The Sexual Cold War »« What the Defense Spending Cuts Really Mean

Aww. CPAC Won’t Let Geller Play Their Reindeer Games

This article at the Worldnutdaily is so sad it almost brought a tear to my eye. It seems that poor Pam Geller isn’t going to speak at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) this year and she’s quite upset that the cool kids won’t let her play with them.

Political activist Pamela Geller, creator of AtlasShrugs.com and a WND columnist, will not be appearing at this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference, better known as CPAC, despite drawing packed crowds during events the past four years.

“I won’t be at CPAC this year,” Geller says. “This year, I applied to speak and was ignored. I tried to get a room for an AFDI (American Freedom Defense Initiative) event, ‘The War on Free Speech,’ and was ignored. So, for the first time in five years, I won’t be at CPAC.”

Geller, who has hosted events focusing on the impact of Islam on America, noted, “Every AFDI event at CPAC was standing room only. We turned people away every year.”…

Geller calls her annual appearance at CPAC “a must-see event, addressing issues that the Grover Norquist/Suhail Khan cabal refuse to address (jihad, sharia, the war on freedom in the West).”

Norquist is the well-known president of Americans for Tax Reform, who became an outspoken Republican opponent of politicizing the Ground Zero mosque issue, calling it a “distraction.” Though he has called himself as a “boring white bread Methodist,” he is married to a Muslim woman.

“It has always been a challenge to hold an event at CPAC. But this year, it was impossible,” Geller told WND. “Clearly, Norquist and Khan are thin-skinned, desperate to silence dissenting voices, and in league with America’s enemies.

Okay, that last part stopped me from choking up and got me laughing. When the wingnuts start to go after one another, the show is always entertaining.

Comments

  1. daved says

    As a Star Trek fan, all I can think of is Geller clenching her fists, throwing her head back, and screaming “Khaaaaan!”

  2. says

    “Clearly, Norquist and Khan are thin-skinned, desperate to silence dissenting voices, and in league with America’s enemies.”

    To be fair, “America’s enemies” is really just wingnut slang for, “Everyone with whom I disagree.”

  3. lldayo says

    To be fair, “America’s enemies” is really just wingnut slang for, “Everyone with whom I disagree.”

    …and to be fairer, “Everyone with whom I disagree.” is really just wingnut slang for “Everyone that’s not me.”

  4. says

    “Clearly, Norquist and Khan are thin-skinned, desperate to silence dissenting voices, and in league with America’s enemies.”

    Finally, Geller has said something I agree with!

    Of course, my list of who America’s enemies are is probably different from hers.

  5. anubisprime says

    OP

    When the wingnuts start to go after one another, the show is always entertaining.

    Or more profoundly the game is up!

    When they start chewing on each others tails it takes a few years and some very bad blood before they are all chummy again.
    This is a win win situation!
    They have no strategy very little policy beyond the right wing knee jerk mantra’s and very little cohesive force to stick it all together.

    Of course the other possibility is that Geller is just not wing nutty enough.
    Far to…mundane….when what is obviously is required is for Richter force lunacy to pacify the dumb asses in the pews….when in doubt rant and rave incoherently about some immorality imagined and invoke the us and them pointing out the us has jay-sis riding shotgun.
    The dumb asses in the pews like them some Richter force rhetoric, although they have no idea what the claim being articulated actually means, or if it is relevant and certainly no idea why they should be concerned about it, of course if jay-sis is mentioned they better get on that side of the arbitrary line in the sand, so they do not have to really understand the rhetoric per se, just knee jerk and hop to the holy brat’s name!

    But Geller just does not cut a snake oil figure repulsive enough to curl their toes presumably!

  6. says

    Spanish Inquisitor “Could this mean that they are actually serious about culling the wing-nuts from the GOP herd?”
    No. It means they actually love tax cuts more than they pretend to hate Muslims. If she was saying “Scary swarthy foreigners are sneaking across the border…to raise our taxes!”, she’d still be there.

  7. MadMax says

    Could this mean that they are actually serious about culling the wing-nuts from the GOP herd?

    2 words: Donald Trump

  8. Nick Gotts (formerly KG) says

    “Geller” to me still means Uri. I thought CPAC were refusing to let him bend their spoons. But what’s this about “reindeer games”? An Americanism I’m unfamiliar with?

  9. John Hinkle says

    Geller spoke at CPAC last year. Obama got reelected.

    The GOP probably figured the correlation was so strong that there was only one conclusion: cause and effect.

  10. says

    “Geller” to me still means Uri. I thought CPAC were refusing to let him bend their spoons. But what’s this about “reindeer games”? An Americanism I’m unfamiliar with?

    Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer. All of the other reindeer used to laugh and call him names. Wouldn’t let poor Rudolph play their reindeer games.

  11. daved says

    KG: it’s a reference to the Christmas song “Rudolf the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” The other reindeer would not let poor Rudolf “join in any reindeer games.”

  12. sundoga says

    A rare bit of good news. Maybe once the utter nutters aren’t spewing insanity, the more reasonable conservative voices can be heard.

  13. freemage says

    Note to those looking at this as a sign of a return (introduction?) to sanity by the modern GOP: They are also snubbing Christie and gay Republican groups. This suggests that while they may be (as ModusOperandi suggests) more inclined to focus on fiscal wingnuttery than social wingnuttery, they aren’t going to risk actively offending the latter class just yet.

  14. says

    sundoga “Maybe once the utter nutters aren’t spewing insanity, the more reasonable conservative voices can be heard.”
    Why in God’s name would they invite the Democrats to CPAC?

  15. Michael Heath says

    Cal Thomas’ column this week castigated CPAC for not inviting Gov. Chris Christie: http://goo.gl/L2giS

    It’s a really sad day when Cal Thomas is the voice of moderation within the conservative movement. For the youngsters, Mr. Thomas was instrumental in politicizing conservative Christendom here in the U.S. in a way that turned them into a political powerhouse, starting with the so-called Moral Majority.

  16. elusedated says

    Back when I was a conservative, around 2007, I found myself at CPAC. After getting rather sloshed, which is typical for young College Republicans at the event, I found myself in a hotel room full of out-and-out fascists railing against Jewish influence in the United States and denouncing the Holohoax. Thus began my long journey away from the right.

  17. martinc says

    dingojack @ 21: Ah, Reindeer Games. The only movie for which I have ever asked for my money back. Features the classic the-director-is-aware-the-movie-sucks plot device of having the bad guy hold the good guy at gunpoint just prior to killing him in order to explain the entire plot to him, to make sure the audience understand. This turns out to be a bad move when – and I know this will surprise you – the good guy ends up not getting killed! Unexpected, right?

    I had taken my flatmate to the movies to see Space Cowboys, but it was full. The spotty teen at the counter suggested Reindeer Games was similar. Space Cowboys was a gentle comedy about aging astronauts having to go back into space, and the problems thereof, with the warm fourth-wall-breaking undertone of examining aging actors having similar problems. Reindeer Games was a lame violencefest that opened with a bunch of Santa Clauses being machine-gunned. In slow motion. With close-ups. So I found the spotty teen, pointed out the tiny differences in these two movies, and he gave us our money back.

  18. dingojack says

    Note the director’s quote. Yes, John Frankenheimer (if that’s you’re real name), you made it for you because no one else could give a shit.
    Dingo

  19. sundoga says

    With all due respect, M.O., the Democrats haven’t really been any more welcoming to the moderate right than the extremist Republicans have been.
    As a small-c conservative, I feel pretty much excluded from both major parties.

  20. says

    sundoga, have you considered joining my party? The Party Party. We’re the only party that parties. And what’s more conservative than a party that never ends?*
     
    * Nothing, that’s what.

  21. says

    There was no room for her at the inn? I guess she could find a manger somewhere to give birth to her latest messianic anti-Muslim jihad.

  22. says

    As a small-c conservative, I feel pretty much excluded from both major parties.

    I agree it would be nice if Democrats could find a place for “small-c conservatives” like yourself. But then again, what have “small-c conservatives” had to offer lately? And what would the Democrats have to give them to make them feel more welcome?

  23. sundoga says

    How about actual cuts to bring the budget under control? In areas we can afford? Such as, why do we need 12 supercarrier battlegroups? When every other nation on earth, combined, has maybe six?
    Or, why is the federal government acting the big dog in education? We don’t need a Federal Education Commission (or whatever it’s being called this week) that is doing an arguably worse job than the states on their own did.
    Why are there tax loopholes for people who earn over a million dollars? They don’t need any.
    I beliee in minimal government. Minimal being “just enough to get the job done and no more.” And all the Democrats would need to do…is listen. But the idea of cutting government is so anathematic to them at the moment that they won’t, even if it’s a good idea.

  24. says

    I beliee in minimal government.

    I think I see what your problem is: you’re not really a “small-c conservative,” you’re a right-wing nostalgic trying to go back to a simpler time when government (allegedly) wasn’t as involved in people’s lives as it has been since the New Deal.

    Also, I notice you don’t mention RAISING TAXES to bring the budget under control. Doesn’t that seem fiscally responsible to you?

  25. says

    We don’t need a Federal Education Commission (or whatever it’s being called this week) that is doing an arguably worse job than the states on their own did.

    First, it’s called the US Department of Education, which was spun off from the old Department of Health, Education and Welfare sometime in the 1970s. Your inability to remember a name that hasn’t changed in nearly forty years says a lot about how engaged with this issue you really are.

    And second, I find your “arguably [but not provably?] worse than the states” argument kinda laughable, given all the recent news of state governments trying to squeeze out facts and squeeze in religion, creationism, jock-worship, and bogus sex-ed nonsense. Remember, it was a FEDERAL court that smacked down intelligent design in 2005.

  26. sundoga says

    And your reaction is EXACTLY what I mean by not listening. You hear a few proposals and make a huge bunch of assumptions.
    First, the New Deal was an excellent idea. It got people back into work, put money in circulation and built some really worthwhile infrastructure. Did it resolve the Great Depression? No, but that was neither it’s purpose nor really within the scope of any one government that existed at the time.
    Government SHOULD be involved in people’s lives. The days when a person could stand alone and sovereign are pretty much behind us… and good riddance. Social safety nets, unemployment protection – these are needed. And government is the best body to provide them. Remember, minimal government – not government too small to do the job.
    You want to raise taxes? Show me that A) it will do the job and B) won’t seriously impact a lot of people’s standard of living, and I’ll support you. Also, I believe I said something about not allowing millionaires to use tax loopholes and shelters? Would that not increase federal revenue? A LOT?
    Yes, there are states where the nutjobs are pushing nuttiness into the school system. We also have a Department of Education that seems to be more interested in test scores than college admittance numbers and graduations. So, yeah, I’ll stand by my statement: arguably worse than the states. As in “an argument can be made both for and agaisnt this proposition”, in case you didn’t know what “arguably” meant.
    And yes, it was a Federal court that smacked down ID. Which, as an atheist, I find wonderful. And which, as a conservative, I also find wonderful, since that means the Federal court was doing it’s job.
    As to nostalgia – for when, exactly? The racist, misogynistic, barbaric horror that was between the wars America? Or perhaps the terror and jingoism of the Cold War (Which I am actually old enough to remember first hand)? There was no glorious past, only a stinking miasma of history we are only now struggling above.

  27. fastlane says

    Re: Raising taxes. Would sundoga simply be willing to accede to a slightly different set of restrictions?

    I don’t care if raising taxes negatively impacts people’s standard of living, even significantly, if more people’s standard of living is raised. Given the current level of income inequality in the US, this is pretty much a no brainer. Raise taxes on the higher incomes, implement an additional tax on real wealth above a minimal amount, close all of those loopholes for the wealthy and corporations, and you’re most of the way there.

    Then start cutting defense, really taking a look at many federal funded projects that aren’t improving infrastructure, or directly supporting the social safety net.

    Nationalize healthcare to get costs under control.

    There ya go. None of these are easy to do, but the details of them aren’t that hard to work out, either. It’s not like there aren’t plenty of other countries with working models that we could look at for guidance.

  28. sundoga says

    I wouldn’t have much of a problem with any of that. As a good guideline, seriously impacting a groups standard of living is a bad thing. But raising taxes on the highest incomes in America is very unlikely to do that unless taken to ridiculous extremes – really if a person has seventy millions of dollars of disposble income one year, and fifty millions the next, where’s the real harm?

  29. says

    You want to raise taxes? Show me that A) it will do the job and B) won’t seriously impact a lot of people’s standard of living, and I’ll support you.

