My jaw dropped and I said "What the hell?" when I read this at Political Animal:
Rep. Jack Kingston's (R-Ga.) has rapidly signed up 99 co-sponsors for his Czar Accountability and Reform Act of 2009.... All but one of them are Republicans: the member of the majority party backing Kingston's crusade to prevent presidential advisers who haven't been approved by the Senate from collecting salaries is Rep. William Clay (D-Mo.),
At 2:15 p.m., at least three House Republicans will join Kingston (R-Ga.) for a press conference on "their efforts to bring about increased transparency and accountability for President Obama's czars."
Considering Lacy Clay's usually exemplary voting record on progressive issues, I had to have an explanation, so I called his D.C. office and ran the maze of "Let me transfer you to" and "I'm out of the office. Please leave a message."
While I waited for a response, I wrote a posting wondering if Clay was actually concerned perhaps about an over-muscular presidency. That was the only reason I could imagine, and I lectured him about it.
If Clay's reason for co-sponsoring King's bill is a heartfelt concern that the presidency not accumulate unwarranted power without transparency, then I can only say that he's the only one of the 99 co-sponsors with a sincere focus on improving government. The other 98 of them--99, counting King--could give a rat's ass about over-muscular presidential powers. The entire wingoverse loved warrantless wiretapping.
No, they just hate Democrats and Obama in particular.
Eventually, one of Clay's staffers got back to me and informed me that the information about his co-sponsorship was wrong. It occurred because of a clerical error in the House. Clay is NOT a co-sponsor of the Glenn Beck-despise-Obama-pretend-we-have-a-reason bill.
Oh. Never mind. And by the way, thank goodness. |
