ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [334] -- Sarah Palin, Under The Republican Bus

[ Posted Friday, January 30th, 2015 – 17:54 PST ]

That headline certainly does promise a large amount of schadenfreude over the misfortunes of a certain former vice presidential nominee (and half-term governor of Alaska), doesn't it? Well, that'll all have to wait for the end of this column, where we will be supplanting our normal talking points section with a few choice conservative reviews of Sarah Palin's recent speech in Iowa. But before we dive into this snarktastic dessert of vicious quips, we've first got to get through the meat and potatoes of the politics of the week.

The big news this morning was, of course, Mitt Romney flip-flopping on his presidential ambitions. "Just kidding!" Romney essentially told the world (forcing the Daily Beast to hastily run a retraction of their "Mitt's Running!" story, amusingly enough). Anyone who had been looking forward to Mitt 3.0, out there telling us all how conservatives would solve poverty and the income gap by giving rich people raises is undoubtedly disappointed at the news. I mean, we all could have had so much fun during the campaign doing things like comparing our own houses to Mitt's palatial spread in California, but now that rug has been yanked out from under us all. Oh, the disappointment!

Under the big circus tent that is now the United States Congress, Republicans followed up on their failure to pass a severe abortion bill by unexpectedly yanking their severe border security bill in the House. The bill, which even the infamous Draco would have been impressed with (one assumes), was deemed insufficiently severe by the uber-extremists on the immigration issue within the Republican House. Look for a moat full of alligators to be added to the next bill, in an effort to secure enough votes for passage, we suppose. Conservatives were even openly bragging about killing the bill, which only goes to confirm that they do not care about actual legislation, and consider their jobs to be nothing more than the sheerest of political posturing. Looks like a long two years, folks.

This lurch towards the Tea Party was also noticeable in the umpteenth Benghazi committee, which is now in danger of falling apart through sheer partisanship. John Boehner also came out and promised once again (as he did almost exactly a year ago) that the House would soon be voting -- any day now! -- on a Republican bill to replace the dreaded Obamacare. But if Republicans can't even get behind a severe border security or anti-abortion bill, does anyone truly expect they'll be able to do so on healthcare reform? Especially since they've been promising to do so for approximately six years now?

Let's see... in other silliness, Michelle Obama appeared with her head uncovered in Saudi Arabia, which almost became fodder for another fake "scandal" whipped up by Republicans, except that it was quickly discovered that Laura Bush had previously done the same thing. Thankfully, this non-scandal ended before it really even got going.

In other news, while the media were breathlessly reporting the same big story they break every single winter (to wit: "It Snows In Wintertime! Who Knew?!?"), at risk of their own lives, a man was convicted under the 1917 Espionage Act for leaking government secrets to the media. He faces 80 years in federal prison, but the snow was so much more interesting to report on, so you may not have seen this story on your teevee.

There were bales (to coin a phrase) of marijuana news this week, it seemed, so we'll just run through these items quickly. Three ex-Super Bowl champs wrote a heartfelt open letter to the NFL, urging the league to rethink its outdated marijuana policies. Marijuana was the fastest-growing industry in America last year (I commented on this news earlier in the week). Colorado is getting so much tax money from weed that they may be legally forced to refund some of it (prompting one enthusiast to reply: "I don't care if they write me a check, or refund it in my taxes, or just give me a free joint next time I come in. The taxes are too high, and they should give it back"). The Denver airport, however, has banned marijuana-themed souvenirs for tourists from their stores, for reasons that surpass understanding. Jamaica is about to decriminalize marijuana and could move quickly to full legalization, now that the United States isn't throwing its weight around internationally on the subject any more. Perhaps it's time for Obama to pardon Tommy Chong? It would seem appropriate, at this point. And Paul Ollinger of the Huffington Post wrote the funniest article I've seen in a while, with a title that really needs no further explanation: "Apple's $178 Billion in Cash Would Buy SO MUCH WEED." Even the metric he uses in his calculations is hilarious, so check it out.

And finally, I had to ask the question, earlier this week, upon hearing the news that we're ordering new planes for the "Air Force One" fleet: "Will The Obama Library Have A Plane In It?" I mean, Saint Ronnie of Reagan got one just for signing off on some new planes, so Obama's entitled too, right?

OK, enough of such frippery, let's get on with the awards before delightfully ending with the woes of Sarah Palin, shall we?

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

We had several contenders for this week's Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award, which is always a good thing.

House member Adam Schiff introduced an "authorization for the use of military force" bill for the fight against the Islamic State, which is noteworthy because Congress has done precisely nothing on this issue for the past year. Going to war is a serious matter that Congress is supposed to be involved with, but they've completely punted on their constitutional responsibility to do so until now. Whether you think Schiff's bill is the right way to go or not, let's have that debate. We, the people, are supposed to be entitled to a debate on whether we go to war or not. Schiff gets an Honorable Mention for leading the effort to remind Congress of the job it is supposed to be doing.

Tim Ryan, a House Democrat from Ohio, just announced he has switched his opposition to abortion rights. The reason? He talked to some Ohio women. Here's what he found:

These women gave me a better understanding of how complex and difficult certain situations can become. And while there are people of good conscience on both sides of this argument, one thing has become abundantly clear to me: the heavy hand of government must not make this decision for women and families.

Ryan gets an Honorable Mention as well this week, with emphasis on the first word of that phrase.

And our last Honorable Mention this week goes to Senator Dick Durbin who took to the floor of the Senate every day this week to relate the personal stories of the immigrants who came to this country as children, in advance of next month's big immigration fracas. This was a powerful way to take a stand, and we salute Durbin for doing so.

But the winner of our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week goes to Loretta Lynch, the nominee to replace Attorney General Eric Holder. Lynch faced her Senate hearing this week, and by all accounts was incredibly impressive. Even though the Senate is now held by Republicans, pretty much everyone is predicting a smooth path for Lynch to be confirmed in the cabinet-level position. She will become the nation's first African-American woman to hold the highest office at the Justice Department, but that's really not why she earned her MIDOTW award.

Republicans had envisioned the hearings to replace Holder as a way to rake him over the coals one last time, and also as an opportunity to make their own case for President Obama's "lawlessness." It was to be a free-for-all, where every grudge against Holder would be dusted off and laid at the feet of the new nominee. To put it bluntly, the Republicans on the committee utterly failed to achieve these goals. The most quoted soundbite of the hearings was when Lynch was asked whether she was, in fact, Eric Holder or not. When that's the best television that came out of the hearing, the Republicans obviously didn't even clear the low bar they had set for themselves.

In the second day of testimony, other people testified (supposedly about Lynch's fitness for the job), who were invited by members of both parties. Democrats called some law professors and former colleagues of Lynch. Republicans called as their witnesses "a couple of conservative law professors to denounce President Obama's usurpation of democracy -- and some far-right-wing activists to complain about being victimized," as Salon put it. Rather than mount a single cogent argument as to why Lynch might not be qualified, Republicans "called a group of partisan crackpots and grass-roots loons to relitigate moldy pseudo-scandals and complain about nonexistent government persecution."

For emerging completely unscathed from a Senate confirmation process, and in anticipation of her easy victory in the upcoming vote, Loretta Lynch has won her first Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. We sincerely hope the job she does in the future will earn her many more, before she is done.

[We couldn't find a public email contact page for Loretta Lynch, sorry. You'll just have to wait until she's confirmed as Attorney General to congratulate her.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

We have an update on the winner of last week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week, before we get to this week's award. New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver won't have his title much longer. He will be either stepping down as speaker or being forcibly chucked out by his own caucus next week. Earlier, he tried to convince his fellow Democrats to install a sort of junta as a temporary speakership (until he could clear his name in the courts and triumphantly return to his high office), but that idea was quickly shot down. Kudos to all the other New York Democrats for standing up to Silver in such a fashion. He's obviously going to be too busy preparing for his upcoming federal court case to be effective as speaker.

In somewhat of a shocker, though, this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week is none other than President Barack Obama, who was our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week last week.

Now, we'll admit up front at a bit of personal bias in this decision. Because we remember the days of Rahm Emanuel in the Obama administration, and the insults from that time period have still not fully healed (probably because Emanuel never came close to apologizing for any of them).

Still, Emanuel aside, we have to say that this week exposed a stunning (if admittedly minor) bit of hypocrisy from President Obama. Yesterday, President Obama did two things. The first was he posted his own op-ed piece on the Huffington Post website. In it, he called for essentially the same things he outlined in his State Of The Union speech: a focus on middle-class economics. It's a well-written piece, and it exclusively appeared on the Huffington Post (in something of a journalistic scoop for the site, in fact).

However, on the very same day, according to The Hill, Obama also addressed House Democrats in a private confab they held to discuss upcoming strategy. While speaking about a contentious issue within his own party (trade deals), Obama cautioned Democrats to: "Keep your powder a little dry. Get informed -- not by reading the Huffington Post."

Say what, Mister President? Are you telling your fellow Democrats not to read your own op-ed, or what, exactly?

As I fully admitted, this is a rather personal slur, seeing as how I've been blogging at this site since before I knew how to even spell Barack Obama's name. But seriously, this takes us back to the routine insults from the likes of Rahm, and not in a good way.

So for this very cheap shot, and for the stunning hypocrisy of publishing a Huffington Post blog post, then -- on the very same day -- badmouthing the site within a closed-door meeting of Democrats, President Barack Obama is this week's Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week. Please, let's not return to the dark days of Rahm, President Obama. Pretty please?

[Contact President Barack Obama via the White House contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 334 (1/30/15)

OK, as promised we're offering up a very special talking points section this week. Because last week was all about President Obama's State Of The Union address and next week is likely to be quite heavy on promoting the best parts of Obama's upcoming budget proposal, we thought that, instead of our usual efforts to provide Democrats everywhere with effective talking points, we'd just get down and dirty and wallow around in the muck this week.

The muck in question isn't even Democratic muck. It's purely conservative and Republican mudslinging, at a person who used to be put on a pretty tall pedestal in Republicanland: Sarah Palin. In fact, if this section had its own subtitle, this week's might be: "How can we miss you, Sarah, if you won't go away?" [Note: I believe I subconsciously stole this phrase from a country song, but I am indeed too lazy to actually look it up.]

In case you missed the news Palin made this week, an extreme right-winger in Iowa hosted a confab of conservatives (so all the possible presidential contenders could appropriately kiss his ring). Palin showed up, and broadly hinted to the (as she calls it) "lamestream" media that she was actually "seriously interested" in the possibility of launching her own presidential campaign.

Then she spoke to the crowd for 35 minutes.

In a bit of jaw-dropping irony (according to at least one report), Palin's TelePrompTer failed during the speech. Remember how conservatives used to love mocking President Obama's use of this device? Boy, those were the days! Now, even Palin uses this tool of Satan, apparently (instead of reading notes written on her hand, as she used to do). When it failed, she was left to speak off the top of her head. Which never really ends well for Palin.

What followed in the wake of her stream-of-consciousness speech was a huge wave of blistering and scathing criticism -- from conservatives. Within days, Sarah was even picking fights with Bill O'Reilly (of all people), but the damage had already been done to her reputation (among those who still held her in any sort of esteem, I should qualify).

Democrats, for the most part, smartly stayed out of the fracas. The Democratic National Committee did issue a two-word response to Sarah's speech: "Thank you." Minimalist snark at its finest! Ready For Hillary, the shadow campaign organization supporting Clinton, helpfully pointed out that Palin's speech resulted in so much fundraising that Palin (if she ever requested the honor) would qualify to "co-chair the group's national finance council."

One former defender (and promoter) of Palin, William Kristol, reacted (when he was reminded that less than a year ago he had said Palin "might be kind of formidable in a Republican primary") by asking in amazement: "Did I say it that recently?"

Matt Lewis of the Daily Beast offered up a sort of mea culpa for his former support: "In hindsight I regret contributing to the premature deification of Sarah Palin... maybe her early critics saw some fundamental character flaw -- some harbinger of things to come -- that escaped me."

By week's end, the only person still standing up for the beleaguered Palin in any noticeable way was Senator John McCain, who responded to the prospect of a Palin campaign with: "She's very interesting. And I'm sure she'd do great." But then, really, what else could he say? "I sure picked a dimbulb as my running mate, didn't I?"

Because the rush to throw Sarah Palin under the Republican bus was so pronounced this week, we're going to provide just a sampling of what her fellow Republicans were saying in response to her Iowa speech. So as to not be accused of overkill, we've taken all of the following quotes from one single devastating column written for the conservative Washington Examiner by Byron York. Because sometimes, when your opponents are fighting amongst themselves, it's best to just stand back and offer to hold their coats until they're done.

York begins with his own take on Palin's speech, pulling no punches.

[M]ore than a few GOP loyalists came away shaking their heads at the performance of a party star, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, whose long, rambling, and at times barely coherent speech left some wondering what role she should play in Republican politics as the 2016 race begins in earnest.

York went on to describe the content of the speech itself. Details about her "petty complaining" have been omitted, both for brevity and because they all seem so tawdry.

First, Palin embarked on an extended stream-of-consciousness complaint about media coverage....

It was all quite petty, and yet the complaining took half of Palin's allotted time. She then proceeded to blow through her time limit with a free-association ramble on Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, the energy industry, her daughter Bristol, Margaret Thatcher, middle-class economics -- "the man can only ride ya when your back is bent" -- women in politics, and much more. It would be hard to say that Palin's 35-minute talk had a theme, but she did hint that she is interested in running, although there are no indications she has taken any actual steps in that direction

York goes on to report some random crowd reactions, all from unnamed "social conservative activists."

"Long and disjointed."

"A weird speech. Terrible. Didn't make any sense."

"There was a certain coarseness to her that wasn't there before."

From Sam Clovis, "conservative Iowa college professor, radio commentator, and sometime political candidate":

"I know she is popular, but it is hard to take her seriously given that performance. Palin was a sad story Saturday. With every speech she gives, she gets worse and worse. If one were playing a political cliche drinking game, no one would have been sober after the first 15 minutes of an interminable ramble. It was really painful."

From a "well-connected Iowa Republican":

"Calling Gov. Palin's remarks bizarre and disjointed would be charitable. Her shelf-life, even with the most conservative voters in our party, seems to be near the end. In a day filled with strong performances from likely candidates ranging from Scott Walker to Ted Cruz, her remarks were a distraction."

From Craig Robinson, Iowa Republican blogger:

"It was a long and incoherent speech. At best, there were a few good one-liners."

