It’s not clear which planet Illinois Review writer Sam Pierce is living on but it doesn’t seem to be this one… His past essays have featured standard-fare Obama Derangement Syndrome, but in today’s post Mr. Pierce can’t help but to repeat a pack of lies which have been consistently peddled by folks like Michelle “Stalking 12-year-old boyz iz kool” Malkin.
Mr. Pierce’s very first sentence reads:
I wanted to comment on the Obamacrisy [Editor's Note: I think that's a junior high way of saying "hypocrisy"] of the former occupant of the fictional Office of the President-elect’s touting the tax relief 95% of Americans should begin receiving by April 1. [...]
“Fictional” Office of the President-Elect? This lie that the official and legally-required Federal Executive transition was somehow “fictional” began about 38 seconds after then President-Elect Obama first used the phrase. (Of course, eight years ago nary a conservative was complaining about then President-Elect Bush calling himself “President-Elect”, now were they?)
Conservative partisans need to re-read the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 which very clearly and very specifically describes that very same not-so-fictional Office of President-Elect, replete with the rights and responsibilities thereof.
Though he does try to pretty it up with some bullet points and pull quotes, after starting out with a retread of a blatant lie it’s no surprise that the rest of Mr. Pierce’s polemic is just a dump of hollow conservative propoganda and childish name-calling.
This bizarre pattern from conservative partisans of repeating a fallacy some other conservative made up, railing against President Obama based on the faulty logic of the lie, tossing in a few sandbox put-downs and then clapping one’s self on the back as if they’ve done something good for the country was already getting old by Election Day last year. You’d think instead of stealing Aerosmith songs they’d actually do something about stopping their own fib factories.
No wonder Republican approval ratings keep tanking even further than the valley they were already in before the Inauguration.
(And, yes, it would appear at least some of those dropping GOP favorability numbers have something to do with the fact that they not only hypocritically voted against the largest middle-class tax cut in US history almost unanimously but that they’ve also declared themselves proud of that “accomplishment”. But somehow that real, live hypocrisy is not the perceived hypocrisy Sam “Pinnochio” Pierce wanted to discuss.)
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 24, 2009 at 11:12 am
IL-66: Rep. Walker Attacked by Nat’l GOP Committeeman « Illinois Reason
[...] at the conservative echo chamber Illinois Review (who don’t have the best grasp on honesty or reality themselves), though in Ill Review Editor Fran Eaton’s defense she did point out up-front that [...]
May 8, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Sam Pierce
Thanks for the mention. Have previous holders of the apparently official Office of the President-elect used the same podium and light blue sign in their narcissistic and alarmingly frequent teleprompter readings?
May 11, 2009 at 2:43 pm
robnesvacil
Took you a while to respond there Sam…
I wrote this post in February. You replied in May.
You’d think after 2 1/2 months you’d be able to come up with more than just a snarky quip that reveals little more than your utter loathing for our President. Alas, you were unable.
Sam, you asked, “Have previous holders of the apparently official Office of the President-elect used the same podium and light blue sign in their narcissistic and alarmingly frequent teleprompter readings?”
Seeing as how then-President-elect Obama’s transition staff hired a graphic design firm to design a unique sign … the quick answer would be no, previous Presidents-elect had not used the exact same light blue sign while their team managed the transition period through the very real, and very legal Office of the President-Elect.
The Office of the President-Elect, in its modern form, has existed in our nation since the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 put it in place. Other forms of the same concept — some formal, some informal or traditional — existed before that.
Yet you lied with your claim (oft-repeated by sour grapes imbibing conservative partisans) that Obama use of the “Office of the President-Elect” was somehow “fictional”…
Why, Sam? Why are you so lacking and so unsure of your conservative philosophies that you felt a need to lie about our newly elected President?
You see, Sam, even then-President-elect George W. Bush during the transition from 42 to 43 did in fact use the powers and (more pertinently) the Congressionally-approved funds for the Office of the President Elect in order to do the exact same things Obama did in the transition from 43 to 44: coordinate the transition between Administrations, introduce policy proposals, introduce his appointees, and hold press conferences.
Pres. Bush prided himself on how well he believed his outgoing team worked with Pres. Obama’s incoming team.
Why can’t you allow yourself, as an American citizen, to do the same?
Instead, you resort to this fabrication which shows you’re unable to display even one iota of respect for Pres. Obama. By so doing, you end up aping the exact same criticisms and complaints for which conservatives called liberals “traitors” and “terrorists” for the past with the exception that you’re lying whereas the liberals’ criticisms during the Bush Administration had to do with differences of opinion.
Say, didn’t some conservative fellow once tell his opponent he was entitled to his own opinions but not his own facts…?
May 11, 2009 at 7:20 pm
Sam Pierce
It might surprise you to learn that I just happened upon this post Friday. I imagine you are shocked that there is a person in Illinois that hasn’t loyally followed your blog since its inception, but if it makes you feel better, I promise to read it as frequently as I can tolerate (given my aversion to nausea.)
Nit-pick much? I do realize that the winner of the election is the President-elect and that there is a need for a transition. I do not, however, recognize any need for the teleprompted narcissist to intrude upon the television screens of the American citizens on what seemed like a daily basis. It was bad enough that he was going to soon be destroying our country and eroding our liberty, I don’t agree with his attempts to jump the gun on turning this country into a larger version of Venezuala.
May 12, 2009 at 1:02 pm
robnesvacil
Exaggerate and whine much?
Suggestion: stop eating so many sour grapes. It’ll help your self-inflicted nausea problem.
Pres. Bush both used a teleprompter and got up in front of the TV cameras when needed. Why aren’t you lambasting him as a narcissist?
Heck, former VP Cheney is running around to any TV camera he can find these days to attack our President. Why aren’t you complaining that he’s a narcissist (and anti-American for that matter, since it seemed any time someone criticized our recent Republican President that’s all we heard from conservatives)?
While I understand your deep, unfettered loathing of our President may lead you to cringe every time the news media covers … the news … Pres. Obama isn’t doing anything different than Bush did when it comes to news coverage. When a president speaks, cameras roll.
You can be critical of Obama’s policies all you want without resorting to such extremism. Or, perhaps you were right there with all the folks the last 8 years that said Bush was “destroying our country” (seeing as how our international standing, our economy, and even our military — in terms of Army recruitment and Rumsfeld’s failed strip-down policies — plummeted during the Bush years) and “eroding our liberty” (what else can you call illegal domestic wiretapping and the like)…
You wouldn’t want to be a hypocrite now would you?