This entry was posted on December 17, 2010 at 9:05 am and is filed under Free For All . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Getting tired of Chris Matthews’ nasty comments about Gov. Chris Christie’s weight. Neil Cavuto told Matthews to stick his comments you-know-where. Unfortunately, I can’t find a link.
I guess it’s OK to make fun of other people’s weight as long as the chubby ones are Republicans (Christie, Bristol Palin).
That’s not exactly true, fritz. Cavuto brought on a guest who said that the SG nominee was too fat to be a surgeon general in a country with an obesity problem. This was argued on other shows on other outlets as well. Christie’s weight has nothing to do with his job. One could argue that being overweight, being a smoker, etc. send the wrong message if you’re vying to be the SG.
See, that’s what happens when you believe left-wing smear sites.
As LS pointed out… that didn’t actually happen. The hater-sites distorted the message, and told you what to think… and you believed them. Cavuto DEFENDED the Surgeon General against the “weight” criticism.
It’s easy to regurgitate their words, but it tends to make people looks foolish, especially when they turn out to be so clearly false.
I would never believe that Cavuto, of all people, would criticize someone for being overweight. Must be part of that ‘misinformation’ we hear so much about.
I will say that I don’t recall the exact words that Cavuto said about the woman, and can’t find any helpful clips online, but he often has food/fat-N@zis on to give them hell about being jerks. If he used the word ‘fat’ to describe her, I would assume that is was a reflection of what others were saying, rather than a statement of his own opinion. Anchor-types have been known to do that.
It is not hypocrisy, pot calling, or anything else it’s been portrayed as, because he is as upset about the AG being called out for her weight as he was about Chris Christie. That’s not hypocrisy, it’s consistency.
Well, specifically, it was KO who lied, and Fritz appears to be referencing that segment from yesterday. As much as he would love it to be so, KO is not The Left. He’s one liberal jackhole who seems to misunderstand things the right says on a regular basis. See: Bristol Palin promoting ‘abstinence-only’ in a safe sex PSA..
^ True-ish Joe. But we all know KO doesn’t really write most of his stuff. The majority of it is pulled from far-left websites. A quick Google search will reveal where KO “borrowed” it from.
Regarding the Olby lying (once again) about Cavuto, how can someone possibly keep doing this? He has to know the truth, right? I mean, he had the intro to Cavuto’s interview, surely he had the whole thing? So, you just flat out lie. You have to know that a 5 second google search will prove you to be a liar. I just don’t get it. It’s not like he makes mistakes, he just flat out lies…constantly. You’d think that would be embarrassing? Maybe, he just cares about the small percentage of people out there who hang on his every word? I guess it’s best to quit trying to figure the guy out. He’s just…well, I don’t even know, he’s just Keith.
Mathews is the real hypocrite since the Left is the side that claims the high road against bigotry and Chrissy charges all kinds of right wingers of being racist and here he is judging a person solely on what they look like are not what they do.
Plus the Left and MSM have been on a big kick lately about fighting against bulling in schools and we all know how overweight kids are targets of bullies so good job making fun of fat people acceptable Chrissy.
I did get the idea from KO show Joe, but had forgotten the source.
With all the outrage at my comment I was going to give a full throated apology but then I checked out the video and it’s a 5 minute video discussion of how fat the SG is with the guest insisting she was 60 lbs. overweight and Cavuto saying with a smile she was not 60 lbs. overweight. The impression left with the viewer was she’s fat (how fat is debatable) and therefore should not be SG.
It’s a typical Fox hit job with the only debate being how fat the women was. By defending her by saying being fat is OK is not exactly tearing the guest a new one which is what Cavuto should have done. Just another example of FNC throwing out a anti-Obama non story and hoping it gets picked up by the MSM. Sorry no apology necessary
Gosh, and we were all so looking forward to that apology. KO tells an outright lie, but it’s Cavuto’s fault for not being gentlemanly enough. Maybe he should have called her a ‘mashed-up so-and-so’. That would have been so much better.
Glad I got a chance to watch Cavuto’s remarks. “Pathetic characters”, indeed. Worse are those who lie to assail another’s reputation, or thoughtlessly repeat those lies. Thanks, J$.
I guess intellectual honesty is too much to expect from some. You may not recall it, but at the time this segment aired, it was misreported, taken out of context, etc at the time, smearing Cavuto for supposedly objecting to the Surgeon General’s weight. The whole thing got so silly that Cavuto did a commentary trying to put it to rest:
Neil Cavuto doesn’t do ‘outrage’ or false heroics. He has these idiots on, makes fun of them, and lets the audience decide. Whether it’s this putz, Meme Roth, or the sexist pig that argues with Lis Wiehl, he just seems to enjoy having jerks on his show. One can argue the usefulness of that, but hosting jerks doesn’t mean you are one. Unless you’re a liberal who chooses not to the recognize the difference.
I wonder if Shep will be chewed out by his overseers for going off message yet again. At some point having a host who is not willing to just spout the Republican talking points he’s given by his bosses will have to lead to a confrontation.
You’d think at some point his ‘overseers’ would get tired of him spouting their talking points, and doing it so poorly. Hasn’t Fox made Shep into one of those ‘rich people’ that we’re trained to hate so much?
That would be fritz’s overseers, of course. Shep also likes to talk about how the tax-deal ‘won’t be stimulative’, Well, duh. Of course leaving rates as they are isn’t stimulative. The point is that raising rates will hurt the economy. And yet somehow we’re able to watch him despite that lack of basic understanding. Guess that makes us narrow-minded..
There has to be another side to the 9/11 First Responders deal. There HAS to be something we don’t know… a reason why they would be voting against this.
I’m from New York (or at least, I’ve always considered myself a New Yorker… I’ve lived in this state the longest… and Long Island counts as New York, damnit)… and the idea of helping the first responders is such a no-brainer.
But at the same time, I’d like to believe that there has to be SOME reason why someone wouldn’t support this… a reason why most of the major networks aren’t talking about this. Stewart is known for occasionally “missing” or “skipping” something in his reporting. I’d like to know what that is.
Otherwise, I’ll have to put myself firmly in the Smith/Stewart camp on this one.
^ As one of the panellists on NPR’s The Diane Rehm Show pointed out, there’s a long list of arguably important and worthwhile spending bills that were stalled in this Congress. From the outset, the promise of the leadership was that all of these would be “paid for” through either revenue increases or, more likely in this economy, cuts to other less worthwhile or ineffective programmes. The Democrats have consistently ignored their own rule so many Republican and deficit-conscious Democratic members have refused to allow this legislation to move forward. The 911 First Responders expenditure is but one of many caught up in this battle.
* Probably should qualify that the “two or three” Democratic senators opposed to moving forward without paying for it did vote in favour of cloture. Majority Leader Reid’s vote against, of course, was a standard parliamentary maneuver.
I believe the first responders bill is paid for and the reason given by at least one Republican Senator (can’t recall which but it may have been Barrasso) was that some/much of the money allocated would be waisted by the administration and not go to those people intended.
The groups that oversee where the money goes say that’s not going to happen but that is the reason this Senator gave so who knows.
My feeling is this is yet another part of the ‘don’t give Obama any successes’ strategy and they just want to wait until Boehner takes over the House so they can claim most of the credit for the bill. That seems to be the main reason for much of what has gone on in this session.
^ Yes, Joe… that would kill me. But because you don’t get a group of Senators together, and get them to agree ti be d!cks for no reason… no matter the party!
Now their reasoning might be poor (as Fritz suggests), or you may not agree with it. But being d!cks simply for the sake of ebing d!cks… no… I find that hard to believe.
‘Dickish’ in the sense of a total lack of priorities or common sense. It’s one of the very few issues where the ‘reasons’ really don’t matter. It’s nine-years-after. These people are dead, dying, or going bankrupt. Write the damn check and balance-it-off later.
I went back to check on the reason the Republicans had voted against the First Responders Bill and the big reason seemed to be that it was introduced before the Bush tax cut bill was passed. 42 Republicans had signed a letter saying they wouldn’t pass anything until the millionaires got their bonus tax break. In keeping their promise to their millionaire supporters the First Responders Bill was just part of the collateral damage.
Now that the rich have their tax breaks it looks like the FRB may be reintroduced or attached to some other piece of legislation next week and get a second chance at passage.
As I understand it, passage of the bill would essentially take the argument on who pays for the continuing medical care of 9-11 First Responders out of the court system and into a special federally-funded programme. I don’t believe there’s any doubt that legitimate claims will be covered for the first responders whether the bill passes or not. There is some doubt, I think, about which city/state/federal entity (or their insurers) are responsible for those costs.
I’m not arguing one way or the other to the merits of this bill, but just because it has a convincing name and targets a nearly sacred group doesn’t automatically make it the best approach for solving a problem. The best solutions always come from thinking with the brain instead of from the heart… because the latter often results in everyone getting screwed.
“I don’t believe there’s any doubt that legitimate claims will be covered for the first responders whether the bill passes or not. There is some doubt, I think, about which city/state/federal entity (or their insurers) are responsible for those costs.’
I believe there is a lot of doubt that legitimate claims will be paid as the various city/state/federal government agencies pass the buck as to who will pick up the tab.
Governments have had nine years to do right by these people and obviously they haven’t. There’s lots of blame to go around, on all sides, but this would have streamlined the solution and given the first responders some piece of mind.
For the most part; this sort of fund worked well for the 9/11 victims, and is working for the BP victims; although the final verdict is still out; so there is no reason to believe it wouldn’t work for the first responders as well.
We just have to wait until the Republicans have finished their game playing and decide to act like adults. After all it was co-sponsored by Republican Senators.
I assume FDNY and the other responders are already covered by some form of workman’s comp? How many injured or diseased first-responders are there? A thousand? If so, that would work out to seven million dollars each.
As for the governments passing the buck, that’s what the court will eventually decide. Again, I don’t know enough to judge whether or not this is necessary legislation or not. Just pointing out that even the noblest of intentions can be legitimately questioned or even be misguided.
Or the GOP could be acting like dicks. Again. Maybe John Boehnor can scream NO! in the responders faces, then go home and cry some more about his dumb luck at becoming Speaker.
First I’m seeing of this. The unfortunate political reality is that you can pass damn-near anything into law if it has the right name. Harry Reid couldn’t manage to pass a so-called ‘Food Safety’ bill. Gives one pause about other things not passed.
December 17, 2010 at 9:47 am
Getting tired of Chris Matthews’ nasty comments about Gov. Chris Christie’s weight. Neil Cavuto told Matthews to stick his comments you-know-where. Unfortunately, I can’t find a link.
I guess it’s OK to make fun of other people’s weight as long as the chubby ones are Republicans (Christie, Bristol Palin).
December 17, 2010 at 10:15 am
Cavuto should talk. He made fat jokes about Obama’s Surgeon General (I can’t remember her name) last year. Pot calling etc.
December 17, 2010 at 10:28 am
That’s not exactly true, fritz. Cavuto brought on a guest who said that the SG nominee was too fat to be a surgeon general in a country with an obesity problem. This was argued on other shows on other outlets as well. Christie’s weight has nothing to do with his job. One could argue that being overweight, being a smoker, etc. send the wrong message if you’re vying to be the SG.
December 17, 2010 at 11:15 am
Oh, fritz…
See, that’s what happens when you believe left-wing smear sites.
As LS pointed out… that didn’t actually happen. The hater-sites distorted the message, and told you what to think… and you believed them. Cavuto DEFENDED the Surgeon General against the “weight” criticism.
It’s easy to regurgitate their words, but it tends to make people looks foolish, especially when they turn out to be so clearly false.
December 17, 2010 at 11:20 am
I would never believe that Cavuto, of all people, would criticize someone for being overweight. Must be part of that ‘misinformation’ we hear so much about.
December 17, 2010 at 11:38 am
I can’t make the link to Cavuto’s comments on “Chris” (he wouldn’t say the last name Matthews) work. Darn.
December 17, 2010 at 12:00 pm
LS, Blue, Laura, ya beat me to it. This is another enduring ‘fact’ about Fox News that will live forever even though it isn’t a fact at all.
December 17, 2010 at 12:03 pm
I will say that I don’t recall the exact words that Cavuto said about the woman, and can’t find any helpful clips online, but he often has food/fat-N@zis on to give them hell about being jerks. If he used the word ‘fat’ to describe her, I would assume that is was a reflection of what others were saying, rather than a statement of his own opinion. Anchor-types have been known to do that.
December 17, 2010 at 12:04 pm
^ there seems to be a heck of a lot more “non-facts” than actual facts…which goes to Laura’s point about the “misinformation” we hear so much about.
