Alternate Realities

Posted on by

Did anyone else catch Rep. Don Manzullo (R-Illinois) on Rachel Maddow’s show this evening? Is it me, or did he make no sense at all?

Update: For any who missed it, here’s the MSNBC video:

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

21 thoughts on “Alternate Realities”

  1. I thought it was an intriguing (and incoherent) attempt to say:
    We Republicans want to vote for the bill, but you removed the infrastructure money that needs to be in there in order to put in the tax cuts that we asked for that we now think shouldn’t be in there. However if you remove the tax cuts to put in more infrastructure money we think the bill will be too expensive because of all the infrastructure and we really want the tax cuts. But really, if you just let us write it then it will be what we want and then we will vote against it anyway and when it fails we can blame the spendthrift Democrats.
    Does that capture it?

  4. He got just this close (or Rachel got him just this close) to admitting the only thing he would ever vote for would be tax cuts.

    And I’m glad Rachel went ballistic over him saying he wanted a “modest” stimulus package. Yes, because our economy is just a bit peaked, not really a crisis or anything.

  5. And, did you see Joan Walsh and Dick Armey on Hardball? Just more “isms” from the Republicans–sexism, racism, etc.

  6. This is off topic and I apologize; but, I just ran across the most astounding comment from a businessman:

    “Forty percent of the world’s wealth was destroyed in the last five quarters. It is an almost incomprehensible number,” said Stephen Schwarzman, chairman of the leading private equity company Blackstone Group. “Business will be very different.”

    And, the Republicans who have been in charge the last five quarters think we should take them seriously on the economy and good solutions to the problems . . . ??????? I don’t think so!

  8. It might be OT too but following that thought, there’s an interesting article in the Guardian (UK publication) titled “Twenty-five people at the heart of the meltdown …”, an attempt to unravel whodunnit. We know it was corporate greed but among those who should be spanked are William Jefferson Clinton for aiding and abetter Gradnpaw’s old pal Phil Gramm (who Grandpaw was going to appoint to some high position) in the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act which disallowed some of the riskier practices banks in which banks had engaged.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/26/road-ruin-recession-individuals-economy

    It’s a veritable rogues gallery deserving of lining the bird cage or maybe head shots for those smelly disinfectant thingees they put in urinals.

    Those are the truly evil ones but then there are their dumb, ignorant syncophants liike Manzullo. I must go look at a metro newspaper from his district to see whether they are proud of him there.

  10. This is the second night in a row that the absolutely smartest pundit on TV has made an ass out of a politician/lawyer.

    Two nights ago it was Illinois Gov. Blagojevich, last night it was a Repub Rep from Illinois. I know/hope all politicians from Illinois are not stupid but . . .

    Anyway, “good on ya, Lassie” (Not the bow-wow, the Irish lass)

  11. Phil Gramm, co-architect of the “toxic investments” meltdown, was McCain’s chief financial adviser in the 2008 campaign. Bill Clinton is at fault insofar as he signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill into law in 1999. And, to be fair, the bill’s co-author, Iowa Republican Jim Leach, was an Obama supporter.

    That was 10 years ago; now we have obstructionists like Manzullo, Limbaugh, and Boehner. But we also have smarter folks in the media, like Rachel Maddow; and a Dem president who doesn’t appear ready to “go-along-to-git-along” (by 1999, Bill C was pretty well beaten down). The current crop of troublemakers aren’t going to get a free pass… I surely hope.

  12. #8 It is my understanding that Clinton signed the bill because he was trying to appease the Republicans (remember they were pushing for impeachment at the time) and because the republicans were going to have a majority and do it anyway in 6 months.

    Anyone else find it odd that up until September, no one would even admit that we were in a recession. They said it was too early to tell and admitting it would be bad for the economy. Now anytime anyone says anything, it is saying this is the worst ever since the beginning of records and things like that.

  13. “It is my understanding that Clinton signed the bill because he was trying to appease the Republicans (remember they were pushing for impeachment at the time…”

    True, but I read somewhere that the Gramm Leach Bliley bill was veto-proof. Therefore some Dems supported it.

  14. #12 : Hmmm…trying to appease Republicans. Where have I heard that before? Can’t live with ’em, can’t incarcerate ’em…

    Good thing we’ve finally achieved this vaunted bi-partisanship…magical pixie dust that it is.

    And I DO NOT find it hard to believe that no one would admit we were in a recession. Years ago during the housing bubble it was widely publicized in major news pubs Time, Newsweek, USNWR and others that any one of a number of factors could send the economy tumbling.

    The juxtaposition at that very time of the facts vs. the obfuscation coming from the Bush administration made the sobering minority opinions even more credible. When one considered the kind of denial seen way back then you knew there were no limits to how far down it might lead us.

    On the path to ouor economy’s demise all the “mights” and “coulds” were euphemisms for “it hasn’t happened yet so party on.”

    We quite simply did not have any adults at the helm. Things were good for them so nothing else mattered.

  15. Anyone else find it odd that up until September, no one would even admit that we were in a recession.

    To borrow a catchphrase from a couple of my favorite teevee characters (Omar Little and Teal’c)… “Indeed.”

    I expect the media in all its forms will get caught up in “Who knew this was coming, and when did they know it?” Here’s an interesting story on the Madoff scandal, which is only a splinter of the whole puzzle, but telling, all the same:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/business/29madoff.html?_r=1&ref=business

    I think we soon may be hearing the phrase “Conspiracy of silence” quite a bit on teevee, too.

  16. I got so involved in that NYT link, I forgot to add this observation:

    The global stock market only survives thanks to the “ostrich” principle (which is the opposite of the “Henny Penny” principle). Its players can only hide their heads in the sand, lest they see something awful coming their way, and give out the tiniest negative peep of concern that might could collapse the whole shebang. Hence the conspiracy of silence.

    OT: we can now add Rod Blagojevich to the list of unemployed Americans.

  20. The poor man is obviously a graduate of the John Sydney McCain School of Economics, from the looks of it summa come loud(sic).

  21. I tried to follow the man’s reasoning, but he totally lost me. He complained that $$ for infrastructure were too small, but then used the Washington Mall as an example of wasteful spending. He cited examples that had already been removed from the bill to justify why he voted against the bill. He wants to give $5000 vouchers to taxpayers so they can purchase new cars, when people could buy their own cars if they had a job. My head aches.

Comments are closed.