Just Saying

Posted Tuesday, January 5, 2010, at 3:18 PM
View 21 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • *

    I haven't been to a Tea Party Express event so I don't know what they openly talk about. I just was checking out their site and didn't see anything about a Blue Collar/proletariat uprising. Your blog seems to be a load of the Fear Mongering you often rail about. Oh no the scary Fake Tea Parties are planning a revolt and will soon kill us all and loot the amber room!

    Personally I think the whole thing is absurd, but I find it interesting that now you are defending the original "true grass roots Tea Party Patriots" de facto when I thought at the time you complained of them being right wing media sponsored and mocked them as Tea Baggers. Maybe I'm misremembering your posts last fall.

    Trying to call them essentially hypocritical secret Socialists makes little sense to me. Even if they are talking about open revolt against the government are they talking about setting themselves up as the means of controlling production? Please enlighten me. You make it sound like the only way to revolt against a government is by basing your arguments on Marxism.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jan 5, 2010, at 3:57 PM
  • Hey Transplant,

    Mike simply pointed out that the Verbage and message used by the Tea Partyists is almost identical to the Call to Arms of Lenin.

    The wording is slightly different -- possibly because translating Lenin's Russian writings to English was not exact.

    But the Paragraph against Paragraph comparison is incredible. You could take Tea Party talk, transpose entire paragraphs with Marx and Lenin and most knowledgable scholars would have to refer to original manuscripts to tell which came from which source.

    Remember the oft-expressed conservative thinking concerning "awful liberals" -- "If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, dives like a duck and fertilizes like a duck ---IT IS A DUCK."

    Unless of course it is a hybrid Mallard/Canadian.

    By that thinking, since the Tea Party crowd Sings in Marxist lyrics, laughs at Lenin lines, presents Thoughts directly from Chairman Mao as their political position -----

    How can they legitimately claim to be conservatives, while shouting Marxist/Lenin thoughts?

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Tue, Jan 5, 2010, at 4:25 PM
  • Just exactly who are these people? These "extreme conservatives" who want a workers uprising. This is all new to me. Or did you just make up another story?

    -- Posted by Dudley Dawson on Tue, Jan 5, 2010, at 4:49 PM
  • *

    There are two completely different Tea Party organizations. The original which is the Tea Party Patriots which is still a grass roots organization and the Tea Party Express which is a completely sponsor driven corporate entity.

    By the way it should be noted that it wasn't liberals that coined the phrase "tea-baggers" but the Tea Party members themselves when they planned on dumping tea bags into different waters across the nation on April 15th.

    I am not attempting in any way to fear monger about the Tea Partiers, just recalling what they have said in the past about revolting against the supposed government take-over, black hawk helicopter, internment camp fears they have been voicing since the day Obama took office. Honestly I am not afraid of them. I was simply pointing out the similar language that they are using to Marx and the Bolshevik Revolution.

    If you don't agree than that's great. I'm not trying to convince anyone that I am right just giving my opinion as a historian.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jan 5, 2010, at 4:53 PM
  • *

    As a historian Mike, you should recognize that nearly all popular revolts all have almost the same message and slogans and indeed they do match up well with Leninist themes. Why aren't you comparing the Tea Party idiots to the American revolutionaries they think they emulate? Or to any of the hundreds of popular revolts throughout history? The slogan is ALWAYS about some big bad person or group over THERE that is holding US down and taking things from US that belong to US not THEM. Why is it that you latch on to one revolt that would be most distasteful to the Tea Party peoples? But I forgot you just say, you don't try to stir things up pointlessly.

    Mike, didn't you say initially that the Tea Parties were all a Fox News or some such organization not a true grass roots group when they first made news?

    Hank or Mike, do you have any specific examples of the Marxist/Leninist/Maoist chants, songs, lines, etc that the Tea Party Express people are using?

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Wed, Jan 6, 2010, at 9:52 AM
  • Sir,

    I have been on both tours with the Tea Party Express and am currently planning the TPX 2.5 and TPX III, I have not seen you at any of these events. Please come to one, I'd like to meet you. Upon attending you will learn that we have a couple of speakers travel with us speak and locals speak. Each speaker expresses their own and may I say differing political views. The only similarities is those speaking LOVE this country and it's Constitution and are concerned with the direction the government is taking this country. Free speech and propaganda are not the same thing. We are practicing Free Speech.

    RE: your comment about "not the original true-grass roots Tea Party". Not so my man... we've been around since the beginning and even donated monies to the large tax-day Tea Party on April 15, 2009 at the CA capital.

    RE: Others comments of being corporately funded. I wish... our Defeat Harry Reid campaign is costing a fortune and we wish we could run the ad even more across NV. We'll start running it This Monday. Stay tuned. If you happen to know of any corporations who've donated to TPX please let me know so I can call them and get the money- we're eager right now to donate to the Scott Brown campaign... there's so much for us conservatives to do right now that the "ownership of leadership" and infighting (being caused by liberals not tru conservatives- C.I.N.O.'s)is detracting from the true cause. Any here who doubt where our heart is is free to email me tiff.tpx@gmail.com. I will tell you the history of the leader of our PAC, I will tell you that he and a handful of people successfully ran the campaign to RECALL the governor of our state. He produces results! And has the record to prove it. We don't just organize rallies and tours check out our site to stay tuned to what we're doing.


    You should go to the source for your info... and not reposts of reposts of reposts. Email me!

    Tiffiny Ruegner

    Field Coordinator for Tea Party Express

    Nice try with the Nazi correlation but it doesn't really work. You'll find out why when you meet me at our rally!

    -- Posted by TheRightMixx on Wed, Jan 6, 2010, at 12:48 PM
  • *

    Joe, the fact that you got this information from wikipedia throws your argument out. Wikipedia can be changed by anyone and for whatever reason. The Keith Olbermanns, Rachel Maddows, and Chris Matthews (interesting that almost only MSNBC hosts are mentioned) didn't come up with the teabagging phrase.

    SWNNebr, The Tea Party Express is sponsored by organizations and big money people and Fox News gave them the media outlet. The Tea Party Patriots are the grassroots organization.

    Do a search of images, you'll find plenty of signs that say things such as I didn't bring my gun, this time. And of course the used out of context Thomas Jefferson quote: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    Of course he also said: "I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." but you don't hear a lot of people quoting him on that.

    I also didn't compare them to the real Tea Party Patriots of the Revolution because there is no comparison between the two. The original Tea Party Patriots were acting against a government that was specifically focusing new taxes on the American colonies and with no representation in Parliament. The New Tea Party Patriots are acting out against taxes that were passed under the Bush Administration yet they apparently didn't notice the taxes until Obama took office.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Jan 6, 2010, at 12:50 PM
  • *

    You can try to rewrite history as much as you want to Joe, but the fact remains the term "teabagger" originated with the Tea Party groups. The three at MSNBC and Anderson Cooper pounced on it because they realized that the Tea Party members had given themselves a juvenile sexual term.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Jan 6, 2010, at 10:46 PM
  • Thanks, GI on that piece about how the MSNBC hosts WERE the ones who started the term. The fact that you're actually trying to defend the use of the term though is actually more comical than the term itself.

    In all reality, it doesn't matter what you call them. They've been assigned this term by MSNBC hosts relentlessly with the intent of trying to ridicule and discredit them which is what MSNBC pays them for, no biggie there. If someone is conservative, they attack so it's no surprise the use of this term originated with MSNBC.

    They've been told they're fake or just controlled by big businesses, politicians, fox news, etc.

    What liberals don't realize is that inconvenient truth that they were completely wrong about these people. Mike is trying to make an effort to backpeddle by now saying "some" protesters are real but those others... well, those others are definitely fake. Face it, you were wrong, they're real and they're genuinely upset at the current policies being carried out and no matter what names you call them or how you try to belittle them, they aren't going away and they will continue to grow as they have been doing.

    There will always be people who try to take advantage of a successful group or movement ex post facto, just like any movement, they will only support people or groups who match their beliefs just like any other group. I'm sure there are liberal groups out there who have enjoyed the support of businesses, politicians and certain media outlets.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Jan 7, 2010, at 12:26 PM
  • GI,

    I get it, you want to reduce their message but unfortunately for you, you and others have failed in that regard. In fact, their message has attracted even more people and shows no signs of slowing down. Oh well, you can't win em all. Keep on truckin'.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Thu, Jan 7, 2010, at 4:19 PM
  • *

    Look GI even when presented with factual information they still want to make the claim that the word was never even brought up until MSNBC which of course is a completely fabricated lie. Let them live in it, it's what they are good at doing.

    As for backpedaling McCook, I don't know where you came up with that. I have always called the Tea Party Express a corporate sponsored event and not a true grass roots organization. The facts are there, go to their home page and all you see are sponsors.

    The Tea Party Patriots who organized the first event were unfunded and relied on the internet to spread the word and it worked. Unfortunately for them they have been co-opted by the Express group.

    We'll find out how much their message has attracted people in November. But I have to know up front what do you consider a victory for the Tea Party? I already know that when the Tea Party candidate loses (NY-23) loses it is spun every which way from "Because it was close it's not really a loss" to my favorite from Sarah Palin about how the election wasn't the real election.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jan 7, 2010, at 11:21 PM
  • Mike,

    You never made any delineation between the Tea Party "Express" and the Tea Party "Patriots". There were only Tea Parties whenever you addressed them. I know because I've had this discussion with you before and you weren't trying to divide the Tea Party movement into separate categories back then.

    Was he the Tea Party candidate or the Conservative Party candidate? I thought the Tea Party was still just a movement and not an actual Party. That's like calling Dennis Kucinich the Code Pink candidate.

    A victory for the Tea Party is smaller government, allowing businesses to operate as businesses and not another arm of the government and stopping the government from dictating to people more things they should spend their money on, especially if they could find a better use of that money for their own specific needs whether they're rich, poor or in between.

    Just like GI trying to reduce their message, this victory may be difficult, if not impossible but people still gotta try. You can't measure victory in the election of candidates because candidates can always dissapoint.

    Ben Nelson is a perfect example and now he's running ads during as many bowl games as he can to try getting back all the people he disappointed. If it was just people who didn't vote for him that were upset then he wouldn't be running an ad during a national championship football game two years before the expiration of his term. Nebraskans don't forget and Ben knows that.

    Victory can only be measured in results and with a liberal Congress and President controlling policy and closing the doors on the full negotiation process, it seems likely they will have their way for now. However, the American people have shown over and over they have little patience for a single party controlling both legislative and executive branches. Not to mention, the broken promise of the President to make this a completely open process available for all Americans to see on C-span. Only time can tell for sure though. We're all only speculating until then but we have to do something to pass the time.

    Only challengers or incumbents for the open seats can claim victory in November. America can't because we actually need results. Personally, based on what I continue to see from politicians, I'm now of the impression that it's foolish to declare an election a victory for anyone but the winning candidate.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 10:01 AM
  • Please McCook,

    Democrats "closing the door on the full negotiation process."

    With all the House and Senate Health Care Bill proposals, about 169 of all adopted amendments were sought by Republicans.

    Less than 40 were presented by Democrats.

    All committee hearings were held in full accordance with standard parliamentary rules.

    Although several times, Democratic members released time to Republicans allowing them to extend comments.

    THE CLOSURE -- was the required 60 votes stopping filibustering by and completely, self declared obstructionist House and Senate members.

    Republican Teddy Roosevelt first proposed national universal health care.

    Ike was in favor. Nixon even considered one form.

    Reagan had it studied, as did Ford.

    Just as the payment for physicians' end-of-life consultations, WHEN ASKED, was introduced and passed by Republicans for Medicare -- so was the same wording offered for Health Care Reform -- and approved.

    IMMEDIATELY, the neo-con NUTCASES began screaming this Republican measure amounted to "OBAMA'S DEATH PANELS.'

    Sorry, McCook, but with GOP members of both houses marching in tight lock step to whatever drum beat their party leaders demand -- the MAJORITY Democrats have been given no option but to follow parliamentary procedure and "Git 'er done!!!!"

    The GOP Toy Soldiers even obstructed [At the last minute} passage of the desperately neeed Defense Appropriations Bill -- as a device to delay Health Care votes.

    How sick can any group of people be.

    You keep talking Tea Party ideals.

    Where were their ideals when Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Nixon and DubYah were busily increasing the federal payroll?

    Where were they when Reagan/Bush piled up more national debt than all previous administrations combined.

    Where were they when Poppa Bush dispatched troops for wars in Somalia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Grenada, Panama and the Phillipines?

    Where were you when DubYah and the Draft Dodgers decided to let Bin Laden and Al Qaeda free from Tor Bora to rebuild and attack us again, Christmas, 2009?

    Where were you and the Tea Baggers when Poppa Bush created the S&L Mess, Farm/Home/Business foreclosures and those Farm Auctions -- closed down western metals mining, timber and oil exploration? WHERE???

    Where were you when DubYah exceeded his daddy's effort and piled up more national debt than all previous presidents, including his daddy.

    Where were the Tea Baggers while DubYah sold the latest Iraq War to Halliburton, KBR and others for private profit.

    Does ENRON mean anthing to you, with their special white House VIP credentials?

    Where were you and the Tea Baggers while that went on?

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 2:50 PM
  • Standard parliamentary rules is not what Obama promised now is it? It certainly isn't change. Although, I never said they didn't follow standard parliamentary rules that have been around for years so I don't know why you're worried about that anyway.

    I can't speak for where anyone other than myself was on anything so I'll just answer for myself.

    "Where were their ideals when Reagan, George Herbert Walker Bush, Nixon and DubYah were busily increasing the federal payroll?"

    Reagan: Grade school; Bush Sr.: Grade School; Nixon: unborn, Bush Jr.: disappointed about the spending but with no better alternatives than a self-obsessed narcissist like Kerry, it was a matter of choosing the lesser of two evils. Bush, with all his faults still won, hands down.

    "Where were they when Reagan/Bush piled up more national debt than all previous administrations combined."

    Reagan: Grade school, Bush Sr.: Grade school, Bush Jr.: still disappointed with the deficit building programs like TARP and Part D that we couldn't afford but enacted anyway.

    "Where were they when Poppa Bush dispatched troops for wars in Somalia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Grenada, Panama and the Phillipines?"

    Bush Sr.: Grade school and we had a classmate's older brother come to our class and talk about the good work the US Army was doing for others. He was a mechanic in the Army and told us how important their work was and how dedicated he was to making sure they had reliable equipment to carry out their missions.

    "Where were you when DubYah and the Draft Dodgers decided to let Bin Laden and Al Qaeda free from Tor Bora to rebuild and attack us again, Christmas, 2009?"

    Bush Jr.: Christmas of 2009 I was with my family. I was in high school when Clinton did the same thing and let Bin Laden go so that he could come back and kill 3,000 American lives. Just in case you were wondering about that too.

    "Where were you and the Tea Baggers when Poppa Bush created the S&L Mess, Farm/Home/Business foreclosures and those Farm Auctions -- closed down western metals mining, timber and oil exploration? WHERE???"

    Bush Sr.: Grade school. Funny enough, I voted for Dukakis in the mock election we had because he was amusing in his tank gear. Democrats tend to do well in the 6-12 age demographic I guess.

    "Where were you when DubYah exceeded his daddy's effort and piled up more national debt than all previous presidents, including his daddy."

    You seem to be repeating yourself. See my answer I gave the first time you asked.

    "Where were the Tea Baggers while DubYah sold the latest Iraq War to Halliburton, KBR and others for private profit."

    Private profit? I'm unaware of any sales or documents thereof for that specific purpose resulting in a private profit to Bush.

    "Does ENRON mean anthing to you, with their special white House VIP credentials?"

    You'll have to be more specific. Is that like the VIP credentials of all the health care industries and other businesses that are routinely invited to the White House to reach deals on legislation and address their concerns under the Obama administation?

    "Where were you and the Tea Baggers while that went on?"

    You'll see I answered you on each and every question that was plaguing your little mind. I was obviously very young for much of it but that's beyond my control so I suppose you can go ahead and fault me for not being born early enough to have an opinion at the time.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 3:45 PM
  • *

    Joe I see you are taking the standard right wing method and making up what other people in an attempt to change what someone has said.

