Home / Republican Short Selling in Congress

Republican Short Selling in Congress

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

On Wall Street, short selling is making a bet that a particular stock, or the market in general, will decline. If the stock does lose value, the individual short seller reaps a profit. The Republicans in Congress today are short selling America by betting against the success of President Obama's programs to revitalize our country's economy.

Financial short selling is legal and, within reason, provides a function beyond personal gain. Short sellers are often astute individuals who see that a stock is overvalued and their short selling creates a check on the stock's hyperbolic rise in paper value. The problem, and when short selling a stock crosses the line into illegality, is when short sellers take actions that cause the stock to decline in value — creating profit for themselves at the expense of everyone else. One such form of action is attempting to convince others that the stock is worthless and should be sold.

How does this analogy apply to Congress? It is the proper function of the opposition party to provide a check and balance to the party currently in power. This is like the useful aspect of financial short selling. But the line into unacceptable behavior is crossed when the opposition attempts to cause the administration to fail. This is like selling an orange juice stock short and then running ads screaming "Orange juice is dangerous to your health," or yelling "Fire" in a crowded building that is not burning.

I find it unacceptable for any American, and especially for members of Congress, to publicly express a wish for the duly elected administration to fail, or to create conditions that increase the likelihood of failure. Did we Democrats do everything we could to draw attention to President Bush's failures? Absolutely. Did we spotlight his impeachable actions? Of course. But did Democrats risk America by attempting to create failure? Never.

I can hear the right wing jumping in to interject that Democrats have also had failures. All too true, but not by sabotaging the political process, and I would argue that any such failures pale in comparison to travesties such as the war in Iraq. As one example, the widespread use of the filibuster to distort the political process is a recent Republican phenomenon. While having any public figures cheering for our government to fail is a blot on our nation's character, please understand that this article is in no way a condemnation of all conservatives. Some prominent Republicans have certainly expressed support for at least some of President Obama's policies.

Once every four years is often enough to hold a Presidential election. In between, let's support our President, and our country.

Powered by

About Jonathan Lockwood Huie

  • Cindy

    Here you go Jonathan. This is not an endorsement for Democratic politicians. But this fits in with the gist of your article.

    Republicans in Desperation Over Obama Releasing More Bush Torture Memos

    Senate Republicans are now privately threatening to derail the confirmation of key Obama administration nominees for top legal positions by linking the votes to suppressing critical torture memos from the Bush era. A reliable Justice Department source advises me that Senate Republicans are planning to “go nuclear” over the nominations of Dawn Johnsen as chief of the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice and Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh as State Department legal counsel if the torture documents are made public. The source says these threats are the principal reason for the Obama administration’s abrupt pullback last week from a commitment to release some of the documents. A Republican Senate source confirms the strategy. It now appears that Republicans are seeking an Obama commitment to safeguard the Bush administration’s darkest secrets in exchange for letting these nominations go forward.

  • This is outrageous. It’s political blackmail. They should be released no matter what. Failure to do so will leave a stain on his integrity and character.

  • I don’t know if you guys have been paying careful attention to this fine gentleman’s article here. It is carefully written to generate the feeling that Republicans should be censured in one way ore another for disloyalty. These terms are not used in the article itself. But you sure as heck do get that sense from it.

    Mr. Huie is making great progress in his campaign of shilling for the “Blessed of Hussein”. This article is short, sweet, to the point, makes its analogies clearly; and it never leaves the gentle tone of a man simply calling for loyalty and support of the leader in attempting to fight a crisis.

    I’m saying this as a fellow who was once a Republican – and who was once a Democrat. So, I have no partisan ax to grind here. But those of you in the States who value your freedom – or what little remains of it – pay careful attention to this man.

  • Ruvy.

    There’s also a great deal of improvement on your part, I daresay – especially since the last piece by Mr. Huie with respect to which you and he were in a mortal combat. Another interesting aside – your approval of “loyalty and support of the leader in attempting to fight a crisis.”

    That’s a new one to me. I was under the impression you wanted America to fail.

  • Clavos

    Boy, did you totally misread Ruvy’s comment, Roger.

    He’s being more than a little ironic.

  • You really do not understand what I’m writing here at all do you, Roger?

    I’m not agreeing with the writer. I’m complimenting his ability to put together so short an article calling for “support of the leader” which makes it seem that the opposition in Congress is disloyal because its actions – without ever coming out and saying so. You sure fell for its implications.

    The article was written with skill and talent. Considering what we saw of Mr. Huie’s writing last time out – empty, hazy, barely making its points – this article seems a radical improvement.

    As to my own attitude regarding this article – consider whose ox was NOT getting gored.

  • Well, I sure as hell did, in that case. Was trying to give him credit (haven’t read the article, yet) and that’s what I get for trying to be generous.

    For a second, I didn’t believe my eyes. Well, I should have known better.

  • Thanks, Ruvy, for bringing me back to the reality. No more free ride as far as you’re concerned.

  • BTW, what did you think, Ruvy, of the Ezekiel quote link I posted on the other thread (from Pulp Fiction)? It ought to have been in the Bible.

  • Baronius

    Jonathan – What, specifically, have the Republicans done to undermine the Obama Administration’s chance of success?

    Maybe you’ve followed the news stories about recognition of the Armenian genocide. During WWI, the Turks of the Ottoman Empire killed more than a million Armenians. Neither they nor any subsequent Turkish government have ever admitted to this atrocity. In 2007, the new Democratic House pressed for a formal recognition of the genocide, and for a call for Turkey to do the same.

    Why? The US has officially recognized the genocide for decades. Recognition would do nothing for Armenia, and it’s not like there are a lot of 120-year-old war criminals hiding from justice. Even Israel doesn’t acknowledge the genocide because Turkey is an ally (and Israel’s a pretty genocide-conscious country).

    So why did the Democrats push this issue in 2007? Look at a map of Iraq. Turkey is our only ally that shares a border. The only effect of that House measure would have been to damage US-Turkish relations. Now that Obama is in office, and needs a win in Iraq, he’s backpedalling on the genocide.

    There’s an example of deliberate sabotage against the war effort.

  • Baronius, with regard to, “What, specifically, have the Republicans done to undermine the Obama Administration’s chance of success?” follow the links in the body of the article, if you haven’t already – especially the link under “unacceptable behavior.”

  • what did you think, Ruvy, of the Ezekiel quote link I posted on the other thread (from Pulp Fiction)? It ought to have been in the Bible.

    Sorry, Roger, my bad – I haven’t gotten to it yet. I gotta dig it up now….

  • Roger, with regard to #2, please be clear that it is President Obama who is attempting to release the Bush torture memos, and the Republicans who are threatening to filibuster his legal appointments if he releases those memos.

  • Well, Roger, I did look it up. It stands to show how lines from the Tana”kh can mean quite other than literalists or distorters make them mean.

    What you have in the link, fixed up a bit, could make a lesson shiúr on mercy, and on following the Tana”kh with an attitude of faith, and on seeing the miraculous, rather than arrogantly putting down everything to coincidence.


  • For those of you having trouble figuring out what must seem like a private conversation on a public forum, the link Roger mentioned is here.

  • Baronius

    – An unsourced report in The Daily Beast
    – a quote from Limbaugh, a man who has no power to sell President Obama short
    – an editorial
    – some interesting data on cloture votes that doesn’t have anything to do with Republicans trying to undermine President Obama
    – an article about bipartisanship

    Jonathan, you’re not exactly presenting an airtight case.

  • Baronius, is the Wall Street Journal a better source

  • Clavos

    Baronius, is the Wall Street Journal a better source…

    Umm, Jonathan,

    The WSJ link you provide in #17 takes one to excerpts of articles from blogs, (and links to them); it is not material written and produced by the WSJ itself, therefore it’s not a source in this case.

    Here’s a good HTML Tutorial to learn how to format links.

  • Baronius

    Not if all the links lead back to The Daily Beast. Maybe there is something to this, but it doesn’t make the case that the Republicans are trying to sink the Obama Administration. They’re opposing two nominees. It’s a bit melodramatic to call such opposition “sabotage”.

  • Here’s a good HTML Tutorial to learn how to format links.

    You beat me to it, Clavos…. Damn! Scooped again!

  • Seriously, Jonathan, if you intend to shill for Obama here on a regular basis, you do need to format links so that the rest of us can see those compelling arguments of yourn.

  • Baronius

    Hey, that’s funny. Cindy’s article links back to The Daily Beast, too. This is a demonstration of the weakness of internet journalism.

  • Cindy


    “Scott Horton is a law professor and writer on legal and national-security affairs for Harper’s magazine and The American Lawyer, among other publications.”

    That’s the author of the article. He’s the one who has the sources and did the story.

    So, any chance you managed to debunk the story? Or is it just automatically lies because the guy published on the Daily Beast?

  • Baronius

    Cindy, you’ve got to admit that it’s instructive. Jonathan cites source A, you cite source B, Jonathan confirms the story with source C when questioned, but B and C link back to A. This Scott Horton and his unnamed sources carry a lot of weight.

  • Cindy


    Here is Scott Horton’s article on how the John Brennan, the guy Obama wanted to make head of the CIA, a pro-torture guy, was holding up the memos last week.

    In Brennan, Cheney has a Friend

    “Brennan argued that disclosure of the memos would be harmful because it would “embarrass” and “shame” CIA officers who had used the techniques.”

    You think the idea that GOP members are holding up the release of the memos is suspect? You think it’s the Democrats? Fine. Personally, it doesn’t matter to me which bad guy is the worst bad guy. Blame whoever you like. I just want the memos released.

  • Cindy

    Personally, I wouldn’t find it hard to believe no matter who turns out to be to blame.

  • Cindy

    Obama supporters,

    Can you excuse this?

    Obama Tilts to CIA on Memos
    Top Officials at Odds Over Whether to Withhold Some Details on Interrogation Tactics

    Andrew Sullivan puts it well:

    “The question before the president today is not whether to prosecute his predecessors for war crimes; it is simply whether to allow the memos that the Bush administration drew up describing in gruesome detail the torture techniques they authorized – or to cover them up. There are zero national security interests in keeping such information secret. The ICRC report has already detailed what was done to many high value detainees, and the methods are unequivocally war crimes, and known across the world. To directly attach such torture techniques to the specific decisions of the Bush administration merely provides accountability. No more; no less. It provides transparency.

    If Obama, for some reason, decides to prevent us from seeing exactly what was done then he will achieve only one thing: he will tell the world that the US has indeed authorized and practised war crimes while simultaneously telling the world that America will not be accountable for it.

    He will betray all of us who supported him to restore the rule of law. He will, in fact, merely confirm the worst fears of what was actually done while making himself an accomplice to protecting the war criminals who did it. And please don’t even begin to spin us with the following:

    ‘We want to maximize the amount of information available to the American people,” said a senior administration official involved in the discussions, adding that such a policy has to be balanced so it “does not damage national security interests.’

    National security interests would only be damaged if the US were seen to be continuing the cover-up of war crimes begun by Bush and Cheney. If CIA staffers believe that covering up war crimes is integral to maintaining their morale, then we need new CIA staffers. This is not about persecuting the CIA. It is about maintaining basic political accountability for decisions and policies that were illegal, unconstitutional and immoral.”

  • Not cool! “The national security interests” is as bogus an excuse at it get.

    But don’t worry. If Handy were here, he’d find a way to defend this position.

  • Roger, you’re poisoning the well. Handy is an articulate commenter and I would not be surprised if he were to provide a convincing argument here. But you’ve already decided to dismiss whatever he might say as suspect just because he’s an Obama supporter.

    For myself, I will say only that a lot of politics involves dealing with the devil. As I understand it, Republicans are planning to block in committee several key administration nominees. As much as he may have talked a good game during the campaign, the President is realizing that the minority party doesn’t want to play his bipartisan game, at least not by his rules. So in order to get someone in as CIA chief who is somewhat palatable to the GOP, it seems to have proven necessary to put forward an individual whose track record may not entirely fit the bill as far as Obama’s ideals are concerned.

  • Clavos

    …the President is realizing that the minority party doesn’t want to play his bipartisan game, at least not by his rules.

    …and his rules are the only rules.

    Which means that Bam’s “bipartisan game” amounts to “Here’s how I’m going to do things; if you’re bipartisan, you’ll vote for my plan.”

    In other words, the “bipartisanship” he seeks is only support,not a true participatory process which includes input from both sides of the aisle.

  • Wow, that’s a strong statement, almost uncharacteristic of you.

    I was being somewhat facetious, and I’m certain that when Handy gets of hold of my remark, we will be able to resolve it in a most amicable way. But he does at times go overboard in “seeing no evil.”

    It was just a note on the margin on my part, for his future edification; no other harm intended, I can assure you.

    I understand, of course, the political climate which makes this a controversial issue. I still think sometimes you’ve just got to do the right think and let the chips fall where they may. And I do see this issue in this light. And certainly, “national security” is the dumbest of excuses.

    If the Republicans are going to try to block the CIA appointee on the basis of that, they’ll only show their true colors. The very shroud of secrecy surrounding CIA and other clandestine operations is precisely what needs unveiling and made transparent. That’s what I think.

  • I do tend to agree with #30, I hate to say. On the other hand, one has got to question whether the Reps are capable at this point in time to engage in “a true participatory process.”

  • Clavos

    The very shroud of secrecy surrounding CIA and other clandestine operations is precisely what needs unveiling and made transparent.

    That’s fatuous and naive.

    You can’t have an intelligence agency that operates in the open with transparency — it’s supposed to be clandestine.

    What the CIA does is spying. How the hell can that be “transparent?”


  • I’m certain that when Handy gets of hold of my remark, we will be able to resolve it in a most amicable way. But he does at times go overboard in “seeing no evil.”

    In the interests of healthy debate, I would expect commenters like Handy and B-tone to mount a vigorous defence of the Obama administration, in much the same way as Dave did for Bush (whatever he may protest to the contrary). It doesn’t do any good for all of us to just be cynical bastards who think all politicians are cynical bastards.

  • Clavos

    It doesn’t do any good for all of us to just be cynical bastards who think all politicians are cynical bastards.

    Maybe not, but it is closer to reality.

  • But Doc, can’t you see that I’m anything but cynical with respect to Handy. I see the potential there of being open-minded once in a while, otherwise my dig would have no point. And yes, I’m certain he doesn’t want to be doctrinaire once it’s pointed out to him: otherwise, he’d be just another Rush Limbaugh but from the “right” side.

  • Clav #33;

    Of course you’re right in principle. But this issue is a dead horse, so what harm would it do other than instill “the impression” of transparency. A good PR job, if you ask me.

  • You can’t have an intelligence agency that operates in the open with transparency — it’s supposed to be clandestine.

    To the extent that this is necessary for that agency to be effective, yes. But there is room for openness even if it’s mostly window-dressing. For example, for years the British government refused to acknowledge that MI5 and MI6 even existed (even though everyone knew they did). Now they operate openly, with directors who are well-known public figures who report to Parliament, have prominent headquarters buildings in the heart of London, and publish glossy annual reports.

    Which is not to say that they convey much more than a very hazy idea of what it is that they actually do.

  • Clavos, I’m not sure you’re right. If, as some would say, all or most of the money and power is with big business, why would anybody want to be a politician?

    Sticking your head above the parapet like that, having every aspect of your life critiqued constantly by everybody, expecting to achieve comparatively little but hopefully something, whilst being relatively underpaid and manipulated by big business; I’d think you needed some kind of idealism to be up for that.

  • I’m sure most politicians do start out as idealists. But holding true to your ideals in the face of all the flying crap in the highest echelons of power seems to be a dying art. I think the last idealistic president of the United States was Ronald Reagan; and the last idealistic prime minister of Great Britain was Margaret Thatcher.

  • ” for years the British government refused to acknowledge that MI5 and MI6 even existed”

    Well, people like John Le Carre and other ex-members of the Foreign Office surely made us aware of these agencies’ existence.

  • Clavos

    Which is not to say that they convey much more than a very hazy idea of what it is that they actually do.

    Or that the “hazy idea” is even remotely close to the truth of what they’re actually doing…

  • Clavos


    I don’t know anything about British pols (I liked Margaret Thatcher — surprise, surprise), but the american ones invariably accrue enormous personal wealth while in office, and consequently also wield considerable power.

    As for their idealism, it’s not a coincidence that most of ’em are lawyers.

    BTW, on that topic, a very good read I’m just finishing is John Grisham’s latest, The Appeal.

  • Baronius

    Dread, you don’t consider Obama an idealist?

  • Doc, it’s odd you’re mentioning Thatcher. My impression of her that she was in the main a pragmatism – which isn’t to say devoid of principles – pragmatism in the sense of policy and what she thought was good for England.

    My favorite one, though, was Robert F. Kennedy. We’ll never know, of course.

  • I knew some of the ex Presidents were loaded, both before and after being in office, but not all of them, right?

    The pay rate isn’t that great for people in the US government, as this list of Salaries of the President and His Cabinet reveals. Are you suggesting high level corruption?

    Maybe it is time that the person with one of the most important jobs in the world got paid the money to reflect that?

  • Baronius

    Christopher, the president also gets free housing, food, travel, and vacations. Members of the House and Senate have to keep two residences and pay for all normal day-to-day expenses. Compared to the president, congressmen are underpaid.

    But economically speaking, a company should pay the minimum necessary to attract a fully-qualified employee. That’s just sound business. Does anyone become POTUS for the money? We could fill the job just as well for $1/year.

  • Perhaps all public servants should be recompensed at $1.00 per year rate – to ensure they’re not doing it for the money. Of course, in that case only the rich would apply. But then again, there’s a theory that only aristocracy is sufficiently removed from self-interest to be able to rule justly.

  • Clavos

    Are you suggesting high level corruption?

    Possibly — in some instances, perhaps.

    But where former presidents make their money is in such things as speaking engagements and book deals. Clinton left office relatively poor, but since has become a multi-millionaire (some of the money is Hillary’s). IIRC, he commands fees of $75K and up to speak these days.

    I believe corruption is widespread among the lesser pols (Senators & Congressclowns) — a number have been uncovered in recent years, and I think they’re just the tip of the iceberg.

    In any case, it’s a fact that very few former politicians are less than rich.

  • Doc,

    There seems to a little confusion here. “Idealism” is not exactly being principled and sticking to your guns. It suggests a certain remove from reality. Which is why, perhaps, I had trouble with your Thatcher example.

  • Roger,

    It’s possible to be idealistic and pragmatic at the same time. Most politicians have both qualities (they must), and it’s a question of which predominates. Both Reagan’s and Thatcher’s ideologies resonate in the direction their countries took during and after their time in office. In contrast, Clinton and Blair were overwhelmingly pragmatic in their approach.

    If you haven’t already, do read Thatcher’s memoirs, particularly The Downing Street Years. The early chapters in particular show with great clarity how her idealism shaped her policies.

  • Baronius @ #44:

    Interesting you should mention Obama. He certainly talks like an idealist. For me, though, the way he goes about the business of politics is decidedly pragmatic, even in these early months of his administration.

  • Yes, you provided that reference before and I will get to it once I wake up from my slumber. Of course sticking to your guns at all cost does verge on idealism.

    I suppose I used “idealism” in a naive sense – to highlight the distinction. Still, politics is the art of the possible, we do agree, and sometimes you have to compromise and sacrifice your principles. (I’m seeming to go back on what I had said about Obama in connection with the issue at hand.)

  • Personally, Baronius, I never pictured him as an idealist. He took advantage of the moment and talked a good game, but his entire career and rise to power argues against this interpretation of him. In fact, I regard it as his greatest assets that he seems capable to be able to reconcile conflicting interests – a mark of statesmanship. Whether it’s just a show or the real thing, time will tell. But I’m rather glad he’s not an ideologue. You should be glad, too, because for all that talk of “Hope and Change,” it’s still business as usual.

  • Baronius

    A lot really does depend on your definition of idealism. I think of Bill Clinton as almost historically unique in his pragmatism. He didn’t really believe in anything. Bush Sr. believed in the procedures of international affairs more than any ideology. On the other side of the scale, Reagan really believed in his cause, and I think Obama does as well.

  • I think you’re wrong about Clinton (in the very same way, though with different results, you’re wrong about Obama. Clinton was a Bubba, a poor boy raised in an impoverished South. His background speaks to his innate idealistic sense. I just think he was smart enough to temper his idealism what a very strong sense of what is possible. But Obama’s entire history of his rise to power smacks to opportunism. The fortunate thing is, I believe he is growing up to the office. No question about Reagan or Thatcher.

  • “smacks of”

  • I think it is entirely possible, indeed admirable, to be a pragmatic idealist in most things.

  • Baronius

    Clinton was inconsistent in his policies on taxation, use of the military, welfare reform, health care; essentially everything but abortion. That’s the sign of a pragmatist.

  • Nobody’s arguing that he wasn’t. At times, I was frustrated with him for no sticking to his guns but be governed “by the polls.” But this isn’t to say he did not have an idealistic streak in him. And the onus is on you.

  • Compared to the president, congressmen are underpaid.

    I beg to differ. Members of Congress are grossly overpaid by virtue of their campaign coffers which are filled with dollars from K Street. For what we expect of our President, he is grossly underpaid. Personally, I believe that expecting members of Congress to maintain two residences is unfair. So I have a solution which I have proposed many times. I think we should have Congressional dormitories not unlike the dormitories used in the College of Cardinals during Conclave. Make the bastards eat, drink and sleep together. Surround the Rotunda with barricades and military personnel. Cut them off from every special interest group known to Washington. All these whiny Conservatives attending tea parties this tax day crack me up. Want results? Teabag a member of Congress.

  • Baronius

    Silas, I like the idea of free, simple housing for Congress. But do you really think that we’d get better presidents if we paid more? Or that presidents suffer due to insufficient pay? (I’m not asking rhetorically.)

  • No I don’t think we need to pay them more. We just need to realize that we expect a hell of a lot from our President. Their salary, the perks of White House living and other ‘special treatments’ are well deserved. I don’t begrudge any sitting President the so-called trappings of office they receive.

  • Baronius

    So, Silas…we didn’t realize that before?

  • There’s a careful dishonesty to all this talk about the opposition “wanting the president to fail.” Folks are purposely and obviously falsely conflating opposition to President Obama’s agenda with hoping that the country fails.

    But many folks obviously are opposed to the president exactly because they DON’T want the country to fail. The dreaded Rush Limbaugh for one has been perfectly clear on this point. He wants Obama to fail politically because he believes that Obama’s success will be ruination for the country.

    Many perhaps misguided folk think that tripling and quadrupling the already huge levels of deficit spending under Bush will do grievous harm to our economy. That’s not a malicious desire to wish ruination on President Obama, but a patriotic desire to stop him from bringing ruination on the country.

  • Ah, Brother Barger,

    You have caught the very subtle point that the author tries to make here and turned it back on him. There is nothing pretty about what goes on in Congress. The administration wants to publicize the ugly record of the Bush administration so as to have a stick to beat the Republicans with. The Republicans are trying to keep Obama from getting that stick. And Jonathan Huie is trying to paint the opposition as treasonous for doing so, while not actually muttering the word himself. In another thread, he alleges the First Amendment is under siege because some bloggers are really sticking to Islam. At the UN, in the meantime, there are mighty efforts to criminalize any criticism of guess which religion! If you guessed Islam, you got it on the money. So, we have a blogger here trying to call the opposition in Congress traitors – no, let’s say it right – get YOU to call the Republicans treasonous, while at the same time he pretends that the constitution is under threat from bloggers who are suspicious of a religion which has adherents who intend to take their own – and your freedom – freedom away.

    Now, we are not talking about some writer here at BC whose views we know. Baritone and Handyguy think highly of Obama. You all know more or less what kind of views I’ll give you. I reflect my religion in my view of politics in the Middle East. No, this is a new fellow whose every article so far here has in one way or another, plugged the Obama agenda.

    In my book, that is a shill. Be wary of his words.

  • Archie,

    That’s a fairly obvious point you’re making here. No one in their right mind among the BC participants – except for some rabid few whom I shall not name – would conflate the two notions. So why don’t you pick on a real issue and run with it. Please make your posts count.

  • Roger, your dishonesty and lame attempts at ad hominem grow boring.

    Yes, it is an obvious point to distinguish between hoping that Obama is unsuccessful in implementing his policies vs hoping that the country is unsuccessful. When this obvious point is made, no one could deny it.

    But in fact, bluring that distinction is the entire point and premise of Mr Huie’s article. We’re supposedly working against the country by opposing Obama with, as Ruvy points out, the implication that we’re traitorous or borderline treasonous. He is, of course, far too genteel and full of love in his heart for all mankind to actually say it – the better reason to leave it as an insidious implication.

    If you recognize that distinction between wishing failure for Obama vs the nation though, then there’s absolutely zero point to the whole article.

    And the “Archie” nonsense is not even vaguely clever, but a cheap dig at both Archie and myself. You obviously seek to, in your mind, discredit me by addressing me by the name of another regular commenter whom you consider disreputable. But then that’s not anything like a legitimate critique of me, but a very lame attempt at guilt by association. If you’ve got something to say against me, just come out and speak up like a man.

    Also, the nonsense of addressing me by his pen name is simply confusing to casual readers not familiar with your little dumbass inside baseball game.

    For the record, I like the Arch Conservative just fine. He’s a little harsh and over the top at times, but he’s ok.

  • Jet

    Selling opinion as fact again Al? Roger (you fool) he’s not an arch conservative, he’s a minor conservative.

  • Well, sorry, Jet. And I apologize to Al, too. Somehow I got you two confused. Sorry.

  • Jet

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… it’s probably a duck.

  • So are you saying I shouldn’t have confused the two?

  • Clavos

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck… it’s probably a duck.

    Clever, Jet.

    Come up with that all by yourself?

  • Jet

    Clavos, are you aware of how many times I’ve used that quote recently. If you had, you realized that I’ve never laid claim to it EVER.

    The phantom lame duck

  • Jet

    In fact, come to think of it, I sailed on in your direction, which makes you either an amnesiac or just a smartass in a funny suit with webbed feet.

  • Clavos

    Clavos, are you aware of how many times I’ve used that quote recently.

    Exactly my point, Jet.

    Very un-clever and unoriginal — not atypically.

  • Jet

    Poor Clavos, sorry I’m not your cup of tea (or should I say tequila,) that’s just part of my charm. Most intelligent people don’t get bored so easily.

  • Jet

    I’ll assume you’re the one in the funny suit with webbed feet then…….

  • Clavos

    Most intelligent people don’t get bored so easily.

    How would you know?

  • Touche!

  • Jet

    Ew came right up to the net on that one; didn’t you?