cunt.

She was p0wned on FNS this morning by Chris
Wallace:

They asked her if buses have been used to evacuate
NO instead of being left to get flooded. She came back
with "Those busses are underwater, Chris." BUT THEY
WERE NOT ON SATURDAY. She spun all over the
place.

Then after a five minute bitch session about how the
federal government was at fault (Bushitler), she said
"now is not the time for blame" when Chris attempted
to point at local failings.

The failure of the Clinton administration to shore up
wetlands and levee funding was brought up and she
blamed it on the budget deficit of Bush 41.

When it showed that she herself stood in the way of more
funding, she got all redfaced and pissed and blubbered
about outsourcing to Korea. It is funny when she gets
pissed because her cajun accent comes out in full effect.

She looked like she wanted to rip Chris's head off.

   I saw that one too. The Dems can't handle the interview style normally reserved for Repubs. I like the part where she said we shouldn't point fingers now when talking about  locals , (like her bro the Lt. Gov.) and then Wallace played two clips of her blaming feds. ( p0wned (tm) )

   It was funny how you could see how RED she turned through all the TV makeup. I didn't think that was possible.

Quoted:    I saw that one too. The Dems can't handle the interview style normally reserved for Repubs. I like the part where she said we shouldn't point fingers now when talking about  locals , (like her bro the Lt. Gov.) and then Wallace played two clips of her blaming feds. ( p0wned (tm) )    It was funny how you could see how RED she turned through all the TV makeup. I didn't think that was possible.

Anyone got pics?  

pwn3d

...neurotic wench?

Domestic Enemy?

Unfit to bespoil the Halls of Congress with her tampax bullshit?

After seeing the retards the voters of LA have placed in power, I'd say they got just what they fucking deserved.

The rest of you morons who would elect a woman to office really should be taking a hard look at this bullshit. Most who would though have had their balls taken from them by women all their life though, so I doubt they would even notice the difference. Pathetic.

Cunt.  Enuf said.

Quoted: Cunt.  Enuf said.

Yup!

She and the othe libs better watch it, because even CNN is challenging their lies.

Listenning to Rush on Friday. He was playing the CNN interview with Nancy Pelosi. She too was challenged and owend by CNN.

Its ratings time and after last weeks real polls not ABC. Bush is getting 75 to 85 % support.

CNN sees it as a way to get their ratings up and it worked. Fox is now trying to stay ahead. I would like to see both of them continue this to see who can get a lib to speak the truth instead of lying.

Quoted: Cunt.  Enuf said.

The proper definition of a cunt is the life support system for a vagina.  I am not sure I would want that vagina...

I missed this, I will have to catch it on the replay later today.

Quoted: She and the othe libs better watch it, because even CNN is challenging their lies. Listenning to Rush on Friday. He was playing the CNN interview with Nancy Pelosi. She too was challenged and owend by CNN.

That was funny.  Pelosi responded to the tough questions by basically saying the CNN interviewer was a White House tool for daring to suggest maybe somehow Bush and the feds weren't 100% to blame.

I'd hit it. Seriously, I think she's kinda cute. Plus, I have a guaranteed method to prevent her from uttering inane drivel.

Quoted: I'd hit it. Seriously, I think she's kinda cute. Plus, I have a guaranteed method to prevent her from uttering inane drivel.

Watch out for the teeth.

The replay of Wallace's show will be at 5:00 pm EST on FNC. It's worth a look.

Fellas, she cannot help it.

She comes from a looooong line of Democratic assholes.

It's in her nature.....

I missed it too.  She really doesn't do interviews very well.  She was p0wned by Sean Hannity(?) on Fox a while back also, embarassing to have someone like that representing your state.
Shortly after she was elected into office (don't look at me, I didn't do it) I tried to write her about gun control issues (when I was registered as an Independent) and her response was something to the tune of not having time because I wasn't one of her constituents (wtf?).  I switched my voting registration to Democrat before the 2004 primary and wrote her as a registered Democrat about a number of issues (i.e. gun control, AWB sunset, Democrat bs, etc.) and amazingly I got a response back almost every time; John Breaux's office never responded to anything.

Quoted: Listenning to Rush on Friday. He was playing the CNN interview with Nancy Pelosi. She too was challenged and owend by CNN.

Yeah, until she accused Kira of being on the White
House's payroll, then Kira changed her tune and was
quite agreeable after that.

Yes she's an idiot and there are plenty of us in LA that did not vote for her or her cronies. I guess we got what we deserved too?

I wonder if some on this board ever have anything to say that isn't of a misognistic, racist or pissed-off nature.

I wonder if some on this board ever have anything to say that isn't of a misognistic, racist or ed-off nature.

Amen to that Mike. I didn't vote for that woman but have to suffer with her till election time. Maybe we can get Jindal in her spot.

...Twat-Cunt-Whore.

Fuck her, she never answered Wallec's last question, just ranted on about what her stupid twat-cunt-whore bitch self did. And lied about that.

Quoted: The replay of Wallace's show will be at 5:00 pm EST on FNC. It's worth a look.

Wallace owned her.  Tape it if you would like to see it for yourself.

These Dems don't do so well when the journalists aren't fawning all over them with softball questions.

Quoted: ... The rest of you morons who would elect a woman to office really should be taking a hard look at this bullshit. Most who would though have had their balls taken from them by women all their life though, so I doubt they would even notice the difference. Pathetic.

It all depends on the woman. Here in Fort Worth we sent a woman, Kay Bailey Hutchison to the senate. She has done a very good job, and everyone here is proud to have her represent us.
As for that bitch in NO- you get what you vote for.
Jim

The Great Mary Landreiou: From a long line of dangerous polititions.

Her father was elected Mayor Of NO in 1969--which started the long slide down of now we see the results

Quoted: I'd hit it. Seriously, I think she's kinda cute. Plus, I have a guaranteed method to prevent her from uttering inane drivel.

She is cute and a brutal delusional Demo

Quoted: Yes she's an idiot and there are plenty of us in LA that did not vote for her or her cronies. I guess we got what we deserved too?

Yes you did, and for a whole lot of reasons I won't go into here. What I will say is that I live in a state that last election voted in a corrupt, neofascist, socialist POS. We're getting what we deserve also. Not near as bad as LA though.

While I am at it LA has been going down the shithole for a long time now. Dirtiest, most polluted place I have ever been in the US and on top of that one of the most politically corrupt and incompetent  as well.

So who do YOU think is responsible?

I wonder if some on this board ever have anything to say that isn't of a misognistic, racist or pissed-off nature.

Aren't you the progressive one.
More realistically the victim of  a piss poor education and value system. You just keep spouting what mummy and teacher told you though. Yeah, that's it.

Grilling on CNN.360

Transcript of FNS
       E-MAIL STORY                    PRINTER FRIENDLY                    FOXFAN CENTRAL  

Transcript: Sen. Landrieu on 'FOX News Sunday'
Monday, July 18, 2005

STORIES  ARCHIVE
•Transcript: Sen. Specter on 'FOX News Sunday'•Rehnquist Says He's Not Retiring•Senators Consider Approach to Supreme Court Nominee•Bush: I'll Look Outside Judiciary•Hispanics Eye High Court Opening•Bush Appellate Judges Reveal Influence•Ideology Main Concern in Replacing O'Connor•Supreme Court Choice an 'Extraordinary Circumstance'?•Actor, Ex-Senator Fred Thompson to Manage Supreme Court Nomination•Fast Facts: U.S. Supreme Court•Specter Takes Leads Despite Ailing Health•Senators Push for Stem Cell Research Bill•Bush Meets With Senators About Supreme Court
WASHINGTON — 'FOX NEWS SUNDAY' GUEST HOST BRIT HUME: From the Democrat side, we turn now to Senator Mary Landrieu (search) of Louisiana, a member of what has come to be called the "Gang of 14." Good morning, Senator.

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU, D-LA.: Good morning, Brit.

HUME: Nice to have you. Thanks for coming in.

LANDRIEU: Good morning.

HUME: I should note that the "Gang of 14," by the way, are the 14 Democrats and Republicans, seven from each side, who put together the compromise that allowed those justices to be confirmed during the last fight.

Let's get, if I can with you, Senator, to the question of a filibuster (search). Let's assume, just for the sake of discussion, that the three judges that were part of that agreement, who have now been confirmed -- Janice Rogers Brown and the other two, who were quite controversial -- one of them were to be nominated to the Supreme Court.

Now, Senator Graham, Lindsey Graham, who's part of the group on this compromise, said, "We now know what extraordinary circumstances meriting a filibuster are not, and they are not any of these three judges."

What's your view of that?

LANDRIEU: Well, I'm not going to speculate on this program any names, because, of course, the president is going to provide to the Senate his thoughts about who should be on the court.

But what I can say, Brit, about the "Gang of 14" is that we are very proud of our work to keep the Senate working, to keep the Senate from shutting down, to keep a civil dialogue on this subject. And we have, I think, accomplished that.

Now, we don't hold ourselves out to be in the substitute of the Judiciary Committee, either the leader, as Arlen Specter, a great leader on the Republican side, Pat Leahy.

But we have really encouraged the president to consult with all members of the Senate...

HUME: Do you think he's doing that, by the way?

LANDRIEU: I think he is doing -- yes, he is doing that. The question is the sincerity of the consultation. And you'll only know that -- the proof is in the pudding, as we would say at home. So we'll have to see.

But let me just say this, the president...

HUME: When you say the proof is in the pudding, what's the pudding?

LANDRIEU: Well, the pudding will be the nominee itself, if it's someone that can get an overwhelming vote in the Senate.

HUME: Why does it need to be someone who can get an overwhelming vote?

LANDRIEU: Well, seven out of the nine justices that currently serve have gotten more than 85 votes. And out of the 109 justices that have served, many of them have been nominated with Republican -- or approved with Republican and Democratic support.

And let me say why I think that's important, if I could. The reason I think that it's important is because this country is really divided right now on the war. We're prosecuting a war in Iraq. We're protecting ourselves against terrorism.

The president, as the leader, should, I think, have an overwhelming feeling to appoint someone that the Senate can agree on to keep the country together, fighting these battles. That's what the 14 of us hope.

HUME: Let me ask you about whether you think Sandra Day O'Connor should be succeeded by another woman.

LANDRIEU: I think it would be a great idea. Laura Bush made that suggestion, and I would think that that would be terrific.

There've only been two women out of 109 people who have ever served in the court, and only two African-Americans that have ever served out of 109. So for a country that prides itself on diversity and recognizes diversity as a strength, not as a weakness, I think it would be terrific.

Now, there are many able women out there, and the great success of some of the rulings of the court have enabled half the law schools to be made up of women. The graduating classes are now 50 percent.

HUME: Anybody you think would be especially well-qualified?

LANDRIEU: I don't have a nominee, but I can tell you there are dozens of outstanding women who have legal credentials and the kind of integrity and character that Arlen Specter...

HUME: Do you think a woman would guarantee the kind of overwhelming support you're talking about?

LANDRIEU: Not necessarily. I mean, it would depend on what woman.

So, again, I just throw that out to say to that the American people, who are really a very fair people, when they think about 109 justices, they think, "My goodness, we should have more than just two women or two African-Americans," and we've never had a Hispanic or Latino judge.

HUME: Let's suggest for a moment -- you don't want to talk about names, so let's not. But let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that the president nominates, as I think he can probably be expected to, someone who is a strong judicial conservative, someone whose views on the role of the supreme court and the law are clearly at variance with the liberal members of this court, no doubt about it.

Would that constitute extraordinary circumstances of the kind where you could support a filibuster?

LANDRIEU: Well, let me say that the group of 14 probably, and I most certainly, expect the president to nominate someone that has more conservative views. I mean, he is in some areas more conservative. We don't think that is necessarily extraordinary.

But if you want to write the law, you should run for the Senate or run for your local legislature or become a governor that, you know, promotes laws in the states. But if you want to interpret the law and interpret the Constitution, then that is the kind of person we're looking for for the court.

And let me say again, I think people have just an innate sense of fairness. They look to the Supreme Court as the final place where justice can be given. And when it's not, it's very disappointing and very disconcerting to this democracy.

So we want a person that people have confidence in -- conservatives, moderates and liberals -- that can make good decisions and not try to write the law, but try to interpret the law and the Constitution in some sort of not so aggressive a fashion.

HUME: If a nominee to the court, by his or her answers to questions, convinced you that, given the chance, this nominee would vote to either restrict or reverse Roe v. Wade, would that constitute a basis for a filibuster in your eyes?

LANDRIEU: Let me answer the question this way: Most Americans, including myself, would like to see abortions reduced in this country. And most Americans, including myself, understand there needs to be restrictions on a practice that many people find immoral.

But having said that, Brit, I don't think the American people want to criminalize abortion. I don't think they want to put women in jail. I don't think they want to, you know, levy serious fines. And I don't think they want to get that involved with people's personal lives.

So we're looking for a balance in that area, where people can make choices early in pregnancies, have some limitations, some restrictions. And I think that this court has a great responsibility to help this nation come to a settlement, if you will, on that issue.

HUME: Well, if Roe v. Wade were reversed, of course, that wouldn't make abortion a crime anywhere. That would leave it up to the political process to decide on a state-by-state basis. Are you averse to that?

LANDRIEU: That is correct; you are correct in your analysis. But what the Supreme Court decision does say right now is to lay out some parameters in which the states can operate.

But, you know, there are some people in this country that want to criminalize abortion in every and all circumstance, and there is a loud and vocal minority. But the majority of people want restrictions.

So I think that that's a legitimate question to nominees, but it's not the only thing that's going to, you know, decide -- the only issue that's going to make us decide on the appropriateness of a nominee.

HUME: So you wouldn't filibuster over what you thought would be likely restrictions, but you filibuster over someone you thought was going to reverse?

LANDRIEU: Well, first of all, I'm part of the "Gang of 14" to not filibuster at all...

HUME: I understand.

LANDRIEU: ... because we want to have a judge that can get a great majority of the Senate. And we think that we can do that by urging the president to unite, not to divide, the country.

So I'm not going to say what I would filibuster on or not. I'm part of the group that doesn't want to filibuster, that wants to encourage a nominee that can get broad consensus, like the seven of the nine that are currently serving. I hope we can.

HUME: Senator Landrieu, it's a pleasure to have you. Thanks for coming.

LANDRIEU: Thank you, Brit. Thank you.

Quoted: I'd hit it. Seriously, I think she's kinda cute. Plus, I have a guaranteed method to prevent her from uttering inane drivel.

Hey, she is cute! I'd hit it, too!

Quoted: Quoted: I'd hit it. Seriously, I think she's kinda cute. Plus, I have a guaranteed method to prevent her from uttering inane drivel. Watch out for the teeth.

Wear a leather glove before trying this.  Tell he to smile real big...then donkey punch all of her teeth out.

Quoted: Quoted: I'd hit it. Seriously, I think she's kinda cute. Plus, I have a guaranteed method to prevent her from uttering inane drivel. daily.iaff.org/election2002/IAFFElection/media/Mary%20Landrieu.jpg Hey, she is cute! I'd hit it, too!

That picture is old...now she is.  And hitting it?  If you are talking about that FOREhead, yeah, it be easy to hit.  Kinda hard to miss.