Karen Timulty Is A Humor Bot, That’s The Only Explanation
Tweet
Yesterday she seriously claimed Barack Obama had insulted Jessica Simpson. Now, she’s arguing that idiot Mitt Romney should be the new HHS secretary.
40 Responses to “Karen Timulty Is A Humor Bot, That’s The Only Explanation”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
In her defense, the Mittster, dumbass though he be, would not be as horrible a choice as Joe the Plumber. So there’s that.
Now, she’s arguing that idiot Mitt Romney should be the new HHS secretary.
Likely the pool of ethical Democrats to choose from is about tapped out.
Amazing how Obama gets the benefit of the doubt, but Limbaugh’s comment about wanting Obama to fail doesn’t… or even the benefit of context, where it’s clear that Limbaugh is wishing ill for Obama’s stated agenda, not his entire administration.
Christ, I don’t even LIKE Limbaugh, and I heard the full context in the fighting about what he said — and not just that tiny snippet Media Matters put out.
And Tom Daschle’s failing to report taxable income (a driver and limo, consulting fees) and then lying about it on his disclosure forms to the Obama administration is “unfortunate?”
Stay fair and honest, Oliver.
J.
and then lying about it on his disclosure forms to the Obama administration
I call.
Are you just randomly responding to stuff now? Don’t you feel like you’re cheating Commentary out on content? You and Rush want MM to post all 4 hours of his show for “context” when what he said is as clear as day.
Amazing how Obama gets the benefit of the doubt, but Limbaugh’s comment about wanting Obama to fail doesn’t… or even the benefit of context, where it’s clear that Limbaugh is wishing ill for Obama’s stated agenda, not his entire administration.
You’re right, Jay, we shouldn’t jump to that conclusion. Knowing Rush, he probably meant that he wanted America to fail.
“Four hours?” Is that how long his show is? I stopped listening back when it was two, I think.
But I think just a couple of sentences would suffice, in Limbaugh’s case:
I’m not talking about search-and-destroy, but I’ve been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don’t want them to succeed.
One of the few times I’ve agreed with him.
Quaker: From the Washington Post:
Thomas A. Daschle waited nearly a month after being nominated to be secretary of health and human services before informing Barack Obama that he had not paid years of back taxes for the use of a car and driver provided by a wealthy New York investor.
Look up “lying by omission.”
“So, Tom, got any skeletons in your closet? Especially tax issues? We’re still sore after Geithner.”
“Nope.”
(two days later)
“Um… I kinda do have this six-figure tax thing I forgot to mention before…”
So far Obama’s put forth three people with tax issues, over a dozen lobbyists… is this the Hope and Change you voted for?
J.
Jay, that’s not the quote we’re talking about, this is:
So I’m thinking of replying to the guy, “Okay, I’ll send you a response, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.” (interruption) What are you laughing at? See, here’s the point. Everybody thinks it’s outrageous to say. Look, even my staff, “Oh, you can’t do that.” Why not? Why is it any different, what’s new, what is unfair about my saying I hope liberalism fails? Liberalism is our problem. Liberalism is what’s gotten us dangerously close to the precipice here. Why do I want more of it? I don’t care what the Drive-By story is. I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: “Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails.” Somebody’s gotta say it.
This is what Limbaugh wants:
-He wants the economy to get worse
-He wants us to slide deeper into debt
-He wants homosexuals to be treated as 2nd class citizens
-He wants women to have no say over the state of their bodies
-He wants to beat, torture, and kill brown people for kicks and jollies
-He wants people to suffer and die from treatable illnesses
-He wants people to be infected with AIDS, cervical cancer, and other STDs
-He wants Americans to fail, he wants America to fail.
“Christ, I don’t even LIKE Limbaugh”
Jay, I don’t think you understand what “like” means.
He’s your signal caller. You fall into line and carry out his wishes. I know you like to put out this little smokescreen as to how you’re an “independent” guy but let’s face it, he owns you and your party.
What are your marching orders for today anyways? Defend Limbaugh? Check. Accuse Obama of corruption? Check. Attack a stimulus bill that will put Americans back to work? Check.
“You will know them by their works” indeed.
Karen likes d00ds who use Aqua Net
Look up “lying by omission.”
In other words, you don’t know what questions he was asked; you don’t know what answers he gave; but you’ll still write that Daschle lied about his taxes on his disclosure forms.
How “lying by MSU”?
BTW, Mr. Tea: congratulations! You have either caught Mr. Daschle in a lie or the Washington Post in a front-page error.
Post:
Daschle, in a letter to the Senate Finance Committee:
Given that the Post assigned Ceci Connolly to the story, I’d watch for the correction.
Sorta sums up the present-day Republican Party world-view:
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g29/ddotlb/fractalwrongnessgi4.jpg
“…it’s clear that Limbaugh is wishing ill for Obama’s stated agenda, not his entire administration.”
How exactly can an administration succeed if its agenda fails? Mr. Tea sees mutual exclusivity where it doesn’t exist.
Rotter, it’s simple: they can realize their agenda is failing, and try something different. Then succeed.
Examples: FDR’s “New Deal” that did nothing about the Depression, then being forced to deal with World War II, which actually did end the Depression. Or the Bush administration dumping its Iraq strategy and allowing Petraeus to put his theories into practice. Or Bill Clinton’s first term as governor.
Zython, that’s what I meant by “context.” The part I quoted came right before the part you quoted, laying the groundwork and defining his terminology for the conclusion you cited.
But if that’s the standard, can we discuss Obama’s confession of “my Muslim faith” in an interview with George Stephanopolous? I dismissed it at the time, because of the context surrounding it, but I could reconsider that…
J.
Oh, and Oliver: thanks for your concern about my work for Commentary, but I had three articles up yesterday — one a satirical look at Judd Gregg in Obama’s cabinet, one on Massachusetts trying to deputize New Hampshire businesses to catch its tax cheats, and one on Obama’s ignoring of the Kentucky ice storm (that one was linked to by Politico under “Best Of The Blogs” for Tuesday).
But that was yesterday, and on the internet there’s no resting on one’s laurels. Off to write something fresh…
J.
At least we’ve got Romney on video proclaiming his stauch pro-choice views. Guess there could be worse choices. He also socialized his state’s health system as governor.
“FDR’s ‘New Deal’ that did nothing about the Depression”
You never met my grandfather then. He, along with tens of thousands of other Americans facing tough financial straits, got a job in the C.C.C. (others in the W.P.A., the N.R.A., etc.) that got him on his feet. Later, he served as an officer in WWII in no small part because of the training he received in the C.C.C.
Jay, sorry but once again you’re completely full of shit. FDR saved our country from the idiocy of Republicans like Hoover. And ca., Obama has a lot of expectations riding on him to save our country from the Republican assault on our way of life between 2001 and 2008.
You’re welcome to your (quite stupid) opinions, but you don’t get to have your own facts. There’s a reason FDR is one of our greatest presidents ever. In addition to winning World War II (along with that other dirty Democrat, Truman) he gave us the New Deal and things like Social Security.
Personally, I like living in a modern society where elderly retired people aren’t starving and freezing to death on the street. And I’ll be damned if I’ll ever let anti-American assholes like you change that fact.
Jaim, just what did the New Deal do to END the Depression? It helped people to survive it, but it actually made the actual Depression last longer. It took World War II to get things to finally turn around.
FDR, for the most part, fought World War II brilliantly. (We won’t discuss Yalta and his selling out Eastern Europe to the Soviets.)
And I hope you get some satisfaction out of your ad hominem and hyperbole, ‘cuz I just ignore it.
J.
“just what did the New Deal do to END the Depression?”
It gave people jobs at a time of disastrously high unemployment and built up the American infrastructure, thus allowing for the future ease of interstate commerce. Putting people back to work gave them confidence in themselves and the country.
My grandfather is dead now, but if he were alive he’d be happy to laugh at your silly little attempts at revisionist history. FWIW, he was quite a conservative fellow — a big fan of Reagan. But like Reagan, he knew that FDR saved America during the 1930′s and put our country on its feet to be ready to fight and win World War II. (Reagan himself considered himself an FDR Dem before Barry Goldwater came along.)
Seriously man, get a clue. Did you even take an American history class in high school? Did you even go to college?
Spew your batshitinsane Republican/Limbaugh talking points all you want, but don’t try to argue about historical facts with educated adults. Just stick to your sippy cup, k?
This FDR bashing is the new Republican orthodoxy. Most Republicans used to be like Jaim’s grandpa — they grudgingly admitted that what FDR did had to be done, but now it was time to swing back the pendulum.
It was only when FDR-Obama comparisons began to be heard that the GOP decided, Stalin-style, to try to revise the historical record.
To emphasize a point I tried to make, St. Reagan himself must have been a dimwitted fool to have admired FDR the way he did, no?
It truly is Stalin-esque. Thank god people like Jay don’t have the academic potential to become real teachers any level.
As for WWII, it did play an important part in helping to end the Republican-created Great Depression, but that’s only part of the story. Increased military spending played a role, but more importantly it was the military jobs created, along with women being allowed to/forced to enter the domestic workforce at home. And when Democratic presidents did end the war, our greatest military triumph ever as a nation, let’s talk about the GI Bill — a government spending program that provided college educations to millions of Americans who might never have considered going before. Both my grandfather and my Dad benefited greatly from this “Socialist” program, going on to successful careers in different fields and paying back more than their share in tax revenue.
Go to bed, Jay. You’re a small little man with a small little intellect.
Yes, if only FDR had cut taxes on the rich. The Depression would’ve been over by mid-1934! The truth is that the New Deal was working and the only thing that derailed it was FDR cutting spending and trying to balance the budget in ’37 which led to the recession that year.
Yes, Jesse, that’s true, and has been said repeatedly. Krugman pointed that out to George “Let Them Eat Cake” Will on ABC a few weeks ago. Mindless GOP apologists, like Mr Tea, continue to ignore it though, in favor of their new talking point, that FDR “prolonged the Depression.” Laughable, yes, but that’s what they keep telling themselves. And the rest of us.
Well, when the only successful Predidencies you have in a whole century are because you lucked out and actually elected a moderate guy (Eisenhower) and that the Soviet Union basically collapsed under its own weight like had been predicted since the 60′s under your watch (Reagan), you’ve got to start tearing down the other guys.
Off to write something fresh…
Hope you’ve had enough fiber.
The funny thing is Hoover did exactly what conservative doctrine says one should do during such a disaster (we saw this at play in Katrina): Nothing of consequence. That’s what led to FDR’s election. And he clearly did such a horrible job fighting the Depression that the American people elected him 4 times.
(Only in con world is a link from an idiot like James Taranto a plus. He also is a gross eater, I know from a personal experience.)
But that was yesterday, and on the internet there’s no resting on one’s laurels. Off to write something fresh…
Do you check your own facts or does Commentary pay a team to do it for you?
Just curious.
Of course the revision is important for the GOP’s future. If FDR succeeded and Hoover failed, that’s an enormous piece of evidence suggesting the use of liberal answers to economic problems, and any tax-cut champion worth his salt can’t have that.
…and any tax-cut champion worth his salt can’t have that.
So we’ll just change historical events? To match our myopic
world view?
Seems like a lot more work than is called for.
“I was wrong” seems like it would do it just fine.
…and one on Obama’s ignoring of the Kentucky ice storm (that one was linked to by Politico under “Best Of The Blogs” for Tuesday).
That all makes sense …
So did you really write that Obama “ignored” Kentucky?
“I was wrong” seems like it would do it just fine.
The prominent people that most vociferously push this sort of thing – Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. – reap incredible financial rewards from conservative economics in the short term. It’s in their best interest that the New Deal be judged a failure. If they can convince enough people of that, it undercuts support for future public spending and social programs that are expensive for their demographic, does it not?
Now how to explain working stiffs like JT, I have no idea.
So did you really write that Obama “ignored” Kentucky?
Well to be fair, Fafaroo, there haven’t been any somber photo-ops in the affected areas. At least none of which I’m aware. By Bushian standards, that’s rather like ignoring, isn’t it?
These feeble attempts by the right to re-write history really piss me off. By the accepted metrics, unemployment and GDP, the New Deal WORKED. By percentage, the drop in unemployment was greater ’33-’41 than ’42-’45 (the greatest drop in unemployment in our history). GDP increased by an average of 9% for that same ’33-’41 period.
So did you really write that Obama “ignored” Kentucky?
Well, we haven’t seen any wistful poses in front of a helicopter window yet, have we?
I once wrote an article for Wizbang where I talked about how stupid it was for presidents to personally visit disaster areas — all they do is complicate things for those people actually doing rescue work.
I was promptly chewed out by several residents of Florida who talked about how great it was to have the President of the United States come to their towns and express his sympathies, how the psychological boost was so damned important to them.
I think that was the first (but hardly the last) time I had to write a whole second article apologizing for the first one. Having a president visit your disaster is apparently very important to some people — especially the Florida hurricane survivors who were reading Wizbang in February 2005.
J.
I think that was the first (but hardly the last) time I had to write a whole second article apologizing for the first one. Having a president visit your disaster is apparently very important to some people — especially the Florida hurricane survivors who were reading Wizbang in February 2005.
3 people a mandate does not make.
“I once wrote an article for Wizbang …”
I’m sorry, did Wizbang come out with a print edition at some point? You’re a blogger, dude. You write posts. Not articles.
Shorter Jay: I’ve been shamed by adults with knowledge of facts into never trying to re-write the history of FDR and the 1930′s ever again.