Towards the end of George W's second term, going into the presidential campaign season of 2008, the Republicon Party had dealt the Democrats an unbeatable hand; a Royal Flush.
Stunningly, the Democrats never played that hand. They couldn't even recognize that they were holding an Ace, King, Queen, Jack and 10, let alone that they all happened to be in the same suit.
Four years later, with the Dems still holding the same cards while going into the ‘fiscal-cliff’ negotiations over the budget, they were given a second opportunity to play that hand when the Republicons went full-bore far-right-lunatic-fringe Kenyan-birther community-organizer hip-hop-barbeque apologizing-for-America terrorist-sympathizing-appeaser Muslim-infiltrating black-helicopter death-panel Hitler-socialist second-amendment-remedy mooching- 47% legitimate-rape Acorn-stole-the-election Obama-is-the-Anti-Christ nuts and blew their chance to take over Government. (See my previous post for an elaboration)
However, in one of the most disgusting displays of political ineptitude in American history, Obama and the Dems decided to discard their Ace, King and Queen in order to play a pair of fucking Jacks!
My card playing example may not be a perfect metaphor for the game of negotiating – in the game of poker the players keep their cards hidden before playing their hands. But only a terrible negotiator keeps his cards hidden before negotiating.
The strategy of poker is to keep your cards hidden until the final wager so that you can bluff the other players. Keeping your cards hidden is what makes your position stronger.
The strategy of negotiating is to put all of your cards on the table before you start negotiating. Exposing your cards beforehand is what makes your position stronger.
I do think, however, that my metaphor works pretty well as far as illustrating how utterly inept Obama and the Dems are at the game of negotiating. The best example of this is President Obama’s obsessive compulsion in making the compromise position his starting position. He seems to do this all the time. And then from that point he concedes more than half way to the outrageously unreasonable ultra-far-right position! This is infuriating.
Then, to add insult to injury, Obama gets called a Stalinist dictator by the right-wingers.
Here are some perfect examples.
During the healthcare reform negotiations we had a situation where, due to the huge gaping inadequacies of the free-market model of health insurance, millions of Americans were uninsured, resulting in the premature deaths of thousands of people every single year. You’d think this should be a cause of concern for everyone, regardless of whether or not they had adequate insurance themselves. Yet at the time the Republiconservatives were telling us that the USA had the best and greatest healthcare system in the world and nothing needed to be changed -- except for the money we were spending on the uninsured poor. That needed to be cut drastically.
Now there was a very simple and very proven solution to this problem. It’s called single-payer universal healthcare. Every other civilized country in the world has it. They cover all their citizens at about half the cost we do for only covering some. This solution would not only have solved the uninsured problem, it would have solved our Medicaid and Medicare problem too. It would have solved the problem of preexisting illnesses and losing your insurance if you lost your job. It would have covered every American young, old, poor or sick. It would have been the equivalent of a humongous tax cut for businesses and corporations by relieving them from the burden of providing health insurance to their employees. (Just imagine what a boon this would have been to small businesses) It would have solved the deficit/debt problem in one fell swoop. How? By cutting our medical costs – the biggest driver of future federal spending -- in half!
How the fuck do you lose an argument like this with those facts on your side?
Well, the most surefire way is to not even make the argument in the first place.
Instead of making single-payer his starting position, like he should have, Obama made what should have been the compromise position, the Public Option, his opening bid. Then he caved on that and settled for a convoluted mess that subsidizes private companies with tax-payer money, forces Americans to purchase a defective product and does nothing to lower healthcare costs. And here’s the kicker. This monstrosity was concocted by that bastion of conservatism, The Heritage Foundation. (That’s the think tank where the notorious ultra-right-wing reactionary Jim DeMint left his Senate seat to head) Even though ‘Obamacare’ maintained the conservalibertarian preference of putting a money-hungry private company between you and your doctor, the right called it socialism.
Another perfect example is the Royal Flush which sixteen years (Reagan and Bush Jr.) of supply-side/starve-the-beast economics handed the Dems.
These policies caused most of the problems that we face today and that fact should have been enough to totally discredit the Republicon Party. But the Dems were unable to fully explain to the American people the implications of these policies, including the damage they caused. This failure allowed the Recons to actually put the Dems on the defensive by blaming these problems on out of control big government spending, the ‘welfare state’ and ‘the entitlement culture.’
The Recons have used this narrative very effectively for a long time to brow beat Dems and libs with. They have convinced most people that this is true. We’ve heard it so many times it must be true. But the facts, which are borne out by the statistics, show that supply-side/starve-the-beast policies are to blame.
The fallacy of the Republiconservative narrative was never fully dissected by the Dems. They allowed themselves to be intimidated by those arguments for many years, which allowed the Recons to go unchallenged. Only late in this recent campaign season did the libs and Dems start to present the facts that refuted the Republiconservative rhetoric.
There are many aspects to the Republicon policies that started with Reagan, each one of which requires a separate post to explain. The first one I plan to tackle is tax policy since that is the one thing that the Recons fight the hardest about as evidenced by the current budget negotiations.
The single most cherished belief of Republiconservalibertarians is the fantasy of an infallible, magically powered ability of tax cuts to cure everything from cancer to hoarseness.
The utter, miserable failure of the Bush tax cuts to produce any of the wonderful things that the Republiconservalibertarians swore that they would – except for putting tons more money in the hands of the ‘job creators’ -- is the Ace in the hand that the Recons dealt the Dems.
Stay tuned for my next post where I will give a close examination of the disparity between Republiconservalibertarian rhetoric and reality.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Sunday, December 2, 2012
As Limbag Looks for Excuses the Truth Is Ignored
Conservatives have been telling us for a long, long time that the U.S. is a center-right country. This mantra has been repeated endlessly over the years by the number one conservative propagandist; right-wing radio blowhard, Rush Limbag. Rush’s talking points are accepted as absolute truth by the conservative community then disseminated throughout the media and the Republicon Party and then repeated at every possible opportunity.
At many times Mitt Romney seemed to be quoting Rush verbatim during his campaign and even echoed Rush’s explanation for why Obama won the election: he bribed the mooching takers with even more gifts and presents than they already suck out of the pockets of the producing makers.
Rush has now been calling Obama Santa Claus and playing Christmas song parodies of Obama telling the lazy parasites not to work because Obama Clause has a sack of free money and cell phones for them. The flat screen TV’s are already on their way. What a brilliant satirist that Mr. Limbag. No wonder why they pay him 60 million dollars a year. That only comes out to 1.5 million per song parody. What a bargain.
More proof of Rush’s brilliance is how he can ‘earn’ millions without even lifting a finger. He doesn’t even write those lame parodies himself. He gets someone else to do it for him. In other words, he ‘didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.’ Rush is kind of like a mooching parasite in that way. He takes the credit and the millions but does none of the work. Will someone please give that genius another well deserved tax cut?
There are lots of reasons to be gratefully thankful to Rush. He’s very, very rich for one. This automatically puts him in that class of special people who are owed our worship and adulation -- job creators!
Besides benevolently, just for us, creating all of the jobs all by themselves, they do all of the work and pay all of the taxes, too. But don’t cross them because they’ll fire their employees so fast your head will spin. So please give Rush and his fellow conservative job creators a tax cut fast, before they fire someone out of spite!
Never mind about that huge deficit/debt that was caused in large part by all of the previous tax cuts that failed to produce a single net job over the course of eleven years. We’ll just take it out of the freebees that the government doles out to all those Americans who are freeloading sloths.
But I digress.
As far as the U.S. being a center-right country, this is one of the many ‘untruths’ that has been repeated so often by the right that it eventually becomes a ‘truth.’ They will point to the polls that ask Americans to describe themselves as conservative/independent/moderate/liberal. More people self identify as conservative than as liberal, therefore America is center right, correct? That’s good enough proof for Mr. Dimbulb and his ditto-heads but of course that’s not at all reliable evidence considering the decades long conservative campaign to demagogue the word liberal. What’s much more telling is how people poll on the issues. And those show that, on most issues, Americans are -- and have been for a long time --to the left of center on most issues, and sometimes by large margins.
Another thing they would point to is what they imagine to be the ‘dominance’ of elected Republicon politicians. However when you examine that alleged ‘dominance’ more closely you can see that it has been more of a slight edge. This is because those periods of dominance have always been followed by a loss of their majority, something Republiconservatives conveniently forget. Here’s another interesting fact; even during the Republicon ‘landslides’ of ’94 and 2002, more total votes were cast for Democrats. Republicons won more elections because of the demographic distribution of Republicon voters. Democrat voters tend to be concentrated in cities and in the coastal states while Republicons are spread out in the less populated central states. This also explains the larger number of Republicon Governors.
Do you notice a pattern here, regarding how conservatives describe political reality? Using evidence that only appears to support your biases while ignoring the evidence that refutes it? Many Republiconservatives use this same analytic technique when they examine the results of the recent election. Those of the Limbag variety have been rationalizing every excuse in the book except for the truth. Before the election Rush was saying that Romney was going to win very big with a large majority of the popular vote and over 300 electoral votes because, of course, America is a center-right country and the conservative voters were much more motivated than the libs (no doubt due to his supreme truth-telling abilities.) He justified his gut feelings by pointing to the polls which had more Republicons expressing interest, enthusiasm and commitment to vote than Dems. But after the loss he said it was because the takers now outnumber the makers (the percentage of gift-receiving takers who voted for Obama was 51%, Romney’s 47% estimate was too low [but exactly the % that voted for Romney, ha!]) But then when Rush saw the data that showed that Romney got some-odd million less votes from registered Republicans than McCain did, he blamed that on the ‘soft’ Republicans (the reasonable non-delusional ones) who tried to distance themselves from the more "severely conservative" candidates (the crazy nutbags) and were too cowed by the libs to use the same vitriolic extremist rhetoric that Rush preferred.
I shall now lay out the evidence of what I think is the truth.
Despite the growing demographic shift in favor of the Dems, the electorate is still very evenly divided. The extremist, conspiracy-laden hate-filled rhetoric that comes from the far right does motivate those with that personality trait. But it turns off more people than it turns on, including a sizable number of conservative Republicans (the reasonable non-delusional ones) who would have voted Republican, and those moderates who might have. This is the same reason that, despite his popularity, more people dislike Rush than like him. This is why Romney got less votes from registered Republicans. Those Republicans either stayed home or voted libertarian.
I think the mistake those looking at the ‘enthusiasm’ data made was to extrapolate that enthusiasm to all Republicans. They didn’t consider the Republicans who were turned off. As for the Democrat side, while enthusiasm for Obama might have been less than four years ago, revulsion for Romney and the Republicons must have been at an all-time high. This might be why Democrat turnout was higher than the Republiconservatives thought it would be.
Consider this, Rush; Obama presided over the weakest economy since the Great Depression. No President has ever won reelection (except FDR, and Obama is no FDR) with this high an unemployment rate. He should have lost.
The Recons weren't aggressively conservative enough? That's almost as ludicrous as you are fat and stupid.
Never in my lifetime have we seen so many nutty goofball candidates espousing the kind of extreme, vitriolic, conspiracy-filled rhetoric that one would think could only survive on the fringes of society. Your side has forced this point of view into the mainstream of the Republican Party. You've saturated the media with this hyperbolic nonsense. You can't turn on the radio or TV or open a newspaper or magazine without being assaulted by some hysterical warning about socialism, death panels, the theft of liberty, the destruction of the country and on and on and on. The nation has heard your message loud and clear.
So if my analysis is correct, and I feel confident that it is, Romney and the Recons lost because they were too much like you, Rush, not because they weren’t enough like you. A reasonable Republican candidate would have won and reasonable Republicans would have gained seats not lost seats. Some of the most extreme Republicon candidates lost, like Akin, Mourdock and Allen West; and Michele Bachmann almost lost.
Michele Bachmann actually won the Iowa straw poll, remember? But when faced with an electorate that was not stacked with far-right ultra-conservatives, she almost lost her own district! What does that tell you, Dimbulb? It was because of you, your rhetoric, your positions and the candidates you spawned that your side lost, you delusional shithead.
At many times Mitt Romney seemed to be quoting Rush verbatim during his campaign and even echoed Rush’s explanation for why Obama won the election: he bribed the mooching takers with even more gifts and presents than they already suck out of the pockets of the producing makers.
Rush has now been calling Obama Santa Claus and playing Christmas song parodies of Obama telling the lazy parasites not to work because Obama Clause has a sack of free money and cell phones for them. The flat screen TV’s are already on their way. What a brilliant satirist that Mr. Limbag. No wonder why they pay him 60 million dollars a year. That only comes out to 1.5 million per song parody. What a bargain.
More proof of Rush’s brilliance is how he can ‘earn’ millions without even lifting a finger. He doesn’t even write those lame parodies himself. He gets someone else to do it for him. In other words, he ‘didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.’ Rush is kind of like a mooching parasite in that way. He takes the credit and the millions but does none of the work. Will someone please give that genius another well deserved tax cut?
There are lots of reasons to be gratefully thankful to Rush. He’s very, very rich for one. This automatically puts him in that class of special people who are owed our worship and adulation -- job creators!
Besides benevolently, just for us, creating all of the jobs all by themselves, they do all of the work and pay all of the taxes, too. But don’t cross them because they’ll fire their employees so fast your head will spin. So please give Rush and his fellow conservative job creators a tax cut fast, before they fire someone out of spite!
Never mind about that huge deficit/debt that was caused in large part by all of the previous tax cuts that failed to produce a single net job over the course of eleven years. We’ll just take it out of the freebees that the government doles out to all those Americans who are freeloading sloths.
But I digress.
As far as the U.S. being a center-right country, this is one of the many ‘untruths’ that has been repeated so often by the right that it eventually becomes a ‘truth.’ They will point to the polls that ask Americans to describe themselves as conservative/independent/moderate/liberal. More people self identify as conservative than as liberal, therefore America is center right, correct? That’s good enough proof for Mr. Dimbulb and his ditto-heads but of course that’s not at all reliable evidence considering the decades long conservative campaign to demagogue the word liberal. What’s much more telling is how people poll on the issues. And those show that, on most issues, Americans are -- and have been for a long time --to the left of center on most issues, and sometimes by large margins.
Another thing they would point to is what they imagine to be the ‘dominance’ of elected Republicon politicians. However when you examine that alleged ‘dominance’ more closely you can see that it has been more of a slight edge. This is because those periods of dominance have always been followed by a loss of their majority, something Republiconservatives conveniently forget. Here’s another interesting fact; even during the Republicon ‘landslides’ of ’94 and 2002, more total votes were cast for Democrats. Republicons won more elections because of the demographic distribution of Republicon voters. Democrat voters tend to be concentrated in cities and in the coastal states while Republicons are spread out in the less populated central states. This also explains the larger number of Republicon Governors.
Do you notice a pattern here, regarding how conservatives describe political reality? Using evidence that only appears to support your biases while ignoring the evidence that refutes it? Many Republiconservatives use this same analytic technique when they examine the results of the recent election. Those of the Limbag variety have been rationalizing every excuse in the book except for the truth. Before the election Rush was saying that Romney was going to win very big with a large majority of the popular vote and over 300 electoral votes because, of course, America is a center-right country and the conservative voters were much more motivated than the libs (no doubt due to his supreme truth-telling abilities.) He justified his gut feelings by pointing to the polls which had more Republicons expressing interest, enthusiasm and commitment to vote than Dems. But after the loss he said it was because the takers now outnumber the makers (the percentage of gift-receiving takers who voted for Obama was 51%, Romney’s 47% estimate was too low [but exactly the % that voted for Romney, ha!]) But then when Rush saw the data that showed that Romney got some-odd million less votes from registered Republicans than McCain did, he blamed that on the ‘soft’ Republicans (the reasonable non-delusional ones) who tried to distance themselves from the more "severely conservative" candidates (the crazy nutbags) and were too cowed by the libs to use the same vitriolic extremist rhetoric that Rush preferred.
I shall now lay out the evidence of what I think is the truth.
Despite the growing demographic shift in favor of the Dems, the electorate is still very evenly divided. The extremist, conspiracy-laden hate-filled rhetoric that comes from the far right does motivate those with that personality trait. But it turns off more people than it turns on, including a sizable number of conservative Republicans (the reasonable non-delusional ones) who would have voted Republican, and those moderates who might have. This is the same reason that, despite his popularity, more people dislike Rush than like him. This is why Romney got less votes from registered Republicans. Those Republicans either stayed home or voted libertarian.
I think the mistake those looking at the ‘enthusiasm’ data made was to extrapolate that enthusiasm to all Republicans. They didn’t consider the Republicans who were turned off. As for the Democrat side, while enthusiasm for Obama might have been less than four years ago, revulsion for Romney and the Republicons must have been at an all-time high. This might be why Democrat turnout was higher than the Republiconservatives thought it would be.
Consider this, Rush; Obama presided over the weakest economy since the Great Depression. No President has ever won reelection (except FDR, and Obama is no FDR) with this high an unemployment rate. He should have lost.
The Recons weren't aggressively conservative enough? That's almost as ludicrous as you are fat and stupid.
Never in my lifetime have we seen so many nutty goofball candidates espousing the kind of extreme, vitriolic, conspiracy-filled rhetoric that one would think could only survive on the fringes of society. Your side has forced this point of view into the mainstream of the Republican Party. You've saturated the media with this hyperbolic nonsense. You can't turn on the radio or TV or open a newspaper or magazine without being assaulted by some hysterical warning about socialism, death panels, the theft of liberty, the destruction of the country and on and on and on. The nation has heard your message loud and clear.
So if my analysis is correct, and I feel confident that it is, Romney and the Recons lost because they were too much like you, Rush, not because they weren’t enough like you. A reasonable Republican candidate would have won and reasonable Republicans would have gained seats not lost seats. Some of the most extreme Republicon candidates lost, like Akin, Mourdock and Allen West; and Michele Bachmann almost lost.
Michele Bachmann actually won the Iowa straw poll, remember? But when faced with an electorate that was not stacked with far-right ultra-conservatives, she almost lost her own district! What does that tell you, Dimbulb? It was because of you, your rhetoric, your positions and the candidates you spawned that your side lost, you delusional shithead.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Whew!
(Note: I wrote this the day after the election but haven't gotten to post it 'till today because the hurricane knocked out my access to the World Wide Tubes. That's all fixed now so I'm back to surfing the tubes like it wasn't shit!)
I tend to be a pessimist and a worrier. The thought of the Republicons gaining more power and control of government made me feel ill. At times during the campaign season it seemed possible that the Recons could actually take control of the Presidency, the Senate, the House and thus, the Supreme Court. Even after the results of the election, just writing those words fills me with dread.
I never felt confident about how things would turn out even when Obama had what seemed like a comfortable lead.
Like most pessimist/worriers I tend not to be a gloater. But after the results of the election began to sink in, I just couldn’t help the feeling of satisfaction that began to dominate my mood as I thought about all those pompous blowhards on the right who were telling us how the pollsters were purposely manipulating the data in order to discourage Republicons from going to the polls.
It is an obvious and accepted fact among most conservatives that all polling organizations (just like the media and every other institution that has the ability to present information that displeases conservatives) are liberal hacks that will do anything in order to get Obama elected. The only exceptions to this rule are the Rasmussen polls and Fox News. Conservatives know that they can trust these two organizations because they consistently report the news that supports conservatives’ emotional biases.
These pompous blowhards were telling us that the methodology these polling organizations were using was wrong because they weren’t producing the kind of data that conservatives wanted to hear. They were absolutely certain that more people wanted to vote for Romney and that fact would be proven on Election Day. So, at the same time they were hysterically accusing the pollsters of making Obama win the election, they were guaranteeing that the pollsters were wrong and Romney would win. Some of these obnoxious jerks, like Dickhead Morris, were so sure of themselves that they predicted with absolute certitude that Romney would win by a landslide.
No one promotes the idea that polls are always fixed in favor of Democrats as much as right-wing radio windbag, Rush Dimbulb. One of his very favorite and often used conspiracy theories is that the pollsters, who are always liberal (except for Rasmussen), purposely alter the data in order to make things look good for Dems and bad for Recons in order to discourage Republiconservative voters. This theory is very useful whenever Recons are down in the polls. This is why, every election cycle, he tells his audience not to believe the polls if they don’t favor Recons.
As conservatives were feeling the angst from seeing Romney’s temporary lead melt away just before the election, Rush was telling his audience not only to disbelieve the polls (after saying ‘I told you so’ when Romney pulled ahead) but not to listen to any of the other bad news that had been coming out and that the only information they could trust was from him and Fox News. Mr. Dimbulb said this within minutes of telling his audience that one of the many, many things wrong with liberals is how they live in an information bubble. Really. He actually said that. On his Nov. 6 show.
How does that saying go? None are so blind as those who will not see?
Rush never explained why having Romney down wouldn’t motivate conservatives more, not less, or why having Obama comfortably ahead wouldn’t make Dems and libs complacent and less likely to bother to vote, thus benefiting Romney. He also never explained why the pollsters suddenly put Romney ahead after the first debate, thus validating what the entire ‘liberal media’ was saying relentlessly about Obama’s ‘terrible’ and ‘pathetic’ performance. That must have been discouraging to Dems and libs. Then Gallup had Romney up by 7 points with just a few weeks left, allowing the pundits to point out that no presidential candidate had ever lost after being up by that much that close to the election. You’d think that would devastate Obama supporters’ motivation.
Why would the ‘in the tank for Obama,’ liberally biased pollsters do such a thing?
Another question: why would a polling organization, which is in the business of predicting polls and competes against all the other Polls, not want to be the most accurate organization?
Rush’s answer: __________________________________ .
Hmmmm.
Also left unexplained was how Rush could be telling his audience that the pollsters were fixing the election for Obama by dampening conservative enthusiasm while at the same time telling them that conservative voters were much more enthusiastic about voting than libs because they knew they were right about everything and would never allow a socialist like Obama to take away their freedoms by forcing his malignant liberal policies on the American people (who, by the way, just voted Obama in for his second term.)
Interesting thing about that Gallup poll. I was reading an article in the New York Times about how Gallup (seemingly in response to the conservative critics) had changed their methodology to give more weight to the factors that conservatives wanted. In the end, Gallup and Rasmussen, the only polls that Rush said could be trusted, were off by the most.
Also, right before the election, all the polls had it practically tied (at least within the margin of error.) So you’d think that would make it a fair fight, wouldn’t you, Rush? How do you explain the results now, Rush?
Well, I listened to Rush’s show today and he suggested voter fraud.
Ah, ha ha ha.
Did Limbag just call that army of patriotic poll watchers a bunch of incompetent boobs?
So, as loathe as I am to gloat, I just can’t help myself with these jerks.
I tend to be a pessimist and a worrier. The thought of the Republicons gaining more power and control of government made me feel ill. At times during the campaign season it seemed possible that the Recons could actually take control of the Presidency, the Senate, the House and thus, the Supreme Court. Even after the results of the election, just writing those words fills me with dread.
I never felt confident about how things would turn out even when Obama had what seemed like a comfortable lead.
Like most pessimist/worriers I tend not to be a gloater. But after the results of the election began to sink in, I just couldn’t help the feeling of satisfaction that began to dominate my mood as I thought about all those pompous blowhards on the right who were telling us how the pollsters were purposely manipulating the data in order to discourage Republicons from going to the polls.
It is an obvious and accepted fact among most conservatives that all polling organizations (just like the media and every other institution that has the ability to present information that displeases conservatives) are liberal hacks that will do anything in order to get Obama elected. The only exceptions to this rule are the Rasmussen polls and Fox News. Conservatives know that they can trust these two organizations because they consistently report the news that supports conservatives’ emotional biases.
These pompous blowhards were telling us that the methodology these polling organizations were using was wrong because they weren’t producing the kind of data that conservatives wanted to hear. They were absolutely certain that more people wanted to vote for Romney and that fact would be proven on Election Day. So, at the same time they were hysterically accusing the pollsters of making Obama win the election, they were guaranteeing that the pollsters were wrong and Romney would win. Some of these obnoxious jerks, like Dickhead Morris, were so sure of themselves that they predicted with absolute certitude that Romney would win by a landslide.
No one promotes the idea that polls are always fixed in favor of Democrats as much as right-wing radio windbag, Rush Dimbulb. One of his very favorite and often used conspiracy theories is that the pollsters, who are always liberal (except for Rasmussen), purposely alter the data in order to make things look good for Dems and bad for Recons in order to discourage Republiconservative voters. This theory is very useful whenever Recons are down in the polls. This is why, every election cycle, he tells his audience not to believe the polls if they don’t favor Recons.
As conservatives were feeling the angst from seeing Romney’s temporary lead melt away just before the election, Rush was telling his audience not only to disbelieve the polls (after saying ‘I told you so’ when Romney pulled ahead) but not to listen to any of the other bad news that had been coming out and that the only information they could trust was from him and Fox News. Mr. Dimbulb said this within minutes of telling his audience that one of the many, many things wrong with liberals is how they live in an information bubble. Really. He actually said that. On his Nov. 6 show.
How does that saying go? None are so blind as those who will not see?
Rush never explained why having Romney down wouldn’t motivate conservatives more, not less, or why having Obama comfortably ahead wouldn’t make Dems and libs complacent and less likely to bother to vote, thus benefiting Romney. He also never explained why the pollsters suddenly put Romney ahead after the first debate, thus validating what the entire ‘liberal media’ was saying relentlessly about Obama’s ‘terrible’ and ‘pathetic’ performance. That must have been discouraging to Dems and libs. Then Gallup had Romney up by 7 points with just a few weeks left, allowing the pundits to point out that no presidential candidate had ever lost after being up by that much that close to the election. You’d think that would devastate Obama supporters’ motivation.
Why would the ‘in the tank for Obama,’ liberally biased pollsters do such a thing?
Another question: why would a polling organization, which is in the business of predicting polls and competes against all the other Polls, not want to be the most accurate organization?
Rush’s answer: __________________________________ .
Hmmmm.
Also left unexplained was how Rush could be telling his audience that the pollsters were fixing the election for Obama by dampening conservative enthusiasm while at the same time telling them that conservative voters were much more enthusiastic about voting than libs because they knew they were right about everything and would never allow a socialist like Obama to take away their freedoms by forcing his malignant liberal policies on the American people (who, by the way, just voted Obama in for his second term.)
Interesting thing about that Gallup poll. I was reading an article in the New York Times about how Gallup (seemingly in response to the conservative critics) had changed their methodology to give more weight to the factors that conservatives wanted. In the end, Gallup and Rasmussen, the only polls that Rush said could be trusted, were off by the most.
Also, right before the election, all the polls had it practically tied (at least within the margin of error.) So you’d think that would make it a fair fight, wouldn’t you, Rush? How do you explain the results now, Rush?
Well, I listened to Rush’s show today and he suggested voter fraud.
Ah, ha ha ha.
Did Limbag just call that army of patriotic poll watchers a bunch of incompetent boobs?
So, as loathe as I am to gloat, I just can’t help myself with these jerks.
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Romney: The Most Ridiculous Presidential Candidate Ever?
Has there ever been a
more ridiculous presidential candidate in American history than Mitt
Romney?
Maybe Pat Paulson? What about Lyndon LaRouche? There was that time some
party ran a pig.
But if you think about
it, Pat Paulson, like most satirists, was a pretty sharp guy. Plus, despite the
farcical nature of his ‘campaign’, everyone knew what he really meant and he
was much more trustworthy at telling the truth than Mitt.
LaRouche was pretty damn
wacky but consider this: remember Romney’s ‘private’ fundraising dinner where
he slandered 47% of the American people, the one where he thought that only his
real base (rich white people) was listening? That’s when we saw and heard a
much different Mitt than the one we’re used to seeing and hearing. Rather than the
stiff, forced, robotic, phony bullshit artist Mitt, we saw an amazingly relaxed
and natural seeming Mitt. Almost as if he was saying what he really thought.
Well, at one point
during that very informative ‘talk,’ he said, regarding his plan to improve the
economy, that he wouldn’t have to do
anything at all. He said that just his winning the election would be enough to
create more jobs. (Mitt was referring to what Paul Krugman calls the
‘confidence fairy’) You know, instant job creation. That’s what happens whenever a conservative-Republican,
pro-business, pro-growth, tax-cutting supply-sider with a hawkish foreign
policy comes into office. Just like it did when the Bush/Cheney administration
got elected. Remember?
So, I can see a strong argument that LaRouche is less
ridiculous than Mitt.
But what about that pig?
The big fat stupid smelly fucking pig?
Ok, you got me. Mitt
Romney was the most ridiculous presidential candidate in American history,
except for Rush Limbag – I mean the pig. (I don’t know why I thought of Rush
Limbag. My apologies to the pig.)
Has any other candidate
ever changed positions so drastically so often and on so many issues
as Mitt? How many times have we seen the tapes of Mitt issuing a
clear and unambiguous position only to see another tape where
he states the exact opposite position? The only thing I can think of
which surpasses Mitt's penchant for contradicting himself would be his
complete willingness to make false statements.
All politicians bullshit
and Obama is no exception, but I would love for someone to tabulate all
the false statements Mitt has made during his political career and see if
anyone else has even come close. I'd wager that his world record total
would be as untouchable as DiMaggio's 56 game hitting streak. He's the Lance
Armstrong of political bullshit.
He's incorporated every
off the wall, completely wrong, right-wing talking point in the book as part of
his political rhetoric. In one of the most amazing ironies in political
history, the Republicon Party nominated a former Governor who is the first
politician to implement the very healthcare plan that practically all of his
fellow Republiconservatives describe as an oppressive, overreaching big-government takeover of
healthcare that violates the Constitution. .
Here's a more accurate
description of Romney/Obamacare from a previous post of mine:
“So the Dems gave up and
decided to settle for a piece of garbage (a wasteful taxpayer subsidy to a
seriously flawed private health insurance system) that is based on a plan
devised by the Heritage Foundation, a longstanding bastion of Conservatism.
That's right; Obamacare is the brainchild of Conservatism.
This plan, including the individual mandate, was used by Republicans in the 90's as a counter to Hillarycare.
It was endorsed by numerous conservatives including Gingrich.
And of course Romney adopted it for Massachusetts.”
That's right; Obamacare is the brainchild of Conservatism.
This plan, including the individual mandate, was used by Republicans in the 90's as a counter to Hillarycare.
It was endorsed by numerous conservatives including Gingrich.
And of course Romney adopted it for Massachusetts.”
So,
what was originally an honest attempt by conservatives to address the problem
of millions of uninsured Americans (while preserving a free market model of
insurance by introducing the Individual Mandate) is now vilified by the crazies
on the right as Obama’s ultimate act of totalitarian liberal-socialism.
Oh,
hey, did you notice that Romney is now proposing the public option for
Medicare?
According to conservatives, the public option was supposed to result in the end of life as we know it.
According to conservatives, the public option was supposed to result in the end of life as we know it.
But what does this say about the Republicons who nominated this guy in the first place? And what about all those Republiconservative nuts who see Obamacare as a Stalinesque act of big-government freedom-crushing oppression, even though it was concocted by conservatives and supported by Republicons in the past?
How are they able to brush these facts aside? How are they unable to recognize the idiocy of this thinking?
Well, idiotic thinking is one of the primary symptoms of Obama Derangement Syndrome.
Then there’s Mitt the ‘job creator.’ Have you read David Stockman’s brilliant article on Romney, Bain Capital and job creation in the Oct 22 issue of Newsweek? Stockman was Reagan’s budget director and as a private equity investor himself, knows this business well. Here’s how he summed up Romney’s tenure at Bain:
“Bain did considerably better, of course, but the reason wasn’t business acumen. The secret was leverage, luck, inside baseball, and the peculiar asymmetrical dynamics of the leveraged gambling carried on by private equity shops... Needless to say, having a trader’s facility for knowing when to hold ’em and when to fold ’em has virtually nothing to do with rectifying the massive fiscal hemorrhage and debt burdened private economy that are the real issues before the American electorate. Indeed, the next President’s overriding task is restoring national solvency—an undertaking that will involve immense society-wide pain, sacrifice, and denial, and that will therefore require ‘fairness’… And that’s why heralding Romney’s record at Bain is so completely perverse. The record is actually all about the utter unfairness of windfall riches obtained under our anti-free market regime of bubble finance.”
Isn't that lovely? And if you think that these kinds of "job creators" pay too much in taxes, don't worry because if Romney gets elected the Republicons will drop the capital gains rate to zero! Yeah!
Friday, October 12, 2012
Romney's Post Debate Conference
Note: See my previous post for the pre-debate conference.
The following is a fictional account of Romney's post-debate conference with his three debate coaches.
However, it is based on best assessments and most likely scenarios of what probably happened.
A stunned Mitt Romney, still in a state of shock after leaving the debate stage, approaches a conference room to confer with his coaches. He can hear the sounds of urban-style hip hop music. He opens the door to the sight of his three debate coaches dancing in celebration. A surprisingly limber and nimble Roger Ailes is putting on an amazing display of krumping. Sean Hannity is on his back spinning like a top on the floor. Bill O'Reilly is locking, popping and moonwalking across the room. A half empty bottle of Macallan whiskey, dated 1926, which Ailes had purchased at Christie's for $30,000, is on the table along with four glasses. The three rush Mitt, hooting and hollering, slapping high-fives. Hannity spikes that stupid football he's always tossing on his TV show.
Mitt: "I can't believe it. He didn't bring it up."
O'Reilly: "This is a miracle! There must be a God after all! There's no other explanation!"
Hannity: "I told you O'Reilly! God's on our side. Prayer works every time it's tried!
Mitt: "But I still can't believe it. They had me on tape calling 47% of the American people -- most of whom are honest, hard working people who contribute tremendously to society and the economy -- nothing but a bunch of self-entitled, dependent moochers who can't even take care of themselves. I practically called them all lazy, worthless scum."
O'Reilly: "You know, Mitt might be on to something. With all the evil we've been doing for all these years. The lying, the cheating, the hypocrisy. The plot to drive up the debt so that we can use it as the excuse to take away all of the social programs that benefit the poor and middle class..."
Ailes: " Starve the Beast baby!! Starve it 'till it's small enough to drown in the bathtub!!"
O'Reilly: "... then we have the unmitigated gall to hold the country hostage for even more tax cuts for the rich, even though all those Bush tax cuts produced zero jobs and only blew up the debt. Let's face it, we're a bunch of scumbags. Why would God do this for us? Could that be possible? Was it really God?"
A suddenly nervous looking Ailes: "Well, Bill, you said it yourself, 'there's no other explanation.'"
O'Reilly: "That's right. There is no other explanation... unless... [Ailes is now twiddling his thumbs and whistling while looking up to the ceiling.] Ailes, you didn't! You couldn't!"
Mitt: "Didn't? Couldn't? What are you talking about, O'Reilly?"
O'Reilly: "Ailes, you made a deal with the Devil! A Faustian bargain!"
Ailes: "OK, OK. You got me. I made a pact with Satan." [shocked disbelief around the room]
Mitt: "Roger, how could you!!?"
Ailes: "It's easy Mitt. I have Lucifer on speed-dial. How do you think I got so many people to believe that Fox News is 'fair and balanced?'
We report, you decide! [Hannity and Ailes bust out laughing] Besides, I only promised him Sean's first born son."
Mitt: "Oh God, Sean, I had no idea!"
Hannity: "Don't worry Mitt. As long as Obama and taxes for the rich both go down, it's worth it."
[A shaken Romney slumps into a chair. Ailes pours a glass of whiskey and hands it to Mitt]
Ailes: "I know it's a shock, Mitt. Drink this, it'll make you feel better."
Mitt: "I'm a Mormon, Roger. We don't drink alcohol."
Ailes: "You're in shock and you're upset. You're trembling, Mitt. This is medicinal. It's like Xanax, only better."
O'Reilly: "A lot better. Give me another glass of that $30,000 whiskey."
[Mitt takes the first drink of whiskey in his life. He gags on the first gulp but then pours the rest down his gullet and then shudders.]
O'Reilly: "Roger, I gotta admit, when they made evil geniuses they broke the mold after they made you."
Ailes: "Let me propose a toast. To Mitt's great performance and Sean's brilliant tactics."
[They all clink glasses]
Ailes: "Sean, I loved the way Mitt pulled off that line you gave him; 'Look, I've got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it.'
Not only did he get to use that on Obama before Obama got to use it on him -- even though Obama's telling the truth and Mitt's the one repeating the lie -- but he got to use the 'boy' dog whistle too!"
[everyone is laughing as they hoist another drink]
O'Reilly: "I'm a little nervous about that dog whistle, though. Don't you think the libs are going to notice that and use the race card by calling it racial innuendo?"
Hannity: "Plausible deniability, O'Reilly. You always call your sons boys, don't you Mitt?"
Mitt: "Sean, my sons are all over thirty, I have way too much respect for them than to call them boys."
[Everyone busts out laughing. High fives and another round of drinks.]
Ailes: "Wait a minute, then why do you always call us boys? [An inebriated Ailes ponders that thought for a moment.] Why you mother fucking Mormon bastard!" [Ailes charges at Mitt before O'Reilly and Hannity wrestle him to the ground. Then, everyone busts out laughing again. A growing wet stain appears in his pants as Ailes loses control of his bladder.]
O'Reilly: "Hey Roger, don't I get any credit for the Big Bird put down?"
Ailes: "That was smart too, Bill. It was a great nod to the nutbag base, to let them know Mitt hasn't gone socialist on them. They HATE PBS."
Mitt: "Hey this is starting to taste pretty good. Give me another glass. AND TURN UP THE MUSIC!"
The sounds are blasting, Ailes is krumping, Sean is breakdancing, Bill is moonwalking and even Mitt is getting his groove on by, fittingly, doing the Robot.
Before long, Mitt has removed his pants and is now dancing in his magic underwear. One more glass of whiskey later and Mitt has removed his underwear and is simulating the act of coitus on a bent over Ailes while pretending to spank his rear end.
Another toast. "TO LUCIFER!!!"
The following is a fictional account of Romney's post-debate conference with his three debate coaches.
However, it is based on best assessments and most likely scenarios of what probably happened.
A stunned Mitt Romney, still in a state of shock after leaving the debate stage, approaches a conference room to confer with his coaches. He can hear the sounds of urban-style hip hop music. He opens the door to the sight of his three debate coaches dancing in celebration. A surprisingly limber and nimble Roger Ailes is putting on an amazing display of krumping. Sean Hannity is on his back spinning like a top on the floor. Bill O'Reilly is locking, popping and moonwalking across the room. A half empty bottle of Macallan whiskey, dated 1926, which Ailes had purchased at Christie's for $30,000, is on the table along with four glasses. The three rush Mitt, hooting and hollering, slapping high-fives. Hannity spikes that stupid football he's always tossing on his TV show.
Mitt: "I can't believe it. He didn't bring it up."
O'Reilly: "This is a miracle! There must be a God after all! There's no other explanation!"
Hannity: "I told you O'Reilly! God's on our side. Prayer works every time it's tried!
Mitt: "But I still can't believe it. They had me on tape calling 47% of the American people -- most of whom are honest, hard working people who contribute tremendously to society and the economy -- nothing but a bunch of self-entitled, dependent moochers who can't even take care of themselves. I practically called them all lazy, worthless scum."
O'Reilly: "You know, Mitt might be on to something. With all the evil we've been doing for all these years. The lying, the cheating, the hypocrisy. The plot to drive up the debt so that we can use it as the excuse to take away all of the social programs that benefit the poor and middle class..."
Ailes: " Starve the Beast baby!! Starve it 'till it's small enough to drown in the bathtub!!"
O'Reilly: "... then we have the unmitigated gall to hold the country hostage for even more tax cuts for the rich, even though all those Bush tax cuts produced zero jobs and only blew up the debt. Let's face it, we're a bunch of scumbags. Why would God do this for us? Could that be possible? Was it really God?"
A suddenly nervous looking Ailes: "Well, Bill, you said it yourself, 'there's no other explanation.'"
O'Reilly: "That's right. There is no other explanation... unless... [Ailes is now twiddling his thumbs and whistling while looking up to the ceiling.] Ailes, you didn't! You couldn't!"
Mitt: "Didn't? Couldn't? What are you talking about, O'Reilly?"
O'Reilly: "Ailes, you made a deal with the Devil! A Faustian bargain!"
Ailes: "OK, OK. You got me. I made a pact with Satan." [shocked disbelief around the room]
Mitt: "Roger, how could you!!?"
Ailes: "It's easy Mitt. I have Lucifer on speed-dial. How do you think I got so many people to believe that Fox News is 'fair and balanced?'
We report, you decide! [Hannity and Ailes bust out laughing] Besides, I only promised him Sean's first born son."
Mitt: "Oh God, Sean, I had no idea!"
Hannity: "Don't worry Mitt. As long as Obama and taxes for the rich both go down, it's worth it."
[A shaken Romney slumps into a chair. Ailes pours a glass of whiskey and hands it to Mitt]
Ailes: "I know it's a shock, Mitt. Drink this, it'll make you feel better."
Mitt: "I'm a Mormon, Roger. We don't drink alcohol."
Ailes: "You're in shock and you're upset. You're trembling, Mitt. This is medicinal. It's like Xanax, only better."
O'Reilly: "A lot better. Give me another glass of that $30,000 whiskey."
[Mitt takes the first drink of whiskey in his life. He gags on the first gulp but then pours the rest down his gullet and then shudders.]
O'Reilly: "Roger, I gotta admit, when they made evil geniuses they broke the mold after they made you."
Ailes: "Let me propose a toast. To Mitt's great performance and Sean's brilliant tactics."
[They all clink glasses]
Ailes: "Sean, I loved the way Mitt pulled off that line you gave him; 'Look, I've got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it.'
Not only did he get to use that on Obama before Obama got to use it on him -- even though Obama's telling the truth and Mitt's the one repeating the lie -- but he got to use the 'boy' dog whistle too!"
[everyone is laughing as they hoist another drink]
O'Reilly: "I'm a little nervous about that dog whistle, though. Don't you think the libs are going to notice that and use the race card by calling it racial innuendo?"
Hannity: "Plausible deniability, O'Reilly. You always call your sons boys, don't you Mitt?"
Mitt: "Sean, my sons are all over thirty, I have way too much respect for them than to call them boys."
[Everyone busts out laughing. High fives and another round of drinks.]
Ailes: "Wait a minute, then why do you always call us boys? [An inebriated Ailes ponders that thought for a moment.] Why you mother fucking Mormon bastard!" [Ailes charges at Mitt before O'Reilly and Hannity wrestle him to the ground. Then, everyone busts out laughing again. A growing wet stain appears in his pants as Ailes loses control of his bladder.]
O'Reilly: "Hey Roger, don't I get any credit for the Big Bird put down?"
Ailes: "That was smart too, Bill. It was a great nod to the nutbag base, to let them know Mitt hasn't gone socialist on them. They HATE PBS."
Mitt: "Hey this is starting to taste pretty good. Give me another glass. AND TURN UP THE MUSIC!"
The sounds are blasting, Ailes is krumping, Sean is breakdancing, Bill is moonwalking and even Mitt is getting his groove on by, fittingly, doing the Robot.
Before long, Mitt has removed his pants and is now dancing in his magic underwear. One more glass of whiskey later and Mitt has removed his underwear and is simulating the act of coitus on a bent over Ailes while pretending to spank his rear end.
Another toast. "TO LUCIFER!!!"
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Romney's Pre-Debate Conference
This is how I imagine Romney's debate prep went before the first debate:
Mitt: "Boys, I'm worried. My campaign advisors have me contradicting myself every time I open my mouth.
They have me pandering so much to the far right lunatics that I'm now to the right of Attila the Hun. It's making me look like a total jerk. They even wanted me to go full-bore birther, but that's where I drew the line. The fact-checkers are having a field day with me because everything I say is a lie. My tax cuts will bust the budget. And what about the 47% stuff? Obama is going to crucify me on that."
Debate coach #1: "Calm down, Mitt. We've got it all figured out. Don't worry about the contradictions. You've been doing that for so long that everyone's used to it by now. Your entire career has been based on contradictions. It's part of your charm."
Debate coach #2: "As for going too far to the right, now's the time to pivot to the center."
Mitt: "What!? I've already painted myself into a corner. There's so much shit on tape of me sounding like the John Birch Society that if I pivot now, Obama's going to use the 'etch-a-sketch' charge. I can just picture them playing Santorum's prediction over and over again in their ads."
Debate coach #3: "Yeah, Mitt, we know this is going to be tricky but we've got some good time-tested tricks up our sleeves on how to mitigate that."
Mitt: "Mit-igate. I like that. Mitigating Mitt. Mitt the Mitigater. But how are we going to do that?"
Coach #2: "We throw up smoke screens. We obfuscate. We misdirect. We change the subject."
Mitt: "But what do I say?"
Coach #1: "Just say every nonsensical thing we tell you to say."
Coach #2: "That's correct. You're going to blather. You're going to fiddle-faddle."
Coach #1 : "You're going to give them malarkey. Hokum. Hoodoo, claptrap, complete hooey."
Coach #2: "Tommyrot, Mitt. Totally senseless tommyrot. Flapdoodle and hogwash. Unadulterated codswallop."
Mitt: "Codswallop?"
Coach #1: "That's a British term. It means like, horseshit."
Mitt: "What about balderdash?"
Coach #2: "Of course. We won't forget about that. We've got plenty of balderdash for you. We've got all the blah-blah-blah you can handle."
Mitt: "But how can I get away with complete nonsense? Won't someone just call me on it?"
Coach #3: "Mitt, you don't pay us millions for nothing. We know exactly how to make nonsense sound like it makes sense."
Mitt: "You boys are genius. But what about interviews? I can see how I can get away with that at a press conference but what about a one-on-one interview?"
Coach #3: "You'll only do interviews on Fox News."
Mitt: "Well I know that Hannity will do a great job at making me look good and O'Reilly will give me what only looks like a tough interview, he never pushes it too far, but what about Chris Wallace? He's changed lately. He can be pretty tough and persistent."
Coach #1: "Yeah, all of us over at Fox are pissed off at him. All the criticism and ridicule we've been getting for being just an arm of the Republican Party -- at the same time we're selling ourselves as the 'Fair and Balanced' news station -- has gotten to him. So now he's actually been making an effort to be an honest newsman. I'd fire the turncoat bastard but I'm afraid he'll write a book about us if I do."
Mitt: "Wait a minute, I don't understand, all of us at Fox? Fire him? How could you fire him?"
Coach #1: "Mitt, put your glasses on. It's me, Roger Ailes. And that's Sean and Bill over there. Wake up Mitt and get with the program."
Mitt: "Jesus H. Christ! Ailes, Hannity and O'Reilly! You boys are fucking genius! And Roger, don't be so modest, it's the Republican Party that's an arm of Fox News. [Ailes nods in agreement] But how do I avoid Wallace?"
Ailes: "You can't, Mitt. Unlike the Vietnam War, you won't be able to avoid facing some fire." [overheard whispering and giggling]
Mitt: "Shut up Hannity! Did you ever serve?"
Ailes: "Everybody calm the fuck down. Now pay attention, Mitt. We've got it all worked out. When Wallace asks you the 'etch-a-sketch' question you will reply with a very long and boring answer to a completely different question."
Mitt: "But you know what Wallace is like, he'll just repeat the question."
Hannity: "Then you just give the same long and boring answer. And if he asks you again, you do the same thing until he stops. And believe me, he will stop."
Mitt: "But how do you know? And what about the audience, won't they notice?"
OReilly: "It's precisely because of the audience that he'll stop. The exercise will become so tedious that they will actually get pissed at Wallace for putting them through that torture. They'll even forget what the question was. Wallace will realize this. He won't want to hurt his ratings. On to the next question."
Mitt: "Genius, boys, sheer fucking genius!"
Ailes: "Now back to the debate. Mitt, read and memorize these two pages of talking points." [Ailes hands Mitt the pages]
Mitt: "Hello! Talk about pivoting, you've got me taking left of center positions now.
The job creators will not be paying less taxes!?
Only the parasites -- and by that I mean the poor and middle class -- will be paying less taxes!?
You got me sounding like a socialist. My position on Medicare sounds like the 'public option.' It's actually to the left of the public option because it's subsidized by the government with tax-payer money! My lunatic base was so suspicious of me because of my past positions. I've spent so many months convincing them that I'm just as much of a wing-nut as they are and not a moderate at all. I swore I was severely conservative, remember? They'll be furious."
Ailes: "Take a Xanax Mitt. We're going to put the word out to the base that you're only saying this to get elected. You've done enough ultra-far-right gum-flapping to convince them that you're on their side. They loved the way you called the President an apologizer and sympathizer for the terrorists. And they really admired the way you stuck by your guns by not backing down after the 47% remarks."
Mitt: "Yeah, all I said was that I 'phrased it inartfully.' Heh heh heh heh heh. [laughter from the others in the room]
But all this other stuff you have me saying, none of it is true. Remember the fact checkers?"
Ailes: "Facts have a liberal bias, Mitt. Everybody knows that. Those fact checkers are just a bunch of lefties.
Just like the pollsters and the rest of the media. Just like the schools and colleges and the government and the scientists. They're all lefties except for Fox News and the American people."
Mitt: "You know Roger, with all of those people and organizations you mentioned and considering the fact that half the politicians are Dems and the all the polls are about even, you'd think that half the American people are left of center."
Ailes: "BULLCRAP!!!" [Ailes slams his meaty ham-fists onto the table causing a shocked Romney to jolt backwards, sending his toupee flying off his head.]
O'Reilly: "Mitt, you're wearing a piece!? I'll be damned. Couldn't tell, looks real as hell. But can't you afford some better glue for that? For crying out loud, spring for the bucks, cheapskate."
Hannity: "I'll give you some of the glue I use. I've never had my hair fly off my head like that."
Mitt: "Are you kidding me, Sean? That's the phoniest looking hair I've ever seen. Did that come with a chin strap?"
Hannity: "You're the one who must be kidding. Did you ever get a load of your running mate's hair? Who do you think gave him that? And yes, it does come with a chin strap. But you can cover it up with makeup, see?"
Mitt: "Amazing.
OK boys, but I'm worried about my tax plan. You know I can't give any details about the plan because those numbers don't add up. Obama's going to point that out and cite the Tax Policy Center's Study as proof. All you have me doing is saying that it does add up. Do you expect me to keep saying that, as if by repeating it enough times, that will make it true? I'll just be setting Obama up to use that very zinger against me."
Ailes: "Read the second page, Mitt. That's where we have you preempt him. As soon as he brings up your 5 trillion dollar tax cut, you say 'That's not true. And repeating it enough times won't make it true.'"
Mitt: "Genius!!! Oh the irony! Falsely accusing him of exactly what I'm guilty of. How sneaky and underhanded."
Ailes: "Yeah, Sean thought of that." [A smiling Hannity leans back in his chair as he polishes his fingernails against his shirt.]
Mitt: "I owe you a bonus, Sean. I'll take it out of O'Reilly's cut, he doesn't seem to have contributed much to this. [O'Reilly grumbles as his fists clench in anger.] Now there's only one last hurdle I can see. It's when I told those rich donors -- my real base -- what I really thought about 47% of the American people.
You have nothing at all about that on these two pages. Like I said, Obama will crucify me on that."
Ailes: "That's our greatest challenge, Mitt. You can't apologize because we right-wing dildo-brains think that's a sign of weakness. Plus we've been falsely accusing Obama of apologizing, going on four years now. We can't give the left the satisfaction of seeing our leader grovel like that. It would devastate and demoralize our base and suppress voter turnout. So we have no other choice but to hope and pray that he doesn't bring it up."
Mitt: "What the fuck!!!? Are you guys nuts!!? That would take a miracle!! Never in a million years would Obama pass up an opportunity like that! You're insane!"
Ailes: "Mitt, take another Xanax. Here, take the whole bottle. Listen, Mitt, you believe in miracles, don't you? Wasn't it a miracle when Joseph Smith invented the Magic Underwear? We've got the entire religious right praying for this miracle. Remember how they made it rain in Texas? You Mormons pray, don't you? Well get started."
Mitt: "Oh God."
O'Reilly: "That's it."
A resigned Mitt: "Well, it was a long shot anyway. I Guess there's only so much anyone can do. Thanks for the good effort boys. Is there anything I can do for you boys?"
O'Reilly: "Yeah, Mitt. You can stop calling us boys.”
Mitt: “Why? You guys aren’t black.”
Hannity: “Jumping Jehovah’s Witnesses! I just had a brilliant idea!”
To be continued...
Mitt: "Boys, I'm worried. My campaign advisors have me contradicting myself every time I open my mouth.
They have me pandering so much to the far right lunatics that I'm now to the right of Attila the Hun. It's making me look like a total jerk. They even wanted me to go full-bore birther, but that's where I drew the line. The fact-checkers are having a field day with me because everything I say is a lie. My tax cuts will bust the budget. And what about the 47% stuff? Obama is going to crucify me on that."
Debate coach #1: "Calm down, Mitt. We've got it all figured out. Don't worry about the contradictions. You've been doing that for so long that everyone's used to it by now. Your entire career has been based on contradictions. It's part of your charm."
Debate coach #2: "As for going too far to the right, now's the time to pivot to the center."
Mitt: "What!? I've already painted myself into a corner. There's so much shit on tape of me sounding like the John Birch Society that if I pivot now, Obama's going to use the 'etch-a-sketch' charge. I can just picture them playing Santorum's prediction over and over again in their ads."
Debate coach #3: "Yeah, Mitt, we know this is going to be tricky but we've got some good time-tested tricks up our sleeves on how to mitigate that."
Mitt: "Mit-igate. I like that. Mitigating Mitt. Mitt the Mitigater. But how are we going to do that?"
Coach #2: "We throw up smoke screens. We obfuscate. We misdirect. We change the subject."
Mitt: "But what do I say?"
Coach #1: "Just say every nonsensical thing we tell you to say."
Coach #2: "That's correct. You're going to blather. You're going to fiddle-faddle."
Coach #1 : "You're going to give them malarkey. Hokum. Hoodoo, claptrap, complete hooey."
Coach #2: "Tommyrot, Mitt. Totally senseless tommyrot. Flapdoodle and hogwash. Unadulterated codswallop."
Mitt: "Codswallop?"
Coach #1: "That's a British term. It means like, horseshit."
Mitt: "What about balderdash?"
Coach #2: "Of course. We won't forget about that. We've got plenty of balderdash for you. We've got all the blah-blah-blah you can handle."
Mitt: "But how can I get away with complete nonsense? Won't someone just call me on it?"
Coach #3: "Mitt, you don't pay us millions for nothing. We know exactly how to make nonsense sound like it makes sense."
Mitt: "You boys are genius. But what about interviews? I can see how I can get away with that at a press conference but what about a one-on-one interview?"
Coach #3: "You'll only do interviews on Fox News."
Mitt: "Well I know that Hannity will do a great job at making me look good and O'Reilly will give me what only looks like a tough interview, he never pushes it too far, but what about Chris Wallace? He's changed lately. He can be pretty tough and persistent."
Coach #1: "Yeah, all of us over at Fox are pissed off at him. All the criticism and ridicule we've been getting for being just an arm of the Republican Party -- at the same time we're selling ourselves as the 'Fair and Balanced' news station -- has gotten to him. So now he's actually been making an effort to be an honest newsman. I'd fire the turncoat bastard but I'm afraid he'll write a book about us if I do."
Mitt: "Wait a minute, I don't understand, all of us at Fox? Fire him? How could you fire him?"
Coach #1: "Mitt, put your glasses on. It's me, Roger Ailes. And that's Sean and Bill over there. Wake up Mitt and get with the program."
Mitt: "Jesus H. Christ! Ailes, Hannity and O'Reilly! You boys are fucking genius! And Roger, don't be so modest, it's the Republican Party that's an arm of Fox News. [Ailes nods in agreement] But how do I avoid Wallace?"
Ailes: "You can't, Mitt. Unlike the Vietnam War, you won't be able to avoid facing some fire." [overheard whispering and giggling]
Mitt: "Shut up Hannity! Did you ever serve?"
Ailes: "Everybody calm the fuck down. Now pay attention, Mitt. We've got it all worked out. When Wallace asks you the 'etch-a-sketch' question you will reply with a very long and boring answer to a completely different question."
Mitt: "But you know what Wallace is like, he'll just repeat the question."
Hannity: "Then you just give the same long and boring answer. And if he asks you again, you do the same thing until he stops. And believe me, he will stop."
Mitt: "But how do you know? And what about the audience, won't they notice?"
OReilly: "It's precisely because of the audience that he'll stop. The exercise will become so tedious that they will actually get pissed at Wallace for putting them through that torture. They'll even forget what the question was. Wallace will realize this. He won't want to hurt his ratings. On to the next question."
Mitt: "Genius, boys, sheer fucking genius!"
Ailes: "Now back to the debate. Mitt, read and memorize these two pages of talking points." [Ailes hands Mitt the pages]
Mitt: "Hello! Talk about pivoting, you've got me taking left of center positions now.
The job creators will not be paying less taxes!?
Only the parasites -- and by that I mean the poor and middle class -- will be paying less taxes!?
You got me sounding like a socialist. My position on Medicare sounds like the 'public option.' It's actually to the left of the public option because it's subsidized by the government with tax-payer money! My lunatic base was so suspicious of me because of my past positions. I've spent so many months convincing them that I'm just as much of a wing-nut as they are and not a moderate at all. I swore I was severely conservative, remember? They'll be furious."
Ailes: "Take a Xanax Mitt. We're going to put the word out to the base that you're only saying this to get elected. You've done enough ultra-far-right gum-flapping to convince them that you're on their side. They loved the way you called the President an apologizer and sympathizer for the terrorists. And they really admired the way you stuck by your guns by not backing down after the 47% remarks."
Mitt: "Yeah, all I said was that I 'phrased it inartfully.' Heh heh heh heh heh. [laughter from the others in the room]
But all this other stuff you have me saying, none of it is true. Remember the fact checkers?"
Ailes: "Facts have a liberal bias, Mitt. Everybody knows that. Those fact checkers are just a bunch of lefties.
Just like the pollsters and the rest of the media. Just like the schools and colleges and the government and the scientists. They're all lefties except for Fox News and the American people."
Mitt: "You know Roger, with all of those people and organizations you mentioned and considering the fact that half the politicians are Dems and the all the polls are about even, you'd think that half the American people are left of center."
Ailes: "BULLCRAP!!!" [Ailes slams his meaty ham-fists onto the table causing a shocked Romney to jolt backwards, sending his toupee flying off his head.]
O'Reilly: "Mitt, you're wearing a piece!? I'll be damned. Couldn't tell, looks real as hell. But can't you afford some better glue for that? For crying out loud, spring for the bucks, cheapskate."
Hannity: "I'll give you some of the glue I use. I've never had my hair fly off my head like that."
Mitt: "Are you kidding me, Sean? That's the phoniest looking hair I've ever seen. Did that come with a chin strap?"
Hannity: "You're the one who must be kidding. Did you ever get a load of your running mate's hair? Who do you think gave him that? And yes, it does come with a chin strap. But you can cover it up with makeup, see?"
Mitt: "Amazing.
OK boys, but I'm worried about my tax plan. You know I can't give any details about the plan because those numbers don't add up. Obama's going to point that out and cite the Tax Policy Center's Study as proof. All you have me doing is saying that it does add up. Do you expect me to keep saying that, as if by repeating it enough times, that will make it true? I'll just be setting Obama up to use that very zinger against me."
Ailes: "Read the second page, Mitt. That's where we have you preempt him. As soon as he brings up your 5 trillion dollar tax cut, you say 'That's not true. And repeating it enough times won't make it true.'"
Mitt: "Genius!!! Oh the irony! Falsely accusing him of exactly what I'm guilty of. How sneaky and underhanded."
Ailes: "Yeah, Sean thought of that." [A smiling Hannity leans back in his chair as he polishes his fingernails against his shirt.]
Mitt: "I owe you a bonus, Sean. I'll take it out of O'Reilly's cut, he doesn't seem to have contributed much to this. [O'Reilly grumbles as his fists clench in anger.] Now there's only one last hurdle I can see. It's when I told those rich donors -- my real base -- what I really thought about 47% of the American people.
You have nothing at all about that on these two pages. Like I said, Obama will crucify me on that."
Ailes: "That's our greatest challenge, Mitt. You can't apologize because we right-wing dildo-brains think that's a sign of weakness. Plus we've been falsely accusing Obama of apologizing, going on four years now. We can't give the left the satisfaction of seeing our leader grovel like that. It would devastate and demoralize our base and suppress voter turnout. So we have no other choice but to hope and pray that he doesn't bring it up."
Mitt: "What the fuck!!!? Are you guys nuts!!? That would take a miracle!! Never in a million years would Obama pass up an opportunity like that! You're insane!"
Ailes: "Mitt, take another Xanax. Here, take the whole bottle. Listen, Mitt, you believe in miracles, don't you? Wasn't it a miracle when Joseph Smith invented the Magic Underwear? We've got the entire religious right praying for this miracle. Remember how they made it rain in Texas? You Mormons pray, don't you? Well get started."
Mitt: "Oh God."
O'Reilly: "That's it."
A resigned Mitt: "Well, it was a long shot anyway. I Guess there's only so much anyone can do. Thanks for the good effort boys. Is there anything I can do for you boys?"
O'Reilly: "Yeah, Mitt. You can stop calling us boys.”
Mitt: “Why? You guys aren’t black.”
Hannity: “Jumping Jehovah’s Witnesses! I just had a brilliant idea!”
To be continued...
Monday, October 8, 2012
My Post-Debate Analysis
In a September 4 post
http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2012/09/gop-theme-we-built-this-straw-man.html
just before the Democratic Convention, I expressed the hope that the Dems would offer a strong defense of Obama's "You Didn't Build That" speech. The Republicons had taken those words out of context and then, in the most galling display of underhanded political deceit in my lifetime, used their twisted interpretation of those words as the theme of their own Convention.
This was my prediction of what would happen:
"Unfortunately, I'm not hopeful of that hope because I can count on one hand the number of people I've heard give that message the rigor and eloquence that it deserves. My guess is that they won't even try."
Well, I would rate my prediction as "Half-True."
They did try. A little. Very little.
But the effort was neither rigorous nor eloquent and no one either talked about it afterwards or remembers it now. Do you? I didn't think so.
Here was the hope and prediction that I expressed, just before the debate, in my last post titled "Please Punish Mitt for His 47% Slur Tonight" :
"Now my hope is that in tonight's debate Obama will give Romney the punishment he deserves for the false, outrageous and insulting slander he committed against 47% of the American people. My guess is that he'll try. But I'm afraid that he won't do that job justice."
Well, I would also rate this prediction as "Half-True."
He didn't do that job justice.
But it was because the brother didn't even try! Oh Barry, how could you let us down like that?
The President needs to fire all of his advisors because they are the most inept bunch of incompetents
I've ever witnessed. Not that Obama should be absolved of blame, but these guys are awful.
Both the Republican Party and the Romney Campaign should be a smoldering heap of rubble by now. The con job that the Republicon Party have been pulling on the American people for the past thirty years is tantamount to treason. They have deliberately driven up the debt and caused a dangerous crisis with their "Starve the Beast" economic policies in order to use that debt as the excuse to circumvent the democratic process and get rid of the programs that the overwhelming majority of Americans voted for.
(I'll get into that more in a future post)
All political campaigns double-talk, obfuscate, omit facts, distort facts, mischaracterize and "stetch the truth." Obama's campaign is no exception. But the level of deception being perpetrated by the Romney Campaign must be unprecedented. They have to be the most deceitful campaign in American history.
If this were a competition for the title of world's biggest liars, the Romney campaign would be as dominant a team as the '27 Yankees were in baseball..
The fact that the Democrats have not been able to put the Republicons to rest tells us that they need much smarter people running the Party. I officially volunteer my services.
Here's what I would have suggested they do for their Convention last month:
Make their campaign theme "We Built This Economy"
The message behind this theme would be that all Americans contribute to the economy and the economy is what provides the opportunities that allow individuals to become rich.
I would invite three speakers to elaborate on this message:
1) William Deresiewicz, an essayist, critic and author.
Read this brilliant article he wrote for the NYTimes last May and you'll understand why:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/fables-of-wealth.html?_r=0
Here is a relevant snippet:
"First of all, if entrepreneurs are job creators, workers are wealth creators. Entrepreneurs use wealth to create jobs for workers. Workers use labor to create wealth for entrepreneurs — the excess productivity, over and above wages and other compensation, that goes to corporate profits. It’s neither party’s goal to benefit the other, but that’s what happens nonetheless."
2) Nick Hanauer an entrepreneur, venture capitalist and author.
Check out this fantastic YouTube video also from last May:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI
Please check those links out, if not now, then when you have time. You'll love it.
Boy, I wish I had done the kind of thinking that resulted in the brilliant ideas that those two men came up with, then written it down in my blog. Wait a second. I did. Way back in August of last year.
In two posts from last year I offered a bit more sophisticated description of how the economy works than the slop the Republiconservatives give, which goes like this:
"the wealthy are the job creators, they do it all by themselves with nothing but their hard work, genius and risk-taking courage. How dare you think of raising their top marginal tax rate from 35% to 39.6%! Just because we have a huge and dangerous debt caused in large part by the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Why that's socialist redistributionist class warfare! The rest of you count for nothing and just take while the creators make. You should be grateful that they do all of the work, pay all of the taxes and create all of the jobs. The rest of you sit on your couches waiting for the government check to come in. Why, you self-entitled, irresponsible moochers who can't even take care of yourselves. We should be lowering the job creators' taxes even more so they can start creating jobs! And if they still won't create jobs, then we'll lower them again! We Republicons hope the job creators are smart enough to wait until their tax rate is zero before they start creating jobs, if they feel like it. Rather, they might just want to speculate with that dough in no-job producing ventures, instead.
Hey, that's the invisible hand of the free market, so keep your mouth shut!"
In my first post I directly and forcefully exposed this steaming pile of horseshit:
http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html
I wrote my second post after the Elizabeth Warren speech on which Obama based his speech:
http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2011_09_01_archive.html
In this one I criticized Ms Warren's speech for being weak and full of tactical errors. I then counseled Dems and libs on what to say and what not to say. Unfortunately Obama then said exactly what I suggested he shouldn't say.
It's almost as if the President never read my blog!
If he had taken my advice he would never had made that 'You didn't build that' gaffe in the first place.
This is why I would make:
3) Joe Barton a retired postal clerk and amateur blogger
my third speaker.
The first two geniuses on this list of speakers deserve a Nobel Prize in Human Decency.
The third is way too modest to suggest such a thing.
But if they had a Nobel in modesty, he would be forced to accept because he is too honest to deny his modesty.
Another thing I would have suggested for the Convention would have been to show how practically every businessman the Republicons paraded on that stage and put in their ads relied on government contracts, loans and taxpayer financed infrastructure. Does that make them irresponsible, dependent moochers, Mitt?
In my next post I will reveal the advice I would have given Obama for the first debate.
http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2012/09/gop-theme-we-built-this-straw-man.html
just before the Democratic Convention, I expressed the hope that the Dems would offer a strong defense of Obama's "You Didn't Build That" speech. The Republicons had taken those words out of context and then, in the most galling display of underhanded political deceit in my lifetime, used their twisted interpretation of those words as the theme of their own Convention.
This was my prediction of what would happen:
"Unfortunately, I'm not hopeful of that hope because I can count on one hand the number of people I've heard give that message the rigor and eloquence that it deserves. My guess is that they won't even try."
Well, I would rate my prediction as "Half-True."
They did try. A little. Very little.
But the effort was neither rigorous nor eloquent and no one either talked about it afterwards or remembers it now. Do you? I didn't think so.
Here was the hope and prediction that I expressed, just before the debate, in my last post titled "Please Punish Mitt for His 47% Slur Tonight" :
"Now my hope is that in tonight's debate Obama will give Romney the punishment he deserves for the false, outrageous and insulting slander he committed against 47% of the American people. My guess is that he'll try. But I'm afraid that he won't do that job justice."
Well, I would also rate this prediction as "Half-True."
He didn't do that job justice.
But it was because the brother didn't even try! Oh Barry, how could you let us down like that?
The President needs to fire all of his advisors because they are the most inept bunch of incompetents
I've ever witnessed. Not that Obama should be absolved of blame, but these guys are awful.
Both the Republican Party and the Romney Campaign should be a smoldering heap of rubble by now. The con job that the Republicon Party have been pulling on the American people for the past thirty years is tantamount to treason. They have deliberately driven up the debt and caused a dangerous crisis with their "Starve the Beast" economic policies in order to use that debt as the excuse to circumvent the democratic process and get rid of the programs that the overwhelming majority of Americans voted for.
(I'll get into that more in a future post)
All political campaigns double-talk, obfuscate, omit facts, distort facts, mischaracterize and "stetch the truth." Obama's campaign is no exception. But the level of deception being perpetrated by the Romney Campaign must be unprecedented. They have to be the most deceitful campaign in American history.
If this were a competition for the title of world's biggest liars, the Romney campaign would be as dominant a team as the '27 Yankees were in baseball..
The fact that the Democrats have not been able to put the Republicons to rest tells us that they need much smarter people running the Party. I officially volunteer my services.
Here's what I would have suggested they do for their Convention last month:
Make their campaign theme "We Built This Economy"
The message behind this theme would be that all Americans contribute to the economy and the economy is what provides the opportunities that allow individuals to become rich.
I would invite three speakers to elaborate on this message:
1) William Deresiewicz, an essayist, critic and author.
Read this brilliant article he wrote for the NYTimes last May and you'll understand why:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/opinion/sunday/fables-of-wealth.html?_r=0
Here is a relevant snippet:
"First of all, if entrepreneurs are job creators, workers are wealth creators. Entrepreneurs use wealth to create jobs for workers. Workers use labor to create wealth for entrepreneurs — the excess productivity, over and above wages and other compensation, that goes to corporate profits. It’s neither party’s goal to benefit the other, but that’s what happens nonetheless."
2) Nick Hanauer an entrepreneur, venture capitalist and author.
Check out this fantastic YouTube video also from last May:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBx2Y5HhplI
Please check those links out, if not now, then when you have time. You'll love it.
Boy, I wish I had done the kind of thinking that resulted in the brilliant ideas that those two men came up with, then written it down in my blog. Wait a second. I did. Way back in August of last year.
In two posts from last year I offered a bit more sophisticated description of how the economy works than the slop the Republiconservatives give, which goes like this:
"the wealthy are the job creators, they do it all by themselves with nothing but their hard work, genius and risk-taking courage. How dare you think of raising their top marginal tax rate from 35% to 39.6%! Just because we have a huge and dangerous debt caused in large part by the Reagan and Bush tax cuts? Why that's socialist redistributionist class warfare! The rest of you count for nothing and just take while the creators make. You should be grateful that they do all of the work, pay all of the taxes and create all of the jobs. The rest of you sit on your couches waiting for the government check to come in. Why, you self-entitled, irresponsible moochers who can't even take care of yourselves. We should be lowering the job creators' taxes even more so they can start creating jobs! And if they still won't create jobs, then we'll lower them again! We Republicons hope the job creators are smart enough to wait until their tax rate is zero before they start creating jobs, if they feel like it. Rather, they might just want to speculate with that dough in no-job producing ventures, instead.
Hey, that's the invisible hand of the free market, so keep your mouth shut!"
In my first post I directly and forcefully exposed this steaming pile of horseshit:
http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2011_08_01_archive.html
I wrote my second post after the Elizabeth Warren speech on which Obama based his speech:
http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2011_09_01_archive.html
In this one I criticized Ms Warren's speech for being weak and full of tactical errors. I then counseled Dems and libs on what to say and what not to say. Unfortunately Obama then said exactly what I suggested he shouldn't say.
It's almost as if the President never read my blog!
If he had taken my advice he would never had made that 'You didn't build that' gaffe in the first place.
This is why I would make:
3) Joe Barton a retired postal clerk and amateur blogger
my third speaker.
The first two geniuses on this list of speakers deserve a Nobel Prize in Human Decency.
The third is way too modest to suggest such a thing.
But if they had a Nobel in modesty, he would be forced to accept because he is too honest to deny his modesty.
Another thing I would have suggested for the Convention would have been to show how practically every businessman the Republicons paraded on that stage and put in their ads relied on government contracts, loans and taxpayer financed infrastructure. Does that make them irresponsible, dependent moochers, Mitt?
In my next post I will reveal the advice I would have given Obama for the first debate.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Please Punish Mitt for His 47% Slur Tonight
In a previous post, just before the Democratic National Convention, I expressed the hope that the Dems would forcefully defend the remarks delivered in that July campaign speech by Obama that contained the phrase "you didn't build that." That speech was an attempt to explain how successful businesses rely not only on individual initiative but, among other things, government initiatives, public infrastructure and the help entrepreneurs get from their fellow citizens..
Instead of giving that message the rigor and eloquence it deserved, Obama delivered an inarticulate mess that the Republiconservative distortion machine then used to accuse him of insulting hard working business owners by not giving them the credit they deserved. After taking that phrase out of context in order to make it seem that Obama was saying the exact opposite of what he did say, they then made it their fucking convention theme!
What a bunch of dirty, low down, underhanded skunks.
I have yet to hear one of these right-wingers square these other words (from that same speech) with their canard that Obama was denigrating individual effort:
"And what this reminded me of was that, at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if you’re willing to work hard, if you’re willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try "
"...and if they’re willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldn’t have even imagined achieving."
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative..."
The Dems could have made Obama's real message their own campaign theme. They could have explained how the efforts and contributions of all of us are what makes the economy -- and the economy is what provides the opportunities that allow individuals to become rich.
That would have been brilliant. But having been burned once, the Dems decided to stay away from that.
How pathetic.
Now my hope is that in tonight's debate Obama will give Romney the punishment he deserves for the false, outrageous and insulting slander he committed against 47% of the American people. My guess is that he'll try. But I'm afraid that he won't do that job justice.
I must say that every time Obama has been given the opportunity to make the case for liberal principles he has fallen short. Worse than that, he often turns those opportunities into fodder for that 'Republiconservative distortion machine' by serving up some 'inarticulate mess' which they then seize on and use against him.
From Joe the Plumber to attacks on his ‘socialism.’ From the public option to rationing and death panels. From the Bush tax cuts to redistribution of wealth. From apologizing for America to 'you didn't build that.'
Obama just can't seem to defend himself.
It’s not just him, it’s the entire Democratic Party and the left in general.
However, there are a small handful of exceptions and I will highlight them in future posts.
Consider this revolting irony:
Romney just uttered, probably, the most insulting accusations ever made against the American people by a presidential candidate. And they were based on complete falsehoods. (to be fair, he did exclude all rich people from those insults even though many of them don't pay any income taxes and are dependent on government handouts.)
How is it that right-wingers can make such hay out of things that Obama never said, did or thought, incorporate it into their convention theme and drive themselves into a mindless rage, but the Dems can't effectively put Romney's feet to the fire for the most unambiguous insults we've ever heard from a presidential candidate? We've never seen Mitt so relaxed and at ease as when he made those comments.
It wasn't Obama who denigrated the efforts of people, it was that bastard Mitt Romney!
Romney hasn't suffered nearly as much as he should have for this. His candidacy should be completely over by now. Despite the fact that his efforts to squirm out of this are so fucking pathetic, he's actually succeeded to a large extent.
Out of all the insults he stuffed into the load of garbage he delivered to those rich donors, the worst by far was this one:
"I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Wow. Damn. Hoowee. That's 47% of the American people he's talking about. What a fuck.
You know, even if Obama did mean you didn't build that 'business', at least that would be partially true. Because people who start businesses -- while contributing initiative, ideas and/or capital -- don't usually build it themselves. They usually hire other people to build it for them. People like the 47% of irresponsible moochers that Mitt and his donors seem to despise.
Romney's horeshit, on the other hand, is just a god-damn flat out lie.
The only person I've seen so far to do this issue proper justice is the great Paul Krugman.
If you haven't read his recent NYT Op-Ed please do. It is beautiful:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/opinion/krugman-disdain-for-workers.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120921&moc.semityn.www&_r=0
Instead of giving that message the rigor and eloquence it deserved, Obama delivered an inarticulate mess that the Republiconservative distortion machine then used to accuse him of insulting hard working business owners by not giving them the credit they deserved. After taking that phrase out of context in order to make it seem that Obama was saying the exact opposite of what he did say, they then made it their fucking convention theme!
What a bunch of dirty, low down, underhanded skunks.
I have yet to hear one of these right-wingers square these other words (from that same speech) with their canard that Obama was denigrating individual effort:
"And what this reminded me of was that, at the heart of this country, its central idea is the idea that in this country, if you’re willing to work hard, if you’re willing to take responsibility, you can make it if you try "
"...and if they’re willing to work hard, then they can achieve things that you wouldn’t have even imagined achieving."
"The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative..."
The Dems could have made Obama's real message their own campaign theme. They could have explained how the efforts and contributions of all of us are what makes the economy -- and the economy is what provides the opportunities that allow individuals to become rich.
That would have been brilliant. But having been burned once, the Dems decided to stay away from that.
How pathetic.
Now my hope is that in tonight's debate Obama will give Romney the punishment he deserves for the false, outrageous and insulting slander he committed against 47% of the American people. My guess is that he'll try. But I'm afraid that he won't do that job justice.
I must say that every time Obama has been given the opportunity to make the case for liberal principles he has fallen short. Worse than that, he often turns those opportunities into fodder for that 'Republiconservative distortion machine' by serving up some 'inarticulate mess' which they then seize on and use against him.
From Joe the Plumber to attacks on his ‘socialism.’ From the public option to rationing and death panels. From the Bush tax cuts to redistribution of wealth. From apologizing for America to 'you didn't build that.'
Obama just can't seem to defend himself.
It’s not just him, it’s the entire Democratic Party and the left in general.
However, there are a small handful of exceptions and I will highlight them in future posts.
Consider this revolting irony:
Romney just uttered, probably, the most insulting accusations ever made against the American people by a presidential candidate. And they were based on complete falsehoods. (to be fair, he did exclude all rich people from those insults even though many of them don't pay any income taxes and are dependent on government handouts.)
How is it that right-wingers can make such hay out of things that Obama never said, did or thought, incorporate it into their convention theme and drive themselves into a mindless rage, but the Dems can't effectively put Romney's feet to the fire for the most unambiguous insults we've ever heard from a presidential candidate? We've never seen Mitt so relaxed and at ease as when he made those comments.
It wasn't Obama who denigrated the efforts of people, it was that bastard Mitt Romney!
Romney hasn't suffered nearly as much as he should have for this. His candidacy should be completely over by now. Despite the fact that his efforts to squirm out of this are so fucking pathetic, he's actually succeeded to a large extent.
Out of all the insults he stuffed into the load of garbage he delivered to those rich donors, the worst by far was this one:
"I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”
Wow. Damn. Hoowee. That's 47% of the American people he's talking about. What a fuck.
You know, even if Obama did mean you didn't build that 'business', at least that would be partially true. Because people who start businesses -- while contributing initiative, ideas and/or capital -- don't usually build it themselves. They usually hire other people to build it for them. People like the 47% of irresponsible moochers that Mitt and his donors seem to despise.
Romney's horeshit, on the other hand, is just a god-damn flat out lie.
The only person I've seen so far to do this issue proper justice is the great Paul Krugman.
If you haven't read his recent NYT Op-Ed please do. It is beautiful:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/21/opinion/krugman-disdain-for-workers.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20120921&moc.semityn.www&_r=0
Monday, September 24, 2012
A Nation of Couch Potatoes
Remember when Gov. Chris Christie warned that if we don't get rid of these redistributionist government programs "...we'll have a bunch of people sittin’ on a couch waiting for their next government check,”?
That was an interesting choice of metaphors coming from someone who, as a consequence of eating too many potatoes, could easily function as a couch.
Other Republicons have gone even further than the politician who is so fat he could teeter-totter with Marlon Brando. They claim that we are already there.
Rick Santorum said "...a little less than 50 percent of the people in this country depend on some form of federal payment, some form of government benefit to help provide for them,"
Gov. Romney made the same claim recently when he slandered 47% of the American people.
When I first heard them start to use this talking point I was like, "what the hell are they talking about? Are they just taking notes from Rush Dimbulb's radio show now and repeating the garbage he routinely pulls out of his big fat lard ass and expecting us all to believe it? Don't they realize that we live in the age of computers and fact checking?"
So I went to my computer and checked out PolitiFact.com to see what the story is.
They rated Santorum's statement Mostly True!
However, when you dig deep and look at how they come to this conclusion, things get interesting and very informative.
I attribute the success of right-wing propaganda/talking points to four main factors:
1) They are able to construct very simple arguments based on superficial appearances and assumptions. This is very easy to do.
2) They are able to make these arguments in a way that strikes our emotional chords. These arguments provoke our sense of outrage by creating the impression that a grave injustice is being done. This is also very easy to do.
3) They are able to manipulate the media in away where they can endlessly repeat these arguments over and over until they are accepted as true. This takes much more skill but is still relatively easy because of factor # 4.
4) Countering these arguments requires a much deeper understanding of reality, of how things work, of the 'big picture.' This is much more difficult to do. Plus it cannot be done in a simple sound bite.
Let me give you a few examples.
Right-wing talking points:
Joseph Stalin was bad therefore Communism is bad therefore socialism is bad therefore anything we label as socialism is bad.
Could I show the fallacy of that statement? Yes.
Could I do it in one short sentence? No way.
It would take several paragraphs.
Universal healthcare is bad because it rations healthcare and creates Death Panels, plus it's socialism and we can't afford it.
Again, it would take several paragraphs to explain the problems with that one sentence.
Obama apologizes for American values and sympathizes with the terrorists.
It took me 13 paragraphs to show how the US Embassy in Cairo's statement was not an apology, did not sympathize with the terrorists and actually defended American values. I did that in the following post:
http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2012/09/brave-mitt.html
No wonder the Obama administration decided to disavow the Embassy statement rather than try to win that sound bite 'debate' through the media.
Which brings us to the right wing talking point which is the topic of this post:
Redistributionist policies take from the producers and give to the moochers.
See what I'm saying? See how easy it is to make the conservative argument? See how powerful the emotional impact of those arguments are? If they are believed they will enrage conservatives and shame liberals.
Obviously, Republiconservative politicians and talking heads want us to believe that redistributionist policies are causing us to become unwilling or unable to work because we are lazy and dependent on government.
Now this is definitely a plausible argument that shouldn't be dismissed by the left and needs to be carefully examined, which is what I intend to do in the following posts.
I want to demonstrate how Christie's, Santorum's and Romney's arguments are based on twisted and distorted facts, mixed in with enough bullshit to balance out a scale with Chris Christie on the other end of it. And by my estimations that bullshit would have to weigh at least a ton in order to do that.
But because reading a long complex explanation is almost as difficult as making one, I've decided to make that explanation in a separate post. So please stay tuned.
That was an interesting choice of metaphors coming from someone who, as a consequence of eating too many potatoes, could easily function as a couch.
Other Republicons have gone even further than the politician who is so fat he could teeter-totter with Marlon Brando. They claim that we are already there.
Rick Santorum said "...a little less than 50 percent of the people in this country depend on some form of federal payment, some form of government benefit to help provide for them,"
Gov. Romney made the same claim recently when he slandered 47% of the American people.
When I first heard them start to use this talking point I was like, "what the hell are they talking about? Are they just taking notes from Rush Dimbulb's radio show now and repeating the garbage he routinely pulls out of his big fat lard ass and expecting us all to believe it? Don't they realize that we live in the age of computers and fact checking?"
So I went to my computer and checked out PolitiFact.com to see what the story is.
They rated Santorum's statement Mostly True!
However, when you dig deep and look at how they come to this conclusion, things get interesting and very informative.
I attribute the success of right-wing propaganda/talking points to four main factors:
1) They are able to construct very simple arguments based on superficial appearances and assumptions. This is very easy to do.
2) They are able to make these arguments in a way that strikes our emotional chords. These arguments provoke our sense of outrage by creating the impression that a grave injustice is being done. This is also very easy to do.
3) They are able to manipulate the media in away where they can endlessly repeat these arguments over and over until they are accepted as true. This takes much more skill but is still relatively easy because of factor # 4.
4) Countering these arguments requires a much deeper understanding of reality, of how things work, of the 'big picture.' This is much more difficult to do. Plus it cannot be done in a simple sound bite.
Let me give you a few examples.
Right-wing talking points:
Joseph Stalin was bad therefore Communism is bad therefore socialism is bad therefore anything we label as socialism is bad.
Could I show the fallacy of that statement? Yes.
Could I do it in one short sentence? No way.
It would take several paragraphs.
Universal healthcare is bad because it rations healthcare and creates Death Panels, plus it's socialism and we can't afford it.
Again, it would take several paragraphs to explain the problems with that one sentence.
Obama apologizes for American values and sympathizes with the terrorists.
It took me 13 paragraphs to show how the US Embassy in Cairo's statement was not an apology, did not sympathize with the terrorists and actually defended American values. I did that in the following post:
http://liberalbabyboomer.blogspot.com/2012/09/brave-mitt.html
No wonder the Obama administration decided to disavow the Embassy statement rather than try to win that sound bite 'debate' through the media.
Which brings us to the right wing talking point which is the topic of this post:
Redistributionist policies take from the producers and give to the moochers.
See what I'm saying? See how easy it is to make the conservative argument? See how powerful the emotional impact of those arguments are? If they are believed they will enrage conservatives and shame liberals.
Obviously, Republiconservative politicians and talking heads want us to believe that redistributionist policies are causing us to become unwilling or unable to work because we are lazy and dependent on government.
Now this is definitely a plausible argument that shouldn't be dismissed by the left and needs to be carefully examined, which is what I intend to do in the following posts.
I want to demonstrate how Christie's, Santorum's and Romney's arguments are based on twisted and distorted facts, mixed in with enough bullshit to balance out a scale with Chris Christie on the other end of it. And by my estimations that bullshit would have to weigh at least a ton in order to do that.
But because reading a long complex explanation is almost as difficult as making one, I've decided to make that explanation in a separate post. So please stay tuned.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Class Warfare: Republicon Style
Just like the healthcare reform debates of two years ago, during which the Republicons falsely accused the Dems of precisely what they, the Republicons, were guilty of (rationing of healthcare with a free market administered Death Panel), the Recons are now engaged in a kind of class warfare that is not only hypocritical but misrepresents the facts in a very deceitful manner.
Romney recently expressed the kind of sentiments that right-wing radio hosts have been promulgating for many years now: Half of the country does the work (the upper income people) while the other half lays on the couch all day long waiting for their Government check to arrive.
Ed ciaccio, a friend and former MoveOn member sent me the following information in an email, which saved me the trouble of a google search. Ed also makes some excellent points:
"If you missed a very disgusting screed by a candidate for the presidency, here is what Mitt Romney said recently behind closed doors (revealing his true opinion of many of us):
'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. […] [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.'
It's actually 46 percent, and people in southern red states—you know, where those "right to work" for less laws Mitt likes keep wages low—are disproportionately likely to pay no income taxes.
Here is the truth, which Romney either refuses to know or will not acknowledge, given his prejudice against anyone unlike himself:
Just who was included in that 47% Mitt Romney was referring to in his secretly-recorded comments at a Boca Raton, Fla., fundraiser as people who don’t “take personal responsibility and care for themselves”?
61 percent of them work but don’t earn enough to owe Federal income tax.
17 percent are students (who will pay plenty of taxes once they’re out of school), military families, people with disabilities and people who have lost their jobs—including victims of outsourcers like, well, Mitt Romney.
22 percent are elderly.
(Data source: www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505#_ftn9.)
The fact that they're not paid enough or are active duty military or are too old or disabled—maybe suffering from black lung or other diseases acquired on the job—does not mean they don’t contribute to America’s tax revenues. In fact, the poorest one-fifth of U.S. households pay a grinding 16 percent of their income in various federal, state and local taxes."
