ChrisWeigant.com

Never Mind

[ Posted Tuesday, October 25th, 2022 – 14:54 UTC ]

Those of us of a certain age will immediately recognize that title as being the catchphrase of Emily Litella. At the dawn of Saturday Night Live, Litella was a character (played by Gilda Radner) who would appear on the "Weekend Update" fake news segment of the show. She would rant and rave about something or another, while getting one or two key words absolutely and utterly wrong. In one memorable appearance, she took to task those who were complaining about "violins" on television. After working herself into an indignant frenzy, Chevy Chase would always gently correct her ("that was violence on television... not violins"), and she'd then abruptly reverse course -- always ending with a prim: "Never mind."

That's what sprang to mind today, when reading that a group of progressive House Democrats were withdrawing a letter they had publicly sent to President Joe Biden yesterday. The letter had urged Biden to enter into direct negotiations with Russia to try to get some sort of ceasefire in their ongoing invasion of Ukraine.

Here is what Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal had to say:

The letter was drafted several months ago but, unfortunately, was released by staff without vetting. As chair of the Caucus, I accept responsibility for this. Every war ends with diplomacy, and this one will too, after Ukrainian victory. The letter sent yesterday, although restating that basic principle, has been conflated with GOP opposition to support for the Ukrainians' just defense of their national sovereignty. As such, it is a distraction at this time, and we withdraw the letter.

In other words: "Never mind."

In case anyone hasn't noticed, we are now two weeks away from Election Day. Now, I seriously doubt whether this letter is going to change very many people's votes, one way or the other, but even so it's pretty standard politics not to shoot yourself (or your party) right in the foot just before a big election.

HuffPost has a good timeline of how this all came about. The letter was drafted months ago -- the first people to sign on did so at the end of June. Most signed it in July. The situation on the battlefield was different, back then. Most of the signatories expected the letter to be released soon after they signed it, but the drafters held onto it for months, apparently trying to get more House members to sign. In the end, they only convinced 30 of them to do so (out of 220 Democrats in the House). The letter was released without warning yesterday, and the blowback was immediate.

Here are the most contentious paragraphs from the original letter:

Given the destruction created by this war for Ukraine and the world, as well as the risk of catastrophic escalation, we also believe it is in the interests of Ukraine, the United States, and the world to avoid a prolonged conflict. For this reason, we urge you to pair the military and economic support the United States has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire. This is consistent with your recognition that "there's going to have to be a negotiated settlement here," and your concern that Vladimir Putin "doesn't have a way out right now, and I'm trying to figure out what we do about that."

We are under no illusions regarding the difficulties involved in engaging Russia given its outrageous and illegal invasion of Ukraine and its decision to make additional illegal annexations of Ukrainian territory. However, if there is a way to end the war while preserving a free and independent Ukraine, it is America's responsibility to pursue every diplomatic avenue to support such a solution that is acceptable to the people of Ukraine. Such a framework would presumably include incentives to end hostilities, including some form of sanctions relief, and bring together the international community to establish security guarantees for a free and independent Ukraine that are acceptable for all parties, particularly Ukrainians. The alternative to diplomacy is protracted war, with both its attendant certainties and catastrophic and unknowable risks.

. . .

We agree with the Administration's perspective that it is not America's place to pressure Ukraine's government regarding sovereign decisions, and with the principle you have enunciated that there should be "nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine." But as legislators responsible for the expenditure of tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in military assistance in the conflict, we believe such involvement in this war also creates a responsibility for the United States to seriously explore all possible avenues, including direct engagement with Russia, to reduce harm and support Ukraine in achieving a peaceful settlement.

. . .

In conclusion, we urge you to make vigorous diplomatic efforts in support of a negotiated settlement and ceasefire, engage in direct talks with Russia, explore prospects for a new European security arrangement acceptable to all parties that will allow for a sovereign and independent Ukraine, and, in coordination with our Ukrainian partners, seek a rapid end to the conflict and reiterate this goal as America's chief priority.

The key ask is for Biden to "pair the military and economic support the United States has provided to Ukraine with a proactive diplomatic push, redoubling efforts to seek a realistic framework for a ceasefire." The U.S. needs to: "seriously explore all possible avenues, including direct engagement with Russia," and in case this wasn't clear enough, later stated it even more plainly: "engage in direct talks with Russia."

This would effectively cut the Ukrainians out of the negotiations. Which is not the position of President Biden or the United States government. Which is why the letter caused such a stir.

Politically, the timing couldn't have been worse. Did I mention there's an election in two weeks? Add to that the fact that Kevin McCarthy -- who will almost surely become speaker of the House if Republicans take control -- just warned Biden that Republicans might just refuse to authorize more money for the Ukrainian war effort. This made it look like the progressives were agreeing with McCarthy's basic position, which wasn't exactly true. The letter does not threaten to withhold support for military spending on Ukraine, although it does hint at this by using the phrase "...as legislators responsible for the expenditure of tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars in military assistance in the conflict...."

Jayapal specifically noted this today, when withdrawing the letter:

Because of the timing, our message is being conflated by some as being equivalent to the recent statement by Republican Leader McCarthy.... The proximity of these statements created the unfortunate appearance that Democrats, who have strongly and unanimously supported and voted for every package of the military, strategic, and economic assistance to the Ukrainian people, are somehow aligned with Republicans who seek to pull the plug on American support for President Zelensky and the Ukrainian forces.

So a lowly staffer somehow mistakenly sent a letter to the president without approval. I suppose it could have happened that way, but I am more than a little skeptical. It took a whole day and a whole bunch of pushback before it was withdrawn, after all.

Some of that pushback, from the HuffPost article:

Moderate Democrat Rep. Jake Auchincloss (Mass.) accused the progressives of offering "an olive branch to a war criminal who's losing his war." Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who frequently champions a less hawkish U.S. posture internationally, warned of "moral and strategic peril in sitting down with Putin too early."

Speaking to Politico, an anonymous member of House Democratic leadership said: "That bone-headed letter just put Dems in the same league as [Republican leader Rep.] Kevin McCarthy, who said... Ukraine funding could be in jeopardy."

By Tuesday, letter signatories Reps. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.) had all posted tweets questioning the timing of the letter's release -- with Jacobs saying she "wouldn't sign it today."

Jacobs also said of the letter: "Timing in diplomacy is everything." She wasn't the only one. Here is Ilhan Omar's tweet:

Timing is everything in public policy, letters are written to respond to a moment and in politics moments pass in the speed of light. In this particular case, the letter was a response to intel we were getting on the war and the pathway forward.

The timing of the letter was just about the worst you can imagine: just before an election, and just after the Republican leader had threatened to cut off U.S. military aid. It doesn't get much worse than that, really. If the letter had been released back in July, it might not even have attracted much notice. If it had been released after the election, we would already know who will be in control of Congress next year. But it was pretty boneheaded to release it right now.

It cannot be denied that this is a huge black eye for the progressives. It's a self-inflicted wound, an "own goal" -- pick your metaphor. Few people look to progressives for foreign policy ideas in the first place, since their agenda is largely centered around economic concerns and domestic policy. For them to jump into the fray of American diplomacy and war policy would have been rather jarring no matter when it happened, but it seems they (or the "rogue staffer") chose the worst possible moment to do so.

Again, I doubt that this will change anyone's vote. It likely won't have a big effect on the election, since the Ukraine war is pretty far down the list of things people will be thinking about in the voting booth. But it was an embarrassment, both for the progressives and for the Democrats in general (since they were questioning their party's leadership during a war).

I haven't seen the video yet of Jayapal attempting to explain and walk back this letter. But I know exactly what I'm going to be thinking of when I do: Emily Litella smiling while primly saying: "Never mind."

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

60 Comments on “Never Mind”

  1. [1] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    If she wasn't questioning why anyone would be against youth in asia and the eagle's rights amendment she made her opposition to busting school children and endangered feces known... until she was told she had it all wrong. Gilda was a gem.

  2. [2] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    What really gets me is that progressives think they can give advice to Biden on anything, let alone diplomacy. But, these days, up is down, in is out and what's a poor gal to do but take a freakin' break from it all.

    As a favourite geopolitical analyst has said, Biden doesn't need advice. He needs a policy change. And, good luck with that.

    I do wonder, though, what a Ukrainian win looks like ... ;)

  3. [3] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    But it was an embarrassment, both for the progressives and for the Democrats in general (since they were questioning their party's leadership during a war).

    That's not what's embarrassing, in my view. No, what's embarrassing is how Biden - of all people!!! - was so instrumental in ensuring that the war in Ukraine would happen. He used to know better.

  4. [4] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Of course, Biden has always been for NATO enlargement. I just didn't think he'd be for NATO enlargement right up to Moscow's front door. Sigh.

  5. [5] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    And, so stubbornly and so absolutely.

    That's when wars happen.

  6. [6] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Double sigh.

  7. [7] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    It's comical that anyone would think that the Democrats were in agreement with Republicans on the issue. Republicans stopped using critical thinking to determine whether they would support the policies of a Democrat in the White House back in 2008 when Obama first took office. They have continued to choose to oppose any piece of legislation or policy that the President supports in their hopes to make life so horrible for Americans under Democrats that voters will vote Republicans back in office. Republicans have refused to consider the consequences that their opposition to the policy could have on their constituents well being for years now, and there is no indication that they are going to change anytime soon. The Progressive Democrats would just have to oppose Biden's policies for the sake of opposing them to "agree" with the Republicans.

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    Deaf penalty

  9. [9] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear [1] -

    BWAH hah hah!

    Glad others remember, too...

    :-)

    -CW

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    dear roseanne rosannadanna...

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    this kid got enough problems bein' dead, don't make it worse by makin' him go to new jersey...

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    FPC

    Moderator,

    Sooner or later Michale will figure out that this is not his blog, therefore he doesn't get to set the rules, period.

    I have never claimed it was my blog..

    All I am doing is asking you to follow your own rules and concede when you are wrong when the FACTS show you that you are wrong..

    I am trying to work with you in good faith... Can't you show me the same courtesy??

    If you can't, tell me now and I won't waste my time here anymore..

    Except for, y'know:

    [16] [17] [19] [23] [24] [26] [30]

    and that's just from your first 10 comments.

    The ON TOPIC demand of yours was from several days ago.. And I abided by that ON TOPIC request as long as it was the rule.. You yourself even noted that all my comments were ON TOPIC..

    The ABOVE comments you mention were *AFTER* you had said that I could post unrestricted and unfiltered.

    Once again, all I am asking you to do is to abide by YOUR OWN rules..

    Is that or is that not a fair request??

    And again, I am trying to work with you here.. If you are going to refuse to work with me then tell me now so I can stop wasting my time here..

    By my count, that's 12 out of 16 comments that were off topic.

    And, by MY count, that's the 3rd time in ONE COMMENTARY that you violated your own rules..

    If you want to impose an ON TOPIC restriction, by all means.. I have proven that I can meet any restriction you want to put down..

    But is it really fair to move the goal posts daily?? :^/

    I had hoped that there was SOME semblance of fairness and integrity left of my old friend CW in there somewhere..

    But it's becoming apparent that Lord Zapacna was right.. Nothing of the host survives.. :^/

    If Zapacna was right, then at least have the integrity to tell me now.

    I'll happily and victoriously leave ... :D

    Liz,

    Ah, Michale, you are your own worst enemy ... sigh.

    Why?? Because I won't be bullied?

  13. [13] 
    Kick wrote:

    nypoet22
    11

    *laughs*

    Mr. Richard Feder from Fort Lee, NJ!

    Did you know that Tut spelled backwards still spells Tut? ;)

  14. [14] 
    Michale wrote:

    Liz,

    That's not what's embarrassing, in my view. No, what's embarrassing is how Biden - of all people!!! - was so instrumental in ensuring that the war in Ukraine would happen. He used to know better.

    I would have thought you would have figured out that the old Biden is long gone after the gross debacle that was Afghanistan, eh??

    I'm just sayin'... :D

    2/20

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    I am pleasantly surprised to see a commentary that actually takes Democrats to task for their screw-ups..

    Maybe the winds o' change are a-blowin' eh?? :D

    But it's always been obvious to anyone with more than 2 brain cells to rub together that the Progressive Wing of the Democrat Party was always a drag on the Democrat Party as a whole if not a drag on the entire country..

    I coined the term "Hysterical Left" which CW (at the time) thought was wholly appropriate. :D

    I was actually surprised to see this come-uppance of the Progressives because Weigantia® has ALSO swung way way WAY to the progressive side of the political spectrum..

    But I guess the topsy-turvy politics of the last two years has affected everything..

    And so it goes and so it goes.. :D

  16. [16] 
    Michale wrote:

    Looks like Fetterman (I am foregoing the Weigantia® standard of mocking names, because I don't like to kick a man when he is way WAY down) really blew the debate last night..

    I will concede that I am surprised that Fetterman didn't cancel.. So, he DOES deserve credit for showing up, I will give him that..

    But, boy oh boy, did he show that he was definitely out of his league and not prepared, health-wise, to be a US Senator...


    Fetterman's painful debate

    Capitol Hill's reaction to the Pennsylvania Senate debate was brutal for Democratic nominee John Fetterman, from Democrats and Republicans alike.

    Multiple sources wondered why Fetterman agreed to debate when he clearly wasn’t ready. Fetterman struggled at times to respond to the moderators' questions, even with the assistance of a closed captioning device.

    "Why the hell did Fetterman agree to this?" one Democratic lawmaker and Fetterman backer told Axios. "This will obviously raise more questions than answers about John's health."

    NewsNation host Leland Vittert said "the biggest issue was John Fetterman's health and his ability to comprehend speech, and to then speak coherently on the issues of the day."
    Another Pennsylvania Democratic official worried: "Everyone is nervous. I've traveled everywhere. Fetterman is a deep concern. And this debate will only increase it."

    Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.), on CNN: "It's sad to see John Fetterman struggling so much. He should take more time to allow himself to fully recover. "

    Other stalwart Fetterman defenders argued that, despite the debate stumble, they gave him credit for at least showing up.

    A senior Democratic official in Pennsylvania told Axios: “I wished Fetterman was in a better place to clap back. Overall, I argue it wasn’t great for us but still a draw. Remember in these next few weeks that Oz’s campaign is spending tens of millions of dollars against a man with a major medical condition.”
    The bottom line: A CBS News/YouGov poll conducted before the debate found that 46% of respondents believed it's important for candidates to address Fetterman's health.

    It's hard to see how Fetterman's debate performance alleviated the concerns of the skeptics.

    I guess the "at least he showed up" is the best argument that the Pro-Fetterman crowd could come up with...

    Which doesn't really say much for the Pro-Fetterman argument, eh??

    I'm just sayin'...


    Fetterman Struggles Thru Hour Long Debate

    John Fetterman and Dr. Oz go head-to-head: Democratic Senate hopeful garbles several answers during hour-long debate as he deals with post-stroke 'auditory issues' - while he and Republican TV personality tussle over fracking, crime and abortion

    Pennsylvania Democratic Senate hopeful John Fetterman at points struggled to get through his hour-long debate with Republican Dr. Mehmet Oz

    The after-effect's of Fetterman's stroke were on full display, as his campaign warned prior to the meeting there would be awkward pauses and errors

    Fetterman's delivery was often halting and choppy, while Oz turned on the TV charm he honed over 13 seasons of TV

    The most painful part of the debate, in my not-so-humble opinion, was seeing Fetterman defend his born-again Fracking position..

    As a regular Democrat, Fetterman has always been against Fracking and America's Energy Independence.

    But, of course, Fracking is a big part of Pennsylvania's economy, so obviously Fetterman had to flip flop on his support...

    But his flip-flop was obvious and painful to watch..

    Doc Oz was definitely the winner of the debate, but it was a hollow victory of sorts.. Fetterman was obviously impaired and no one likes to be seen appearing to beat up on someone who is handicapped...

    But the one overriding take-away from the debate was that Fetterman is simply not capable of being a US Senator...

    Maybe his recovery in a year or two will change that assessment.. Maybe next election Fetterman can run against Doc Oz and show the country he is healed and prepared to be a US Senator..

    But that day is not this day..

    Fetterman has proven to the entire country that he is simply not fit to be a US Senator in the here and now...

    This is a cold assessment, to be sure. But it is an objective and logical assessment..

    4/20

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    moderator,

    I figured I'd get the sheer volume down before tackling other issues...

    If the goal was to "get the sheer volume down", all you had to do was ask.. :^/

    All the hostility and bullying wasn't necessary... :^/

    5/20

  18. [18] 
    Michale wrote:

    This commentary was simply too hilarious NOT to share.. :D


    The Danger of Bubble Wrap (Or, How Democrats Learned To Love Ignoring Voters)

    There is thinking inside the box.

    Then there is living inside a bubble.

    And then there is thinking inside a bubble which is in a box in a cage in the basement tucked behind the furnace with a giant sign “Beware of the Leopard!” draped across it (apologies to Douglas Adams.)

    But it may be a combination of all four things plus one extra very important fact: they are only talking amongst themselves.

    Imagine a conference room full of Democratic operatives strategizing campaign themes and one says “hey, maybe we should lay off the Jan. 6 stuff and focus on issues that the vast majority of everyday Americans really care about?”

    The first sound heard in response would be crickets. The second sound would be of a pink slip hitting the table. The third sound would be the revocation of a building security clearance. The fourth sound would be the pinging of cell phones as the entire room simultaneously engages in ritualized contact info removal.

    In other words, many Democrats are engaged in campaigns that are not being run by people who are – first and foremost – interested in winning but by people who are deathly afraid of saying the wrong thing, being socially ostracized, and seeing their future careers instantaneously evaporate in a woke cloud of revenge.

    I only quoted a small portion of the commentary... But I would highly recommend ya'all read the entire thing..

    First off, it's hilarious and second of all, made even MORE hilarious by it's dead on ballz accuracy... :D

    We see the "only talking amongst themselves" effect a lot here in Weigantia®..

    Anyways, it's a very good read... :D

    6/20

  19. [19] 
    Michale wrote:

    COMMON SENSE WITH BARI WEISS

    The Media’s Cover-Up of John Fetterman

    It should now be crystal clear why Democrat John Fetterman refused to take part in more than a single debate with his Republican Senate rival, Mehmet Oz, and why Fetterman insisted on pushing that debate to just two weeks before Election Day—after at least 500,000 Pennsylvania voters had already voted.

    Last night’s debate was an unmitigated disaster.

    A disaster for Fetterman, Pennsylvania’s lieutenant governor—who appeared confused and could barely manage a coherent sentence, let alone a complete paragraph.

    And a disaster for Pennsylvania voters, who didn’t get the tough, substantive debate they deserved, one that would have pushed Oz to explain, among other things, why he was distancing himself from Donald Trump (without whom he wouldn’t be the nominee); his position on abortion; China; and how he plans to bring down gas prices.

    Oz had some solid talking points, but they were just that—talking points. But Fetterman lacked even those.

    No amount of spin can undo what voters witnessed on the debate stage last night in Pennsylvania.

    It's clear to even the most RAA-RAA Democrat that Fetterman was an un-mitigated disaster for the Democrat quest to hold onto the US Senate...

    He might have done LESS damage to his campaign if he had just cancelled as I figured he would..

    Cancelling would have been the MUCH BETTER tactical decision...

    What's that old saying??

    It's better to be silent and thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt..

    Fetterman removed all doubt last night.. :^/

    7/20

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    If the goal was to "get the sheer volume down", all you had to do was ask.. :^/

    I only quoted a small portion of the commentary that day, but I would highly recommend you read all the author's posts directed at the troll.

    [166] Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [163] -

    The simple fact is, I am being asked to censor my viewpoint...

    Oh, poor, poor pitiful you.

    Nope, you're not being asked to censor anything (well, except the profanity). You are being asked to MODERATE the QUANTITY of repeating that same viewpoint over and over and over again.

    There's a difference. Go back and read what I read -- where do I ask you to censor your viewpoint? All I ask is that you express your viewpoint a few times, and then not repeat it every 5 minutes for the rest of the day.

    You speak of the days of old on this blog, well I remember when one daily column didn't generate 200-600 comments. People discussed the column, went off on tangents, argued with each other, and had some fun along the way. Instead of having to scroll through miles of you ignoring all evidence not to your liking and proclaiming every opinion you have as FACT FACT FACT when they are actually just that -- one man's opinion.

    "But I was right in 2016!" Yep, and you were wrong in 2012 and 2018. Nobody knows what the future will bring, sorry to have to break it to you.

    -CW

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2020/07/29/rampant-gop-incompetence-on-full-display/#comment-166450

  21. [21] 
    Michale wrote:

    Kick,

    Do you have anything NOT from years and years ago??

    Something that takes into account all of the facts of the here and now??

    Anything?? Anything at all??

    No??

    Then what you post is not relevant to the discussion of the here and now IN the here and now...

    But thanx for playing.. :D Your Participation Trophy is in the mail.. :D

    8/20

  22. [22] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    Morning recap

    CW tells demented troll: Enjoy your week, you are teaching me what new rules I should consider... One of which will definitely be about reposted columns from elsewhere... that need is obvious...

    Toxic troll gives him the finger and pukes up more of the same.

    Low IQ troll lies some more about CW.

    Kick proves that Team Putin troll is lying.

    Death cult troll accuses Kick of posting OT.

    Boring troll is victorious. It has proven that trolling is its only reason to exist and that it is the most boring and predictable troll in the known universe. Everyone is bored with the crybaby troll and looking forward to new Troll Control Rules.

  23. [23] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    21

    Do you have anything NOT from years and years ago??

    Yes, obviously.

    [120] Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale -

    As I pointed out, you were 68% of the first 100 comments. If you start counting from where you jumped in, you were 81% of the comments.

    It's the volume, dude. That's what is truly annoying everyone. The sheer flood of it all. Just to let you know...

    -CW

    [ Saturday, October 22nd, 2022 at 19:10 ]

    *
    Something that takes into account all of the facts of the here and now??

    <--- All? Archived to your left.

    Then what you post is not relevant to the discussion of the here and now IN the here and now...

    You lecturing anyone on relevancy!?

    BWAH hah hah! ~ Chris Weigant

    4/∞

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    22

    Excellent recap. :)

  25. [25] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    If the goal was to "get the sheer volume down", all you had to do was ask.. :^/

    Moose poop, buddy. Literally everyone has just asked. Multiple times. Face it man, tearing off fifty posts at a clip is practically second-nature, and not something you've easily turned off. This is coming from a place of love: a hard intervention is probably the only way that particular tendency will ever change on more than a temporary basis. As for the rest, i think any other objections others might have will fade into obscurity if you can get your volume under permanent control.

  26. [26] 
    Michale wrote:

    Moose poop, buddy. Literally everyone has just asked.

    I wasn't talking about "everyone".. I was talking the moderator..

    Your "everyone" did not "ask" they demanded.. And their demands came in the form of disgusting personal attacks on myself and my family..

    How the hell did ya THINK I would respond to such "asking"??

    Face it man, tearing off fifty posts at a clip is practically second-nature, and not something you've easily turned off.

    And yet, look at the last couple days...

    Obviously the FACTS prove your claim is without factual basis... I CAN easily turn off the volume..

    This is coming from a place of love:

    And yet that's not how it looks like from my end... If there was "love" there, then how do you explain your lack of comment to specific personal attacks on myself and my family?? Hmmmm??? Look at JFC's disgusting attack on my wife in yesterday's commentary..

    Where's the "love", JL??

    As for the rest, i think any other objections others might have will fade into obscurity if you can get your volume under permanent control.

    And yet, the FACTS of the last few days prove that wrong..

    Look what we have.. STILL have disgusting attacks on my wife, STILL have personal attacks on myself...

    Even with LESS than 20 comments per day, people are STILL whining and complaining..

    So, it's a proven FACT that the volume is not the problem..

    The problem is I am a Trump/America supporter in a forum that HATES Trump/America supporters....

    That is the ONLY fact in play here...

    Kick,

    As I pointed out, you were 68% of the first 100 comments. If you start counting from where you jumped in, you were 81% of the comments.

    It's the volume, dude. That's what is truly annoying everyone. The sheer flood of it all. Just to let you know...

    And, SINCE that observation 4-odd days ago???

    My volume is down 90%...

    So, obviously you prove my point for me.. Thanx.. :D

    And even WITH the volume way way way down, ya'all STILL bitch and moan and complain..

    I have met EVERY restriction placed upon me by the moderator with love in my heart and a smile on my face..

    And yet ya'all STILL complain..

    So, what FACTS have we learned??

    First and foremost, it's NOT the volume that is the problem.. It's simply ya'all hate Trump/America supporters...

    This is established fact...

    And it's funny.. You and JFC complained that A> I comment to much and B> I make comments that are about me personally..

    And yet, you AND JFC are doing the exact same thing.. Making comments that are about me personally and, by addressing me, you advocate for MORE comments from me.. :D

    Funny how ya'all seem to be part of the problem and not part of the solution, eh? :D

    Yunno what all this reminds me of?? :D

    This reminds me of that old DRAGNET episode... May be a bit before ya'all's time..

    Sgt Joe Friday was taking a college class where the Democrat Cop-Hating hippies wanted to get Sgt Friday thrown out of the class because they hated cops..

    These Democrat Cop Hating hippies hated ANYONE who thought different from them, who actually LOVED this country and what it stood for.. They hated ANYONE who would not toe their ideological line..

    I am Sgt Joe Friday and ya'all are the Democrat Cop-Hating hippies.. :D

    Life imitates art... :D

    9/20

  27. [27] 
    Michale wrote:


    Oz Odds Of Winning PA Soar After Historic Fetterman Debate Meltdown

    The Fetterman campaign may have just watched what remained of its prospects in Pennsylvania circle the drain after tonight's sole debate between him and PA Senate candidate Dr. Oz.

    Fetterman, who suffered a severe stroke days before the May primary and cast his vote from a hospital bed, appeared unable to put together nearly a single coherent sentence throughout the entire debate while TV veteran Dr. Oz deftly and "surgically" sliced and diced his way through an hour of questioning, using Fetterman as a lifeless sparring dummy for a majority of the debate.

    Recovering from his stroke, Fetterman's answers ranged between somewhat inept and completely incomprehensible. The ugly performance started right from the beginning, with Fetterman bidding viewers "good night" as part of his opening statement.

    I think it's safe to say that Democrats can kiss Pennsylvania good-bye.. :D

    13 Days and counting.. :D

    10/20

  28. [28] 
    Michale wrote:

    Excerpts from the Fetterman/Oz debate..

    "Hi. Good night everybody."
    -Fetterman Opening

    Moderator
    Your opponent has said you have not paid your taxes ... how do you respond?"

    Fetterman
    "It was helping two students 17 years ago to help them buy their own homes. They for and didn’t pay the bills and got are paid and it has never been an issue in any of the campaign before."

    Moderator
    "Why haven't you released your medical records?"

    Fetterman
    "My doctors believe I am ready to be served."

    Moderator
    "Why won't you release the records?"

    Fetterman
    "My doctor believes I am fit to be serving and I believe that is where I am standing."

    Moderator
    Moderator: "Are there any of Biden's policy positions that you disagree with."

    Fetterman
    silence

    Fetterman "Jab" at Doc Oz
    "Dr. Oz loves free money when it's a half a million dollar on one of his down on the ranch in Florida and whether it was a $50 tax break you know about his farm in Montgomery County."

    I swear.. Whoever made Fetterman go up on stage last night should be arrested for Handicap Abuse... :^/

    11/20

  29. [29] 
    Michale wrote:

    JL,

    As for the rest, i think any other objections others might have will fade into obscurity if you can get your volume under permanent control.

    I love your giddy optimism.. :D

    But you know and I know that this is heading for one inescapable resolution..

    I am going to be banned... It's a forgone conclusion..

    As you can see from the comments of the last few days, the Peanut Gallery of Weigantia® will demand nothing less...

    So, let's just have some fun until the ax drops..

    That's my plan anyways.. :D

    12/20

  30. [30] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Keep it up, Michale.

    As I said, you're just educating me as to what to do next week.

    You still don't get it. I'm not interested in bargaining with you. Because you don't get to set the rules. I do.

    Here's the uber-rule for you:

    It's my blog.

    I quote from my comment policy, which has been posted here since Day One:

    Once again, for emphasis:

    We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

    For any reason.

    For any comment we don't like.

    Deal with it.

    -CW

  31. [31] 
    Michale wrote:

    Oooohhhh Bashi?? :D

    Second arrest made in connection with Republican canvasser attack in Hialeah, cops say

    Lopez, who was on probation for other crimes, was arrested, and according to police, identified Casanova as the other attacker to investigators. Monzon also identified Casanova in a six-person photo lineup.

    Casanova was arrested on a felony charge of aggravated battery.

    Monzon told police Casanova told him he “could not pass through because he was a Republican and his dogs were ready to attack,” according to his arrest affidavit.

    Monzon told investigators he walked onto the street to avoid them, and that Casanova told him, “He was not allowed to walk around his neighborhood and if he continued to do so he would shoot him,” the affidavit states. Monzon retorted that he was on public property and could be in the area.
    https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article267870627.html

    You were saying??? :D

    So, right from the start, this was known a a Political Hate Crime.. :D

    Gosh, it's tough being factually accurate all the time.. :D

    13/20

  32. [32] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    General comment to the peanut gallery -

    Remember when conservatives called liberals "snowflakes" and sneered at them for "playing the victim card"? How whining was something only liberals did, and was to be looked down upon?

    Yeah, takes you back, doesn't it? Those were the days, eh?

    -CW

  33. [33] 
    Kick wrote:

    The piggybacking of multiple articles and comments to multiple posters into one comment box in order to cheat the count is duly noted.

    [12] 1-2/20
    [14] 3/20
    [15] 4/20
    [16] 5-6/20
    [17] 7/20
    [18] 8/20
    [19] 9/20
    [21] 10/20
    [26] 11-12/20

  34. [34] 
    MtnCaddy wrote:

    [30]


    Keep it up, Michale. As I said, you're just educating me as to what to do next week. You still don't get it. I'm not interested in bargaining with you. Because you don't get to set the rules. I do. Here's the uber-rule for you: It's my blog. I quote from my comment policy, which has been posted here since Day One: Once again, for emphasis: We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. For any reason. For any comment we don't like. Deal with it.

    This troll cannot help itself any more than Don Harris could. Whatever it may have once contributed to these pages hasn't been evident since I joined up three years ago.

    It's just a matter of time before it gets banned. My birthday 12 November. I have a green card to play. Do the math.

  35. [35] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @m[29],

    I also meant from cw. Other commenters might care that you post off topic, but if you were to seriously stick to a 20 post guideline going forward, i don't think cw himself would care whether or not you strayed from the blogs' topics. I've noticed quite a few of Russ's posts deleted as well, so i think cw is willing to meet you halfway on the flame war front. So, at least where our host is concerned, it really is volume that will get you carded, significantly more than anything else.
    JL

  36. [36] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    I'm thinking perhaps of a "no pasted text" rule, too, perhaps. Post a link, if people want to read it, they will, if they don't, they won't.

    But no posted text.

    Seems like that might make things more cheerful here, what do others think?

    -CW

  37. [37] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @kick/caddy/jfc et al,

    There's really no reason to pile on at this point. You're making m's case for him - a lot better than he's doing for himself, i should mention.

    JL

  38. [38] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    @cw,
    Not sure how well that restriction would work. I've posted stanzas from poems that wouldn't meet such a guideline.

  39. [39] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    nypoet22 -

    Yeah, but don't worry, you're not in the penalty box right now...

    -CW

  40. [40] 
    Michale wrote:

    moderator,

    As I said, you're just educating me as to what to do next week.

    As I said, I think we all already know what you are going to do next week..

    We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.

    For any reason.

    For any comment we don't like.

    Deal with it.

    I AM dealing with it..

    I am obeying ALL the rules and restrictions you put on me with love in my heart and a smile on my face.. :D

    What more do ya want??

    Look.. You are going to ban me or restrict the hell out of me.. As you yourself said, I cannot say or do anything that will affect what you are going to do..

    One thing I WON'T do is kiss your ass...

    So, ban me.. Don't ban me.. Limit me to 20 comments a day or 2 comments a day...

    I am past the point of caring... :^/

    14/20

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    MtnCaddy
    34

    My birthday 12 November. I have a green card to play. Do the math.

    I did the math:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCTunqv1Xt4

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    Chris Weigant
    36

    As you wish. ∞

  43. [43] 
    Kick wrote:

    nypoet22
    37

    There's really no reason to pile on at this point.

    You are incorrect. We have (archived) reasons.

  44. [44] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Michale [40] -

    I am past the point of caring...

    See? We can agree on something!

    That's precisely where all the rest of us are, with you.

    -CW

  45. [45] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    There's really no reason to pile on at this point.

    I have not even begun to pile. When I have to be limited to 20 comments per column, then maybe I've been piling.

  46. [46] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW,

    I'm thinking perhaps of a "no pasted text" rule, too, perhaps. Post a link, if people want to read it, they will, if they don't, they won't.

    But no posted text.

    PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS... For multiple reasons:

    I, for one, seem to always find something in an article that I want to share and it always comes from a source that is behind a paywall.

    Sadly, many articles may have a great line or two in them, but the rest of the article is mediocre at best. Long pieces that go on and on but contains one zinger that is great...but that really isn't worth the effort it took to find it.

    Again, it's your kingdom, your rules... but I would rather put up with reading the cut and paste if it means I can avoid going to the website of some of the sources of his content. Rather stay off of those lists.

  47. [47] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Look what we have.. STILL have disgusting attacks on my wife, STILL have personal attacks on myself...

    CW, card me if you must... But I would like to know
    if pointing out when someone is lying using their own comments as the evidence truly considered a "personal attack" on that someone?

    [Moderator: Removed a paragraph here because I felt it was not helpful.]

    [It's a new day. Let's move forward and I will deal with incidents as they happen. I understand what you are saying, but let's all strive to turn over a new leaf, shall we?]

  48. [48] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [43]

    You are incorrect. We have (archived) reasons.

    PREACH!!! Love you, Kick!!!

    -R

  49. [49] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    You are incorrect. We have (archived) reasons.

    please allow me to rephrase: while said reasons may in fact exist, i believe that re-hashing them here is unlikely to influence the only person who's actually making the decisions.

    JL

  50. [50] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    General comment:

    My apologies for not being clearer.

    Any rules I am proposing here are rules only for persons already in the penalty box.

    I deal with discipline on a case-by-case basis. If any of the rest of you get annoying, I will deal with you specific to your own circumstances. Most people will take gentle criticism and suggestions to heart and be more polite, I have found. For the few who don't or can't, special rules are sometimes necessary. I wish this weren't so, but as we all have seen, sadly sometimes this is true.

    Does that help?

    -CW

  51. [51] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Oh and everyone might want to take a look at my edits to [47].

    -CW

  52. [52] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    CW

    Thank you for your response. I will drop the issue. I gotta say that it is odd and honestly a little unnerving to see your response being made using my "voice" in [47].

    -R

  53. [53] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Sorry... I tried making it obvious with the "Moderator:" lead in...

    but I did want to make sure everyone noticed it, too, that's why [51].

    -CW

  54. [54] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    In the spirit of new leaves, I'm going to pledge to voluntarily limit my comments per column to 20 and not make references to anybody's mother most of the time.

  55. [55] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    I won't make fun of Fat Donny's wig anymore either.

  56. [56] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Here's to turning over a new leaf- cheers, everybody!

  57. [57] 
    Kick wrote:

    ListenWhenYouHear
    48

    PREACH!!! Love you, Kick!!!

    _______00000000000__________000000000000
    _____00000000_____00000__000000_____0000000
    ___0000000_____________000_____________00000
    __0000000_______________0________________0000
    _000000___________________________________0000
    _00000____________________________________ 0000
    00000_____________________________________00000
    00000____________________________________000000
    _000000________________________________0000000
    __0000000_____________________________0000000
    ____000000___________________________000000
    ______000000_______________________000000
    _________00000____________________0000
    ____________0000________________0000
    ______________0000____________000
    ________________000________000
    ________________ __000____00
    _____________________00_00
    _______________________00

  58. [58] 
    Kick wrote:

    nypoet22
    49

    please allow me to rephrase:

    Proceed, governor.

    while said reasons may in fact exist, i believe that re-hashing them here is unlikely to influence the only person who's actually making the decisions.

    Workable hypothesis. :)

  59. [59] 
    Kick wrote:

    John From Censornati
    55

    I won't make fun of Fat Donny's wig anymore either.

    Mikey Cohen says it's not a wig. It's a botched hair transplant surgery contorted to hide multiple scars and consists of a long strand of hair that hangs down below his shoulder on the right side. According to Cohen: "The three-step procedure required a flop up of the hair from the back of his head, followed by the flip of the resulting overhang on the back of his pate, and then the flap of his combover on the right side, providing three layers of thinly disguised balding-male insecurity."

    No mention of hairspray, but I would wager it's a shellacking.

  60. [60] 
    John From Censornati wrote:

    The Orange One himself mentions his manly man hairspray ?.

Comments for this article are closed.