« Breaking: Nifong Bails Out of Duke Case | Main | "It's not personal. It's strictly business." »

A Boxer "Speaks Truth To Power"

As the whole "weblogosphere" knows by now, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California) enraged many last week with her personal attack on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in a Senate hearing on Thursday. Unlike former New Jersey poet laureate Amiri Baraka (né LeRoi Jones), Senator Boxer did not insult Secretary Rice in rhyme: "Condoleeza, she's a Skeeza." Rather, she argued that Secretary Rice had no personal stake in the Iraq War because she's unmarried and childless.

How charming. Why does it always seem as if the self-proclaimed feminists are the first to offer such low blows against their fellow women? After all, you don't exactly need to be Paula Jones to recognize that the Ms. magazine crowd can be a little tough on the fairer sex.

Still, we, the crack young staff of "The Hatemonger's Quarterly," would be remiss if we did not mention how futile we think it is to demand an apology from Senator Boxer. To be sure, an apology is entirely warranted. But you'd stand a better chance of booking a direct flight from Islamabad to Tel Aviv than forcing Senator Boxer to recant.

And this isn't a reflection on Barbara Boxer's personality per se. Rather, it's a comment about the vicissitudes of contemporary American politics: Except in the case of enormous gaffes that pick up massive traction in the media, politicians never apologize.

As a result, we were not surprised to learn of Senator Boxer's reaction to the controversy her remarks inflamed. On Friday she merely defended herself by claiming that she was "speaking truth to power."

Oh, boy: We have a hard time believing that Senator Boxer could come up with a retort that would more enrage us. Isn't there something at least mildly ridiculous about a Senator from California boasting about her Quaker-esque ability to "speak truth to power"? It's as if this important politician thought of herself as a disenfranchised farm worker. Man, how delusional can you get?

And there's another reason that Senator Boxer's remark irked us. Her "speaking truth to power" gambit was a rehash of a line uttered by none other than Edward Said--may peace be upon Him--the late Palestinian propagandist who moonlighted as a Columbia University English professor. Mr. Said, a fancy and powerful scholar in the academic firmament, (in)famously defined the role of an intellectual--and thus his role--as "speaking truth to power."

Not, of course, the murderous power of Yasir Arafat, Hamas, or sundry other terrorists and murderous organizations. No, Mr. Said liked those folks just fine. Rather, he believed that the true intellectual's role was to bitch about the evils of America and Israel.

One might have thought that Senator Boxer wouldn't offer this sordid tip of the cap to the late terrorist apologist Edward Said. We hope she had no idea of his former use of the phrase. But when a fancy-pants Columbia professor and a long-serving Senator start implicitly referring to themselves as "the little guy," you know that something's remiss.

(Note: The crack young staff of usually "weblog" over at "The Hatemonger's Quarterly," where they are currently contemplating the ways that Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro can "speak truth to power.")


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Boxer "Speaks Truth To Power":

» Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator linked with Senate panel scraps with Rice over Iraq strategy

» Weekend Pundit linked with Thoughts On A Sunday

Comments (46)

I believe this incident has... (Below threshold)
ted:

I believe this incident has only increased the possibility of Condi on a GOP Romney-Rice ticket in '08.

Um, that would be "amiss."<... (Below threshold)
CraigC:

Um, that would be "amiss."

You dumbasses. Does being p... (Below threshold)
Donatello:

You dumbasses. Does being powerful thereby exclude Boxer from speaking the truth? "Speaking truth to power" is a statement that assumes nothing about the position of those who utter it; it says only that those who are being addressed have (perhaps by Orwellian necessity) insulated themselves from the truth, as it tends not to fit their agendas very well. But then you'd know this, being experts on semiotics and critical social theory.

The "crack young staff" really ought to think about what words mean before barfing them out all over the internet. You hurt my brain.

Read this post as Walter Cr... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Read this post as Walter Cronkite would pronounce it back in the day! FUNNY! (Just makin' croutons out of WEEK old bread!)

I second the thought... Wh... (Below threshold)
John:

I second the thought... What a dumbassed article. So Speaker Boxer is in the Ms. Magazine crowd, and Condi is a member of the fairer sex?!?

These are two of the most powerfull women in the federal government having it out during a hearing.

It's not a cat fight.

It's not a bitch-slapping, hair-pulling, nail clawing estrogen induced lapse of reason.

To suggest so, is to hold women to a much lower standard, and to suggest that women are not on an intelectual par with men.

It's degrading. It's also not true.

When two men have the same discourse, does anybody write an article about the GQ crowd not being very sensitive to the needs of another gentleman?

If I was a woman, I'd be really pissed off by this article. Frankly, I'd like to hear Kim and Lorie weigh in on this (or any of the other women here). These are your "people", ladies... How do you feel about what they are saying?

I guess 50% of insomniacs a... (Below threshold)
epador:

I guess 50% of insomniacs are buffoons.

The United States Congress ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

The United States Congress has became the comedy club of the world in less than a week. There will be no need to rerun The Dukes of Hazard, Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres or Hee Haw. Most people will be watching the congressional dhimmi's daily comedy show. I see the great defenders have crawled from under their rocks to defend the undefendable dhimmi's.

Go back and check, we predicted this comedy from day one of the election in Nov but never had any idea it would be this funny.
Congressman Wu Wu, the great insulter (liar)

Congressman- 'Star Trek' has infiltrated the White house.

Barney 'can't talk' Frank blows a gasket, actually three times in a week. He needs an engine (brain) overhaul.

Boxer makes an a** of herself, and her supporters that aren't hiding under their rock with the other slugs.

Peloshi attempts to rip off the people to enable he hubby to make millions.

Sen Biden-I'll create a constitutional crisis in the Senate. What a stupid man.

One great week of comedy. What's on tap this week? An actual gunfight in the House/Senate?

Yes, Ms. Boxer acted like a... (Below threshold)
blackcat77:

Yes, Ms. Boxer acted like a boor, but this is starting to get to the point where my friends on the right doth protest too much. Rice's rebuttal was golden and AFAIC, making a bigger deal out of this than it's worth either makes the whiners seem more partisan than Boxer was, or makes it look like they're trying really hard to divert our attention from something else -- like the populist Democratic 100-hour agenda maybe.

Right. Increase minimum wa... (Below threshold)
robert the original:

Right. Increase minimum wage killing small business jobs. Increase taxes killing the economy. Withdraw funds from troops killing the military. Price controls on drugs killing future investment. Promote crooks to key positions. Almost pass pork busting, almost reinstitute draft, almost withdraw troops to Okinawa.

Quite a record for 100 hours, it took Carter much longer to f**k things up.

The argument then, is that they are too busy to be civil in a hearing?

I dunno blackcat... when ev... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

I dunno blackcat... when even their accounting of the first 100 hours on a clock is so hinky, I cannot help be reminded of the phrase "that depends on what the meaning of 'is' is". :)
Since a troll planted Shakespeare in my head in an older thread today, I am thinking Babs and San Fran Nan would appreciate a certain hunch backed schemer when he said "Why, I can smile, and murder whiles I smile,(...) I can add colours to the chameleon, Change shapes with Proteus for advantages, And set the murderous Machiavel to school".
OK, maybe that list bit about Machiavelli gives too much credit :)

I'm curious. Did Teddy R o... (Below threshold)
epador:

I'm curious. Did Teddy R or A Lincoln resort to such personal attacks in their public debates and speeches? I suppose its possible, but I don't remember see lines like this in the speeches I've read. Any of our historical experts (as opposed to the hysterical ones) care to weigh in on this one?

God I hate that ultimate pl... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

God I hate that ultimate platitude the Dims. invoke all the time.

How about just speaking "truth?" That would be vast improvement for the Left.

Boxer was RIGHT and has NO ... (Below threshold)
leeanne:

Boxer was RIGHT and has NO apology to make. I just wish she could've been a little harder on Condi. Condi has trouble putting a sentence together. The fractured right don't want to point out the fact that Condaleeza SKEEZA is gay, a lily licker, a lesbian etc and that will keep her from EVER running for president!!

Leeanne,Boxer has an IQ jus... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

Leeanne,Boxer has an IQ just below a baboon,and you say Condi can't put a sentence together.

Leeanne-Lisbianism has neve... (Below threshold)
jainphx:

Leeanne-Lisbianism has never stopped Hitlery Clinton.See two of us can spread unfounded rumors,although mine is more believable than yours.

Sorry child, but maybe, jus... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

Sorry child, but maybe, just maybe, the right cares very little about her personal life, esp if it doesn't impact her public life.
Good to know, however, that the folks that claim to embrace all lifestyles can't even accept a bachelorette.
Odd, isn't, that first they (people like leaane) made an issue of her skin color. Then they found out that it was the "tolerant" left that cared the most about it. The right saw the right person for the job, they saw a negro.
Now they need to cast aspersions on her sexuality, with no evidence beyond her lack of a husband. Pretty soon they'll find out that again, it is they that want to take issue with it.

Is a "lisbian" someone from... (Below threshold)
blackcat77:

Is a "lisbian" someone from the capitol of Portugal?

leanne-the-idiot,C... (Below threshold)
jo:

leanne-the-idiot,

Condi can't put two sentences together, yet she was Provost at Stanford University?

Hmmm, are you saying she got that position because they lowered standards for the left's precious affirmative action?

Interesting.

Boxer owes no apology.... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Boxer owes no apology.

Just read the transcript.

Yea black cat77 lesbian is ... (Below threshold)

Yea black cat77 lesbian is proper spelling,but of course with your vast knowledge of every thing,You had trouble figuring what was meant.Can't refute the comment but damn good at nitpicking as all democraps.

Why should Boxer apologize?... (Below threshold)
civil behavior:

Why should Boxer apologize?


She's only stating the obvious. The fact that those of us who have no skin in the game really cannot appreciate the full sting of betrayal by our own government in an "escalation" of a war ("surge" is BS) when in fact it is the American occupation that is the reason for the continued slaughter of American kids and Iraqi civilians and they are willing to perpetuate it is what is inexcusable.


How dare Barbara insinuate that Condesleeza was doing the bidding of her "husbands" vain and preposterous one last chance plan while 70% of the American public know that the chaos wll be the same only deferred with more dead Americans if we don't begin phased withdrawl now.


We were led into this fiasco by corporate powers who beknighted GW and Dick as their proxies using the fear trump card in the form of a mushroom cloud. Now we're being told we must stay on in an open ended committment so there is no chance of a mushroom cloud.


Of course, maybe Condi and her bosses are just feeling a bit of buyer's remorse and someone reminding them of their failed policies, especially since none of them ever saw fit to serve in a war that we should all be more gentle in our manner toward them. Give them a break.


We must allow the Crocodile in chief, Condesleeza and Dick shoot you in the face to be protected from such harsh judgements huh?

"Speaking truth to power... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

"Speaking truth to power" is a statement that assumes nothing about the position of those who utter it; it says only that those who are being addressed have (perhaps by Orwellian necessity) insulated themselves from the truth, as it tends not to fit their agendas very well. But then you'd know this, being experts on semiotics and critical social theory.

The "crack young staff" really ought to think about what words mean before barfing them out all over the internet.

Ummm.. Donatello ...

Let's agree for a moment that you are correct and "speaking truth to power" says nothing about the relative power of the person making the comment. (And I don't agree ....)

That still doesn't make it's meaning "...it says only that those who are being addressed have (perhaps by Orwellian necessity) insulated themselves from the truth, as it tends not to fit their agendas very well."

It means that IN THE OPINION OF THE PERSON MAKING THE STATEMENT that is the case. It doesn't make it true that "who are being addressed have...." If you are going to argue the meaning of words ....

My guess is Boxer simply doesn't understand the concept of the separation of powers. She certainly knows nothing about how a childless person may or may not feel. After all, according to her logic, you could only know that if you were childless.

Nice typical over-done post... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Nice typical over-done post by civil misbehavior. Nobody's going to read your lengthy crap, so why take the time out of your "busy" schedule, hombre?

Of course, no con here read... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Of course, no con here read what Boxer ACTUALLY said. That would be too much to ask from anyone here.


"I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

Where is the attack on her unmarried status?

Realitythe problem... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Reality

the problem here w/ the Wizchoir is that the actual transcript of Boxer/Rice doesn't comport w/ the wingnut talking points.

Of course, no con here r... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Of course, no con here read what Boxer ACTUALLY said. That would be too much to ask from anyone here.

Did you before posting here or did you just read the one comment you quoted?

Did you read any of the comments from those who you refer to as "con" before criticizing them?

If you did, why are you asking about 'an attack' on her married status? The issue that has been discussed here is Boxer said in her comments that Rice is incapable of doing her job/has no right to be in a position of decision-making because she has no children.

Alright, I'll play your lit... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Alright, I'll play your little game. Where in Boxer's statement does it refer to her childless status? What Senator Boxer said could apply to parents and non-parents alike.

Reality, do try and keep up... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Reality, do try and keep up.

That's not the question(s) I asked you.

Nice though, that you admitted Boxer's statement (the portion you quoted) applied to non-parents as well. Given that Boxer is a parent, she - if we follow her logic - should not be able to understand how a non-parent would react and therefore doesn't know what she is talking about.

And, when you take the time to read the rest of her comments, you will find she repeats the theme.

Maybe YOU ought to keep up.... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Maybe YOU ought to keep up. I am referring to Jay's original post, which he said (read carefully, I can't type any slower):

"Rather, she argued that Secretary Rice had no personal stake in the Iraq War because she's unmarried and childless."

Where do you see that argument in this Barbara Boxer statement?

"I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young. You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family. So who pays the price? The American military and their families."

See, none of you people want to deal with WHAT BARBARA BOXER ACTUALLY SAID. You simply accepted something uncritically and ran with it, facts be damned. Haven't you learned enough from the Miami Port fiasco and the Jamil Hussein non-issue? And that was just last week!

RealityNo, OhioVot... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Reality

No, OhioVoter and the rest can't read which goes a long way to explain why they take the positions that they do.

You see, the day after the hearings, Kim was posting her outrage over Boxer from her read of that morning's right blogsites. Then Laura Lingam, on her radio show, followed by Rush and topped off w/ Hannity spent 9 hours of air time trashing Boxer, but none of them talked about the context of the entire statement. To have done so would have shown, just as you pointed out, that Boxer was not talking about a "childless" Rice any more than she was putting her down for being an only child..

IT'S CALLED TALKING POINTS and the Wizchoir and their right-sphere cohorts are all well-armed to hear nothing else.

For a great discussion of t... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

For a great discussion of the whole Boxer uproar, here is a video clip from last Friday's McLaughlin group. Certainly this cannot be a lefty distorted discussion, even tho ity is impassioned.

The Wizgang might do well to watch it before going any further with the smear.

Please, trying to understan... (Below threshold)
Mitchell:

Please, trying to understand Boxer's "logic" makes my head hurt.

So does the mis-direction of the left toadies here.

Either you have common sense and "get it," or you don't. Any fair minded person can read what Boxer said and see the jab at Rice. It's not that hard, if you use your brain.

"Speaking truth to power" <... (Below threshold)
smitty:

"Speaking truth to power"

But Barbara Boxer---SENATOR Barbara Boxer---is a "power".

Next she'll tell us she was "Stickin' it to the man."

She's a hollow woman, a 60s retard, whose political philosphy is based on inane cliches.

Again, weren't these the sa... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Again, weren't these the same leftists OUTRAGED over the "racism" in Corker's ad about Ford in October?

And they have problems seeing the slam HERE?

Probably would've been best if we didn't reveal the names for a day or two, so conservatives would chastise the speaker for being mean and libs would chastise conservatives for not chastising the person enough.
-=Mike

Reality,Maybe Y... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Reality,

Maybe YOU ought to keep up. I am referring to Jay's original post, which he said (read carefully, I can't type any slower):

Careful, when you backtrack that fast, you could hurt yourself. :-)

Well, sure *wink* *wink* .. when you posted a second comment immediately after mine, you weren't *wink* *wink* referring to my post that responded to yours, you were *wink* *wink* responding to one 30 posts ago.

I'm sure it has nothing to do with my pointing out your statement:

"What Senator Boxer said could apply to parents and non-parents alike."

So, you have already admitted that Boxer's comments could have applied to Rice. Why twist yourself into knots trying to defend Boxer against comments that you have already admitted she could have made?

Your problem is that Boxer's own statement was inherently illogical. It's no wonder you can't defend it.

Let's break it down for you:

Boxer said (and I'm quoting your quotes here - if I'm wrong, so were you)

"I'm not going to pay a personal price. My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Boxer is speaking about herself and - apparently - is saying that she is incapable of feeling the pain of another human being because she has not had the experience. Fine. It's a pretty sad thing to say about oneself, but it is her right to say it.

However, then she says:

"You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with immediate family."

Whoa! Wasn't HER point that you have to experience the situation FIRST-HAND to know how it feels? It's HER point - and she violated it in the very next sentence.

Now, unless she was lying with her first comment, she has no idea and cannot speak to whether Rice (and by extension all people with Rice's same family situation) is going to pay a "personal price" or not.

Boxer also said to Rice:

"You can't begin to imagine how you celebrate any holiday or birthday. There's an absence. It's not like the person's never been there. They always were there, and now they're not, and you're looking at an empty hole."

An assumption has been made that the outrage at Boxer's statements is solely because it was offensive to Rice.

Personally, I am sure that Rice has heard worse and, given her resume, isn't worried about the opinion of someone like Boxer.

Boxer insulted a HUGE group of people with her comments. Given her complete lack of understanding, it's clear she has never dealt with the pain of infertility or repeated miscarriages or failed adoption attempts either, for example. Who is she to tell those people that "it's not like the person's never been there"?

In the quest for moment of political drama, she was needlessly cruel.

Oh, and since you obviously haven't read the latest on the Jamil "Hussein" story, I will leave you to do that. As to the Miami port story ... you seem to be making more of it than anyone else I know.

aRepukelican,Th... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

aRepukelican,

Then Laura Lingam, on her radio show, followed by Rush and topped off w/ Hannity spent 9 hours of air time trashing Boxer, but none of them talked about the context of the entire statement. To have done so would have shown, just as you pointed out, that Boxer was not talking about a "childless" Rice any more than she was putting her down for being an only child..

That's is funny. Please tell me that you really didn't listen to 9 hours of air time on this subject.

Oh, now that I think about it that is just sad.

I can only name a couple of conservatives (and I am a conservative) who listen to even one of those programs listed all the way through. I don't know anyone who listens to them all. Most, simply listen to it on the ride home or on the way to the grocery store for a few minutes or have it on while they are helping the kids with homework and getting the family ready for the next day.

You really listended to 9 hours?

IT'S CALLED TALKING POINTS and the Wizchoir and their right-sphere cohorts are all well-armed to hear nothing else.

I asked if you really listened to 9 uninterupted hours of Ingrahm/Rush/Hannity because, if you didn't do it personally, then you are just using the TALKING POINTS yourself and that makes you a fair-sized hypocrite.

"So, you have already admit... (Below threshold)
Reality:

"So, you have already admitted that Boxer's comments could have applied to Rice. "

Yes. And probably about 1/2 to 2/3 of the country. Including myself. I agree with her, I can't feel the loss like a serviceperson's family would.

The fact that you have to parse her statements that much only proves my point that any reasonable person (hint: not you) wouldn't see that as a slur on anyone.

STILL beating the Jamil Hussein drum? For god sakes man, have some pride!

"I asked if you really list... (Below threshold)
Reality:

"I asked if you really listened to 9 uninterupted hours of Ingrahm/Rush/Hannity because, if you didn't do it personally, then you are just using the TALKING POINTS yourself and that makes you a fair-sized hypocrite."

Shorter Ohiovoter: "I know you are but what am I?"

So, in other words, you onl... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

So, in other words, you only agree with one sentence of Boxer's comment, but not her overall point or anything else she said.

If you agreed with her logic, you would not have posted this:

"I asked if you really listened to 9 uninterupted hours of Ingrahm/Rush/Hannity because, if you didn't do it personally, then you are just using the TALKING POINTS yourself and that makes you a fair-sized hypocrite."

Shorter Ohiovoter: "I know you are but what am I?"

I can realiably state that you are not me. If you are not me, then you cannot have my experiences or can you know what I was - *really meant* - to say. Therefore, by making the comment, you have affirmatively declared that you, in your opinion, DON'T need the experience to understand the feeling and speak for someone else.

Which, of course, directly contradicts Boxer's point ...

The fact that you choose to - attempt - speak for me speaks volumes about how committed you actually are to Boxer's POV ... it works when it suits you, but you abandon it when it doesn't.

It also begs the question why your are responding with insults to a post not directed to you, but I won't speculate .... much. *wink*

As to ..

The fact that you have to parse her statements that much only proves my point that any reasonable person (hint: not you) wouldn't see that as a slur on anyone.

STILL beating the Jamil Hussein drum? For god sakes man, have some pride!

Well, I could interpret that comment one of two ways ...

Either you feel comfortable in speaking for all childless people everywhere or you find them to be "unreasonable".

As to the last comment about Jamil "Hussein" .... thanks for the laugh!


Ohio, is English your first... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Ohio, is English your first language? Because nothing you have said made sense. It's ok, I'm not against immigrants like so many on the right are.

RealityDidn't you ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Reality

Didn't you recognize that OhioVoter is from Ohio.

Unless that's northern Ohio, his first language is likely "hillbilly."

Since the beginning I knew ... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

Since the beginning I knew that it was impossible to defend Boxer's inherently illogical comment. I see now that you have given up the losing fight and decided simply to attempt to insult me.

The problem is that I - unlike you - don't think being called an "immigrant" is a bad thing and don't consider being called one an insult.

My favorite great-grandparents (as in all of them) were immigrants, or the children of immigrants, to this country.

You know what else? With some few exceptions EVERYBODY I know has a relative (or more) who is an immigrant to this country.

I don't, however, agree with your contention that poor command of the English language is a sign of an immigrant. Perhaps, though, you have never taken the time to learn to speak another language fluently so you don't understand what is involved.

Which, according to Boxer, would mean that you couldn't possibly understand what a person goes through in such a situation ... *wink*

I've known far too many immigrants to make such an assumption. In addition, when I lived abroad, I encountered any number of people who could converse easily and well in English as they did in their native language. Most, of the rest, could speak English well enough to carry on a conversation. English is a required language for school children in many other countries.

aRepukelican,You a... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

aRepukelican,

You are avoiding my previous question:

Did you really PERSONALLY listen to 9 hours of Ingram, Rush, and Hannity or are you just parroting talking points that you read somewhere?

As to your slur against southerners, it pretty much tells us what we need to know about you.

OVGet over it...ju... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

OV

Get over it...just a joke.

As for your radio question: no, I didn't listen for 9 hrs. The radio is near the computer & on, and whenever I am at the computer thru the day, I'm able to keep up on the right's TP's. One begins to appreciate that that is exactly what they are, TP's, because they are nearly uniform on any given day and are hammered by one & all.

From your earlier post:... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

From your earlier post:

Then Laura Lingam, on her radio show, followed by Rush and topped off w/ Hannity spent 9 hours of air time trashing Boxer, but none of them talked about the context of the entire statement.

So, in other words, you just made that up.

That tells us the rest of what we need to know about you.

OhioVoter, "... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

OhioVoter,

"because they are nearly uniform on any given day and are hammered by one & all."

What he fails to mention is that the truth and facts can't help but being "nearly uniform on any given day" because they are. Which why he is here in the first place , to throw his democrat monkey wrench of lies in hopes of distorting the facts.
They really can't help themselves. They are what they are , dishonest , disingenuous , they are insincere and calculating and to put in simply, manipulative frauds. For example , when Republicans/Conservatives speak of the facts and the truth, democrats rush to attack make alot of noise and call them "Talking Points" . They must bring them down to their level for them too feel good about themselves because they know their talking points are all "fraud and lies". There is really no other alternative , the survival of their party depends on it. They are doomed to lie.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy