The Bulwark: Morning Shots

Charlie Sykes column this morning is a great read for those open minded enough to think so. For those not so inclined, read it anyway and maybe (though not likely), you will find something to bemoan.

Topics include: The AZ GOP recount (Addressed in another post)

Santorum’s idiotic historical ignorance. “He might also benefit from learning something about this: How the Iroquois Great Law of Peace Shaped U.S. Democracy

Liz Cheney being completely honest. (Nice to see SOMEONE in the GOP doing that)

90% meat reduction bullshittery, including Fox News’ John Roberts’ (but notably NOT Larry Kudlow) retraction

One copy of a book does NOT equal handing out COPIES to migrant children

Biden’s proposals’ popularity among ALL polled

RAP grades

Enjoy! Or not. But I do recommend taking a hard, open minded look at what he has to say.

17 thoughts on “The Bulwark: Morning Shots

  1. An opinion is an opinion. Being mouthy while calling people crazy, loons or other names in your column doesnt help your credibility much especially while barking about things of little relevancy or significance. So what. Is this what burns your little tooshy in the morning that is so enjoyable or don’t you have something better to do? Or maybe it’s deep fear that the parents will take over Congress again in 2022.


    1. I haven’t stopped laughing at you since I read this post in my email. If you don’t see the hypocrisy in your own statements, it just proves how truly blind you are to the realities of the world.

      And sorry to say, but the adults are in power and if there is a shift in 2022, it is because the whiny potty mouthed children of 45 got their way.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Hypocrisy? Why I make the same Sykes observations in your writing all the time, full of direct name calling. However, we are not public columnists who are expected to be a lot more tempered and not throw childish temper tantrums in print over trivial matters.
        No, the parents are definitely not in charge right now. It’s a bunch of babies throwing around daddy’s credit card buying votes in the phony name of “equity”. And YOU buy it hook, line and sinker…


        1. Your hypocrisy has to do with other name callers on your side of the world, not Sykes. Who, by the way USED to be on the same side of the world as you until you all picked up your 45-logoed basketballs and went screaming off into the night because the rest of America told you you are full of shit.

          And as far as who you think the adults in the room are, I will refer you to the idiot Santorum who has so idea about American history, Mitch McConnell who has more more Chinese money as his disposal than an actual Chinese citizen, Tucker Carlson who proves how idiotic it is to be a 45 toady and Ron Johnson who is more dangerous than a liberal with an AR-15, and Kevin McCarthy who tries to rewrite recent history with every statement believing that people will believe him if he keeps telling the same BS story over and over.

          And another touch of your own hypocrisy comes screaming out when you talk about “buying votes”. 45 bloated the deficit and you CHREEDED him on. Don’t even go there. jack rabbit.

          Liked by 1 person

  2. It’s not like after the AZ recount Biden will be evicted from the White House, so, unless there is fraud that will lead to prosecution, I have to wonder why the Democrats are so afraid of the AZ audit.


    1. No one fears the recount. And Sykes is far from being a Democrat. You really did miss the point of his commentary on it. Too bad for you.

      And why don’t you wonder why the GOP is conducting ANOTHER recount when the votes have been counted and recounted 4 times? Or why they hired a consultancy firm with ZERO experience in elections or tabulating and that they were part and parcel in spreading the BIG LIE of voter fraud that has permeated the 2020 election since before the first ballot was even cast.

      Instead of asking a question that has already been answered, why don’t you ask THOSE questions.

      Liked by 1 person

        1. Desperately seeking fraud that has been proven by numerous recounts NOT to have occurred. And why only Maricopa county? Because it is heavily Democratic?

          You just can accept facts. And neither can those who continue to live breath and eat the Big Lie because they have been completely and totally duped by the greatest con man ever to sit in the Oval Office.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Maricopa county is 2/3rds of the votes.

            And even though it is unlikely to change election results, any fraudulent activity needs to be exposed and prosecuted. Even if it is just one vote.


          2. The only fraudulent votes have been FOR 45. Even a GOP Rep in PA said all of the fraud in that commonwealth was perpetrated by GOP voters.

            I sure do hope you call for the prosecution of those fraudulent votes with the same zeal you seem to throw at Democratic votes

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “I expect they will find it.”

          Uh, it is not an audit. It is a joke to be carried out by hyper-partisan hacks. From a legal point of view they have ALREADY destroyed any possibility of any legal action through their incompetent hackery.

          As for YOUR expectations, you think Donald Trump is a successful and honest businessman victimized by the Deep State “Russia Hoax” and that President Biden is the incarnation of corruption kept in power only by the whim of the Chinese Communist Party. Therefore, from anything but an entertainment point of view, YOUR expectations are “not worth a bucket of warm piss.” Good for a laugh though.

          Liked by 1 person

    2. I am a Democrat. I am not afraid of what his so-called recount will find. But, I still believe that it is a bad thing that no one who loves this country should support. You disagree. You think hiring partisan hacks to discredit election results is – what – harmless? Well, since you have made it clear how much you detest democracy maybe you think ANYTHING no matter how bogus that discredits it is a good thing?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I think that if there was criminal activity in the election, it should be exposed and prosecuted, and that if there wasn’t, then that should be confirmed to everyone’s satisfaction.


        1. They are using criminals to find criminal activity.

          How many fucking (sorry, but it has gotten incredibly stupid) recounts will it take to convince the inconvincible that there was NO FRAUD????

          Your untethered excuse making for this garbage is why no one trusts the results of the “most fair and secure” election in history.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. How many AZ recounts were there not under control of the Democrats or the election officials under suspicion?

            Were they simple recounts or audits?

            And repeating the “fair and secure” line does not make it true. In many states, the election was carried out contrary to their own laws. It is neither fair nor secure when the rules are changed in the middle of the game


          2. “And repeating the “fair and secure” line does not make it true.”

            Same goes for the Big Lie. At least there is evidence and factual statements by officials, of BOTH PARTIES, that “fair and secure” is truthful.

            The loss of trust in the process is, has been, and continues to be brought on by those who are upset that TFG lost, bigly. According to him, the only way that would happen was massive cheating…WHICH DID NOT HAPPEN.

            ” It is neither fair nor secure when the rules are changed in the middle of the game”

            The Supreme Court tells you to pack sand. And it wasn’t in the middle of the game; it was in the middle of a pandemic.


        2. If rooting out and prosecuting criminal activity was REALLY the goal, then the AZ GOP has chosen the worse possible way to achieve it when they engaged notoriously partisan hacks to perform the “audit.”

          And by the, all McCarthyite neo-fascists should learn that “accusations” do not equal “suspicions” as, for example, when they refer to “election officials under suspicion?”

          Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s