The Force Is Weak In This One
By Mitch Berg
John Boehner must make Lori Sturdevant’s leg all tingly:
House Republicans are not shifting to the political right, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) told CNSNews.com on Wednesday, just hours after two of the top three GOP leadership spots were won by conservative lawmakers in an internal leadership election.
I said it before. I’ll say it again; John Boehner presided over the most disastrous session the GOP House Caucus has suffered that didn’t involve a Great Depression or a presidential resignation.
Members Reps. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Mike Pence (R-Ind.), and John Mica (R-Fla.), however, told CNSNews.com that they think the conference is shifting to the political right.
But Boehner said, “No, I don’t think it’s right or left. It’s what are the issues Americans are concerned about, and how do we build solutions on our principles? It’s not left or right.
The hell it’s not.
He should have gone. He has to go.
November 21st, 2008 at 7:54 am
Right, it’s all the left’s fault, is that right Mitch? If we only caved to pure neo-conservatism – the ideology both proved wrong over and over again that it’s now a farce – and that only represents 10-15% of the country – well then, everything would be ducky, is that it?
BTW – here’s a tidbit for you. As you have said, you’ve never been wrong once in discussions with me, on anything, ever.
I said our power was waning, that our deficits, and our distractions, and the imprudent use of our troops, and our ignorance of China’s growing power, were the real strategic issues, not Iraq.
You said I was wrong about China (after all we’re co-opting THEM – sure we are), wrong about Iraq being a poor use of our troops, and while you don’t like deficits, you sure as hell backed the President who created $4B dollars of it, with much more coming thanks to his lackwit reaction to the growing storm clouds.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/20/world/main4622166.shtml?tag=topStory;topStoryHeadline
Yep, it’s all the left’s fault.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:45 am
Mwahaha! Now that you have shown you can’t be trusted to govern, surrender to the temptation to point fingers, wingnuts! Purge! Demand doctrinal purity!
Angryclown’s having so much fun these days, he’s considering a name change to Occasionally Annoyed Clown.
November 21st, 2008 at 8:50 am
By the way, remember how you wingnuts suddenly discovered how awesomely capable Senator Clinton is, you know, ten minutes after nominating Caribou Barbie in hopes of stealing some Puma votes? (How did that work out for ya?) Anyhoo, you’ll be glad to know it looks like she’ll be representing the U.S. of A. to the world as Secretary of State. I’m sure you’ll approve.
Seriously, it’s very hard to muster any anger this morning. Help me out here, Mitchketeers. Say a bunch of stupid things.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:22 am
Dang, that Boehner is GOOD! He’s actually got it right, in both senses of the word. Since “conservative” as a political term has been so successfully vilified by the Left, there is no good purpose served by saying that is what you are. You are far better served and more honest to say you are working for common sense solutions, which just happen to be based on what would, in other times, be called conservative principles. It has the added advantage of being more specific and more easily sold to a public rapidly tiring of empty slogans and hoping for change.
November 21st, 2008 at 9:41 am
Say a bunch of stupid things.
So, how’s Mayor-for-Life Bloomberg working out for you?
November 21st, 2008 at 10:29 am
Right, it’s all the left’s fault, is that right Mitch? If we only caved to pure neo-conservatism
Peev, here’s a little exercise for you – one that I’m sure you are in no way up to; define “neo-conservatism”.
Go for it. For once, I give you carte blanche to write a long screed. The catch is, you have to actually start with a thesis, present evidence, and arrive at a conclusion.
Define “neo-conservatism”.
(No, I don’t think you can do it, but never let it be said I won’t give a guy a chance to redeem himself).
November 21st, 2008 at 10:36 am
BTW – here’s a tidbit for you. As you have said, you’ve never been wrong once in discussions with me, on anything, ever.
And again, you are wrong. OF COURSE I’VE BEEN WRONG ON THINGS. Criminy, Peev, I won’t say you take yourself WAAAY too seriously, but you make a semiotics class with a roomful of Yale women’s studies majors sound like a barrel of laughs.
No, I haven’t been wrong on much that mattered:
I said our power was waning
Yawn. Power waxes and wanes relative to the rest of the world constantly (see: US in 1978 vs. US in 1990), and I didn’t disagree about the rest of that stuff.
You said I was wrong about China (after all we’re co-opting THEM – sure we are),
Ah. The old “sure we are” argument. It’s hard to argue with that. Indeed, it proves you are a real intellectual giant.
Sure, it does.
and while you don’t like deficits, you sure as hell backed the President who created $4B dollars of it, with much more coming thanks to his lackwit reaction to the growing storm clouds.
OK, again, Peev, your complete lack of any sense of logic and reading comprehension not only cripples you, but hobbles any chance of a meaningful discussion.
I’d ask you to show me any instance of my “supporting” the President’s spending (I never have, going back to even before he was nominated in 2000), but then you never really answer those sorts of challenges. Because, naturally, you can’t; you make inflammatory claims and then skitter away to the next comment thread, without fail.
So yeah, Peev – you’re wrong. You’re operating from utterly false premises.
Again.
November 21st, 2008 at 11:13 am
So, now that the Democrat government has orchestrated the greatest financial disaster since the 30’s, and is preparing to follow that up with a spending spree to end all spree’s…now, finally, AssClown is happy.
Well, I’ve often wondered just what motivates the left, now we know.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:10 pm
penigma said:
“If we only caved to pure neo-conservatism”
My God man, are you retarded?!?!
It’s been proven “over and over again” that you have NO IDEA what “neo-conservatism” means. Please, stop using the word until you do.
November 21st, 2008 at 12:27 pm
As far as Peev knows, “neo-conservatism” is the conservative agenda as envisioned by “Neo” from “The Matrix.”
November 21st, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Let me try!
Neo-conservatives are those mean kids on the corner who steal peev’s lunch money & laugh at his hunchback!
And that librarian who won’t let peev use the public computer without ‘supervision’? Neo-conservative, without a doubt.
And the guy at the pawn shop who won’t give peev more than three dollars for the genuine Rolex he bought from a street vendor in Mexico? You got it. Neo-conservative.
November 21st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
I thought a Neo-con was a liberal who got mugged by reality.
November 21st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
If you want to understand neo-conservatism, a good place to start is David Horowitz’s memoir “Radical Son.” Also read Ronald Radosh, Irving Kristol and/or Norman Podhoretz.
November 21st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
You’re really not so swift, are you Swiftee? “Democrat government”?
I often wonder whether you’re naturally stupid or just willfully stupid.
November 21st, 2008 at 6:10 pm
angryclown said:
“I often wonder whether you’re naturally stupid or just willfully stupid”
I don’t wonder that about you, angryclown. You have that “Der Wille zur Blödsinnigkeit” thing down.
November 21st, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Perhaps, clown, before you call Swiftee ‘stupid’, you should recall who holds a majority in the two houses of congress that write the laws of our federal government.