Blog on the Run: Reloaded

Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:00 pm

Quote of the Day, shutdown edition: On dealing with terrorists


Rep. Jim McDermott, D-WA, speaking to Dave Wiegel of Slate:

Dealing with terrorists has taught us some things. You can’t deal with ’em. This mess was created by the Republicans for one purpose, and they lost. People in my district are calling in for Obamacare—affordable health care—in large numbers. These guys have lost, and they can’t figure out how to admit it. … You can’t say, OK, you get half of Obamacare—this isn’t a Solomonic decision. So we sit here until they figure out they f—–g lost.”

About these ads

12 Comments »

  1. Love it!

    Comment by Scott Koehler — Thursday, October 10, 2013 8:10 pm @ 8:10 pm | Reply

  2. Is this the same sleazebag McDermott. Here’s very shiny object fopr you , Lex. What a guy ! Shuda been indicted …

    “Rep. John Boehner, who was part of the Gingrich conversation, sued McDermott in his capacity as a private citizen, seeking punitive damages for violations of his First Amendment rights.[26] After U.S. District Judge Thomas Hogan ordered McDermott to pay Boehner for “willful and knowing misconduct” that “rises to the level of malice”, McDermott appealed, arguing that since he had not created the recording, his actions were allowed under the First Amendment, and that ruling against him would have ‘a huge chilling effect’ on reporters and newsmakers alike. Eighteen news organizations – including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, The Associated Press, the New York Times and the Washington Post — filed a brief backing McDermott.[27] On March 29, 2006, the court ruled 2–1 that McDermott violated federal law when he turned over the illegally recorded tape to the media outlets, ordering McDermott to pay Boehner’s legal costs (over $600,000) plus $60,000 in damages. On June 26, 2006, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the judgment, deciding to re-hear the case with all nine judges.[28] However, a split 4 to 1 to 4 en banc decision in Boehner v. McDermott, 484 F.3d 573 (D.C. Cir. 2007) affirmed the three-judge panel, but on different grounds;[29] the Supreme Court declined review.[30] [31] On March 31, 2008, Chief Judge Thomas Hogan of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ordered McDermott to pay Boehner $1.05 million in attorney’s fees, costs and interest. McDermott also paid over $60,000 in fines and close to $600,000 in his own legal fees.[32]
    The Ethics Committee formally rebuked McDermott in 2006, writing he had “violated ethics rules by giving reporters access to an illegally taped telephone call involving Republican leaders a decade ago. Rep. McDermott’s secretive disclosures to the news media … risked undermining the ethics process” and that McDermott’s actions “were not consistent with the spirit of the committee.”[33] Previously, the Martins pleaded guilty to violating the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. In 1997,”

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Thursday, October 10, 2013 11:49 pm @ 11:49 pm | Reply

  3. Well, Fred, as I have conceded to some of the people whose quotes you post here, even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while. Do you disagree with his analysis on the merits? If so, how and why?

    Comment by Lex — Friday, October 11, 2013 8:31 am @ 8:31 am | Reply

  4. The Slate ink is busted

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Friday, October 11, 2013 12:39 pm @ 12:39 pm | Reply

  5. Seems to be working now.

    Comment by Lex — Friday, October 11, 2013 1:37 pm @ 1:37 pm | Reply

  6. McDermott . What an assshat, Weigel doesn;t allow comments, Whimp and partisan hack. His analysis is no better than say , Ronald McDonald’s or Willard Scott’s

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Friday, October 11, 2013 6:48 pm @ 6:48 pm | Reply

  7. Oh and BTW what do you have to say about this point ?

    “What the president is imposing on us today is NOT the Affordable Care Act”

    MCCAUGHEY: I have the Obama health law right here in front of me and I think about how different what the president’s health reform today is from that law. I hear the Democrats say all the time ‘well it was passed by Congress, it was signed by the president and it was vetted by the Supreme Court.’ But what the president is imposing on us today is not the Affordable Care Act.

    LEVIN: Stop! Stop! That is a very important point. Wait a minute, Congress passed, the president signed, the Supreme Court upheld…and your point is since then Obama has changed the law and nobody and nothing has passed on that. Brilliant!

    MCCAUGHEY: Oh yes exactly. He has stripped the employer mandate, income verification, caps on out of pocket expenses, over half the statutory deadlines in the law. So now he’s had this very distorted little piece of the Affordable Care Act and he’s tacked new things onto it, 1472 waivers. And how about this new subsidy for members of Congress that he weaseled through without congressional approval. All of this means that this reform doesn’t have the status of law.

    AUDIO AVAILABLE

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Friday, October 11, 2013 7:10 pm @ 7:10 pm | Reply

  8. McCaughey lied like a bearskin rug about Hillarycare — her story in TNR was essentially disowned by the magazine, it was so bad — so I have no desire to listen to her on this or any other subject.

    Once again: McDermott may be an asshat, but what do you think about the asshat’s analysis of the situation?

    Comment by Lex — Friday, October 11, 2013 8:11 pm @ 8:11 pm | Reply

  9. Betsy isn’t making up the 17 changes to the ACA done with Obama’s magic wand, so before I say any thing about the administration’ scribe, Weigrel, please address the point.

    “So now he’s had this very distorted little piece of the Affordable Care Act and he’s tacked new things onto it, 1472 waivers. And how about this new subsidy for members of Congress that he weaseled through without congressional approval. All of this means that this reform doesn’t have the status of law”.

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Saturday, October 12, 2013 12:59 pm @ 12:59 pm | Reply

  10. The law itself authorizes these changes, which Betsy knows but hopes you don’t.

    Comment by Lex — Saturday, October 12, 2013 3:28 pm @ 3:28 pm | Reply

  11. Well, how’s that working out ?

    Enrollment in ObamaCare Exchanges. How will your health insurance fare ?

    “Some state-based exchanges have data releases that are more limited than the 36 federal exchanges. For state exchanges, some premiums must be estimated. As is the case with all studies built to address the changes in exchange premiums, it is important to note that when more data becomes available, results could vary slightly.

    This study considers the data as released by HHS. States with little data released are omitted from this study.

    Individuals in most states will end up spending more on the exchanges. It is true that in some states, the experience could be the opposite. This is because those states had already over-regulated insurance markets that led to sharply higher premiums through adverse selection, as is the case of New York. Many states, however, double or nearly triple premiums for young adults. Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, and Vermont see some of the largest increases in premiums.”

    (Be sure and examine the rate by state chart in the above link)

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Friday, October 18, 2013 8:05 pm @ 8:05 pm | Reply

  12. Oh dear Oops

    Comment by Fred Gregory — Monday, October 21, 2013 2:19 pm @ 2:19 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The Rubric Theme. Blog at WordPress.com.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,357 other followers

%d bloggers like this: