Our previous coverage of Congressman Roy Blunt (r) at Missouri Boys State on Saturday, June 13, 2009:

Roy Blunt at Missouri Boys State: opening remarks

Roy Blunt at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 1

Roy Blunt at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 2

…Question: …Just as there are many different personalities and things here, uh, what type of personalities do you encounter, uh, in the House of Representatives and, uh, in the Senate?

Congressman Roy Blunt: Uh, the personalities, you know one of the great things about, I don’t know about the Senate, though I do work with the Senate a lot, I have worked there like I work in the House.  You know I, I actually have had a, again, jobs in the House where I, I really had a chance to get to know the members, both our side and the other side, always thinking what Democrats can help us. I used to say my job in the House was the, as the Republican whip, was to know the Republicans in the, in Wa…, in the House of Representatives better than anybody else in the world knew them. Uh, and to know the Democrats better than any other Republican knew the Democrats.  And, you know, it’s, it’s a, it’s, it’s a diverse wonderful process, uh, sometimes the results aren’t all that wonderful, but democracy’s a wonderful thing. And in the House I, I, there, there, you’re gonna find some people in any group of four hundred and thirty-five people that are not well motivated, that do bad things.  And, and hopefully that should and will be punished for that. Uh, but virtually everybody there is there I, I’m convinced, for a good purpose. Uh, it’s just, uh, that’s what the great debate about the future of the country is, is, you know is, are we for big government or are we for trusting people? I, I’m gonna be on the trusting people side. You know, every, uh, every day in, in this job you, you’re likely to cast one vote if not many votes that are about do you want more freedom and less government or more government and less freedom. And I try to always be on the side of more freedom and less government. But also on the side of what government should do, government needs to do very well, instead of just say we’re gonna do this, get all the applause you can for that and then walk away and announce what you’re gonna do next. Instead of really doing what you’re committed to do. Okay?…

…Question:…Abraham Lincoln once said that a house divided cannot stand.  In your opinion why would the Republican Party decide to make actions in the House and the Senate, such as not voting for the Obama stimulus package, that would further this action of making the house not able to stand?

Congressman Blunt: Yeah, I think Abraham Lincoln, of course when he gave that, when he made that speech he made it, he, he repeated that theme often.  In eighteen fifty-eight when he and Stephen Douglas ran for the Senate, he was talking about a, a much bigger issue than division on items before the Congress. Uh, yeah the reason every Republican voted against the stimulus package was it’s not gonna work. Uh, and, uh [laughter], I’m glad we did. [applause] [garbled][inaudible]…the issue, the level of freedom or, or slavery or the kinds of things Lincoln was talking about, that’s a much different, uh, discussion. Abraham Lincoln was a, was a, uh, a active partisan advocate of one side. And when you think the other side is wrong you should oppose the other side. And you should try to make your very best case as to why they’re wrong. That’s what democracy’s all about. You know, the, the idea that, bipartisanship is not just agreeing with the other side. Uh, and whether we’re in charge or the other side’s in charge, you know, the measure of, uh, of, of, of, of your, of your willingness to get along should not be that you’re willing to give in, it should be you’re willing to look for ways where you might be able to come together with something that, that people can agree with. I think, I definitely think that we can do that healthcare. And I’ve been advocating we do it on healthcare, but I don’t know that we’re gonna get it done because there are, there are two or three principles that I’m not willing to concede and, and you know, maybe those same principles are absolutely essential to a majority. If they’re not essential to a majority maybe we can figure out how to make those things work. Okay.

Question: …When considering a piece of legislation, uh, in your experience in the House and, uh, your, hopefully experience in the Senate, uh, is the first consideration whether or not the piece of legislation is a good idea, or is the first consideration whether, uh, enacting that legislation falls under a power specifically enumerated to the Congress by the Constitution?

Congressman Blunt: I actually think that the first consideration would be whether it’s the job of the government. Uh, this is actually a good question. And then, then decide if it’s the job of the government or it’s a good idea. If it’s not the job of government it, it doesn’t really matter if it’s a good idea or not. The four years I was a university president nobody ever came to me and asked me to do anything evil. But a lot of people came to me and asked me to do things, I had to say, “No, that’s not what we do.” Or, we, we can’t, that, that’s not what we can put our focus now. Uh, but none of it was bad necessarily, it just wasn’t our job. And I think that same principle in government is that, that, the question you asked the order would be, is, is it the job of the government first. And if it is, then you evaluate if it’s a good idea or not as opposed to saying, “This is really a good thing, somebody should do this, why not the government?” I, I think that’s a, that would not be the, the, what I’d want to do.

Question: …With the current economic crisis and, uh, the plethora, I guess, of problems today, um, it seems that, uh, alternative energy has kind of slid to the background. And so I was wondering how you do as a congressman, um, uh, work to keep these still relevant and important today.

Congressman Blunt: Yeah, you know…,as, as the gas prices go up this summer, uh, the, all these issues are gonna come back on energy. But, you know, for whatever reason, in energy, uh, as long as its prices are temporarily affordable it’s hard to keep our country focused on the future. Uh, and, uh, you see a little more of it every, every day now as gasoline prices, the one for posted price out there in the marketplace increases. But I am for more American energy. Uh, it’s crazy to buy things from people, to have to buy things from people who don’t like you. Uh, but it’s almost as crazy that, to buy things from economies outside your own if you can meet the need internally and create the jobs and opportunity here. So I’m for more American energy, but I’m also for, for, for, I’m for finding more, using less, and investing in the future. Uh, we need to find alternatives, we need to find, I’m for all of the above. I’m, I’m for, uh, for using the traditional fossil fuels and finding new ways to, to resource them as we develop alternatives. Uh, I’m for wind. I’m for solar, I’m for renewables, I, I’m for all the above, and I’m for more American energy.  I’m for con… conservation. We could do a lot in our state. And our state is interesting in that we’re, we’re truly a border state in the energy field. We have sort of northern climate and southern building standards. You know, so a lot of our older houses don’t, didn’t have, uh, insulation and things that, a lot of houses in other places the country had even then. They’d say, “Well, you know, my cousin in Arkansas doesn’t have insulation, why should I ha
ve insulation?” Well we’re two hundred maybe, or two hundred miles further north. That’s why we should have insulation. We could save a lot of money. Uh, we could become much more energy efficient in our state, uh, by just conservation. By just doing smart things to use less energy. So, find more, useless, invest in the future. Okay.

Question: …I was curious how, as a congressman how you’re trying or working to, uh, decrease the national deficit?

Congressman Blunt: To decrease the national deficit?

Question: Yeah.

Congressman Blunt: Well, I, I never voted for any of these, these spending proposals. Uh, and I’m hoping the country just begins to rise up. You know the budget that we voted on doesn’t actually spend any money it just sets a blueprint. And the blueprint is bad. The blueprint is, you know, doubling the deficit in five years, double it again in ten. Uh, and, and I hope people are really responding to that in an aggressive way and that we still have a chance here to, uh, snatch, uh, true economic hardship for the future, uh, away from what’s about to happen. And, uh, be sure that that doesn’t happen…

Question: …What was your biggest challenge and how do you, what motivated you to get to where you are.

Congressman Blunt: Um, what motivated me to, yeah, public service, I’ve always found it appealing. Uh, when I was growing up we, we, uh, my family was always interested and it was a topic of discussion around our house. So I was actually an elected official in Springfield in Greene County which then was the third largest county in the state, uh, when I was twenty-three. I was the Secretary of State when I was thirty-five. [garbled] Matt was already governor by the time he was thirty-five, so I’m way behind there. Uh, I, I like the idea of public service. I, I like, uh, the opportunity it provides, even when I wasn’t in elected office, uh, the option before me, the one that I found most appealing was to be a university president. And I was fortunate to do that four years and it was the, it had the same kind of satisfaction for me, uh, that, uh, being an elected official has had. Which is, is the opportunity to solve big problems, uh, and, and truly be a public servant. And I hope I meet that definition.

That it? [applause] Thank you…

Congressman Roy Blunt at Missouri Boys State on June 13, 2009.

As Michael Bersin just pointed out, Rep. Cynthia Davis is speaking up in her own defense:

“….My weekly Capitol Report is a way for me to have two-way communications with my constituents and not a national manifesto for you to mock, distort, and to be quoted out of context…”

She’s right, of course, that we mocked it. But whenever a politician gets quoted pretty much in her entirety and still claims that the opposition distorted and took her remarks out of context, I’m reminded of the politicians who resign office to spend more time with their families. Maybe one in a hundred of them really do want to spend more time with their families, but it’s, you know, boilerplate excuse.

