published Thursday, August 16th, 2012

Knuckle draggers unite!

House Speaker John Boehner is a dope.

Liberals have been trying to convince us conservatives of that for years and we never believed them. Painful as it is to admit, they were right and we were wrong. Boehner, it turns out, is exactly the bungling fool liberals always said he was.

Boehner, the highest-ranking Republican elected official in federal government, opened that big yapper attached to his notoriously orange head and promptly inserted his foot when he called TARP opponents "knuckle draggers" on Greta Van Susteren's Fox News show "On the Record."

Specifically, when asked to defend newly minted vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan's Congressional voting record on spending and budget issues -- which, given the fact that Ryan's record includes bloated big government programs like TARP, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, the auto bailout and loads of pork projects, is anything but conservative -- Boehner responded:

"I mean, I think that he's a practical conservative. He's got a very conservative voting record, but he's not a knuckle-dragger, all right? He understood that TARP, while none of us wanted to do it, if we were going to save -- save our economy, save the world economy, it had to happen. I wish we didn't have to do it, either, but he understood that."

TARP -- the Troubled Access Relief Program -- was the ridiculous Wall Street bailout scheme whereby the federal government spent hundreds of billions of dollars buying distressed assets and gave away hundreds of billions more in direct handouts to banks.

When it was passed in 2008, TARP was projected to cost federal taxpayer $700 billion. Since that time, thankfully, some of that cash has been paid back, reducing the program's burden on taxpaying Americans.

Because TARP so blatantly allows the federal government to overstep its bounds and do things that are clearly both unconstitutional and socialist -- namely prop up private business with taxpayers' money -- the TARP vote is rightly considered by many conservatives and libertarians as this generation's litmus test for fiscally conservative principles.

Well, Ryan failed that test when he joined a minority of House Republicans to vote in support of TARP. So did Boehner.

By attempting to justify Ryan's very liberal TARP vote -- and, by extension, his as well -- Boehner defended horrible public policy, while disparaging the members of his own party wise enough not to vote for the scam.

Humorously, while he was busy trying to dig Ryan out of the hole he put himself in by voting in support of TARP, the Speaker carelessly managed to dig himself in an even bigger hole -- one that may cost him his lofty position.

It apparently slipped Boehner's mind that anti-TARP voters constitute a large majority of Republican House members.

The first time the House voted for TARP, 133 Republican members voted against it, while only 65 voted in favor of the scheme. When TARP came back to the House for a final vote to approve the Senate's amendments, the majority of Republicans again opposed the legislation -- 108 to 91.

That means there are enough GOP "knuckle draggers" in the House to punt Boehner out of the speaker's chair when the new Congress convenes next January -- which is exactly what they should do.

If there was any doubt, Boehner demonstrated again this week that "Republicans" and "fiscal conservatives" are not the same thing -- and in many case, they are not even related. It's just too bad that Boehner resorted to disparaging many of his colleagues and supporters in order to prove that point.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

Ah, you think a vote for TARP was a liberal vote? Or socialist? Sorry, but it was corporatist.

I guess you couldn't stray that far off the party line.

You're right though, Republicans have never been fiscally responsible. Too bad you'll keep voting for them till the end of time.

August 16, 2012 at 12:43 a.m.
rosebud said...

"John Boehner is a dope." Who writes these lines? A 12-year-old?

August 16, 2012 at 7:56 a.m.
ChattanoogaVol said...

Honestly, if this is the type of editorial crap that is going to be on this page, then either fire the new guy in charge or I'm cancelling my subscription. This reads like a 1st grader has written it. Horrible.

August 16, 2012 at 8:28 a.m.
Walden said...

This is appalling. Drew Johnson, you are not a friend of the current cause to oust the Obama regime. Calling our speaker a dope, and making fun of his (not actually) orange head, are something I would expect from Keith Olbermann or Chris Matthews, not from somebody that is purportedly on our side. Go away.

Agree with TARP or not, but it did prop up the crucial banking sector in a very precarious time, and if you don't understand the importance of the banking sector to all aspects of our lives, then you do not need to be writing editorials for a conservative newspaper. Besides, TARP was not stimulus, it was comprised of loans made by the Govt to the banks, many of which are already paid back, with interest, to the taxpayer.

August 16, 2012 at 10:31 a.m.
Livn4life said...

Honestly, if you don't like the c--- on this editorial page, just turn it. We have to see the junk/joke of cartoonist leftism and we turn the page. You can too. I stand continually amazed at how blind people are to look at what the alleged liberal(leftist really)agenda has bought us in this nation. Are we really better off as we attempt the sad efforts of leftist approaches? I don't think so. All we get is finger pointing at anyone or anything else as responsible rather than owning the truth. Here is a little secret, Liberalism as it is called, Conservatism; neither is working. Both support an out of control bloated federal government and spending beyond our means. That has been happening for decades as much if not more from Congress as the White House. Next little secret, nothing will really change as long as Congress stays out of control and they make the rules the rest of us have to play by. So good luck to both sides. It is already an embarrassing circus in the Presidential race. When all the smoke clears in November, I want someone to point out how, when, and in what manner we are heading in a different and better direction for the United States. It's going to get brutal and maybe even brutaler(I know that is not a word you English experts)and that proves how far we have fallen as a nation.

August 16, 2012 at 10:34 a.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

Glad to see Drew Johnson at the helm and not a lock-step party man. It's wonderful to see an editor with cajones of steel instead of rotten grapes.

August 16, 2012 at 10:59 a.m.

Livn4life, I'd rather criticize it for what I see as it's flaws. Like here, where they just HAD to make the claim that TARP was a liberal thing, when in reality, it was corporatism.

And no, as a rule, people don't just turn the page on the cartoonist, but rather we see a bunch of less than authentic criticism bloating it with their bloviations and insult-ridden drivel.

I do recognize that there is useful criticism, and blow-hard ranting, if you'd ever say anything about that from the right-wing, I wouldn't think you are the blind one here, with your own finger-pointing attempts to deflect blame.

August 16, 2012 at 11:54 a.m.
timbo said...

happywithnewboobs.... if you weren't so ignorant you would be funny. TARP wasn't socialist??? Picking winners and losers and propping them up with cash is the definition of socialist.

August 16, 2012 at 12:51 p.m.
timbo said...

Drew...don't mind people like Walden. They are used to that butt-kissing, convenient conservative Lee Anderson. Reading him was like getting a root canal. I am not sure it was English. Lee Anderson hadn't had an original thought in 30 years but he nationally he always towed the line.

Walden is most likely a party hack that probably goes every Monday to the Pachyderm club and eats rubber chicken and listens to our lying, supposed to be conservative, local crooks (oops, I mean politicians)singing the praise of VW corporate welfare. He is just doing what his is told. Walden just might be Chuck Fleishman.

Thank goodness we finally have a real conservative writing for the TFP. Good job.

August 16, 2012 at 12:55 p.m.
timbo said... text book establishment explaination of TARP was kind of touching. Just one little problem. If large banks deserved "bailing out" then why didn't the thousands of small businesses that went under because of the greed of these bankers get bailed out? Not hardly.

Paying the money back is irrelevant. It again was picking the winners and losers..

If you going to name call you should be better at it. You look like a partisan fool.

August 16, 2012 at 1:12 p.m.
tipper said...

Uh oh, all seems not well in conservative land. I think mainstream Republicans, Democrats, and people with actual commmon sense are finally realizing that the tea party and extremist Christians have literally fallen off the right side of their flat earth. Gotta love it! More! More!

August 16, 2012 at 1:16 p.m.
timbo said...

tipper... you wouldn't know common sense if it bit you. I guess it is common sense to keep increasing the national debt. I guess it is common sense to increase food stamps by 40%. I guess it is common sense to waste buckets of cash picking winners and losers in business while protecting your buddies. etc. etc. etc.

Walden, I hope it makes you feel good that someone like tipper thinks your "mainstream." I would much rather be a "knuckle dragger."

Common sense is the most uncommon thing there is.

August 16, 2012 at 1:23 p.m.
Walden said...

tipper - keep it in your pants honey. Don't get too excited over the old timbo/Walden spat. timbo is just stupid and needs some educashun, and I am actually a very conservative Bible-believing kind of guy...

Here we go...

timbo - first, I have never been to the Pachyderm Club, and I doubt I ever will; so that should undermine your thought that I may be Chuck Fleischmann, a man for whom I have never voted, though I have now had 3 chances.

timbo said "you (sic) text book establishment explaination (sic) of TARP was kind of touching. Just one little problem. If large banks deserved "bailing out" then why didn't the thousands of small businesses that went under because of the greed of these bankers get bailed out? Not hardly."

What businesses went under because of the so called "greed" of bankers? Also, you apparently have no idea what caused the mortgage debt crisis of 2008, which is the event which spurred the need for TARP. It was the lefty policies of Barney Frank and his d-bag buddy Chris Dodd who essentially mandated that the banks start making riskier and riskier home loans to people who normally wouldn't qualify for a home loan, because, hey, afterall, EVERYBODY HAS A RIGHT TO OWN A FREAKIN' HOME, RIGHT??? You simpleton little dirtbag - you actually think the banks caused the crisis, and you dare to question MY CONSERVATISM?? You think the banks caused small businesses to go out of business, and yet, you question MY CONSERVATISM?? You have your head so squarely up your rear end I bet you can see daylight. The banking system has billions, probably trillions, of dollars invested in small businesses in support of their working capital, plant and equipment, as well as their growth and acquisition plans, and yet little jerks like you sit there and throw cheap shots at the banks. Jeez pal, you sound like a regular Alinskyite.

Also, it was not only large banks who got TARP, many small banks all over the country received it as well. These are the banks that support small business so well -- as do the regionals and super-regionals. Another little tidbit you may need to know, since you know absolutely nothing about how banking and finance work, is the fact that the bigger banks all have correspondent relationships with the smaller banks, and are very often the places the smaller banks go to raise capital, etc. You know, the capital that is used to lend to small businesses, which are the very lifeblood of our economy.

So the next time you decide to go bashing banks, why don't you get down on your little knobby knees instead and thank the Good Lord Almighty that the banks are still around and still willing to allocate capital based on free market dynamics at rather low returns on investment.

You are no conservative.

August 16, 2012 at 1:54 p.m.
gngriffin said...

"Because TARP so blatantly allows the federal government to overstep its bounds and do things that are clearly both unconstitutional and socialist -- namely prop up private business with taxpayers' money -- the TARP vote is rightly considered by many conservatives and libertarians as this generation's litmus test for fiscally conservative principles."

I'm curious as to why the author thinks that TARP is unconstitutional. The spending power of the Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause I of the Constitution has long been held to be plenary. See, for example, the Supreme Court's holdings in United States v. Butler and South Dakota v. Doe. Further, the Commerce Clause, used to justify TARP, has been held by all of the Court over the years to allow for spending to advance an economic policy. Even the more recent cases of United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, which placed some limits on Commerce Clause spending, would allow for such a purely economic basis for government spending.

August 16, 2012 at 2:35 p.m.
tipper said...

Timbo: Your knuckles raw yet? Walden: You must have me confused wth someone who actually has something that could come out of my pants.

Here's the way it is: There is a growing sentiment among my side of the aisle that the tea party really wants to be Libertarians but thenough to get close to getting over the top. So the tea party knowing that it couldn't find a Democrat in all of America to remotely believe in its agenda hedged its bet in hopes that it could control the Republican Party since it had a few of the cultural war incentives. What it didn't count on is that mainstream Republicans--when push comes to shove--will begin to compromise with Democrats to circle the wagons. The choice of Ryan for veep shifted the focus from likeability to which party will hurt the middle class more. The pig in the python (Baby Boomers)will not even get within 100 miles of someone who wants to turn Medicare and Social Security into voucher programs. All you have to do is look at the disaster of 2008 and why it happened. The idea of turning over guaranteed funds to insurnace companies and investment firms who constantly beg legislators and conservative candidates for little or no regulation simply won't happen. And the Republican's attempts to turn these plans into class warfare between the young and old hasn't got a chance when you look at the numbers. Maybe someday, but probably not in my lifetime. If annybody thhinks for one second that the two major parties are going to roll over for a so-called movement that borders on radical and reactionary simultaneously is dreaming. Mitt Rommney may have had a chance had he carved out one of Obama's voting segments by patronizing it with a women or minority, but with Ryan, he saddled himself with someone who actually has more likeability and chutzpah than himself. Add to that the polarizing effect Ryan brings to the ticket with his budget plan and his ideology, and we probably will be looking at 2016 for a Republican shot at the office. That's my view. Time will tell if I'm right. In any event, it's fun to watch different factions of conservatives go at it for a change.

August 16, 2012 at 4:30 p.m.
daytonsdarwin said...

The Teaparty lost mainstream support from thinking conservatives when it was hijacked by neocons and Christian ultra-orthodox evangelical nut-jobs.

Add Mitt Romney and his Magic Underwear, Sarah Palin who appears more brain-dead than Joe Biden (is that possible?), and remnants of Bush's "War with Everyone in a Holy Crusade Because God Loves Killing and Halliburton" group of military/corporatists and you've got no place for traditional, old-style Goldwater republicans to go.

August 16, 2012 at 4:56 p.m.
328Kwebsite said...

Maybe we should start counting the number of times a Free Press editorial relies on insult words to make a point. Get an IQ. Read a book. Do anything besides being this unprofessional in public. Thanks.

August 16, 2012 at 5:12 p.m.
Walden said...

tipper - everyone has something that could come out of their pants; all one has to do is take their pants off. But I digress; I figured you were a woman when I made the comment -- no intent to offend...

Not sure I follow the logic of the rest of your post, but thanks anyway.

To clear things up a bit, I am not anti-Tea Party. I think the movement has its place, and I think it did much good in shaping the 2010 mid-term "shellacking" that Obama so richly deserved. There are some fringy people inhabiting it's ranks, but I think it is still quite valid.

I'm simply not going to come out against a move that saved our banking system, and thus, our small business framework.

Peace, all.

August 16, 2012 at 7:02 p.m.

Timbo, I suppose you might argue that TARP was corporate socialism, however, I would not call it actual genuine socialism as is commonly understood, since it was for the benefit of corporations which are not really people.

It was corporate welfare, not social welfare. That's why it is corporatism, not socialism.

Nor was it even implemented in a social friendly-way, if it were, we'd have had criminal prosecutions for foreclosure fraud.

Like I said, not liberal, corporatist. Which coincidentally enough is the real result of Republican policies.

August 16, 2012 at 9:53 p.m.
Walden said...

happy - you are a fool.

August 16, 2012 at 10:01 p.m.
Easy123 said...


What an intellectually stimulating response!

August 16, 2012 at 10:31 p.m.
joneses said...

If Hussein Obama did not cut Medicare by 716 billion dollars, although he admitted he did, over 10 years as you liberals claim then why is he admitting he cut 716 billion dollars from Medicare and plans to pay for it by cracking down on Medicare fraud? Which leads to another question. Why has Hussein Obama let over 70 billion dollars per year (716 billion dollars divided by 10 = >70 billion dollars per year) in Medicare fraud occur over the last 3.5 years? This is a fine example how ineffective Hussein Obama's government is and you fools want them to be in charge of your health care decisions. Amazing.

August 17, 2012 at 12:14 p.m.
Easy123 said...


Seriously, you need to learn how to do read and do research. Nothing you are saying is consistent with reality.

August 17, 2012 at 1:30 p.m.

Walden, for discussing things with Timbo? Sure.

Just like discussing things with Joneses, it's a waste of time.

Look at that tortured rhetoric there. Anything to justify an attack on Obama.

August 17, 2012 at 1:35 p.m.
joneses said...

Obama Pledged His Medicare Cuts Are Here to Stay By Matt Cover August 14, 2012

<p>( – President Barack Obama said in 2009 that the Medicare cuts he signed as part of his Obamacare health reform law would never be repealed, noting that nearly one-third of the bill’s funding came from cutting Medicare. In a November 2009 interview with ABC News’ Jake Tapper, Obama acknowledged that a third of the funding for ObamaCare came from cutting Medicare.

ABC’s Jake Tapper: “One of the concerns about health care and how you pay for it: third of the funding comes from cuts to Medicare.”

President Obama: “Right.”

Tapper went on to ask Obama whether he would allow Congress to repeal or patch the Medicare cuts as it does every year with the so-called Doc Fix, a measure designed to ensure adequate reimbursement payments are maintained to doctors who care for patients covered by Medicare.

Obama said that his Medicare cuts were permanent and that he would never allow Congress to repeal them.

August 17, 2012 at 3:10 p.m.
joneses said...

More proof of Hussein Obama's cuts to Medicare. Be careful liberals because Deroy Murdock is a black man and if you say he is lying by your own standards you will be a racist.

Romney's right, Obama cut Medicare


Syndicated columnist

<p> Presumptive GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan should begin his campaign rallies by blasting Eric Clapton's "Before You Accuse Me (Take a Look at Yourself)." This blues tune perfectly reflects the neurosis of President Barack Obama and his troops. They constantly bellow that Mitt Romney and Ryan lust to cut Medicare. Yet, in fact, it is Team Obama that already has chopped deeply into it. Obama and his comrades echo each other on this point. Republicans are "weakening the safety net," Obama said Monday. "Romney and Paul Ryan are dead set on slashing seniors' Medicare benefits to pay for more millionaire tax breaks," Democratic strategist Kelly Ward wrote donors on Tuesday. "It's a rigged deal," Obama political guru David Axelrod told MSNBC on Thursday. "The Ryan budget, endorsed by Mitt Romney, would end Medicare," screamed

President Barack Obama addresses the crowd during a campaign stop Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2012, in Davenport, Iowa. CHARLES REX ARBOGAST, AP ADVERTISEMENT Unfortunately for Democrats, who have sung this song since last year, the truth refuses to harmonize with their vocals. Indeed, crowned the Left's "Republicans voted to end Medicare" mendacity as "the 2011 Lie of the Year." The Washington Post caught Democrats with their hands, arms and shoulders in the Medicare cookie jar. "Romney is right," read last Tuesday's headline. "Obamacare cuts Medicare by $716 billion." Post reporter Sarah Kliff's extensive evidence explains "all the various Medicare cuts Democrats made to pay for the Affordable Care Act" – aka Obamacare.

August 17, 2012 at 3:17 p.m.
Easy123 said...

Medicare is actually saving $716 billion. It's not necessarily a "cut". You fiscal Conservatives should jump all over this. Your new pal, Paul Ryan, is all for those "cuts".

You seriously need to learn how to read and do proper research. It's all Right-wing propaganda from you. Does it hurt being such a moron? Or is it true what they say about ignorance being bliss?

August 17, 2012 at 3:27 p.m.
joneses said...

If Hussein Obama is not cutting Medicare by 716 billion dollars then how does one explain him saying he will off set his cuts by cracking down on fraud? Hussein Obama himself has admitted he cut Medicare 716 billion dollars to pay for his socialization of the American health care system through his implementation of Obamacare. He admitted these cuts. so is it safe to assume you liberals are calling Hussein Obama a liar as well?

August 17, 2012 at 3:43 p.m.
Easy123 said...


You do not understand. Read the links I provided. Medicare is actually saving $716 billion. It's not necessarily a "cut".

Obama said he could pay for healthcare reform if Medicare fraud was eliminated.

No one is calling Obama a liar. I'm calling you ignorant and misinformed.

August 17, 2012 at 3:50 p.m.
joneses said...

The most liberal biased news is ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC.

August 17, 2012 at 4:45 p.m.
BigRidgePatriot said...

The editorial writer has it correct. Boehner and his ilk are why the republican party is not in control. They do so many stupid things that they almost make the democrats look bearable. It is a pretty sad state of affairs when progressives control both parties.

It is going to take several more election cycles to get these duds purged.

August 17, 2012 at 5:34 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.