Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Happy Hour Roundup

* Not backing off: Anthony Weiner just doubled down on his rant in an MSNBC interview, saying his eruption was about exposing GOP tactics:

"We needed to respond. Frankly, the Republicans have now, as you know, over the course of the last couple of years, this has been their strategy. They say, `We like the bill, but we don't like the way you're doing it. We don't like the style. We don't like the time, how many pages you're using.' So that's what I was responding to...This is the Republican tactic."

* But: Steve Kornacki tells liberals why they shouldn't develop too much of a crush on Weiner.

* Interesting observation from Chuck Todd: Obama's successful bailout of the auto industry -- which Mitt Romney and other GOPers opposed -- may emerge as a key issue in the 2012 presidential campaign.

* Takedown of the day: Steven Pearlstein versus the Chamber of Commerce and other business leaders over their opposition to the auto bailout. Great read.

* Republicans are rebuffing Dems' demand that they return the massive amounts of cash donated to them by the Wyly brothers, the Texas billionaires who were charged by the SEC with making $550 million on insider trading -- by turning the conversation back to Charlie Rangel. NRCC spox Paul Lindsay emails:

"The more important question is when does the DCCC plan to donate the $2.5 million they have received from ethically-challenged Charlie Rangel, not to mention the nearly $1 million in campaign cash from him that vulnerable House Democrats are holding on to?"

* To which DCCC spox Ryan Rudominer responds:

"The Wyly brothers were charged with using secret foreign bank accounts to massively defraud American taxpayers and reap $550 million dollars while giving millions of dollars to Republicans, so it's no wonder Washington Republicans would desperately try to change the subject."

* Rangel may get off with just a "reprimand," but more House Dems are still calling on him to resign.

* Interesting: Former Bushie Michael Gerson skewers Senator Lindsey Graham for joining the movement to revoke birthright citizenship, which suggests how hard the immigration wars are pulling the GOP to the right.

* Duncan Black responds to the criticism of liberals who have been deemed insufficently enthusiastic about Obama's presidency.

* Profoundly important exchange of the day: The RNC attacked Obama today for taking a question about Snooki on The View, arguing that the president should spend more time on the economy than on the Jersey Shore. DNC spox Hari Sevugan responds with a barb about the RNC cash spent at the bondage-themed nightclub:

"What's clear is that while the President took bold action to pull our economy out of the ditch that Republicans had left it in, the GOP sat on the sidelines playing political games that didn't do a thing to help American families. So, thanks, but we'll pass on advice from a party that spent more time helping the Southern California sex club economy than the American economy at large."

* Adam Serwer sends the Anti-Defamation League back to Hebrew school.

* And: Krugman says the ADL has forgotten where they came from.

* Still more evidence the Beltway is deficit-obsessessed: A new CNN poll finds Americans see the economy, rather than the deficit, as the most important issue facing the country by nearly four to one, 47-13.

* Quite a fair-and-balanced lineup on Fox News this Sunday: Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and Sarah Palin.

* And this explains all that chatter about mosques and sharia law we're hearing from Newt Gingrich lately: Newt is convinced Palin is running for president.

What else is happening?

By Greg Sargent  |  July 30, 2010; 5:55 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , 2012 , Happy Hour Roundup , House Dems , House GOPers , Immigration , Political media , economy  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Losing faith in the Federal gov't on immigration
Next: Weekend Open Thread

Comments

I just got the vid up of the Weiner interview today. The library book line is classic.

Video- Anthony Weiner on Hardball (7/30) to Democrats, “Dems carry library books to a knife fight” http://www.thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/07/video-anthony-weiner-on-hardball-speaks-truth-to-democrats/

Posted by: PaddyTPC | July 30, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

Every time the GOP mentions Charlie Rangel, the Dems should reply "John Ensign - FBI investigation."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 30, 2010 6:11 PM | Report abuse

"library books to a knife fight"

that's great. I missed it. thanks.

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 30, 2010 6:21 PM | Report abuse

I'm not sure I get Kornacki's point. We are supposed to hold Weiner at arm's length because he has future aspirations?

I dunno.

In the meantime, he is teaching congressional dems how to take the fight to the GOP. That's not really such a bad thing, is it?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 30, 2010 6:25 PM | Report abuse

I should clarify my comment about Rangel....I'm in the camp that believes more time with the family is in order for Charlie.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 30, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

@Greg: For all of your suggestions that the such and such issue is pulling the GOP to the right, Pew finds that voters view Dems as farther from the political center than the GOP.

http://people-press.org/report/636/

Posted by: sbj3 | July 30, 2010 6:27 PM | Report abuse

DA Won't Pursue Charges Against Gore

The district attorney in Portland, Ore., announced today that he will not pursue charges against former Vice President Al Gore stemming from allegations of sexual assault.

From local TV station KOIN:

"After evaluating the materials submitted by PPB I have concluded that I agree with the assessment that a sustainable criminal case does not exist," said District Attorney Michael D. Schrunk, in a statement.

The case was submitted on July 27 for a review of possible criminal charges against Gore stemming from an incident alleged to have occurred during Gore's visit to Portland in October of 2006.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/07/da_wont_pursue_charges_against_gore.php?ref=fpi

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 30, 2010 6:28 PM | Report abuse

Ben Nelson: First Dem To Announce He'll Vote 'No' On Kagan

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) announced today that he'd vote "no" on Elena Kagan's Supreme Court nomination -- but that he would vote "yes" on cloture, which will help secure an up-or-down vote. Still, he's the first Democrat to say he'll oppose Kagan's nomination. Here's the full statement:

"As a member of the bipartisan 'Gang of 14,' I will follow our agreement that judicial nominees should be filibustered only under extraordinary circumstances. If a cloture vote is held on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the U.S. Supreme Court, I am prepared to vote for cloture and oppose a filibuster because, in my view, this nominee deserves an up or down vote in the Senate.

"However, I have heard concerns from Nebraskans regarding Ms. Kagan, and her lack of a judicial record makes it difficult for me to discount the concerns raised by Nebraskans, or to reach a level of comfort that these concerns are unfounded. Therefore, I will not vote to confirm Ms. Kagan's nomination."

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 30, 2010 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Well, let's see if Weiner gets a note from the ALA...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | July 30, 2010 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Republicans generally do not come with a humor gene.

"Should Snooki run for Mayor of Wasilla" was a joke line tossed out by a professional comedian on the panel. President Obama got the joke, and laughed, even though he was not sure who that talentless óinseach is.


How many Republicans in the Senate or House ever show a smiling cheerful countenance? Very few, if any. They are a dreary pompous lot.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 30, 2010 6:38 PM | Report abuse

"Pink Floyd's anthem "Another Brick in the Wall" has become a hit for Iran's resistance movement."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/7918129/Pink-Floyd-backs-Iranian-protest-song.html

Posted by: sbj3 | July 30, 2010 6:47 PM | Report abuse

Sue,

Perhaps it was all a big misunderstanding: And Al Gore was just laying out a Cap And Trade proposal, which would lead to Lower Emissions.

That could easily be misunderstood by a late night massage therapist, but a full three hours session! I knew Al was chronically stiff, but three hours to loosen up, really?!

Posted by: Liam-still | July 30, 2010 6:49 PM | Report abuse

sue, thanks for another reminder that Ben Nelson is a giant f*cking idiot.

Great courage Ben; way to stand up against the forces of.....um....no idea.

Ben Nelson is for Ben Nelson. Period.

Posted by: BGinCHI | July 30, 2010 8:17 PM | Report abuse

Tell me again why it was a bad idea for Obama to go on "The View". Here's the data:


"Obama visit sets ratings record for 'The View'"

"President Barack Obama's visit to ABC's "the View" set a new ratings record for the daytime show with an audience of 6.59 million viewers. The previous high was 6.17 million viewers on the morning after the 2008 presidential election that brought Obama into office.

Here's some of the release from ABC:

• Thursday’s broadcast of “The View,” featuring President Barack Obama, qualified as the series’ most-watched broadcast ever in Total Viewers (6.59 million), exceeding its previous peak delivery achieved the day after the 2008 Presidential Election (6.17 million, 11/05/08).

• Thursday’s “The View” also qualified as the series’ most-watched broadcast in 17 months among the Key Women Demos 18-34 (516,000/1.5 rating) and Women 18-49 (1.33 million/2.0 rating) – since 3/2/09.

“We were honored to have President Obama on ‘The View.’ The ratings indicate that our show continues to break new ground. ‘The View’ has proven to be an important stop for political candidates and is appointment television for our loyal audience who value our opposing views,” said Barbara Walters.

“A historic interview leads to historic ratings,” said Brian Frons, President, Daytime, Disney/ABC Television Group. “It was wonderful to have Barbara Walters back for the interview with President Barack Obama, her first interview since her heart surgery, and together all five co-hosts did what they do best, ask the questions that are on our viewers’ minds.”
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/entertainment/zontv/2010/07/obama_visit_sets_ratings_recor.html

Posted by: lynell33 | July 30, 2010 8:29 PM | Report abuse

"Duncan Black responds to the criticism of liberals who have been deemed insufficently enthusiastic about Obama's presidency."
----------------------------------------------

LOL! Poor baby. But for the record, I really don't give a damn whether "liberal activists" clap for Obama or not, loudly or softly, lotion or no lotion. Happiness is a lifestyle choice, not a legal requirement. I just wish that a certain small subset of liberal activists would give the incessant whining an occasional rest. Jeezus.

Posted by: CalD | July 30, 2010 8:44 PM | Report abuse

"Duncan Black responds to the criticism of liberals who have been deemed insufficiently enthusiastic about Obama's presidency."

I don't disagree with Black in that, if it is so important to Dems that liberals remain happy, then it begs the question as to why they haven't worked harder to keep liberals happy. Specifically, because liberals usually understand they might not win every fight, but they want to know Dems are fighting for them.

That said...I complain a lot about how liberals should stop whining and realize that Pres. Obama is ALREADY one of the most progressive President's in history - maybe 3rd right now, and arguably 2nd.

My complaint isn't that they aren't mindlessly cheering for Pres. Obama. It's a combination of three things:

1. They withhold credit on great accomplishments because they feel they should have gotten more. This is utterly unrealistic and has a really pathetic sense of entitlement.

2. When they criticize, they do so in destructive ways. I have seen some constructive critism of Pres. Obama - from the likes of this blog, Glenn Greenwald, and a few others - but most progressives bashing Obama are just throwing haymakers. It's counter-productive to their stated goals.

3. It's election time. And while I wouldn't tell them to "sit down and shut up" I would tell them to "get up and be heard". The election is a choice...and on election day you have to choose a side. If they think they are getting no where with Obama, what do they think is going to happen if the GOP gets back the House? Impeachment hearings, that's what. It's just moronic to spend ALL your time bashing him, and none of your time trying to build the party. You don't like Obama? Fine, then get out there and try to get local Dems elected. Do something productive.

Those are my complaints. I have my complaints about Obama, sure. But it isn't that they aren't clapping hard enough. It's that they don't clap at all, no matter what. Then they still don't bother to help others who might help Obama get progressive legislation passed.

I do think it's part of the fact that the netroots has not existed in the majority before. They don't understand what this is like. And they are getting a glimpse of the ugliness that is politics (the process is more transparent than ever), and they simply still learning how to navigate the waters.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | July 30, 2010 9:09 PM | Report abuse

"Obama is ALREADY one of the most progressive President's in history - maybe 3rd right now, and arguably 2nd."

