[DeMint & other Repugs against the stimulus. Not a brain in the bunch. Photo by Reuters]
It looks like the stimulus bill, minus $100 billion for programs the Repugs didn't like, is a done deal. More or less.
Da Candy Man, Jim DeMint, (R-S.C.), has been leading the opposition, which is really the only thing he does. He tried to get his own bill passed, which consisted of no spending whatsoever, merely tax breaks, but failed.
Da Candy Man didn't like a provision in the Democrat's plan which he claimed would discriminate against religious (read Christian) organizations. Here's the wording, courtesy of Alex Koppelman at Salon:
"No funds awarded under this section may be used for... modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities (i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or (ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission."
Da Candy Man claims that "is an attack on people of faith." You have to remember, of course, that da Candy Man knoweth not our Constitution, nor careth not, for he is a true wingnut from South Carolina.
"Democrats," saith da Candy Man, "are looking for every opportunity to purge faith and prayer from the public square."
Yup. Those damn Democrats walk around Washington all day just trying to figure out ways to purge faith and prayer from the public square. No? Well, we can hope!
So, da Candy Man offered an amendment which would excise this anti-faith provision. But it failed. Notice, please, three Democrats voted for it: Evan Bayh, Byron Dorgan, and Ben Nelson.
Actually, as Koppelman points out, the provision in the bill is standard language and has been upheld in the courts, and doesn't do what da Candy Man thinks it does. "The funding can go to religious schools, and it can be used for buildings in which, say Bible study is held, as long as that's not a 'substantial portion' of what the building is used for."
Nevertheless, the fundy christianist wingnuts are unhappy and at least one group is threatening to sue.
It must be something in the water. More kooks come crawling out of South Carolina than most any other state in the Union. That's always been true, come to think of it.
Now, Mark Sanford, the Repugnican guv of South Carolina says he ain't gonna take no $3.2 billion in stimulus money for his state! That should warm the hearts of his constituents! Yup, he's agin' the fedural gov'mint payin' fer stuff with money they don't got.
Hold on, says a couple of Republican legislative leaders...we could sure use some of that money, like $480 mil to fix our infrastructure.
Nope, says Sanford.
In Congress, though, South Carolina Democrat, Jim Clyburn, (one of the good guys) snuck in a little provision to the stimulus act which would do an end-run around Sanford. It says if a governor does not act within 45 days after the bill passes, state legislative leaders can, with a statement, accept the federal aid.
Sanford claims to be all worried about deficit spending. Well, where has he been for eight long years? How the hell does he think we've "paid" for Iraq and Afghanistan and all the other monkey business dreamed up by the bozos in the Bush administration?
But maybe there's more to it. You see, Clyburn got his eyes on using the stimulus money to help the poor folks in South Carolina. Now, if there's anything that Republicans don't want to do it is use guv'mint money to help poor folks (read Black). Guv'mint money's good for the rich white folks, but let's not go crazy here.
Clyburn's going a bit crazy. He wants to help the nation's poorest counties and bump up aid to "historically black colleges and universities."
Can't have that; 'specially in South Carolina!
Oh, yeah, Jim DeMint, da Candy Man, is gonna "help lead Senate opposition to the stimulus plan."
Of course he is.
[One final moment of terror: there are Repugs who are talking about Sanford running for prez in 2012. Aaargh!]
Ninety-four senators voted to confirm Senator Hillary Clinton as our new Secretary of State. Two senators were opposed.
It is possible that two of 96 senators were so convinced that Hillary Clinton would be a really bad Secretary of State that they could not in good conscience vote for her confirmation. It is possible that two of 96 senators were feeling their ethical oats and instead of going along with the crowd, stood on principle and voted no.
But then we learn who those two senators were: Jim DeMint of South Carolina, and David Vitter of Louisiana.
I have written on several occasions about Jim DeMint and David Vitter and those articles can be accessed by simply typing their names in the "Search" bar on the right side of the blog.
Perhaps the most important DeMint article is here, and the most important Vitter articles is here.
Suffice it to say that neither of these two nogoodniks worry much about ethics or morals. Their negative votes on Clinton's confirmation had nothing to do with principle. DeMint, known better as the Candy Man, deplores the lack of religious values in our country. Vitter is best known for his adulation and thus, solicitation, of prostitutes (but God and his wife have forgiven him).
Neither of these men voted negatively on Clinton because they were trying to do what they believed the "right" thing. Their votes were carefully calculated political maneuvers pandering the the rightwing fruitcakes in their respective districts. They are soon up for re-election.
It is so wonderful, though, to know that unlike past years, people like da Candy Man and Vitter are out of power and huff and puff though they may, they cannot blow down the house of Obama and the people.
Jim DeMint, in case you've never heard of him, is an ultra-conservative senator from South Carolina.
At the moment, Senator DeMint is pissed off. He has publicly chastised his fellow senator, John McCain, for blowing the election by blowing off and "betraying conservative principles." The Republican Party should, according to de candy man, DeMint, "represent freedom, religious-based values and limited government."
"Religious values?" Does this clown have a clue? Whose religious values? How about Muslim religious values? Or Hindu religious values? Or Wiccan religious values? Or the values of the Cult of Death?
Anyway, de candy man held up a laundry list of McCain's failings at a speech in Myrtle Beach. And these, he said, were what brought down the party of god, religious values and freedom:
"McCain, who is a proponent of campaign finance reform that weakened party organizations ... His proposal for amnesty for illegals. His support of global warming, cap-and-trade programs that will put another burden on our economy. And of course, his embrace of the bailout right before the election was probably the nail in our coffin this last election. And he has been an opponent of drilling in ANWR, at a time when energy is so important. It really didn't fit the label, but he was our package."
Poor John. Day after day he's gonna look out over the Senate floor and there he'll see the candy man, all glum and crochety, glaring at the "loser."
DeMint, who sometimes doesn't know the difference between Ted Kennedy and Ted Stevens, could not be more wrong. McCain didn't lose because he betrayed conservative principles, but because he didn't have any principles.
Peter Beinart has an article in the latest issue of Time, titled "The New Liberal Order." A couple of paragraphs in that article summed things up rather well, even though his assumptions regarding the "liberal cultural agenda of the 1960s" may be a bit out of whack.
"Starting in the 1990s, average Americans began deciding that the conservative agenda was a bit like the liberal cultural agenda of the 1960s: less liberating than frightening. When the Gingrich Republicans tried to slash Medicare, the public turned on them en masse. A decade later, when George W. Bush tried to partially privatize Social Security, Americans rebelled once again. In 2005 a Pew Research Center survey identified a new group of voters that it called 'pro-government conservatives.' They were culturally conservative and hawkish on foreign policy, and they overwhelmingly supported Bush in 2004. But by large majorities, they endorsed government regulation and government spending. They didn't want to unleash the free market; they wanted to rein it in.
But here's where I think Beinart is really on target:
"Those voters were a time bomb in the Republican coalition, which detonated on Nov. 4. John McCain's promises to cut taxes, cut spending and get government out of the way left them cold. Among the almost half of voters who said they were 'very worried' that the economic crisis would hurt their family, Obama beat McCain by 26 points.
"The public mood on economics today is a lot like the public mood on culture 40 years ago: Americans want government to impose law and order--to keep their 401(k)s from going down, to keep their health-care premiums from going up, to keep their jobs from going overseas--and they don't much care whose heads Washington has to bash to do it."
The candy man is blowing in the wind. I mentioned McCain didn't have any principles -- that was hyperbole. He and his sidekick, Palin, ran precisely on the Republican "principles" that DeMint claims they abandoned: "freedom, religious-based values, and limited government."
DeMint doesn't get it, either, just like the other religious neanderthals in the Repugnican Party. I also said he was pissed off, but it very well may be that the reason he's angry with McCain is not that McCain abandoned conservative principles for he did not. It may be that de candy man is mad because McCain didn't choose him to be the vice presidential candidate. I mean his name did float above the Republican coffin for a brief period. And I'm sure DeMint thinks he would have done a much better job than that lying hockey mom from Alaska.
It's kinda fun to see the Repugs implode, though!
Watch de candy man in action in 2007 with McCain at his side. He praises McCain as a champion of reform and he derides earmarks such as the "Bridge to Nowhere." It's hilarious!
[DeMint & other Repugs against the stimulus. Not a brain in the bunch. Photo by Reuters]
