Klingenschmitt Wins the Primary »« Did Saudi Arabia Hurt Themselves?

Neil Cavuto vs Michele Bachmann

Fox News host Neil Cavuto unloaded on Rep. Michele Bachmann as she dishonestly tried to defend a lawsuit being filed by House Republicans over President Obama’s executive actions on various issues. He clearly was not buying what she was selling and accused her of hypocrisy:

“You just said it, congresswoman, we might not get anywhere,” Cavuto exclaimed in frustration. “Maybe Republicans are within their rights, maybe the president is within his rights.” As Bachmann sought to defend the suit, Cavuto accused her of “conflating issues and being silly.” “Where was your rage when Democrats were going after President Bush on the same use of executive orders, because I think you knew then that that was a waste of time then and I think you know in your heart of hearts this is a waste of time now,” he exploded…

Cavuto’s real rage came out in response to Bachmann’s suggestion that Republicans in Congress should simply defund the executive branch. “Think about what you’re saying,” he screamed. “Defund the executive branch? Congresswoman! If Democrats had said to you, ‘we’re going to defund President Bush,’ you would have laughed at them and so you should have been.”

Of course, the hypocrisy exists in both parties. The same Democrats who railed about Bush’s use of executive orders and signing statements have been almost completely silent about Obama’s use of those things. Both sides are being ridiculous. The mere signing of an executive order or a signing statement is not a problem, it all comes down to the specifics. Does the president have the constitutional or legal authority to take the specific action being taken? That’s all that matters. And almost never do you hear that level of detail in the criticisms from either side, certainly not from a moron like Bachmann.

Comments

  1. Alverant says

    “Both sides do it” doesn’t mean that both sides do it equally. I don’t know how many signing statements Obama has done so far but I know W made more in his terms than all other presidents before him combined. He was definitely abusing the system and still needs to be called out on it.

  2. says

    Does the president have the constitutional or legal authority to take the specific action being taken?

    To be fair, I’ve looked in to this and he doesn’t have the “constitutional or legal authority” to do anything. It’s probably for the best, really, as, if the chain emails I get from my grandparents are correct (and I think we can all agree that sources like Patriotflaggamerica481 and man4huckabee04 follow only the highest of journalistic ethics), everything he has done is wrong, even when he did the opposite or did nothing at all.

  3. says

    Tabby Lavalamp “What the hell is happening at Fox? First they criticize Cheney to his face, and now Bachmann? Is there something happening behind the scenes?”
    1. It’s as believable as Rush was in 2006*.
    2. It’s Fair and Balanced. Now they can go back to blaming Obama for everything.
    3. They’re dropping the old tiger and riding a new one, one that’s the same one but that is really a new one and not just the old one, seriously. And abandoning one person who isn’t in power anymore and another who soon won’t be costs nothing. Besides, the Dubya Administration never existed and and wasn’t conservative and anyway the Right never supported it and shut up that’s why. And Bachmann is a RINO (or would be in an election or two anyway). Everybody knows that.

     
    * “I feel liberated, and I’m going to tell you as plainly as I can why. I no longer am going to have to carry the water for people who I don’t think deserve having their water carried. Now, you might say, ‘Well, why have you been doing it?’ Because the stakes are high. Even though the Republican Party let us down, to me they represent a far better future for my beliefs and therefore the country’s than the Democrat Party and liberalism does.”

  4. Friendly says

    @2: Maybe Prince Rupprecht has suddenly figured out that pandering to entitled billionaire Republicans with a (tiny smidgen larger) relative appreciation for peace and compromise is better for his global bottom line than pandering to entitled billionaire Republicans who are gun-worshipping warmongering purity-testing terminal obstructionists. But I doubt it.

  5. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    Yeah, I’m with M.O.’s #3 in their comment. Bachmann is not running for office this term, so throwing her under the bus does a couple of things: anyone to the right of her feels vindicated and emboldened, while everybody else’s heads explode.

  6. throwaway, never proofreads, every post a gamble says

    Not to mention that’s something that the even nuttier tea-person can run against: “We’re not just going to sue Obama like all the liberal Republicans tried to do, we’re going to IMPEACH that n-bastard!!”

  7. dogmeat says

    “Both sides do it” doesn’t mean that both sides do it equally.

    I get rather tired of the “both sides do it” trope as well.

    On the issue of “signing statements,” the best count I could come up with is 30 for Obama, so an average of five-six a year (2014 isn’t complete, obviously) to Bush’s 163. That’s with Bush slowing way down in his final two years (14 in ’07-’08). He was actually averaging 30 a year in his first three years. On this issue, we don’t know the nature of these statements, some are likely justified others, not so much. Given that Bush actually took heat from the Republicans and conservative legal scholars (in addition to Democrats) I would argue that it is highly likely that enough of his statements were problematic to lead to his own side attacking him. With Obama’s, I’ve looked at a number of them (not all) and found them to be rather innocuous in general. So Democrats being quiet about them isn’t necessarily hypocrisy.

    That is the key to the false dichotomy. Republicans threaten to get rid of the filibuster on appointments after three filibusters in two years. Democrats do get rid of it after three filibusters in two weeks in the midst of record shattering use of the filibuster. That’s more akin to someone who said, spanking little Tommy when he tried to touch the stove isn’t that bad changing their mind about corporal punishment when Tommy and his siblings are beaten to death for watching porn. Yes, both involve the same activity, physical punishment, but quite obviously the latter punishment has changed the dynamic dramatically.

    Don’t get me wrong, politicians by their very nature are quite hypocritical, but the way American politics has changed in the last five years rather effectively kills the “they’re both guilty” argument.

  8. dogmeat says

    Bachmann is not running for office this term, so throwing her under the bus does a couple of things: anyone to the right of her feels vindicated and emboldened, while everybody else’s heads explode.

    It also strengthens their bullshit “fair and balanced” argument. See, they’re hard on Republican politicians too, not just the president.

  9. D. C. Sessions says

    Maybe this is strategic punching-them-when-they’re-down. Maybe.

    Alternately, maybe they did make a choice and decided that the Tea Partiers is the network’s future and so go for it.

  10. says

    D. C. Sessions “Alternately, maybe they did make a choice and decided that the Tea Partiers is the network’s future and so go for it.”
    Not to repeat myself, but how is that different from before?

  11. cthulhu says

    #2 I came here to say the same thing. WTF fox? Are you getting, dare I say it, journalistic integrity?

  12. raven says

    One swallow doesn’t make a spring!!!

    Far as I can tell, Fox NoNews is getting weirder and more extreme with time. They’ve just hired someone, Perino who seems about as far out there are Glenn Beck was.

    Bachmann is not running for office this term, so throwing her under the bus does a couple of things:

    Likely.

    The GOP really did throw Bachmann under a bus. She was under investigation for campaign violations. And they disappeared when she decided not to run for election.

    I’m sure they could have cared less about those campaign violations. But she cost too much. Bachmann was running expensive campaigns and barely getting reelected in a GOP district. And her constant nonsense did make them look bad.

  13. D. C. Sessions says

    Not to repeat myself, but how is that different from before?

    Before they could pretty much eat their cake and have it too. Right now, with the Empire striking back, there are times when (as with Cantor) they have to pick sides.

    Of course, if they were a news organization instead of Republican Pravda they wouldn’t have to choose sides. They could just report the news instead of making it, but that’s not their business model.

  14. John Pieret says

    Defund the Executive Branch? Haven’t any of these numbnuts noticed that the military is part of the executive branch? The President is the CIC, after all and Congress and the Judicial Branch can’t order troops anywhere!

    Why do these people want to leave America DEFENSELESS?

    (OK, we’d be able to fudge it somehow but it would be fun to tweek them with this.)

  15. says

    To paraphrase that old analogy:

    “Even a lying fuckbbag like Neil Cavuto is right twice a day”.

    Okay, maybe “twice a day” is ridiculous, how about, “Once in a blue moon–if it falls on a Thursday after the last frost and before the planting of delicate annuals.”.

  16. chrisj says

    @D.C.Sessions (#17):

    Fox don’t “make the news”, they make it up. There’s an important difference :)

  17. says

    Notice too that ‘Both Sides Do It” is NEVER EVER used as an argument by progressives..Ever. It is ENTIRELY a conservative’s cudgel…Their guilt is SO undeniable (even to themselves) that their only retort is to try to implicate their opponents as well…

Leave a Reply