You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (291)

PLAYS: (745)

Jake Tapper on This Week interviews David Axelrod on the healthcare bill, pushing the right-wing narrative that people don't want this bill. Axelrod responds that when you push on into the details, the public supports the things this bill does:

TAPPER: David, pluralities, if not majorities of the American people do oppose this bill. Doesn't he have a point?

AXELROD: Well, first, let me note that Senator Brown comes from a state that has a health care plan that is similar to one that we are trying to enact here, and that people in his state are overwhelmingly in support of it. He voted for it and said he wouldn't repeal it. So we're just trying to give the rest of America the same opportunities that the people of Massachusetts have to get health insurance at a price they can afford.

This bill is important to the American people, Jake, and when you get underneath the numbers and you ask people, do you support giving people more leverage against insurance companies so that they -- if they have preexisting conditions, they can get coverage, so if they get sick, they don't get thrown off, so they don't have these huge premium increases of the sort we've just seen announced in states around the country, they say yes. When you say, do you want to give small businesses and people who don't have insurance through the job the chance to get insurance in a competitive marketplace where they can get it at a price they can afford and give them tax credits to help them do that, they say yes. And when you say, should we reduce the overall costs of the health care system over time, they say yes.

But that's the program. That's the plan. And it is important to the American people that we have the fortitude to go ahead against it, to leave the politics aside, to leave the partisanship aside, to resist the special interests and get the job done.

TAPPER: But according to polls, the American people do not agree with what you think--

AXELROD: The polls are split, Jake. I mean, one of the interesting things that has happened in the last four or five weeks is that if you look at -- if you average together the public polls, what you find is that the American people are split on the top line, do you support the plan? But again, when you go underneath, they support the elements of the plan. When you ask them, does the health care system need reform, three quarters of them say yes. When you ask them, do you want Congress to move forward and deal with this issue, three quarters of them say yes. So we're not going to walk away from this issue.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (430)

PLAYS: (874)

What in the hell is Donna Brazile smoking? When asked about George W. Bush being unwilling, like his former Veep Cheney, to attack President Obama, Brazile says he's trying to be an "elder statesman" and put partisanship aside. Well Donna, that's just mighty kind of him not to say too much about the guy left to clean up his mess after he took a wrecking ball to the joint, but "statesman" is about the last word I ever think of when I hear George W. Bush's name.

BLITZER: Let's let to our "strategy session." Joining us now our two CNN political contributors, Donna Brazile the Democratic strategist and Mary Matalin, the Republican strategist. Guys, thanks very much for coming in.

Mary, I'll start with you, talk about your former boss, the former president of the United States, George W. Bush. He was in Naples, Florida, giving a speech, together with his brother, the former governor, Jeb Bush. One of the reporters who covered it wrote this, "George W. Bush said more competitive congressional districts are needed so that politicians have to work harder on their campaigns. That, he said, could help diminish the partisanship as political leaders would be forced to focus more on the issues. He said those who call names shouldn't be elected." All right. So when I read that report, it sounded to me, tell me if I'm going too far, it sounds like he's being critical of the tea partiers.

MARY MATALIN: I didn't read it that way at all. There's been a long discussion about redistricting creating untouchable seats, where there's no competition of ideas and it produces Congress people who can walk their party off the edge, like Nancy Pelosi. No one can touch her seat. I took it as part of that discussion. When I think of name-calling, and I'm sure what George W. Bush thinks of when he thinks of name-calling is being called a Nazi or liar or a warmonger, or names that were thrown at him for policies that have been continued by the Obama administration. I know Donna and I agree on this, name-calling is a far different kind of politics than partisanship. There's nothing wrong with being partisan. There's something wrong with vile, personal attacks.

BLITZER: Which is a fair point. Mary, he also refused to be critical of the Obama administration. It's now more than a year since the president took office. Unlike the former vice president, Dick Cheney, President George W. Bush is still holding back. I guess he thinks it's inappropriate at this point for a former president to be critical of the current president. I guess you think that's the right thing to do, right? Let me ask that of Donna.

