We noted yesterday that our Republican legislators seem to rely overmuch on rote regurgitation of set scripts with little regard for fact. One of the examples offered was the inimitable Todd Akin - and he's been at it again.
The Wasington Independentreports that Akin harangued the members of the House last week in an effort to revive the rather inexplicable Republican frenzy about the White House's appointment of administrative coordinators popularly termed "czars." Rep. Akin was in fine fettle, waxing indignant as he asked:
Why does President Obama appear so eager to appoint 'czars,'" he asks, "while leaving positions requiring Senate confirmation unfilled?
One can only conclude that he is unaware of the unprecedented number of Republican holds and filibusters placed on the president's nominees. Additionally, one of the three "unconfirmed" czars that he named was John Holdren, the Sciences Czar, who actually was confirmed by the Senate in March of this year.
It's downright embarrassing. Of course, everyone makes mistakes - but then we don't let everyone set national policy either. Perhaps the citizens of the 2nd district will bear that in mind next time Akin is up for reelection.
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.
