Journal pudge's Journal: If You're Losing the Argument ... Lie 7
White House Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, annoyed that Senator Kyl of Arizona is arguing against the stimulus, wrote a letter to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, lying about what Kyl actually said.
Kyl said he was against the stimulus, not against Arizona getting stimulus money while other states did get it. There's a big difference between those two things, of course: since it's your tax dollars, even if you are against the whole package, you might as well get your fair share of it.
Yet LaHood said in his letter, "If you prefer to forfeit the money we are making available to your state, as Sen. Kyl suggests, please let me know."
Of course, Kyl suggested no such thing;he wanted an end to all stimulus spending, not just for Arizona. And it's pathetic that an executive official would engage in such dishonest partisan politics.
It basically went like this: Kyl says to cancel all federal stimulus spending. The Obama administration says, "OK, we'll cancel ARIZONA'S spending if you want to.
The one bright spot in this is that I get to snicker at FireDogLake cackling like a hyena because Kyl is inconsistent between what he actually said, and what he never said. I am not sure whether "Blue Texan" believed this propaganda from the Obama administration, or if he was just playing along.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
How... (Score:1)
...is this materially different from some rich Liberal idiot saying people should be taxed more and Righties then saying he's free to go ahead and send in more money? (I mean besides the fact that the purpose in this case was to get him to shut off his dissenting speech.)
Re: (Score:2)
In your scenario, the "Righties" are not lying about what the Liberal said.
Further, it's not a Cabinet Secretary doing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I wasn't saying this is worse than anything else any Republicans have done. I was just saying it's bad and wrong.
I would hope that I am allowed to make such absolute value judgments without it being compared to other things ... especially since I am on record many times attacking Republicans for dishonest claims (such as when, during the 2004 elections, when I was supporting Bush's re-election, I criticized Bush and Republicans for the statement that "John Kerry voted against funding our troops," whe
Re: (Score:1)
Never implied any of this stuff you've inferred, was only making an observation. Aside from the differences we've pointed out, still the crux of the situation remains: that it works both ways. That is, I think it's an entirely valid response to the rich idiot Liberal in my example, so likewise I have to feel that what the Obama admin. person said to Sen. Kyl was also essentially a valid response. Aside from all the related issues like misrepresentation, attempted abuse of power, etc., which of course I obje
Re: (Score:2)
the crux of the situation remains: that it works both ways
But that is entirely beside my point, since I wasn't making it about sides.
I have to feel that what the Obama admin. person said to Sen. Kyl was also essentially a valid response
Because it is a lie, it therefore is an invalid response.
Re: (Score:1)
But that is entirely beside my point, since I wasn't making it about sides.
That's okay, because my response wasn't intended to be directly on point (you pretty much said all there is to say about the angle you chose to write on, so anything I'd add that strictly adhered to your specific take would've been redundant), it was merely a related observation on the overall issue you brought up. It's called conversation.
LaHood (Score:1, Troll)
He was my congressman before he was appointed Transportation Secretary, so it isn't news to me. LaHood's a Republican, BTW. Funny, every time I hear my former congressman's name I think of the Clint Eastwood movie "Pale Rider".
LaHood actually wasn't a bad congressman, at least not if you lived in Illinois. IIRC I voted for him for Congress, so I guess I share part of the blame for him becoming transportation secretary.