Sen. John McCain always tried to portray himself as a so-called “maverick” while he was on the campaign trail. But, during and after Wednesday’s State of the Union address from President Obama, for former candidate for the White House proved that he is just another Washington insider playing the game of politics. In other words, Sen. John McCain is a politician like all the rest, as he proved again when he went on Sean Hannity’s far-right Fox News show and uttered the words below.
“What we’re hearing tonight is ‘BIOB’ — let’s call it that from now on. Blame it on Bush. Whatever has gone wrong, let’s blame it on Bush. I think the people of Massachusetts last Tuesday pretty well rejected that line of conversation.”
Voters rejected Sen. McCain’s message during the campaign and should reject it now. The campaign is over and John McCain has revealed his true self as a right-wing partisan who struggles to see any good from the other side and mistakes facts for blame.
John McCain (who wears his far-right cap when he goes on Fox News) must have missed the part where the president accepted the blame for the portion of the deficit he claimed responsibility for last night.
Also, Sen. McCain is misguided. Massachusetts voters likely rejected that Democrats have not done enough to bring the radical change they expected (we’re still in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Democrats are not standing firm on health care, etc.).
Is Sen. McCain crazy enough to think that Massachusetts are troubled by Democrats holding President Bush (whose approval ratings where somewhere around the high 20s to low 30s when he left office) accountable for what happened on his watch? Come on, now!
Once again, Michael Steele wallows in victimhood, deflecting his own racially insensitive comment, while attacking Sen. Reid for a racially insensitive comment and calling on him to resign as majority leader of the U.S. Senate.
Here are Steele’s comments, while being interviewed by Fox News Sunday host Chris Matthews, about Sen. Harry Reid:
STEELE: I think he should. There is a standard where Democrats think they can say these things and apologize when it comes from the mouth of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it’s racism. It’s either racist or it’s not. And it’s inappropriate, absolutely. So if the standard is the one we saw with Trent Lott as leader at the time, then I think this absolutely falls in that category here. … Remember, this is the same leader who just a few weeks ago was talking about health care in the context of slavery. Clearly he is out of touch.
As you will see in the Huffington Post account, Matthews did confront Steele about his double standard. But, the RNC chairman simply said if his comments were offended he apologized and tried to leave it at that apology (something he was not willing to allow Sen. Reid). So, where is the real double standard there, Chairman Steele? If the hypocritical Steele is not willing to resign, as RNC chairman, after his racially insensitive remarks, then why should Sen. Reid resign from his post as majority leader?
Generally, when Michael Steele is confronted on his missteps (and there have been more than a few), he blames Washington, people afraid of change, Democrats, the media, etc. For the most part, he blames everyone but Michael Steele.
On Friday’s edition of The O’Reilly Factor, Fox News right-wing commentator Bill O’Reilly cried more than a spoiled kid in Toys R Us hearing “NO” for the first time. So, what was O’Reilly crying about: his old archenemy Sen. Al Franken. O’Reilly has been waging a war against Franken since before the man became a senator from the state of Minnesota. Franken has been one to stand up to Bully O’Reilly and not take his crap and that is something O’Reilly can’t stand. Like a true bully, O’Reilly depends on intimidation and fear as his weapons of choice.
This all brings me to the nontroversy involving Sen. Franken cutting off Sen. Joe Lieberman who had used up his 10 minutes of time. Sen. Franken, by several reports, merely was following the rules as he was made aware. O’Reilly, however, since blood in the water and once again used his platform to wage a personal battle (think back to previous personal attacks he has made against Boyce Watkins, Jesse Jackson, Ward Churchill, NBC, GE, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Dr. George Tiller … to name a VERY FEW). When O’Reilly got word of the incident (one that even Sen. Lieberman laughed off) he went nuts and used it as provocation to attack Sen. Franken.
O’REILLY: Yesterday on the Senate floor, Joe Lieberman was talking about the health care bill and politely asked for an extension to wrap up his remarks. He didn’t even wait for verbal approval because it is almost always given. But not yesterday. That’s because Senator Al Franken, who was in a rotation presiding over the Senate, objected to Lieberman continuing his remarks in a stunning display of disrespect.
This shouldn’t surprise anyone – Franken is a hater and always has been. But it illuminated why the far-left is despised by most Americans. Franken’s actions were mean, petty, and disrespectful. That’s what we often get from the far-left – just look at their web sites and the savages spewing venom on cable television. It’s true that the right does some of that stuff as well, but not nearly as much.
In the end, Franken’s behavior is self-defeating. It’s incredible that the man is even in the Senate, and now he’s alienated most of the country. Does the far-left really think it’s going to get the support of most Americans using tactics like that?
This shows how nutty O’Reilly really has become and how his sanity is slipping through his greasy fingers. It also, once again, puts on display his right-wing hatred for anything that he perceived to be to the left of the political mainstream. It was not a display of disrespect. Sen. Franken politely told Sen. Lieberman that he had used his time up and there would be no extensions granted. It’s not like he said, “Bitch, sit your punk ass down and be quiet.”
Bill O’Reilly calling anyone a hater is laughable and hilarious considering how much he hates Sen. Franken. So, in other words, he was being directly hypocritical.
In the second paragraph of O’Reilly’s above comments you see his right-wing bias spring to the surface. The last sentence of the second paragraph again illustrates his bias and ignorance. He gives you the boilerplate “the other side does it too.” Only problem is O’Reilly almost never talks about anything negative related to Republicans and when he does it is usually minimized.
The first sentence of the third paragraph shows just how ridiculous O’Reilly is as most people could care less about the exchange. Most people understand that you have rules and you follow them without complaining because you don’t get an exception.
Once again, Bill O’Reilly uses his Fox News-granted platform to fight his personal battle with Sen. Al Franken.
While Sen. Franken has worked hard and is fighting for people, Bill O’Reilly is making lots of money by waging personal vendettas on the airwaves of Fox News.
Today is a sad day as many Americans are waking up this morning and learning about the death of Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, who lost his long battle with brain cancer. Sen. Kennedy was a fiery leader who certainly had his share of ups and downs during a long political career. As with all people, we will remember the good times as well as the challenging times for the long-time senator. As one who fought for everyday people, few could challenge his record. Sen. Kennedy never stopped fighting for and advocating for hard-working Americans and was a tireless leader for his justice and fairness for people.
America has lost a great leader and the Kennedy family has lost a great family man.
Massachusetts Sen. Edward Kennedy, the patriarch of the first family of Democratic politics, died late Tuesday at his home in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts, after a lengthy battle with brain cancer. He was 77.
“We’ve lost the irreplaceable center of our family and joyous light in our lives, but the inspiration of his faith, optimism and perseverance will live on in our hearts forever,” a family statement said. “We thank everyone who gave him care and support over this last year, and everyone who stood with him for so many years in his tireless march for progress toward justice.”
President Obama learned about Kennedy’s death at 2 a.m. Wednesday, according to a senior administration official. Obama later called Kennedy’s widow to offer condolences.
In a statement, Obama says: “An important chapter in our history has come to an end. Our country has lost a great leader, who picked up the torch of his fallen brothers and became the greatest United States Senator of our time.”
I saw this video on Fox Nation (which usually makes me skeptical). But, as I watched the video, I was a little puzzled by the exchange between Sen. Barbara Boxer and Harry C. Alford, president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce during an Environment and Public Works Committee (Boxer is the committee chair) hearing (this turned out to be probably the most exciting one of these committee meetings ever), according to a POLITICO article:
Boxer was speaking to panelist Harry C. Alford, the president & CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce.
They first started talking about where he lived, which led to Boxer telling him, “Let me talk to you, this is friendly.”
That didn’t last too long.
Boxer then quoted a NAACP resolution that passed and put it in the record.
ALFORD: “What does that mean?”
BOXER: “Sir, we’re going to put that in the record…” Alford: “What does that mean, though? The NAACP has a resolution, what does that mean?”
BOXER: “Sir, they could say the same thing about what do you mean…”
ALFORD: “I’ve got documentation.”
BOXER: “Sir, they passed it. They passed it. Now, also, if that isn’t interesting you to we’ll quote John Grant, who is the CEO of 100 Black Men of Atlanta.” [She goes on to read quote.]
ALFORD: “Madam Chair, that is condescending to me. I’m the National Black Chamber of Commerce and you’re trying to put up some other black group to pit against me.”
BOXER: “If this gentlemen were here he would be proud that he was being quoted.”
ALFORD: “He should have been invited!”
BOXER: “…just as he would be proud..” Alford: “It is condescending to me.”
BOXER: “…he’s proud, I’m sure, that I am quoting him.”
ALFORD: “All that’s condescending, and I don’t like it. It’s racial. I don’t like it. I take offense to it. As an African-American and a veteran of this country, I take offense to that!”
BOXER: “… offense at the fact that I would quote …?” Alford: “You’re quoting some other black man. Why don’t you quote some other Asian … or … you are being racial here. And I think you’re getting to a path here that’s going to explode.”
Boxer reviews what she had been doing and then mentions that “there is definitely differing opinions in the black community. Just as there are in my community.”
ALFORD: “You’re speaking on behalf of the black community?”
BOXER: “No. I am putting in the record a statement by the NAACP.”
ALFORD: “Why?”
BOXER: “Because I think it is quite relevant.”
ALFORD: “… Why are you doing the Colored People Association study with the Black Chamber of Commerce?”
BOXER: “I am trying to show the diversity of support that we have.”
ALFORD: “Diversity?”
BOXER: “And I will go ahead and do one more diversity of support…”
Eventually Alford declares, “We are referring to the experts regardless of their color. And for someone to tell me, an African-American, college-educated veteran of the United States Army that I must contend with some other black group and put aside everything else in here — this has nothing to do with the NAACP and really has nothing to do with the National Black Chamber of Commerce. We’re talking energy and that road the chair went down, I think, is god-awful.”
I guess I find it puzzling that she was emphasizing race as much as she was during this exchange. Some of it seemed out of context. I didn’t get her reason for emphasizing race and, based upon what I saw, Alford had a legitimate beef.
The Web site Big Hollywood has a blog from Chuck DeVore, who is running against Sen. Barbara Boxer in 2010. Now, some of you probably know where this is going already. As some of you also may recall, I was critical of Sen. Boxer for what seemed an arrogant lack of respect toward Brigadier General Michael Walsh this week during a hearing on Capitol Hill. While I think Sen. Boxer could have displayed a little more respect for the environment Gen. Walsh is coming from, I do draw the line with this blog below:
Barbara Boxer’s snippy confrontation with Brigadier General Michael Walsh on Capitol Hill on June 16, 2009 (Don’t call me “Ma’am,” call me “Senator”) wasn’t a display of a lack of proper military respect for Boxer, it was an open display of contempt from Boxer towards the people who serve in the military. That the Senator’s contempt was open and obvious shows Boxer’s lack of acting skills – most liberals have mastered the art of at least acting like they respect the men and women in the armed services.
That is a bunch of bull, and it’s sad when some of these conservatives come out and try so hard to portray some liberals as being against the military. Look, Sen. Boxer (in my opinion) made a bad choice with her words, but that is not indicative of “contempt from Boxer towards the people who serve in the military.” To make a comment like that makes you question the writer’s agenda.
Speaking of the writer’s possible agenda:
Here is DeVore’s bio from Big Hollywood:
Chuck DeVore is a California State Assemblyman and candidate for U.S. Senate in 2010. He retired from the Army National Guard at the rank of lieutenant colonel and served as a Reagan White House appointee in the Pentagon. He co-authored the novel China Attacks.
I think DeVore could have made his point without making such a blatantly outrageous comment about Sen. Boxer’s feelings for the military. To exploit the military for political gain is wrong.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, is falling for sexist stereotyping of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, President Obama’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. Think of how exceedingly rare it is for men to be criticized as having temperament problems. It’s something you here frequently with women because they are supposed to carry themselves in a more docile and less aggressive fashion. It’s a shame Graham is still living in the gender-role dark ages with this tired stereotype. Graham has been a part of a sizable group of right-wing people running down Judge Sotomayor. He has not trashed her as bad as other right wingers, but it’s safe to question his ability to fairly judge her. All of the criticisms of her are based mostly on out-of-context statements and smears from anonymous sources (talking about her temperament).
GRAHAM: I believe she does have the intellectual capacity, but there is a character problem, there is a temperament problem.
Some Republicans continue to reach hard to blow anything out of proportion to find a way to derail Judge Sotomayor’s candidacy for the U.S. Supreme Court. It’s a shame Sen. Graham seems incapable of judging her by what he has seen with his own eyes and heard with his own ears. Instead, it seems the senator is more interested in anything negative from her – regardless of the source or the motive of the source.
Right wingers are reaching because they have very little real ammunition to use against Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who has a strong record and is a worthy candidate to replace the retiring David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.
