MeggieMac is upset with the Republican Party.
I’ve spent most of my adult life fighting for change from inside the Republican Party.
So the person who said “Age is just a number” was correct. Another refugee from nuance, apparently, as she fails to distinguish between a legal distinction, and a figurative one.
We Republicans need to look at the future instead of living in the past.
Oh, we’re looking at the future. And we see a place completely disconnected from the heritage and birthright of Americans. Seriously, if the brightest lights of the Constitutional era could see us now, most of them would be angry or weeping at what we’ve done with it. And then there would be a few, like Robert Yates, and Patrick Henry, who would be shaking their heads and saying ” I told you so.”
Maybe if you understood these things, and could then incorporate it into your opinion in a serious attempt to persuade, rather than berate me, I might take you seriously. But then, if you actually understood these things, then you might not say the silly things you do to begin with.
We have to learn from what the last two presidential elections have taught us.
I agree. The dumbing down of the population over a period of decades has made it quite easy to lead a slim majority by the nose into following people who tell you that your misfortune is the result of other people’s success, and that others aren’t “paying their fair share”. The lesson is that we have to educate people. And we have to be creative about it, because there are really good ways to make the salient points to people, even when they don’t want to listen. We also have to challenge them. There are a lot of people who can tell you that Romney was “GAFFE-TASTIC!!!11!!!”, but it is a little bit more difficult for them if you ask them for an example, and even MORE difficult if they can come up with an example, and you give some context, and ask them if they feel the same way. The easy answer is…well…easy. But at the same time, it doesn’t give much cover if you’re actually asked to defend your opinion. And yet, I’m sure that this has NOTHING to do with MeggieMac’s deep and insightful analysis.
We must accept each other and the different opinions within the party instead of trying to cannibalize people that diverge from an arbitrary purity test.
Except that Republicans aren’t the ones who are obsessed with identity politics. We don’t divide the electorate up by genitalia, race, ethnicity, and then pander to each of these groups while at the same time telling them that the only way they can achieve their goals is with OUR help once we’re in office. You might consider that. It’s why we had so many varied speakers at the convention. Do try to keep up, dear.
I refuse to let the extremists win. We can’t let the Tea Party bully us any longer.
So much for accepting diverse opinions. I guess its difficult to fathom your own tyrannical tendencies from behind the redwood in your own eye, right Meggie?
We can’t keep worrying about ultraconservative white male voters.
How about we worry about families, and government’s increasing intrusion into them, either through “Life of Julia” style programs that make Uncle Sam the father and the husband, or policies that cheapen life, and make its value correspond to the value a given person has to the state? Or regulations that strangle the economy, and make it much more difficult for families to rely on themselves for their sustenance?
At the end of the day, I still believe I’m on the right side of history, and we can’t let this party sink away.
At the end of the day, it is invariably someone completely lacking in perspective and a good intellectual foundation to help them to meaningfully interpret the world around them that round out their remarks with the cliche ”at the end of the day.” As for “believing you are right”, I’m still waiting for you to say anything that has some substance. Being the daughter of a Senator might open some doors that would be closed to other people of your advanced years and experience, but it might be refreshing to actually hear you advocate for something in a manner that sounds like something more than a slightly more erudite version of “I think it’s a good idea, and my opinion matters because I am my Daddy’s daughter, and if you don’t agree, you’re a poophead” some other negative classification.
We can and we must evolve.
Now, again, you make my point for me. You obviously think that it is smart and persuasive to speak to me of “evolving”, without any understanding of why it is that is the least persuasive thing you can say to me. You think you’re invoking science and reason, and if we were discussing this in person, it might never occur to you that I actually know more and be better able to explain to you the facts of the science of that word, and it is precisely for that reason that people like me see the water wings on your arms as you wave from the shallow end of the intellectual pool.
I don’t know exactly how yet, but I for one am ready to spend the next four years helping us get there.
Until you can articulate why the Republican Party is not, and has never been what the media and its window-licking followers keep insisting it is, I’d think I’d really rather you just worked on fundraisers for your Dad, and stayed out of it.
And if we don’t move forward, adapt, and become relevant again, the Republican Party isn’t going to survive.
Ah, yes. The death of the Republican Party. If you knew the history you keep trying to disparage, you’d have to come to grips with the fact that it has been predicted since Watergate.
It will just continue to alienate more moderate voters like myself.
“Moderate” the way you use it simply means “not really willing to accept a real distinction; upset over the Ecru candidate because you really believe that it was Eggshell’s year”.
If I don’t see some changes in the next four years, I’m going to consider registering as an Independent in 2016.
Really? Because after a few years of your inane ramblings, I’m quite certain that the Democrat Party is your ideological home. But then, I forget that you are your Mother’s daughter, and surely know there is more money to be made by being a celebrity “Republican” who can be relied upon to agree with all the right people in the media than it would to declare yourself just another celebrity with Democrat leanings.
I think that MeggieMac may be about to get the government that she deserves.
Little to agree with here and lots to quibble about.
First, am I missing something or did you neglect to link to the text you’re quoting? Is MeggieMac, Meghan McCain? Honestly, I’m only guessing at this point.
There you go again with your intimate knowledge of what the founders would have wanted. You strike this note so often I’m beginning to picture you playing with your little toy replicas of Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, etal. putting words in their mouths, based of course on … wait for it … The Federalist Papers. Even if you are right in your assumptions (and I’m sure there are loads of reasons to think you’re not) that was then and this is now. So come off it. They did the best with what they had, Nations grow and change with the times. Clearly, you don’t.
Ehhhh “10,000 bucks?”
Said during a debate where he challenged his opponent to a bet showing just how little perspective he had on the amount of money the folks in the audience might have at their disposal to place a similar bet. It was a harbinger of things to come … a man totally insulated within his own wealth with zero understanding of the folks who would and would not be voting for him.
Nope, you separate the nation into the 53% and the 47% and pander to the 53% … well of course that’s bullsh*t. You really pander to the 1% and the remaining 52% follow along with delusions of grandeur because they’re entitled to be “real” Americans, a euphemism for white, Christian, and male (and female only so long as she falls in line with her conservative man.)
What is with you and Grover Norquist’s obsession with poop or poopyheads? I think dumbass is the better term.
You’re right. To say you’re not evolved is hardly persuasive. But my, ain’t the pot calling the kettle black? You’ve clearly said as much about Meghan McCain. At least evolved has some ring of intellect to it. You’ve basically just called her a dumb daughter of a Senator, a father without whom she’d have no forum at all. I think in this exchange between you and Ms. McCain you got off easy being called unevolved.
I’m curious why you single out Mrs. McCain for abuse in your closer. John, in his saner days, was known to work across the aisle, a real no-no in your book. If Meghan didn’t fall far from the tree, at least acknowledge that the tree is as much John as it is Cindy.
There is the very slight chance that this election was a wake-up call to Republicans that you can be conservative without insulting everyone who disagrees with you. That there aren’t enough of you anymore for you to win elections without persuasion. And you can’t persuade people you look down on. You did give a passing nod to persuasion in your piece here. Good for you. Now, take a page from Bobby Jindal, Kelly Ayote, and Marco Rubio who at least for the time being have changed their tune a bit. They learned from last week that it’s their job to get ME to vote for their candidate in 2016. They might have a chance. With your attitude, you surely won’t.
Maggie McCain has a vision for the Republican party which is democrat-lite.
So, no thanks.
And, although she tries to sound intelligent, and as if she has ideas behind her words – she doesn’t. Take for example this -
“And if we don’t move forward, adapt, and become relevant again, the Republican Party isn’t going to survive.”
WTF does that mean? Move “forward’? That’s a word right out of Obama’s propaganda/election plan. It sounds nice, but it doesn’t actually have any meaning.
Become “relevant” again?
Look, there are facts of life. “Relevance” – to idiots busy watching Dancing with the Stars, or whatever other bullshit out their fills their brains, is problematic.
In today’s world, “relevant” means that Hollywood and “high” culture (meaning pop bullshit an liberal elites) adore you and shower you with positive messages.
Rutherford you are so completely wrong I almost don’t know what to say.
Little to agree with here and lots to quibble about.
Fortunately, you provide an excellent barometer. If you don’t like it, then I can be reasonably certain that I got it right.
First, am I missing something or did you neglect to link to the text you’re quoting?
I did not link it. If you’re really curious, you can put some of it into a search engine and find it.
Is MeggieMac, Meghan McCain? Honestly, I’m only guessing at this point.
If you don’t know who MeggieMac is, then maybe you aren’t as informed as you pretend to be.
There you go again with your intimate knowledge of what the founders would have wanted.
They are called “correspondence”, “journals”, “notes”, and “papers”. Seriously, it isn’t a mystery to understand what they put together. They told us exactly what they were thinking, and more importantly, WHY. It was actually a very rich period for the existence of orginal source documents, many of which contradict the revisionist history started by leftists and progressives in the early twentieth century, and which persist to this day. Hell, if you would only get and read this book, you’d have Jefferson telling you in his own words about his thoughts and beliefs on many issues, especially the false interpretation of “the wall of separation between church and state” which has been carried to the point of abuse by people such as yourself. But because educating yourself in this fashion would bring you face-to-face with the fact that so much of what you believe isn’t true, I expect you to remain in the cheap seats, throwing spitballs, and patting yourself on the back for being so smart that you don’t even have to read things that could undercut your worldview.
You strike this note so often I’m beginning to picture you playing with your little toy replicas of Jefferson, Hamilton, Adams, etal. putting words in their mouths, based of course on … wait for it … The Federalist Papers.
Why would I put words in their mouths when they were kind enough to leave volumes and volumes and volumes of their own? Seriously, reading these things can be quite humbling, if only because of the sheer breadth of knowledge and the stunning intellectual ability that many of those men achieved. We’re all quite stupid in comparision. It is a challenge from the past to not only understand what they described and envisioned, but also to understand why they came to the conclusions they did. I used to think that you could meet that challenge. I’m really not sure any longer.
Even if you are right in your assumptions (and I’m sure there are loads of reasons to think you’re not) that was then and this is now. So come off it.
Again, it is far less assumption than you presume. And if you’d do the reading yourself, you’d know that. But instead, how about sharing these “loads of reasons”, R? Really. I’ve only been trying to have a substantive conversation with you about it for how many years now? Really. I think it’s time you actually pick up the gauntlet and bring your “A” game. Why am I so wrong on this point? What historical evidence can you point to with regard to what I said here. I’ll even help you out. Read some of Patrick Henry’s objections to the Constitution. Robert Yates, who actually was a delegate to the convention, left in June, went home, and published some specific challenges to the Federalists under the psuedonym “Brutus”. Read his paper entitled “VI”. You can find it for free online. Focus on his discussion on “general welfare”, and his warning of how future generations were going to warp that. And then explain how I got it wrong.
They did the best with what they had, Nations grow and change with the times.
That sounds a lot like the kind of progressive claptrap that I’d expect of you, R. And it’s the kind of thinking that leads us to the need to fix government solutions to problems created by its solutions to problems.
Clearly, you don’t.
Clearly, you’re putting the “ass” in assume again. I used to be a mushy skull like you. The difference is that I started to learn the history and law that isn’t really taught in school anymore. And then the scales fell from my eyes.
Ehhhh “10,000 bucks?”
Said during a debate where he challenged his opponent to a bet showing just how little perspective he had on the amount of money the folks in the audience might have at their disposal to place a similar bet. It was a harbinger of things to come … a man totally insulated within his own wealth with zero understanding of the folks who would and would not be voting for him.
And yet you have no issues with the millionaire in the White House, who campaigned to farmers with remarks about the price of arugula? The guy who went to prep school growing up, and then Occidental and Harvard, who’s home in Chigago was pretty spectacular for its location. He’s “in touch”, because he “feels your pain”? Because his adminstration advertises for more people to get on welfare benefits? Because he “wrote” two pretentious and in some places, appalling, memoirs at an age when most people’s careers, including his own, are just getting going? Honestly, do you have any idea of the disconnect between the reasons for the things you say and reality?
Nope, you separate the nation into the 53% and the 47% and pander to the 53% … well of course that’s bullsh*t. You really pander to the 1% and the remaining 52% follow along with delusions of grandeur because they’re entitled to be “real” Americans, a euphemism for white, Christian, and male (and female only so long as she falls in line with her conservative man.)
As opposed to dismissing people who believe in the First and Second Amendments? “Bitter Clingers”, anyone? (I’m impressed, R. You got every single pane of glass with one throw. Good job!)
What is with you and Grover Norquist’s obsession with poop or poopyheads? I think dumbass is the better term.
It was actually a way to emphasize how much she often sounds like a child. I know, understanding nuance is something lefties usually struggle with.
You’re right. To say you’re not evolved is hardly persuasive. But my, ain’t the pot calling the kettle black? You’ve clearly said as much about Meghan McCain. At least evolved has some ring of intellect to it. You’ve basically just called her a dumb daughter of a Senator, a father without whom she’d have no forum at all. I think in this exchange between you and Ms. McCain you got off easy being called unevolved.
Rutherford, I realize that this is just another expression of all the things you don’t know, but MeggieMac has spent the last few years proclaiming herself a Republican and at times, even a Conservative. It typically occurs right before she says something that a Republican, and especially a Conservative would not say. The spotlight shines bright on her, and she hasn’t been able to conceal the fact that she is an intellectual lightweight. I would put 98% of the posts I write up against ANYTHING she has published or said in public for the last 4 years.
I’m curious why you single out Mrs. McCain for abuse in your closer.
Because she’s been insulting the intellect of the same group she claims to be part of for years now.
John, in his saner days, was known to work across the aisle, a real no-no in your book. If Meghan didn’t fall far from the tree, at least acknowledge that the tree is as much John as it is Cindy.
Daddy has been there long enough that he actually knew conservative democrats. And he’s been there so long that he imagines that there still are some there. As for her being Cindy’s daughter, re-read the last paragraph. Get help if you are struggling with any of the words. Mommy is a good businessperson. And Meggie is too. She knows that the David Frum business model will get her empty-headed butterface on TV regularly to be the “Republican” that people who oppose Republicans can agree with.
There is the very slight chance that this election was a wake-up call to Republicans that you can be conservative without insulting everyone who disagrees with you.
Disagree with FACTS. Disagree with a reasonably articulable rationale. All I’ve seen since Bill Clinton is feeeeeeeellllinngs. You don’t give reasons why Paul Ryan is soooooo crazy. You give us commercials of him pushing Granny over a cliff. Math is not your friend, R. In fact, no one on the left has friended Math when it comes to economics. That’s why we can get Nancy Pelosi talking about unemployment checks being good for the economy, and people lap it up. Only someone who has NEVER given thought to the math can think that taking money from the private sector, where it now can’t be used to give some one a paycheck, and giving it to several people in much smaller amounts is something that is good for the economy.
That there aren’t enough of you anymore for you to win elections without persuasion. And you can’t persuade people you look down on. You did give a passing nod to persuasion in your piece here. Good for you. Now, take a page from Bobby Jindal, Kelly Ayote, and Marco Rubio who at least for the time being have changed their tune a bit. They learned from last week that it’s their job to get ME to vote for their candidate in 2016. They might have a chance. With your attitude, you surely won’t.
The same Kelly Ayote that your messiah didn’t call out when he tried to pick a fight with the two guys in the Senate most likely to WANT to work with him? Oh. Ok.
Mmmm, maybe I misunderstood that. John McCain and Lindsay Graham are the most likely to WANT to work with Barack Obama? Are you referring to Graham and McCain? Surely no. Graham and McCain have been two of Obama’s most outspoken critics. Where do you get any inkling that either would want to work with Obama on anything?
BTW, I wouldn’t call what he did “picking a fight”. I’d call it defending the honor of one of his underlings who’s been unjustifiably attacked, a fact made clear by Petraeus’ testimony on Friday.
Mmmm, maybe I misunderstood that. John McCain and Lindsay Graham are the most likely to WANT to work with Barack Obama? Are you referring to Graham and McCain? Surely no. Graham and McCain have been two of Obama’s most outspoken critics. Where do you get any inkling that either would want to work with Obama on anything?
Lindsay “scratch me and find a statist” Graham, and Juan “Gang of 14″ McLame? Gee. I wonder.
BTW, I wouldn’t call what he did “picking a fight”. I’d call it defending the honor of one of his underlings who’s been unjustifiably attacked, a fact made clear by Petraeus’ testimony on Friday.
There are 2 responses to this.
The first is “What Planet Are You Living On?” By the time Rice made her circuit with the official lie, EVERYONE knew that it wasn’t a spontaneous riot over a video they had never seen. And still, she was the good little soldier, so that Obama didn’t have a resurgent terrorist threat before the election.
The second is, “Awwwwww. How sweet. If he’d shown as much passion in defending Ambassador Stevens, Benghazi might not be a millstone around his neck right now.” The fact remains. He is either incompetent, or he left those people to die…all through a SEVEN HOUR FIREFIGHT.
I made a conscious decision shortly after the election, there were three things I was going to change: (1) Turn off the political TV – haven’t watched a bit since the election and already feel better; (2) Game the system anyway I can and pray that it burns to the ground while Obama is President, hurting financially and personally as many Leftists as possible in the process – the worse the better; (3) move the Rutherford Lawson blog right out of my life, the People Magazine of the WordPress world.
The gall to tell us how to live our lives, what we ought to be doing, and how we ought to think? With his train wreck of a life? {snicker} Comedy gold. How miserable and useless does a person have to be to live his life through an empty suit for President. Completely immoral and inane.
Well, here’s the best advice I can give my kids. See Rutherford, children? Be just the opposite, think just the opposite, do just the opposite. And for all intents, that is how they were raised. No wonder they are doing so well.
Yeah it’s so moved out of your life that you insult me on other blogs. Face it, you didn’t know and don’t know jack sh*t about the country in which you live and it was proved clearly two Tuesdays ago. So you leave the RL blog with your tail between your legs.
I have no doubt your children are fine people. They take after their mother.
Face it, you didn’t know and don’t know jack sh*t about the country in which you live and it was proved clearly two Tuesdays ago.
Ooooooo. The Rutherford Lawson chest thump. It sounds so…hollow.
I’m not sure what you’re talking about. The Fresh Prez of Bill Ayers didn’t exactly win a mandate the first time around, and his win this time was much, much slimmer. Then when you look at the nationwide county map, it becomes clear: It takes a LOT of red to support the blue.
You’ve been away from the RL blog too long to witness Tex as we got closer to the election and he suddenly started losing his cock-sure opinion that Romney would win. Truthfully, I basically quoted Tex who himself admitted he didn’t have his finger on the pulse of the country as much as he thought he did. So there was no hollow chest thumping at all … just tossing Tex’s own disorientation back in his face.
Not quite getting your “red supporting the blue” comment but I will say this, the nationwide map does show that the red states need and take a lot more “free stuff” (to quote old Mitt) from the Federal government than the blue states do. That’s why secession is such a joke. Go ahead, secede and see how well you manage on your own. Pffft.
You’re right. I thought better of us. There’s a large segment of my country I do not know. You’re one of them.
So if the red states are living large off the blue states, why aren’t you pushing for secession and tax cuts? You know why? Because it’s bullshit and we feed, cloth, warm, and cool you assholes. Another lie from the media.
But if I’m wrong, let us prove it to you. We need nothing from you. Trust me. If we did, piles of shit like Graychin would be living beside you. You don’t see that old codger pulling up roots, do you?
You’ll note these so called sponge states have balanced budgets. What’s Big Blue Illinois look like, Capone?
Well, if I was some loser with no life but some pipe dream of hitting big with his project management, sitting with his “wife” on the couch to get my entertainment from MSNBC, then I would indeed be walking away with my tail between my legs.
But see, you just proved my point, gnome. My self-worth, my joy, my satisfaction isn’t dependent upon a vote. Say, like your family.
You realize that made zero sense right? I’m not pursuing project management. I maintain the credential cos it’s harder to get it back once you lose it. And why the hell is “wife” in quotes? You pulling a Donald Trump on me … do I need to mail you a copy of my marriage license?
The only part of that which made any sense, was the MSNBC for entertainment comment. Guilty as charged.
Rutherford your victory prance may be more credible if you weren’t covered in the drippings of a partisan circle jerk.
I am absolutely amazed by how people are spinning the post Romney gifts remark and the related “fallout” of certain politicians. Christie,Ayotte,Jindal,Rubio and Pawlenty are all on thin ice and are only gaming the cameras now for their own short term benefit. If you don’t see that as well that Obama did indeed gift up a number of groups you are by no means as intelligent as I ever thought you were.
Again….DREAM and amnesty lite in contrast to four years of heralding his Administrations deportation numbers. Aid money we don’t have and Buffett Rule isn’t gonna find. Tax the rich + too big too fail. It is all there. He played politics and won. thats the game. Romney told some basic truths and alienated the masses who have grown dependent.
Get honest Rutherford,on so many levels otherwise your continued blogging is just ego stroking completely devoid of worth.
I hope you’re wrong about the short term benefit comment. I’d like to think conservatives learned something from the election.
It matters not that Dream-lite and the gay marriage “endorsement” were election year panders. What matters is that Romney (again) spoke disparagingly of the electorate. And if you know someone doesn’t like you, you sure as hell are not going to vote for him. It’s really as simple as that.
Yeah, I did learn something. I learned that what I had warned about, living with millions of imbeciles like you, is a sure cliff to fall off and we better get serious about separating ourselves from a nation circling the drain, or we will join them. We’ve to get ourselves out of this mess and away from your crowd.
You may have won a vote, but your life isn’t going to get any better, sport. And when I get wind of it, you can rest assured I’ll be paying you a visit for a little ass thumping.
Bank on it.
Wouldn’t count on that if I were you. About the only valuable info I’ve gotten from this blog in recent months was some good gun recommendations.
Rutherford your new found glories at your place are barking up the idiot tree. Poor James & DR stuck with folks who wouldn’t know a fact if you slapped them with a 2×4.
If you join in on the security /GOP lies keep in mind that at best we’re talking a budget difference of only 2 million dollars. This at best translates to less than 300 security positions. To think any slice of a majority of the phantom 300 would’ve found its way to Benghazi is a bogus explosion of wishful partisanship.
Compared to other Embassy attacks in our history thus far the Libyan affair is the worse handled one. Caused it+Watched it+ tepid to non-existent response= We look like losers and will feel it again.
You give the conservative contingent short shrift … we also have Pfesser and the notorious Noah to keep up the “right” attack.
As for your Benghazi assessment, be that as it may, it doesn’t amount to impeachable offense and I’d be awfully surprised if you thought it did.
How do you define “impeachable offense” Atty. Lawson?
Put very simply Counselor, it’s a crime. At worst, Obama is guilty of “lying to the American people” and that might make him immoral as hell but it ain’t illegal.
You think that this is about “lying”?
I didn’t think anyone was that naive anymore.
Oh yes, BiW i forgot … Barack Obama murdered Ambassador Stevens. I’m soooooo naive.
Rutherford,
How gobsmacked are you going to be when the court rejects the executive privilege gambit on Fast and Furious, and that and the story of what was going on in Benghazi comes out?
Not the least bit gobsmacked. You confuse my objection to a rush to judgment with not wanting to know the truth. All I’ve ever said about Benghazi is let the investigation take its course.
No Rutherford what matters is that we have a small slice of people in this country that live their life through thought and logic and a huge heap of those that live via feelings. You clearly fall into the latter and again I say that is sad. You have bought totally and fully into the rhetoric of your homies. Romney loves America and by that Americans and loves it in a way most on your side doesn’t get.Mitt Romney was the grown up America needed at a time when Americans seemingly no longer want one.
With all due respect, you have been and continue to be way off the mark about Mitt Romney. A decent man, most probably. A successful businessman, absolutely. A lousy politician … damn straight. An insulated billionaire who is judgmental of those lesser off than he … another damn straight.
Mitt Romney may love America but he does not love Americans … at least 47% of them. After his post-election remarks to his donors, I thanked my lucky stars that he did not get elected.
Correct me if ‘m wrong but wasn’t Clinton impeached for “lying” not for doing the dirty deed?
Alfie is correct in his assessment of the America people. The mentality has become one of “rights” not “responsibility”. I lay the blame on our current education system which teaches from the early years that there are no consequences. Romney lost because he preached “responsibility”. Obama won because he promised the “gifts of rights”.
Benghazi showed the world a side of weakness regardless of the facts. One should take note of what happens in the animal kingdom when a predator sniffs out the weak. Once again it all comes down to “consequences”.
Clinton’s lying was criminal. When you do it under oath, it’s perjury.
That’s why he can’t practice law anymore.
Not for nothing but this makes no sense. Lying in general is NOT criminal. No law against it. If it were, we’d all be subject to arrest at some point in our lives. Lying under certain circumstances is criminal, such as consumer fraud. Lying under oath, as you say, is perjury … it’s criminal.
Your distinction fails the English language smell test unless you’re playing some legalistic game. Clinton could lie his pants off and it would matter not … it was only until he was under oath that it mattered.
My point is that sometimes, lying IS criminal.
The reason everything makes “no sense” to Rutherford, is because he’s liberal and to be frank, stupid. I’ve recognized that for some time now.
Anything that makes sense will by definition make “no sense” to a liberal.
I think tempering one’s predictions as the election drew near, or desponding that half the country could and did support this shamwow for president is entirely appropriate.
In the days and weeks that followed the Benghazi attack, the president and the secretary of state spoke in unison against a common enemy and it wasn’t terrorism.
Muffy, no one is talking about whether it was “appropriate”. It was suggested that I was engaging in hollow chest thumping and I clarified that it was nothing of the kind. I was rather shocked and pleased that Tex was engaging in realistic self reflection. Soon after the election he returned to his old self.
BiW. RIF (reading is fundamental) — try reading my article on the subject again and you will see I readily acknowledge Obama’s victory to have been a relatively slim one, electoral college be damned.
I am (talking about appropriate). But thanks for the clarification on the hollow chest thumping. Glad we got that straight.