January 02, 2011
— Gabriel Malor A group of surgeons are sitting around shooting the shit. The first remarks that he's rather fond of operating on accountants: "You open 'em up and everything is so helpfully numbered." The second notes that electricians ain't bad either, "It's all color-coded." But a third pipes up that he prefers politicians. "Y'see," he said, "you get 'em open and there's no brains, no guts, no heart, and no goddamn spine."
Congressman Issa, who beat the Sestak bribe drum for nigh on a year, has decided he's not really that interested anymore.
Asked directly if he will investigate the Sestak case, Issa said, "No, we're not.""Once we knew, as we discovered, that it turns out that Republicans and previous administrations thought it was OK — in spite of the absolute black and white letter of the law — it got bigger, it got bigger than President Obama."
Reminder: it's not just possible, but probable that the President committed a felony by offering Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania primary. I walked through the applicable criminal statutes here. The White House stonewalled for months, eventually coming up with a bizarre job-offer-that-isn't-really-a-job-offer story that places Bill Clinton in the hot seat, rather than the President. Except, of course, for the part where the President authorized Clinton to make the offer.
But Congressman Spineless is now all wobbly. He says, and this is entirely contradictory, both that "It was wrong if it's done in the Bush administration; it's wrong in the Obama administration." but that he has no intention to investigate the Sestak case in particular.
I guess for Rep. Issa, two wrongs make it all right.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at
11:05 AM
| Comments (129)
Post contains 297 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2011 11:09 AM (M9Ie6)
Sleestak lost. Plenty of bigger fish elsewhere for Issa to fry in the subpoena pan. Not losing sleep over this.
Posted by: torquewrench at January 02, 2011 11:10 AM (aWrFJ)
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2011 11:10 AM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Secundus at January 02, 2011 11:11 AM (yG2DM)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 02, 2011 11:12 AM (iFCXj)
He only tried to interfere with an election, right? Failed attempts don't really count...
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 02, 2011 11:14 AM (XVaFd)
He's not going after JACKSHIT. He is all talk, now the ball is in his court and he is NO BALLPLAYER.
Same Shit Different Day.
Posted by: gus at January 02, 2011 11:14 AM (Vqruj)
Posted by: USS Diversity at January 02, 2011 11:16 AM (DLxD/)
"Once we knew, as we discovered, that it turns out that Republicans and previous administrations thought it was OK — in spite of the absolute black and white letter of the law — it got bigger, it got bigger than President Obama."
What a wonderful precedent! Is lying under oath acceptable now because the Clinton Administration thought it was okay in the Paula Jones case?
Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at January 02, 2011 11:16 AM (c0A3e)
This is no hill to die over. Shit, what's a little corruption coming from the White House and tacitly endorsed by the watchdog "servants of the people?"
If the Senate and House were covered by RICO statutes, very few of them would making their way back to their cushy gigs in D.C. right now.
Issa's just another fucking hack. I foresee a long and successful career for him in the slime-pit of politics.
Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 02, 2011 11:19 AM (Ulu3i)
Or maybe, in order for the Republicans whose spines are getting rather soft, keeping the blowtorch aimed their genitals would be more helpful.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at January 02, 2011 11:20 AM (nD3Pg)
There's political downside to this--or at least no legitimate political downside. No constituency is going to be angry about us going after Sestak and Obama for this. If it embarrasses the Bush administration, so what? The Republicans got whacked because we were angry about the Bush administration in the first place. Embarrassing them isn't going to cost us votes at this point. The only possible explanation for this is to protect their own and continue business as usual. There's no good argument for this.
Posted by: AD at January 02, 2011 11:22 AM (9r1ux)
Posted by: gus at January 02, 2011 11:23 AM (Vqruj)
Let's not get bogged down in investigations that end inconclusively. Let's see repeals of Obamacare, the bloody light-bulb ban, and pretty much everything done by the 111th congress, plus investigations of Holder and the appointment of all those extra-constitutional czars!
Posted by: Dianna at January 02, 2011 11:25 AM (mKMj1)
Sure Sestak lost but remember Michael Bennett in Colorado got a similar type offer and he won
Posted by: chemjeff at January 02, 2011 11:27 AM (PaSAU)
Hold their feet to the fire? When did we do that?
What a "Poppin' Fresh" thing to say.
It's clearer by the day that impeachment, recalls and indictments are the only alternative to bloodshed at this point.
Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 02, 2011 11:27 AM (Ulu3i)
I think the upcoming "investigations" will steer well clear of anything that could possibly indict Obama. I don't think the GOP has the balls to withstand the firestorm in the MFM, the black community, the Kos kids, etc..
Honestly, this is why I think more of Palin every day. I can't say what she would be like once elected, but all indications are that she has guts. She's taken it from every angle and she hasn't backed down yet. That gives her points in my book!
Posted by: havedash at January 02, 2011 11:28 AM (pQJ1M)
I suspect it's a matter of having limited resources and bigger fish to fry, e.g Black Panther coverup, firing of the Inspector General for looking into the Sacramento Mayor, etc.
Crime or not, this was never an issue that was going to excite people.
Posted by: buzz at January 02, 2011 11:29 AM (i27M5)
I don't know about Gabe, but I'm with you. Have been saying this since early '09 when the Traitor-in-Chief began bringing his corrupt cronies into the White House.
Of course those who actually can see what's going on are, sadly, outnumbered by the Ed Morrissey Brigade, who prefer to chuckle knowingly and voice tepid objections to the Osama Obama regime.
Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 02, 2011 11:34 AM (Ulu3i)
Posted by: Erik Larsen at January 02, 2011 11:36 AM (dZ9WB)
Bigger fish to fry, other things that will have more legs
Posted by: Zakn at January 02, 2011 11:36 AM (zyaZ1)
Posted by: jimmuy at January 02, 2011 11:37 AM (4xsjL)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 02, 2011 11:38 AM (iFCXj)
Posted by: sifty at January 02, 2011 11:38 AM (DJfsf)
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 02, 2011 11:38 AM (TgVqr)
He was going after the global warming cultists too. A long time ago. With all the money that's beenwasted on that socialist exapansion machine, I hope he doesn't drop that.
Posted by: rdbrewer at January 02, 2011 11:39 AM (Un06C)
That's not something I'm feeling patient about, though. I want action, not words.
Posted by: Dianna at January 02, 2011 11:40 AM (mKMj1)
Posted by: TheDude at January 02, 2011 11:41 AM (kBNrw)
Posted by: LibertarianJim at January 02, 2011 11:41 AM (86FvD)
Like it or not, there is a limit to the number of cases that Issa can pursue without the "they're just interested in witch hunts" meme taking hold. My guess is that he is engaging in triage, except in this case, he's isn't selecting who to save, he's picking who to condemn. Give the man a little time.
Posted by: pep at January 02, 2011 11:42 AM (8lSIO)
Posted by: BlackOrchid at January 02, 2011 11:43 AM (SB0V2)
Posted by: Lee at January 02, 2011 11:44 AM (BD1aO)
There is a long list of criminals that need to be publicly humiliated and thrown out of work or in jail.
But I'm pretty sure none of those will be "the hill to die on" for these spineless bastards either.
Posted by: sifty at January 02, 2011 11:44 AM (DJfsf)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 02, 2011 11:44 AM (iFCXj)
Posted by: Chicago Jedi at January 02, 2011 11:45 AM (6ftzF)
Issa also said he was going to investigate the so-called Louisiana Purchase and Ben Nelson's deal, I believe.
Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at January 02, 2011 11:45 AM (En7xg)
35 Issa has no intention of "investigating". He just used that to get himself and some others elected.
No, Issa comes from a pretty "Red" district...he didn't need to grandstand to be elected, and he could spend the next two years screwing interns and he would likely win his seat back in 2012.
However, I emailed him (I live in an adjoining district) my disappointment. It's been my previous experience from him (unlike other "adjoining" congresscum like Susan Davis) that I will get a response...canned or otherwise.
Posted by: Nigel at January 02, 2011 11:47 AM (l30lK)
The difference between the Republicans and the Democrats is the Republicans don't really care about majority control; they're just happy to be in Congress.
Mitch McConnell, for instance, is quite content being the minority leader. That's why we'll never win the Senate with McConnell in as leader.
Posted by: Soothsayer3P0 at January 02, 2011 11:48 AM (TeF6E)
I still have this horrible feeling that the first budget submitted and voted on by the House will take the air out of the room. Conservative voters will be unsatisfied, and the next two years will be about third-parties and disaffected voters.
I don't think independent voters and disaffected conservatives will play the game anymore, and the only thing worse than the status quo will be a center-right third party that just won't be able to overcome obstacles in the system. 2012 would be a disaster and result in the same sort of political conditions in 2008 that led to the mess of the last two years.
Am I just being paranoid? I hope so.
Posted by: Paper at January 02, 2011 11:48 AM (VoSja)
Hell, they helped. At the time Newt and the conservatives were controlling the Party. They helped the Dems destroy him and the RINO wing took over. The Party has been sliding downhill ever since.
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2011 11:52 AM (M9Ie6)
Those "elite" somebitches will sit on their pampered asses and watch us go bankrupt, watch our kids starve, watch us rise up, and watch us get flattened and slaughtered in the streets like the Bonus Army.
Posted by: sifty at January 02, 2011 11:52 AM (DJfsf)
You still haven't seen me do it, dummy. Read what I wrote again. Nevermind, here: "Reminder: it's not just possible, but probable that the President committed a felony by offering Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania primary."
Please don't put words in my mouth.
Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 02, 2011 11:54 AM (XVaFd)
That's pretty important to me. Palin still inspires fear in liberals, even if they have a million arguments against her (many of them valid.) However, liberals also still remember Palin in Dayton and her RNC speech. They know the kind of enthusiasm she can stir up in a crowd. The primaries are still a ways off, so I'm still waiting. But I know Palin is a formidable woman.
Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at January 02, 2011 11:57 AM (mHQ7T)
Posted by: sifty
Who, exactly, is going to do the slaughtering? The Bonus Army was generally unarmed, and wasn't protesting the bankrupting of the nation and the dismissal of the will of the people. In all honesty, while I agree about the elites, I always want to know who is going to be doing the slaughtering.
Posted by: Dianna at January 02, 2011 11:58 AM (mKMj1)
No, you are not paranoid. We need a governing philosophy that accepts advantageous strategic compromises. If we don't, we'll just end up with an indigo on ultramarine civil war that benefits only the Dems. We need to discuss this philosophy now, among ourselves and before the primaries, and IMO, we need to be more willing to assume good faith from our fellows. Krauthammer and Issa are not squishes. If we can't get along with them, if they aren't pure enough, we will lose.
I don't want to refight Delaware, and I always did see benefits in throwing out some RINOs, even if their replacement candidate went on to lose. But if we do that with everyone that doesn't agree 100% with us, then we can expect a resurgent Dem party. Some of you think that is the best way to get back to a pure party that will take the country back to its founding principles. I doubt it.
Posted by: pep at January 02, 2011 12:00 PM (8lSIO)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 02, 2011 12:05 PM (iFCXj)
Posted by: Nighthawk at January 02, 2011 12:08 PM (TgVqr)
I apologize for the two senators we sent from Tennessee. Turns out they were not much of an improvement over Gore and Sasser after all, even if Alexander and Corker were a little less liberal than their opponents. We have a sucky Republican party in my state and we need a real house cleaning here.
Posted by: First let's killl all the POLITICIANS at January 02, 2011 12:11 PM (3+tTH)
Posted by: Techie at January 02, 2011 12:12 PM (pKbp6)
Garrett-but then how do you ensure that we don't simply get rid of the Republicans we don't like (all of them, according to this approach), while the Dems use that opportunity to build seniority and power? I agree with your sentiment, but the question is how to get there without harming your cause.
Posted by: pep at January 02, 2011 12:13 PM (8lSIO)
Posted by: pep
I have some very bad news. There is always a downside, and there are always unintended consequences. We will never fail to harm our cause, no matter how judicious we are.
So pick a course, and do your best. Trying to avoid all harm is a short road to political paralysis.
Posted by: Dianna at January 02, 2011 12:18 PM (mKMj1)
Posted by: SurferDoc at January 02, 2011 03:38 PM (iFCXj)
I do.
You can either fight that war or lose it, it's already started, it's too late to avert it.
Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at January 02, 2011 12:21 PM (bxiXv)
That's what I suggested in an earlier post. Avoiding all harm is very different than "just close your eyes and jump."
I am very wary of radical solutions, for the simple reason that such thinking leads to revolutions which almost inevitably end up turning on themselves, and doing more harm to the cause than the original disease. (Russian and French revolutions)
Posted by: pep at January 02, 2011 12:22 PM (8lSIO)
The Republicans undoubtedly noticed what happened this past November. Holding their feet to the fire means reminding them in no uncertain terms that non-performers will be replaced when their time is up.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at January 02, 2011 12:22 PM (nD3Pg)
Bill Clinton was proof of that. Caught red-handed "so to speak" in an act of felonious perjury he was judged "not proved".
And very solid means sufficient conservatives to off-set the worthless RINOs.
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2011 12:22 PM (M9Ie6)
We need to enforce the limits so that something terrible like that DOESN'T happen.
Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at January 02, 2011 12:23 PM (bxiXv)
The argument (and my implicit takeaway here) is that the Obama administration is holding dirt on some prominent Republican in office due to a similar corrupt deal that it will try to air in retaliation here.
So Issa decided the cost/benefit on this wasn't worth it. . . probably after some "talking to" by colleagues or other prominent Republicans.
Posted by: looking closely at January 02, 2011 12:25 PM (KNy97)
If we let the precedent be established we will lose the whole thing, it's not about when we'll go over the edge, we already have, it's about whether we pull the ring to let the parachute go or not.
Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at January 02, 2011 12:25 PM (bxiXv)
Hell, they helped. At the time Newt and the conservatives were controlling the Party. They helped the Dems destroy him and the RINO wing took over. The Party has been sliding downhill ever since.
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2011 03:52 PM (M9Ie6)
Newt talks a good game (at least he did; he's become more wobbly with NY-22 and is couch-sit with Pelosi).
He was far more a part of this crowd than people want to admit, though. He caved on the budget fights when polls were going our way. He didn't do as much as he could have to campaign and get out the vote for our side after the first couple years in office (which, if you want to believe the Esquire article, might have had something to do with Democratic threats to expose his own affair). According to Tom Coburn, he also waved off fights over spending and pork to keep the RINOs as well.
Newt Gingrich = the Napoleon of the Republican Revolution. I have great admiration for bringing us victory and if he would have left power shortly thereafter he would have been a great man. Unfortunately he went sour in office. We didn't turn into squishes despite Newt Gingrich. We turned into squishes at least in part because of him.
Posted by: AD at January 02, 2011 12:26 PM (9r1ux)
He turned when they drummed him out. He went over to the dark side. When he sat on the couch with Nanny and supported the AGW scam that was it for him.
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2011 12:30 PM (M9Ie6)
Posted by: Peaches at January 02, 2011 12:33 PM (zxpIo)
They figured the surest way to hunt down the potential trouble-makers was to let the trouble-makers step forward and out themselves.
I seriously hope I'm completely wrong and full of shit. For all of our sakes.
I see it happening like this, God spare us the day:
2012, figure July-ish. Probably a shitty humid day on the lawn.
A mass, unruly, violent protest / sit-in against Obama's oppressive Marxist policies by unemployed, oppressed, starving, and homeless people in Washington is met by a Democommunist-sponsored counter-mob of SEIU-type union thugs, "anarchists groups" on the Soros dole, and Obama For America goons.- Riot Bait
Violence escalates to riot levels. Buildings and tires start burning.
Capitol police, then National Guard, and maybe other troops stationed nearby are sent in to protect the SEIU-types who magically evaporate off the scene once their job is done. -Riot Bait no longer needed.
With a group of "innocent civilians" like the SEIU and the rest to "save" from the bad Tea Partiers, the cops and troops probably wouldn't hesitate as a group to break some heads to stop the riot. -Soldiers most likely will not disobey orders to round up citizens if there are other citizens to protect.
Thousands of Tea Party types are injured, shot, and/or rounded up and put in prison for sedition and a raft of other charges in the areas around D.C
Smaller scale uprisings spread to Red states and Red counties in Blue States in solidarity with the folks who were in D.C. These folks are rounded up and charged / imprisoned.
This serves the ruling class of both parties:
1. It forever marginalizes the Tea Party, gets rid of the bravest, the dumbest, the violent, and the desperate with nothing to lose. It paints all patriots as Tim McVeigh forever.The people they round up will be tied up for years in prison or the legal system for years to come. Nobody will want to come to their defense. Pictures of white Tea Partiers beating helpless black Teacher's Union members will be blasted out 24/7.
2. It takes all pressure off politicians to be conservative. As conservative will be a bad word. It gives them an out to go full-oligarch.
10 years ago I wouldn't have thought it possible. Now it feels eerily likely.
Posted by: sifty at January 02, 2011 12:34 PM (DJfsf)
Posted by: eman at January 02, 2011 12:34 PM (+iY8m)
Most of the DC Republican politicians are deciding, unsurprisingly, that they like being corrupt too. Ratting out the other guy's a problem in that respect.
Posted by: MlR at January 02, 2011 12:34 PM (vuHIt)
Enough Americans believed that consentual sex with an intern wasn't a removable offense that Clinton got away with it. The perjury wasn't considered a big deal, since the offense itself wasn't considered removable.
Frankly, I think the Sestak thing would be more of the same. Yeah, technically interfering this way is a felony, but Sestak lost anyway, and I doubt this particular big of corruption is really going to pique the publics interest. Everyone knows there is horse trading involved in political appointments.
There are bigger fish to fry here.
Posted by: looking closely at January 02, 2011 12:36 PM (KNy97)
Dude, you are *seriously* harshing my mellow.
Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at January 02, 2011 12:37 PM (bxiXv)
But he didn't. Right when the polls in the last 90s budget fight were finally starting to go our way, he caved and made a deal with Clinton that left him largely the winner. I distinctly remember Limbaugh going apeshit over this the morning it happened.
He had four years as Speaker, and after the first year and a half, he did very little to follow up on the Contract With America. I don't know your feelings on Tom Coburn, but he wrote a book "Breach of Trust" about his time in the House after he left and before he ran for Senator. Read the book.
Posted by: AD at January 02, 2011 12:38 PM (9r1ux)
He turned when they drummed him out. He went over to the dark side. When he sat on the couch with Nanny and supported the AGW scam that was it for him.
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2011 04:30 PM (M9Ie6)
As far as I can see Gingrich is like Frum. Both can't imagine being outside of the fray, and as such are constantly searching for some sort of spectacle or angle, however nutty, that'll allow them to make themselves relevant again and break back in to the special circle of people who are listened to. Irrelevance is their nightmare.
Posted by: MlR at January 02, 2011 12:38 PM (vuHIt)
Nah, that's a little unkind to Gringich.
He isn't as big of a fool and at least did something that didn't turn into an utter disaster.
Posted by: MlR at January 02, 2011 12:44 PM (vuHIt)
That's some nice writing, and very true.
@84 I believe that this is what yesterday's (?) thread on laconic phrases referred to.
Posted by: pep at January 02, 2011 12:45 PM (8lSIO)
Before cell phone cameras, maybe. These days, the second the purple-shirted enforcers showed up, all the world would know it.
Not going to happen.
I do expect some clashes, at some point, but they will be between provocateurs and paid thugs. Expect the exposure of these shenanigans to be the death knell of the left.
Neither your scenario nor mine are necessarily accurate. But (well, I came up with it, so what do you expect me to say?) I will bet on mine more than yours.
Posted by: Dianna at January 02, 2011 12:47 PM (mKMj1)
Posted by: sifty at January 02, 2011 12:48 PM (DJfsf)
I see no point in being "fair" to any of these spineless sonsabitches. Even the few who aren't innately larcenous and/or treasonous will sell out at the drop of a vote. Newt is as big a whore as the worst of them, even if not personally corrupt.
I doubt he'd ever be one to actually say what he thinks and not spew a bunch of namby-pamby bullshit.
Newt is for Newt, and that's all. Oh, and he's for getting his fat ass kissed by Hannity.
We need to start being honest and direct in our dealings with (and discussions of) all the worthless assholes in D.C. Making excuses for them in the name of "fairness" -- the "Poppin' Fresh" approach -- helps them stay entrenched.
Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 02, 2011 12:52 PM (Ulu3i)
Fairness doesn't enter into it. It's about how best to get what we want. Eyes on the prize and all that.
Posted by: pep at January 02, 2011 12:55 PM (8lSIO)
Posted by: sifty at January 02, 2011 12:56 PM (DJfsf)
Posted by: Vic at January 02, 2011 12:57 PM (M9Ie6)
The crackerjacks are all smashed, yet we have no prize.
Posted by: sifty at January 02, 2011 12:57 PM (DJfsf)
Posted by: Dianna at January 02, 2011 01:00 PM (mKMj1)
I'm not gonna dig a hole and pull the dirt in after me yet.
We have West and a bunch of new blood coming in.
West by himself will change the dynamic, if I am any judge of character.
Hopefully they can put the fear of God into that town.
Posted by: sifty at January 02, 2011 01:08 PM (DJfsf)
Where's the evidence going to come from to show anything more than what is already public knowledge (and insufficient to charge, much less convict)? Do you think Obama is going to let his peeps testify before the House? Or suddenly confess?
Or Issa will open the desk drawer in the Chairman's office and find the smoking gun?
Go back to your bong, sonny, and leave the politics to the adults, mmmkay?
Posted by: Adjoran at January 02, 2011 01:11 PM (VfmLu)
Posted by: sifty at January 02, 2011 01:19 PM (DJfsf)
Posted by: Mahon at January 02, 2011 01:30 PM (SATip)
Shabaaz Holder
Butch Napolitano
Turbo Tim
All the Czars
It's a target rich environment, and the men and women who help prosecute them successfully could be elected President as a reward.
Posted by: sifty at January 02, 2011 01:33 PM (DJfsf)
That Issa is doing this doesn't bode well. I'm guessing someone called him to remind him about some of his OWN skeletons. Now suddenly investigating bribery isn't so important.
Be warned GOP: we will not abide:
Folding and apologizing because some media maven talk harshly about/to you.
Reaching across the aisle.
Tax increase without HUGE spending cuts.
Treating the Democrats 'fairly'.
Bipartisanship.
Visits with Obama after which he claims the GOP is cooperating.
Further funding of NPR, PBS of any kind.
Sending/negotiating further subsidies of our KNOWN enemies:
Palestinians, Venezuela, North Korea, Iran.
Allowing CAIR, NAACP, ACLU to continue to attack the fundamental freedoms, liberties, religions and rights of the citizens of the U.S.
No southern border FENCE. Build the fence NOW.
No amnesty for law breakers.
No refusal to have votes just because you 'know' the Senate won't pass them or Obama sign them. WHAT THE HELL, TRY ANYWAY.
Thinking that you have to legislate to show that you're doing your job. I'd rather see a year of NO LEGISLATION just for the heck of it.
There's more but these would be a good start on making sure you get re-elected in 2012 and that the Republican party doesn't go the way of the party they replaced .... NOWHERE.
Posted by: jakee308 at January 02, 2011 01:54 PM (fhTf7)
Posted by: Phelps at January 02, 2011 01:55 PM (YseYs)
1) The Sestak situation is not a slam-dunk.
2) It's too direct an attack on the President.
3) Short of an impeachment and a conviction (unlikely at best) it offers no prospect for changing administration policy in any area where they've run off the rails.
GOP committee chairs need to focus on:
1) White House policy and cabinet and not the President himself. Obama's personal popularity is still too strong. Napoletano, Salazar, Jackson, Holdren, Holder, etc. aren't going to benefit from that.
2) Specific cases - DOJ and NBPP, EPA and the CO2 endangerment finding, Interior and drilling obstructionism, etc - where the misbehavior is clear and easily understood. No fishing expeditions. If the GOP has to spend more than a week explaining to the American people why some particular bit of Administration malfeasance is in fact wrong, then they've lost already.
3) Issues where a victory will have direct impact on and influence over wrongheaded Obama policies. Destroy the EPA's rationale for regulating CO2 (and hopefully convince Lisa Jackson to go away) and you'll have done a world of good for the country.
Posted by: JEM at January 02, 2011 02:01 PM (o+SC1)
One argument here is that there are bigger fish to fry. Yes, there are bigger fish, but the fact is that Issa said he was going to investigate this. He's the one who said it. He should either keep his word, or keep his mouth shut. To me, it's him going back on his word that's most disconcerting. This does not inspire confidence. It doesn't matter if it's a little thing or a big thing. What matters is our elected officials keeping their word and not playing political games. If there is one overarching mandate of the Tea Party, I think it is to dilligently do the hard work that needs to be done and stop the "go along, get along" politicing. Do what you say you will do and get on with it!
Posted by: havedash at January 02, 2011 02:04 PM (pQJ1M)
Darrell Issa. 11/3/2010
Do not act surprised now. We all knew this was going to happen.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 02, 2011 02:25 PM (we2xK)
Theoretically you'd only need about 21 Dem senators to cross over, assuming articles of impeachment could ever be brought to the floor of a Democrat-controlled Senate in the first place. The calls for impeachment of Obama have always amused me because they always seem to come from people who have no idea how impeachment works.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 02, 2011 02:30 PM (M9BsJ)
Posted by: iknowtheleft at January 02, 2011 06:24 PM
Maybe they spend too much time reading TepidAir?
Everything now is nuance and strategy and not pissing off our good friends on the other side of the aisle.
I still maintain the way to defeat an enemy is to take out its command and control. That would be Osama Obama.
Otherwise, we'll get two years of Congress "investigating" steroid use by athletes, which the Lesser Three-Toed Anteater is gone from Bumfuck, Iowa, and obsessing about minutiae.
Which will be followed by four more years of the Mohammedan Mouthpiece, which we cannot afford.
Posted by: MrScribbler© at January 02, 2011 02:36 PM (Ulu3i)
Not when Harry Reid is running it, it doesn't. The House's articles of impeachment simply disappear, never to be seen again.
Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at January 02, 2011 02:36 PM (M9BsJ)
Odd indeed is the sight of an administration once so prone to denounce the political system it inherited now pointing to Bush-era ethics advisers to defend its own backroom dealing.
Darrell Issa. 7/1/2010
retrieved from issa.house.gov
Odd then, now -- eh. What a difference an election makes....
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 02, 2011 02:39 PM (we2xK)
Over at NRO, you can read Rich Lowry's engaging year-end column about America, "Yes, the Greatest Country Ever."
The day after Rich's column appeared, on January 1, President Obama asserted in his weekly address that "we've had the good fortune to grow up in the greatest nation on Earth." Then, in case anyone missed it, Obama repeated eight sentences later that he's confident we can "do what it takes to make sure America remains in the 21st century what it was the 20th: the greatest country in the world."
And sources now tell us that Lowry's been called to the White House this week for a secret meeting.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 02, 2011 02:48 PM (we2xK)
One of five Lebanese Americans in Congress, Issa occupies a no man's land in U.S. politics: a conservative Republican with a powerful sympathy for the Arab cause. He supports the Iraq war and voted for a resolution backing Israel in its fight with Hezbollah, but he has also accused Israel of "apartheid" and scolds the Bush administration for "missed opportunities" to win Arab friends.
Yesterday, he was at the National Press Club under the banner of the "American Task Force for Lebanon," giving a bleak slide show from his weekend trip to Lebanon, and scolding all parties in the conflict.
He condemned Israel's "wanton" violation of Lebanese territory and its
"somewhat failed attempt" to defeat Hezbollah: "You can't end an idea or
a terrorist organization by guns alone."
He complained about a House resolution last month condemning Israel's enemies, but voted for it anyway after his alternative version failed. He opposed sanctions against Syria, but he vigorously supports the U.S. campaign in Iraq.
Some might see these as contradictions. Issa portrays it as
evenhandedness. One minute he's condemning Israel's targeting in Lebanon
("they blew up all the fuel tanks just to see them burn!") and the
next, he's bemoaning Arab intransigence ("they never focus [on] what is a
legitimate compromise").
Wapo 2006
Issa might oppose Obama on marginal tax rates, but they're pan-arabist brothers. Issa will not be the man to take the O down.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 02, 2011 03:06 PM (we2xK)
The rule is, never trust a crying Republican.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at January 02, 2011 03:10 PM (we2xK)
Posted by: Jeff at January 02, 2011 03:42 PM (aCXJB)
Posted by: havedash at January 02, 2011 03:59 PM (pQJ1M)
Like it or not, there is a limit to the number of cases that Issa can pursue without the "they're just interested in witch hunts" meme taking hold. My guess is that he is engaging in triage, except in this case, he's isn't selecting who to save, he's picking who to condemn. Give the man a little time.
Posted by: pep at January 02, 2011 03:42 PM (8lSIO)
Somebody up for a witch hunt!? Count me in!
Posted by: Christine O'Donnell at January 02, 2011 04:08 PM (H6Tkr)
"Joe, we really think it would be better for the party if you wouldn't run against Specter" probably ain't going to cut it.
Posted by: ThePaganTemple at January 02, 2011 04:29 PM (qgNI7)
Everything doesn't have to be about trying to get Obama directly.
Posted by: ThePaganTemple at January 02, 2011 04:31 PM (qgNI7)
Random low-percentage head shots (this is a metaphor, not a threat) like the Sestak game have two possible outcomes. The likely outcome is to annoy the voters and get the GOP thrown out again in '12. Maybe you hit below the neck and put some staffer in jail. Hit the bulls-eye with impeachment and conviction and we've got President Biden, early enough for him to prep his own '12 run. You call that victory?
Take the high-percentage shots. Knock off the limbs that implement the administration's policy. Send a couple cabinet-level officers packing and make sure their replacements come into office scared stiff. Tighten the budgetary choke-chains on agencies like EPA. Cripple the beast.
Obama's still a sympathetic character to the voting community, but there isn't really anyone in his cabinet, save Hillary who's pretty much a nonentity as SecState, that can't be roughed up with impunity.
Posted by: JEM at January 02, 2011 04:51 PM (o+SC1)
Posted by: Draki at January 02, 2011 04:54 PM (5Cbz0)
Well-said and 100% correct, JEM! The last thing we need Issa to do is run out there shrieking and slobbering like a hysterical nutjob. That's Ron Paul's job . . .
Posted by: Peaches at January 02, 2011 05:22 PM (zxpIo)
Posted by: Frank G at January 02, 2011 05:35 PM (4X0aT)
"These acts by Obama (including the other primary the White House tried to illegally manage) are just one of the many articles of impeachment that should be delivered to the House floor in short order."
I disagree. Strongly.
Nobody wants to see Obama out of office more than I do. Yet impeachment would be as big a blunder for the GOP as impeaching Clinton was in 1998, for one reason: if you attack the king, the king damned well better die (speaking metaphorically, of course); but this Senate will not vote to convict, even if Issel did come up with a smoking gun.
At best, impeachment would be an exercise in futuility; at worst, it would do what it did in 1998: turn the spotlight away from the regime and its lawlessness, and onto the GOP and the impeachment decision.
I don't know if Issel is wimping out, or simply acknowledging the reality of the situation. In any case, what we must do is repeal, piece by piece, the legislation passed by 111th Congress, so as to keep the spotlight trained on the regime. This will be a difficult job at the best of times, given that the media is firmly allied with the regime, but it's our best hope of being able to save the republic. The last thing we need is impeachment clouding the waters.
Posted by: Brown Line at January 02, 2011 05:49 PM (Q1ohu)
I have a conference call lined up with Issa's spokesman, Seamus Kraft this coming week.
After seeing Issa on CNN today I literally about keeled over.
As I told Kraft, the GOP does not need to participate as a captive with the MSM.
We are already losing for winning. The GOP needs to stand and be heard vs. being impeached by their own comments presented to them out of context on MSM outlets.
This is such bull shit. The GOP better pull their heads out of ....
Anyone have any thing they want to express to Issa's office or questions let me know.
Posted by: journolist at January 02, 2011 05:50 PM (LwLqV)
Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at January 02, 2011 06:20 PM (x2siK)
The issue of whether impeachment would be a good idea or not aside, there's one difference between then and now - the traditional left-leaning media is no longer in the same lofty position as they were back then.
Synchronizing their playbook with the Democrats unchallenged is a thing of the past.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at January 02, 2011 06:45 PM (nD3Pg)
Anyone have any thing they want to express to Issa's office or questions let me know.
Posted by: journolist at January 02, 2011 09:50 PM (LwLqV)
I was a-gonna fire off something smart-ass, but, seriously, Issa needs to get some hits on these out-of-control bastards. It's more about reigning the power-mad back in than a person or a policy.
We are SERIOUSLY far down the rabbit-hole and we need to pull back the arrogant administration, agencies and "Czars."
Yeah, each one of the above cases pisses me off, and maybe Issa could have been less committal about dropping one of them. Just leave it at "we're going to prioritize to get the most useful work done in undoing the damage" or whatever.
Because I woke up in the late 1990s in a country where the President could suborn perjury without consequences, I don't want to wake up tomorrow in a country where the President can fix elections and take over legislative functions without consequence.
Maybe later we can worry about Congress standing up to the President when he and his agents lie blatantly to them.
Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at January 02, 2011 07:17 PM (bxiXv)
Merovign, thanks.
You are welcome to be on the call if you would like.
I am very concerned about the GOP's ability to control big Mo. These bastards we are working against have all the tricks and most of the media.
Let me know if you want in on the call.
Posted by: journolist at January 02, 2011 07:24 PM (LwLqV)
Make noncommital nice noises about Obama, but make sure his cabinet and his czars plump when you cook 'em.
And if I had one wish from this new Congress it'd be to squash Lisa Jackson like a bug, as quickly as possible. Pour encourager les autres.
Posted by: JEM at January 02, 2011 07:47 PM (o+SC1)
Posted by: Africanus at January 02, 2011 07:54 PM (ygqbC)
Posted by: Brian at January 03, 2011 01:54 AM (sYrWB)
input this URL:
( http://www.1shopping.us/ )
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff
(jor dan shoes)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB jersey)
( lv handbag)
(cha nel wallet)
(D&G sunglasses)
(ed har dy jacket)
(UGG boot)
WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT
FREE SHIPPING
YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!
Posted by: mijian65 at January 04, 2011 04:13 PM (UzYYK)
Posted by: CICI at July 01, 2011 10:56 PM (ymE3k)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.2105 seconds, 257 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: exceller at January 02, 2011 11:08 AM (Z7Znk)