December 17, 2010 at 12:09 pm
You want to see that Cavuto segment on the Attorney General? Here it is:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/3936188/she-is-obese/
It is not hypocrisy, pot calling, or anything else it’s been portrayed as, because he is as upset about the AG being called out for her weight as he was about Chris Christie. That’s not hypocrisy, it’s consistency.
December 17, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Gee. The left lied about Fox. Shocking
December 17, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Well, specifically, it was KO who lied, and Fritz appears to be referencing that segment from yesterday. As much as he would love it to be so, KO is not The Left. He’s one liberal jackhole who seems to misunderstand things the right says on a regular basis. See: Bristol Palin promoting ‘abstinence-only’ in a safe sex PSA..
December 17, 2010 at 12:20 pm
^ True-ish Joe. But we all know KO doesn’t really write most of his stuff. The majority of it is pulled from far-left websites. A quick Google search will reveal where KO “borrowed” it from.
December 17, 2010 at 12:27 pm
Regarding the Olby lying (once again) about Cavuto, how can someone possibly keep doing this? He has to know the truth, right? I mean, he had the intro to Cavuto’s interview, surely he had the whole thing? So, you just flat out lie. You have to know that a 5 second google search will prove you to be a liar. I just don’t get it. It’s not like he makes mistakes, he just flat out lies…constantly. You’d think that would be embarrassing? Maybe, he just cares about the small percentage of people out there who hang on his every word? I guess it’s best to quit trying to figure the guy out. He’s just…well, I don’t even know, he’s just Keith.
December 17, 2010 at 12:29 pm
He’s not lying..he’s hearing what he wants to hear, then repeating it. Pathological liars believe what they’re saying.
December 17, 2010 at 12:32 pm
Well, he succeeded in getting this headline from Mediaite out of it:
“Keith Olbermann Catches Neil Cavuto Committing ‘Racism With A Scale’ On Worsts”
So, there’s that. Point goes to Olbermann.
December 17, 2010 at 2:24 pm
johnnydollar, do you have a link for Cavuto’s comments on Chris Matthews/Gov. Christie?
December 17, 2010 at 2:41 pm
I linked to it on Monday, or you can go straight to the source:
http://tinyurl.com/2btym2o
December 17, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Thanks so much, johnny $.
December 17, 2010 at 3:40 pm
Mathews is the real hypocrite since the Left is the side that claims the high road against bigotry and Chrissy charges all kinds of right wingers of being racist and here he is judging a person solely on what they look like are not what they do.
Plus the Left and MSM have been on a big kick lately about fighting against bulling in schools and we all know how overweight kids are targets of bullies so good job making fun of fat people acceptable Chrissy.
December 17, 2010 at 3:59 pm
I did get the idea from KO show Joe, but had forgotten the source.
With all the outrage at my comment I was going to give a full throated apology but then I checked out the video and it’s a 5 minute video discussion of how fat the SG is with the guest insisting she was 60 lbs. overweight and Cavuto saying with a smile she was not 60 lbs. overweight. The impression left with the viewer was she’s fat (how fat is debatable) and therefore should not be SG.
It’s a typical Fox hit job with the only debate being how fat the women was. By defending her by saying being fat is OK is not exactly tearing the guest a new one which is what Cavuto should have done. Just another example of FNC throwing out a anti-Obama non story and hoping it gets picked up by the MSM. Sorry no apology necessary
December 17, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Gosh, and we were all so looking forward to that apology. KO tells an outright lie, but it’s Cavuto’s fault for not being gentlemanly enough. Maybe he should have called her a ‘mashed-up so-and-so’. That would have been so much better.
December 17, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Glad I got a chance to watch Cavuto’s remarks. “Pathetic characters”, indeed. Worse are those who lie to assail another’s reputation, or thoughtlessly repeat those lies. Thanks, J$.
December 17, 2010 at 4:23 pm
I guess intellectual honesty is too much to expect from some. You may not recall it, but at the time this segment aired, it was misreported, taken out of context, etc at the time, smearing Cavuto for supposedly objecting to the Surgeon General’s weight. The whole thing got so silly that Cavuto did a commentary trying to put it to rest:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,534428,00.html
Of course, the same lie still swirls today.
December 17, 2010 at 5:14 pm
Neil Cavuto doesn’t do ‘outrage’ or false heroics. He has these idiots on, makes fun of them, and lets the audience decide. Whether it’s this putz, Meme Roth, or the sexist pig that argues with Lis Wiehl, he just seems to enjoy having jerks on his show. One can argue the usefulness of that, but hosting jerks doesn’t mean you are one. Unless you’re a liberal who chooses not to the recognize the difference.
December 17, 2010 at 7:18 pm
Shep.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/shep-smith-blasts-lawmakers-who-failed-to-support-911-first-responders-how-do-they-sleep-at-night/
December 17, 2010 at 7:20 pm
Stewart.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-is-justifiably-very-angry-that-911-first-responders-are-still-being-ignored/
December 17, 2010 at 9:03 pm
They can spend money we don’t have on crap we don’t need, and there’s no excuse for this. How much could it possibly cost?
December 17, 2010 at 9:11 pm
It’s good that they’re at least paying lip-service to earmarks and paying for stuff, but it’s a real ‘WTF?’ moment.
December 18, 2010 at 8:12 am
Stewart.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-is-justifiably-very-angry-that-911-first-responders-are-still-being-ignored/
I wonder if Shep will be chewed out by his overseers for going off message yet again. At some point having a host who is not willing to just spout the Republican talking points he’s given by his bosses will have to lead to a confrontation.
December 18, 2010 at 8:15 am
^Opps. I should have copied:
“Shep
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/shep-smith-blasts-lawmakers-who-failed-to-support-911-first-responders-how-do-they-sleep-at-night/
and not the ‘Stewart’ one. Sorry.
December 18, 2010 at 8:49 am
Sure, fritz. Shep’s gonna be in trouble for not “just spouting the Republican talking points”. That’s the way it works.
Get your head out of the sand, dude. Your comment is dumb.
December 18, 2010 at 9:11 am
You’d think at some point his ‘overseers’ would get tired of him spouting their talking points, and doing it so poorly. Hasn’t Fox made Shep into one of those ‘rich people’ that we’re trained to hate so much?
December 18, 2010 at 9:18 am
That would be fritz’s overseers, of course. Shep also likes to talk about how the tax-deal ‘won’t be stimulative’, Well, duh. Of course leaving rates as they are isn’t stimulative. The point is that raising rates will hurt the economy. And yet somehow we’re able to watch him despite that lack of basic understanding. Guess that makes us narrow-minded..
December 18, 2010 at 10:25 am
There has to be another side to the 9/11 First Responders deal. There HAS to be something we don’t know… a reason why they would be voting against this.
I’m from New York (or at least, I’ve always considered myself a New Yorker… I’ve lived in this state the longest… and Long Island counts as New York, damnit)… and the idea of helping the first responders is such a no-brainer.
But at the same time, I’d like to believe that there has to be SOME reason why someone wouldn’t support this… a reason why most of the major networks aren’t talking about this. Stewart is known for occasionally “missing” or “skipping” something in his reporting. I’d like to know what that is.
Otherwise, I’ll have to put myself firmly in the Smith/Stewart camp on this one.
December 18, 2010 at 11:18 am
^ As one of the panellists on NPR’s The Diane Rehm Show pointed out, there’s a long list of arguably important and worthwhile spending bills that were stalled in this Congress. From the outset, the promise of the leadership was that all of these would be “paid for” through either revenue increases or, more likely in this economy, cuts to other less worthwhile or ineffective programmes. The Democrats have consistently ignored their own rule so many Republican and deficit-conscious Democratic members have refused to allow this legislation to move forward. The 911 First Responders expenditure is but one of many caught up in this battle.
December 18, 2010 at 12:09 pm
* Probably should qualify that the “two or three” Democratic senators opposed to moving forward without paying for it did vote in favour of cloture. Majority Leader Reid’s vote against, of course, was a standard parliamentary maneuver.
December 18, 2010 at 12:39 pm
I believe the first responders bill is paid for and the reason given by at least one Republican Senator (can’t recall which but it may have been Barrasso) was that some/much of the money allocated would be waisted by the administration and not go to those people intended.
The groups that oversee where the money goes say that’s not going to happen but that is the reason this Senator gave so who knows.
My feeling is this is yet another part of the ‘don’t give Obama any successes’ strategy and they just want to wait until Boehner takes over the House so they can claim most of the credit for the bill. That seems to be the main reason for much of what has gone on in this session.
December 18, 2010 at 12:46 pm
There has to be another side to the 9/11 First Responders deal.
Right..’cause it’s gonna kill you to accept the Republicans are just being dicks about it.
December 18, 2010 at 1:16 pm
^ Yes, Joe… that would kill me. But because you don’t get a group of Senators together, and get them to agree ti be d!cks for no reason… no matter the party!
Now their reasoning might be poor (as Fritz suggests), or you may not agree with it. But being d!cks simply for the sake of ebing d!cks… no… I find that hard to believe.
December 18, 2010 at 1:38 pm
Now their reasoning might be poor
Generally a factor in dickishness..
December 18, 2010 at 3:12 pm
‘Dickish’ in the sense of a total lack of priorities or common sense. It’s one of the very few issues where the ‘reasons’ really don’t matter. It’s nine-years-after. These people are dead, dying, or going bankrupt. Write the damn check and balance-it-off later.
December 18, 2010 at 5:17 pm
I went back to check on the reason the Republicans had voted against the First Responders Bill and the big reason seemed to be that it was introduced before the Bush tax cut bill was passed. 42 Republicans had signed a letter saying they wouldn’t pass anything until the millionaires got their bonus tax break. In keeping their promise to their millionaire supporters the First Responders Bill was just part of the collateral damage.
Now that the rich have their tax breaks it looks like the FRB may be reintroduced or attached to some other piece of legislation next week and get a second chance at passage.
We’ll see.
December 18, 2010 at 5:21 pm
As I understand it, passage of the bill would essentially take the argument on who pays for the continuing medical care of 9-11 First Responders out of the court system and into a special federally-funded programme. I don’t believe there’s any doubt that legitimate claims will be covered for the first responders whether the bill passes or not. There is some doubt, I think, about which city/state/federal entity (or their insurers) are responsible for those costs.
I’m not arguing one way or the other to the merits of this bill, but just because it has a convincing name and targets a nearly sacred group doesn’t automatically make it the best approach for solving a problem. The best solutions always come from thinking with the brain instead of from the heart… because the latter often results in everyone getting screwed.
December 18, 2010 at 7:16 pm
“I don’t believe there’s any doubt that legitimate claims will be covered for the first responders whether the bill passes or not. There is some doubt, I think, about which city/state/federal entity (or their insurers) are responsible for those costs.’
I believe there is a lot of doubt that legitimate claims will be paid as the various city/state/federal government agencies pass the buck as to who will pick up the tab.
Governments have had nine years to do right by these people and obviously they haven’t. There’s lots of blame to go around, on all sides, but this would have streamlined the solution and given the first responders some piece of mind.
For the most part; this sort of fund worked well for the 9/11 victims, and is working for the BP victims; although the final verdict is still out; so there is no reason to believe it wouldn’t work for the first responders as well.
We just have to wait until the Republicans have finished their game playing and decide to act like adults. After all it was co-sponsored by Republican Senators.
December 18, 2010 at 8:05 pm
I assume FDNY and the other responders are already covered by some form of workman’s comp? How many injured or diseased first-responders are there? A thousand? If so, that would work out to seven million dollars each.
December 18, 2010 at 8:17 pm
As for the governments passing the buck, that’s what the court will eventually decide. Again, I don’t know enough to judge whether or not this is necessary legislation or not. Just pointing out that even the noblest of intentions can be legitimately questioned or even be misguided.
December 18, 2010 at 8:50 pm
Or the GOP could be acting like dicks. Again. Maybe John Boehnor can scream NO! in the responders faces, then go home and cry some more about his dumb luck at becoming Speaker.
December 18, 2010 at 8:56 pm
Or maybe the Dems, who have been in charge for more than three weeks, could have wrapped-this-up some time in the last three years. Just a thought.
December 18, 2010 at 8:59 pm
^ Love those bold half-thoughts..
December 18, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Don’t look here for defense of the Democratic Senate.
December 18, 2010 at 9:18 pm
‘Congress’. Both Houses.
December 19, 2010 at 12:07 am
First I’m seeing of this. The unfortunate political reality is that you can pass damn-near anything into law if it has the right name. Harry Reid couldn’t manage to pass a so-called ‘Food Safety’ bill. Gives one pause about other things not passed.
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/12/18/food-safety-bill-victim-of-omnibus-defeat-incompetence/