My darlings, I have spent the day staring at an abundance of idiocy. We shall begin by reprising Rep. Barney Frank's comment from yesterday:
"Does Boehner need any justification? It says it right there on his partisan hack license that he can say anything that he wants."Apparently, Boehner has taken this as a license to shill:
On CNN's "Situation Room" yesterday, Wolf Blitzer, paraphrasing President Obama, told House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio), "[H]e seemed to be saying, all those Republicans who want a free market, who want to deregulate, who want the government off the back of these huge corporations, look what we got as a result of all of that." Boehner replied:Dumbfuckery like that stands on its own. I knew this man was stupid, but he's really striving for Dumbshit Con of the Year.
"Wolf, you have to understand, there was no deregulation of anything in the financial services industries. As a matter of fact, there was an increase in regulation."
Seriously, has Boehner even been awake since getting elected to Congress 18 years ago? Does he not remember voting for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? And supporting the deregulation of derivatives?
Alas for him, the competition is fierce. And Sarah Palin wants in on it. She's back to governing, a fact for which Alaska probably won't be grateful:
This is one instance where Sarah shouldn't be saying, "Thanks, but no thanks!"
Palin has announced that she is rejecting $416 million, out of $930 million originally headed to her state. "We are not requesting funds intended to just grow government," Palin said in a statement. "We are not requesting more money for normal day-to-day operations of government as part of this economic stimulus package. In essence we say no to operating funds for more positions in government."
This is notable for two reasons. First, Palin is widely seen as a potential presidential candidate, and a move like this can help her build up credibility with conservatives. Second, this might actually be the first time that Alaska rejected federal dollars for anything.
It's time for the electorate to sit these governors down and explain to them, simply and clearly, that rejecting millions of dollars in this economic climate is a dumbfuck thing to do. Too bad they're too stupid to understand even simple things like losing votes.
Just in time for the 6th anniversary of the Iraq debacle, we have Condi Rice trying to recreate history:
On PBS’s Charlie Rose yesterday — six years after the eve of the Iraq invasion — former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice discussed the decision to invade Iraq. Rice said she has had no “second thoughts” about striking the country, and when pressed by Rose on whether Saddam Hussein had connections to 9/11, Rice blankly said that “no one” believed in such a link:
ROSE: But you didn’t believe it had anything to do with 9/11.
RICE: No. No one was arguing that Saddam Hussein somehow had something to do with 9/11.
ROSE: No one.
RICE: I was certainly not. The President was certainly not. … That’s right. We were not arguing that.
Funny. I seem to remember hearing nothing but arguments tying Saddam to 9/11...
Amazing, that selective memory Cons have.
A letter from the White House to the House Speaker on March 18, 2003, read:
“(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”
In his book, Bush At War, Bob Woodward noted that Bush said after 9/11, “I believe Iraq was involved, but I’m not going to strike them now.” Rice was no exception either. On Sept. 15, 2002, she said that Saddam had “links to terrorism [that] would include al-Qaeda.” As late as September 2006, she remarked, “there were ties going on between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein’s regime going back for a decade.” Cheney still believes there was a link between Iraq and al Qaeda.
We began by bashing Boehner, and by bashing Boehner we shall end. I saved the best for last:
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) is drawing fire this afternoon for opposing a measure to recoup AIG bonus money, after complaining all week about how outrageous the bonuses are. House Democrats are on the offensive.
A spokesperson for GOP House leader John Boehner confirms that he will be voting No on a measure being introduced by House Dems today to slap a 90% tax on bonuses paid to AIG execs with family incomes topping $250,000 -- and a senior Democrat on the Senate side blasted him for expressing "manufactured outrage" about the AIG controversy.
"He will vote 'no' on the Democrats' bill, which will recoup some of the AIG bonus money eventually," Boehner spokesperson Michael Steel emails me. "He supports the House Republicans' better alternative, which would recoup all of the money immediately."
Right, and what's the "Republican alternative" on this? It's a non-binding resolution asking the Treasury Department to figure out a way -- the GOP's bill doesn't specify -- to recoup the money AIG paid in bonuses. Seriously, that's it. The "alternative" bill basically just passes the buck, telling Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, in effect, "We don't have a policy per se, but be a mensch and go get all the money back." That's the "better" Republican "alternative" to the Democrats' plan to recoup the money through taxes.
And if Geithner didn't figure out a way to get the money back? Nothing happens. This, Boehner believes, "would recoup all of the money immediately."
And Republicans wonder why it's so difficult to take them seriously on policy issues.
All of the above rather put me in mind of an old Tom Petty song.
It's almost like he was singing just about them.