Skip to main content

View Diary: Sen. Ron Johnson lashes out at people who said he had a bad week (62 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  ... (26+ / 0-)

    "Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho Marx

    by Greg Dworkin on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 03:03:08 PM PST

    •  2016? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Aunt Pat, hnichols

      I think health issues
      will keep 2016 wide open for the Dems.  I like Biden/Warrem myself.

      •  Want the truth? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, Aunt Pat, chickeee

        Biden is a stalking horse for Hillary Clinton. Remember you saw it here first - just wait and see.
        Warren is not VP ready, not now maybe not ever. She is an intellectual and an academic, NOT a politician. She would be a disaster as President, but she will be brilliant in the Senate -- we must keep her there.
        NEVER put academics in elective office -- look what happened with Pres. Wilson -- a complete flop; most academics end that way if they go to elective offices.
        Count your blessings with a President H. Clinton and Senator Liz Warren.
        WHAT health issues?  Forget the rumors, devtrash.

        •  Agreed on (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Aunt Pat, chickeee

          Warren. She is a great progessive, but she's not a natural politician and u kinda need to be in order to win the presidency.

        •  Right on Warren, wrong on Wilson (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pitchnduel

          Great post.  Knocked doors in Boston all fall for Warren but she drove me crazy as a pol -- totally doesn't have the touch, which is all the more discouraging because she is so right and so smart.  Give her some time and we'll see.

          Wrong about Wilson tho -- the high point of early 20th century progressivism on innumerable fronts.  Horrible on race - but, alas, that was not yet really on the agenda for any mainstream pol at the time. But his rep for failure was really over his failure on the League of Nations. Yet his views on foreign policy were so very far ahead of his time that we are still fighting over them: supporting democracy and self-determination vs. realpolitick and imperialism.  

        •  rumors? (0+ / 0-)

          She didn't have a concussion and then a blood clot?

    •  Also, don't forget - (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OldDragon

      That the Benghazi attack was NOT terrorism.  It was a murder- or an assassination, if you will - with a specific targeted person, as opposed to just killing Americans.  

      The fact that there was political or idiological motive has nothing to do with it.  As well as the fact that the incident "caused people to feel terror".  

      Terrorism is when the target is a group of people who the terrorist wants to kill, such as the school shooting in Newtown - which, by the way, was not labeled "terrorism".

      Once again I ask - if the embassy that was attacked had been in Russia, and if the assailants had not been Muslims, would we be calling it "terrorism"?  No.  We only call Muslims terrorists.

      One more point - In recent days it has should be obvious to everyone that Republicans wanted it to be terrorism so they could pin to Obama :the worst disaster since 911."  

      That's why it had to be called a terrorist act.

      •  Paula Broadwell (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NonnyO

        She said that they were holding prisoners there.  ("They" being the CIA.)  There's been an official denial of that, and little else said.  But I keep thinking that's might be at the heart of it.

        In all this yelling and attacking about whether public statements should be more consistent with classified briefings.  Muddies the water, nothing more, but one wonders if that isn't behind it all.

        And then there's Johnson's recurring nonsense of calling it a consulate, which isn't even close.  Some kind of CIA "listening post" or some variation on that seems to be what we keep hearing, which is not inconsistent with the prisoners version of the story.

        At any rate, Benghazi's got at least two prizes Republicans are trying to grab.  The first got accomplished when Susan Rice's name got withdrawn for Sec'y of State.  They get another shot at putting Scott Brown in the Senate.  The other they won't let go of either, no matter how preposterous it gets, how substanceless their hollering is - they're trying to start weakening Hillary ahead of 2016.  They don't give a rat's ass that anyone got killed in Benghazi, or anywhere else.

        What do we make of the contrast between heroic teachers who stand up to a gunman and craven, feckless politicians who won’t stand up to the N.R.A.? -- Nicholas Kristof, NYT --

        by Land of Enchantment on Fri Jan 25, 2013 at 03:59:50 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

        Unfortunately, "terrorism" is simply what one group calls another who kills for political reasons.  Basically, "terrorists" are the "others" who kill with political motives, whoever they are.

        But, objectively, terrorism might be considered attacks on non-combatants for political reasons by those without substantial power vis-a-vis the existing state, with the aim of destabilizing the existing order. (Note: By noncombatants I mean not just civilians who may or may not support the regime, but officials who are not part of the military who can be identified as and subject to the rules of military combat)

        To characterize the attack of a deranged loser (with unfortunate access to an insane arsenal) on the children of Newtown is an absurd overstatement of his significance and an understatement of the the significance of terrorism.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site