Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-Va.) told The Hill over the weekend that the Senate may reach an agreement to resolve the ongoing crises gripping Washington, but he and his House Republican colleagues should be prepared to reject it -- no matter how severe the consequences are for the country.
"We have to make a decision that's right long-term for the United States, and what may be distasteful, unpleasant and not appropriate in the short run may be something that has to be done," he said.
Griffith, a former majority leader of the Virginia House of Delegates, cited as an example the American Revolution.
"I will remind you that this group of renegades that decided that they wanted to break from the crown in 1776 did great damage to the economy of the colonies," Griffith said. "They created the greatest nation and the best form of government, but they did damage to the economy in the short run."
I wish I could better explain such a perspective. In Griffith's mind, American colonists damaged their economy to create their own nation, and this is similar to congressional Republicans today because ... they hate the Affordable Care Act? They want cuts to Social Security and Medicare?
This notion of long-term and short-term thinking is also fascinating. For Griffith, congressional Republicans may feel the need to crash the global economy this week, and destroy the full faith and credit of the United States for the foreseeable future, but this will be the "right" thing the nation in the long-term. Why? Because Morgan Griffith says so.
I hate to break it to the confused congressman, but his argument is gibberish. A sovereign debt crisis would be more than "unpleasant," and House Republicans are not revolutionary heroes battling a king.
This is the kind of guy Senate Republicans are eager to satisfy?