The stimulus package? Can you imagine the chutzpah of people still calling this legislative train wreck a "stimulus"? It stimulated nothing but public-sector jobs, bureaucracy and the federal debt. No problem for The New York Times editorial board. It believes the stimulus did work, because had it not been implemented, unemployment would have been worse -- "Depression-level." But it would have worked much better had it been even more ambitious. Amazing.
No number of negative empirical data can shake their blind faith. The failure of the administration's predictions that unemployment wouldn't exceed 8 percent doesn't matter. They simply parrot the Obama mantra that the stimulus helped to create or save 3 million jobs. But as Heritage Foundation scholar Brian Riedl says, the only evidence they have to support that assertion are their economic models, which say that should have been the result. The results, in reality, are that millions of jobs (net) have been lost.
And the editors regard the government's takeover of the auto industry and Obama's financial "reform" bill as things to brag about? Please, bring it on. "Hoof beats of totalitarianism"? You'd better believe it.
So what do the editors want Democrats to do? They recommend they follow the lead of Obama, who "has become uncharacteristically combative" (uncharacteristically? Surely they jest!) in pointing out that Republicans "have not come up with a single solitary new idea to address the challenges of the American people." How about a refreshing return to a few old but tried-and-tested ideas, such as drastically reducing spending and taxes?
We must pray Democrats take the editors' advice, betting on the ignorance of the American people and the fantasy that when the dust settles, liberalism resonates better than conservatism with the American electorate.
Indeed, concerning the alleged failure of Democrats "to delineate the differences between themselves and Republicans," the editors, again, have it completely backward. Democrats can only avoid an electoral disaster if they pretend to move to the right, but because they've now unveiled their extremism with control of the executive and legislative branches, it's way too late for that.
Despite the blind faith and delusions of The New York Times editorial board and many other liberals, the public well understands what Obama liberalism is all about now. There has been plenty of delineation, thank you, and you're going to see just how much in November.