Surprise... Crowds were smaller and Trump threw a tantrum.
CNN Inauguration Crowd Size
CNN Pray, Visit CIA, Attack Media
Congratulations ladies for showing up.
CNN Women's March
ST 90,000 March in St Paul
This compares... CNN Friday vs Saturday
CNN Inauguration Crowd Size
CNN Pray, Visit CIA, Attack Media
Congratulations ladies for showing up.
CNN Women's March
ST 90,000 March in St Paul
This compares... CNN Friday vs Saturday
70 comments:
of course I was there. I arrived early enough to be near the starting point, which turned out to be near the back of the march by the time 80,000 other people showed up. After nearly an hour of standing around in a march that was barely moving we escaped that mass of people and made it to the capital grounds by another route in time to listen to most of the speakers and musicians.
I also made it to the Mpls protest on Friday afternoon, which was much more of a typical MN protest march with a crowd estimated at 2,000 people. The Friday night crowd was much better at chanting than the massive crowd at the women's march. Both marches had tons of really fun signs to read. It was good to see MN well represented in this historic event.
From MP Carnage
"We are participants in a grand psychological experiment.
A person with many of the signs of classic narcissism is in charge of our country. They have fixed opinion of what is reality and are reflexively vicious toward people who view the world in a different way.
For instance--how many people attended his inauguration--a world-record number of people or fewer than the last three or four ?
Easily estimated, but his press secretary is sent out to berate the media for their lies and their lying photos. Especially enraging on a day when far more come out to protest our leader's statements and proposed policies.
What will happen over the next four years.?" Neal
"Now I agree that Trump has no problem lying and vilifying the folks who call him out, I am not sure why he does this or why so many people still seem to believe him. I have seen this behavior to a lesser degree from many upper level managers. They seem to believe if they voice their vision of reality enough times, people will begin to believe them. And sometimes this is with positive intent, like the coach telling the losing team at half time that things are bleak but they can still pull out the victory.
However I find this sentence fascinating: "They have fixed opinion of what is reality and are reflexively vicious toward people who view the world in a different way."
After 8 years of listening to the Left viciously attacking folks on the Right, I am just fascinated that someone would say this with a straight face? Maybe this is a psychological experiment to determine how far we humans can go into our own bubbles and de-humanize folks in other bubbles. While believing that we are in some way better and more clear headed.
As for carnage... I do not know what his thoughts were, however remember that there is a reason why so many previously democratic voters went for Trump. Like canaries in the coal mine they know that something is terribly wrong with the system and change is needed. Obama promised change but doubled down on more government, taxes, regulations, etc. It will be interesting to see if they get what they want." G2A
Laurie,
Sounds fun. Did you get any sense that they will be able to do anything to get the Democrats to start focusing on all Americans and not just the "Urban Down Trodden"?
Lot of people suffer from what I call "rabbit ears". They hear what people are thinking, and not necessarily saying. I read here and elsewhere that non liberals feel they have been attacked personally a lot. I have never quite seen that but then such attacks aren't directed at me so I suppose I am less affected by them. I have to say the attacks that are directed at me don't register much at all. I watch a fair amount of conservative media and often hear people like me criticized. And why not? We can be real pains sometimes. What I would not like to be criticized for is allowing my views to be altered in any way simply because I was the target of an attack I might think personal, whether it was intended that way or not.
--Hiram
When I hear conservatives complain about the awful things we say about them, I have the suspicion that it's more a case of hearing what we they suspect we are thinking rather than what we are actually saying. We are, after all, politically correct and one of the things that means is that we aren't supposed to say what we really think.
One of the things that many of us think, but aren't supposed to say because it reeks of McCarthyism is that our Republican friends got fooled into electing a Russian agent of influence as president of the United States. Since we can't really prove that, let's do what Republicans do; make that politically explosive charge in the form of a joke, one we can deny later. That's what Saturday Night Live did last night:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/22/snls-vladimir-putin-is-not-impressed-with-president-trumps-first-propaganda-effort/?tid=sm_tw_pp&utm_term=.390029ad423e&wprss=rss_the-fix
Now rest assured, we didn't really mean it. It's just a series of jokes. Just like that cutout of Hillary Clinton showing her in a prison outfit was intendended as humorous. You do have a sense of humor, don't you?
--Hiram
WP SNL The Fix
And yes I find the SNL skits funny.
SNL Putin Comments on Trump
What I did not find humorous were all the times rural and suburban GOP voters were labelled as misogynists, xenophobes, irredeemables, bigots, etc, etc, etc.
about "start focusing on all Americans" what does this even mean? Can you give an example of what this would be? I believe providing healthcare to twenty million more Americans included millions of the rural people you seem to be alluding to.
The millions who marched yesterday made me hopeful for 2018 for taking back the house or the senate, though it will be tough. We have a better chance of winning governor again and taking back the MN legislature. DO we elect 1/3 of the state senate each election?
About the signs yesterday, they covered pretty much everything, reproductive rights were noticeable, as was love/inclusion, as were many hilarious anti trump signs. My favorite was a well drawn picture of Trump grabbing the statue of Liberty in the Pussy area.
What I did not find humorous were all the times rural and suburban GOP voters were labelled as misogynists, xenophobes, irredeemables, bigots, etc, etc, etc
I don't take that stuff personally myself. The fact is, those charges are often turned around on us, and I have never been bothered by it. Republicans, for example, point out the Democratic Party's long history of racism. We are, after all, the party that supported slavery.My party was on the wrong side of the Civil War. Should I be offended by that? It is certainly true, after all. I can tell you, I never have been.
Some folks have called us misogynists. That is one that hurts a bit personally. I spent many hours defending Bill Clinton, a position that could very fairly be called misogynistic. Should I resent a charge being made that I fully understand is not entirely unfair? Should I somehow blame people for who make it?
Xenophobe. I actually had to look that one up. It means fear of the foreign. Speaking for myself, I am terrified of foreigners. It is a trait hardly limited to Republicans or conservatives. Again, should I be unduly resentful of a charge that has more than a tinge of truth?
As I have said, I watch conservative media all the time. I have been told that a war is being waged against me. That I am an evil person headed for perdition. I have been frequently informed that I am personally responsible for much death and destruction. Fully aware as I am of all these charges, I can tell you quite truthfully that I couldn't care less. They just aren't personal. They are normal by play in this particular era of politics? Why is it Republicans and conservatives claim to see them so differently?
--Hiram
My only takeaway from watching those wacko demonstrators is how thankful they should be to live in this country. I believe there are many countries in the world where that behavior would keep them "out of the rain" for a very long time. I was especially amused to hear Nancy Pelosi say Trump wants to "make America sick again." Talk about humor. Hey, Nancy, we "found out what's in it"!
If these demonstrations are any predictor, the 2018 and 2020 elections are all but over for Democrats. They will be able to hold their raucous conventions in a phone booth.
More than 3 million wackos, interesting. Of all the people I know who strongly disapprove of Trump and the GOP, very few turned out to demonstrate yesterday (my sister was one who was in DC) . The "wacko demonstrators" ate the tip of the iceberg.
If these demonstrations are any predictor, the 2018 and 2020 elections are all but over for Democrats
Should we have election in 2018 and 2020, I don't think Democrats have any chance of winning them.
--Hiram
"Should we have election in 2018 and 2020," interesting.
"I don't think Democrats have any chance of winning them" Why so pessimistic and does this pessimism apply to Minnesota elections?
Laurie,
From my perspective, the Democratic party has spent decades obsessing over how to force our society to fully accept LGBTQ behaviors, how to raise taxes to enable people who make poor choices, how to over regulate many things, how to support Light Rail, feeding the Race discord in our country, how to support Illegal Workers, etc.
While spending almost no time concerning themselves with normal working Americans. Hopefully they will learn.
Hiram,
And yet Liberal folks like Neal can still say silly things like...
"They have fixed opinion of what is reality and are reflexively vicious toward people who view the world in a different way."
After folks in his group have been doing it for years... I just find it sadly ironic...
Jerry,
Why is it so hard for Trump and his supporters like yourself to accept that he is on thin ice?
He actually had the WH Press Secretary call an emergency press briefing so that he could lie to them and us... What is he thinking?
Does he think we can't read subway ride numbers, see aerial photos, etc?
If he wants to focus on policy, then tell him to start telling us what is in Trump Care...
Laurie,
I think Trump is going to do wonderful things for the Democratic Party if he does not grow up and start acting Presidential ASAP. He is going to have so many people angry at him after 2 years that the party associated with him will be booted.
Of course the Democrats also need their focus away from the fringes and start focusing on the majority of citizens... Can they do that? Are they even open to doing that?
"They have fixed opinion of what is reality and are reflexively vicious toward people who view the world in a different way."
Given that reality is fixed, it's not surprising that people have fixed views about it. Concerning the viciousness of people, I think of all those folks who claim they are at war with me, who think I am in league with the devil. I find those attitudes fairly vicious I suppose, but should that viciousness matter to me? Isn't the real issue, not whether people are vicious toward me, but rather whether their opinions are right?
--Hiram
More from MP Carnage
"I think Neal was referring specifically to the behavior of narcissists with his statement, "They have a fixed opinion of what is reality and are reflexively vicious toward people who view the world in a different way."
That would be people who hold firm to their vision of reality despite clear evidence to the contrary. Their self-image based on claims such as,"I am the richest man in the world" (while staring at a 1040 that indicates $30,000) or "my concert sold out the Target Center" while viewing footage of a half-empty lower bowl, is so important to them that they will lash out at those who present them with the evidence.
To me this is a far cry from you and I calling each other stupid because we disagree on Sunday liquor sales or some other debatable Left/Right issue.
It's also different from managers trying to get people to buy in to their vision because, no matter how wacky that vision is, it's usually a roadmap to potential success that has not yet been clearly disproven." Ed
"I understand, but unfortunately Trump's bad habit of belittling and attacking people who believe differently than himself just seems to be the norm for our society at this time. Both the folks on the Left and Right do it regularly while complaining the "the other side" is doing it... Look at Clinton's name calling of Trump voters during the campaign. How did this become socially acceptable?
I truly wish Trump would focus nearly exclusively on that vision, instead of getting distracted often like a toddler. On the other hand, are the Liberals willing to consider that vision and evaluate it fairly? Or are they going to keep name calling and vilifying?" G2A
Hiram,
Please share with me some of the terrible labels that the Conservatives use to describe the Liberals?
Normally I hear... socialist, illogical, irrational, bleeding hearts, tree huggers, etc.
Nothing near as vitriolic as how Liberals describe Conservatives.
How in the world do we truly fix things if people on both sides refuse to face reality head on? Listen to the video review...
CNN Facts and Alternative Facts
democrats don't do alternative facts so you can drop the false equivalency. I think day one has set the tone for constant lies we are in for from the trump administration. They are going to do their best to have govt agencies provide misinformation.
about name calling, Hillary used the term deplorable just once and then walked it back, as it only describes some of Trump's supporters such as the neo nazis. I will agree that the name calling goes both ways. I wasn't even offended when Jerry referred to me as a wacko demonstrator.
How in the world do we truly fix things if people on both sides refuse to face reality head on?
We have a CEO alpha male administration. These are guys who brush reality aside. There are times when reality catches up with them of course, but the key is to make sure that someone else is holding the bag when that happens. Think of all those banks that were hurt when Trump declared bankruptcy. Think of all the taxpayers in the decades since who have paid the taxes Trump doesn't pay.
--Hiram
Laurie,
Now you must be kidding...
"democrats don't do alternative facts"
The reality is that both the Right and Left do this on a regular basis. Though not usually as blatantly as Trump and crew did this weekend... Just watching Kellyanne working to avoid Chuck Todd's question almost made me squirm. RCP Link
This is an interesting view.
CNN Spicer Should Quit
Your partisanship makes you blind to which party tells more lies. The parties are not equally dishonest
Politifact ratings: percent of statements rated as false:
Obama 27% pants on fire 2%
Clinton 26% pants on fire 2%
Trump 70% pants on fire 18%
I agree that Trump lies often. What does that have to do with which party lies more often?
Trump is a republican the other 2 are democrats. Here is some more data for you (the first 5 are republican leaders:
Ted Cruz 66% false statements
Marco Rubio 41% false statements
Mitch McConnell 45% false statements
Mitt Romney 42% false statements
Paul Ryan 42% false statements
Bernie Sanders 28% false statements
Joe Biden 33% false statements
RNC 41% false statement
DNC 29% false statements
So to summarize, the 7 most dishonest leaders all republican, the 5 most honest leaders all democrats. Any other questions?
and then there is this Karl Rove quote (he is a republican) which he said after mocking a journalist for being part of the reality based community.
"We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.
Maybe we can try this again with Factcheck...
I think Politifact is a bit questionable / Left Biased...
Maybe this explains the difference.
"We don’t check absolutely everything a candidate says, but focus on what catches our eye as significant, newsworthy or potentially influential. Our ratings are also not intended to be statistically representative but to show trends over time."
Or this... Vanity Fair
The Atlantic
Now I agree that folks like Bachman, Trump, etc sure do drive up the average for the GOP...
And I will even agree that the GOP may be slightly more guilty, but to claim the Democrats are in anyway significantly more honest is using "alternative facts"... :-)
Piers Morgan made some good logical humorous statements about the women's marches.
“Imagine if there were a load of men-only marches today? The feminists would go crackers,”
“I’m planning a ‘Men’s March’ to protest at the creeping global emasculation of my gender by rabid feminists. Who’s with me?”
“Let’s be honest, ladies.. today’s Women’s March is just an anti-democratic protest at Trump winning the presidency”
“One of the main reasons Hillary lost was that she & her supporters exuded air of entitlement to her becoming being 1st female president.”
“Amused by all the fulminating outrage at my suggestion of a Men’s March, especially from women. Kinda proves my point… Just need @KimKardashian & @emrata to post bird-flipping topless selfies to support #WomensMarch for the farce to be complete.”
And my favorite...
“What right has President Trump removed from women to warrant this #WomensMarch protest? Why not wait to see if he tries, then fight it?”
Which party is more honest about climate change or the effect of massive tax cuts on the budget. I could think of more topics republicans routinely lie about but will settle for your acknowledgement the democrats as a group are slightly more honest than republicans (even though I think they are significantly more honest and fact based,)
“Let’s be honest, ladies.. today’s Women’s March is just an anti-democratic protest at Trump winning the presidency”
No. Rather, it was a prime example of what democracy looks like.
Joel
Laurie,
Both "climate change or the effect of massive tax cuts on the budget" are forward looking and the crystal ball is more fuzzy. So I am not sure they are good examples of "alternative facts".
Joel,
I agree, that was one I questioned. I am curious though how many people who did not vote were out there protesting?
Isn't the real issue, not whether people are vicious toward me, but rather whether their opinions are right? --Hiram
Hiram, I like your attitude. It's like mine, when I tell folks, "You can agree with me, or you can be wrong." They laugh. Those that do not are most certainly in error.
Even more questionable, perhaps, are why some people, those "wacko demonstrators," are vicious to people with whom they "disagree" while being completely unable to present a cogent argument about their supposed issue. Example: how does a lengthy, profanity-laced public diatribe about women's rights yesterday effectively prove that one statement from a private conversation 20 years ago is intolerable?
Someone asked these demonstrators who they voted for and was surprised that a large number had not voted at all. They aren't demonstrating to make a point, it's pointless.
"Which party is more honest about climate change or the effect of massive tax cuts on the budget." -- Laurie
Interesting that you did not use a question mark, Laurie. Perhaps what you are pointing out is that there are a lot of "shades of gray" between a "lie" and the "truth." First, definitions. I say a "lie" is a /known/ untruth told for the purpose of deception. The truth is something confirmed by objective reality. For example, I claim that liberals have the uncanny ability to believe whatever it is they are saying at the moment they say it. They therefore cannot lie, yet their statements are often NOT confirmed by any objective reality. "If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor" was the "lie of the year," yet I have little doubt that Obama believed it at the time and probably still does. Like "climate change," it is a matter of religious faith, not scientific fact.
There are "misstatements," things said and believed true but not told to deceive. There are "assumptions," (like "20 million will lose their health care") supposedly true but later disproven by the facts. There are few outright "lies" but many true things said to deceive, like "Hillary had no criminal intent with her private server" does not mean nothing criminal occurred. It did.
For some time I have been urging Republicans to "let no truth go unspoken; let no lie go unchallenged." If Trump & Co. make mistakes in pursuit of that desiderata, it is better than the usual silent acquiescence to the liberal fabulists.
I think it's pretty easy to mistake viciousness with passion. And one thing I very firmly believe is that way too often in our national discourse we confuse a disagreement with what someone says as on their right to say it. We have a constitutional right to speak, not a constitutional right to be agreed with.
"Someone asked these demonstrators who they voted for and was surprised that a large number had not voted at all. They aren't demonstrating to make a point, it's pointless. "
I am big on voting myself. I have voted in literally every election possible for decades. I spend a lot of time encouraging other people to vote as well. But Donald Trump sits in the White House despite losing the popular vote by a significant margin. Given that fact, how do I respond when people tell me their vote is pointless? Do I explain to them that the inventors of the electoral college, after lengthy debate in Philadelphia 240 years ago decided in their wisdom that their vote should matter less than other people's? That certain states and their voters are to be preferred over others? That their vote should count for less just because of where they live? I pity the poor teachers of 9th grade civics who have to explain that one to skeptical teenagers. At least the ones who live in Minnesota.
--Hiram
--Hiram
And how about this: crowds shouting "defeat fascism" while wearing black clothing, breaking windows and lighting fires. Laurie, unless you were one of them, you aren't the kind of "wacko demonstrators" I was referencing. I can understand the many actually peaceful protestors not wanting to get involved, but their presence makes them complicit in the idiocy, as far as I'm concerned.
Hiram, let me help. Take away Hillary's popular vote advantage in Los Angeles and New York City, and she LOSES the popular vote by about 1.7 million votes. So, should Los Angeles and New York City get to pick the President, or should the rest of the country have a say in it?
Hiram,
Yes... The teacher should explain the US system is excellent:
Large urban centers are not allowed to run rough shod over the rest of the country.
Even the minority populations have a say in what happens in the country, which keeps all States engaged and stable
The rules are very clear, and they encourage the political parties to meet the wants and needs of people across the whole country... Not just those in certain areas.
If the rules were different, no politicians would care what Minnesotans thought.
"I agree, that was one I questioned. I am curious though how many people who did not vote were out there protesting?"
While that might be interesting, it's irrelevant. Ones rights to assembly and speech are not predicated on whether they voted.
Joel
"And how about this: crowds shouting "defeat fascism" while wearing black clothing, breaking windows and lighting fires."
I think fascism and anarchism are different things entirely.
Joel
Joel,
Agreed... There is nothing wrong with them protesting whether they voted or not.
Hopefully next time they will be motivated to speak through their vote also. Not just cry over spilt milk.
Large urban centers are not allowed to run rough shod over the rest of the country.
Should they explain that it's ok when small urban centers run rough shod over the rest of the country? Did the founders really believe that there was some special virtue to living in small urban centers?
Hopefully next time they will be motivated to speak through their vote also.
Americans did speak through their votes from both small and large urban centers. But the candidate they spoke for did not win the election. So what was the point in voting?
--Hiram
Hiram,
I don't think we need to worry about the rural folks running rough shod over anyone... (ie not enough dollars or votes there) But they can slow change and ensure they are listened to.
Should I have not voted then? I mean Clinton won MN and the delegates.
The big question to me is when will the Democrats broaden their appeal to people from all communities, not just those with high population density?
The big question for me is when will Democrats stop spinning fanciful tales about how much they care for us (or at least the minorities) and start supporting those programs and projects that actually SOLVE the problems they claim to be solving with their high-handed, one-size-fits-all, government-knows-best, bureaucratic-nightmare dumpster fire laws and regulations?
the urban people (the majority) are the ones whose representatives are relatively powerless in DC (even though they are the majority and their candidate received 2% higher vote total). Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the GOP has a disproportionate share of the power and our country is not a fair democracy.
Laurie,
For the same reason that I often state.
Our country IS NOT a National Democracy.
Our country is a Republic of 50 State Democracies.
This was very wisely done on purpose. Our country is ~241 years old and we only had 1 civil war... And that was over a very contentious wealth / rights affecting topic.
Just like the Legislative, Executive and Judicial checks and balances. Our State structure ensures that every region has some say.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the Democrats became elitist, myopic and stopped being concerned with the wants and needs of all Americans?
They know the rules of the country. They know they can not control the country with only the urban vote. And yet that is what they try to do.
Interesting Map
More Maps - source
Snopes County Report is False
WTF you are going to defend a system that gives the majority no power in DC. I have more curse words and name calling but I am just going to stop typing instead. Dems are voters are the efffing majority. I couldn't help myself.
It is a GREAT SYSTEM !!! And of course the Democrats have some control via the Senate.
The Democrats can fix this at anytime... Just stop being obsessed with:
- protecting Public Employees over the needs of children and tax payers
- protecting ILLEGAL workers who steal jobs from legal Americans and depress wages
- stealing from the successful hard working folks to give to the Baby Makers and other Free Loaders
- demanding that Religious people behave against their beliefs
- regulating everything in attempt to protect everyone from everything
- vilifying the companies and people who provide jobs
Just to annoy you further... The Liberal policies of the past 50 years did promote the birth and raising of many poor undereducated urban citizens... Thankfully the founding Fathers set the rules so everyone has a say, not just those who have a problem staying married and using birth control... :-)
Good bye. Your views at this point are too stupid to bother with anymore. Have fun debating issues with Hiram and Jerry. I have better things to do with my time.
Until Democrats are willing to truly wrestle with some of these issues, they are going to have a real hard time staying in control. Running away from them and calling people who are concerned about them stupid is why the Democratic party is struggling right now...
Hopefully we will hear from you again when you have cooled down. Have a good evening !!!
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that the Democrats became elitist, myopic and stopped being concerned with the wants and needs of all Americans?
It's not that we elites, aren't concerned the needs of all Americans, rather it's that we condescend to them. And look what happens when we choose leaders who aren't elite. We end up with a sociopathic reality tv host who is incapable of telling the truth as president. Not such an argument for the non elitist approach I would say.
--Hiram
I love how 'elite' has become a four-letter word. Imagine trying to watch NFL football without any of the elite players playing. Imagine trying to get to the moon without the elite scientists working on it.
So be it. But I won't be afraid to say, "I told you so."
Joel
I guess the question is who does one see as Elite?
A bunch of Lawyers / Politicians / Professors who have a lot of theory but little real world business experience... Or business people who have spent their life setting goals, prioritizing, managing people and driving high performance?
Would you hire a football player who had only studied football but never played?
"Elitist: a person who believes that a society or system should be led by an elite."
"Elite: a select part of a group that is superior to the rest in terms of ability or qualities."
Hiram,
I agree that Trump lies often and stupidly... According to NPR this morning, he is back to saying that he would have won the popular vote if those 3 Million illegals had not voted. He definitely has some serious "let it go" problems.
"It's not that we elites, aren't concerned the needs of all Americans, rather it's that we condescend to them." -- Hiram
Hiram, that's brilliant, but I am surprised you put yourself in that class. You seem a reasonably sensible bloke to me.
"Running away from them and calling people who are concerned about them stupid is why the Democratic party is struggling right now..." -- John
John, I would characterize it a different way. They aren't running away from the issues, but rather the "solutions" they themselves have created for these problems. Calling other people stupid for actually wanting to solve the problems rather than continuing Democrat failures is defensive politically, and indefensible rationally. If their defensiveness seems excessive, consider that their scam has just been exposed, and they have a great (and very reasonable) fear that Trump may just succeed where they have failed. Imagine what would happen to the Democrat Party if Trump succeeded even marginally at making life "better" in the urban cores?
Oh, yes...the reality based community.
That is the funniest thing the fever swamp ever came up with. Never fails to make me smile.
~ FRed
One good thing about being a blogger... I get to learn about all these interesting terms.
The Week RBC and Sanders
HP RBC vs Trump
Jerry,
I think there are plenty people on both sides who talk better than they listen. :-)
The problem with your constant "both sides do it" argument is that it gets us nowhere. If we can successful boil something down to a right way and a wrong way, then one side or the other must be closer to the right and the other side closer to the wrong.
Many of these debates eventually boil down to ad hominem attacks from the left-- that I am wrong because of who I am. If I am Republican or Conservative or cis-gender (whatever that is) I must be wrong by definition. My retort lately has been, "Suppose I am all that you say. Does that make me wrong on the issue?" Does reality and real solutions to real problems for real people actually need to be considered in the debate?
Let's consider words of wisdom from that great Democrat Will Rogers:
"Congress is so strange; a man gets up to speak and says nothing, nobody listens, and then everybody disagrees."
"We all joke about Congress, but we can't improve on them. Have you noticed that no matter who we elect, he is just as bad as the one he replaces?"
"When Congress makes a joke it's a law, and when they make a law, it's a joke."
"We cuss Congress, and we joke about 'em, but they are all good fellows at heart, and if they wasn't in Congress, why, they would be doing something else against us that might be even worse."
"Never blame a legislative body for not doing something. When they do nothing, they don't hurt anybody. When they do something is when they become dangerous."
"About all I can say for the United States Senate is that it opens with a prayer and closes with an investigation."
"Senators are a never-ending source of amusement, amazement and discouragement."
"The Senate just sits and waits till they find out what the president wants, so they know how to vote against him."
I'm amazed that Rogers could describe Sen. Harry Reid some 70 years before Reid became Senate majority leader. Reid truly is a fellow who is "not as narrow-minded as he forces himself to be."
"It's getting so if a man wants to stand well socially, he can't afford to be seen with either the Democrats or the Republicans."
"There is something about a Republican that you can only stand him just so long; and on the other hand, there is something about a Democrat that you can't stand him quite that long."
The last 2 quotes are my favorites lately... :-)
Surprising that even Will Rogers, a Democrat, saw a qualitative difference between the two. Perhaps small, but we have to work with what we can get.
Surprising that even Will Rogers, a Democrat, saw a qualitative difference between the two.
The politics of the 1930's were quite different. Bear in mind that there has been a complete realignment of the parties in the last 80 years.
The Democratic Party of Rogers' era was a coalition between southern racists, and northern labor. Roosevelt, interestingly enough to me, had his base of support in the south and west. New York, the state of which he was the governor, was still supporting Al Smith. Roosevelt had the support of the drys, folks supporting Prohibition, odd enough in retrospect since we know FDR was a man who enjoyed his martinis.
--Hiram
Post a Comment