This diary is in part a piggy back on the recommended diary by slinkerwink, and in part to show up the how disingenuous repugs are.
I was watching this guy (Gov Sanford) on CNN, talking (economics) or more like spewing repug talking points, and couldn't help but think 'could this guy be as dumb as he looks' and as he continued to talk, the answer was obvious. You could see him trying to fit the repug talking points into his explanation of why he opposed the stimulus bill (check out the you tube clip below). While I was listening to him, I thought it would be a good idea to insert something into the bill that would force a repug like him to publicly accept or reject the stimulus money sent to him in face of his state's economic turmoil. I thought that the provision should include language that would allow the state legislature to over ride him if he declined the stimulus money.
Then I second guessed myself, I thought that would not be possible or made any sense since it was implicit that governors can accept or reject fed dollars (unless the money is a mandatory allocation??) and that legislature can override Govs on matters of fed aid or why bother with inserting such language. Am I wrong?My second guessing was based more on me thinking that no other politician would agree with the principle of by objective, and that is to show these repugs up for what they are, hypocrites. I then reasoned that someone as 'principled' as Sanford (another weak moment on my part thinking a repug could be principled) would reject the money because that's what he believed in. As a result I didn't think anyone in congress would agree that a provision like that was necessary. That is, it would be obvious when Sanford took the money. What politician would see the usefulness of inserting language like this. Then I read slinkerwink's post and realized it was possible and as useful as I first thought.
I am glad that Rep Clyburn was thinking along the same lines as I was, to show up these repug hypocrites. I bet you Rep. Clyburn was probably watching the same clip I was when I thought about the possibility of inserting such language. I wasn't sure how it would be worded but I'm glad Rep Clyburn was on top of it.
Notice in the clip Gov 'Hypocrite' Sanford would not answer if he would take the fed money, his response was "we'll decide that question when we get to it". My guess is he can't wait to get his hands on that money. That 45 day provision inserted by Rep Clyburn is genius, making it easy to track all those hypocrite governors in a timely fashion.
As I continued to listen, I couldn't help but notice the a$$ backward swipe at federal government management Sanford took at government to justify why government should not be allowed to manage big problems like this. On second thought it's much less of 'a$$ backward' thinking (that would be giving Sanford too much credit) than it is a conserted effort by Sanford to misled and lie about government an it's use and role in the lives of people. The example he used to explain why government is useless was... are you ready for this?... wait for it ...wait --> Katrina.
Now the moderator I can't remember his name, asked some surprisingly pointed questions but he let the obvious Katrina jab slide. The moderator should have responded "Huh Katrina was a repug's f@#k up and don't forget repugs hate government so they (repugs) are prone to f#@king up sh#t like this and to huge magnitudes", but the moderator didn't. Another missed opportunity by the 'media'.
The moderator is a dumb ass anyway I've seen him before. On election night he said Clinton was the last president who's party controlled both congresses and he stated some other incorrect fact following that, that cemented his title as CNN's dumb ass, at least in my mind. CNN sure knows how to pick 'em you betcha.
Update... I ventured into RedState and found this by Jeff Emanuel> He makes a good point. But I not not sure a principled legislature would willing take the fall for a principle Gov. If I recall SC is controlled at all levels by repugs. Sorry I don't link to repug sites.
The text, taken from pages 490-91 here (warning: massive .pdf file), reads as follows:
SEC. 1607. (a) CERTIFICATION BY GOVERNOR.–Not
26 later than 45 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
1 for funds provided to any State or agency thereof, the
2 Governor of the State shall certify that: (1) the State will
3 request and use funds provided by this Act, (2) and the
4 funds will be used to create jobs and promote economic
5 growth.
6 (b) ACCEPTANCE BY STATE LEGISLATURE.-If funds
7 provided to any State in any division of this Act are not
8 accepted for use by the Governor, then acceptance by the
9 State legislature, by means of the adoption of a concurrent
10 resolution, shall be sufficient to provide funding to such
11 State.
While this means that principled Governors won’t be able to overcome their state legislatures’ desire to get a piece of the borrow-and-spend pie, there is an upside: folks like Sanford can be as principled as they want in their opposition to the bailout, while not having to face the blowback of their state’s not getting any cash from this bill. This means that, however this boondoggle turns out, principled GOP Governors with less-principled state legislatures may be left sitting in the best of all possible positions.
That’s not too bad a position to be in, is it?