Results 1 to 6 of 6
#1 Chris Matthews: Sacrificing Men and Women to Save the President's Hide09-05-2013, 01:12 PM
Chris Matthews gets his priorities in order. He objects to "sacrificing men and women" to "save the President's hide." Oh, not Soldiers, Sailors, Marines or Airmen; they don't register. He's worried about Democrats.
"Letís go all the way down to the final stretch here. The corralling. Youíve got [John] Boehner trying to corral enough votes that he can at least dribble out a few of them, and Pelosi stuck with the challenge of a minority caucus where she has to deliver a majority vote. Youíre watching Boehner there dribbling out a few votes here and a few votes there, as the clock ticks down to zero, and she has to make up the difference. If you have the Hastert Rule in effect, I donít think you even have this vote, but apparently it wonít be in effect.
So youíll have minority Republican vote, and Pelosiís going to have to make up the difference with the minority caucus. Sheís going to have to come in with a supermajority of Democrats to support their Democratic President. This is a wicked position they have put her in. Maybe she can meet the standard. But I donít know whether [Chief of Staff Denis] McDonough and the President walking along the south lawn the other day were thinking about the endgame where you know where itís going to be played. The two corrals. Now which one would you rather be in?
I think the Democrats are going to be forced to sacrifice men and women who really, really donít want to vote for this. Theyíre going to have to vote for it to save the Presidentís hide. Thatís a very bad position to put your party in."
Uh, hate to break this to you, Tingles, but the real bottom line is that the Democrats are going to sacrifice men and women who are going to have to put their lives on the line for this; they're going to be put in harm's way to save the President's hide. That's a very bad position to put your country and its military in. I realize that the lives of military personnel aren't as critical to you as Democratic majorities in the house and senate, but it would be nice if you had just a bit of perspective on this.
09-05-2013, 02:07 PM
09-05-2013, 06:37 PM
BTW, yet another Democrat has made the case for going to war to protect Obama:
Eleanor Holmes Norton, the D.C. delegate in the House, who doesn’t have a vote, baldly admitted in an interview Tuesday that if she could vote, she would consider supporting the resolution authorizing President Obama to attack Syria — just so Obama wouldn’t be embarrassed.
“If he gets saved at all, I think it’ll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just don’t want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage,” Norton said on The Bill Press Show.
“At the moment, that’s the only reason I would vote for it if I could vote on it,” she said.
So, my life and the lives of the people that I lead are to be put on the line so that Obama won't be shamed. Got it. I'm so glad that the Democratic leadership considers the lives of service members less important than Obama's self-esteem. I wonder how many of us she'd be willing to sacrifice to improve his golf scores?
09-06-2013, 06:21 AMEleanor Holmes Norton, the D.C. delegate in the House, who doesnít have a vote, baldly admitted in an interview Tuesday that if she could vote, she would consider supporting the resolution authorizing President Obama to attack Syria ó just so Obama wouldnít be embarrassed.
ďIf he gets saved at all, I think itíll be because of loyalty of Democrats. They just donít want to see him shamed and humiliated on the national stage,Ē Norton said on The Bill Press Show.
ďAt the moment, thatís the only reason I would vote for it if I could vote on it,Ē she said.
Norton was elected in 1990 as a Democratic delegate to the House of Representatives...despite the last-minute revelation that Norton and her husband (both lawyers) had failed to file D.C. income tax returns between 1982 and 1989.Be Not Afraid.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|