Nope, Mr. Obama is the inimitable #1.

Numero Uno Baby!!!!

Posted by: tao9 | July 30, 2010 9:38 PM | Report abuse

tao, how's the heat in your kitchen?

Still reading those thrift sale classics? (not a criticism; a serious question)

Posted by: BGinCHI | July 30, 2010 10:00 PM | Report abuse

Greg,
Why did the Dem leadership (and Rep. Weiner) order a 2/3rds majority vote on the 1st Responders Bill?

Inquiring minds...etc.

Posted by: tao9 | July 30, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

BG, Yo!!!

Relief! lo-dew/pt & coolbreeze (from CHI perhaps?) has arrived on the Mohawk.

Been tapping my Collected Yeats (MacMillan 1940) on&off all summer as supplement to the thrifty buys. Taking it up to Lake Placid and environs for vaca/lax tourney next week.

I might even buy this reviewed book [at full price!!! (;> ]:
http://www.newstatesman.com/print/201007230047

Hope AllsWell on the big lake.

Posted by: tao9 | July 30, 2010 10:55 PM | Report abuse

"Why did the Dem leadership (and Rep. Weiner) order a 2/3rds majority vote on the 1st Responders Bill?"

So that no amendments could be offered.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 30, 2010 11:11 PM | Report abuse

Suekzoo1,

Did Speaker Pelosi not think she could get a majority of Democrats to defeat any Republican amendments?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 30, 2010 11:30 PM | Report abuse

tao, Wood is a smart cookie. Even when you don't agree with him you learn something. Worth a look.

Posted by: BGinCHI | July 30, 2010 11:50 PM | Report abuse

@tmcwn: Did Speaker Pelosi not think she could get a majority of Democrats to defeat any Republican amendments?

Please don't play dumb. Repubs as usual want to offer poison pill amendments on totally unrelated matters like border security, immigration etc. so that dems would have to vote down amendments that MAKE GOOD SOUND BITES IN COMMERCIALS.

My question is why would anyone oppose this?

Just like the senate on the completely paid for small business bill. Dems have made compromise after compromise and not a single repub votes for it? How transparently partisan is that?

Posted by: srw3 | July 30, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

Why does it matter what the procedure was on the 1st responder bill?

Seriously. You are for it if it's a majority but against it if it needs 2/3?

That's so fuucking stupid even a GOP rep can't mess it up.

Posted by: BGinCHI | July 30, 2010 11:53 PM | Report abuse

srw3,

I am, in fact, stupid. The reason I asked however was that based on Rep. Weiner's emotional outburst on the House floor, and his later passionate dicussion on Hannity, that it was important to pass this leglislation regardless of what type of amendments were proffered by the Republicans. The Democrats enjoy a sizable majority and can defeat any "extreme" Republican amendments.

Unless they want the theater to stir the base.

If that's what they want, how is it any different than Republicans offering amendments that may be politically embarrassing for Democrats at some future date?

This is my opinion. Rather than have the Republicans score a minor political victory that, odds are, will not be noticed at the peak of summer when no one is watching, and get this bill passed that Rep. Weiner is so exorcised about, they'd rather use a procedure garaunteed to result in the bills defeat so they can point fingers and, well, scream in the well of the House.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 31, 2010 12:11 AM | Report abuse

"they'd rather use a procedure garaunteed to result in the bills defeat so they can point fingers and, well, scream in the well of the House."

Rather sad commentary that the Republicans would not support the 9/11 first responders and clean up workers who are now ill. Gosh, what damn nice people they are. Think that won't make ads against them? You really think that the average voter is going to care that the Republicans couldn't offer unrelated amendments? I sure don't.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 31, 2010 12:29 AM | Report abuse

So, the bill was allowed to be defeated to boost Democratic electoral chances rather than support 9/11 first responders.

Gosh, what damn nice people they are.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 31, 2010 12:37 AM | Report abuse

You still posting on here? Wow, the post must be full of journolist morons.

Posted by: Tinker-Thinker | July 31, 2010 12:39 AM | Report abuse

McNut,

The kind of GOP political game-playing on the backs of people suffering severe medical problems as a result of their rescue efforts on 911, and your defense of that kind of cynical ploy, is really disheartening. The Dems wanted a clean bill, is why they went this route.

The GOP wanted to score some political points off the Dem's compassion for these people. I get that you are into the my-team-your-team bit, but you don't come out looking very good, and neither does your "team." I didn't take you for that kind of cynical, but then you rightwingers never fail to prove me wrong when I thought they have really hit bottom. I sincerely hope you don't sleep at night.

But I suspect that you do.

Posted by: TomBlue | July 31, 2010 12:39 AM | Report abuse

TomBlue,

"The Dems wanted a clean bill, is why they went this route." "...the Dem's compassion for these people."

I do not believe this. The Democrat's compassion for 9/11 responders is, as I just said I believe, secondary to gaining a political advantage. They wanted to avoid potentially embarrassing losses on amendments, that would allow their opponent to score some minor political points, and get a bill passed. Instead, they decided that a failed bill was more valuable to them politically so they allowed it to fail.

This is manufactured to either keep you fired up or get you fired up.

Sometimes I sleep well at night, and other times I do not. I'm an optimist when it comes to American resilience and exceptionalism and deeply cynical when it comes to politics. I thank you for your interest in my sleeping habits.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 31, 2010 12:59 AM | Report abuse

Nut,

The point is most voters are not even going to digest the details of the kind of bill that was offered. They are gonna know it was defeated by the GOP. Period. There are votes where GOP obstruction may work to their benefit, I don't believe this is one of them. Why, you ask? Because 9/11 is still a very emotional issue, as evidenced by the crap being spewed about the Cordoba House.

One this one, the delay tactics on UI benefit extensions, and the small business legislation (supported by the Chamber of Commerce!) are potentially poisonous to the GOBP, because they involve human suffering...American suffering. People who are suffering don't give a crap about processes, only results.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 31, 2010 1:02 AM | Report abuse

suekzoo1,

"The point is most voters are not even going to digest the details of the kind of bill that was offered. They are gonna know it was defeated by the GOP. Period. There are votes where GOP obstruction may work to their benefit, I don't believe this is one of them. Why, you ask? Because 9/11 is still a very emotional issue, as evidenced by the crap being spewed about the Cordoba House."

Perhaps, but I do not believe this issue will still be resonating (if it is even resonating now)in November.

I think the electorate will wonder why the largest Democratic Congressional majority in several generations cannot even get a 9/11 responders bill passed (which it will, either right before or right after the August break). Rather than waste several hours voting on Republican amendments and then passing the bill, they allowed 9/11 responder's suffering to continue.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 31, 2010 1:12 AM | Report abuse

Yep. It was pretty smart strategy for the Dems to drive home the point that the GOP, the Party of No and the Party of No Ideas, is only interested in playing political games. They couldn't even hold it together to help the 911 workers. They aren't ready to take the reins of governance. That will be a useful point for the Dems to make for election season.

It reminds me of that bimbo Eric Cantor whining that he couldn't vote for TARP cause Nancy Pelosi was mean to him. Waaaa! Maaa!!! They aren't doing it right!!!

Right. That's going to play well in November. Heh.

Posted by: TomBlue | July 31, 2010 3:39 AM | Report abuse

Obviously, the Dem *leadership* thought this was a better tactic. We'll see...

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | July 31, 2010 4:41 AM | Report abuse

Weiner on the Yahoo home page. Nice job. Let's see how many voters read *both sides* of the story and come to a reasoned result.

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | July 31, 2010 4:45 AM | Report abuse

There should be some sort of monument to GOP hypocrisy. I mean come on. Criticizing Obama for going on The View? How many times did George W. Bush and Dick Cheney both appear on Fox News' equivalent of The View--the O'Reilly Factor--which devotes fully as much time as the ABC network to such cultural hot button issues as "The Vagina Monologues" and carrying "heat" to Sunday School.

Posted by: jaxas70 | July 31, 2010 8:43 AM | Report abuse

George and Laura Bush taped an interview with Dr. Phil. Last I checked, Dr. Phil is a daytime teevee personality. IOKIYAR.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 31, 2010 9:41 AM | Report abuse

@tmcwn:Rather than have the Republicans score a minor political victory that, odds are, will not be noticed at the peak of summer when no one is watching,

Really playing stupid does not become you. No one is paying attention now but Repubs as usual want to offer poison pill amendments on totally unrelated matters like border security, immigration etc. so that dems would have to vote down amendments that MAKE GOOD SOUND BITES IN COMMERCIALS.

So why should the dems fall on their own sword to make it easier for repubs to demagogue them in 3 months? Why cant both sides take a successful vote and say, party does not matter when talking about the health of the brave first responders? What is the downside in this?

Posted by: srw3 | July 31, 2010 9:48 AM | Report abuse

All, do you want a weekend open thread?

Posted by: sargegreg | July 31, 2010 9:50 AM | Report abuse

Greg, yes, please and thanks!

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 31, 2010 9:55 AM | Report abuse

Republicans don't care about those 9/11 workers, because no Billionaires were among those who were harmed.

Republicans are pretend patriots, who also claimed that they "Supported The Troops", and then we learned from Dana Priest, that they were completely neglecting the returning wounded.

Republicans used 9/11 as a cynical and callous political bumper slicker.

A political party that will torture out of work families, by filibustering against their meager unemployment compensation benefits, is clearly being run by a Confederacy Of Sadistic Psychopaths.

They should all be driven from office, for their crimes against ordinary working class Americans.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 31, 2010 10:09 AM | Report abuse

All, here you go, weekend open thread:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/weekend_open_thread_1.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 31, 2010 10:23 AM | Report abuse

Weiner / Grayson 2016!

Posted by: quinnser33 | July 31, 2010 10:25 AM | Report abuse

The Republicans have brought the art of passive resistance to a new level. Good for Anthony Weiner.

Regarding President Obama on The View: A majority of women vote Democratic. It's called playing to your base. I'll never forget the juvenile, utterly disrespectful tactics of the Republicans when they shouted over the women speaking for the health bill. My husband, who usually says I'm too partisan, got so furious he wanted to punch someone in the nose. Maybe the Republicans should be thankful Rep. Weiner was so restrained.

Posted by: MNUSA | July 31, 2010 10:26 AM | Report abuse

Re. "Republicans are rebuffing Dems' demand that they return the massive amounts of cash donated to them by the Wyly brothers, the Texas billionaires who were charged by the SEC with making $550 million on insider trading..."

Has Obama returned the millions he received from the wallstreet fatcats he abhors?

Posted by: spamsux1 | July 31, 2010 10:31 AM | Report abuse

Weiner is a nitwit, just like the liberal twits who support him.
Remember in November.

Posted by: LarryG62 | July 31, 2010 10:38 AM | Report abuse

"Weiner is a nitwit, just like the liberal twits who support him.
Remember in November."

If done right, this could be a big looser for the Republican's. Voting against first responders who unhesitatingly risked their lives on 9/11 was risky since first responders all over the nation are a brotherhood (with sisters).

Add to that the fact that they kept cutting funding for vets benefits and the story reads, "we appreciate your service but we put you on the level as welfare recipients when that service disables you"...

