Newest right-wing lie

[tomfodw]

I know, I know, there are so many right wing lies, more each day, that it's not easy to figure out which one is the newest.

But this is the newest one I have noticed.

Obama is being ripped by some wingnut columnists and VRWC talking point parrots for not having joined the so-called "Gang of 14" in 2006 that was going to "restore bipartisanship" to the process of Senate confirmation of Bush's judicial nominations. (Neither did Clinton nor Edwards, but since they're not, supposedly, promising to end partisanship, their refusal to join this "gang" doesn't matter). Obama's refusal to be part of the "gang" is being trotted out as "proof" that he is just another partisan librul Democrat hack.

(Anyone who doubts the existence of the VRWC - both Brooks & Krauthammer trotted out this lame accusation against Obama this week, within a few days of each other.)

Fortunately, no one outside of DC remembers the "Gang of 14," so this charge is not going to influence anyone. Still, it's worth noting what the accusation means when it comes to the Villagers' idea of "bipartisanship" - give Bush everything he wants and nobody will be called a partisan. The "Gang of 14" was going to decide which of Bush's judicial nominations deserved to be filibustered - basically, none of them. They were not willing to disapprove of any of his nominees, no matter how right wing extremist they were.

And now, 2 year later, the wingnuts would have us believe that Obama's refusal to be part of that "gang" makes his talking about getting past partisanship a lie. The same Villagers never said a word about getting past partisanship in, say, 2002, when Bush and Rove were attacking Democrats over the Dept of Homeland Security. Only now, when the Democrats are resurgent, are they suddenly discovering the joys of bipartisanship.

Funny. I don't remember that from the Charles Atlas ads, when the 97 pound weakling bulks up and beats the shit out of the beach bully. The bully doesn't suddenly (to quote Budd Schulberg) "holler brotherhood." He slinks off the beach in shame, leaving his former victim to bask in his well-deserved newfound glory. The Democrats should keep that in mind.





=====================================

Tom Beck

"Well, this train carries saints and sinners/This train carries losers and winners/This train carries whores and gamblers/This train carries lost souls/This train carries broken-hearted/This train -- thieves and sweet souls departed/This train carries fools, carries kings/This train - all aboard!/I said, this train -- dreams will not be thwarted/This train -- faith will be rewarded/This train -- hear the steel wheels singing/This train -- bells of freedom ringing!" -- Bruce Springsteen, "Land of Hope and Dreams"

[meegbear]

1. That's ubsurd ...

guilt-by-association-by-non-association :crazy:

[Parche]

2. bipartisanship?

When have the Republicans ever offered to have bipartinsanship?
they are a bunch of crooks...:hi:

[Andy823]

3. One problem

Ewards wasn't in the senate in 2006! You should really get your facts straight.

[Buzz Clik]

4. Huh? When the Gang originally emerged, the rightwingers were calling them traitors.

And now this.

The most amusing thing about knuckledraggers is their lack of knowledge of history -- even their own!

[tomfodw]

5. I'm not saying it makes any sense

But it is happening. Both Brooks & Krauthammer criticized Obama this week for exactly this reason.

(Sorry, forgot Edwards wasn't in the Senate in '06.)

[robbedvoter]

6. Bipartisanship= do what the GOP says. Applies to Bloomberg's do-hicky too

[tomfodw]

7. Bloomberg is no liberal

Since running for Mayor as a Republican, he has embraced the GOP. He let them get away with not fulfilling their promises to New York after 9-11, he was an enthusiastic host of the GOP convention in 2004 (during which he tried to purge the streets of protesters), and he has happily endorsed their most right wing policies and maneuvers.

His so-called "bipartisan" or "nonpartisan" run for president is nothing more than a gigantic ego-ride - even if he could somehow win, he'd have no allies in Congress - both parties would hate his guts for ruining their chances, and the Democrats in particular (who are certain to retain control of both houses) would do whatever they could to destroy his agenda.

And will anyone in the MSM point out how much of a partisan Republican Bloomberg has been? Not a frickin chance.

[thoughtcrime1984]

8. Hey, Obama is willing to work with Repubs

It is called compromise. But the thing is, the Democratic Party is already fully compromised, and I think Obama knows this. The compromise, then, must come from the Republican Party. If he gets in the WH, he is not about to let the Repubs take even more of this country than they already have. I am all for him speaking of unity, but when and if he gets in office, I would expect him to act as the Democrat that he is. Why would he just give in to everything the Repubs want, part and parcel? Let them criticize him for not being part of a small group that lets the right do whatever they want, it's not like that's a bad thing. Surely, those a-holes can do better than that. And, a lot of the Repub candidates are distancing themselves from Bush, so how should not kowtowing to Bush be viewed as such an awful thing?

[rox63]

9. Why are you spreading RW lies?

:banghead: