Thursday, June 17, 2010

Yes. Mary Jo Kilroy lied.

Yesterday, I posted a video where Mary Jo Kilroy stated the following:
"I was there and I voted against the TARP."
TARP was passed in 2008, before Kilroy got there.

Now, it's possible that she's talking about a bill that was defined as a "hollow gesture" in Congressional Quarterly. It was a resolution of disapproval against TARP that passed with Kilroy's support, but was done so after the Senate had already voted it down, thereby making it literally impossible to become law. In other words, it was done to cover the butts of House Democrats.

And that's what Kilroy was trying to exploit.

Anyone that wants to count the 2009 vote as a vote against TARP is not only delusional, but a total sucker for old school b.s. politics where the process is abused for political gain.

Facts are facts. Kilroy was not there to vote against TARP.

She's welcome to correct the record at her convenience.


  1. Yet again, Keeling, you misrepresent the facts by omitting key details.

    After yesterday, swearing that she had NEVER voted against the TARP and being proven wrong you write another blatantly false post.

    The reason it was called a "hollow gesture" is because it had little chance of passing the Senate. However, this wasn't an "Every Dog has its Day" resolution.

    When TARP passed it contained a specific provision that allowed Congress to remove the incoming Administration's ability to use any unused TARP funds if it passed the very resolution that the House passed with Kilroy's support.

    She voted to end TARP and the video you posted yesterday has her explaining WHY she voted that way.

    The Stivers campaign fed you a bogus story and you are now lying in order to avoid the obvious:

    Kilroy voted to kill TARP. That's what she said, and it's true.

  2. Didn't read the link, did ya?

    As I said in the post, the reason it was called a hollow gesture is because it had ALREADY BEEN VOTED ON AND LOST IN THE SENATE.

    There was ZERO chance for the bill Kilroy voted on to become law.

    In other words, it was done purely and completely for political cover, thereby dismissing it as a true vote against TARP.

    I guess you buy into the "abuse power for political gain" style of American politics that I mention in the post.

  3. Of course I read the link, you got the story FROM MY POST YESTERDAY!

    The only person abusing anything is you. Your abusing the truth. You claimed that Kilroy LIED and that she NEVER voted against the TARP.

    Having been caught in a lie, you now want to split hairs and question whether a roll call vote taken in the U.S. House of Representatives to end the TARP counts because the other chamber opposed taking such an action.

    You're spinning like a top, Keeling, but you are lying with every comment.

    She voted to kill the TARP. That's what she said in the video and that's what she did.

    And you should have the decency to apologize for getting the story wrong. Or are you too much of a partisan hack to acknowledge your mistakes? Or is it ego?

  4. You said: "The reason it was called a "hollow gesture" is because it had little chance of passing the Senate."

    That's flat out wrong. It had already failed in the Senate, meaning the measure Kilroy voted on was meaningless. Absolutely and totally meaningless.

    If Kilroy wants to claim credit for voting for a bill that was designed for political cover, that's up to her. But to claim she voted against TARP when it had already passed in the previous congress a total fabrication.

    Kilroy is welcome to clarify her statements at anytime.

    Your total buy-in to this type of politics speaks infinitely about your character.

  5. Good, Modern Esquire. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you.

  6. "Your total buy-in to this type of politics speaks infinitely about your character."

    Dead. On.

  7. What better sign of raw terror can you have than a hair splitting dufus coming onto this site to try and defend a deliberate deception.

    That is change you can believe in all right. No wonder these guys defended "it depends what the meaning of is, is," and count a disbarred disgrace as their top surrogate.


No profanity, keep it clean.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.