Craziest Republican of the Day: Louis Gohmert

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Republicans love their anti-Obama conspiracy theories, but Rep. Louis "terror babies" Gohmert (R-Tex.), one of the craziest around, was able to kick it up a notch on Wednesday by linking health-care reform to the current intervention in Libya:

It's a bad bill. And then when you find out that the prior Congress not only passed that 2,800 page bill with all kinds of things in it, including a new president's commissioned officer corps and non-commissioned officer corps. Do we really need that? I wondered when I read that in the bill. But then when you find out we're being sent to Libya to use our treasure and American lives there, maybe there's intention to so deplete the military that we're going to need that presidential reserve officer commissioned corps and non-commissioned corps that the president can call up on a moment's notice involuntarily, according to the Obamacare bill.

Umm... what? I realize that Republicans aren't quite sure what to do about Libya -- they generally support military intervention of any kind but also oppose anything Obama does, making it tricky -- but this is stupid even by their standards.

Suggesting that Obama is using Libya to unleash some private presidential army on America? That's insane. As Media Matters explains (you know, because it has the facts at hand):

Despite the claims in right-wing chainemails, the health care law did not give Obama some sort of "private army."The legislation did create the ReadyReserve Corps, a new component of the U.S. Public Health ServiceCommissioned Corps, but there was nothing nefarious about it. The purpose ofthe Ready Reserve Corps is simply to make the Public Health Service -- whichpreviously "did not have a reserve component to call upon" in times of crisis -- better prepared to respond to emergencies.

As FactCheck.org noted after thebill passed, "Thetruth about the new Ready Reserve Corps is a lot less interesting than theconspiracy theories." But of course, Gohmert has always been more interestedin conspiracytheories thanthe truth.

Gohmert and so many others in the Republican Party, which continues its descent into madness without so much as a glimmer of hope.

(image -- along with more craziness from Gohmert)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Russell Pearce

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Anti-American "tentherism" is rampant on the nativist, Tea Party right:

During a speech at the Oceanside Tea Party rally in recent months, Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce (R) took this philosophy to a new extreme. In the speech, where he denounced the federal government's efforts to stop the implementation of the state's radical anti-immigrant law, Pearce claimed that Americans aren't even citizens of the United States, that they are rather citizens of "sovereign states," meaning that we should be loyal to the laws of individual states rather than the federal government:

PEARCE: U.S. history, most of us weren't around when the Constitution was written. But you remember we kind of existed before Congress, the states. We created the Congress, we created the federal government, by compact. Do you know what existed before the Congress, the states? Do you know, you're not a citizen of the United States. You're a citizen of a sovereign state. The fifty sovereign states makes up United States of America, we're citizens of those sovereign states. It is not a delegated authority. It's an inherent authority that states have over the federal government. [applause] It's about time somebody gets it right!

It's like the Civil War never happened. (Which I suppose Republicans like Pearce would like to think.) And it's like the whole Founding meant nothing.

Why do so many Republicans -- and this is a widely-held view in the GOP -- hate America?

This right-wing extremist thinks he's a patriot? Only if patriotism means trying to undermine the very foundations of your entire country.

(photo)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Virgil Peck

By Michael J.W. Stickings

What's the matter with Kansas? Well, this asshole, for starters:

Topeka — A legislator said Monday it might be a good idea to control illegal immigration the way the feral hog population has been controlled -- with hunters shooting from helicopters.

State Rep. Virgil Peck, R-Tyro, said he was just joking, but that his comment did reflect frustration with the problem of illegal immigration.

Peck made his comment came during a discussion by the House Appropriations Committee on state spending for controlling feral swine.

After one of the committee members talked about a program that uses hunters in helicopters to shoot wild swine, Peck suggested that may be a way to control illegal immigration.

Appropriations Chairman Marc Rhoades, R-Newton, said Peck's comment was inappropriate.

Rhoades said he thought Peck was joking, but added, "Hopefully he won't do it again."

Asked about his comment, Peck was unapologetic. "I was just speaking like a southeast Kansas person," he said.

Um... really? Is that how they speak in that apparently retrograde part of the world? (Should Kansans not take this as a vicious insult, or would they rather prefer to be lumped in with such abhorrent views? You can find the audio clip here.) 

Maybe I just don't get nativist, gun-crazy Republican humor.

**********

By the way, I can't confirm this, but Virgil may very well be related to Walter:

Craziest Republican of the Day: Rand Paul

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So what are Republicans doing after that "shellacking" of the Democrats in last November's midterms?

Well, they watched lamely while the lame-duck Congress did some amazing things (passing New START, repealing DADT), and while President Obama's popularity rose steadily, they voted to repeal the Affordable Care Act, purely a symbolic vote in the House that was widely ignored or ridiculed, and now they're just failing about in search of something, anything to hang their extremist right-wing hats on.

And that doesn't even include committing political suicide in Wisconsin as they watch their popularity plummet over their assault on labor (and on working people everywhere), not to mention throwing up what is, so far, a fantastically lame 2012 presidential field.

Oh, and they're complaining about toilets. Yes, toilets:

Senator Rand Paul's toilets don't work, and he blames the Department of Energy.

At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on Thursday, Mr. Paul lambasted Kathleen Hogan, deputy assistant secretary for energy efficiency at the Energy Department, telling her that the department's "hypocrisy" and "busybody nature" has "restricted choices" for consumers rather than made life better for them.

"You don't care about the consumer really," Mr. Paul said. "Frankly, my toilets don't work in my house, and I blame you."

Boo-freakin'-hoo. Consumers have more than enough choice and the concern here is the environment, which under Republican rule would simply be exploited to the very last drop of all remaining natural resources. What is wrong with trying to conserve water, with using technology to make our use of natural resources somewhat more efficient, more responsible and sustainable? Please. It's just a low-flush toilet, not some high-tech gizmo, and they work pretty damn well.

Not that Paul gives a shit. He just wants to freedom to rape the environment with as much recklessness as he desires.

But this isn't isolated Republican craziness. The entire GOP is anti-environment -- oh, sure, they'll go out into nature, but only to drill for oil and kill defenceless animals -- just as it is anti-science. Indeed:

The hearing was called not to examine toilet policy, but to consider two proposed bills, one that would update energy efficiency standards for appliances and a second that would repeal a measure passed in 2007 to phase in new efficiency standards for light bulbs beginning next year.

The new standards would make the current form of 100-watt incandescent bulbs obsolete. Those bulbs have long been known to be particularly inefficient, emitting far more heat than light.

Conservatives have taken up the cause of the incandescent light bulb, saying the government is trying to dictate to Americans what kind of light bulbs they can use in their homes.

This is also incredibly stupid. Again, it's not about consumer choice, let alone about freedom, it's about being responsible environmental stewards. And it's also about innovation, about technological progress, about jobs. There will continue to be more than enough choice; indeed, innovation will open up more choice than ever. Besides, how much choice will there be when there's no fresh water left, or when there's so little that we'll need to ration it?

And, seriously, defending inefficient (and dangerous) light bulbs? Is that really the great Republican issue of the day? I get that they're trying desperately to frame this anti-environmentalism as pro-freedom (and anti-government), but no one outside of their base really buys their "nanny state" fearmongering and all they're doing, as they flail about like this, is coming across as incredibly ignorant and remarkably crazy.

Which of course they are. Just add this to the list.

Betsy Ross made me do it!

By Distributorcap

Former House Speaker and hypocritical adulterer Newt Gingrich is testing the waters for a presidential run as the Republican nominee in 2012 (well, testing the sewage of the GOP). Knowing full well his three marriages and infidelity would become an issue during the primary season (potentially against such hypocritical luminaries as moronic Putin-neighbor Sarah Palin, geographically challenged squirrel-eater Mike Huckabee, and health-care mandate-lover Mitt Romney), Gingrich decided to bring the issue to the forefront himself to dispose of it like a pamper filled with David Vitter kaka.

Gingrich went on -- of all places -- hypocritical misogynist ("feminism makes women kill their children") and nuke-Foggy Bottom encourager Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network (talk about an oxymoron).

Newt said that the flag, apple pie, baseball, and patriotism all forced him to cheat on wife #1 AND wife #2. In other words (with all due respect to Flip Wilson), that harlot, wench, and flag-nympho Betsy Ross made him do it.

You cannot make up this stuff. While Qaddafi bombs his own people in Libya, Gingrich drops this shit all over America. Yes, it is quite humorous, but it really isn't all that funny.

 

Jim DeMint thinks unions are the most powerful political group in the country. Really?

By R.K. Barry

(Let's make DeMint our Craziest Republican of the Day! -- MJWS)

Though I am quite used to Republican politicians saying spectacularly stupid things, there is the occasional comment that strikes me as particularly dim. In this case, it was something recently said by South Carolina Republican Senator Jim DeMint in reference to attempts to bust public-sector unions in Wisconsin. He stated the following: 

The unions are the most powerful political group in the country today... Their power in politics is unprecedented. And without the unions, the Democrat Party fades away. The president is completely dependent for his reelection on the unions, and so are the Democrats. 

It's hard to know which part of this statement is more absurd, that unions are the most powerful political group in the country today or that the Democratic Party would fade away without them.

In a post-Citizens United world where corporate interests can throw piles of money at election campaigns, does anyone think that unions are actually the most powerful player on the partisan stage. Seriously?

Maybe DeMint is just full of shit and he knows it. Or maybe, like a lot of people on the right, he reasons that corporations are just like individuals expressing legitimate and uncoordinated support for candidates. They do not, on this view, share a common interest and should not be considered a political group at all. It's only unions, apparently, whose actions can be classed as organized.

That's the only way his comment can make sense to me. It's bullshit, of course, but not an uncommon view amongst conservatives.

They are an entertaining bunch. 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Connie O'Brien

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Even when we expect the worst, Republicans somehow seem to keep amazing us with their capacity to scrape more and more off the bottom of the barrel. Take, for example, the astonishing racist ignorance of Connie O'Brien, a Kansas Republican:

One week ago, the Kansas House Federal and State Committee held a hearing about in-state tuition being granted to the children of undocumented immigrants, which has been the policy in the state since 2004.

Speaking in favor of repealing the law, Rep. Connie O'Brien (R-KS) began telling an anecdote at the hearing about how her son had difficulty in getting financial assistance to attend college. She explained that she took her son to a financial aid office, and as she was waiting in line, she believed there was a girl waiting in line with them who was "not originally from this country." Fellow committee member Rep. Sean Gatewood (D-KS) asked O'Brien how she knew this student was "illegal." O'Brien replied that she knew because the student "wasn't black, she wasn't Asian, and she had the olive complexion": 

REP. O'BRIEN: My son who's a Kansas resident, born here, raised here, didn't qualify for any financial aid. Yet this girl was going to get financial aid. My son was kinda upset about it because he works and pays for his own schooling and his books and everything and he didn't think that was fair. We didn't ask the girl what nationality she was, we didn't think that was proper. But we could tell by looking at her that she was not originally from this country. [...] 

REP. GATEWOOD: Can you expand on how you could tell that they were illegal? 

REP. O'BRIEN: Well she wasn't black, she wasn't Asian, and she had the olive complexion. 

The olive complexion?

Yes, watch out, all you Olives, they're gonna getcha, because you're the wrong color, and you clearly don't belong.

Yes, anyone with an "olive" complexion is an illegal Mexican immigrant, no questions asked. Wow. How do you even deal with that sort of stupidity?

I bet her gaydar is fantastic, too.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Lee Bright

By Michael J.W. Stickings

South Carolina's Republican secessionist flag

Republicans really seem to miss the Confederacy. And they certainly seem to hate America. For yet another example of secessionist, anti-Washington thinking, let's head down to South Carolina, one of the craziest states in the union:

Continuing a pattern of attempts to assert South Carolina's independence from the federal government, State Sen. Lee Bright, R-Roebuck, has introduced legislation that backs the creation of a new state currency that could protect the financial stability of the Palmetto State in the event of a breakdown of the Federal Reserve System.

*****

"If there is an attempt to monetize the Fed we ought to at least have a study on record that could protect South Carolinians," Bright said in an interview Friday.

"If folks lose faith in the dollar, we need to have some kind of backup."

The legislation cites the rights reserved to states in the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings in making the case that South Carolina is within its rights to create its own currency.

