Despite the slack-jawed pose above, Daisy Mayhem is a highly intelligent animal. It’s just that when she sees reflected light on the wall (or, FSM forbid, a laser pointer beam), her brain shrivels to the size of a lentil, and all she can think to do is stare and then pounce.
I’m off to vote for President Obama in a few minutes; today is the first day of early voting in Florida. I’m kind of out in the boonies, and our early voting polling place is a library surrounded by cow pastures. It’s usually not very crowded, but it was jam-packed on Election Day in 2008.
From what I read on Mememorandum, it looks like some folks are starting to entertain the possibility that President Obama will win the election via the Electoral College and lose the popular vote. In a way, that would be poetic justice, and we could spend days here swapping recipes featuring bitter wingnut tears. But it’s not the outcome I want to see.
I hope President Obama crushes Romney like a rotten walnut—and not just because I don’t want to see us return to a policy of shoveling goodies to plutocrats in hopes that a few crumbs will fall off their table for the rest of us. I hope Mr. Obama wins big because Romney is the most shameless liar to ever credibly aspire to the presidency, at least in my lifetime.
That a champion prevaricator and spinning weathercock like Romney is even within striking distance is a shameful indictment of the state of our national politics and media. I entertained similar notions when Bush won in 2004 after it was clear he’d hoodwinked us into a war on false pretenses, but there was a “let’s not change Horsemen in mid-apocalypse” vibe back then.
*These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2012 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate, rather the money came from the organizations’ PACs, their individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families. Organization totals include subsidiaries and affiliates.
Because of contribution limits, organizations that bundle together many individual contributions are often among the top donors to presidential candidates. These contributions can come from the organization’s members or employees (and their families). The organization may support one candidate, or hedge its bets by supporting multiple candidates. Groups with national networks of donors - like EMILY’s List and Club for Growth - make for particularly big bundlers.
*NOTE: All the numbers on this chart are for the 2012 election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically.
Now for the poll: A volunteer from the Koch-sucker AFP group called me awhile back and asked if I thought President Obama’s policies had made the economy better or worse. I said I thought they had definitely made the economy better after Bush and his pals trashed the joint.
She then asked me if I planned to vote, and I told her I certainly did. She asked if I planned to vote early, and I replied that I would have already voted if I could have, but thanks to Tea Party-backed nitwit Governor Scott’s villainous attempt to exclude as many working people as possible by cutting the early voting period, I’d have to wait until tomorrow.
I then said I would be at the polls bright and early to cast my ballot. She wished me a pleasant evening, and I wished her the same.
Oh! Well, that’s all right, then. Stating that God wants women to go through forced pregnancy after rape isn’t extreme when you think about it, as Richard Mourdock has. After all, God loves life, and every woman’s womb could be stocked with life all the time, if women weren’t so abysmally dedicated to saying when. So will you leftie b*tches just leave the man alone already? Mitt Romney’s still exhausted from distancing himself from Todd Akin, and now he’s going to have to dodge and weave his way around poor Richard. Paul Ryan is going to have to distance himself, too, but at least we know he can do it in record time. Stop martyring poor Richard Mourdock! You’re making Michelle Malkin simply furious!
OK. Quick test of listening comprehension. Does President Obama say “no horses and bayonets” or does he say “fewer horses and bayonets”? (Apologies for the commercial.)
OK, so obviously this is a trick question because of course Obama says “fewer horses and bayonets”. Right wing bloggers, however are not known for reading or listening comprehension, to wit, executive editor at Tucker Carlson’s Bucket O’ Fail Daily Whiner David Martosko’s sad attempt to “fact check” the claim. And reports back that bayonets ARE still used by marines and, and in the early stages of the Afghanistan war some soldiers rode, wait for it, wait, HORSES!!! FACT CHECK FAIL, RIGHT!!
Well not so much if you are actually blessed with reading and listening comprehension but, again, we’re talking about right wing bloggers here.
PeaceOut Bobblehead Mittkins™ is the most trustworthy Mittkins™ yet! Just like a real beauty contestant, he wants world peace and knows where the cool Syrian beaches are, sort of. Peaceout Bobblehead Mittkins™ loves Barack Obama’s foreign policy THIIISSSS MUCH. Stand him on your shelf next to Primary Mittkins™, Offshore Mittkins™ and Massachusetts Mittkins™. No collection is complete without him!
Each Mittkins™is fully positionable. Binders, bayonets and beliefs sold separately.
They’ll be seated at a table, close enough to breathe in each others’ stress chemicals. Don’t bet on moderator Bob Schieffer to make the mistake of injecting a fact between Romney’s cascade of prevarications, not unless he wants all of the right-O-sphere to call him fat.
Guardian Liveblog here, and YouTube livestream below the fold. Meme generator here. Because deciding the leader of the free world has come to this. BOO!
For whatever otherworldly reason arrived at by the ever-spinning windmills of their minds, Team Romney has decided that this would be a good time to trot out Mitt Romney’s underwhelming tenure as governor of Massachussetts for another spin around the swing states.
I imagine that they are hoping to make some sort of political hay out of recent Team Obama statements about Republican obstructionism in Congress which Team Romney has decided was all President Obama’s fault—and if he had only taken a page out of Mitt’s book on achieving bipartisan nirvana the Obama administration could have done so much more.
Here are some facts that I’ve unearthed about Mitt’s Magical Mystery Tour of Duty in The Bay State . . .
A blimp-like aircraft emblazoned with an “America Needs Romney” message made an emergency landing near a Davie park this evening, much to the joy of many voters in Broward County, one of the most-liberal places in Florida.
There were no injuries, Davie police said. Except, perhaps, for Republican pride.
Two people were on the 160 foot aircraft but no one was injured, said Davie police spokesman Capt. Dale Engle.
Engle said high winds forced the aircraft to land in the Parkside Estates development around 7:10 p.m., near the Robert H. Bamford Sports Complex.
“The winds were so strong it was pushing them west,” he said. “They were trying to drive east but they couldn’t push into the wind.”
This, the first post-Citizens United American election, has been one long experiment with democracy. It’s too early to call any firm conclusions so far, and superPACs’ activities aren’t restricted to paying for advertising, but it’s becoming apparent that success cannot be measured purely in terms of the amount of money you can throw at the media.
A few days ago, The Atlantic published an article about the differing effects of the two campaigns’ advertising, citing a study by researchers Qualtrics (PDF) and Evolving Strategies:
They found that Obama’s ads were working to sway swing voters, while Romney’s were not—and the Koch Brothers-backed GOP super PAC, Americans for Prosperity, didn’t help Romney either.
The study exposed 2,300 voters to Romney and Obama ads on three themes—Medicare, economic plans, and economy-based attacks on the other candidate—as well as the Americans for Prosperity ad, “Disappointed.” A control group didn’t see any ads. All the respondents were either pure independents or weak partisans; none were strong Democrats or Republicans.
Obama’s ads overall had the desired effect: They increased his share of the vote by six points while decreasing Romney’s share of the vote by 8 points on average. Romney’s ads, meanwhile, had no statistically significant effect on the survey respondents. The survey sample began the experiment favoring Romney by a 47-42 margin; after watching both candidates’ ads, they favored Obama, 48-41.
This may go some way toward explaining the split that national pollsters are finding between the north and the south, where it looks like Romney’s winning hard in the Republicans’ southern heartland, but not so much in the swing states:
There was a silver lining for Romney, however. His ads didn’t convert swing voters, but they did persuade voters who picked John McCain in 2008 to vote for Romney this time around. Obama’s ads had no impact on his supporters’ enthusiasm.
In fact, some of these ads may be backfiring:
As for the super PAC [AFP], with friends like these, Romney may not need enemies. The Americans for Prosperity ad features testimonials from Obama voters who say the president has let them down. The study found it had no effect on the vote overall and actually hurt Romney with women voters. The only positive effect of the ad was a large increase in enthusiasm among males who voted for McCain in 2008. “Surprisingly, the ‘Disappointed’ ad is terrible as a soft-edged appeal to swing voters, but seems to be very effective red meat for male voters in Romney’s base,” the study notes.
When it comes to Web ads, the aims are different. Obviously there’s a hope that some will go viral and peel off some undecideds via social media etc., but generally they’re aimed at bolstering the base and helping GOTV efforts. With ads of the quality of this one doing the rounds, we’ll have to wait and see how it all pans out:
At this point in the 2012 Presidential Election we all know quite a bit more about Mitt Romney’s personal awesomeness than we really need to know. That awesomeness has been, the centerpiece of his campaign, replacing policy details and, in many cases, the Truth. Despite son Tagg’s avowal that, in the House of Romney, scions are taught to go forth and do good without “tooting one’s horn” Mitt Romney’s “horn” is about as muted as the dive claxon on a nuclear submarine.
And so it is that we know a lot about how Mitt created his own “small business,” Bain Capital, starting out with nothing more than his own superior brain power, a few Brooks Brothers suits, $37 million in seed money from wealthy foreign investors and all the right offshore connections to avoid those nasty “anti-business” taxes.
Once he was done with that, he singlehandedly turned Massachussetts into a model state with a balanced budget, Romneycare for all, three women in his cabinet and “binders full of women” on his bookshelf in case any of those three needed more “flex-time” than he could manage.
After the Massachussetts Romney-ssance, Mitt’s Path to Greatness took him off to Salt Lake City for his legendary rescue of the 2002 Winter Olympics (about which he never tooted his own horn—much.)
Now we find ourselves in the final weeks of the presidential election campaign, weeks in which those who hold the seats of power and influence in America bestow their blessings on candidates in the form of endorsements. And yesterday, something exceedingly strange occurred, on that front, when The Salt Lake City Tribune endorsed (fanfare, please)—President Barack Obama!
That’s right. The first Mormon presidential candidate in the history of the United States, a man who, by his own account, was singlehandedly responsible for salvaging the scandal-ridden Salt Lake City Olympics, thus becoming Salt Lake City’s “favorite son” and lifetime holder of the “keys to the city”—that guy, is just a little bit too shifty for endorsement.
Furthermore, the Tribune’s endorsement of President Obama was no wishy-washy political weasel-ing. The editors congratulated Obama for earning their endorsement the “old-fashioned way,” and laid out his first term achievements in glowing detail. There was an equally full-throated indictment of Romney’s campaign duplicitousness (and reading it should make Mitt Romney deeply ashamed).
Nowhere has Mitt Romney’s pursuit of the presidency been more warmly welcomed or closely followed than here in Utah. The Republican nominee’s political and religious pedigrees, his adeptly bipartisan governorship of a Democratic state, and his head for business and the bottom line all inspire admiration and hope in our largely Mormon, Republican, business-friendly state.
But it was Romney’s singular role in rescuing Utah’s organization of the 2002 Olympics from a cesspool of scandal, and his oversight of the most successful Winter Games on record, that make him the Beehive State’s favorite adopted son. After all, Romney managed to save the state from ignominy, turning the extravaganza into a showcase for the matchless landscapes, volunteerism and efficiency that told the world what is best and most beautiful about Utah and its people.
In short, this is the Mitt Romney we knew, or thought we knew, as one of us.
Sadly, it is not the only Romney, as his campaign for the White House has made abundantly clear, first in his servile courtship of the tea party in order to win the nomination, and now as the party’s shape-shifting nominee. From his embrace of the party’s radical right wing, to subsequent portrayals of himself as a moderate champion of the middle class, Romney has raised the most frequently asked question of the campaign: “Who is this guy, really, and what in the world does he truly believe?”
The evidence suggests no clear answer, or at least one that would survive Romney’s next speech or sound bite. Politicians routinely tailor their words to suit an audience. Romney, though, is shameless, lavishing vastly diverse audiences with words, any words, they would trade their votes to hear.
Hats off to the editorial board of The Salt Lake City Tribune for having the integrity to make their “against the grain” endorsement in an era of far too much journalistic impotence.
O.M.G. you guys. So, OK, Obummer DID say "Act of Terror”, duh, on the next day but, but, he should have said it sooner, RIGHT, RIGHT ??!!!11?!! Becuz waiting four. whole. minutes!!! into his statement meant that it truly was not an admission that it was really, really an "Act of Terror" because, well BECAUSE!! 9/11 RIGHT!! So, OK, as if that’s not enough to conclusively prove that Barry was in deep cover-up mode he shouldn’t even have said "Act of Terror", he should have said “TERROR ATTACK”! Or it doesn’t count. Srsly, listen:
What’s that thing that someone said once? Have you no shame? Yeah, I think that’s it.