Oh, wait…

The retail price of gasoline in west central Missouri – November 24, 2014.

This is now, that was then:

Gingrich’s $2.50 gas promise

By Charles Riley @CNNMoney February 24, 2012: 9:23 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Gas prices are on the rise, and so like clockwork, politicians are now selling the promise of lower prices at the pump.

Newt Gingrich, struggling to regain momentum in the Republican presidential primary, is leading the way, promising to get prices down to $2.50 per gallon.

“I’ve developed a program for American energy so no future president will ever bow to a Saudi king again and so every American can look forward to $2.50 a gallon gasoline,” Gingrich said during his self-introduction at Wednesday’s CNN debate….

[….]

Right wingnut republican think we’re all stoopit. What could have been, eh?

Previously:

Supply and demand, supply and demand (November 15, 2014)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): shifting tar sands (November 15, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? – part 3 (November 15, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? – part 2 (November 14, 2014)

Charles P. Pierce is meaner (November 14, 2014)

And then all hell broke loose (November 13, 2014)

We need the Keystone XL pipeline because? (November 13, 2014)

Darn that President Obama and his totally misguided national energy policy… (September 29, 2014)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r) – in Warrensburg – August 22, 2014 (August 23, 2014)

Sounds of silence (gasoline) (December 16, 2013)

What cost, you say? (November 15, 2013)

Still going down… (November 7, 2013)

It upsets right wingnuts… (November 4, 2013)

Thank goodness that Keystone pipeline is up and running (October 28, 2013)

We’re on an express elevator to…going down (October 14, 2013)

Water is wet (October 9, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): we don’t need no stinkin’ objective reality (January 21, 2012)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): not especially prescient (January 9, 2013)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): strange silence, still (December 19, 2012)

Quick, blame Obama! – part 3 – trickle down (December 8, 2012)

Quick, blame Obama! – part 2 (December 5, 2012)

Quick, blame Obama! (December 1, 2012)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): make it stop… (November 18, 2012)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): the price keeps dropping and we’re running out of gas puns (November 15, 2012)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): on an express elevator… (November 12, 2012)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): wait, wait, don’t tell me (November 8, 2012)

Vicky Hartzler (r): it’s so quiet when the price keeps dropping (October 31, 2012)

Vicky Hartzler (r): What’s that? Did you say something? Apparently not. (October 29, 2012)

Vicky Hartzler (r): the sound of silence (October 23, 2012)

The past, the gas, and isms (September 24, 2012)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): let’s pass the gas – part 2 (June 6, 2012)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): let’s pass the gas (May 27, 2012)

So what is new in Todd Akin’s campaign for the Missouri Senate? Lots of sheepish Republican movers and shakers, that’s what. An enthusiastic Newt Gingrich led the way, Jim DeMint followed, flourishing a check-book, and now Roy Blunt, rather obviously holding his nose, is back on board with Brother Todd:

Congressman Akin and I don’t agree on everything, but he and I agree the Senate majority must change. From Gov. Romney to the county courthouse, I’ll be working for the Republican ticket in Missouri, and that includes Todd Akin … .

The Tea Party express is sending signals that they’re reconsidering their earlier harsh judgment of Akin, while the NRSC is also indicating that, after traversing the five stages of grieving, rage, denial, etc., they’re also willing to accept reality and make do with Akin.

It wasn’t always this way as Talking Points Memo‘s video reel of prominent Republicans “dumping” on Akin demonstrates. Of course, everybody always knew that both sides were bluffing and that it was Akin who held all the cards. Seriously, did anyone really expect that the BMOCs in the GOP would concede the Senate to the Democrats without a fight? These guys and their corporate backers have been working too long and too hard to establish Carl Rove’s “permanent Republican majority” to give up just because of a dim-witted backbencher’s faux pas.

At the Huffington Post Christine Pelosi points out that the motive for GOP backtracking on Akin goes way beyond efforts to reestablish control of the legislative branch:

Now why would Senate Republicans flip-flop? Why would establishment Republicans display such moral bankruptcy as to ask their female donors to support a man who won’t let them contemplate abortion even if raped? Because of reason number three: the United States Supreme Court.

It’s all about the Justices. Supreme Court nominations are blocked or approved by United States Senators, and Republicans want Todd Akin making those decisions for Justices who would reaffirm Citizens United and overturn Roe v. Wade; who would expand freedom to carry guns but restrict freedom to marry LGBT partners. This is not just another vote up or down on the issues — this is a critical vote to choose between a Sonia Sotomayor or an Antonin Scalia; an Elena Kagan or a Clarence Thomas. We know how Todd Akin would vote and we know how Senator Claire McCaskill has voted. The choice for women’s choices could not be clearer.

Pelosi is inarguably right about the GOP imperative to get their ducks, including ugly duckling Akin, into a row so that they can also, eventually, recapture the judiciary. But the motivation goes much deeper than a desire to eviscerate women’s rights and revive nineteenth-century social mores. The real big deal for the GOP is the not-so-secret GOP drive to decimate New Deal precedents, Social Security, Medicare, pro-labor legislation, while establishing a happy, unregulated haven for those corporations who are people, my friend, and whose greenback-backed free speech rights they value so highly. I suspect that Todd Akin, who sees socialism behind every corner, will do just as well as the next pea-brained zealot when it comes to helping shore up a Supreme Court that will bring happy-ever-after to the corporatocracy.  

With right wingnuts it’s considered a feature, not a bug.

Newt Gingrich (r): ….If he will accept it I will ask John Bolton to be Secretary of State, [applause] But I will only appoint him if he will agree that his first job is the complete and thorough transformation of the State Department and the replacement of the current Foreign Service culture with a new entrepreneurial and aggressive culture dedicated to the proposition that defending freedom and defending America is the first business of the State Department, not appeasing our opponents. [applause]….

Purges and shooting from the hip. Who needs actual competence at the State Department?

John Bolton (r) in 2002:

01 November 2002

Bolton Says Rogue States Seek Weapons of Mass Destruction, November 1, 2002

[….]

Following is the text of Bolton’s remarks:

(begin transcript)

The International Aspects of Terrorism and Weapons of Mass Destruction

By the Honorable John R. Bolton Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, United States Department of State

To the Second Global Conference on Nuclear, Bio/Chem Terrorism: Mitigation and Response

Sponsored by The Hudson Institute

Washington, DC

[….]

….Without question, the states most aggressively seeking to acquire WMD and their means of delivery are Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, followed by Libya and Syria. It is no coincidence that these states, which are uniformly hostile to the United States, as well as to many of our friends and allies, are among the ones we identify as state sponsors of terrorism….

….Iraq, despite U.N. sanctions, maintains an aggressive program to rebuild the infrastructure for its nuclear, chemical, biological and missile programs. In each instance, Iraq’s procurement agents are actively working to obtain both weapons-specific and dual-use materials and technologies critical to their rebuilding and expansion efforts, using front companies and whatever illicit means are at hand. We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material — whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an indigenous fissile material capability — it could fabricate a nuclear weapon within one year. It has rebuilt its civilian chemical infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin and VX. It actively maintains all key aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program. And in terms of its support for terrorism, we have established that Iraq has permitted al-Qaeda to operate within its territory. As the president said recently, “The regime has long-standing and continuing ties to terrorist organizations. And there are al-Qaeda terrorists inside Iraq.” The president has made his position on Iraq eminently clear, and in the coming weeks and months we shall see what we shall see….

John Bolton (r) in 2010:

Ambassador John Bolton at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 3 (June 20, 2010)

Question: …Now, I notice you’ve been putting down the current administration quite a bit. [crosstalk] I recall…

Ambassador Bolton: Not really, I haven’t even gotten started yet.

Question: Oh, okay, well,[applause, cheers]…

Now, now going back to two thousand three when we went into the Iraq war, if I recall, you and the Bush administration supported the Iraq war quite substantially. Now, what is your justification for going into the war since they had no nuclear weapons and then themselves had no threat to the United States as a whole? [applause, cheers]

Ambassador Bolton: Well, I, I view, I view the regime of Saddam Hussein as a threat to international peace and security. And I felt that, uh, after the first gulf war, uh, there was unfinished business in leaving him in power. Uh, now don’t get me wrong, when President Bush forty-one, uh, stopped the, uh, military action and, uh, when he did and essentially took the steps that allowed Saddam to remain in power, at the time I thought that was the right course of action. Uh, and it was only with the passage of time that I realized that, uh, that had been a mistake. Uh, so I view the decision, uh, in two thousand three to overthrow Saddam, eh, effectively as a continuation of the first Persian Gulf War. Uh, and this is not unusual in history, in Europe they had the Thirty-Years War, uh, things go on for a long period of time. But essentially, removing Saddam Hussein was important to remove a threat, uh, that he posed, he and his regime posed in the region and around the world.

Now, the question of whether the regime possessed weapons of mass destruction, uh, I think is one that has been badly misunderstood. There is simply no question that had Saddam accomplished his objectives of eliminating the, uh, U.N. sanctions, uh, and getting U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, which would have happened as soon as the sanctions regime was lifted entirely, uh, he would have gone back to the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. During the entire period of time after, uh, the nineteen ninety nineteen ninety-one, uh, war he kept, on his payroll, uh, thousands of nuclear scientists and technicians. He called them his nuclear mujahedeen. And there’s no doubt that once the inspectors were gone he would have gone back to his efforts to, uh, achieve nuclear weapons.

Uh, now some people have said that the, uh, failure to find, uh, nuclear weapons or chemical weapons, uh, in Iraq was, was either because the administration distorted what his capabilities were, or that it was an intelligence failure and that, uh, what we know today proves that we shouldn’t have gone to war against Iraq. Well, I can tell you it was not an exaggeration, uh, because you can’t do that in Washington and not read about it in the paper the next day. Nor was it an intelligence failure. The fear that we had about Iraq’s, particularly its chemical weapons, came not from intelligence but came from Iraq’s own declarations in nineteen ninety-one as a condition of the ceasefire after the first Persian Gulf War. Iraq claimed that it had enormous quantities of chemical weapons and under, uh, uh, Resolution Six Eighty-Seven, the so called Security Council Ceasefire Resolution, Iraq was required, uh, to, uh, destroy the weapons that it declared, uh, or to prove to the U.N. weapons inspectors that it had destroyed the weapons. So when the weapons inspectors went in and they began to destroy, uh, various aspects of, of Saddam’s nuclear program and his ballistic missile program, uh, the U.N. weapons inspectors said to the Iraqi’s, show us the chemical weapons that you declared so that we can begin destroying them. Uh, and the Iraqi’s said in response, well, that’s okay we’ve already destroyed them all. And the U.N. weapons inspectors said, okay fine, show us the places where you destroyed the chemical weapons, show us the records how the destruction took place, introduce us to the scientists and technicians who carried out the destruction so that we can interview them and verify that in fact you have destroyed these weapons that you declared. That you declared. And the Iraqi’s said, we’re not gonna show you the locations, we’re not gonna show you the documents, we’re not gonna introduce you to the people who accomplished it. Now, I will tell you there was n
ot anybody involved in dealing with Iraq who didn’t believe that, uh, the Iraqis were flat out lying about having destroyed all those weapons. Uh, they, they had declared that they had the weapons and they produced no proof, uh, to support their assertions that they had destroyed the weapons. So, everybody believed, everybody believed that the weapons still existed. Uh, and in fact, that’s why when American and other coalition forces went in to Iraq they took with them chemical weapons protective gear which is incredibly bulky, cumbersome, and in the middle of, uh, the, uh, Iraqi summer, extremely hot. No responsible American general would burden his troops with that chemical weapons protective gear unless they thought that there was a real risk that Saddam would use chemical weapons. Uh, and in fact, many people around the world argued against the American attack precisely on the grounds that it would provoke Saddam to use the chemical weapons that he had declared.

Uh, now, in fact, uh no chemical weapons were used during the second Persian Gulf War and we have not located, uh, anything but little bits and traces of the chemical weapons capability. Now that means one of several things. First, that somehow or another Saddam had destroyed the chemical weapons. But there is simply no, uh, uh, no evidence anywhere that that’s happened. It’s not something that you just kind of dump into the Tigris and Euphrates River, uh, unless you want to kill everything in it for hundreds of miles. Uh, the, if you look at the way the United States is destroying its own chemical weapons supplies it’s in very tightly controlled  circumstances. This is an extraordinarily hazardous, uh, thing to do, uh, with great risk of, uh, uh, of people getting killed if the process goes wrong. So, to have destroyed the, uh, supplies that Iraq claimed would have, there would have been evidence of it and we’ve found no such evidence. Second possibility is he shipped it out of the country. We just don’t know whether he did or not. Third possibility is that he buried it in the desert somewhere. Now, hard as that is to believe, you ought to go on, uh, the Internet and find the pictures that American troops took of big fighter planes wrapped in burlap buried in the desert sands being uncovered by American bulldozers. It’s like scenes out of Planet of the Apes with wings and tail fins of Migs peering out of the desert sand. Anybody who’s crazy enough to bury Mig fighters in the desert is probably crazy enough to bury chemical weapons. [applause] But we haven’t, we haven’t found that. So, so that, please, don’t go away, I’m not done yet. [laughter] That leaves the possibility that Saddam was lying about his chemical weapons capabilities in nineteen ninety-one when he made the declarations to the United Nations. That, that may be the most likely outcome. That shows how profoundly, uh, deceptive and threatening this regime was. But, but let’s be clear, the decision to remove Saddam Hussein was a plus for the United States and the world, it has, it has removed one of the most dangerous regimes, uh, in the Middle East, it has given the Israeli [sic] people the chance for self government, which they hadn’t had in their entire history, uh, and I think that it will lead, uh, to, to greater peace and security for the United States. [applause, cheers]

Let’s just take, let’s just take one or two more here. Anybody else over here? Go ahead….

“…So, everybody believed, everybody believed that the weapons still existed…”

Not exactly.

Curveball admissions vindicate suspicions of CIA’s former Europe chief

Tyler Drumheller says he warned agency director George Tenet over intelligence supplied by Iraqi defector in 2003

Helen Pidd and Martin Chulov

Tuesday 15 February 2011 11.08 EST

The former head of the CIA in Europe, when told of the admissions by the agent codenamed Curveball to the Guardian, said the news made him feel better about himself.

Tyler Drumheller, who says he warned the head of the US intelligence agency before the 2003 invasion of Iraq that Curveball might be a liar, said the confession would be a final wake-up call for the hawks who continued to believe that there had been WMD but that the CIA had been “too stupid” to find them.

“The interesting part for me is that he has recanted what he said, which is fascinating in the sense that I think there are still a number of people who still thought there was something in that. Even now,” he said…

Weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. That worked out quite well, didn’t it?

Let’s go to the list

Name Mailing Address Random Number Date Filed

GARY JOHNSON PO BOX 1858

EL PRADO, NM 87529 8 10/25/2011

01:30 PM

HERMAN CAIN PO BOX 2158

STOCKBRIDGE, GA 30281 27 10/25/2011

08:09 AM

MITT ROMNEY 585 COMMERCIAL ST.

BOSTON, MA 02109 48 10/25/2011

09:19 AM

MICHAEL J. MEEHAN 3065 ARMONA DR.

ST. LOUIS, MO 63129 60 10/25/2011

03:48 PM

RICK PERRY PO BOX 1708

AUSTIN, TX 78767-1708   11/2/2011

03:53 PM

KEITH DRUMMOND PO BOX 5669

KATY, TX 77491   11/10/2011

10:21 AM

JON HUNTSMAN 1850 ELM STREET, SUITE 2

MANCHESTER, NH 03104   11/10/2011

10:50 AM

MICHELE BACHMANN 2550 M STREET, NW

WASHINGTON, DC 20037   11/10/2011

01:56 PM

RICK SANTORUM PO BOX 37

VERONA, PA 15147   11/21/2011

9:17 AM

RON PAUL 8000 FORBES PL., STE. 200

SPRINGFIELD, VA 22151   11/21/2011

10:19 AM

Hmmm wait a minute, I know this, I know this, it’s….

Newt

Newt Gingrich may be a top-tier contender in the latest polls, but he won’t be contending at all in Missouri’s Republican presidential primary in February.

The former House speaker, who is putting a campaign organization together on the fly, failed to qualify for the contest in the Show Me State.

According to the Missouri Secretary of State’s office, Gingrich did not file the necessary papers as of Tuesday’s 5 p.m. deadline.  That means his name will not be on the Feb. 7 ballot.

The filing requirements are not particularly onerous. A $1,000 check and some paperwork are all that’s needed.

Oops.

Sure, the Missouri Republican primary is a waste of $8M. But we found one Republican who missed the Beauty Contest.

At least Missourians can vote for Uncommitted. Or they can vote for Keith Drummond.

And he’s a pompous blowhard, too.

Paul Krugman: ….And Newt, although, uh, somebody said, he’s, he’s a stupid man’s idea of what a smart person sounds like….

Heh. That thrice married grifter who was paid a ton of money by Freddie Mac, Newt Gingrich (r), lectures us about morality at some right wingnut forum in Iowa:

Newt Gingrich (r): ….Let me, let me now take that, and for a brief moment describe Occupy Wall Street. All of the occupy movement starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. They take over a public park they didn’t pay for, to go nearby to use bathrooms they didn’t pay for, to beg for food from com, places they don’t want to pay for, to instruct those who are going to work to pay the taxes to sustain the bathrooms and to sustain the park, so they can self-righteously explain that they are the paragons of virtue to which we owe everything.

Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath [applause]….

“…go get a job right after you take a bath…”

The Demographics Of Occupy Wall Street

….business analyst Harrison Schultz and professor Hector R. Cordero-Guzman from the Baruch College School of Public Affairs, today released a study based on a survey of 1,619 visitors to the occupywallst.org site on October 5. And about a quarter of them have also attended occupation events. So they aren’t all armchair activists….

….“Get a job!” wouldn’t apply to most of them. Half of the respondents are already employed full-time, and an additional 20% work part-time. Just 13.1% are unemployed–not a whole lot more than the national average….

[emphasis in original]

If God exists she will make Newt the republican nominee. We can only pray, and cross over to vote in the republican primary.

For the sponsors that would probably be a feature, not a bug.

Jobs initiatives, what jobs initiatives? It’s all about teh gays with republicans:

HCR 45

Urges the President of the United States and the United States Congress to uphold and defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act

Sponsor: Pollock, Darrell (146)

Co-Sponsor: Gatschenberger, Chuck (013) … et al.

Proposed Effective Date: 8/28/2011

LR Number: 1974L.01I

Last Action: 3/10/2011 – Offered (H)

Bill String: HCR 45

Next Hearing: Hearing not scheduled

Calendar: Bill currently not on a calendar

So, if you’re gonna “defend” marriage do you think any or all of your party’s potential presidential nominees should probably be successful at it first? Just asking.

The bill:

FIRST REGULAR SESSION

House Concurrent Resolution No. 45

96TH GENERAL ASSEMBLY



INTRODUCED BY REPRESENTATIVES POLLOCK (Sponsor), GATSCHENBERGER, DUGGER, WELLS, WRIGHT, LOEHNER, KEENEY, ROWLAND, COX, LANT, REIBOLDT, DAVIS, FUHR, SCHOELLER, ENTLICHER, HOSKINS, SCHAD, SOLON, STREAM, THOMSON, COOKSON, BROWN (116), HIGDON, KORMAN, DENISON, LONG, KOENIG, FISHER, GRISAMORE, CURTMAN, McCAHERTY, FREDERICK, SCHATZ, HOUGHTON, CRAWFORD, ELMER, HAMPTON, CIERPIOT, SCHIEBER, FITZWATER, HOUGH, CROSS, JONES (89), LICHTENEGGER, LASATER, BAHR, FRAKER, WALLINGFORD, RICHARDSON, JONES (117), FUNDERBURK, FLANIGAN AND ASBURY (Co-sponsors).

1974L.01I

           WHEREAS, states have plenary power to recognize marriages, to establish their own public policies with regard to the institution of marriage, and to provide for the benefits related to marriage in a rational manner; and

           WHEREAS, Article I, Section 33 of the Missouri Constitution states:

“That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.”; and

           WHEREAS, Article I, Section 33 of the Missouri Constitution as adopted on August 3, 2004, is an expression of the supermajority will of Missouri citizens having passed in every county in Missouri and having passed by a total percentage of 71% in favor of the amendment; and

           WHEREAS, the primary function and purpose of Article I, Section 33 of the Missouri Constitution is to express the State of Missouri’s support for the longstanding secular and religious tradition of marriage between a man and a woman and not to invidiously discriminate against a particular class of persons; and

           WHEREAS, the extremely rare and perplexing refusal of President Barack Obama’s Administration to defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in federal court, as expressed in a February 23, 2011, letter from Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. to House Speaker John Boehner, is a serious threat to the rule of law; and

           WHEREAS, the Obama Administration’s articulation of a novel legal theory whereby sexual orientation is elevated to the status of “heightened scrutiny” under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution is without precedential support, and poses a serious threat to the longstanding rights of the states to recognize marriage and to establish their own public policies with regard to the institution of marriage:

           NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-sixth General Assembly, First Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, hereby urge the United States Congress and the President of the United States to uphold and defend the federal Defense of Marriage Act; and

           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Missouri General Assembly further urges the United States Congress and the President of the United States to uphold and defend the traditional right of states to legislate with a rational basis to recognize marriages, establish their own public policies with regard to the institution of marriage, and to provide benefits related to the institution of marriage; and

           BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the Missouri House of Representatives be instructed to prepare properly inscribed copies of this resolution for the President of the United States, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, and each member of the Missouri Congressional Delegation.

[emphasis in original]

Jobs? What jobs?