[mccookgazette.com] A Few Clouds ~ 85°F  
High: 85°F ~ Low: 59°F
Friday, Aug. 29, 2014

Blame Everyone but Bush

Posted Sunday, January 10, 2010, at 4:39 PM

If the last couple of weeks have taught us anything it's that former Bush Administration officials, supporters, and defenders will do or say anything to excuse ANYTHING that happened in the eight years of the Bush White House. They all seem to suffer from some form of delusion of grandeur. Basically what is happening is that everything that went on during the early years of Bush's 1st term was blamed solely on President Clinton. Anything that happened towards the end of Bush's second term are either being pushed onto President Obama or somehow still blamed on President Clinton.

One of the amazing things to come out of this is after being told by the Bush White House and others how history will see him and that he was a great president, these same people are now trying to write the history books in advance and have provided us with so much spin that when the history books are eventually written on Bush he will be remembered as an unremarkable president that really didn't have to face any big issues for eight year. Those of us who live in reality know that's not even remotely true but that hasn't stopped his former press secretary from declaring that President Bush somehow inherited and attack that happened on his watch and "America's Mayor"© to declare that it never actually happened (of course he never said those exact words but when you say that no terrorist attacks occurred under Bush you are essentially erasing 9/11 from memory), more on his bizarre statements later.

The recession we are currently under according to the defenders of Bush wasn't caused by anything he did or encouraged, it was all the fault of Clinton, the Democrats after 2006, and naturally Obama (before he ever took office). The tragedy that was the aftermath of Katrina had nothing to do with Bush and his policies or that he had appointed a horse judge as FEMA director it was solely the fault of the citizens of the "city of Louisiana" -- this of course is a quote from then director of Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff.

But let's look a little closer to the implosion of Republican heads after the Christmas Day attack. The terrorist has been dubbed "The Underwear Bomber" but that tag is so ridiculous I will refer to the attack itself. In December 2001, a similar attempt was carried out by Richard Reid. He was immediately arrested and charged in federal court. He was eventually pled guilty and was sentenced to life in prison. President Bush was on vacation when the attempt occurred and eight days later mentioned in passing the attack. The press and Democrats were non-chalant about it and the nation moved forward.

Fast forward to December 2009 and we have a similar attack. The terrorist was taken into custody and will be charged in federal court. Obama was on vacation at the time but almost immediately released a statement and has made comments about what happened and what allowed the attack to happen almost daily, yet this time around the media and Republicans have been relentlessly going after Obama. I've mentioned in previous blogs the Republican Congressmen that have the lying disease, even one Senator DeMint who has actually said that words that Obama did say he never actually said and CNN not only giving him a pass on it but excusing his lie.

Then we move to the big dog of the political right, the ones that were there. Vice-President Cheney and "America's Mayor"© Rudy Guilliani who have been relentless in criticizing Obama for what they feel is his lack of action yet at the same time excusing Bush for less than ideal actions. Rudy Guilliani took it a step forward when, in trying to spin his thinking that 9/11 never happened, actually decided to declare that the Anthrax attacks under Bush didn't count as terrorism because 1)we never caught the person responsible and 2)he wasn't a Muslim terrorist. That must make the families of the victims of the Oklahoma City Bombing scratch their heads that Guilliani doesn't count that attack as an act of terrorism because it wasn't a Muslim terrorist that carried it out. This is how tunnel visioned Republicans have become on terrorism that if the act is not carried out by a Muslim it doesn't count as terrorism.

When you listen to those that worked for, supported, or depended Bush you get quite a work of revisionist history as through their eyes Bush is not responsible for anything, most certainly 9/11, even though it occurred under his presidency, he was warned as president that an attack was coming, and he was warned by the Clinton Administration as he became president that al Queada was wanting to attack don't even try to tell them that Bush is partly responsible for the attack. They will come back and inform you that either 9/11 didn't happen under Bush's watch, 9/11 didn't happen or that Bush isn't responsible at all for 9/11.

To give Obama credit, he did come out and accept responsibility for the failures that allowed this attempted attack to occur. It is a refreshing change of pace from a White House and its people that did everything but accept blame for anything.

Obama has not backed away from anything and has taken everything head on. In years past this was a quality that most Americans have wanted in a president, but after eight years of a president who pushed blame at every opportunity Americans are now used to someone being blamed. The Republicans are naturally taking this head on. When Obama said that he would take ownership of the recession, even though he wasn't president when it took hold, that was all Republicans needed to fully blame the recession on Obama.

Now that Obama has said that he will take full responsibility for what happened on Christmas Day it won't take long for Republicans to blame Obama for any attack that has occurred in an eight year period (yes I am being sarcastic, but it wouldn't surprise me if they tried, and this liberal bias media will allow them to do it).

Sadly I don't expect anything other than this from today's Republicans. Who else can come out and absolutely lie about everything, get called on the lie, turn around and call that person or organization the liars (or taking them out of context -- their favorite phrase when they put their foot in their mouth) and are allowed to do so by our liberal biased press.


Just one more issue I want to point out. For all those people that believe that Obama is the most liberal president we have ever had, you know nothing of true liberalism. For those of you that believe that Obama is a liberal, you know nothing of liberalism.

As we stand today, true liberals and the Tea Party Patriots have more in common than either group will ever admit.


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Funny Mike, it seems both sides of idiots have the same game plan and both solve as many problems.

"Blame Bush for Everything"

Or

"Blame everyone but Bush."

Amazing.

On Harry Reid:

Once again, the GOP is getting caught up trying up-end a political advesary. I can't believe that either political party (they're both guilty) could waste so much time on something like this that will leave such a bad taste in everyone's mouth and set such a dangerous precident.

I say, "Judge not, that you be not judged." -Matthew 7:1. "You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your... brother's eye." -Matthew 7:5See More

When are they going to learn that until they all perfect and walking on the clouds they cannot be the moral police and character judiciary panel for this country?

I CAN tell you right now that the vast majority of conservatives and moderate Dems in the house and senate have much better plans for this country that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, or evern Obama could EVER come up with, yet here we are as a country being held hostage by the loons of the far left and the combatants and modern day Pharisees on the far right.

