Here's the video, featured at Talking Points Memo, under the heading, "Durbin Hits Back At NRA’s LaPierre: 'You Missed That Point Completely.'" TPM uses the words "sharply admonished" to characterize the drama in Durbin's voice and notes the "applause from some in the audience."
Full text at the link, but you have to watch the video to understand the incivility of Durbin's tone. Durbin does have a point that LaPierre missed, but why didn't he address LaPierre with respect and invite him to reflect upon the missed point or to refute it he can?
I asked that question out loud, and Meade said, "You're missing the point."
Of course, Durbin's real point was not that background checks deter criminals from buying guns. The point was to find an opportunity for drama and to seize it. These so-called hearings have little to do with gathering information for the purpose of writing sound legislation. It's political theater to build support for... oh, what difference does it make what they really do as long as they do something?
I ask Meade if I can use his quote in this post, and he says yes, adding that I should let people know that he spoke in a completely civil tone.
Remember the great call for civility that went out — from President Obama and many others — after the Tucson shootings? I've always used the tag "civility bullshit" for that topic, because I never believed that it was intended to apply across the board. Imagine the reaction in the media if LaPierre had used the tone employed by Durbin.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१०५ टिप्पण्या:
What is a dick durbin? Is it only available in small??
All congressional hearings are now theater. Very few of our legislators are honorable people that actually want to accomplish something beneficial for the country. They mostly want to perpetuate their own power. There are few better ways to do that than to grab a dramatic sound bite at a hearing.
We. Are. So. Screwed.
Roger. They've always been theater.
Durbin is only slightly left of Che.
I can't forgive him for calling our troops in Iraq "jack booted thugs"
I think I'll vote to unelect him in the next go-round.
Roger. They've always been theater.
Durbin is only slightly left of Che.
I can't forgive him for calling our troops in Iraq "jack booted thugs"
I think I'll vote to unelect him in the next go-round.
Congress: Nuthin' but dog & pony shows all the way down...
I thought LaPierre was remarkably effective.
His "point" was that the gun registration mania is another make-work government job creation program for bureaucrats.
That is, undoubtedly, exactly what it will be. And, the pointed explanation of that undoubtedly pissed Durbin off.
More substance here than originally thought. LaPierre is pretty good.
This does nothing but harden the resolve of gun owners.
It's not even politcal theater. It's soap opera narrative.
That small audience and its media dealers govern everything.
No other story can survive.
Roger Zimmerman, it was ever thus. David Mayhew wrote back in the 1980s (I think) that members of Congress were "single-minded seekers of re-election". That's too simplistic, but it's a useful angle from which to analyze Congressional behavior.
Listening to Durbin excoriating LaPierre for "missing a point" is ludicrous. LaPierre would have been on point if he had pointed out Chicago's obscene death toll from gun shootings in a state that does not recognize the right to protect yourself. Illinois doesn't recognize my CCW permit so I avoid the state completely. Arguably, Durbin and Shumer are running a genocide program in Chicago targeting young black children. That is THE POINT they don't want to talk about.
What can you do about our corrupt and absurdly pointless government?
o The great bipartisan subprime mortgage ripoff
o The great bipartisan immigration amnesty ripoff
Fuck the government. It's somewhere between useless and an outright enemy.
But Ann,
You miss the point!
It's not about civility, it's about soundbites!
The hearings are just a game. Liberals have long ago made up their minds to disarm America if they can. That will make riots harder to do when things go bad.
Keep in mind the King of France didn't do that and you see what he got.
Durbin has been around for years and years, but in the beginning I don't recall him being such a theatric hack. In fact, I was shocked by his idiotic comments about our troops in Iraq. I guess he's decided that "over the top" is his thing and he's going to play it to the hilt.
Congressional Snow Globe Theory.
Vacuum-formed plastic gravitas, shake shake shake, flitter flitter flitter.
Remember the great call for civility that went out — from President Obama and many others — after the Tucson shootings?
Why look so far back? The house lefties were whining about heckling and a lack of respect yesterday [even though in that case answering a direct question is neither heckling nor disrespectful]. Here we have a case where the interruption is clearly disrespectful. Where is the twitter avalanche?
Those claiming media bias isn't a big deal just isn't serious.
Manufactured approximation of outrage in miniature: shake shake shake, flitter flitter flitter.
Figurines in place: shake shake shake, flitter flitter flitter.
Yep: Congressional Snow Globe Theory.
Did anybody see Special Report on fox last night? Nina Easton of Forbes kept stumbling over her words when discussing Congressional "assault weapons" legislation. She kept saying "we should not give up hope" then rapidly correcting it to "they should not give up hope" a bill could pass.
The beltway crowd cannot see the rest of the country at all.
In fairness she took the President over the coals for providing no leadership on economic issues at all just a few moments earlier.
I understood the "incivility" of Durbin's tone.
LaPierre accused him directly of a power and money grab. Lapierre said quite bluntly that this is just pretext for creating a money grabbing bureaucracy that does nothing.
Pretty tough talk.
I think you guys are missing the substantive punch. Durbin certainly felt the hit.
We should also consider the possibility that Durbin is simply not that bright. This conjecture explains all kinds of things.
Careful Althouse lefties...Isn't this just an obvious trap? Embattled leader of cause more popular than you wish to admit makes grown-up like testimony. Doesn't the Right want Democrats to say something uncivil attacking this man, cementing their reputation as the hypocrite party? Shouldn't we all watch what we say to carefully avoid it?
But I guess some people just can't help themselves.
We should also consider the possibility that Durbin is simply not that bright.
Don't think so. He got LaPierre's point and immediately tried to deflect it... one of the most common tactics by commenters on this blog.
LaPierre said in so many words... "You're just grabbing for power and trying to put money in your pocket."
Durbin's response... "How dare you question my Authori-tah!"
"These so-called hearings have little to do with gathering information"
...as long as it is recognized that this goes both ways...Benghazi...
Remember the great call for civility that went out — from President Obama and many others — after the Tucson shootings?
And here I thought it went out when Obama said "If they bring a knife, we bring a gun" on Jun 13, 2008
Machine......bingo!
Committee hearings are remarkably badly constructed for the purpose of producing any substantive info.
Wrong venue.
We used to be able to rely to a certain extent on the press to be a watchdog.
But, they've got Obama's dick so far down their throats that they're worthless.
Shouting Thomas, it's easier to assume sincerity. Durbin might actually think that LaPierre didn't understand the basic argument. Durbin's attitude, speaking style, and body language suggest to me that inside, he's thinking roughly "I've got to make this point, because this dimwit just doesn't understand".
The Professor (via Meade) suggests that mostly Durbin is trying to get a big sound-bite out. That makes sense, but it assumes craftiness and intelligence.
What if he's just dumb? Lots of people say stupid things, thinking they have a clever insight. I know I've done it. Can't a Senator?
Pure Alinsky. The thugs have learned well that all it takes is demonization and the millions of small brain pan voters will fall into line.
The missed point is always about the Dems desperate need for enforced social regimentation as the North American Province's money and power is redistributed. They expect a rebellion.
The Dems want everyone to ignore the frantic militarization of all Federal Agencies which will be used to quell a rebellion, while they steamroll the immediate disarmament of the rebels.
The ChiTown Dems are imitating the ChiComs.
This is Republicans being stupid again, right?
Get over it, righties.
You lost this one.
It's a minor matter in the larger scheme of politics.
Let it go.
It's a trap.
Leave the gun-grabbers alone.
It doesn't matter.
Come on. This is the same Dick (never a man more aptly named) Durbin, who compared our troops to Nazis (I'm being fair here, he didn't actually say they were), and did so in an unfavorable way. Intelligent, polite, civilized, mature, thoughtful, and serious people wouldn't tolerate his physical presence for any time at all. But then we are talking about the Senate here, so we fail at the very first of the above criteria.
LaPierre is damned tough!
Vet66 - "Arguably, Durbin and Shumer are running a genocide program in Chicago targeting young black children."
Can't be genocide if the thug breeding rate still exceeds the thug removal rate by gun violence and abortion. (Thugs called "young black children" by liberal and progressive jewish media masters - which. Apparantly 93-95% of whacked "young black children" in Chicago have gang ties.)
Similar to charges of how the West is guilty of African and Muslim genocide while the same populations have had a population growth explosion since "colonialist times" due to lowered mortality from Western medicine, hygiene, food aid, modern tech...while they kept up the traditional high breeding rates.
We used to be able to rely to a certain extent on the press to be a watchdog.
This video was carefully edited by the progresso stews at TP-Memo, who must bear some responsibility for any backlash it proves, especially given what we know about video's political role in Benghazi.
We still don't know why the Obama administration portrayed the Benghazi attack as a spontanious riot, until AFTER OBAMAS RE-ELECTION, when they knew it was a coordinated attack within 24 hours.
The Obama admin even made a huge show out of getting the director of the alleged riot causing film arrested. They maintained that the cause was the film while doing so. Until after the election.
Nevermind any GOP theater; Obamas lackeys still haven't answered that question adequately. Hillary had funds she could have used to pay for security she claimed she lacked.
Hillary is an incompetent liar. Quit defending her.
@machine -
The difference between this and the Benghazi hearings is that the latter's purpose was not to create legislation, but was instead legislative oversight of the executive. It too was theater, but it was theater with a constructive (and Constitutionally mandated) purpose - to check the power of the executive. We need more such hearings if we are to have any hope of reigning in the executive back to where we have some semblance of the rule of law.
Machine and Inga question for you:
Wayne LaPierre
is
is not
the Secretary of State
??
"...as long as it is recognized that this goes both ways...Benghazi..."
Because having the legislative branch demand accountability from the administrative (it's called "oversight") is JUST the same as the legislative branch maneuvering to undermine the Bill of Rights (which might be considered "oversight" until the LSD wears off). Unbingo!
...as long as it is recognized that this goes both ways...Benghazi...
So you would have been fine with LaPierre's testimony if he'd said "What difference at this point does it make?"
Arguably, Durbin and Shumer are running a genocide program in Chicago targeting young black children
Actually, it is the white jewish mayor.
Who if he were a Republican would be called on this.
We still don't know why the Obama administration portrayed the Benghazi attack as a spontanious riot, until AFTER OBAMAS RE-ELECTION, when they knew it was a coordinated attack within 24 hours.
Incorrect. We know why. The purpose was to ensure Obama's re-election.
The purpose was the same as the purpose of Candy Crowley conspiring with the Obama admin to kill the issue of Benghazi at the second presidential debate.
Get the transcript Candy.
ST,
I know that, as the answer was provided in the sentence to drive home the point that Inga and the other koolaid drinkers are playing stupid for ideological reasons.
SGT
They aren't playing.
I find it quite remarkable how little press attention has been paid to Candy Crowley's obvious back room conspiracy deal with the Obama administration to kill the Benghazi issue at the second presidential debate.
It's right out there in the open.
Paul Zrimsek said...
...as long as it is recognized that this goes both ways...Benghazi...
That hearing was theater, designed to pressure the administration to give the American public the information they deserve. Sad the left is still cheering the Administration's obstructionism. Sad, but not surprising.
"applause from some in the audience"
How is that not heckling?
"These so-called hearings have little to do with gathering information"...as long as it is recognized that this goes both ways...Benghazi...
The old "they did it too" defense. Sorry, no comparison.
In one case, you have a president and secretary of state trying to cover up their bungling of an event that killed 4 people. In the other case, you have sitting senators trying to convince people that the 2nd amendment ought not mean anything anymore.
I'll go one step further: The idea that Dick Durbin could even wear Darrell Issa's jockstrap (especially as to one's honesty) is laughable
ST, I agree RE: CrowleyGate. That was so perfectly scripted that denial of collusion seems implausible.
LaPierre's NRA colleague David Keene raised the civility issue in an interview.
In Illinois he is known as Durbin the Turban. He is a totally useless gasbag. The only reason he is in politics is because he could not do anything productive with his life.
In all of the discussion of civility please remember the utter banality and pointlessness of what Durbin thinks the point is.
Durbin's tone aside, it's not clear from the context of the clip whether LaPierre was speaking in opposition to the current level of background checks, or a proposed new level.
Hence whether LaPierre thinks the current level of checks doesn't work and wouldn't make a difference if eliminated, or if he thinks adding the proposed changes would not be effective at the margin.
Don't shout back... buy your own gun... buy your own gun... buying your own gun is the best revenge.
Remember to use the Althouse portal.
Why didn't Durbin just shriek out Won't somebody please think of the Children!!!? and collapse into Boehnerian tears?
Note, the democratic gavel came down when LaPierre tried to respond to Durbin's insane reasoning that criminals will suddenly submit to back ground checks, instead stealing or purchasing stolen guns for use in crime.
@ Chickelit
If I didn't know better, I'd think you were restating someone else's point in a way that highlights its weaknesses. That's downright uncivil.
Roger. They've always been theater.
If Howard Hughes were alive, he'd agree.
This Gayle Trotter woman is certifiably batshit crazy. She makes LaPierre look reasonable.—
Dustin Calliari (@dcalliari) January 30, 2013
Gayle Trotter is an idiot. She is as crazy as LaPierre!! #guncontrol—
Norma Valentini (@NormaValentini) January 30, 2013
Gayle Trotter is Michele-Bachmann-kind-of-crazy. #guncontrol—
Tami (@Redhead_Tam) January 30, 2013
More fine specimens of thoughtful analysis reacting to the hearings. Note the complete inability to point to facts. These fine activists simply assert someone's crazy demonizing the person rather then engaging the issue. Good thinking leftists have their marching orders.
Shorter Durbin to normal Americans: "We want to grab your guns and prohibit your ability to get ammunition."
Shorter still Durbin to normal Americans: "Stock pile guns and ammunition before we grab them."
300 million firearms were owned by Americans before Sandy Hook.
I wouldn't be surprised, at all, if 350 or even 400 million firearms are owned by Americans one year after Sandy Hook.
Trad guy
"The Dems want everyone to ignore the frantic militarization of all Federal Agencies which will be used to quell a rebellion, while they steamroll the immediate disarmament of the rebels."
Home Land Security alone is purchasing 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition and 7000 military grade ARs. We know they weren't purchased for our southern border enforcement, at least not by this president. Are we under the imminent threat of foreign invasion?
Imagine the reaction in the media if LaPierre had used the tone employed by Durbin.
Or if, say, Sec'y Clinton used the tone employed by Durbin in brushing off Senate questioning. (the watchdog media rose as one and applauded).
To be fair, the hectoring tone from the raised dais is a bi-partisan device (see "McCain"). LaPierre is a big boy, he can doesn't need nor should he expect help dealing with Senate bullies and blowhards.
Durbin is an asshole. He's made a great career of it.
In Senate hearing rooms, the seats occupied by the senators and their staff are higher than those for the witnesses. By design, the senators are looking down at the witnesses.
What this entire national debate boils down to is whether there should be private ownership of guns. Obviously the left does not think there should be and every piece of gun control legislation chips away at that right.
Taking guns away may reduce gun crime but not necessarily violent crime. There are thousands of reported cases of a law abiding citizen defending life and limb using a gun. The mother and her kids in Ohio or the 12 year old girl in Oklahoma might likely be dead if not for having a gun. So without them, the Sandy Hook kids would be alive but they would be dead.
So all this charade is doing is creating universal victimhood.
Let it go. It's a trap. Leave the gun-grabbers alone. It doesn't matter.
It does matter. The real trap is going to clamp down on the "gun-grabbers." It's called one-issue voting and there is a lot of us. As for letting "it go," I assume the comment is meant to urge gun owners to meekly allow lib-pols to take their guns. That'll be a cold day in hell for this gun owner. We vote, we donate, we debate and we pay attention to the constitution-haters.
Given Ann's setup, I expected the shaking-with-indignation, bombastic Durbin we've come to loathe. This was pretty weak Durbin tea. Durbin was incorrect and he crossed the ad hominem line when he implied La Pierre was dumb for not following the argument, but the tonal differences were not significant. Compare La Pierre's statement of "None of it makes any sense in the real world" with Durbin's "You missed that point completely." If you find a huge difference between the tone of those two statements, it probably has more to do with which side you're rooting for.
He's not the Dick From IL for nothing. As CWJ notes, this is the moron who compared our guys to the SS.
And it's interesting the Dick From IL didn't start to mouth off until LaPierre called this nonsense for what it is.
machine said...
These so-called hearings have little to do with gathering information
...as long as it is recognized that this goes both ways...Benghazi...
no, it is not recognized. To use one of the Demos' favorite lines, "What did the President (and SOS) know and when did he (they) know it".
He's not the mindless automaton for nothing.
Tone makes no difference to me, reason does.
Via Drudge:
Homeland Security has advice for confronting mass murders: scissors
Lights out – France to force shops and offices to go dark overnightFrench light pollution law is expected to save 250,000 tonnes of C02 a year
Their crime stats should be really interesting in a couple of years.
Correlation is not causation, I know.
Actually, sometimes it is.
Little Dickie Durbin demonstrates his highly acclaimed talent once again.
At least he didn't compare Wayne LaPierre to Nazi's, as he has done so many times to others.
@grackle
I was being sarcastic.
Ah Ali Baboon Durban, aka "Dickbar Al Durbin". Did he miss the point when he called US troops Nazi storm troopers?
This kind of thing always reminds me of videos I've seen of early Chinese communists attacking and berating their own neighbors in kangaroo courts. They were friends and neighbors, civil about their minor differences just a few days before executing them for not catching the fever with adequate enthusiasm. It's terrifying to watch.
This is nowhere near that level of evil, but it's the same thing in essence. We need keep on vigil about this stuff. McCarthy easily did a lot of damage before he got reigned in.
Not for Liberals/progressives, educator.
" law is expected to save 250,000 tonnes of C02 a year"
Which will be counteracted by the increase in births 9 months later.
One issue voters are piling up a lot of issues lately.
By design, the senators are looking down at the witnesses.
That's why I would stand, or walk around.
You can't play their game. You have to play your own.
At least he didn't compare Wayne LaPierre to Nazi's, as he has done so many times to others.
That's Bob Schieffer's job!
Criminals don't have to go through background checks anyway. They have the right not to incriminate themselves.
on the one hand Dick "Dick" Durbin thinks the government's troops are Nazi storm troopers.
on the other hand he thinks the government should have all the guns.
at least he's consistent.
on the one hand Dick "Dick" Durbin thinks the government's troops are Nazi storm troopers.
on the other hand he thinks the government should have all the guns.
at least he's consistent.
Not just consistent but typical of how leftists think.
@grackle
I was being sarcastic.
Good to know. I wasn't.
bagoh20 said...
"We need keep on vigil about this stuff. McCarthy easily did a lot of damage before he got reigned in."
Senator McCarthy said there were communist in the US Government, he was correct.
Don't confuse Senator McCarthy with HUAC in the House, the media has intentionally confused the two for half a century. But, your point is valid.
I don't see the point laPierre missed. Durbin seems to naively and stupidly believe that criminals go to legal gun dealers to buy weapons. Criminals steal weapons where ever they can, or buy them from the ATF, keep some for themselves and sell the rest to other cirminals. Background checks won't even slow that down.
Is that the same ATF that ran the undercover illegal gun buying sting in Milwaukee? The ATF buying guns at such high prices that citizens were legally buying guns at Gander Mountain and other retail outlets and selling them to ATF for three times the retail price? The ATF that lost fully auto weapons on the streets of Milwaukee? The "Fast and Furious" ATF? Is this the clown posse that will enforce Obama's new gun rules? Just asking.
Maybe this has already been said: If I am a "criminal", I will steal my weapons, or buy them on the street. If I am not a criminal, I will do what the law requires. That is the "point" that Durbin misses. I am a mostly average person living in a state where you must undergo a background check and wait 10 days before taking possession of a legally purchased pistol.I have no criminal friends. I am sure I could acquire a pistol within two days if I needed to.
We are going at this backwards. I have the solution here:
Make a law that requires only criminals to register their guns. Then when you get their address, you can go catch them.
~Dick Durbin
Shouting Thomas, it's easier to assume sincerity.
They're politicians, Bob.
Home Land Security alone is purchasing 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition and 7000 military grade ARs. We know they weren't purchased for our southern border enforcement, at least not by this president. Are we under the imminent threat of foreign invasion?
A bit of clarification - these are not, apparently, the semiautomatics that civilians can buy, but rather, select fire weapons, which makes them functionally identical to either M16s or M4 carbines. It was not clear though whether select fire meant 3 round burst, as is standard with most military M16s these days, or full rock-and-roll automatic, which was the case with the earlier models. My guess is the latter, since this is, after all, Homeland Security, under the firm guidance of "Big Sis". Esp. since there was no mention of also purchasing M249 SAWs or other light machine guns.
And, yes, since this is the government, these weapons would be subject to the 1934 NFA, and since they are presumably of recent manufacture, they can never be registered, and, therefore, will continue to be completely illegal in civilian hands.
I don't see the point laPierre missed. Durbin seems to naively and stupidly believe that criminals go to legal gun dealers to buy weapons. Criminals steal weapons where ever they can, or buy them from the ATF, keep some for themselves and sell the rest to other cirminals. Background checks won't even slow that down.
That was my reading of it too - that Durbin showed his almost total ignorance about how his home state criminals get their hands on their guns. And, this is esp. true in Chicago, where a large percentage of his constituents live.
I wouldn't be surprised, at all, if 350 or even 400 million firearms are owned by Americans one year after Sandy Hook.
When I was in my teens I had a .22 rifle and a 20-gauge shotgun that I used to take potshots at 40 acres' worth of critters with. This was 30 years ago. I haven't had any guns since.
I am seriously contemplating purchasing one now, living in already-gun-unfriendly Los Angeles County.
If the facts are on your side, pound the facts.
If the law is on your side, pound the law.
If neither the facts or the law are on your side, pound the table.
...
I think they're gonna need to budget for a new table.
Crunchy Frog: I have owned shotguns for decades. And a pistol my father brought back from WWII and which I have not fired in fifty years. I am thinking of buying a new handgun as well. Need one since I recently joined the NRA for the first time.
Bruce Hayden
Thank you for the clarification, that's why I used the term "military grade ARs". The article I read said "AR4s", which confused me, I'd never heard of them.
I wouldn't be surprised, at all, if 350 or even 400 million firearms are owned by Americans one year after Sandy Hook.
Let me suggest that we are seeing a significant supply problem now with both firearms and ammunition. Manufacturers are running flat out, and adding shifts, and still cannot keep up with demand - though I think that ammunition demand may have flattened a bit (though unconfirmed) - I have friends who earlier this month would call around every day looking for ammunition, and rush to wherever got in a new shipment. They now seem to be stocked up pretty well.
I do expect that if and when this legislation dies, that the demand will drop significantly for both guns and ammo. Not that demand will not continue high, just that there will be less panic buying.
Thank you for the clarification, that's why I used the term "military grade ARs". The article I read said "AR4s", which confused me, I'd never heard of them.
Wonder if they essentially meant M4 carbines, which would make some sense over the longer and heavier M16.
The AR designation comes from the different rifles designed by the ArmaLite corporation by Eugene Stoner. The first production AR rifle was the AR-5, a .22 caliber survival rifle that ultimately became the MA-1. The first real production AR type rifle was apparently the AR-10. The AR-15 is a smaller caliber version of the AR-10. ArmaLite later designed AR-16 and AR-18 rifles.
Now there do appear to be some long guns labeled as "AR4s". S&W and Bullpup appear to be selling fancy AR-type semiautomatic carbines with this designation - which would essentially mean M4 carbines if select fire. And at least one manufacture uses that designation for their air rifles. If DHS actually used
"AR4", this would be in line with my suggestion that the M4 carbine would be more useful to the agency than the M16 rifle.
"What difference does it make"
"What difference does it make"
I've been dismayed by the number incidents of increased gun violence reported lately. It's not like guns have just been discovered here though. Ann Althouse points out the incivility of Senator Durbin's response to the NRA president. The Speaker of the House said that Obama's intent was to 'annihilate' the Republicans. That attitude does seem to be taken up by Mr. Coates at the Atlantic and has been commented on today in the Wall Street Journal. The idea of a 'gun free zone' might have originated in the regulation of bars where one might assume that people might act, 'liquored up,' more impulsively than they might otherwise. It seems like that statement though at a grade school is more a religious statement. It seems to say that guns kill people, and we don't want that. Why not just post 'Thou shall not kill?' Except for the separation of Church and state issue, it would seem to say the same thing. After all 'Thou shall not kill' expresses a rule and an ideal which might be broken but 'gun free zone' is equally easy to break.
Perhaps the reason the increase in violence is due to the national temper. Studying Hamlet, our teacher informed of the medieval idea that the tone of a state flowed out from the king. If annihilating one's opponents is appropriate for the president then perhaps his 'subjects' are more inclined to annihilate their opponents.
Can anyone on this board name five sitting senators that are in any way impressive? I'd guess that they are all relatively new. Think of the guys on display lately- Kerry, Hagel, Durbin, McCain- sheesh- Mark Twain was right!
To say nothing of Al Franken, Menendez the Molester, and Dirty Harry.
In the interests of equal opportunity and Fairness, the senate cesspool of shame and lame would not be the same without the female Senatorial buffoonettes:
Boxer, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Landreiu, McCaskill, Mikulski, Murkowski, Murray, and, of course
Fauxcahontas Warren.
The Senate: Stupid Narcissist Holding Tank.
"Imagine the reaction in the media if LaPierre had used the tone employed by Durbin."
Indeed. Also, imagine what *your* reaction would have been, while we're at it. It would have been all: "LaPierre went Alpha on his ass!!!!"
You know, when you start looking at them individually, it really is striking how poorly our system chooses and keeps people. I doubt that most of them could anything other than what they do or run an illegal enterprise. The job skills are the same.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा