Pedaling backwards as fast as he can & my new favorite Billy Long quote!

Hot Diggity Dog! Hot Diggity Dog! Hot Diggity Dog!

Back pedaling on this issue as fast as he can, Long is a living testament of what happens when you sign so many pledges ("jillions"?) and don’t check the fine print on what you are signing.

Does Long remember signing Grover Norquist’s ATR pledge. Norquist’s group is in the campaign for privatization of Social Security also.

Doesn’t Billy understand that when he signs a group’s pledge or accepts their endorsement or money , that is an indicator to voters that he is supportive of their issues?

If he accepted money from NARAL, he would be branded as pro-abortion. If he accepted money from GLAAD, he would be branded as having a pro-gay agenda.

So when Long accepts money, endorsements or signs pledges from groups and individuals that advocate the privatization of Social Security, as does Conservative Congress, Americans for Tax Reform (see link above), John Boehner, the Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) and others Long is aligned with, then that is a pretty reliable indicator that Long favors dismantling the Social Security program and privatizing it.

"Hot diggity dog. Anytime you lie, Scott, I'm going to holler out 'Hot diggity dog.' And you lied last night. You lied consistently about me that I signed some kind of a questionnaire."

One other thing I might add, this conservative congress group seems to be pretty sloppy in their selection methods used for endorsements and in their record keeping.

The group says, in its press release, Eckersley "willfully and purposely" misused their mission statement "in order to scare the voters of Missouri's 7th District."

Their mission statement specifically states: "Specifically, Conservative Congress supports candidates who seek to dismantle the Department of Education and Social Security..."

Can't get much more specific than that.

Is it too much for voters to expect that Long and his campaign be more selective in which groups and individuals he aligns with or at least research the groups to determine what they advocate?

I know, he gets jillions of surveys but it is this consistent lack of attention to detail by Long that reflects poorly on his decision making abilities.

This ain't an auction, this is the United States House of Representatives.

Bus driver's note: in researching for this post, I used a link from the Huffington Post to illustrate John Boehner's plan for Social Security. At the bottom of that article is the following paragraphs:

Indeed, a platform of raising of the retirement age presents tricky politics for Republicans. Later during the "Meet the Press" program, Boehner's deputy, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind), was asked if he supported the idea. The Indiana Republican stammered around for a bit, echoing the same talking point concerning the need for "an adult conversation about domestic spending and entitlements."

Pinned down by host David Gregory, he ultimately replied: "I am for reforming our public entitlements for Americans who are far away from retirement. We need to keep promises to seniors that have been made, make sure that people who are counting on Medicare, Social Security have the benefits that they have. But for younger Americans, absolutely yes, we ought to bring real reform for the sake of future generations of Americans to get spending under control."

Did you catch it? The talking point? The one our favorite auctioneer used continually in this Social Security discussion?

"We need to keep promises to seniors that have been made"

When I asked Long is he supported Boehner's plan for Social Security, he said, "I think we need to honor our commitment to seniors."

Here, listen for yourself:

Jim Lee (JL): Well, uh, I, uh, I feel like I'm 62 years old and just whenI get ready to collect Social Security, Boehner's talking about raising the, uh, retirement age to seventy and, and I thought, My God, I worked my butt off for forty plus years.

BL: Yeah, we got to honor our commitment to people.

JL: Yeah.

BL: We can't, we got to honor our commitment to seniors.

JL: Well, then, are you saying that, uh, you would consider raising the Social Security retirement age to seventy?

BL: Listen, I'm, I think we need to honor our commitment to our seniors.

JL: So you would vote against, if John Boehner got to be Speaker of the House, you would vote against his plan to raise the Social Security age to

BL: I haven't looked at his plan, to be honest. But I'm not for raising the age of Social Security right now at all.

Female: For any reason? Not even for the future?

BL: We're talking about for now.

Female: Ok.

JL: Well, well, well.

Long told me, speaking of Boehner's plan, "I haven't looked at his plan, to be honest."

Well, HOT DIGGITY DOG!

Here's a candidate who's telling everyone who will listen how he's been approached to be a Boehner "Young Gun" and he hasn't "looked at Boehner's plan, to be honest."

Ah jeez, it's that lack of attention to detail again.