes, according to the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal, a “bipartisan deal” on debt reduction would include the spending cuts Republicans want, entitlement cuts Republicans want, and the existing tax rates Republicans want. Democrats, in this “bipartisan deal,” would get nothing.
President Obama, the editorial board, “won’t go along” with this.
He’s obviously history’s greatest monster for rejecting such a “bipartisan deal.”