Posted by: soapm | July 31, 2010 11:13 AM | Report abuse

Right Wing Nut Jobs Sure Love To Count Their November Chickens, Many Months Before The Hens Have Come Home To Roost.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 31, 2010 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Bring in the clowns---Oh my mistake, they are already in the big tent. We shall end this circus come November.

Posted by: wkropf2 | July 31, 2010 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Bush/Cheney for eight years. Did nothing about the emigration problem, and neither did the Republican Majorities in the House And Senate.

Now Right Wing Morons are coming on here to brag about returning power to those same Republicans that allowed the situation to get out of hand.

From 1981 through 2008, Republicans ran the White House for Twenty of those Twenty Eight years. They did not do a damn think about the problem.

Any one who thinks that voting in Republicans will bring a solution to the emigration situation; are ignorant fools, who are not aware of the actual history of what Republicans in power did not do about the situation; when they had every chance to do so.

Reagan and Bush One had twelve full years to do something about it. They did nothing.

Bush 2 had eight years to do something about it. He did nothing.

Yes indeed; Right Wing Morons; November will fix all that for you. Republicans will fix it for you, like they fixed it for you in the past.

No wonder the country is in such a state, when so many Right Wing Morons keep falling for the same Republican BS.

Posted by: Liam-still | July 31, 2010 12:18 PM | Report abuse

aptly named weiner had another keith olbermann moment. That's actually pretty common these days amongst the foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic-left as they face TOTAL REJECTION by the voters in November.

Posted by: TeaPartyPatriot | July 31, 2010 2:03 PM | Report abuse

Our Republican Pal, Newt Gingrich, 1997:

The House voted overwhelmingly to reprimand House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and order him to pay an unprecedented $300,000 penalty, the first time in the House's 208-year history it has disciplined a speaker for ethical wrongdoing.

"Newt has done some things that have embarrassed House Republicans and embarrassed the House," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.). "If [the voters] see more of that, they will question our judgment."

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) gave a spirited speech calling the penalty unwarranted. Answering those who said a speaker should be held to a higher standard of ethical conduct, DeLay said: "The highest possible standard does not mean an impossible standard no American could possibly reach." He closed by declaring: "Let's stop this madness, let's stop the cannibalism."

Posted by: ost123 | July 31, 2010 2:18 PM | Report abuse

"Interesting: Former Bushie Michael Gerson skewers Senator Lindsey Graham for joining the movement to revoke birthright citizenship, which suggests how hard the immigration wars are pulling the GOP to the right."

Given that Sen. Graham must surely know full well how unlikely it is that an amendment stripping birthright citizenship out of the constitution will pass through Congress, I can only think that his suddenly going public about this proposal he says he's pondering has nothing to do with his own actual convictions on the matter and everything to do with trying to bolster his support in the very substantial hard right faction of South Carolina's GOP.

Pandering much? I'll say!

Posted by: akaoddjob | July 31, 2010 2:53 PM | Report abuse

"Bush/Cheney for eight years. Did nothing about the emigration problem, and neither did the Republican Majorities in the House And Senate."

Well, that's not quite true. They did introduce a reform bill, but the Senate wouldn't go along.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2742643820070629

Posted by: akaoddjob | July 31, 2010 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Weiner may play to the moonbats and some New Yorkers, but for most people he's just another reminder why they hate liberals.

Posted by: thebump | July 31, 2010 9:15 PM | Report abuse

Weiner's outburst was truly disgusting, controlling, political, degrading, personal and excessive. If I were the guy he was speaking to I would have come across the aisle to shut hum up, physically. No wonder Congress has such a low opinion rating by the voters. I guess Mr. Weiner will now quietly apologize and think he's OK. He's a zass zole. A big one.

Posted by: sharon2a | July 31, 2010 10:20 PM | Report abuse

"Most people" hate Anthony Weiner because he supports a program to help people suffering severe medical problems as a result of their rescue work on 9/11?

Interesting theory.....

Posted by: TomBlue | July 31, 2010 10:23 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company