Um... really? I'm hardly an expert on constitutional law, but Article I, Section 10 states no state shall "coin Money" or "emit Bills of Credit," which is to say, no state may have its own currency. Yes, a state may allow "gold and silver Coin" to be "a Tender in Payment of Debts," but as Madison explained in Federalist 44, "it may be observed that the same reasons which shew the necessity of denying to the States the power of regulating coin, prove with equal force that they ought not to be at liberty to substitute a paper medium in the place of coin. Had every State a right to regulate the value of its coin, there might be as many different currencies as States; and thus the intercourse among them would be impeded." That's pretty clear, it seems to me.

Now, Bright wants South Carolina's currency to be "gold or silver, or both," according to the legislation. His target is the federal reserve system, which is to say, the federal government (which is explicitly authorized by the Constitution (Article I, Section 8) to "coin Money" and "regulate the Value thereof," and one suspects that the Founding Fathers would not be amused.

But we're not there yet. "Bright's joint resolution calls for the creation of an eight-member joint subcommittee to study the proposal and submit a report to the General Assembly by Nov. 1."

As Phil Bailey, the director of the state Senate Democratic Caucus, quipped, "[i]t's a waste of time; it's a waste of resources. I mean who's paying for this study? Will they be paid in actual dollars or gold doubloons?"

Good question.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Bill Posey

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This is more stupid than crazy:

ThinkProgress recently spoke with [Rep. Bill] Posey [R-FL], who gained notoriety in 2009 for sponsoring the original "birther bill" in Congress. We asked the congressmen if he plans to turn down government-subsidized health insurance for himself in light of his push to repeal health care reform. His response: "I don't know. Am I a federal employee?"...

ThinkProgress followed up with Rep. Posey's press secretary George Cecala. Mr. Cecala confirmed for us that Congressman Posey is, indeed, a federal employee. In addition, despite Posey's attempts to evade the question, Mr. Cecala told us that the Florida Republican does accept government-subsidized and managed health care and has done so for his entire congressional career. When asked how the congressman would respond to the hypocrisy angle, Mr. Cecala told us "you can't just single out members of Congress and then just ignore other federal employees who receive the same benefits."

What does that have to do with it? The issue isn't that federal employees (including those in Congress) receive such benefits but that Republicans like Posey, along with a few Democrats, oppose the Affordable Care Act and are thus trying to deny adequate health insurance to tens of millions of Americans.

Posey is just one of many, many (if not all) Republicans on Capitol Hill who either deny that they receive government health care (that they'd never want to give up) or prefer to evade the issue altogether lest their utter hypocrisy be exposed.

It's hard to believe he doesn't know if he's a federal employee, but he's certainly got a massive sense of self-righteous entitlement, while basically telling tens of millions of Americans, those without his privileges, that they can go to hell.

Craziest Republican of the Day: Jack Kingston

By Michael J.W. Stickings

The Republican Party is indeed the anti-science party, and Steve Benen today offers yet more evidence of that:

"Real Time" host Bill Maher asked Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.) a fairly straightforward question: "Do you believe in evolution?" Kingston not only said rejects the foundation of modern biology, he explained it this way: "I believe I came from God, not from a monkey." He added, "If it happened over millions and millions of years, there should be lots of fossil evidence."

Seriously, that's what he said.

Let's pause to appreciate the fact that it's the 21st century -- and Jack Kingston is a 10-term congressman who helps oversee federal funding on the Food and Drug Administration.

*****

In the larger context, there's a renewed push underway for the United States to value and appreciate science in the 21st century -- our future depends on it. And while this push is underway, Republican leaders are more comfortable walking a bridge to the 18th century.

What an embarrassment.

It's an embarrassment, yes, but Steve is actually being too kind. They're not walking a bridge to the 18th century, a century of Enlightenment, but so, oh, say, the 14th, before even the Renaissance got underway.

Of course, when it comes to evolution, and the denial thereof, we've heard all this before (including from Christine O'Donnell last year). But that's only because such views are commonplace among conservatives and widespread within the GOP, where creationism is almost as big as voodoo economics.

And, again, what's concerning is not so much that these views exist but that they are very much a part of the Republican mainstream. It would be one thing if such willful ignorance, rooted in Christian fundamentalism, were merely to be found on the distant far-right fringe. It's another thing entirely that such crazy extremism dominates the majority party in the House.

Here's the clip:

Craziest Republican of the Day: Mike Lee

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Think Progress:

There's three things Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) likes in a sentence: a noun, a verb, and "unconstitutional." Indeed, Lee has recently claimed that federal child labor laws, FEMA, food stamps, the FDA, Medicaid, income assistance for the poor, and even Medicare and Social Security violate the Constitution. Yet Senate Republicans have inexplicably chosen to put Lee on the very Senate committee that has jurisdiction over constitutional questions and the judiciary...

Placing Mike Lee in charge of overseeing the Constitution is a bit like putting Dick Cheney in charge of hunting and gun safety, yet the Senate GOP was so eager to put this radical tenther on the Judiciary Committee that it waived a rule prohibiting both of a state’s senators from serving on Judiciary in order to ensure Lee's membership.

That's right, this Teabagging Republican -- one of the four members of the Senate's Tea Party Caucus -- thinks that child labor laws, along with food/drug regulation, federal emergency management, and social assistance programs for the poor, are unconstitutional.

Which means, one must presume, that he's fine with child labor (and, of course, screwing the poor).

And far from being on the fringe of the GOP, he and his views are being empowered, literally, as he takes on a significant position on constitutional matters.

As crazy as he is, the party that enables him (and celebrates him) is crazier still.

(photo)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Steve King

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Certifiable GOP wacko Rep. Steve King (R-IA) -- who's been our CRD several times before (see here, here, here, and here, not to mention here) -- yesterday made what TPM's Rachel Slajda graciously called "an original argument... for why health care reform is unconstitutional."

Responding to Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), who made the sensible and oft-made case that "health insurance counts as interstate commerce and therefore falls under the Congress's constitutional powers, King argued that there are people who never even use health care -- and therefore a law requiring them to buy insurance is unconstitutional." And just who are these people? "There have always been and likely will always be, babies that were born, lived and died within the jurisdictions of the individual states," he said, "who never cross a state line, access no health care and therefore do not impact interstate commerce."

Wait... what? Polis was confused, too. Just who are these people who as babies don't receive any health care at all? This is priceless in its craziness:

I hate to tell you but they show up in garbage cans around this country, sir,

said King.

Yes, that's right, the interstate commerce argument doesn't apply because of all those babies in garbage cans who manage to live and die without ever accessing health care.

"Polis was more or less speechless," notes Slajda. Can you blame him? This is just the sort of unsubstantiated claim, just the sort of insanity with a straight face, Republicans pass off as rational argument on a regular basis -- not just with respect to health-care reform but with respect to pretty much everything.

I realize that Republicans oppose the very idea of factual evidence, but here's the video:

Craziest Republican of the Day: Allen West

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Think Progress:

Rep. Allen West (R-FL), a newly-elected member who has loudly scapegoated Muslims and campaigned on a promise to oppose religious diversity, appeared on Frank Gaffney's radio program last week. Gaffney, who routinely says that Obama is both a secret Muslim and a member of the "Muslim Brotherhood," asked West about how the new Republican Congress plans to "take on Sharia as the enemy threat doctrine?"

West said that, although he has not spoken with all of the new members, he hoped that Congress would focus on the "infiltration of the Sharia practice into all of our operating systems in our country as well as across Western civilization." He explained that targeting Sharia should be part of America's "national security strategy" and that a response to Sharia would somehow include "tailor[ing]" American "security systems, our political systems, economic systems, our cultural and educational systems, so that we can thwart this."

Thwart what? A completely fabricated threat?

(Seriously, what would George Orwell make of this? It's like we're in the world of 1984, with the totalitarian state essentially sustaining itself on conspiracy theories designed to distract the citizenry into targeting whatever Other the state claims is the enemy. Let's call it Republican Bolshevism.) 

Simply put, there is no Sharia threat to American society. Muslims are not trying to impose Sharia law on America, nor even in their own communities.

Indeed, if there's a danger of the imposition of intolerant and bloodthirsty theocratic rule in America today, it comes not from Muslims (the vast majority of whom accept and abide by the American legal system, not a fundamentalist Islamic system, and are as fully of separating their faith from secular law as any Christian or Jew) but from those on the right (including West) who seek to impose Christian fundamentalism (akin to Islamic fundamentalism) on the country, if not on the rest of the world.

There is the real danger to the Constitution and to the American way of life, not Muslims, a distinct minority that, made up mostly of new Americans, wants only to fit in and peacefully live the American Dream. 

So what is this, then? Does West really believe that the threat is real?

Yes, maybe so. While there is a good deal of political cynicism and manipulation on the right, I suspect that many conservatives really do believe their own propaganda.

But this is bigotry, plain and simple, with Muslims targeted as the Other (just as undocumented Mexicans so often are). It's the politics of division, of discrimination, of hate. And it's an extremely potent force in today's America, with the economy struggling, with the world changing, with America's future uncertain.

History, of course, is littered with the remains of such official, state-sanctioned bigotry, not to mention with the bodies of those who have died as a result of it, and the Republicans, taking over the House, are making it their own as they seek to feed, and capitalize electorally on, the culture of fear.

We are in the midst of an ugly chapter in American history, and the ugliness is only going to get worse.

DeMint is DeCrazy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

He's one of the wingnuttiest Republican senators, which is saying something -- yes, he's Jim DeMint of South Carolina!

And he wants to paralyze the Senate, and prevent it from doing anything until next year, by forcing readings of the START arms-control bill and an omnibus spending bill. As The Hill explains, such a move "could eat up hours of the remaining lame-duck Congress, 12 for the former and 40 to 60 for the latter.

DeMint has backed off on START, meaning that the treaty could actually be ratified:

A procedural vote on the treaty Wednesday garnered 66 votes, a strong indicator that the treaty could pick up the 67 votes it needs for ratification.

Thirty-two Republicans voted against opening debate on the treaty and two senators, including Democrat Evan Bayh, were not present – putting Democrats in striking distance of securing the necessary votes. Still, a number of Republicans have called for more time to debate the measure, and may ultimately vote to block its ratification if they feel like they’re being steamrolled.

Well, no, Politico, they'll block ratification because the Republican Party is the Party of No, the party of extreme partisanism and absolute obstructionism, because they don't want Obama and the Democrats to have a victory on anything, no matter the cost to the country. (Oh, and of course, because many of them are against arms control generally, so much do they want to return to the glory days of the '50s, when white men ruled the world and children cowered under their desks.) Harry Reid could introduce legislation prescribing that all rich people be given daily rub-and-tugs and the Republicans would still think twice before signing on (and would, even then, claim it was their idea all along, which it probably was).

But DeMint isn't just an obstructionist. He's also crazy, in a Christianist sort of way:

We shouldn't be jamming a major arms control treaty up against Christmas; it's sacrilegious and disrespectful. What's going on here is just wrong. This is the most sacred holiday for Christians. They did the same thing last year -- they kept everybody here until [Christmas Eve] to force something down everybody's throat. I think Americans are sick of this.

No, Americans are sick of extreme partisanism and absolute obstructionism. Isn't that what we keep hearing from all those independent voters?

Regardless, there's nothing "sacrilegious and disrespectful" about legislating around Christmas. The business of government doesn't stop just because there's a major holiday coming up, and of course no one's talking about working on Christmas Day itself.

Arizona's Jon Kyl made comments similar to DeMint's, saying that Reid was "disrespecting one of the two holiest of holidays for Christians" -- the other presumably being Black Friday (when Christians shop like mad to prove just how predestined they are) or, for Catholics, St. Patrick's Day (when Christians drink like mad to prove just how devout they are) -- but Reid, to his credit, fired back:

As a Christian, no one has to remind me of the importance of Christmas for all of the Christian faith, for all their families, all across America. I don't need to hear the sanctimonious lectures of Sen. Kyl and [Sen. Jim] DeMint to remind me of what Christmas means. Where were their concerns about Christmas [when they were posing] filibuster after filibuster of every piece of legislation during this entire Congress? 

Where were they? Being the good Republicans they are, obstructing everything for partisan gain.

But DeMint is a man of hypocrisy, not principle:

I have no problem working every day until Christmas and beyond to stop this rampage of spending and bad policy, what I object to is Democrats trying to rush through an agenda voters rejected and hoping that Americans are too busy with the holidays to notice.

See, it has nothing to do with Christmas, which is just an excuse. It's okay, apparently, to be a Republican around Christmas, just not a Democrat. (Really? Voters rejected the START treaty last month? Huh.)

If the situation were reversed, do you really think DeMint would call Republican efforts "sacrilegious and disrespectful? Of course not. He'd be trying to ram all manner of Republican shit down Americans' throats. He's just that sort of guy.