Liberty 1, Tyranny 0 After Brown’s Big Win
In electing Scott Brown to what the elites believed was Ted Kennedy’s U.S. Senate seat one day shy of the anniversary of Barack Obama’s inauguration, Massachusetts voters have delivered an irrefutable repudiation of the president, his agenda, and the people in Congress who support him.
Make no mistake. All the attempted post-election distancing in the world won’t change the fact that this election was all about Dear Leader, who has seemingly done everything he can to earn the “punk” moniker I applied to him on Election Day in 2008, and a Congress that has rubber-stamped his wishes, often without even reading the bills his acolytes have prepared. Fox’s Charles Krauthammer noted that the Brown campaign succeeded in making the election “a referendum on the Obama agenda and also on single-party rule in Washington.” Obama’s last-minute decision to appear in Massachusetts on Sunday in an attempt to stop the bleeding merely confirmed that obvious fact.
Only fourteen months after his Bay State defeat of John McCain by 26%, Washington’s favored U.S. Senate candidate failed by a greater margin than Walter Mondale lost to Ronald Reagan in 1984. That year, Reagan carried Massachusetts by 2.8% on the way to his 49-state reelection landslide.
The more-than-30-point swing from November 2008 and the comparison to Reagan’s win are both important metrics. They demonstrate just how resounding the following rejection notices sent to Barack Obama and Congress, by voters in what is still virtually the most reliably liberal state in the union, really are:
- Rejected — Predatory, life-threatening designs on the nation’s health care system.
- Rejected — Micromanagement of virtually every aspect of our daily lives and drastic reductions in living standards, all in the name of environmental purity, championed by pseudo-scientists who are in reality proven scam artists.
- Rejected — Out-of-control, crony-favoring spending that has “stimulated” nothing but the growth of crowds at the unemployment office.
- Rejected — Government-sponsored bailouts, takeovers, and looting of private businesses, through the bankruptcy courts, the tax system, or the exercise of clearly condoned mob action.
- Rejected — The condescending elitism that ridicules plumbers and people who drive trucks while all too often funneling their tax money to the undeserving.
Voters in the often wayward Cradle of Liberty looked danger in the eye, stood up, and said, “Enough.” Tuesday’s takeaway is this: if Obama & Co. can’t sell their agenda there, it’s an epic fail everywhere.
So now what?
On Monday, I wrote that a Brown victory “may prevent” the forward march of what that now-famous “Massachusetts Miracle” video calls a “tyrannical government.” The operative word is “may,” because there are valid concerns about Scott Brown, one of his major backers, and his party that cannot and should not be ignored.
While he’ll never pass the Emily’s List litmus test, any experienced pro-lifer can tell from the relevant language on his issues page that Brown is not a movement supporter. Additionally, as a legislator he voted for the creation of state-run Commonwealth Care. Besides imposing a dreadfully costly, punitive, and potentially care-rationing health care regime on its citizens, Commonwealth Care formally legalized government-subsidized abortions in Massachusetts for the first time.
On marriage, Brown’s issues page says that states should “make their own laws in this area, so long as they reflect the people’s will as expressed through them directly, or as expressed through their elected representatives.” If he really believes this, he was remarkably silent during the mid-2000s when his own party’s governor unilaterally imposed same-sex marriage on his state without the benefit of either the popular vote or the legislative statute the 2003 Goodridge ruling itself said was required. To this day, same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has not been legalized as its Constitution mandates.
The governor who did this, and who thereby made himself objectively unfit to hold future public office, was Mitt Romney. Romney also championed the aforementioned Commonwealth Care, a.k.a. “RomneyCare.” Brown continues to defend RomneyCare, even though it has often and in my opinion fairly been described as the model for ObamaCare, which Brown claims to oppose. As the possibility of statist nationwide health care looms, Brown’s stance raises legitimate concerns about his reliability at ObamaCare crunch time.
The worries about Brown’s vulnerability to selling out only grow when one learns, as Politico reported on Monday, that Brown’s campaign was “filled with staffers who once worked” for Romney. Expect Romney, who I believe is the only potential GOP presidential candidate guaranteed to lose in 2012 if nominated, to take major credit within party circles for Brown’s win in an attempt to revive his flagging viability and to quietly attempt to minimize the importance of tea partiers and others on the ground and throughout the country who did the dirty work. Sadly, top-echelon Republican leaders are still enamored of Romney based on his money and supposed charm. They don’t call it the Stupid Party without reason.
But for all his potential faults, the fact remains that Scott Brown and his campaign made a game-saving tackle on fourth and one at the goal line on Tuesday, turning the tide against our punk president at a crucial time.
Forget about savoring the win. In true punk fashion, Barack Obama and his apparatchiks appear poised to double down on the very things voters in Massachusetts and elsewhere in this great nation have now proven they so bitterly oppose. To truly appreciate what he’s up against, Scott Brown would be well advised to devour the content of and adopt the principles contained in Mark Levin’s Liberty and Tyranny on his way to Washington.
Every word is EXACTLY how I perceive the situation. Great work. I love the descriptor – 4th-and-1 at the goal-line. Indeed, I knew they were electing another Romney, but for MA, that’s okay by me. I hoped for his victory just to stop this healthcare monstrosity.
For conservatives, it was all about stopping ObamaCare. We’ll pay a price down the line. Brown will cause us angst and heartburn, but it is a price I’m happy to pay… right now, anyway. It’s a good day in America. Pray to God in thanks, and pray that it may continue.
The fourth-and-one goal line stand analogy is quite apt. Brown and his unit may have held the line, but the field position is still terrible.
What about all that evil SEIU ACORN ballot boxing dead people stuff? Guess it didn’t happen.
If Scott Brown had the conservative credentials you’d like, he would have lost by 30 points in Massachusetts. The last Republican Senator from Massachusetts, Ed Brooke, was also a “moderate.” Just remember that Brown has promised to vote against Obamacare and, when the republicans pick up some additional seats, he’ll be on the majority side of the aisle. Just remember who is now spinning in his grave.
Very apt title. Huge victory for Liberty tonight. I think the future is looking pretty good for America right now, field position and all.
This amazing victory has done more than just put Obamacare on the backburner. It’s going to fundamentally change the way the midterms are strategised, how the President’s agenda goes forward (if it can), who retires or who runs for re-election in both Houses, and will mean a complete rethink on the part of the WH as to how it approaches the next 3 years. The whole landscape has been redrawn in about 2 weeks.
Absolutely stunning. Of course, the GOP needs to take a good long look at itself as well. Question is, will they? Do they have the vision and the courage to see where the groundswell came from and to take their cue from the people? The people can only do so much with what they are offered. Coakley was a poor candidate for the Dems, she didn’t shine well in the shadow of Kennedy, and Brown ticked all the right boxes at the right time. Those two factors lined up in Mass.
We need more Republican candidates like Brown if we are going to take advantage of the change in the national mindset.
Skeeziks,
The fact that Scott Brown won in no way proves that SEIU didn’t make the attempt. It simply proves that Scott Brown got more votes.
I really liked Brown’s speech. He’s no Reagan but could pass for a male Sarah Palin easily. I pray to God he realizes what a pivotal position in history, right at the very beating heart of this nation, he presently occupies. He seems to be fully aware and ready to take the message to the RINO party.
As a Federalist I don’t care if states implement their own government run health care plans. It’s within their Constitutional rights. It isn’t within the delegated powers for the federal government to do so. I reserve the right to leave a state that implements such a plan.
Yes Ozwitch.
I can’t stop thinking about Juan McStain and Lindsey Gramnesty however. These ego-maniacs actually think that THEY are the leaders of the Stupid Party. GAWD! I wish they would both get run over by the same concrete truck. Twice.
skeeziks: 1) They were caught by surprise, and as recently as a month ago thought this was already a sure thing. 2) Increased media and opposition scrutiny makes it harder to get away with, and various state AG investigations into ACORN may have made them reluctant to try anything major. 3) At least in the U.S., you might be able to steal an election when it’s close, but not when you’re facing a landslide. Democrats can’t suddenly find a million ballots in the trunk of car, or have Democrat districts report a 500% turnout (instead of the 90-100%+ they do at times), or “discover” a million votes during a recount.
Despite the fact that the Union/Acorn vote thieves had a field day, Scott Brown gave Martha
a good old fashioned thrashing. That’s because the voters of not just Massachusetts, but Virginia, New Jersey and the
rest of America will put up with the slimy, socialist, sleaze-ball Comrade Alinsky politics of Barack Obama no longer.
Before I get off the vote stealing skull duggery that Rahm, David and company have perfected, though, let me share this fact:
the insiders I’ve been on the phone with tonight are convinced that 4% of the vote was stolen; meaning that Brown
really won by about 10%. What a she-lacking.
So how’s Barack, the word bully, going to use his bully pulpit now? Give a speech? Threaten? Demonize Brown. Blame it on the woman candidate? Not seat Brown? To Pee Wee Obama, this is much bigger than ObamaCare. This is more about public humiliation because Barack, the boy blunder, is slowly realizing the jig is up. The worm has turned. All the misspeaks and transparency fibs, and no earmark promises are catching up to Obama like a sordid past catches up to a louse.
Let’s face it, America, the guy is a scallywag of the first order. He’s not just protected by the secret service,
but now the public is becoming more and more aware that the brown eyed handsome man is a card carrying member of
the witless protection program.
What’s a crying, lying, bleeding heart libturd to do now that the great socialist, free enterprise-killing, neutering the military
game plan is being exposed to more and more of the American electorate? How stupid did they think we are? As I write, I doubt even
Chris in the bag for Obama Matthews is still getting that leg tingle everytime Obama opens his mouth to speak.
