1 ace,

Not even the guy who claims Drew M. thinks that giving blow jobs is the way to win elections is claiming that what Barton actually said is superior to what you have been saying he should have said.

2 So, who are the Republican Congresscritters that are on the committee that grilled the BPS execs?

Just so we can ask them why they didn't ask the kind of questions that Ace just posted?

3 That's not the story! The story is that DrewM. told us all that Barton was verboten! And we trusted in DrewM., for He is our Lord, and He is our Savior! LET US NOT REWRITE THE PAST, LET US CONDEMN IT, FOR THEREIN LIES THE PATH TO TRUE ACCEPTANCE BY THE OTHERS. Words to live by, my friends!

4 Oh, and now I've summoned said fellatio-obsessed nitwit to the new thread.

Sorry about that.

5 And I've answered my own dumb question.

6 who is this guy?

7 I have to admit I have gone from thinking barton's basic point was not really all that interesting to agreeing with the purists that it is important, and worth doing something about. However: I have to tell you, look at the reaction of drew, me, etc., a lot of people, who were instantly turned off by this statement. So much so it took me hours to realize there was something interesting here at all. All I can say is: And hey, I'm a member of his party. I do not want to see a party that is supposed to be about the middle class and business turning into nothing but a goddamn suckup squad to big corporations. Got nothing against 'em. Also not looking to do them big favors, either.

8 I don't know, but he really likes Drew.

9 Who is who, the Balrog? He's a big monster. From Morgoth.

Raaaaar! Raaar! You know.

10 It's not for us to quibble about the specifics, it's for us to denounce the HATE SCUM FEAR of Republicans who cannot GET IN LINE. Otherwise we cannot win in November! And it's ALL ABOUT THE HEALTH CARE BILL! And terrorism, let's not forget. Oh, and defense spending. And drilling for oil in Des Moines. BUT NO MORE BIG GOVERNMENT!

11 Someone got into the crazy juice.

12 I do not want to see a party that is supposed to be about the middle class and business turning into nothing but a goddamn suckup squad to big corporations.

Got nothing against 'em. Also not looking to do them big favors, either.
Posted by: ace at June 18, 2010 02:48 AM (66DVY)

I admit I get a little reactionary on this subject, because it's horse-hockey (as a partisan issue). As the Dems recently pushed their Wall Street bailout, they characterized Republican opposition as sucking up to big money/corps/yadda.

The Press Corps played along, and while the commentariat did argue a little, it was another case of Short Attention Span Theater.

Maybe calling BS on that doesn't work, maybe it does. Someone will have to make a concerted effort to find out, and no one is interested.

And there's the "we eat our own" principle, I think that sets people off, too.

13 I heart you Ace. Almost as much as I heart DrewM's blowjobs.

14 Lolcano is trying to use sarcasm to make some stupid point or another, but can't seem to pull it off.

15 Ace = the Jonah Hill of blogging.

16 Again, good questions...to bad he did not have a chance to ask them after his opening statement.

Since the Republican "leadership" threatened to remove him from the committee if he did not shut up about shakedowns.

Weak and pathetic behavior by the Rs.

[Barton] complained that “the attorney general of the United States, who is legitimately conducting a criminal investigation and has every right to do so to protect the interests of the American people, [is] participating in what amounts to a $20 billion slush fund that’s unprecedented in our nation’s history, that’s got no legal standing, and which sets, I think, a terrible precedent for the future.”

“I apologize,” Barton added. “I do not want to live in a country where any time a citizen or a corporation does something that is legitimately wrong is subject to some sort of political pressure that is — again, in my words, amounts to a shakedown. So I apologize.”

“I’m speaking now totally for myself,” he noted. “I’m not speaking for the Republican Party.”

17 Yeah pam too bad he wasn't smart enough to not say "I apologize." 

18 I will only allow one more comment on this subject and the crap from yesterday. There is a tendency for some on here to post "flame-war" type comments ANY they disagree.  That is what I find troubling.

When we perform personal attacks in a red on red manner because of a disagreement, that is bad and we need to discourage that kind of behavior. There only a few people who do this and it needs to be pointed out to them as "error".

We can disagree on strategy or "purity of essence" but we don't have to personally attack the people we disagree with. Explain your disagreement and support it with logic, not flames.

19 Well, he obviously was apologizing for the President of the United States behaving like a 3rd world dictator.

There is no way to construe what he said as absolving BP of their negligence. They are DEAD and everyone knows it.

And no amount of leftwing propaganda or a sissified GOP, will change his actual words....

And thank goodness someone told the world that no company answerable to their shareholders or investors will risk capital in a country which has abandoned the rule of law.

20

There is no way to construe what he said as absolving BP of their negligence

I didn't say it did.

21 I agree with Vic @ 23.  If someone disagrees with you, it's not because they're a TRAITOROUS COMMIE ASSHOLE.  (Trolls excluded.)

22 Good to hear....facts do tend to move the ball.

23 Well, Ace, those are great questions, but everyone knows that it would only be in a very strange alternate reality where a guy like Tony Heyward would actually answer the questions truthfully - instead, in our reality, he would give the "correct" answer or say "I don't know".

24 28 Well, Ace, those are great questions, but everyone knows that it would only be in a very strange alternate reality where a guy like Tony Heyward would actually answer the questions truthfully - instead, in our reality, he would give the "correct" answer or say "I don't know".

Posted by: chemjeff at June 18, 2010 04:07 AM (Gk/wA)

Yeah but wasn't he in the meeting the day before with Obama.  A lot of the questions pertain to that.  He can't get away with saying "I don't know" if he was involved in the dealings the day before.

25 Since we aren't going to reach some kind of complete consensus on this issue, the question should know be how do we move forward. I believe re-framing the debate would be most helpful for the GOP.

26 LOL, that post above is missing several words. I hope everyone understands what I meant.

This is what happens when you get up and start posting before coffee has taken effect.

27

But Ace, here's the thing.  If Barton had asked those (excellent, well thought out) questions, everyone, and I mean everyone, would have completely ignored him.  None of us would have heard about it.  At all.  Well, maybe the 32 people watching C-Span?  Maybe not even them?

You yourself said, it's a political scandal that gets people's attention.  Well, guess what?  Barton's "I apologize" was enough to get *everyone's* attention.  You may think that wasn't worth it.  I think that's a judgment call, and I disagree, because the point Barton made *really needed* to be made and in a way that *everyone* who isn't in an echo chamber hears it.

28 I'll add this:  they weren't going to give any answers to any of those questions that helps us in any way that Joe Biden hasn't already given us.

29

Oddly enough, even the comment crowd @ the Washington Post this AM is sticking up for Barton - and expressing a good deal of concern about the shakedown & it's implications.

Frankly, I'm surprised & somewhat pleased to see so many on the far, far left "get" what Drew missed.

There may be hope yet!

30 Since we aren't going to reach some kind of complete consensus on this issue, the question should now be how do we move forward. I believe re-framing the debate would be most helpful for the GOP. Posted by: Miss'80sBaby

Even if we can all agree that Joe Barton deserves death, and that saying anything regarding the rule of law where BP is concerned is anathema, it still begs the question that I asked Drew, which he ignored.

He claims that he was bothered by Bartons' statements, since our prize is November, and that we have to win.

Who here believe that this leadership would actually push to win, and if they managed to win, would they really move against Obamacare? I believe that the leaderships' actions are telling as to how they can be expected to act the first time someone shoves the specter of a legion of uninsured illegal immigrant in desperate search of late term abortions before them.

31 There are a lot of those type of questions that need to be asked of many players, but the corruption is so deep that even if they were asked and answered, they wouldn't get reported. Where are the Coast Guard, MMS, and DoI officials that set all this up and continue to obstruct the cleanup process? Welcome to the next generation of America--Constitution light!

32 Every once in a great while you are brilliant, moron. 

33

The point is not whether Barton could have spoken more eloquently.

The point is whether we support those who have the nuts to speak on our behalf.

Most of us agree with "shakedown" characterization, but the apology was ackward.

So, do we now throw Barton under the bus?  And what effect will that have on other party stalwarts--Bachmann, Pence, and S. King?

Could we not have our leaders attack the democrats by comparing Barton's words to NC Rep. Esteridge's actions?  Or tax cheat Rangel?  Or mention that attacking Barton's sentiments does not plug a well?

Democrats say dumb things and act criminally all the time.  I do not see them throwing their members under the bus with such relish.

If we on our side have to carefully monitor our words to the point that we are afraid to say anything, then we lose.  We will be playing in the Democrat's sandbox and they will structure the rules so they win.

The Democrats are looting the private sector and government to boot.  And our Rep. leaders get their panties in a wad over an apology?

I agree with M. Levin.  If our leaders don't exhibit more spine, they will never have the nerve to repeal healthcare.

34 What bothers me much more than anything that Barton did is that we now have a precedent of the executive branch strong-arming a private company into paying the executive branch a huge sum of money over an accident.

Republican should be screaming loudly about this regardless of what BP has done. You do not have to defend BP in order to attack this action. It is unconstitutional and it is illegal. 

But let's spend more time and angst worrying about what the press is going to say.

After all; "Only McCain can beat Hillary".

35

The argument for condemining Barton, and so much else, seems to basically boil down to:  Ace, Drew, and a bunch of others simply think that conservatism isn't popular, never will be, and we therefore cannot win unless we "moderate" and that generally means playing by the MSM's rulebook and letting them frame every debate.

You know, once upon a time, socialism wasn't popular and few ever thought it would be.  Gotta hand it to the socialists, that didn't stop them from *always* circling the wagons and *always* pushing their agenda and *never* apologizing for anything.  Seems to have worked for them.

36 24 Well, Ace, those are great questions, but everyone knows that it would only be in a very strange alternate reality where a guy like Tony Heyward would actually answer the questions truthfully - instead, in our reality, he would give the "correct" answer or say "I don't know".

Posted by: chemjeff at June 18, 2010 04:07 AM (Gk/wA)

This was my first thought as well. If they did get extorted because they were afraid of retaliation by the Precedent, then why would that fear not extend to answering questions which makes the guy threatening them mad?

They won't answer anything truthfully, or even if they do, you can't tell whether it's the truth or not because of the circumstances.

37 Wait a minute. I thought Barton didn't actually apologize TO BP and that DrewM was a liar and Teh Stoopid.

So now, the Received Wisdom is that "his apology was no big deal and Drew and Ace are squishy RINO pussies" who want to let the MSM decide the truth?

Is that where we are, now? Okay, awesome, let's roll.

Just one thing before we go - could someone post a link to the thread where we apologized for accusing others of Intellectual Dishonesty and Lying for daring to suggest that Barton actually DID apologize TO BP? I wouldn't want us to Revel In Our Stupidity, after all.

Oh, we're skipping that step? Ok, cool.

38 Wait a minute. I thought Barton didn't actually apologize TO BP and that DrewM was a liar and Teh Stoopid.

So now, the Received Wisdom is that "his apology was no big deal and Drew and Ace are squishy RINO pussies" who want to let the MSM decide the truth?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 18, 2010 09:26 AM (+iEF+)

My understanding was that Barton apologized to BP for the fact that part of the US government was abrogating the rule of law. Further, the central theme of his comments was that he believed BP to be responsible for the damage the Gulf had suffered. Moreover, his comments (with the exception of the apology) were very similar to those of Rep Price (R-GA) and James Carville (Dem strategist). Also, their comments appear to me to be corroborated by the boasting of Joe Biden (VP).

 

My question remains unanswered. Does anyone here believe that the GOP leadership we saw in 'action' yesterday will actually tackle Obamacare? If so, why?

39 That wasn't the point of Drew's initial post. His point was that politically, Barton stepped on his dick while wearing golf cleats and the comments ranged from "He did NOT apologize TO BP you fucking LIAR!" to "Drew and Ace are a couple of pussies who advocate the government clubbing civilians over the head with a sock full of nickels and stealing their wallets!"

So, later, after Barton admits that YES, I DID apologize TO BP, everyone who was foaming at the mouth suddenly has fucking amnesia.

There is an annoying tendency for commenters at this site to fly into a Retard Berserker Rage at any perceived sign of deviating from The True Path complete with accusations of lying and sleeping with the enemy.

If that doesn't describe what you did yesterday, ignore it. If it does, man the fuck up.

Yeah, like that's ever going to happen.

40 Ace, I'm glad that you now do see what is so offensive about the shakedown and why its important. I am also glad to that you are making your point that Barton screwed up even worse than we thought by not actually pursuing anything but instead name-calling and making the story about him and not what happened in that meeting.

41 Would somebody explain to me what the hell is going on here?  I didn't read all the comments on the Drew post, I don't know who flamed who, and I can't quite figure where Ace is on all this. 

Someone tidy this up for us who only graze here rather than sleep in the barn at night.

42 Polynikes,

In general, I tend to agree with you. Do you know what Barton's REAL sin was? He gave the left a chance to break the momentum.

Obama and the Democrats have been fucking things up quite nicely without any help. Now Barton comes along and hands them an opportunity to paint Republicans as defending the most hated company on the planet (besides Apple). He apologized TO BP. It was worse than inartful. It was stupid and amateurish.

It doesn't matter what his intent was. It matter what he SAID. And the administration is using what he SAID to take the heat off themselves and put it onto the right.

That was the point of Drew's post, but the fucking Forces of Righteousness here have to swoop in with accusations of "Liar! He wasn't apologizing TO BP!"

Like I said, ignore it if that's not you. If it is, Sacred Honor compels me to rub your nose in the shit you took on this blog yesterday.

43

Facts change mind. Facts.

Among the literate.  Elections are decided by the illiterate, the 20% of the population who are clueless fucks who vote based on feelings, emotions, the national zeitgeist.  You win elections by appealing to these folks with such fact filled campaign promises as "hope and change".  You lose elections by being perceived to be on the side of BP or against the Civil Rights Act.

44 -->Polynikes,

-->In general, I tend to agree with you. Do you know what Barton's REAL sin was? He gave the left a chance to break the momentum.

-->Obama and the Democrats have been fucking things up quite nicely without any help. Now Barton comes along and hands them an opportunity to paint Republicans as defending the most hated company on the planet (besides Apple). He apologized TO BP. It was worse than inartful. It was stupid and amateurish.

That's not true. It wasn't the left who jumped all over Barton. Quite the opposite. The reaction to Barton, in the hearing, was for an idiot dem to spend his time begging Hayward to agree that what The Precedent did wasn't a shakedown, using the word "shakedown" over and over, and that the $20 billion didn't constitute a slush fund. That was game over, there. But it was people on the right throwing hissy fits and the GOP leadership threatening Barton's positions that killed momentum and allowed the despicable, lying scumbag dems off the hook. Had the GOP stuck up for Barton, or even just ignored it (as they did with all the truly bad and stupid things that GOP Congresscritters have been doing - like Cao's vote for health scare, Grahamnesty's vote to let the empathetic Latina out of committee, Grahamnesty's collusion with the Indonesian's junta to fuck America over on Shamnesty II and Crap&Trade, ... and those were all wrong positions, as opposed to Barton's correct position) then all the left would have is trying to scream that the slush fund wasn't a sluch fund and that the shakedown wasn't a shakedown. But nooooo.

-->It doesn't matter what his intent was. It matter what he SAID. And the administration is using what he SAID to take the heat off themselves and put it onto the right.

What he said was fine and correct, just as Joe Wilson's "You lie!" was fine and correct and NEEDED. I'm glad that everyone's determined that BP was totally responsible, even though we have no idea what really happened and caused the whole disaster. We don't even know how much oil is coming out of the fucking pipe.  And the bulk of the disaster was not due to the spill, itself, but to the intentionally screwed up containment/clean-up, which was the federal government's responsibility, and whihc they claimed over and over ("boot on the neck", ...).

-->That was the point of Drew's post, but the fucking Forces of Righteousness here have to swoop in with accusations of "Liar! He wasn't apologizing TO BP!"

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 18, 2010 10:10 AM (+iEF+)

Drew was wrong. And he moved from initially saying that he was only opposed to the "apology" to crowing about Barton having to be forced down on the "shakedown", too. Great. Really.

45

So, later, after Barton admits that YES, I DID apologize TO BP, everyone who was foaming at the mouth suddenly has fucking amnesia.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 18, 2010 09:55 AM (+iEF+)

Barton also apologized for having called it a "shakedown" - i.e. he "admitted" that it wasn't a shakedown.  Do you believe that it wasn't a shakedown and that Barton didn't (and doesn't) think it was?  We all know it was a shakedown and that Barton was just saying what he was forced to say.

You are fairly selective in your "analysis".

46 Way to ignore the world that exists past the end of your own nose, PoP.

Forces of Righteousness... ASSEMBLE!

47 Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 18, 2010 10:47 AM (fyuBZ)

Quite the substantive response, Jeff.  About what I expected.

48 Way to ignore the world that exists past the end of your own nose, PoP.

Forces of Righteousness... ASSEMBLE!

Posted by: Empire of J

 

Cute. It ignores what was said, and continues to distort the reason for the disagreement. Are you whining about the world now, or the thrust of Drew's arguments and the responses of peole who dared disagree? I was one of the ones who noted that Barton apologized. I was also one of the ones that diagreed with the impact, for two reasons.

First: What has said was correct, but probably tactically unwise. It was not a game changer, unless we allow it.

Second: If the media is half as potent and craven as both Drew and I believe it to be, then it wouldn't matter whether Barton said it, didn't say it, or keeled over from a heart attack. They would have invented something.  Fun new headline: "Republicans stand mute, or Republican questions were mild and collegial compared to Dems seeking answers"

 

49 Doesn't matter what Barton meant by "shakedown." What matters is that in the context of APOLOGIZING TO BP, he came across as defending the poor oil company, even though they shit on one third of our entire coastline, against the depredations of mean 'ol Uncle Sam.

So I stand by my analysis of "Way to ignore the world that exists past the end of your nose, PoP."

It's not that you're too stupid to see my point, it's that your self-worth is so heavily invested in being RIGHT all the time that your attitude is safety-wired to the asshole position.

I don't know why they banned you from Hot Air. With your people skills, they should have made you a co-blogger.

50 @ 54,

I commend you for your bravery in "daring to disagree" with the author of a blog post. I realize that it was very dangerous, seeing as how commenters get banned left and right on this blog for not sucking off The Master.

Continue to glaze over the ginormous shit a lot of people took here yesterday - you were RIGHT, damnit! How frustrated you must be that not everyone agrees with you.

51 Barton's statement could have been dealt with in thirty seconds-"I don't agree with it but the issues he raised about the shakedown are certainly legitimate.  Let's see the notes from the meeting so we know what was discussed.  This Administration has a habit of using money in ways that aren't intended.  Oh, by the way, the Administration is still blocking Governor Jindal from using oil skimmers".  Not that tough but beyond the reach of the current R leadership.

52

-->Doesn't matter what Barton meant by "shakedown."

It certainly does matter. The intentional destruction of our Constitution is the point. Don't you get that? And my point in talking about the "shakedown" part of Barton's forced apology was to show that Barton was just saying what he was forced to say (coerced, I guess is a better way of putting it). Your claim that "He admitted that he apologized to BP" (which I don't care about one way or another) rests on the factual nature of his coerced apology, and the shakedown part is to easily show that none of what he said at that can be taken seriously. He said what he was forced to say.

-->What matters is that in the context of APOLOGIZING TO BP, he came across as defending the poor oil company, even though they shit on one third of our entire coastline, against the depredations of mean 'ol Uncle Sam.

So, you know that this is all BP's fault? How do you know that? Did some report come out about the cause of the whole disaster? I haven't seen it. But, you know. BP is totally guilty. Okay. And you have skipped over my point that the most damage is being done by the intentional screw up of the containment/clean-up, which is a federal responsibility and which the federal government kept claiming they are in full control over.

-->I don't know why they banned you from Hot Air. With your people skills, they should have made you a co-blogger.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 18, 2010 11:09 AM (fyuBZ)

They banned me because I wrote, "IÂ’d be happy to see him shipped out and sent back to live the rest of his years out in Viet Nam," after he had cast a treasonous vote FOR the health scare monstrosity. Cao, of course, just distinguished himself, again, in the oil hearings by citing Asian culture and telling oil execs to go kill themselves. So ... saying that I'd like to see a retarded traitor sent back to the country that every single article ever written about him must mention he came from is too much, but that same dipshit, citing Asian culture (not American culture, mind you) and then calling for the suicide of CEOs (in Congress, not on a blog, mind you) is just fine.  But, politically correct idiocy, as allah practiced, always ends up like this. 

And I have not seen any "conservatives" or the GOP leadership coming down on Cao for what he said - which was just plain wrong, in every possible way. Drew didn't seem to mind Cao's idiocy, either. I don't recall a thread about how Cao's idiocy will harm the GOP or the interests of America.  But, then, I forgot that you guys have already decided that everything is BP's fault (even though they operated under strict regulation) and The Precedent using the disaster to further crush the Constitution is not worth mentioning.  Shhhh.

53 Good name for a new blog: BigFacts.com

54

Did Joe Wilson ever apologize for calling Obama a liar? 

Disappointed here that Joe Barton apologized.  Some politicians don't have any balls.

BTW, of all people to have mused that Hayward and other executives of B-P should commit hari kari, it was that spineless and traitorous, little weasel, Anh "Joseph" Cao; a RINO who supported and voted for Obama's healthcare legislation. What is wrong with that picture?

_{(Never mind that he is a bullshit artist. Inasmuch as he is Vietnamese and not Japanese, hari kari was not part of his culture. Vietnamese are like Democrats. When they fuck up, they blame someone else, and they have no honor.)}

55

All non-liberal politicians need to remember that what they say and how they say it will be dissimilated by a liberal media. the core of what Barton had to say was spot on.The way he delivered the message and some of the words used gave the MFM enough ammo to totally obscure the actual meat and bones of the statement.

Now the Obamazombies have their talking points on the subject.You know that it will be parroted from N.H. to AK. and all points in between.

56 Hey, I actually agree with you - Cao IS an idiot. Either he thinks that the samurai really were from Vietnam, or that everyone thinks that "Asian" is a race.

Why does he deserve a post, though? Known Idiotic RINO Squish Says Something Idiotic is not news. It's Dog Bites Man.

Usually Reliable Conservative Congressman Fucks Up is a news story. Maybe Drew lumps Cao in with the Maine Sisters and doesn't find him interesting, I dunno - ask him.

The issue is what it is, it isn't what YOU want it to be. And that's what your problem seems to be: you're pissed off about the reaction to what Barton actually said, rather than what YOU think he meant. That's what we have to deal with - the issue that presented itself, not what you think the argument should REALLY be about.

"Drew doesn't seem to mind... You guys have already decided..."

Passing off your butthurt assertions of political impurity is not effective argumentation. I'm not one to tell anyone to what to do. But let me suggest that you consider that in accordance with human nature, not every criticism of Obama will actually help our side, if you fuck up the delivery. And that listeners will interpret what they hear without first consulting their "What Would Progressoverpeace Think?" bracelets. I know that's unreasonable, but that's how I roll.

57

I commend you for your bravery in "daring to disagree" with the author of a blog post. I realize that it was very dangerous, seeing as how commenters get banned left and right on this blog for not sucking off The Master.

Continue to glaze over the ginormous shit a lot of people took here yesterday - you were RIGHT, damnit! How frustrated you must be that not everyone agrees with you.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff

Once again, it's far easier to dismiss dissenting opinions than to address them. Drew stated that his opposition to Bartons' statements was because it was a diversion from the 'prize' of November. My question was then and still is now, after seeing the GOP leadership in action, do we believe that this same leadership will actually tackle Obamacare? If so, why?

As for your complaint about people being frustrated when they get less than unanimous agreement on this subject, see this example below.

By the way, since I apparently am required to say this, what Barton said was 100% right, and we absolutely must stand behind this stalwart, and it's pure communism if we don't.

And BP's awesome too. I think we should run on the plank that whatever BP did here they should keep on doin'.

Posted by Ace at 04:47 PM   Have fun condemning this.

58 Have fun condemning this?

I'm guessing your skull gives you +10 protection against Sarcasm.

Who was talking about YOUR question? Again, the issue is about the news that presents itself (Barton's apology to BP), not what YOU want it to be. Did Barton's apology to BP have the potential to break or slow GOP momentum gained by Obama's mishandling of the spill?

YES. It doesn't matter if it's a manufactured scandal - you don't give the Democrats the raw material to build it.

That's what Barton did. That was the point. And now, instead of acknowledging that yes, fucking up the GOP's chances of regaining a majority is a potential negative, even though I don't think that's what will happen, you've gone with, "Well, they won't repeal Obamacare anyway because they're pussies."

You're like Randy Quaid's character in Major League 2 - no matter how many games the Indian won, "Doesn't matter - they'll just blow it in the Series!"

59

Drew was wrong. And he moved from initially saying that he was only opposed to the "apology" to crowing about Barton having to be forced down on the "shakedown", too. Great. Really.

Posted by: progressoverpeace at June 18, 2010 10:39 AM (Qp4DT)

Um, would you prefer that Drew had only reported on Barton taking back the apology to BP?  And completely ignore the shakedown retraction that took place in the same story?  He wasn't crowing about that retraction.  Go read his post, the only thing he said about the shakedown was that he also walked that back.  You sound like he was gloating about Barton taking everything back. 

60 Posted by: buzzion at June 18, 2010 12:50 PM (oVQFe)

Drew went into detail about how he no longer thought the shakedown was bad.  Here are his quotes:
--------------------------------------------------------------

And in your opinion the story is really about how horrible it is the President succeeded in getting money to effected Americans sooner than they otherwise would have if they had to spend years in court.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 17, 2010 07:50 PM (X/Lqh)

and

The escrow fund and how it came about is not popular on in conservative blog comment sections. It will be also overwhelmingly popular with the general public.

Posted by: DrewM. at June 17, 2010 08:01 PM (X/Lqh)
-------------------------------------------------------
I took those as expressing support for the shakedown (since Drew seemed to be under the impression that it was what people wanted) but let me know if you have a different interpretation.  I think I was fair in my assessment.

61 I have a different interpretation and I think you were unfair in your assessment.

The escrow fund WILL be overwhelmingly popular with the general public. BP won't be handing out the candy - Obama will and it will make him look strong when he has been consistently weak in dealing with this spill. Do you see this statement of fact as an endorsement? Well, of course you do, because it's all about you and what you want.

62

Escrow fund will be enormously popular-kind of like the stimulus?  After all, who can object to the G doling out goodies, even if the skim will be going to the SEIU/ACORN and preferred union contractors.  In the meantime, the Coast Guard is working to hamper cleanup.

63

Your first quote is about what the story is.  Drew believed it is about Barton aplogizing to BP. Whoever he was talking to thought the story is about getting the money.  And maybe it could have been about that, if Barton had not said "I apologize"

I think it is his view that people are going to view the money as being for the victims.  Reality isn't actually important here.  Because we know what reality is, Bart Stupak proved that.  Public perception right now will be $20 billion for spill victims. 

And with the anti-corporate nature a lot of the country is in right now the public is likely to be in favor of it.  How the $20 billion came about is not going to be important.

I think he's looking at what the general public perception is going to be.  And with Barton's apology it gets to be "GOP congressman apologizes to BP for them having to pay $20 billion to fix their screwup."

64 68

Escrow fund will be enormously popular-kind of like the stimulus?  After all, who can object to the G doling out goodies, even if the skim will be going to the SEIU/ACORN and preferred union contractors.  In the meantime, the Coast Guard is working to hamper cleanup.

Posted by: ed at June 18, 2010 01:19 PM (Urhve)

Two different animals.  The stimulus was government (taxpayer) money.  There was no real set way of how it would actually be distributed.  It was 3/4 of a trillion dollars.

The Escrow is BP's money.  It is supposed to go to the victims.  It is only $20 billion.

And right now that is public perception.  The rest is an uphill battle to get it out.  Getting a message out that it won't actually do what they claim is going to be harder to do.  Barton's statement did not help in that regard.

65 Posted by: buzzion at June 18, 2010 01:20 PM (oVQFe)

You're giving him a lot of slack.  That first quote is pretty damning.  It doesn't matter who he was talking to or what he thought he was answering.  It was his characterization in the sarcasm,

"how horrible it is the President succeeded in getting money to effected Americans sooner than they otherwise would have"

that I find really bizarre, and wrong.  I am at a loss as to how anyone can interpret this as anything other than support for The Precedent's "success[]" in helping "effected [sic] Americans", with the fact that it is un-Constitutional, without any report on who is actually responsible for what damage, just being ignored and diminshed.

That's how I see it.  We disagree, here, I guess.

66

That quote is not damning at all.

Because he did succeed.  I don't like his success.  But he succeeded in getting $20 billion out of BP.  Obama also succeeded in getting a Healthcare bill passed.  Are you going to say that I'm in favor of of the bill?  Look at his statement.

And in your opinion the story is really about how horrible it is the President succeeded in getting money to effected Americans sooner than they otherwise would have if they had to spend years in court.

I consider that to be the factor here.  He's talking about what the story will be.  Barton's apology to BP or that its bad they are paying money.  I think if he got to choose he would prefer it to be about Obama's little shakedown.  But he's not the one picking the story.  And niether are you.  He's framing the story how it will be presented.  And whether you or I like it or not it becomes "GOP Congressman apologizes to evil corporation for making them pay money to victims"

67 11) Were you advised of your rights to remain silent and to have an attorney present prior to your interrogation?

68

The current 'trend is your friend' is meandering off the paths of reality by the means of enquiring minds dabbling in nihilism through the tools of which all thrill junkies end up tittilating themselves in their narcissism, ultimately ending up in the pools of fools with no hope for survival toward the slippery sloping goals of third world socialism clutching the worthless strawmen on their way down.

I defer my applause to when such time occurs that I GET MY NATION BACK FROM SUCH FOOLS. Thank You.