“The White House never called us about this no one reached out to us and told us this was on its way. And, I mean, if they were serious about a real solution to this problem and not politicizing it then why don’t you reach out to people?We’re trying to work out a real solution.”
As if. As if President Obama has any reason to confer with a person who is not only trying to defeat him, but is a member of the political party which has consistently blocked the Dream Act, consistently blocked immigration reform.
“For all the policy disagreements that we may have with the president, it is hard to understate how much he inspired people across this country four years ago, with his promises to unite America and lift it up. The man who today occupies the White House and is running for president is a very different person. We have not seen such a divisive figure in modern American history as we have over the last three and a half years.”
So, President Obama is “divisive”?
Yeah, right. Divisiveness is what Republicans have become noted for, not the president who has taken so much flack from his own party in a quest to create compromises. Republicans have spent the last three and a half years refusing to compromise, painting the President of the United States as someone more like an “other” rather than an American. And Rubio’s speech was pretty much entirely made up……..comprised of no more than complete and utter Republican propaganda/made up stuff/horseshit.
In an interview with a Conservative website, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl) made an interesting remark, interesting especially given that Rubio had just endorsed Romney on Wednesday:
“There are a lot of other people out there that some of us wish had run for president — but they didn’t.
[...] I think Mitt Romney would be a fine president, and he’d be way better than the guy who’s there right now.”
“He’d be way better than the guy who’s there right now” has the sound of a high school kid with out a lot of skill in using his words.
Adding....this is especially funny since Rubio had been considered a top pick for the VP slot.
Back in December, Politifact pretty much crippled its credibility with Progressives when it chose as the biggest lie of the year something that was not a lie at all.
This was presumably done by Politifact, in order to kiss a little elephantine ass so that said elephants would stop calling Politifact a left wing tool. Of course, it didn’t work, and the end result is that they have now limited their usefulness in their efforts to bend way the hell over backwards to appear non-partisan.
Case in point on the non-partisanship thing, is the piece with which Rachel Maddow takes issue:
Maddow said that she has "lost [her] mind more than once recently about how bad Politifact is, and how anybody who values the meaning of the word fact needs to stop citing them as an authority on the subject of facts." On Tuesday's show, Maddow discussed how Politifact looked into Sen. Marco Rubio's recent claim that the "majority of Americans are conservative."
"So, to sum up," Maddow said. "Marco Rubio says, 'the majority of Americans are conservative.' Politifact looks into that and finds that a majority of Amerians do not identify as conservative. And even if you wanted to extrapolate to parties...Republican-leaning instead of conservative...that still doesn't get you to a majority either. So, according to Politifact, Rubio's statement is false." Maddow then turned to Politifact's "truth-o-meter" which concluded that Rubio's statement is "mostly true."
Maddow yelled, "Seriously? Claim A: false. Claim B: false. Overall Politifact rating: mostly true!" Maddow was so angry that she told Politifact to "please leave the building." She asked the organization to leave the lights on as "we will need them to clean up the mess that you have left behind...You are a disaster."
Unlike whoever wrote the piece I quoted from Huffpost (author was unnamed), I think Maddow is spot on, and her indignation is richly deserved by Politifact, who I think should take the word ‘fact’ out of their name.
Barring that, they really need to take a step back from this idea of non-partisanship that they have. As we know, the truth has a liberal bias, and I am not being facetious when I say this.
Recent Comments