Baltimore's Hardcore Democrat
Mayor Martin O'Malley sure sounds like he's from the "Democratic wing of the Democratic Party," doesn't he?
Speaking to other mayors and city officials gathered Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., O'Malley said [President] Bush's proposed budget cuts were akin to the 9/11 attacks.
"Back on September 11, terrorists attacked our metropolitan cores, two of America's great cities. They did that because they knew that was where they could do the most damage and weaken us the most. Years later, we are given a budget proposal by our commander in chief, the president of the United States. And with a budget axe, he is attacking America's cities. He is attacking our metropolitan core," O'Malley, a Democrat, said.
What earned this kind of condemnation? In his budget, Bush proposed cutting spending for community development projects by $2 billion. "These cuts, ladies and gentlemen, are sad. Irresponsible. They are also dishonest," O'Malley claimed. "If any mayor reduced school funding by 33% and called it the 'Strengthening Our Schools Initiative,' I think they'd be excoriated."
Of course, there's a difference between criticizing "any mayor" for cutting the education budget (which should be blown up altogether, IMHO, but that's another post) and equating him/her to mass murdering terrorists. Are Dem arguments so weak that they can't even make it out of the launch tubes without such maximum overdrove rhetorical overkill?
Yes, they are.
Some in the room were taken aback by O'Malley's attack, the Washington Post reported, noting one reporter asked the mayor to explain his "inflammatory rhetoric."
"Some" in the room were taken aback? That's a telling comment on O'Malley's audience.
As to "explaining his inflammatory rhetoric," is an explanation really necessary? Seems to speak for itself if you ask me.
Other Democratic city officials weren't quite so accusing of the mayor.
Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams would not critique O'Malley personally, but did say he did not approve of "the harsh language that was used," the Post reported.
IOW, Mayor Williams concurs with Mayor O'Malley's sentiments, but hasn't lost enough of his mind not to realize that they're political dioxin.
Meanwhile, Montgomery County, Maryland, Executive Douglas M. Duncan described O'Malley's accusations as going "way too far."
"The President of the United States is fighting terrorism. It hurts our cause when people say things like that," Duncan said.
Executive Duncan seems to have his head on straight. The next step is for him to figure out that, quite evidently, Mayor O'Malley does not consider himself to be part of "our cause," at least as long as George W. Bush is leading it.
Needless to say, Republicans are flabbergasted. And angry.
"Martin O'Malley is truly beginning to spin out of control. His rhetoric is beginning to border on the bizarre," said Maryland Republican chairman John Kane in a statement following the outburst. "His own counterparts, including Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams, do not support Martin O'Malley's divisive, inflammatory and reckless attempt to grab national headlines."
Well, I'm glad to see the anger, though I'm ever skeptical as to how far GOPers are willing to act upon it. But "flabbergasted"? Sheesh, GDub has been in office for over four years by now. Can this kind of hard-left vituperation really still be a surprise?
The surprised party in this incident appears to be Mayor O'Malley, who apparently didn't get the positive response to standard Dem boilerplate that he'd expected:
Later, O'Malley tried to backtrack by saying he wasn't equating Bush's cuts to the 9/11 attacks.
"The point I am trying to make is, for America to be strong, we have to strengthen our cities. Because we're in the middle of a war, we need to be strengthening and protecting our cities, not weakening our cities. Two of our cities have already been attacked in this war," he told the Post.
Uh-huh. Brings to mind something I posted last week:
The Norwoods [from "the Hug" at the SOTUA last week] are "red" state people, and as such might just as well be from outer space as far as "blue"sters like the Hardballer are concerned. They don't understand "realness." And really, they can't afford to indulge in it, because whenever a lib does so Americans end up seeing the ugliness of a Ward Churchill, a Ted Kennedy, a Barbara Boxer, or a Janeane Garofalo, the latter of whom went on MSNBC's After Hours and equated the "Inked Finger" show of solidarity with Iraqi voters with the Nazi salute. [my emphasis]
Mayor O'Malley was being real. His backpedal is phony. And that is exquisitely symptomatic of why the Democrats are going to be in the political wilderness for years to come.
Speaking to other mayors and city officials gathered Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., O'Malley said [President] Bush's proposed budget cuts were akin to the 9/11 attacks.
"Back on September 11, terrorists attacked our metropolitan cores, two of America's great cities. They did that because they knew that was where they could do the most damage and weaken us the most. Years later, we are given a budget proposal by our commander in chief, the president of the United States. And with a budget axe, he is attacking America's cities. He is attacking our metropolitan core," O'Malley, a Democrat, said.
What earned this kind of condemnation? In his budget, Bush proposed cutting spending for community development projects by $2 billion. "These cuts, ladies and gentlemen, are sad. Irresponsible. They are also dishonest," O'Malley claimed. "If any mayor reduced school funding by 33% and called it the 'Strengthening Our Schools Initiative,' I think they'd be excoriated."
Of course, there's a difference between criticizing "any mayor" for cutting the education budget (which should be blown up altogether, IMHO, but that's another post) and equating him/her to mass murdering terrorists. Are Dem arguments so weak that they can't even make it out of the launch tubes without such maximum overdrove rhetorical overkill?
Yes, they are.
Some in the room were taken aback by O'Malley's attack, the Washington Post reported, noting one reporter asked the mayor to explain his "inflammatory rhetoric."
"Some" in the room were taken aback? That's a telling comment on O'Malley's audience.
As to "explaining his inflammatory rhetoric," is an explanation really necessary? Seems to speak for itself if you ask me.
Other Democratic city officials weren't quite so accusing of the mayor.
Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams would not critique O'Malley personally, but did say he did not approve of "the harsh language that was used," the Post reported.
IOW, Mayor Williams concurs with Mayor O'Malley's sentiments, but hasn't lost enough of his mind not to realize that they're political dioxin.
Meanwhile, Montgomery County, Maryland, Executive Douglas M. Duncan described O'Malley's accusations as going "way too far."
"The President of the United States is fighting terrorism. It hurts our cause when people say things like that," Duncan said.
Executive Duncan seems to have his head on straight. The next step is for him to figure out that, quite evidently, Mayor O'Malley does not consider himself to be part of "our cause," at least as long as George W. Bush is leading it.
Needless to say, Republicans are flabbergasted. And angry.
"Martin O'Malley is truly beginning to spin out of control. His rhetoric is beginning to border on the bizarre," said Maryland Republican chairman John Kane in a statement following the outburst. "His own counterparts, including Washington, D.C., Mayor Anthony Williams, do not support Martin O'Malley's divisive, inflammatory and reckless attempt to grab national headlines."
Well, I'm glad to see the anger, though I'm ever skeptical as to how far GOPers are willing to act upon it. But "flabbergasted"? Sheesh, GDub has been in office for over four years by now. Can this kind of hard-left vituperation really still be a surprise?
The surprised party in this incident appears to be Mayor O'Malley, who apparently didn't get the positive response to standard Dem boilerplate that he'd expected:
Later, O'Malley tried to backtrack by saying he wasn't equating Bush's cuts to the 9/11 attacks.
"The point I am trying to make is, for America to be strong, we have to strengthen our cities. Because we're in the middle of a war, we need to be strengthening and protecting our cities, not weakening our cities. Two of our cities have already been attacked in this war," he told the Post.
Uh-huh. Brings to mind something I posted last week:
The Norwoods [from "the Hug" at the SOTUA last week] are "red" state people, and as such might just as well be from outer space as far as "blue"sters like the Hardballer are concerned. They don't understand "realness." And really, they can't afford to indulge in it, because whenever a lib does so Americans end up seeing the ugliness of a Ward Churchill, a Ted Kennedy, a Barbara Boxer, or a Janeane Garofalo, the latter of whom went on MSNBC's After Hours and equated the "Inked Finger" show of solidarity with Iraqi voters with the Nazi salute. [my emphasis]
Mayor O'Malley was being real. His backpedal is phony. And that is exquisitely symptomatic of why the Democrats are going to be in the political wilderness for years to come.
posted by JASmius at 11:36 AM
<<< Home