Who's on what side?

Once again, we learn what side the Democrats are on and what side the Republicans are on.

The Democrats



That's right. $20 billion up front from British Petroleum to cover the astronomical costs of damages resulting from the oil spill. That's in comparison to a statutory $75 million cap.

The Republicans

Joe Barton: I think it is a tragedy of the first proportion that a private corporation can be subjected to what I would characterize as a shakedown, in this case a $20 billion shakedown. . .

Michelle Bachmann: "The president just called for creating a fund that would be administered by outsiders, which would be more of a redistribution-of-wealth fund,"

Rush Limbaugh, the intellectual head of the Republican Party: "Who's gonna get this money? Union activists? ACORN people? Who's gonna get this money. Let's keep a sharp eye on who Feinberg gives this money to. Because I'm telling you, this is just another bailout fund, called something else, and we'll see who gets it."

The Republican Study Committee: "BP's reported willingness to go along with the White House's new fund suggests that the Obama Administration is hard at work exerting its brand of Chicago-style shakedown politics. These actions are emblematic of a politicization of our economy that has been borne out of this Administration's drive for greater power and control."

This squarely presents the issue. The Republicans have been pretending to be some kind of little-guy populists, fighting against the entrenched power in Washington. In fact, they're in bed with the wealthiest, most reprehensible corporations in the world.

We need to keep pounding on this theme right on through November.

Oh yeah, on other thing. Later today, Joe Barton apologized for his apology to BP. In fact, he said that if anyone misconstrued his earlier statement, he apologized.

Don't worry, Joe. We didn't misconstrue anything.

It's a good thing he knows what's important

You may have heard of Rep. Joe Barton. Even if you didn't know anything about him before, he recently distinguished himself as a science expert, mocking Energy Secretary (and Nobel Prize winner) Henry Chu for trying to use the concept of plate tectonics to explain how petroleum deposits could have formed under such cold areas as Alaska and the Arctic Circle, a video he himself posted on YouTube under the heading "Energy Secretary puzzled by simple question".

Not as well known is his stand on government. Like most conservative extremists, he is against big government. He signed Newt Gingrich's Contract on America in 1994, which stated,

This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money.

So why is he in the news this week? Pretty simple, actually. He's standing up for the kind of principle that any small-government conservative would be committed to: the power of the federal government to decide the national NCAA football champion!

I kid you not. According to Barton, the need for national football playoffs is so obvious, and so important, that if the NCAA won't do it voluntarily he will introduce legislation to force them to do it.

So I ask you: if we can't get Michelle Bachman to say something stupid on camera every week, aren't you glad we have Joe Barton to pick up the slack?