Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  
Home

Naked Republican Goons 33 1/3: The Final Insult

Share
Submitted by pmcarpenter on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 6:23am.

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter

I really didn't want to write about the charmless debauchery of House Republicans again so soon, but when acute legislative events mix with the GOP's chronic yahooism, what's a helpless commentator to do?

It was shortly after 5 p.m. Central, and there on the screen was MSNBC's David Shuster quizzing Rep. Chris Van Hollen, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, about the pending economic stimulus vote.

Then to split screen: Van Hollen on the right, the House floor on the left, upon which stood 432 representatives who were, in fact, already voting, as indicated by the superimposed and accumulating number columns.

So, asks Shuster of Van Hollen, what do you think? (The former was unaware the voting had already begun.) How much Republican support will you get this evening? Oh, says Van Hollen -- Republican Nay-to-Yea votes, 117-0, said the screen -- well gee that's hard to say with any precision -- Republican votes, 130-0 -- but I'm sure -- Republican votes, 155-0 -- that we'll get some reasonably respectable level of Republican support -- Republican votes, 172-0 -- because this vote, this issue, these perilous times are so soberingly momentous.

Commercial break, I flip to C-Span: Republican Nays, 177; Yeas, 0.

They had gone and done it; they had gone and shown themselves to be complete asses.

The totality of House GOP swinishness caught everyone off-guard, although it's difficult in retrospect to imagine why. For this is what they've trained and studied for: uniform infantilism, especially whenever the country cries out for mature governance and some -- any -- semblance of bipartisan compromise and cooperation.

Each House GOPer had his or her little militant manual firmly in hand -- their very own prized edition of Mein Dummkampf, penned by the macroeconomically ignorant likes of the party's Rush Limbaughs and dedicated to their stormtrooping baboon-corps of Sean Hannitys.

Said House GOP leadership member Cathy McMorris Rodgers of the bill in typical high Republican indignation: It's just a "typical [Democratic] bill that is full of wasteful spending" -- by which, one can only assume, she meant more needed funds for food stamps, more needed funds for children's healthcare and more needed funds for the still-unemployed, all of whom are bathing in the putrid afterwash and decadent desolation of her party's Gilded Age policies.

Elsewhere, some Republican Naysayers who didn't find the bill particularly "wasteful" instead found it excessive; those who didn't find it excessive found it insufficient; and those who didn't find it insufficient found it to be but a political ploy to buy working- and under-class votes.

By nightfall, amidst the scattered network interviews with the drill-team obstructionists, only one thing became manifestly clear: The GOP leadership cared not what particular problem each of its members had with the bill, but by God each member was to fucking find one.

In what some might characterize as crocodile tears, since the Dems were always numerically assured of carrying the day, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer noted that "We have acted in a bipartisan fashion working with a Republican president; now we see President Obama come down to talk to Republicans and before he gets there [Minority Leader John] Boehner directs his people to vote against his program."

But I doubt Hoyer's tears were that smugly reptilian. What I do imagine is that he now envisions at least four grueling years of politically depraved indifference by near-monolithic Republicans, goose-stepping occasionally on other critical votes with perhaps philosophically wrenched but seat-protecting Blue Dogs.

The speculation now is that after Senate Democrats finish doing with the stimulus bill what the GOP resolutely refuses to do with most any bill -- compromise -- then 30 or 40 House Republicans will abandon their party's Soprano-family values and uncharacteristically cast a vote in favor of the nation's general and greater welfare.

But that's what everyone thought before last night, too, especially the ever-cheerfully optimistic Chris Van Hollen, right smack on national television.

 

Please respond to P.M.'s commentary by leaving comments below and sharing them with the BuzzFlash community. For personal questions or comments you can contact him at fifthcolumnistmail@gmail.com

THE FIFTH COLUMNIST by P.M. Carpenter


»

To Kelly Ann Thomas

Submitted by Wyoming Granny on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 1:39pm.
You wrote: "I wish people could understand that two plus two equals four an tow(sic) plus negative eight equals negative six, not plus eight." If you are so interested in doing the math, consider this: C + I + E + G = GDP, where C = consumer spending, I = investment, E = net exports, G = government spending, and GDP = gross domestic product. When C and I are greatly reduced, and E is negative, the only way to keep GDP relatively high is to greatly increase G. QED
»

I + N + S + A + N + I + T + Y

Submitted by Chips on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 4:11pm.
... = insanity. Really, folks, how much can you swallow from D.C., whatever its face, before you're fed up? The bailout was originally touted as the stimulus that was needed to get our economy back on track, was it not? Obama's biggest campaign contributor was Goldman Sachs, and he dutifully bought the bailout line and pushed for it hard. Obama's cabinet includes not only members of W's administration (change?), but those from the Clinton administration who originally lobbied for the deregulation that set the stage for the current economic hyperproblems. Besides, the G in the equation is an illusion. The government doesn't have any money. It has to borrow it. It borrows it based on the future, but it has no future, because production has left the country. So, the more we "spend" (borrow), the more we weaken whatever economy still exists and the more hyper will be the resulting and inevitable inflation. There are a couple of choices. You can get out your bailout application pads and submit for a couple hundred grand; if you're lucky, it'll buy you lunch. Or, gather whatever folks/strengths you have, circle the wagons, physically, mentally and spiritually, and fight life's battle from there. Don't put your faith in illusions. The folks on the Hill long ago stopped working for us.
»

No surprise

Submitted by cagey on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 12:40pm.
The Republicans used their votes to get better positioning when the bill goes to conference committee, that's all. They are political animals playing political games for their own power and money, nothing more. They are not about governing anything. They have abandoned any pretense of governing for the people. Their constituents should be reaming them a new one instead of listening to Rush Limbaugh, who is also in this for the money. Wake up, people. Do you think Rush is going to let you live in one of his houses or help you pay for food when you go broke? He'll be laughing all the way to Dubai (or some insane asylum). Then where will you be?
»

No logic

Submitted by robgo2 on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 12:56pm.
If anything, the bill will be toughened when it comes out of the conference committee, now that the Dems see that the Repubs are childish losers who don't want to play nice and whose votes are not even needed. At least that is what should happen, if the Democratic leadership has any sense and any courage.
»

bully logic

Submitted by cagey on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 1:12pm.
It's the logic of the playground bully, and they're used to intimidating and rolling over the Democratic "leadership". I pray the Dems get some sense and courage.
»

re:bully logic

Submitted by christopherflynn on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 1:32pm.
And I pray that you and I win a state lottery jackpot...(the odds favor this...)
»

The rethugs

Submitted by willymack on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 11:33am.
Name ONE GODDAM THING the "republican" party has done for our people since Eisenhower kicked off the Interstate highway system and wrote the book" "Mandate for a Change" in which he warned of the very mess we're in now if we continued on the path the rethugs began at the start of his first term. We're talking 49 years here, folks. I think it's time to decertify the whole sorry gang of crooks, throw them out, and put people in there who actually CARE about us.
»

Clarification

Submitted by Chips on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 11:39am.
If by "the whole sorry gang of crooks" you mean all the congresscritters, recrats and depubs, I am in complete agreement.
»

Sobriety

Submitted by Chips on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 11:28am.
It seems to me that the goosestepping is being done by the Democrats as they trail behind Goldman-Sachs' newest boy, Obama. Where were the Democrats, especially Obama, when the constituent voice was overwhelmingly against the bailout bill? Oh, I remember; Obama was lobbying hard for it, and the rest of the party, after a little browbeating and porkbarreling, voted "yes" the second time around. That bailout money was supposed to be the stimulus. "Trust us" doesn't work any more.
»

REPUGS & the Stimulus Plan

Submitted by pgpunch on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 11:13am.
I find it interesting that the repubs have such "brilliant" ideas regarding the stimulus plan or any other plan. What I don't understand is why they didn't use those ideas to fix what they had broken. We wouldn't be in this mess if they had implemented their "brilliant" ideas when they had the chance. As Penn, William that is, said a while ago, "right is right even when everyone is against it and wrong is wrong even when everyone is for it". They have yet to be accountable for this mess or any other mess that occurred on their watch. I have had it with selective accountability, which they are masters of. No one was screaming when Bush and those other little bits of shrubbery were turning the country into a nation of weeds. Now all we get from that bunch of revengeful lunatics is a lot of lip. The country has spoken. They ought to listen.
»

Just Say No to Bailouts

Submitted by Kelly Ann Thomas on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 10:54am.
The majority of Americans - Republicans and Democrats - are against the bailout. The U.S. has just spent or promised to spend $3.5 Trillion (prior to the most recent bailout bill) on useless bailouts and all it has done is put American taxpayers on the hook for the expense accounts of a bunch of useless "executives". These bailouts are more than double the U.S. Annual Budget - and that's without the interest we are obligated to pay! So where do you think the money will come from? I wish people could understand that two plus two equals four an tow plus negative eight equals negative six, not plus eight. I saw this happening eight years ago. None of this is a suprise to anyone with a rudimentary understanding of history and economics. Bailouts are useless. The United States will collapse this summer. No amount of bailouts will help. All a bailout will do is put more money the hands of the rich so they can continue the final act of looting the country. Complaining about Republicans only implies that the author and commenters have zero clue about the economy. This isn't political infighting on the part of the Republicans, regardless of how you want to treat this. The bailout is unconstitutional. You are demanding that I pay for someone else's problems, and if I refuse to be accountable for their ignorance and poor decision making skills, I can be incarcerated and have my possessions taken from me. That's slavery. Period.
»

Attack of the Comic-Book Objectivists - Part TWO!

Submitted by drprodny on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 12:57pm.
What a pile of pseudo-Libertarian hooey you write, Ms. Thomas.

President Obama's Stimulus Bill - as oppposed to The Traitor Bush's Korporate Money Grab "Bailout Bill" that put too much trust in some Big Finance type handing out money to cronies - will put people to work rebuilding this country's infrastructure from the disaster every Republican, and the Republican-in-all-but-name Clinton, imposed by their "benign neglect."

I'm sorry you hate paying taxes, lady. Try moving to someplace nobody pays taxes, like the Channel Islands - and see how you like living someplace where your infrastructure is at the mercy of a far-off government....
»

Semantics

Submitted by Kelly Ann Thomas on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 6:50pm.
It is inane that you guys are quibbling about semantics: Republican v. Democrat, Bailout v. Stimulus. There is no difference!!! Bill Clinton had his own list of crimes. He was merely a wolf in sheep's clothing. The Democrats had control of Congress and they didn't do squat. They didn't impeach Bush or prosecute him for war crimes. They never submitted a balanced budget. (This is not to say that the Republicans have ever submitted a balanced budget, either, but this article blames Republicans in Congress for not adding another trillion dollars in debt while preserving all the tax cuts for the wealthy, just in case you though Obama was going to take more from the wealthy to pay for this.) Where were the Democrats in all this? Remember Bill Clinton? He was the guy who wrote a non-marketable IOU to the Social Security Trusts to avoid having the U.S. default on its debt. That's where the government surplus came from. While he was at it, he nationalized more land at the behest of the IMF. You see, when the US went off the gold standard, the US had to find a way to collaterize its debts, so Richard Nixon started pledging mining, drilling, water, and other property rights of our national land to foreign bondholders. Foreign bondholdes. When the U.S. defaults on its debt, foreign bondholders have access to these lands. U.S. bondholders will not. Ask the Argentineans how this felt when the IMF deliberately collapsed their economy. Never mind, you will soon find out. By the way, the EPA was created under Nixon as a way to protect the pledged lands from development. And to the person who said name one thing Republicans ever did that helped the US? If you believe in the validity of the EPA, then that's one thing. Bill Clinton also repealed the Glass-Steigel Act, which was passed in 1933 to prevent rampant speculation that led to the collapse of the markets beginning in 1929. Anyone who ever studied the Depression Era markets and financial systems could have (and many did) predict the economic disaster that faces every person on this planet when he allowed banks to get into the brokerage business. This Depression comes as no surprise. This collapse was inevitable. People have been trying to address the coming economic collapse for years, but no one in power outside of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich seems to care. It's pretty sad when all someone has to do is say, "I support abortion rights," pretend to be "green" and donate more federal funding for useless educational programs that have slowly dumbed down the population, and toss a few more dollars federal funding for social services and suddenly you become the Saviour of the Democratic Party. I live in Nicaragua (left the US when Bush stole the second election) and I can tell you from experience that tossing money at a problem isn't going to fix it. It usually makes it worse. I live in a country very much like the United States in some ways - everyone is looking for a handout and everyone expects the government to solve all of their problems. This bill is not a stimulus bill. The economy has tanked because it was never a real economy to begin with, at least not for the last forty years. This bill bails out failed businesses and failed intellectuals and illegal immigrants. It will do nothing to stop the inevitable. It isn't stimulating anything; it's a welfare that you and your fellow Americans have to pay by law or you will go to jail and have your assets seized. It's a matter of human rights. If you think that a government has the right to take away what you earn and redistribute it to someone else, then you are abdicating slavery. I don't need a government to redistribute my wealth, whether it's for social programs or military contractors. I don't want to be told by a bunch of spineless faux intellectuals that I have to pay for someone else's upkeep, including Bechtel, Halliburton. I am fully aware that I can offer far more help to the poor and disabled and oppressed on my own than the government can with my money. All of this is a moot point because by Jun-July this year, the US will run out of money to pay the interest on the debt, perhaps sooner given next trillion Obama wants to spend. The US is bankrupt and turning on the printing presses Zimbabwe style isn't going to make it better. Just ask Robert Mugabe.
»

You must have dialed a wrong number.

Submitted by robgo2 on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 11:19am.
Uh, this discussion has to do with an economic stimulus bill, not a bank bailout bill. Do you think that a stimulus package is unnecessary also?
»

she doesn't know the

Submitted by christopherflynn on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 1:37pm.
she doesn't know the difference...
»

No "Bi-Partison" Mantle for you, Mr. President

Submitted by pgbowden on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 10:43am.
No one ever went broke underestimating the Republicans' penchant for pure infantilism. Just as Earl Warren was able to "whip" his fellow justices into a 9-0 vote in the landmark 1954 Brown VS Board of Education case because of the statement that would make to the country, the Republican leadership yesterday was able to whip their rank-and-file into a 177-0 vote against the Democrats during a time of eminant economic crisis because of what THAT would say to the country. See? Obama didn't get a single vote from Republicans. How can he now claim to be a "post-partisan" president in a post-partisan party? Do the Dems not see how this will strategically be used against them by this party of peurile bedwetters? On cable TV today I expect there to be Republicans lined up around the block (with nary a Democrat in sight) whining about how they were frozen out of the process and no incredulous anchor people questioning the absudity of how the most partisan party which enabled the most partisan administration (the extent of which has yet to be revealed)in recent memory can get away with such blatent hypocrisy. That's the America we live in. I expect Obama over the next few weeks will figure out that his considerable charisma cannot cure all ills (i.e.- The Republican Party belongs in Bellevue not at a White House cocktail party). If not, he will continue to get his hand bitten off by rabid dogs in suits and be blamed afterwards by Republicans for the lack of bi-partisanship in the Democratic Party, with a vile corporate media giving them a platform to do it, hour after hour, day after day. Excuse me while I go throw up. This is not change we can believe in.
»

Will Obama learn?

Submitted by robgo2 on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 11:22am.
It's easy to slam Republicans for being nitwits. (And shouldn't we pity them a little for being nitwits?) But the real question is whether President Obama will now recognize the futility and foolishness of his post-partisan inclusiveness. As Paul Krugman has pointed out for many months, the current group of congressional Republicans are highly partisan and don't know how to behave in any other way. They can only be brought on-board by total capitulation to their ideology and agenda. So please, Mr. President, get on with governing the country in the best way possible, even if that means leaving out-of-touch obstructionists behind.
»

GOP: Great Obstructionist Party

Submitted by SkeeterVT on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 10:18am.
There can be no doubt now that the Republicans -- at least those in the House -- have chosen to be obstructionist rather than cooperative. They clearly have not gotten the message that the voters sent on November 4 that they wanted change from the regime of right-wing ideology that marked the Bush administration. Although we don't yet know at this time what Senate Republicans will do, if they prove to be as obstructionist as their colleagues in the House, it therefore will be incumbent on the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership in both houses of Congress to brush the Republicans aside and fully implement the mandate for change that the voters gave them.
»

Quit whining about Congressional Republicans, Steny

Submitted by ETS on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 10:03am.

So what. Almost anybody with half a brain could have guessed that Congressional Republicans would vote no on any economic stimulus package that comes for the Democratic side of the aisle. These j'mokes didn't get elected by being conciliatory, compromisers. The constituents back in the home district want their U.S. Representative to be a GOP tough guy or gal, whichever the case may be, even if that Representative cuts off their economic noses to spite their economic faces!

Who we really should be concerned with is the 11 Democrats who voted--now here's real bipartisanship for ya--with the losing Republicans:

  • Allen Boyd, FL 2nd
  • Bobby Bright, AL 2
  • Jim Cooper, TN 5/
  • Brad Ellsworth, IN 9
  • Parker Griffith, AL 5
  • Paul Kanjorski, PA 11
  • Frank Kratovil, MD 1
  • Walt Minnick, ID 1
  • Heath Shuler, NC 11
  • Collin Peterson, MN 7
  • Gene Taylor MS 4

    • Here's what "Blue Dog" Congressman Health Shuler said of his NO vote:

    "In my opinion, the legislation before the House today contained too much additional spending in areas that will not offer immediate economic stimulus. As our nation faces an historic budget deficit and a national debt approaching $11 trillion, I cannot in good conscience borrow and spend $825 billion, further burdening future generations of Americans.”

    Whoa! sounds pretty Republican to me.

    I think House Majority Leader Hoyer, Speaker Pelosi and President Obama should concentrate on keeping the Blue Dogs on a tight leash.

    »

    unfortunately, it'll never

    Submitted by christopherflynn on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 1:41pm.
    unfortunately, it'll never happen...
    »

    Oppositional Defiant Disorder

    Submitted by ardie on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 9:58am.
    The Republicans, for a long time, have been dominated by the conservative ideology -- an ideology that, frankly, is difficult to define except to suggest that it is more in line with an "oppositional defiant disorder". These are the same people who refuse to use seat-belts, wear a motorcycle helmet, or eat vegetables. Over the years they have shown very little respect for the Constitution or for the democratic process. I think their end is drawing nigh. One of the signs is that they've made Lord Rush Limbaugh their leader who has been on a path of self-destruction via drugs for a long time.
    »

    Fuggitaboutem

    Submitted by quousque on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 9:46am.

    GOPers have done sane Americans a great boon by manifestly demonstrating that they are literally ludicrous.

    That said, this 'stimulus package' is a bad bill, won't work, and it apparently will take the economic equivalent of a 2X4 across the whole wide world's skull to prompt repair of modern capitalism's inherent inability to create a sustainable society.

    »

    Stimulus

    Submitted by laxmimary on Thu, 01/29/2009 - 7:27am.
    The Stimulus has to many loop holes-did any democrat read the fne print? 4 billion to expand police state and war on drugs thru Byne grants and Cops program both which have been proven to be corrupt. 2 billion to expand health information creating electronic medical records with No privacy protection for Americans. I for one find repubs corrupt but will have to agree this plan is is not for helping the people. Stimulus for Who? Read the bill-read the fine print.
    »