MATALIN: Sorry.

DONNA BRAZILE: Well, let me just say this. The think the former president is clearly trying to walk a fine line and demonstrate that he is ready to move beyond the politics of personal destruction, and to become an elder statesman. We need more elder statesmen, more former political leaders willing to use their time and talent to help lead the way to a better future for all of us. I also think that beyond trying to eliminate all of this hyper- partisanship, we need to overhaul our campaign finance system. I didn't get a chance to watch the smackdown between Joe Biden and Dick Cheney. I heard it was an interesting match, but I was more interested in watching Drew Brees.

Well, yet another ConservaDem senator has decided to call it quits:

Sen. Evan Bayh, an Indiana Democrat prominently mentioned in connection with the White House in recent years, is ready to announce he won't seek re-election, saying he's fed up with Congress.

"To put it in the words most Hoosiers can understand: I love working for the people of Indiana, I love helping our citizens make the most of their lives, but I do not love Congress," Bayh said in comments prepared for an announcement later Monday in Indianapolis. His statement was obtained by The Associated Press from a Democratic official who declined to be named publicly.

Bayh's departure continues a recent exodus from Congress among both Democrats and Republicans, including veteran Democrats Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Patrick Kennedy of Mass. The announcements have sprung up in rapid-fire fashion amid polls showing a rising anti-incumbent fervor and voter anger over Washington partisanship, high unemployment, federal deficits and lucrative banking industry bonuses.

The analysis, of course, was that this represented a big pickup opportunity for Republicans:

Sen. Evan Bayh's exit gives Republicans a prime pick-up opportunity. Former Indiana Sen. Dan Coats (R) is running for the seat. Bayh was leading Coats by 20 points (55% to 35%) in a recent Research 2000/DailyKos poll.

Republicans now have Senate pick-up opportunities in at least eight states -- Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Nevada, and North Dakota.

To take back control of the Senate, Republicans will need to gain a net of 10 seats.

Democrats have pick-up opportunities in at least three states -- New Hampshire, Ohio, and Missouri.

Democrats have been hammering Coats for his residence, his lobbying and more. And a Democratic official says Bayh was ahead.

"They polled last week and were way ahead of Coats," the official said, adding that petitions were due tomorrow and the Bayh campaign's "were all done."

The decision "must have been a last minute, personal decision."

As for who could run to replace Bayh, look to Reps. Brad Ellsworth and Baron Hill. Democrats are working to convince either -- both of whom represent swing districts in the Southern part of the state. Ellsworth, the former Vanderburgh County sherriff, is seen by some observers as, potentially, the strongest Democratic candidate. Hill is a former Indiana high school basketball star.

Also, look to see if Rep. Mike Pence on the Republican side reverses course and decides to jump into the race now.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (750)

PLAYS: (822)

Bob Schieffer fawns over Scott Brown during this cringe-inducing commentary segment on Face the Nation. And I thought Tweety was bad. Of course in typical Villager fashion Schieffer uses this as an excuse for calls of bi-partisanship without bothering to explain to his audience which party is caving into the other one and which one is obstructing. Hint to Schieffer, it's your miracle worker's party that's causing the gridlock along with the ConservaDems who are pretending to be Democrats.

BOB SCHIEFFER: Finally, there's been so much wonder expressed about the election of Scott Brown, I'm beginning to think that if it had happened in ancient times it might have been included in the Bible.

For sure, back then people were always looking for signs, and the politicians saw Brown's victory as more than just a sign. It gave them Old Testament-level shivers worse than Moses felt when he realized that burning bush was talking directly to him.

But was it more than that? I wondered. Did it herald a new Age of Miracles? Utter Brown's name and the waters part? Think about it.

Republicans tried for a year to kill health care reform. If Brown's victory didn't kill it in a second for sure it shoved it to the back burner.

And with great fanfare and the blessing of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, the
administration planned to try the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed in lower Manhattan. But Brown railed against civilian trials for terrorists, and in an epiphany worthy of the road to Damascus, the mayor of New York suddenly wanted no part of the trial--too expensive.

The heavens also parted for the administration: No backdown on civilian trials yet, but it looks like the proceedings will be moved.

And when the President went to Baltimore and had a very adult debate on issues with
Republicans--a debate that did both sides proud--I thought, stars above, maybe they are ready to work together. Well, silly me. An hour later that the partisan sniping and nastiness was going again full bore.

It's going to take a real miracle to stop that. But, we can hope.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (687)

PLAYS: (2169)

[Heather noted this earlier, but it deserves its own post. -- ed.]

While the other cable-news networks ran President Obama's conversation yesterday with House Republicans in its entirety, Fox News cut in midway -- particularly as it was becoming startlingly clear that Obama was making eminent sense and scoring Republicans for the phony "solutions" they keep throwing up to counter his health-care proposals.

Best of all, Fox's Trace Gallagher immediately leapt in with a popular GOP talking point -- namely, that Obama was "lecturing" the congressmen:

Gallagher: The President at times being a little bit combative, and supporting -- I mean, he did acknowledge a couple of mistakes along the way, but much like he did in the State of the Union, has very much held firm to the beliefs in what his administration has done.

I want to bring in the host of Special Report, Bret Baier, he's with us now. He has watched along with us. And the Republicans, before they went into this session had said, you know, we don't want to be lectured by the president. There was a little bit of lecturing there, and the president was a little bit combative at times.

Baier: Yeah, a little bit of that, Trace, but I also thought there was a decent, good give and take on the specifics.

Just remember: All the partisanship at Fox is on their "opinion" shows. Their news shows always play it straight and objective. Or, ah, fair and balanced.

Right.

Amanda Terkel at Think Progress points out that Fox then turned to Rep. Peter King, who then slagged Obama, for the duration of the event. She has screen shots of the other networks during that same time period.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (549)

PLAYS: (2910)

O'Reilly and Bob Barr go at it over Obama's anti-terror policies. Of course we get more chest thumping and support for torture out of tough guy O'Reilly.

O'REILLY: Continuing with our lead story. President Obama defending his terror policies. Joining us from Washington, former Congressman Bob Barr who left the Republican party to be a libertarian.

And Mr. Barr, you say the president deserves some respect in the national security area. So do you disagree with Karl Rove and I?

REP. BOB BARR: On some issues, very strong on some, but not on everything. My main criticism of those who are criticizing the president, such as the former vice president, Mr. Cheney, is that I think it's simply politics and partisanship and not substantive criticism, because when you have the vice president from the prior administration criticizing the current administration, really what they're criticizing is themselves because the problems that we see, and I think the president has done a good job of laying out the problems that we have, I disagree with him on some of the solutions. But the problems long predate January 20th of 2009 when Mr. Obama came in.

For example, the problem with the State Department issuing visas when perhaps they shouldn't or not telling people who they've issued visas to was the result of then Secretary Colin Powell early in the Bush administration coming up to the Congress, myself on the Judiciary Committee, for example, and saying don't give the authority to approve visas to Department of Homeland Security. We want to keep it in the State Department.

Continue reading »

Oh dear. What can the matter be?

Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) on Wednesday ripped the Senate's "newest members" for the lack of comity in the upper chamber.

In a floor speech Wednesday night, Dodd said there is "nothing wrong" with partisanship, but added he has "been deeply disturbed by some of the [healthcare] debate I have heard, usually from newer members, usually those who have been here one, two, three years, who do not have an appreciation of what this chamber means and how we work together."

Dodd did not name names, and spokesmen for the Connecticut senator did not respond to requests for comment.

[...] During his speech on Wednesday, Dodd repeatedly revisited his disappointment with the newest members of the Senate: "It is always the newest members who fail to understand how the Senate has worked for more than two centuries. We need to get back to that sense of civility once again ... Even though we have had very strong disagreements, I never once in my life in this chamber ever questioned the patriotic intentions of any member ... the idea you challenge another's patriotism, honesty, their integrity, does a great disservice to this institution, in my view."

He later added, "Again, I regret sometimes the newer members who fail to understand the importance of maintaining that which our Founders envisioned when they created this institution."

Yes, Sen. Dodd, the same Founders who were so angry over their treatment by the crown that they started a violent revolution were certainly much more concerned about manners. Tarring and feathering was simply an elaborate social ritual!

Sen. Dodd is upset about this, and rightfully so. It seems that Sen. Al Franken has this upsetting habit of demanding information from Republicans, and even mocking them when they evade him. One of them apparently went whining to Sen. Dodd and asked him to chastise the horrid Franken.

In case you didn't know, rudeness about political ideology that destroyed this country is on a par - nay, far exceeds the misdeeds of those questioned.

Would that we sought a more genteel way to show our displeasure:

Despite the current constitutional crisis, despite the abandonment of every principle that truly made us the land of the free, the Beltway contingent still believes the problem is merely one of etiquette.

But really, who am I to argue? Maybe they have something here. I’m partial to something I once read in a Regency novel (Jane Austen, I believe). When a societal outcast whose behavior was quite beyond the pale was presumptuous enough to present his hand to you in public, the proper response was to extend to him or her only your pinky.

Get it? You’re such a lowlife, you’re not even deserving of a handshake! I spit on your vileness – in the most polite possible way! I fling my pinky at the likes of you!

The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that this just might work. Think about it: You’re at a Georgetown cocktail party, and Alberto Gonzales is making small talk by the shrimp bowl. “Your name?” he says, extending his hand.

This is the man who’s decimated the Bill of Rights, mind you. What to do? Do you rip off your shirt, revealing a Code Pink T-shirt and embarrassing the rest of the guests with your sheer crassness – or do you extend your pinky? (Oh, I think you already know the answer.)

Say you’re at a speakers panel somewhere and someone invited Donald Rumsfeld. You’re in the receiving line afterward and you’re getting a little weirded out, yes? Well, you have a few options here. Think it through: If you get into a loud shouting match over the seemingly pointless deaths of soldiers and civilians in Iraq, or threw a vial of pig’s blood on his French handmade shirt, what real impact will you have? (Not to mention, it’s terribly déclassé.) Rummy will just tune you out and everyone else will pretend they didn’t hear you.

Ah, but if you extend your pinky, you’ve said it all – in the most genteel way possible.

Yes, while we may eventually live in a nation of radically reduced liberties, a broken economy and a state of perpetual war, we will have the satisfaction of knowing when the going got rough, we didn’t descend to their level.

We did the right thing. We extended our pinkies, thus earning the thanks of a grateful Village.

Or if that doesn't appeal to you, Sen. Dodd, you could always tell your lobbyist friends to go screw them themselves and vote on behalf of the taxpayers... just kidding!

Hell has officially frozen over. After more than a decade of hyper-partisanship and knee-jerk, reactionary opposition to the other, the entire political spectrum of Meet the Press's roundtable panel--Markos Moulitsas, Joe Scarborough, Ed Gillespie and Tavis Smiley--all agree on one thing: the health-care reform bill sucks. There's the vaunted bipartisanship Obama sought.

Laughing off Whiter House adviser David Axelrod's spin of the historic (and not-as-bad-as-it-seems) nature of the bill, Markos points out that all this bill does is expand an already broken system, a proven failed program in Massachusetts. Scarborough adds that for all the White House talk that the insurance companies hate the bill, there is no regulation that Congress didn't capitulate on after pushback from the insurance lobbies and if they hate it so much, why has the value of their stock gone up so much recently? Former RNC Chair Ed Gillespie can barely contain his glee at the thought of the seats the GOP will pick up, because of this bill, and Smiley notes that Candidate Obama's rhetoric doesn't measure up to President Obama's actions and bemoans the incrementalism mentality:

I do believe that you have to stand on your principle. With all due respect to the White House and the President, who deserves who deserves great credit for taking this issue on and pushing further down the field than any other seven Presidents have done, you still have to ask, where is the principle that we started out with, and how firm have we stood on that principle? I thnk the danger for this White House is this: that the President and his team appear to be incrementalists. I warned the last time I was on this program, quoting Dr. King, about taking “the tranquilizing drug of gradualism.”

I love that line, and it resonates as much today as it did when Dr. King tried dissuade those who wanted to take an incremental approach to civil rights and segregation.

The sad thing is how clear this is to us here outside the Beltway, and how badly calculated this was to those inside the White House. And I don't think this was some malevolent intent on their part, but just a triangulating, DLC/Centrist move that completely didn't take into account that we now inhabit the post-Clinton/Bush era. I don't think there's any question that the White House must accept responsibility for the lameness of the bill--although they'll never do it publicly and risk giving more fodder to the GOP media--Feingold and Webb are already pointing fingers.

And at this point, I don't know what can be done to make this better. Tempting as it might be to thrown in the towel, the ramifications of that politically (you throw a bone like that to the GOP and nothing will get through Congress next session) will be a nightmare, and besides which, there's no guarantee they'd be able to achieve anything, much less anything better on a second go-round. So all in all, I have to agree with Joe Scarborough, as much as it deeply pains me to do so: we've been screwed.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (394)

PLAYS: (1231)

The responsibility for the most partisan atmosphere is Washington history goes to President Barack Obama, according to Sen. John McCain. "[Obama] said there would be a change in the climate in Washington. There's been a change. It's more partisan. It's more bitterly divided than it's been," McCain told Fox News' Chris Wallace.

A few Republicans have participated in crafting major legislation during Obama's first year in office. Three Republican Senators voted for the stimulus bill and Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe voted for the health care bill coming out the Senate finance committee.

But for the most part, Republicans have voted together to block Democrats' attempts to pass legislation more often than any Congress in history. On December 18, Republicans broke the modern-day record for the most filibusters in history, according to Campaign for America's Future.

John Amato:

John McCain is one of the biggest sore losers in all of American politics. The media for some insane reason gives him unlimited face time on my TV to bash President Obama who soundly defeated him and the conservative movement in 2008. When will the Villagers go after conservatives for being ideologically against this president and their efforts to block every piece of legislation is all for political gain. America is on the receiving end of their very destructive games. John McCain is a bold-face-liar for blaming Obama for the lack of that stupid word called bipartisanship.

There's no questioning the historic nature of the vote. What the Democrats did to get there is pretty ugly (I can't believe we cut a deal with anti-woman C-Street true believer Bart Stupak), but we did get there, and most people will see some real improvements in their lives as a result. Now it's on to the Senate, where hopefully women's rights won't be treated as peripheral to the political process.

And in the meantime, John Boehner warns us that the bill "will dim the light of freedom." Uh huh.

Hours after President Obama exhorted Democratic lawmakers to "answer the call of history," the House hit an unprecedented milestone on the path to health-care reform, approving a trillion-dollar package late Saturday that seeks to overhaul private insurance practices and guarantee comprehensive and affordable coverage to almost every American.

After months of acrimonious partisanship, Democrats closed ranks on a 220-215 vote that included 39 defections, mostly from the party's conservative ranks. But the bill attracted a surprise Republican convert: Rep. Anh "Joseph" Cao of Louisiana, who represents the Democratic-leaning district of New Orleans and had been the target of a last-minute White House lobbying campaign. GOP House leaders had predicted their members would unanimously oppose the bill.

Democrats have sought for decades to provide universal health care, but not since the 1965 passage of Medicare and Medicaid has a chamber of Congress approved such a vast expansion of coverage. Action now shifts to the Senate, which could spend the rest of the year debating its version of the health-care overhaul. Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to bring a measure to the floor before Thanksgiving, but legislation may not reach Obama's desk before the new year.

At the Capitol, Obama urged the few Democrats who were still wavering on Saturday afternoon to put aside their political fears and embrace the bill's ambitious objectives. "Opportunities like this come around maybe once in a generation," he said afterward. "This is our moment to live up to the trust that the American people have placed in us. Even when it's hard. Especially when it's hard. This is our moment to deliver."

The House legislation would for the first time require every individual to obtain insurance, and would require all but the smallest employers to provide coverage to their workers. It would vastly expand Medicaid and create a new marketplace where people could obtain federal subsidies to buy insurance from private companies or from a new government-run insurance plan.

Though some people would receive no benefits -- including about 6 million illegal immigrants, according to congressional estimates -- the bill would virtually close the coverage gap for people who do not have access to health-care coverage through their jobs.

Mother Jones: Back to Basics

Mugsy`s Rap Sheet: Bi-partisanship is a crock

The Satirical Political Report: Cheney claims detainee torture was merely 'end-of-life counseling.'

Texas Observer Blog: "We Hate the United States": Secessionists rally at Capitol while Perry stays home

Unfogged: A few news items that caught my eye

Open Left: Who could've foreseen the housing bubble? Dean Baker, that's who - in 2002

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 231

PLAYS: 19

(Sen. Everett Dirksen - master juggler, sometimes referred to as "The Wizard of Ooze")

With the current state of "bi-partisanship" having something of a hollow ring to it, I thought I would drag out an episode of Meet The Press from January 24, 1965 to hear how adults used to do it. As a result of the sweep by the Democrats in the 1964 election, the Republicans were the minority party. Everett Dirksen became Senate minority leader - he embodied The Loyal Opposition while maintaining some form of unity within a fractured Republican party.

Lawrence Spivak: “Senator Dirksen, there’s been a good deal debate over a long period of time over what the role of the minority party in Congress should be. How do you see the role of the Republican Party in Congress today?”

Sen. Dirksen: “Well, the role of the Republican party or any minority party for that matter, would be one of constructive opposition, not blind opposition. And by constructive opposition, I mean you accept the things that are good for the country. You try to amend or modify proposals that, in your judgment and judgment of the party, are not good. And if they contain more of evil, shall I say, than of good, then you reject them. But always you try to follow a constructive line”.

Dirksen was masterful at the art of negotiation, as was evidenced by his popularity on both sides of the aisle as well as his gift for abundant oratory. He was a fervent supporter of the Civil Rights Act and subsequent Civil Rights legislation. He was also a vocal supporter of the Vietnam War which put him in a precarious place as our involvement increased with no end in sight.

I suspect Dirksen would be seriously dismayed by the current state of his party - as I think many Republicans of the past would.

Voices of reason appear to be in short supply of late.

You barely see or read anything in the media about health care town halls that are constructive and where people actually ask pertinent questions. The media have also forgotten that the leader of the House Republicans isn't having a town hall either. What's up with that?
Why isn't John Boehner having a town hall?

I’ll take right here in southern Ohio. My own representative, and the House Minority Leader, John Boehner is not holding any townhalls. Add to that the district directly south of me, OH-02, which is represented by Jean Schmidt (R), and our Republican Senator George Voinovich.

The closest townhall the people of southwest Ohio have had is one held in Columbus last week by Senator Sherrod Brown, however Steve Driehaus (D-OH-01) is also planning an event.

I can fully get behind what the right is doing, but I can’t tolerate partisanship in such an endeavor. To me its amazing, yet not shocking that John Boehner isn’t holding one. Boehner is a pro at ignoring his constituency. A few years back during the Medicare debacle his office flat out refused to talk to seniors, even when there was a large gathering only a couple of miles from Boehner’s house.

Maybe they'll make him cry like he did at the Reagan Statue:

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 873

PLAYS: 599

(Newt Gingrich 1994 - "Who's yer daddy?")

When the party is in power the talk overflows with the milk of human kindness - Bi-partisanship is on the lips of every triumphant candidate. The sentiments "Come, let us reason together" are slathered over every press conference with a spatula - we are all one big happy family and the thought of revenge never enters our minds . . . .much.

And so was the case when the Republicans gained control during the mid-season elections in 1994.

November 11, 1994 - newly designated Majority Speaker Newt Gingrich held a press conference outlining his "Contract With America" - pouring forth big plans, big ideas and big love - all the trappings only one handed a family sized bottle of Power could enjoy.

Gingrich: “It’s very important to understand, this country has sent the congress a very powerful signal for change . . this is a city which is like a sponge; it absorbs waves of change and it slows them down and softens them and one morning they cease to exist. We want to, every way we can, bias the opportunity in favor of the American people, actually getting the changes they’re asking for – and now obviously every member is going to play a major role, every member is going to participate.”

Joining him for this episode of the Love Fest were Dick Armey, Jim Nussle, Frank Wolf, and Pat Roberts. Armey went out of his way to let people know he wasn't "in it for revenge". Although the underpinnings of it were plainly visible - smiling, happy faces notwithstanding.

My, how times have changed.

GOP Leader John Boehner channels his inner Norma Desmond and throws a hissy fit on the floor of the House in response to the stimulus bill. I guess we should be grateful he didn't start crying again.

Funnily enough, Boehner's performance was eerily reminiscent of another Republican temper tantrum:

The press today continues to focus on the GOP doomsday scenarios about what Obama's economic initiative will mean to America and how it's going to gut the economy. How it will put America on the road to "financial disaster," as Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) declared last weekend. And of course, his dire rhetoric generated headlines. (“We’re taking an enormous risk -- an enormous risk -- with other people’s money,” added Sen. Mitch McConnell this week.)

The press takes these swipes very seriously, in part because the press always treats GOP rhetoric about the economy and finances seriously. Why? Because Republicans know economics. Everybody inside the Beltway understands that CW.

Just like the GOP knew economics back in 1993 when the new Democratic president Bill Clinton struggled to get his centerpiece economic legislation passed. Back then the GOP was sure the bill was a recipe for disaster. At the time Newt Gingrich announced "The tax increase will kill jobs and lead to a recession, and the recession will force people off of work and onto unemployment and will actually increase the deficit." He was positive a recession would ruin America's economy within the "next year," or even "over the next 60 days."

And Newt wasn't alone. The whole GOP crew was in Chicken Little mode and the press back then, just like today, made sure to record and amplify every dire warning: "A recipe for economic disaster," warned Phil Crane of Illinois. "It is going to lead to a Clintastrophy, an economic Clintastrophy," added Indiana's Dan Burton.

Yeah, that decade of prosperity...that was hard to take, wasn't it? And the most pathetic aspect of how seriously and credibly the establishment media takes these GOP whingings and sturm und drang is how nakedly obvious--yet unmentioned--the political machinations drive this, just as they have in the past:

December 2, 1993 - Leading conservative operative William Kristol privately circulates a strategy document to Republicans in Congress. Kristol writes that congressional Republicans should work to "kill" -- not amend -- the Clinton plan because it presents a real danger to the Republican future: Its passage will give the Democrats a lock on the crucial middle-class vote and revive the reputation of the party. Nearly a full year before Republicans will unite behind the "Contract With America," Kristol has provided the rationale and the steel for them to achieve their aims of winning control of Congress and becoming America's majority party. Killing health care will serve both ends. The timing of the memo dovetails with a growing private consensus among Republicans that all-out opposition to the Clinton plan is in their best political interest. Until the memo surfaces, most opponents prefer behind-the-scenes warfare largely shielded from public view. The boldness of Kristol's strategy signals a new turn in the battle. Not only is it politically acceptable to criticize the Clinton plan on policy grounds, it is also politically advantageous. By the end of 1993, blocking reform poses little risk as the public becomes increasingly fearful of what it has heard about the Clinton plan.

Repeat after me: Boehner and the GOP do not care about Americans. They do not want the stimulus to succeed because it will hurt their party. That's all that matters to these swine.