Schumer v. Graham. A pretty good undercard while we await the main event with Gingrich v. Dodd. Chris Wallace did a very good job of letting both Senators make their arguments.
You’ve got to love the Dems employment of Chuck Schumer as the front man on government ethics. First, Schumer, who looks increasingly like Meyer Lansky as he ages, doesn’t evince Boy Scout as one’s first image when he talks.
Second, Schumer’s hypocrisy when talking about Alberto Gonzales is stunning, truly stunning. Without advancing one specific fact, other than Democrats or their MRD conclusory accusations of wrong doing in firing US District Attorneys he attacks Al Gonzales for politicizing the AGs office. Same with the WoT intelligence programs-the Bush Administration has won virtually every case on intelligence authority yet there must have been something illegal about pressing their universally vindicated legal position on the Justice Department. The problem is that Schumer and the rest of liberal attack machine unleashed the same vicious slander on Republicans when we were discussing Janet Reno’s notorious concealment of the Clintons, Gore and their high level cabinet officials’ involvement in criminal fundraising with the Chinese Communist government or when litigating against the United States to conceal Bill Clinton’s perjury and obstruction of justice.
Lindsey Graham was quick to defend the immigration compromise. Lindsey criticized opponents of the compromise who have not offered alternatives. Both Schumer and Graham appeared to emphasize the practical nature of the compromise. This does serve to remind everyone that no one gets everything they want.
Graham provided little support for Gonzales. The lack of Republican support for the Attorney General appears to be rather personal in nature. We shouldn’t let that personal animosity allow the Democrats to mischaracterize us as somehow dishonest. If history teaches anything it’s the ability of the Democrat MRDs to circulate the most obvious of lies before we get our boots on so we cannot ever pass the chance to refute their dishonest premises and high light their hypocricy.
The Wallace interview with Sandra Day O’Connor was almost wasted air space. Unlike politicians, retired judges aren’t likely to offer opinions for the guidance of future courts.
You’ve got to love the Dems employment of Chuck Schumer as the front man on government ethics. First, Schumer, who looks increasingly like Meyer Lansky as he ages, doesn’t evince Boy Scout as one’s first image when he talks.
Second, Schumer’s hypocrisy when talking about Alberto Gonzales is stunning, truly stunning. Without advancing one specific fact, other than Democrats or their MRD conclusory accusations of wrong doing in firing US District Attorneys he attacks Al Gonzales for politicizing the AGs office. Same with the WoT intelligence programs-the Bush Administration has won virtually every case on intelligence authority yet there must have been something illegal about pressing their universally vindicated legal position on the Justice Department. The problem is that Schumer and the rest of liberal attack machine unleashed the same vicious slander on Republicans when we were discussing Janet Reno’s notorious concealment of the Clintons, Gore and their high level cabinet officials’ involvement in criminal fundraising with the Chinese Communist government or when litigating against the United States to conceal Bill Clinton’s perjury and obstruction of justice.
Lindsey Graham was quick to defend the immigration compromise. Lindsey criticized opponents of the compromise who have not offered alternatives. Both Schumer and Graham appeared to emphasize the practical nature of the compromise. This does serve to remind everyone that no one gets everything they want.
Graham provided little support for Gonzales. The lack of Republican support for the Attorney General appears to be rather personal in nature. We shouldn’t let that personal animosity allow the Democrats to mischaracterize us as somehow dishonest. If history teaches anything it’s the ability of the Democrat MRDs to circulate the most obvious of lies before we get our boots on so we cannot ever pass the chance to refute their dishonest premises and high light their hypocricy.
The Wallace interview with Sandra Day O’Connor was almost wasted air space. Unlike politicians, retired judges aren’t likely to offer opinions for the guidance of future courts.
3 comments:
"Code Pink", "Damascus Nancy" on a Sunday morning.
Why don't you have your own talk show Teddy. That stuff is great.
Don't forget my pal, "light-in-the loafers" Lindsay Graham
.......... sporer,you need a show of your own. you are hilarious. and i'm a democrat.
Post a Comment