Posts Tagged ‘joan walsh


Dick Armey – Suck It

I’m sure most of you heard the asinine comments of Dick Armey toward Joan Walsh on Chris Matthew’s Hardballs last week:

But then Think Progress posted a little back-and-forth between Chris Wallace and Mike Gallagher discussing how funny they thought Dick’s comments were.

So, allow me to offer a few points in response to the comments of these debased characters:

  • I will discontinue viewership of Hardballs if Chris Matthews continues to allow blowhard douchebags like Armey to abuse his other guests. He railed against a guest describing rumors cirulating on the blogs about Kennedy having an affair, but offers no recourse against Armey for his misogynistic attack against Joan Walsh. Matthews, grow a pair!
  • During this pathetic excuse for relevant political commentary, Dick Armey repeated the phrase “redistributionist tax policy” and “income redistributionists” and then later tells Joan Walsh she sounds like a political hack. Either Dick Armey has the intellect of a termite or the ego of the God of Abraham because he failed, amidst all his glorious narcissism, to notice that using flunky right-wing verbiage like “redistributionist” is the epitome of political hackery.
  • Dick Armey, Chris Wallace and Mike Gallagher are old, wrinkly, entirely unattractive boneheads who likely can’t even get it up without a pill or five. If any of them think that a competent female would desire interaction with their teensy, nasty weeners, they are sorely mistaken. I’d much rather do Joan Walsh. And, no, I’m not a labesian.
  • Dick Armey and those of his ilk are – as I like to copy from Obama – on the wrong side of history. Their policies were tried and failed and America saw and felt the damage wrought by these antiquated policies of ideology. Their time has passed and the rest of us are moving on without them. We’re using data and evidence to make decisions, not unprovable, unrealistic theories. No amount of insults or mindless rhetoric will keep Armey and his types relevant. They are starving ghosts of the past. And I say good riddance.
  • Last, but not least, Armey’s attempt to win an argument with condescending insults is a common tactic among fools who do not have a competent defense for their viewpoints. Personal attacks and comments such as, “You need to go back to school”, are routinely used by these olympic imbeciles – Armey just being the most recent example of one. As a relatively young (31??) female, I’ve been on the receiving end of many such comments and have found the best way to deal with them is to exclaim my refusal to waste any more time discussing policy with someone so clearly out of their depth, they must resort to “yo mamma” jokes to make a point. These people have the morality of an enema and are a waste of good oxygen.
  • Joan – I disagree with you betimes, but kudos for maintaining your composure in light of your interaction with this antediluvian gasbag.

If you’d like to contact Hardballs and express your opinion of the interview, click this link to do so. You know I did.

And Bob Herbert is my new fave for calling Armey out on his comments:


Hell No Hillary for VP!!

With all this talk of the possibility of Hillary as VP, Hillary demanding to be VP, Leni Davis and Robert Johnson (as in, the founder of BET) pushing for Obama to ask her to be VP, I just have to add my two cents. I had another blog in mind for today, but this topic begs – no demands! – a response. Even Jimmy Carter, the gold-medal diplomat of our time, can’t hold his tongue behind those big, mamba jamba lips.

Barack, for the love of everything holy, do not, under any circumstances or for any reason pick Hillary as your vice presidential candidate. Don’t even do it as an olive branch under the strident assurances that she will not accept. You don’t owe it to her. You don’t owe it to her voters.

no hillary

I say this knowing you won’t pick her and knowing she wouldn’t accept. But, still, let’s have a little chatty-chat, let’s ruminate and ponder this little political gem that has all the pundit gums flapping.

Again, you don’t owe it her. In fact, she doesn’t even deserve the consideration – for more reasons than just the fact she’s being self-righteous even in loss. I’m going to tell my future children tales of her as an example of how not to comport yourself. “There once was this cackly old lady with a blond mullet who wanted to be a dictator, but – alas, she was born in a land of democracy. She claimed to want to save the children of the world and give them lollipops. But, there were these other adults who thought it would be better to give the children tootsie rolls. So she tried to poison the other adults with her pottymouth! Still, they were smarter than she was and erected a forcefield of cleverness called Change and Hope. People liked the other adults more, so the bad lady was mad and said mean things about speeches. She tried to cheat and even say everyone liked her more! It was a shameful lie in the light of day and, finally, the bad mullet lady was shunned to the gaol of no respect. It was the greatest and worst political theater of all time that threatened democratic possibilities in the most dire of circumstances. It’s why mommy has gray hair and a bad liver.”

Yeah, I’m the next Dr. Seuss. Moving on:

Hillary’s 18 million voters are not all die-hard women. First of all, it irks me to hear over and over again that women are one of her solid demographic supporters. I would urge commentators to specify OLD women as one of her solid demographics. Us young females are not. We’re happy to hold the exit door open for her, if you know what I mean. Also, while many voted for her, I submit that the majority have already embraced the Obama nomination. In other words, all this talk of her “assets” is so much like the Bush talk of “political capital.” It’s bullshit. Time heals all wounds and after everyone hears the policies of McFlipFlop, as well as his terrible speeches (which sound like he’s reading from a cereal box), as well as the debates, they will vote for Obama. As gas, milk and bread prices continue to shock, Hillary’s voters will abandon their little islands of bitterness and head for the mainland of political common sense.

She does not wield this power of the masses that is paramount to an Obama win in November. I disagree with the premise entirely. Her voters are not simple, mindless zombie followers. They’re democrats and most of them are reasonable.

Other reasons:

  • She has expressed McCain is a better candidate for president than Obama. Won’t it be lovely to see the RNC play that clip over and over during the general campaign if he picks her?
  • Governing with her would be pure hell. There’s a reason Spitzer chose blind ole adulterer Patterson as his lieutenant. You want the VP to be beneficial, but not powerful. (Remember, the Bush/Cheney dynamic is an anomaly)
  • Worse than Bill as First Gentleman or whatever, would be Bill as Second Gentleman. Then he would really feel free to grab as much poon around NY and DC as the viagra popper can handle – while simultaneously lecturing on policy. Just look at the man.

bill clinton womanizer

I could go on and on, but really, he’s not going to pick her. Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg is on the committee to help chose the VP nominees and she’ll help Obama make the best decision.

Last comment reserved for Joan Walsh: You should be labeled “Clinton supporter” when you choose to air your opinions on television. Your commentary is one-sided as you see what you wish rather than assessing events as they are. It’s not a big deal. We all do that. But call a spade a spade. Your analysis is biased and should be labeled as such. Plus, quit tilting your head when you speak and getting all pissy when people disagree with you. It’s annoying.

Scarlet Letter of Atheism


Bloggers' Rights at EFF

Blog Stats

  • 96,489 hits
WordPress Political Blogger

Top Clicks

  • None