-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
Again?
Author: Raine
Date: 04/09/2015 13:13:49
Washington Post reports that once again, we have an issue with the Secret Service.
What strikes me about this, is that this woman actually reported her assault. Good for her. What makes me terribly disheartened is this: What the hell? He oversaw a division that determined misconduct and then assaults a woman in a brew pub with peers around him.
This agency has serious problems. I don't know what it will take, it seems as though a constant replacement of the department heads isn't the solution. It seems it is the entire environment of the agency. It has two jobs.
They are not doing so well fulfilling those jobs.
A woman being assaulted, White House break-in, Fence jumping, crashing gates, hookers and booze before the President showing up in South America, grifters crashing state dinners….
I keep saying 'Again?' and I don't want to have to say that.
Let's hope they didn't mess this up too.
Late last week, the Secret Service took the unusual step of placing Morales on indefinite administrative leave and adding his name to an internal “do not admit” list prohibiting entry to the office, a Secret Service official said. The Secret Service also took away his gun and badge after agency investigators launched a preliminary review of the complaint and conducted “subsequent corroborative interviews” Thursday afternoon, said agency spokesman Brian Leary.
“The Secret Service is an agency that demands that our employees conduct themselves with the highest level of integrity. These allegations as reported are very disturbing,” Director Joseph P. Clancy said in a statement to The Washington Post. “Any threats or violence that endangers our employees in the workplace is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.”
The inquiry marks the second time in a month that the Secret Service has dealt with alleged staff misconduct after a work-related social event. The Obama administration is looking into a March 4 incident in which two senior agents, returning from a retirement party at a downtown bar, drove an agency car into an active White House bomb threat investigation.
What strikes me about this, is that this woman actually reported her assault. Good for her. What makes me terribly disheartened is this:
The security clearance division Morales helped oversee is responsible for determining when agents, through misconduct or other action, have jeopardized their security clearances and should lose their jobs. It also helps vet Secret Service job applicants for potential security issues.
This agency has serious problems. I don't know what it will take, it seems as though a constant replacement of the department heads isn't the solution. It seems it is the entire environment of the agency. It has two jobs.
The U.S. Secret Service has two distinct areas of responsibility:
Financial Crimes, covering missions such as prevention and investigation of counterfeiting of U.S. currency and U.S. treasury securities, and investigation of major fraud.
Protection, which entails ensuring the safety of current and former national leaders and their families, such as the President, past presidents, vice presidents, presidential candidates, visiting heads of state, and foreign embassies.
A woman being assaulted, White House break-in, Fence jumping, crashing gates, hookers and booze before the President showing up in South America, grifters crashing state dinners….
I keep saying 'Again?' and I don't want to have to say that.
Let's hope they didn't mess this up too.
Secret Service agents have one of the toughest jobs in Washington: They are expected, if necessary, to put their lives on the line in the protection of the President and his family.
They've also had to teach a teen to drive.
First lady Michelle Obama revealed this week that her older daughter, 16-year-old Malia, was taught to drive by the Secret Service and occasionally drives outside the White House grounds on her own.
"The Secret Service [taught her], actually, because they wouldn't let me in the car with her," Obama told television host Rachael Ray in an interview that's set to air Thursday.
It's a good thing, too, as the First Lady told Ray she hasn't driven in seven or eight years, and admitted earlier this week she's forgotten some of the basics.
Comments:
Order comments Newest to Oldest Refresh Comments
Comment by 
TriSec on 04/09/2015 13:35:02
TriSec on 04/09/2015 13:35:02
Raine, this is 'Murrica. We don't fix problems until somebody dies, and then only maybe.
Of course, one wonders if this would be going on if the flesh of the current person receiving protection was a different shade?
Of course, one wonders if this would be going on if the flesh of the current person receiving protection was a different shade?
Comment by 
BobR on 04/09/2015 13:46:24
Not sure if this is race-related. I am guessing the SS is fairly non-partisan, and those who sign up don't care.
That said - perhaps the quality of people signing up is declining because there's a dearth of people willing to take a bullet for a "differently shaded" president
BobR on 04/09/2015 13:46:24
Quote by TriSec:
Raine, this is 'Murrica. We don't fix problems until somebody dies, and then only maybe.
Of course, one wonders if this would be going on if the flesh of the current person receiving protection was a different shade?
Not sure if this is race-related. I am guessing the SS is fairly non-partisan, and those who sign up don't care.
That said - perhaps the quality of people signing up is declining because there's a dearth of people willing to take a bullet for a "differently shaded" president
Comment by 
Raine on 04/09/2015 13:57:33
I am thinking that the sequester is taking a toll on the quality of the agency.
Raine on 04/09/2015 13:57:33
Quote by BobR:Quote by TriSec:
Raine, this is 'Murrica. We don't fix problems until somebody dies, and then only maybe.
Of course, one wonders if this would be going on if the flesh of the current person receiving protection was a different shade?
Not sure if this is race-related. I am guessing the SS is fairly non-partisan, and those who sign up don't care.
That said - perhaps the quality of people signing up is declining because there's a dearth of people willing to take a bullet for a "differently shaded" president
Comment by 
wickedpam on 04/09/2015 13:58:04
wickedpam on 04/09/2015 13:58:04
Morning 
Did they have these problems when they were still under Treasury? Or is it just the caliber of people they are now choosing to hire?
Did they have these problems when they were still under Treasury? Or is it just the caliber of people they are now choosing to hire?
Comment by TriSec on 04/09/2015 14:02:00
TriSec on 04/09/2015 14:02:00
There is no problem that cannot be solved by the application of money ( so I heard once on the radio). Maybe the sequester does have something to do with it.
Comment by 
Scoopster on 04/09/2015 14:06:42
Scoopster on 04/09/2015 14:06:42
Mornin' all.. 
argh damnit this cough sucks!
argh damnit this cough sucks!
Comment by Raine on 04/09/2015 14:07:20
They moved in from Treasury in 2003. I don't recall these problems happening before that. it is strange that this is happening under this particular executive officer.
What I always come back to is my friend who was actually a SS agent on both the Clinton and Bush details. He is a republican, so what I am going to say is key:
HE left during at the beginning of the Second term of Bush's presidency (2004) because his job was to sit in a tree every few weeks in Crawford. HE said there was no challenge left as all most people did was sit around a fake ranch.
That indicates to me that he, and others who left were not utilized properly in accordance to SS rules and perhaps we are seeing the result of laziness left over from the previous occupier of the office.
Raine on 04/09/2015 14:07:20
Quote by wickedpam:
Morning
Did they have these problems when they were still under Treasury? Or is it just the caliber of people they are now choosing to hire?
What I always come back to is my friend who was actually a SS agent on both the Clinton and Bush details. He is a republican, so what I am going to say is key:
HE left during at the beginning of the Second term of Bush's presidency (2004) because his job was to sit in a tree every few weeks in Crawford. HE said there was no challenge left as all most people did was sit around a fake ranch.
That indicates to me that he, and others who left were not utilized properly in accordance to SS rules and perhaps we are seeing the result of laziness left over from the previous occupier of the office.
Comment by BobR on 04/09/2015 14:20:52
BobR on 04/09/2015 14:20:52
Quote by Raine:They moved in from Treasury in 2003. I don't recall these problems happening before that. it is strange that this is happening under this particular executive officer.Quote by wickedpam:
Morning
Did they have these problems when they were still under Treasury? Or is it just the caliber of people they are now choosing to hire?
What I always come back to is my friend who was actually a SS agent on both the Clinton and Bush details. He is a republican, so what I am going to say is key:
HE left during at the beginning of the Second term of Bush's presidency (2004) because his job was to sit in a tree every few weeks in Crawford. HE said there was no challenge left as all most people did was sit around a fake ranch.
That indicates to me that he, and others who left were not utilized properly in accordance to SS rules and perhaps we are seeing the result of laziness left over from the previous occupier of the office.
Comment by TriSec on 04/09/2015 14:26:55
TriSec on 04/09/2015 14:26:55
In my experience as a volunteer, it's when you have too many people around, or the wrong people doing the wrong tasks, ghat's when things get out of hand. It may not be personnel- sounds more like resource management. (Or lack thereof.)
Comment by Raine on 04/09/2015 14:36:33
I heard his interview on WTOP yesterday and was disappointed.
It seems like (and I am still trying to process this) that the sick widget on this is about the sanctions that were placed on Iran By the senate and the House.
Raine on 04/09/2015 14:36:33
Quote by BobR:
With friends like this, who needs enemies?
I heard his interview on WTOP yesterday and was disappointed.
It seems like (and I am still trying to process this) that the sick widget on this is about the sanctions that were placed on Iran By the senate and the House.
Comment by wickedpam on 04/09/2015 14:54:32
Used to be that being in Secret Service was a big deal job that someone took pride in. Sad that's its come to this.
wickedpam on 04/09/2015 14:54:32
Quote by BobR:Quote by Raine:They moved in from Treasury in 2003. I don't recall these problems happening before that. it is strange that this is happening under this particular executive officer.Quote by wickedpam:
Morning
Did they have these problems when they were still under Treasury? Or is it just the caliber of people they are now choosing to hire?
What I always come back to is my friend who was actually a SS agent on both the Clinton and Bush details. He is a republican, so what I am going to say is key:
HE left during at the beginning of the Second term of Bush's presidency (2004) because his job was to sit in a tree every few weeks in Crawford. HE said there was no challenge left as all most people did was sit around a fake ranch.
That indicates to me that he, and others who left were not utilized properly in accordance to SS rules and perhaps we are seeing the result of laziness left over from the previous occupier of the office.
Used to be that being in Secret Service was a big deal job that someone took pride in. Sad that's its come to this.
Comment by TriSec on 04/09/2015 15:07:20
TriSec on 04/09/2015 15:07:20
Say now, we've got daytime baseball today!
Comment by Raine on 04/09/2015 15:22:24
I think it said something that my friend chose to leave rather than waste his time and training.
He ended up working for a a big security firm. I remember Amtrak was one of the clients. HE really felt his training was of better use in the private sector at that point.
Raine on 04/09/2015 15:22:24
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by BobR:Quote by Raine:They moved in from Treasury in 2003. I don't recall these problems happening before that. it is strange that this is happening under this particular executive officer.Quote by wickedpam:
Morning
Did they have these problems when they were still under Treasury? Or is it just the caliber of people they are now choosing to hire?
What I always come back to is my friend who was actually a SS agent on both the Clinton and Bush details. He is a republican, so what I am going to say is key:
HE left during at the beginning of the Second term of Bush's presidency (2004) because his job was to sit in a tree every few weeks in Crawford. HE said there was no challenge left as all most people did was sit around a fake ranch.
That indicates to me that he, and others who left were not utilized properly in accordance to SS rules and perhaps we are seeing the result of laziness left over from the previous occupier of the office.
Used to be that being in Secret Service was a big deal job that someone took pride in. Sad that's its come to this.
He ended up working for a a big security firm. I remember Amtrak was one of the clients. HE really felt his training was of better use in the private sector at that point.
Comment by wickedpam on 04/09/2015 15:41:04
That's kinda sad.
wickedpam on 04/09/2015 15:41:04
Quote by Raine:I think it said something that my friend chose to leave rather than waste his time and training.Quote by wickedpam:Quote by BobR:Quote by Raine:They moved in from Treasury in 2003. I don't recall these problems happening before that. it is strange that this is happening under this particular executive officer.Quote by wickedpam:
Morning
Did they have these problems when they were still under Treasury? Or is it just the caliber of people they are now choosing to hire?
What I always come back to is my friend who was actually a SS agent on both the Clinton and Bush details. He is a republican, so what I am going to say is key:
HE left during at the beginning of the Second term of Bush's presidency (2004) because his job was to sit in a tree every few weeks in Crawford. HE said there was no challenge left as all most people did was sit around a fake ranch.
That indicates to me that he, and others who left were not utilized properly in accordance to SS rules and perhaps we are seeing the result of laziness left over from the previous occupier of the office.
Used to be that being in Secret Service was a big deal job that someone took pride in. Sad that's its come to this.
He ended up working for a a big security firm. I remember Amtrak was one of the clients. HE really felt his training was of better use in the private sector at that point.
That's kinda sad.
Comment by Raine on 04/09/2015 15:44:40
It appears that I may in a minority, but I would welcome more people to join the primaries.
Chaffee included!
Raine on 04/09/2015 15:44:40
Quote by Scoopster:
Lincoln Chafee thinking about a presidential run?!
Chaffee included!
Comment by 
Mondobubba on 04/09/2015 15:46:32
Raine, I am so glad you mentioned the moving from Treasury to DHS. Moving the Service there made it yet another LE agency looking for funding and direction under that massive umbrella. From what I have read it crushed the moral within SS. I wouldn't be surprised if all the other law enforcement agencies under DHS have suffered similarly.
Mondobubba on 04/09/2015 15:46:32
Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:I think it said something that my friend chose to leave rather than waste his time and training.Quote by wickedpam:Quote by BobR:Quote by Raine:They moved in from Treasury in 2003. I don't recall these problems happening before that. it is strange that this is happening under this particular executive officer.Quote by wickedpam:
Morning
Did they have these problems when they were still under Treasury? Or is it just the caliber of people they are now choosing to hire?
What I always come back to is my friend who was actually a SS agent on both the Clinton and Bush details. He is a republican, so what I am going to say is key:
HE left during at the beginning of the Second term of Bush's presidency (2004) because his job was to sit in a tree every few weeks in Crawford. HE said there was no challenge left as all most people did was sit around a fake ranch.
That indicates to me that he, and others who left were not utilized properly in accordance to SS rules and perhaps we are seeing the result of laziness left over from the previous occupier of the office.
Used to be that being in Secret Service was a big deal job that someone took pride in. Sad that's its come to this.
He ended up working for a a big security firm. I remember Amtrak was one of the clients. HE really felt his training was of better use in the private sector at that point.
That's kinda sad.
Raine, I am so glad you mentioned the moving from Treasury to DHS. Moving the Service there made it yet another LE agency looking for funding and direction under that massive umbrella. From what I have read it crushed the moral within SS. I wouldn't be surprised if all the other law enforcement agencies under DHS have suffered similarly.
Comment by Scoopster on 04/09/2015 15:56:35
I don't understand the mentality of having one person unchallenged for any reason. There's so many people who just think we should put Hillary up because it's her turn, because it's a woman's turn, because she should have been nominated in 2008 instead of "this Obama disaster".
Never mind that her campaigns are off-putting and borderline incompetent. Never mind that some of her policy decisions are offensive and anathema to what I feel is becoming of a Democrat. Not to mention putting a single candidate out in the wind against the GOP machine for so long would be a HUGE fucking mistake.
Scoopster on 04/09/2015 15:56:35
Quote by Raine:It appears that I may in a minority, but I would welcome more people to join the primaries.Quote by Scoopster:
Lincoln Chafee thinking about a presidential run?!
Chaffee included!
I don't understand the mentality of having one person unchallenged for any reason. There's so many people who just think we should put Hillary up because it's her turn, because it's a woman's turn, because she should have been nominated in 2008 instead of "this Obama disaster".
Never mind that her campaigns are off-putting and borderline incompetent. Never mind that some of her policy decisions are offensive and anathema to what I feel is becoming of a Democrat. Not to mention putting a single candidate out in the wind against the GOP machine for so long would be a HUGE fucking mistake.
Comment by Raine on 04/09/2015 16:37:56
Agreed.
SS is supposed to be unique, moving it to HS I believe bade is suffer. My friend wanted it to be a lifetime job. HE didn't want to resign. HE just didn't feel like he was doing the job he was hired for. That move diminished the agency IMO.
Raine on 04/09/2015 16:37:56
Quote by Mondobubba:Quote by wickedpam:Quote by Raine:I think it said something that my friend chose to leave rather than waste his time and training.Quote by wickedpam:Quote by BobR:Quote by Raine:They moved in from Treasury in 2003. I don't recall these problems happening before that. it is strange that this is happening under this particular executive officer.Quote by wickedpam:
Morning
Did they have these problems when they were still under Treasury? Or is it just the caliber of people they are now choosing to hire?
What I always come back to is my friend who was actually a SS agent on both the Clinton and Bush details. He is a republican, so what I am going to say is key:
HE left during at the beginning of the Second term of Bush's presidency (2004) because his job was to sit in a tree every few weeks in Crawford. HE said there was no challenge left as all most people did was sit around a fake ranch.
That indicates to me that he, and others who left were not utilized properly in accordance to SS rules and perhaps we are seeing the result of laziness left over from the previous occupier of the office.
Used to be that being in Secret Service was a big deal job that someone took pride in. Sad that's its come to this.
He ended up working for a a big security firm. I remember Amtrak was one of the clients. HE really felt his training was of better use in the private sector at that point.
That's kinda sad.
Raine, I am so glad you mentioned the moving from Treasury to DHS. Moving the Service there made it yet another LE agency looking for funding and direction under that massive umbrella. From what I have read it crushed the moral within SS. I wouldn't be surprised if all the other law enforcement agencies under DHS have suffered similarly.
SS is supposed to be unique, moving it to HS I believe bade is suffer. My friend wanted it to be a lifetime job. HE didn't want to resign. HE just didn't feel like he was doing the job he was hired for. That move diminished the agency IMO.
Comment by Raine on 04/09/2015 16:46:19
Agreed.
I have said it before and will say it again: She is not a good campaigner. I don;t know if it is her or the people she chooses to run her campaigns. I voted for her as a NYS senate nominee, but I can tell you that it was lackluster. Rudy was worse than her.
She lost me in 2008 because of MArk Pence.
She is probably the most qualified candidate to be president. I do not like her corporatist leaning. She is is GREAT on social issues. I am mixed on her forien policy stances. That last part, I say due to un named sourced reporting. She did a grea as SoS.
PEople are floating the idea that she did the work of Obama and that she would undo the Obama doctrine.
I am not entirely sure about that. My issue with her is her corporatism.
I don;t think she needs to be challenged to toughen up, I thing any nominee should have a primary challenge. IT's that very thing that makes it a political party.
A LOT of people, including myself, never thought that Obama had chance in hell. Many people were lead to believe it was Clinton. I liked Edwards. I liked his platform more than Clinton and even Obama.
She should be challenged. If we are pro choice, we — as Dems deserve a choice.
Raine on 04/09/2015 16:46:19
Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:It appears that I may in a minority, but I would welcome more people to join the primaries.Quote by Scoopster:
Lincoln Chafee thinking about a presidential run?!
Chaffee included!
I don't understand the mentality of having one person unchallenged for any reason. There's so many people who just think we should put Hillary up because it's her turn, because it's a woman's turn, because she should have been nominated in 2008 instead of "this Obama disaster".
Never mind that her campaigns are off-putting and borderline incompetent. Never mind that some of her policy decisions are offensive and anathema to what I feel is becoming of a Democrat. Not to mention putting a single candidate out in the wind against the GOP machine for so long would be a HUGE fucking mistake.
