Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    Into The Politico Arena

    Into The Politico Arena

    As you know, I’ve expressed my doubts about Politico.  But the reality is that Politico is one of the major internet news sources and will be for the foreseeable future.

    While my prior criticisms applied to Politico’s news operations, I also was frustrated that whenever I read the political debates which took place at Politico’s Arena, the political voice represented by this blog was not being heard.

    For better or worse, I contacted Politico and requested contributor status at the Arena, and such request was granted.

    So starting today, I will chime in on some  — but not all — of the issues being debated at the Arena.  These are not the equivalent of blog posts, but really just quick takes on an issue.

    My first contribution today was on the issue of whether Republicans should be suspicious of the “mixed seating” proposals for the State of the Union address.  Here is what I wrote:

    For two years, legitimate opposition to Democratic policies, particularly Obamacare, was met with false accusations of hate speech and violence. Senior Democratic politicians (Chuck Schumer referring to Scott Brown) used the pejorative “teabagger,” peaceful protesters were called un-American, and the entire tea party movement was labeled racist, all in the cause of passing the Democratic legislative agenda. Even at last year’s State of the Union, President Obama attacked the Supreme Court decision Citizens United by falsely characterizing the nature of the decision, causing Democratic politicians to leap to their feet around the justices and clap loudly just feet from the justices.

    Having accomplished many of their legislative goals the past two years through such partisanship and lack of legislative civility, it rings hollow for Democrats now to call for mixed seating at the State of the Union. While I’m sure some politicians make such a request in good faith, Republicans are right to be distrustful and to view the new call for civility primarily as a tactic to consolidate what has been accomplished.

    How did I do, and more importantly, was I right to enter the Arena?

    ——————————————–
    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    I thought your post was spot on. I gave up on Politico and am not familiar with The Arena (I will be now), but, the thought of the Professor in an arena conjured up some interesting visuals. And, yes, a cape and a bull were involved.

    As usual, your comments were right on. When I heard that they wanted to sit together this time around, I thought that was a very immature thing to suggest. Further, it's absolutely meaningless. So it sounds just about right coming from them.

    Politico's Arena meant nothing to me before I read here that you had contributed; I then accessed Arena: as a result I can assure you that they will go on meaning nothing to me. I mean really, talk about irrelevant! Surely there are more important issues to be discussed? Next thing you know, they'll debate whether they should be holding hands when they sit together as they used to in playschool. In answer to your question, though, I would say that you need to pick your dais, to be focused on the issues that matter, and not re-active as the GOP and TP increasingly are. You know as well as I do that he who writes the Minutes, controls the Agenda.

    Arena meant nothing to me before and will, after having read it because of you, continue to mean nothing to me. I mean really, talk about a non-issue! They'll be debating next whether they should hold hands when sitting together as they did when they were at playschool. Don't play their game, Bill, they are setting the Agenda and both the GOP and the TP are re-actively responding to every jibe – don't acknowledge them by replying …. and the TP were doing so well when they started.

    If there was ever even one moment of doubt about the the leftward and, in addition, shameful drift of Politico, just check out the "Op-Ed" they just published, one penned by U.S. Representative Alsee Hastings, (D-23d), a disgraced former federal judge (appointed by Jimmy Carter), who was indicted in 1981 for accepting a $150,000.00 bribe in a case before him.

    While the criminal case against him fell apart (when the primary witness against him, his co-conspirator William Borders, suddenly refused to testify), federal Judge Hastings was thereafter impeached in 1988 by the House of Representatives, (413-3) and subsequently convicted by the United States Senate (69 – 26) in 1989, arising out of those same circumstances. He was thus removed from the bench, and while the Senate had the option of permanently disqualifying him from ever holding any federal office again, they for some reason declined to do so.

    He was at that time only the 6th federal judge so removed in disgrace during the entire history of the United States.

    In 1992, the brazen Mr. Hastings ran for Congress in a newly created district, a highly gerrimandered 23d district in south-central Florida, including the I-95 corridor beach areas of Boynton, Delray and Pompano, plus a swath of three different counties south and mostly east of Lake Okeechobee. And there he has stayed.

    Now the "distinguished" Mr. Hastings, has taken to the Op-Ed pages of Politico with an opinion piece pointing the finger at others, in which he has joined that long line of left-wing prevaricators falsely alleging that political rhetoric drove Jerad Loughner to go on his wild shooting spree in Arizona.

    But Hastings did not make his claim before any evidence was in, as did some others. He made the false charge after a considerable body of evidence had been advanced demonstrating that no such thing had happened.

    But that didn't stop Politico from printing the obvious lie.

    As Hastings asserted:

    "Giffords was shot — and six others tragically murdered — in part because our violent political expression inspired a mentally unstable person, who had preposterously easy access to previously banned weapons."


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend