Official White House photo
There are very few developments the political world cherishes more than a White House scandal. They invariably include months of endless drama and intrigue. Congressional scandals are nice, as far as they go, but they're a poor substitute.
And as Paul Waldman explained well yesterday, the bizarre Republican rhetoric surrounding the politics of the Benghazi attack reinforce a larger truth: President Obama hasn't had a legitimate scandal yet, and it's making his detractors antsy.
If you're looking at the Republican harumphing over Benghazi and asking yourself, "Why are we supposed to be so mad about this again?" you're not alone. Let's review: There was an attack on our consulate that killed four Americans, including our ambassador. Amid confusing and contradictory reports from the ground, President Obama waited too long to utter the magic incantation, "Terrorism, terrorists, terror!" that would have ... well, it would have done something, but it turns out that he did say "terror," so never mind that. But that's not the real scandal! The real scandal is that Susan Rice went on television soon after and amid all kinds of "based on the best information we have"s and "we'll have to see"s, said one thing that turned out not to be the case: that after the protests in Cairo, there was some kind of copycat protest in Benghazi, which was then "hijacked" by extremist elements using heavy weapons to stage an attack.
A sane person might say, OK, she was obviously given some incorrect information at that time, but it's not a particularly meaningful deception. As people have been pointing out for weeks now, it's not as though not using the word "terror" or saying there was a protest before the attack gave the White House some enormous political advantage. If you're going to have a cover-up, there has to be something you're covering up.
So what's behind the baseless accusations, unhinged conspiracy theories, and calls for a Watergate-style investigation? Waldman sums it up in two words: "scandal envy."
Republicans thought they had something with the job offer to Joe Sestak (remember the calls for an FBI special prosecutor?). Then maybe the "Fast & Furious" matter. Or maybe Solyndra. Now Benghazi.
Each of these stories was immediately compared to Watergate, and each failed to point to any wrongdoing whatsoever by the president or the White House.
Part of the underlying cause for the apoplexy on the right is that they're certain President Obama is a radical criminal up to no good, which means there must be some kind of scandal somewhere. That nothing has turned up, ironically, only reinforces suspicions -- since Obama has run a scandal-free administration it means he must be hiding something awful.
Kevin Drum had a good take on this.
Yep. They're just convinced that Obama runs a gang of Chicago thugs who are lying and cheating behind the scenes at every opportunity. It's a foundational story on the tea-party right. Unfortunately, the reality is that whatever else you think of Obama, he's one of the straightest arrows we've had in the White House since ... forever. He runs a tight ship organizationally, and on a personal level he's so intolerant of personal peccadilloes that he sometimes seems almost inhuman. It would be astonishing if he could actually avoid a serious scandal for an entire eight-year term, but if anyone can do it, it's probably Obama.
And yes, it's driving Republicans crazy.
Nixon had Watergate; Reagan had Iran-Contra; Clinton had Lewinsky; Bush had more scandals than he knew what to do with (Plame, US Attorney purge, torture, etc.); and Obama just isn't cooperating in the scandal department. His critics aren't wearing their desperation well.
I'd just add one thing to keep in mind going forward: the boy who cried wolf didn't do himself any favors. For Republicans to scream "Watergate!" and set their hair on fire every time there's even a hint of a controversy that kinda sorta might involve the administration, they're undermining their own credibility.
With this in mind, if/when there's a legitimate scandal involving the Obama White House, and Republicans once again go berserk, there will be plenty of folks who simply roll their eyes, tired of the faux outrage and manufactured controversies that never pan out. They'll say, "No, no, this time there really is a wolf," and many will respond, "We've heard it all before."
Leave a Comment:
Actually, the way you glossed it: "...after the protests in Cairo, there was some kind of copycat protest in Benghazi, which was then "hijacked" by extremist elements using heavy weapons to stage an attack" is pretty accurate, IMHO. The radicals had intended to carry out a serious revenge attack on Americans, and used the "video riots" to cause exactly the kind of confusion that we saw. So 'highjacking" the protests for their own purposes is pretty right on.
Which, of course, the CIA (and Rachel!) quickly figured out. But perhaps the CIA didn't want to tip their hand, which is why the unclassified talking points took the surface explanation into the public media, even though the classified thinking was that it was indeed al Qaida wannabe scumbag terrorists.
I was just listening to Senator Blunt bend over backwards to say what a wonderful public servant General Petraeus is (was). Meanwhile the republican senators (McCain,Graham,Chambliss)) are quacking about the unforgivable sins of Ambasador Rice. We do not know whether Petraeus used government funds or compromised national security.
I'm still trying to figure out what her sins are, while it is quite clear to me what his are (actually, literally, his are sins, come to think of it).
My point---whatever his sins are, they are small, trivial and forgivable, while hers are condemnable. Can you say sexism?
Her sin? Easy.. She has a va....
Sorry, I'm not sure what rules are here, but you get my drift...
Her sin is that she's a woman.
Susan Rice is doing something at the UN: Targeting Israel
It turns out Susan Rice is doing something as America’s UN ambassador after all. As Jennifer noted on Friday, she isn’t attending vital negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program or protesting bizarre appointments, like Libya’s to the Human Rights Council and Iran’s to the Commission on the Status of Women.
But Haaretz reported yesterday that she has found time to do one crucial thing: lobby Barack Obama to put heavy pressure on Israel to agree to a UN probe of its May raid on a Turkish-sponsored flotilla. And today the Jerusalem Post reported that Israel has indeed capitulated: Defense Minister Ehud Barak informed UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last week that “in principle,” it’s willing to participate in the probe he is organizing.
After all, I haven’t noticed Ban suggesting UN probes of any other country’s military operations — say, Turkish operations against the Kurds, Iran’s attacks on its own citizens, coalition operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, or African Union forces in Somalia, to name just a few of the dozens of armies engaged in combat worldwide every single day. Many of these operations result in far more civilian casualties than Israel’s flotilla raid did — even if you deny the evidence provided by video footage of the raid and assume these casualties actually were civilians rather than combatants.
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2010/08/02/susan-rice-is-doing-something-at-the-un-targeting-israel/
Let me make that clear.......
It'll be interesting to see what the new 2012 Holiday line of tinfoil hats will feature...
Republicans and conservatives have left the planet! The land of illusion (see Dick Morris aka turncoat moron) created by Fox news and conservative media has rounded them all up and carried them away. I used be a republican and so was my grandfather, but he wouldn't be one today-the party is not fiscally conservative and no longer has any libertarian motives. Party of lies and deception, GOP stands for Get Our Power.
There is no scandal here except that republican lawmakers refused Clinton's request for funding to protect our ambassadors, but its ok to give billions in incentives to corporations who make billions in profit!
LongIslandJew is a perfect example of their ignorant, intolerant, delusional and crass behavior. He can't post w/o cussing or name-calling and is completely separated from reality. Graham and McCain are behaving like 3rd graders who 'want their ball back.' This was a terrorist attack AND there was a video which incited hatred and unrest in the Muslim world. Conservatives DO create propaganda and actively antagonize Islam, remember the religious conservative who 'announced' he was going to burn the Koran in Florida?
This is NONSENSE our country needs leaders who will deal with the real problems Americans have. How much time has been wasted on this BS, and how many American lives are being destroyed by Washington politicians who are useless.
You actually sound like a fundie, LIJew, not a Jew. I've never heard a Jew use "religious talk" the way you are, but lots of SBC fundies do. So what are you? Beyond standard-issue wingnut moron, that is?
The pledge of allegiance still mentions god. For the record it did not originally mention god, that was added in years later by congress and it still remains today.
You are allowed to pray in public schools and even discuss the Bible in public schools in the classroom. What you are not allowed to do is have teachers lead the prayers or teach exclusively to one book or teach the book from a preaching perspective. This has been the same throughout American history- this is not recent.
Ughh there are still religious songs, crosses to hang on your wall still exist, and you can still get a paperback version of the Bible. Even if god isn't mentioned in our books you do realize that's because of the digital age more than it is oppression, yeah?
Court rooms have never been allowed to give homages to god in anything except for the swearing of oath and that can't be forced on you according to the US Constitution.
There are whole networks and monuments in the US dedicated to religions.
Our currency still mentions god, but even so that was again something that happened as an act of congress in the 1900's and was added. It wasn't the way our currency started.
anyone who says there is no prayer in school has never taken a math test
funny
WilJohnson #32.....
May I refer you to this. It is about 4 hrs long, but we feel finding the truth has no time limit. I'll give you a hint. In this investigation you'll find your statement is false.
Congress Holds First Hearing on U.S. Consulate Attack in Libya
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Congress-Holds-First-Hearing-on-US-Consulate-Attack-in-Libya/10737434835-1/
Nope not exactly Six. Context matters- as always. Lamb states that the funding cuts did not effect their decision on who they staffed that day because staffing was based on that day on intelligence reports which did not indicate that a threat existed. The cuts, however, did effect the number of overall resources in the region which means that had intelligence reports indicated an attack was likely to happen that would have limited the total number of assets available to be sent in to protect the consulate. We still don't know how many security guards would've been necessary to keep the place safe. Let's just say for instance that it was 20 guards. Because of cutbacks the maximum they would've had available would've been 15 and instead 5 were given. That's the way the cutbacks impacted Libya. So directly attributable to the particular number put on guard at the consulate? No. Directly attributable to the number available to respond once the attack happened? Yes.
Additionally that particular statement that you highlighted Six is a factually true statement. So you're misrepresenting the person you're responding to (funding WAS cut to protection for overseas details which is the highlighted region you're quoting) and then misrepresenting the testimony given and then claiming you're the factually based one. Good to know.
hy rswgate,
"we are the world.....we are the children.." are you playing the guitar? :)
Anybody who says anything is racist, radical. That is what obamanoids, the brainwashed people mantra and their tv anchor, rachel follow.
by the way, this young angry man, rachel maddow falls into the category of a fanatic religious person.
no wonder msnbs has so few people watching. Too crazy to be credible. you guys feed yourselves with your own vomit. You need that to feel good about yourselves.
yes, because you are so dettached from reality that you live on your little dirty corner.
unemployment claim benefits just hike yesterday. The highest in a year and a half..
"we are the world"..we are still waiting for an explanation of obama, the guy who we know nothing about how in the world he made to harvard.
poor little black angel....don't say anything..sto been racist! help us to make middle school children have sex among themselves and help APA to legalize pedophilia like they did with homossexualism and lesbianism....
look at the economy, 2013 and beyond...above all deep raise of poverty. exactly what this lunatic barack hussein wants...
his anti-colinialist mentality and his deep racism are just too big to hide. For him the worse the better.
..and anything who says anything is racist!
we are the world....." hey! where is my food stamp?? I couldn't care less about benghazi" obamanoids and their lives...:)
ya know ... i have never, and i mean NEVER tried to get a commenter removed ... not even those "i make 6 million a second on the interroobz" robo thingies ..
but you, hurr ---
STFU
I must say, the really ignoramus trolls, like Big Wind here and LI"Jew" are even more pathetic than the ones who showed up before the election.
Go home, Freeper trolls.
hurricane22
Contact This Author
Ignore This Author
Add to Friends
Add to Watchlist
Articles Posted: 0
Links Seeded: 0
Member Since: 11/2012Last Seen: 11/16/2012
hurricane22 has not filled out a bio yet.
Yet ANOTHER NEW TROLL!!! LOL!!!
You guys are SOOOO mad that robme lost!!!! LOL!!!
Obama/Biden 2012
Didn't the term "angry young man Maddow" give you a clue? There was a troll who was banned who used to always use that term. This guy is just a re-reg and probably won't be around here much longer.
Ignore always works!!
Why is the entire media, including what I have heard from MSNBC reporters this afternoon, still missing the point today that Susan Rice never said the attack was entirely due to the you-tube video? She clearly said that "opportunistic extremist elements" were involved. As far as I can see, her statements on "Meet the Press" were entirely consistent with what Petraeus said today to Congress (I must admit I haven't looked at the transcripts from other programs). Am I missing the whole point or is the problem that "extremist" was used instead of "terrorist"? I do not remember anyone ever saying that this was not terrorism, just that it was not pre-planned (proved later to be wrong). Come on, MSNBC ... look at what Susan Rice actually said and not what she has been characterized as saying!!
Excerpt from Meet the Press:
MS. RICE: Well, let us-- let me tell you the-- the best information we have at present. First of all, there’s an FBI investigation which is ongoing. And we look to that investigation to give us the definitive word as to what transpired. But putting together the best information that we have available to us today our current assessment is that what happened in Benghazi was in fact initially a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired hours before in Cairo, almost a copycat of-- of the demonstrations against our facility in Cairo, which were prompted, of course, by the video. What we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding. They came with heavy weapons which unfortunately are readily available in post revolutionary Libya. And it escalated into a much more violent episode. Obviously, that’s-- that’s our best judgment now. We’ll await the results of the investigation. And the president has been very clear--we’ll work with the Libyan authorities to bring those responsible to justice.
fact lover, msnbc as you know is a fanatic cult. Have you read most of the comments above? what about this young angry man, rachel maddow?
they eat their own vomit. I mean, really, they couldn't care less about anything other wipe out christianity, get gays on power, get children having sex and the pedophiles free to go in few years.
pedophiles are following the steps of people like this young angry man. first, bribe and be part of the APA board. Second change the terms on the diagnostic book. third, pressure and threat, taking out the disorder OUT of the book. Like homossexualism and lesbianism and so forth.
Why do you think this cable "news" channel have so few viewers? they are nutjobs even for the leftist generic CNN. It is funny to follow because they are always embarrassing themselves....remember the hispanic guy "murder"? ahah, or the re-call of that governor?
ahahahahah is soo funny to watch when facts hit their faces....hilarious!
Excerpt from "Face the Nation"
BOB SCHIEFFER: Do you agree or disagree with him that al Qaeda had some part in this?
SUSAN RICE: Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine.
Please MSNBC get out the facts. Susan Rice never just "blamed Benghazi on a you-tube video"! Let's get out what was actually said and not what Republicans characterize that she said.
You seem to have misunderstood what I was saying, hurricane22. I blamed the entire media (and conspiracy theorists) for not understanding what Susan Rice actually said on the weekend take shows. I have somewhat higher expectations for MSNBC (as compared to FOX or even CNN) to understand and articulate the intricacies of the story. Crystal Ball got close but only focused on the uncertainty of the information at that time. The truth (at least to me) is that Susan Rice never dismissed a terrorist attack at all, she only said that she believed it was an opportunistic attack and not a pre-planned one,and that is precisely what Petraues has backed up today as the pervailing intel at the time.
I want to make clear that I am neither embracing or attacking the way the assault was handled that day nor the serious security issues prior to that incident. Those still need to be vigorously investigated. My comments only address the "Susan Rice lied" aspect of Benghazi.
I heard what Ms. Rice had to say on television, and yes, she did say extremist groups jumped on the band wagon, but here's the fundamental problem I have with her explanations. Regardless of the fact of extremists piling on, the initial spark of the attack was very clearly being blamed on the video, and forcefully so. Hillary Clinton had made the same accusation. What would have been more acceptable to me would have been if Ms. Rice had said, "We don't have enough information at this time to know for sure what happened, but there's a possibility it might be extremist Islamic reaction to the video." I would have accepted a postulation of a possible cause, but both Rice and Clinton were emphatic that the video was the cause of the attack, and for them to be that sure at that point in time causes me to question why the rush to judgment. Beyond just the answers to the Benghazi attack, I also want to know if Rice has the ability to be a Secretary of State, which I have to believe Obama will propose. Based on what I see now, no.
Holy @!$%# someone made a criticism of the administration's handling of the situation that actually makes sense!
There were 2 situations going on at the same time. We do know that there was a protest that took place in Benghazi on that day (as well as Tripoli). What's unclear is did that protest disperse before the attack or did the attackers launch the attack while civilians were still on the ground. The answer to that question has a lot to do with what the legality of response would have been (not necessarily whether or not people agree with it, but rather international laws that would've applied). Presumably there were more actions that could've taken place if no civilians had been present. There are also some reports of Libyan civilians fighting back against the attackers- were they protesters or just random people who lived near by?
I think that's fair for you to say that until it was definitively known what the cause was the administration should've held back even on that part or should've at least clarified that it was going on the assumption that it was due to the protests, but that it did not actually know.
But Deerlodgeco, she very clearly stated that it was the best available information at the time (again read fully the quote above) and we know now that it is precisely what the intelligence community believed at the time. You have to remember that the video was the cause of the protests in 20-some countries and the conversations on the talk shows was very much about all of that as well. They were discussing unrest in the middle East, not just the Benghazi attack. I cannot comment on what Hillary Clinton said until I have researched it further but it is clear to me based on the transcripts I have read that Susan Rice did not downplay extremist or terrorist aspects of it at all. In fact, again, she said:
SUSAN RICE: "Well, we'll have to find out that out. I mean I think it's clear that there were extremist elements that joined in and escalated the violence. Whether they were al Qaeda affiliates, whether they were Libyan-based extremists or al Qaeda itself I think is one of the things we'll have to determine."
I think before we call someone a liar, it should at least be based on the facts of what they actually said. I think both Republicans and Democrats are so out of control these days with their rhetoric that the actual facts are becoming meaningless.
I get the feeling that the indignant Protectors of The Left would have to actually see Obama on camera, caught on tape telling Susan Rice to go lie her face off on national television "and make it look like the Republicans are to blame" before any of you would see even any possibility of legitimate Obama scandal. Even then, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow would just smirk and say it wasn't any evidence of wrong doing, and besides if it was, Romney was to blame for it anyway. You are all so enamored with your Wonder Boy that you freely exercise "The Will Not To Believe" and overlook the possibility that Obama might in fact have lied, or at best, was incompetent in handling a very tragic situation.
Look, some of us conservatives took a while to getting around to realizing Nixon really was a crook, and some of us took time acknowledge that George W. Bush was a highly ineffective President, but ultimately we listened to the evidence and we did. I don't think any of you have the wherewithal or journalistic ethics to ask if there might indeed be a problem here. You are all far too concerned with continuing to spit on Romney to even consider that there might be more to this Benghazi story than the President is telling us. The Watergate investigation proved that sometimes a lie really is a lie, not just The Other Side's perception of it. Let's grow some integrity over there at MSNBC.
WOW!!! TROLL ALERT!!
Mr. Logic, there are a large number of things with which I disagree with the president about. I don't approve of the drone strikes in Pakistan, I think he waited far too long to do anything about DNDT, I do not think he has been as transparent as I would like, I disagree with his stance on Marijuana, there are others, but I can stop there. The point is you're right unless there is some actually hard evidence that he covered something up I won't believe that he covered something up.
Let's see it took a while to come to grips that Nixon was a crook. Well I think him saying that "when the president does it it's not illegal" may have helped a little in coming to that conclusion. so far what we have to hang Obama with on the Benghazi issue is that intelligence said one thing at first and then the reports changed as more information came in and thus the administration story changed with the intelligence. That is not exactly a smoking gun. If it comes out that he did lie or that he knew something at the time and deliberately misled the American people I too would find that horribly offensive and would be right there with you condemning him. the fact is we DO NOT KNOW THAT yet. I suppose you think that Bush covered up 9/11 given that he ignored intelligence reports leading up to the attack? I'm not trying to antagonize you, my point is that sometimes it's just bad intel or a mistake NOT a coverup.
Oh deer you took what MIGHT have been legitimate criticism and destroyed it.
So we're enamored with our president because we continuously refute FACTUALLY UNTRUE STATEMENTS and insist that you stick with facts about what's going on? That's it?
Again the hyperbolic foaming at the mouth desire to blame the president for everything is blinding conservatives to the fact that all liberals have said THIS ENTIRE TIME is to A. NOT LIE and B. WAIT UNTIL ALL THE INFORMATION IS IN. If you can't do that then stop pretending like you are the beacon of objectivity you claim to be and stop pretending like anyone who doesn't agree with you is automatically in denial. Has it ever occurred to you that you might be wrong?
There was miscommunication going on. Criticism valid. It's very obvious there were intelligence problems and we might even have, had some intelligence leaks. Criticism valid. There may be more we can do in the future to prevent incidents like this, in particular to help intelligence communities do their job and to better secure our embassies or other overseas assets. Criticism valid. The administration may be found to have responded inappropriately when the investigation is finished, at which point those who should be punished should be punished. Criticism valid.
The president did this so he could get re-elected to prevent the American people from knowing that the Al'Qaeda operatives he never claimed to be extinct were, in fact, not extinct! Criticism invalid. The president did this so he could help out his Muslim allies because he hates America! Criticism invalid. The president covered this up because he wanted to punish an American citizen for exercising free speech! Criticism invalid.
Tell me you see the difference.
Let's see it took a while to come to grips that Nixon was a crook. Well I think him saying that "when the president does it it's not illegal" may have helped a little in coming to that conclusion. so far what we have to hang Obama with on the Benghazi issue is that intelligence said one thing at first and then the reports changed as more information came in and thus the administration story changed with the intelligence. That is not exactly a smoking gun. If it comes out that he did lie or that he knew something at the time and deliberately misled the American people I too would find that horribly offensive and would be right there with you condemning him. the fact is we DO NOT KNOW THAT yet. I suppose you think that Bush covered up 9/11 given that he ignored intelligence reports leading up to the attack? I'm not trying to antagonize you, my point is that sometimes it's just bad intel or a mistake NOT a coverup.
This. It's essential to note that "Protectors of the Left" are NOT like Repubs who would make excuses for absolutely obvious f&%& ups and come up with conspiracy theories.
Over the last couple of days, I've heard people say that Petraeus was set up by Republicans (the likes of Rove and Limbaugh) to make the President look bad. What I think of that is that it's completely and utterly ridiculous.
9/11 and Bush's failure to prevent it in spite of previous intelligence? Ridiculous. Why would he let terrorists fly over American soil and kill 3,000 Americans? That's--as Joe would say--malarkey. I never believed it.
So you see, we're not making excuses for Obama. We want to know what happened, but we're not going to sit around caterwauling about a stupid conspiracy theory that there was a cover up. These are not light accusations. When someone cries cover-up, there BETTER BE PROOF. This isn't kid's stuff. You don't assume ANYTHING.
Okay Tiger, point taken. My point to the MSNBC air personalities is that they are all saying, "What problem? We don't have a problem. We don't SEE no steenking problem," without even asking a few pointed questions to figure out if there IS a problem. Yep, Nixon pretty well sealed himself when he made the "I'm above the law" remarks, and he paid the price for it. I want to know if Obama believes he is above reproach, and if there is anyone from MSNBC who will make the effort to find out.
We'll have to get into Obama's mind to know if he thinks he's above reproach. So far as I can see, I haven't recognized signs of Obama thinking he is above reproach. What would be the body language for that, anyway? I smirk? A shrug? I don't know.
But more importantly... what reproach are we talking about here?
http://biggerfatterpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/11/mccain-caught-in-lie-about-benghazi-and.html
McCain is simply being what he is and that's a media whore and Lindsey Graham Cracker is sucking up to his consituents for fear that some tea bagger will tea bag in a way he's not used to.
Comparing this to Watergate shows just how dishonest, unAmerican, classless and desperate the Obama haters have become. The GOP is a party of sleaze and they always pick the worst of the worst. In 2000 they rejected Jack Kemp and Steve Forbes (two actual conservatives) and picked an AWOL coke snorting drunk. In 2008 they rejected Fred Thompson and Ron Paul for a senile womanizing old fool who picked a Sarah Palin. They rejected Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman this time for perhaps the biggest slime ball and least conservative on of the bunch.
Rachel has said that we need a strong GOP. WHY? We need an honorable GOP and then they will be strong but given the character, integrity and the intelligence of the Republican voters who nominate these slime like Bush, McCain and Romney we need the GOP and its members form the filthy rich CEO to the Bible thumping racists gone. Romney and the rest of the slime are just appealing to the base and their base is base.
The GOP will not stop pulling crap like this being sleazy until all the sleaze is gone. Let's face it, there are a lot of truly evil people in the US and they tend to vote Republican. Romney and the rest are in part a product of the character of their supporters.
http://biggerfatterpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/11/mccain-caught-in-lie-about-benghazi-and.html
Are the Republicans going to spend all four years looking for a backdoor solution to their losing the election twice? Given the past record, I see yes. Issues that take a backseat to the Republican agenda: Jobs, debt, education and representation of the American People.
When the Democratic Future in 1988 was bleak, they answered the correct questions to survive. Now, the Republicans find themselves in a similar situation. Will they make the correct decision? Will they emerge as a stronger party or actually follow the fiscal debt over the cliff.
@sunset: ...Will it be OK for the Republicans to blame everything on King Obama like you guys do with Bush when we get a Republican president in 2016? ...LMAO!!!
You do not warant an answer. You are too immature to understand.
@getagrip Will that Republican win in 2016 be like the big win you all explicitly stated was going to happen in 2012?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
...Hey, all of you goofy Obamasites already know King Obama is a irresponsible, lazy liar. ...The problem is, you believe those qualities are "normal". ...Please, get a grip!
See the bold type? The lack of depth. Always just two sentences.
its from the
S.T.U.P.I.D program
SpamTrolls Totally United Promoting Ignorant Desceptions
Note that Longisland is no more. Looks like he did the honorable thing and deleted his own account rather that face a trial.
A moment of silence please - out of respect.......OK that's enough.
For Republicans to continue down the same misinformed road and continue acting like getagrip1 (See above), the end will come soon for their party.
Not soon enough! Until they have gone the way of the Whigs, it is not soon enough.
Where does maddow get her information? There is a scandal. It's been proven there is something fishy about the MURDER of 4 americans. I will never understand the things that come out of your mouth. You mainstream media are not going to be able to protect obama forever.
"Where does Maddow get her information?" Ask her.
"There is a scandal." Too true mate, but it's not the one you're puling about!
"It's been proven there is something fishy about the MURDER of 4 americans." The only thiing fishy I see is that you can't capitalize the name of a well-known noun describing citizens of this country.
"I will never understand the things that come out of your mouth." Listening, thinking - then speaking might help.
"You mainstream media are not going to be able to protect obama forever." First off, it's President Obama. Second, considering what I've read in the main (that's what all us insiders call the mainstream media, you know), President Obama hasn't been getting very much "protection" up to now. Glad to know it's going to start.
Have a nice day!
did anyone else notice Sen McCain did not look well today? Really...he was pale, swollen and short of breath...looks like something is wrong......I hate to say it but I wouldnt be surprised if he ends up in the hospital.
Part of the reason he didn't get elected to the presidency was because he looked old and sickly enough that far too many people were convinced that he could easily die and give Palin the presidency, so... this is kind of a common look for him.
Well, there IS a real White House scandal and moreover, the White House doesnt deny it. It's this:
in his desk in the White House, Obama keeps a list of people, all over the world, that he wants murdered. And the CIA and Pentagon have agreed to go out and kill them. And they are actually doing it right now! And often, they also kills a bunch of men, women and children who happen to be in the neighbourhood at the time!
What do you mean, that's not a scandal?