Home › Blogs › Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo's blog

Avoiding Colbert

Joey Joe Joe Ju... Posted at 22:00 on Thu, 03/15/2007
Tags:

Demorcatic Caucus chairman Rep. Rahm Emanuel warns incoming Democrats in Congress to stay away from "The Colbert Report." Those "Better Know a District" segments do almost always end up making everyone except Colbert look bad -- I wonder if Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky's 3rd District regrets saying that tossing a kitten in a woodchipper is sometimes a good idea.

MORE

Comments

218?

munk's picture
munk Posted at 22:52 on Fri, 03/23/2007
What did the democrats need 218 votes for? They got 218 votes on something recently, but since I don't watch real news, only Comedy Central "News," I can't be sure what that was all about.

And That's The Word

Joey Joe Joe Ju... Posted at 20:54 on Tue, 03/20/2007
Behold: this debate's natural conclusion.

Just Silly

muertemaria's picture
muertemaria Posted at 15:17 on Mon, 03/19/2007
Everyone who was on Better Know a District won their last election. They should totally keep going on the show.

good advice

travis Posted at 10:47 on Fri, 03/16/2007
he's got to protect his dummies

what, are you like 5 years old?

langster's picture
langster Posted at 12:23 on Fri, 03/16/2007

senator brownback declares homosexual acts as immoral, allegations of shoddy health care for Iraq war veterans, conviction of VP's top aide, uproar over firing of U.S. prosecutors.

and, that's just within the past 7 days. i'm sure there are no dummies involved in these situations. 

that's almost nonsensical

travis Posted at 13:43 on Mon, 03/19/2007
all i did was state the obvious - that he's trying to protect members from themselves. i also said it was good advice. just check out elanor holmes norton or lynn westmoreland's appearances and you'll see why. senator brownback declaring homosexual acts immoral is something you may disagree with, but its hardly dumb. on the uproar over cleaning house at DoJ, yes there were dummies involved. mostly the whitehouse. it was completely legitimate to fire those people for political reasons. its done all the time. you just have to remember back to when hillary did the same thing for her husband. it'd be unfortunate if it costs a.g. his job, but its looking that way. this is one of the biggest non-stories of the last six years.  oooooo, lawyers are upset... cry me a river! conviction of libby - relating back to the firing of th prosecutors - the cover up is always what gets you in trouble. its clear no one did anything wrong in the "outing" of plame. she sent her husband to niger and what he reported to the ny times was an inaccurate recounting of the trip and its results. nothing wrong with that though is there? overall, pretty inconsequentail stuff. but i can see why you'd want to talk about that rather then Ried's loss on the iraqi vote last week, and the ongoing struggle the dems are having with finding 218 votes on the iraqi supplemental - and thats even after packing it with 20 billion in non-emergency pork. lets not talk about any of that.

unclear

ShastaMcNeasty's picture
ShastaMcNeasty Posted at 13:43 on Mon, 03/19/2007
"it was completely legitimate to fire people for political reasons"--is that what you meant to write or did you mean illegitimate?
also, what aboot walter reed and the va in general?

i meant completely legitimate

travis Posted at 17:29 on Mon, 03/19/2007

the problem becomes if they (doj) says they fired them for merit after a history of good perfomance reviews. we're talking about politically apointed job. its completely within the wh's right to say, its time to give other talented people a try because i don't like the types of cases you're persuing or not persuing. lets remember that in 1993, Hillary led the Clinton administration's decision to ask for the resignation of all 93 U.S. attorneys and there wasn't so much as a peep out of the nightly news.

another fascination

senor bananagrabber Posted at 10:14 on Tue, 03/20/2007

i love it.  if it's good enough for clinton, it's good enough for bush.  how many times are we going to have to listen to republicans sermonize about morality and ethics only to then listen to them hide behind the old but-clinton-did-it-too saw?  just because clinton did something, doesn't automatically make it right.  not that clinton did the same thing here.

hats off to you, though, for shifting the finger-pointing from bill to hillary.  way to be looking ahead and not backward.  did you paste your comments straight from a talking points memo or is that shift in fonts meant to emphasize your point?

this article hits all my points

travis Posted at 13:58 on Tue, 03/20/2007
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/attorney_firing_preced... most pertinent graphs: George W. Bush and Attorney General Alberto Gonzales are taking a lot of heat from Democrats lately for allegedly discharging some U.S. attorneys for political reasons. Of course, the president has every right to fire any political appointee in his administration for any reason, political or otherwise. In hindsight, it would have been far better if the administration had just said so from the beginning instead of wrongly implying that the attorneys were fired for cause. and In the 1960s, President John F. Kennedy, Attorney General Robert Kennedy and President Lyndon Johnson also used the FBI and IRS to investigate and harass their political opponents. As is well known, they bugged Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s phones and hotel rooms just to gain political intelligence -- falsely justifying their actions on the grounds that King was in league with the communists. The point of this history lesson is not to excuse or justify anything Bush and Gonzales may have done, which seems mainly stupid rather than malicious, but to suggest that Democrats would be wise not to push their protests too far. Their own presidents have done far worse with less justification. That's a fact.

not to mention

sesolf Posted at 10:18 on Tue, 03/20/2007
there is a difference between certain specific political motivations. removing someone because they are reasonably and in good faith pursuing investigations into your political allies' illegal activities is not a "completely legitimate" political motivation.  appointing new cabinet members who share your politics and will contribute to your administration is legitimate, and perhaps that same logic can be applied to other appointed positions, sure; but firing people because they are threatening to expose your friend's, or members of your party's, exploits is very different.

as this unfolds

travis Posted at 14:05 on Tue, 03/20/2007
its clear that bush was trying to reinvigorate his justice dept with fresh blood at the start of his second term - but for some reason that i can't figure out they felt a need to justify it and create a paper trail of excuses rather then just saying "you're fired," as his his right. as the left wing starring martin sheen, these people serve at the pleasure of the president and can be fired without cause. as was my original point, this was dumb, not wrong or illegal. but its not suprising that the dems don't want to talk about it honestly. and why are we ignoring the biggest story of the week. Hoyer can't get a vote on the war supplemental even with $20 billion dollars of pork for spinach growers and peanut storage. i guess he's going to have to up the ante over the weekend and try again next week.

senate vote 94-2

ShastaMcNeasty's picture
ShastaMcNeasty Posted at 11:32 on Wed, 03/21/2007
senate vote of 94-2 to strip alberto of his ability to fill us atty positions w/o senate confirmation shows this is not a partisan issue.  both sides are uncomfortable with dude and how he's been doing bizness.
94-2

ok

ShastaMcNeasty's picture
ShastaMcNeasty Posted at 09:33 on Tue, 03/20/2007
it does appear that several of the attorneys had good performance reviews.  there are also the phone calls made by senators to the attorneys involved in investigations.

Also, as Senor B brought up below, walter reed and the va

btw, did you copy and paste the second part ofyour entry above?  from where?

correct

Quef Posted at 17:41 on Mon, 03/19/2007
the WH should been prepared for the dems to try and blow up this issue. You can argue about whether this should or should not happen but you can't allow dems to do it and then criticize republicans. Also, can everyone now admit the Fitzgerald investigation was the biggest waste of time and abuse of power? Armitage was the leaker. I'm not sure how a jury can convict someone when all witnesses use a variation of the phrase "I can't remember" multiple times in their testimony. He should and hopefully will be pardoned.

Biggest Waste?

muertemaria's picture
muertemaria Posted at 08:46 on Tue, 03/20/2007

Um do you not remember Kenneth Star investigation? That was the worst waste of millions of dollars to find nothing except that Clinton got a BJ. That had nothing to do with national security or trying to thwart and skew a case for going to war. That was a guy trying not to get caught cheating on his wife.

Please!!!! 

you're mistaken

travis Posted at 17:02 on Tue, 03/20/2007
that was the media that said he was trying to wag the dog. the republicans were critical he didn't go to far and thought the monica scandal kept him from giving his full attention. kenn starr's another idiot. that cost him his supreme court nomination if it makes you feel anybetter. but fitzgerald spent just as much money and time. both investigations drug over years and exceded the scope of the original investigation. but lets not deminish the wrong Clinton did in office from whitewater, to travelgate to selling pardons and nights in the lincoln bedroom.

seriously?

sesolf Posted at 19:15 on Tue, 03/20/2007
not that i want to continue this discussion in any way, but really, seriously, are you saying you were concerned that clinton getting a bj distracted him from his responsibilities as president of the united states? seriously? we all know i'm the last to support, condone or defend adultery by any means, but still, you of all people are getting a bit carried away with that argument. learn from your opinion of this us atty bizness and don't try to defend, just admit the ridiculousness of it!

you're being obtuse

travis Posted at 07:02 on Wed, 03/21/2007

the scandal that came out of the bj distracted him. are you honestly telling me something that lead to his impeachment and trial in the senate wasn't distracting?

 still no takers on this tidbit: House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, D-Md., said Democratic leaders do not yet have the votes to pass the fiscal 2007 supplemental spending bill, and would not rule out pulling it from this week’s floor schedule. Hoyer said he hoped to win sufficient support for the bill to pass it this week.

excellent points quef

travis Posted at 08:11 on Tue, 03/20/2007
what i always find fascinating is the way liberals think if they hug enough veterans they'll be perceived as strong on defense issues.

what i find fascinating

senor bananagrabber Posted at 08:48 on Tue, 03/20/2007
is how republicans can cut funding for vets and still call themselves pro-vet simply by virtue of the fact that they have looser standards to justify sending them into harm's way.

i'd beg to differ

travis Posted at 14:14 on Tue, 03/20/2007
i'd say repubs support the troops more then dems because they are willing to pass legislation that says they will never cut the funding required for the troops to do their job while the troops are in harmsway. the dems, on the otherhand, won't. but, if you want outrage over a hospital thats fair. its unbelieveable how the army mismanaged walter reed - that is if what the washington post is reporting is true. repub spending plans tend to revolve around faster turnaround times for medical claims for veterans and better access to care - not giving billions of dollars in handouts trying to purchase a constituency, which is how the dems hold their caucus together.

go langster!

sesolf Posted at 12:40 on Fri, 03/16/2007
eom