Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

“For Boehner, Rampage Imposes Its Own Agenda” [UPDATED]

Yes. The Tuscon “rampage” did that. Not Democrat and media attempts to tether the tragedy to talk radio and the TEA Party, this generation’s version of the “angry white males” who skulked about being all angry and white in the 90s.

— And which angry white males, incidentally, happened to rear their ugly, hate-filled heads — and were ubiquitous objects of media scrutiny and analysis — in the run-up to (and then after) the conservative takeover of the Congress.

What a strange coincidence, that!

****
update: And speaking of Sarah Palin (yes, we were), how dare she insert herself into the national story this way! ABC’s The Note:

BOTTOM LINE: Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story. And she may well face further criticism for the timing and scope of her remarks. She is already taking heat for her use of the term “blood libel” (see today’s Tweets).

Oh, do shut up.

Honestly. It’s like these people have convinced themselves we’re all as incapable of seeing through heavy-handed rhetoric as they are. Here’s a reminder, ABC: it wasn’t us who felt it move in our pants every time Obama stood before a teleprompter.

We know who you are and we know what you’re trying to do. Morons.

75 Replies to ““For Boehner, Rampage Imposes Its Own Agenda” [UPDATED]”

  1. happyfeet says:

    but at least Pelosi is on-message God bless her

    “Political disagreement and dissent must never violate our nation’s values as expressed in the Constitution for free expression of speech and peaceful assembly,” House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said, adding, “Gabby spoke to that right here from the floor last week.”*

  2. sdferr says:

    He also faces the challenge of holding on to the political initiative that the Republicans had won in the midterm elections.

    I got news for the New York Times: we’ll take care of that “political initiative” part on Boehner’s behalf, not to worry. We aren’t going anywhere but from victory in 2010 to victory in 2012. Don’t cry, New York Times. It’ll be alright.

  3. dnlchisholm says:

    Sometimes it’s hard to remember we’re all on the same team. That’s why http://mittromneycentral.com/2011/01/12/congressman-pence-introduces-bill-to-defund-planned-parenthood-of-taxpayer-dollars/ was so refreshing and timely. Before the race for 2012 officially starts, we should get as many people to read that wonderful piece as we can. Then, in 2012 we can bring America back!

  4. cranky-d says:

    Sarah Palin is supposed to just shut up while she gets blamed for causing the crazy guy to shoot people. Doesn’t she know her place? Damned chillbilly.

  5. happyfeet says:

    yes the 2010 elections sent a strong message about Life … the abortion issue is what Obama is most afraid of and Team R should hammer it home every chance they get

  6. Matt says:

    *It’s like these people have convinced themselves we’re all as incapable of seeing through heavy-handed rhetoric as they ar*

    Interesting point Jeff. I think its because 5-10 years ago, we weren’t getting the other side of it because the press was controlling the information. The internet has opened things up and allowed conservatives to both communicate with each other and communicate with the people. Before, people were reading papers and watching network news with just their families, in an echo chamber. Now, everything is out there and even my 75 year old mother can read blogs, ask questions and get involved. Palin’s response is exactly the kind of speech Maobama should be giving- unfortunately, he’s an incompetent douchebag trained in crisis management by Rahm Emmanuel and helping the country deal with this crisis is just not on his agenda.

    I’m actually very heartened by the manner in which the internet has helped conservatives connect and get their message out. I firmly believe the message is the strongest part of the conservative platform and the more people who actually hear it coming unfiltered through the lends of the MSM, the more will embrace it.

  7. JD says:

    Did the MFM just criticize Palin for responding to their vicious lies blaming her for the shootings in Arizona? They must have been studying Halperin.

  8. Never should have gone to the note… never should have gone to the note…

    Seriously, I’m in total sputtering disbelief.

    “You’re a jerk”

    “I’m not a jerk”

    “Hey, this isn’t all about you

  9. sdferr says:

    Sometimes it’s hard to remember we’re all on the same team.

    No it isn’t, at least when we are on the same team. No problem at all really.

  10. geoffb says:

    Spamming the intertubes, eh?

  11. JD says:

    I heard one clown say that Team R is being too defensive in their reaction, which shows they feel guilt. I guess this is how it should work. Fucking leftists makes dishonest fucking smear against Right, blaming Right for actions of an individual, and individual who is more likely left than right. the Right should not respond, other than to apologize that their mere existence causes the left to go into frothing rage, which is clearly the Right’s fault.

    In this incident, we have them asserting, in essence, that right wing violent speech caused a leftist to murder a conservative judge and a 9 year old girl. Apparently when the Right speaks, the Left feels com peeled to kill?! Tat is the standard they are trying to apply.

  12. Matt says:

    Pretty sure we’re not on the same team with much of the left. When the citizen next to me not only has the exact opposite goals I do but their goals involve depriving me of my chance to achieve my own goals, we are not on the same team.

  13. sdferr says:

    Democrats and others are watching to see whether Mr. Boehner issues a call to change the tone in the House.

    Change the tone from what? What it had been under the guidance of Nancy Pelosi? They shouldn’t have to be watching for that, taking it instead as a given.

    Or do they mean from what it would otherwise have become in the absence of events now writ into history? And what would that “otherwise” have been? Do they have any idea? No, probably not. So they’ll project fantasies of their imagining? That would be silly.

  14. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Patrick Dollard. Patrick Dollard said: RT @proteinwisdom: "For Boehner, Rampage Imposes Its Own Agenda" https://proteinwisdom.com/?p=24039 […]

  15. alppuccino says:

    Boehner should and will change the tone.
    I’m confident he’ll change it to something along the lines of:

    “Get your asses in here on time. Get ready to KILL the JOB-KILLING healthcare bill, and then get ready to get the economy-KILLING spending under control. But get here on time or be ready to have a bullseye on your back.”

    “Oh, and Nancy? Next time I see you, you’d better not use the makeup shotgun, and I’ll expect you to wipe off some of that perfume. You smell like the tampon disposal at a home for retired streetwalkers.”

    Better?

  16. Kevin says:

    “Sarah Palin, once again, has found a way to become part of the story.”

    Oh, it was SARAH who inserted herself into the story, not the liberal media pundits. I’m sure glad ABC explained that to me, because I was thinking it was the other way around. Thanks for clearing it up for me!

  17. speaking of heavy handed rhetoric… for your entertainment:

    “Sarah Palin and crew don’t like being blamed for the actions of an extremist, maybe they should ask Muslims for advice on how to deal with that.”

    friend o’ mine, I just responded that I wasn’t aware that protestant and or Republican beliefs called for killing the infidel.

  18. Ernst Schreiber says:

    maybe they should ask Muslims for advice on how to deal with that.”

    Wouldn’t do any good. Muslims have never had to deal with that particular problem, what with all their water-carriers eager to remind us not to make unfounded connections between Islam & Islamic extremism.

  19. Obstreperous Infidel says:

    Um, maybe because the metaphor was completely wrong. Dude wasn’t one of Sarah’s tribe.

  20. dicentra says:

    It’s encouraging that this time, there are few calls on the starboard side to “temper our language,” because this time its glaringly obvious that rhetoric did not and could not have provoked the massacre.

    Lots more people are aware that we absolutely CANNOT accept the left’s premise that vigorous political rhetoric incites violence, not just that rhetoric did not incite THIS violent event.

    Remember that there was tons more political violence in the 1950s-1970s, during the era of the Fairness Doctrine, before Rush, before Fox News, before all of that.

    And that since the growth of alternate media through talk radio, cable TV, and the internet, the incidence of political violence has NOT increased at all, especially not on the right.

  21. and yay! we have a slogan! somewhere there’s a nice whit and blue logo as well, but I haven’t been able to find it again.

  22. happyfeet says:

    A Native American blessing?

    For reals or is this a South Park episode?

  23. happyfeet says:

    hah maggie did you see in your first link? the only R is labeled bright and clear for so you’ll know

  24. omg, that’s sad. but, I’m not sure about Obama…. what was he again?

  25. Bob Reed says:

    ABC’s just repeating Halperin’s admonishion that conservatives just SHUT UP!, turn the other cheek, and let the Democrats and Obama ride the Tuscon shooting all the way back into the hearts of the public much like Billy Jeff did the Oklahoma city/McVeigh episode in the 90’s.

    Funny how that works, isn’t it? ABC repeating Halperin, regarding Obama repeating Clinton…

    Does anyone else sense a “mirrors within mirrors” kind of thing here?

  26. Pablo says:

    She is already taking heat for her use of the term “blood libel” (see today’s Tweets).

    From morons, of course.

    Dershowitz:

    The term “blood libel” has taken on a broad metaphorical meaning in public discourse. Although its historical origins were in theologically based false accusations against the Jews and the Jewish People,its current usage is far broader. I myself have used it to describe false accusations against the State of Israel by the Goldstone Report. There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim. The fact that two of the victims are Jewish is utterly irrelevant to the propriety of using this widely used term.

    From the “We wish she hadn’t said it, but it you retards deserve it” file, the ADL:

    It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder. Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks, and we agree with her that the best tradition in America is one of finding common ground despite our differences.

    Still, we wish that Palin had not invoked the phrase “blood-libel” in reference to the actions of journalists and pundits in placing blame for the shooting in Tucson on others. While the term “blood-libel” has become part of the English parlance to refer to someone being falsely accused, we wish that Palin had used another phrase, instead of one so fraught with pain in Jewish history.

    Yer crapping out, proggies.

  27. dicentra says:

    Allen Guelzo makes the case brilliantly here:

    By the time we had passed the 48-hour mark, the absence of any connections between Loughner and any co-dependents on the Right hung the accusers in midair, spinning their wheels like Wile E. Coyote. That, however, only signaled a shift from blaming conservatives to blaming a “climate” of opinion in which homicidal rampages are encouraged to happen spontaneously, like oily rags self-combusting. This “climate” turns out to have only one kind of weather, formed solely by the updraft of, as Packer phrased it, “conservative leaders, activists, and media figures” who “have made a habit of trying to delegitimize their political opponents.”

    The fundamental problem with this ornate political prurience is that assassination in American history has pretty regularly been the blessèd resort of the Left.
    ….
    [T]he rule of the Left is that nothing committed by the Left is a sin, whether it’s poisoning the political “climate” for the last forty years, or accusing “the Tea Party” and “the Right” of poisoning it when they strike back in kind. This is hypocrisy on a grand-mal scale. But what blinds the Left to this hypocrisy is the fundamental operating conviction of the Left that all governments are really about power, and that conservatives’ talk of liberty is either a dimwitted relic of the 18th century or else a camouflage for other brands of power; hence, when the Left turns on the acid hose, it is merely doing what the pursuit of power has shown can and must be done on behalf of progressive policies. Hypocrisy occurs only when conservatives try to pick up the hose themselves, since that betrays the Unbearable Secret of the Right, that conservatives are really interested only in power, too.

    When conservatives speak of liberty, what they should be speaking of is restraint — the self-restraint of the virtuous republican citizen who, like Washington, turns his back on the blandishments of power; the prudential restraint that spoke of ending a civil war with malice toward none and charity for all; the structural restraint of a Constitution that compels the components of government to occupy themselves with each other so that ordinary citizens may live a life unmolested by the powerful. That sense of restraint has not always governed conservative rhetoric.

  28. Pablo says:

    Oh, it was SARAH who inserted herself into the story, not the liberal media pundits.

    Right. When she didn’t say much, she was a coward with a guilty conscience. When she does, she’s an attention whore who should just shut up.

    Such is the progressive thought process. Objective first, rhetorical backfill later.

  29. JD says:

    Weren’t the same MFM fuckers asking where she was on this just yesterday?

  30. JHoward says:

    Such is the progressive thought process.

    It is foremost a willful and therefore untreated malady, Pablo, and not so much a thought process in the usual definition.

  31. bh says:

    I wonder if they’ll release a set of guidelines so that everyone on the right can be properly informed what is and isn’t acceptable.

    Does anyone doubt that it would not have included standard campaign language or “blood libel” a week ago?

    And that’s that, for me.

    They’ll decide it’s wrong — after the fact — because of the actor, not the action.

    Fuck them. As Jeff says, even the stupid party can’t be this stupid.

  32. bh says:

    Actually, that’s as I’d paraphrase what Jeff says.

  33. Bob Reed says:

    Speaking of campaign language, Charles the Kraut, oft-time RINO-non-grata here for his criticisms of O’Donnell after the primary had been decided, gets to the heart of the martial metaphors in politi-speak ( http://tiny.cc/DaKraut ):

    Finally, the charge that the metaphors used by Palin and others were inciting violence is ridiculous. Everyone uses warlike metaphors in describing politics. When Barack Obama said at a 2008 fundraiser in Philadelphia, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun,” he was hardly inciting violence.

    Why? Because fighting and warfare are the most routine of political metaphors. And for obvious reasons. Historically speaking, all democratic politics is a sublimation of the ancient route to power – military conquest. That’s why the language persists. That’s why we say without any self-consciousness such things as “battleground states” or “targeting” opponents. Indeed, the very word for an electoral contest – “campaign” – is an appropriation from warfare.

    Oh snap. He goes on to mention that few on the port side got the vapors when Rahm Emmanuel sent dead fish to folks, nor did he get accused of employing mafiosi approved tactics. But the explanation of martial metaphors is pretty good.

  34. Joe says:

    I would suggest these jerkoffs on the left (including the MSM) all be bitch slapped, but then I would be accused of hate speech, including but not limited to, misogyny, promoting violence, and promoting animal cruelty. Oh and racial bias, because they say bitch a lot in ethnic music.

  35. sdferr says:

    RINO-non-grata

    Oh no, that ain’t it, at least from my point of view. He stands accused not of being a Republican in name only, but of being a firmly establishment favoring sort, unwilling to see the rabble rock the boat for shits and giggles. ‘Course, what he thinks “shits and giggles”, we rabble think a serious reminder: You fucks work for us! Don’t forget.

  36. Bob Reed says:

    Thanks for the correction sdferr, I must have been having a “moment” when I wrote that :)

    The Kraut’s a Rethug!, establisment, sell-out shill, but definitely not a RINO; it seems to me that the two would be mutually exclusive.

  37. Slartibartfast says:

    I like Allen Guelzo. I’ve got one of those DVD history courses taught by him.

  38. newrouter says:

    Trent Humphries, the leader of the largest tea party group in this mourning southern Arizona city, has nothing but praise for the way President Obama has led the nation through the aftermath of Saturday’s mass shooting at a constituent event for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ). But Humphries won’t be there tonight when Obama speaks at a memorial rally intended to unify Tucson after six people were killed in the tragedy.

    Humphries says he’s been getting threats at his home from people who seem to hold him and his organization partially responsible for the shootings Saturday.

    Humphries told TPM he’s called the Sheriff’s department more than once in the past few days to make them aware of threatening phone calls.

    “We got a not-so-veiled threat,” Humprhies told me. “The Sheriff’s deputies told me to stay away from public places.”

    The Pima County Sheriff’s Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Humphries said the threats have coincided with Saturday’s shooting and began nearly right away.

    “We had people say, ‘too bad it wasn’t your family that was killed,’” Humphries told me. Other angry calls have come in as well. “‘The blood of that little girl on your hands,’” Humphries recalled one message saying.

    link

  39. bh says:

    “‘The blood of that little girl on your hands,’” Humphries recalled one message saying.

    Whatever you do, don’t call that blood libel a blood libel.

  40. Bob Reed says:

    Mr. Humphries is merely experiencing the loony left following O!’s long ago instructions to “get in people’s face!”…

    How terrible for a President to incite such violence amongst the populace…

    Why, I believe I’m getting the vapors over it even as I type.

  41. Bob Reed says:

    HTML FAIL!

    Effin proggs.

  42. sdferr says:

    Matt Welch reminds me of what I’d forgotten:

    The media wasn’t expecting a Malthusian crime spree, just as it wasn’t suspecting scruffy anarchist protesters to stomp on and break the leg of a Republican woman outside of a New Orleans fundraiser (note: I don’t know if they ever nabbed anyone in that almost totally ignored case; the point is that if there was an existing anarchists-attack-Republicans storyline and fear, it would have made national headlines long before any arrests).

    Go. Look at the photo. Remember?

  43. newrouter says:

    But a trip to the Uniform Crime Reports database of the FBI tells a different story. Forget the boosterish statistics reported by Dupnik on his taxpayer-financed website. Forget the media applause. They bear as much relation to reality — crime on the ground — as the deliberately altered statistics offered by climate researchers to prove global warming. Although the county has had reporting problems (the Sheriff is a remarkably sloppy administrator), the FBI has enough data to allow us to come to this conclusion: The citizens of Pima County are up to their necks in crime, especially when compared to neighboring Maricopa County. Thirty years of hyper-partisan Democrat-led law enforcement have resulted in the highest crime rates in Arizona. The citizen who lives in Pima County, compared to media-reviled Joe Arpaio’s territory just next door, will have almost three times the chance of being murdered; is more than seven times as likely to be raped; is more than six times as likely to be assaulted; and more than seven times as likely to have experienced a property crime such as burglary, arson or car theft.

    link

  44. Old Texas Turkey says:

    newrouter,

    That link to American Thinker is sweet. Super Sheriff Dickpik should learn about stones and glass houses.

  45. Alec Leamas says:

    I did a google search for Loughner and Giffords the other day and I think one of the video results is a video of shaggy guy claiming that Loghner’s mother Amy and Giffords belonged to the same Reform Synogogue. Further googling yeilded only hits from websites such as stormfront and the like.

    Does anybody know if there is a reputable source confirming this? I think it is at least relevant to show that Loughner and Giffords may well have interacted through their Synogogue where the obsession might have taken root, further exculpating all things right.

    Because it is relevant and exculpatory, I don’t think the MSM would be in a rush to present the tidbit to the public, further destroying the narrative, and at the same time the sources presenting the information seem to have their own nefarious objectives and incentive to lie/shade the truth.

  46. Spiny Norman says:

    Allen Guelzo makes the case brilliantly

    Of course, the usual partisan idiots claim he has no idea what he’s talking about…

    As is always the case in the shiny new comments section at NRO. Did they only let Kossacks register to comment there? WTF?

  47. Spiny Norman says:

    Thirty years of hyper-partisan Democrat-led law enforcement have resulted in the highest crime rates in Arizona. The citizen who lives in Pima County, compared to media-reviled Joe Arpaio’s territory just next door, will have almost three times the chance of being murdered; is more than seven times as likely to be raped; is more than six times as likely to be assaulted; and more than seven times as likely to have experienced a property crime such as burglary, arson or car theft.

    I’m shocked! SHOCKED, I SAY!!!

    O_O

    Not.

  48. Stephanie says:

    That’s Arpaio’s fault. If he hadn’t been such a republican law and order heartless cowboy, all those criminals wouldn’t have moved to Pima County to conduct their crimes. His criminals moved into Sheriff Dopenik’s county and he needs to be held accountable for that.

  49. Spiny Norman says:

    Ooh, Stephanie has the Democrat talking points nailed.

    If that issue ever comes up in the “national discussion” about this issue, you can bet Dupnik or his spokeshole will say much the same thing.

  50. Stephanie says:

    “She should have offered prayers and compassion for the victims and let it go at that,” said GOP strategist Ed Rollins. “This is not about her. A short statement would have been better than a video.”

    “She would have done much better if she had just ridden above all the nonsense and the politics of the shooting, including all the references of her map.” said Ari Fleischer. “She could have, and should have, set a different tone entirely.”

    I haven’t found the links (quotes were posted at Althouse’s), but evidently the establishment republicans are joining the witch hunt. Bastids.

  51. happyfeet says:

    told you they’d underbus her but no one listened

  52. sdferr says:

    Ed Rollins. Oy, have we ever missed him.

    Guess it’s because he works for CNN, huh?

    /sarc off

  53. Makewi says:

    Ari Fleischer learned good that the proper tone is to beg the liberals for forgiveness by pointing out how wrong, wrong, wrong the actions of the GOP are.

    I really want to know what other stalwart members of the party like Andrew Sullivan and David Brooks have to say.

  54. Stephanie says:

    told you they’d underbus her but no one listened

    They’ve been trying to underbus her since she was nominated. I mean seriously. She’s just not their kind. Truth is the tea party isn’t really their kind either. That they would rather the soul of the country be lost than to associate with “one of them…”

    Sheesh. Some days you wonder who really fought for civil rights.

    Bus meet immovable object. I don’t think the bus will survive.

  55. Pablo says:

    “She should have offered prayers and compassion for the victims and let it go at that,” said GOP strategist Ed Rollins. “This is not about her. A short statement would have been better than a video.”

    Hey, Ed!

    My sincere condolences are offered to the family of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the other victims of today’s tragic shooting in Arizona.

    On behalf of Todd and my family, we all pray for the victims and their families, and for peace and justice.

    – Sarah Palin

    You don’t watch the news, do you, Ed?

  56. bh says:

    Hey, it’s not like Ed Rollins is attached to a politician considered an obvious opponent in ’12.

    Wonder if that was mentioned?

  57. Bob Reed says:

    How could Rollins go from working for a guy like Reagan to “The incredible Huck”?

    As far as he and Fleischer’s pronouncements? Well, opinions are like assholes, and so too, amazingly, are these men acting by joining the Palin pile-on party.

  58. happyfeet says:

    David Brock is challenging Sarah to a debate… a peaceful debate

    Promoting anti-government extremism is your business. Without it you are nothing. And you know it.

    Instead of posting videos in the dark of night, I challenge you to have the peaceful debate you say you want – with me – at the time and place and in the venue of your choosing.

    Governor Palin, at this time of national mourning, you owe the American people a more honest explanation of your words and actions than the one you issued today.

    Maybe then you could stop dwelling over your own PR troubles and join me in trying to prevent such a tragedy like this from ever happening again.

    I bet she doesn’t accept

  59. newrouter says:

    “Instead of posting videos in the dark of night”

    didn’t stop him from finding it

  60. bh says:

    Wasn’t Brooks taken in by a rather famous, PR-obsessed charlatan quite recently? If he feels this way about Palin, fine. Bully for him. But he should at least be cognizant of the fact that we all now know empirically that he’s not smart enough to discern such things.

    This transparent conceit of his is rather entertaining though, in its own way.

  61. bh says:

    That was an incredibly dumb comment I just posted.

    David Brock is not David Brooks.

    (Didn’t click the link obviously.)

  62. bh says:

    … or is he?

  63. JD says:

    David Brock is a steaming pile of cow dung. He is all pissed because someone defended themselves from the smears he and is were telling? Fuck you.

  64. Abe Froman says:

    The funny thing about Brock is that when there were relatively few conservative outlets and the internet was in its infancy, a lot of otherwise sensible people were taken in by the cum dribbling off of his chin. Most people wised up. But the left will always welcome a scuzzy whore.

  65. Bob Reed says:

    I bet she doesn’t accept.

    I detect a perjorative tone here. Why should she punch down happyfeet? Especially with an odious propaandist like Brock?

  66. happyfeet says:

    no perjorative tone I just bet she doesn’t take him up on it

  67. Abe Froman says:

    Sure happyfeet.

  68. Bob Reed says:

    OK, an I agree with you anyway; I don’t think she should elevate his status by doing so anyway.

  69. Dave in SoCal says:

    I bet she doesn’t accept

    Well if it’s a peaceful debate, then of course she won’t accept. She can’t. Don’t you know that the Snowbilly is hardwired to the “KILL ‘EM ALL” position? That’s why she couldn’t help but put crosshairs over the districts of all those weak, tree-huggin’, peace-lovin’ Democrats.

    I think it’s from all the blood from moose and innocent children that she’s soaked herself in over the years.

  70. happyfeet says:

    also I that’s a big lie what the Brockster says about this being a time of national mourning – that’s just bullshit. National mourning was when Heath Ledger died or Princess Diana or 9/11 or the Space Shuttle or the Free Willy whale. This doesn’t rise to that level. It’s mostly a rubbernecking freak show from what I can tell.

  71. Swen says:

    Re: newrouter @ 46, funny you should mention the crime rate in Pima County. We spent a month in Tucson a couple winters ago and thought we might do a little hiking in some of the BLM backcountry areas around town. Seeking further info from the BLM on those areas we were warned not to go there under any circumstances because they were overrun by drug smugglers and human traffickers. They knew they had a problem but rather than do anything the feds and the county sheriff had apparently ceded control of huge swaths of public land around Tucson to criminal activity.

  72. Slartibartfast says:

    how dare she insert herselfallow herself to be dragged into the national story this way

    Fixed.

    But you already knew that.

    The thing that gets me is that Sarah Palin would, in all likelihood, be much less influential in this country if people who didn’t care for her opinions simply ignored her. By making her the focus of attention, they’re making her the focus of attention. Things that have no relevance to Sarah Palin are, with no effort at all on the part of Ms. Palin, rolled in Palin musk.

    Stupid fucking idiots. It’s like the coconut monkey trap, only these are the people who are convinced that they’re the smart ones.

    I don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Comments are closed.