Friday Mashup (12/18/09)

This story from The Hill tells us the following…

Two House Republicans said the White House broke protocol by not inviting them to Vice President Joe Biden’s speech on Thursday in their home state of Georgia.

Biden appeared on Thursday with Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue (R) to tout the effects of the stimulus law in Rep. Nathan Deal’s (R-Ga.) district.

Deal said he was caught off guard by the media event. He explained that had it not been for Perdue’s office making a courtesy call, he would not have known Biden was planning to appear in his district.

“Had Congressman Deal been invited to this event, he most certainly would have made every effort to attend. Unfortunately, he was not given this opportunity, and is disappointed by that fact,” Deal’s spokeswoman Stephanie Mayfield said.

Deal told The Hill on Wednesday night that “I’ve just heard vague talk about it — it’s apparently going to be held in my district — but to my knowledge, I have not been officially invited.”

Deal’s Georgia colleague, GOP Rep. Paul Broun, whose neighboring district will also be affected by Biden’s announcement of stimulus dollars going into broadband development, said that he had not been invited either.

I don’t know much about Deal, but Broun is whacked, as noted in his “Worst Persons” citation here where he rehashes the typical right-wing BS about everyone supposedly having health care because they can go to an emergency room. And besides, as the Hill story tells us, both Deal and Broun voted against the “stim” anyway.

And in the department of “the executive branch not notifying Congress about a speech,” I give you the following (here, from January ‘07)…

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said yesterday that President George W. Bush did not consult her before announcing his new strategy for the war in Iraq — a sign that, despite the cozy rhetoric, the relationship between Washington's two powerhouses has already had its share of friction.

So let’s just say that there’s room for improvement on both sides and leave it at that, OK?

On the pages of the Murdoch Street Journal today, Turd Blossom himself returned for his almost bi-weekly-at-this-point attack on Obama with the following (here)…

Barack Obama has won a place in history with the worst ratings of any president at the end of his first year: 49% approve and 46% disapprove of his job performance in the latest USA Today/Gallup Poll.

In response, I give you the following from Media Matters (here, noting a December 1981 poll)…

The public's confidence in the economy and opinion of President Reagan's performance remain near their lowest levels since he took office, according to the latest Associated Press-NBC News poll.

The nationwide poll, of 1,602 adults telephoned Dec. 14-15 in a scientific random sampling, said 48 percent think Reagan is doing a good or excellent job as president. Last month, the president's approval rating was 46 percent, his lowest since it peaked at 66 percent last spring.

Gee, I dunno Karl – messing with the mythology of The Gipper? You sure you’re “man enough” for that?

Also, according to Rove…

Mr. Obama also claimed at Brookings that he prevented "a second Great Depression" by confronting the financial crisis "largely without the help" of Republicans. Yet his own Treasury secretary suggests otherwise. In a Dec. 9 letter, Mr. Geithner admitted that since taking office, the Obama administration had "committed about $7 billion to banks, much of which went to small institutions." That compares to $240 billion the Bush administration lent banks.

As usual, Rove does a crappy job of sourcing here, but do you know what? In the spirit of the season a bit, I’m actually going to cut him a bit of slack on the $240 billion thing; however, the following should be noted also (here)…

In pure destructive power, the subprime mess has become Wall Street's version of Hurricane Katrina. It has wreaked havoc on the nation's iconic brokerage firm, Merrill Lynch (Charts, Fortune 500), and biggest bank, Citigroup (Charts, Fortune 500), which have announced billions of dollars in losses and parted ways with their celebrated CEOs, E. Stanley O'Neal and Charles Prince. Banks, brokerages, and lenders have announced thousands of layoffs, and more are sure to come.

The blow to shareholder wealth is staggering. Since June 29, Citi's share price has dropped 35%, from $51 to $33, while Merrill's stock has slid from $84 to $54, a 36% swoon. In the same period, the dozen biggest Wall Street firms and the commercial banks with the largest investment arms - a list that includes Bank of America (Charts, Fortune 500), J.P. Morgan Chase (Charts, Fortune 500), and Credit Suisse (Charts) - have lost more than $240 billion in market value. Dozens of smaller companies in the mortgage business have suffered huge losses or folded completely.

So, assuming that Dubya actually did give banks $240 billion, at least that much was lost due to the malfeasance that took place under his watch.

And finally, from the author…

Mr. Obama continued distorting the record in his "60 Minutes" interview Sunday when he blamed bankers for the financial crisis. They "caused the problem," he insisted before complaining, "I haven't seen a lot of shame on their part" and pledging to put "a regulatory system in place that prevents them from putting us in this kind of pickle again."

But as a freshman senator, Mr. Obama supported a threatened 2005 filibuster of a bill regulating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. He doesn't show "a lot of shame" that he and other Fannie and Freddie defenders blocked "a regulatory system" that might have kept America from getting in such a bad pickle in the first place.

Truly, you can cut the dookey here with a knife, people – as noted here…

Here's what actually happened. In October 2005 the House, by a vote of 331-90, passed a bill to establish a new federal regulator created for Fannie, Freddie and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The new regulator was authorized to set capital standards and, if it deemed necessary, require reductions in mortgage portfolios. The White House opposed the proposed legislation and instead supported the pending Senate bill. But the Senate bill never came up for a vote, and the legislation died.

In other words, the Republicans failed to negotiate a deal when they were in charge, and now place the blame on others...

One Republican has a different take on events. Rep. Michael Oxley claims his bill was opposed by White House "ideologues" who wanted to privatize Fannie and Freddie and who opposed a bigger government role.

And Media Matters again tells us the following (here)…

In May 2007, four months after the Democrats organized in Congress, the House passed a bill giving the Bush administration everything it asked for in increased regulatory powers over Fannie and Freddie. My reference to the president's inanity came in August and referred to his calling on the House to do what we'd already done.

The question at the time was whether or not Fannie and Freddie could take increased action to try to deal with the mortgage crisis. The House voted to significantly increase regulatory oversight of the two entities so that they could increase their activity in a responsible way. That is why after saying the president's comments were "inane," I said "Tell the Republicans to stop blocking the [House-passed] bill" in the Senate.

Republican obstruction ended in July 2008. So after 12 years in which the Republican Congress had not passed a reform bill, the Democratic Congress gave the Bush administration all that it asked for in 19 months. Who blocked reform?

And just for good measure, Matt Yglesias makes a good point about Bushco and the housing bubble here.

I’m sure there’s more posting material in Rove’s column today, but you get the point; besides, if he isn’t going to be honest enough to give Obama credit for this, then he isn’t going to be honest enough to do it for anything.

Finally, in a bit of a Bushco trifecta, I give you the following from former Dubya speechwriter Michael Gerson (here)…

The proposed law (in Uganda) requiring the reporting and punishment of homosexuals is not only an improper role for government, it also directly undermines the public good. Uganda is a nation struggling with a 5.4 percent rate of AIDS infection. Laws like this one simply drive men who have sex with men underground. They don't learn prevention. They don't get tested for the virus. They don't receive timely treatment. They may continue to spread the disease to others. Public health authorities lose an accurate epidemiological picture of the disease, undermining their ability to craft a response. And the social stigma against AIDS increases, making everyone less likely to be tested.

Ugandan supporters of the bill have dismissed international criticism as liberal, cultural imperialism. The sponsor of the bill, David Bahati, accuses gay rights groups in the United States and Europe of "engaging in a game of manipulation, deception and control." But Ugandans should not be deceived into thinking that criticism comes only from gay rights advocates. Republican Sen. Tom Coburn calls the law "absurd." GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley describes it as an "un-Christian and unjust proposal." Pastor Rick Warren concludes it is "unjust, extreme and un-Christian toward homosexuals." All three are right. And the prospect of pastors and counselors as informants for the state is particularly offensive -- the calling of Judas instead of Jesus.

His nauseating invocation of the Bible notwithstanding, Gerson is actually right to criticize the Ugandan travesty that has been investigated so thoroughly by The Rachel Maddow Show (here), among others.

However, I cannot think of a word to describe the hypocrisy of someone taking this position who served a regime that fought marriage equality (here), imposed a travel ban on anyone infected with HIV (repealed by the Obama administration, as noted here), and generally acted with ruthless antagonism towards the LBGT community (here).

I seem to recall a phrase from my elementary school religion classes that goes, “judge not, lest ye be judged.” Based on his actions before he became a well-heeled pundit, I think Gerson should revisit those blessed words, in the name of the religious “pluralism” he professes to admire.