    I never once said NY-23 was a beat down, as you well know, but it doesn't serve your argument to actually tell the truth. I said that the candidate (who was technically the Conservative Candidate, but was heavily sponsored by Tea Party interests, but to listen to McCook1's spin to keep them out of loosing race they had nothing to do with it) lost and it was spun as anything but a loss.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 3:49 PM
  • *

    Herndon you have to remember that anything Republicans and Conservatives complain about now they absolutely applauded and encouraged in the past. Let's not forget that Republicans have been trying to kill Medicare/Medicaid since it very first came into existence only changing their minds when they saw that they may be able to get votes out of lying about what's being cut from the programs. As much as they yell and scream about saving taxpayers money yet when the President and Democrats want to cut the fat out of the programs and it doesn't affect anyone then all of a suddent they are trying to save Medicare/Medicaid.

    But I do find it interesting that McCook1 is almost in a chastising mode about standard parliamentary procedures, because he very well knows that if the rules were changed to get rid of the 60 votes to end debate he would have a panic attack.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 3:59 PM
  • Mike,

    There you go again, trying to manufacture issues nobody has even mentioned. All I said about standard parliamentary procedures was this: I never accused them of not following those procedures and I said that it was not a change from what we had before. I was not the one promising change and I was not the one promising to show those negotiations on C-span. Where you came up with this idea of worrying about getting rid of certain procedures didn't come from anything I said so I guess you're just trying to stir the pot over something that's not an issue anyway.

    Although, I would enraged if that happened, whether it was a Republican or Democrat Congress at the time because that rule is there to make sure measures are not rammed through by the majority party. Republicans are not innocent of strongarming Democrats and I was just as upset with them as I am with Democrats because they acted like they would never lose the majority and have to face the consequences of those actions, just like the Democrats are doing now. It's an unending cycle that has to stop but regardless of what happens in November, I'm afraid it will continue this way until someone in government can influence the public to speak out and together they can put pressure on lawmakers to change from their old ways.

    As for "spinning" anything about the Tea Party backing a candidate and the candidate losing, I know he had a lot of support from Tea Party protesters and that he lost in a close race to the Democrat. We both know there was nothing normal about that race but what's it matter if he lost and they backed him?

    There will be people they support that win and there will be people they support that lose. That goes for any organization or movement that supports a candidate. I've never claimed that the candidate they support is invincible in the polls. You were trying to make it sound like the Tea Party protesters were an official Party and their nominee lost an election and that was a misleading statement that I thought I'd point out. I simply pointed out that he was a 3rd Party nominee supported by the Tea Party protesters. Just like Kucinich is supported by Code Pink.

    I leave the spin to you. You're the one trying to spin a Conservative Party nominee's election loss as some sort of loss for the Tea Party protesters. I have said they shouldn't claim victory for endorsing candidates that win either, so why do you think it's a "spin" if I also say that they can't claim a loss for endorsing candidates that lose? I'm saying that the election of a candidate is only a victory or a loss for the candidate.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 5:40 PM
  • O.K. McCook,

    "Standard parliamentary rules is not what Obama promised now is it? It certainly isn't change."

    Show me in the Constitution where the EXECUTIVE has power to set Congressional procedural rules.

    [The first act passed by the House back in the 1780s, was Rules for Procedure. Passed by House members, NOT IMPOSED BY GEORGE WASHINGTON. Oh yeah, the second bill -- a subsidy bill for private business -- not farmers.]

    Come to think about it, that first subsidy was for the transportation industry. [How about that, Sam?]

    Parliamentary procedure, as any 4-H or FFA member is aware, is a system of "Law" used around the world to conduct meetings -- be it American Legion or Scout Committee meetings anywhere, Congress, the U.N., the British Parliament where the rules started for virtually every democratic legislative body on earth.

    Change -- HOW ABOUT NO MORE NO-BID CONTRACTS FOR GOP CRONIES?? Seems a good change.

    CHANGE -- HOW ABOUT USING PREDATORS ALONG THE MEXICAN BORDER TO STOP ILLEGALS AND DRUG SMUGGLING? Sure works for me. Closes the border and gives the training crews for Unmanned Aerial Surveilance craft real time, real life experience in the field.

    CHANGE -- How about supporting the Mexican government in their fight to wipe out the drug cartels? They have just about cleaned out the bloody Tijuana bunch during the last 30 days.

    Having done a lot of business in Mexico, including in Las Mochis, Sinaloa back in the 70s, seeing those low lifes being run out of Tijuana and Sinaloa seems like real good change to me -- How about you?

    CHANGE -- How about stopping "Bailed Out" bank executives from awarding themselves $50-Million bonuses for bankrupting their companies before begging for welfare?

    CHANGE -- How about scheduling combat withdrawal from Iraq, where Al Qaeda ain't, while stepping up strength in Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda is?

    CHANGE -- How about a whole month in Iraq with no US troop deaths?

    CHANGE -- How about monthly job loss decreasing until there is a real chance jobs increased during the Christmas season?

    CHANGE -- How about world manufacturing showing its first monthly increase in two years?

    CHANGE -- How about New Orleans finally being rebuilt, long after DubYah's Texas Horse Race promoter has left the building?

    CHANGE -- How about major banks starting to process small business and home mortgage loans for the first time in years -- and BoA's president admitting yesterday "they made mistakes and helped create the mess."

    "I was in high school when Clinton did the same thing and let Bin Laden go so that he could come back and kill 3,000 American lives."

    McCook you are psychic. Clinton never invaded Afghanistan. He had ordered intelligence gathered on Bin Laden and his operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Any covert operations to eliminate Bin Laden were just that -- Covert/Secret -- and remain so until this day.

    Oh yeah, it was Poppa Bush who directed the CIA while they were pouring weaponry into Afghanistan's tribal chieftains, including STINGERS -- with a lot of those disappearing.

    Of course, most of them have been used since -- against our guys.

    Have you noticed it was the DubYah Draft Dodgers who came up with the hare-brained scheme to drop small outposts along the Pakistan border to "interdict" weapons smuggling into the Afghan Taliban. Less than a hundred men, in unprotected outposts which were almost immediately wiped out by quick striking Taliban with massed RPG attacks. They would fire assault rifles, wait until our guys ran to man crew-served heavy weapons and then drop 200 or more RPGs into the new camp.

    At one, of 49 soldiers, nine were killed and 27 wounded in the first seconds.

    The Taliban continued pounding survivors until about five minutes before gunships could arrive.

    So, the DraftDodgers would order another defenseless outpost established in another valley.

    Guess what, those Taliban wiped the next one out too.

    McCook -- Wake up and smell the coffee.

    The PRESIDENT does not run Congress.

    Congress runs Congress.

    That's in the Constitution.

    You should read it sometime. --

    Lots of good information.


    The President Proposes--Congress Disposes.

    Congress Legislates--The Executive Administrates.

    The President proposed Congress finally, after a century of talking, get serious about reforming the Health Care System to better serve all the people, and not just give a lot of Doctors Wednesday afternoon golf, and health insurors a combined $12.5-BILLION in net profits in 2008.

    [Just a slight increase from $2.5-BILLION net profits in 1998.]


    Of course, I suspect the Bush family owns lots more Health Insurance Company stock than you do.

    It is a lead pipe cinch the Bush Family owns a lot more Halliburton and KBR stock than both you and I combined, probably even more than Sam, even though he has a cap.

    Since Prescott Bush organized all of them, certainly the Bush Family owns most of the stock in the corporations which control every import and export license for China.

    Wonder if that has anything to do with DubYah making no effort to at least slow our deficit trading with China.

    Wonder if it had anything to do with him borrowing all those BILLIONS from China to finance his governmental expansion and two wars?

    How about it, McCook -- any ideas for how those operations could be changed?

    """"Where were they when Reagan/Bush piled up more national debt than all previous administrations combined.""""

    """""""Where were you when DubYah exceeded his daddy's effort and piled up more national debt than all previous presidents, including his daddy."""""""

    McCook -- That's two different Bushes, one creating more debt than ALL previous presidents, during the 80s.

    Then DUBYAH coming along in the 21st century and doing the same thing, only doubling his daddy's debt increase along with all the other previous administrations.

    Why the big deal" DubYah's increase more than doubled his daddy's and he borrowed from the Chinese -- leaving them as our bankers, and we cannot pay the debt, thanks to DubYah's mess.

    Finally -- During the more than 30 years Republicans have held the White House since 1952, including several Congressional sessions where they had a clear majority why did they not resolve all these problems they are screaming about today.


    When the GOP gets in power, they are so busy lining their pockets and shoveling federal bucks into their friends' pockets, they can't be bothered by such a mundane thing as good governance.

    Ike's Sherman Adams needed his vicuna coat.

    Ike needed the GMC mid-sized truck distributorship for his Gettysburg Farm corporation.

    Every GOP presidency has had its Charley Wilson and General Motors.

    Bush/Cheney had Enron, Halliburton and KBR.

    By the way, McCook, the OBAMA CHANGE -- Leaders and representatives of every important segment with a stake in any issue under open discussion during President Obama's White House sessions have been invited and they enter by the front door with normal one-day, or one-conference credentials.

    They don't come in through the Executive Office Building tunnel with special VIP credentials as in the case of Enron and Halliburton CRONIES.

    You see there is a difference,when the one president and vice president open the White House to cronies, allowing hidden entrance and exits -- and this president and vice-president invite everyone to come in, enter by the main gate and front door, take part in discussions and leave by the main gate -- with opportunity for press photo ops and questions.

    CHANGE! You know it is change for the good and if you can't see that -- God Help YOU -- nothing else will.

    -- Posted by HerndonHank on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 6:04 PM
  • *

    It does make me wonder McCook if when you say "Clinton did the same thing and let Bin Laden go so" you are referring the long debunked false story of another country offering Clinton Osama bin Laden and Clinton turning that country down. It never happened, but that hasn't stopped you and others from perpetuating it in order to take heat off of George W. Bush. Then again the Clinton Administration warned Bush about Osama bin Laden and al Queda and Bush did nothing. Bush received a memo months before the attacks declaring that Osama bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S. and his only response to tell the person delivering the note that he had sufficiently covered his butt.

    In your rush to rewrite history you push all blame on Clinton and leave Bush high and clear from any accountability at all.

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 8, 2010, at 6:36 PM
  • I almost thought I'd have to write a long reply but mike and hank have pointed out the hypocrisy of their cries for their perception that people thought Bush could do no wrong but when it comes to obama or clinton then it seems they can do no wrong either. Hank even went so far as to infer that Obama brought about the "change" of not losing any soldiers in Iraq which further discredits hank competency. Btw Hank, the President is the leader of his party, which controls Congress, and the leader of the country. I'd say he has more than enough influence to show negotiations on C-span IF that's what he wanted to do but it appears he does not. Nothing in the Constitution forbids that but I forgot that you just know so much. However, I note the rare occurence that the left notes something the Constitution does NOT allow the government to do. That itself it's just unbelievable.

    -- Posted by McCook1 on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 2:11 PM
  • *

    Wow McCook that was quite the rewording of other people's words to better fit your argument on that one. When have I ever said that Obama and/or Clinton could do no wrong? No, no, before you answer I can go ahead and answer that for you I haven't. You know that much to be true, but you won't ever admit that you are wrong on that account and much like your brethern I'm not holding my breath for an apology for the lies about me you are tying to perpetrate. Oh well.

    My point to this blog was that the very same Republicans that forgave Bush for his wrongs (or simply made them disappear) now have made a 360 degree turn and blame this president (who just happens to have a D behind their name) for everything they can find. Disagreeing with the president for these people is tantamount to treason just as long as the president is from their party, if he/she is a Democrat disagree as much as possible and as much in public as you can.

    Clinton had his issues (that weren't made up by Congress). Did he have some responsibility for 9/11, absolutely. Obama has had his issues. Is the health care bill that is likely to cross his desk anywhere near what he campaigned on? Not even close. But what Congress does is on their own accord. Obama can request it but Congress does not have to do what the president wants. Maybe that's why the founding fathers created three branches.

    I believe Herndon's point (though he will have to answer himself) about the drop in deaths in Iraq is that since the Bush Administration ALWAYS took credit when there were drops in deaths in Iraq, then the fact that we had the first month since the start of the war to see no military deaths under Obama and under the plan implemented by Obama should be credited to Obama. I believe that's his point but like I said he made the point so he will have to answer it.

    You obviously don't think that Obama should be credited, if not why and who should get the credit?

    -- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 3:46 PM
Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration: