White House Abramoff Stonewall, Day 14
White House Abramoff Stonewall, Day 14
White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan was first asked about meetings between Jack Abramoff and White House staff on January 4. On January 5, McClellan said he would have a “thorough report” on staff level contacts “very soon.”
Fourteen days later, the stonewalling continues:
QUESTION: Scott, just quickly, back to Abramoff, can you give any more specificity on those meetings? When they were, years, times?
MCCLELLAN: No. This is sticking with our past policy. We’re not going to engage in a fishing expedition.
QUESTION: Not even years?
MCCLELLAN: Well, the Hanukkah receptions were back in 2001 and 2002.
QUESTION: OK. You talked about the Hanukkah receptions. Can you talk about the staff-level meetings and what years those were or months?
MCCLELLAN: No. I did a chat for you all to provide you that information, but we’re not going to engage in a fishing expedition. I know that there’s some that want to do that. But I don’t see any reason to do so.
QUESTION: Can you tell me why you wouldn’t want it out there?
MCCLELLAN: Well, this has been keeping with past practice in terms of in similar incidents.
What is the White House trying to hide?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Just to be rude, has anyone asked what Scotty meant by “similar incidents”? Has the White House been associated with other criminal lobbiests in the past? Did the press secretary then deny all knowledge of particular meetings?
January 18th, 2006 at 3:26 pmThe WH reporters and the blogs have to keep pounding away at McClellan until the MSM picks this up and starts demanding answers. This is ridiculous – the imperial bullsh*t has got to stop. Who the hell does he think he is? The American people have a right to know who Jack Abramoff met with at the White House, how many times, when, for what reason, etc. I think this is going to backfire on them – either Abramoff is going to squeal like the pig that he is (maybe that was part of the plea agreement) or someone in Congress will get a backbone and demand an investigation. I think the more McClellan stonewalls the more attention this will get – at least I hope so!
January 18th, 2006 at 3:29 pmSo much for transparency. All hail King George! We may never know what went on in the Kremli-er, the White House. The slide towards facism continues.
But where are the dems? Yeah, Gore’s speech the other day was great, but we need new blood, strong leaders, out there yelling about this stuff.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:32 pmThursday, 011906 @ 1100 EST
Washington Post White House Reporter Michael Fletcher discusses on-line the latest in political news.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/01/13/DI2006011301042.html
Come on down.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:32 pmWhat’s this White House trying to hide?
Is that a trick question, Judd? :) Hahahahaha
The answer: EVERYTHING!!!
There is a WHOLE vast corruption thing and now they bring a Clinton conspiracy into the press…
Coincidence???
January 18th, 2006 at 3:36 pmI would be careful with this one. There are at least half as many dems involved with Abramoff as Republicans. If we are going to clean house then all dems that are guilty need to go as well and that includes Dirty Harry.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:37 pmScott’s ability to lie with a straight face was lost to him a long time ago. Does he really think that we’ll accept “nothing happened” for an answer? I’m sure it’s apparent to the reporters in the room that if Scott did in fact check into it, he found something they did not want to reveal. So he starts with this “fishing expedition” crap.
I agree that the MSM MUST stay on top of this and all of the other stories where White Integrity has been brought into question. The Whote House has demonstrated that they have no problem with lying to the American people, for whom they have zero respect. They lie to their own soldiers (who they have no intention of protecting with more armor or bringing home). They lie to everybody about everything, and I think it’s because they just think it’s a game. It’s a game and you have to win at all costs, so the truth doesn’t matter and everyone who isn’t with you is against you. They created the hostile atmosphere in which they find themselves. When the President is finally removed from office through a conviction following impeachment, they will have no one to blame but themselves. (But they will still blame everyone else, and we all know where they’ll start.)
January 18th, 2006 at 3:39 pmOff topic- and in a Hurry
Mr Ho flied lice verry gurd
Mr ho Need go eat.
Mr Ho Lurv IRI
And Mr ho Lurv funny germain Mr Alit-ho,
A signing statement is a little discussed Presidential privilege that allows the executive branch to add a little waiver – a disclaimer, if you will – which allows said branch to circumvent the law that was just signed. The legal author of this particular tactic? One Samuel Alito, in 1986 working for the Reagan administration.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:43 pmhttp://action.dscc.org/campaign/honestleadership
Sign the petition for Reid, why don’tcha?
January 18th, 2006 at 3:43 pmScott’s real job is not to answer any questions.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:43 pmRandi that’s a lie and you ought to know it.
Not ONE Democrat got money from Abramhoff. They did get money from his old firm which is run by a democrat, but not ONE CENT from Abramhoff.
Repeating lies doesn’t make them true. Idiot.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:44 pmRandy, if there are any Dems that are dirty this is where we agree; they need to go.
However, so far there are NO DEMICRATES that are part of this scandal. This is TOTALLY A REPUBLICAN SCANDAL. Yes, the Dems did take money from the tribes, but they did not take money from Abromoff or his organizations. Not one Dem has been identified with proof of being part of this. On the other hand, there have been at least (being very conservative here, no pun intended) 10 Republicans identified in the scandal.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:44 pmAt long last Mr. McLellan, have you left no sense of decency?
Scott McLellan stepped out of the Whitehouse closet where he was engaged in a backdoor strategy session with Jeff Gannon. McLellan said that black is white, up is down and George W. Bus is the new father of our country. Anyone who disputes these new facts is a traitor, coward and hates America.
-GSD
January 18th, 2006 at 3:44 pmOh Mr. Alito, now we see your game. Make the Straw man sign a sigining then you and your boys re-interpret it. Is that Bout right Mr. Alito. Mr crony of Federalism name, Hoover Power grab school of thought? Cronyism with conflict of interest to BOOT!
January 18th, 2006 at 3:45 pmReferring to a previous thread, It’s a good thing that these guys think blogs are trivial. Very good indeed.
By what, bloggers? HEE!
January 18th, 2006 at 3:46 pm“Mr. McLellan, we often hear criminal defendants attorneys decrying the use of “fishing expeditions” to prevent the facts of guilt related to their clients. Are you hiding the truth of illegal conduct and claiming the use of “fishing expeditions” by the media whos job it is to serve as a watchdog to the executive branch.?
Is there criminal activity to hide?
-GSD
January 18th, 2006 at 3:47 pmSounds like Randy is nothing more than a paid troll for the repukes. Sent here to try and scare us into not pushing so hard. Unlike Republicans and cockroaches, we do not fear the light of day. If the pukes had any real evidence of the dems wrong doing it would have already come out.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:47 pmMr. Ho,
According to the Diane Rehm show this morning, the Supreme Court has never acknowledged signing statements over seperation of powers. Scalia included.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:48 pmThe only thing left is lies and slander.
This used to be a heckuva country.
-GSD
January 18th, 2006 at 3:49 pmHarry Reid and several other senators sent Bush this letter:
http://reid.senate.gov/record2.cfm?id=250467
Good … let’s hope they keep the pressure up.
Randy, that’s the difference between you and us – we are not afraid of honest inquiry and the removal of whoever is tainted, democrat or republican. You, on the other hand, just want to deflect blame, smear, and deny even if your boys are caught with their hands in the cookie jar. Very sad.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:49 pmThis is like an employee telling the boss “It’s none of your business.” These people work for US. We pay their salaries, and yet they refuse to come to their own reviews and answer our questions about tehir job performance. We need to fire them. Now.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:54 pm#18 Agreed, Gus. Signing statements do not carry the weight of law. And where does this president get off singing a bill into law (a process which means that he accepts that this is law and that he will obey it in accordance with his oath of office) and then issuing a statement that, in effect, says “I veto this bill.”? (”Veto”, of course, means “I oppose.” By saying in his singing statement that he reserved the right to not follow the law – a right he does not have in the first place – he is vetoing the bill.)
He can’t have it both ways. If he didn’t want to sign the bill (and he has yet to veto one), then he should have let it become law without his signature. At least then he would be on better legal ground to say he opposed the bill.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:54 pm#6 Randy:
I would be careful with this one. There are at least half as many dems involved with Abramoff as Republicans. If we are going to clean house then all dems that are guilty need to go as well and that includes Dirty Harry.
Comment by Randy — January 18, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
Careful why? Any democrats who received bribe money from Abramoff should be indicted and prosecuted as well. I challenge you to find any. This is a partisan issue not because people are out to get the conservatives. It’s a partisan issue because Abramoff is a republican who bribed other republicans on behalf of his clients. Abramoff gave no money to democrats. I know that the conservative media has been telling you something very different, but truth is truth.
As far as Dirty Harry goes, you should give that one up. Reid represents Nevada. Gaming is legal in Nevada. Tribes gave money to Reid Abramoff didn’t. Sorry Randy. Hold tight though. Abramoff is still singing to the feds. Others will be indicted and you will see that they will all be republicans. But I’ll play devil’s advocate here. Should it be proved that any democrat took money from Abramoff, then I want them gone too. Can you say the same Randy? Do you truly want to clean house?
January 18th, 2006 at 3:54 pmRandy – You may sleep easy. There are NO Dems. None.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:55 pm#12
No Democrats? Hmm? Why did Hillary and others donate their money to charity. You lie. LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10723902/
January 18th, 2006 at 3:56 pmI have this feeling that someday Helen Thomas will rush the poduim and put open a can of whoopass on poor Scott. Can’t say that he doesn’t need one.
