No word on how many tears were shed in the writing of the op-ed...

John "Tears for Fears" Boehner took to the pages of the Washington Cageliner Times today to whine about earmarks. You remember that they only became an issue for the hypocrites in the GOP when the Democrats took back the majority in both chambers and lame-ducked the current occupant. Suddenly, it was a big damned deal that there was any such thing - even though there was not a peep of protest between January 2001 and December 2007 when the Republicans were in the majority.

The conservative watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste found that during those years of Republican majority, the Congress attached and Bush signed into law a total of 52,319 earmarks at a cost of $121.8 billion. In 2007, earmarks were $9 billion, down nearly $11 billion from the average of $20.3 billion during the first six years of the Bush free-for-all.

Now, lets get realistic...earmarks are the least of our worries. They comprise about 0.2% of the overall budget, and would comprise far less if the war spending was included.

The purpose of Boehner's screed, of course, is to fluff the GOP's nominee - who does have a verifiable track record of opposing these spending measures, and good on him for it - but he isn't all that and a bag of chips in that arena either - he kinda cherry-picks projects for dramatic effect. In November he started running an ad shining a light on his anti-pork cred, but it doesn't quite pass the smell test. Here is what factcheck.org said about it:

• He never specifically went after the "bridge to nowhere," and he was absent for key votes on its funding.
• While he tried to cut money for several other projects in the same bill, he never proposed cutting the bear study and voted for the final bill containing it.
• He wasn't present for the most important votes on the Woodstock museum, including one on an amendment he co-sponsored to kill the earmark and divert some of the funds.

The three projects that are singled out in the McCain ad amounted to less than $300 million dollars - a mere drop in the earmarks bucket, and seam to be singled out for impact and emotional appeal rather than for any direct impact McCain might have had in opposing them. In short - he overstated his case and mislead the viewers. But IOKIYAR, huh?

It is almost laughable - and definitely mockable - when the a schmoe like Boehner gets religion after the fact on an issue like this. And what possesses these morons to think that their assertions will go unchallenged? Or is it just a way to get their spin out there for a narrow and narrow-minded audience that would never even think about fact-checking or looking for context? And please - don't answer that - I'm fragile today and can't take any more bad news/reality about the intellectual state of my fellow countrymen.

Wittle Johnny B stopped sniveling long enough to throw a tantrum

So many feckless morons, so little duct-tape and so few gunny-sacks...

John Boehner and most of the Repugnant members of the House (above) showed their true loyal-Bushie stripes on Thursday when he stamped his wittle foot, said "follow me" and led a whole gaggle of petulant fucks who feebly attempt to pass themselves off as legislators out of the House today when the majority party decided to vote to hold Joshua Bolton and Harriet Meiers in contempt of congress for their obstinate refusal to appear before the chamber even though they have been subpoenaed. “We have space on the calendar today for a politically charged fishing expedition but not space for a bill that would protect the American people from terrorists who want to kill us,” whined Boehner.

Fortunately for them, they found an empty lectern! Just waiting! Right there on the steps of the Capitol! So they could hold an impromptu presser! And decry the fecklessness of the Democrats! Who stubbornly insist the Constitution matters! And that the Congress is co-equal!

I gotta ask...Exactly what kind of Congressman abrogates his responsibilities and undermines his branch of government at the behest of a lame-duck failed president? (That is a rhetorical question.)

The only down side I can see to this histrionic snit-fit on the part of the Repugnant-Ones, staged so spectacularly by their imminently mockable and totally pathetic delegation is that they have to be let back in to the chamber after the recess.

Just consider the source

What was John “Waterworks” Boehner thinking yesterday when he called the Senate Republicans who favor a change of course in Iraq “wimps?” Someone who breaks down weeping as often as he does should never call anyone a wimp, the way I tote the board.

Boehner and the shame of Missouri, Minority Whip Roy Blunt, were getting their”Tom Delay” on and attempting to strong-arm a unified front among House Republicans, furiously rationalizing that they must set themselves apart from those rascally Senators in the upper chamber, some with the temerity to think about withdrawing their support for the resident and his spectacular war.

Representative Heather Wilson, (R-N.M.) a former United states Air Force officer, was taken aback, although she declined to comment directly in contradiction to the minority leader, but she did point out that “Senator [Richard] Lugar’s (R-Ind.) speech was one of the more thoughtful speeches [she had heard] in the Senate in a long time.” She went on to say that the opinions of their colleagues “should always be taken seriously.” (Wilson, it should be noted, while opposing the troop escalation that has only succeeded in devastating our military further, votes the party line anyway and consistently opposes measures brought to the floor by Democrats.)

A spokesman for Boehner said his comments were in no way meant to trivialize the war or the senators’ decisions. Rather, they were meant to emphasize the importance of allowing the troop surge to work and to urge GOP lawmakers to reserve their judgment on the situation until September, when Gen. David Petraeus is scheduled to brief Congress fully on the progress in Iraq.

“The leader’s comments were intended to illustrate the fact that we just recently voted to give the troops our full support — including ample time for the Petraeus plan to work — and that too much is at stake for Congress to renege on its commitment now by approving what can only be described as another partisan stunt by Democrats,” Boehner spokesman Brian Kennedy said.

“Their bill will have no impact if passed, other than to give America’s enemies something to gloat about.”

Now far be it from me to shed any tears over the Republican party squabbling amongst themselves…Hell, pass me the popcorn, because if they are sniping at and lying about one another, that just weakens them as we head into the most contentious general election cycle in my lifetime. It’s all good news for Democrats, IM(ns)HO.

The Final Friedman?

Are you sick of “six more months” and “corners” where the turning is always imminent but never quite happens? Or worse still - when a corner is turned, it puts us in the middle of the Sharafiya Bridge?

Emboldened by public support, Democrats are taking a firm stand against the Resident and are holding tight to the purse strings. He ain’t getting what he wants.

As Democrats gain strength, the Republicans are cracking.

House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who has taken a hard line in Bush's favor, said Sunday, "By the time we get to September, October, members are going to want to know how well this is working, and if it isn't, what's Plan B."

Ah, September…End of the federal fiscal year…The Bureaucrats New Years Eve. Any ventures wanting continued funding are peddling their wares in September. The war will be no different.

But this year is different. We, the People, are kind of a pain in the ass when we get riled, like we are now. Every single one of 435 Congressmen and 1/3 of 100 Senators are running for re-election on what happens by September.

But the new proposal's momentum in the House underscores just how quickly time may be running out on a war that is hemorrhaging political support.

"There were always two debates in the debate over timelines to end the war," said House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.). "George W. Bush is hellbent on January 20, 2009, when he walks out of the door, leaving a box stamped 'Iraq' for the next president. The Republicans are hellbent on not going through the next election with Iraq tied to their ankles. All Boehner said publicly was what Republicans have been saying privately for months."

Democrats are ready to rush that process. The new House proposal would immediately provide about $43 billion of the $95.5 billion the administration says it needs to keep the war going through Sept. 30. That infusion would come with language establishing benchmarks of success for the Iraqi government, and it is likely to include tougher standards for resting, training and equipping troops. Binding timelines for troop withdrawals would be dropped to try to win Republican support and avoid a second veto.

The remaining $52.5 billion in the bill would be contingent on a second vote in late July, after the administration's progress report.

That bill Bush vetoed is likely to start looking real good to him in hindsight once this gets ginned up proper.

Long, hot summer anyone?

Does John Boehner know how to spell H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y?

Back in 1993, as the situation in Somalia (which Bush 41 saddled Clinton with, by the way) John Boehner cast numerous votes opposing deployment of troops to Somalia, and even backed a six-month timeline for withdrawal of forces.

Times change, I guess. Boehner now attacks those who take the exact same tack he did then as "defeatists" who want to set a "date certain for surrender."

Boehner, however takes it to a new level - In spite of his public record of opposing Somali intervention, he had the audacity to say yesterday that we can't bail on Iraq "just like we did in Somalia."

Watch it:

Details on Boehner’s Somalia votes below:

Boehner voted to reduce troop timeline in Somalia from one year to six months: “Gilman, R-N.Y., substitute amendment to reduce from one year to six months the authorization of U.S. participation in Somalia and delete the section of the bill complying with the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (PL 93-148).” (House roll call vote #179, 5/25/93)

Boehner voted to move up the deadline to bring troops home from Somalia: “Gilman, R-N.Y., amendment to change the deadline for the removal of U.S. troops in Somalia from March 31, 1994, to Jan. 31, 1994.” (House roll call vote #555, 11/9/93)

Boehner voted against $1.8 billion in funding for the operation in Somalia: “Passage of the bill to provide $1.8 billion in new budget authority in fiscal 1993, including funds for Operation Restore Hope in Somalia.” (House roll call vote #188, 5/26/93)

(Hat tip to Think Progress for the legwork on the voting record and for posting the video for me to steal.)