Minnick 1 Of 7 D No’s Vs. Porkulus Bill

59 comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  pjc on February 13 at 12:50 p.m.

  Your question is: Did Demo Biden, as your congressman, vote the way you wanted him to do so?

  Uhm, Biden is the Vice President. The House voted. You might want to fix that.

• 

  Transplanted_Texan on February 13 at 12:57 p.m.

  VP Biden or Rep. Minnick?

• 

  tarynahecker on February 13 at 1:00 p.m.

  Time to hit the coffee, DFO :)

• 

  Aerie on February 13 at 1:00 p.m.

  Ignoring the mistake: Minnick is doing exactly what he should do, please the Republicans, because he knows that there are no viable dem’s in Idaho to oppose him in the primary, so he can team up to win next year. Go Walt Minnick!

  Even better, he just keeps making the Democrats look like the losers we all know they are. Too bad it took the porkulus bill to wake up true Americans.

• 

  Transplanted_Texan on February 13 at 1:01 p.m.

  BTW, there are no earmarks in the stimulus, so I assume that’s not the “porkulus” bill you’re referring to.

  Last I checked, the definition of “pork” was not “any bill that’s way too expensive or that I don’t like.”

• 

  Bob on February 13 at 1:02 p.m.

  Minnick = Fail.

• 

  Aerie on February 13 at 1:04 p.m.

  Pelosi’s swamp rat grant may as well have been an earmark. It is pre-determined to go right into the nests of the little plague spreaders.

• 

  Sisyphus on February 13 at 1:07 p.m.

  Good luck with that TT. Dave is “editorializing” again. See Republicans just make sh#t up.

• 

  pjc on February 13 at 1:14 p.m.

  No earmarks, just a laundry list of special interest spending. For heaven’s sake, t is almost a trillion dollars in spending.

  Come on.

• 

  Bob on February 13 at 1:20 p.m.

  In DFO’s defense, *porkulus* is pretty fun to see in print and will be hard to let go of.

  The *editorializing* point is a good one. Now that the good guys have won and the reality-based are now in charge, the cons are jumping up and down at the chance to be the opposition. Bush was pretty hard to take for most of the cons, particularly the second term, so they had to take the fire breathing blasts of the left and they hardly had the stomach to defend Bush. Then there was 2006 that gave them Pelosi to foam over.

  I expect DFO is trying to shape his meatblog here into a brick that has a little more spices and gristle on the right side of it, he’s doing it in a astoundingly insulting way to his cons here, he’s basically given up that his cons will ever be as smart, clever, erudite or textual at the left, so he’s handicapping the game. He’s deleting tons from the left, exerting downward pressure on them to be patsies, and trying to jack up his cons with daily *porkulus* posts. Hmoff has a rather stunning Cone of Invincibility placed over him, which to Hmoff must be (well one hopes) kind of embarrassing. It’s like being stuck with a dorky purple and pink stingray that the other boys laugh at PLUS having to use training wheels and have a basket on the handlebars.

  His handicapping of the race is a huge compliment to Sisy and Thom and others of the left. DFO knows he has one of the most liberal fueled comment sections of any Idaho blogs and it makes him slip off into the restroom at work sometimes and break suddenly and ferociously into tearful sobbing.

  So, roll with *porkulus* and Bryan Fischer and training wheels for your cons and we on the left will just *try* to deal with it.

  ;-)

• 

  DFO on February 13 at 1:21 p.m.

  Sisyphus; you’ve been spending too much time w/the Binkster. Your language is a bit in the tank. Instead of sh#t, which is a no-no by universal SR blog standards and diminishes the poster in the eyes of non-Kool-aid drinkers here, you should use merde, like I do at times when frustrated. Sounds a bit higher class. BTW, I guess my Demo congressman musta listened to the Republican conjurers b/c he voted no on this, ahem, non-pork bill. Glad I voted for him.

• 

  Bob on February 13 at 1:24 p.m.

  Wow. Took DFO one whole minute to make my point.

  Thanks DFO!

  I.so.rock.

• 

  Bob on February 13 at 1:27 p.m.

  <invisible>he doesn’t really want to drown me, I’m too much of a wonder to him</invisible>

• 

  DFO on February 13 at 1:27 p.m.

  Bob; gotta give you credit for one thing in that finely worded post. I love typing “porkulus.” Seriously. That’s the best word to come down the pike since Doug Clark coined Avarice-sta for Avista. You’re also getting back on your game after The Joker kung-fu’d the Left Bank almost into submission by pointing out some of the shallower parts of its wading-pool thinking. At this point, Bob, you’re the LB’s only hope. You have to keep your head man and learn your way around the tighter rules. The post above shows that you’re capable of getting it.

• 

  Bob on February 13 at 1:32 p.m.

  You sure Doug Clark coined that word? I mean he claimed, in print, that he coined “boink-fest” which a simple google search finds has been around for years.

  Just sayin’

• 

  Sisyphus on February 13 at 1:39 p.m.

  Lol. Strongly disagree. One thing wrong with the religious right is the propensity to dilute the force of certain words by re-stylizing them into something less. Hell = heck for example. It actually makes me shudder thinking of where I grew up where that was common. I was surprised the first time you used merde but I reckon you don’t use French so its meaningless to you. But its silly and pointless to write that Republicans just pull merde from their a$$es. It totally fuks up the colloquialism. ;-)

  Yes our plan to get him re-elected is coming to fruition. It cost nothing, the country is saved, and it dupes those ideologically blinded to the warnings of the economists on belt tightening. Glad you like it.

• 

  DFO on February 13 at 1:52 p.m.

  Sis; your condescension is palpable. Merde is also a Portuguese word (I believe we pronounce it “merth” because we slur the endings), although I did appreciate Victor Hugo’s use of it by a French soldier at the end of the long chapter on the battle of Waterloo (“Les Miserables”). And my problem with “sh#t,” “a$$holery” and other Binkyisms is that — (are you waiting for it) it’s against Spokesman-Review blog policy. Or at least it was when Steve Smith was running things. I’m surprised the blog filter didn’t block you. I got blocked this a.m. for trying to use the last name of OpenCDA’s DanG. The filter apparently thinks it’s a racial slur. Then, it simply might not like DanG. Who knows? Bottom line, I work in a newspaper. Where the air turns blue on a regular basis. Doesn’t bug me one iota (although, I admit, I do have trouble when someone takes my Lord’s name in vain). You seriously enjoy stereotyping me. Which isn’t a good habit for an intelligent man such as yourself. BTW, can you tell Binky that Jesus loves him?

• 

  toadman on February 13 at 2:11 p.m.

  “At this point, Bob, you’re the LB’s only hope.” - dave

  Whoa.. thems harsh words for some of us LB’ers to swallow. I mean, we LB’ers all love our Bob, but ‘only hope?’ Ouch. Talk about discounting the rest of us… c’mon, man, have a heart.

• 

  Sisyphus on February 13 at 2:13 p.m.

  Oh please Dave pull your panties out. I’m just funning with you. You know how I feel about policies. I don’t like a$$holery. Sounds vulgar and contrived. And as far as stereotyping, that ain’t my fault. You’re driving in the direction you wanna go.

• 

  JamesBond on February 13 at 2:15 p.m.

  Well, Minnick is a Nixon man, so we really ought to be careful with what we say about his votes, lest we end up on his shet list.

• 

  Sisyphus on February 13 at 2:17 p.m.

  “pointing out some of the shallower parts of its wading-pool thinking.”—imagine? Such an accolade for a guy who merely listed the obvious. Methinks thou art too enamored with that mirror.

• 

  Sisyphus on February 13 at 2:18 p.m.

  LOL Bond.

• 

  OfCoffee on February 13 at 2:19 p.m.

  My impression is that Idaho Dems are wringing their hands with great anxiety given their local hero Walt voting against their Imperial Leader Obama. Both were given savior status in the election, and now they are at odds fiscally. Just fun to watch.

  That said, I tip my hat to Walt for his bravery against Pelosi and for standing on his principles. And though I have not agreed with pretty much anything that the Pres has done, I have appreciated with his style of diplomacy while doing it, and for admitting mistakes in his methods. At least until he insinuated that bipartisanship means you have to agree with him. But that’s politics.

• 

  DFO on February 13 at 2:23 p.m.

  Sis; I was funning, too. Mebbe I shoulda put a smiley face behind my post. I actually have time today to goof around a bit, although I’m now officially behind in my front-paging. It’s been fun. But someone has to post the fodder that allows the sport to continue on the main thread.

• 

  Sisyphus on February 13 at 2:33 p.m.

  Bipartisanship, what a joke.

  – What Obama did: Trusted Judd Gregg when he indicated that, “despite past disagreements about policies, he would support, embrace and move forward with the president’s agenda.”

  – What Obama got in return: A “change of heart” from Gregg, who said that he “couldn’t be Judd Gregg” at Commerce.

  – What Obama did: Reached out to have dinner with right-wing pundits Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, and David Brooks.

  – What Obama got in return: A ripping from his right-wing friends, who called it the worst in “galactic history.”

  – What Obama did: Tried to work with the House GOP by preemptively including tax cuts, stripping stimulative spending proposals, and attending their conference meeting.

  – What Obama got in return: Zero votes (and a bunch of false myths about his plan)

  – What Obama did: Tried to reach out to John McCain to work together on “solving our financial crisis.”

  – What Obama got in return: Nothing. McCain voted against the legislation, and even went so far as to call it “generational theft” and hypocritically complained that it contained “corporate giveaways.”

  Fortunately, the White House seems to recognize the errors of its ways. Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel conceded, “White House officials allowed an insatiable desire in Washington for bipartisanship to cloud the economic message a point coming clear in a study being conducted on what went wrong and what went right with the package.”

• 

  Transplanted_Texan on February 13 at 2:38 p.m.

  It is a good word, Bob, this is true. And “merde” is one of my matter better laughs for the day.

  But pjc, you’re falling right into that trap - it is “Almost a trillion dollars in spending,” yes (that is, if you count it’s tax cuts as spending, anyway), but as I said above, pork and spending are NOT synonyms!!! And of COURSE it’s all special interest dreams - nurses, doctors, retired people, soldiers, EVERYONE’S a special interest.

• 

  pjc on February 13 at 4:30 p.m.

  transplanted texan; You are drinking too much of that kool-aid, For the sake of argument, cut it in half and it is half a trillion. That is a lot of money. Can you really say with a straight face that it all of it will be well-spent money? Nope, most of it is going to be wasted on pet projects. You surely aren’t that naive.

  Someo of it might go to nurses, soldiers, retired-people, etc., but this thing is about creating goverment programs and building bureaucractic empires that will never ever go away. I saw a bunch when I worked as a government attorney.

  I guess people believe what they want to believe.

• 

  thomg57 on February 13 at 6:58 p.m.

  Both were given savior status in the election, and now they are at odds fiscally—OfCoffee

  Good to see you finally make it over to the new site, I’ve been waiting!

  I understand that members of the GOP have a hard time believing they were beaten and beaten badly in the November elections, but the only people who assigned deity status to these men were members of the right wing who had to make their losses more palatable. That Congressman Minnick has voted against the President’s Recovery Act shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone who listened to Walt during the campaign. From the first time I heard him speak in November 2007 right up until the last time I saw him in Coeur d’Alene, the week before Election Day, he was speaking the message of Fiscal Conservatism. Anybody who is surprised by Walt’s vote wasn’t paying attention.

• 

  jt on February 13 at 7:46 p.m.

  In a word, no. But what are the consequences? Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

  If it were me as president, after the bill passes, I’d give them what they said they wanted. I’d allocate resources to match the support received in congress - areas receiving aid would be those districts whose representatives in the house and senate voted for it; those districts whose reps voted “no” would receive nothing - no tax breaks and no incentive monies for residents/businesses in those regions. Then the electorate might get fed up with these kinds of symbolic votes and elect legislators who would work effectively or at least pragmatically.

  (Un)fortunately that’s not how it plays out. The GOP is now the party of “NO! (but we’re happy to take the funds and spend them)”.

  Oh, and when did “pork” become a bad word? Isn’t bringing home federal dollars an elected official’s responsibility?

• 

  pjc on February 14 at 9:48 a.m.

  jt: Pork became a bad word when we the government spends money it can’t afford. It is akin to you maxing out your Visa card on something you might need; however, you buy it and just about everything else in the store because your partner, your kids, the next door neighbor, your brother and everyone on your bowling team wants the stuff and has been wishing for it for a long time.

  No it isn’t your elected representative’s job to bring home as much federal money as possible. It is your elected representative’s job to act responsibly. That attitude is costing us (in fairness, the 111th Congress isn’t the only one to do this, but they just ran up a big bill).

« Back to Huckleberries Online

• ›Scanner traffic