Baby Steps

Elise has decided to meet with a few constituents. Very nice. I'll just put my comments up here. Want to make sure they don't get lost in moderation. Ye Olde Patented Repsac What'd I Say?

Meetings will be closed to the press “to allow for candid and constructive conversations,” Flanagin said. 

Really? Is that it or does Rep. Stefanik agree with Donald Trump (and a lot of commenters at the PS)?

President Trump further escalated his attacks on the news media Friday afternoon when he tweeted that outlets such as the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS and CNN are not his enemy but “the enemy of the American People.” 

That has a familiar ring to it. A couple of weeks ago Trump was preemptively blaming judges and journalists for any terror attack that may happen. As an aside I'm blaming Trump and Stefanik for the next Newtown after the bill giving 75,000 people who shouldn't have access to guns the right to have them. It must be very difficult for our congresswoman now. Do you cling to Trump as his WH goes circling down the drain while 83% of Republicans still think he's wonderful? Sad.

And:

Since we're talking Rep. Stefanik here just wanted to bring up this story. Awhile back I saw where she had given President Obama a 4 on a scale of 1 to 10. Regular readers will guess that I disagree. Guess what. Historians do, too. 

According to C-SPAN’s Presidential History Survey 2017, former President Barack Obama is the 12th best presidential leader in United States' history. 

For the record, the guy she worked for came in 33rd. Her judgment on Obama combined with her judgment supporting Trump's campaign might suggest that it's not so good. Maybe her reasoning is not what we want in a representative.



And along this same topic I'd like to point out a letter in the Wash Po that shows I'm not the only one with this problem: That of having my sarcastic comments easily recognized.

The Feb. 1 front-page article “Among federal workers, plans for pushing back” quoted me saying: “There’s nothing unusual about the entire national security bureaucracy of the United States feeling like their commander in chief is a threat to U.S. national security. That happens all the time. It’s totally usual. Nothing to worry about.” But the article added that I was speaking sarcastically. While this qualifier was accurate, in real life, one does not usually precede a sarcastic comment by alerting the listener that one is speaking sarcastically. It ruins the effect!

On behalf of all Sarcastic Americans, a broad, bipartisan coalition heavily represented among The Post’s subscribers, I demand that The Post allow readers to decide for themselves whether such comments are to be taken literally.

I feel your pain Tom. Sadly it has become necessary to point it out, though. I blame the media. Why not?