Tea Party downgrade? Hardly. It's an Obama downgrade.

UPDATE: Now they're reaching for a TEA PARTY RECESSION. Ha!  
  So, as predicted, the long knives have come out and the Tea Party is being blamed for....the downgrade.
  In an obvious attempt to deflect guilt and transfer responsibility from themselves, liberals are calling it the Tea Party downgrade.
  By Axelrod, Kerry, Dean.
  Who's been in charge of the Congress since 2007?
  Do they seriously think the downgrade was decided, like, Sunday night before the default was avoided?
  Do they seriously think fighting to NOT spend money was the reason we were downgraded?
  Okay, so let's go over this convoluted logic.
  It doesn't make sense but let's give it a try.
  Because American citizens are concerned about how much money this and the last administrations have spent enormous amounts of money that we didn't have, because government officials have made promises that no one will be able to keep, because much of what they've done has been for their own benefit--to get reelected, to get compliments, to get free stuff--because of those factors, the Tea Party is responsible for the money they spent.
  Here are David Axelrod's words from The Daily Caller:

  The fact of the matter is that this is essentially a tea party downgrade. The tea party brought us to the brink of a default. By the way you said before, the president said … if we had defaulted on our debt the consequences would have been dramatic and lasting. So, you know, it was the right thing to do to avoid that default. It was the wrong thing to do to push the country to that point. It’s something that that should never have happened. That clearly is on the backs of those who were willing to see the country default. Those very strident voices in the tea party.”

  Obama's administration has printed three times the amount of money that was in circulation when he came into office. He's spent like crazy too:

In the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the federal debt held by the public increased by $2.5260 trillion, which is more than the cumulative total of the national debt held by the public that was amassed by all U.S. presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan.

  So what was the Tea Party's problem again? Was it wanting to stop spending or spend more? Which got us into this problem of a downgrade? And what was the S&P objection? Partisan rancor and argument? 
  Here's the language the S & P used in downgrading the credit rating. Does this sound like it's the Tea Party's fault? WSJ:

The downgrade from S&P has been brewing for months. S&P's sovereign debt team, led by company veteran David T. Beers, had grown increasingly skeptical that Washington policy makers would make significant progress in reducing the deficit, given the tortured talks over raising the debt ceiling. In recent warnings, the company said Washington should strive to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years, suggesting anything less would be insufficient.

  So the deficit wasn't reduced enough by the debt deal. 
  But it's the Tea Party's fault for not wanting to spend more money, raise taxes and provide free stuff, thereby encouraging sloth and dependency.
  Gotcha. That'll fly.