Peter Wehner Is Not A Good Person

7:46 pm EST March 6th, 2009 | News | 6 Comments

Peter Wehner is the kind of conservative this country needs far less of.

Related Posts

  • No Related Post
«
»

6 Responses to “Peter Wehner Is Not A Good Person”

  1. Dennis says:
    March 7, 2009 at 7:44 am

    Wehner made excellent points in the article. Because he didn’t draw comparisons to the deficit/surplus issues does not take away from the fact Obama’s popularity is no greater than Bush’s at this point in their respective terms. The anger from Democrats from the Florida recount for Bush compared to the wave of enthusiasm for the first African-American president and his message of Hope and Change are important variables, though.

    As for Bush’s greatest moment, nothing wrong with pointing out his popularity after 9/11 and how people rallied behind him. It is relevant. Doesn’t make Wehner a bad person at all. It makes this person at Instaputz look petty for saying what he did and twisting Wehner’s words.

    Here’s an excellent rundown on Obama’s problems, from DC Examiner’s Mark Tapscott, and a spot-on explanation for the Left’s all-out assault on the Limbaugh- Beck- Fox News- Santelli- and the Tea Parties, and why they are so paranoid when they should be riding high and acting confident:

    Obama is in trouble

    Did you feel it? The political ground shifting beneath President Barack Obama since his speech last week to Congress? It’s been downhill since and I’m not referring mainly to the Dow Jones record-setting dive. The pivot point of the shift was the speech, or rather what the speech did to the evolving public narrative of Obama.

    Let’s review:…..

    (what follows is must reading)

  2. Oliver Willis says:
    March 7, 2009 at 10:06 am

    Yeah, Mark Tapscott, formerly of Heritage. That must be why Obama’s approval rating moved back up. Or something.

  3. Dennis says:
    March 7, 2009 at 11:57 am

    Still no better polling by Obama over Bush at the same time, strangely enough, especially given the historical circumstances.

    And if favorability moved back up in the face of Obama’s pushing through what will amount to be the largest deficits in our lifetimes, how does that square with what that blogger is saying, that Wehner failed to mention the deficit Obama inherited as a glaring omittance from his comparison?

    The logic doesn’t quite follow, does it? But Wehner is a bad person anyway. Or something.

    Why is everyone here so in love with the ad hominems? So what if he’s from Heritage? Just where is TS at Instaputz from?

  4. Oliver Willis says:
    March 7, 2009 at 4:26 pm

    Again, you hold up a conservative commentator as objective fact. Especially one from Heritage. Wehner’s problem is that he sees 9/11 as just something to make GWB look good.

  5. Dennis says:
    March 7, 2009 at 6:46 pm

    Especially one from Heritage. Wehner’s problem is that he sees 9/11 as just something to make GWB look good. OW

    Twisting his words there a bit, wouldn’t you say. There is absolutely nothing wrong with what he said, and it takes some fairly devious interpretation to suggest he thinks 9/11 was only something to make GWB look good. You could say W’s worst moment was to come a few years later when Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, and I wouldn’t say that you saw that disaster as just something to make GWB look bad.

    Look, you can ask me to leave if you want to and I will, but I find it hard to understand how your thinking could be such that you’d think this guy would have no other feelings about 9/11 other than Bush had a couple good moments afterward. Especially when the context was approval ratings, and his did hit their peak immediately following that disaster.

  6. daniel rotter says:
    March 8, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    “Why is everyone here so in love with the ad hominems? So what if he’s from Heritage?”

    How is Oliver pointing out a FACT (that Tapscott used to be with the Heritage Foundation) an “ad hominem?”