I think this country is going to be sahken up in elections in the coming years and the poositive changes WILL NOT come from any of the great pretenders we see using up precious oxygen on the tv right now.

-- Posted by Justin76 on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 11:37 AM

If you think there is a single liberal that has anything to do with anything going on in Washington, you know nothing of liberals. The liberals have been shut out of Washington since the 60s. Neither Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi are anything remotely close to liberals. I wouldn't even say that far right wing conservatives have a place in Washington right now. Yes their voices are louder than anyone's but they aren't being heard.

I haven't heard anyone push the line "Blame Bush for Everything". I've heard plenty of hold Bush accountable. I don't blame him for everything. But he had several chances right some wrongs in his presidency and all he did was blame Democrats.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 1:12 PM

Mike since no one who is in office today is apparently a liberal, would you please educate us all on exactly what or who a liberal is? Maybe that can be your next blog.

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 4:15 PM

There is no apparent to it, none of the leaders are. There are certainly some liberals in Congress but they are no power players. About the only person in Congress that comes close to being called truly liberal is Bernie Sanders

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 5:13 PM

Hey Trannie,

Iowa's ultimate capitalist publisher Henry Wallace was a LIBERAL.

The WALLACE'S FARMER publisher and Roswell Garst of Coon Rapids created the hybrid corn revolution and carried it forward, profiting in the process.

Wayne Morse from up in the Northwest was a LIBERAL.

His verbal sparring with Clare Boothe Luce in the Senate was legendary.

Both Morse and Luce were awesome patriots.

Sen. Allan Cranston of California was a LIBERAL and possibly the most effective representative of the people of his state in 160 years.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia is a LIBERAL. Pragmatic, studious and dedicated to his state and nation. He is an absolute believer in capitalism (Imagine that of a Rockefeller).

Nelson Rockefeller of New York was a LIBERAL Republican.

Robert Kerr of Oklahoma was the richest man in the Senate (Every dime he earned with his own effort) and a total LIBERAL. After he died intestate and the IRS followed the rules of that time and took about 90% of the estate for taxes -- LIFE Magazine interviewed "Bob, Junior" while he was operating a bulldozer clearing Arkansas River bottom land. That rough, undeveloped land and just enough cash to pay for early development was all Junior received.

Bob, Jr. told LIFE -- I have all this rich land, the equipment and enough cash to develop enough to pay for clearing the rest. My dad had an axe, a sorghum jug for water and a strong box when he started. I grew up with a wonderful father. Why should I complain?"

Mrs. Kerr and a daughter were left enough to live comfortably, driving cars 15 years or so and doing their own laundry and dishes. (Which they had always done anyway.)

The two ladies were astonished anyone would even ask if they were bitter.

"We're living the same quiet life, doing the same things. We only regret we lost the Senator."

Were the Kerr survivors bitter that taxes took more than $45-Million?

Think about it, Sam and Trannie.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Jan 11, 2010, at 5:28 PM

Honestly I was hoping that a conservative on here would enlighten us to as what an American Liberal really is. Think about it everytime someone is on television talking about what American Liberalism is, it's a Conservative. Naturally they are wrong since they believe that all Liberals are Marxist and or Communist, which isn't remotely true, but hey who am I (a liberal) to tell a conservative that what he believes is true about my ideals is wrong. Then I would be charged as thinking I knew everything and calling conservatives stupid. But then again they are my ideals and beliefs so I must be the one that is wrong.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 6:51 AM

Definintion of Liberal From Wikapedia.

In the United States, the primary use of the term liberal is at some variance with European usage. In the United States today it is most associated with the definition of modern liberalism which is a combination of social liberalism, public welfare and a mixed economy [1], which is in contrast to classical liberalism. In the 19th century it was not a common term in American philosophy or politics, partially because the two main parties were a mixture of populist and nationalist elements. The Democratic Party was the party of free trade, low tariffs and laissez-faire entrepreneurialism, while the Republican Party advocated national citizenship, transparency and government efforts to stabilize the currency. Liberalism in the United States was primarily defined by the self-proclaimed liberal presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. While the emphasis on mutual collaboration through liberal institutions as an alternative to the threat and use of force remained consistent with international liberalism, United States liberals also claimed that individuals have a right to expect the government to guarantee social justice. This was in part a consequence of the influence of the ideas of British economist John Maynard Keynes on Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. The New Deal had the effect of stealing the thunder of social democratic forces and the necessity to prevent social unrest strengthened this development. As McCarthyism gave the terms socialism and even social democracy a meaning synonymous with treason in the U.S., many to the left of center moderated their views, aligning with the New Deal liberals. The Democratic Party is identified as the liberal party within the broader definition of liberalism thus putting it in contrast with most other parties listed here. Democrats advocate more social freedoms, affirmative action, and a mixed economy (and therefore modern liberalism). The Republican Party supports strong free-market and libertarian views on the economy (and therefore economic liberalism) mixed with aspects of social conservatism. The Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States, (though still only getting 1-2% of the vote in congressional elections), and particularly centers itself on free markets and individual liberty, which is more in line with classical liberalism. (Main article: Liberalism in the United States)

-- Posted by right_all_the_time on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 9:25 AM

Most conservatives, (esp. on this site) don't know what a liberal is. They just say lib lib progressive babykiller Marx America hater etc.

So I can appreciate why you would hope for a conservative to define liberalism, because it would be funny! As I really don't need to mention, Fox News is the primary inspiration for most of the conservative standpoints on here, and it just so happens that Sarah Palin took a job as a Fox News commentator. So the morbid laughter will not cease any time soon, take heart.

-- Posted by Jaded American on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 9:34 AM

Mike, I don't think I could describe either a Liberal or a Conservative adequately. I could describe my own beliefs but I don't identify myself as either. You would probably stlye me Conservative while others would call me Liberal. I was just hoping that you could explain what you consider to be Liberal.

It makes no sense to me to want a Conservative to explain what a Liberal is. Why would you wish to be defined by the opposition rather than your own standards? You've said several times that those people and things Conservatives decry as Liberalism are not, so I just wondered what you DO consider Liberal.

Hank,

I'm sorry but I'm thouroughly confused by your post.

First off, when you wish to address me please don't begin it by using only possibly derogatory names. Other than a few jokes at which I try to make clear are jokes, I try to avoid insulting people; unfortunately, you seem to make a habit of doing so.

Second, I must not have made myself clear, I don't want to hear names of people who are Liberal, I really was more interested in Mike's view of what a Liberal believes. I would be interested in yours as well.

Third, Exactly what am I supposed to think about? That some people have been hit hard by estate taxes? That there have been many politicians who were Liberals? That the Kerrs seem like nice people? That there is no reason to be bitter if the government taxes me for $45 million? I don't see how from my post to which you are ostensibly replying, or any that I can recall posting, you would feel necessary to "call me out" to think about any of those issues. I don't feel bitter and if I appear bitter from my posts please let me know.

Fourth, Where did Sam even enter the conversation?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 1:21 PM

That was the point of my post SWNebr, around this nation and especially right here on this blog only Conservatives believe they know what a liberal is and if you tell them any differently (especially if you are giving your own liberal personal beliefs) they will call you a liar or call you names and continue preaching that only they know what a liberal is.

While I consider you more conservative than myself I don't consider you a conservative, but more along the moderate side of issues.

My own personal beliefs on what American Liberalism is using the government in an effective way to help those that can't help themselves. Whether people want to admit it or not there are people in this society that do everything they can to pull themselves up by the bootstrap but for one reason or another they fail.

We are all Americans and we are all responsible for making this the best possible country for everyone not just for those with power and money.

Tax cuts don't solve problems but typically cause some problems. Giving huge tax breaks to people that already have money won't stimulate the economy and it won't trickle down to the bottom. These people became rich and stayed rich because they knew how to spend their money wisely.

Free or affordable health care for everyone is an ideal that should be embraced. It is a social program but it isn't socialist by any means.

War is RARELY the answer.

Solutions to national problems don't happen overnight, or in days, or in weeks, or even in months. It took years to dive into a recession it could take years to pull out of it. There needs to be a stimulus for the American people (yes similar to the New Deal) to create jobs, not for the banks so they can give bigger bonuses to people that frankly don't deserve it.

Wanting every American, regardless of skin color, sex, age, religion, etc to succeed is not an evil idea.

Torture, enhanced interrogation techniques, or whatever you want to call it does not get us any usable information and it is not only against the United States law it is illegal under Geneva.

The economy works best when a multitude of different ideologies are at work. No one system works better than another.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 2:33 PM

Poor Nebraska going back again to the federal money trough. If it isn't ag subsidies it is money because it snowed too much in Nebraska. Such hypocrites!! Isn't this excess government spending? Where is the outrage? Cornhuskers going begging again.

http://omaha.com/article/20100112/NEWS01...

-- Posted by BuffRoam on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 2:48 PM

Mike,

I don't really like labels in general, but if a self-proclaimed Conservative gave a description of a Liberal would it be you? As I said, I wasn't interested in what a Conservative thinks is a liberal because the answer would be roughly anyone who didn't agree with them, I want to know what a self-proclaimed Liberal sees as Liberalness and I still urge you to give it some thought and write a blog about it.

That said, some of your points brought some questions to mind:

Do you believe that Conservatives want different things than you do? Or do they merely see a different way to get them?

How does government help those that can't help themselves? When does this happen? What social programs have been so successful that they drove themselves out of business?

How does one determine what is the best possible country?

Has anyone said that wanting people to succeed is an evil idea?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Tue, Jan 12, 2010, at 4:12 PM

That's what I have said in the past SWNebr but posters on this site are convinced that liberals are evil and their ideas are wrong, and yes posters and bloggers have said that wanting people to succeed is an evil idea if it comes from the liberal perspective.

There is no right answer or wrong answer. This world is full of varying grays between the two. Liberals and Conservatives want some of the same things they just have different ideas of how to get to that solution.

In a perfect world all of the social programs would have driven themselves out of business a long time ago, but as you know this isn't a perfect world. As long as the gap between the haves and have nots exists (and in America continues to grow) the need for these programs will continue.

But I will end this with one point. With everything I said before my diatribe on liberalism it's odd that this has become the focal point. I guess that's what happens when I call into question people assuming they know what liberalism is, I don't know (not directed at you SWNebr I know you are honestly looking for answers).

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, at 6:51 AM

In a move that shouldn't really shock anyone the right wing is already criticizing Obama for talking about the Haiti earthquake TOO SOON. Further proof that no matter what Obama does the right wing will criticize him for it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, at 4:34 PM

Rush Limbaugh says that the only reason Obama responded so soon to the Haiti earthquake was to prop his poll numbers up with blacks and Pat Robertson says the reason that Haiti was hit by an earthquake was because Haitians made a deal with the devil. Truly pathetic and sad individuals.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Jan 13, 2010, at 7:14 PM

http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=8pO1oJ...

Saw this on CNN.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 5:31 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5TE99sAb...

Pat Robertson. Judge for yourself.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 6:03 AM

BTW I have no opinion of Pat Robertson. I see him on TV about 2 minutes every 2-3 years.

It was only because Mike was critical of him that I even looked this up.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 6:19 AM

The truth that Pat Robertson speaks is an out and out lie. Though it is unusual that you have no opinion of the man and then post a link for everyone to see his comments again. The man is a horrible, sorry excuse for a human being who seemingly every time a horrible event occurs (Katrina and now this) actually blames the people in the area for what happened to them.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 10:23 AM

I respect Jack Cafferty but on this he is wrong. First of all Republicans took themselves out of this debate a long time ago. Crying and screamning that they were being locked out of the process, all the while they were holding themselves out of the process. They would throw amendment after amendment into health care bills that the Democrats would vote for only for the Republicans to vote their own amendments down in a shameful effort to obstruct and slow the process down.

In the end Obama can promise anything he wants when it comes to Congress but in the end it's Congress and only Congress that can allow cameras anywhere.

It is rather interesting that groups such as the Tea Party Express are demanding cameras in the process and yet the group is NOT allowing cameras at their Tea Party Convention this year. I guess for them they can demand whatever they want for Democrats to do but they don't have to follow it themselves.

The sad and true thing about all this, if they did allow cameras into the hearings and on CSPAN almost no one would watch.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 10:28 AM

You know it amazes me wallis that it has been 26 days since you posted your absolute and outright lies about me as fact and you have still not apologized for it. You even went the extra step today in using one of my lines of doing research. I'm not going to hold my breath for that apology as you have proven that you more than likely still believe that your lie is the truth by offering no correction and no apology. Sadly in today's culture it's what I expect from men such as yourself.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 11:12 AM

Pat Robertson continues to burry himself by saying now that he did not intend to blame Haitians for the earthquake but was talking about legend. Short memo Pat if you are referring to a legend don't call it true.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jan 14, 2010, at 3:10 PM

What was the outright lie?

I looked on Bison 2010 to see if you went to McCook High. I did not see your name.

You told me that you lived in Arkansas, I believed you.

The fact that you are far left and post on a newspaper site that caters to a far right readership is true.

Please let me know what my lie was?

I didn't do it on purpose.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 6:09 AM

So you don't consider McCook Community College to be a part of McCook? Or at the very least you don't consider people that went to MCC to have lived in McCook? I'm sure those that went to the school may have an issue with that. By the way I went to MCC from 1996-2000 earning one degree and having the credits to get another

"You have never lived in SW Nebraska" - wallismarsh, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:12 pm on the blog Shameful Democrats

I lived in southwest Nebraska from 1996-2001. I worked at Hinky Dinky for pretty much the same time as sacker, then a checker, and finally as a stocker.

"You blog on McCook Gazette.com because 90% of the area are conservatives and you are a liberal." - wallismarsh, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:12 pm on the blob Shameful Democrats

The percentage is an opinion not fact or truth. There are no polls out or information to show exactly what the percentage of Conservatives are to Liberals, it is probably close to the 90% if not over but you have no proof therefore for the moment it isn't true. You are partially correct in saying that I blog because I am a liberal and most are conservative but you leave a lot of out. I blog because liberals don't have a place in southwest Nebraska even though there are more there than you want to accept (this of course is my opinion.

"The only reason you blog is to stir the pot. Because you know for a fact that you cannot change people's opinions abour Religion or Politics." - wallismarsh, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:12 pm on the blog Shameful Democrats.

Actually that's no the reason I blog. I blog to shed light on the lies and distortions of the extreme right. If you want only information from a conservative then there is another blogger on this site that attacks the left on a regular basis. I don't know for a "fact" that I cannot change people's opinions. I know it's a daunting task but I will keep trying. But it's not about changing ideas it's about providing different ideas.

"Yet you choose to post in a community that is over 600 miles from you." -wallismarsh, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:12 pm on the blog Shameful Democrats.

While this is true you post from over 900 miles away so I don't get your point.

A little out of order, but "Mike - Don't be a hypocrite and start the "name calling" stuff. If you didn't want people to call you names you need to look in the mirror." - wallismarsh, Dec 19, 2009 at 1:12 pm on the blog Shameful Democrats.

I haven't called anyone on this website a name or any derogatory names so that is an outright lie.

To finish this while some of you post was based in some truth you did stretch the truth in order to paint me in a negative light. But what offends me the most is your assertion that because I didn't go to McCook High School that disqualifies me as living in McCook. You claim I never lived in McCook because of that and that is an outright lie. I lived there for five years was very involved in the community, I was also acted in several community plays including playing Bob Cratchit twice in the "A Christmas Carol".

I'm sorry that I don't meet your criteria for having lived in McCook, but I did.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 9:32 AM

Glenn Beck has now joined the despicable parade following Haiti, though he is just trying to catch up.

From his January 15th radio show:

"BECK: I also believe this is dividing the nation...to where the nation sees him react so rapidly on Haiti and yet he couldn't react rapidly on Afghanistan. He couldn't react rapidly on Ft. Hood. He couldn't react rapidly on our own airplanes with an underwear bomber...it doesn't make sense. [...] Three different events and Haiti is the only one. I think personally that it deepens he divide to see him react this rapidly to Haiti."

No, sir, it is you that is deepening the divide. Thousands of people have died and/or will die in Haiti and all you can think of is politics and how to keep your ratings high.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Jan 15, 2010, at 8:40 PM

I am sorry. You lived here. I stand corrected.

You just never seem to be proud of the fact in your posts.

I was wrong.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Jan 16, 2010, at 4:51 PM

Just read a comment that Howard Dean made.

"Obama is not the change agent we thought he was going to be".

Guess Obama hoodwinked you guys with the free candy routine.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sat, Jan 16, 2010, at 4:52 PM

I never seemed proud of the fact that I had lived in McCook? Where did you come up with that one?

Hoodwinked. That's a good one. The man has just completed his first year as President and I'm supposed to just give up on him, just like that. I know Conservatives want things done as quickly as possible but this is ridiculous.

Well he didn't do everything he promised in his first year of office. Time to get a new President (dripping with sarcasm by the way)

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sat, Jan 16, 2010, at 5:33 PM

Could you please tell me what the Revolution was going to mean to the American people?

Howard Dean said yesterday Obama has blown his chance with the Revolution.

You were/are obviously for the Revolution.

This is the most serious question I have ever asked you.

Did this Revolution ever contemplate violence or lying or winning at all costs?

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 8:23 AM

I looked up the definition of Revolution which is the over throwing of the existing government.

Does this mean that the goal of the DNC was to overthrow our existing government? Does this mean that the right extremists were correct in their assessments that this current government was radical?

Howard Deans comments along with the action of Nancy Pelosi seems to paint the "worse case" for the Democrats and deem the Rush Limbaugh's of the world as being correct all along.

If you are not a "Revolutionists" do you know see why Republicans and Independents have fought so hard to protect our basic freedom over the last year?

If you are a "Revolutionists" then you and I have been fighting a war.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 8:35 AM

This is a serious question to you? By fearmongering to the most extreme you think you are being serious? I also looked up the term revolution and you left out quite a bit of information on the word (which isn't a bit of a surprise since you seem to have gone into overdrive on fearmongering and declaring you and I have been fighting a war), and here are some of the other definitions you conveniently left out:

In your own definition you left off the word repudiation which changes your definition a bit.

a sudden, complete or marked change in something (such as the Industrial Revolution)

a procedure or course, as if in a circuit, back to a starting point

a single turn of this kind

So, you see, not everything involves violence as you would have everyone believe. Since you asked what revolution was going to mean it was supposed to mean a sudden change in the way things have been going. Republicans obviously didn't want things to change as that would have been a repudiation to everything they had done over the last eight years, so they decided to do what they warned all Americans from doing for eight years and that's question everything the president does at every turn. If he sneezes find something to criticize. Block everything in Congress even if means blocking money to the military.

I would think again about lumping Independents into Republicans on this one since Obama's numbers are still fairly good among Independents.

The only basic freedoms you are trying so hard to protect are ones that haven't even been affected. The basic freedoms that most Americans fought so hard to fight for over the last eight years are the ones that you and your ilk were ever so willing to give up just because Republicans and Bush told you too.

Again, he has been President for only one year. This radicalization that you and your ilk have been preaching and predicting is coming or is already here has not come to pass.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 10:33 AM

I am wrong about the Revolution you are correct.

Could you please tell us what the revolution would mean with specifics.

I know the ideas: Make the world a better place, end suffering, eliminate disease, civil rights for all, no more hunger, no more homlessness, etc, etc, etc,. These ideas are not new.

Please tell us what the Hope and Change would mean in real terms and tangible ideas.

Thank you.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 11:23 AM

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...

Another example of the Government Elites not having a clue what "Mainstreet" really thinks or cares about.

BTW I hate the term Mainstreet.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 11:43 AM

Okay what exactly does this story have to do with anything. I do find it interesting that she self corrected herself in the interview, but don't expect Scott Brown or Curt Schilling to note that (which they haven't).

I did not know I was holding political office wallis so any ideas I have on Hope and Change are pretty pointless.

I know the argument you are trying to make and trying to make me admit that Obama is smashing failure as president after only one year but I won't fall into the trap. I don't have any specifics because I am not in the Obama White House.

But I agree to a point we have much more problems to worry about than Curt Schilling supporting Scott Brown. It's pointless. And her gaffe in calling him a Yankees fan while pretty dumb should not disqualify her from holding office. If you are seriously going to vote for Scott Brown because Coakley said Curt Schilling is a Yankees fan then you really shouldn't be voting.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 1:55 PM

One question I have about Republican Scott Brown is why all these conservative groups are throwing support for someone who posed nude in a magazine in the the 90s? Doesn't that run counter to their moral compass?

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 2:23 PM

Are you talking about the June 1982 issue of Cosmopolitan. I realize how the truth gets in the way of your agenda, but 1982 is still, at least in my calculations, in the 80's. Either 8 or 9 years before the 90's began, depending on how your decade begins and ends. He was also 22 years old. I'm pretty sure you don't want the skeletons let out of your closet when you were 22.

Again, the photo's were taken for the June 1982 issue. That's 1982. It happened in the 80's. The decade before the 90's.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 7:29 PM

And is this the same Martha Coakley who said devout Catholics should not work in emergency rooms?

http://washingtontimes.com/weblogs/water...

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 8:29 PM

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editor...

The Boston Globe isn't blaming Bush either!

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 8:56 PM

Does this mean devout Catholics should not base their votes around this statement?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Sun, Jan 17, 2010, at 9:00 PM

My apologies CPB it was 1982 but whether it is 1982 or 1992 I would assume that Conservative posing nude for a magazine would go against the Conservative's view that they have the supreme hand in family values

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 4:26 PM

CPB aren't you the same person that takes thing out of context or did you just not actually read what she said. She never once said that Catholics should not work in the emergency room as you and Fox News are claiming she did. The question was about those that don't approve of birth control. But hey taking things out of context is what you and your ilk do you best.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 4:31 PM

No Mike, you got caught telling a lie. I don't know about Fox News reporting this, but the Washington Times did.

I would like to know however, in your world, just exactly what defines a conservative?

You did say the key word, assume. Here you are trying to have a debate, and you don't know your opponent.

Martha Coakley may not have specified Catholics, but the question very much emphasized Catholics.

Sorry to have disappointed you, Carl

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 5:39 PM

What lie did I get caught telling? I wasn't lying CPB I was mistaken and as soon as you corrected me on it I apologized for the mistake and corrected it. It is interesting that instead of allowing me to actually be mistaken you just decide to go ahead and decide that I was lying and write it as fact, another thing you are good at, ignoring what someone has actually said and telling everyone what you believe them to have said ... which brings us to ...

No, the question was about people that oppose birth control, the interviewer was using Catholics as an example, but I believe there are more people out there that oppose birth control than just Catholics. You said that Martha Coakley "said devout Catholics should not work in emergency rooms?" yet those words never came out of her mouth, but again that doesn't matter to you you believe what she meant to say was what you quoted her as saying and nothing anyone else says will change your mind on it.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 5:47 PM

Before you go crediting the Washington Times as reporting the story you might want to click your own link. It wasn't the Times but a blogger on the Times website that reported and put his own spin on the story which you took hook, line, and sinker.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 5:49 PM

Irregardless of who reported it, it is said Martha Coakley feels Catholics, or for that matter, any devoutly religious person, shouldn't be in the E-room. And you fibbed.

I still want to see your definition of a conservative. And if you dare, define what a liberal is.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 6:54 PM

Already defined what a liberal is, not going to define what a conservative is because I am not one.

There you go with the declaring I'm lying (or fibbing this time around) again. "It is said"? What does that even mean? Naturally that's an old Fox News tactic when they are really talking about their own opinions but want to pass it off as someone else's opinion. "It is said", "They say", "Some say" are classic "This is my opinion but I am going to pass it off as someone else's opinion".

Regardless of the spin you put on it or the lying that you are accusing me of doing her point (that you still choose to take out of context) is a valid one. If your specific religion bars you from certain medications or giving medications you probably shouldn't be working in an Emergency Room where you are going to have to do that. Of course the link missed most of the conversation which including conversations about Scott Brown wanting to pass an amendment that would allow Catholic hospitals to refuse emergency contraception to rape victims and whether or not she supported similar conscience clauses.

Naturally your ability to take comments so out of context you actually change what they said you now have Coakley saying that anyone who is devoutly religious should not be in and Emergency Room, which you know not to be true.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 7:22 PM

The amazing thing about this whole baked up Coakley comment is that when you do a quick search for the transcript of the interview you only get conservative blogs that only post that one small section, nothing before, nothing after. Talk about taking things out of context.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 7:29 PM

I see.

Thank you, Mike.

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 7:41 PM

Hey you Neo-Cons,

The Ft. Hood Shootings and the Crotch Bomber were events which required trained investigators on the scene and for both required the FBI and intelligence services several days to gather facts for the President.

In both of those, Pres. Obama specifically detailed the entire set of facts to the American people.

With the Earthquake in Haiti -- there was not a whole helluva lot of investigation required.

It appears somewhere between 100,000 and 300,000 people died.

That's PEOPLE. Not black, white, chartreuse with orange polkadots, blue with pink eyes, brown or orchid -- People!!!

The NFL raised more than $2.5-Million Sunday, Cell phone owners have donated close to $20-Million, $10 each. At the Golden Globes the other night, the amounts pledged were staggering.

Bill Clinton and DubYah accepted the job of helping organize relief.

Iceland had a planeload of relief supplies into the airport in Haiti within less than 20 hours.

Which of you paralyzed intellects believe the three events are comparable?

The problem at Ft. Hood -- Several Intelligence agencies, supposedly charged after 9/11 with sharing and coordinating their information, failed to do so.

Army Intelligence, the FBI, the CIA, State Dept. Intelligence, the Secret Service -- they all had separate information about the shooter.

As soon as the trail, leading directly to the radical mullah in Yemen, and the shooter's other actions and statements were collected and presented to the President, he ordered changes and reported to the nation.

The same for the Crotch Bomber -- At least four intelligence services failed to follow their own procedures.

President Obama reported to the nation as soon as he had all the information -- and spelled out the facts, even though the collected information clearly refuted early statements of his own staff and cabinet officers.

As a more than slightly conservative ranch-bred businessman, I remain astonished by the speed with which President Obama was able to stop the economic collapse, cut monthly job losses from 700,000 in January to less than 100,000 in December and get the other factors squared away.

Last January 20, I would have bet anyone $1,000 that the slide into economic collapse could not be stopped. I was expecting thousands of soup lines in everyone of the nation's cities and towns.

In Iraq, the daily IED killings of U.S. service people have ended. Amazingly, the Iraqi government is functioning rather effectively for security.

In Afghanistan, the Karzai government still has huge problems.

I'm probably going to be considered a caveman, but will hold the same position of the past year -- The only way to shut down the Taliban is to prepare a supply of our "cleanest" tactical nuclear warheads.

Tell the Taliban a tactical bomb will be detonated toward the higher end of each of their mountain valleys -- on a specific date.

Additional warheads will be detonated individually moving down the valley, 10-20 miles at a time -- every ten days.

The Taliban and their entire population can either "Get out of Dodge" or be evaporated.

Then do it!!!

Leaving their mountain fortresses, elders/women/children will go into resettlement camps, all males between 13 and 60 years of age, will be disarmed and put into other camps.

The religious leadership will be replaced with fully trained and "ordained" Muslim clerics who do not preach "kill everyone but us."

Harsh -- certainly.

For centuries, the medieval mountain chieftains and their fighters have defied all outsiders. As long as they are permitted to make war at will in the lowlands and retreat to the privileged sanctuaries of the mountains -- they cannot be stopped.

Take the mountains away and destroy their ability to kill, maim and brutalize others. Take away their ability to produce opium to exchange for weapons and ammunition.

Take away the threat of the Taliban and Al Qaeda controlling the Pakistan nuclear arsenal, which is a serious threat to every modern city on earth.

With Alexander the Great and the earlier English Empiralists, simply containing the mountain warlords was enough.

Allied with Al Qaeda, supplied with billions in drug profits and in control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal -- there will be no containment.

If they want, they can bring their Jihad to Denver, Omaha, Cheyenne, Imperial, Beaver City, Wilsonville, Stockville, Stratton or Herndon.

They won't even need to send a suicide bomber, some unsuspecting U.S. CDL driver will handle that little chore, at 37 to 50 cents per mile.

Sam, are you looking for work?

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 7:43 PM

Getting back to the original topic of this blog, yet another former Bush aide has come out and taken a completely revisionst take on the last eight years under Bush. Karen Hughes is claiming that the Shoe Bomber was not, in fact, an agent sent here by al Queda, even though when he was tried (in civil courts not military) he was charged with counts that including carrying out attacks against the United States for al Queda and when he was arrested he declared allegiance to Osama bin Laden.

I really can't tell anymore if these people are just outright lying or are just this forgetful.

In a conversation about the attempted Detroit bomber and the similarities between that and the shoe bomber this was said by Ms. Hughes.

MR. PODESTA: That's exactly what the Bush administration did with Mr. Reid, the shoe bomber, who was in very similar circumstances, was traveling to the United States.

MS. HUGHES: Circumstances weren't similar. He was not sent here by al-Qaeda to engage in an act of war against our country. It was not a similar situation.

So either she is lying or the Bush Administration falsely charged and then our court system falsely convicted the Shoe Bomber.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 8:07 PM

Before I forget here is my source from the show:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34894130/ns/...

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Jan 18, 2010, at 8:07 PM

John Harwood was on CNBC during the 5 am hr. He said that Coakley might have waited to late to blame Bush in her campaign.

Joe Kernan asked if "Blaming Bush" was going to work anymore.

Harwood said probably not.

He said that the Stimulus package that didn't deliver, the confusion over Health Care, the high cost and job loss associated with Cap and Trade and the overall lack of a consistent message and leadership for the White House was going to become front and center.

He also talked aloud about the massive losses the Democrats were likely to have in November.

John Harwood is a liberal Democrat.

He didn't blame Bush either.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Jan 19, 2010, at 6:35 AM

Actually the Stimulus package delivered exactly what it was supposed to, Cap and Trade hasn't even been discussed in committee yet so I don't really see how anyone can predict that it's going to have high cost and cost jobs. I'd also like to know where you get your information that he is a liberal Democrat. Lack of consistent message and leadership? I'd say Obama's been pretty consistent and his leadership is pretty darn good.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Tue, Jan 19, 2010, at 10:35 AM

Hank,

The question of how to physically combat Al Quaida/Taliban is a tough one.. while your strategy could arguably work, I would argue that nuclear force would serve to recruit new terrorists forevermore, as well as usher in a new age of nuclear warfare. I think the only thing that makes any real sense is huge expansion of homeland security coupled with a huge expansion of overseas intelligence and covert operations. And this could only work if we made drastic diplomatic changes as well.

I don't think traditional military operations are working and I definitely don't think nuclear warfare is ever the answer, especially since we are arguably the only country that has (and ever will have) a get-out-of-jail card, and we used that in WWII. Definitely an interesting idea though, I have heard a friend who served in Afghanistan say that it should just be nuked. I disagree.

-- Posted by Jaded American on Tue, Jan 19, 2010, at 1:40 PM

Howard Dean handed President Obama a supermajority in both house's.

President Obama has been unable to get Cap and Trade and Health Care passed with said supermajority.

Would you please explain how that is good leadership?

I seem to remember Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton getting bills passed with congress against them.

I still have not seen President Obama's Health Care bill.

At least Bill Clinton proposed a bill and was hustling it to get it passed.

President Obama has taken ownership of nothing. He is just waiting for a bill a sign.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Jan 19, 2010, at 7:58 PM

Howard Dean handed President Obama a supermajority in both house's.

President Obama has been unable to get Cap and Trade and Health Care passed with said supermajority.

Would you please explain how that is good leadership?

I seem to remember Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton getting bills passed with congress against them.

I still have not seen President Obama's Health Care bill.

At least Bill Clinton proposed a bill and was hustling it to get it passed.

President Obama has taken ownership of nothing. He is just waiting for a bill a sign.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Tue, Jan 19, 2010, at 7:59 PM

There you have it, posing nude wins elections!

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Tue, Jan 19, 2010, at 10:20 PM

"At least Bill Clinton proposed a bill and was hustling it to get it passed." - WallisMarsh

Yep, Bill and Hillary collected all the facts, marshalled all the arguments, presented a carefully crafted, bi-partisan Health Care Reform proposal -- and got exactly NOWHERE.

Pres. Obama followed the constitution, "Proposed" the essential elements he would have to see to sign a Reform Bill -- and left it to Congress to do the job assigned them by the CONSTITUTION!!

The GOP naysayers got nearly all their amendments in committee, still voting against any bill.

Just exactly what is it about $12.5-Billion in Health Insuror NET PROFITS for 2008 you don't understand, WM?

Those bandits had healthy profits in 1998 with $2.5-BILLION NET PROFIT.

That was not good enough, they wanted five times as much NET PROFIT.

At the same time, their hired lackeys scream lies about "OBAMA DEATH PANELS" based purely upon the GOP ideas accepted into the committee bills.

This, while legions of insurance benefits deniers have actually been serving as effective DEATH PANELS for generations.

AS a born and bred Republican, I find it disgusting the way the GOP panders to corporate managers.

Pro-business does not mean anti-people.

Business only prospers in the long term when their customers get full value and basic respect.

The good shepherd is weighing next year's wool, while shearing this year's fleece.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 1:11 AM

Herndon thanks for correcting me. President Obama is a tremendous leader. The only problem is he forgot to tell everybody else what his Hope and Change was.

Now look at the mess we are in?

It has been a year. I thought this tremendous leader as you and Mike call him was going to lead the Democrats somewhere. Which he is btw.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 5:53 AM

The next few weeks will be very telling for the Dems. Will they follow the rules they set for seating a democrat or will they stall to avoid seating the new Republican Senator from Mass.?

If the Dems stall seating the new Senator and try to force thru a vote on the Health Care bill before they lose their majority, the voters will see the hipocrisy of the dems and they will lose more seats in the fall.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 6:56 AM

What I still don't understand is why the Dems chose Obama in the first place.

Howard Dean set the the stage. Hillary had been waiting for years. She basically won the primaries. Those caucuses were ridiculous. Hillary won Texas by over 100,00 votes yet throw in the caucus and Texas was nearly a tie.

The Caucuses didn't give working mothers or the elderly a voice as most of the caucuses were after school hours and into the evening.

So this guy who only won his Senate seat in 2006 because of a scandal gets into the White House.

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 7:11 AM

Wallis,

The things you cited were involved in the party selection of a candidate.

What astonished a lot of us who know Iowa pretty well, is that the white working moms turned out with kids balanced on the hip and supported Sen. Obama.

Iowa is "retail politics." They like their caucases because it forces candidates to sit on uncomfortable couches, too short chairs and cafe stools to get real with everyone.

The Clintons had probably the best national political organization in history in the early stages. Obama beat them. He took on the Republicans historical superiority in fund raising and beat them with the new "retail" political powerhouse, using small donations from little people in the cyberworld.

The same machine which has raised $25-Million for Haiti, mostly in $10 donations.

He came out of nowhere and beat the two strongest individual politican machines in the nation, about a dozen other Democrats -- and basically both the Democratic and Republican party machines and financing.

And people keep underestimating him.

Virtually every president since Teddy Roosevelt attempted to gain passage of some form of health care reform. This month, expect the Health Care Reform bill to be delivered to the White House and signed into law.

In a process which afforded Republican members to gain acceptance of 169 amendments in committee to less than 50 for the Democrats.

Yet I can guarantee that here in the Gazette Blogs, the conservative writers will scream about about dirty politics.

But there is still humor out there.

Glenn Beck is unhappy that Fox execs are falling all over themselves for their new commentator -- the former Alaska governor, married to a former North Slope worker and whale boat commercial fisherman and former "First Dude."

That's not theory -- It is reality

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Wed, Jan 20, 2010, at 10:48 PM

I don't know why you keep trying to answer wallis or any of the other righters on here with any kind of facts Herndon. They have turned lying into an art form. They know very well that the huge majority of amendments that are on these health bills are Republican in nature and yet they will tell you straight to your face that Republicans were kept out of the process.

They know very well that there is no language anywhere in any bill that even comes close to the phantom "Death Panels" that the Fox News Party (led by Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh --who actually isn't on the channel but appears there regularly -- et al) preaches is there, but that won't stop every single one of them from telling you there is (even though the vast majority hasn't sniffed a page of the passed legislature. Their bosses tell them it's there so they don't question.

Obama won by the largest margin in a presidential race since Reagan yet they will tell you to your face that the election was stolen and the same time telling you to shut up about the 2000 election that was decided by the Supreme Court before the counting was over in Florida.

They complain about Hillary not getting the nomination over Obama probably because they thought McCain could beat her by pulling rabbits out of their hats about how the process was unfair.

They will tell you straight to your face they don't know what Obama's Hope and Change is while shouting out the other side of their mouth that he is a socialist.

They will shout from the mountaintops that Democrats aren't letting Republicans have any voice in any bill when they know full well that Republicans have been allowed in from the beginning they just keep saying no.

They told you for eight years to give Bush time and he will fix everything, they gave Obama a day and have been complaining ever since that he hasn't gotten anything done.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Jan 21, 2010, at 6:10 PM

The cons have forced the sense of victimization to their constituents so brutally and for so long that they now firmly believe their own lies. They are make believe victims of a great array of fantastic evil forces and so are every single one of their poor brainwashed flock.

Let's just hope Rush never serves Kool Aid at the national convention. Oh, wait that would drip with high-grade irony!

...if only it wasn't already the case.. con/pub citizens are sad victims of their elected officials and their super successful propaganda hate machine. And so is the rest of the world, unless you are very rich, of course!

-- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Jan 22, 2010, at 8:41 AM

Back about 1925, give or take a few years, the son of a an Osage Country rancher and political leader told folks-- in his daily newspaper column:

"I ain't a member of any organized political party, I'm a Democrat!"

Will Rogers would be enormously proud of his party today.

What hard-core conservatives and Republicans cannot understand is that a political party can leave voting decisions to the elected representatives.

Party bosses don't boss Democrats.

That terrible Nancy Pelosi and Even Worse Harry Reid were not elected to the Speakership and Senate Majority Leader slots to give orders to Democrats, but to serve and lead as far as those same Democrats want to be lead.

The GOP representatives and senators have marched in LOCK STEP with their party bosses, unless one of their presidents tries to promote a slightly progressive idea -- then it is up to those terrible Democrats to come to the Republican president's rescue.

Nothing the DNC President, the director, the leaders of both houses and their deputies can say or do will prevent Democrats who agree with a measure from votiing for something proposed by a Republican president.

Democrats supported Ike, Reagan, Poppa Bush, Nixon and Ford -- and they supported DubYah, when his own party dumped him.

Why -- Because they and their constituents agreed with the proposal before them.

On the other hand, the super intelligent Republicans march along like Marine recruits almost ready to complete boot camp.

Blindly, obediently and mindlessly.

With a Republican Senator on my state's payroll and several GOP Congressmen -- I strongly dislike spending tens of millions annually to have them go to D.C. and take orders from GOP party bosses directly off Wall Street.

Just a personal preference that my elected representatives ask the home folks and not party bosses.

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Mon, Feb 1, 2010, at 6:57 PM

And that is why the Republican Party relies so heavily on the dramatic, emotional, and sensational propaganda network (Fox, Rush, Beck etc) to keep all of their constituents on the exact same page.

-- Posted by Jaded American on Tue, Feb 2, 2010, at 9:02 AM

JA,

It ain't media which carries GOP leaders orders.

The orders being given in caucus are face to face and precise. From one week's early morning caucus to the next, GOP congressmen and senators are allowed no latitude for personal decisions.

One problem lies in the unceasing traditional formality of both houses.

After serious business almost every evening, some member of th4e house gets called upon by the Speaker to sit in as Speaker and let members speak for hours to a mostly empty chamber.

All, so each can have videotape to send back home, and words of wisdom --which he may alter, delete, extend and amend, or totally rewrite anytime before the final version appears in the Congressional Record.

Watched one congressman last night, reporting on his "fact finding" trip to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The facts he presented were precise name, rank, age and unit for every citizen of his state he could find. Getting it on the record so their family members could be guided in the next election.

Call it constituent service or "Self Serving."

-- Posted by HerndonHank on Wed, Feb 3, 2010, at 2:23 AM

I have to agree with Hank, it's not the media giving the marching orders to Republicans. The media just serves as the Republicans mouth piece any time they want to disparate the president or anything Democratic.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Wed, Feb 3, 2010, at 3:27 PM

That's cool, I understand your points and agree, I was just saying the gop RELIES on the power of Fox News to keep their constituents well under control. I didn't say they get their marching orders from it.

-- Posted by Jaded American on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 9:08 AM

Very good correction Jaded, you indeed did not say marching orders.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Thu, Feb 4, 2010, at 5:28 PM

Will there ever be a moment in time when the already lame duck Obama assumes the responsibility of his OWN presidency?

-- Posted by Chunky Peanut Butter on Thu, Feb 11, 2010, at 9:56 PM

Trying to jumpstart some emotional reactions on an old thread. With general Obama-hate.

Scavenger-Troll.

-- Posted by Jaded American on Fri, Feb 12, 2010, at 7:45 AM

Last time I check CPB a political figure only becomes a lame duck after they have been voted out, resigned, or are at the end of their term and another person has been elected. Making this kind of statement at the start of the second of four years is really unfortunate and is only made to invoke a hatred response from others. I agree with Jaded, you are nothing more than a troll to post something like this on a blog that hadn't had any comments posted in a week. Sad, very sad.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Fri, Feb 12, 2010, at 10:35 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


And Now for Something Completely Different
Michael Hendricks
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login
Hot topics
Goodnight Sweet Prince
(3 ~ 11:45 AM, Aug 15)

The More Things Change The More They Stay The Same
(5 ~ 6:05 PM, Aug 13)

Elections Matter
(14 ~ 2:15 AM, Aug 9)

Hodgepodgeiness
(262 ~ 6:55 AM, Jan 8)

It Begins ... Again
(24 ~ 11:41 PM, Oct 27)