January 18th, 2006 at 3:57 pmHere is the list of democrats taking money:
Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) Received At Least – $22,500
Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) Received At Least – $6,500
Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) Received At Least – $1,250
Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) Received At Least – $2,000
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) Received At Least – $20,250
Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) Received At Least – $21,765
Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) Received At Least – $7,500
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) Received At Least – $12,950
Senator Kent Conrad (D-ND) Received At Least – $8,000
Senator Jon Corzine (D-NJ) Received At Least – $7,500
Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) Received At Least – $14,792
Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) Received At Least – $79,300
Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) Received At Least – $14,000
Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) Received At Least – $2,000
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) Received At Least – $1,250
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) Received At Least – $45,750
Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) Received At Least – $9,000
Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT) Received At Least – $2,000
Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD) Received At Least – $14,250
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) Received At Least – $3,300
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) Received At Least – $98,550
January 18th, 2006 at 4:01 pmSenator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) Received At Least – $28,000
Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT) Received At Least – $4,000
Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,000
Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT) Received At Least – $29,830
Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) Received At Least – $14,891
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) Received At Least – $10,550
Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) Received At Least – $78,991
Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL) Received At Least – $20,168
Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) Received At Least – $5,200
Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) Received At Least – $7,500
Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR) Received At Least – $2,300
Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) Received At Least – $3,500
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) Received At Least – $68,941
Senator John Rockefeller (D-WV) Received At Least – $4,000
Senator Ken Salazar (D-CO) Received At Least – $4,500
Senator Paul Sarbanes (D-MD) Received At Least – $4,300
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Received At Least – $29,550
Senator Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) Received At Least – $6,250
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) Received At Least – $6,250
Ignoring the crazy reichtwing….
It’ll come out. Some one will do a FOIA on his schedule. We all know he’ll claim executive privilidge, but how will that play in Peoria?
January 18th, 2006 at 4:01 pmPS – it wasn’t Abrahmoff they got the money from. Troll.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:02 pmPoor Randy must of scored pretty low on the reading comprehension tests back in high school, assuming he graduated. See Randy, the key phrase is “his associates or clients”. Democrats took no bribes uh… sorry, I meant donations from Jack (an admitted felon). They may have taken money from his associates or clients (don’t judge these people based on Jack’s actions).
January 18th, 2006 at 4:02 pm“When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public propertyâ€.
-Thomas Jefferson
January 18th, 2006 at 4:03 pmRandy, when there is a scandal of the level of the Abramoff scandal, everyone who ever knew him will suddenly forget who he is and will return any money remotely close to him. The fact is that Abramoff never, EVER gave money to any Dems. Abramoff is a Republican through and through – he would never give money to a Democrat. He may have asked some of his clients to give money to political candidates but that is another matter altogether.
BTW, Bush received $100,000 from “Pioneer” Abramoff. Why did he only donate $6,000 of that money to charity? Hm?
January 18th, 2006 at 4:05 pmThe White House is trying to hide this from C&L.
http://www.texasobserver.org/showForPrint_new.asp?ArticleID=13
January 18th, 2006 at 4:05 pm#27 Randy, you know fully well that not one of those people got money from Jack Abramoff himself. He ONLY gave money to Republicans. Those that returned money to the clients of Abramoff from whom they got it, did so because they chose to. They didn’t have to. Maybe the ones who returned money did so because the money smelled “too Republican.”
January 18th, 2006 at 4:06 pmRandy,
Having a temper tantrum may work in the bush whitehouse, but out here in the world Randy,
Having a temper tantrum may work in the bush white house, but out here in the world it is viewed as the childish act that it is.
If you have an accusation that you would like to make against specific democrats, then do so. I am certain the group would discuss appropriately. But your pre-pubescent manner and dialog is as tiresome as it is pathetic.
it is viewed as the childish act that it is.
If you have an accusation that you would like to make against specific democrats, then do so. I am certain the group would discuss appropriately. But your pre-pubescent manner and dialog is as tiresome as it is pathetic.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:06 pmRandy, that’s an inaccurate list and you know it. Those were not political contributions from Abramoff. Perhaps they represent money from Abramoff clients but as you know, Abramoff clients do not equal Abramoff. If it did, well, they’d be in jail, too. But they’re not because they aren’t Abramoff.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:07 pmThere should be a distinction here…Abramoff didn’t give any money to Democrats BUT some Democrats received money from his clients and associates and, unlike most Repukes, wanted to avoid even the appearance of impropriety and returned the money. The difference being that the Repukes received money from Abramoff in order to obtain favorable legislation in return. It’s called BRIBERY, it’s illegal and it’s a REPUBLICAN scandal. Moron.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:10 pmI would be careful with this one. There are at least half as many dems involved with Abramoff as Republicans. If we are going to clean house then all dems that are guilty need to go as well and that includes Dirty Harry.
Comment by Randy — January 18, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
Another troll who didn’t get their copy of the National Review:
It is true that any Washington influence peddler is going to spread cash and favors as widely as possible, and 210 members of Congress have received Abramoff-connected dollars. But this is, in its essence, a Republican scandal, and any attempt to portray it otherwise is a misdirection.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pmThe Abramoff Scandal – It’s the Republicans, stupid.
Randy is just throwing out red herrings to derail the thread. If he/she presents information confirming that Abramoff is DIRECTLY tied to any democrats, then that will be worth discussion and review.
Otherwise, don’t fall for the diversionary tactic. It is of no benefit to the group.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:13 pmRandy,
January 18th, 2006 at 4:14 pmcan you please add another column to the list you posted? A column that states where that the amount of money came from…specifically? Thanks that would help a lot. I know you don’t want to add confusion to the discussion and that you want to show your complete understanding of the facts to everyone. Again thank you.
Randy,
None of those people received any money from Abramoff. So why would you lie about such a thing? Are you afraid the truth will show how corrupt and irresponsible republicans are? You should be afraid, because republican leadership is rotten to the core, and your defense of them is very sad and quite disappointing. Clearly your loyalty is to partisanship and not to american democracy. I forgive you of your sin, maybe someday in the future when you realize what a partisan you’ve been you’ll be able to forgive yourself – but I doubt it.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:16 pm#39: I agree totally, but to not refute the charges, could leave the less informed reader… misinformed. Every attempt by the Repukes to mislead must be countered by truth.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:17 pmHow about the fact that Bush received 25,000 dollars from Abramoff for his ‘attention’ to each specific matter before him. That’s right 25K PER VISIT were given to bush. Clearly bush is part of the criminal corruption, and a special prosecutor should be appointed to uncover how much Bush was involved.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:18 pmi wonder if there is a way to presure the white house press corps to demand answers and not just accept Ms. McClellan’s double-talk and song and dance.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:19 pm#42,
January 18th, 2006 at 4:21 pmAgreed. However, especially in this case where the misinformation that Randy is spreading has already been categorically proven false, it only takes one or two quick responses to debunk such sophmoric attempts at deception.
If you could all please refer to page 87 of your Republican crime handbook’s. As you see our normal proceedure is …
January 18th, 2006 at 4:26 pm#44…I think David Gregory is doing a good job keeping the pressure on. I keep waiting for one of them to stand up and go, “JESUS CHRIST, SCOTT!! How about a F-CKING straight answer for once! What are you bastards trying to hide?”
January 18th, 2006 at 4:26 pmJust because you tell a lie doesn’t mean it’s true.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:29 pmNo Democrats? Hmm? Why did Hillary and others donate their money to charity. You lie.
LIE!LIE!LIE!LIE!….
Comment by Randy — January 18, 2006 @ 3:56 pm
Comments on your obvious weak mental state aside, you should be careful when you link to articles that debunk and/or undermine your own position.
The article lists politicians who will return or are returning funds received. The breakdown is:
* 4 Senate Democrats vs. 20 Republicans
* 8 Congress Democrats vs 32 Republicans
December 2005
* 3 Democrats vs 4 Republicans
August-November 2005
* 0 Democrats vs 4 Republicans
February 2002
* 0 Democrats vs 1 Republican
Plus Pres. Bush and Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.
* 0 Democrats vs 2 Republican
Total: 15 democrats vs 63 Republicans
The Abramoff scandal is a Republican issue. Trying to portray it any other way is disingenuous.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:31 pmRandy, dude, you are suuuuccchhh a parrot. Here’s a box of triscuits for you to chew on. brawck, brawck, brawck
Me? I like to think on my own.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:33 pmMe? I like to think on my own.
Comment by MLDB — January 18, 2006 @ 4:33 pm
Yeah same here, but Randy’s brain is de-evolving and it hurts him to use it. Kinda like the ache you get when you exercise muscles you haven’t used.
It’s getting to the point that it will be news if Scottie actually says something… rather than news that he is stalling again.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:35 pmAs long as we are getting listy (I hope this works):
January 18th, 2006 at 4:36 pmGo ahead Randy…find the (D) in there.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:37 pmThe bottomline is that it doesn’t make sense for Abramoff who supported a conservative agenda to give money to liberals…
January 18th, 2006 at 4:39 pmsweet. too cool MLDB.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:40 pmMLDB,
I hope Randy does not get a total nervous breakdown when he sees your list.
Given his recent posts, I would think it can happen any minute now.
That’s a great find -thank you ;-)
January 18th, 2006 at 4:45 pmGotta give credit to John Aravosis at Americablog for grabbing the image. But the info is public knowledge from places like opensecrets.org
January 18th, 2006 at 4:46 pmRandy
If the Republican party has managed to convince you this is a general issue between Dems and Reps, use the power of your vote to try and get rid of both parties. Don’t let the rightwing media tell you “But he did it too” that excuse doesn’t even work for four year olds, vote for someone else.
Personally, just judging by the information provided (Which is admittedly quite scant) this looks to me like a Republican issue, not a general one. That said, if your belief is that this is a general issue, do your research, and vote for someone else.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:55 pmThe bottomline is that it doesn’t make sense for Abramoff who supported a conservative agenda to give money to liberals…
Abramoff didn’t just support a conservative agenda, he hates the Dems. And that’s why he never gave them any money.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:55 pmI thought this was relevant to this thread. It’s from a soldier that has since committed suicide from the Post Traumatic Stress of what he witnessed in Iraq. Republican partisans would be wise to hear this man and the many like him who represent the price of needless wars and poorly run occupations.
January 18th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
ann,
can I borrow your post? Thanks.
We can do the same for Saddam and Osama.
“Saddam didn’t just support a secular agenda, he hates Al Qaida. And that’s why he never gave them any money.”
January 18th, 2006 at 5:00 pmMLDB, that is a great post. Nothing like the facts.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:13 pmFolks,
Just an FYI. If memory serves, several weeks ago I discovered that I-RIGHT-I and a troll using the name “Randy” were one and the same. “Randy” had posted a unique piece of information on one of the threads. Later, on another thread, IRI made reference to the same info. I asked if this was the latest talking point, since I had seen it before, and I-RIGHT-I confessed.
This is not saying that our current “Randy” is IRI, but we’ve seen evidence of trolls posting under multiple names before.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:33 pmWC,
The DoD has already admitted to paying bloggers. While else would they post nonsensical lunatic ravings of a madman.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:38 pm#64
Spudge,
Thanks for the confirmation. I have of course seen allusions to this on various threads, but did not know it was a fact.
Sad.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:41 pmWC,
I remember that thread -it was the Gorelick Myth, and the reference was to FDR’s internment camps.
There are others who also post under different names. Their styles are unmistakable.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:48 pmAbramoff didn’t just support a conservative agenda, he hates the Dems. And that’s why he never gave them any money.
Comment by ann — January 18, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
Same conclusion – their claims make no sense. But I guess nonsense is what the Republican party runs on… Randy is a prime example of someone just posting information he googles without understanding or any capacity to connect the dots of logic.
Abramoff giving Democrats money is like Randy giving Think Progress money. Will never happen.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:52 pmThis is not saying that our current “Randy†is IRI, but we’ve seen evidence of trolls posting under multiple names before.
Comment by WC — January 18, 2006 @ 5:33 pm
IRI is also A REAL AMERICAN. I’ve also caught him using the same lines – verbatim. When I called him on it, he said “I don’t know who this IRI character is, but he must be one heck of a guy.” The same thing IRI had said about REAL AMERICAN when I accused him of being a twin just weeks earlier. I guess when you take information without thinking, you assume others do the same.
January 18th, 2006 at 5:56 pmjust curious – whatever happened to NED? …not missed, mind you…
“it” had a bet with someone (i forget), and lost, never to be heard from…
sometimes other trolls post similar rants and i wonder if, maybe…
but that IRI is a bonfide sick psycho…the worst…and, i think, fortunately, one-of-a-kind…
January 18th, 2006 at 6:07 pm64: What is the going rate, and who do I contact? I mean, if I can get paid for posting shit which has to be designed to destroy the credibility of the right wing… where do I sign up?
I’ll have to think of some new names though.
Maybe I will go with the Big Bad Wolf?
The Grinch I think has been taken by Cheney, how about Alfred E Neuman? What Mike Brown already has that one?
Don Quixote is too Spannish and kind of cool in his senility, how do you think they would take the name Nero?
Okay he was Italian, my bad. Macbeth? Oh, the Bushes probably didn’t kill Elvis in a backstage drug-deal gone bad(though the shit coming out about the repubs now, who knows?)
Plato was too honest, and Macheivelli to close for comfort, how about Diablo Lord of Terror? Oh, Bush has taken that one already. Should have guessed he liked Diablo (sodding action RPGamers are destroying the world.)
Thrall? Yeah, that’s the ticket. Thrall. A fictional rebel. You need those for your fictional rebellions. It also doesn’t hurt that the word really means slave or one who is intellectually and morally enslaved. What do you mean Condi has already taken that one?
