Advertisements

Conservative Lame Duck excuse for Democrats to not pass anything

Remember when Sarah Palin quit her job mid-term so she wouldn’t have to be a “lame duck”? I’m tellin’ ya’, you’re going to be hearing a lot about how lame ducks shouldn’t be doing anything and especially not passing any tax laws – because, well, if they were to do something, it would be more liberal legislation than the Republicans want. In order to avoid this, Republicans are attempting the preemptive strike against lame duck legislation. This is, of course, the opposite of what the Republicans thought when they were the lame ducks and they did small things like impeach a president.

The pre-smear started today with Krauthammer, so prepare yourself for the trickle down and be forearmed. As you might have guessed, a conservative spoke up today out of concern for the “people” (translation, using the slogan “will of the people” to mask their own agenda). Syndicated columnist and paid Fox “News” contributor Charles Krauthammer said, “Lame duck session for tax cuts would raise “illegitimacy” questions.”

Advertisements

September 24 edition of Fox News’ Special Report:

Unlike say, if you tried to impeach a President, eh, Krauthammer? Oh, dear. It seems Charles has a short memory. Since I know you’re going to be fighting wingers this fall around the water cooler at work and school, let’s peek back in time when Charles was urging his lame duck Party (Republican) to impeach a Democratic president even after an election in which the people clearly voted against said impeachment.

Media Matters:



“Having written that Democrats gained seats in the November 1998 elections in large part because the public rejected the GOP’s push to impeach Clinton, surely Krauthammer then insisted that the House Republicans not impeach Clinton in a lame-duck session, right? Er … not quite.

Charles Krauthammer, November 27, 1998:

The House should therefore vote on two simple articles of impeachment. … Republicans are running scared on impeachment for fear of the stain it will leave on them. This is the perfect opportunity for the turning of the tables on their opponents. Let these be the articles and let the Democrats vote against them, as they surely will. Up or down, yes or no, nothing less.”

Yeah, you know, this is the new GOP way. They fight dirty, they change the rules, they accuse the media of bias before the media has even spoken a word, and then they whine if anyone dares ask them to explain the discrepancies in their “positions”.

So far, we have lame ducks are bad when you’re a Democrat or Sarah Palin (who obviously doesn’t understand what a lame duck is, but give her a break, she also thinks she gets to tell the Dept of Law to beat up any mean bloggers when she winks her way into the White House), but lame ducks are good when you are a Republican.

Actually, on this point, I can agree, since I would rather see more lame duck Republicans any day.

But back to the issue at hand, Krauthammer doesn’t think Dem lame ducks should do anything, lest they violate the will of the people. But he thinks lame duck Republicans should do small things like impeaching a president. Would you consider impeaching a president “controversial”?

Apparently Krathammer doesn’t.

Media Matters reports:



“Charles Krauthammer, July 23, 2010:

Beware the Lame Duck

Democrats should pledge now to refrain from approving controversial legislation during the lame-duck session.

Having written that Democrats gained seats in the November 1998 elections in large part because the public rejected the GOP’s push to impeach Clinton, surely Krauthammer then insisted that the House Republicans not impeach Clinton in a lame-duck session, right? Er … not quite.

Charles Krauthammer, November 27, 1998:

The House should therefore vote on two simple articles of impeachment. … Republicans are running scared on impeachment for fear of the stain it will leave on them. This is the perfect opportunity for the turning of the tables on their opponents. Let these be the articles and let the Democrats vote against them, as they surely will. Up or down, yes or no, nothing less.”

Nice of him to assume that Republicans will win the House and the Senate. Nothing like listening to the American people, eh?

Yeah. It’s not over yet. Here he is speaking on Fox “News” in December of 2008 about President Bush:

“Well, this is the most active and important lame duck presidency in American history. Huge interventions in the markets, the signing of an agreement with Iraq of tremendous importance, the status of forces agreement, and now the intervention on the issue of the bailout.

I mean, this is a duck that roared, that people will remember historically.”

Yes, indeedy, the duck that roared!

So, when that nutter comes up to you at work or in the hall at school and starts nattering on about lame ducks, just smile broadly and take the offensive by screaming, “The Democrats will be the ducks that roared! In your face, you feudal slave!”

What? It has as much chance as reason, doesn’t it?

Image courtesy of EddieBreen.