Makers, Takers, and Liars

Igor Volsky reports on Paul Ryan’s interview, yesterday, on Meet the Press, where he predicted the sequester cuts will happen but proposed nothing to avoid them. “The tone represents a sharp rhetorical and policy shift for the onetime GOP vice presidential nominee, who warned during the 2012 presidential campaign that the cuts would “devastate” the country and undermine job growth.”

RYAN: If Mitt Romney and I won the election, they would not have happened. You know why? Because we would have gone and worked with Democrats and Republicans in Congress to actually put the budget on a path to balance and would have saved defense. So where are we now? I think the sequester is going to happen because that $1.2 trillion in spending cuts, we can’t lose those spending cuts. [...] But we think these sequesters will happen because the Democrats have opposed our efforts to replace those cuts with others and they’ve offered no alternatives.

In fact, Democrats introduced offsets in the hopes of reaching a grand bargain that could turn off the sequester and avoid the so-called fiscal cliff.

Days before House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) abandoned negotiations with President Obama to advance his failed Plan B, the White House paired a tax increase on the richest Americans with spending cuts of $1.22 trillion over 10 years, including “adopting a new measure of inflation that slows the growth of government benefits, especially Social Security.” Despite Ryan’s claims, the Democrats’ plan contained: $400 billion in savings “from federal health care programs; $200 billion from other so-called mandatory programs, like farm price supports, not subject to Congress’s annual spending bills; $100 billion from military spending; and $100 billion from domestic programs under Congress’s annual discretion.”

Paul Ryan is a failed vice-presidential candidate, Ayn Rand worshipper, and head priest of the Makers and Takers theology of the GOP. Why is he still given a platform like Meet the Press? Because the Republican Party is in shambles and leaderless. It is without a center. Everyone with something to say is given equal time. There’s also seems to be an attempt to “repackage the message” going on with the Republican Party. Nothing is changing, of course. It’s just a new ad campaign to sell continued tax cuts for the wealthy by dressing it up with a nod towards “populism.”

Paul Krugman explains:

Mr. Jindal posed the problem in a way that would, I believe, have been unthinkable for a leading Republican even a year ago. “We must not,” he declared, “be the party that simply protects the well off so they can keep their toys. We have to be the party that shows all Americans how they can thrive.” After a campaign in which Mitt Romney denounced any attempt to talk about class divisions as an “attack on success,” this represents a major rhetorical shift.

But Mr. Jindal didn’t offer any suggestions about how Republicans might demonstrate that they aren’t just about letting the rich keep their toys, other than claiming even more loudly that their policies are good for everyone.

Meanwhile, back in Louisiana Mr. Jindal is pushing a plan to eliminate the state’s income tax, which falls most heavily on the affluent, and make up for the lost revenue by raising sales taxes, which fall much more heavily on the poor and the middle class. The result would be big gains for the top 1 percent, substantial losses for the bottom 60 percent. Similar plans are being pushed by a number of other Republican governors as well.

[...] when Mr. Romney made his infamous “47 percent” remarks, he wasn’t, in his own mind, saying anything outrageous or even controversial. He was just repeating a view that has become increasingly dominant inside the right-wing bubble, namely that a large and ever-growing proportion of Americans won’t take responsibility for their own lives and are mooching off the hard-working wealthy. Rising unemployment claims demonstrate laziness, not lack of jobs; rising disability claims represent malingering, not the real health problems of an aging work force.

And given that worldview, Republicans see it as entirely appropriate to cut taxes on the rich while making everyone else pay more.

Now, national politicians learned last year that this kind of talk plays badly with the public, so they’re trying to obscure their positions. Paul Ryan, for example, has lately made a transparently dishonest attempt to claim that when he spoke about “takers” living off the efforts of the “makers” — at one point he assigned 60 percent of Americans to the taker category — he wasn’t talking about people receiving Social Security and Medicare. (He was.)

So what was Lyin’ Paul Ryan’s big message yesterday?

We don’t want a dependency culture. We want a safety net that makes sure that people don’t fall through the cracks, that gets people on their feet. Americans want the American Dream. And so our concern in this country is with the idea that more and more able-bodied people are becoming dependent upon the government than upon themselves for their livelihoods. We want to make sure that we don’t continue that trend.”

On what programs are actually making people dependent on government, Ryan gave the example of people using food stamps who don’t need them.

Jonathan Chait discusses John Boehner’s concession “to the looniest wing of the Republican party” by committing himself “to passing a budget that would reach full balance within a decade.” How do you reach $800 billion in savings by 2023 without any new revenue and without cutting Social Security and Medicare (for those 55 and above)?

You have, mainly, programs for the poor and very sick, like Medicaid, child nutrition, unemployment benefits, and so on. Then you have domestic discretionary spending, which is basically all the major functions of government that aren’t either defense or writing a check to people — infrastructure, food inspectors, scientific research, and on and on. Republicans have already forced Obama to accept extremely tight caps that would cut domestic discretionary spending to well below its lowest level as a share of the economy in decades. How those caps would actually be implemented when it comes time to impose the cuts, I can’t imagine.

But that’s the pot of available savings. It’s around a trillion and a half dollars in 2023. So, that means House Republicans will have to cut domestic discretionary programs and spending for the poor by about half.

Now, if you assume that Republicans aren’t going to actually figure out how to go further than the domestic discretionary cuts they’ve already voted for — I doubt they can actually carry those out — then the available pool of spending is the $900 billion-some dollars spent on programs for the poor and sick: Medicaid, food stamps, etc. So we’re looking at close to a 90 percent spending cut on programs for the poor and sick. I suppose Paul Ryan could spin this as a super-compassionate plan to help starving children and people with awful diseases learn to stop being moochers and take care of themselves.

[...] the inescapable fact is that Boehner has committed now to voting on something that would require even more draconian cuts to social spending than the Ryan budget.

Pat Garofalo explains what the “new message” actually means in practice to ordinary folks, using Jindal’s new tax plan (replacing personal income and corporate taxes with an increased sales tax):

According to an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Jindal’s plan will raise taxes on the bottom 80 percent of Louisianians, while cutting them for the richest 1 percent:

– The bottom 80 percent of Louisianans in the income distribution would see a tax increase from repealing the personal and corporate income taxes and replacing them with a higher sales tax.

– The poorest 20 percent of taxpayers, those with an average income of $12,000, would see an average tax increase of $395, or 3.4 percent of their income, if no low income tax relief mechanism is offered.

– The middle 20 percent, those with an average income of $43,000, would see an average tax increase of $534, or 1.2 percent of their income.

– The largest beneficiaries of the tax proposal would be the top 1 percent—a group with an average income of well over $1 million. Louisianans in the top 1 percent would see an average tax cut of $25,423, or 2.3 percent of their income under the plan described above.

Populism, to the Republican Party, apparently means that they don’t want to just cut taxes for the wealthiest — to be fair, they also want to balance that by slashing programs for the needy and increasing taxes on the rest of us.

Selections from the annals of ‘Republicans are terrible people’

They really are just awful…

“MSNBC just aired an audio clip of Rush Limbaugh mawkishly sobbing in a toddler’s tone, “I don’t want to die,” in what Limbaugh, uh, humorously charged was a White House child-prop tactic to sell sensible gun control on Capitol Hill. This was, without a doubt, the most contemptible thing this jackass of a fascist fathead has ever slobbered on-air.” — Rush Limbaugh, and the last straw (via)

Louisiana Republican Governor Suggests Eliminating Corporate Tax, Paid For By Taxing The Poor: Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (Republican) wants to eliminate both his state’s income tax and its corporate income tax, giving a big gift to the richest Louisianians and the state’s businesses. And he may pay for it by hiking the state’s sales tax, which will disproportionately hurt Louisiana’s poorest residents.

Gun Appreciation Day is Sponsored by a White Nationalist Party: Following the publication of this story, Gun Appreciation Day removed American Third Position from its sponsors. A3P describes itself as representing “the unique political interests of white Americans.”

Fox 5 Anchor Announces The “N*gger Inaugural”There’s a list of words that TV reporters should never say, and it must be racing through their heads whenever the camera’s on. Don’t say it. Don’t say it. Well, Fox 5’s Holly Morris said it. In a morning broadcast yesterday on extravagant inauguration deals, Morris fell over herself and declared the Willard Hotel the spot for the “n*gger inaugural.”

“Quite frankly it’s going to be difficult going back and working with people you sit next to and whenever they were in need, we responded immediately. Not one member of Congress ever voted against or said one word in opposition to aid going to other states when the money was needed. We were going around like third world beggars. At least they put us in that position.” — Rep. Peter King (R-NY), on his fellow House Republicans’ behavior on disaster relief to victims of Hurricane Sandy in NY and NJ.

GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway told House Republicans at their retreat that they need to stop talking about rape, Politico reports.

How [Republicans in] Congress Wrecked a Smart Debt-Ceiling Fix: in 1979, Dick Gephardt, “who would later become House Democratic leader and twice run for president, devised a simple fix that met the absurd requirement of a two-step process. With help from the House parliamentarian, he established the Gephardt Rule, which decreed that when Congress adopted a budget resolution (the first step) it was automatically ‘deemed to have passed’ a commensurate increase in the debt limit (the second step). Presto. Problem solved. The Gephardt Rule held for a decade and a half, during which there were no fights over raising the debt ceiling. But when Republicans took control of the House in 1995, they killed it… Gingrich thought the second vote was a good pressure tactic to limit spending. Yet the threat of debt default didn’t work because nobody took it seriously. What’s different now is that many Republicans seem willing to follow through. Even Gingrich is worried.”

DailyKos:  For unintended hilarity, you can’t beat the planned panel discussion [during the Republicans three-day retreat] on how to talk to women and minorities without pissing them off.

The panel, entitled Discussion on Successful Communication with Minorities and Women, suffered an image problem from the get-go: Rep. Greg Walden, R-Ore., who heads Republicans’ campaign efforts, deflected a question regarding the irony of a panel trying to help the GOP woo minorities happening in a room named after a slave-owning family’s plantation. “I don’t pick the rooms we meet in,” Walden said. “I know the Democrats have held their retreats here too and I assume you’ll go and figure out if they ever held meetings in that same room.”

Fair enough, but having a panel on minorities and women that seemed to be well-stocked with white guys proved perhaps even more awkward: But then why, a final reporter prodded, did this panel on communicating with women and minorities include three white men: Representatives Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Scott Rigell and Frank R. Wolf, both of Virginia? Mr. Walden, who was not responsible for putting together the event, pointed out that the panel also included several women: “a woman from CNN” (Ana Navarro) and “Sean Duffy’s wife” (Rachel Campos-Duffy). Mr. Duffy is a congressman from Wisconsin; his wife is a television personality. Also on the list was Ms. Herrera Beutler. But, unfortunately, her name was misspelled.

Florida Business Leaders Vow To Block Paid Sick Day Laws During Worst Flu Season In A Decade: The U.S. is currently experiencing its worst flu season in a decade, but many workers can’t heed the advice of public health experts to stay home when they’re sick due to a lack of paid sick days. And Florida business leaders are looking to keep it that way: The Florida Chamber of Commerce said Wednesday that one of its top legislative priorities this year would be blocking local governments from adopting paid sick-time measures such as the one pending in Orange County. At a news conference in Tallahassee, Chamber President Mark Wilson said his powerful business group wants a law that would ban cities and counties from creating varying paid-sick-leave rules across the state. The passage of local sick-time laws would, Wilson said, “make pockets of Florida very uncompetitive.”

West Point study on ‘violent far right’ shows ‘dramatic rise’ in attacks: Some conservatives object to the report. The Washington Times, The National Review, and World Net Daily all report on critical reactions from the right, according to the Atlantic Wire, with blogger Pamela Geller calling it an “appalling attempt to demonize loyal Americans and whitewash the Islamic threat.”

Josh Marshall: GOP memo brags: We gerrymandered so well we won the House even though we got fewer votes!!!

Mitt Romney’s “gifts” remarks: straight from the Southern Strategy playbook

Mitt Romney on Wednesday attributed his defeat in part to what he called big policy “gifts” that the president had bestowed on loyal Democratic constituencies, including young voters, African-Americans and Hispanics.

In other words, Romney’s last words on the national stage might be the dying gasp of the Southern Strategy. It’s how Mitt really feels. Finally, after everything, through all the years of running a presidential campaign and the flipping and gyrating and etch a sketching, we got to see the core of the hollow man. Bottomline: if you’re not white and rich, Mitt Romney hates you.

Listen to the late Lee Atwater in a 1981 interview explaining the evolution of the GOP’s Southern strategy:

Atwater: ‘‘You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘N—er, ni—er, ni—er.’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘ni—er’ — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘N—er, ni—er.”’        

It’s interesting to note that two loyal members of the GOP tribe who are publicly denouncing Romney’s comments, Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal and New Mexico governor Susana Martinez, are not conservative white men:

Jindal: “This is not where the Republican party needs to go,” he said. “Look, If you want voters to like you, the first thing you’ve got to do is to like them first. And it’s certainly not helpful to tell voters that you think their votes were bought.” [...] “Look, the Republicans, we need to stick to our principles, but we need to treat other people with respect,” he said. “Even those we don’t agree with, we need to show them we respect them and their beliefs.”

Martinez: “That unfortunately is what sets us back as a party — our comments that are not thought through carefully,” Martinez told Yahoo’s Chris Moody. Martinez, who previously criticized Romney’s “47 percent” remarks in September, added that his fundraiser video was a “ridiculous statement.” “You want to earn the vote of every single person you can earn, whether they be someone who relies on,” she said. “Why would you ever write off 47 percent?”

The Fox Infotainment Channel, however, has decided to stick with the Southern Strategy (anger! racist viewers! ratings!) because it’s good for business. As JM Ashby notes, “they’re running wild with the Makers vs Takers meme. Watch Varney and Kilmeade speak about giving “goodies” and “handouts” to people in exchange for votes:”

Varney: Look over here. What position are we in in American today? I say we’re just getting started. We’re throwing the handouts out left right and center.
Kilmeade: Mitt Romney mentioned that yesterday. He says he couldn’t win because all these other people are giving things away.
Varney: Buying votes with taxpayer money. Handouts all over the place. [...]
Varney: The president thinks that if you tax the top 2 percent some more, you will pay for all the goodies, all the handouts that we’ve got going.
Kilmeade: There’s not a single person who knows how to add that believes it’ll make any significant difference…

JM Ashby accurately reflects: “The problem for Republicans seeking reelection or higher office in the near future is that Fox News has a much larger audience and wields much greater power over the conversation than any single conservative politician. And if anyone on the right side of the aisle is going to issue a memo on how to cover a situation, it’ll be Fox delivering the orders. It only took one week for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie to be demoted from future king of the GOP to someone you don’t want to be caught associating with because he had the audacity to cooperate with the Obama administration following one of the worst disasters New Jersey has ever seen. If Fox News continues to select candidates for the Republican party, the party will never change. There’s too much money to be made in maintaining the status quo.”

Is Fox bad for the Republican Party? I’d say only if you’re currently a member of the Republican Party.

Bobby Jindal wants the Republican Party to look less like the Republican Party

“We’ve got to make sure that we are not the party of big business, big banks, big Wall Street bailouts, big corporate loopholes, big anything. We cannot be, we must not be, the party that simply protects the rich so they get to keep their toys.”

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R), urging Republicans to “stop being the stupid party.”

Andrew Sullivan remarks: “I’ll believe him when he names Limbaugh as one critical source of the problem. I’ll believe him even more if he were able to find space within the GOP for those who support marriage equality, efforts to combat climate change and a non-absolutist position on abortion rights. But he cannot change theology in a religious party – especially when he is one of its high priests.”

And Charles Johnson laughs at this newly found “enlightenment” from the guy who mocked volcano monitoring: “Politico’s article doesn’t mention it, of course, but Gov. Jindal is rather infamous at LGF for pushing the very stupidest of stupid right wing positions; he enthusiastically promoted and signed into law a bill in Louisiana that legitimizes the teaching of creationism under the disguise of “academic freedom.” Jindal’s promotion of creationism outraged scientists across America; one scientific organization actually cancelled a major convention in protest. More recently, Jindal has also promoted legislation that allows Louisiana state funding to go to private religious schools that teach creationism and all kinds of other anti-science mind rot. And that’s not all, by a long shot. While a college student, Jindal took part in an exorcism that he claimed cured a woman of cancer

Bob Moser thinks Jindal isn’t calling for actual change, just a re-branding: “But beyond embracing some parts of Dodd-Frank and the “Volcker Rule,” Jindal—who’s been a right-wing governor, gutting public schools and slashing funds for hospitals—basically limited his idea of change to rejiggering the party’s image. His solution, beneath the frank talk, comes down to figuring out new ways to make Republicans once again look like a populist party—a new spin on the faux-populism Republicans used, from Nixon to Bush, to convince working- and middle-class folks they were on their side while working to make the wealthy wealthier.”

And Jed Lewison lists all the conservative beliefs Jindal has no problem with (even though the voters do have a problem with them) and summarizes that Jindal doesn’t want to change the substance of GOP ideals — he’s just calling for a change in tone.


On Mitt Romney’s douchey phonecall yesterday, Political Wire reports:

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) “forcefully rejected Mitt Romney’s claim that he lost because of President Obama’s ‘gifts‘ to minorities and young voters,” Politico reports.

Said Jindal: “No, I think that’s absolutely wrong. Two points on that: One, we have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote. And, secondly, we need to continue to show how our policies help every voter out there achieve the American Dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children an opportunity to be able to get a great education. … So, I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think that’s absolutely wrong.”


Mitt Romney describes the sad he haz

Romney in Louisiana: “Did the water come from the sky, or the rivers, or the ocean?”

National Journal: “Meeting with fellow Republican Jindal in the flooded Lafitte area of Jefferson Parish, Romney said, “I appreciate the chance to be here. I have a lot of questions for you. I’m here to learn and obviously to draw some attention to what’s going here, so that people around the country know that people down here need help.”

“Jindal, who had not attended the GOP convention in Tampa because of the storm, lauded the contributions of the Red Cross, Salvation Army, and other organizations amid a scene of downed trees, high water, and National Guard troops. Romney expressed concern about the welfare of the 5,000 residents, some of whom had evacuated. He then asked, according to a journalists’ pool report of the visit: “Did the water come from the sky, or the rivers, or the ocean?

“[...] President Obama will travel to Louisiana on Monday, the White House announced on Friday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., issued a statement criticizing Romney’s Louisiana visit as the “height of hypocrisy,” saying that vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s budget plan in Congress would cut funding for disaster relief.”

Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) talks with a man on the side of the road while touring a hurricane damaged neighorhood on August 31, 2012 in Lafitte, Louisiana.  Days after Hurricane Isaac pounded Louisiana, Mitt Romney visited the state to view a neighborhood devastated by the storm.
Photo: Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) talks with a man on the side of the road while touring a hurricane damaged neighborhood on August 31, 2012 in Lafitte, Louisiana. … Source: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images North America

“Your man” Mitt looks a bit baffled and confused, buddy. I don’t think Mitt’s who you’re going to want to turn to with this problem. And look at the guy behind Mitt (Note: the guy is Diaper David Vitter–caught by Ken), reading this guy’s sign and obviously thinking, “Reeeally. That’s just sad.”

Red states and ACA’s Medicaid expansion

Some Republican governors have no problem rejecting ACA-funded expansions of Medicaid in their states to help the poor. They believe in “small government” — even if others must suffer for it. These same governors would never dream of increasing taxes, by even a small amount, on their wealthiest residents. Instead, to balance a budget, they’d have no problem cutting public-sector jobs, programs, and services for everyone else.

“In South Carolina, a yearly income of $16,900 is too much for Medicaid for a family of three. In Florida, $11,000 a year is too much. In Mississippi, $8,200 a year is too much. In Louisiana and Texas, earning more than just $5,000 a year makes you ineligible for Medicaid.

“[Republican] governors in those five states have said they’ll reject the Medicaid expansion underpinning Obama’s health law after the Supreme Court’s decision gave states that option. Many of those hurt by the decision are working parents who are poor — but not poor enough — to qualify for Medicaid.”

“[...] Medicaid now covers an estimated 70 million Americans and would cover an estimated 7 million more in 2014 under the Obama health law’s expansion. In contrast, Ryan’s plan could mean 14 million to 27 million Americans would ultimately lose coverage, even beyond the effect of a repeal of the health law, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation of Ryan’s 2011 budget plan.

“[...] The national health law’s Medicaid expansion would start covering all citizens in 2014 who make up to roughly $15,400 for an individual, $30,650 for a family of four.

“The federal government will pay the full cost of the Medicaid expansion through 2016. After that, the states will pick up 5 percent of the cost through 2019, and 10 percent of the cost thereafter.

“Why would a governor say no?”

— Anti-Medicaid states: Earning $11,000 is too much | via

“[Mead] is worried about the 83,000 uninsured residents in the state and the impact of the high cost of uncompensated care. But he said the state needs to look at its possible savings and expenses as a “ledger sheet” and consider all the consequences of both the expansion and the rest of the health-care act… Mead said Wyoming might not need to decide if presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney wins and follows through on his vow to repeal the health-care act. “(He) said there will be a change in course if he is elected,” Mead said. “If President (Barack) Obama is elected, I assume we will continue heading down this line.””

— WY Gov. Matt Mead still wary of Medicaid expansion 

This is one example of how a political ideology is now more of a religious belief to the modern GOP than is the Christianity they always claim to follow.

It’s only money

Kenneth Bobby Jindal’s $360 million sand berm was a total boondoggle: The total amount of oil captured by the $360 million berm was, at most, 1,000 barrels.  Skimming and burning got rid of 890K-1.85 million barrels. (via)

Yes, that is $360,000 per barrel. Nice work, Jindal!

BP had an oil spill and Bobby Jindal is having a failure spill

Bob Cesca: [Jindal]‘s only deployed 1,053 out of 6,000 available National Guard troops. But he’s doing a lot of yelling and helicoptering! That’s just as good as troops, no?

Rundown of Louisiana and Bobby Jindal oil spill failures, via Jed Lewison:

  1. The state’s oil spill coordinator’s office has had its budget slashed by 50% over the last decade.
  2. Last year, Jindal cut funding from the state’s oil spill research program.
  3. The state’s oil spill contingency plan’s include “pages of blank charts that are supposed to detail available supplies of equipment like oil-skimming vessels.” A plan for a worst-case scenario was labeled “to be developed.”
  4. Before Jindal decided to attack the Federal response, state officials signed off on all Coast Guard response plans.
  5. Jindal, who raged at the Federal government for not having enough boom, requested three times as much boom as the state’s plan had called for — and 50% more boom than existed in the entire nation.

More Jindal FAIL:

  • He issued an order that June 27 be designated a “Statewide Day of Prayer” for perseverance through the BP oil spill. That ought to do it, right?
  • Jindal PRAISED the judge’s ruling against the Obama administration’s temporary ban on deepwater offshore drilling.
  • Jindal vetoed a bill that would have required his office and agencies to grant public access to state records related to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

Seems to me that on the Sarah Palin stupid meter, with Palin being a “10,” Jindal is averaging a high 8. What do you think?

Bobby Jindal, FAIL, video, Rachel Maddow, Louisiana, BP, National Guard, oil catastrophe (spill), GOP, Republican Party

Idiot watch

Little Green Footballs:

Here’s Nevada Tea Party candidate Sharron Angle, saying that the unemployed are “spoiled.”

The GOP sure is raising up quite a crop of canny politicians this year.


JD Hayworth, the “true” conservative (i.e. teabagger) running against “Maverick” McCain in AZ, was a celebrity endorser of “free” government grant money in 2007. TPM has the video: Take a look.


Bob Cesca:

Screw safety. Just let them drill away!

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal and state Attorney General Buddy Caldwell asked a U.S. judge to lift a six-month moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico within 30 days to avoid “turning an environmental disaster into an economic catastrophe.”

So yeah. Jindal wants new oil rigs now. No need to take a second look at necessary safety precautions. Just GO! GO! GO!


Rahm, u lie

When asked yesterday on ABC’s This Week about Rep. Joe Barton’s (R-TX) accusation that the White House engaged in a “shakedown” of BP, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel noted the remark was “not a political gaffe,” but rather a statement based on “prepared remarks.” He linked Barton’s comments to the GOP’s “larger philosophy,” saying it “is an approach to what they see. They see the aggrieved party here is BP, not the fisherman. And remember, this is not just one person.”

Conservative pundit Sarah Palin quickly blasted Emanuel’s comments on Twitter:

Picture 1

But as Think Progress points out: If a chorus of over 115 Republican members agreeing with Barton isn’t a reflection of GOP philosophy, what is?


Sharron Angle, Nevada, Tea Party, JD Hayworth, Arizona, John McCain, Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, Rahm Emanuel, Joe Barton, Sarah Palin