    Recent history has already “shown you:” America was doing very well, economically, militarily, and morally, back in the days when “small-c conservatives” started caterwauling about the horrors of high taxes. Wealth was more evenly distributed, American innovation was driving technological progress all over the world, national debt (and its attendant consequences) were NOTHING compared to what they are today, the military was decently paid for, we actually had coherent budgets, and the financial sector was well-enough regulated that recessions didn’t entail near-total financial collapse. What more do you want us to “show you?” Maybe YOU should show US how “small-c conservative” tax cuts have made Americans more prosperous since, say, 2001.

    Your “small-c conservative” ideas have proven dead wrong, at the fundamental level, since 1981, and especially since 2001. That could be one reason why you lost control of the Republican Party: you had nothing to offer, so the Christian Reich managed to take the initiative.

  30. sundoga says

    No. Raging Bee, all recent history has shown is that badly thought out taxes, tax cuts, and overcomplicated attempts to “fix” the system don’t work.
    And it would be very difficult to show how non-extremist conservatism has worked since 2001…seeing as no one was doing any. As you very well know.
    And what ideas are those, that have “been proved not to work”? That we should balance our budgets? That too much power in one place is a bad idea? That our nation should refrain from getting involved in other people’s fights as best we can? That we should have a military commensurate to our needs? That, in general, people should be allowed to live as they please, and not have to either hew to a position or pattern, nor be excessively penalized for the sake of others?
    We don’t have a bunch of “hot-button” topics to make headlines or prompt outrage. And while you may decry us for having lost control of the Republican party, may I ask – how much is the left in control of the Democrats?

  31. dingojack says

    Here’s two recent(ish) threads you might like to re-read:

    One example of how fiscally responsible states can be.

    Does raising taxes improve growth rates?

    Dingo

  32. sundoga says

    Dingojack, perhaps you would like to re-read the first line of my immediately previous post.
    Also, where are people getting the idea that I am against taxes?

  33. says

    No. Raging Bee, all recent history has shown is that badly thought out taxes, tax cuts, and overcomplicated attempts to “fix” the system don’t work.

    I just gave you some “recent history” that showed that “tax-and-spend liberalism” — the kind of thing “small-c conservatives” have been whining about since the New Deal — does indeed work; and your only response is “nuh uh.”

    Oh, and getting back to your original complaint about not being made to feel welcome by Democrats, I remember LOTS of “small-c conservatives” — Colin Powell being only the most famous — endorsing Obama in both 2008 and 2012. So I’m not really sure what you’re complaining about. Unless, of course, you’re not really a “small-c conservative,” but something else hiding behind that label to maintain some credibility?

    And it would be very difficult to show how non-extremist conservatism has worked since 2001…seeing as no one was doing any.

    Gosh, how could I have confused extremist with non-extremist conservatism? Oh yeah — it could be because the non-extremists mindlessly supported the extremists, and voted them into power because the extremists promised to support the non-extremists’ agenda. And the non-extremists kept on supporting the extremists, even as they got more extreme…and now that all their policies have failed, and they’ve proven dead wrong about everything, the non-extremists are looking for someone else to blame for policies they supported. That’s not “small-c conservatism,” that’s “Big-B Babyishness.”

  34. sundoga says

    Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realise that being precognitive was a prerequisite for having a political position. So, I guess the fact that I didn’t foresee 9/11, the rise of the Tea Party and mini-shrub both losing his mind and getting us into two wars at once, AND prosecuting them ineptly, means I shouldn’t be listened to. Wheras, of course, you knew all along what was going to happen oh, since 1962 at least. Well, that teaches me not to mess with the all-knowing, all-seeing oracle of Raging Bee.
    Yes, as it happens a lot of small-c conservatives DID support George W. Bush over Al Gore. What of it? Gore offered us nothing but four more years of Clinton. Personally, I didn’t have a problem with that, which is why I voted for Gore. If you’ll recall the entire, farcical disaster that was the 2000 election, Bush squeaked through by the narrowest of margins, partially BECAUSE he had trouble mobilizing the less-extreme members of the right wing.
    However, I did vote for Bush in 2004. And if he was up against Kerry, I’d do it again. May not have liked virtually anything about Bush by then, but I’m still convinced Kerry would have been an even worse disaster.
    And as usual, since you seem unable to actually put any arguments together other than cherry picking points you think I might have trouble with and completely ignoring every other answer I’ve given you, I will stand by what I said: “No. Raging Bee, all recent history has shown is that badly thought out taxes, tax cuts, and overcomplicated attempts to “fix” the system don’t work.” Because you didn’t give me any recent history at all – just fifty year old sound bites from a period when I would have been a member of the conservative wing of the Democratic party.
    Now, do you actually have any arguments? Any actual problems with me other than fallacious assumptions and silly name calling? Or are you just going to continue to scream incoherently at the merest mention of the word “conservative”?

  35. Michael Heath says

    sundoga writes:

    I did vote for Bush in 2004. And if he was up against Kerry, I’d do it again. May not have liked virtually anything about Bush by then, but I’m still convinced Kerry would have been an even worse disaster.

    I readily concede that Sen. Kerry was a mediocre candidate, but at least he had a moral base, some character, and deferred to what experts understood rather than maintaining fealty to an ungovernable ideology. By 2002/2003 President Bush had already convincingly demonstrated that not only was he a disaster, but many of the worst results humans will now live with for centuries were and will be due to unforced errors by President Bush and his administration. And I assert this obvious point as someone who regretfully voted for Mr. Bush in 2000; by far the biggest voting mistake I ever made. Which is even more embarrassing since I was in the tech industry and therefore should have known better.

    Specifically, President Bush’s leading the effort to turn the Republican party into nearly all reality-deniers where before that wasn’t an attribute of the entire party. His leading the effort to have Republicans always advocate for tax cuts and not tax hikes even when rates are at historic lows and cuts lead to increased debt and a suppression of economic growth given government failure to competently invest for future opportunities. His administrating a war on terror that had and will continue to have an enormously negative impact on GDP; the opposite result of WWII. His leadership in insuring Republicans will remain committed to fiscal policies that obstruct growth and the health of the U.S. labor market.

    This last initiative was originally led by Sen. Phil Gramm with unfortunate support by the Clinton administration; Bush’s contribution was to insure the Gramm perspective was the only tolerable position to be had in the GOP, equivalent to their monolithic denial of what economists and climate scientists understand about reality.

    The coming catastrophe from climate change alone based on the Republican party acting as an effective obstacle to global mitigation efforts will guarantee that Mr. Bush now deserves a place in any argument about which administration was the most disastrous for humans. Surpassing the damage done by the incompetent presidents that led us into a Civil War. And yes, I’m perfectly cognizant of the current emission rates of greenhouse gases by country, including the rates we now observe from India and China; I stand by my assertion in spite of that fact. But that’s a wholly different topic and peripheral to the core of my argument here.

  36. sundoga says

    I’ll willingly concede the choice of Kerry or Bush would have to be a personal choice, the lesser of two evils. My final write-off for Kerry was his seeming difficulty in making a decision and actually sticking with it. Changing your mind when new information is presented is one thing, can even be admirable, but I got the very strong impression that Kerry just couldn’t really make a decision. That’s a failing in a politician of any stripe, but it’s deadly in a President.

  37. slc1 says

    Re sundoga @ #45

    My final write-off for Kerry was his seeming difficulty in making a decision and actually sticking with it.

    Sounds like Mitt Rmoney who had no difficulty making a decision and changing it as often as he changed his socks.

  38. Michael Heath says

    sundoga writes:

    My final write-off for Kerry was his seeming difficulty in making a decision and actually sticking with it.

    Exhibit A against Sen. Kerry was his shifting position on invading Iraq. However by 2004 President Bush had already:

    1) Flip-flopped on fighting climate change, from a good position during his campaign to the worst possible position for all of humanity, current and future generations.

    2) Flip-flopped from his 2000 campaign pose that he was a paleo-conservative non-interventionist to then allowing the neocons to control his administration’s foreign policy positions – including who would run what (Defense taking over post-invasion in Iraq instead of the State Dept whose chartered with such). That went on until President Bush fired SECDEF Rumsfeld and cut VP Cheney of at the knees in 2005 by handing foreign policy over to then-SECSTATE Condi Rice.

    In the late-2000s economists were predicting the Iraq War alone would have a negative impact on GDP somewhere between $2 – $3 trillion. That’s quite the flip-flop yet that economic cost pales in comparison to Bush flipping on climate change in a way that now requires Republicans to be reality-deniers on climate.

    3) Cut his own tax reform committee off at the knees when it came to presenting tax reform that best promoted economic growth. E.g., the committee’s mandate didn’t allow consideration for VAT or consumption taxes as a way to generate much needed additional revenue that was also growth-friendly. That resulted in no meaningful proposals that were acted upon.

    Meaningful tax reform was the tipping point for me voting for President Bush in 2000. Not only was it an opportunity squandered, but it painted the GOP into a corner where they can no longer advocate for an increase in the rate of taxes relative to GDP without risking a primary and the nationally-raised GOP money going towards their primary opponent.

    The enormity of these Bush flip-flops compared to mostly speculation about Kerry’s provides little room for defense of Bush on this specific factor. The exact opposite position is far more credible. So again, I don’t see a defendable position on voting for President Bush in 2004 when we consider all factors, especially decisiveness when we consider only that factor.

    I concede that my vote for President Bush in 2000 was a gigantic mistake; there is no defense, only flawed rationalizations. That’s why I concede my vote in 2000 was a mistake. I think attempts to justify voting for President Bush in 2004 is far less defendable than 2000. While I can appreciate justifications in 2000, as flawed as they are, I see none in 2004 given Mr. Bush’s record vs. that of previous presidents who were also demonstrably mediocre prior to entering office, e.g., Jimmy Carter and Harry Truman immediately come to mind. But Bush was no Truman or Carter, he was demonstrably worse where we knew this in 2002/2003. (Yes, I know how Truman ascended to the presidency, I’m gauging Truman’s perceived fitness prior to filling-in for the rest of FDR’s last term.)

  39. slc1 says

    Re Michael Heath @ #47

    That went on until President Bush fired SECDEF Rumsfeld and cut VP Cheney of at the knees in 2005 by handing foreign policy over to then-SECSTATE Condi Rice.

    It should be noted that Rumsfeld was replace by Bob Gates, I think it fair to say that the combination Rice/Gates cut Cheney off at the knees.

  40. sundoga says

    Fair enough. If I had it to do over again…I think I’d just boycott the whole mess. I believe in voting, but when the choices are so poor…
    Fortunately, the last two elections have been easy. A competent and intelligent guy against Mitt “I’m even worse than Kerry!” Romney, and whover that incompetent loser was in 2008.

  41. says

    However, I did vote for Bush in 2004. And if he was up against Kerry, I’d do it again.

    You voted for Bush Jr. AFTER he (among other things): a) ignored warnings about terrorists planning to attack in the US using hijacked planes; b) lied through his teeth to get us into a totally unnecessary and unprovoked war in Iraq; c) mismanaged TWO wars, at tragic cost to the US, our allies, and the innocent people in our path; d) turned the Clinton surplus into record-breaking deficit and (deliberately) crippling debt; and e) created a brand-new worse-than-useless “security” bureaucracy and bigoted, paranoid propaganda campaign to support it? That’s your idea of “small-c conservatism?” That looks more like mindless right-wing Big-T Tribalism to me. THAT is why you should not be listened to: you’re a fucking idiot, and you voted to re-elect a guy who had already done more damage to our country than any terrorist could ever dream of.

  42. sundoga says

    At least I can actually elucidate an argument, present it, defend it, and remain true to the logical framework of my beliefs and position, RB. You haven’t managed any of that so far, you fucking reactionary moron, and I don’t believe you’re capable of it.
    And yes, after Bush jr had done all of those things, I did vote for him, because I believed then, and I believe now, that Kerry would have been even worse. The lesser of two evils, but that’s all I had to work with – thank you, Democratic party, for putting up some one I just could not, in good conscience, vote for. Today, as I noted above, I’d probably just write them both off.
    But I don’t know why I’m bothering to reply to you. Masochism, mabe. You’ve shown your uttter intolerance for anyone willing to espouse an idea you haven’t first vetted and approved of – frankly, you’re no better than the Tea Party ideologues you disdain. My point in the first place (which seems to have passed completely over your head) was that the moderates on both sides have more in common with each other than they have with the extremists – not a new idea, but a truthful one. A hand across the divide, as it were.
    And as long as idiots like you cannot let go of their bigotry, you’ve shown that anyone trying to bridge the divide will just get slapped in the face for it. Which means the gridlock and fatonalism that I, and many others here, consider a bad thing will just go on.
    But from here on out, don’t think you can just blame the Republicans. Because you’ve managed to show you’re just as big a part of the problem.

Leave a Reply