Quote of the day, “Biden fears end of Hopenchange” edition
From the gaffetastic VP:
Vice President Joe Biden said today that if Democrats were to lose 35 House seats they currently hold in traditionally Republican districts, it would mean doomsday for President Obama’s agenda.
Biden said Republicans are pinning their political strategy on flipping these seats.
“If they take them back, this the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do,” the vice president said at a fundraiser for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) today in Greenville, Delaware.
We should be so lucky. (Sidebar: Is it not curious that a Democrat from a red district in AZ is trolling for campaign cash in blue states? But hey, where would you get the crazy idea that she’s anything other than a “moderate”?)
Anywho, here’s the kicker:
Biden said these House seats are Republicans “one shot” at breaking the Obama administration’s agenda. But if Democrats can hold on to those seats, “the dam is going to break,” he said, and a new era of bipartisanship will begin.
Uh…what? If the Republicans pick up a bunch of seats in an anti-Obama political climate, yet not enough seats to reclaim the House, then Biden will see this loss of Democrat seats as evidence that “bipartisanship” is the order of the day? Really? “Hey, let’s be nice to the Republicans, since they picked up a bunch of seats! Maybe they won’t pick up as many next time.” Seriously?
Then what does this mean for the reverse scenario? Let’s say the GOP doesn’t pick up any seats. By logical extension, according to the Vice-Plagiarist, a new era of partisanship will begin. After all, how can “bipartisanship” begin if the Dems continue their stranglehold on our wallets Congress? Something tells me that “partisanship” doesn’t bother him too much, if it’s coming from his side (i.e. the left side).
5 Comments »
Leave a Reply
-
Archives
- February 2012 (10)
- January 2012 (19)
- December 2011 (25)
- November 2011 (41)
- October 2011 (38)
- September 2011 (32)
- August 2011 (39)
- July 2011 (28)
- June 2011 (43)
- May 2011 (34)
- April 2011 (30)
- March 2011 (40)
-
Categories
- "art"
- "hate crimes"
- 9/11 Commission
- abortion
- ACLU
- ACORN
- affirmative action
- Afghanistan
- Ahmanutjob
- Air America
- al franken
- Al Sharpton
- ambulance chasers
- Andrew Sullivan
- animal rights wackos
- Ann Coulter
- Anthony Weiner
- anti-Semitism
- Arizona shooting
- Arlen Specter
- atheists
- Australia
- autism
- Barney Frank
- Beeb
- Biden
- big government
- bigotry
- Bill Clinton
- Bill Richardson
- bizarre
- Blagojevich
- Blog Talk Radio
- Bloomberg
- Bobby Jindal
- CAIR
- California
- Canada
- Canucks
- capital punishment
- capitalism
- Caroline Kennedy
- Carter
- Castro
- Catholics
- Charlie Crist
- Cheney
- Chicago
- China
- Chris Christie
- Christianity
- Chuck Schumer
- CLOWNS
- CNN
- conservatism
- Constitution
- corruption
- Cuba
- D.C.
- Dan Rather
- Darfur
- Debbie Wasserman Schultz
- defeatism
- Detroit
- dhimmitude
- Dodd
- drugs
- Duke lacrosse
- economic ignorance
- Egypt
- eminent domain
- energy
- environuts
- Episcopalians
- Eric Cantor
- Euros
- Fair Tax
- Fairness Doctrine
- Farrakhan
- fauxtography
- feminism
- Florida
- Fort Dix Six
- Fox News
- France
- freaky deaky
- Fred Thompson
- Ft. Hood
- gay
- Germany
- global warming
- Godwin's Law
- Gore
- Grayson
- gun rights
- Halliburton
- headlines
- health care
- Herman Cain
- Hillary
- Holder
- Hollyweirdos
- homeless
- Howard Dean
- Huckabee
- Hugo Chavez
- humor
- hurricanes
- hypocrisy
- illegal immigration
- Imus
- intelligence
- Iran
- Iraq
- irony
- Israel
- Janet Napolitano
- Japan
- Jena
- Jesse Jackson
- John Boehner
- John Edwards
- Jose Padilla
- judiciary
- karma
- Kennedrunk
- Kerry
- Larry Craig
- Leahy
- Libby
- libertarian
- Libya
- Lieberman
- Lindsey Graham
- Lott
- Louisiana
- Marco Rubio
- Mark Sanford
- Massachusetts
- McCain
- McClellan
- media bias
- Mel Martinez
- Memphis
- Mexico
- Michael Moore
- Michael Steele
- Michelle Bachmann
- military
- minimum wage
- Minnesota
- moonbats
- MSNBC
- Mugabe
- Murtha
- NAACP
- New Jersey
- New York
- news bytes
- Newt Gingrich
- Night and Day
- Ninth Circus Court
- non-political
- North Korea
- Obama
- Occupy Wall Street
- oil
- Olbermann
- Operation Fast and Furious
- Osama bin Laden
- Palin
- Pelosi
- photoshop
- Plamegate
- political correctness
- polls
- Pope
- pork
- privacy
- property rights
- public education
- public service announcement
- Putin
- quote of the day
- Reid
- religion of peace
- Rick Perry
- Rick Santorum
- Rick Scott
- Robert Byrd
- Roman Polanski
- Romney
- Ron Paul
- Rudy
- Rush
- Russia
- San Francisco
- satire
- Seattle
- separated at birth
- shameful
- Shehag
- smoking
- Social Security
- socialism
- Solyndra
- Soros
- Spitzer
- Supreme Court
- swine flu
- taxes
- Tea Party
- Texas
- The Memphis Posse
- Tim Geithner
- Tim Pawlenty
- tolerance
- TOTUS
- treason
- Uncategorized
- unions
- United Nations
- vandalism
- Vermont
- vote fraud
- Wal-Mart
- Wall Street
- Ward Churchill
- Warren Buffett
- Webb
- wingnuts
- Wisconsin
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
I think we’ve all seen the Dems’ idea of “bipartisanship” — excluding the Republicans from debate on every major issue, and then promising who knows what to their usual accomplices, Snowe or Collins, and then calling it bipartisan. Thanks but NO THANKS.
I hope and pray the Republicans can pick up 35 or more seats and stop the Obama reign of terror.
Comment by Kanaka Girl | September 22, 2009
Obama’s idea of bipartisanship, via Politico:
“President Obama listened to Republican gripes about his stimulus package during a meeting with congressional leaders Friday morning – but he also left no doubt about who’s in charge of these negotiations. “I won,” Obama noted matter-of-factly, according to sources familiar with the conversation.”
Nothing says ‘let’s work together’ quite like a ‘shut up and deal with it’. As far as it goes, I see nothing on the Obama agenda that I would want Republicans to get behind with bipartisan support. I believe Obama when he proclaimed his mission was “fundamentally transforming the United States of America”. Thanks, but I would prefer absolutely no bipartisan support for that.
Comment by TheBad | September 22, 2009
“If they take them back, this the end of the road for what Barack and I are trying to do…”
OH PRAISE DA LORD IF ONLY IF ONLY!!!!!!!!
Comment by Jenn | September 22, 2009
This is easy to decipher–Bipartisan means Democrat controlled, just like the way to keep us from Bankruptcy is to spend all of our money. He really is brilliant.
Comment by mklasing | September 22, 2009
If this Idiot-in-chief keeps trying to vote present instead of sending those additional troops to Afghanistan, NOW!, then he should lose a lot more than 35 House seats!
This is why the U.S. President should not automatically be the Commander-in-Chief if he has no military experience in my opinion. But in this case Uh-Obama has no experience in anything except Acorn!
Comment by tnjack | September 22, 2009