Chuck Norris wants to become President...of Texas?

Chuck Norris would love to become the next president of Texas.

I found this CNN story via the Washington Monthly:

From CNN's Lauren Kornreich

(CNN) – Actor Chuck Norris has his eyes on the presidency, but not the White House. Norris wrote that he would be interested in becoming the president of Texas, if the state were ever to secede from the Union.

“I may run for president of Texas,” Norris wrote Monday in a column posted at WorldNetDaily. “That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.”

The actor claimed “thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation” and said that if states decide to secede from the union, that Texas would lead the way.

“Anyone who has been around Texas for any length of time knows exactly what we'd do if the going got rough in America,” Norris wrote.

“Let there be no doubt about that.” Norris was a strong supporter of Mike Huckabee’s presidential bid, and he helped to draw attention to the former Arkansas governor’s campaign.

My only analytical comment to Chuck Norris becoming President of Texas is this:



This type of nonsense from Norris brings us back to the Republican Party. Are the Republicans this deranged in wanting Texas to secede from the Union, and make Invasion USA's Chuck Norris its next president? Talk about insanity here.

Then again, maybe that is not such a bad idea after all:

CNBC verses Jon Stewart Part Deux

It appears that the war between CNBC and Comedy Central's Jon Stewart is heating up. Now Mad Money's Jim Cramer and MSNBC's toadie Joe Scarborough want to get into the fight with Jon Stewart, after Stewart ripped CNBC's Rick Santelli. Don't these bobbleheads know that they cannot defeat a genius of satirical comedy as Jon Stewart? I guess not:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Basic Cable Personality Clash Skirmish '09

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Economic Crisis

Boehner calls for a government spending freeze

I saw this story on the Rachel Maddow Show, and I'm not sure what to say. Apparently House Minority Leader John Boehner has decided to cope with this nation's 8.1 percent unemployment rate by calling for a government spending freeze:

ABC News’ Rick Klein Reports: House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, reacted to the rise in unemployment today by calling for a federal government spending freeze.

“Washington Democrats seem more determined than ever to continue pursuing tax hikes and pork-barrel spending increases that are only proving to make matters worse,” said Boehner, R-Ohio, in a statement.

“President Obama campaigned against wasteful spending last year and has renewed commitment to fight it now that he is in office. I hope he will follow through on that promise by vetoing this legislation if it passes the Senate and working with House Republicans to enact a spending freeze for the remainder of this fiscal year.”

Boehner is criticizing Senate Democrats as they scramble to find votes to pass a $410 billion spending bill to cover the federal government's expenditures for the rest of the fiscal year. This bill includes "discretionary" spending by around 8 percent, which includes some 8,500 earmarked special projects, worth around $7.7 billion, that have been inserted by both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.

Now here is Rachel talking about Boehner's blunder:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Rachel beautifully sums up the problem with Boehner's spending freeze idea. We have too much supply and not enough demand for goods in this country. The demand side of the economy has come to a halt due to the credit freeze, financial meltdown and the housing crisis. Americans are not buying. And when Americans are not buying, companies cannot keep employees on the payroll, since they can't sell their products. So companies lay off employees--who are also consumers that will cut their own spending on goods, forcing companies to cut payrolls even further of workers, forcing those workers to cut back on their own spending, and the whole mess just continues to snowball into an even bigger pile of crap. There needs to be an interruption in this cycle, and the interruption is the federal government spending. The federal government becomes the demand in hiring American workers for projects, giving American workers the paychecks they need to purchase more stuff--to stimulate the demand side. As Americans purchase more stuff, the supply goes down, causing companies to hire more American workers to produce more supply of goods. However the Republicans want to cut this demand by a spending freeze. "No one but the federal government really has the necessary cash to do a whole lot of buying right now," said Rachel. "In this context, the Republicans are proposing a spending freeze. They are saying the government should stop spending. Also, rather than put your house fire out with water, they are going to switch the liquid in the fire hose to gasoline. Does that seem like a good idea?"

There are days that I wonder if the Republican Party stands for anything, or if they are just opposing the Democrats and President Barack Obama just for spite. This whole idea of a government spending freeze during this severe economic recession is beyond outrageous--almost descending into the realm of incompetent stupidity. The U.S. economy is seriously hurting, and American consumers are broke. So many Americans have lost their jobs, have lost--or are probably losing--their homes, and are struggling to make ends meet. American consumers are not going to pick up spending, and increase demand. Only the federal government has the resources to increase demand and stimulate the economy. And the Republicans want to douse the burning house fire with gasoline.

Of course, this isn't about the U.S. economy here. Again, it is about playing politics. The reason for this Republican spending freeze is to obstruct the $410 billion spending bill because it $31 billion larger than last years bill, and it contains $7.7 billion dollars in earmark spending. Again, the GOP has no policy ideas, except for the same failed tax cut ideas that got us into this mess in the first place under the Bush administration. So the Republicans are latching on to this almost $8 billion in earmark spending, claiming it is too much for the government and are holding up a $410 billion spending bill because of this small earmark spending. It is another example of obstructionism for partisan politics, another example of the GOP's desire to destroy this U.S. economy for their own political gain. It just amazes me.

Saturday Morning Cartoons--Stop! Look! and Hasten!

I haven't done a Road Runner cartoon for a while, so here is the Road Runner, with Wile E. Coyote, in a timeless classic Stop! Look! and Hasten. Watch out for the Burmese Tiger Trap. From YouTube:

Unemployment spikes to 8.1 percent

Graph showing the labor picture in February. From The New York Times.

The job losses continue. From the New York Times:

Another 651,000 jobs disappeared from the American economy in February, the government reported Friday, as the unemployment rate soared to 8.1 percent — its highest level since 1983.

The latest grim scorecard of contraction in the American work place largely destroyed what hopes remained for an economic recovery in the first half of this year, and it added to a growing sense that 2009 is likely a lost cause.

Most economists now assume that the soonest American fortunes can improve is near the end of the year, as the Obama administration’s $787 billion emergency spending program begins to wash through the economy.

Monthly unemployment rate. From MSNBC News.


“The current pace of decline is breathtaking,” said Robert Barbera, chief economist at the research and trading firm ITG. “We are now falling at a near record rate in the postwar period and there’s been no change in the violent downward trajectory.”

Indeed, the monthly snapshot of the national employment picture worsened an already abysmal picture as the government revised upward the number of jobs lost in December and January. The economy has now shed at least 650,000 jobs for three consecutive months, the worst decline in percentage terms over that length of time since 1975.

Since the recession began, the economy has eliminated roughly 4.4 million jobs with more than half of those positions — some 2.6 million — disappearing in the last four months.

The dramatic acceleration has convinced some economists that, far from an ordinary downturn whose ending will see jobs return, the contraction under way reflects a fundamental restructuring of the American economy. In crucial industries — particularly manufacturing, financial services and retail — many companies have opted to abandon whole areas of business.

“These jobs aren’t coming back,” said John E. Silvia, chief economist at Wachovia in Charlotte. “A lot of production either isn’t going to happen at all, or it’s going to happen somewhere other than the United States. There are going to be fewer stores, fewer factories, fewer financial services operations. Firms are making strategic decisions that they don’t want to be in their businesses.”

These jobs aren't coming back! That is scary, when you consider that 4.4 million jobs have been lost since the recession began, with over half of the jobs lost in the last four months. And each of those jobs represents an American consumer, who is cutting back on their spending of goods. Is it no wonder that retailers have been seeing big declines in their sales numbers (Except for Wal-Mart), or that retail profits are plummeting? American consumers do not have money to spend on goods, or have been laid off from their jobs, or are worried that their jobs are in jeopardy. So consumers are cutting back on spending, forcing firms to cut back on production, laying off workers, sending even more consumers to cut back on even more spending. The cycle just keeps repeating itself. Toss in a couple monkey wrenches on subprime mortgages sinking underwater, and declining retirement funds, and the mess just gets even worst.

Consider this interesting detail from MSNBC News:

All told, the number of unemployed people climbed to 12.5 million. In addition, the number of people forced to work part time for "economic reasons" rose by a sharp 787,000 to 8.6 million. That's people who would like to work full time but whose hours were cut back or were unable to find full-time work.

We have 12.5 million unemployed Americans with another 8.6 million working part time for "economic reasons." In other words, these 8.6 million would like to work full time, but are unable to find such work. And I would imagine that the 12.5 million unemployed do not count the number of individuals who have stopped looking for work, or have been dropped by the unemployment rolls.

I don't know what else to say, except that it will probably take more than a year--perhaps two years--to at least stabilize the unemployment picture. There is so many problems that this country faces, with the recession, the financial meltdown, the housing crash, spiraling health care costs, and such. Each problem has an interconnection with the other problems--banks are suffering huge losses due to their gambling with the subprime mortgage investments. Employers are facing increased health care costs in insuring their workers. Americans are cutting back on spending due to increasing interest payments on subprime home mortgages. It is breathtaking in size and scope. The unemployment picture is simply a reflection of how serious these problems are wreaking the U.S. economy. Until these deeper problems are addressed, I do not think you are going to see an improvement in the unemployment picture.

CNBC verses Jon Stewart

Not only was Stephen Colbert hunkered down in his Doom Bunker, but the Daily Show's Jon Stewart totally rips the CNBC bobble-heads a new one with their own hypocrisy:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

Brilliant. Just. Frickin. Brilliant.

The Doom Bunker

This is just too funny. In a parody of Fox News Glenn Beck's The War Room, Comedy Central's Stephen Colbert hunkers down in his Doom Bunker:

The Colbert ReportMon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Doom Bunker - Jack Jacobs and Stephen Moore

Colbert Report Full Episodes
Political Humor

Rap Battle
Joke of the Day

Time to stock up on the plastic wrap and duck tape!

Rove, Miers to testify before House panel on attorney firings

It is about time. From The New York Times:

Updated Karl Rove, the top adviser to former President Bush, and Harriet Miers, a former White House counsel in the previous administration, will give testimony to the House Judiciary Committee in its investigation of the firings of United States attorneys, House leaders announced tonight.

The two will give sworn depositions; the Judiciary Committee reserved the right to ask them to testify in public.

For the moment, the agreement appears to have ended a lengthy standoff between top Bush advisers and Congressional leaders who had tried to compel them to testify under oath. Many of the attorneys’ firings were criticized as political, and the controversy led to the resignation of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

Just four days before Mr. Bush left office this year, his most recent White House counsel, Fred Fielding, had advised Mr. Rove that he should continue to resist testifying before Congress. The Bush White House had asserted that Mr. Rove had immunity from having to testify about advice he had given to the president and that these matters were protected under executive privilege.

We will see what happens when Karl Rove sits before the House Judiciary Committee.

Is the Religious Right entering into a leadership vacuum?

I found this Washington Monthly post rather interesting, so I went to the original source story at The Washington Times:

The long-expected resignation of Focus on the Family's James Dobson highlights an open secret among America's roughly 70 million evangelicals: There are no obvious successors to the group of evangelical leaders who created massive organizations or built up media empires in the 1980s and '90s.

Mr. Dobson, 72, who resigned last week as board chairman of one of the country's most influential evangelical organizations, is one of the last of a great generation of evangelical leaders.

Some have died: the Rev. Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority founder; theologian Carl F.H. Henry; Florida pastor D. James Kennedy; Campus Crusade for Christ founder Bill Bright; and Christian philosopher Francis Schaeffer, who founded L'Abri Fellowship.

Others have either retired or have passed on the bulk of their duties, such as the Rev. Billy Graham, 90; televangelist Pat Robertson, 78; author and activist Tim LaHaye, 83; and Prison Fellowship founder Chuck Colson, 77.

"It's a changing of the guard," said Brian McLaren, 52, cited in 2005 by Time magazine as one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America.

"There is a possibility the religious right will collapse on itself. Or someone will articulate a new religious center. The evangelical community has been slowly diversifying, and there may not be a center anymore."

For the past 30 years, the Religious Right was able project enormous political power with a combination of presenting a social agenda into the political debate in terms that was favorable to the Religious Right--abortion, gay marriage, intelligent design, and such. The Religious Right also demanded a litmus test concerning those same social issues to also be placed on political officials--either Republicans had to pass the Religious Right's litmus test in order to be elected, or appointed, into office positions. Of course, Democrats would always fail the Religious Right's litmus tests--especially on abortion. This political power came about because individuals like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson were able to combine the energy of their foot soldiers with the religious ideology to exert a strong influence within the Republican Party. They got it right on how to mix religion with political power.

That power is now starting to diffuse. First, the old guard of the Religious Right is dying off, with no new replacements to fill the vacuum left behind. Second is that I think that the social issues that have so galvanized the Religious Right are starting to fade in the political debate. The issues of abortion and gay marriage are meaningless in a political debate when Americans are losing jobs and health care. The U.S. economy and the financial crisis were the big issues last November, although gay marriage was a major statewide issue in California with Proposition 8. These social issues can still come back. But for the moment, it is the U.S. economy that is the important issue. Third is this interesting analysis from The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen:

Younger evangelicals are generally less inclined to read from the religious right's hymnal, and anti-gay animus is losing its salience. There's a growing movement among evangelicals to reclaim the mantle and expand the definition of "moral issues" to include things like poverty and global warming.

Younger evangelicals may just be willing to look at such "moral issues," seeking out solutions to poverty and global warming. If this is the case, then what we could be seeing is a diversification of the evangelical movement, as their members seek out their own "moral issues" and causes--be it abortion or global warming. So not only does the Religious Right have a leadership problem, but the movement may also fracture between competing groups. And, of course, all of this is taking place just as the Republican Party is having problems finding their own political voice as they have become a wounded, minority party. A part of the Religious Right will certainly have a serious political influence within the Republican Party. But now we have a leaderless Religious Right movement exerting political influence with a disarrayed Republican Party.

In other words, the blind leading the blind.

NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll shows Obama job approval ratings at an all-time high

Here are some interesting poll numbers from MSNBC News:

WASHINGTON - After Barack Obama's first six weeks as president, the American public's attitudes about the two political parties couldn't be more different, the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds.

Despite the country's struggling economy and vocal opposition to some of his policies, President Obama's favorability rating is at an all-time high. Two-thirds feel hopeful about his leadership and six in 10 approve of the job he's doing in the White House.

"What is amazing here is how much political capital Obama has spent in the first six weeks," said Democratic pollster Peter D. Hart, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff. "And against that, he stands at the end of this six weeks with as much or more capital in the bank."

It is not surprising that the American people are giving President Obama such high poll numbers. This economic recession started with the previous Bush administration, and the Obama team has been magnificent in placing the blame for the recession on former President George W. Bush. It is brilliant use of the president's bully pulpit, and the American people are giving President Obama a pass on this recession, as they wait to see the details on the president's domestic policies for getting this country out of the economic malaise.

The poll numbers for the Republican Party, however, are not so bright:

By comparison, the Republican Party — which resisted Obama's recently passed stimulus plan and has criticized the spending in his budget — finds its favorability at an all-time low. It also receives most of the blame for the current partisanship in Washington and trails the Democrats by nearly 30 percentage points on the question of which party could best lead the nation out of recession.

The poll numbers here are really reflecting the partisan bickering that took place during the debate on the economic stimulus package. President Obama attempted to reach a bipartisan compromise on the economic stimulus package, met with Republican congressional leaders, and the Republicans snubbed him over the stimulus vote. That is the drama that is being played out from Washington, and it is the drama that the American people perceive. The president appears composed, confident, and bipartisan, while the Republians are reduced to a partisan, bickering, obstructionist group.

But there is more to the story here. According to the NBC/WSJ poll, 68 percent of Americans give a favorable opinion to the president, including 47 percent rating President Obama as "very positive." In addition, 67 percent say that they are more hopeful about his leadership and 60 percent approve of President Obama's job in the White House. Yet the poll numbers show that Americans are not as confident with President Obama's policies, when compared to his popularity--54 percent say that President Obama has the right policies for the country. With the economic stimulus plan so big and complex, Americans may not fully understand the details of the plan and are a little wary of the plan's success. In fact, 57 percent of Americans support President Obama's economic stimulus plan, while 34 percent oppose it.

As for the direction that the country is heading into, 41 percent feel that the country is heading into the right direction--up from 26 percent in January. Americans are feeling a little more optimistic about President Obama's actions during his first month in the White House. They are supportive of the Obama administration's policies--the stimulus plan, the closing of Gitmo, the withdrawal plan of American troops from Iraq. But there is also a wait-and-see attitude with the public here. The American people are willing to give President Obama a "long leash" over whether his policies will help the country:

These high marks for Obama come at a time when Americans are increasingly pessimistic about the economy. Only seven percent say they're satisfied about the state of the economy, which is an all-time low in the poll. What's more, a whopping 76 percent believe the economy still has a ways to go before it hits rock bottom.

Obama, Hart says, "has done a Herculean job in raising the spirits and mood of the American public against what is an economic tsunami."

According to the poll, part of the reason why Obama's numbers remain high despite these economic concerns is that the public doesn't blame the president for the current state of the economy. Eighty-four percent say this is an economy Obama inherited, and two-thirds of those people think he has at least a year before he's responsible for it.

"That's a long leash," McInturff says. "It normally doesn't last that long. But believe me, that's a good place to start."

Yet McInturff cautions that while these numbers suggest a patient public, "Americans are notoriously impatient people."

This is a key point. I'd say that the American people are willing to give President Obama a year to implement his policies, and to see the results of policies effect on the country. They accept that President Obama inherited an economic recession. They are willing to give some time for President Obama to change the direction of the country. But if change doesn't come to a positive effect, then President Obama's poll numbers will start to drop.

This is where the Republican Party comes in. Right now, the Republicans are polling some very bad numbers:

Just 26 percent view the Republican Party positively, which is an all-time low for the party. That's compared with 49 percent who have a favorable view of the Democratic Party.

In addition, a combined 56 percent say the previous Bush administration deserved "almost all" of the blame or a "major part" of the blame for the partisanship in Washington, and a combined 41 percent say the same of congressional Republicans.

By contrast, only 24 percent say that of congressional Democrats and just 11 percent say that of the Obama administration.

Also, the public overwhelmingly believes the GOP's opposition to Obama's policies and programs is based on politics: 56 percent say they're trying to gain political advantage, versus 30 percent who say they're standing up for their principles.

Finally, Americans don't seem to have confidence in the Republican Party when it comes to the economy. By a 48-20 percent margin, they think the Democratic Party would do a better job of getting the country out of the recession.

Republicans, Hart argues, "have been tone deaf to the results of the 2008 election... They never heard the message. They continue to preach the old-time religion."

McInturff, the GOP pollster, agrees. "These are difficult and problematic numbers."

The Republicans are certainly positioning themselves as an opposition party against everything that the Obama administration is proposing. They certainly want President Obama to fail, and are hoping that if the president's economic policies do not succeed in jump-starting the economy, then Americans will take another look at the Republicans and how they stood for their core principles. The Republicans were decimated in the 2006 midterm elections, and the 2008 presidential elections. They lost control of both Congress and the White House. The in-fighting we're seeing in the GOP between conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh and RNC chairman Michael Steel is really a power struggle for control of the hard-line conservatives--the 26 percent who still view the Republicans as favorably. This is the start of the rebuilding process for the GOP.

But the Republicans do not have much time for their rebuilding process. At this point, they are playing the obstructionist game to appease their hard-line conservative followers. But they are going to need to reach out to the moderates and independents that have voted Barack Obama and the Democrats into power. Reaching out to moderates and independents will mean that the GOP will have to present new ideas and new political policies that represent real change that the American people have voted for. Unfortunately, the Republicans are still presenting the same, stale policies and ideas for the past eight years of the former Bush administration. We probably have a year before Americans start demanding results of President Obama's economic policies. The Republicans have about a year before they will have to shift their attention away from the hard-core conservatives, and start courting the moderate and independent voters for the upcoming 2010 midterm elections. They are going to need to present political solutions to complex economic problems this nation is facing--depending of whether President Obama's policies really do fail to bring the U.S. economy out of the recession. So there is not much time for the GOP here.

Time to wait and see.

Auto sales down in February

I've been a little busy the past week with other things, so blogging has been a little light. I have found an interesting New York Times story showing that auto sales are still in the dumpster. I'm not surprised. With the credit market being frozen, Americans are still worried about the fate of their jobs, they are not going out to purchase new cars. So the automakers are suffering. From The New York Times:

DETROIT — New vehicle sales in the United States still have not hit the bottom of the freefall that began in late 2007, and results being released Tuesday showed a considerable decline in February after the market appeared to be stabilizing, despite some of the biggest discounts ever offered.

The three largest automakers, including Toyota, each said their sales declined at least 40 percent from February 2008.

Sales were down 53 percent at General Motors, 48 percent at the Ford Motor Company and 40 percent at Toyota.

Honda reported a 38 percent drop, while Nissan said its sales fell 37 percent.

“The February numbers are clearly a step down from where we’d been running the last four months,” said Michael C. DiGiovanni, G.M.’s chief sales analyst. “It’s unsettling to our business. These are obviously unsustainable levels which are causing almost every auto manufacturer across the world to look for government aid.”

G.M., of course, has gotten $13.4 billion from the federal government to help it avoid seeking bankruptcy protection, while Chrysler, which will report its sales later Tuesday, has received $4 billion.

Over all, sales were down about 42 percent on a year-over-year basis, G.M. and Ford estimated. In recent months, sales have been at the lowest level since the early 1980s.

G.M. and Ford both said they expected their second-quarter production to be at least a third lower than the same period in 2008.

Ford’s senior United States economist, Emily Kolinski Morris, said February’s decline was disappointing given that sales had been relatively flat on a month-to-month basis since October.

Auto sales will continue to stay flat, until we get a combination of some type of job growth, a thawing of the credit market, and a reformation of this housing mess we're currently in. The NY Times story reports that consumers are trying to save money by purchasing used cars, rather than buying new. "In February, 27 percent of people who visited a dealership intending to buy a new car instead bought a used one, up from 16 percent in recent months, according to Edmunds.com." These consumers have been hurt by the recession, with sinking home values and 401K retirement accounts. They are not going to purchase a new car that will lose 20-30 percent of its value the moment they drive off the lot. And the dealerships know that. According to the NY Times story, "Discounts on Chrysler and Dodge brand models amounted to about 20 percent of their sticker prices, the highest ever recorded." The dealers are begging for consumers to buy their cars. And yet, with the recessionary problems, the tight credit market, and consumer worries on housing, retirement and jobs, the incentives are not working.

Saturday Morning Cartoons--Yogi Bear's Big Break

I haven't done a Yogi Bear cartoon in a while, so here is the first Yogi Bear cartoon, Yogi Bear's Big Break. Yogi premiered on Hanna Barbera's The Huckleberry Hound Show, October 2, 1958. In Yogi Bear's Big Break, Yogi is tired of being patronized by the tourists who are constantly saying "Look at the bears! Look at the bears! Lookatthebears!" Yogi wants to escape Jellystone Park, which is under the watchful eyes of the park ranger. So Yogi devises a number of escape plans, explaining how his plans will work to his pal Boo Boo. Naturally, all of Yogi's escape plans fail. And naturally, the park ranger catches Yogi trying to escape, ordering him back into the park. It is rather ironic how Yogi started off as a supporting character under Hanna Barbera's first star Huckleberry Hound, but has quickly broken out to be the major star--no, the icon--for Hanna Barbera's impressive collection of film animation. So here is Yogi Bear in his Big Break. From YouTube:



Yogi doesn't start stealing pic-a-nic baskets until February 5, 1959 in Bear on a Picnic.

Congressional approval ratings jump from 19 percent to 31 percent

This is from Gallup.com:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's latest congressional job approval rating, from a Feb. 9-12 poll, shows a sharp 12 percentage-point increase from last month, rising from 19% to 31%. While still quite negative on an absolute basis, this is the best rating for Congress in nearly two years.

Congress' approval ratings have been below 30% pretty consistently since October 2005. There have been a few exceptions to this, with ratings as high as 37% in early 2007 after the Democrats took party control of Congress after their victories in the November 2006 midterm elections, but those quickly disappeared. More recently, approval ratings of Congress had been about 20% or lower, including an all-time low rating of 14% in July 2008.

Congressional job approval ratings from 2006 to 2009. From Gallup.

This month's sharp increase largely reflects a more positive Democratic review of Congress. Since the previous measure from early January, Barack Obama has been inaugurated as president, and now Democrats have party control of both the legislative and the executive branches of the federal government.

I'm thinking that Congress' abysmal poll ratings were due to the perception that they were a rubber-stamp for the Bush administration. Back in October, 2005, the Republicans held control of Congress and pretty much rammed down their own ideology, and conservative legislation, down the country's throat. Of course, in 2005, the scandals were coming out against the Bush administration on the intelligence failures on Iraq, Valerie Plame, domestic spying, and torture. The GOP leadership refused to allow any serious congressional investigations into the Bush administration's connection with these scandals. The 109th Congress, at that time, was considered the "Do-Nothing" Congress. Even when the Democrats took control of the 110th Congress, after the 2006 midterm elections, they could not pass much legislation with a closely divided Senate, and both a threatening GOP filibuster in the Senate and a President Bush veto. The 37 percent uptick in 2007 was a positive result due to the Democrats' retaking control of Congress. But the Democratic leadership still could not effectively legislate.

Flash forward to today. We've got a Democrat in the White House, under President Barack Obama, and the Democrats in charge of Congress. With the economic stimulus bill having passed in Congress, and President Obama signing the bill, it is not surprising that the congressional approval ratings have shot up by 12 points. And even though the poll was taken on February 9-12, the American people have been watching the political events taking place during this debate on the stimulus bill, and how the Obama administration has been moving this bill through Congress, attempting to provide bipartisanship with Republican congressmen. And so far, the American people have been approving of both President Obama, and Congress.

But congressional approval only goes so far. The big losers are, again, the Republicans:

Democrats' average approval ratings of Congress more than doubled from January (18%) to February (43%). Independents show a smaller increase, from 17% to 29%, while Republicans are now less likely to approve of Congress than they were in January.

Congressional approval ratings for January and February, 2009, by political party. From Gallup.

Job approval ratings for the Republican Party dropped 4 percentage points between January and February of this year, from 23 percent in January to 19 percent in February. Contrast that to the 25 point percentage increase by the Democrats, between January and February, of this year. You can blame this 4 percent drop in the Republican's job approval ratings due to the GOP's incessant opposition and obstruction against the economic stimulus bill. Even as President Obama attempted to reach out for bipartisanship on the stimulus bill, not a single Republican House member voted for the stimulus bill, and only three Republican senators voted for the bill. This stimulus bill comes at a time when the U.S. is struggling through a severe economic recession, with Americans worried about the employment picture, the financial crisis, the housing crisis, and the plummeting 401K retirement funds. And with the Republicans opposing the stimulus bill at a time when the U.S. is facing such severe economic problems, it is no wonder that the GOP's approval ratings are sinking. It is a high-risk strategy that the GOP is playing, hoping that the worsening economic conditions will turn the American public against the Democrats and President Obama, sending the Republicans back into power in the 2010 and 2012 elections--for both Congress and the White House.

Burris now acknowledges fundraising effort for Blagojevich

This Burris scandal just continues to grow. From the Chicago Sun-Times:

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris has acknowledged he sought to raise campaign funds for then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich at the request of the governor’s brother at the same time he was making a pitch to be appointed to the Senate seat previously held by President Barack Obama.

Burris' latest comments in Peoria Monday night were the first time he has publicly said he was actively trying to raise money for Blagojevich. Previously Burris has left the impression that he always balked at the issue of raising money for the governor because of his interest in the Senate appointment.

In comments to reporters after appearing at a Democratic dinner, the senator several times contradicted his latest under-oath affidavit that he quietly filed with the Illinois House impeachment panel earlier this month. That affidavit was itself an attempt to clean up his live, sworn testimony to the panel Jan. 8, when he omitted his contacts with several Blagojevich insiders.

You can read Burris' give-and-take with reporters here.

Attorney General Lisa Madigan on Monday night joined a growing chorus of Democratic officials who want a deeper investigation of Burris' comments. But she did not go as far as some, including Republicans, who have said specifically they want Burris investigated for possible perjury.

"This is a particularly frustrating revelation," Madigan said of Burris' recent disclosure that he had contact with five Blagojevich insiders. "I encourage the Sangamon County state's attorney to take a closer look at this in the interest of truth, integrity and transparency."

Sangamon County State's Attorney John Schmidt did not immediately return a telephone call for comment today.

It seems like the more Burris opens his mouth, the more he contradicts himself regarding the conversations he had with the Blagojevich campaign, resulting in the deeper hole that Burris digs himself in. The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen recommends that "Perhaps now would be a good time for Burris to think about spending more time with his family."

Perhaps Roland Burris should really consider some more family time. Because this mess is just going to get even worst.

Sun-Times reports Blagojevich hit up Burris for cash

The ongoing saga of Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich continues on. This is from Saturday's Chicago Sun-Times:

Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s brother solicited U.S. Sen. Roland Burris for up to $10,000 in campaign cash before Blagojevich named Burris to the coveted post — something Burris initially failed to disclose under oath before an Illinois House impeachment panel, records and interviews show.

Burris acknowledges being hit up for the money in a new affidavit he has sent to the head of the House committee that recommended Blagojevich be removed from office.

The affidavit is dated Feb. 5 — three weeks after Burris was sworn in to replace President Obama in the Senate.

Burris — who did not give money to the Blagojevich campaign fund in response to the previously undisclosed solicitation — provided a copy of the sworn statement to the Chicago Sun-Times Friday in response to questions about his contacts with the Blagojevich camp about fund-raising.

Burris acknowledged having three conversations with Robert Blagojevich, who headed the Friends of Blagojevich campaign fund — and one of those was likely recorded by the FBI.

Burris’ statement offers the third version of events he has given about his discussions concerning the Senate seat, to which Blagojevich appointed him in late December, after Blagojevich was hit with federal corruption charges that included an allegation he tried to sell the Senate appointment.

[....]

In October and again in November, Burris spoke with Robert Blagojevich, who initially asked him to host a fund-raiser. Burris said he’d get back to him after the election, sources with knowledge of the conversations said. The two later talked again, and Burris again was asked for campaign cash.

I've often talked about Republican stupidity in Washington, but apparently there are enough stupid Democrats in Chicago. Burris gets a call from Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother, asking for $10,000 cash to Blagojevich's campaign fund. This took place before Blagojevich named Burris to the U.S. Senate seat. Smells like Blago was, again, trying to sell the U.S. Senate seat to Roland Burris. And Burris was interested in the job:

In all, Burris expressed interest in the Senate seat to five people in Blagojevich’s camp, documents obtained by the Sun-Times show. He disclosed just one of those contacts when asked Jan. 8 by state Rep. James Durkin (R-Western Springs) during the impeachment hearings to name any contact he had with Blagojevich’s people about the seat.

“I’m very surprised he didn’t make these disclosures,” Durkin said. “I don’t know if Mr. Burris was purposely being evasive during the committee or had selected memory issues.”

In a sworn statement filed with the House panel Jan. 5, before he testified, Burris said he had no contact with Blagojevich’s camp about the Senate seat aside from his appointment in late December. In testimony before the committee, he added that he spoke with Lon Monk, Blagojevich’s former chief of staff. In his new affidavit, Burris confirms he also spoke of his interest in the Senate appointment with Blagojevich insiders John Harris, Doug Scofield and John Wyma.

The discussions with Robert Blagojevich about money came after Burris spoke with those people. Burris had told the House committee he was unaware of any quid pro quo dangled by Blagojevich’s camp.

Senate Minority Leader Christine Radogno (R-Lemont) said Burris’ new statement regarding his contact with Blagojevich’s emissaries represents a “fatal wound” to a potential 2010 Burris re-election bid. His new account contains “extraordinary detail” Burris should have disclosed to the impeachment panel when he testified and to U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) before being seated, Radogno said.

“If it turns out this was some sort of attempt to avoid this coming out as part of the appointment process, then he doesn’t deserve to be senator,” Radogno said. “I think the whole thing stinks to high heaven.”

Burris has stated that he never contributed any money to Blagojevich's campaign, saying that "It would be inappropriate and pose a major conflict because I was interested in the Senate vacancy." The problem here isn't whether Burris gave money to Blagojevich in exchange for the U.S. Senate seat. The problem here is that Burris contradicted himself three times regarding conversations he had with former governor Blagojevich. Burris has even lied under oath before the House panel on January 5th on contacts he had with Blago's camp on the Senate seat. It is like Burris wanted so badly to stay away from the stink of Blago's corruption, that he was so willing to lie about the conversations he had with Blagojevich on the Senate seat, even though he never gave any money to Blago for the seat. Had Burris simply come clean with these conversations in the first place, rather than trying to hide them, the scandal would have quickly blown over. But with contradiction after contradiction after contradiction, Roland Burris has also acquired a rather fishy stink about him.

And this has resulted in state lawmakers calling for a perjury investigation against Roland Burris:

State lawmakers are calling for a criminal investigation into whether U.S. Sen. Roland Burris committed perjury before a state impeachment panel, in the wake of a Sun-Times exclusive story published online Saturday.

The development comes after the Chicago Democrat failed to initially disclose under oath to a House panel that he was hit up for campaign cash by former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's brother.

State Rep. James Durkin (R-Western Springs) said Saturday that the Sangamon County state prosecutor's office will be asked to review Burris' Jan. 8 sworn testimony before the House panel to determine whether Burris (D-Chicago) perjured himself.

"I don't trust anything that comes out of Roland Burris' mouth or from his pen," Durkin said.

[....]

Word that Burris' account of his appointment has changed yet again came as a surprise to some of his colleagues in the Senate, who were not aware of the affidavit's filing until learning of it from press accounts. It was unclear what response might be triggered by Burris' revisions.

An aide to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who initially sought to block Burris from being seated, said the Senate leader intended to take a closer look at Burris' new affidavit. But Reid's office declined to say whether the new revelations would reopen the question of whether Burris should be Illinois' junior senator.

"Senator Reid is reviewing the affidavit," Reid spokesman Jim Manley told the Sun-Times Saturday.

I should talk about the fallout here on Burris' latest contradiction. First, Illinois state Republican leaders are calling for Burris' resignation here. In this MSNBC story, Rep. Jim Durkin states "I think it would be in the best interest of the state if he [Burris] resigned because I don't think the state can stand this anymore." The Republicans would love to see Burris resign, after which they would then call for a special election on the vacant Illinois U.S. senate seat, and hopefully snatch the seat from the Democrats. Democratic leaders are demanding that Burris "come clean" on his contradictions and lies:

SPRINGFIELD -- A key Democrat on the House panel that moved to impeach Gov. Blagojevich believes that Democratic U.S. Sen. Roland Burris should be called back before the committee to explain his “absolutely misleading” testimony about his appointment.

Rep. Jack Franks (D-Woodstock), the first Democrat to call for Burris to be hauled back before the House Special Investigative Committee, also said Monday that the Sangamon County state’s attorney should open a perjury probe if Burris refuses to show up. Republicans called for a similar perjury probe over the weekend.

Burris “has an obligation to come clean,” Franks said.

Burris’ latest version of events leading to his appointment -- outlined in a Feb. 5 affidavit that committee members were not informed of until the Chicago Sun-Times broke the story Saturday -- is not sufficient, Franks said: “You can’t cross-examine an affidavit.”

Franks said he felt “betrayed” when he learned Burris had dramatically altered his Jan. 8 testimony before the committee.

Other Democrats called Monday for more information from Burris. “We can’t have the people of Illinois thinking their new U.S. senator lied under oath,” said State Rep. Lou Lang (D-Skokie).

Burris should “make himself available to answer any and all questions,” said State Rep. John A. Fritchey (D-Chicago).

It appears that Roland Burris is starting to find himself alone, and friendless. He completely screwed up. And now with calls for a potential perjury investigation against Burris, nobody wants to touch Burris with a hundred-foot pole. Burris is toast. The Republicans want Burris to resign, and have a special election to snatch the U.S. Senate seat for themselves. The Democrats just do not want to have anything to do with him--Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's office is stalling for time by reviewing the latest Burris affidavit. They are waiting to see if the Illinois state legislature will open perjury investigations against Burris, and what will result in the investigations against Burris. The best thing for the state of Illinois would be for Roland Burris to resign from his U.S. Senate seat, and have the new governor Pat Quinn select a new replacement senator. However, Burris denies any wrongdoing, saying it was the media's fault for misconstruing the facts:

U.S. Sen. Roland Burris defiantly defended himself Sunday against allegations he misled a state impeachment panel while under oath by not disclosing multiple contacts with former Gov. Blagojevich’s inner circle or being approached by the ex-governor’s brother for campaign cash before the appointment.

“Throughout my career, I’ve always conducted myself with honesty and integrity,” Burris said during an emotional press conference about why he quietly filed paperwork to revise his testimony, which the Chicago Sun-Times was the first to report Saturday.

“I responded to all questions that were asked of me by the impeachment committee in the time allotted. At no time did I ever make any inconsistent statements,” Burris said, blaming the impeachment panel for not asking him the right questions and the media for misconstruing the facts.

Is it time to pass the popcorn?

Fender-bender in the Atlantic

I wonder if they both had insurance? From CNN.com:

LONDON, England (CNN) -- A British Royal Navy nuclear submarine and its French equivalent collided while on operations in the Atlantic Ocean earlier this month, defense ministries in Paris and London confirmed Monday.

Both vessels, HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant, were armed with nuclear warheads and suffered damage but were able to return to port under their own power following the collision.

"Two "SNLE" (nuclear submarines), one French and the other British, were, a few days ago, on standard patrols in the Atlantic. They briefly came in contact in a very slow speed while they were immersed," the French Ministry of Defense said in a statement.

"There is no casualty or injury among the crew. Neither the nuclear deterrent mission nor the nuclear security have been compromised."

In an earlier press release issued on February 6, the Ministry of Defense said the vessel's sonar dome had been damaged in a collision. The vessel was able to return to its base at Ile Longue in Brittany, northwest France, accompanied by a frigate.

The UK's Ministry of Defence also confirmed the incident. In a statement, the First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathan Band said the collision occurred during "routine national patrols."

"Both submarines remained safe and no injuries occurred. We can confirm that the capability remained unaffected and there has been no compromise to nuclear safety," Band said.

HMS Vanguard returned to its home base at Faslane in Scotland on February 14. The UK's Sun newspaper reported that dents and scrapes were visible on the vessel's hull as it was towed into dock by a tugboat.

Both the UK and French nuclear deterrent operations depend on complete secrecy, despite both countries' membership of NATO. But naval analyst Richard Cobbold told CNN that procedures would be in place to ensure that French and British submarines were routinely kept apart.

"Either one of these submarines was doing something different or somebody made a mistake -- but we don't know that," Cobbold said.

You would think that, in an ocean as big as the Atlantic, both subs would not collide with each other under the sea. But they did. You would also think that both the British and French military commands would coordinate their plans to keep their nuclear submarines apart from each other. In this case, they didn't. Or some big SNAFU took place that both countries never expected. My guess is one sub was driving on the left, while the other sub was driving on the right, and they both collided into each other.

Or perhaps both of the subs collided with each other in this fashion:

Saturday Morning Cartoons--For Scent-imental Reasons

It is a Valentines Day weekend. And to celebrate Valentines Day, there is only one cartoon character who shows us the true nature of being in love--yes, we're talking about Pepe Le Pew! Here is Pepe in his 1949, Academy Award winning cartoon For Scent-imental Reasons. Directed by the great Chuck Jones, this short film is unique in that ABC had cut out two suicide sequences for television viewing. The first was where the female cat, later named Penelope Pussycat, had locked herself in a glass case, with Pepe arguing for her to come out. Penelope refuses, pantomiming that Pepe stinks. Pepe pulls out a gun, points it to his head, and then walks out of sight. Moments later, the gun is fired. A horrified Penelope rushes out of the case, and into the arms of Pepe, who tells her, "I missed, fortunately for you," continuing his lavish kisses on Penelope. A second suicide sequence was also cut out, where Penelope stands on a window sill, threatening to jump. Pepe believes that Penelope is trying to prove her love to him by committing suicide, and that he will save her. Pepe grabs Penelope, but then drops her. Pepe declares his own love for Penelope, saying "Vive l'amour! We die together." Pepe falls into a paint can, while Penelope falls into a barrel of water. ABC cut the scene of Pepe trying to save Penelope from jumping, and the line "We die together." This is the uncut version, showing both suicide scenes. From YouTube:

Poll shows American support for investigations into Bush administration wrongdoings

This is a rather interesting Gallup poll to consider:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Earlier this week, Sen. Patrick Leahy called for a special commission to investigate possible government wrongdoing by the Bush administration in its anti-terror policies, as well as possible attempts to politicize the Justice Department through the firing of U.S. attorneys who were viewed as potentially disloyal to the administration. While Americans appear to support some kind of investigation into these matters, no more than 41% favor criminal probes.

These results are based on a Jan. 30-Feb. 1 USA Today/Gallup poll. In addition to Leahy's recent call for a "truth commission" that would investigate but not prosecute Bush administration officials, a House committee led by Rep. John Conyers is awaiting responses to subpoenas of former Bush administration officials regarding Bush-era policies and actions.

For each of three controversial actions or policies of the Bush administration, survey respondents were asked whether there should be a criminal investigation by the Justice Department or an investigation by an independent panel that would issue a report of findings but not seek any criminal charges, or whether neither should be done.



While no more than 41% of Americans favor a criminal investigation into any of the matters, at least 6 in 10 say there should be either a criminal investigation or an independent probe into all three. This includes 62% who favor some type of investigation into the possible use of torture when interrogating terrorism suspects, 63% who do so with respect to the possible use of telephone wiretaps without obtaining a warrant, and 71% who support investigating possible attempts to use the Justice Department for political purposes.

So far, President Obama has been reluctant to pursue such investigations, but Leahy and Conyers in particular are calling for an accounting of what happened on Bush's watch.

A couple of points here. It is obvious that the Obama administration doesn't want a congressional investigation into the Bush administration wrongdoings--George W. Bush is out of the White House, and President Obama wants Congress to concentrate on cleaning up the Bush administration messes with the reforms in the financial industry, housing, the economy, the frozen credit market, and such. There may also be a fear that, if the Obama administration concentrates heavily into investigations of the previous Bush administration, then President Obama may be on the receiving end of investigations by a successive Republican White House, or Congress, intent on exacting revenge against the Obama administration. Instead of political brinkmanship here, you could call this political fearmanship.

Unfortunately, President Obama is completely wrong here. Too many wrongdoings and criminality by the Bush administration have been exposed during the past eight years. We all know what those wrongdoings were--the Bush domestic spying program, the use of torture, the Valerie Plame outing, the politicization of the Justice Department, and the firing of the U.S. attorneys. As much as I would like to see criminal investigations into some of the top Bush administration officials--particularly Dick Cheney and Karl Rove--I seriously doubt that any criminal investigations, or indictments, will be handed down against these officials. Instead, I'll accept the independent, or congressional, investigations into the causes for these Bush wrongdoings, and what steps could be taken to stop a future administration from engaging in these same criminal acts. However, the American people are demanding these investigations, as per the Gallup poll.

One interesting detail here is, again, the partisanship that divides American opinions regarding the investigations into the Bush administration:

Perhaps not unexpectedly, a majority of Democratic identifiers favor a criminal probe into all three matters -- including 54% who do so with respect to warrantless wiretaps, 51% for the possible use of torture, and 52% for the firing of U.S. attorneys.



In contrast, Republicans are most likely to oppose any type of investigation, including a majority who say so in regard to the possible use of torture (54%) and warrantless wiretaps (56%). Republicans are more receptive to an investigation into possible efforts to politicize the Justice Department, with 24% favoring a criminal probe and 28% in favor of an independent panel report. Still, the greatest number (43%) of Republicans think there should be no investigation into the Justice Department matter.

Independents' views on all three matters fall in between those of Republicans and Democrats, with a majority favoring some type of investigation but (unlike Democrats) not a criminal probe.

There is not much to say here. Democrats are angry at the past eight years of Bush wrongdoing, and they want punishment enacted against the top Bush officials. Of course, the top three Bush wrongdoings are the domestic spying, torture, and U.S. attorney firings--all three have been written in the news media, and on liberal blogs. So it is now wonder that Democrats want criminal investigations enacted against the Bush administration officials. In contrast, the Republicans want these investigations to end. President Bush is out of the White House, so let's end the investigations. It is ironic that a majority of Republicans are against investigations into torture and domestic spying. I'm guessing that the Republicans want to cover up these potential Bush administration abuses, fearing a combination of criminal charges handed down against former Bush officials, and a further tarnishing of a failed Bush legacy. So the political partisanship continues on.

Republican stupidity continues....

I found this Matt Yglesias posting on how U.S. Rep. Steve Austria blames Franklin Delano Roosevelt for causing the Great Depression by....wait for it....an economic stimulus package:

U.S. Rep. Steve Austria said he supports a scaled-down federal economic-stimulus proposal, but the Beavercreek Republican told The Dispatch editorial board that the huge influx of money into the economy could have a negative effect.

"When (President Franklin) Roosevelt did this, he put our country into a Great Depression," Austria said. "He tried to borrow and spend, he tried to use the Keynesian approach, and our country ended up in a Great Depression. That's just history."

Most historians date the beginning of the Great Depression at or shortly after the stock-market crash of 1929; Roosevelt took office in 1933.

Rep. Austria then backtracked on his claim that Roosevelt started the Great Depression. In an email today, Austria wrote, ""I did not mean to imply in any way that President Roosevelt was responsible for putting us into the Depression, but rather was trying to make the point that Roosevelt's attempt to use significant spending to get us out of the Depression did not have the desired effect. Roosevelt did not put us into the Depression, but rather his policies could not pull the nation out of the recession."

In one sense, Austria is right. It was not FDR's New Deal policies that ended the Great Depression. It was the U.S. entry into the Second World War that ended the Great Depression, bringing the U.S. economy back into full production. And what did the Roosevelt administration do to bring the U.S. economy back into production after the U.S. entered the war? The Roosevelt administration spent billions of dollars building tanks, bombs, aircraft, warships, guns, bullets, while drafting millions of American men into the military. The U.S. government borrowed the money--by selling war bonds--to spend on all the war equipment, and the labor costs in paying for the U.S. soldiers and sailors. It was one, huge, economic stimulus package that brought the U.S. out of the Great Depression! That is some significant spending here! And FDR presided over that economic stimulus package. Then again, maybe Rep. Steve Austria doesn't realize how much of a fool he is.

Stupid is as stupid does.

Huckabee calls economic stimulus bill, "anti-religious"

I saw this story yesterday in the Washington Monthly, and I've been meaning to comment on it. Apparently, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee believes that the economics stimulus package is "anti-religious." What the frack? From the Politico.com:

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned supporters Tuesday that the $828 billion stimulus package is “anti-religious.”

In an e-mail that was also posted on his blog ahead of the Senate’s passage, Huckabee wrote: “The dust is settling on the ‘bipartisan’ stimulus bill and one thing is clear: It is anti-religious.”

The former Republican presidential candidate pointed to a provision in both the House and Senate versions banning higher education funds in the bill from being used on a “school or department of divinity.”

“You would think the ACLU drafted this bill,” Huckabee said. “For all of the talk about bipartisanship, this Congress is blatantly liberal.”

“Emily’s List, radical environmental groups, etc. all have a seat at the decision making table in Washington these days,” he continued. “Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are in charge and they are working with an equally ‘progressive’ President Obama (remember his voting record is more liberal than Ted Kennedy!).”

In the e-mail, Huckabee concedes that there is little that conservatives can do in the near term, but advocated mobilization to defeat those “masquerading as ‘conservative Democrats.’”

Steve Benen, at the Washington Monthly, sets the record straight:

Regular readers know the story by now, but if you're just joining us, this myth has been making the rounds in right-wing circles for about a week. Originally, the American Center for Law and Justice, a right-wing legal group formed by TV preacher Pat Robertson, said the stimulus bill includes a provision that would prohibit "religious groups and organizations from using" buildings on college campuses. Soon after, religious right groups and right-wing blogs were up in arms, demanding that lawmakers fix the "anti-Christian" language of the bill. Fox News and the Christian Broadcasting Network helped get the word out to the far-right base about the nefarious measure. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) actually tried to have the provision removed from the bill.

There was, however, one small problem: there was no such measure. The ACLJ doesn't know how to read legislation, and didn't realize that the standard language in the bill simply blocks spending for on-campus buildings that are used primarily for religion (like a chapel, for example). This same language has been part of education spending bills for 46 years. It's just the law, and it's never been controversial.

Huckabee is either deliberately deceiving people, or he's making reckless accusations without knowing the facts. Either way, this is ridiculous.

First, I have to wonder if Mike Huckabee has been eating too many of his popcorn-popper-fried squirrels. The second thing I have to wonder is have the Republicans descended into some form of delusional insanity with these incoherent rantings? Because that is what I'm hearing over the past couple of weeks. We've got House Minority Leader Eric Cantor sending a pro-union spoof of a commercial as a response to a union attack ad against Cantor for his opposition to the economic stimulus bill. Top GOP strategist Alex Castellanos called Republican senators, who were considering supporting the economic stimulus package, wussy Republicans. And then there is the story of the GOP congressmen congratulating themselves in their delusional "victory" in obstructing the Obama administration's economic stimulus plan. Republican Rep. Pete Sessions called for the GOP to engage in a Taliban-like insurgency against President Obama and the congressional Democratic leadership. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell wanted to kill the economic stimulus bill because it contained a disaster insurance program for livestock owners that could include "honeybee insurance." And finally, Mike Huckabee isn't alone in his ranting over the stimulus package being anti-religious. Republican South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint brought this same controversy up about a week ago:

Check out this video of Sen. Jim DeMint flat-out lying on the Senate floor as he discusses the need to pass his amendment to strip this provision from the legislation, as he proclaims that Christians would be locked out of opportunities for higher education and proclaims that it was inserted into the bill by some nefarious cabal of people who are intent on silencing "traditional, freedom-loving Americans" and who are "so hostile to religion that they are willing to stand in the schoolhouse door, like the infamous George Wallace":

It is like the Republican Party is self-destructing into bratty, insolent, little children, who will whine and complain about and how they are not taken seriously in the political process by the mean Democratic congressional leadership--not President Obama, who wants to extend bipartisanship to the Republicans. Never mind the previous eight years the GOP had control of the White House, or the six years they controlled Congress during the Bush administration's term. Never mind the hard-lined conservative agenda of tax cuts to the rich, domestic spying, fear-mongering, torture, crass cronyism, and endless war that the Bush administration, and the GOP, shoved down the American peoples' throats. The Republicans are trying to blame their previous eight years of their own failed leadership on the Democrats, and the Obama administration. So right after President Obama took the oath of office, the Republican obstructionism began in the hope that Obama would fail, and that such a failure could bring the control of Congress back to the Republicans in the next election. But a funny thing happened--President Obama got his economic stimulus package through Congress, and past the Republican obstructionism. President Obama's poll numbers are especially high, while a majority of Americans have disapproved of the congressional Republicans' obstructionism. This is obviously driving the Republicans batshit crazy here. And they are responding in such a crazed, lunatic manner.