White House Treats Rick Santelli How He Deserves To Be Treated
Tweet
Robert Gibbs: Rick Santelli doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
Remember: Rick Santelli is wrong.
70 Responses to “White House Treats Rick Santelli How He Deserves To Be Treated”
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
Rick Santelli obviously touched a very sensitive nerve, because liberal blogs are acting like they did when Karl Rove said liberals wanted to offer the terrorists talk therapy.
He must be taken down.
He’s a reporter, folks.
A financial reporter at that.
A reporter whose nonsense is echoing around like propaganda. It’s the right that’s running with the Santelli madness. Or did you miss the Palin-Santelli mess?
He’s a reporter, folks.
A financial reporter at that.
Is “reporting” what he was doing yesterday?
Or did you miss the Palin-Santelli mess?
If there is a God, and that God is awesome, and wants to see another SNL season write itself, this will come true.
Should I pray? Worth a try, no?
No. He’s a camera-hungry Cramer wannabe, screaming to make a non-constructive point hoping to get ratings.
There’s not a journallistic bone in Santelli’s body.
BTW: Dennis, go sit on your thumb. I know you like it!
Is “reporting” what he was doing yesterday? QIB
A reporter giving commentary? Oh noes.
——
A reporter whose nonsense is echoing around like propaganda. It’s the right that’s running with the Santelli madness. OW
Oliver- You’ve been passing this guy off as a Wall Street robber baron for the last day and a half. Paraphrasing, but ‘Why should we listen to him when he’s one of the guys that got us into this mess and we’re bailing him out’.
He’s a reporter. He had nothing to do with the crisis.
And why Joe Gibbs feels the need to single him out when Obama’s Spendulus Redistributionalus Maximus package has been criticized for the last three weeks by every conservative and their brother is very curious indeed. Especially since the President feels that same burning itch such that he has to attack conservative pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity. It’s bizarre, and for some reason, you feel like you must accommodate.
Maybe this is why…
Stock Market Gives Obama’s First Month An ‘F’
Time to start a ‘Liz Peak is Wrong’ Facebook page?
A little aside here.
Looking at Santelli’s bio, it seems that he has a deep interest in Obama’s housing plan to fail due to his long history with large financial corporations. He’s on the wrong side on this issue.
Taking he and Cramer’s history of being absolutely wrong about almost everything, Robert Gibbs was right on target in smacking his idiocy down.
Bravo!
I love it when Libs go into hyper-hysteria when somebody doesn’t speak Libspeak. You guys are so predictably cute!
March on little brown shirts!
It’s to bad Santelli, Palin, and Joe the Plumber can’t all run for President on the same ticket.
Looking at Santelli’s bio, it seems that he has a deep interest in Obama’s housing plan to fail due to his long history with large financial corporations. Zardozinhell
You have no clue what you are talking about. None.
He was a futures trader. No indications whatsoever of any history of an interest in seeing Obama’s housing plan fail, much less a deep interest.
You talk crap all the time here and no one ever calls you on it, Zardoz. Please, for once, explain or show what gives you the first clue here that backs up what you just wrote.
He’s a reporter. He had nothing to do with the crisis.
Yes, why would a guy reporting on the financial industry have any obligation to take a step back and say hey, wonder if the people I’m reporting on are a bunch of crooks.
Wow, another anti-Obama link to back up your assertion. You’re not even trying any more.
I wish there’d be a documentary about CNBC like Robert Greenwald’s Outfoxed
Heh. How dare Santelli ask whether it is a good idea to bail out people who can’t keep up with their mortgages. It’s almost as if he’s worried that if you subsidize failure, you’ll get more of it! Crazy talk!
And dear god Oliver, what pounding uselessness you display. All you seem to be able to do is yap about the fact that Santelli was talking to people who work in the finance industry. Do you think only people involved in finance would be asking whether it is a good idea to bail out people who can’t keep their mortgages?
Here’s a great idea for a post – explain why bailing out people with bad mortgages won’t:
-Allow people to call for bailouts in the future when they get overextended, and in fact, purposefully overextend themselves in the expectation of a bailout.
-Encourage banks to give yet more marginal loans, in the expectation that the government will step in to cover their losses if it gets too bad.
The platitudes you spout do not make such issues magically go away.
The problem is Santelli wasn’t asking. He wasn’t questioning. He was demanding. He was making declarative statements filled with b.s. If Santelli was so concerned about the government bailing out people he was mighty silent from his pulpit several months ago. But no. Now when its Joe Homeowner that the government is aiding vs. Joe Wallstreet, now we need a fucking tea party. Give me a flipping break. Aren’t you people sick of defending the elite?
Translation from Oliver: Waaaahhhhh!! Santelli used some theater to bring these issues up! Only Obama is allowed to do that!!
Do you even know what ad hominem argument is? (Actually, I’m not sure you do, since thats about 90% of what you ever do.) Whether you hate Santelli, think he’s a hypocrite for not complaining about the moral hazard aspects of bailouts, these are real issues. Pissing and moaning about whether he’s consistent or not doesn’t change that. For once, why not try arguing the merits of a particular action, rather than trying to shoot the messenger?
WTF are you talking about? You’re saying a reporter and a politician should or shouldn’t act the same? I’m writing about the reporter because last time I looked this is my site and I write about the angle I’m interested in. If you want to write about the issue another way this is a free country until we left wing revolutionaries take over and send you guys to the camps.
I happen to think the mortgage plan is a good plan because once again we can’t sit on our hands and wait for the magical market fairy to make it all better while suburbia turns into a ghost town.
He was a futures trader.
And thus, perhaps, the least qualified person to have an opinion about anything.
when Karl Rove said liberals wanted to offer the terrorists talk therapy.
Nice to hear you’re equating Santelli with an ignorant, assinine immoral jerk saying dishonest things. Because I have to agree with your assessment.
All you have said about Santelli, with respect to this case, amounts to “He is a bad person, and so are the people he’s talking to. Therefore, what any of them say doesn’t matter.” That’s pure ad hominem, and thus 100% bs. (Though quite common from you.) I’m merely pointing out that the sum total of your argument is “nyah nyah.” If you think that is effective, by all means, continue, and avoid talking about things that are actually pertinent. Indeed, on your blog, you can be as silly as you want.
Yes, why would a guy reporting on the financial industry have any obligation to take a step back and say hey, wonder if the people I’m reporting on are a bunch of crooks. –OW
Not sure what you mean, unless you are implying all the people in that room, or even most of them, are crooks? Santelli does report on the crooks. Are you saying he should make that report you describe about people who have no charges against them save they happen to work in an industry that has crooks in it by nature and always has crooks in it no matter what political party ran the show, that they are guilty by association for what their jobs are?
Yikes, Oliver. Not very liberal of you.
Not cricket, either.
Haplo9: If a poo flings crap against the wall should I explain to the slow ones in the audience why poo is a bad thing? No, no babysitting here. If you think its a good idea to keep propping up the morons who threw all the poo around America, so be it.
Dennis: A lot of them are crooks. A lot of them, while not crooks, make money off the backs of people’s misfortunes. It’s no coincidence that stock prices often go up when businesses announce layoffs. Wall Street also pushes companies to make the quick buck in the latest quarter rather than set a long term growth strategy (thats why I like when companies like Google, Microsoft, and yes even GE ignore the idiots on the street that thought Flooz.com was a solid investment). Way to build the straw by the way. I was saying that Rick Santelli and the other financial reporters like him should have said, while the bubble was inflating – hey, what’s really going on here? Are home prices really supposed to be moving like this? Are companies pushing bullshit paper from bank to bank? I know the brokers I’m in the pit with just bought a second mansion, but maybe that money’s been made if not illegally, unethically.
In other words, I’ve got this crazy notion that reporters should report and investigate and not be flipping cheerleaders.
And thus, perhaps, the least qualified person to have an opinion about anything. Tyro
Except that, again, now he’s a reporter. He’s reporting. He was asked his opinion from other reporters and he gave it and he connected. Somehow that seems to worry Joe Gibbs and liberal bloggers. Weird.
Not qualified to have an opinion, really? Why are liberals deciding not to be liberal any more all of a sudden in this wonderful time of Hope and Change. Too early yet to heed The One’s requirement for giving up all your cynicism?
While the Rethugs are obstructing help to average American check out what those fools what to do, definitely under the wire. Goosestepping asswipes!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10168114-38.html
>If a poo flings crap against the wall should I explain to the slow ones in the audience why poo is a bad thing?
Lol. Another common Oliver tactic – claim that what he’s supporting is so obvious and so right that he doesn’t even need to explain it – even though its clear that about the only thing he knows about it is that Obama supports it. (Insert “Dear Leader” joke here.)
>If you think its a good idea to keep propping up the morons who threw all the poo around America, so be it.
Do you even know what you are talking about? The people who will get “propped up” as a result of a mortgage bailout are not your favorite demons, the wall street bankers, it will be the people who took out loans that they had a very low chance of repaying. (If you are saying that we shouldn’t have bailed out wall street either, then I am fully in agreement.)
>In other words, I’ve got this crazy notion that reporters should report and investigate and not be flipping cheerleaders.
Rofl. That is some comedy gold right there, after watching the media during the presidential campaign.
I think we shouldn’t have bailed out much of Wall Street, and certainly if we did it, not with the free money the Bush admin gave them. I also think its funny you bitch about me not writing about policy then respond to a policy statement but whatever.
You mean the press that called Obama a strange and exotic secret muslim anti-American versus the maverick who barbecues for them?
He’s reporting. He was asked his opinion from other reporters and he gave it and he connected.
No, he ranted. He talked revolution and tea party, I mean come on.
Somehow that seems to worry Joe Gibbs and liberal bloggers.
Like with Sarah Palin and Joe The Plumber it worries liberals when the media takes circus clowns like they’re serious. The last 8 years taught us some key lessons with regard to that. Also, you call Gibbs “Joe Gibbs” as if that’s a bad thing. 3 Super Bowls.
>It’s no coincidence that stock prices often go up when businesses announce layoffs.
Could that be.. gasp! because investors think that with lowered costs, a business is likely to be more profitable, and thus its stock becomes more attractive?? No way!! I hope you don’t own any stock in anything Oliver – theres just too much risk of you making money off of a company cutting costs in some way, which if you think about it, could easily result in lost jobs in some sector of the economy. That would make you a crook, and stuff.
>I also think its funny you bitch about me not writing about policy then respond to a policy statement but whatever.
I have no idea what you are talking about here. Who responded to what? Huh?
>You mean the press that called Obama a strange and exotic secret muslim anti-American versus the maverick who barbecues for them?
No, I mean the press that minimized Obama’s weaknesses (going after Joe the Plumber’s life, rather than Obama about the question he was asked, for example, which incidentally is an example of the ad hominem technique you favor so much) and maximized McCains (heresay about a possible affair with a staffer being front page news). Obviously we aren’t going to agree on that, but I will note when the members of the press lean far far more to the left and to the Democrats than to the right, I don’t think you have the better side of the argument, regardless of how many anecdotes either of us can come up with.
I sometimes agree with Santelli, but he was completely out to lunch on this one. Evidence was that he claimed that the traders and assorted people on the floor behind him at the Mercantile Exchange were a cross-section of Americans- hopelessly out of touch.
“In other words, I’ve got this crazy notion that reporters should report and investigate and not be flipping cheerleaders.”
Haplo9 says: “Rofl. That is some comedy gold right there, after watching the media during the presidential campaign.”
Wow. It’s like you’re allergic to reality.
You guys are just great.
$700 billion bailout for millionaire bankers? Ho-hum.
$75 billion for families about to lose their homes? Outrage!
I think Gibbs made a huge mistake in that he threw gasoline on a fire and helped to further cement this stupidity. He should have dismissed it without comment – it was a short clip of an unprofessional outburst from a trader-turned-reporter on CNBC. Or if pressed he should have given a short, succinct response that highlighted either the inherent hypocrisy of the moral hazard argument or given the rationale for the action that Santelli soiled his pants over. Santelli’s outburst was no different than all the crap that is spewed on talk radio everyday – and it should have been treated as such.
Dennis: Except that, again, now he’s a reporter. He’s reporting. He was asked his opinion from other reporters and he gave it and he connected.
The fact that you don’t recognize staged theatrics when you see it probably explains quite a bit.
Yes, companies never make shortsighted layoffs of staff or anything. That never happens. The market is always right.
So your argument is that while neither of us can supposedly prove our point, your assertion that the press is liberal just *is* because it *is*. Okay. Tails you win, heads I lose, I guess.
Not that I’m particularly interested in going down this rathole again, what I’ve argued for years is that the press is dumb and excited by shiny things. The GOP has been far better at producing shiny distractions than the Dems. For instance, the entire week we wasted talking about pigs and flipping lipstick. That said, when we tend to have elections about actual stuff, the Dem tends to win in spite of the media (1992, 2006, 2008).
Staged Theatrics, he said what needs to be said….Its not just the Housing Plan- A Tea Party is more than appropriate!
Oh yeah, and while they are spending our money; could they at least pay their taxes…?
Wallstreet bailout = captalism
Less expensive homeowner bailout = Communism
Sorry Republicans, you just don’t have a moral or intellectual leg to stand on any longer, and the American people know it.
You mean the press that called Obama a strange and exotic secret muslim anti-American versus the maverick who barbecues for them?
And let’s not forget, it was the press who broke the news that Obama drinks orange juice.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110004
ORANGE. JUICE.
God, I hope the Republicans run with this.
Seriously, the only people this kind of argument appeals to are already Republicans. Who else would think a bunch of white guys on the floor of the Chicago trade actually Represent America? They don’t even represent the city they live in. The represent Washington. And that’s it. IF the Republican party and the media are going to insist on pretending that Washington is in touch with the Average American, then they are both going to fail miserably and keep on failing no matter what the Democrats do.
Rasmussen Reports:
Only thirty-eight percent (38%) think government subsidies are a good idea.
Looks like it’s not just the rich white mortgage traders and the one reporter who reports on them who think this idea stinks.
Let’s see….If we don’t give homeowners a chance to refinance their morgages and millions more Americans lose there homes, what will happen? A few rich people will buy up the foreclosed homes at half the selling price, then the housing prices will continue to spiral downward. And when the banks lose their asses from unpaid mortgages and from foreclosures that sell for 1/2 or less of the original mortgage, who will end paying for it all? The taxpayers, of course.
It make much more sense to give the people who own homes a chance to refinance their mortgages than to throw more money at the banks. At least that’s how a rational person might see it.
God, I hope the Republicans run with this
Do you think they ever figured out that “Billionaires for Bush” was a parody?
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
That’s a shocker.
How dare Santelli ask whether it is a good idea to bail out people who can’t keep up with their mortgages. It’s almost as if he’s worried that if you subsidize failure, you’ll get more of it!
And when you subsidize usury, you get more usury. I’d rather subsidize mistakes than crime, thank you very much.
What I find funny (sad) is that the apparently “pro-Christian” GOP is championing usury, which, last time I checked, is a sin.
Lay off of Santelli. It’s called Freedom of Speech or are you against that since it’s not going your way.
I happen to think the mortgage plan is a good plan because once again we can’t sit on our hands and wait for the magical market fairy to make it all better while suburbia turns into a ghost town.
Well, based on all the tax protests that have been springing up across the country this week, there are a lot of people who don’t agree with you. Or do you think that those protests are made up exclusively of bankers and wall street fatcats trying protect their evil revenue stream?
And you do realize that homes either in foreclosure or in danger of foreclosure make up only 7% of ALL homes out there, don’t you? Even if every single one of them went into foreclosure we would hardly have to worry about “ghost towns”.
Here’s a helpful graphic for you to put things in perspective:
But your over-the-top rhetoric is not at all surprising, coming from an devout worshipper of President “OMG WE HAVE TO ACT IMMEDIATELY OR IT WILL BE A CATASTROPHE… CATASTROPHE!!!!!”
Say, what happened to all that “Hope” stuff we used to hear from Obama before the election? If we wanted a gloom & doom President we could have just elected McCain.
And Santelli is now the second media person that the Obama White House has gone after personally, by name. I sure can’t recall Emperor Bush ever stooping to that level. Not very presidential behavior. I thought he was supposed to be above all that?
President Obama. Not Ready For Prime Time.
Remember: Rick Santelli is wrong.
Of course. Because if you see it on Facebook you KNOW it’s got to be true!
And I understand twitter is a 100% reliable source as well…
Good graphic, DaveinSoCal, and good work. How do you do that?
—————–
Rick Santelli: The Man Who Talked back
…..”It’s now clear why Team Obama was following Rahm Emanuel’s “shock doctrine” recommendation of not “letting a crisis go to waste.” When you are trying to govern a center-right nation from the left, you need to grab whatever advantages fortune hands you and then move fast and hard to exploit them. But did Obama really win a mandate to borrow and spend taxpayer money like never before, rescue bad banks and then bailout financially-inept or even fraudulent homeowners? Rick Santelli doesn’t think so and that is why he talked back.”
Wow, another right wing nut! You guys have an inexhaustible supply of them.
When you are trying to govern a center-right nation
America is not a center-right nation.
Poll: 3 out of 4 Americans are scared about state of the country
Silly people, why would you be afraid after getting uplifting pep talks like this?
I sure can’t recall Emperor Bush ever stooping to that level. Not very presidential behavior.
Yes, Bush was presidential by calling the press immature nicknames. Sheesh.
Yes, Bush was presidential by calling the press immature nicknames. Sheesh.
Really? Who did Bush personally call a childish nickname? Which reporter or media person did he publicly single out and criticize?
America is not a center-right nation.
And your proof is a Media Matters propaganda piece that says that some “political scientists” say not to believe the polls because many people really don’t understand what “conservative” or “liberal” mean, so they’re obviously misidentifying themselves.
Try again.
And I know this may be confusing to you and the geniuses at Media Matters, Oliver, but many conservatives voted for Obama because they thought that McCain was a poor candidate or disagreed with his policies, not because they were closet progressives.
Who did Bush personally call a childish nickname?
He called David Gregory “Stretch” for one, and had nicks for much of the press corps.
No, my empirical proof that this isn’t a “center-right” nation is this. America had a choice between what was very clearly a right wing and center-left candidate. They chose left.
He called David Gregory “Stretch” for one
OMG. He had nicknames for the press! The horror!
Try again.
No, my empirical proof that this isn’t a “center-right” nation is this.
See my 12:27pm comment.
And McCain was a “right wing” candidate? In what alternate universe was John “Mr. Bipartison, Reach Across the Aisle, Maverick” McCain a right winger?
And McCain was a “right wing” candidate? In what alternate universe was John “Mr. Bipartison, Reach Across the Aisle, Maverick” McCain a right winger?
The one where he chose a running mate who called Obama a secret mooslim terrorist. The one where he championed privitizing social security until September 14. The one where he advocated abolishing taxes for the rich. Need I go on?
I sure can’t recall Emperor Bush ever stooping to that level.
Valerie Plame?
Silly people, why would you be afraid after getting uplifting pep talks like this?
You mean like tell people to go shopping after 3,000 people were killed?
OMG. He had nicknames for the press! The horror!
Wait, you ask Oliver for an example of Bush calling someone a childish nickname, he gives one, and you chide him for it? Something doesn’t add up here. And yes, it was pretty horrible for the leader of the free world to have the mentality of a 12-year-old.
Poor Dave, why do you hate America so much?
And I know this may be confusing to you and the geniuses at Media Matters, Oliver, but many conservatives voted for Obama because they thought that McCain was a poor candidate or disagreed with his policies, not because they were closet progressives.
If they thought that McCain was a poor candidate, why did they vote for him in the primaries? You guys had plenty of other choices.
The one where he chose a running mate who called Obama a secret mooslim terrorist. The one where he championed privitizing social security until September 14. The one where he advocated abolishing taxes for the rich. Need I go on?
Yes, please. At least until you hit something that even remotely supports Oliver’s ridiculous assertion that McCain was “right wing”.
I call bullshit on your first one (secret mooslim terrorist). Got a link? And how exactly do the other two make McCain a right winger? Unless your standard for right wing is “anything that Bush supported”.
Valerie Plame?
Plame was a reporter or a media celebrity? And it was Richard Armitage who outed her in an off the record talk with Novak, not Scott McClellan during a press conference.
Wait, you ask Oliver for an example of Bush calling someone a childish nickname, he gives one, and you chide him for it? Something doesn’t add up here.
You must have missed the part where I asked him “Which reporter or media person did he publicly single out and criticize?”. All Oliver could respond with was “Well, he called them childish nicknames”.
And yes, it was pretty horrible for the leader of the free world to have the mentality of a 12-year-old
What age mentality would you assign for a man who is the most powerful man in the free world, yet feels so threatened by criticism of him and his actions that he feels the need to personally criticize those person in public?
Poor Dave, why do you hate America so much?
Poor Zython. Are you cranky because your “Usury! You’re subsidizing usury!” comment above just looked so pathetic?
And Obama just dumped another $1 trillion of debt on the shoulders of America’s children. Why do you and Obama hate children so much, Zython?
You guys had plenty of other choices.
We wish. I mean, Huckabee? WTF?
Poor Zython. Are you cranky because your “Usury! You’re subsidizing usury!” comment above just looked so pathetic?
I imagine it would look pathetic to someone who doesn’t even know what “usury” means.
We wish. I mean, Huckabee? WTF?
Face it, you got an accurate subset of the Republican base, you all chose the best candidate, and he lost the general election. Also, McCain wasn’t the only Republican that lost in 2008. Get over it.
And Obama just dumped another $1 trillion of debt on the shoulders of America’s children.
Rather spend that money on improving the school system and other thing that benefit children, rather than use it to kill them in a desert or teach them that latex was invented by Satan.
And how exactly do the other two make McCain a right winger? Unless your standard for right wing is “anything that Bush supported”.
How is the desire to privatize a public safety net & support of trickle-down economic theory NOT right-wing? Or do you also have to advocate making homosexuality punishable by death to be right-wing?
Rather spend that money on improving the school system and other thing that benefit children
And what percentage of that $1 trillon spending extravaganza actually does that?
I suspect that years from now, when the inevitable tax increase finally comes home to roost, those “children” you claim to be helping will be pretty mad at those “f***ing Democrats” who screwed them over royally.
How is the desire to privatize a public safety net & support of trickle-down economic theory NOT right-wing?
You’re the one claiming that these things make one “right wing”. So the onus is on you to demonstrate that they do. Put up or shut up.
I know thinking with your brain rather than your heart is difficult, but give it a shot.
Went to right-wing in wikipedia, went down to United States. 4 options, chose libertairan (other 3 were Christian Conservative, Neoconservative, and Paleoconservative). Got this, which can lead to this, which seems to fit the bill.
And what percentage of that $1 trillon spending extravaganza actually does that?
Since you and I have very different definitions of what constitutes this, actually linking anything won’t do anything. But, for the sake of humoring you, I’m going to go with 87%.
I suspect that years from now, when the inevitable tax increase finally comes home to roost, those “children” you claim to be helping will be pretty mad at those “f***ing Democrats” who screwed them over royally.
Considering your track record for the past 8 years, I’m not too worried about this happening.
By the way, I’m going to probably have to help pay this off, and it does indeed suck. However, if it fixes the mess you all made, then it will be worth every penny.
Dave in SoCal says, February 23, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Really? Who did Bush personally call a childish nickname? Which reporter or media person did he publicly single out and criticize?
Hmmm… There’s this:
5-27-2002
PARIS – President Bush yesterday derisively challenged press claims of widespread anti-Americanism in Europe and ridiculed an American TV correspondent for suggesting as much – in English and French – to him and French President Jacques Chirac.
And this:
There’s Adam Clymer – major league asshole – from the New York Times,” Bush said as he was waving to a campaign crowd from a stage in Naperville, Ill.
And this:
Irish Reporter Carol Coleman’s Interview with Bush in 2004
There’s a couple of other interesting videos of a petulant brat getting testy because people are asking him real questions that he doesn’t like in the web page for that last link.
For starters. Oh, yeah – and there’s quite a few incidents of the Illegally Installed Drunken Cokeheaded Deserter treating non-reporters like crap too – from feeling up a foreign Prime Minister to rubbing a black guys’ bald head. For starters.
Just another example of a clueless Republican’t shill too afraid of the truth to try and find it. The working rule of everything a Republican’t says is disingenuous bullshit has proven to be quite accurate in my experience. Particularly my experience with brain dead Republican’t commenters like the pack of hyenas around here…
Dave in SoCal says, February 23, 2009 at 5:00 pm
I suspect that years from now, when the inevitable tax increase finally comes home to roost, those “children” you claim to be helping will be pretty mad at those “f***ing Democrats” who screwed them over royally.
And they won’t be upset with the Republican’ts that gave their money to the rich people and screwed them over royally during the past eight years? They won’t be mad with the Republican’ts who sent their fellow americans to be murdered in a useless and illegal occupation of a foreign country?
Go on – pull the other one…