Home » Brad Woodhouse, class act

Comments

Brad Woodhouse, class act — 13 Comments

  1. an award he did not seek but that is nonetheless an honor in which every American can take great pride

    This is the philosophy of the Democrats in a nutshell.

    You didn’t earn it, someone gave it to you for free, and, boy, should you be proud of that.

    No wonder they see nothing wrong with accepting a Nobel Prize that’s based on zilch. There’s no real pride there. There’s only the idea of what freebies are in it for me. (Paging Sandra Fluke… Sandra Fluke are you in the building?…) I, as an American, cannot be proud of that. Sorry, DNC.

  2. His accomplishments for receiving the Peace Prize were 1) not being Bush and 2) showing up.

  3. Couple him with Lois Lerner and her emerging history of going after Republicans.

    How in the world did we get here. And how do we get out of it.

  4. What I find of interest is that in ‘projecting’ Woodhouse reveals himself and his party; “The 2009 version of the Republican Party has no boundaries, has no shame and has proved that they will put politics above patriotism at every turn.” In the quote above, just change “Republican Party” to Democrat Party.

    Standard tactic, accuse the other fellow of ones own sins.

  5. It’s not just the tone — it’s the content. Woodhouse apparently believes that freedom of the press — that is, the “right to gripe” — is conditional upon a newspaper’s willingness to follow the AG’s orders and is forfeited if a newspaper declines to do as it’s told. That is, in Woodhouse-World, the DOJ is in charge of whether or not the media has any constitutional protections. (It’s quite true that the DOJ does behave as if this is what it thinks!) Do people like this understand that we have a Constitution?

  6. Woodhouse implies that when the administration says “Come” it is the press’ duty to say “Where and when?” Anything short of total obedience means all bets are off.

    This is totally in line with what we’ve often heard about the WH press office’s treatment of reporters: verbally abuse reporters who dare publish negative stories about Obama, threaten to cut off access as a consequence, and actively exclude & delegitimize any organization who doesn’t play ball (Fox). They will even get prominent Dems and other members of the press to join in (see: Woodward, Bob).

  7. “…belatedly and momentarily locating its long-lost cojones ….

    🙂

    …nice bit of color, that.

  8. “Do people like this understand that we have a Constitution?”

    Do you mean that really old and confusing piece of paper those Tea Partiers keep going on and on about? At this point, what difference does it make?

    [These lines write themselves ;)]

  9. The NY Times–belatedly and momentarily locating its long-lost cojones–refused, and that’s what Woodhouse is refering to.

    I do not concur. NYT, still in its heart, wants to defend the Obama administration but is fearful for its own tarnished reputation, so it is now being more cautious. Not brave at all.

  10. “The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists — the Taliban and Hamas this morning — in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize.”

    Which brings forth the main reason why I switched from Yellow Dog Democrat to Yellow Dog-Anything-But-A-Democrat: the strident partisanship of the Democrats. By 1980, I had turned into a third party, a “plague on both the Demo and Pub houses” kind of voter.

    I noticed that in the Senate vote on Iraq War I in 1991, all but about five Democrat Senators voted against troops going to Iraq. That seemed to me to be a case of the Democrats playing partisan domestic politics on the international scene. I then decided to never again vote for a Democrat Party Presidential candidate.

    In the 2000 election, I voted third party, so I was initially neutral regarding the ensuing recount brouhaha between Gore and Bush. I noticed that Democrats wanted to change the rules regarding eligible and ineligible ballots- dimpled chads and all that – in various counties that Democrats controlled. Yet because the Democrats controlled these counties, Democrats had set the rules in those counties regarding regarding eligible and ineligible ballots. I concluded that for Democrats, rules and procedures meant nothing- political gain was all that counted. I also remember that Democrats didn’t want to count overseas Armed Forces ballots.
    [Recall that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has changed the procedure for filling a vacant US Senate position three times in the last 20 years , changing each time according to which party the Governor belonged to at the time].

    After the 2000 election, I decided that I would not waste my vote on third parties, but vote to defeat the Democrats.

  11. mousebert:

    I wasn’t meaning to suggest the Times is brave. The statement was somewhat sarcastic (and note the word “momentarily”).

  12. Mr Whatsit has advised me, correctly, that I should have written “media have” rather than “media has” in my 11:44 comment, so I am hereby acknowledging my error. It can be something of a trial to be married to a literate man. 😉

  13. Three cheers for her majesty the queen:

    Hip hip: hoorah

    Hip hip: hoorah

    Hip hip: oh forget it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>