Sorry, had to get that out of my system.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:23 pmYou folks know of course that these trolls are paid by Ken Mehlman and the RNC for each and every lying post that they send.
The trolls love their work, it gives them money for coke and they get to feel important because Gay Mehlman told them they would be doing a big service for thei country. They aare given the lines and they run with them.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:24 pmbut that IRI is a bonfide sick psycho…the worst…and, i think, fortunately, one-of-a-kind…
Comment by katy — January 18, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
He certainly does seem to have issues with people who don’t look like him, but I don’t think he’s “one-of-a-kind.” Sadly, there are many more ignorant people like him out there. And they’ve got themselves a major political party to play with.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:25 pm#71 Mr. Gorton,
If you want to post there under a fake name, may I suggest using “Alfred Packer”? I doubt anyone there would know about his infamous place in history, and it will look like you’re using a “real” name.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:29 pmjust curious – whatever happened to NED? …not missed, mind you…
Comment by katy — January 18, 2006 @ 6:07 pm
Katy,
NeD is also still around -I am sure. I cannot recall the new screen name he is using, but his style is the same. And I agree: Not missed at all…
January 18th, 2006 at 6:29 pmWayne,
I don’t understand how hate speech like that of I-RIGHT-I is tolerated by the administrators. Clearly it’s illegal for the blog hosting service and from what I read in the Terms of Use, it’s also against the site policy.
When I first came to the site, I just assumed that they would eject people like him. But I’ve come to recognize that the administrators don’t actually enforce these rules – at least not with any regularity or rationality.
It’s too bad, because it really detracts from the quality of the site and it’s information, and makes much of the threads somewhat second rate.
I’ve been hanging out for the last couple of weeks hoping things would improve after the holidays, but sadly it hasn’t. I’m looking at other blogs to post on that have better management instead. If anyone has any recommendations, let me know. I was going to do the huffington post which seems to have more and better content – but it seems even more full of trolls than this site. Unfortunately Huffington has several I-RIGHT-I racists – it’s really sad.
I don’t know why these blogs don’t administer their postings better, but sadly most of them are just poorly and unprofessionally run from what I can see.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:35 pmWhite House stonewalling again…
This time on Jack Abramoff’s visits to the White House. Per Think Progress, here’s Scott McClellan on January 5:Q: Any update on the Abramoff visits to the White House beyond the three parties that he attended? MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I…
January 18th, 2006 at 6:37 pm74: Actually Bruce Gorton is actually, my real name. Got it on my birth certificate and everything.
As to the post, look has anyone noticed just how bad a light these trolls shed on the current admin, if this is the best defense money can buy? Vote Republican! You are in essence agreeing with people who hold the same mysogenistic and somewhat racist views as I-Right-I.
I mean, shit can’t these guys hire blogtrolls who are not, you know, screaming racist morons?
Also, what infamy is this you speak of? Just Googled my name and while it seems a common enough name I can’t see anything which ties to any sort of infamy.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:42 pm74: Sorry, misunderstood. Brain does that at ten to two in the morning. Insomnia is a real biyatch.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:47 pm#71, paul – “these trolls are paid”…
it couldn’t be too much…one from an earlier thread commented about what “a waste of time” this site is…and yet, still posts regularly…
also, some of them sound more like meth freaks, not coke heads…which would be explained by the low wages they are paid…
January 18th, 2006 at 6:52 pmkaty,
That makes a lot of sense. Meth apparently makes people paranoid and fearful – and that really sums up much of the rightwing. Considering the epidemic of Meth in the red states in recent years, it would explain their drift towards republican voting patterns. Fear kills the rational brain, and it’s why all of the good bible thumping christian ministers try to get everyone scared of ‘hell’. So they won’t think about how silly virgin births, talking donkies, 8000 year old flat earth and globe ecompassing floods really are.
January 18th, 2006 at 6:59 pmMLDB
It took a long time to download that on my dial up but it was worth it. I don’t see any “d”s there.
Right Punch,
January 18th, 2006 at 7:13 pmI don’t think Lintball or Insanity will be quoting that letter! Sad story that it is.
(…) and somewhat racist views as I-Right-I.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — January 18, 2006 @ 6:42 pm
Bruce, you must be new to the blog. Welcome.
I-RIGHT-I’s rants are not “somewhat” racist. They are bona fide, 100%, unadulterated: racist, xenophobic, homophobic, & misogynistic. He fits the typical KKKer profile to the T.
What you have seen in today’s threads is just the tip of the iceberg.
January 18th, 2006 at 7:20 pmBruce Gorton,
Thrall
Nice Warcraft pull.
January 18th, 2006 at 7:34 pmGuy’s presently listening to Harbball, I know rots the brain but sometimes you hear a good one, like…. David Drier said Speaker Haskert was “vigoursly persuing the scandal” with a straight face.
January 18th, 2006 at 8:11 pmWell since Haskert became speaker in 1999, and the the iniative to clean up the problem with Jack and all his friends has just begun ….. , well I am begining to understand bubble-boy when he says they are making progress, by the standard Haskert set they have oh say five or six more years to show any improvment.
When good ole GW says he’ll leave no child behind it included a built in six year time lag, ie Any school that can show that a student scores within six years of their grade level, they qualify, no federal dollars need to improve that school .
Hopefully the seniors won’t mind waiting for most of the rest of their lives for the adminstration to acknowledge the inherrant problems with the new medicare drug program, then they’ll get right on it just ask Dennis.
Finding Osama “dead or alive”, well he’s got about a year you see, there is that nasty old six year time warp of credibility.
Keith Oberman just had Andrew Jones who runs the website encouraging students to spy on their professors as the “second worst person in the world’, so the story made the MSM sorta…….he was beat out by Bill O’Rielly who on his radio show claimed he was the poster child for economic opportunity on MLK day.
January 18th, 2006 at 8:53 pmI-RIGHT-I’s rants are not “somewhat†racist. They are bona fide, 100%, unadulterated: racist, xenophobic, homophobic, & misogynistic. He fits the typical KKKer profile to the T.
What you have seen in today’s threads is just the tip of the iceberg.
Comment by Gregor Samsa #82
Gregor,
“I heart IRI” because he represents his ilk quite well…
We need his rants and ignorance to remind us of the importance of our mission to dethrone the Party and people that embrace his beliefs, and support his vileness…
Racism, avarice, selfishness, and inbreeding are sicknesses that infect a great many in our society, and unfortunately they may not all be capable of healing…
But with IRI we keep them front and center in our collective consciousness…
IRI, don’t you dare go anywhere else with your pus ‘n bile infected invectives…
January 18th, 2006 at 9:12 pmThe Bush Administration officials intend to SPIN on Abramoff forever, because that is all they know how to do! Rove has them all trained to LIE, and if that fails to work then smear everyone else! The Bush presidency is based on LIES, so do NOT expect to ever hear truth > PERIOD.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:35 amBig papa,
Vile -that’s the right word to describe.
I don’t think I have ever run into anybody as racist as him. Ever. And I have met a few.
January 19th, 2006 at 12:55 amI meant to say “to describe I-RIGHT-I”
January 19th, 2006 at 1:03 amI don’t think I have ever run into anybody as racist as him. Ever. And I have met a few.
Comment by Gregor Samsa — January 19, 2006 @ 12:55 am
I’ve sincerely begun to believe that he is faking some of it – or amplifying it to get attention. He just reminds me too much of the needy kids in school who will do anything if it gets them attention – even if it’s negative. He comes to a liberal blog and spews venom. Of course he gets attention for that. He’s smart enough to know that having a liberal mother. And to keep it flowing, he uses several different monikers.
January 19th, 2006 at 8:21 amUnbelievable .. re another post .. It’s the flies
January 19th, 2006 at 8:28 amJust to be rude, has anyone asked what Scotty meant by “similar incidents�
Comment by Skeptic #1
Skeptic,
That’s just McClellanese for “Clinton did it too”…
January 19th, 2006 at 8:45 amClif… NO doubt :)
January 19th, 2006 at 8:51 amSo they won’t think about how silly virgin births, talking donkies, 8000 year old flat earth and globe ecompassing floods really are.
Comment by RightPunch — January 18, 2006 @ 6:59 pm
Talking donkeys? I missed that one… not that I needed any further justification… but this does explain why they voted for a talking ass for President.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:02 am74: Sorry, misunderstood. Brain does that at ten to two in the morning. Insomnia is a real biyatch.
Comment by Bruce Gorton — January 18, 2006 @ 6:47 pm
Quite alright. I’m like that all that time. I, too, post under my own name and, when I finally get around to having fun with the conservative websites, I’ll use my own name there, too. I’ve got nothing to hide.
I probably misunderstood you. I thought you were looking for a fake name to use and I wanted to offer a “real-sounding” name if you wanted to be anonymous. So I suggested Alfred Packer who was, I believe, the only person in US history to be conviced of cannibalism. I thought it would be appropriate for a conservative website that supports the Bush Administration.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:35 am#67
Unbelievable…
Agreed. You know, since last weekend I’ve been pondering something. I watched a few episodes of All In The Family on TV Land (it’s the show’s 35th Anniversary), and as you there were many episodes in which Archie and “Meat-head” were discussing politics. And then it hit me.
The trolls on here (paid or not) are the Archie Bunkers of our time. (I say that with all due respect to Carroll O’Conner, a brilliant actor, and the wonderful writers of the show). Archie would still hold his ground, even when the facts proved him wrong. In one of the episodes I watched, Archie was taking a history class to get his high school diploma, so that he could get a job promotion that was available. Edith was asking him questions to test what he had studied. One question (and this may not be the exact lines, but you’ll get the idea):
Edith: “True or false: President McKinley started the Spanish-American War even though the Spanish had agreed to all our conditions.”
Archie (with a smug, confident look on his face): “False!”
Edith: “Oh, I’m sorry Archie. The answer is ‘true’.”
Archie: “What???? McKinley would have never done anything like that!!!!”
I think Edith may have said something like “Well, that’s what the book says.”
And then he has a pained look on his face, and says “Jeez! They are making me lie on the test in order to pass it!!”
A funny moment in TV history, but at the same time it’s somewhat of a comment on the behavior and actions of some people in today’s world.
January 19th, 2006 at 9:59 amOoops…meant to say “…and as you KNOW there were many episodes in which Archie and “Meat-head†were discussing politics.”
January 19th, 2006 at 10:01 amAnd then he has a pained look on his face, and says “Jeez! They are making me lie on the test in order to pass it!!â€
A funny moment in TV history, but at the same time it’s somewhat of a comment on the behavior and actions of some people in today’s world.
Comment by WC — January 19, 2006 @ 9:59 am
Excellent analogy! My parents used to watch the show during its original run, and I do remember some of it. I think they thought it was a show like Father Knows Best or Ozzie and Harriet and didn’t get that it was satire… So, I grew up with Archie Bunker, personally, and know all too well the Right’s need to be right at any and all costs. Just ‘rationalize’ that it’s conspiracy – lies by those who are jealous of you because you are the best race, color, gender, nationality, etc. Denial on every and any level that they can apply it… even if it first means cutting a little off the edges or folding it in half…
As a result, I lived like that for a good part of my life. You’re made to believe that you should never be wrong about anything because that means that you are inferior in some capacity, and well, we all know what happens to inferior people – they spend eternity in Hell. So, you just defend what you say, and even make up stuff if you have to, all to keep from admitting guilt. Even to yourself.
I think it’s why I bother talking to IRI and Giacomo… because I know how much it sucks to be in their shoes. I wouldn’t go back to that way of life for anything. The grass in this case is most definitely greener on this side :).
Should be interesting to see if Bush’s ratings fall below the core 35%…
January 19th, 2006 at 10:18 am#98
As a result, I lived like that for a good part of my life. You’re made to believe that you should never be wrong about anything because that means that you are inferior in some capacity, and well, we all know what happens to inferior people – they spend eternity in Hell. So, you just defend what you say, and even make up stuff if you have to, all to keep from admitting guilt. Even to yourself.
Sadly, my mother-in-law fits that description to a tee. In 19 years, I do not remember her ever admitting she was wrong. On at least two recent occasions, when I have asked her a question and she was faced with having to answer with an obvious response, she instead either said “I don’t know” or, worse, simply ignored me and turned and walked away.
January 19th, 2006 at 1:56 pmTalking donkeys? I missed that one…
Comment by unbelievable — January 19, 2006 @ 9:02 am
Unbelievable,
Here is the reference to the talking donkey RightPunch mentioned:
[Numbers 22:28-30]“And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times? And Balaam said unto the ass, Because thou hast mocked me: I would there were a sword in mine hand, for now would I kill thee. And the ass said unto Balaam, Am not I thine ass, upon which thou hast ridden ever since I was thine unto this day? was I ever wont to do so unto thee? And he said, Nay.”
In case you are interested, here is a link to the Top 30 Bizarre Bible Verses – King James Version; talking donkey included.
And here is a link to the The
January 19th, 2006 at 2:28 pmSkeptical Review Online by one Farrell Till who is a former priest and now runs this website dedicated to debunking Bible inerrancy & literalism. Given your own background, I think you might enjoy it.
Sadly, my mother-in-law fits that description to a tee. In 19 years, I do not remember her ever admitting she was wrong. On at least two recent occasions, when I have asked her a question and she was faced with having to answer with an obvious response, she instead either said “I don’t know†or, worse, simply ignored me and turned and walked away.
Comment by WC — January 19, 2006 @ 1:56 pm
It’s so much easier being ‘human’ now… I feel sorry for people like your mother-in-law because happiness comes as these rare and precious occasions for people like her, rather than a general state of mind.
And there’s much truth to that sage saying about being able to laugh at yourself…
January 20th, 2006 at 7:51 amThanks Gregor! I love both of those links and have saved them to my favorites…
January 20th, 2006 at 7:51 am