That may be Gregg’s stated reason, but it is, in a word: bullshit.
Oh yes, he plaaaaaaaanned to have the guy who beeeeeeeegged him for the job, back out without bothering to let anyone in the Administration know – at a publicly-held press conference that just haaaaaappened to coincide exactly with his talks about the stimulus package, no less – so he could nominate someone more liberal as a “told you so” nose-thumbing gesture.
There simply isn’t enough room to roll my eyes that far back in my head without going completely blind.
No, seriously, Stephe96: why do you keep calling the president by his middle name?
Bzzzzzzzzt. Wrong. Try again.
Gregg said himself that the census thing was so irrelevant to his decision that it wasn’t even relevant enough to answer questions about at his own press conference.
Idiot.
Yeah.
Don’t bother, Jimmy, I suspect he’ll continue to cherry pick which posts he’ll respond to, and then say he’s so outnumbered here by the radical lefties that he can’t possibly respond to everything.
That may or may not be followed by a claim that liberals are always portraying themselves as victims.
(Seriously, I’ve occasionally wondered if debates around here might be more productive if each side (such as they are) put forward one standard bearer, or caucused amongst themselves to present their strongest argument and questions. It might improve the signal-to-noise ratio.)
Shhhhh… the people with the capacity for thought are talking now.
Because it wasn’t enough cuts for them to go along with it. I’m not saying the Republicans are right or wrong in opposing the stimulus, but just that if the Republicans think that it’s a bad plan, or too liberal for them, or whatever, they should vote against it. If Gregg thinks he can’t implement Obama’s policies in good faith, he should withdraw.
I just don’t see that either side is being villainous here. Two groups can disagree and still both be sincere and act in good faith.
This is from Gregg’s statement:
*However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package **and the Census *there are irresolvable conflicts for me.
Read the entire thing here: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jFHNzGEqMiGOUN0Z9Wg3rM9VCOrgD96A994G0
Gregg apparently found the “Census thing” to be relevant enough to mention in his initial statement to the press. In fact, it’s one of only two issues mentioned!
You’ll forgive me for taking his word over your baseless speculation.
I don’t know. At least he can’t use the tired old “support the president or get the fuck out” argument.
Oh I see. When you said, “That could’ve been the deciding factor for the New Hampshire Republican,” you weren’t speculating.
But when I tell you what he said at his own press conference, that’s speculating. Did you actually, you know, WATCH the press conference?
Here, dumbass, go to the 4 minute 50 second mark and listen to how he answered the question about the role of the census on his decision.
When asked to elaborate on the census issue, he said:
When further pressed on what the issue was, he responded:
You really and truly are one of the stupidest people I’ve ever come across.
I see. So in his initial written statement to the press, Gregg finds the Census issue important enough to mention. But because he chooses to downplay it a few hours later during a live press conference, you have decided that it didn’t play an important part in his decision. Forgive me once again, but I think I’ll stand by my original assertion; the Census issue was clearly on Gregg’s mind when he made his decision to withdraw, as is evidenced by his prepared statement to the media.
Oh, and ask yourself this: why was Gregg pressed at least three times at the press conference on such a “trivial issue?” Gee, could it be because he was the one who raised it in the first place?
Well, the dude did vote for Bush, so I guess we know the answer to this.
–Cliffy
This is truly Alice in Wonderland shit.
The same people who consistently had their tongues up the crack of George “I have a mandate” Bush—possibly the most single-minded fuck-you-if-you-don’t-agree-with-me decisionator ever to park his lazy ass at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue—are now decrying Obama for his lack of bipartisanship simply because he has the temerity to ask his Republican Commerce Secretary to actually help implement some of the President’s policies.
Of course, i guess we should expect no better from Starving Artist, the guy who can remember everything about the 1950s, but nothing about last year.
There are situations in which this may be true, but this isn’t one of them, because there really isn’t question on either the need for the stimulus or what is stimulative. Fixing the AMT isn’t stimulative because giving tax cuts to people who already save money doesn’t increase spending. It increases saving, which is nice for them, but does shit for the economy. Spending money on projects – even spending it profligately – is stimulative. Efficiency is not a proper goal of stimulus legislation, because it just means there’s less being stimulated. Everyone in the Congress knows this, or should. They’re either idiots or assholes. Either way, they don’t deserve their seats.
–Cliffy
Simple trolling.
The larger question is why anyone responds to obvious trolling.
I think that about sums it up. At any rate, Meet the Spartans just came on. I think I will find that more interesting and more educational than any of the partisan horse shit here.
I couldn’t care less how you interpret it. Obama did win the election. Democrats gained seats in both the Senate and the House, just as we did in '06. We’re in power now, not your “permanent majority”. Tough shit, that’s the way the cookie crumbles.
I guess, although to be fair, plenty of people spent much of the last 8 years referring to the last President as “Dubya.”
The specific motivation behind the usage might differ a little in each case, but it’s general purpose (to annoy the person’s supporters and somehow insult the President) seems to be pretty much the same.
I don’t know why I’m bothering to engage you, but let’s go over this one more time.
YOU speculated that the census issue could’ve been the deciding factor for him.
I pointed out that it wasn’t even an important enough issue for him to elaborate on in his press conference, so how could it have tipped the scales?
YOU then point back to his original remarks that merely mention the census as one of the issues, which still doesn’t support your speculation that it was the “deciding factor.”
Truly, you are astonishingly stupid.