Right-wing media continue baseless smear that Obama is "offering judgeships to secure health care votes"
Right-wing media figures have continued to attack President Obama's appointment of Scott Matheson to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, suggesting that the appointment was made to influence his brother, Rep. Jim Matheson's (D-UT) vote on health care reform. Those pushing the smear have cited no evidence to support their claims and have acknowledged Matheson's qualifications for the job; indeed, his appointment enjoys broad support and, according to Republican Sen. Bob Bennett, "has been in the works for a long time" and was not made in exchange "for votes on health care."
Despite no evidence, right-wing media continue attacking Matheson appointment
McCormack -- who started the smear -- said there was "probably not" an "explicit quid pro quo," continuing to advance the attack. In a March 3 post, The Weekly Standard's John McCormack started the rumor, writing, "Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes? Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court." Without providing any evidence to support his allegation, McCormack asked if Scott Matheson's judicial nomination was "used to buy off his brother's vote." The following day, during an appearance on Fox News' Your World, McCormack said that "obviously" it is "hard to know" whether Matheson's appointment was made to influence his brother's vote. He went on to say, "I don't know when the initial discussions took place" on Matheson's appointment, adding, "Was there an explicit quid pro quo? Probably not." Nonetheless, McCormack claimed it is a "reasonable question to ask" if there was an "I scratch your back, you're going to scratch mine, on the nomination process."
Big Government: "Let the Bribes Begin: Obama Offering Judgeships to Secure Health Care Votes." In a March 3 Big Government post, SusanAnne Hiller claimed Obama was "offering judgeships to secure health care votes." Hiller suggested Matheson was unqualified for the position, claiming that it "seems that Matheson is hurdling a few career steps to become a judge. Wonder how his brother will vote now. After all, he did vote 'no' the first time around on health care and the House is just not that fond of the Senate bill." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, while Matheson voted against the House's health care bill, he has long made more favorable comments about the Senate's version of health care reform, of which Obama's proposal largely mirrors.
Hayes acknowledges Matheson's record but still claims his appointment "looks" and "smells funny." On the March 4 edition of Fox News' Special Report, McCormack's fellow Weekly Standard writer Steve Hayes admitted that Matheson has "an impressive record, nobody would deny that, nobody would dispute that" but claimed it "certainly smells funny; I mean, it looks funny, the timing of it looks funny." After guest host Chris Wallace pointed out that the White House said they were "vetting this for months," Hayes admitted, "That may in fact be true, that they were vetting it for months," but added that "the question is why the timing now, at this moment -- this crucial moment of the health care debate."
Fox & Friends: "Quid pro vote?" On the March 5 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends, after co-host Brian Kilmeade asked, "What could possibly win over Jim Matheson?" co-host Steve Doocy replied, "There's a very curious thing. Just as the White House is putting pressure on this particular fella and other Democrats to go their way, this guy's brother get's a lifetime job for the federal government." Co-host Gretchen Carlson noted that Matheson was "well-qualified, by the way, to become a judge," but after reporting that Obama had promised that there would be no more deals in health care, Kilmeade responded, "Maybe he had his fingers crossed." Doocy then asked whether this was "just a crazy coincidence" or a "quid pro vote."
Fox & Friends suggest Matheson nomination would make it illegal for his brother to vote yes on health care reform. On the March 5 edition of Fox & Friends, senior legal analyst Andrew Napolitano cited the Honest Services Act to suggest that Rep. Matheson would be breaking the law by voting yes on health care reform, because "you can't offer a member of Congress anything of value" in exchange for their votes. Carlson asked, "Does this almost put more pressure on the congressman, the brother, to vote no on health care, because now it's being exposed?" Doocy claimed the "White House may have inadvertently shot themselves in the foot," to which Napolitano replied, "It will depend on how intellectually honest Congressman Matheson is. If he does the right thing, they'll both have federal jobs. If he does the wrong thing, he'll be looking for a job."
Utah Republicans support Matheson, deny "vote buying"
Matheson has reportedly been in the running for the appointment since June 2009. The Salt Lake Tribune reported on June 9, 2009, that "Matheson already has let the White House and Utah's senators know he would like to be considered" for the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals:
A slot -- expected to be filled by a Utahn -- will be available at the end of August, when Judge Michael McConnell, who teaches law at the University of Utah, officially will resign.
Naming a replacement won't happen fast. It may take President Barack Obama months to nominate someone. But Matheson already has let the White House and Utah's senators know he would like to be considered.
Sen. Bennett says Matheson appointment "has been in the works for a long time" and was "not" made to secure "votes on health care." According to Politico, Sen. Bob Bennett's (R-UT) spokeswoman, Tara DiJulio, released a statement regarding Scott Matheson's appointment on March 4, saying, "Sen. Bennett has heard of all kinds of pressure being applied and offers being made to Democrats for votes on health care, but Scott Matheson's nomination is not one of those because it has been in the works for a long time."
Rep. Chaffetz is "very pleased that President Obama selected" Matheson. Utah's Deseret News reported that Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) congratulated Obama on his selection. From a March 3 Deseret News article:
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, also offered his "warm congratulations" upon hearing the news and also praised the president for selecting Matheson, saying "Good choice, Mr. President. Good choice."
"I'm very pleased that President Obama selected Scott to serve as a judge on the federal bench," Chaffetz continued. "His distinguished scholarship as an attorney and law school dean, and his devoted public service to Utah and to the United States, make him an excellent nominee."
Salt Lake Tribune: Hatch "said he knew Scott Matheson was going to be the nominee more than a month ago and disputes any idea that Obama was trying to get a vote for the nomination." A March 5 Salt Lake Tribune article noted that "pretty much everyone who knows the Mathesons" have "called the claim simply absurd" and cited several Utah Republicans who have disputed the claim that Matheson's nomination was made to secure his brother's vote. From The Salt Lake Tribune:
Without regard for the veracity of the claim, the blogosphere erupted into a fiery clatter that President Barack Obama was buying votes with judgeships that found its way into mainstream news outlets and eventually prompted a Republican congresswoman to call for an investigation.
Rep. Jim Matheson called the claim simply absurd, as did the White House, Sen. Orrin Hatch and pretty much everyone who knows the Mathesons.
[...]
[Sen. Orrin] Hatch said he knew Scott Matheson was going to be the nominee more than a month ago and disputes any idea that Obama was trying to get a vote for the nomination.
"I can assure you [of] that," Hatch said. "I don't think Jim would change because of it anyway."
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, questioned the timing of the nomination, coming as the White House makes an earnest press for action on health care, but Chaffetz says he still finds it hard to believe Obama was trying to buy Matheson's vote.
"It should be crystal clear that Scott Matheson is eminently qualified, and I applaud the president for appointing him," Chaffetz said. "The timing, I can see why it raises eyebrows. [But] I find it hard to believe. I see no evidence" of vote buying.
Utah Republican Party Chairman Dave Hansen noted how "coincidental" the appointment was on his Facebook page but when questioned about it said he really just thinks the timing is odd.
"Yes, he is qualified, but there are a lot of qualified people in this town," Hansen said in an interview. "The timing, it looks a little funny."
Kirk Jowers, director of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics, also says Obama should have named Scott Matheson to the judge seat months ago but doesn't buy an ounce of the conspiracy theory.
"I have no sympathy for any rumors of vote buying with Representative Matheson on his brother," said Jowers. "Scott Matheson was the consensus choice months ago."
Hatch praised Matheson nomination and said Matheson "is a capable, bright attorney whose experience has prepared him for judicial service." The Associated Press reported on March 3 that "[t]he nomination was also praised by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who reiterated that Matheson's experience has prepared him well for the position":
The nomination was also praised by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, who reiterated that Matheson's experience has prepared him well for the position.
"I'm pleased President Obama has nominated Scott Matheson to fill the vacancy on the 10th Circuit," Hatch said. "I've known Scott a long time, and he is a capable, bright attorney whose experience has prepared him for judicial service. The Matheson family has had a significant impact on Utah and can rightly be proud of Scott's nomination."
Rep. Matheson's office and White House have called the smear "ridiculous" and "absurd." Noting that McCormack's "report raises the question but doesn't answer it," Politico's Chris Frates reported that Rep. Matheson's spokeswoman "called the question 'patently ridiculous,' saying there was no deal made between her boss and the president that guranteed [sic] Scott Matheson's nomination in exchange for Rep. Matheson's vote." Frates later noted that a "White House official calls the charge 'absurd.' 'Scott Matheson is a leading law scholar and has served as a law school dean and U.S. Attorney. He's respected across Utah and eminently qualified to serve on the federal bench,' the official said."
They did this when Jim Treacher was hit by a State Dept SUV 3 weeks ago - he suggested that it was a hit-and-run when the guy who hit him stopped, got out of the SUV, and made a phone call for Treacher! Doesn't sound like hit-and-run to me at all, but because Treacher made the allegation, it was picked up and run with. Treacher also alleged that there was collusion between the State Dept employee and the DC cops in giving him a jaywalking ticket, despite there being no evidence of that! None.
And they did this same thing WRT to Rep Massa from NY. The ethics investigation has been going on for a month. When the Dem leadership heard the rumor, within 48 hours there was an ethics investigation started. If a decision to not run because of this allegation was made, why wasn't it announced a month ago??? Because the decision to not run for reelection has nothing to do with the allegation, that's why. The right is conflating two disparate events and pretending that they're linked.
And they're doing the same thing here WRT Matheson. He's as qualified a judge as we're ever going to see, and he was trolling for this job publicly last June! The post didn't even come open until August! How anyone can possibly link him to any votes on any current legislation is only explained by the conspiracy theory beliefs of dangerous rightwingers.
Listening to their nonsense poisons our national discourse. Instead of looking at what a great candidate this guy is AND how Obama is fairly trying to win votes for the healthcare reform bill, we're having to waste time debunking this crap repeatedly!
The right can't refute the actual facts - that Matheson IS a good candidate, and that Obama IS being reasonable in his efforts, and so their only option for "winning" is to make our nation LOSE because of their toxic nonsense!!!
Yeah, the 911 truthers are full of rightwingers. You're generalizations are inane
PongotWTF: Yeah, right, my jeans are made of the sky. Moron.
But any liberals who believe the nonsense spread by 9/11 truthers are crazy conspiracy theorists too.
But that's not a pattern. Rightwingers have patterns of behaving this way.
Thanks for showing that rather than acknowleding that this pattern exists, you and your sockpuppet buddy are trying to derail the thread with a baseless allegation that the same pattern exists on our side of the aisle.
It doesn't.
Please don't feed these trolls.
"Please don't feed these trolls" - your stock directive when you are exposed as a phony liar. Shut 'em up. Sorry, doesn't work.
She just called YOU a "crazy conspiracy theorist" and a "paid troll". Is that why YOU support her wild claims of irrationality? In fact, she just called every proud poster (and employee) of mmfa a "crazy conspiracy theorists" and "paid troll". Because everyone knows that if Bush was in control then HE caused all the damage for his own personal gain, just so he could start wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan and Somalia. Well, anyone who actually believes that MUST be a conspiracy theorist, because these very SAME people claim Bush is an idiot/moron. And nobody who is as dumb as Bush could possibly have the intelligence to pull something like 9/11 off without as much as a shread of evidence that he caused/wanted it to happen. But, left-wingnuts like Charlie Sheen and Ed Asner sure are smart enough to parrot whatever you left-wingnuts tell them to, (BTW, they are 9/11 truthers).
But more importantly, the media and liberal blogosphere shunned the truthers. The right-wing embraces their conspiracy whackos.
Well, the first clue was that you didn't provide a link that we could check.
Duh. Don't you think we'd know to check it out? I swear - your personal animus is so powerful that you don't even do the very basic thought processes before you post anymore, do you?
DEAN: The most interesting theory that I have heard so far, which is nothing more than a theory, I can't think -- it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
WALLACE: The most interesting theory is that the president was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Why would you say that, Go who believe that. We don't know what happened in 9/11. Tom Kean is trying to get some information from the president...
WALLACE: Do you believe that?
DEAN: ... which doesn't -- no, I don't believe that. I can't imagine the president of the United States doing that. But we don't know, and it'd be a nice thing to know.
WALLACE: I'm just curious why you would call that the most interesting theory.
DEAN: Because it's a pretty odd theory.
What we do believe is that there was a lot of chatter that somehow was missed by the CIA and the FBI about this, and that for some reason we were unable to decide and get clear indications of what the attacks what were going to be. Because the president...
WALLACE: I guess...
DEAN: Because the president won't give the information to the Kean commission we really don't know what the explanation is.
And amazing, after this, Wallace changed the subject - imagine that - he tried to nail Dean for his comment, and Dean provided a clear explanation about it. Effort to smear Dean foiled, Wallace moves on.
And years later, RightON revives the debunked smear, as we so often see, because rightwingers never tire of trying to convince others that a smear is actually legit.
Sorry Sue.
What does Howard Dean say when asked if he believes it? He says that he doesn't.
Again, you lie because you're a paid troll trying to convince others that a debunked smear is the truth.
MMFA even debunked this smear, saying this was one example of how "the media has sometimes colluded with the RNC [Republican National Committee] and Republican pundits to distort Dean beyond recognition."
Oops, sorry Sue, Wikipedia disagrees with you;
The term "conspiracy theory" is considered by different observers to be a neutral description for a conspiracy claim, a pejorative term used to dismiss such a claim without examination, and a term that can be positively embraced by proponents of such a claim. The term may be used by some for arguments they might not wholly believe but consider radical and exciting.
Aren't you tired of embarrassing yourself? Again, and again.
So HE'S NOT A CONSPIRACY THEORIST.
Dean was NOT doing what you accused him of - furthering it. "Even for Dean to mention it at all is furthering it, which is what a conspiracy theorist does, even as sly as Dean was."
A conspiracy theorist has to believe it. They may nhot fully believe it, but they have to believe it. He doesn't.
Again, there you go without thinking before you engaged your fingers. Did you think your previous post with the allegation that Dean is a conspiracy theorist on this subject would just melt away?
Your personal animus really has control of you today, doesn't it?
Don't worry, I don't expect you to be able to answer that simple ... simple question. It may tend to make you look like the wing-nut that you are. Is that why everyone keeps calling you Sue?
Well, I start with the fact that Dean said that he doesn't believe it!
It's really simple. If you could read with comprehension, you would have seen where I bolded Dean's comments above where he SAID that (in a transcript that I LINKED TO in case someone didn't believe that I accurately quoted him).
When someone SAYS something, unless one has EVIDENCE to the contrary, one continues on believing that what that person SAID is what they THINK!!!!!! This is not rocket science.
However, since you're a rightwinger, YOU think that we should doubt that Dean really thinks/believes that, without ANY evidence of that belief.
Thanks for providing yet another example of a rightwinger believing in a conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence! You're so ignorant it's funny!!!
Please don't feed this troll anymore.
Huh?
Certainly, they have done so, but it is certainly not isolated to the right.
I know she'll accuse me of not backing this up, but surely any honest person will know that the left has their pet causes that border on conspiracy theory.
I also love how she herself offered nothing of substance (full disclosure here, she has accused me of not backing anything up). I'll recount her post here:
1) The truthers are libertarians, not liberals. (Where's the proof?)
2) To her credit, she acknowledges that liberals who espouse are "crazy conspiracy theorists"
3) The pattern of conspiracy theorists lies in the realm of conservative thinkers. (Where's the proof?) (Further, as stated earlier, I can think of several left leaning 'conspiracies' like the "vast right-wing" type.)
4) Previous posters proved the point she was trying to make. (No evidence to show why they proved it.
5) Notice the insult, "sockpuppet buddy" and then the direct assertion of the intent to derail the thread with a baseless allegation that the pattern exists on the left. (Again, where's the proof of the intent to derail, and I can think of several 'conspiracies' from the left.)
6) "Don't feed the trolls" seems an attempt to stifle any voice contrary to hers.
By the way, the comment to which she was referring was only stating disbelief that the truthers are rightwingers, and it got that response from Dolly.
Hmm....
And yeah, you provided NONE.
Which radio hosts have pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories? Libertarian-leaning ones for the most part. Which party platform expressed concern similar to 9/11 truthers? Libertarian.
The proof of derailment attempts are that the replies have nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Please don't feed this troll. He is not a rational conservative.
B) Each of those is an interesting case, where there are reasonable assertions of misbehavior. At least that is the case when I look at the evidence. For example, take the Matheson case-- is not the timing of the announcement curious?
Let me offer a scenario, that I do not know if it is true, but consider it for a moment. This may be in talks before it was released, but these are preliminary talks, with some options out there. Matheson is a voice against health care. Is it not possible that the choice of his brother was not a motivating factor to gain favor for health care? In other words, the brother got special treatment because of an attempt to garner favor for health care. This is not an unreasonable assumption.
You are right, it may be flat out wrong, but also remember some context: Obama and Nancy and co had promised full disclosure and then we see NE and LA deals, and now some questionable behavior from some of its own party. People make connections, and this is a fair connection. It is not a wildly outrageous belief that has no basis in reality, even if it is wrong. As far as I can tell, the others are the same. What is the moral? Simple disagreement about the subject of investigation does not in and of itself raise it to the level of crazy conspiracy theories.
A final thought/question on this topic: true/false-- Dems have never had their over the top reactions to actions by Conservatives?
C) The truthers: lets for a moment define some terms. Libertarians contain a vast group of political views, ranging from ulta conservative to ultra liberal, the common theme being a general distrust of government. With that, it is my view that it is not the conservatives who question 9/11, but rather the liberals. Further, taking libertarians out of the discussion, there are far more Dems who question 9/11 than Reps.
D) You yourself have helped derail the thread. If you'd like to stick to the topic at hand, stick to it.
Our responses directly refute what she lied about. And now this from her > "Thanks for showing that rather than acknowleding that this pattern exists, you and your sockpuppet buddy are trying to derail the thread"
So we are derailing the thread by directly refuting what she said. My god Sue, you get more of a mess with every passing day. Lol
You tried to derail the thread, which is about how the rightwing media continues to push a baseless conspiracy theory with a baseless suggestion that some on the left support a baseless conspiracy theory.
The rightwings are willing to buy INTO a conspiracy theory or two or twenty five, and their media sources feed that kneejerk reaction. The same cannot be said about liberals, yet you tried to derail the thread with that baseless allegation.
And again, you lose because all you're good at is letting your personal animus show.
Sorry baby girl.
You're a paid troll, all right.
I didn't make any baseless allegation. I stated fact.
You're a paid rightwing troll and a liar.
Jeter, maybe you're unfamiliar with Dippy. She deals in facts, not rumors or innuendo. She never personally attacks anyone, but refutes argument strictly by reference to facts. She's said before that she's a defender of truth.
So to answer your question, of course she'll be able to prove it. Her level-headed analysis should be coming along shortly
I know Miss Dolly aka Sue all too well. About 4 very long years as a matter of fact. ..I was just giving her a poke by asking her for proof...cause of course she has none ;-)
But thanks for helping crater YOUR credibility by sticking up for RightON here when he's clearly out of his gourd due to his personal animus. I always love it when your side accidentally helps dig the hole so deep and wide that one of you falls in alongside one another!
And there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that RightON is a paid troll. There's no evidence that Jim Treacher was right about the SUV that hit him or the jaywalking ticket he got. There's no evidence, circumstantial or otherwise, that Obama is offering this judgeship to secure a vote WRT healthcare. There's no evidence that Rep Massa decided to not seek re-election due to any ethics investigation.
But thanks for showing how desperate your side is to discredit ME. I love it when you become so desperate and can't resist showing that ad hominem attacks are all you've got.
Whew, you really supported that claim, counselor. Anyone not convinced that he'a a paid troll obviously did not closely read all of the factual evidence you provided. Did you get your law degree online?
No surprise there. And dear we know who you are...& were. You can change your moniker a dozen times Sue, but you can't seem to change your delivery.
Of course it's ridiculous and just another way a desperate phony like Sue tries to diffuse posts and posters she doesn't have the smarts to argue with otherwise. Her arsenal is on display every day. First it's don't feed the trolls, then it's personal animus, then it's thread derailing, and then it's paid troll.
If she would just defend her arguments intelligently she wouldn't have to do what she does.
I know why she does it, many others do too. But they are just "weasels" and sockpuppets.
Clearly your personal animus and your political leanings cloud your judgment. Your loss. Please, keep digging. Be my guest.
Oh, and thanks for the ad hominem about how long my post was. I have provided the circumstantial evidence about RightON several times before - and in one thread that you were active in, so your demeaning comment about not providing proof is simply a bogus charge that actually demeans you instead. I love it when you guys do this to yourselves.
And dear, I'll support anyone I want. You aren't the boss of me, or anyone else here.
Now dear I don't recall your alleged circumstantial evidence in claiming RightOn to be a paid troll. So enlighten me once more, K?
Now I know you've noted what time RightOn stops posting on weekdays. And that means what exactly? Is that your so-called evidence?? Pretty weak my dear. In fact, laughable.
Me thinks it's your personal animus and your political leanings that cloud your judgment.
Dolly are you at work? I'm guessing you are. Some of us only post while we're at work. Some only in the evening. Some only on weekends. Now me, I rarely post on evenings or weekends....so what?
You seem to post around the clock....Mmmmm, wonder if you're getting paid to do that?
Tell me DollySue when you get home from work, do you check under your bed for trolls? In the closet? Down in your basement?
You did a masterful job of making her look like a fool, usually she does it all by herself.
I wonder if she gets paid by how many times she types the word "troll"? ;-)
Catch ya lata.
And it's ridiculous to assert that you care nothing about your credibility on this site or any other! Everyone who posts on a blog either cares about their credibility or they are purely a troll who wants solely to collect negative attention.
But you two try to pretend that you're not simply attention-getting and distracting trolls, and so you certainly do care about your credibility.
No one believes you when you say you don't care about it. Anyone with half a brain knows that's not possibly true. If you post here, you hope that others will respect your opinion, otherwise you wouldn't try to share it with others!
This is not rocket science. Thanks for continuing to destroy your credibility by falsely claiming that you don't care about your credibility! That was pretty ignorant on your part.
Next time you try to come up with an off-base and inaccurate personal attack, you might want to think a little more about what it'll mean for yourself before you do so!
The insane ones, as I already explained (but yes, I know, you're dense, so you need to have stuff repeatedly explained to you!), are you and people like you.
The only people making themselves look foolish would be you and people like you.
The losers here are people who used to have credibility here, but as a result of my efforts, no longer do, and also those people who were never able to gain credibility here.
Like you.
This is a site that is more tolerant, but we can play the tit-for-tat game if you'd like.
I object to Dolly because she is very shallow. She rarely offers anything of substance, and it is her mission to expose us right wingers as fools. Despite her effort, she never offers anything to prove her assertions except for insults.
Re-read the post that set this off. She objected stating a fear of the thread being derailed, yet all she did was perpetuate its derailment. If she were serious about her ideas and how we are empty, she would offer more than what she does, and more than what she does would require little effort.
Alas.
Since I was indeed kicked of at Ko's I have not been back. Frankly, no interest since there was no room for any contrary comments. Say what you will, but that WAS indeed my experience. It may have changed, and if so, wonderful.
I have never been to FreeRepublic, so I cannot speak about what it does. My experience in this type of forum has seen poor sports on both sides, and I have little tolerance for it from either. For example, most of that experience is at Townhall.com, I used to post often in the columns, but it has gotten so shallow, even from conservatives there, that I have by and large stopped.
The reason why I responded to your post is that you defended her, which indicated you have no problem with her quick and baseless replies to conservatives, who may or may not be "trolls". Call me crazy, but I really have short patience for posters like her.
All I can do is try to stand up for what I believe, and part of that is honest discussion. If folks don't like that, so be it.
BTW, I realize that honest discussion incldues the possibility that I may indeed be wrong or say the occasional dumb thing, hence I will always listen to thoughtful posts and be aware that I may need to be rebuked sometimes for those dumb comments.
Good night, Blueneck.
Don't worry--I respect your right to hate.
Seriously. Did I ever say anything about hate? If you comment about my previous statement alone, what makes you think I hate, especially given the rest of my comment?
If you go beyond my comment, what basis do you use to conclude I hate?
Please be specific.
she is very shallow. She rarely offers anything of substance, and it is her mission [is] to expose us right wingers as fools. Despite her effort, she never offers anything to prove her assertions except for insults.
OK so maybe thats an expression of love and respect in your world. Sorry, not in mine. I can see you're off to a good start here: flippant; self righteous; on a mission. Remember my initial post was addressed to DellDolly, not to you but you had to insert yourself into the discussion. Her post which kicked off this thread was on topic and contained links which supported her argument. Then it went downhill, as the cascade of insults from the troll gallery took off. She quite correctly, as she has other times, drew attention to the personal animus frequently directed to her. It started to become a rightwing gang bang. If I want to offer a word or two of support what problem do you have with that? Yet you had to direct your remarks to me. We have never exchanged views but I can see since you have admitted to being a "right winger" (her mission to expose us right wingers as fools--I quote you here) and that you are on a hair trigger that your posts are best ignored by everyone. Best not to leave your teabag in the cup too long--if you do it becomes bitter and undrinkable. If you did get banned at DailyKos (and that is a big if) I can see why. Or perhaps you left because you succeeded in making a fool of yourself as you are here. Mommy never trained you to realize that there are times you should just hold your poo in. BTW I am not defending DellDolly. He or she is quite capable of taking care of him/herself. There are a good number of very smart, very capable thinkers here. You are already in way over your head. Best to cut your losses now.
I have seen little of substance in her posts, maybe I will see some in the future, and great. That quote was not hateful, unless you think that stating a simple obersvation is hateful, and the observation is about supporting ones beliefs.
And now, you begin to insult. Rather than fully address what I say, you attack. I am not offended, however I really find it revealing the tactic. If you can point out where I have called anyone a name or questioned their intelligience, let me know. Stating that someone fails to fully support their belief is anything but hateful. Yet, it is also OK for you to that, since you quickly jump into saying I am over my head. Try me. Do you want to discuss policy, or anything of substance, or do you wish to attack me personally?
I am out for productive discussion, but I will also defend myself and my position. Here, you accuse me of hate when no hate was given, then you question my integrity and intelligence.
I originally responded to you to show that the right is not the only group to shut down discussion. My experience (which you doubt) has shown that the left is actually less willing to consider alternate points of view. And frankly, your quickness to attack me personally is evidence of that because it has nothing to do with the substance of the issue presented.
Here, the issue I have tried to present is that the left does not have clean hands in shutting down debate, Dolly offers a lot more venom than substance, and communication in a rational and productive manner, avoiding insults, is a much better way to discuss any issue.
You have addressed Dolly, and your opinion of her is is fair-- we disagree. You seem to doubt that the left has unclean hands and think the right is worse at this, and have not addressed the 3rd point.
So, I'll ask you this question-- why do you doubt a that a conservative may actually want to have an honest discussion, or why won't you participate?
I have no doubt that true conservatives can be reasonable and make reasonable arguments, but you have already admitted to being a "right winger". Your words not mine. Perhaps just an unfortunate choice of words? I make a distinction between "right wingers" and conservatives. Right wingers are, in my mind, mean spirited zealots who will do anything to advance their agendas. I would include Coulter, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and the twits that think they offer reasoned arguments in that category. Time will tell whether you belong in that category or not. I give back what I get or what I see others giving without warrant. How did my remark addresed to DellDolly-not you--offend you? Again I do not doubt that conservatives may want to have reasonable discussions about policy etc. I run a company that employs 163 people--many of them are conservatives. I don't discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, or political affiliation. My only rule about their political discussions is that they need to keep them from disrupting the workplace. I adore those that work for me--they give everything and I give them as much as I can. I make a good salary and many of my conservative acquaintances do not understand why I am not a Republican (not a Democrat either if you care). Politically I am a Libertarian Socialist. Take heart--just being a Libertarian Socialist offends just about everybody. I served in the Canadian Army (Canadian Airborne Regiment)and was deployed as part of a peacekeeping mission. I served on the Green line in Nicosea in 1974 receiving fire from both sides (Greeks and Turks). Afterwards I served in the Canadian Coast Guard--which is actually not military in Canada--it is part of the Department of Fisheries. I served on an Arctic Class icebreaker. I am an electrical engineer and systems analyst by training. I am now a US citizen. Generally I have no patience at all with politicians or their agendas. I think people that serve them are fools; but that is just me. There now you know everything I am willing to disclose about me. What about you? What is your story, and what do you expect to accomplish here? Me I rarely post; but I do monitor the site. If I have time or interest in a topic or thread I will post. Generally though I abhor those who are trolls or act like trolls or who engage in gang bangs. I guess you could say I hate them. So what about you--do you love and respect everyone or do you harbor secret hatreds? Your turn.
I've only been here a short time and I have never seen you defend a darn thing. At the same time you expect others to fully document every single point. When they don't, (or even if they do) they are immediately riduculed as an idiot.
I know you do not like me, and apparently I am not the only one who gets your wrath, but seriously, think about it. Just for a second, think about what it is we are saying for what it is, and not as an insult to you or your beliefs. There are indeed two sides to every story, and as such there is more than one way to view an issue. Because someone does not follow the Dems playbook does not mean they are out to derail threads or insult anyone's intelligience.
Am I being paternalistic? Maybe, but I don't care when you continue to show the attitude that you do.
See, what false allegations? What baseless complaints? You state that I have done so but have failed to show where or why they are baseless.
As I just said, I know you do not like me, but provide some meat to the response, and consider what it is we are saying.
Also, if I may, what sort of response from any conservative would not get met with your perceived anger?
Really? Tell that to the leftwing nuts who galloped around the internet with their 9/11 conspiracies.
As usual, your tunnel vision narrow simplistic partisan point of view always bites you in the behind.
But don't let the facts get in the way of your screed or anything.
First of all, there are right-wingers who are also 9/11 conspiracy theorists... but granted there are more on the left. However, at no time, have mainstream liberal organizations lent repeated creedance to these theories.
Contrast that to Faux News... and missed in this article, but stated as fact last night on Sean Hannity's radio show... which continues to resonate this in their repeated mainstream right-wing echo chamber. It's the latest in the nonsense that includes "Obama is a Marxist", "Obama hates this country", "Obama is a Communist", "Obama was not born in the US", "Obama is not a US citizen", etc. that is repeated on Faux News and it's right-wing talk show subsidiaries.
Here's the thing. The President repeatedly has tried to get Republicans involved in health care reform over the past year, and has been met with nothing but stonewalling... from a party that for 8 years did nothing about out-of-control and unsustainable health care price hikes. In fact, the GOP did a great job rallying independents into the tea-bagger movement... which is now embracing the extremist John Birch Society... because of all the lies about "death panels", and non-existent tax hikes to small business and middle-and-lower income residents. Of course, health care reform support is inching up as many start to see through the lies, but it's tough when this kooky-con echo chamber gets 18-hours-a-day on talk radio, and 24-7 on Faux.
It's finally about time the President says "it's been a long time, and you guys have brought nothing to the table but inflammatory rhetoric, even when some GOP provisions are included".
After all, not only do rightwingers historically believe conspiracy theories without evidence supporting their theory... they EMBRACE AND MAINSTREAM it.
After all, the Democrats ejected its conspiracy-theory kooks in the Lyndon Larouche followers. Now, the GOP and teabaggers sound more and more like the Larouchies all the time.
Thank God we will have some long, long, long overdue health care reform... even though the kooky-cons have managed to water it down.
No, only the head of the Democratic National Committee.
You simply cropped his comment to IMPLY that he did that. He didn't.
Liar.
As your post demonstrates above, Dean clearly was IMPLYING that Bush may have been warned ahead of time about the attacks, and because Deans says GW wasn't forthcoming with the Kean commission, we'd never know if this theory had substance.
I can't think -- it can't be proved, is that he was warned ahead of time by the Saudis. Now who knows what the real situation is.
As MMFA said before related to this very smear, this was one example of how "the media has sometimes colluded with the RNC [Republican National Committee] and Republican pundits to distort Dean beyond recognition."
They (and you) distorted the meaning of what he said. When asked if he believed it, he said no. Dean was NOT implying that. He was offended that Bush had been refusing to go before the Kean commission to clear up stuff like that.
Easy to understand. That is, as long as you're not a sockpuppet of RightON, the paid rightwing troll.
Please deal with truth.
A) Not from what I can tell. They've been there with ideas all along, its just that those ideas did not conform to what is image of health care should look like, so they got no attention from Barack (since he called all the Reps by their first name). Second on that point is that disagreeing with a very premise of an idea deserves stonewalling. Remember the Bush judge nominations? Why is this any different? Yes, it seems everyone things health care needs reform, but if you disagree from the beginning of a reform idea, why play along? Just the same if you don't like a judges record.
B) Please define rightwingers and conspiracy theory. The conservatives I know certainly have pushed outrageous ideas, but I see them as no different from those on the left, and if I were to compare, they actually seem more tame that what the left offers. And do not for a second think the left does not push such theories.
C) The Tea Party simply want real change. I am tired of hearing how they are out to destroy the country and are idiots. Look at what theyt are saying and who is saying it. For crying out loud, they won in MA! Its not all about the conservatives-- it is about people who are sick of the same ol crap they see in DC, which Obama has not done a thing to change. It could be argued he is perpetuating it (a la NE and LA, among others).
D) "Kooky cons" is productive, of course, but when they have sincere disagreements, why should they play along? You can disagree with their policy, but do not think that they are out to destroy the poor (a conspiracy theory in and of itself).
But, of course, the rightwing went with their conspiracy theory that he was opting against a re-election bid because of the ethics investigation. Without any evidence.
Like I've been saying - it's the right who has the pattern of running with conspiracy theories.
I grew up knowing that the Republicans are the warpigs and destroyers of our world, BUT IT'S THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS THAT HAVE FUELED MOST OF THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES! Republicans have always been more likely to blindly trust their gub-ment, and you stating otherwise just proves a kool-aid drinking Obamaton will say ANYTHING to make their case look better. (Oh noooooooes, a voice of dissent, quick, run and scream "racist" to the moderators) All of your other opinions are rendered worthless as a result of your bias, and I'd also like to mention that defending bad behavior with examples of someone else's bad behavior STILL DOESN"T JUSTIFY THE BAD BEHAVIOR!
Sure he is. The FACT that his brother gets a vote on the health care issue that Obama wants passed 'no matter what' is just coincidental. Just like your 'truther' party, you need to stop drinking the kool-aid and make decisions for yourself. But, being a left-wingnut, you probably have several scripts in front of your computer that you post from. Obviously, you can't think for yourself or you would.
Is it the Obama administration circa 2010 - or the Clinton admin. circa 1994?
The right wing radical extremists do not represent true conservatives anyway. They work for foreign corporate interests. They are hurting the conservatives and America.
Call or write or email the DOJ today. No more talking about it. This is a culture war waged on America by a tiny mind controlled population. It can be and should be considered dangerous. More propaganda has been pumped into the US over 15 years than during the Nazi regime in Germany. Wake up America, it's foreign interests at work. Act now and act fast.
Bribes? You mean, quack, quack....THIS bribe?
House GOP leaders exerted "the most intense and strongest pressure to change my vote that I've ever experienced" said Republican Rep. Nick Smith about his vote on Bush's disastrous 2003 Medicare drug prescription bill.
Brad Smith also said his father told him the evening before the vote that a combination of "interest groups and key Republicans" had offered the congressman "financial contributions and endorsements" for Brad Smith's campaign.
Robert Novak reported in his column that "On the House floor, Nick Smith was told", by whom, Novak didn't say, that "business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. Smith was retiring and his son Brad was seeking the Republicans nomination to succeed him.
Smith, via his chief of staff, said Novak's column was "basically accurate".
Now THAT meets the definition of bribery under United States Code, Title 18, Section 201.
What YOU have is the just mention President Obama's name, no proof needed "imaginary bribe", like the Re publican's "imaginary death panels".
Why does that make a difference? Perception. When it has been promised that nothing like this would happen (behind the scenes wheeling and dealing) that was not brought forth by those invovled people expect to be told about such things at the beginning.
That is not what has happened. Like it or not, people see these things and object, and I think rightfully so. You can compare all you like, and I know you are right that pressure comes fom both sides to vote the party line. But since here the impression is not that Barrack, Nancy, and Harry are not serious about their words to change Washington, people are beginning to look elsewhere, like for instance, the Tea Party.
hahaha
1. Voters voted for a change.
2. Nothing changed.
3. hahaha
Your text to link here...
Your text to link here...
2. When?
3. I'm still waiting.
EVIDENCE? WE Don't Need No STINKIN' Evidence. We got ALLEGATIONS ON OUR SIDE!
Obama is becoming laughably transparent. Does he really think he can keep acting this way with no one noticing?
We already know Rep Matheson's vote is bought.
Looks like the royal "we" doesn't include Orrin Hatch, that lefty socialist. From the above article:
"Salt Lake Tribune: Hatch "said he knew Scott Matheson was going to be the nominee more than a month ago and disputes any idea that Obama was trying to get a vote for the nomination." A March 5 Salt Lake Tribune article noted that "pretty much everyone who knows the Mathesons" have "called the claim simply absurd" and cited several Utah Republicans who have disputed the claim that Matheson's nomination was made to secure his brother's vote. From The Salt Lake Tribune:
Without regard for the veracity of the claim, the blogosphere erupted into a fiery clatter that President Barack Obama was buying votes with judgeships that found its way into mainstream news outlets and eventually prompted a Republican congresswoman to call for an investigation.
Rep. Jim Matheson called the claim simply absurd, as did the White House, Sen. Orrin Hatch and pretty much everyone who knows the Mathesons.
[...]
[Sen. Orrin] Hatch said he knew Scott Matheson was going to be the nominee more than a month ago and disputes any idea that Obama was trying to get a vote for the nomination.
"I can assure you [of] that," Hatch said. "I don't think Jim would change because of it anyway."