Category: Republicans

Lyndon Johnson on social programs

I am simply gonna steal this posting and Lyndon Johnson quote straight from The Rude Pundit:

Here’s Lyndon Johnson in his 1964 speech that laid this shit out: “There is the decay of the centers and the despoiling of the suburbs. There is not enough housing for our people or transportation for our traffic. Open land is vanishing and old landmarks are violated. Worst of all expansion is eroding the precious and time-honored values of community with neighbors and communion with nature. The loss of these values breeds loneliness and boredom and indifference…In many places, classrooms are overcrowded and curricula are outdated. Most of our qualified teachers are underpaid, and many of our paid teachers are unqualified. So we must give every child a place to sit and a teacher to learn from. Poverty must not be a bar to learning, and learning must offer an escape from poverty.”

That still holds true. Its 41 years later, but we’re still seeing the same exact problems. Things get better for a while whenever we have a
Democrat in the White House. Then a Republican comes in and screws it all up again. This is not rocket science, people! The more people that we can help get out of poverty, the stronger a nation we become!

More signs that Tom Tancredo is out of his friggin’ mind

Okay, as if there wasn’t enough proof that Tom Tancredo is a friggin’ wacko, we now have more. From 9news.com: Tom Tancredo wants to change design of 9/11 memorial:

Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., says the design, called “Crescent of Embrace,” could invite “controversy and criticism.” In a letter sent Tuesday to National Park Service Director Fran Mainella, Tancredo said many have questioned the shape “because of the crescent’s prominent use as a symbol in Islam — and the fact that the hijackers were radical Islamists.”

Okay, so crescents are out because the shape can be tied to Islam? The hell? Is Tancredo going to ask for clothes to be forbidden at the memorial, since the terrorists wore clothes on board the airplanes? Tancredo is out of his friggin’ mind!

Diana DeGette comes out swinging over Katrina lack-of-response

Colorado Congresswoman Diana DeGette says someone is going to have to take responsibility for the federal government’s “terrible lapse” regarding Hurricane Katrina.

DeGette’s best comment is also her most-quoted: “DeGette says she believes ‘there has to be heads rolling’ over the government’s response to Katrina — calling it ‘un-American, what our country did to neglect these folks.'”

DeGette was 100% correct in her comments. She has once again made me proud that she represents Colorado in Congress. I just wish that she represented my district. Instead, we are stuck with the racist Tom Tancredo, who voted against the Hurricane Katrina relief package because he believes that local governments are to blame for the horrid non-response. Could someone introduce Tancredo to the Real World, please?

Press briefing turns nasty for McClellan

Really, Scott McClellan had to know that Monday’s press briefing was going to be rough. This was the first chance that the press had to ask about the “shocking” revelation that Karl Rove leaked the identiy of a CIA operative. One would think that the White House should’ve been prepared for questions about rove, and could’ve come up with a better answer than “we are not going to comment about an ongoing criminal investigation.” Especially since they have commented on this in the past.

Anyway, McLellan was grilled hard through the press briefing. Here’s an example:

Q Does the President stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak of a name of a CIA operative?

MR. McCLELLAN: Terry, I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked relating to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point. And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it. The President directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q Excuse me, but I wasn’t actually talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the President said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak, to press of information. And I just want to know, is that still his position?

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium. The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium. And so that’s why we are not going to get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation, or questions related to it.

Q Scott, if I could — if I could point out, contradictory to that statement, on September 29th, 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one who said, if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation is when the President made his comment that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, ‘We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation’?

MR. McCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the President of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. That’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow. And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy.

Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q So could I just ask, when did you change your mind to say that it was okay to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point when the investigation got underway when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be their — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing. I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

There is also video of the briefing on this page.