"I am not your problem." - Irony Gutshooting Watch, 10/18/2007
What will you do when your man-devil is gone, Netroots? What will you *do*?
By Moe Lane Posted in Democrats — Comments (18) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The email forwarded to Protein Wisdom gets the quotes wrong (which is no reflection on Jeff, btw), so I won't quote it. But let me tell you the gist, which does agree with the video below:
Representative Diane Watson looked a room of progressive Democrats in its collective eye and lied to them about impeachment without turning a hair. It was a stupid lie, too: the flaws in the logic alone were egregious. It was the kind of lie that you tell small children to make them shut up when they're whining.
And the progressives sat there and took it like small children, too.
Read on.
Rep. Watson's argument, such as it was, was this: she claimed that there are 240 to 260 Representatives ready to vote for impeachment right now (look, she's talking to the antiwar movement; they eat that nonsense up with a spoon), but they need 290 to get the motion off the floor. So, the Speaker of the House's plan is to help win the White House in 2008, plus get 60 seats in the Senate; then they'll have the numbers for impeachment and overriding vetoes.
Yes, yes, I know: your head now hurts from the stupid. Imagine mine: I had to watch this clip three times.
There were objections from the crowd. You might think that these objections would take the form of "Why would we want to impeach Bush after he's out of office?" or "Why do we need 60 votes to override vetoes when we'll have the Presidency, too?" or "What copy of the Constitution are you using? Mine says that you need 67 votes to overturn vetoes" or even "What does talking about Senate and the White House electoral strategies have to do with a House vote?" I'm not sure why you might think that, given her audience: the general tenor of comments from the peanut gallery were more along the lines of "YARR! BUSH BAD! IMPEACH NOW! TO THE CASTLE!" But it's OK: they all applauded in the end when Rep Watson endorsed Dennis Kuchinich for President. Ah, how I love the reality-based community.
Well, it's a reality-based community. And perhaps some day we'll find out which long-lost reality it is that these weary exiles call home.
« Corrupt Democrat Watch, July 10 Edition, Part One — Comments (20) | It Is Time To Find A Republican Senatorial Candidate In Nevada — Comments (5) »
"I am not your problem." - Irony Gutshooting Watch, 10/18/2007 18 Comments (0 topical, 18 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Well, it's pretty obvious that conservatives are not the only folks who fail to send their A-team to government.
Oh, wait - this is part of the left's A-team? Erm, (reaches for duct tape)...
Uh, thanks Moe - though thoroughly entertaining, we're all stupider for having listened to that.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Hate totally blinds, makes formerly sane people, well supposedly sane, go insane. Democrats may never recover, especially after the shock of "it's not going to happen".
Of course its not the people at the event that were the audience for this. They all expect to directly benefit. Just a case of pigs not arguing with the trough.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
It's simply unbelievable that we have such ignorant people holding immense of amounts of power. I know 4th graders who know more about the rules of Congress than this lady knows.
Sigh.
But she does bring up a salient point that we should all pay attention to. Nancy Pelosi won't bring up impeachment proceedings because she figures (probably correctly) that it would be devastating for Democrats politically...satisfying nobody but folks like the kooks in this audience.
Rather, her strategy is to get up to 60 votes in the Senate, get the White House, and increase their majority in the House. And the reason for this has nothing to do with impeachment (obviously). It has to do with getting their agenda passed, getting their judges on the bench, etc.
Why can't conservatives look at that and understand better what the stakes in 2008 are? Because Pelosi's exactly right -- that's the prize they should be after, and it's within their reach.
Meanwhile, we're over here giving each other bloody noses because the apparent candidate isn't sufficiently conservative -- despite what he's said about judges, despite what we know we'd get from a Clinton presidency, etc.
Hate to say it...but we deserve to lose. We've become too used to winning and we're too busy fighting over the spoils of winning to realize that we're no longer winning. You'd think that losing both houses of Congress would be enough to put us back into "just win, baby" mode. But....
Being united is easy when you're a team in search of the buried treasure. Once you find the treasure is when unity is tested.
We're about to force ourselves into search mode once again.
the idea that nominating the most liberal Republican available is not only a way to win the general, but the ONLY way to win the general.
I don't see much evidence for the former, let alone the latter.
First, I'm not sure I agree that Giuliani is the "most liberal Republican available." Different candidates are more liberal than others one different issues. It all depends how you define "liberal."
There's no question but that, on a couple hot-button social issues, Giuliani is the most liberal candidate in the field -- or, at least, the one least willing to divorce himself from his long-held views.
On others, he isn't. On some issues, I think the most liberal Republican in the field is Mike Huckabee. But that just demonstrates that different people have different values about what defines "conservative."
But anybody who can elicit the following comments from those who uttered them can't be all that liberal:
“It’s totally unbelievable. I refuse to believe that this could possibly happen to our country. I have too much confidence in our country to believe that this could really happen.” -- Charlie Rangel, on the prospect of a Giuliani nomination.
“People say, ‘Still?’ If the other 49 [states] knew what we knew, he wouldn’t be in the ballpark, much less winning the game.” -- Air America's Mark Green, several times candidate for NYC mayor
“I’ve been saying to people in New York, especially the liberal community that I’m proud to be part of, that unless the truth is revealed about the real Rudy, he could win, and not just the Republican nomination, but the presidency as well. Most people in New York look at me, and they say ‘no way.’ They say it can’t happen. The political leadership in New York is underestimating him. They are really in political denial. I say to people, ‘You better wake up.’” -- Norman Siegel, former director of the New York Civil Liberties Union
These are people who know Mr. Giuliani very well. If it were really true, as you suggest, that Rudy's some liberal wolf in sheep's clothing, wouldn't you think that the Charlie Rangels of the world would be praising the prospect of a Giuliani nomination?
Somebody who gets that kind of rise out of the likes of Mark Green and Charlie Rangel can't be all bad.
But, second, I don't think Giuliani's the only chance we have to win the presidency in '08 because he has liberal stances on some subjects. In fact, it has nothing to do with his views on anything.
I feel that because he consistently outpolls his/my party's generic standings. I feel that because he was a very successful governmental executive (which is the preferred pedigree for a president). I feel that because I think he best answers the needs the country has now.
I think Giuliani's our best candidate in spite of his views which I don't agree with...not because of them.
Now that was said like a grown up and it scares me!
If we don't understand the stakes and immediately get our act together on the Republican side, we can watch all bastions of power flow into Democrat hands. Then these people will be running the country.
Let's wish each other good luck with that! Will our guys/gals suddenly begin turning around all of the things we've wanted? No -- they will be trying to survive, fight the dems at every turn, and still get any amount of money into their home districts. Which means the Dems will be the calling the tune to which they need to dance.
My favorite? I'm down with whoever who can stand up to the Dems, but wondering if any of the frontrunners can escape the corruption or wealthy lobbyist mantras that the dems will be repeating on tv.
Owes President Bush an apology for subjecting him and his family to these types of deliberate lies and bashing that has taken place since the 2000 election. They get way too much attention. He wasn't perfect; but then again, name one President who has been. The sad reality is, the internet with all of it's power and ability to inform and enable participation, has encouraged the fringe networks, with cooperation from the MSM, to bloviate on every conceivable blurb to emanate from every corners of this world. You can say what you want about President Bush; about his short comings, about his failures; about his errors in judgement. But what you cannot deny is that he and his wife have handled this task, and the disgraceful attacks, with class. Prepare yourselves, you won't be able to say that for the next administration.
We need to get this video to the people who are making that Open Source Stoopid Detector.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Because a person THAT stupid could not POSSIBLY be able to tie her own shoes.
It's not often that I'll paraphrase trophy-husband and traitor John Kerry favorably, but here goes -- "I can't believe we're losing to these idiots".
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
This shows you how DANGEROUS it is to take the high road in politics and not challenge the freakin lunatics in the media head on, daily. They have been left to grow unchecked like bad weeds. All that Bush is Dumb stuff has gained MUCH credibility because it was not challenged and it has spread to large proportion. It's not about Bush, it's putting this country in grave danger. We will now have much less public support to do anything substantive at the time when we will really need it.
Ask not what I can do for my country, ask what my country can do for me. Washington Elected Elite
Still, I do so love when their synapses get to firing like that. Makes the whole room smell like Jiffy-Pop.
heh, pass the popcorn.
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.
I don't care to live in a country that these people govern.
God help us.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
..the right is essentially powerless, the Greatest Generation is dying like flies. For their swan song, a group of lilly white, all male, as politically incorrect as you can possibly be, engineers took us essentially from scratch, to the moon in seven years. In contrast, it took the politically correct today's Nasa three long years to solve the insulating foam problem on the shuttle's main tank in order to return to flight.
Also, the Butcher of Malmedy died under a hail of fire surrounded by real flames at the same time as they performed their prodigious feat of reaching for the moon.
Look at us today, Jane Fonda still draws breath. The Benedict Arnold of the Twentieth Century sits aloof on a seat in the U.S. Senate. Need I say more.
Just another one of the "using the nutroots, but not anything more than as tools to send them money and then ignore once they get to Congress."
Better run a real Democrat(ic?) in this district.
Thanks Moe, you brighten my day.
___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!