DescentBB

Is the fast and furious cover-up by Holder and the White House worse than Watergate?

discus

I would say so. People DIED- and not just the border patrol agent. Over a hundred people in Mexico may have been the direct victims of the guns involved- and perhaps uncounted hundreds more. This is not only a cover up, but a crime against humanity.

The suspected motives behind the program may have been to increase violence (ie- DEATH) to fuel gun control moves by the government and not just to 'track cartel guns.' This motive may never be proven, but I wouldn't put it past this seditious administration.

you two are kidding, right? I mean, in Watergate, a crime was committed to influence a national election. There was intent to do so, there was an ongoing conspiracy to rig electoral conditions. In F and F, a plan went badly awry, but there was no intent to hurt anyone, in fact the INTENT was to put top level gangsters in jail instead of mom and pop gun dealers and small time straw buyers. They fecked the thing up, but to even compare the two situations utterly reeks of the stupidity that national discourse has been brought to.

F&F went against all sound principals. No excuse.

callmeslick wrote:you two are kidding, right? I mean, in Watergate, a crime was committed to influence a national election. There was intent to do so, there was an ongoing conspiracy to rig electoral conditions. In F and F, a plan went badly awry, but there was no intent to hurt anyone, in fact the INTENT was to put top level gangsters in jail instead of mom and pop gun dealers and small time straw buyers. They fecked the thing up, but to even compare the two situations utterly reeks of the stupidity that national discourse has been brought to.

Like I said- the INTENT may have been to cause enough death and violence to justify Obama's gun contol aspirations. Will this be provable? Probably not- but there is probably enough evidence to put some people away for a long time and may cost Obama the presidency and any hope he had of establishing any kind of legacy other than one of failure and deceit.

Well, I guess what we have here is a case of criminal intent vs. criminal negligence, which was worse…well, only comparing the results can determine that.

As far as the level of stupidity involved…F & F has to get the prize there, I mean…what the hell were they thinking.

The intent was a honest attempt at trying to stop the Mexican drug lords, but the application of this idiotic idea was horribly wrong, insipid and bungled. However, like all political figures caught up in scandal, let the butt covering and retractions begin.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/holder-re ... le/2500157

However, worse than Watergate, I think not. What Holder did or is doing now is chump change compared to what Nixon did. Not that Holder is a squeaky clean angel, far from it. But "I'm not a crook" Nixon famously stated that as President, he had unlimited power, especially during wartime. His presidency was even called the Imperial Presidency for cripes sake! He was the only president to resign in disgrace, and if he hadn't, he would've been impeached.

Where I disagree is where all the Fox News sycophants think that this was some secret attempt to create so much gun death and destruction that Obama would have take away your guns. Hahahahahahahahhahahahhaha! What morons y'all are!

His presidency was even called the Imperial Presidency

Sounds a whole lot like Mr. Obama's reign.

tunnelcat wrote:The intent was a honest attempt at trying to stop the Mexican drug lords,

Just how was this going to stop the drug lords? Seems to me the drug lords are still doing wonderfully well. And it's not like we don't know who the DL's are so I ask again, just how was F&F going to stop anyone?

tunnelcat wrote:However, worse than Watergate, I think not. What Holder did or is doing now is chump change compared to what Nixon did. Not that Holder is a squeaky clean angel, far from it. But "I'm not a crook" Nixon famously stated that as President, he had unlimited power, especially during wartime. His presidency was even called the Imperial Presidency for cripes sake! He was the only president to resign in disgrace, and if he hadn't, he would've been impeached.

Holder may very well be the bigger "crook" by lying to congress. Nixon may have been impeached for his actions but Holder may very well face prison time.

tunnelcat wrote:Where I disagree is where all the Fox News sycophants think that this was some secret attempt to create so much gun death and destruction that Obama would have take away your guns. Hahahahahahahahhahahahhaha! What morons y'all are!

The only morons are those who don't watch Fox news as the main news outlets have reported next to nothing about F&F...you know TC like the ones you watch

callmeslick wrote:you two are kidding, right? I mean, in Watergate, a crime was committed to influence a national election. There was intent to do so, there was an ongoing conspiracy to rig electoral conditions.

Wow, it almost sounds like you are posting something about Gerrymandering. Or using the AG's office to prevent photo I.d.'s from being required so dead people and Micky Mouse can vote. Or using thug SEIU members to knock down and intimidate Obamacare protestors. Or dropping a probe against the New Black Panthers for voter intimidation.

callmeslick wrote:In F and F, a plan went badly awry, but there was no intent to hurt anyone, in fact the INTENT was to put top level gangsters in jail instead of mom and pop gun dealers and small time straw buyers. They fecked the thing up, but to even compare the two situations utterly reeks of the stupidity that national discourse has been brought to.

Ahhh...nice attempt at logic Slick. Tell that to Zimmerman as I'm sure he had no intent of shooting someone when he went out on his neighborhood watch duties. The thing is, two agents died because of a scheme set up by a govt. agency and because homicides occurred, those in charge have to be held accountable just like the drug lords will be held accountable for the crimes of their underlings. And now The Gangsta in Chief has stuck his beak into the fray by exerting executive privilege to protect his close friend Holder. I guess being the most transparent administration only applies to things that make you look good.

tunnelcat wrote:However, worse than Watergate, I think not. What Holder did or is doing now is chump change compared to what Nixon did.

I disagree. Nixon tried to cover-up a break-in that had political implications. and if slick thinks for a second that both parties to this day don't do illegal things to influence an election he's naive at best. Nixon just got caught. F&F cost lives lots of them, who authorized it and why? saying that effecting an election is worse than loss of life is a sad statement at best.

TC this is where you make your mistake. the thing that got Nixon in trouble was the cover-up. F&F just became more than Holder being incompetent and in contempt. it just became an Obama cover-up with the White house evoking executive privileged and blocking and documents from being released. this is a lose lose for Obama.
1. he's covering it up because he appointed an incompetent idiot to run the justice department which makes him look bad during an election
2. he's covering up what happened because it appears he knew about it. which makes him look bad during an election
3. he was involved and he's covering it up. which makes him look bad during an election

eventually the truth will come out. it ALWAYS does.


so anyway you cut it he looks bad during an election. not that he needs anything else to make him look bad.
Carter part duex,
His signature piece of legislation may be declared unconstitutional with-in the next week,
he IS covering up for the justice department on F&F.
the deficit is 30% higher then when he took office with nothing to show for it.
unemployment is STILL over 8% nationwide after promising that spending all this money would prevent that.
the economy it at it's worse since the great depression with no signs of coming out of it.
he is showing the US to be weak around the world just like Carter did with the hostage crisis in 78.
the White House is leaking HIGHLY classified secrets to the Media, damaging what little credibility we have in the world
and his base is deserting him in droves.

Hell, as Wood pointed out the AG he HAS to have dead people vote for him, they might be the only votes he gets plus slicks it might be the only chance he has for re-election

Where I disagree is where all the Fox News sycophants think that this was some secret attempt to create so much gun death and destruction that Obama would have take away your guns. Hahahahahahahahhahahahhaha! What morons y'all are!

ALL??? Really.... god you just love to blanket accuse everyone don't you.

Why the need to compare the two? What is it that makes us need to declare one as "worse" than the other?

I don't buy that the intent behind F&F was pure, and I don't buy the gun-control conpiracy theories... but intent isn't the biggest issue. The primary issue in my mind is the high-level attempted cover-up, which puts it in a similar realm as Watergate.

----

So rather than trying to figure out which was worse, allow me to ask: Which one will do more damage politically? Is the F&F cover-up enough to unseat the current administration?

(Personally, I don't think it will be. It warrants consideration, but the case is too complex for mainstream politicking, so I don't think it will end up being a major factor in the big election.)

Well, here's the kicker CUDA and woodchip, and I'd forgotten about this little nasty turn of events until, surprise, TODAY. Funny how things tend to be forgotten or stuffed into the closet when it comes to historical events. So before you define your guy, Nixon, as a saint, take a look at the crap he pulled just to get in office. He was an evil SOB.

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/06/14/ad ... s-treason/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Chennault

Darrell Issa is not above petty politics to get what he wants either Foil. He wants the head of Obama on a stake, and he's going to do whatever it takes, however spurious, to meet that goal. He has his own vendetta, and Holder fell right into Issa's trap due to his own arrogance and mistakes. Lets also not forget that Mr. Issa is not squeaky clean himself either. He has quite a few skeletons in his own sordid closet.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... obama-issa

http://duanegraham.wordpress.com/tag/darrell-issa/

And concerning political parties, Congress and subpenaed individuals, not all are treated equally. Holder has been charged with contempt of Congress. But the Dems had their chance to do the same to a really crooked Republican operative, so why didn't they charge Karl Rove with the same thing? He was subpenaed to testify before Congress and he never showed up. Just flipped the bird at them pretty as you please. So why wasn't he held in contempt? Because that little pipsqueak Pelosi wimped out and never pursued contempt charges. Well, she should have, but like all the Dems in Congress right, they're chicken sh*t semi-corporatists, not liberals! She said:

Pelosi wrote:“I could have arrested Karl Rove on any given day. I’m not kidding. There’s a prison here in the Capitol. If we had spotted him in the Capitol, we could have arrested him.”

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77692.html

You tell on me I'm gonna tell on you

Unfortunately, that seems to be the way our politicians are acting now.

tunnelcat wrote:Well, here's the kicker CUDA and woodchip, and I'd forgotten about this little nasty turn of events until, surprise, TODAY. Funny how things tend to be forgotten or stuffed into the closet when it comes to historical events. So before you define your guy, Nixon, as a saint, take a look at the crap he pulled just to get in office. He was an evil SOB.

OMGwhat are you reading that would bring you to that conclusion???? no one has said or even implied that Nixon was a saint. why cant you ever address a topic for what it is??? you always deflect with the Ya but your guy is worse.

flip wrote:F&F went against all sound principals. No excuse.

I agree, Flip, it was a dumb as a brick. Still to compare the matter to Watergate, or even Iran/Contra is laughable. Well, that and so pathetically sad, when folks have gotten so blindly partisan as to wish to make such comparisons. Our nation, if this continues, is doomed.

sorry....I had to take a short laughter break after seeing the 'conspiracy to enact anti gun laws' thing. Freaking hilarious, given the violence that occurs daily in most major cities, the number of kids getting shot, etc. If the US public hasn't realized from daily experience that our gun policies are whacko, a dead border agent or two isn't going to change anything.
My take on the actual F/F operation is this: for years, we've managed to bust a few small dealers and mules for the cartels, otherwise nothing. If anything, the government has been helping the cartels weed out the incompetents. Virtually anyone with half a functioning brain KNOWS the cartels get their gun supply from a lax US market. Some young, naive souls cooked up F and F as a way to address this and catch the big fish. What got them was the lack of comprehension of exactly how easy it is to buy off the Border Patrol and Customs agents. Hell, how do you think tons of herion get into Connecticut(see: Willimantic), or warehouses of weed get into warehouses on the Philly docks. I can go on, but you see the point, I hope.
The coverup, such as it is(Obama has only invoked Exec Privilige this one time, Bush used it hundreds of times, Clinton dozens) is likely to be political cover and also cover for some sensitive connections within the operation, but my original point remains the same. Cooking up goofy theories and comparing serious Federal Crimes to this sort of very human f-up is the sort of divisive stupidity that seems to have consumed the Right for years now. And, it will be a big part of why Obama is going to whomp the GOP come November.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Well, here's the kicker CUDA and woodchip, and I'd forgotten about this little nasty turn of events until, surprise, TODAY. Funny how things tend to be forgotten or stuffed into the closet when it comes to historical events. So before you define your guy, Nixon, as a saint, take a look at the crap he pulled just to get in office. He was an evil SOB.

OMGwhat are you reading that would bring you to that conclusion???? no one has said or even implied that Nixon was a saint. why cant you ever address a topic for what it is??? you always deflect with the Ya but your guy is worse.

*checks OP*

Was not your intention for the thread to draw a comparison?
You could have obviously avoided this sidetrack by avoiding the Watergate comparison in the OP no?

Comparisons generally work by first defining both things you are comparing, then comparing them. This makes an analysis of Watergate and Nixon inevitable.

I think it's the coverup they all have in common. Everyone else has to pay for an accident or lack of good judgment.

roid wrote:*checks OP*

Was not your intention for the thread to draw a comparison?
You could have obviously avoided this sidetrack by avoiding the Watergate comparison in the OP no?

Comparisons generally work by first defining both things you are comparing, then comparing them. This makes an analysis of Watergate and Nixon inevitable.

yes it was, but I'm guessing that you didn't read what TC wrote. and what I responded to.

Pelosi, in a press briefing earlier in the day, said the anti-Holder push is part of a scheme to "suppress" the vote.

she's kidding right?? how do you go from a botched gun running program that cost the lives of several people to voter suppression and hold a straight face?

CUDA wrote:

Pelosi, in a press briefing earlier in the day, said the anti-Holder push is part of a scheme to "suppress" the vote.

she's kidding right?? how do you go from a botched gun running program that cost the lives of several people to voter suppression and hold a straight face?

Awwww, just remember Cuda, this is the same woman who said with a equally straight face that they had to pass the Obamacare bill before they could see what was in it. So in the same vein we could say we have to bring Holder up on contempt charges before we can see what he did.

callmeslick wrote: Some young, naive souls cooked up F and F as a way to address this and catch the big fish.

Yeah, some twenty somethings just hired into the ATF cooked this up all on their own, never got approval and just ran with it. You Pelosi's brother ?

callmeslick wrote: What got them was the lack of comprehension of exactly how easy it is to buy off the Border Patrol and Customs agents. Hell, how do you think tons of herion get into Connecticut(see: Willimantic), or warehouses of weed get into warehouses on the Philly docks. I can go on, but you see the point, I hope.

Right... it was the Boarder agents fault one of their own was murdered. The Boarder Patrol is the real culprit and they send tractor trailer loads of guns into Mexico every week. Not to burst you bubble but the Cartels can buy firearms from the same contractors as the military does especially in bulk quantities.

callmeslick wrote: The coverup, such as it is(Obama has only invoked Exec Privilige this one time, Bush used it hundreds of times, Clinton dozens) is likely to be political cover and also cover for some sensitive connections within the operation, but my original point remains the same.

You know it is comments like this that leaves be shaking my head as to whether you are smart and trying to mis-direct or just a ignoramus. Bush used his executive privilege exactly 6 times, Clinton 14

callmeslick wrote: Cooking up goofy theories and comparing serious Federal Crimes to this sort of very human f-up is the sort of divisive stupidity that seems to have consumed the Right for years now. And, it will be a big part of why Obama is going to whomp the GOP come November.

Divisive like in promoting class warfare or race baiting? Looking at how low Obama is in the National polls I'd say it will be Romney in a landslide.

I think this entire incident can be attributed to a basic principle behind current "progressive" thinking:

THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

CUDA wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Well, here's the kicker CUDA and woodchip, and I'd forgotten about this little nasty turn of events until, surprise, TODAY. Funny how things tend to be forgotten or stuffed into the closet when it comes to historical events. So before you define your guy, Nixon, as a saint, take a look at the crap he pulled just to get in office. He was an evil SOB.

OMGwhat are you reading that would bring you to that conclusion???? no one has said or even implied that Nixon was a saint. why cant you ever address a topic for what it is??? you always deflect with the Ya but your guy is worse.

No, you didn't. You wanted a comparison between Watergate, ie., Nixon (you can't separate the 2, like you can't separate F&F and Obama), and F&F. You implied F&F is worse and I gave you an example to the contrary. BUT please, once in a while point out the crap Republicans do instead of always bashing Democrats if you don't want a knee-jerk response. Neither party has a lock on exceptional and honest behavior and they both have done their fair share of nonsense and law breaking. I already know that Obama is not a squeaky clean saint, that he's abusing his power and that his closets are full of skeletons and I can't or won't defend him unilaterally. But until you admit that the current Republicans have ulterior motives (like bringing down his presidency at all costs) in all this constant Obama bashing and trashing than their stated "public" reasons, instead of working with him to get something accomplished, I'll come to your defense.

ThunderBunny wrote:I think this entire incident can be attributed to a basic principle behind current "progressive" thinking:

THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS.

Progressives don't have a lock on that one either. Quite a few supposedly patriotic, flag waving, "We're the only true Americans" conservatives have that in spades. Oh and TB, how is Obama's administration an "Imperial Presidency"? If you think that's the case, you'd better look to a couple of previous Republican Presidents like Nixon and Bush, who set the stage for the current executive privileges Obama is now using. What they created and used, the other party you detest is now using. Like Romney said, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander". If you don't want a Democratic President having unilateral executive privilege, don't turn a blind eye and keep your mouth shut when a Republican President actually sets the precedence before the next guy from the other party gets in office.

woodchip wrote:Yeah, some twenty somethings just hired into the ATF cooked this up all on their own, never got approval and just ran with it. You Pelosi's brother ?

ummm ATF didn't cross my mind. I was thinking more about younger policy wonks at Justice itself. And, no, I'm not.

Right... it was the Boarder agents fault one of their own was murdered. The Boarder Patrol is the real culprit and they send tractor trailer loads of guns into Mexico every week. Not to burst you bubble but the Cartels can buy firearms from the same contractors as the military does especially in bulk quantities.

no, they cannot. For both legal and logistical reasons. They are on the black market. Oh, and learn to spell Border, please, you look sort of foolish misspelling it twice in the same paragraph.

[

You know it is comments like this that leaves be shaking my head as to whether you are smart and trying to mis-direct or just a ignoramus. Bush used his executive privilege exactly 6 times, Clinton 14

fair enough shot, I suppose, as I was quoting numbers for classifications of contested documents instead of privilige invoked. It was late and I was tired, so sue me. The point remains that this is hardly something Obama resorts to regularly.

Divisive like in promoting class warfare or race baiting? Looking at how low Obama is in the National polls I'd say it will be Romney in a landslide.

hmmm, seems like RealClear and most others have Obama cakewalking to an Electoral College win if he can carry PA and either Ohio, Florida or Virginia. But, what do they know....? Get back to me in November, but if you think EITHER side wins in a landslide, you haven't been following US politics very closely, or your ideological blinders are attached way too tightly.

callmeslick wrote:

callmeslick wrote: Oh, and learn to spell Border, please, you look sort of foolish misspelling it twice in the same paragraph.

First off please accept my most humble and heartfelt apology for the egregious act of misspelling a word, not once but twice. I am indeed foolish but I hope my act of contrition is suitable to compel you to forgive me.

callmeslick wrote: fair enough shot, I suppose, as I was quoting numbers for classifications of contested documents instead of privilige invoked. It was late and I was tired, so sue me.

A reply worthy of a true liberal, take no rebuke lying down...give excuses and become belligerent.

callmeslick wrote:

hmmm, seems like RealClear and most others have Obama cakewalking to an Electoral College win if he can carry PA and either Ohio, Florida or Virginia. But, what do they know....? Get back to me in November, but if you think EITHER side wins in a landslide, you haven't been following US politics very closely, or your ideological blinders are attached way too tightly.

Ladies and gentlemen of the board, before you stands a post filled with psychological dissembly framed in political insouciance. I, who stand for truth, justice and the American Way, will now use my super human powers to make right Slicks evil portrayal of what is to come:
Evidently Slick, who is using June polling data to predict a "cakewalk" for Obama should know better. If Mssr. Slick followed US politics at all he would of, at the very least, looked at prior polling data for previous presidential elections and then at the actual outcome. So here we go:

1) In June 1980, President Jimmy Carter led Ronald Reagan 39 percent to 32 percent, with independent John Anderson at 21 percent. In November, Reagan defeated Carter, 51 percent to 41 percent, with Anderson getting less than 7 percent

2) Michael Dukakis was ahead of George H.W. Bush by a landslide, 52 percent to 38 percent. Bush garnered more than 53 percent in November.

3) The June 1992 polling projected the nation's first independent president, Ross Perot. At 39 percent Perot easily topped Bush (31 percent) and Bill Clinton at 25 percent. Less than five months later, the order was reversed: Clinton won with 43 percent, Bush (37 percent) was ousted and Perot finished last with 19 percent.

4) Gallup had John Kerry well on his way to avenging Gore's loss in June 2004. Kerry led Bush outside the margin of error at 49 percent to 43 percent. Instead, Bush grabbed his second term with 51 percent in November.

So Slick, still want to bet on the June polling data? You'd be a fool if you did. The 800 pound gorilla is the economy. If it improves, Obama stands a chance. If not, Obama will be Jimmy Carter 2. As for Obama carrying the states you listed, I suggest he be more worried about losing Democratic states like WI and MI both of which have Republican leadership and both of which are coming out of the economic malaise the preceding Democratic leadership put them in.

November is a ways off so anything can happen but being a betting man I'll put my money on Romney.

Woody, my call out for wagers was last November, at the one-year-out point. I'll leave it at that.


Oh, and for some of you......Issa's word count for anything?
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ ... -case?lite

Slick, to many voters their perception is their reality. If the think the white house is covering something up then to them it's truth.
Currently the WH is protecting Holder why?
Either there is a cover up or it's a Really bad political move

Everyone tries to protect their own. Every Administration has done it in the past. When Holder becomes an inconvenience to Obama and his re-election machine, Holder will be sacrificed, like all good underlings.

But in the mean time he injected himself into a situation that would have had little political implications for him.
But now it makes him look like he's hiding something
Not smart

tunnelcat wrote:Everyone tries to protect their own. Every Administration has done it in the past. When Holder becomes an inconvenience to Obama and his re-election machine, Holder will be sacrificed, like all good underlings.

If Obama would of not helped Holder hide his sins, then I think Obama would of stood a better chance of being re-elected. At every turn Obama seems to shoot himself in the foot as tho he doesn't want to be elected.

That always seems to be the reaction when someone is caught in a really big fib. Lie first, try to fix the fallout later with even more lies, hide all the evidence and then do some quickie butt covering. All politicians FAIL.

I'm watching c-span2 right now. Katie Pavlich, the author of Fast and Furious: Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and It's Shameless Cover-up, is speaking about this mess. Not very good sounding for Eric Holder, even if I am a paranoid liberal with the tendency to dismiss right wing authors with agendas and only believe about half of what she says is true. Sadly, tsk, tsk, pretty damning stuff, much of which I believe.

But I've done some digging and, ol' Bushie had his "Operation Wide Receiver", the first ATF Gunwalking operation along the same lines as F&F, but not with the disastrous of results as occurred under Obama's watch. However, the vast majority of the 450 guns the ATF allowed straw buyers to purchase while Bush ran the WH were never recovered nor were any arrests made of major drug cartel people either.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/th ... 72011.html

And all this idiocy started as a pilot project in Laredo, Texas in 2005 called Project Gun Runner, which went national in 2006 as the Department of Justice's Southwest Border Initiative during Bushie's reign. So, technically, the germ of this gunwalking idea was hatched under the Bush Administration. However, that doesn't excuse stupidity. Neither those in charge in Obama's Justice Department, nor the ATF, apparently learned their lesson from history that this was an absolutely stupid, dangerous and unproductive idea when it was first tried, so what did they do? Why, TRY IT ALL OVER AGAIN, BIGGER AND BADDER, and here's the kicker, WITH STIMULUS MONEY! What morons!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gunrunner

Oh, and ThunderBunny, apologies. I now see the conspiracy theory that all the right wingers are talking about with Second Amendment Rights, private gun sales and the plot that Obama want's to take away your guns. But if Obama and crew are stupid enough to think this type of boneheaded operation is going to help them surreptitiously control gun sales in America through fear and drug murders, they're absolutely deluded and stupid.

CUDA wrote:Slick, to many voters their perception is their reality

heck, pal, I'd agree, and suggest changing the word many to most. Still, I wonder whether this whole matter resonates very much with anyone except the folks that are mostly Obama-haters to start with, sort of like the Birth Certificate stuff.

.

woodchip wrote:If Obama would of not helped Holder hide his sins, then I think Obama would of stood a better chance of being re-elected. At every turn Obama seems to shoot himself in the foot as tho he doesn't want to be elected.

keep wishing. And, note the words I wrote to CUDA. Barring a full-on economic meltdown or massive political blunder Obama and company are going to manage a victory when it's all over. Why? Because, money aside, issues aside, that crew in the Chicago offices knows how to win elections. And, they know the rules of the game. Ask Hillary Clinton.

That's true. They know how to stir up the young and inexperienced and get them to cheer for cheap slogans and empty promises. One thing I can say for sure, once the media quits cheering for you, everyone else does to.

well if reports are right things aren't looking too promising for Holder. it appears Conservative Democrats are planning on voting for contempt of Congress.

CUDA wrote:well if reports are right things aren't looking too promising for Holder. it appears Conservative Democrats are planning on voting for contempt of Congress.

Yeah, all the liberal talkies are yelling foul and calling those Dems turncoats. No wonder the Democrats can't keep it together. They can't even stand behind their man. Sorry callmeslick, the Dems are so wimpy and scared right now, they're their own worst enemy. They're so afraid of the NRA and their lying negative ads, they're having royal conniptions. They NEED to get a damned backbone or they're just puppets of the conservatives and stupid white guys with guns.

As for Romney, he's trying to kill the messenger because it just doesn't fit with his mission statement that Obama's economy is going nowhere and he needs to get fired. Well, it is starting to improve in those oh-so-important swing states, despite what Romney wants or says on his campaign stops.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:If Obama would of not helped Holder hide his sins, then I think Obama would of stood a better chance of being re-elected. At every turn Obama seems to shoot himself in the foot as tho he doesn't want to be elected.

keep wishing. And, note the words I wrote to CUDA. Barring a full-on economic meltdown or massive political blunder Obama and company are going to manage a victory when it's all over. Why? Because, money aside, issues aside, that crew in the Chicago offices knows how to win elections. And, they know the rules of the game. Ask Hillary Clinton.

And ask ex big time supporter Dem Senator Claire McCaskill what she thinks. Curious how loads of Dems are not going to the DNC convention so maybe Slick, the Shy-Town method is failing.