I have said it before and will say it again: She is not a good campaigner. I don;t know if it is her or the people she chooses to run her campaigns. I voted for her as a NYS senate nominee, but I can tell you that it was lackluster. Rudy was worse than her.
She lost me in 2008 because of MArk Pence.
She is probably the most qualified candidate to be president. I do not like her corporatist leaning. She is is GREAT on social issues. I am mixed on her forien policy stances. That last part, I say due to un named sourced reporting. She did a grea as SoS.
PEople are floating the idea that she did the work of Obama and that she would undo the Obama doctrine.
I am not entirely sure about that. My issue with her is her corporatism.
I don;t think she needs to be challenged to toughen up, I thing any nominee should have a primary challenge. IT's that very thing that makes it a political party.
A LOT of people, including myself, never thought that Obama had chance in hell. Many people were lead to believe it was Clinton. I liked Edwards. I liked his platform more than Clinton and even Obama.
She should be challenged. If we are pro choice, we — as Dems deserve a choice.
Comment by wickedpam on 04/09/2015 17:09:03
*whispers* I liked Edwards too. Until we found out what a skumbag he was on a personal level.
wickedpam on 04/09/2015 17:09:03
Quote by Raine:Agreed.Quote by Scoopster:Quote by Raine:It appears that I may in a minority, but I would welcome more people to join the primaries.Quote by Scoopster:
Lincoln Chafee thinking about a presidential run?!
Chaffee included!
I don't understand the mentality of having one person unchallenged for any reason. There's so many people who just think we should put Hillary up because it's her turn, because it's a woman's turn, because she should have been nominated in 2008 instead of "this Obama disaster".
Never mind that her campaigns are off-putting and borderline incompetent. Never mind that some of her policy decisions are offensive and anathema to what I feel is becoming of a Democrat. Not to mention putting a single candidate out in the wind against the GOP machine for so long would be a HUGE fucking mistake.
I have said it before and will say it again: She is not a good campaigner. I don;t know if it is her or the people she chooses to run her campaigns. I voted for her as a NYS senate nominee, but I can tell you that it was lackluster. Rudy was worse than her.
She lost me in 2008 because of MArk Pence.
She is probably the most qualified candidate to be president. I do not like her corporatist leaning. She is is GREAT on social issues. I am mixed on her forien policy stances. That last part, I say due to un named sourced reporting. She did a grea as SoS.
PEople are floating the idea that she did the work of Obama and that she would undo the Obama doctrine.
I am not entirely sure about that. My issue with her is her corporatism.
I don;t think she needs to be challenged to toughen up, I thing any nominee should have a primary challenge. IT's that very thing that makes it a political party.
A LOT of people, including myself, never thought that Obama had chance in hell. Many people were lead to believe it was Clinton. I liked Edwards. I liked his platform more than Clinton and even Obama.
She should be challenged. If we are pro choice, we — as Dems deserve a choice.
*whispers* I liked Edwards too. Until we found out what a skumbag he was on a personal level.
Comment by Raine on 04/09/2015 17:17:12
I don't think we need to whisper. I liked his platform I did. I liked what he campaigned about.
he really fucked at all up. No you, not me. HE did that.
Raine on 04/09/2015 17:17:12
Quote by wickedpam:
*whispers* I liked Edwards too. Until we found out what a skumbag he was on a personal level.
he really fucked at all up. No you, not me. HE did that.
Comment by TriSec on 04/09/2015 17:26:49
TriSec on 04/09/2015 17:26:49
I am listening to the Reds game today- how cool is that? I also have a wee interest in the Nats...my favorite non-Sock appears to be finishing up there. Dan Uggla- best name in baseball! (Don't argue)
Comment by TriSec on 04/09/2015 17:28:00
TriSec on 04/09/2015 17:28:00
BTW, I decided long ago that I'm not voting for Hilary. Bring on all challengers.
Comment by BobR on 04/09/2015 17:28:26
Watching the game last night, we noticed that the Nats are a very hirsute team. The lumberjack/brewmeister look seems to be very big these days.
BobR on 04/09/2015 17:28:26
Quote by TriSec:
I am listening to the Reds game today- how cool is that? I also have a wee interest in the Nats...my favorite non-Sock appears to be finishing up there. Dan Uggla- best name in baseball! (Don't argue)
Watching the game last night, we noticed that the Nats are a very hirsute team. The lumberjack/brewmeister look seems to be very big these days.
Comment by wickedpam on 04/09/2015 17:43:58
that he did.
wickedpam on 04/09/2015 17:43:58
Quote by Raine:I don't think we need to whisper. I liked his platform I did. I liked what he campaigned about.Quote by wickedpam:
*whispers* I liked Edwards too. Until we found out what a skumbag he was on a personal level.
he really fucked at all up. No you, not me. HE did that.
that he did.
Comment by 
livingonli on 04/09/2015 18:39:59
livingonli on 04/09/2015 18:39:59
Good day, folks. I have the Mets-Nats game which looked like a pitcher's duel except for that bad half-inning which allowed the Mets to score 4 runs.
I do hope that Hillary does get challenged since there are a number of issues she is bad on (notice she has never retracted her vote for the Iraq war). That's why I am hoping for some challengers from the left. Although I do wish people would stop harping on Warren since she has no interest and is fine in the Senate where she is.
I do hope that Hillary does get challenged since there are a number of issues she is bad on (notice she has never retracted her vote for the Iraq war). That's why I am hoping for some challengers from the left. Although I do wish people would stop harping on Warren since she has no interest and is fine in the Senate where she is.
Comment by livingonli on 04/09/2015 18:46:52
livingonli on 04/09/2015 18:46:52
Now 6-0 and Strasburg's been taken out.
Comment by Raine on 04/09/2015 18:54:33
I don;t think she can retract her vote, but I do think this was about as close to an apology as we will get:
Raine on 04/09/2015 18:54:33
Quote by livingonli:
Good day, folks. I have the Mets-Nats game which looked like a pitcher's duel except for that bad half-inning which allowed the Mets to score 4 runs.
I do hope that Hillary does get challenged since there are a number of issues she is bad on (notice she has never retracted her vote for the Iraq war). That's why I am hoping for some challengers from the left. Although I do wish people would stop harping on Warren since she has no interest and is fine in the Senate where she is.
Among the biggest news from Hillary Clinton’s largely newsless new book is her blunt apology for voting to authorize war in Iraq. “I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had,†she writes “And I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong. But I still got it wrong.â€
This represents a change. In 2008, her advisors feared that if she called her Iraq vote a mistake, Republicans would savage her for flip-flopping, as they had done to John Kerry four years earlier. So even after John Edwards apologized for his Iraq vote, she refused to. In their book, Her Way, Jeff Gerth and Don Van Natta Jr. quote Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, as insisting that, “It’s important for all Democrats to keep the word ‘mistake’ firmly on the Republicans.â€
Comment by Scoopster on 04/09/2015 19:13:04
Scoopster on 04/09/2015 19:13:04
Okay my chest has had enough for one day. I'm going home to reup on the meds.
Comment by Raine on 04/09/2015 19:25:36
Please feel better, Scoop.
Raine on 04/09/2015 19:25:36
Quote by Scoopster:
Okay my chest has had enough for one day. I'm going home to reup on the meds.
Please feel better, Scoop.
Comment by BobR on 04/09/2015 20:14:50
Megan Kelly trying to get all tough, then stroking him at the end
BobR on 04/09/2015 20:14:50
Quote by Raine:
Phuck Rand Paul. Link.
Megan Kelly trying to get all tough, then stroking him at the end
Comment by 
clintster on 04/09/2015 21:00:49
clintster on 04/09/2015 21:00:49