Now that I mention it, Davis has a large family. I suppose it would be too much to hope that she’ll want to spend more time with all those children.

But Fort Cynthia is barring the gates because it is besieged now, not just by liberal bloggers, by the old media, and by the TV punditry, but even by her own colleagues.

Democrat Trent Skaggs, Kansas City, sent this e-mail out to all House members and their staff:

I cannot believe the liberal media did this to one of our own members. I am shocked and appalled.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/vp/31496805#31496805

And Republican Rob Schaaf, St. Joseph–et tu?–answered him, writing also to all House members and their staff:

Nah, she can’t be the worst person in the world until she at least has a remonstrance behind her!

Skaggs’ crocodile shock didn’t fool Davis’ legislative assistant for a second. Terra Guittar wrote:

I find your comments regarding Representative Davis distasteful, disrespectful, and extremely unprofessional.  Even under the guise of being “shocked and appalled”.  The fact that you have sent this email to the entire “House Members and Staff” distribution list clearly demonstrates your apparent lack of professional courtesy and behavior for fellow colleagues.

Personal political beliefs aside, the public workplace email system is absolutely no place to make such unprofessional and crude comments regarding anyone.

Indeed. How dare he! Oh. Wait. She’s using the entire “House Members and Staff” distribution list

and the public workplace e-mail system to carry on the argument.

State Representative Cynthia Davis (r – right wingnuttia) demonstrates that she doesn’t quite understand why she’s been in the news. In a press release (courtesy of Chad Livengood at the Springfield News-Leader) Representative Davis wears her victimhood on her right sleeve:

…My weekly Capitol Report is a way for me to have two-way communications with my constituents and not a national manifesto for you to mock, distort, and to be quoted out of context…

Uh, you put it out there for everyone to see. You’re so clueless that you thought no one would see it? Au contraire! If you give us a slow pitch over the plate or a brightly colored piñata, we’re going to swing at it. Welcome to the world your modern republican party created Representative Davis – the rest of us only live in it.

Missouri State Senator Jeff Smith (D) succinctly summed up the republican presidential field for 2012 in a Twitter post:

Potential Republican 2012 presidential field: Vitter, Ensign, Sanford, Gingrich and Palin. Who says they’re not the party of family values? 29 minutes ago from txt

I wish I had thought that one up.

Today:

…In a strange and meandering press conference, South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford (R) explained this afternoon that he’d been “unfaithful” to his wife, after developing a “relationship” with a woman in Argentina…

Recently:

Sen. John Ensign today acknowledged an extramarital affair with a member of his campaign staff…

In the not so distant past:

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) apologized last night after his telephone number appeared in the phone records of the woman dubbed the “D.C. Madam,” making him the first member of Congress to become ensnared in the high-profile case…

Setting the stage for his entry into the presidential race, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., gave a radio interview to be broadcast today with Focus on the Family’s James Dobson, in which Gingrich for the first time publicly acknowledged cheating on his first and second wives…

Family values?

Our previous coverage of Congressman Roy Blunt (r) at Missouri Boys State on Saturday, June 13, 2009:

Roy Blunt at Missouri Boys State: opening remarks

Roy Blunt at Missouri Boys State: Q and A, part 1

….Question: …I was wondering how you feel about the huge shift, the political left in the two thousand eight election and what you think about how the Republican Party is gonna, uh, react to that in the two thousand ten election.

