oh paul, c'mon. that would mean having some balls, wouldn't it?
UPDATE 12:33 p.m. – neoavatara slaps down begala: "I would agree with him, with one caveat; don’t make us responsible for the debt involved, and then we won’t take any money."
tuesday is a joke / played on those not quite prepared / the same game again
Monday, February 16, 2009
just say no (again)
dem strategist paul begala to south carolina gov. mark sanford: don't like the stimulus? don't take the money.
oh paul, c'mon. that would mean having some balls, wouldn't it?
oh paul, c'mon. that would mean having some balls, wouldn't it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Paul Begala IS and idiot, as neovatara states, and even though Begala is on the side of the political spectrum most of your readers share, they should not hesitate to say so.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes a better argument with those who vote against the stimulus packages is "Tough."
Lots of us didn't like a lot of what happened in the last eight years, but majority rules in this system. You're free to criticize, harp, bitch and moan, and try to get things changed if you don't like it.
We did.
What an astounding lack of insight on the part of both Begala and Sanford. The economy is in flames. Sanford thinks we should be pouring sand on the fire, not water, and Begala suggests he let his part of the economy burn down. This kind of petty b.s. infuriates me.
ReplyDeleteThey both need a good smack in the head.
BTW: Didn't I read somewhere recently that the Bush tax cuts amounted to more than this stimulus package?
You read it on this blog, Christopher! The size of that 2001 tax-cut package was $1.35 trillion.
ReplyDeleteYou also read this quote from Arlen Spector:
"I think there are a lot of people in the Republican caucus who are glad to see this action taken without their fingerprints, without their participation."
With that in mind, here's what I got from Begala's column: Calling out a hypocritical politician who knew full well the stimulus was going to pass, who knows full well his state is going to benefit from it, but positions himself as "opposed to the money" for political reasons. But perhaps I'm judging Sanford too harshly.
The difficulty (nothing new, of course) is deciphering when a politician is actually sincere in his or her convictions (which, unlike some friends of mine, i believe they actually are at times) and determining when they are just posturing.
As soon as you develop "Lie-dar" you let me know, Tony.
ReplyDelete