Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Obama Anger Watch: Sam Donaldson gets it right, advises Obama not to even bother trying to play that game.

* Ugly fact of the day: "In 17 months in office, President Obama has already outdone every previous president in pursuing leak prosecutions."

* Dave Weigel keeps skewering the ridiculous "Palin as queen of the mama grizzlies" myth. Too bad that myth is too powerful for many "analysts" to resist.

* Random interesting factoid of the day: Obama has yet to deliver an Oval Office address, despite there being no shortage of crises with the requisite gravity for such speeches.

* The DNC mocks the new Weekly Standard "Obama stress head" doll in a statement:

"Given the civil war between factions of the right that has left the Republican party bloodied, bitterly divided and drained of resources heading into election season, and also given the waning of influence of establishment institutions like the Weekly Standard to shape the future of the right, we understand that they have a lot to be stressed about over there."

* The Dem firm Public Policy Polling finds Dems have edged slightly ahead in the generic ballout matchup, and the key is that the Dem base is unifying.

* Charlie Crist continues kicking off his Republican shell with the veto of an anti-abortion bill.

* Here's today's installment in the Michele Bachmann chronicles, in which she says:

Everywhere I go, people ask me, "Michele, can we impeach the president?"

* Speaking of which, how serious are Republicans about this impeachment business, anyway?

* GOP Rep. Paul Broun worries that climate change legislation could cause Southerners to die from lack of air-conditioning. Hey, at least he's not worried about his trees dying!

* Lindsey Graham wants Obama to grab a bullhorn and tell the oil spill it's either with us or against us.

* And a very interesting McClatchy investigation into how Obama got it wrong on offshore drilling. Key nugget:

Obama never challenged the Bush era's fundamental faith in the oil industry or its ability to clean up a massive spill.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  June 11, 2010; 5:41 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Climate change , Happy Hour Roundup , House GOPers , Political media  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Upping the pressure on Boehner
Next: Saturday Roundup

Comments

Hmmm. Seems as if that bashing of the AZ law didn't work out as planned:

"Hispanic voters nationwide haven't shifted their congressional voting preferences since the signing of Arizona's new immigration law on April 23."

http://www.gallup.com/poll/139751/Hispanic-Voters-Preferences-Unchanged-Post-Arizona-Law.aspx

Posted by: sbj3 | June 11, 2010 5:50 PM | Report abuse

"Random interesting factoid of the day: Obama has yet to deliver an Oval Office address, despite there being no shortage of crises with the requisite gravity for such speeches."

I think Obama needs to do this, or address congress again, or hold a prime time press conference. He has the opportunity to take back the narrative. I don't know if he's planning on one in a couple months, closer to the midterms, and doesn't want to pre-empt it....

Posted by: SDJeff | June 11, 2010 5:54 PM | Report abuse

"Charlie Crist continues kicking off his Republican shell"

Nicely done, Greg.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 6:01 PM | Report abuse

Check it out:

http://CristOnChoice.com/

The guy has NO convictions whatsoever. He had to veto the abortion bill and the school bill or he would not be electable in the state of FL. Simple as that.

Pure ego-driven political opportunism.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 6:09 PM | Report abuse

All, funny Lindsey Graham link added above

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 11, 2010 6:12 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: In future, could you please attach a large warning label to all links to DKos?

Posted by: sbj3 | June 11, 2010 6:24 PM | Report abuse

Also see the McClatchy link I just added, big probe of Obama getting it wrong on offshore drilling, fascinating

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 11, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

The Weekly Standard, like the Washington Times and a number of other rightwing media enterprises, has been a perennial money-loser requiring support funding from the usual corporate crowd. So I hope their new initiative to market drink coasters, T-shirts, latte mugs and political dolls works out for them.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 11, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Why is it a bad thing for the Obama Administration to prosecute people who leak classified information?

Posted by: itsme2 | June 11, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

"Speaking of which, how serious are Republicans about this impeachment business, anyway?"

They're dead serious about it.

There's still tremendous resentment among many on the right -- both fringe & "non-fringe" (see statements by some elected Republicans) individuals -- that a black man with a "Muslim-sounding" name is President. Those people see impeachment as the "perfect" way to get that "un-American" black guy out of office. And if they can't get him out of office, they want to at least weaken him enough to keep him out of office in 2012, and do whatever they can to tarnish the Democratic/progressive brand.

Here's how this will all play out: Should Republicans regain control of Congress, the pressure from the right to impeach Obama will only grow; elected Republican officials who don't already toe the far-right line will acquiesce -- just as they do today -- to the fringe thinking. Republicans will drum up some charge [What do you think Rep. Issa's been trying to do all this time?] to pursue, and will pursue it with incredible viciousness.

Some on the left may be disillusioned, frustrated or even dislike President Obama, but that still doesn't match the hate -- sheer and utter disdain -- that is fueling this impeachment talk on the right. That level of hate will make people do some wild and crazy things.

So, take this impeachment talk very seriously.

Posted by: associate20 | June 11, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Bernie -- I hadn't considered the money-losing angle. That's pretty funny.

And thx wbgonne...

SD -- one interesting thing about that is that it seems like a setting he'd do very well in. surprised it hasn't been done yet...

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 11, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

'Dave Weigel keeps skewering the ridiculous "Palin as queen of the mama grizzlies" myth.'

Weigel must be a glutton for punishment. Everytime he posts about Palin he gets overrun by her minions. The comments are pretty hilarious in a performance art sort of way.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 11, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: Thanks for that amazing McClatchy article. (Should be required reading!) Reminds me of the hindsight investigations into 9/11:

"Inside the White House, aides say that they and their president did the best they could, given the context before the unprecedented accident."

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/11/95755/obama-overlooked-key-points-in.html#ixzz0qaRIdaFu

Posted by: sbj3 | June 11, 2010 6:37 PM | Report abuse

@itsme2: "Why is it a bad thing for the Obama Administration to prosecute people who leak classified information?"

It's not.

The argument advanced in the NYT article is that some think that Thomas Drake should be protected under whistleblower protection laws.

But what did Drake do? He was displeased with government's course of action, so he leaked information to the press to pressure people to pursue HIS preferred course of action.

Should that be covered by whistleblower laws? Drake exposed no governmental corruption, no specific wrongdoing, no misconduct; he exposed governmental inefficiency.

He should be applauded for feeling so passionately about governmental inefficiency; I'm sure most of us do.

But, should he become a martyr for whistleblowers? I think one should be careful about elevating him to that status. Essentially, he disagreed with the call of his superiors, and when they failed to acquiesce to his recommendations and decided to pursue a different path, he circumvented them and went to the press with sensitive information.

Thus, placed in context, Drake's actions aren't laudable. They were unwise, at best, and seemingly petulant at worst.

Posted by: associate20 | June 11, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

"Hmmm. Seems as if that bashing of the AZ law didn't work out as planned:"

Let's see the poll (with a 5% moe) has Dems up by 29 pts? I'll take it. And based on a recent NBC poll Dems have gained 14% pts on the Repubs in the past 6 yrs - at a time when they are one of the fastest growing demographic groups in the US.

But if this poll makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, more power to ya.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 11, 2010 6:58 PM | Report abuse

This is from Donohue's Chamber of Commerce press release today where they walk back the position they took yesterday implicating the government in paying part of the damage costs.

"Let me be clear: the recovery costs should not be on the backs of American taxpayers or the businesses that have been adversely affected by this tragedy.

As I stated at the breakfast, we believe that abandoning the rule of law and retroactively changing the liability cap is not the best approach. Any changes to the cap need to be done very carefully and with full consideration of the broad economic consequences to companies far beyond those directly involved in the spill."

It's the resolution of the tension between these two paragraphs that will be the trouble going forward. The CoC makes the claim that taxpayers are not on the hook, then in their next breath says we can't damage corporate profits/viability.

Guess which one of these will win out. The Feds need to get a clear, strong plan in place that ensures that not only BP pays what's fair, but that they do so before the damaged parties are hurt beyond repair.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 11, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

Steve Benen, in the impeachment piece Greg links above, reminds us of how the Republicans try to raise alarums (whenever power looks to be shifting away from them) of certain up-coming impeachment or investigative proceedings against them. Dems will, in their lust for power and vengeance, not be able to resist an array of kangaroo-court initiatives immediately they have the chance. And the targets will be - it is axiomatic - completely innocent.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 11, 2010 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Cubs played the White Sox this afternoon in the "cross town rivalry" which is now sponsored with a trophy.

The sponsor? You guessed it: BP.

There were loud boos at Wrigley today when the BP sponsorship was announced.

The Cubs were probably relieved that BP drew the fans' ire.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/37646387

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 11, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

"Let me be clear: the recovery costs should not be on the backs of American taxpayers or the businesses that have been adversely affected by this tragedy. .. we believe that abandoning the rule of law and retroactively changing the liability cap is not the best approach."

Uh-huh. And if I only had a unicorn I'd be oh so happy. Governing is about reality and making difficult choices, not specious ramblings by odious servants of Big Business. If the Gulf victims are going to be compensated and the American taxpayer doesn't foot the bill and neither does BP, just where is the money coming from. Oh, that's right. my unicorn.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 7:16 PM | Report abuse

BG - One presumes that if the cap were retroactively lowered, the "rule of law" argument wouldn't be mentioned by the fellow.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 11, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

"Lindsey Graham wants Obama to grab a bullhorn and tell the oil spill it's either with us or against us."

You're on a roll, Greg.

Have a good weekend, All.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 7:17 PM | Report abuse

Wait. One more thing. Yes, that McClatchey piece is outstanding. And who can I bribe to get McClatchey into the WH Press Corps front row.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 7:19 PM | Report abuse

wbg, if I prevail over Kristol in the TX Cage Match, I'll demand McClatchy get the seat.

Not that there's any doubt who's going to win.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 11, 2010 7:31 PM | Report abuse

"They're dead serious about it.

There's still tremendous resentment among many on the right -- both fringe & "non-fringe" (see statements by some elected Republicans) individuals -- that a black man with a "Muslim-sounding" name is President. Those people see impeachment as the "perfect" way to get that "un-American" black guy out of office. And if they can't get him out of office, they want to at least weaken him enough to keep him out of office in 2012, and do whatever they can to tarnish the Democratic/progressive brand.

Here's how this will all play out: Should Republicans regain control of Congress, the pressure from the right to impeach Obama will only grow; elected Republican officials who don't already toe the far-right line will acquiesce -- just as they do today -- to the fringe thinking. Republicans will drum up some charge [What do you think Rep. Issa's been trying to do all this time?] to pursue, and will pursue it with incredible viciousness.

Some on the left may be disillusioned, frustrated or even dislike President Obama, but that still doesn't match the hate -- sheer and utter disdain -- that is fueling this impeachment talk on the right. That level of hate will make people do some wild and crazy things.

So, take this impeachment talk very seriously.

Posted by: associate20 | June 11, 2010 6:28 PM"

What that guy said.

I'd like to see a whisper campaign that Republicans plan a repeat of 94' if they take control and plan to rip this country apart with frivolous charge after charge. Nobody can come out and say it.

People like Issa and Bachmann will gladly lead the charge along with some of these new tea partiers that will no doubt win a couple.

Hopefully someone with a voice writes an article suggesting it could very well happen and the MSM picks it up and a discussion about it can start up.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 11, 2010 8:10 PM | Report abuse

Hey, anyone know if any of these appointments by the administration being held up by Mitch McConnell in the Senate are part of any agencies needed for disaster planning in regards to this spill?

If so, someone should hammer him publicly and make him answer as to why he's doing this.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 11, 2010 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Moonbats:

You don't need to impeach someone who may be a fraud and Constitutionally unqualified to hold the Office of POTUS.

Mr. Obama, your vault copy Certificate of Live Birth, please...

We know full well that that's what you cattle, and the Alleged Hawaiian, are really afraid of.

That he'll have to show his real birth certificate like anyone else would, and it's going to show something dodgy.

I personally think it's not going to read "Barack Obama Sr." on the "Father" line, but the only one who REALLY knows, the guy calling himself "Barack Obama Jr,", is going to great lengths to hide whatever is in there.

He won't be able to hide it FOREVER.

And if it does show that he wasn't born in the United States, then everything he has done...everything...will be void.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 11, 2010 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Look what the cat barfed up.

Posted by: mikefromArlington | June 11, 2010 8:28 PM | Report abuse

I think I can say with 100% conviction that nobody here but you is worried about the "Birth Certificate". We might worry about drummed up charges and controversy where none exists in order to obstruct an agenda that just might break down the power of big money.

Sometimes a few of us here drift from our commitment to this President, but it doesn't last very long when we think of the alternative. You guys play a dangerous game.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 11, 2010 8:34 PM | Report abuse

@mike: Comparing BM to cat vomit is denigrating.....to cat vomit!

Birther trolling is really kind of a spectator sport, although BM posts are more like watching peewee soccer. Much action with no real purpose.

Posted by: srw3 | June 11, 2010 8:38 PM | Report abuse

Oh look, Bilgeman is still here. Can we please ban this guy already. Or is civility not required on this blog anymore. Just trying to figure out and respect the rules.

I've gotten tired of just ignoring Bilgeman - if he wants to interject perspective from the right that's fine, their are people here who do this and are semi-pleasant. But Bilgeman takes it too far. There were some nasty personal attacks this week and again slavery insults in any form are just shameful. Bilgeman needs to go.

Posted by: zattarra | June 11, 2010 8:42 PM | Report abuse

@as20: Drake exposed no governmental corruption, no specific wrongdoing, no misconduct; he exposed governmental inefficiency.

"But the description applies to articles written by Siobhan Gorman, then a reporter for The Baltimore Sun, that examined in detail the failings of several major N.S.A. programs, costing billions of dollars, using computers to collect and sort electronic intelligence. The efforts were plagued with technical flaws and cost overruns...But because the articles in question documented government failures and weaknesses, the decision to prosecute could raise questions about whether the government is merely moving to protect itself from legitimate public scrutiny." --nyt

sounds like waste and covering up waste, definitely worthy of whistleblower protection.

Posted by: srw3 | June 11, 2010 8:43 PM | Report abuse

Bilgey + Thorazine = "Hey guys, what did I miss?"

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 11, 2010 8:53 PM | Report abuse

BG, I don't know if you're around, but just wanted to thank-you again for the recommendation of "By the Lake". I've been savoring it for two weeks but will probably finish it this weekend. It's one of those books I enjoy dragging out as long as possible. The characters really worm their way into your soul. Most people don't think we have seasons in CA, but we do and they mark the passage of time in the same way.

Some time I'll tell you the story of our friend who used to live down the street, she reminds me so much of Bill Evans and I've know too many John Quinns. But of course Jamesie is the cat's meow.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 11, 2010 8:59 PM | Report abuse

Here's a good take on the Halter race from Paul Loeb, who I've never heard of before, but he expressed my sentiments pretty well.

"It’s always a dilemma to spend scarce resources taking on sitting members of the party you normally support. But Obama’s most progressive Cabinet member, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, herself captured a Congressional seat when labor and environmental activists helped her unseat conservative Democrat Matthew Martinez in exactly the same kind of underdog primary challenge. Solis was criticized with exactly the same arguments, as was progressive Maryland Congresswoman Donna Edwards, before she defeated incumbent Al Wynn. Following a year when the best of Obama’s agenda was delayed, defeated, or watered down as much by corporate-beholden Democrats like Lincoln, Ben Nelson, and Kent Conrad as by Republican party of no, those who of us want this or future administrations to fulfill its promise have to find ways to pressure resistant incumbents. And primary challenges have to be part of the mix."

Posted by: lmsinca | June 11, 2010 9:04 PM | Report abuse

Bilgeman:

Dude: You are wackier than I ever imagined. If you do get exiled I won't shed a tear.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 9:12 PM | Report abuse

lms, so glad you are enjoying it. I wanted that book to go on and on and in a way it does still in my imagination. Oh, Jamesie, what a great character. Delight and sadness all wrapped perfectly in one package.

I don't think McGahern wrote another book that good, so if you want a similar experience it will have to be William Trevor.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 11, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

BG: I've got twenty bucks on you against BigHead Willie. Here's hoping it comes to pass.

Imsinca, My Lost Angeleno: See you Sunday!

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 9:16 PM | Report abuse

wbg, your money is safe. I've been training for this my whole life.

In other sporting news, World Cup Day 1, pretty good. The South African venues and crowds looking very good. Big matches tomorrow.

I'd ask that posters here refrain from announcing results until after the day is over so that those who are recording matches can get a chance to watch them.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 11, 2010 9:56 PM | Report abuse

anyone surprised by Obama's behavior obviously doesn't see Obama is just another "savvy businessmen" , just like those "savvy businessman he praised before on Wall St.

and you're surprised,Greg! Obama hardly speaks about what he is going to do. well actions do speak louder than these "savvy businessmen's" words.

they get us coming and going. even making money off their disastrous "Spill, Baby, Spill." you can be sure the American taxpayer will pay for this and all other "accidents" by these Savvy Businessmen. lol.


very "savvy businessmen", aren't they?

Posted by: Beleck31 | June 11, 2010 9:58 PM | Report abuse

This is from Eli over at FDL. Remember the McClatchy piece today and the piece I posted yesterday from "rockman" re MMS if you can. Much of this came from the previous administration and carried through to this one. I think we may have learned our lesson and it's time to make a "few" changes. I'm not saying don't drill ever, but could we please invest in the technology to clean the damn stuff up in a worst case scenario. As there is no profit in the cleanup, gee maybe the government, OMG, should invest.

* MMS determined that BOPs are unreliable enough to require backup systems, but allowed the offshore drilling industry to police itself anyway. BP claims BOP failure was “inconceivable” and didn’t install a backup, even though BOP failures are an Actual Thing That Happens.

* MMS apparently forgot its own 2000 study on the dangers of offshore drilling and gave BP a “categorical exclusion” from performing a thorough environmental impact analysis because a major spill was just so damn unlikely.

* BP’s emergency plan for an accident at the Macondo site was a half-assed cut-and-paste job that references seals, sea otters, and walruses.

* BP sent Schlumberger engineers home without performing an acoustic test which “a top cementing company executive called ‘the only test that can really determine the actual effectiveness’ of the well’s seal,” apparently because it was too time-consuming and expensive. The well also lacked seals on either the annulus or the central bore.

* BP didn’t perform a “bottoms-up” test of the mud where the cement casing was to be placed.

* When BP lost “well control” and the BOP started leaking fluid, BP resisted testing the BOP, and when they finally did it was at a much lower pressure level. They also dismissed “chunks of rubber [BOP seal] in the drilling fluid” as “no big deal.”

* BP didn’t use a “liner” between the pipe and the cement, saving time and money but significantly increasing the risk that the cement would fail. It appears that BP was aware of the risk and ignored MMS’s and their own safety guidelines. Halliburton warned “that BP’s use of cement ‘was against our best practices’” and “that a ’severe’ gas flow problem would occur if the casings were not centered more carefully.”

* The BP “company man” on the Deepwater Horizon ignored abnormal pressure readings and Transocean engineer warnings and went forward with replacing heavy drilling mud with seawater, making it much easier for gas to explode up out of the well.

All of this is consistent with BP’s Massey-like commitment to profits first and safety last – their record is appalling even by oil industry standards. This disaster was not some capricious whim of fate, it was actively courted by BP’s impatience, greed and arrogance and MMS’s complicit passivity.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 11, 2010 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Hi, Greg.

I get a grin every time I hear you or the TPM guys get cites on KO or Rachel. Seems to be happening a lot lately. Way cool, OM!

Here's something for your over-the-horizon radar department.

CA is gonna vote in Nov about legalizing pot. That could put the GOP on the spot. Which side are they gonna tie their horse to?

The social conservatives will abhor legalization. The Tea Baggers may find resonance in the meme that gummint should keep its nose outa people's private business. (I suspect a lot of them really do know how to put the party in Tea Party!)

And to add volatility to the issue, the Obama DoJ is already on record as not willing to enforce federal pot laws in excess of states' own laws. It's a possible point of foghorning by the Darrell Issa crowd.

BTW, I'd buy a raffle ticket for that TPL lava lamp. Blue, right?

Posted by: jzap | June 12, 2010 12:53 AM | Report abuse

@srw3: I was wrong about the WPA. Initially, it did not cover the NSA (or pretty much any other intelligence agency), and it set a higher standard of disclosures pertaining to "gross" waste and fraud. But in 2007, WPA was broadened to include the NSA and ANY disclosure of waste and fraud.

But, there are still two major issues here:

1) The application of WPA to this instance isn't definitive. According to the NYT article, "agency leaders rejected ThinThread [technology Drake advocated] and chose instead a rival program called Trailblazer, which was later judged an expensive failure and abandoned. Mr. Drake and some allies kept pressing the case for ThinThread but were rebuffed, according to former agency officials."

No evidence is given that ThinThread would have been more cost-effective in initial implementation. Why is that the assumption? Additionally, no details are given about why ThinThread was rejected. The article does note, "'It was a pretty sharp battle within the agency,' said a former senior intelligence official. 'The ThinThread guys were a very vocal MINORITY [emphasis added].'” A majority in agency opposed the implementation of ThinThread for some reason. Why is it assumed that their reasoning wasn't sound? [Trial implementations don't always succeed.]

2) Even even if one were to concede that the problem isn't Drake's disclosure, per se. We're still left with another problem. According to the April article, he's been accused of "obstructing justice by shredding documents, deleting computer records and lying to investigators who were looking into the reporter’s sources."

Certainly, I'm not naive to discount the perception of governmental retaliation after Drake's initial disclosure.

However, embracing that assumption necessarily excuses Drake's actions. Why did he shred documents, delete computer records and lie to investigators?

His prosecution stems specifically from those efforts to obstruct justice; thus, using WPA to delegitimize his obstruction of justice seems ill-considered.

Posted by: associate20 | June 12, 2010 4:41 AM | Report abuse

Bernie said:

"The Weekly Standard, like...a number of other rightwing media enterprises, has been a perennial money-loser requiring support funding from the usual corporate crowd."

Bernie knows, or at least should know, that virtually all opinion magazines, right, left or otherwise, are "perennial money-losers" that require outside support, but he pretends that this is a distinct characteristic of "rightwing media enterprises" because, well, that is what propagandists do.

BTW, speaking of corporate support, who's paying The Plum Line's bills these days? And, as I type this, isn't that a Pfizer advertisement I see next to Greg's mug up there at the top? Isn't Pfizer a, er, corporation? Greg...thy name is hypocrisy.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 12, 2010 6:20 AM | Report abuse

zattarra:

“Or is civility not required on this blog anymore.”

Anymore? Civility has never been required on this blog. Greg has reaped what he has sown. And after the things that many of the progressive loons here have posted, if he bans Bilgeman, he will have proven himself to be the ultimate in partisan hackery.

Toughen up and enjoy Bilge’s posts. He's actually quite entertaining and informative. His posts on BP and the oil spill have been especially notable.

Posted by: ScottC3 | June 12, 2010 6:43 AM | Report abuse

"Bilgeman needs to go."

Ditto what Scott said.

zattarra, let me explain something of which a noob like you might not yet be fully aware.

If Greg even so much as thought of banning a "harmless fuzzball" like Bilgey, he would have to explain why he hasn't long ago banned many of his liberal regulars and favorites, who have for a long time been much more abusive than Bilgey or any other conservative. Trust me, it's easy to start naming the names, and you know not of that which you speak. Greg knows this.

Bilgey is one of the more interesting and informed commenters around, whether or not you like his style. So toughen up and stop whining.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 12, 2010 7:27 AM | Report abuse

Moonbat Slave zattarra:
"Oh look, Bilgeman is still here. Can we please ban this guy already"

Obviously, the answer is "No". You don't swing as big a johnson as you think you do.

See, moonbat, it's high time that you learned that you actually cannot do whatever you want to do, despite all your whining and snivelling.

One of the lessons you're going to have to learn is that you're subject to the same rules that you expect everyone else to obey. No matter whose livestock herd ownership tag is stapled through your ear-lobe.

Ergo, having your ObaMessiah prove that he actually is a natural-born US citizen is going to be one of them there "teachable moments".

Just like Bilbo Clinton learned that committing sexual acts with a subordinate at the workplace and "on the clock", and then lying about it especially, will get even a qualified President in trouble.

By the way, the "we" in "can we ban this guy..." tells me that you're a punk.

And just btw, who the heck are YOU anyway?

Another moonbat weenie who heaves-to and practically the first words out from under your nose-pickers is to call for the "Ban Hammer"...

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 12, 2010 7:36 AM | Report abuse

"Everywhere I go, people ask me, "Michele, can we impeach the president?""

Time to cut an ad starring Bachmann on the subject of impeachment? Should fire up the Democratic African American voters.

Posted by: rhallnj | June 12, 2010 7:49 AM | Report abuse

lmstalinistinca:
"Sometimes a few of us here drift from our commitment to this President, but it doesn't last very long when we think of the alternative. You guys play a dangerous game."

You sound like a good Stalinist moonbat there, did you realize that?

And it is absolutely hilarious to me that you talk of "thinking about the alternatives".

Follow along with me for a minute, you're climbing aboard the Bilge Time Machine and we're going back to 1998...

(Wow...that was your hairstyle then?)

Okay, Clinton has just been impeached by the House for his perjury before the Grand Jury about his shenanigans, and the whole kit n' caboodle now goes over to the Senate for the conviction and removal from office phase.

Those schmucks balked, and Clinton stayed in office.

Now for some reason, you half-witted buffoons, no doubt demonstrating your commitment to the "Maximum Leader", celebrated this as a victory for your "side".

But had it gone the other way, and Clinton been given the bum's rush out of the White House for being a lying scoundrel, we'd have had two years of President Al Gore, (before he went eco-insane and became the manbearpig).

Whatever his other faults, no one ever accused Al Gore of any kind of serious improprieties while in any office that I'm aware of.

And now, here's the alternative that you committed moonbats have never, ever considered... with Al Gore being given two years to show his stuff as a sitting President, it is highly unlikely that Bush would have beaten him in election 2000.

Got that?

You clowns swapped 8 whole years of dear old W for the rump two years of Clinton's last term.

Way to go, moonbats!

Let's hear it for "commitment"!

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 12, 2010 7:50 AM | Report abuse

Why is it a bad thing for Obama to prosecute leakers?

It is only "bad" because Drake and most of the other prosecution targets so far leaked against the Bush Admin.

It will be different when there are leaks against Obama. Those bad people should be maximally prosecuted, for treason whenever possible.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 12, 2010 7:51 AM | Report abuse

QB1:
"t will be different when there are leaks against Obama. Those bad people should be maximally prosecuted, for treason whenever possible."

Wow...they;re going to try BeePee for treason, huh?

Heavy, man!

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 12, 2010 7:56 AM | Report abuse

Oh look, The American Prospect asks for donations, too.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/donate


Ask Scott noted, all opinion journals do or wouldn't survive. They are all non-profits who ask for donatons, and those industrious enough peddle mugs and other shlock.

Bernie the propogandist knows this full well.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 12, 2010 8:06 AM | Report abuse

Bilge,

"Whatever his other faults, no one ever accused Al Gore of any kind of serious improprieties while in any office that I'm aware of. "

As I recall, there were some matters of Algore's illegal fundraising using government property and resources, and from foreigners.

But those things are legal when Dems do it, so you are technically correct.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 12, 2010 8:10 AM | Report abuse

Whadya know, the Nation sells shlock and lives on donations, too.

http://store.thenationmart.com/

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 12, 2010 8:26 AM | Report abuse

The Nation and Weekly Standard - that's an illuminating contrast.

WS was begun in '95 and supported by a multi-million dollar per year infusion from Murdoch and there's no reason to assume a different arrangement with Anschutz as new owner (well worth checking him out at wikipedia - like Koch, lots of his wealth from oil).

The Nation (founded in late 1800s) is funded by some 30,000 contributors all of whom are listed each year.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 12, 2010 9:05 AM | Report abuse

Wow bilgey, thanks for the trip down memory lane. I have absolutely no idea what all that has to do with today, history is history. I've actually expressed an opinion here re Clinton and it doesn't quite jive with your CA dreamin' image. You always assume you know me too well which is ludicrous, I'm just another keyboard. The 20% of you who doubt the President's birthplace are dangerous and the game is not that cute or funny to the rest of us. I'm not the adoration type, my keyboard doesn't swing that way, but I am polite enough to believe the President of the US deserves our respect.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 12, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

You really want to defend your silly meme like that?

Shall we start down a catalogue of instruments of leftwing propoganda and leftwing funding sources? Should we start with Soros and his many tentacles and front groups? Tell us all about Air America's funding and ignomious financial failure. The network of wealthy foundation interests that has propped up the leftist propoganda network for decades?

Your a silly man.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 12, 2010 9:20 AM | Report abuse

Another Saturday, another party. Have a good one all, seeya manana.

Posted by: lmsinca | June 12, 2010 9:38 AM | Report abuse

Here's an illuminating look into the 'tea party' and 'grizzly mom' marketing campaigns and how the media is so easily punked by professional propagandists/marketers.

This is the headline from a piece this morning in The Guardian:

"US PRIMARY RESULTS LEAD MEDIA TO HAIL THIS THE 'YEAR OF THE WOMAN'"

And here's a key excerpt (but read the whole piece if you have time):

"One of the claimants to founding the Tea Party movement is Smart Girl Politics, set up in 2008 to promote women in the Republican party and a conservative alternative to the pro-Democrat Emily's List. SpokeSwoman REBECCA WALES said: "We look at Congress and overwhelmingly they are old males. What we are doing is showing this is not what the country wants. We are looking for fresh blood." She said there were 14 women Republicans running for the Senate this year compared with three two years ago, and 94 for a place in the House compared with 46 in 2008."

So, just who is Rebecca Wales?
- founder of the DC Tea Party
- is the person who described Liz Cheney as "a Red State rock star"
- Deputy National Youth Director for McCain-Palin 2008
- Deputy National Coalitions Director and Manager of Administration for the Rudy Giuliani Presidential Commission
- presently, National Director of Communications for Smart Girl Politics

A busy girl, in other words. Now add this bit. In testimony to a House Admin. Hearing in July 2009 she said:

"I am employed as the Production Director for Sandler‐Innocenzi, a Republican advertising firm."

And who are them guys? Here's a bit with a link for more:

"Who we are

Sandler-Innocenzi is one of the country's leading full-service Republican political advertising firms. For over 20 years, the nation's political and industry leaders have come to Sandler-Innocenzi for help. We have provided robust advertising that has help them succeed. Whether it's in the political and issue advocacy arena, ballot initiatives and grass-root advocacy campaigns.

Sandler-Innocenzi has provided our clients with the most cutting edge strategies order to help them craft their messages. We have assisted in the creation and strategic communications, the production of films, television and radio commercials, media planning and buying, political consulting and media training.

Sandler-Innocenzi has established proven methods of delivering messages that resonate with voters, move public opinion and effect change. Sandler-Innocenzi can provide the political communications expertise needed to overcome any obstacle. In short, we move public opinion through political communications and advertising...successfully." http://www.sandler-innocenzi.com/

Nothing like that grassroots anti-Washington, fresh-as-a-daisy women candidates.

Posted by: bernielatham | June 12, 2010 10:07 AM | Report abuse

All,

Saturday round up posted.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/saturday_roundup_5.html

Greg

Posted by: Greg Sargent | June 12, 2010 11:00 AM | Report abuse

One of the many big money funders of the organs of the left in the U.S. -- funder of the American Prospect, the Nation and much else.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumann_Center_for_Media_and_Democracy


The left-wing media echo chamber wouldn't exist but for sugar daddies like Schumann, Ford, Tides, Soros, and its whole constellation of Hollywood, Wall Street, and other Big Business funders.

And they still have to sell mugs and tee shirts on the side.

But everyone should ignore conservative media, because it is produced with money, too.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 12, 2010 11:59 AM | Report abuse

lmsinca:
"The 20% of you who doubt the President's birthplace are dangerous and the game is not that cute or funny to the rest of us."

It's not a game, and no one is trying to be cute or funny.

It's called abiding by the Constitution, and it is deadly serious.

The cute and funny lawyer games and PR spin is coming from the guy, and those around him, that you assert you are "committed to".

If he's not qualified to hold the office, then how many people voted for him does not matter.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 12, 2010 12:39 PM | Report abuse

QB1:
"As I recall, there were some matters of Algore's illegal fundraising using government property and resources, and from foreigners. "

I hadn't forgotten Buddhist Al passing around HIS rice bowl, but in all fairness, I don;t think he'd be the first politico, from either party, to accept cash from dodgy sources.

And let's put him into the context of the times.

Nobody ever suspected Al of putting a bullet into one staffer and a Cohiba into another.

Given those parameters, Al was pretty clean, or pretty smart.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 12, 2010 2:36 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company