Considering it's permatan Boner, I'd say it's all of the above.

You forgot: d)he's on medicinal marijuana ( I guess that's really a subset of the confusion choice).

Just look at Boehner's sleepy dog eyes, it's obvious. It would explain a lot of his behavior, really.

I still don't know what Eric Cantor's excuse is. Could be recreational use of Ritalin, but I'm no expert.

And I bet Wolf hit Boehner with a hard follow-up to that ignorant/dishonest statement. Right?

Beat me to it, GiggsisGod.

Lie obfuscate and deceive.

Sounds about par for the course.

Boehner, Limbaugh, M"waaa"lkin, OWeally, are all the floaties on the arms of the GOP, only the swimmer is face down.

It's not just possible that he's lying - he *is* lying, and he knows it. This is the Republican schtick these days:

- I don't remember/can't recall

- It never happened (so don't believe your lying eyes)

- And an old favorite: We will not comment on an ongoing investigation.

Bush/Cheney put us through nearly a decade of this BS. I would like to coin a phrase: Bush Deniers. They're kind of like Holocaust deniers, but they get away with saying it on national television.

I wonder what the country will be like when there are no Republicans in office? From the looks of things, the BDs are pushing for that to happen by 2012.

"Seriously, has Boehner even been awake since getting elected to Congress 18 years ago?"

Oh, he's been awake, but when you're told how you're going to vote on each measure and bill you don't really have to think about it. That's why these guys have no clue how they've voted on anything.

Boehner is giving credence every day to that age old cliche summing up the worth of elected officials - a politician is merely a paid professional liar!

Only Boehner has a hard time when he wants to be taken seriously, and all he can muster is that Alfred E. Newman look! -Kevo

This really ticks me off. I expect this kind of outright dishonesty from the Limbaugh/Hannity crowd, but this is the Minority Leader of the US House of Representatives going on CNN and spewing this crap to the face of a "respected journalist" and is allowed to get away with it. I don't know if I am more disgusted at Boehner and his ilk or Blitzer and his.

You forgot:
d) drunk, e) stoned

Jesus I'm ashamed to live in the same country,state,world and universe with that maroon. What does he think that nobody will check up on all the nonsense and outright lies that come dribbling out of his mouth.

This doesn't seem at all fair to Boehner. In the quote to which Boehner was responding, Obama said:

I think it's very important to remind ourselves that there are a whole bunch of folks now who are feigning outrage about these bonuses that a year ago or two years ago or three years ago said, well, we should never meddle in these compensation plans, these are the best and the brightest, they know what they're doing, that's part of the market. And now suddenly they're outraged.

The reference to "two or three years" makes it pretty clear that Boehner is talking about the Bush administration, not the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

"And supporting the deregulation of derivatives?"

"Deregulation" implies that regulation once existed-- has the SEC ever claimed authority to regulate derivatives? Not to my knowledge.

So, if I kill someone can I claim that the body that the police can clearly see on the living room floor is not there, and walk away scot free?

"Wolf, you have to understand, there was no deregulation of anything in the financial services industries. As a matter of fact, there was an increase in regulation."

As host of a national cable news program, Blitzer immediately corrected Boehner, right? Right?!

D'oh, GiggsisGod beat me to it.

Boehner: "Wolf, you have to understand, there was no deregulation of anything in the financial services industries. As a matter of fact, there was an increase in regulation."

What everyone needs to understand is the frankly desperate Republican need to rewrite history: everything that sucks came from the offices of Clinton/Obama/Pelosi/Reid.

Steve: He's either a) lying; b) hopelessly ignorant; or c) confused about the meaning of the word "deregulation."

I suppose we shouldn't rule out some combination of these possibilities.

Don't forget d) for delusional...but my money's -hahaha- on choice a).

It's probably safe to assume Blietzkrieg let the Boner's statement go unchallenged because he's ignorant too, or been set up as a vehicle to propagate the shameless Rethug propaganda.

Just think what this country would be like if we had an actual God's honest media instead of the corporate shills calling themselves reporters.

Remember these are the guys who create their own reality

When the government tells banks they have to lend to certain people or they will be prosecuted, that is not deregulation, you schmuck.

No reason to enrich Wolf with the letter e, the correct spelling is Blitzkrieg.

And Wolf is anything other than a Blitzkrieger, to tame and lame.

