Cannonpointer » 19 Oct 2014 6:10 pm » wrote:
But here's the thing, homo. If that were all I had given you, then you'd have every right to call ****. But extending the Bush tax cuts was NOT a small matter. It cost him with his base, and it was something the talkers on your side spent MONTHS of teevee time on, cumulatively, It was an issue in all of your publications and websites on all of the Sunday chats.
Heritage produced talking points on the issue of extending those cuts - which included referring to a failure to extend those temporary cuts as "raising taxes," - and talking heads from the right made the rounds, parroting those talking points. FOR YOU TO NOW PRETEND that the issue was "minor," and "barely noticeable even to knowledgeable political observers" is simply you being a liar, you verminous little creep.

I never claimed the "issue" was minor.
His role on it was unquestionably minor.
And moonbat, he vehemently opposed those tax cuts when Bush was asking for them, and I don't recall he expressed one single word to re-enact them until just before the deal was cut.
He was basically silent on the issue until just before that. Did he for months or even weeks demand they be re-enacted and stress how important they were to economic growth?
No, because that would have revealed his previous lies.
And why would his most of his base oppose tax cuts for the middle class? They're wackier than even I thought.
But gosh, he was intimidated by the evil, all-powerful Heritage Foundation? Ooooh!