Congressman Roy Blunt: Well, I, I’m running for the Senate as a Republican in two thousand ten so I obviously must have some optimism about that. [laughter] I think in, uh, I think in two thousand and eight, you know, with the war, other things had, had led the, the, the, to the level of dissatisfaction. Uh, interestingly if you start in two thousand and eight you wouldn’t have thought that Iraq would not be an issue by the end of that year. That the surge would have such results that really nobody was talking about Iraq in, in a way they were, uh, in January by the time you got to November. Uh, but I, I think people are now looking at change, this idea of change, you know, when, when a candidate runs for public office and promises change, who’s not for that? You know, and if somebody at your school said we’re gonna change the school , and that’s all, the only information you have, and you’re allowed to decide that it’s gonna change exactly how you want it to change, you’re, you’re really inclined for that to happen. Almost nobody is totally satisfied by the way things are. That’s, that’s the way we were made, we were made to want to change things. But I think people are seeing that the specifics of that change, whether it’s healthcare, or energy, or tax policy, or, or, or, or our, or our policy related to other countries in the world, I think there’s gonna be a desire, as I told, as I answered the first question…asked, I think it’s gonna be a desire to get more balance back into the system. I think this is an opportunity for my side, uh, to talk about, uh, the principles of, that are, that are foundational to the side of our debate and our country to believe that government should be the last resort rather than the first resort. I think people are gonna be pretty uncomfortable within a couple of years with the idea that the federal government now owns car companies and has somebody that decides how much money people make, the so called pay czar who was announced this week. So, I, I think that there’s gonna be a, one of the wonderful  things about our system is its ability to recalibrate. It’s ability to get back to where the system itself begins to control itself. And every time the system, in the history of the country, has swung too far one way the American voters come right back in and usually pretty quickly and say, “Wait a minute. You know, I’m not, uh, I, I’m not totally unhappy with the way things are going in Washington, but I don’t want just one side to be able to do whatever they want to do.” And then there’ll be another group that says, “I am totally unhappy, uh, with the way things are going in Washington.” And, and of course, they’re, they weigh in and, in a way that shifts things, shifts things back, uh, to the middle as well.

Over here…

Congressman Roy Blunt at Missouri Boys State in Warrensburg on the campus of the University of Central Missouri on June 13, 2009.

…Question: …How, how do you manage to balance national affairs and along with state issues as, you know, the congressman [garbled][inaudible].

Congressman Blunt: You know, one, I , I’ve had, my view of that is a little bit different than a lot of people’s I think. When I went to Washington I’d been a statewide elected official for, uh, several years, elected twice as secretary of state. And, and my view was, it, it’s particularly easy for me to start meddling in things in Jefferson City that aren’t necessarily gonna benefit by, uh, by my distraction in that direction. So I, I’ve sort of had, I’ve had a principal that look, until we get all the problems solved in Washington I’m. I’m gonna do my best to not give much advice to what, what needs to happen in Jefferson City. And when my son Matt became governor that became an even better position for me to take. You know, I could spend all my time talking about things that are not my responsibility or I could spend my time trying to do things that are my, are my responsibility. And so I, I, I’m still on the, I’m still in the mindset until we get all the problems solved in Washington then I’m not gonna get very involved giving my friends advice in Jefferson City about how they can do a better job. That doesn’t mean I don’t talk to them about what we need to do in Washington that helps them do their jobs. It just means that I try my best not to get into discussions that are going on day to day in the Missouri General Assembly. I don’t work there, I’m not elected and I’m not elected to work there, uh, it, it, it would be a distraction of, of all kinds if I got too involved there. But I really do believe that in our system when you, uh, encourage the states to try to, when you give the states more freedom, uh, then, if it works, that, you know, again, back to my comment about Jefferson, in, in this system the states can uniquely be laboratories for change and we ought to encourage that rather than try to create federal straitjackets where you couldn’t have change.

Okay, over here.

Question: …How do you think that we can stop this radical movement of nationalizing more and more businesses?

Congressman Blunt: Well, nationalizing businesses, I, I, you know, look at the polls on this. And I’m sure the White House is, is hopefully looking at these polls. People are very dissatisfied with this. Uh, that the, you know, the idea that the American taxpayers would somehow own sixty or seventy per cent of General Motors a year ago would have, I think, been unthinkable. Uh, and we have rapidly, much too rapidly gone this direction. Uh, we got started down that road to, in, in the, under the other administration, not in running the businesses, but thinking that things were too big to fail. Uh, and maybe, if the government has an obligation here it’s to, it’s again to organize the marketplace, back to that principle, organize the marketplace so that things can’t get too big to fail, rather than let things get so big that then you have to go in and use taxpayer’s money and the, the focus of the government and the resources of the government, uh, to be running a car company, and they say they’re not running a car company but the President announced where the headquarters was gonna be. And Barney Frank, uh, got, uh, they planned, uh, to, to close a distribution facility in his district. He complained and they changed their mind on that. We don’t have any business running a car company. Uh, we don’t have any business with the government takeover of healthcare. Uh, and, uh, we’ve gotta get back to figure out how the government serves its responsibility of seeing that the marketplace works rather than constantly trying to get in and run the marketplace. We ought to work hard to be sure that we create markets. One of the things our government’s done since the antitrust act is when people are gonna buy, you know, when companies are gonna buy, uh, another company, uh, if, if you get down to where there’s not much competition the government actually, for almost a hundred years now, has had to at some point say, okay we still think this allows the marketplace to function. Well if we’d really done that effectively these companies wouldn’t be too big to fail. There’d be some other competitor out there that could c
ome in and, and take their place.  And that’s what we ought to be working on. Okay?

Question:…If you’re elected to the Senate, um, you already said that you’re gonna fight, uh, large spending in government. What, what other major issues would you fight? [crosstalk]

Congressman Blunt: Well, you know, I’m defending the country. I’m on the, I’m on the Intelligence Committee and that doesn’t mean that there are only like enough, a few people that are intelligent, it, it.[laughter] The Intelligence Committee is a, there may not be that many people that are all that intelligent [laughter], the Intelligence Committee is where, you know, we really do have a few people in the Congress are on a committee, its job is to monitor the executive branch activity of the CIA and now the, uh, the National Security Administration and other places, uh, to be sure that, uh, that, that the Congress is appropriately doing its job, uh, to work to, to watch the executive, to have oversight to be sure that we’re defending the country in an adequate way. Yeah, strengthening the economy and defending the country, uh, are, are clearly, or strengthening the marketplace and defending the country are clearly two priorities that if the Congress would, uh, the House and Senate would focus on that and the federal government focused on that a lot of other problems would solve themself. The marketplace works, if you’d insure you had one. The world is a dangerous place. We have enemies in the world. Why do we have enemies in the world? One of the reasons we have enemies in the world today in, in this movement toward a radical view of, of the world and, uh, in the radical, most radical of, in Islam is that we’re so diverse. And if you watch what Osama bin Laden and people like him that have talked about for decades now, their point of view is that everybody has to be the same. You have to dress the same way, you have to pray to the same God at the same time, everybody’s relationship in their house, husband-wife, father-children, mother-children, children to each other, it has to be exactly the same as the house next door. Well, this room, if, if you knew all you need to know about this room you’d know that unlike any country in the world, uh, we prove that that’s not true. And if we’re as strong as we appear to be there, there’s something wrong here in their daily diatribe about how everybody has to be the same. And so either they have, they have to also every day say the United States is not a, who, as strong as it appears to be. Uh, the exact quote in, uh, in, from Osama bin Laden would be that the America was a weak horse, not a strong horse. And they say every day things like if you push the Americans just a little bit they will crumble before your eyes because they’re not who they appear to be. ‘Cause if they’re who they appear to be we must, the, the other side must be wrong. Because we, we, we disprove that theory of how a society has to be every single day. And we disprove it like nobody else disproves it. That’s why we’re the number one target of that kind of radical point of view in the world. It’s not that, uh, we’ve looked to be the target. And it’s not that, uh, that we have worked to be the target.  It’s just who we are disproves who, the way they say the world has to be. And so that’s made us a target. So, securing the world, uh, securing the country in a dangerous world and working for opportunity for you, uh, and everybody else in this country, particularly for rising Americans, uh, as you enter the world of competition and work, you need to have the same kind of opportunities, uh, that your, your parents generation had and their parents generation had and I’ve had….

Part three will conclude this series.

From Judd Legum via Twitter:

Old media upset that @nicopitney — who has been working around the clock on the Iranian uprising — was called on. Cry me a river. 11 minutes ago from web

And the founder of the “Great Orange Satan” weighs in, too:

No one could’ve predicted that Nico Pitney would ask a question about the only thing he’s written about in weeks! 21 minutes ago from TweetDeck

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22425001/vp/31508276#31508276

…President Obama: …Since we’re on Iran, uh, I know, uh, Nico Pitney is here from, uh, Huffington Post.

Nico Pitney, Huffington Post: Thank you Mr. President.

President Obama: Nico, I know that, uh, you and all across the Internet, we’ve been seeing a lot of reports coming directly out of Iran. Uh, I know that, uh, there may actually be questions from, uh, people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet. Uh, what, do you have a question?

Nico Pitney: Yeah, I did, I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian. We solicited questions last night from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating on line and one of them wanted to ask you this:

Uh, under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadenijad and if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there isn’t that, uh, a betrayal of the, of what the demonstrators there are working towards?

President Obama: Well look, we didn’t have international observers on the ground. Uh, we can’t say definitively what exactly happened at polling places, uh, throughout the country. Uh, what we know is that a sizable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. Uh, it’s not an isolated, uh, instance, uh, little grumbling here or there. Uh, there is significant questions about, uh, the legitimacy of the election. Uh, and so ultimately the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people. Uh, not in the eyes of the United States. And that’s why I’ve been very clear, ultimately this is up to the Iranian people, to decide who their leadership is gonna be and the structure of their government. What we can do is to say unequivocally that they’re sets of international norms and principles about violence, about, uh, dealing with the peaceful dissent. Uh, that, uh, that spans cultures, spans borders, uh, and what we’ve been seeing, uh, over the Internet and what we’ve been seeing in news reports violates those norms and violates those principles. Uh, I think it is not too late for the Iranian government to recognize that, uh, that there is a peaceful path that will lead to stability and legitimacy and prosperity for the Iranian people. We hope they take it…

Update – from Peter Daou via Twitter:

Maybe the WH had a sense of what Nico was going to ask because, um, he wrote about it long before the presser? http://tinyurl.com/n8gfsc1 3 minutes ago from web

Monday night on Countdown, Keith Olbermann quoted Cynthia Davis’ objection to feeding poor kids free meals in the summer. She asserts that churches can handle such problems “if it is warranted”, thus saving taxpayer dollars, and that “hunger can be a positive motivator” for children under 18 to get a job. Olbermann’s response?

One in five kids in Missouri is already motivated by hunger, Miss Davis. And last year, because the meals are offered at churches, the nine and half million dollars in federal money spent produced three million, seven hundred thousands of meals at a cost of about two and a half bucks each. It is embarrassing enough that Cynthia “let them eat McDonalds” Davis is a public servant paid by tax dollars, but she is also the chairwoman of the Missouri Special Standing Committee on Families and Children. It would seem that her advocacy of hunger would disqualify her from that job and that we’d be better off if she was working at a McDonalds.

Olbermann concludes that Davis is starved, that her brain is starved of intelligence and humanity. He names her, for the day, the “worst person in the world.”

Olbermann gave her a good public spanking, but the P-D still had the most telling line: “State Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O’Fallon, is staking out a strong position on child hunger: She’s for it.”

Representative Cynthia Davis, O’Fallon, who chairs the Special Standing Committee on Children and Families, must be delighted at all the free publicity she’s getting over her newsletter opposing free meals for poor children during the summer. At first it was only on Fired Up!, whose audience is, well, healthy but not huge. Then the Post-Dispatch, whose readership is considerably larger, picked up the news and wrote a humdinger of an editorial that started off this way:

State Rep. Cynthia Davis, R-O’Fallon, is staking out a strong position on child hunger: She’s for it.

Now the story about Cynthia’s Scrooginess has gone national–OK, it’s not in the New York Times, but still, AlterNet–though a left-wing rag–is national.

Meanwhile, Fired Up! tweaks her daily with a cartoon in the right hand column showing a witch grinning wickedly at an apple and saying: “I get the apples, my little pretties. You get the McNuggets with fries–but only if you work for ’em.” That’s a reference to this from her newsletter:

   Anyone under 18 can be eligible? Can’t they get a job during the summer by the time they are 16? Hunger can be a positive motivator. What is wrong with the idea of getting a job so you can get better meals?

   Tip:  If you work for McDonald’s, they will feed you for free during your break.

(By the way, McDonalds feeds its workers for half price, not for free.)

Perhaps you thought I was being satirical when I said all the publicity would delight her. Not at all. Who loves to be victimized more than Republicans? Proof that she’s enjoying her victimhood lies on her website: it’s all still there, including the tip about working at McDonalds.

Update: Now the story has also made Think Progress.