Wednesday, September 19, 2012

He ain’t heavy, but he can be a drag—

This clip is from TPM from a Univision candidate forum:

Now, I think Romney should be aware that Obama put the “stopgap measure” to not deport those who fit into the DREAM Act demographic in place because the congressional Republicans blocked the DREAM Act in 2010 and were unlikely to do shit during Obama’s first term. That’s just where it’s at. When Romney says he wouldn’t “round up” and deport people—he’s saying he’d do the same thing (because he’s in front of a Latino audience) but he wouldn’t codify it (because his broader audience is assumed to be bigoted against immigrants). This is typical Romney mush, and it isn’t even funny in light of his recent videotaped* joke that he’d have an easier time getting elected if he really did have Mexican heritage. (Like all those other Hispanic presidents we had, Mitt?. Jorge Arbusto an’all them? Oh wait—I get it! Our current president is a person of color. Pro-tip: That joke doesn’t play in all venues.)

Anyhoo, since I’m a ridiculous catty humanoid—was it the lighting, the make-up, or am I seeing stuff?  Tan in a can for the man to make him less bland? A total plan? Or widely panned?

* I turned 40 on Tuesday. I originally typed “videotaped”, realized it was technologically incorrect, and then said, “Screw it.” In my day, we had VHS camcorders, and they weighed a ton, and we liked them.  You couldn’t surreptitiously tape a blindfolded person popping bubblewrap from 40 paces, let alone capture 70 minutes of sheer capitalist wankery unawares. The pictures I take with my phone look like bad Polaroids.*

*Polaroids—why Granny doesn’t have any baby pictures that survived 5 decades in a shoe box, I’m afraid.

Posted by Vixen Strangely on 09/19/12 at 10:46 PM
Permalink

Mitt Romney’s #missing2min

image

I’ve had to take to donning protective eyewear and a pith helmet before checking into Huffington Post over the last couple of days, for fear that the lurid red all-caps 180pt headlines screaming “HELL WEEK” and other smack about Mitt’s revealingly unzipped quiet-room lapdance for his donors will have my eye out.

Not content with this wall-to-wall coverage across the entire media and the outpourings of despair and condemnation the whole affair has provoked from what passes for the conservative intelligentsia, some of the RW borg have decided they need to keep this thing going for a bit longer by playing “Aha!” with Mother Jones’s David Corn over a couple of minutes’ break in the full video that was released in two parts yesterday, in response to Mitt’s own request.

Col. Mustard led the charge into the Valley of Daft yesterday:

Critical audio gap in “complete” Romney tape released by Mother Jones (Update – Corn responds, 1-2 minutes missing)
Turns out tape cuts out part of controversial Romney answer

David Corn of Mother Jones released the “complete” audio and video of the secretly recorded Mitt Romney speech at a private fundraiser.

Yet the complete audio and video is not complete.  There is a gap in the recording immediately after Romney’s now famous discussion of the 47% of voters who don’t pay taxes.  The cut in the audio and video comes while Romney is in mid-sentence, so we actually do not have the full audio of what Romney said on the subject.

The next audio/video (Part 2) picks up with Romney talking about China.

Having finally established with David Corn via email that the recording device inadvertently clipped a brief passage of the speech, he continues in this vein today:

Maybe Romney answer was “inelegant” only because Mother Jones didn’t disclose that part of tape was missing
See Update — Corn explanation for non-disclosure contradicted by saved screen shots.

When originally presented by David Corn of Mother Jones, there was no disclosure that part of Mitt Romney’s controversial answer about 47% of voters was missing from the tape.

Since only an edited version originally was presented, there was no way to know if something was missing.  After all, it was edited, so of course something was missing by definition.

Romney has admitted that the answer on the video, which he didn’t remember except for the video, was “inelegant.”  That’s why Romney asked for the full audio/video to be released.

One is inevitably driven to wonder where Col. Mustard thinks this line of attack is going. Other than bleats from Ann Romney that Mitt’s words were “taken out of context” (the irony of this from a campaign that has prided itself on its badassity and has been largely based on partial and distorted quotes of President Obama’s words probably won’t be lost on you) and he loves the poors really even if the feckless bastards will never vote for him, Mitt himself has chosen to double down on what he said and has been wildly cheered by the borg for finally coming up with a line of attack that’s stupid, shortsighted, and vicious enough for them to wholeheartedly agree with. So which is it?—Mitt the Great Truthteller sticking it to the sponging 47%, or Mitt the ... What?

Some of those with some skin in the game on the Republican side—including New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez and Scott Brown—haven’t been so quick to cheer Mitt on at this juncture—even his own Palinized running mate has been somewhat critical of Mitt’s comments—but none of them seem to be in any doubt about what he said and what he meant.

In any case, no matter how controversial the 47% remarks were, plenty of the other passages—including Mitt’s avowed intention to make hay out of any foreign policy crisis that fell in his lap and to hell with the consequences—are pretty damn telling in themselves, and we do have the full versions of those.

So what on earth could be encapsulated in those mysterious two minutes that would transform this ongoing debacle into clusterfuckus interruptus?

I had my own attempt at joining the dots in an earlier thread. However, “But enough about me. Let the bunga bunga begin!” doesn’t seem to fit the bill since the second part of the video shows little or no evidence of the sorts of sexxxytime goings-on that host Marc Leder’s Boca Raton mansion has seen in the past.

Still, there’s no shortage of suggestions on Twitter, where the hashtag #missing2min is hopping right now. You may have your own ideas.

Or use this thread to talk about anything else that’s been overshadowed by this kerfuffle.

Posted by YAFB on 09/19/12 at 11:44 AM
Permalink

That 47%, Republicans?  You Built It.

(video h/t The American Conservative)


All of a sudden the party of Grover Norquist, the party of “read my lips,” the party of no new taxes EVER! has an ax to grind with people who don’t, in their opinion, pay enough tax.  Never mind the fact that the Republican Party has pursued a decades-long, loud and obsessive agenda of tax relief. 

Two factors have inflated the number of Americans who don’t pay federal income tax.  One is the economy, which Mitt Romney somehow believes he can improve immediately to the extent that he has promised to add 12 million jobs in his first term.  The other is the decades long legacy of Republican tax cuts, many of which had the express purpose of relieving the lower to middle class of a federal income tax burden.  Romney has pledged to continue those.

Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan must be spinning in his grave as Romney describes the 47% of non-income tax payers as feckless “parasites” not worthy of his attentions.  When President Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 1986, he proudly proclaimed that, “Millions of the working poor will be dropped from the tax rolls altogether, and families will get a long-overdue break with lower rates and an almost doubled personal exemption.”

The 1981 Reagan tax cuts and indexing income taxes to inflation, in 1985, were designed to do the same.

Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” Congress passed a $500 per child tax credit that eliminated the federal income tax burden of many low- to moderate-income households, in the 1990s.

At the time, Bill Archer (R-TX) who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman at the time, said  “If ever there was a tax plan for America’s forgotten middle class, this is it.”

President George W. Bush expanded the child tax credit, during his term in office, and also signed into law the famous “Bush tax cuts” that reduced the bottom marginal income tax rate from 15 percent to 10 percent. Both moves increased the percentage of people not paying income tax.

As “liberal” as all of this sounds, it was actually the Republican way of fighting the “creeping socialism” of Democrats whom they accused of being “redistributionists.”  The thinking was that, if you give tax relief to the working poor, today, they will become upwardly mobile quicker and, in the end, will contribute more in the way of taxes.  Romney, clearly hasn’t budged from that 20th century soapbox. 

Witness recent comments he made defending his “47% debacle” on Neal Cavuto’s Fox News program:

I do believe that we should have enough jobs and enough take home pay so that people have the privilege of higher income that allows them to be paying taxes.  I think people would like to be paying taxes. If you are doing well enough you can pay a tax. The problem right now, you see in this country, so many people have fallen in poverty that they are not paying taxes. They have to rely on government and the right course is not government handing out but government helping people get back to good jobs.

And, of course, if you really get lucky and get a job like Mitt’s old job, then you can go back to paying little to no taxes.  See how that works?  You folks in the middle? you get to pay the highest taxes because you have the “privilege of higher income.” Snap!

read the whole post »

Posted by Bette Noir on 09/19/12 at 10:29 AM
Permalink

Categories: PoliticsElection '12Mittens

Tuesday, September 18, 2012

Not Making a Thing out of this Romney Campaign Tidbit

So, just posting this item with a little bit of a smirk:

Republican Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign is $11 million in debt after it borrowed $20 million in August to pay for expenses before it could tap into general election dollars.
Here’s more from National Review Online, which first reported the story:

“Before the Republican National Convention, Mitt Romney was the Republican nominee in all but name. By law, however, he could only spend primary donations until he officially became nominee. To increase cash flow during the interregnum, the Romney campaign borrowed $20 million.”

A senior Romney aide told NRO that they collateralized the debt with $20 million of general election funds already in the campaign’s bank account.

Now, if the debt was collateralized with an equivalent amount of funds already received—is it really debt? Or is it only debt when possible future Romney contributors determine that they will not blow their hard-earned ducats on a losing cause?

The reason I ask this is because the Romney campaign has been a really rugged affair. Looking at the backstory, we have Romney as taking a backseat in the polls to Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain during the early primary jostling, and these are not especially gifted politicians. His front-runnerdom also suffered the anticipation of a possible white knight figure come to save the GOP from himself, whether in the form a a Wonk in Shining Armor like Mitch Daniels, or a Beast from Back East like Chris Christie. And the narrative about Mitt was that he’d catch on, even while Newt Gingrich (beaming in from the 1990’s) and Rick Santorum (beaming in from the 1600’s) threatened his nomination.

But surely, once he became front-runner, he’d take off? Or once he’d executed a friendly world tour? Or rather, once he picked a running mate, like rock star Paul Ryan? Or rather, wouldn’t he get a bump from the convention?

After his Romneyshambles Tour, being upstaged by an empty chair at his convention, fumbling a nakedly political gambit regarding foreign policy regarding the tragedy at the US consulate in Libya, and following the release of a fundraising video featuring Romney saying many things pols would never want said in front of the hoi polloi, I can easily understand why some hope might exist amongst the campaign staffers, who aren’t either squabbling to death, that the debates will help in Romney’s favor.

Go ahead, guys. Fund-raise on that. Romney is very cool in front of many people. And Obama reads from a Teleprompter, doesn’t he? Of course Mitt Romney will finally connect with the American people, after dismissing half of them, once he’s got President Obama right there….able to counter the untrue things Romney says.

Don’t the polls agree?

Good luck with that. Seriously.

(X-posted at Strangely Blogged.)

Posted by Vixen Strangely on 09/18/12 at 11:15 PM
Permalink

Tis But a Scratch

image


I have to admit that I have never cared much for Mitt Romney which means that I have had to struggle, at times, during this campaign, to remain objective about his politics.  But I no longer consider Mitt Romney, or, more to the point, the Republican Party that he represents deserving of my objectivity.  Every once in a while, in life, one just has no other recourse than to call a jerk (or group of jerks) jerk-y and walk away—count the emotional toll as a loss and cease with the excuses, the soul-searching, the desire to find some scrap of common ground.

Mitt Romney is a humorless, stilted patrician stiff who appears to be uncomfortable sharing space with the rest of his species and seems to enjoy setting people against each other.  In fact, one of the main objectives of his campaign team, with good reason, has been to “humanize” their candidate.  They haven’t gotten very far.  But they are now pretty publicly divided against each other just like every other group Mitt touches.

I suppose some of my distaste for Romney, stems from the fact that he is quintessentially representative of a certain type of young man that polluted my generation—the wealthy frat boy who spent his multiple deferments from a tour in Vietnam, wearing a suit jacket and skinny tie to counterprotests in favor of the war with the rest of his glib Young Republican cohorts.  When the deferments ran out, Mitt went to Paris instead of Saigon.  When his excellent French adventure ended, Mitt got himself another student deferment.

But that was then and this is now, you say?  And you’re right, except for one constant: Mitt Romney is a confidence man who will blithely tell anyone anything they want to hear in order to advance his own interests.  Pure and simple—the man’s a consummate liar who has dedicated his life to honing his craft.  Con men don’t worry about getting caught in their lies because they are confident that they can lie their way out of trouble.  Trying to pin down what Romney believes in is as difficult as winning the shell game in the subway . . . and for the same reason: the game is rigged.  Romney doesn’t really believe in anything outside of his own expertise at manipulating situations for fun and profit.

One doesn’t have to look any further than this year’s Republican Convention to see that despite some expressed shock and awe on the part of the media and the public about the number of lies that came tripping off Republican’s lips, there hasn’t been much negative fallout from that particular fiasco.  Lying is the new normal and, if that’s the case, Romney’s your man.

read the whole post »

Posted by Bette Noir on 09/18/12 at 12:39 PM
Permalink

Categories: PoliticsElection '12Mittens

Willard Tell: The Romney Presser Microexpression Comedy Slam

image

That Freddie Prince fellow used to say “it’s not my job,” and it always got a big laugh with the Latinos, don’t you know.


image

I just like to see the glass as 53% full. Of chocolate milk, as Annie pointed out to You People.

read the whole post »

Posted by Mrs. Polly on 09/18/12 at 01:14 AM
Permalink

Categories: Knee SlappersNewsPoliticsElection '12MittensVulture/Voucher 2012

Monday, September 17, 2012

Mitt will tell You People that food, shelter and health care are NOT entitlements!

image

So all you 47% of moochers and leeches who voted for Obama better get used to a new regime when the Vulture/Voucher ticket takes over.  David Corn at Mother Jones has a video up, which they have vetted and believe to be authentic, (and, though Mitt is a small figure on the upper right, it is undoubtedly him and speaks with his voice) of the Mittster speaking to a bunch of VVRPs* at a fund raising dinner and, not expecting to be filmed by what appears to be a You People wait staff person, expounds not only on his strategery for gulling the undecided independents but also expresses his contempt at the expectations of a social safety net by the Middles and Poors.  Lest you think I’m kidding here is Willard himself:

    There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Romney went on: “[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Honestly I think the only sane response to this is a hearty FUCK YOU MITT!!

But it definitely provides a window into his thinking as to what programs will be slashed to the bone or eliminated altogether in order to fund huge tax cuts for the very wealthy.

Oh, and something tells me a lot of the TeePees might just fit into this category of making too little to pay federal income taxes (no statistics, just sayin’, based on, you know, pictures and stuff).  They’ll really be thrilled when their disability payments are cut and food stamps disappear.  Because food is not an entitlement, remember?  Just chant USA USA USA a few times and those hunger pangs will just dissolve away.

Corn promises more to come from the video so stay tooned!

P.S.  One more take:

At the dinner, Romney also said that the campaign purposefully was using Ann Romney “sparingly…so that people don’t get tired of her.”

Psst, Mitt?  We already are.

*Very Very Rich Person

Posted by marindenver on 09/17/12 at 09:00 PM
Permalink

Categories: PoliticsElection '12MittensVulture/Voucher 2012NuttersTeabaggery

Wow.  Mitt just wrote off the 47%.

I saw this bumper sticker a handful of years back that puzzled me: “Annoy a liberal: Work for a Living!”  I’m a liberal, and I’ve always worked.  Most liberals I know do.  Do the people with that bumper sticker genuinely think that no liberals work? Just this past weekend, we heard a similar line from Gary Bauer at the VVS 2012, but this is different:

This is Mitt-fricking-Romney! He’s running for president, for goodness’ sake!

Now, here’s the transcript, which I’m copy-pasta-ing from TPM:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

That’s one hell of an assumption he’s making about just who that 47% really are.  He’s assuming that there’s significant overlap between Obama supporters and this group of “entitled” folks.

So, who even are these people?  Well, this came up last year as a response to the Occupy:“We are the 99%” slogan, where some conservatives countered that they were the 53%.  So Kevin Drum (among others, but his explanation came easily to hand) broke down just who the 47% were:

But put that aside. Even stated accurately, you might be wondering how it is that so many people end up not paying any federal income tax. Today the Tax Policy Center has the answer for you. In 2011 they estimate that 46% of Americans will pay no federal income tax. Donald Marron breaks this down:

23% pay nothing because they’re poor. A couple making less than $19,000, for example, doesn’t owe anything after their $11,600 standard deduction and two exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero. As Bob Williamson puts it, “The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax.”

10% are elderly and pay nothing because their Social Security benefits are exempt from federal income taxes.

7% pay nothing thanks to provisions in the tax code designed to benefit low-income families: the earned income tax credit, the child credit, and the childcare credit account.

And the other 6%? Their taxes are zero for a variety of reasons: above-the-line deductions and tax-exempt interest; itemized deductions; education credits; other credits; and reduced rates on capital gains and dividends. TPC’s report has all the gruesome details.

So, who is Mitt Romney writing off, there? Mostly the elderly and the working poor. He’s not concerned about them. And, now that we know that, I’m not sure why people who do think, for whatever reason, that elderly people, or the children of poor folks are probably entitled to food or shelter because of basic human decency, would seriously think Romney has a damn thing to offer this country.

Except maybe an apology.  And while you’re at it Mitt? Prove you aren’t a mooch. Release your tax returns.

Posted by Vixen Strangely on 09/17/12 at 07:03 PM
Permalink

Categories: PoliticsElection '12MittensVulture/Voucher 2012NuttersPaul Ryan

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Never the Smart, Elite—? As it was Spoken, So, Let it Be Duh!

As I posted yesterday, a funny old thing got said aloud at the VVS by my former senator regarding the folks who would stand and represent for the conservatives.  It seems like there’s some genuine corroboration of that observation of late, to wit:

Now, regarding La Liz—you do have to give her credit for achieving the kind of expertise that gets one invited on the Sunday chat shows without putting in long hours at the old grind—just add nepotism and stir! But really, that old “What about Czechoslovakia?” stunner?  She should leave that to the more matured crockpottery like Grampy McCain. It’s somehow less quaint when he says it. But she does have a point—however is President Obama supposed to properly deal with the Ottoman Empire if he has simply abandoned Czechoslovakia?  (It’s of a piece with the Romney campaign’s regular assertions that the administration can’t handle the USSR, I reckon.)

Ah, but that’s just ancient history. Surely you can count on conservative bloggers to give a better accord of current events? Heh, indeedy, no. Weeeelllllll, if you think sheriff’s deputies bringing in a willing “Bacile” for questioning regarding a possible parole violation is necessarily the handiwork of a tyrannical anti-free speech Nazi in the White House? Well, then you could count on them. Otherwise, no, they’re kind of goddamn stupid.

Also, did you know Christine O’Donnell might make a comeback? No story there, just kind of saying! 

Honorable mention goes to David Gregory, place-holder for Luke Russert on Mate the Press, who gets honorable mention for appointing Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu the leader of the Jews. Very well stroked, for a non-professional.  (We know his first love is really dance. )

Posted by Vixen Strangely on 09/16/12 at 08:14 PM
Permalink

Values Voters Summit 2012:  All the Nuts That’re Fit to Print

image


Well, another year, another Values Voters Summit “in the can,” so to speak.  For those of you unfamiliar with this particular annual Jamboree of RIGHTeousness, the VVS is a sort of sheltered workshop for all of those culture warriors among us that have identified social hobgoblins, bent on ravishing the Republic, that the rest of us blithely ignore (we’ll be sorrrrry!). 

VVS provides these folks with an opportunity to warn our largely ovine populace, and their duly elected representatives in government, of the “evils that lurk within” and that riddle our body politic with the cancer of associating with all of the wrong kinds of people in our misguided pursuit of liberty and equality.

VVS is an exclusively Right-Wing endeavor for a number of obvious reasons: a) liberals have no values or the wrong values b) the God of America is a social conservative and communicates regularly and often with the “chosen” about how HE wants things to proceed and c) Liberal Christians are confused pantheists who suffer from Tower of Babel syndrome by allowing everyone to have their own god instead of the “one true God” that invented America to perfect humanity.

The number one takeaway from this year’s VVS is that God is extraordinarily pissed with America for electing a Muslim black Marxist community organizer from Chicago to lead us astray and we had all better clean up our act—as of yesterday.  (God isn’t wild about the prospect of a Mormon, either, but it’s a step in the RIGHT direction from the “foreign” extremis that we currently find ourselves in).

Teetering on the brink of eternal damnation because of a bunch of unAmerican “libtard” heretics is totally unacceptable to Christian Soldiers who are the rightful leaders of the “shining city on the hill.”  And that might explain the amped up 2012 VVS rhetoric with not even a pretense of inclusion or (gasp) political correctness.  Codes, symbols and signifiers are out the window and “the chosen ones” are bringing it to the infidels in their midst, without mincing words. Because . . . GOP-mageddon!  Means. the. Smart. People. Win!!!!

read the whole post »

Posted by Bette Noir on 09/16/12 at 01:32 PM
Permalink

Categories: PoliticsNutters

Red States, Blue Movies

Oddly enough, despite the content of this post, the links are pretty much “Safe for Work”- the only “spicy” link is to Urban Dictionary.  The only obscene content in the post consists of mentions of right-wing authoritarians…

Via Tengrain’s place, we have a Think Progress piece that indicates that Mitt will be going after pornography if he wins the presidential election.  As an aside, given Mitt’s notorious flip-flopping, this probably means he has a stack of porn that can be seen from space. 

If Mitt pursues this crusade against smut (and in the interests of full disclosure, the best smut on the internet can be found here), Mitt could possibly lose the conservative vote.  Put bluntly, Red Staters do love their porn, with Utah residents widely reported the top consumers.  Conservatives have long had a conflicted relationship with porn- in the 1980’s, the regressive Meese Commission compiled its report on the dangers of pornography after viewing a staggering amount of porn, and infamous fundamentalist pastor Jimmy Swaggart had a high profile sex scandal.

Of course, this is not to say that Mitt himself likes porn.  There’s no evidence that he has cyber sister wives so he can engage in polygamy by proxy.  There’s absolutely no publicly available evidence that Mitt is a “brony”, and no reason to believe that he blew off Rafalca’s performance in London out of fear that the NBC cameras would catch him “clopping”, rather than clapping.  That being said, Mitt may claim to hate porn, but he sure loves that porn money.  Mitt Romney sat on the board of the Marriott hotel chain (which makes millions of dollars off of pay-per-view porn) from 1992 to 2001.  Mitt was even characterized as a “major pornographer” by a critic in his 2008 presidential bid.  As is typical, Mitt takes an “I’ve got mine, screw you” approach to porn- he’s made his porn money, but he wants to pull up the ladder behind him, leaving up-and-coming entreporneurs destitute.

One is also left to wonder whether retired “adult entertainer” Jenna Jameson will reconsider her support of Romney, or if she also takes that “IGMSY” attitude toward up-and-coming performers.

This unsolicited hard-line attitude toward porn could represent another unforced error on the part of the Romney campaign.  The GOP conservative base and the disaffected libertarian wing of the party seem to love their porn, let’s see if they tell Mitt that he can take their porn when he pries it from their lubed, dead hands.

Posted by Big Bad Bald Bastard on 09/16/12 at 06:38 AM
Permalink

Categories: PoliticsElection '12Vulture/Voucher 2012

Saturday, September 15, 2012

Rick Santorum May be on to Something, Here. (Hint: Not Really.)

It’s true, I can’t quit this guy.  Via Right Wing Watch .org:

“We will never have the media on our side, ever, in this country, We will never have the elite, smart people on our side.” 

You know, sometimes even my former senator gets a thing or two right.  I know—deceased equine belaboring on my part again, but I will never find his knee-jerk anti-intellectualism not fascinating.

I try to tune out the Value Voters’ thingie for my mental health and because I suspect there’s a lot of code-talking and signifying going on—and I don’t always “get” the code.  I’m not the intended audience, in other words. But the bits that do drift past present a fascinating view of a very different mindset from mine.

“When it comes to conservatism libertarian types can say, oh, well you know, we don’t want to talk about social issues, Without the church and the family, there is no conservative movement, there is no basic values of America.”

It’s neat the way he says “the church” and “the family” like there’s just one church or one type of family. Yet, he doesn’t value other churches or families that don’t resemble his.  And I know he doesn’t trust the education that lets people see the various factors that unite people despite their differences.

He will probably be descending upon Iowa three years from now, trying just a little harder. (Yes, when the conservatives are through with Mitt Romney….they’ll recognize that he was the smart people’s choice. Is what. And see where that got them.  Santorum 2016.)

Posted by Vixen Strangely on 09/15/12 at 04:02 PM
Permalink

Categories: PoliticsBedwettersNuttersRelijun

Friday, September 14, 2012

Dance Band on the Titanic

image


The Right Wing-o-Sphere is losing altitude at an alarming rate and heads are starting to explode.  Dreams of Obama-geddon are fading and heightened levels of conservo-lunacy are threatening to swamp our national discourse, once again.  For compelling evidence of the scope of the current problem, one need only look to the daily ramblings of Rush Limbaugh, the most reliable barometer of insanity among fringe elites. 

Limbaugh’s conspiracy du jour is that old conservative chestnut “The Liberal Media Conspiracy.”  The evidence for dredging up this all-purpose blanket excuse for negative reportage of Republican bungling is, apparently, the fact that reporters talked to each other before Mitt Romney’s presser, yesterday (a bad idea piling on another bad idea). 

Here’s the damning evidence that so incensed Limbaugh, from a blog that calls itself TheRightScoop:

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: …pointing out that the Republicans… *unintelligible* …Obama….

CBS REPORTER: That’s the question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: *unintelligible*

CBS REPORTER: Yeah that’s the question. I would just say do you regret your question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Your question? Your statement?

CBS REPORTER: I mean your statement. Not even the tone, because then he can go off on…

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: And then if he does, if we can just follow up and say ‘but this morning your answer is continuing to sound…’ – *becomes unintelligble*

CBS REPORTER: You can’t say that..

**Later**

CBS REPORTER: I’m just trying to make sure that we’re just talking about, no matter who he calls on we’re covered on the one question.

UNIDENTIFIED REPORTER: Do you stand by your statement or regret your statement?

So.  TheRightScoop’s big “scoop” is the mundane pre-presser strategizing of pool reporters attempting to get the most information from a limited (increasingly more limited) number of questions allowed.

Stop the Presses!

read the whole post »

Posted by Bette Noir on 09/14/12 at 10:29 AM
Permalink

SuperMitt!

Move over Spidey, there’s another superhero on the block! Having lurked under a secret identity among us since he landed from the planet Kolob and was adopted by his Earth parents (take that, birfers!), he’s just unmasked himself as The Smirking Wimp—SuperMitt!

SuperMitt!

In his mind.                      In your lyin’ eyes.

SuperMitt! fell into a quantum anomaly as a child and was bitten on the ass by a temporal paradox! Since then, SuperMitt! has discovered that he has mastery over the very fabric of time and space and other stuff!

Not only can he see the future

EXCLUSIVE – Romney on Debates: Obama Will ‘Say Things That Aren’t True’

but he can warp causality and create new hypothetical universes with a click of his booties! All he has do is shout “IF ...,” and the whole space-time continuum subMitts to his will and reshuffles itself!

Advisers to Mitt Romney on Thursday defended his sharp criticism of President Obama and said that the deadly protests sweeping the Middle East would not have happened if the Republican nominee were president.

Oh, and he has a sidekick, +1, but he doesn’t really do anything except tag along and look purty!

Further superpowers will no doubt come to light as we learn that THERE’S SIMPLY NOTHING SuperMitt! CAN’T DO! I’ve probably missed some already, so help me out here!

Or Click here to become an official Roaster!

UPDATE!

It seems I’m behind the times here! Folks are already busy identifying SuperMitt!‘s superpowers at #Romneystrength!

[h/t amused]

Posted by YAFB on 09/14/12 at 10:25 AM
Permalink

Thursday, September 13, 2012

“Disincentivizing” the Electorate

image


One of Mitt Romney’s major claims to fame is his much-ballyhooed business acumen and, ergo, his fitness to be the CEO of America. The most noticeable measure of his success is, of course, his vast personal wealth.  Now Romney has also been a politician - governor of Massachussetts, as a matter of fact, but being a politician doesn’t play particularly well, right now, especially being a Republican politician, so Romney relied on his business cred for the major portion of his early campaigning.

. . . until Team Obama put a pin in that balloon with their “outsourcer-in-chief” ads which had as their take-away ““Mitt Romney’s not the solution. He’s the problem.”  And a lot of people bought it.

A CBS/New York Times poll, in early August, asked voters in swing states Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania: “Does Mitt Romney have the right kind of business experience to get the economy creating jobs again, or is Romney’s kind of business experience too focused on making profits?” In each state, 48 to 51 percent of likely voters said Romney’s experience was too focused on profits. Only 41 to 42 percent said he had the right kind of experience.

No worries, Team Romney then pivoted from CEO Romney to Governor Romney to show that he has experience running a government entity, not just a private business.  The problem is that Romney was not a very well-liked or effective governor.  He served one term and his signature legislation was RomneyCare, the now-embarrassing prototype for the Affordable Care Act which Romney has damned as “bad law” harmful to the nation that he intends to repeal on “Day One” of his presidency.  He also proved, convincingly, that he is not very skilled at playing politics.

As Andrew Miga and Steve LeBlanc reported on Romney’s sojourn as governor of Massachussetts:

What worked for Mitt Romney in the corporate boardroom didn’t fly in the more raucous corridors of the Massachusetts Legislature.[. . . ]

Romney’s mostly fraught relations with state lawmakers could provide insight into how he’d handle a Congress that might still be politically divided if he becomes president.

Democrats in the Massachussetts Senate certainly did not think the relationship with Romney worked well:

Some Democratic lawmakers accused Romney of being aloof, unapproachable and not much interested in working with them to build the kind of friendships and alliances that are needed to help pass legislation. They say Romney’s legislative agenda on big issues like transportation and higher education fizzled as a result.

“He didn’t get that government was not a business,” said state Rep. Cory Atkins, a Democrat elected in 1999.

Former House Speaker Tom Finneran, a Democrat, recalls:

“Initially his sense was, `I have been elected governor, I am the CEO here and you guys are the board of directors and you monitor the implementation of what I say.  That ruffled the feathers of legislators who see themselves as an equal branch (of government).

Finneran said that, while he grew to respect Romney, “you have to work to have a conversation with him.”

Tom Birmingham, a former state Senate president who left just before Romney took office said:

“He made no effort to get acquainted with lawmakers.  To call him disengaged would be charitable.”

I find none of that surprising.  For some time now, I’ve been tripping over similarities between Mitt Romney and the other CEOs in my life.  We’ll just call them the good, the bad and the downright ugly.  That said I’m not pigeon-holing all CEOs as nasty dictators . . .  like all human beings, CEOs are host to the full gamut of human dreams, visions, emotions and ideas.  Some have early success as humanists and others realize success by becoming autocrats and thereby a die is cast because no one is a CEO for long unless success is a pretty consistent outcome.

read the whole post »

Posted by Bette Noir on 09/13/12 at 09:43 AM
Permalink

Categories: PoliticsElection '12Mittens

Page 3 of 6 pages  <  1 2 3 4 5 >  Last »