What Boehner meant is that companies still had to *pretend* to be offering you something of value in return for your money. If we were truly deregulated, they could just take it from you at gun point.

The reference to "two or three years" makes it pretty clear that Boehner is talking about the Bush administration, not the repeal of Glass-Steagall. - JRD

If I read your comment correctly, the reference to "two or three years" was from Obama. But he wasn't talking about deregulation. He certainly didn't suggest that there had been new deregulations in the last two-three years. So when Boehner was responding to this quote, I don't understand why you would take his statement to be limited to the recent past.

And Boehner also did not limit his comments to derivatives. He said, "anything in the financial services industries." And CDS became exempt from regulation in 2000.

Is there a link to specifics regarding "deregulation of derivatives" ?

I know Paulson pushed for increasing the amount of leverage allowable in 2004 ... but what deregulation of derivatives specifically?

honestly ignorant.

thx for your help

There was no deregulation, people. We enacted a series or excessive regulation reductions, sure, but, sob, you people are just so mean, sob. Someone, give me something, cry, to slam down emphatically.

(Oh no, the tears are making my tan run!)

Danp--

Blitzer interpreted the comment by Obama to be a reference to deregulation, to which Boehner responded that "there was no deregulation." (Indeed, Steve's post notes that Blitzer was "paraphrasing President Obama" in the question he posed to Boehner. Whether it was a fair paraphrase is perhaps open to question, but it's hardly Boehner's fault that the question was posed to him as it was). So it seems perfectly reasonable to assume that Boehner's response was limited to the time frame set forth in Obama's quote. It certainly doesn't seem reasonable to interpret Boehner as contending that there has never been a single financial deregulation ever, and to accuse him of dishonesty because one was passed 10 years ago by the Clinton administration.

"And Boehner also did not limit his comments to derivatives."

No, but Steve cited two examples-- the repeal of Glass Steagall and the "deregulation" of derivatives-- as supposedly showing that Boehner's statement was dishonest. Neither example holds up very well-- at least as far as I know, the SEC has never claimed authority to regulate derivatives. No doubt congressional Republicans had some role in maintaining that policy, but preservation of the status quo isn't really the same thing as deregulation.

I've heard this comment a couple of times now from Republicans, and I think what they mean is "we passed law relevant to this," even though the effect of the law they passed was to deregulate - they still consider the action itself to qualify as regulation.

He's either a) lying; b) hopelessly ignorant; or c) confused about the meaning of the word "deregulation."

Might I be so bold as to suggest all three as correct---or would that make me a godless islamofascist-hugging treasonous Commie liberal?

Boehner: "Wolf, you have to understand, there was no deregulation of anything in the financial services industries. As a matter of fact, there was an increase in regulation."

And, Wolf, do you also realize that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Saddam Hussein was a close personal friend as well as an ally of Osama bin Laden, and -- as I'm sure you know -- the United States never tortured anyone.

I am of the opinion that rightwingers are so sure that there ideas and policies are perfect that are mentally unable to let any contradictory reality in through their mental filters. Any facts that don't fit with their values and beliefs just don't register. I think Boehner believes every word he is saying. His thinking process reject anything that doesn't fit. Assuming any responsibility for the economic and financial collapse having had nothing to do with rightwing policy implementations is zero. Rush said it, they believe, and that's it. Read Conservatives without Conscience by John W. Dean for an exhaustive analysis of rightwing thinking here:

http://www.amazon.com/Conservatives-Without-Conscience-John-Dean/dp/0670037745

From Wednesday:
Asked if Boehner's comments were justifiable, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) responded, "No. Does Boehner need any justification? It says it right there on his partisan hack license that he can say anything that he wants."

Why does Boehner cry?

...or c) confused about the meaning of the word "deregulation."

A definite possibility. He may believe (or may want us to believe, or may want us to believe that he believes) that deregulation means the abolition of all regulation; since there were still some regulations, there was no deregulation.

I think someone zaps Republicans with the Neuralizer from Men in Black every morning in the Republican Caucus Room. How else do you explain their profound ignorance of history (and fiscal policy and science and . . .)?

"Does he not remember voting for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act? And supporting the deregulation of derivatives?"

Umm, I hate to burst your self-righteous bubble, but there wasn't, actually, a "deregulation of derivatives." I presume you're talking about the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000, since that prevented the CFTC from regulating certain over-the-counter (OTC) swaps. But those OTC swaps were already unregulated. In fact, they were never actually "regulated" -- the CFTC had always explicitly exempted OTC swaps from regulation. You can't have a "deregulation" of OTC swaps if they weren't ever regulated in the first place.

What Boehner would probably argue is that Sarbanes-Oxley somehow canceled out Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the CFMA, etc. You remember Sarbanes-Oxley, the law that got enacted the last time the economy was laid low by the bursting of a speculative bubble & we discovered that corporate execs & titans of finance had been systematically rigging the books & stuffing their own pockets on the way up? Obviously SOX put them in their place - heck if not for the heavy hand of all that regulation the real estate bubble could have been averted ... (for the irony-impaired: kidding)

The big thing this points to is how impoverished our thinking about "regulation" has been for the past few decades. We talk about more or less regulation the same way we talk about bigger or smaller government: in such abstract terms that it's meaningless. When we see a buisness practice or a financial innovation that lends itself to abuse, we should do something to either prevent or limit its application or to mitigate the risks - and if regulation of the business is the simplest, most effective way to do that, we regulate, end of story. The 'pass' that the whole government regulatory scheme took on MBS & CDS is inexplicable now, was inexplicable then, and is not defensible on grounds of 'economic freedom' or anything else.

but there wasn't, actually, a "deregulation of derivatives.

Cox eliminated the uptick rule in July 2007. The fact that short selling was limited after the Sept '08 meltdown suggests it was a contributor to the stock price collapse.

On September 29, 1995, federal law allowed full nationwide banking across the country, regardless of state law.

From: http://www.ct.gov/dob/cwp/view.asp?a=2235&q=297892

"The need for the Douglas Amendment grew from the concern that bank holding companies were evading the McFadden Act and state branching laws by acquiring numerous subsidiary banks in various states, and then operating these banks as if they were branches. The development of these interstate bank networks was a significant factor leading to Congress' passage of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956. Senator Douglas emphasized that a primary purpose of his amendment was "to prevent an undue concentration of banking and financial power, and instead keep the private control of credit diffused as much as possible."

The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 repealed the Douglas Amendment. On September 29, 1995, federal law allowed full nationwide banking across the country, regardless of state law. Another provision of the Riegle-Neal Act allows affiliate banks within bank holding companies to effectively act as branches for each other, accepting deposits, collecting payments, and providing other customer services.

Interstate banking has resulted in increased consolidation and concentration in the banking industry. While the United States had 14,399 banks in 1940, the country has fewer than 9,000 banks today. However, while consolidation among banks has certainly been the trend, the number of branches in the U.S. has steadily increased. In other words, consumers have more banking outlets than ever in our country's history.

Jon Stewart is so full of sh*t. Who said that the folks at NBC news can't do relevent hard hitting reporting about their advertisers. (Or at least old advertisers, no use pissing away current advertising revenue).

This morning David Gregory reported on a Dateline report Chris Hansen is doing on liar loans and how mortgage companies knowingly gamed the system to just make money on fees and then sold off the bad loans as investments. I am stunned to tell you all that what Chris found was shocking -- that these brokers did not, in fact, care that the loans would never be, could never be paid back. We were misled. They collected the fees and bundled the mortgages to be sold as investments. And they would never be held responsible for them.

Oh WOW, they just TOOK IT to Countrywide and the CEO Mizilo who made millions screwing the system. They even surprised him at his home, (well they tried to get to him at his home but he lives in a gated community so Hansen GAVE IT to the security guard in the shack)...well, the guard didn't let him in but he will be stinging from that verbal display of outrage by Hansen for a while.

Thank You NBC, it is nice to see someone finally reporting on this so that it will get attention and maybe this scam can be fixed before...oh wait. What???

Never Mind...

I live in his district and have to see his 30 year old photo above each one of the rediculous articles he submits to the local papers. Unfortunately the editors at these papers, owned by a former republican house member, refuse to refute his propaganda so the masses eat it up as fact and not the fiction that it really is.

You all have to understand that Wolf Blitzer is a pushover. He has no integrity left. If you think otherwise, you will forever be riled by him. As long as you watch him, CNN will continue to keep him on. Write to CNN and threaten them with your never watching them as long as Blitzer softballs his interviewees. That is all they understand. Otherwise, your protests are worthless and he will continue to let lies go unchallenged, and you will be riled. And naive.