York ended his column admitting that these weren't even the worst reactions he heard from the crowd after the speech, before offering up one final (and particularly cruel) twist of the knife.

I'm not comfortable sharing everything I heard about the speech -- it was that bad....

Palin made a guy like Trump look like a serious presidential candidate today. Incredible.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

56 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [334] -- Sarah Palin, Under The Republican Bus”

  1. [1] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    "Keep your powder a little dry. Get informed -- not by reading the Huffington Post."

    I am reminded by a term that seems to ring truer and truer with each passing day ... the hyper-sensitization of America ...

    Do you think, Chris, that Obama just may have been cracking a joke? I mean, seriously, you think he doesn't want them reading his op-ed? Sheesh.

    Incidentally, "is it safe?" ...

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... oops, I meant to say the hyper-sensitization of American bloggers Heh.

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    ... or, is it just HuffPo bloggers ... no, I don't think so ... I think I was right the first time, actually ...

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Obama has a little of what all leaders have, to one degree or another, whether their leadership is merely adequate or truly great - a capacity for self-deprecating humour. I'm pretty sure that HuffPo blogger, Barack Obama, got what he has in this regard from his number two.

    I'm also pretty sure that it was this very same capacity for self-deprecating humour that was at the source of his little admonition against the very highly esteemed, ahem, Huffington Post ...:)

  5. [5] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I think it's OK to read the HuffBook sometimes. You can find out some really disappointing stuff about MIDOTW like this:

    During her hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) asked, "Do you support the legalization of marijuana?"

    "Senator, I do not," Lynch replied.

    And this:

    "I don’t think it is more dangerous than alcohol," Obama said of the drug.

    When Sessions asked Lynch if she agreed with Obama's remarks about his marijuana use, she appeared to take a harder line than the president.

    "I certainly don't hold that view and don't agree with that view of marijuana as a substance," Lynch said.

    I'm not impressed.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/28/loretta-lynch-marijuana_n_6565962.html

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    Sorry, CW...

    But I gotta go with Liz on this one..

    As much as I am for giving Obama an MDDOTW award at the drop of a dime and as much as I love seeing HuffPoop slapped down, I think that this was just a case of Obama making a bad joke that fell flat..

    Just my 2 cents... :D

    Michale

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    Within days, Sarah was even picking fights with Bill O'Reilly (of all people),

    The only thing stranger than Palin picking fights with Bill O'Reilly is Democrats, Obama and Bill O'Reilly all on the same side.. :D

    As they are over the Iran Sanctions issue..

    I still don't understand the Left's obsession with Sarah Palin...

    For someone who is, allegedly, totally irrelevant, the Left sure keep tabs on Palin...

    Aaa HAH!!!!!

    I got it!!!!!

    PDS

    Palin Derangement Syndrome!!!

    That's it!!!!!!!

    :D

    Michale

  8. [8] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Now, we'll admit up front at a bit of personal bias in this decision. Because we remember the days of Rahm Emanuel in the Obama administration, and the insults from that time period have still not fully healed (probably because Emanuel never came close to apologizing for any of them).

    Well, I suppose one could call this personal bias but, it really does sound like something else, altogether.

    Incidentally, Rahm Emanuel has nothing to apologize for, least of all to you, Chris, as he was not referring to you, and those of us like you, with those remarks.

    If he was referring to you and you really do feel that he was referring to you, then I have had you pegged all wrong, from the get-go! Since I am sure that is not the case, you really need to let this faux insult/injury thing go! Seriously!

  9. [9] 
    dsws wrote:

    Obama cautioned Democrats to: "Keep your powder a little dry. Get informed -- not by reading the Huffington Post."

    Good week for Democrats, if nothing more disappointing than that came along from within the party.

    Sure, he was making a joke about his own op-ed. But there's more to it than that. I stand with the president on this one: get informed by reading sources that aren't from your own side of the aisle. I've read plenty of items on HuffPo, and will read plenty more in the future, but I don't consider it a way to get a complete picture of an issue.

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i'm pretty sure you were referring only to his remarks about the "professional left," but at least in a more general sense, rahm emanuel has a LOT to apologize for. not that he ever will.

    for starters:

    http://tinyurl.com/nv7cnpt

    JL

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    i'm pretty sure you were referring only to his remarks about the "professional left," but at least in a more general sense, rahm emanuel has a LOT to apologize for. not that he ever will.

    for starters:

    http://tinyurl.com/nv7cnpt

    The political message is ALWAYS more important than the facts..

    And, ultimately, it's the innocents who pay the price...

    "tis sad tis true... Tis true tis sad"

    Michale

  12. [12] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "The political message is ALWAYS more important than the facts..

    And, ultimately, it's the innocents who pay the price..."

    Wingers choose to believe that because it gives them an excuse to ignore reality. It simply isn't true.

    The conservative political message is still that voodoo economics and trickle-down from putting more wealth in the hands of the wealthy will "lift all boats." It doesn't. It hasn't. And it won't.

    The fact is that all it dies is make the rich richer at everyone else's expense. Tax breaks for the wealthy come out of our pocket. We're the ones who have to make up the difference. Either in reduced services, increased taxes, or both.

    No amount of political messaging is going to change reality. All successful false political messaging, and a preference to believe it, does is excaberate problems and prevent actual solutions.

    Facts are always more important that political messaging. Propagandists can make political messaging more influential than facts. Which is not at all the same thing.

    The winger insistence that political messaging is more important than facts is just an attempt to validate their preference for self-delusion.

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    The conservative political message is still that voodoo economics and trickle-down from putting more wealth in the hands of the wealthy will "lift all boats."

    Ahem.... John F Kennedy said that...

    But why confuse your hysterical diatribe with... yunno... FACTS.. :D

    Michale

  14. [14] 
    LewDan wrote:

    That wingers still believe in, and are currently promoting both voodoo economics, and trickle down is fact.--But why confuse your willful denial of reality with with... yunno... FACTS...?

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    That wingers still believe in, and are currently promoting both voodoo economics, and trickle down is fact.--But why confuse your willful denial of reality with with... yunno... FACTS...?

    And Right Wingers stole it from JFK, the quintessential Democrat...

    So, that makes John F Kennedy a "winger" in your book..

    Which is quite an admission, right up there with Obama being a terrorist.. :D

    Michale

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    But let's give everyone a break from the standard feud...

    Whaddya say??? :D

    Michale

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Hear, hear, Michale!

    Besides, don't you guys know there's a football game going on here today!? Geesh.

    Go Seahawks!!!

  18. [18] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "But let's give everyone a break from the standard feud...

    Whaddya say??? :D

    Michale"

    No.

    You keep lying I'll keep calling you on it. Kennedy said "A rising tide will lift all boats." He said nothing about "trickle-down." Kennedy spoke of a strong economy benefitting everyone, not strong rich people magically benefitting everyone. That nonsense is pure winger. Thanks to Reagan.

    Your claim that wingers stole trickle-down from Kennedy is a lie. Your claim that that means that Kennedy was a winger is yet another of your typical lies. My use of Kennedy's phrase "lift all boats" in no way makes Kennedy a winger.

    If you want to "give everyone a break from the standard feud..." try not lying about what I say for awhile.

  19. [19] 
    dsws wrote:

    A rising tide doesn't lift boats that are already sitting on mountaintops.

  20. [20] 
    Michale wrote:

    Besides, don't you guys know there's a football game going on here today!? Geesh.

    Go Seahawks!!!

    Yea, I crashed at halftime.. Looks like I missed an exciting, yet ultimately disappointing game. :(

    Michale

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    A rising tide doesn't lift boats that are already sitting on mountaintops.

    A boat on a mountain top is a Dunsel...

    Michale

  22. [22] 
    Michale wrote:

    The simple fact of the matter is Democrats have had 6 years in which to help the middle class...

    Yet, the rich are getting richer and the middle class is getting scrooed...

    And now Democrats are just pushing more of the same..

    So why should the American people believe that this time around, Obama is actually going to do what he says he will??

    Hell, last SOTU speech, he accomplished less than 5% of his SOTU proclomations!! And that was when he HAD a Democrat Senate...

    Obama has NO problem going around Congress to further his partisan agenda..

    Ergo, helping the middle class is NOT Obama's agenda...

    Michale

  23. [23] 
    Bleyd wrote:

    Regarding the Palin speech, I think I heard it reviewed thusly:
    "Mrs. Palin, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."

    I could be mixing that up with something else though.

  24. [24] 
    Michale wrote:

    TS,

    House Benghazi committee to review secret Hillary tapes on Libya
    http://tinyurl.com/p5jcsef

    Want to re-visit your claim as to the viability of a Hillary Clinton Presidential run?? :D

    The longer she waits to state she is NOT running, the more it guarantees a GOP in the White House..

    Michale

  25. [25] 
    Michale wrote:

    Hay CW,

    Can ya check the NNL filters??

    Michale

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Harry Reid Returns To Senate
    http://tinyurl.com/onp2ttz

    Ya just gotta love the symbolism! :D

    Michale

  27. [27] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Michale,

    I need your help!

    "Who are you?"

    I know the song but, it's also a line in a movie. Do you know it?

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    Are referring to the WHO ARE YOU from the CSI theme??

    Michale

  29. [29] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    No, Michale, I'm familiar with the CSI theme.

    Apparently, "Who are you?" is a memorable line from a movie ... ??

    But, nothing in particular comes to mind. Any guesses?

  30. [30] 
    Michale wrote:

    Ashamed to say I had to google..

    THE PRINCESS BRIDE

    V FOR VENDETTA

    ANGER MANAGEMENT

    Are the top responses..

    Michale

  31. [31] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Thanks, Michale!

    Ashamed to say that not even the Google helped me ... :)

    I think someone is pulling my leg, as they say, on this one. Not a memorable line, from a less than memorable movie, to be sure ...

  32. [32] 
    Michale wrote:

    Bleyd,

    Nice one!! :D

    Michale

  33. [33] 
    Michale wrote:

    Well, iddn't this interesting..

    Senate Democrats filibustered the DHS Authorization legislation, legislation that THEY called "vital to this country's National Security" because it had provisions they didn't like..

    I am ssuuuuurrreeee that the cries of "OBSTRUCTIONISTS!!!" will come quickly and loudly from Weigantians....

    {{cchhhiiiiirrrrpppppppp}} {chiiiirrrrrrpppppp}

    And so the 180s begin.... :D

    Who would have thunked it...

    Oh.. wait.. :D

    Michale

  34. [34] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "Obstruction" isn't voting against legislation you object to. Obstruction is voting in opposition for reasons that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Such as "protesting" Presidential action, or as "leverage" to influence Presidential action.

    Republicans voting against anything supported by Obama is "obstructionism." Democrats voting against legislation because it contains provisions to which they object is called "the democratic process."

    As always, Michale's version of reality is lacking in a little something... Truth and factuality.

  35. [35] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know you like to rewrite history as you go, Dan..

    But the simple fact is, Democrats obstruct the Republican agenda for the EXACT same reason that Republicans obstruct the Democrat agenda..

    No more, no less..

    Michale

  36. [36] 
    Michale wrote:

    But the simple fact is, Democrats obstruct the Republican agenda for the EXACT same reason that Republicans obstruct the Democrat agenda..

    "Your good and your evil use the same methods to achieve the same results."
    -Yarnek, STAR TREK, Savage Curtain

    Michale

  37. [37] 
    Michale wrote:

    Allow me to post for you LD, to save you the time..

    BUT!!! BUT!!!! REPUBLICANS ARE THE DEVIL'S SPAWN!!!!

    REPUBLICANS ARE EVIL INCARNATE!!!

    REPUBLICANS ARE BAD, YUCKY, ICKY BAD!!!!

    DEMOCRATS ARE PURE AS THE DRIVEN SNOW

    OBAMA IS MY MESSIAH!!!

    OBAMA SAID IT!! I BELIEVE IT!!! THAT SETTLES IT!!

    There... :D

    Now you don't have to even post. :D

    Michale

  38. [38] 
    Michale wrote:

    or emerging completely unscathed from a Senate confirmation process, and in anticipation of her easy victory in the upcoming vote, Loretta Lynch has won her first Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award. We sincerely hope the job she does in the future will earn her many more, before she is done.

    "Civil Forfeiture is a wonderful tool."
    -Loretta Lynch

    How Uncle Sam Became a Bank Robber
    Civil forfeiture and money laundering laws let the IRS seize the accounts of legitimate businesses

    http://reason.com/archives/2015/02/04/how-uncle-sam-became-a-bank-robber

    Sure ya don't wanna re-think that MIDOTW award, CW?? :D

    Michale

  39. [39] 
    Michale wrote:

    The discussion on the DHS funding issue is simple..

    If Democrats think that funding for Homeland Security is sooooo important, then Obama needs to drop the Illegal Immigrant amnesty...

    If Obama and the Democrats think that minting fresh new Democrat voters is more important than National Security...

    Then they can continue to be obstructionist against National Security....

    It's not rocket science...

    It's perfectly clear...

    "Crystal"
    -Tom Cruise, A FEW GOOD MEN

    Michale

  40. [40] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Republicans split DHS funding off just so they could hold it hostage. In Michale's world that means Republicans should get whatever they want because national security is important.

    Of course its only Democrats he faults for failing to pay whatever ransom Republicans demand. He doesn't fault Republicans for holding national security hostage.--It's not that important.

    What's simple is Michale's bias, prejudices, and hypocrisy. Everything is an excuse to bash Obama and the Democrats to Michale. Everything is a reason Obama and the Democrats should give in to Republicans. Everything is the fault of Obama and the Democrats. And everything Michale says is completely lacking in credibility, rationality, and objectivity.

  41. [41] 
    Michale wrote:

    Republicans split DHS funding off just so they could hold it hostage. In Michale's world that means Republicans should get whatever they want because national security is important.

    And Democrats also used parlamentiary tricks to get what THEY want.. TrainWreckCare...

    What's yer point??

    Of course its only Democrats he faults for failing to pay whatever ransom Republicans demand. He doesn't fault Republicans for holding national security hostage.--It's not that important.

    If National Security is SOOO important to Democrats, then they should give up their nefarious plan of minting millions of fresh new Democrat voters..

    What's simple is Michale's bias, prejudices, and hypocrisy. Everything is an excuse to bash Obama and the Democrats to Michale. Everything is a reason Obama and the Democrats should give in to Republicans. Everything is the fault of Obama and the Democrats. And everything Michale says is completely lacking in credibility, rationality, and objectivity.

    Have you ever noticed that you never come up with any facts to defend your position??

    All you do is make personal attacks on me...

    If this were a formal structured debate, you would lose each and every time.. :D

    Michale

  42. [42] 
    Michale wrote:

    LD,

    But I am glad you are here, I really am..

    By comparison, you make me look perfectly reasonable and rational.. :D

    Michale

  43. [43] 
    LewDan wrote:

    My comments were factual.

    "If National Security is SOOO important to Democrats, then they should give up their nefarious plan of minting millions of fresh new Democrat voters.."

    Now. THAT'S not fact based. Unless you'd care to provide proof of Democrats "nefarious plan of minting millions of fresh new Democrat voters?" Since you're so big on demanding proof?! Because winger conspiracy theories aren't facts.

    And no one said Democrats don't use parliamentary tricks. But obstruction is still, and always has been, the abuse of parliamentary tricks, not just the use of parliamentary tricks.

    Acting in bad faith to block legislation, and votes, for reasons that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, as Republicans are wont to do, is obstructionism. Republicans have even voted against their own proposals! Now THAT'S obstructionism.

    Your sudden contention that voting against anything for any reason is "obstructionism" is another of your typical reality altering lies. It has no basis in fact.

  44. [44] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "Have you ever noticed that you never come up with any facts to defend your position??

    All you do is make personal attacks on me..."

    Michale, that fact that you are lying isn't a personal attack, its an inescapable fact. As I've just proven--yet again.

    Everyone in Congress uses parliamentary procedures. "Obstructionism" is the abuse of parliamentary procedure. Your comments are lies.

    There. I've proven it again. Proven your bias, your prejudice, and your hypocrisy. It isn't hard. Amy random comment of yours will suffice to do it.

    Now your want to pretend to be a victim because I refuse to let your lies go unchallenged. You want to pretend that my accurate factual comments are just personal attacks.--Yet again, you are lying. And the facts prove it.

    If you consider being called out for lying "a personal attack" then stop lying.--Or get used to it.--Your choice.

  45. [45] 
    Michale wrote:

    Now. THAT'S not fact based. Unless you'd care to provide proof of Democrats "nefarious plan of minting millions of fresh new Democrat voters?"

    No other reason makes any kind of logical and rational sense...

    Occams Razor certainly applies here...

    And no one said Democrats don't use parliamentary tricks. But obstruction is still, and always has been, the abuse of parliamentary tricks, not just the use of parliamentary tricks.

    Poe-Tay-Toe, Poe-Taa-Toe

    Acting in bad faith to block legislation, and votes, for reasons that have nothing to do with the issue at hand, as Republicans are wont to do, is obstructionism. Republicans have even voted against their own proposals! Now THAT'S obstructionism.

    And Democrats have voted against their own proposals as well.

    You prove my point..

    Your Democrats and the Republicans use the EXACT same methods to achieve the EXACT same goals..

    Yet, you only slam the Republicans for it..

    Michale

  46. [46] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Proof, Michale,

    Not a song and dance.

    "No other reason makes any kind of logical and rational sense...

    Occams Razor certainly applies here..."

    Really?! Prove it! You've given you opinion--repeatedly. Now where's the proof?

    "And Democrats have voted against their own proposals as well."

    Really?! Prove it! Name one. Boehner introduced a proposal and then voted against it. What Democrat has done the same? And I don't mean voted against an amended proposal they didn't support. I mean their own proposal just as they introduced it.

    You're always demanding proof, and claiming that you provide it, but you never do. You make crackpot winger conspiracy theory claims without a shred of evidence to back it up.--So prove what you claim.

  47. [47] 
    Michale wrote:

    What Democrat has done the same?

    Harry Reid has brought DOZENS of proposals to the floor only to vote against them..

    It's parliamentary trickery... BOTH Partys do it...

    Really?! Prove it! You've given you opinion--repeatedly. Now where's the proof?

    The proof is in the fact that NO ONE here has come up with a legitimate reason to give illegal immigrants amnesty...

    Michale

  48. [48] 
    Michale wrote:

    Harry Reid filibusters his own bill
    poorrichardsnews.com/post/8261462397/harry-reid-filibusters-his-own-bill

    Why is Harry Reid always voting against his own plans?
    washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/02/17/why-is-harry-reid-always-voting-against-his-own-plans/

    Democrats enforce filibuster against their own debt bill
    washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2011/jul/30/democrats-enforce-filibuster-against-own-debt-bill/

    I can go all night.. :D

    Michale

  49. [49] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "You prove my point..

    Your Democrats and the Republicans use the EXACT same methods to achieve the EXACT same goals..

    Yet, you only slam the Republicans for it.."

    More lies.

    I made it very clear what the differences in methods were. You choose to ignore those differences and lie. Simply being against something is not in and of itself "obstruction." It's just lack of agreement.

    Objecting to because you disagree isn't obstruction. Blocking everything as a strategy to "make Obama a one-term President," that's obstruction. Refusing to support anything supported by the President, even your own proposals, that's obstruction. Blocking things because you claim you don't trust the President, that's obstruction.

    As I said, opposition that has nothing to do with the actual issue being considered is obstruction. The one treating Democrats differently is you. You were fine with Republicans filibustering for any reason at all, claiming none of it was "obstruction."

    My definitions don't vary based upon who I'm talking about, unlike your definitions. Claiming that I'm the one treating Democrats differently than I treat Republicans is you lying again.

  50. [50] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Lol,

    Should have expected nothing but dishonesty from you, Michale!

    Reid, votes against even his own proposals on occasion to keep them alive, not to kill them,
    its a parliamentary trick and you know it. Trying to save a proposal is hardly an attempt to obstruct it!

    SO, as usual, you are lying. Of course you could go on all night. You've been going on for years!

    Reid maneuvering to try to save bills, or highlight Republican obstructionism is not Democrats obstructing. Since you insist on lying let me be more specific.

    You claimed Democrats voted against their own bills to obstruct them, the same as Republicans. And I'm still waiting for your proof. All you've given so far is Democrats voting against their own bills in procedural attempts to block Republican obstruction.

  51. [51] 
    Michale wrote:

    its a parliamentary trick and you know it.

    Of COURSE I know it!!

    I SAID IT, back in comment #47...

    Jeezus, LD.. You are now officially ranting....

    Both Partys do it. That is all I am saying..

    Of course, YOU ascribe noble reasons to Democrats and nefarious reasons to Republicans.. But THAT wasn't the point.

    The point was that YOU claimed Democrats didn't do it..

    And *I* just proved you wrong...

    Democrats DO do it.. Just like Republicans do it..

    You claimed Democrats voted against their own bills to obstruct them, the same as Republicans.

    I never claimed anything of the sort...

    I said, back in comment #45

    "And Democrats have voted against their own proposals as well."

    And then YOU responded in comment #46

    "Really?! Prove it! Name one."

    And I proved it... With MORE than one...

    That's all she wrote, son...

    Too bad, so sad.. You lose. :D

    Michale

  52. [52] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    You are always lying, and trying to twist what I say.

    Tactics to promote legislation are not obstruction, its that simple.

    What Reid and Boehner did was not the same. Reid voting against bills Republicans are blocking, to keep options open, is not the same as piling on to block a bill.

    You haven't proven Democrats obstruct by voting. Your claim that it is the same as what Republicans have been doing while in the minority voting against their own bills. As usual, you are lying.

    You keep trying to insist that Democrats doing the same thing as Republicans, for any reason, is the same as Republican obstruction. And that is a lie. And you know it.

    What you said in #45 was:

    "Your Democrats and the Republicans use the EXACT same methods to achieve the EXACT same goals.."

    Reid voting against his own bill is a technicality, and you know it. It is not the exact same thing. And it certainly isn't to achieve the exact same goals. You haven't proven a thing. You are just lying. Again!

  53. [53] 
    Michale wrote:

    What Reid and Boehner did was not the same. Reid voting against bills Republicans are blocking, to keep options open, is not the same as piling on to block a bill.

    That's just your political bigotry talking...

    That's just you saying EVERYTHING the GOP does is evil and wrong and EVERYTHING the Democrats do is pure and good..

    That's all it is..

    Michale

  54. [54] 
    Michale wrote:

    That's just your political bigotry talking...

    That's just you saying EVERYTHING the GOP does is evil and wrong and EVERYTHING the Democrats do is pure and good..

    That's all it is..

    Which is why nothing you say can really be taken seriously..

    Yea, I harp on Democrats a lot. But I also harp on the GOP.. Which means what I say is credible and can be taken seriously..

    You are just an Anti-Republican machine spewing out Left Winger talking points without any regard for the facts or reality..

    Michale

  55. [55] 
    LewDan wrote:

    Michale,

    I'll accept your inability to backup your claims that Democrats vote against their onw bills to obstruct the same a Republicans as an admission that you were lying.

    I'll accept your attempt to dishonestly equate Reid voting nay in support of his bills with Boehner voting nay to kill his own bills as evidence that you are lying.

    And I'll accept you reversion to baseless unsubstantiated accusations in an attempt to divert attention from your inability to prove your claims as proof that you are lying.

    So, now that we've firmly established that you are lying we can move on.

  56. [56] 
    Michale wrote:

    I'll accept your inability to backup your claims that Democrats vote against their onw bills to obstruct the same a Republicans as an admission that you were lying.

    You can accept anything you want..

    But you and I and everyone here knows you are full of shit. :D

    So, now that we've firmly established that you are lying we can move on.

    No. YOU have established in your own mind..

    No one else here agrees with you...

    Michale

Comments for this article are closed.