Friday, November 14, 2008

leahy to lieberlips: screw... !!

Oh so nice to see some spine in the Dem Senate Caucus:
"I'm one who does not feel that somebody should be rewarded with a major chairmanship after doing what he did."
And while you're at it, Dem Senators, give your leader Mr. Reid a final squeeze out the aft chute too, eh?

----------
Update: Bernie Sanders to Lieberlips: Screw 2!

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, when it comes to whether the Dems put country or party first, they have made it abundantly clear where they stand.

CCG2

Anonymous said...

Read Sanders piece as well. Not surprising, considering that a central tenet of Sanders ideology is one-party rule.

It is because of people like Sanders that I not-so-jokingly affix the title 'Comrade' to Commander Guy Deux.

And in case the KG, er, NSA is listening . . .

Sanders for Central Committee!

Barking Up Trees said...

take the pharmaceutical du jour and calm the fuck down... and parroting the "country first" b.s. scores you no intellectual points -- zip, nada! -- unless of course your plan is to bring musolini down off the fence...

Anonymous said...

Well, you wanted one party rule. So why not have a "fascist" america where we get to run out liberals?

As for being intellectual, I wasn't trying, and besides, I thought that I was genetically incapable of that. Isn't it practically dogma in the liberal blogosphere that anyone that didn't vote for the Messiah is a racist, fascist, knuckle-dragging, sociopathic, misogynistic, mental midget? Ask spared, she'll confirm it.

Barking Up Trees said...

you like saying "one party rule" and attributing it to the dems... believe me, i don't like a corrupt dem any more than an honest repo (an oxymoron, of course, i'm just sayin')...

you do realize the repos will become a theocratic right-wing christianist party, and will, rightly so, become marginalized to permanent minority status... the corporate repos will either become dlc dems or libertarians...

meanwhile, on the other side, i predict the green party will find more splintered off progressives as a powerful dem party will be just as distateful as when newt/dubya, et al. ran the shindig...

a healthy development then... multiple parties... of course, a fascist state is just as likely given the oligarchy is already laying the groundwork...

it ain't the dems, bub, it's the corps...

get an ed... !

Anonymous said...

I got one, and it pays well, thank you.

Of course, this is one reason why Big Brother Obama is drawing down on me with the tax artillery. Got me in the crosshairs, he does, and the rest of the professional class.

Course, if he is successful in reducing that class, the rest of us can raise our rates to compensate.

I disagree that multiple parties will produce better government. In fact, I see it as potentially inefficient, and prone to making presidents into lame ducks overnight. One of this country's enduring strengths was that we did NOT have a parlimentary system with fragmented coalitions required to run things. Consider also that econ. issues care more weight, and you could have coalitions of social right DLC dems, or social right and greens because they agree on economics and have no diametrically opposed issues otherwise.

And if you are correct about the oligarchs, well, then they would have to control Obama and the dems, wouldn't they? How does that square with your support for the Messiah? Or was yours an ABaR vote?

Need more ed? I could get all tax wonk on your ass, if you want.

Barking Up Trees said...

you can't... remember, over a pitcher of brew-hahs at the bottom line... ? and i slipped you a $ when you were trying to make change... ? and i said you gotta find me if i got sent to gitmo... ? and you said "yes, i will"... !!

att'y/client privilege, baby... !!

they don't pay well defrocked lawyers, i don't supppose...