Sunday, October 22, 2006

Broder Fact Checks Blunt's Desperate Hyperbole

How desperate have House Republicans become?

On today's edition of NBC's Meet The Press, host Tim Russert and liberal pundit David Broder discussed the wacked-out hyperbole of House Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO):

RUSSERT: David Broder, the House majority whip in the Senate, Roy Blunt of Missouri, had this to say, “Pelosi’s House,” referring to Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic congresswoman from San Francisco who becomes speaker. “This list of the bills most likely to be championed by committee chairmen in a Pelosi-led House of Representatives would be great fodder for the late-night talk show hosts if it weren’t true. Instead, it’s just plain scary. While Republicans fight the War on Terror, grow our robust economy, and crack down on illegal immigration, House Democrats plot to establish a Department of Peace, raise your taxes, and minimize penalties for crack dealers. The difference couldn’t be starker.

BRODER: I like Roy Blunt, but that rhetoric gives a measure of how hard up the Republicans really are. I mean, that is not the Democratic agenda. The Democratic agenda is raising the minimum wage, doing something about drug prices, and probably doing something about the war in Iraq.

***

You'd expect that sort of ridiculous anti-liberal rant from a Mark Levin, Michael Savage or Ann Coulter. Roy Blunt, an elected representative, should be more responsible with the words he chooses.

It's like the adage: be nice to the man in the elevator on the way up for you will most assuredly meet him again on the way back down. Should the Democrats regain control of the House next month, Blunt will no doubt hope the Democrats forgive his hyperbole.

6 Comments:

Anonymous Gen. Patton said...

Something tells me if this weren't 2006 and say 1956, Nancy Pelosi would be selling shoes or maybe bras. But alas, politics just doesn't attract America's best and brightest anymore. So American's have to take what were given. That is what's truely scarry.

11:58 AM  
Anonymous alias: "cutiepie" johnson said...

What does it say when someone is commenting on the lack of intelligence in politics, and in doing so makes a punctuation error (Americans, not American's) and a spelling mistake (truly scary, not truely scarry)?

:)

2:31 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

BRODER: I like Roy Blunt, but that rhetoric gives a measure of how hard up the Republicans really are. I mean, that is not the Democratic agenda. The Democratic agenda is raising the minimum wage, doing something about drug prices, and probably doing something about the war in Iraq.

For the life of me, I have to wonder why anyone would think that conservatives give a flying leap about what David Broder or Tim Russert have to say about anything.

But putting that aside, Liberal Democrats do what liberal Democrats do. If they win back the majority, they will most assuredly raise our taxes. This is as inevitable as winter following fall. Charlie Rangel, who will be head honcho on the Ways and Means Committee, is already chomping at the bit. Who's kidding whom here?

It's also a fact that if they win back the WH in '08, they will appoint more liberal, activist judges, which always makes things tougher on law enforcement and easier on the criminals. The ACLU never met a criminal or a terrorist that it didn't want to side with and give more rights to.

And as far as the war on terror, which to most conservatives extends to Iraq, we know how the libs feel about that. As it is, they vote against all of the tools that we need to combat the threat against Islamo-facism, so imagine if they win a majority. Rangel has already suggested that the Ways and Means Committee defund the War in Iraq. And then there's people like Murtha.

And then you have John Conyers, who is in line to be chairman of Judiciary, working at a fever pitch to build a case to impeach President Bush.

So Broder is just plain out of touch, imho, if he doesn't believe that Blunt has gotten it more right than wrong.

12:04 AM  
Anonymous Dave G. said...

Something tells me if this weren't 2006 and say 1956, Nancy Pelosi would be selling shoes or maybe bras. But alas, politics just doesn't attract America's best and brightest anymore.
Ah yes, 1956. Back when Joseph McCarthy was in office. Best and brightest, indeed.

As it is, they vote against all of the tools that we need to combat the threat against Islamo-facism, so imagine if they win a majority.
Nonsense ranting as usual. The Democratic approach, if I remember, is, "Do this, but don't break the law." The Republican approach is, "The President is the law, all the time. Bow to him."


And then you have John Conyers, who is in line to be chairman of Judiciary, working at a fever pitch to build a case to impeach President Bush.
He hardly needs to "build" a case, Trinity.

1:12 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

Dave G. said...
"The Democratic approach, if I remember, is, "Do this, but don't break the law." The Republican approach is, "The President is the law, all the time. Bow to him."


I've yet to read anything written by any of you guys (and gals) here on JABBS that would indicate that you comprehend the difference between which degree or type of surveillance would require a warrant, and which ones would be impossible to restrict in that manner. In view of this fact, it seems quite futile to argue the point with you.

He hardly needs to "build" a case, Trinity.

And so think radical liberals such as yourself, Dave. I think you might find it rather shocking to learn that most Americans would be livid at the mere thought of trying to impeach President Bush over issues such as surveilling foreign terrorists and using reasonably aggressive interrogation methods on terrorists who might have knowledge of a future attack on America. I believe you are in a definite minority here.

4:29 PM  
Anonymous trinity said...

And I'd really like to hear from all of you liberals who do not believe that if the Dems win back the majority, they will raise our taxes.

Just out of curiosity, I'd also be curious to know who among you feels that you do not pay enough taxes already?

8:46 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Listed on BlogShares