FLAIT

...within his first three months (Reagan) had rammed through a budget that contained his historic “supply-side” tax cuts. (His) budget director David Stockman had created computer simulations supposedly showing that those tax cuts would result in 5 percent growth in gross domestic product during the following year. Years later, when simulation failed to materialize as reality, Stockman referred cynically to that prediction as the “rosy scenario”—and admitted that it was essentially a fraud. Contrary to the rosy scenario, 1982 was the worst year since the Great Depression, with negative growth of 2.2 percent.

According to conservative theory, the mere announcement of massive tax cuts for the rich by a Republican president ought to have stimulated euphoria in the markets and rapid growth. And according to that same theory, as explicated by (Rush) Limbaugh, the prospect of a Democratic president with a progressive agenda was what drove the markets down last autumn.

But there is a double standard at work here. When a Democrat is elected president, he is responsible for economic contraction even if he will not be inaugurated for three months. When a Republican is actually president, he need not be held responsible, even well after he takes office. (bold mine)

If that strikes you as inconsistent, then you are beginning to notice how blatant deception passes for conservative ideology. But the deception is even worse than it appears at first glance.

The same Republicans in Congress and on the radio who lionize the late Reagan now complain bitterly about the tax increases on the wealthy in President Obama’s budget. What they never mention is that their conservative idol, faced with the recession that they blamed on his predecessor, likewise raised taxes during an economic slump.

Terrified by the looming deficits that resulted from the supply-side tax cuts, the Reagan administration rolled back many of the cuts just a year after they had passed—instituting what then amounted to the largest tax increase in American history. Those tax hikes took back about a third of the cuts legislated in 1981. But that historic tax increase is never mentioned when Republican legislators invoke Reagan—and they still love to blame Carter for their hero’s recession.

And from another column, Conason writes:

In our time, the Republican Party has compiled an impressive history of talking about fiscal responsibility while running up unrivaled deficits and debt. Of the roughly $11 trillion in federal debt accumulated to date, more than 90 percent can be attributed to the tenure of three presidents: Ronald Reagan, who used to complain constantly about runaway spending; George Herbert Walker Bush, reputed to be one of those old-fashioned green-eyeshade Republicans; and his spendthrift son George "Dubya" Bush, whose trillion-dollar war and irresponsible tax cuts accounted for nearly half the entire burden. Only Bill Clinton temporarily reversed the trend with surpluses and started to pay down the debt (by raising rates on the wealthiest taxpayers).

Republicans in Congress likewise demanded balanced budgets in their propaganda (as featured in the 1993 Contract with America), but then proceeded to despoil the Treasury with useless spending and tax cuts for those who needed them least. Even John McCain, once a principled critic of those tax cuts, turned hypocrite when he endorsed them while continuing to denounce the deficits they had caused.

IOKIYAR.

(Note: I wouldn't have had tax cuts in this stimulus package at all because it doesn't provide the "bang for the buck" this recession needs. Not even close. Instead, I would have liked to have seen more money for mass transit and more money given to the cities and states so they can rehire some the workers [at least for a couple of years] that they've laid off when they've had to cut budgets. It would make sense when the private sector is hemorrhaging jobs.

Also, Bush's tax cuts should have been repealed and forgotten after 9/11 because it's obscene for the wealthy to throw lavish parties with their largess at the same time we're ordering men and women to risk life and limb in two wars. So there's nothing wrong with Obama repealing Bush's tax cuts and bringing those rates down to what they were before 9/11. However, if it was wrong for Bush to cut taxes in wartime, it's also wrong for Obama to cut them in wartime as well. It doesn't matter that his go to the poor and middle class.)

And children with special needs inspire a special love. To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.

IOKIYAR.

(After taking heat from their state legislatures, the governors are having second thoughts and are considering taking more of the aid.)

Accused of Being Little More Than a Low-Level Taliban Fighter, Abdallah al-Ajmi Was Held by the U.S. for Nearly Four Years. After His Release, He Blew Up an Iraqi Army Outpost. Did Guantanamo Propel Him to Do It?

Why did George Bush hate America? Hey, that's what Republicans will say if Obama releases any prisioners.

IOKIYAR.

And all Iraqi military and civilian personnel should listen carefully to this warning: In any conflict, your fate will depend on your actions...War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders."
- George Bush, March 17, 2003 just prior to the invasion of Iraq

He was dead serious. But anyone that serious and that big of a hypocrite is mentally ill.

But wait, the hypocrisy gets worse...

The United States is committed to the world-wide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example. I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture and in undertaking to prevent other cruel and unusual punishment. I call on all nations to speak out against torture in all its forms and to make ending torture an essential part of their diplomacy. I further urge governments to join America and others in supporting torture victims' treatment centers, contributing to the UN Fund for the Victims of Torture, and supporting the efforts of non-governmental organizations to end torture and assist its victims.

No people, no matter where they reside, should have to live in fear of their own government. Nowhere should the midnight knock foreshadow a nightmare of state-commissioned crime. The suffering of torture victims must end, and the United States calls on all governments to assume this great mission.
- George Bush, June 2003, the United Nations International Day in Support of Victims of Torture

Incredible. There are no words - no words at all - that can describe this level of pathological hypocrisy. I swear, if hypocrisy was dirt, the Republican Party would be the biggest mountain in the world - by far.

That said, if it was the Clinton administration that permitted torture, and the Republicans had won the White House and controlled Congress, you know - you just know - that they wouldn't have any hesitations at all prosecuting them for war crimes, from bottom to top. You just know it.

Oh wait a second, I'm wrong. The Republicans wouldn't have prosecuted Clinton for war crimes. They wouldn't have had to because the G.O.P. would have impeached, prosecuted, convicted and thrown Clinton in jail for lying the county into an unnecessary, disastrous war a long time ago!

But since it was the Bush administration that was responsible for torturing prisoners, well, IOKIYAR because "as Republicans we can do whatever the hell we want. It's not hypocritical, criminal, unconstitutional or a war crime when we do it. It's hypocritical, criminal or unconstitutional when Democrats do it, and a war crime when Democrats or someone else does it. And one more thing: We'll block all investigations into our actions because they would be 'partisan witch hunts.'"

Hmmm...that was the same excuse they used for investigations into 9/11, Katrina, Iraq, Valerie Plame and the firing of the U.S. Attorney's (who were fired for political partisan reasons). Remember Katrina's "this is not the time to play the blame game?" Of course it wasn't, because it was mostly Bush's fault.

So every time Republicans create another one of their disasters, commit a crime or violate the Constitution, Congress can't investigate and hold them accountable because that would be a "partisan witch hunt." But the G.O.P. has no problem at all conducting "partisan witch hunt" after "partisan witch hunt" after "partisan witch hunt" on Democrats. Remember Ken Starr? Bill Clinton couldn't scratch his nose without the Republicans making a federal case out of it. Literally.

So without a doubt and without hesitation, the Republicans would have prosecuted Clinton and his administration for war crimes (and it wouldn't have had to be a "partisan witch hunt").

You see how this works? It is OK if you're a Republican!

But wait, there's more!

In regards to the prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib, Bush said:

Terrible...we do not tolerate these kinds of abuses.

But he did tolerate those abuses and waterboarding and rendition.

People in the Middle East must be assured that we will investigate fully, that we will find out the truth. They will know the truth just like the American citizens will know the truth. And justice will be served.

...I have told our secretary of defense and I have instructed him to tell everybody else in the military. I want to know the full extent of the operations in Iraq, the prison operations.

We want to make sure that if there is a systemic problem, a problem system-wide, that we stop the practices. Again, it's very important for people -- your listeners to understand, in our country, that when an issue is brought to our attention on this magnitude, we act. And we act in a way where leaders are willing to discuss it with the media. And we act in a way where, you know, our Congress asked pointed questions to the leadership.

In other words, people want to know the truth. That stands in contrast to dictatorships. A dictator wouldn't be answering questioning about this.

Yes he would. He just wouldn't do anything about it.

A dictator wouldn't be saying that the system will be investigated and the world will see the results of the investigation. A dictator wouldn't admit reforms needed to be done. And so the people in the Middle East must understand that this was horrible and -- but we're dealing with it in a way that will bring confidence to not only our citizens, which is very important, but confidence to people of the world that this situation will be rectified and justice will be done.

Apparently, it's OK if you're a Republican dictator.

"The president has rolled back important protections for innocent life, further dividing our nation at a time when we need greater unity to tackle the challenges before us," (bold mine)

Karl Rove and the Republicans invented "dividing the country!"

IOKIYAR.

May 2009 insert: A possible 2012 Republican Presidential candidate couldn't resist joining the frenzy. And it's a doozy (Rachel Maddow's response at 3:15 is priceless).

June, 2009 insert: Another doozy is here.

All together now...it's OK if you're a Republican!

Hate, hypocrisy, lies, anger, immaturity, nasty arrogance and partisanship, and asinine spin (that makes them look incredibly foolish) is all we're ever going to get from this political party that's ostensibly in place to make America better cult. All to whip up and distract staunch conservatives from the G.O.P.'s war crimes, scary agenda and incompetent and disasterous record by keeping them in a perpetual state of anger...at everyone...except Republicans.

If that's not a cult what is?

May 2009 insert:

When Rep. Jane Harman was recently notified that a 2005 phone conversation she had with an AIPAC official had been legally wiretapped, she was outraged. This is the same Rep. Harman who not only said nothing for years while George Bush was wiretapping Americans without a warrant, but allowed him to continue the massive, blatantly unconstitutional program (my God, can you imagine what the Republicans would be saying screaming if it was Clinton that was wiretapping Americans without a warrant? IOKIYAR.).

Instead of going any further, and because I can not improve on his masterpiece, I'll allow Salon's Glen Greenwald to expose Harman's colossal hypocrisy. And Greenwald wasn't through. He buries Harman in so much more hypocrisy and sarcasm, she should never show her face again.

I should have included Harman's hypocrisy in here, despite the fact that she's a Democrat, but hadn't thought of it until I read Greenwald's second post.

Democrats are certainly not immune from hypocrisy, but quite frankly, Harman's is so egregious and so infuriating, that I would have expected it from a Republican. Nevertheless, Harman and her hypocrisy deserves to be here.

Note: During June I was adding more and more inserts of Republican hypocrisy. It was getting so ridiculous that I decided to create a new post. It can be found here.

# posted by Steve