Mike Viqueria just said no public option in the final bill!

[ej510]

I agree, because the blue dogs are against it.

[Enrique]

1. if Mike Viqueira said it...

who's Mike Viqueira?

[valerief]

2. +1

[villager]

3. A guy known for reciting GOP Talking points:

http://crooksandliars.com/2006/10/02/msnbc-needs-to-investigate-mike-viqueiras-ties-to-the-gop

[ej510]

4. He's an nbc reporter.

He said liberal democrats won't allow a bill like this to fail so they will cave.

[annabanana]

6. Crooks and Liars did a report on this weasel on Oct 1:

http://crooksandliars.com/2006/10/02/msnbc-needs-to-investigate-mike-viqueiras-ties-to-the-gop

In this clip he's seen defending Foley (page scandal) and saying that "it was commonplace in the '70s and '80s."

I would take anything he says will a HILL of salt.

[Engineer4Obama]

13. +2

[gkhouston]

18. Wasn't it the well drink they were serving last night during happy hour?

Tasted like shit. :hangover:

[KansDem]

5. You mean this "Mike Viqueria?"

I watched with amazement Mike Viqueira's GOP talking point messenger job right after Hastert's press conference this morning. Never have I seen a correspondent recite verbatim what Rove would like you to hear. I mean Mark Foley is the focus of I hope an intense investigation--resigned in shame and approached teenage boys for sex, but to Mike-"everything is partisan here." Huh? What is he talking about? In Mike's world all that matters is making sure the GOP throws Democrats under the bus anyway they can, so it's the "Democrats setting up Republicans" meme for the '06 election. That's correct. I mean his sources are GOP staffers so I think they're just as impartial as the sick and twisted Eggman... He did say it was just the subtext in DC. The Republican subtext to get out from under another massive scandal "Washington loves a conspiracy"

Crooks & Liars

Why should we listen to him?

[Mass]

7. If he says so, it must be true!

:sarcasm:

[ej510]

9. There was another reporter on that said the same thing he was a brotha.

[CreekDog]

8. they were talking about offering it as an amendment

after cloture.

of course that was yesterday, before the fainting couches were needed. :eyes:

[lamp_shade]

10. I don't believe Chris bought any of it.

[polichick]

11. He and Strickland were pretty insightful about the process...

But it sure does bother me that the prez would rather pressure libs than conservadems ~ forcing them to sign on without a po with the idea that they could revisit it later.

[ej510]

12. If the democrats lose the house and the senate the next three years and

possibly the white house. How the fuck can you make changes next time.

[polichick]

14. So are we more apt to lose seats with or without a po?? nt

[ej510]

15. It is possible.

[damntexdem]

16. Well, if he said it, then we might as well give up. It's all over.

NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[budkin]

17. LMAO at this thread!