Letters to the Editor
-
What!?!?!
Ya mean wars cost actual money? I mean, a few (thousand) dead soldiers is okay, but really, money?
-
Are you kidding me, Perino?
"Well, we've always known that Democrats seem to revert to type, and they are willing to raise taxes on just about anything."
Yup, those tax and spend Democrats. Always ready to raise taxes for no good reason. Just wasting the people's money on silly things like the so-called "War on Terror" and funding the troops.
-
"absolutely no intention" of letting a supplemental funding bill for the Iraq war out of his committee until the president changes course on the war.
Actually, he shouldn't let any supplimental bill out of his committe unless it calls for the resumption of the draft. You want to see the American people demand a change? That will do it.
-
Suuuuuuuure you will......
Obey will talk tough until the blogosphere and Rush (otherwise known as the "blobosphere") start ranting about Democrats not supporting the troops. Then the Dems will fold like a poker player with 3-7, just like they always do. Sigh.
On the upside, it's nice to see that Dana Perino is upholding the proud Bush press secretary tradition of bullshit, condescension and obfuscation established by Ari Fleischer and Tony Snow. Whew. I had thought we might lose that.
-
How Responsible
I know that we've all gotten used to the sobriquet "Tax and Spend Liberal", but Dana's little retort:
"Well, we've always known that Democrats seem to revert to type, and they are willing to raise taxes on just about anything."
seems to point out the "Borrow-and-spend" philosophy of these so-called "conservatives".
-
Waxman and Obey
So now there's TWO Representatives doing their elected job of representing the will of the people?
Doesn't that violate some law of physics?
-
In this case, equality for the sexes is just making this woman worse
In the heady days of the late 60s and early 70s, when civil rights was blossoming into the early gay rights and women's rights movements, some argued/hoped that granting full and equal rights and access to women in areas that had previously been primarily the province of men would transform institutions for the better. The idea was that women would bring "feminine" traits into institutions that had previously been characterized by a kind of hypermasculinity. Women were supposed to make the institutions more human and humane because the institutions would become a more balanced reflection of desirable masculine and feminine qualities. At the time, a small number of us were concerned that the power balance in the institutions would overwhelm the small number of women in positions of power and instead cause the women to simply be more masculine in their behavior.
The case of Ms. Perino is not a perfect test case, but, even so, her willingness to lie and be a water carrier for the Bush administration is a clear example that women are no less capable of perpetuating bad institutional habits and that their presence in institutions need not make them any better. Otherwise, she could never bring herself to say that paying for the war by raising taxes is some sort of an inherited moral failing in Democrats.
I simply cannot understand how these people, male or female, can live with themselves when they utter such trash. They are proof that a human can justify almost anything (lying, torture, violation of habeas corpus, etc.) to themselves if the circumstances are right (enough money or power, a particular ideology, etc.)
-
I think Tony balony Snow did a Vulcan Mind Probe
on Perino before he left town for more corrupt pastures. Where do these guys dig these press secretaries up? From under Rove's rock?
-
If Only
If only there was an opposition party to call the administration on their war-mongering and their rhetoric...
If only being the majority meant having the courage to take action instead of take cover...
If only there was some variety of politician unafraid to say "No More" and stand their ground...
If only there was someone else in Congress besides the Republicans and the "Other Republicans".
They've sold the American people down the river like they have no more say than a bunch of slaves.
The Democrats' slogan should be "Proudly Enabling The Republican Party To Rule Unopposed"
-
Have white house press secretaries always been pandering sycophants?
Or is this a new trend introduced by the Republicans? I don't remember Clinton's press secretaries being quite so partisan. It seemed like past Press Secretary's were more involved in actually communicating information, but the current crop is an arm of the Republican Party, armed with pithy quotes attacking Democrats, but with no real desire to communicate information to the American people.
-
Huh?
I really don't get the Right Wing's logic that it is somehow wrong to actually, you know, pay for things. They are seriously attacking the Democrats for wanting to actually pay for this war that the Right thinks is so important. In what universe that does that make sense? How is it that there are people who still take these clowns seriously? Gee, yeah, it is utterly ridiculous that taxes be levied on the current generation to pay for expenses incurred by the government of the current day in service to the current generation (that said, I got a question read on Diane Rehm a couple of years ago when she had on a neo-con policy adviser. I basically asked about the morality of the sticking the war's cost to the next generation. The fellow had the gall to say that it was perfectly moral, given that the war was for the benefit of the next generation, and the next generation should thus be expected to pay their fair share). Something is really wrong if this argument gets traction. It would indicate the US has decided that taxes are to only be paid in the nebulous future if ever - basically the kind of financial sense that predominates among high school students and college freshmen.
-
It's the Press that is different not the Press Secretary
jebldmm - The White House Press Secretary has always had the job of putting the best possible light as possible on the President's policys. The difference is that in prior administrations the Press Secretary assumed that they were talking to intelligent members of the press who would not accept obviouse falsehoods so they did their best to logically present the President's position as best they could, which sometimes meant that there was no good way to frame an issue. The Bush Press Secrretary, no matter who has held that post, has always gotten a free press from the media which seems content to quietly quote whatever comes out of their mouth no matter how ignorant, false or insulting it sounds. Its not the Press Secretary's fault that she is allowed to get away with this, it is the presses fault.