Hey that's more than Romney pays!
Thanks Ed, good work
The Republiconservatives are trying to make it look like half the country is on welfare. This garbage comes straight from the bigoted minds and out of the big fat mouths of radio hosts like Rush Limbag and the countless copycats who have adopted his surefire moneymaking techniques.
This is how the deceit works: First you take the worst examples of the excesses of the 1970's welfare state. Then, because the President's a Democrat (all the better that he's black), you make believe that welfare reform never happened in the 90's under Clinton. Then you take that 70's stereotype, exaggerate it, then conflate it with every government program including Medicare and Social Security. Then you conflate that twisted image with the idea that this is where all your taxes go, assuming that you're in the 50% who pay "all of the taxes."
Here's a more honest and accurate, fair and balanced description of the "welfare state":
Government "welfare" programs are insurance programs that we all pay into either directly or indirectly, including the poor. These programs are available to any and every American citizen who is proven eligible and meets the requirements. This is a fact that is ignored by the right until it comes out that one of their heroes, like Paul Ryan or Ayn Rand or Joe the Plumber used Government programs. When it came out that Ayn Rand collected her dead husband's Social Security and used Medicare to treat her self-inflicted, tobacco-caused lung cancer (tobacco which was supplied by the free market at a handsome profit) and Joe the Plumber was on public assistance, their defenders pointed out that "they paid into the system"! Same goes for the hypocritical bug-eyed creep Ryan.
Do some people cheat? Sure, but the same thing is true for private insurance programs. I don't hear conservatives calling for getting rid of private insurance. We should do our best to stop any cheating. Interestingly, conservatives don't want to do anything to stop cheating in the free market because that would be "big government interference." Better to let the market regulate itself.
I'll have more on this later.
Romney recently expressed the kind of sentiments that right-wing radio hosts have been promulgating for many years now: Half of the country does the work (the upper income people) while the other half lays on the couch all day long waiting for their Government check to arrive.
Ed ciaccio, a friend and former MoveOn member sent me the following information in an email, which saved me the trouble of a google search. Ed also makes some excellent points:
"If you missed a very disgusting screed by a candidate for the presidency, here is what Mitt Romney said recently behind closed doors (revealing his true opinion of many of us):
'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. […] [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.'
It's actually 46 percent, and people in southern red states—you know, where those "right to work" for less laws Mitt likes keep wages low—are disproportionately likely to pay no income taxes.
Here is the truth, which Romney either refuses to know or will not acknowledge, given his prejudice against anyone unlike himself:
Just who was included in that 47% Mitt Romney was referring to in his secretly-recorded comments at a Boca Raton, Fla., fundraiser as people who don’t “take personal responsibility and care for themselves”?
61 percent of them work but don’t earn enough to owe Federal income tax.
17 percent are students (who will pay plenty of taxes once they’re out of school), military families, people with disabilities and people who have lost their jobs—including victims of outsourcers like, well, Mitt Romney.
22 percent are elderly.
(Data source: www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3505#_ftn9.)
The fact that they're not paid enough or are active duty military or are too old or disabled—maybe suffering from black lung or other diseases acquired on the job—does not mean they don’t contribute to America’s tax revenues. In fact, the poorest one-fifth of U.S. households pay a grinding 16 percent of their income in various federal, state and local taxes."
Hey that's more than Romney pays!
Thanks Ed, good work
The Republiconservatives are trying to make it look like half the country is on welfare. This garbage comes straight from the bigoted minds and out of the big fat mouths of radio hosts like Rush Limbag and the countless copycats who have adopted his surefire moneymaking techniques.
This is how the deceit works: First you take the worst examples of the excesses of the 1970's welfare state. Then, because the President's a Democrat (all the better that he's black), you make believe that welfare reform never happened in the 90's under Clinton. Then you take that 70's stereotype, exaggerate it, then conflate it with every government program including Medicare and Social Security. Then you conflate that twisted image with the idea that this is where all your taxes go, assuming that you're in the 50% who pay "all of the taxes."
Here's a more honest and accurate, fair and balanced description of the "welfare state":
Government "welfare" programs are insurance programs that we all pay into either directly or indirectly, including the poor. These programs are available to any and every American citizen who is proven eligible and meets the requirements. This is a fact that is ignored by the right until it comes out that one of their heroes, like Paul Ryan or Ayn Rand or Joe the Plumber used Government programs. When it came out that Ayn Rand collected her dead husband's Social Security and used Medicare to treat her self-inflicted, tobacco-caused lung cancer (tobacco which was supplied by the free market at a handsome profit) and Joe the Plumber was on public assistance, their defenders pointed out that "they paid into the system"! Same goes for the hypocritical bug-eyed creep Ryan.
Do some people cheat? Sure, but the same thing is true for private insurance programs. I don't hear conservatives calling for getting rid of private insurance. We should do our best to stop any cheating. Interestingly, conservatives don't want to do anything to stop cheating in the free market because that would be "big government interference." Better to let the market regulate itself.
I'll have more on this later.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Is This an Apology or an Acknowledgement?
Is this following post an apology? If there are any conservatives reading this, please let me know what you think because sometimes it seems that an apology is in the eye of the beholder, a matter of perception.
I'd like to take this opportunity to extend to my fellow countrymen, who happen to be conservative, the same consideration and courtesy that I do to those Muslims from other countries that are at odds with us.
When I reread my last blog post I realized that I can be just as incendiary towards conservatives (many of whom are my friends and family members) as what I criticize them for being.
I acknowledge and agree with many of the grievances conservatives have regarding the behavior of certain Muslims throughout the world.
As a liberal and an agnostic, I am very troubled by much of this behavior. Especially the lack of restraint in the use of violence when expressing anger. (I think US military policy should practice more restraint as well)
Killings, the persecution of other religious groups, the treatment women, gays and dissenters are all things that are much worse, by far, than anything I've ever accused conservatives of. (except maybe the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan)
I've often noted the similarities between the mind set and behavior of the unbalanced ultra-conservative religious fundamentalists of Islam and that of our own conservatives.
But let me say this, I'll take good old American unbalanced ultra-conservative religious fundamentalists over those foreign ones any day of the week. That's because they've been tempered and shaped by good old American liberals.
If you think about it, conservatives and liberals in this country basically agree on our ultimate goals. We just disagree on how to get there. I think that conservatives have about a third of it correct. Liberals have about a third correct. And the other third is yet to be decided.
One of the things we disagree about is what constitutes an apology.
So if any conservatives are reading this and would like to tell me whether they think that this post is an apology, I'd appreciate it. If I can know what your perception is I will reveal my intention and see if they match.
In the meantime, I will compose my 'apology' for apologies.
I'd like to take this opportunity to extend to my fellow countrymen, who happen to be conservative, the same consideration and courtesy that I do to those Muslims from other countries that are at odds with us.
When I reread my last blog post I realized that I can be just as incendiary towards conservatives (many of whom are my friends and family members) as what I criticize them for being.
I acknowledge and agree with many of the grievances conservatives have regarding the behavior of certain Muslims throughout the world.
As a liberal and an agnostic, I am very troubled by much of this behavior. Especially the lack of restraint in the use of violence when expressing anger. (I think US military policy should practice more restraint as well)
Killings, the persecution of other religious groups, the treatment women, gays and dissenters are all things that are much worse, by far, than anything I've ever accused conservatives of. (except maybe the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan)
I've often noted the similarities between the mind set and behavior of the unbalanced ultra-conservative religious fundamentalists of Islam and that of our own conservatives.
But let me say this, I'll take good old American unbalanced ultra-conservative religious fundamentalists over those foreign ones any day of the week. That's because they've been tempered and shaped by good old American liberals.
If you think about it, conservatives and liberals in this country basically agree on our ultimate goals. We just disagree on how to get there. I think that conservatives have about a third of it correct. Liberals have about a third correct. And the other third is yet to be decided.
One of the things we disagree about is what constitutes an apology.
So if any conservatives are reading this and would like to tell me whether they think that this post is an apology, I'd appreciate it. If I can know what your perception is I will reveal my intention and see if they match.
In the meantime, I will compose my 'apology' for apologies.
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Brave Mitt
You gotta give it to him. Mitt Romney has guts. Not only was he courageous enough to falsely accuse the President of something he didn't do and, in the middle of a dangerous crisis, insult the actions of our brave diplomatic corps, but he also showed spine by defending the fucking asshole who took it upon himself to throw a match into an ocean of gasoline.
Check out the fearlessness of Mitt's initial statements in regard to the American Embassy in Cairo's initial statement:
"I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks."
Then later:
"...the statements were inappropriate and, in my view, a disgraceful statement on the part of our administration to apologize for American values.
I think it's a terrible course to -- for America to stand in apology for our values...And apology for America's values is never the right course."
From what Mitt said, you'd think that right after an American was killed in the attack in Libya, Obama pleaded for forgiveness from the attackers then apologized for granting the right of free speech in our Constitution. But just like almost every other time Mitt opens his mouth to utter something, he said the exact opposite of what the truth is.
Check out this timeline of exactly what was said, when and by whom, and how it (mis)matches with what Romney charged: What They Said, Before and After the Consulate Attack - Graphic - NYTimes.com
This was the Embassy in Cairo's initial statement which Mitt described as "disgraceful" "sympath[etic] with those who waged the attacks" and an "apology for America's values" and which he falsely attributed to the Obama administration as their first response to the attacks on our missions :
"The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."
Disgraceful? Sympathetic to the attackers of our missions? An apology for America's values?
What's disgraceful is how Romney insulted our brave diplomatic corps who, in service to our country, put their lives at risk in one of the most dangerous parts of the world and only made a perfectly reasonable, even-handed "fair and balanced" statement intended to calm a dangerous situation. Mitt wouldn't give the experienced people who were in the heat of battle the benefit of the doubt as how to best handle a very volatile situation which was developing quickly. It's like he wanted them to stand on top of the wall with a megaphone and yell "Now listen you Muslims. Everything in that Movie is the truth. You just can't handle the truth. Now back off before we let you have it!" Mitt and his fellow conservative chicken-hawks should try that next time something like this happens.
But maybe I'm being unfair referring to Mitt as a chicken-hawk because I heard that he earned a Purple Heart during the Vietnam war. Not that Mitt ever served in Vietnam. You see, even though he demonstrated in favor of the draft during the war, he used a deferment so he could serve as a Mormon missionary in the brutal and dangerous jungles of France. The way he got his Purple Heart is when he was annoying a French patron who was trying to enjoy one of the lowest heart disease rates in the world by practicing the French tradition of drinking a daily glass of wine. Part of the Mormon mission is to convince people not to drink alcohol. As Mitt preached the evils of drink to the Frenchman, he reached out to stay the wino's hand. This caused some of the wine to splash onto Mitt and produce a purple, heart shaped stain on his crisp starched-white Mormon shirt. Story goes, Mitt's salesmanship sold the Frenchman on the idea that wine could only cause him harm. So he gave up wine drinking on the spot. Unfortunately, the gentleman died of a heart attack in his mid forties.
Oh well, at least Mitt got out of going to Vietnam!
Sympathetic to the attackers of our missions?
Does this sound like sympathy with the attackers?
"Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy."
Notice how Mitt used the plural when he referred to the "attacks on our diplomatic missions." In other words, he included the attack in Libya which caused the deaths of three Americans. He was trying to make us think that the statement was made after those killings. As the NY Times reported, the statement was made by the Embassy in Egypt before the first attack even happened. The Administration's first response after the killing in Libya was to strongly condemn the attacks.
Ain't Romney something?
An apology for America's values?
Did you see an apology anywhere in that statement? I always thought that apologies required the use of words like "we apologize" "we are sorry" or "we deeply regret." It wasn't an apology, it was a condemnation of the asshole film that got three Americans killed. Something that jerk-off Romney should have done in the first place. Instead, the fuck decided to inflame the emotions of his countrymen by doing exactly what his ultra-conservative religious fundamentalist counterparts in the Arab Middle East do: throw even more gas on the fire.
Far from apologizing for American values, the statement proudly asserted them: "Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy."
From the way Romney and his fellow war-mongers have been behaving, it looks as if they would like to apologize to right wing "Judeo/Christians" for the Founding Fathers including Islam in that one. (Check out Jefferson's writings on that: http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2010/08/jefferson-on-the-toleration-of-islam/183790/ )
But what about free speech?
The statement went beyond defending it as an American value by calling it "the universal right of free speech."
The exact opposite of what Romney charged.
Do you recall what the appeasing Muslim-sympathizing General Petraeus said two years ago?
The US military commander in Afghanistan warned that the lives of American troops would be endangered if evangelical Christians in Florida went ahead with plans to burn the Koran on the ninth anniversary of September 11. I think that should apply to Romney's reckless staements, as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)