Remember Hogans Heroes; SGT Shultz" I hear nothing, I see nothing, I Know nothing". This is Debbie Wasserman Schultz!
I watched the video, and I didn't see any "blame" for Giffords' shooting being directed toward the Tea Party, as it states on the title of the linked page. Just because Giffords name is mentioned along with the Tea Party in the same reply to a question doesn't automatically connect the two - even if the context is a discussion about the supposed lack of civility in Washington since the Tea Party came into existence.
HOWEVER, she does make a comment that shows that the worm has truly turned, which is why she is sqealing about it. In the video, DWS whines that - since the Tea Party came into existence - "when they (Tea Party members) come and disagree with you, you're (the Dems) not just wrong, you're the enemy." And "when they disagree with you, you're not just wrong, you're a liar."
Methinks she doth protest too much. Perhaps she hasn't been around long enough to realize it, but today's Dems are on the receiving end of what they have been dishing out for years. THESE ARE EXACTLY THE COMPLAINTS THE DEMS HAVE HAD ABOUT REPUBLICANS FOR AS LONG AS I CAN REMEMBER. Before the Tea Party, to the Dems the Republicans were the "enemy," and when a Republican disagreed with a Dem, he/she wasn't just wrong, they were a LIAR.
Yes, the worm has turned. The balance of power in Washington has shifted from Republicans controlling all branches of government under Bush - to the same situation under Obama - and now apparently back to the Republicans again (at least both houses of Congress) by 2013 (that's my prediction).
If DWS plans on sticking around national politics for awhile and wants to REALLY make a difference in the degree of civility in Washington - IMHO - she ought to start with the woman in the mirror. In these contentious times, when you ramp up the rhetoric, expect the opposition to do the same. Just look at how it works on this here blog site. There's no difference when the discussion devolves to the sandbox.
Leadership has to set the tone and DEMAND civility. When the leaders of both parties bash the opposition, you get what we now have. It's just like teaching children: When your attitude is "do as I say, not as I do," it just doesn't get it. If you want to make a difference, set a proper example - CONSISTENTLY - even if it means turning the other cheek until the "opposition" figures out that something has REALLY changed.
Exactly Chief MVB,
I didn’t vote for BHO because I conducted extensive research on him and found out things about him that I didn’t like. However after being elected I said to myself Obama has the opportunity to be one of our Greatest Presidents if he stands by his conservative campaign promises regardless of what he did liberal or progressively.
1.I will cut the deficit in half in my first term.
2.Healthcare debates will be on CSPAN and we will know who is conducting the backdoor deals (Democrats).
3.Healthcare cannot be passed with a 50 plus 1 vote you have to have 60 votes; Ted Kennedy died and it passed with a simple majority.
4.He said he would reach across the aisle and pass bipartisan bills, never happened.
5.4 Trillion of new national debt in 3 years, Bush was unpatriotic for 4 Trillion in 8 years.
Funky: Yes - it is interesting to look back on a politician's campaign promises and see if any are ever kept. The ones you've listed are particularly noteworthy. It just shows that they will say anything to get elected. In hindsight, it was pretty reckless of him to actually think that he would be able to keep #1. But #2 was totally under his control and he flat out didn't do it. #4 is what they all have said - they only "reach across the aisle" to twist somebody's arm or when they have something to trade that the other side really wants.
Sorry to burst any idealistic political bubbles here but Now Hear This: NONE OF THEM KEEP THEIR PROMISES. It boils down to this: you've got the Reps. and you've got the Dems. PICK ONE!!!!! Because unless a viable third party makes itself credible by winning elections then you are stuck with the two party system, who, in many ways MIRROR each other.
I am waiting for the remaining idiots in the Republican American Idol Primary to rid themselves of everyone but THIER CANDIDATE.
I am locked and loaded and as long as this remains a blood sport I plan on getting me some notches on my cannon.
Hint: When BHO wins again it will drive the few remaining moderate Republicans even further to the right making the Tea Partiers high school sophomores in comparison to the politics of destruction. The emerging new right, after the election will be a truly venomous monster putting us all in tremendous jeopardy. ( Please read Len Calderones article today calling for a pre-emptive strike on Iran.)
The Mayans may have actually gotten all this right.
Jimmy: I agree but for BHO to promise to air all hearings/negotiations/etc. on Health Care and then not do it is JUST PLAIN LYING. I guess I'm conditioned to them weasel-wording their promises and saying that they couldn't keep them because of "circumstances beyond their control," but when you promise to put the stuff on C-SPAN and then you feign amnesia, that just won't get it with me.
BHO had an enormous influence for #4 too, which would have made him a messiah on the moderate conservative side by doing this. Tell the Democrat led Congress that he supported and want the Democrats to add Tort Reform, Selling Healthcare Insurance across state lines culminating in over 300 companies vying for your services and reducing costs, and no mandates making this a free will decision. I want a bipartisan bill to sign, I wish BHO had said but he didn’t. These 3 issues passed within the legislation would have garnered Republican support and Barack Hussein Obama would be the man; however he is a Radical Progressive, which is not good for the country.
I’m going to stick with our most recent history and oppose my fellow patriots Jimmy and sebekm and say BHO is not going to win unless he starts polling at 50%. Just think about it he doesn’t have a specific nominee to oppose and he is not getting 50% of the vote.
Here are the recent stats from the New York Times:
No recent incumbent has won without 49% of the preliminary vote and GWB barely won in 2004 with an economy that was at least we can say, positive.
Jimmy and Chief MVB, prepare to eat anywhere of your choosing on me, if BHO is polling less than 49% with unemployment levels at 8.2% or higher.
*The problem with #4 is that they all say that. Dubya was going to return civility and bipartisanship to DC, and it was far worse when he left office than when he came in - even considering the Hanging Chad Debacle of 2000/2001(low bipartisanship) and the months following 9/11 (very high bipartisanship).
As for who wins - the Repubs won't because they still don't have a viable candidate who will get the independent vote. Once Romney is officially declared the nominee, the Dems will crank up the Dirt Machine and stuff will crawl out of the woodwork that will bury his chances (assuming he had any to begin with). BHO has already been "vetted," and the only thing that will prevent Four More Years is an economic meltdown of biblical proportions or his own decision to "retire to spend more time with his family."
As to the history of polling numbers and the Presidential elections, we've NEVER had an election like this one. In other elections, there was a hope that some of the incumbent's support could be peeled away due to their disenchantment with the acts of their candidate. However, in this case, you may have Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, other Dem leadership, and the base on the Loony Left whining that things aren't going the way they expected, but BHO's base wouldn't vote Republican if their lives depended on it.
That's the difference this time. As to the unemployment figures - they have decreased in the past six months, and you'll see them go down further - one way or another. You never can be sure if they're cooking the books, but if so they better not get caught. Even if they do, they'd obfuscate and it would be downplayed as "mistakes" or "confusion" by some lower-level stat-makers.
I still say Four More Years fer sure.
...and speaking of unemployment news, here's the latest in an article (supposedly) authored by the AP. But the way it trumpets "Unemployment claims at 352,000, fewest since 2008," it could have been written by the President's reelection team. Note the use of the following terms and phrases as to the current trend of unemployment:
*Unemployment claims "plummeted"
*"Fewest" since 2008
*"Biggest drop" in more than six years
*"Second-lowest" figure in more than three years
*The job market is "strengthening"
For the entire article, see: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/unemplo...
Doesn't it make you feel better to know that we are doing so well now that November 2012 is approaching?
....and if Newtie wasn't toast before, he is now:
Chief MVB, you already know that you make a strong debate on this issue; however you are wrong in stating that BHO has been vetted already because he hasn’t. All you have to do to acknowledge this is to witness what has and is happening to the Republican candidates by the mainstream media. Look what they did to Herman Cain just on allegations, if BHO was vetted why wasn’t he asked about this?
Now I don’t know or care whether this is true or not, but I do care that no one in the media is asking BHO about these unfounded allegations which is the right thing to do unless you are a conservative or libertarian, people who believe in true freedom not cherry picking.
Additionally, where were the questions about Tony Resko, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, these are real people he had relations with and I know I don’t have relations outside of work with anyone that I don’t share some common ground with.
In retrospect, vetting is what you see before your very eyes unfold right now, not the pantywaist treatment Barack Hussein Obama has received to this very day!