Oh, the speeches will still come. Obama will still be making things “clear”. “No American child should go to sleep without healthcare.”
Obama, you can talk a bluestreak but the more people listen closely to your words, the more people realize just how disingenuous a President can be. So, little man, what’r you going to do? Double down? Put all your money on black? Play the race
card till the cows come home.
What was it that your spiritual guide said after 9/11? Who remembers Jeremy Wright’s infamous quote that emanated from that black soul.
“The chickens have come home to roost?” That’s what your spiritual advisor said.
And after that and many other examples of America hate spewing from the pulpit, you keep on pewing with that despicable creature. Only when he turned on you did you throw him under the bus.
So, what are your plans now, Comrade Obama? Anger? revenge? You’ve pretty much stomped on every ideal on which this country was founded. Much like your bosom buddy, Bill Ayers, did that day five years ago when that rag, Chicago magazine, put Ayers on its cover, stomping on the American flag. Are you going to open our borders like a madman opening the floodgates of a great polluted reservoir? Are you going to pass the word not to seat Brown and pass the StealthCare bill in the dead of night? Are you going to unilaterally dismantle our nuke sites?
Leave us defenseless? I know what’s in your mind. I know what you’re capable of. Get back at the United States. Show it’s people they better never stand up to Obama again if they know what’s good for them.
One thing that I’m sure of, Mr. O.
You, sir, are not good for us. Not our black brothers, our white sisters, our Hispanic patriots. None of us. This isn’t a party thing. It’s not a Democratic Party thing. For it was the Democrats who put Brown over the top.
It’s not a Republican thing either. For Republicans have no corner on the patriot market. It’s not a tea party thing. For tea partiers can’t reach the mountain top alone. This is an American thing. And if anybody thinks Reverend King’s life taught me no lessons, they don’t know me at all.
There is right. And there is wrong. There are people who want to improve the nation like Mr. King, and those who want to defile it, like
Jeremy Wright.
I am a conservative. My parents were liberals. Most of my friends vote Democratic and were proud to see the first African American President. But I’m sorry, so sorry it had to be someone who’s never been proud of this country. Who’s done everything in his power
to hurt and destroy it.
Mr. Obama, sir, America is on the march once again. We’re not afraid of you. You and your cronies can call us teabaggers and
Nazis and wingnuts till the cows come home. But you, sir, are trying to desecrate hallowed ground, American soil. The first American revolution began at the Old North Bridge, Concord, Massachusetts. It’s as good a place as any for the second one to start. For tonight, we heard more than a victory and concession speech.
In 1775, at Concord, it was the shot heard ’round the world. Tonight, it was the vote.
With field position like this, I’d be calling for Frank Reich.
Boxer is very vulnerable, last week in Palm Springs area when she was introduced by the moderator of the event, she was boo’d loudly. This was an event that she thought was friendly, it wasn’t. The Indio California paper has the story.
Well, as they say… he’s got the talkin’ part done!
1 down 300 more progressive crooks to go!
Now, if only the Democrats let us have elections in 2010 and 2012. (Don’t laugh, some of those Mao-idolizing, Alinskyite left/liberal ends-justify-the-mean types out there may actually be considering some reason not to have them.)
You guys really live in an alter-universe, don’t you?
I just posted the following in another article. I can’t say it enough!
Well folks, we pulled it off. I’ve never been so proud of casting a vote than I was in casting one for Brown this morning. I just came back from the Brown victory party here in Boston. The place was PACKED. And raucous!
We’re not 100% out of the woods yet though. The health care bill still isn’t quite yet in the coffin. It’s on life support though and the citizenry is pulling on the plug….
“17. BC:
You guys really live in an alter-universe, don’t you?”
Yes, we do. The real one.
skeeziks & BC – Go suck your thumb somewhere else!
If you listen carefully, you can hear all the other thumb suckers from Quincy to P-town (they may be sucking something else in P-town)and you’ll know just where to go. Move toward the sucking sound!!! LOL!
Of course he doesn’t perfectly meet every criteria; but when the house is on fire and the fire department pulls into the driveway, I really don’t think it’s necessary for me to get certifications regarding any possible arthritis some of them may have before I let them put the fires out.
We are awake. We are mad. We are paying attention. We are taking names. We are keeping track. We are learning. We are DONATING CASH ACROSS STATE LINES TO GET RID OF THE THUGS IN THE CONGRESS NO MATTER WHAT PARTY THEY REPRESENT. And if Scott, or any that follow him, get smart with us, we’ll deal with ‘em.
I’m sure Scott Brown will disappoint some of the more conservative purists currently gushing here and at other sites about his victory. He is a New England Republican, with all the associations that entails: Lowell Weicker, Lincoln Chafee, Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe, Jumpin’ Jim Jeffords, and of course, the Mitt himself. But for the moment, let’s just appreciate that he is more to the right of the opponent he defeated, and savor being able to read “R-MA” following the name of a Massachusetts senator for the first time in many decades. As Rush said, “Mary Jo, this one’s for you!”.
BC,
I don’t know which guys you are always referencing, but I will assure you that all of us are living in the same universe. Even you. If you have read anything that Mao or Alinsky wrote, and if you will note some of the accolades coming from the Obama administration for these fellows, you will find ample justification for #16 voicing his worst fears. These people are in power in the most powerful country in the world and this situation must be addressed. Tonight, a little of the cover got torn from the Social Democrat playbook and they will need to figure out what went wrong sooner than they wanted to. We don’t believe in the kind of change they want. They are at a crossroad, they can either start looking at legitimate and affordable reforms or they can perish in the backrooms. I expect the former and the Marxists of the world will have to create more misery than they already have, before they will get another chance at complete control of the Democrat party.
Sorry guys, but paranoid, delusional crap is, well, just paranoid, delusional crap. The real problem with this country is that we have this Tower of Babel for a news media now, so everyone can pick a source of not-quite-information to support any belief, however paranoid and delusional. Obama is just a smart, decent guy trying to fix a whole bunch of things broken or going bad, while dealing with a bunch of rock throwing Republicans who would just as soon see him fail to further their own cynical political purposes, as well as a sizable portion of the American public absolutely clueless about what’s going on yet wanting things fixed “Now!”.
21. Meryl:
NO MATTER WHAT PARTY THEY REPRESENT
Really? Name some Republicans you’re going after.
Acorn, SIEU, the country was watching…we were prepared for antics! Keep the lights on and the roaches won’t come out!
Masscare may be as bad as Obamacare. But it is their problem. Vote with your feet if you don’t like it. But we’ll not have that luxury if Obamacare is imposed on us. Besides Obamacare is unfair, we like equality under the law, but Obamacare codifies inequality with the sweet port deals to Nebraska, to union workers,… into law.
Brown was not supported by the Republican party apparatchiks. He won independent, Republican, and Democrat votes, he is responsible to them too. So perish the thought that Brown will do what the party leaders want him to do, perish also the thought that he’s a conservative.
Bob and Spartan – Ditto.
This guy’s gonna go down in flames in 2012. You’ll soon discover a jawbone is no substitute for a backbone. Scott Palin, porn star cum senator cum conservative scandal. It’s already in the works.
BC:
You mean the universe in which *Massachusetts* voters just b!tch-slapped Obama? That’s actually the real one, much as you prefer your own.
Ha!Ha!Ha! I bet him 100 Hadean dollars that that shrew would lose his seat! Poker night this weekend with “the brothers three” will be a little light in the jackpot department…the funniest thing is that they have no idea the deck is marked..sheesh, talk about a bunch of dim bulbs. As if they can’t guess my name. Who, who indeed!
Sincerely,
Satan
BC,
You, comrade, are the poster child for Cognitive Dissonance. Obama is to smart as dog food is to filet mignon. If they ever shoot The Cooler II, he ought to star in it.
25. Let’s start with the traitorous Senators from Maine, Snowe and Collins. We’ll outflank them in the primaries.
@24. BC: – Obama is just a smart, decent guy trying to fix a whole bunch of things broken or going bad, while dealing with a bunch of rock throwing Republicans…
LOL!! You really live in an alter-universe, don’t you?
The thing the most people are determined not understand is that the senator, governor, mayor or president is elected by the people to serve their interest. No matter what those interests turn out to be. In some cases they vote their ideals but in the main they vote for what the people of their state desire. In MA Romney was not the governor of only pro life Republicans, or anti-health care activists. The majority of the voters of the state wanted both of those measures passed. To not do so would be to break the trust of ALL the citizens of the state.
This is what is wrong with politics today. The people should be in charge. In most cases decisions should be left up to them and the majority rules. As a nation if we the people make wrong decisions we must pay for those decisions hopefully learning from them and not repeating them again. That is what this election was about. The PEOPLE decided who should sit in the PEOPLE’s seat. The PEOPLE should decide what is done in Washington, they should decide how big government is and how much power it has. The government’s power is derived from the people. Making Romney the villain is one of the reasons we have an incompetent, anti-business, anti-capitalism, pro-socialist in the White House. That and religious bigotry from people like the “Reverend Huckabee”. Good to know we Christians are ready, nay eager to throw each other to the lions. Contention in the ranks always helps win elections.
I personally would take someone who thinks for themselves, tells me what they think and promises to do what he says he will. Give me someone not beholden to the National parties anytime.
LOL – if turnout had been like 2008, Coakley would be a US Senator right now. GOP benefited from Dem voter apathy.
@BC:24
“Obama is just a smart, decent guy trying to fix a whole bunch of things broken or going bad”
I realize thats just your opinion but I do not think it can be proved.
Even those who read his legal opinions have said they are not remarkable; unless you mean smart in the manipulative sense. If one is so smart then why resort to secretive processes? Is the media not on his side more than the other, if anything? If everyone is against it might it behoove one to consider failings? If one is so decent then why say so many things untrue (or does he really want to ‘transform’ it?) If you say cause of Lobbyists and Money, then I say no cause they are the only ones inside the door. It is the People (and opposition party – yes, they say no) who are locked out.
Are you saying the People are stupid? Where do you find any decency? I might not know this word.
bc, what is the view like that far up O’s rear?
I have read Scott Brown’s Abortion section and as a pro-lifer my self, I think it was very carefully crafted paragraph;
“While this decision should ultimately be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor, I believe we need to reduce the number of abortions in America. I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area and I support parental consent and notification requirements and I oppose partial birth abortion. I also believe there are people of good will on both sides of the issue and we ought to work together to support and promote adoption as an alternative to abortion.”
Key phrases : parental consent, oppose partial birth abortion, adoption.
He also opposes federal funding of abortion. Has said that Roe-Wade is the law of the land, but has not said it is a proper law. So I am open to believe his statement is that of a semi-closet pro-lifer.
Allow me to change the title slightly…
LIBERTY 1 Liberals 0
Massachussets – the scene of the next revolution !
Someone should inform number 29 that US Senators have 6 year terms. What an intellect.
41. Richard A.: Unfortunately, tonight’s election is to finish Kennedy’s term. Ergo, another election 2012.
The funny thing (or irony, if so preferred) is: the appointed senator Kirk could have stayed until he was turned out in Nov. But the Dems played dirty last time when Kerry ran for the presidency, and a Republican was governor. To prevent a Republican governor appointing a Senator to replace Kerry, they changed the law making it possible to elect Brown before Nov. and kill their ObieCare.
How delicious!
I take my hat off to congratulate the new senator from MA, Scott Brown. For many, it was a victory for the moderate/independant republicans and a rejection of the t-bag, anti-gay religious right once and for all. Some people think this is the end of progress and common sense on health care and other vital issues. They are wrong. And both political extremes can and should take notes on this election and learn the lessons well. Good Luck to Scott Brown and Congratulations !!
Obama is just a smart, decent guy
He is so decent that not ten days after his inauguration he had taken control of the Bureau of Census and not a week later the Bureau of Census had subcontracted the work for next census to… Acorn. Frankly I would trust Al Capone’s honesty before Obama’s.
Flawed or not, Scott Brown was in exactly the right place at exactly the right time, and his presence has quite literally salvaged liberty for all Americans. Flawed or not, look for his name to pop up on the short list of challengers for the presidency in 2012. Perhaps he’s no Reagan, but it looks like he has the right mix to actually win.
To John Brown: No smart, ethical well informed person voted for Bush in 2004, yet he was reelected. I know piles and piles of people in Massachusetts who are artists, scientists, or academics with advance degrees and none of them voted for Brown. I have two bars for how “smart” the US public is: 70% can be suckered at a given time, and about 40% are hopeless morons.
The dark side to this victory is that it will push the leftist Obama-Reid-Pelosi axis to work even harder at non-Democratic means to hold on to power.
Expect redoubled efforts at registering ineligible voters, denying absentee ballots to military personnel, using their MSM propaganda machine to step up the slime attacks several more notches, and even harassing and silencing conservative media, especially when it tries to point out all their efforts at repression.
I would say that they want to turn us into a banana republic, but that would be insulting to the REAL banana republic for which the term was coined – Honduras actually FOUGHT AGAINST this sort of thing.
21. Meryl:
Right on the money. And finally, I thought I would never say this Thank You Massachusetts!
Thank you Massachusett(e)s! You have hit the RESET button on DC and we are all grateful to you.
This election is a fitting tribute to Mary Jo Kopechne on the fortieth anniversary of her death by the hands of Ted Kennedy.
Mr. Kenne3dy’s ‘legacy’ has been rewritten. Good job, Scotty. Beam me up.
Someone should inform number 41 that Brown was elected to complete the term of office of Ted Kennedy that will be up for vote again in 2012. What an intellect.
Had Brown’s victory occurred in the deep south or some obscure flyover state the Left could explain it away by dissing the voters, calling them racist, ignorant, selfish, angry, etc. But it happened in the bluest of blue states, one that voted in big numbers for Obama less than one year ago.
I got a “basketball Jones” last night. Check out Brown’s daughter’s record on the hardwood. I thought of Palin.
Thank you to my state Massachusetts!!!! we changed history!!!! Two songs come to mind…Phil Collins “I can feel it the air tonight” and “Its too late” by Carol King. We did it Massachusetts…lets take a bow!!!
@46. BC: – I have two bars for how “smart” the US public is: 70% can be suckered at a given time, and about 40% are hopeless morons.
Bitter much?
Heh. Heheh.
As for your insipid Newsweek poll, their response to Brown’s historic victory tells you all you need to know about their objectivity and credibility: “The Democrats Must Not Lose Courage”. LOL!!! Alter opines that Dems should listen to the will of the People… and then go on with their plan to destroy the Republic. Funny, funny stuff. And still openly and shamelessly socialist.
The people to watch are those on the edge of conservatism – the frumians on the left and the paulians on the right – each selfishly willing to allow the country to be taken over by radical leftists unless they get their way.
At this point there is not a better GOP presidential candidate than Romney. If one emerges, then support that person but don’t attack Romney. Attack Obama.
I stand corrected. The number song for this is “WE ARE THEE CHAMPIONS!!!!”
Very well put, JFM. Capone may have operated outside the law, but he never, ever cheated his customers.
Further thoughts on the election here.
Sorry, but the score is more like Tyranny 10 Liberty 1.
Last night just got us on the scoreboard. We’re still down by a lot. Scott Brown got on base and Tea party got the RBI, the GOP limp wrists were really nowhere to be seen on this, lame as ever.
Let us also remember what the Boston Globe did, in calling the race
for Croakley. The hole that the Boston Globe has dug for itself has
gotten larger. For, what credibility does the Boston Globe have? About as much as the “Brezhnev era apparatchik” referred to by Daniel Hannan, in his 3 and a half minute rebuttal of British Prime Minister Brown, at the European Parliament, and then went viral on youtube. Here it is for your viewing pleasure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs
This is a great morning for America, and perhaps Massachusetts as well. Let us hope that now that the democrats have lost the filibuster proof majority that they will act like statesmen and not tyrants that will do as they please.
Perhaps the realization that last night results are an omen of what will happen if they do not change their ways, they should still be voted out because had the election turned out differently they would right now still be trying to force this horrid bill through to passage.
“46. BC:
To John Brown: No smart, ethical well informed person voted for Bush in 2004, yet he was reelected. I know piles and piles of people in Massachusetts who are artists, scientists, or academics with advance degrees and none of them voted for Brown. I have two bars for how “smart” the US public is: 70% can be suckered at a given time, and about 40% are hopeless morons.
Jan 20, 2010 – 1:42 am”
Music to my ears! The Leftists are beginning to revert to their natural condition of bitter losers, blaming the American people for rejecting their utopia schemes. What surer sign can there be that we have a new entry for the Guinness Book of World Records: shortest New Progressive Era ever.
#46 BC -are you saying that the reason people voted for Obama was because 70% of them were suckers and 40% are hopeless morons?
Rachel Peepers – thanks,a great post and outline.
BC said:
I know piles and piles of people in Massachusetts who are artists, scientists, or academics with advance degrees and none of them voted for Brown.
Notice that this doesn’t mean that artists, scientists and academics didn’t vote for Brown just that those known by BC didn’t vote for Brown (“How can it be that Reagan was voted in 49 states? I know nobody who voted for him”) or at least didn’t dare to tell him. We could also question what kind of “artists” (those who poop and call their “production” art?), “scientists” (those who falsify data on global warming?) and “academics” (Ward Churchill types teaching at Groucho Marx University?) are friends of BC.
Sorry, but the January 19 election in Massachusetts–from the point of view from someone who actually lives here–was about one-party rule in Boston, not one-party rule in Washington. There are so many dynamics about Mass government that outsiders don’t understand that I cannot explain them in a single blog post comment. It would take separate posts on James Michael Curley vs. Honey Fitz, Leverett Saltonstall, Congressman Martin, Tip Oneil, Ed King vs. Mike Dukakis, Fr. Drinan, Proposition 2-1/2, the seat belt law, and more. But the short version is this: you read too much into the election if you think this is based on national issues.
BC is always reduced to name calling, personal attacks and Bush bashing. Bush is an honest and decent man, who like his father, is compassionate and humble.
This is in direct contrast to your hero, Obama, who is totally mean-spirited like a school bully (he openly mocked plumbers & people who own trucks; described Americans in small towns as angry & clinging to their guns & religion; makes an insulting joke about those handicapped with special needs; calls a police officer just doing his job as reacting “stupidly” when Obama didn’t even know all the facts of the case). Obama is also all about self — remember during the campaigns when he was in Germany doing his European tour? He was scheduled to visit wounded warriors at the Landstuhl Medical Center, but the military would not allow his photographer to enter for privacy reasons. Obama couldn’t do his photo ops with the wounded soldiers, so what did he do? He went to the base gym and worked out rather than go to the hospital by himself and meet with people who were looking forward to meeting him. No compassion or care whatsoever for the wounded — all about self only. So telling.
Y’all just have to excuse BC today
…bless his little heart
…he’s choking on all that crow he’s eating…
“piles and piles” of people..
First Dede Scozafazza and now Martha Coakley: has the baby-boomer white female AA baby been exposed to be nearly as incomptetent as the Great One?
#53 …the daughter plays b-ball and sings hip-hop (auditioned on American Idol)?!…the next black president, although admittedly a minimum of 60 years away, might be a scion of the soon-to-be prominent Massachusetts Brown family.
To JFM: if you live in a heavily academic environment like I do, but know a lot of people outside of that, like I also do, these types of things just illustrate how polarized this country still is after the Bush years. Whether you and the others admit to it or not, people who *really* understand the economic and health care issues at hand voted for Coakley, even the ones frustrated with her p*ss-poor campaign. They think — as well as I — that not only the likes of Fox News and the WSJ have become watering holes for the badly confused, but even the supposedly “liberal” media news organizations can’t be trusted to report coherently or get the facts straight on anything more complicated than a sports score, be it Iraq-9/11 links, global warming, the economic crisis, health care reform, or whatever. How can you have a real debate about anything when people are showing with their own sets of “facts” and talking points, and fervently believe that theirs are the true, correct ones?
I don’t care if Scott Brown is not the perfect Republican or 100% conservative. There’s room for all types in the GOP, and we need to spread the word to America that it’s the Progressives & liberal Democrats who are not tolerant of other viewpoints — not the Republicans. Remember when SEIU members beat up that African-American merchant at a tea party protest because they didn’t want a black man there selling conservative-based souvenirs. The ultra-liberals (Progressives) label Republicans and conservatives who disagree with Obama as racist, but it’s actually the Progressives who are racists — look at Harry Reid and the Grand Dragon Robert Byrd of Ku Klux Klan fame. It’s odd, but blacks and Hispanics continue to vote these 2 jokers into Congress.
I like Scott Brown because he’s a no-nonsense kind of guy who will go to Washington to fix problems and try to make life better for his constituents and the rest of the country, by doing it the democratic and collaborative way like a Congress is supposed to do — not ram bills down our throat that they themselves have not even read. Brown will shake things up in Washington.
@65. Dennis Byron: – …you read too much into the election if you think this is based on national issues.
Dennis, I’ve lived in and near MA for almost 30 years. I know exactly what you’re talking about. And it blinds you to one simple fact: Brown’s candidacy would have gone NOWHERE without national support. That support was based on national issues – specifically, resistance to the Democrats’ wildly unpopular attempts to ram socialized medicine down America’s throat. MA residents didn’t pour over a million dollars a day into Brown’s campaign last week – Americans, nationally, did that.
I see few people who are reading more into Brown’s election than is really there. That said, perhaps if MA folks stopped seeing the rest of the nation as “outsiders”, they might enjoy getting back into mainstream America, where the U.S. Constitution – not leftist policy – is the fundamental law of the land. Yesterday was a great first step on that road to recovery.
While I’m elated that someone with an (R) after their name has been elected to fill the seat vacated by the demise of the late Senator Ted Kennedy, I’m a bit concerned that the victory is hollow. I won’t deny that I got caught up in the enthusiasm of the moment and I wanted with all my heart for this guy to win. But as I lay in bed last night, his victory speech haunted me.
Senator Brown’s position on the health care takeover has been, all along, that the process was too secretive and too heavy handed. He’s barely attacked any specific portion of the bill. In fact, the only statements I’ve seen have alluded to the fact that the bill was bad for Bay Staters because they already have universal healthcare, which he voted for. Given the sorry state of health care in Massachusetts, I wonder if a national health care package wouldn’t save them from themselves? Furthermore, given that entitlement programs are nearly impossible to repeal once put in place, wouldn’t a federal takeover of healthcare be the only way for MA to get out of the mess? Do you not think that both Senator Brown and all the good citizens of the state of MA know this?
Consider if Brown goes to Washington and says, “if it weren’t for A, B, and C provisions in this bill, I would consider it sensible” and “if these provisions were debated openly and honestly and meaningful compromises reached, I think I could support it”. Believe me when I say that this is not far-fetched. Based on his statements during his victory speech last night, I think it’s almost certain this is what’s going to happen. Whether or not the Tea Party would consider him a traitor would depend on what A, B, and C are. I have a sinking feeling in my gut that his A, B, and C are not going to be ours. At least in the short run, a national health care bill will save Massachusetts billions and Senator Brown will have made Senator Nelson look like a street beggar. Worse yet, because the Tea Party supported him and because he ran as a Republican and because his victory was said to be transformational, if the Democratic Party bends to his will it will give the illusion of true bipartisanship and will make the Tea Party look petty and mean when they backlash against it.
Thus, health care reform will pass, the Democrats will look like they compromised, Obama will get his bill, the Republicans will look like obstructionists, the Tea Party will be marginalized and not only will 2012 look like an Obama victory with approval ratings back into the 60’s, but I think 2010 could be lost, too. We will have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. I’ll tell you this, too. The Tea Party just helped elect someone that they will have absolutely zero control over. Furthermore, the Republicans will have zero control over him, too. If either the Tea Party or the Republican Party tries to lean on him, all he has to do is change the (R) to a (D) and this guy will be in office for forty years just like his predecessor. Bay Staters love him and the state of Massachusetts is still true blue, after all. No matter what anyone thinks, Bay Staters are still of the same political persuasion as they were when they helped elect Obama. This is why we never, ever should have supported a RINO. It would have been better to lose this race to Martha Coakley. I knew that the second I realized that John McCain was behind his running. I just pray that I am wrong.
Scott Brown is the anticdote for Progressive Liberal Democrat closed door Chicago thug-machine deal making and bribery. Single party government is going to be crushed by the American citizens who are alive, well and ticked off at the gangsters now in control of Obamanation government. This awareness started with McDonnel and Chrisy and now last night with Brown in the belly of the beast in Massachusetts. Keep your eyes on the Tea Party activities throughout America. The folk are real and their message is dump the humps! Get out Freedoms back!!
BC – “The real problem with this country is that we have this Tower of Babel for a news media now, so everyone can pick a source of not-quite-information to support any belief, however paranoid and delusional.”
BC, what source of not-quite-information do you use to support your beliefs? Speaking of the Tower of Babel, academia is the closest thing I can think of to such a place. Please try some new derisive words for people who don’t share your beliefs. I am tired of reading paranoid and delusional when you post.
@69. BC: – if you live in a heavily academic environment like I do, but know a lot of people outside of that, like I also do, these types of things just illustrate how polarized this country still is after the Bush years.
Still blaming Bush, eh BC. How pathetically and predictably lame.
BHO has had over a year since his election to make good on his promise to unite the nation behind his “vision”. It’s too bad that his vision turned out to be a lie. During that time he’s stepped up the Democrat-controlled Congress’ destruction of the economy, pushed policies that have increased unemployment to twice what it was under Bush, insulted Americans’ intelligence with demonstrably bogus predictions and false reports on the effect of his quadrupled federal deficit, unconstitutionally seized control over multiple economic sectors, kowtowed to foreign powers, unilaterally acquiesced in the face of Russian aggression, broken just about every campaign promise he made to his ‘base’, pushed unpopular and unconstitutional health care legislation that is favored by only 37% of the nation, and demonstrated that he is utterly incapable of forming a coherent thought without the aid of a teleprompter. BHO is an abject failure in every way that matters. His approval rating after one year is almost down to half of what Bush’s was after the same period.
As for your anecdotal idiocy regarding who you know or don’t, no one who spends as much time as you do posting your drivel on this board could possibly have a life that includes a statistically significant number of acquaintances. Reading notes you find in people’s garbage cans and listening to other peoples’ voice mail while you’re waxing floors in the Student Union at night doesn’t really count. And when it comes to the academic milieu, “advanced degree” all too often simply means “advanced stage of leftist indoctrination”.
.
@72. Will M.: – Consider if Brown goes to Washington and says…
Will, Brown knows exactly where the national grassroots support came from that made his candidacy viable. He knows WHY it was offered. If he so much as reads a so-called “health care reform bill” while he’s Senator, he can expect to be tarred and feathered – literally, not figuratively – on national television. And those who supported him in this election are fools if they don’t remind him of that every single day.
This is so sweet. Boot met bottom last night in a very blue state, but the response of *snicker* “smart” people like BC is to double down on stupid. Last night the people of Mass. demonstrated that the condescending sneers from the self-annointed elites will get the elites nowhere, but BC just can’t help himself. BC, what exactly do you think you’re accomplishing here? Who have you won over with your insults? Are you trying to demoralize us? Clearly, it has the opposite effect.
Oh, I get it – you take pleasure in spewing insults and calling people teabaggers and wingnuts. It makes you feel good, and for the left, feeling good is what it’s all about. The consequences of your actions don’t matter. In fact, you’re such a genius you can’t see you’re helping the other side.
Well, continue to post here. You’re always good for a laugh and your posts are so very effective. The PJM trolls motivated me to pull out my credit card for Brown more than once so never believe, BC, that you don’t make a difference. Forget Soros – do you work for Karl Rove?
Has Brown ever said he is against the healthcare plan?..or just the way it is being handled>
Now it will be interesting to see if any Republicans cross the line.
Before the Brown vote they didn’t need to because of the Dem majority…they could sit back and say/…”hey, I didn’t do it” if it backfires…now..it’s a different story..
BC @ 46
“I know piles and piles of people in Massachusetts who are artists, scientists, or academics with advance degrees and none of them voted for Brown.”
This is just another example of how “progressives” wrongly conflate credentials with political sense. “Citizenship” depends in no way on how many degrees you have or what business you are in. I know a number of overly-credentialed artists and academics (the few scientists I know are all rock-solid conservatives)who are as dumb as dirt in all matters not related to their own field. They are also politically complacent in that maddening way liberals have of assuming that, because of their good intentions (and credentials), that they occupy a higher and better moral realm than those of us schlubs on the ground. For what it’s worth I have a couple of advanced degrees but the guy I most admire is my brother-in-law who is a carpenter and contractor. He started out with nothing but his tool-belt and has made a successful business out of thirty years of hard work. They guy can build or repair anything and I would far rather take his political advice as opposed to someone whose only defining characteristic is master’s degree in art criticism or French literature.
There is much to ponder today. I don’t wish to rain on anyone’s parade. (although, I still worry about there being an awful, blindside SNOWE on this parade).
However, there is a message that keeps being sent by the electorate…and I think that message keeps getting garbled in the euphoria of the winners and the despondent reactions of the losers each time.
It is all the rage now, in getting physically fit…to exercise one’s “core”. The “core” is also now talked about in swinging a golf club for example.
That is, when one moves the middle properly…one gets the most benefit. Understanding how to move one’s “core”, gets the optimal results.
Without a conversion of what USED TO BE called “Reagan Democrats”, without a tidal wave of independents shifting away from Coakley’s rather bizarre public self-immolation …Scott Brown still…does not win this election. Period, no rational debate can be promulgated otherwise.
The message in all this…despite the whistling past the graveyard of those who say otherwise, is that the NATIONAL issues being forced upon the populace are being rejected by the “core”. Overwhelmingly.
Spin it any other way you want, if that helps you get through the night. The “core”…which decides virtually EVERY national election…is not passive about current policy. They are rejecting it.
And Massachusetts could not have been a more resounding place to send that message. You can’t find enough hard core conservatives to get a good game of Canasta going. A Kennedy has held that seat since To Tell The Truth was a top rated show. It was canceled shortly thereafter, as a concept as well it seems, based upon modern entertainment, media, academia, and leftist politics.
Evan Bayh, seems to get it. At least, a little. The most liberal large state in the Union, just sent a message. The people…are exercising their “core”.
Goy, I hope you’re right but I just don’t see where the lever can be applied. At the moment, Brown is completely untouchable. However, I must admit that the sad state of affairs in this country of ours has me a bit on the pessimistic side.
Ah, BC, you’re about as accurate as Praetorian was last week.
Praetorian:
You teabaggers have been so pumped up about this race that you actually believe you have a chance to win in a state that is 3 to 1 Democratic. Astonishing! You’re gonna be so CRUSHED on Tuesday! And you can be sure that I’ll be here to pour lot’s and lot’s of salt in your wounds and rub your nose in that stuff in your diaper.
In fact, I’m taking down all the names of the chest thumpers. They get extra salt.
I’ve created a file of priceless quotes like the above, to be filled with the confident predictions of PJM trolls. When they prove laughably wrong, the quotes will be thrust under the nose of those who, amazingly, fancy themselves part of the “reality-based community.” It’s going to be an enjoyable year.
I wonder if Michelle Obama is proud of her country this morning.
#3 Skeeziks,
SEIU and ACORN just didn’t round up enough of the dead. This is something that never would have happened in Chicago.
As for your other statements: bitter after losing, are you?
BC Your #46 borders on the insane. Do you never tire of self humiliation, or is it the only way you can draw attention to yourself, apparently a desperate need.
Continue to kick around your witless insults, the product of a kindergarten mind, but realize that people know you are compelled to voice your dumb hate, that you can’t help yourself.
Your boy, The O, has contempt for you. Just a reminder.
“heavily academic environment”? So where do you hide your mop and pail when posting.
To Jim Baker: if you really want to know what’s what with a given issue, especially a complicated one, you can try three things: 1) find the source material that everyone is babbling about and see if you personally can understand it; 2) locate web sites where you have actual experts — people who have papers, books, positions, or such related to the subject — having discussions or well-footnoted articles, especially if they’re intended audience is *not* the general public; 3) compare how the most repeated “talking points” you see on TV, in print, or on the web, relate to the actual points supposedly referenced in the source material, especially in terms of context.
For instance, back when the GOP cranked up its smear machine to “11″ in trying to discredit Joe Wilson, there was this constant claim by the likes of Orrin Hatch (yes, I know he’s being relabeled a RINO) on TV talk shows and such that this Senate Select Committee report showed Joe Wilson to be a liar. But if you go and rummage through the actual main report, you would find no such thing. So how did he and the others get away with claiming that? There was an “Additional Views” supplement that let the members of the committee voice their comments, opinions or whatever else that was not included in the main report. It was here that Hatch, along with Pat Roberts and Christopher Bond, inserted some BS talking points that had been circulating through the right wing media that claimed that Wilson had to be lying. They apparently had tried, unsuccessfully despite Roberts being the committee chairman (what a tool), to insert that rubbish into the main report but were voted down for the bulk — but not all — of it.
Now if you didn’t make the effort to find that report and look through it to check things out for yourself, you would likely have completely bought into the claim, usually completely unchallenged by the TV host or whatever, that this big official report showed Wilson to be a liar.
Last year on Tax Day, we gathered in the tens of thousands to protest what was being done in Washington and many of our state capitols and you refused to hear us. On July 4 we gathered again at Independence Day celebrations all over the country to raise our collective voice in protest, but you refused to hear us. In September, hundreds of thousands strong, we marched on the US Capitol in protest of the liberal policies that were selling our individual liberties and progeny down the river and yet you refused to hear us. In November, we elected Republicans to helm Virginia and–gasp–New Jersey, two states that went big time for The One, but you still refused to hear us. Yesterday, in the bluest of blue states, the only state to vote for George McGovern, we elected a Republican, the first in 38 years, to the Senate seat held by the Liberal Lion for 46 years on the candidate’s promise to be the vote that stops the insanity. My question for you, Washington, is: Can. You. Hear. Us. NOW?
PS. The NY Times has a great election map that provides city-by-city results. Cambridge voters, God bless ‘em, went for the Croaker by 84%. The 15% that voted for Brown must all have been affiliated with the Cambridge PD. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/01/19/us/politics/massachusetts-election-map.html
PPS. Someone last night said that 41 is the new 60. LOL
“heavily academic environment”? Ha! Yeah, BC probably works at the campus Starbucks, the one across the street from the Humanities Department.
I know some extremely intelligent and successful physicians. All of them are opposed to Obamacare and none of them have the time to troll blogs and insult people.
#81 Donna V:
I’ve created a file of priceless quotes like the above, to be filled with the confident predictions of PJM trolls.
You’re going to have to get a bigger hard drive. :–>
Let’s not get overconfident. The task has only begun. There’s much more to do. The intensity must be maintained. The first thing to be done is clean out the deadwood in the Republican National Committee (including its chairman) which as far as I can see has done little but react, more often than not when its reaction is meaningless.
To address the point of Blumer’s piece, I have no illusions about Scott. He gives every indication that he will be a McCainiac. He does support MassCare and, while he says that its costs need to come down, he doesn’t say how nor suggest that he understands there are but two approaches to bending the health care cost curve. Is Scott Brown the conservative we’ve been waiting for? No, of course not; it’s Massachusetts fer crissakes. But he’ll do; oh, he’ll do.
Massachusetts is not Alabama. We will probably never elect a socially Conservative candidate to the Northeast states.
While we’re at it…People have to get a grip on this abortion issue. If someone says they are pro-choice it does not mean that they are pro-abortion. Roe v. Wade is law – there will be no changing it, whether it is good law or not, whether it is Constitutional or not. If we continue to make abortion our litmus test for candidates we will continue to lose. If we lose then we will continue to see uncontrolled spending by our Congress.
I think there is some common ground that most people on the right and in the middle can agree on, such as a ban on late term abortion, but that is beside my point.
Why can’t the Republicans go back to a economically Conservative platform that is strong on defense and leave the social issues to the individual states? The federal government should not be involved in individual state issues and state voter preferences.
46. BC: “To John Brown: No smart, ethical well informed person voted for Bush in 2004, yet he was reelected.”
This is a typical Obamaton reaction and nothing more than graceless, condescending, narcissistic tripe. Its little more than a adolescent temper tantrum.
The Obama administration and leftist leadership in congress just got sent a huge message of rejection on their extremist agenda. Nothing more, nothing less. I hope they and their supporters continue to run with this “Americans are stupid” meme so we can privatize them all the sooner.
Tom–good column. Although the moniker is questionable, I agree with most other arguments in this column, especially, the final one regarding Liberty and Tyranny. Rocking the Cradle of Liberty. I’m glad that Massachusetts found its inner patriot. John Adams is smiling today.
91. We’ve got to get rid of this slavery litmus test. Virginia is not Massachusetts. Slavery is law, and there is no changing it. If we continue to push slavery as an issue, we will continue to lose.
That was the Whig position in the 1850′s. The Republicans broke off and told the Whigs they were full of you know what. The Republicans won, the Whigs disappeared, and after a bloody war, this nation destroyed the corrupt institution of slavery. I don’t want a second Civil War over abortion, but if that’s the only way to stop it, I’ll take up arms when the shooting starts, and I’ll join the forces of righteousness to kill the murderers.
Brown shouldn’t run for President in 2012. He does have some executive experience as a military officer, but it was as a reservist. We should elect a Governor. Brown may one day be fit for the presidency, but not this time around.
To Poor Citizen (43 above):
You have no idea who goes to Tea Party rallies…have you ever been to one? Stop believing what the MSM says about them. Any idea how much money Scott Brown’s campaign received from Tea Party members?? I, myself, donated $50 as did many the members of my NEW JERSEY Tea Party group..got it? Understand yet? THIS is how he go elected. The Tea Party movement is all about education and message, spreading the ideas on what The United States is all about, how we are different from other countries, and understanding founding priciples, uh, that’s why they are called Tea Parties. That message has spread throughout this country and Scott Brown rode that wave because The People in Mass were more educated and knowlegable and voted that way. Just why do you think he referred to “Kenedy’s” seat as The People’s seat…you think he just pulled that moniker out of his hat? It was fresh in his mind because the Tea Party patriots have been out spreading the “We The People” message.
Understand now??
Donna V at 87,
You go girl!
It is more than high time these Marxist trolkins get confronted with their own discredited theoretical garbage and the spew that emanates from their mouths. They had a 60 vote majority in the Senate and still couldn’t get it done, how feckless is that?
Their leader is proving to be, what any of us who bothered to educate ourselves on the man knew months before the election, a person with only one executive experience in his life (Annenberg Challenge), at which he totally failed. He is long on a failed and discredited ideology and short on familiarity with capitalism. He despises most of what has made our country and it’s people great. He shares these attributes with most of the trolls who visit here.
Keep on confronting the miseducated with the facts Donna. We will be cheering you on.
@85. BC: – … back when the GOP cranked up its smear machine to “11″ in trying to discredit Joe Wilson, there was this constant claim by the likes of Orrin Hatch (yes, I know he’s being relabeled a RINO) on TV talk shows and such that this Senate Select Committee report showed Joe Wilson to be a liar.
LOL!!! Smear machine??? What a load of bilious idiocy.
Despite angry admonition from those who supported him throughout 2002 and 2003, the Bush Administration barely even responded to Wilson’s serial lies. That’s the limp-wristed lack of domestic leadership that gave us a Democrat-controlled Congress in 2006 and BHO in 2008.
BC, you desperately need to start taking your own advice and then get someone to teach you reading comprehension. Anyone who makes the effort to actually read the SSCI report – like Chris Hitchens did back in 2004 – will learn that, in point of fact, Joe Wilson IV has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a consummate, serial liar.
Even the Washington Post – Wilson’s left wing media mouthpiece, where he played “anonymous government source” in Walter Pincus’ hit jobs attacking the Bush Administration – has been forced to admit this:
Wilson claimed he’d debunked Iraq’s attempts to purchase uraniuim from Niger. That was a lie. He claimed that his “revelation” had been reported directly to the Vice President. That was a lie. He claimed the Vice President ignored it. That was a lie. In trying to defend himself by falsely charging the Bush Administration with outing his hapless spouse, Wilson claimed that Valerie Plame’s identity as a CIA employee was revealed in order to attack him. That was a lie. He claimed his wife was NOT the person who suggested he go to Niger for the CIA to investigate uranium sales to Iraq. That was a lie.
[all quotes below, my emphasis]
Starting with that last one, page 39 of the report clearly states:
Reading further, we see why Valerie Plame has become such a laughing stock in the Plamegate debacle: her razor-sharp objectivity as a sooper-seekrit intelligence operative…
Nothing like interjecting one’s own agenda into an ongoing CIA intelligence operation. No wonder our intelligence services have been such a joke.
But here’s the kicker, on p. 46:
Get that? The information Wilson provided to the CIA actually SUPPORTED the likelihood that Saddam had sought to purchase uranium in Niger. The information he provided was interpreted by the CIA to mean EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what he claimed in his NYT attack on the Bush Administration. Wilson, in his overwhelming ignorance and arrogance (no wonder you’re defending him) didn’t consider that possibility.
Not only that, the report goes on to completely discredit Wilson’s claim that his “revelations” were sent to the Vice President, and that the V.P. ignored them. Page 46 notes in numerous places that Wilson’s report didn’t add any new or interesting information to what the intelligence community already had. But most damning to Wilson’s bogus claims was this (still p.46):
So once again, BC, we see that you are completely and utterly full of sh!t. These are documented facts, right from the very source you cited, but you refuse to acknowledge them.
You certainly do live in an alter-universe. Heh.
BC, you are a parody of a human being. Your #85 almost makes me almost feel sympathy for you, as I would for a vicious, rabid dog. After all the beast can’t help itself.
The hero and IC Fitzgerald knew within days of the start of his investigation just who the leaker was on the NON-classifed employee, Valerie Plame. It was Richard Armitage, a staffer for the untouchable Colin Powell.
Regardless, he pursued Libby and prosecuted him, a process that went on for about three years and not on charges that Plames classified identity was exposed, he couldn’t because she wasn’t.
So Fitzgerald lied and lived a lie for three years. But you see, going after Bush-Cheney was the whole idea, not Powell or Armitage.
If you were fully human this would be the last thing you would bring up to authenticate your “academic” wisdom. Lots more on the media manufactured Plame-Wilson thing, but really, you don’t want to go there.
And don’t tempt me, just crawl back into your hole.
Did I tell you? Obama has contempt for you, another reminder.
Can’t say that I blame him.
@BC
This time John Brown beat the party of Jefferson Davis.
DaveT @92,
That “reaction” is actually a lefty tactic and it’s been around for a while now.BC is setting himself up as the arbiter of who is ethical and who is not. Millions of folks who elected Bush are apparently flawed on that score ? Sez who ?
BC is made ridiculous in his claim of inhabiting the high ethical ground-closer scrutiny doesn’t bear that out.The left suffers the same human frailities as the rest of humanity and a laundry list could be provided. Democrats present the same proclivites as those on the right and have done all along-not to mention they have the most horrendous s and murderous tandard-bearers in human history.
As for academia-there are academics posting right at this site and they don’t seem to be in agreement with BC from what I have been reading.
American citizens are still free to think for themselves and their political takes are as varied and numerous as the individuals who dream them up. BC and his fellow left/statist fellow travelers don’t get to set the rules. They mistook an election for a mandate to take over this nation and bend the will of the people-they are seeing that there is no such thing, and the so-called window of opportunity is going bye-bye.
BC’s posts are just a reminder that they have been getting away with these false premises for far too long.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This administration is not just, not fair, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to spot that fact.
To BC, PC, and all other liberal trolls who still insist on infesting this site with their usual progressive (whatever that is) nonsense, here’s a page out of your own playbook… Get Over it! You Lost! If this administration continues turning a deaf ear to the American populace, there’s an expansion port waiting in the wings called… Get Used To It!!!
#91, Tammy: you’ve got it exactly right. Great comments.
I’m pro-life, but I’m not going to use that as THE litmus test. You’ll never find the perfect candidate — we’re all different and diverse, and that’s a good thing because it keeps the brain cells active with honest debates, insightful analyses, critical thinking, factfinding, knowledge-sharing and, hopefully, acceptance of the realities of life.
We may lose some battles here and there, but the overall goal is to win the war against Obama’s and his ultra-leftwing followers’ reckless policies. So let’s forge on, with LTC Scott Brown as pointman leading the fight.
To the one who posted a comment about Scott Brown being just a reservist, there is something very noble about being a reservist in addition to his regular employment. Remember that they have to drill periodically including beyond just the once a month, weekend work, and they have to be ready and prepared 24/7/365 whenever they’re called up to reinforce or augment the active members. Right now, we’ve got hundreds of thousands of reservists activated to fight the war against terror not only overseas, but also within the US borders. All reservists are valued patriots.
I agree that the vote represents the rejection of all of those positions taken by Obama, but I hardly believe that Brown or the Republicans will deliver on hunger for liberty that the voters really want. Republicans will most likely get the power back by 2012, if not 2010, and saddle us with Dem-lite. The republicans must make a commitment to protecting individual rights and drop this notion of “traditional, conservative values” which is code for Christian (altuist) ethics forced on everyone.
To Goy: Why do you bother? Seriously, everytime you attack me with your delusional BS, you get a spanking. And you seriously picked the wrong topic this time — I was spanking “Wilson lied” cretins all over Usenet during that time, including taking apart Hitchen’s idiotic piece of rubbish.
Let’s go back to my original point: the claim that the Senate report showed Wilson lied was BS, and that the lying was done by Roberts, Hatch and Bond who equated their opinion supplement to the main report. Is this true? Here is the table of contents to the full report and go see where the “Additional Views” section is. So they lied. If that isn’t enough, go check this out, especially the bit about the declassified CIA memo.
Did Plame recommend Wilson for the trip or not?
You conveniently left off, surprise surprise, two little items from that Senate report page you partially quoted: that page starts off with:
Officials from the CIA’s DO Counterproliferation Division (CPD) told Committee staff that in response to questions from the Vice President’s Office and the Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD officials discussed ways to obtain additional information. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX who could make immediate inquiries into the reporting, CPD decided to contact a former ambassador to Gabon who had a posting early in his career in Niger.
Some CPD officials could not recall how the office decided to contact the former ambassador
This establishes two things: Wilson was indeed chosen as a result of a request from Cheney — Wilson got sent over because of Cheney’s request, not ifs or buts; and that the Senate report does not firmly establish Plame as having recommending her husband. What’s a bit more firm and detailed is the CIA’s refute of that claim.
And there is this further down: “The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA’s behalf”
That establishes Wilson’s credentials for being sent on a similar trip there and why the CIA would recommend him.
Was Wilson correct in his assessment? Yes, he was.
Can we show up what a douche Cheney is while we’re at it? Sure, why not?.
@106. BC:- Why do you bother?
I’m sure others are wondering the same thing. Since you can’t comprehend what you read, you studiously ignore any facts that disturb the little fantasy world you’ve built, and you relentlessly parse into oblivion the few facts that you can’t ignore, it’s pointless to try to teach YOU anything. You’re clearly incapable of learning anything that disturbs your morally adolescent, leftist worldview.
The reason I “bother” is because not everyone has read the entire contents of the SSCI Report or worked for the NSA in an intelligence gathering capacity, as I have. The more people who know the details of how and why Wilson lied through his teeth on almost every claim he made, the better. That’s why I “bother”. It’s not all about you, putzie.
- Let’s go back to my original point: the claim that the Senate report showed Wilson lied was BS…
No problem. Let’s do. Up above I just demonstrated that your claim was bullsh!t. You haven’t refuted that in any way – hell, you haven’t even ADDRESSED the points I made. You can’t.
Pointing to a DIFFERENT part of the document because it offends your clueless, fragile ego doesn’t erase the parts I quoted, which were taken directly from YOUR source and which prove – as the Washington Post has been forced to admit – that WILSON LIED. Linking to your own clueless rants – where you fantasize discrediting Christopher Hitchens with links from lefty propaganda mills – doesn’t help you.
- Here is the table of contents to the full report and go see where the “Additional Views” section is.
No need. I’ve already demonstrated that Wilson lied, based on the CIA’s own documented assessment of his report. If Hatch, et al., claimed Wilson lied, referencing the information in the SSCI report, then they were absolutely correct. QED. Your opinion and emotional inability to come to terms with the truth of the matter is, frankly, not a factor.
- This establishes two things…
Wrong. The ONLY thing it establishes is that the V.P.’s office requested more detail on the issue. Period. In fact, your unfortunate link to the Pincus article states outright that “[a]n aide to Cheney would later say he did not realize at the time that this request would generate such a trip.”
Beyond that, LEARN TO READ. Nothing in that paragraph points to Cheney requesting Wilson for the job OR that Wilson was selected solely because he had previously spied on other countries for the CIA. That paragraph merely outlines in general terms what happened. The information that follows provides the detail. Wilson was chosen to gather more data as a result of the V.P.’s request. Why he was chosen is well-documented: the choice was a direct function of VALERIE PLAME’S recommendation to send him. READ THE FRACKING TEXT OF THE DOCUMENT, WHICH I BOLDED FOR YOU UP THERE SO YOU COULDN’T POSSIBLY MISS IT. That stuff won’t go away just because it exacerbates your BDS dementia.
Also, don’t pretend you’re so naive that you don’t realize when “officials could not recall” the details of a specific event, they’re usually hiding something embarrassing. In this case, the embarrassing item would be admitting that they took Plame’s advice AFTER they learned, years later, that both she and Wilson were serial liars and that Wilson was a raging narcissist with delusions of grandeur.
What’s highly comical is your unfortunate choice in linking to Pincus – who was the a$$hole who printed Wilson’s lies anonymously in the first place (so, like, he has NO conflict of interest in revealing the truth here, right? LOL!!). That article shows that BOTH you AND Pincus are full of sh!t.
Here – pay attention…
Pincus tries to float the bogus claim – long after the fact – that Plame wrote a memo regarding her husband’s credentials AFTER he was selected. This contradicts Armitage’s original statement to Novak, the SSCI Report and the CIA’s documentation, but that doesn’t stop Pincus from trying to rewrite history based on a known liar’s claim. Up above, you point to the fact that “The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA’s behalf”. You claim – and I quote – “That establishes Wilson’s credentials for being sent on a similar trip there and why the CIA would recommend him.” But here’s the thing: IF WILSON HAD PREVIOUSLY TRAVELED ON BEHALF OF THE CIA, AND IF – ACCORDING TO YOU – THEY ALREADY HAD ESTABLISHED HIS CREDENTIALS THEREBY, THEN THEY WOULDN’T NEED PLAME TO WRITE A MEMO ABOUT HIS CREDENTIALS AFTER HE’D BEEN SELECTED FOR A(NOTHER) TRIP, WOULD THEY.
Idiot.
And if you read your source (Pincus’ article) a little more carefully next time, you’ll find that the CIA never refuted the fact that Plame initially recommended Wilson, as you just falsely claimed. Remember: Wilson’s lie was about who RECOMMENDED him for the trip, not who finally CHOSE him. The latter decision could only be made by ‘senior officials’.
Pincus is using an ancient ploy here, and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. He’s writing as though paragraph three contradicts the information in paragraph two, when it doesn’t. In paragraph two he notes who “suggested” (i.e., recommended) Wilson. In paragraph three he notes how “Wilson was chosen for the trip”. That’s TWO DIFFERENT THINGS.
While you let that sink in, realize Pincus knows that most of his readers are gullible, functionally illiterate idiots like you, and that they’ll swallow the implication created by this clever juxtaposition without noticing his deceitful journo-sleight-of-hand. Bait. Switch. That’s how low The Left Wing Media has to stoop these days to spew their propaganda: taking advantage of lemmings like you, who can’t understand the difference between the terms “recommended by” and “chosen by”.
The only other statement in that regard was made by “a Senate Democratic staff member”, not a person speaking on behalf of the CIA. Pincus, attempting to cover his own ass after he’s lost ALL his credibility, tries to turn this issue into a partisan He-Said-She-Said based on who ‘remembered’ what. And again, we know what an ‘inability to recall’ means when the ‘victim’ suddenly stricken with selective amnesia is someone as sharp as the people selected to work as analysts for the CIA – who are hired at least partially based on their ability to remember details (well, then there’s goofy Valerie Plame, so…)!
The SSCI Report itself notes clearly and unequivocally that documentary evidence indicated Plame recommended Wilson: “…interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that [Wilson's] wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip.” That reveals your idiotic claim – i.e., that “the Senate report does not firmly establish Plame as having recommending her husband” – to be complete nonsense, just as Pincus’ little partisan-baiting foray into whose ‘memory’ was accurate is a complete red herring.
- Was Wilson correct in his assessment?
Not according to the only authority that mattered: the CIA.
According to the CIA’s assessment, as documented in the SSCI Report – again, it’s quoted and bolded up above – they made the EXACT OPPOSITE determination from Wilson’s. The REASON for that – and you’d understand this if you had ever worked in the intelligence community – is that WILSON was just a sap sent to gather information. Wilson did not have the all-important Need To Know the information provided by other foreign intel services OR the associated implications that pointed to Saddam’s possible attempts to buy uranium from Niger. In fact, that information would have tainted the objectivity of his intelligence gathering (just as Plame’s unprofessional “crazy report” comment did).
When Wilson relayed the information regarding Iraq’s visit in 1999, he arrogantly assumed that his was the ONLY data they were going on. That assumption – and Wilson’s unbounded, narcissistic arrogance – was made crystal clear in Wilson’s NYT article, which broadcast his lie to the entire world. Unfortunately for Wilson, his assumptions were based solely on his opinion and a limited view of the relevant facts. Meanwhile, in the view of the CIA – IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT THEY KNEW, WHICH WILSON DID NOT – the information he provided SUPPORTED the premise that Saddam was seeking uranium – IT STATES THAT RIGHT THERE IN THE REPORT, YOU MORON.
Your curious fantasies about “spanking” people you’ve never met say a lot about your lack of maturity, BC. I guess that’s just your psycho-sexual compensation for being so… wrong… all the time.
Er, the Wilson topic was old and tedious a long time ago. Losers all around on that one. You can not have your yellow-cake and eat it too.
But what’s up with Glenn Beck “not trusting” Brown and comparing him to Gary Condit? Did he really say that? On radio or tv?
I heard tapes of the remark Brown made about his daughters “being available,” and thought it over-exuberant, but I hardly thought of Gary Condit. I knew that Beck was odd at times, but this response to Brown seems wierder than usual.
To Goy: Seriously, give it up — it was never more than a BS smear campaign, and the hard evidence, the main body of the report, the CIA, and subsequent investigations and declassified memos show that. I laid it all out and gave you the links: if you can’t accept that you and your numbnutted buds were played for complete fools (again), that’s not my problem. If you think the CIA lied about Plame (or want to “reinterpret” what they meant, that’s not my problem. If you think Plame lied under oath, that’s not my problem. If you don’t want to believe those later reports supporting Wilson’s conclusions, that’s not my problem. As I pointed out, the more complete sections of the report don’t support any of your malicious, recycled BS. Also, did you notice that the main report is careful not to give out Wilson’s name — he’s only “the former ambassador”, whereas in that supplemental opinion piece by Roberts, Hatch, and Bond, they freely bandy his name around? That kind of indicates what sort of malicious dumbasses they are.
And actually when I was looking for the complete section, I came across piles and piles of right wing sites with the exact same misleading excerpt and utter BS you reposted. Face it, you guys are the bad guys.
BC, Good morning, how was your night? Did the meds kick in, are you getting used to sleeping on a bed of nails?
Good News! Your party is going to raise the debt limit ANOTHER $1.9 trillion. Just so you know, a trillion is more than a million.
It’s getting to be a habit. Are you happy?
Don’t tell me, it’s Bush’s fault.
Lest I forget, and in special light of the above, Obama has contempt for you, deep, profound, and lasting contempt.
I wish I hadn’t opted out of those typing courses-oh well.
Anyhoo, great job goy. I suspect BC was thinking that enough time had passed that no one would have the facts at hand and it was safe to bring up ole Joe and Plame again.
I am not really surprised that we are still being subjected to the left’s same tired inaccuracies,so thanks for refreshing our memories.
Let’s look at it this way – NJ Gov, VA Gov, NY 23rd, and MA US Senate.
AND THE SCORE IS – “TEABAGS” – 3, “DIRTBAGS” – 1, in a squeaker. Looks like “batting .750 to me.” -S-
To Johnt and Eliot: Original sources and context are the big boogiemen to a right winger. The Wilson smear was never more than, well, a smear campaign targeting the clueless and gullible. If you bought into it, that’s not my problem.
@109. BC: – Seriously, give it up…
Why? Every time I post, you respond with a comment that is more frantic, delusional, insipid and devoid of facts than your last! It’s comedy gold!!
- …the hard evidence, the main body of the report, …
… ALL demonstrate that Wilson lied. See above. You haven’t addressed any of that yet, but instead insist on deflecting to irrelevancies.
You keep on lamely trying to defer to the supplemental section – just as the leftist ThinkProgress propaganda mill tries to do – as a ruse to hide the fact that Hatch, et al., only REITERATED the information that was published in the “Niger” section of the report, proper.
You, ThinkProgress, Walter Pincus and every other leftist shill know how very few people are ever going to actually READ the Report in its entirety and realize the truth. That’s part of the reason I love spending time on this topic (cheerfully – you’re welcome, Elliot!).
This same tactic was used to completely misrepresent the conclusions of the Iraq Survey Group’s “Duelfer Report” – conveniently, right before the 2004 election – when The Left Wing Media completely ignored the Key Findings section of that document and cherry-picked the few bits that could be spun to cast doubt on the propaganda CNN had been spewing for months about WMDs and, then, later attributed ONLY to GWB as if he’d lied, which he never did.
The documented fact that Plame recommended her husband – an act for which she needed no “authority”, as she falsely claimed – was not “invented” by Hatch, et al. That fact was a critical, documented finding of the SSCI, and anyone can verify it for themselves by ignoring your lame attempts to deflect and simply reading the relevant portions of the report.
- I laid it all out and gave you the links: …
Here’s what you linked to, fool: bait-and-switch lies, which I already explained to you, from Walter Pincus, propaganda from MediaMatters and TruthOut, your own inane, inconsequential blather which proves nothing, a cherry-picked timeline on About.com that, like you, ignores the facts in the report, and several opinion pieces from the likes of “ConsortiumNews” and “Atlantic Free Press” (Progressive Opinion LOL!!). NONE OF THIS CRAP – INCLUDING ANY LAME ATTEMPTS TO DECONSTRUCT or REINTERPRET WHAT THE CIA “REALLY MEANT” – TRUMPS THE SOURCE DOCUMENT: the SSCI Report itself. Anyone is free to read that report and see how, when and to whom Wilson lied. Repeatedly. The references are all cheerfully provided, up above.
- … the more complete sections of the report don’t support any of your malicious, recycled BS.
Sorry sport, there are no “more complete sections”. The section on Niger is the only one at issue here because it demonstrates with references to documented evidence that Wilson lied. Over and over. So any assessment to that effect by Hatch, et al., was accurate, and probably an understatement.
– … did you notice that the main report is careful not to give out Wilson’s name …
Wow, just when we think you’ve demonstrated the most shameless stupidity imaginable, you post a zinger like this. Did YOU notice that NONE of the government actors discussed in the report are identified by name, you dimwit? ALL of them are identified only by their title.
Any idea who “the Vice President” was then? Just curious. Was it a baseless, partisan attack on Cheney when people referred to the report, naming him directly? Are you really so stupid as to think those references were to some ‘former ambassador’ OTHER THAN documented serial liar Joe Wilson IV? Do you REALLY think Hatch, et al., were providing any more information than the report had already included? Are you a fracking idiot?? Unbelievable.
Your blithering desperation here demonstrates clearly that you have NEVER read the SSCI Report. On page 43, there’s an discussion of why the intelligence community identifies sources in this manner:
Here’s the thing – the thing you and the rest of BHO’s Sturmabteilung keep overlooking. Wilson already had a guarantee of anonymity from the CIA. If he had just kept his baseless assumptions to himself, or at least vented them through the proper channels – instead of succumbing to his raging, narcissistic delusions of self-importance, and broadcasting his unsubstantiated claims to the entire world (claims that were diametrically opposed to the CIA’s own conclusions) – he could have retained his relative anonymity in this affair and no one would have called his character or credibility into question.
But the fact is that Wilson and Plame’s partisan proclivities – both were prolific contributors to Democrat campaigns – got the better of them. They saw their positions as a chance to attack Bush and influence the electoral process. Their egos took over. They got caught and then tried to lie their way out of it, pointing the finger at everyone but themselves. Both of them should be serving time in federal prison for libel and high treason.
But with the generous help of The Left Wing Media (shills like their journalistic benefactor, Walter Pincus), relentless repetition of the deceitful “Bush Lied” meme, and a complicit “independent” investigator who pursued a political fishing expedition and witch hunt aimed at the Bush Administration for YEARS after he’d already discovered the one, single fact he’d been tasked with uncovering (with attendant, daily attacks on the Bush Administration by the media who spun every single factoid that was “leaked”), Wilson and Plame managed to fool most of the people. They fooled you. They didn’t fool me.
How Right Wingers Lie — An Example
This is what I had posted:
Also, did you notice that the main report is careful not to give out Wilson’s name — he’s only “the former ambassador”, whereas in that supplemental opinion piece by Roberts, Hatch, and Bond, they freely bandy his name around? That kind of indicates what sort of malicious dumbasses they are.
This can be easily verified with the full report: if you click here for the section of the report that covers Niger and Wilson’s trip, you will see that Wilson is only referred to as “the former ambassador” — just as I had said; and if you click here for the “Additional Views” supplement by Roberts, Hatch and Bond, you will see that Wilson is referred to by name.
Now check how “Goy” spins this:
****
– … did you notice that the main report is careful not to give out Wilson’s name …
Wow, just when we think you’ve demonstrated the most shameless stupidity imaginable, you post a zinger like this. Did YOU notice that NONE of the government actors discussed in the report are identified by name, you dimwit? ALL of them are identified only by their title.
****
See? And this isn’t even an extreme example. Would honest people “debate” like this? Seriously…..
@115. BC: – … the main report is careful not to give out Wilson’s name — he’s only “the former ambassador”, whereas in that supplemental opinion piece by Roberts, Hatch, and Bond, they freely bandy his name around?
Uh… so what?
Wow, it turns out that – shockingly – you really are a fracking idiot. And incoherent to boot.
Who could have seen that coming.
No one is disputing the use of title vs. the use of name, you drooling troll. YOU are the one who seems to think there’s something nefarious in mentioning Wilson by name later in the Report. That’s just your paranoid, overactive imagination, responding to the overload of leftist propaganda you’ve swallowed and regurgitated, over and over, trying to draw attention away from Wilson’s and Plame’s treasonous actions.
Again – the main report doesn’t mention ANYONE’s name, you clown. ALL OF THE INDIVIDUALS DISCUSSED IN THE REPORT ARE IDENTIFIED BY TITLE ONLY. As such, Wilson wasn’t given any “deferential” treatment over others in the body of the report.
Just as EVERYONE who read the report knew who “the Vice President” and who “the DO” referred to and who “the former ambassador’s wife” referred to, EVERYONE knew who “the former ambassador” referred to. Or are you going to deny THAT now??? Go ahead – we could all use another good laugh at your expense.
So the supplemental section doesn’t reveal anything new. It certainly doesn’t “expose” Wilson as the mysterious “former ambassador”. It simply identifies Wilson – accurately – as a liar. Here’s an example – and note that the statements here are based completely on the information in the report, Wilson’s documented pursuit of personal aggrandizement via The Left Wing Media, and information in his book:
The REASON the DEMOCRATS couldn’t bring themselves to correct the public record was purely due to partisan political affiliation and their ongoing desire to attack the Bush Administration – which they knew The Left Wing Media was more than happy to help them pursue. Any OBJECTIVE individual who reads the evidence in the report is forced to conclude the obvious: Wilson lied.
Can’t handle the truth? Sorry, sport – that’s no one’s problem but yours. But please don’t insult others’ intelligence by telling them that the evidence in the report really isn’t there, or doesn’t say what it says. Only a useful idiot and partisan shill – like you – would try to spin Hatch’s statement as a “malicious” attack on Wilson.
Wilson lied. The report PROVES he lied. WaPo, which had ample reason not to, grudgingly ADMITTED that he lied. Are you claiming that THEY were part of the “GOP smear machine” too?? LOL!! Observing that fact is not an “attack” on him, and it doesn’t indicate that the observer is “malicious” or a “dumbass”. Your slander simply shows how utterly blinded you are by your own sad ideological religion and partisan addiction.
But don’t let any of that stop you. I’m sure anyone still reading this thread is getting a real belly-laugh out of watching you squirm, putzie.
To Goy: You’ve already demonstrated over and over (and over and over…) that your idea of “debating” is to regurgitate moronic rubbish from right wing sites, deliberately parse small sections of comments out of context for a straw man setup, and ignore anything that shows you to be a clueless idiot.
Shoo.
BC, Your #117 is a typical argument from someone who has been chewed up into teeny tiny pieces, spit out, and dumped into the sewer — as has happened to you before our very eyes.
@117. BC: – … your idea of “debating” …
Ah – so you thought you were “debating”? That would explain your babbling confusion. Clearly you don’t know the meaning of the term. As always, it was a trivial exercise to rip your silly assertion to shreds using your own source, BC. Your subsequent comments have been utterly non-responsive and riddled with attempts at deflection and links to irrelevant leftist blather because the information in the source YOU cited destroys your claim.
Now you’ve been reduced to just plain lying. All the context is there, putzie. Copy and paste all the additional context you like. Copy and paste the entire document if you like. You won’t find ANYTHING in the SSCI Report – your source – that shows Wilson to be anything other than a serial liar.
Oh, and by the way… tell me this, sport, what “right wing site” did I reference? Slate? Washington Post? The ISG Final Report? GPO Access – “dot gov”? Newsmeat’s campaign contribution database? Don’t you ever get tired of just making stuff up?
You’re the one who’s been doing the regurgitation, clown, as I’ve already demonstrated. I wonder: does it hurt – I mean, physically – to be as utterly clueless, intellectually impotent and pathetic as you are?
Wilson lied. You were duped. You have only your self-imposed ignorance and partisan blindness to blame. You’ll just have to learn to live with it.