Pay Back, Full Throttle

Probably the sweetest aspect of a Trump win for me is watching over and over and over, the whinny dems getting hoisted on their own petard. Crap that they pulled, much going against both protocol and decency while they had the power, the same tactics are being used against them, and oh and screaming. Yes, they are that shameless.

CM provided us with a link a few days ago describing how a heartless Trump was going to fire the US ambassadors on Inauguration Day, what a meany. What was not reported was that these same ambassadors were told a month in advance that they would be replaced. Then we find out that Obama did the exact same thing, firing all Bush ambassadors effective on Inauguration Day, crickets;

Why, it’s the most unyielding directive since … Barack Obama’s. Somehow the hyperventilating editorialists of the New York Times forgot that Obama did the exact same thing, notifying all of George W. Bush’s ambassadors that they had to vacate their posts by Inauguration Day.

Fox News recalls the Washington Post reporting the news in December 2008 without the slightest hint of disapproval, or a single heartstring-tugging anecdote about the difficulties faced by the ambassadors and their families:

But Obama took it a step further, populating his ambassador corps with big time donors to his campaign, his version of “pay to play”;

The people asked to vacate their posts by the Trump Administration are big Obama donors and political allies. In fact, career diplomats complained about how crass and obvious the “selling of public office” had become by Obama’s second term, as one former ambassador put it to the UK Guardian in 2013.

The Guardian ran the numbers and found the average amount of political cash raised by recent or imminent appointees “soaring to $1.8 million per post.” Some of them were far above that average, such as Obama’s choice for representative to the Court of St. James’s, Matthew Barzun, who personally donated $2.3 million to Obama’s re-election campaign and helped raise $700 million more. That wasn’t public knowledge, by the way; it was revealed when someone leaked Democrat Party records to the media.

Those notorious Democratic National Committee documents released by WikiLeaks had even more information on these politically appointed diplomats. “Essentially, Obama was auctioning off foreign ambassador positions and other office positions while Hillary Clinton served as Secretary of State,” charged the Observer last September.

We also learned this week that Chucky Schumer and his band of get alongs are planning to fight Trump on 8 of his cabinet picks, 8. Hell, the GOP even let a multi year tax cheater (Geithner) in as an Obama cabinet pick with little opposition.

Revealing their strategy (like it was some big time secret anyway), the GOP has decided to fast track the confirmations, holding six confirmations in one day, next Wednesday. Chucky did not like that;

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has personally urged Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) not to schedule simultaneous hearings on Trump’s selections, warning that such a move would test the new relationship between the two leaders. But the GOP ignored the entreaty by scheduling the attorney general, secretary of state, CIA director, education secretary, homeland security chief and transportation secretary all for the same day.

“Not acceptable. I’ve told that to Mitch McConnell,” Schumer said in an interview Thursday. “I don’t think my members would find what they did appropriate or acceptable … I talked to Sen. McConnell last night, we had a very good discussion. I am hopeful we can resolve this.”…

“They’ve made pretty clear they intend to slow down and resist and that doesn’t provide a lot of incentive or demonstrate good faith to negotiate changes. So I think we’re going to just be plowing ahead,” said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).

Gee, why would McConnell want to steam roll the opposition? Could it be that he was on the ass end of that same steam roll;

But it turns out this is very similar to what Democrats did in 2009, scheduling 7 confirmation hearings on a single day.

Goose, meet gander.

We have talked before about Harry Reid’s bullet to the head of the filibuster with his nuclear option. Schumer said last week that he now regretted Ried pulling such a stunt, no doubt, more dem tactics being used against them.

As the process unfolds, the dems keep making complete asses of themselves, complaining about behavior they wallowed in such a short time ago.

Right now the business at hand is taking care of business, full speed ahead and don’t even bother to clear the road kill, they would do the same to you.

Comments are closed.

  1. CM

    crickets;

    Huh? I hope you’re not meaning me, as I acknowledged it.

    Absolutely the Republicans should be able to do what the Democrats did. Of course if the Republicans screeched and hollered about it at the time that can rightly pointed out too, and then both sides are hypocrites (as if they weren’t many time over already).

    Thumb up 0

  2. CM

    Then we find out that Obama did the exact same thing, firing all Bush ambassadors effective on Inauguration Day, crickets;

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/06/politics/us-ambassadors-obama-trump/

    Or maybe it wasn’t the exact same thing after all.

    In keeping with standard practices, the White House requested and received resignations from all politically-appointed chiefs of mission shortly after Election Day, several senior State Department officials told CNN.
    But, in a break with precedent to consider grace periods on a case-by-case basis, a subsequent State Department cable sent last month to all non-career ambassadors instructed them to finish their service by January 20 “without exceptions,” the sources said.
    In 2009, Obama granted several exceptions to Bush-era political ambassadors for work or personal reasons.

    Thumb up 0

  3. AlexInCT

    The difference between what Obama did and how the DNC operatives with byline’s response then (they defended him) and what Trump is doing and the response from the DNC operatives with bylines (whining and pretending this is unprecedented) tells volumes.

    Trump is actually doing less of this sort of stuff than Obama did when he reminded us he won, but Trump doing it, at least to the dems and their operatives with bylines, is calamitous. Bunch of sanctimonious fanatical pricks with a massive case of double standards being dicks, is all this is. The sad part of all this is that this is just stuff to increase their own follower’s despair, because those of us not in that church simply are not going to find fault with any of this (that’s because there is none to be found, BTW). In fact, I relish the reaction from the butthurt babies.

    Thumb up 0

  4. richtaylor365 *

    Huh? I hope you’re not meaning me, as I acknowledged it.

    No, I did not mean you.

    Absolutely the Republicans should be able to do what the Democrats did. Of course if the Republicans screeched and hollered about it at the time that can rightly pointed out too, and then both sides are hypocrites

    Agree with caveats. If this kind of nonsense breaks precedent and is done principally to hamstring the opposition, then the party that did it first is more culpable. It’s like with the nuclear option in ramming through appointments, if the GOP does it now they are less culpable because Reid thought it up first and broke a time honored precedent first.

    An interesting article in the WSJ the other day written by Phil Gramm, the gist being that the GOP should restore the filibuster, not using the odious nuclear option, and just defund the parts of the Obama agenda they want changed. I think this is smarmy, letting it die on the vine instead of legally changing it the Constitutional way via the legislative body.

    Now, once Trump gets all of his initial appointments approved, if the congress wants their Come To Jesus moment and wants to outlaw the nuclear option, I would be OK with that.

    In 2009, Obama granted several exceptions to Bush-era political ambassadors for work or personal reasons.

    The link I provided mentioned Trump doing this as well.

    Thumb up 0

  5. CM

    I read through your Brietbart link again and don’t see a mention of exceptions, was it a different link?

    I thought the main confirmation issue was that the independent watchdog Office of Government Ethics say that several of Trump’s cabinet nominees with a complex financial interests still haven’t filed financial disclosures, and they have “potentially unknown or unresolved ethics issues.”? This is in addition to Trump himself, who refuses to disclose his assets, refuses to disclose his taxes, and refuses to put his holdings in a blind trust. But so long as it’s annoying the Dems, none of that apparently matters?

    Thumb up 0

  6. CM

    Oh I see, Priebus explains it here….https://youtu.be/h7Kk9VQQhmA

    The hypocrisy is mind-blowing. No need for background checks because they’ve been successful their whole lives? Jesus Christ. I mean… what if they’ve used an unsecured email server! What if they’ve spoken for pay at Goldman Sachs! What if they’ve received a blowjob from an intern! What if they have a cousin in Kenya!

    Thumb up 1

  7. AlexInCT

    You really think this is about the democrats being concerned about national security or criminal behavior after the recent revelations? Come on, dude, even you know this is about a desperate attempt to undermine Trump and make sure he can’t get any real work done. As I have already said: the left’s greatest fear right now is that Trump actually is successful. And it doesn’t take much more than not doing the same old and tired stupid shit the left keeps doing to be that.

    Do what the process requires and do what others have done in the past, no more and no less. Any new special requirements or stall tactics should be dismissed as obstructionism. The left is pissed that Trump now has that weaponized government they created over the past 8 years and will use that against them. My favorite recent revelation was Schumer saying that he regretted Reid passing the nuclear option and expected republicans would not invoke it. The left got to use it to circumvent the normal process, pushed some real bad policy through it, and rubbed everyone’s noses in it. But now that the roles are reversed, they suddenly don’t want republicans to use it. When they were warned this could happen if they activated it, they dismissed the concerns. Probably because they figured they would rig the game so no republican would ever win again. To their chagrin, now they find themselves in the minority and facing a majority with the weaponized government to use, and they want to now demand the other side not do what they did, and did with gusto.

    The hypocrisy indeed man.

    Thumb up 0

  8. CM

    Thanks for confirming – the issue wasn’t Obama’s standards, it was that your guy wasn’t there doing the same thing. It isn’t taking very long for that to inevitably reveal itself.

    Thumb up 0

  9. AlexInCT

    Thanks for confirming – the issue wasn’t Obama’s standards,

    What standards would that be? That he had a corrupt DOJ and the rest of the establishment letting him piss all over the constitution and break the law? Or do you mean that he promised transparency and then basically ran the most secret and vindictive administration ever? Maybe you mean the media cheering him on whenever he broke the law or pissed on the constitution? Or you could be talking about the constant lying. I am lucky I at least still have my doctor, but my premiums/deductibles for health insurance are up over 70% from 5 years ago, and I have far more I am responsible for. And so on.

    it was that your guy wasn’t there doing the same thing.

    When the media starts lying to cover for Trump pissing on the constitution and breaking the law, for real, I don’t mean their contrived and manufactured shit (like this red scare), you will see me all over both. Me, I have a feeling that what I will unfortunately be doing is defending Trump from a campaign of calumny and lies that will at a minimum match what they did to Boosh. I should start a pool for which reporter will be the first to try and pull a Dan Rather on Trump.

    It isn’t taking very long for that to inevitably reveal itself.

    What I see is you not understanding that the things you seem to expect us to be angry at Trump for are of no consequence to us. As I posted in my reply to Stogy: I find no fault with Trump not being PC or not allowing the left to define what he is allowed to do or not. To quote your guy: he won. The left weaponized government and let Obama do whatever he wanted with that, thinking Hillary would take over and you would just keep sticking it to the rest of us, and now they are demanding Trump not use that. As long as Trump uses that to roll back the shit Obama and the left have done, I will cheer. If he decides to out-Obama Obama, by doing tyrannical shit that impacts our freedoms (not to be confused with doing things that make immature leftists feel triggered), I will be the first to criticize him. But you will not get sympathy from me when he refuses to let the left now, after the fact they no longer hold power and are the ones taking advantage of the weaponized government they created, try and change the rules back to what they were before they rigged it and gave us the weaponized system we have today. At least not until he rolls back the Obama disaster.

    Thumb up 0

  10. CM

    Abusing people, including the disabled and others you have power over, is acceptable because it’s “not being pc”? Again, it just seems like a cowardly way to hide behind bad behaviour. It demonstrates significant weakness.

    Thumb up 0

  11. CM

    As you effectively suggest, you’ll find every reason not to criticise. He gives you way too much of a boner with all his childish abuse of anyone who dares question the king or anyone who is different.

    Thumb up 0

  12. stogy

    As you effectively suggest, you’ll find every reason not to criticise. He gives you way too much of a boner with all his childish abuse of anyone who dares question the king or anyone who is different.

    And let’s just pretend that he (and some others here) wouldn’t be screaming bloody murder if Putin had so obviously supported a candidate from the opposing side who had won. In fact, he’d be posting every rumor and half whisper here as if it were unassailable truth. And he’d be frothing at the mouth demanding a treason trial for the very candidate who in an election had called on “whoever is doing it” to go ahead and hack a US presidential election.

    Thumb up 0

  13. CM

    Nothing in the world is more obvious. And now they’re twisted themselves into pretzels to try and pretend they aren’t active Trump supporters.

    Or if an opposing candidate had gone so back on their fundamental election promises which were specifically designed to get those crucial votes…

    “Corruption has been one of the biggest talking points in this election. Politicians, with their nepotism and backdoor deals and million-dollar lunches, have become too corrupt. That’s why so many (i.e. the smallest minority of eligible voters) wanted an outsider like Trump to shake things up, a brave maverick who, unlike those dirty politicians, has no murky ties with big business. Those voters must be so happy to see that the next secretary of the Treasury used to be a partner at Goldman Sachs.

    You might assume that one of the criteria for being secretary of the Treasury is to be more interested in regulating Wall Street than ruthlessly profiting from it, but that’s super not the case for Steven Mnuchin. (The “u” and “i” are silent. We think.) Mnuchin worked for Goldman Sachs since leaving college, conveniently leaving the firm in 2002, right before it imploded. He then bought and rebranded a bank, now OneWest, which prided itself on robo-signing — which is basically filing false documents (or ignoring documentation completely) in order to foreclose on homes. His ownership of the bank quickly turned it into a “foreclosure machine” that had a knack for forcing people out of their houses (again, sometimes with incorrect paperwork).

    It’s kind of strange that Trump would appoint a 17-year Goldman Sachs executive who, as CNN put it, “profited from the housing meltdown,” considering Donald Trump’s previously aggressive stance on Wall Street and anyone involved with Goldman Sachs, particularly Ted Cruz and Hillary Clinton, both of whom Trump insisted were completely under Goldman Sachs’ control.

    But it’s even more strange when you realize that Gary Cohn, Trump’s pick for the head of the National Economic Council, currently works at Goldman Sachs as president and COO. (While we’re at it, Steve Bannon, Trump’s pick for White House chief strategist, also used to work for Goldman Sachs.) But how would Trump, a businessman, benefit from appointing a bunch of rich businessmen to important government positions? And now that we think about it, a lot of Trump’s picks were key donors to his campaign. It’s almost as if Trump is a pathological liar who misled millions of Americans in order to enrich himself and improve his businesses at the expense of the public office he now holds. A person beholden to his own financial interests and the financial interests of others. You know, a corrupt person.”

    http://www.cracked.com/article_24534_5-huge-and-under-reported-problems-with-trumps-cabinet.html

    How dare anyone question the need to question ethics?! SNOWFLAKES!

    Thumb up 0

  14. AlexInCT

    Nothing in the world is more obvious. And now they’re twisted themselves into pretzels to try and pretend they aren’t active Trump supporters.

    Oh the fucking irony….

    I only voted for Trump because I wanted Hillary to lose. It was nothing but a protest vote despite the fact that I found the anger the guy created on the left awesome. After that I was gonna not bother with him at all, but then the left went fucking bat shit crazy and abandoned even the appearance of sanity and decorum, and this bullshit has driven me to actually want to defend the guy and make sure he burns these douchebags as hard as possibly can. This tantrum and the bullshit (example you & Stogy here) is to blame not just for Trump’s election, but for people like me that might have not cared much to have a change of heart. This was all people like you blowing it. And all it took to keep us from caring and joining the people that realized how fucked up the left was was to be adults and fair. I know, impossible for spoiled children. Keep acting as if you hold the moral ground and then pants shit and show that double standard. The more people see this the quicker the fall of the left.

    Thumb up 0

  15. CM

    I only voted for Trump because I wanted Hillary to lose.

    She was always going to win your state. You could have voted third party or not voted at all knowing it made no difference whatsoever. However you chose to actively vote for the guy regardless. I.e., like Rich, you’re an active Trump supporter. And now he’s PEOTUS you no longer have to compare him to Hillary, or Obama for that matter (given that you cried like a little baby anytime anyone mentioned Bush in the same sentence as Obama).

    After that I was gonna not bother with him at all, but then the left went fucking bat shit crazy and abandoned even the appearance of sanity and decorum, and this bullshit has driven me to actually want to defend the guy and make sure he burns these douchebags as hard as possibly can.

    You’ll excuse me for calling BULLSHIT on that – you were always going to defend him. Not doing so would have been contrary to everything. Attempt to back-fill all you want, you’re not kidding anyone.

    Thumb up 0

  16. AlexInCT

    She was always going to win your state. You could have voted third party or not voted at all knowing it made no difference whatsoever.

    Ah I see your reasoning now. Since Trump had no chance I should have just stayed home! What part of I was voting against Hillary didn’t you get? I am neither math or mentally challenged. Voting Third party was not going to happen because Johnson had Weld on his ticket and Weld is a fan of Hillary. I wanted to be able to say I voted AGAINST Hillary, and you did that by voting Trump. The reactions I get from leftists here tells me I did the right thing.

    However you chose to actively vote for the guy regardless. I.e., like Rich, you’re an active Trump supporter. 

    I certainly am now after the left went full retard. So are many others. And it is why I am hoping the left keeps what they are doing. It is the best thing for people that might have previously not cared to rally to Trump like I now did. I guess I should thank you for making me care again.

    And now he’s PEOTUS you no longer have to compare him to Hillary, or Obama for that matter (given that you cried like a little baby anytime anyone mentioned Bush in the same sentence as Obama).

    I compare him multiple times a day. And every day he trolls the fucking left and acts, my esteem for him goes up. The more unhinged the left gets, the more I like him. All he has to do is be mediocre and he will make Obama look like Cater redux. And Hillary is a fucking monster. I have faith that like Gore did after he could not steal the 2000 election she will also show she is batshit crazy and people will sigh in relief that she didn’t win.

    You’ll excuse me for calling BULLSHIT on that – you were always going to defend him. 

    Against the lies from the left, like I did before the election? Yes, you are correct, but I was not going to do so with much gusto. After the tantrum being thrown I have reconsidered and now I will be doing it with gusto. Whether you believe me or not won’t matter a bit to me. The thing is that you are one of the people that was integral to me reaching the point I have. The more unhinged and stupid the left gets, the more I like the man. Keep it up. I might actually start wishing that he actually does to the left what Hillary wanted to do to the rest of us.

    Thumb up 0

  17. CM

    You were an active supporter before the election. Voting for him just proved it. It would have been completely bizarre if you hadn’t. I remarked at the time that as the likelihood of Trump being the GOP candidate grew you and Rich noticeably changed your tunes towards him (you certainly more than Rich but both certainly noticeable). And it wasn’t just in an anti-Hillary context, there were strident defences where Hillary had no bearing or relevance . Contrast that to someone like Hal who most certainly did not.

    Well, every time you do the comparison you’re simply reinforcing your hypocrisy. But then it’s clear that you have little interest in portraying yourself as such.

    You defend based on where the attack comes from, rather than the nature and veracity of the attack? Well yes, that’s obvious. It also speaks volumes. Good on you for admitting it. I guess. And also that you’ll be defending him “with gusto”. Does that mean you will be dispensing with the pretense that you’d be doing anything else?

    The thing is, your defences are always so terrible and devoid of facts or substance (so you could just what Trump says verbatim). But it’s ocassionally entertaining (when you’re not just copying and pasting one of your few stump rants). But the big bonus of Trump winning us that at least it changes things up – instead of attacking to the point of obessession, you’ll be defending to the same degree (and blaming Obama, naturally).

    Thumb up 0

  18. AlexInCT

    You were an active supporter before the election.

    No, I was an actively opposed to a Clinton presidency, and thus, forced to defend Trump from calumny, lies and downright fabrications, guy. You know, that fake news shit. There is a distinction there even if your strawman requires you to ignore that fact. What you are right about however, is that behavior from the left and the way you have responded here for sure, have now pushed me from mildly interested in making sure he is successful to totally committed to do so. I suspect I am not alone in this switch across the country.

    Thumb up 0