U.S. Senate: Burning Down the House

[Lemur]

MM, that article is hilarious. I think it's gone past hyperventilating and passed out on the sidewalk. Note that any article which cannot used "Democrat" versus "Democratic" correctly instantly loses credibility points, since the whole linguistic tic of never using "Democratic" is a holdout of the die-hard wingnuts.

Samples from the article: "Pelosi’s proposals are so draconian ... exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership ..." And all this over a rule change? Do we have any notion of how the Republicans changed the rules when they had their 2000-2006 joyride? But note that the author of that article doesn't mention the current President or the recent Congresses, just goes back to the glory days of Gingrich.

For crikey's sake, don't reprint news releases from partisan mouthpieces. Find a semi-respectable source.

[Vladimir]

For crikey's sake, don't reprint news releases from partisan mouthpieces. Find a semi-respectable source.

Pot, please welcome kettle to the Backroom.

[Lemur]

Vladimir, please feel free to please feel free to point out where I have cited leftwing mouthpieces, etc., etc., etc. And no, CNN, The Economist and Politico don't count toward your final score.

MM was posting from a purely partisan source that makes no pretension of being anything else. But by pointing this out, and asking him to cite a mainstream source, I'm a leftist shill? You need to have a long, manly hug with TuffStuff.

I find it fascinating that whenever I offer even the mildest corrective on the subject, I have rightwing nutjobs leaping up and screaming bias as though that were some sort of argument.

Do you have anything of substance to add to this subject, Vladimir, or did you just drop by to declare victory before scuttling away?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Vladimir, please feel free to please feel free to point out where I have cited leftwing mouthpieces, etc., etc., etc. And no, CNN, The Economist and Politico don't count toward your final score.

MM was posting from a purely partisan source that makes no pretension of being anything else. But by pointing this out, and asking him to cite a mainstream source, I'm a leftist shill? You need to have a long, manly hug with TuffStuff.

I find it fascinating that whenever I offer even the mildest corrective on the subject, I have rightwing nutjobs leaping up and screaming bias as though that were some sort of argument.

Do you have anything of substance to add to this subject, Vladimir, or did you just drop by to declare victory before scuttling away?

It is possible to be a leftist shill and still attempt fairness in your posts. I'm a conservative shill who tends to support the G.O.P. in pretty much everything, but I won't cheat and don't support conservatives who cheat... often.

Example. The Giants and the Patriots are playing a game. Some players would cheat on both teams in order for their own team to win. Other players desperately want their team to win, but would not compromise their own factual legitimacy to make it happen. Nobody on either team has business making the play calls.

You're like the relatively objective cornerback for the Giants wearing pinstripes to the game and hoping people confuse you with the ref.

I don't beleive that you are a bad or unfair guy, but your credibility as a mediator has been shot to hell regarding the Election of 2008. That is all we are saying. But so is mine, really.

By definition of supporting a "party" whether political or otherwise we are partisan. THere is nothing wrong with it. Everyone is partisan in some things.

[Lemur]

So by your thinking, TuffStuff, it's entirely immaterial whether I try to post reliable information or not, correct? 'Cause I picked a side in the '08 election cycle, and that means that anything I say, by definition, is on a par with the most insane mouthings from Daily Kos or MoveOn.org.

This is what I don't understand. Seamus, for example, tilts to the right, but he goes out of his way to find good information and post worthwhile stuff. But I don't see any Dems or lefties on this board jumping down his throat because he's got a viewpoint. Now, I may not live up to the exceptional level of posting quality that Seamus demonstrates, but I'm probably funnier, and I make an effort to link/source good, credible information.

That makes me a football player attempting to fool you into thinking I'm the ref? Really?

I think, rather, that you and Vladimir are attempting to create a false equivalence where everyone is a partisan shill, and therefore there's no functional difference between a post in the comments section of Michelle Malkin and a published article in the Christian Science Monitor. It's a way to not only level the playing field but destroy the very concept of a "playing field," since games with rules have a well-established liberal bias.

[Vladimir]

Vladimir, please feel free to please feel free to point out where I have cited leftwing mouthpieces, etc., etc., etc. And no, CNN, The Economist and Politico don't count toward your final score.

MM was posting from a purely partisan source that makes no pretension of being anything else. But by pointing this out, and asking him to cite a mainstream source, I'm a leftist shill? You need to have a long, manly hug with TuffStuff.

I find it fascinating that whenever I offer even the mildest corrective on the subject, I have rightwing nutjobs leaping up and screaming bias as though that were some sort of argument.

Do you have anything of substance to add to this subject, Vladimir, or did you just drop by to declare victory before scuttling away?

Victory is mine!

Blast!

Another drive-by impailing.

Despite how much you would like to believe it, I don't have a cuddly little Lemur folder where I document all your .org contributions. But if I did, I'm sure there would *never* eeever, be anything that could be perceived as partisan.

Hell, your post in itself is reactionary and generally speaking are some of the most subjective and reactionary here (but never dull)! But that's cool, because like I indicated, this is the Backroom.

[Lemur]

Roland Burris gets body-blocked at the U.S. Senate door. I guess it had to happen.

Burris made his way to the office of Nancy Erickson, the secretary of the Senate, to whom he presented his credentials, only to have her reject them. Afterward, the aspiring legislator stood in the rain outside and declared, “Members of the media, my name is Roland Burris, the junior senator from the State of Illinois.”

Not yet, he isn’t. The problem for Mr. Burris, of course, is that he was named to the seat by the embattled Illinois governor, Rod R. Blagojevich. Ms. Erickson had already said that the appointment letter forwarded by the governor’s office did not comply with Rule II of the Senate’s standing rules, which requires signatures of both the governor and the secretary of state.

[drone]

Looks like DevDave got his wish.

Blagojevich truly has been the best Christmas present ever. Hopefully he sticks it out and we get to see an impeachment. I'm sure he can leak lots of goodies on members of the state legislature. That would be high comedy.

[Lemur]

... aaaaand now the Dems say Burris can join the Senate. What a complete waste of time this has been.

Is it just me, or does Harry Reid strike you as one of the most ineffective political leaders in the last 500 years? This dude does not understand arm-twisting, backroom threatening, pol bribing or just generally getting-his-way-ing. Reid lacks the spine and persistence of former Senate Majority Leaders such as Bill Frist, Tom Daschle or Trent Lott. The descriptors that come to mind for Reid are "limp," "flaccid," "empty" and "impotent."

After a private 45-minute meeting with the former Illinois state attorney general, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, and Senator Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Senate Democrat, said that they were open to recognizing Mr. Burris’s appointment as long as he met several conditions.

They said that Mr. Burris, whose appointment was challenged because of the federal corruption inquiry surrounding Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich, has to win the signature of the Illinois secretary of state and persuade a state legislative committee considering Mr. Blagojevich’s impeachment that there was nothing untoward about his selection.

Blago ran rings around the Washington Dems. You have to kind of admire his moxie, as well as the dead opossum on his head.

[Devastatin Dave]

Looks like DevDave got his wish.

Blagojevich truly has been the best Christmas present ever. Hopefully he sticks it out and we get to see an impeachment. I'm sure he can leak lots of goodies on members of the state legislature. That would be high comedy.

Thank you for the recognition my good fellow.