Image 01 Image 03

Sit back and enjoy

Sit back and enjoy

Via The Last Tradition, Rep. Joe Walsh gives it to Chrissy:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


MaggotAtBroadAndWall | July 20, 2011 at 12:52 pm

I noticed this past Sunday that Rubio refused to be rolled by Bob Scheiffer and Raul Labrador stood up to Christina Amanpour. It seems like the elected Republicans are finally giving up on being deferential during interviews and are starting to take a more adversarial stand when the biased media attempts to roll them in interviews. Thank you Chris Christie.

Tingles style is alot like O’Reilly’s in that they both tend to preach their point of view to the interviewee and often cut off the interviewee before his points can be made. So Walsh did an especially good job at not allowing Tingles to roll him. Nice job.

And Allen West is my new hero. He refused to be rolled by that dimwit, Debbie Wasserman Schultz. When she decided to run her mouth about him after he left the House chamber, he decided to send her a letter calling her the vile little weasel she is and forwarded it to House leadership. She seems to think that her gender gives her a pass to act like a fool. Allen West informed her it doesn’t.

    DougV in reply to retire05. | July 20, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    I don’t think it’s her gender that makes her think she gets a pass – it’s the D behind her name, and she knows the media won’t call her out, and has her back when someone like West fights back.

Finally, we are beginning to see the MSM’s bombastic, presumptuous blowhards like Matthews taken to task. Congressman Walsh and his politics are unknown to me, but his push-back gets my vote. Some suggestions for the congressman: 1) Don’t sign “pledges.” Any pledge. Just don’t. Voting for or against bills in congress is worth more and a good indication of your beliefs. 2) A balanced budget amendment is a bad idea. You people (sorry, but you’re in congress now and you’re one of them) can’t write a decent law, I sure as hell don’t want you to even think about writing an amendment to the Constitution. After careful weasel wording you people (sorry, nothing’s changed in three lines) find ways to provide yourselves and your friends exceptions, exemptions, exclusions, and contingencies in the event the law – just about any law it seems anymore – becomes an inconvenience. All that said, keep on fighting the good fight and keep slappin’ around Ol’ Tingle Thighs.

LukeHandCool | July 20, 2011 at 1:36 pm

Did you hear the one about the three guys who got their own shows on MSNBC? One would play an annoying game of asking a new question whenever a guest had just begun to answer his last loaded question, one had Tourette’s Syndrome, and the other one suffered from a rare condition that sent tingles running up his leg. So, one day these three guys are all in the studio together and … oh, shoot … wait a second … I’m telling this wrong … there aren’t three guys … it’s just one guy with all three conditions … dang it, let me start over …

LukeHandCool (who can now look back fondly on his semester at the University of Hawaii, when he had a dorm roomate who had an imaginary girlfriend, and his good friend in the room next door had a roomate with Tourette’s who constantly chewed chewing tobacco and would spray your face with tobacco spittle when he talked to you, as every few seconds he would impulsively yell, “First !!”)

don’t know much about Joe Walsh, the house member that is, but with the way he gave it right back at lil chrissy was beyond great. When chrissy was ask about the pres. cuts he would quickly ask another question trying to throw Joe off his game. it didn’t work.

Did anyone notice the title of the piece? It shows right at the beginning (I didn’t watch much farther. Matthews is an obnoxious PoS). It says, “Cut, Cap and Deceive.” IOW, pure DNC propaganda.

whew, I made it through 4 minutes before retching. I’m getting inured to Matthews. “Where’s the cuts! Where’s the cuts! Where’s the cuts!” Chrissy tries to make a false equivalence between signing the Norquist no tax increase pledge and agreeing with Norquist’s criticism that Obama didn’t name any specific cuts. Walsh makes the point that there would be negotiation on where the $111B in discretionary, non-military cuts would come from – which makes sense to me.

Now, I need to rinse out my mouth.

I hate to admit it, but Matthews has a point: “Non-defense discretionary spending” is far too vague to be meaningful, and when pressed for something more specific Walsh had no answer.

Now, for all I know, Matthews could be lying about the lack of specificity and Walsh could simply be poorly prepared, but other than the last minute or so this is by no means a victory for Walsh. His constant invocation of Obama’s lack of a plan, while accurate, comes across as deflection.

I’m for 25% cuts across the board from very aency except defense.

Darn keyboard. very aency= every agency

don't tread 2012 | July 20, 2011 at 10:17 pm

Chris Matthews is an idiot. How this man has this job and can be taken seriously by anyone is a complete leg-tingling mystery. What a childish low-brow a-hole.

If I had the time or motivation I’d really tell you what I thought about the dolt Matthews.

don't tread 2012 | July 20, 2011 at 10:19 pm

@yun648 Walsh had no answer because he knows damn well that the cuts will be hashed out after it goes through committees it would need to go through for passage. Its certainly better than ANY non-existent dem plan. Matthews ‘point’ is not a point at all but just argument for argument’s sake.

Good for Rep. Walsh! I just wish he had gotten the size of the economy question correct. I loved it when he brought up Matthews “I got this thrill going up my leg” remark.