Nut-Job Of the Day: Dana Perino!

by Ben Hoffman

Right-wingers are getting nuttier every day. Dana Perino made the claim on Sean “the angry nut-job” Hannity that we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during Bush’s presidency.

On Fox News, the former press secretary suggested President Obama was playing politics by refusing to describe the massacre at Fort Hood as a terrorist attack. “We should call it what it is,” she said.

“We did not have a terrorist attack on our country during President Bush’s term,” she told Sean Hannity. “I hope they’re not looking at this politically. I do think that we owe it to the American people to call it what it is.”

What the hell was she talking about? George H.W. Bush’s term? We’ve heard Cheney make the claim that the Bush’s policies kept us safe for eight years, which also denies the attack on 9/11. These people think they can just make crap us and it will be fact. The fact is, they can make crap up and people will repeat it as fact, but that doesn’t make it so.

Obama has nominated Dana Perino to serve on the Broadcasting Board of Governors. That nomination needs to be retracted and Obama needs to stop trying to appease these nut-jobs.

Posted on November 25, 2009 at 10:21 AM in Politics | RSS feed | Reply | Trackback URL

23 Comments to “Nut-Job Of the Day: Dana Perino!”

sleepygirl
November 25, 2009 at 10:47 AM

Wow…after 8 years of hearing the Republicans invoke 9/11 as their reason for everything, now they’ve forgotten about it? What is this??

Reply
steve
November 25, 2009 at 12:39 PM

Anyone with a lick of sense knows that the lady wasn’t intentionally denying 9/11. Liberal are so quick to jump on any mistake made by the right wing ‘nut-jobs’; but not nary a word about the lunacy and fraud and lies and deceit contintually spouted by his ‘lowness’ Obama concerning his fabricated ‘saved jobs’ and ‘created jobs’; climate change; providing health care for millions without it costing anything; etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. In the mean time Obama’s approval numbers are declining faster than just about any other president in … what’s that?…oh, 50 years.

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  November 25, 2009 at 3:02 PM
  
  What was she saying then? I don’t have the right-wing nut-job to English translation.
  
  Reply
- Moe
  November 27, 2009 at 6:18 PM
  
  terrorism, 9/11, 2 wars . . . EIGHT YEARS (and let’s not forget Anthrax Dana!) Sorry, any comparison with the 10 months of this administration is empty. And Steve, you know very well, that criticism of Obama is now very loud in the left blogshpere as well as in press, Olbermann, Maddow etc. Mostly to do with economic policy.
  
  Reply
Alan Scott
November 25, 2009 at 3:07 PM

Steve,

If I had been Obama, I actually would have tamped down the expectations when I won the election. He was the post partisan, most partisan, post racial, most racial President in history.

He would solve the world’s problems by being the UnBush. The sea levels would stop rising, the world would love us, after he apologized for Bush. Unemployment would not go above 8% if the porkulus was passed. He would go line by line in the budget to get rid of earmarks. The most transparent administration in history. No lobbyists in his Cabinet.

The man has totally failed to meet his promises. And you know what, it’s still Bush’s fault. Three years from now when he runs for reelection it will still be Bush’s fault. Also the Congressional Republicans will be blamed for being the party of NO, even though they haven’t got the votes to stop anything the President wants.

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  November 25, 2009 at 3:40 PM
  
  [He would solve the world’s problems by being the UnBush.]
  
  His biggest fault so far is continuing a lot of the failed policies of the Bush administration.
  
  [The sea levels would stop rising,]
  
  Just because he is able to walk on water, that doesn’t mean he can stop the sea levels from rising. 🙂
  
  [the world would love us,]
  
  The world loves us a lot more now than they did under the Bush administration.
  
  [Unemployment would not go above 8% if the porkulus was passed.]
  
  That was a forecast, not a promise. (You lie!)
  
  [He would go line by line in the budget to get rid of earmarks.]
  
  You just made that one up.
  
  [The most transparent administration in history.]
  
  Got any proof it’s not?
  
  [No lobbyists in his Cabinet.]
  
  It’s hard to ban lobbyists when almost everyone qualified for the jobs have been lobbyists.
  
  [And you know what, it’s still Bush’s fault.]
  
  Obama hasn’t even been in office a year. The economy, the two wars, the debt and deficit ARE Bush’s fault.
  
  [Three years from now when he runs for reelection it will still be Bush’s fault.]
  
  Obama will be judged on how he addressed the problems he inherited as well as health insurance reform.
  
  Reply
Alan Scott
November 25, 2009 at 7:19 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

“[Unemployment would not go above 8% if the porkulus was passed.]

That was a forecast, not a promise. (You lie!)”

Well then ole Obama did a lot of forecasting. Will you ever stop coming up with excuses? The President says a lot that turns out to be incorrect.

“[He would go line by line in the budget to get rid of earmarks.]

You just made that one up.”

I did not make this up, although in your typical Obama word parsing method, you will say the man only promised to reform budget ear marks. To me it is the same thing. This is why I call him Obullshizter.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/mar/02/john-boehner/spending-bill-wasnt-candidate-obamas-type-boehner-/

“here’s Obama in the first presidential debate : “Absolutely, we need earmark reform. And when I’m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.””

He is worse than a used car salesman. He talks with just enough ambiguity to give himself an out. Beware the fine print.

“[The most transparent administration in history.]

Got any proof it’s not?”

Well here’s one on TARP.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/podcast-interview-with-inspector-general-for-tarp-treasury-department-is-not-being-transparent.html

What about PROMISING, uuhh I mean FORECASTING that he would post Bills online for 5 days before signing them in to law. This is from the NYTimes,, so don’t impeach my source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/22/us/politics/22pledge.html

“Five months into his administration, Mr. Obama has signed two dozen bills, but he has almost never waited five days. ”

You said,”Just because he is able to walk on water, that doesn’t mean he can stop the sea levels from rising. :)”

Anyone can walk on water. As long as it’s frozen.

“[No lobbyists in his Cabinet.]

It’s hard to ban lobbyists when almost everyone qualified for the jobs have been lobbyists.”

Listen,, your side repeatedly says that the American public voted for Obama. They voted for him to do what he is doing. Well they also voted for him on his promises. Which he keeps breaking.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/10/white-house-discloses-two_n_173718.html

” On February 20 the administration signed waivers for Jocelyn Frye, former general counsel at the National Partnership for Women & Families, and Cecilia Muñoz, the former senior vice president for the National Council of La Raza, allowing them to work on issues for which they lobbied.”

I ask you, how can you trust anything President Obama says? Everything is a forecast. He is fast losing his credibility. Once it’s gone, it’s gone.

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  November 26, 2009 at 8:18 PM
  
  [Listen,, your side repeatedly says that the American public voted for Obama. They voted for him to do what he is doing. Well they also voted for him on his promises. Which he keeps breaking.]
  
  No, we voted for him because of his plan to handle the tanking economy. So far, we’ve not gone into a depression and the economy is showing signs of recovery. Part of that can be attributed to the stimulus bill.
  
  We also voted for him for his pragmatic approach to foreign policy (or I did, anyway). Rather than just try to kill as many people as possible, Obama has taken time to formulate a strategy — something Bush never did in over seven years.
  
  We also voted for him to reform health insurance, which he is doing, and has gotten farther than any president in U.S. history.
  
  We voted for Obama to handle things like national disasters and appoint competent people to positions of leadership.
  
  We voted for Obama to put more importance on intelligence and diplomacy, and less on bombing.
  
  And we voted for Obama because John McCain obviously put his party before our country during the election.
  
  As far as his administration being the most transparent in history, while there may be some broken promises, it is still relatively transparent.
  
  Reply
The Conservative Biker
November 27, 2009 at 12:40 PM

You are clueless.

Reply
Alan Scott
November 27, 2009 at 6:11 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

“No, we voted for him because of his plan to handle the tanking economy. So far, we’ve not gone into a depression and the economy is showing signs of recovery. Part of that can be attributed to the stimulus bill.”

I will give him credit for continuing the Bush policy of stabilizing the Banking industry. That is about it. He made the situation worse than it would have been with his business bashing. Prove it? One small example. They really love your hero Obama out in Las Vegas. The way he single handedly killed their Convention business.

As far as the stimulus bill, much of the money has not been spent, the rest has been misspent. If you look at where your Democratic leadership said the money was going, and then where it went, the twain have not met. I can see it in my State of Pa. A lot of stimulus money went to bailing out State and local governments and their employees, which happen to have a lot of public service union employees. Guess who they voted for, and who they send their union dues to?

All well and good, but again that was not where the money was intended to go. Do you see a pattern?

“We also voted for him for his pragmatic approach to foreign policy (or I did, anyway). Rather than just try to kill as many people as possible, Obama has taken time to formulate a strategy — something Bush never did in over seven years.”

That is pretty speech. What you call pragmatic, I call weak. What you call taking time to make a decision, I call indecision. Also saying that Bush’s policy was to kill as many people as possible is simply untrue. Our military under Bush showed amazing ability to minimize civilian deaths, even while our enemies fired on our soldiers from Mosques and from behind human shields.

“We voted for Obama to handle things like national disasters and appoint competent people to positions of leadership.”

So far this has not been tested very much. The only thing that comes to mind was the Somali Pirate event. I will give the President credit for making the decision to kill the pirates to free the captain. I’d like to see more of that and quicker.

“And we voted for Obama because John McCain obviously put his party before our country during the election.”

You have to explain that one because I don’t have a clue.

“As far as his administration being the most transparent in history, while there may be some broken promises, it is still relatively transparent.”

I believe that if the economy and foreign policy continue to flat line, the Obama administration is going to be more relatively opaque than transparent.

Reply
- Moe
  November 27, 2009 at 6:30 PM
  
  [Our military under Bush showed amazing ability to minimize civilian deaths, even while our enemies fired on our soldiers from Mosques and from behind human shields.]
  
  Most of them were civiilians. Just sayin’.
  
  Reply
- Moe
  November 27, 2009 at 6:31 PM
  
  [So far this has not been tested very much. The only thing that comes to mind was the Somali Pirate event. I will give the President credit for making the decision to kill the pirates to free the captain. I’d like to see more of that and quicker.]
  
  Remember the fighter jet and airman taken into custody by the Chinese when Bush had been in office about 6 months? WE got them back. But it cost us some serious humiliation. just sayin.
  
  Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  November 27, 2009 at 10:59 PM
  
  Here’s another one. The Bush administration released captured terrorist Ali al-Shihri to Saudi Arabia in 2007. He has since escaped and is now an al-Qaeda leader, responsible for the deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen as well as other murders of Americans.
  
  Reply
Alan Scott
December 4, 2009 at 4:24 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

“Here’s another one. The Bush administration released captured terrorist Ali al-Shihri to Saudi Arabia in 2007. He has since escaped and is now an al-Qaeda leader, responsible for the deadly attack on the U.S. Embassy in Yemen as well as other murders of Americans.”

So was Bush too easy or too harsh on those ” terrorist ” men who caused those ” man made disasters “?

I mean he ran those torture chambers, so he must have been too harsh. But he let some go who later killed Americans. So he must have been too soft on the guys who caused the ” man made disasters “.

So which of the ” man made disasters ” is more pressing at the moment, terrorism or GLOBAL WARMING? It’s kinda funny that for a change, Barak Obama seems to agree more with Bush than Al Gore. $Billions and 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan and virtually nothing to appease the Europeans in Copenhagen.

Who would have thunk it?

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  December 4, 2009 at 7:48 PM
  
  [So was Bush too easy or too harsh on those ” terrorist ” men who caused those ” man made disasters “?]
  
  Neither. He was inept.
  
  Reply
Alan Scott
December 6, 2009 at 1:38 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

”

Neither. He was inept.”

Again with the projection. So far your guy has had bad results. His promises, I mean predictions have failed, just as his promises, I mean predictions of controlling health care costs will fail.

3 years from now when his policies will have at best mixed results, he will take credit for small improvements and you will still be blaming Bush for his failures.

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  December 6, 2009 at 2:05 PM
  
  [So far your guy has had bad results.]
  
  There’s a big problem with right-wingers. They see politics as a game: your guy against my guy. It’s not a game, Alan. The policies of our presidents have real consequences, and when we get someone who makes decisions based purely on gut instinct, as Bush did, the consequences are dire.
  
  Your judgments on Obama are base on your predictions, which are based on biased information. I wouldn’t put any money on them.
  
  Reply
Alan Scott
December 9, 2009 at 2:50 PM

Mr. Hoffman,

“The policies of our presidents have real consequences, and when we get someone who makes decisions based purely on gut instinct, as Bush did, the consequences are dire.”

Could you perhaps give me an example of this?

Reply
- dorian
  December 9, 2009 at 3:46 PM
  
  mr. scott,
  
  i’d like to give the example to this:
  
  “The policies of our presidents have real consequences, and when we get someone who makes decisions based purely on gut instinct, as Bush did, the consequences are dire.”
  
  example: “sadam hussein was the perpetrator to 9/11 and they have weapons of mass destruction. let’s invade iraq.”
  
  although that came to mr. bush’s gut passed on by rumsfeld’s and cheney’s gut, the executive order still has to come from the presidential gut.
  
  Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  December 9, 2009 at 5:32 PM
  
  Here’s an article about it:
  
  http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html
  
  Reply
dorian
December 9, 2009 at 7:27 PM

a spot-on article.

Reply
Alan Scott
December 15, 2009 at 7:43 PM

This is from the opening commentary of this thread.

“Dana Perino made the claim on Sean “the angry nut-job” Hannity that we did not have a terrorist attack on our country during Bush’s presidency.”

You Liberals are always painting us Conservatives as angry, racist, white folks who will not compromise or get along with our historic President and his inclusive Congressional allies. We are the crazy, mad, gun toting haters. You guys are Polar Bear loving, peaceful, non confrontational, good guys.

Well never cross a Liberal, especially if you used to be one. Look at how the peace loving Liberals are going after Senator Lieberman’s wife.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/calling-on-ellen-degenere_b_391183.html

These rabies filled Liberals make the Tea Party folks seem like teddy bears.

Reply
- Ben Hoffman
  December 15, 2009 at 8:09 PM
  
  [You guys are Polar Bear loving, peaceful, non confrontational, good guys.]
  
  You forgot “cumbaya singing.” 🙂
  
  [Look at how the peace loving Liberals are going after Senator Lieberman’s wife.]
  
  Lieberman is blocking health insurance reform that could save thousands and thousands of lives, not to mention keeping people’s lives from being destroyed due to hospital costs. It’s a bit hypocritical for cancer research activists to support him or his wife after that. It would be like the Peace Corp donating to a Lynne Cheney fund.
  
  Reply

	dentist kanata hazel… on Are Republicans Really The Par…
	Forex Charts on Are Republicans Really The Par…
	Http://Evcnitttrc.In on Are Republicans Really The Par…
	Www.Legi.cnrs.Fr on Are Republicans Really The Par…
	Ufa357 on Are Republicans Really The Par…

DRUDGE RETORT

Search Drudge Retort

Categories

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll