Republicans caught registering dead people. The Republican National Committee has been caught doing the same kinds of things they alleged Acorn did – funny. Maybe it is time for me to get out my pimp costume and pay the RNC a visit. One has to appreciate the irony, especially after the big stink they made over Acorn. “The suspected fraud included apparent cases of dead people being registered as Republican voters, said Paul Lux, the supervisor of elections in Okaloosa County and a Republican. He compared the suspected fraud to the alleged acts of ACORN, the liberal activist group that became the center of a national controversy several years ago. "It's kind of ironic that the dead people they accused Acorn of registering are now being done by the RPOF" [Republican Party of Florida], Lux said in an interview with NBC News.” http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/...s-with-firm-over-voter-fraud-allegations?lite
I don’t know if Romney would bomb Iran. But if Romney were to become POTUS, there is only one thing I am confident Romney would do and that would be to do whatever it took to appease the radical elements in his party. If that meant nuking Iran, I am sure he would do it in a heartbeat even though it would be against his better judgment. That is the real scary thing about Romney, the man has no backbone. The one man in the Republican Party with some backbone, Huntsman, was cast aside by those radical elements that have become the Republican Party.
Not the Only One Oh, he wasn't the only one. Remember, Sen. Dick Lugar, it turns out, was not conservative enough for Indiana Republicans. Current polling gives a slight edge to Democrat Joe Donelly over Lugar's replacement, the indubitable moron Richard Mourdock. In May, Mourdock pushed the "47%" argument by invoking the Civil War: State treasurer Richard Mourdock (R) rehashed a favorite GOP talking point — that 47 percent of Americans don't pay income taxes — at the town hall in Columbus City, Indiana, comparing those 47 percent to the Confederate states that seceded from the Union in an attempt to protect and expand slavery. Referencing Lincoln's speech, Mourdock said that as long as nearly half of Americans don't pay taxes, “we are a house divided” that is presumably on the point to another fight, this time between the rich and the poor: MOURDOCK: What he meant by that was that slavery was either going to be totally eliminated from the United States or it was no longer just going to be restricted to the Southern states, it was going to go everywhere. I am here to suggest to you that we are in a house divided. You know this past April, when our federal taxes were paid, 47 percent — 47 percent — of all American households paid no income tax. In fact, half of that 47 percent almost, actually got tax money back from the government that they never paid -– because a few years ago we revised the welfare program to make it part of the tax code. When 47 percent are paying no income taxes — they do pay Social Security — but they are not paying income taxes, and 53 percent are carrying the load, we are a house divided. (Waldron) Yeah. This is the guy Indiana conservatives wanted, instead of a proper conservative statesman. What should have been a GOP lock is now a senate seat in play. Um ... er ... right. Where was I going with ...? Oh, right: Something about "those radical elements that have become the Republican Party". One wonders if the idea that both Mitt Romney and Richard Mourdock were trying to play the "47%" argument at the same time in May will help or hurt the GOP presidential nominee come election day. ____________________ Notes: Waldron, Travis. "Indiana GOP Senate Candidate Says His Concern About Poor Not Paying Taxes Akin To Lincoln's Fears About Slavery". ThinkProgress. May 10, 2012. ThinkProgress.org. September 29, 2012. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/10/481645/mourdock-taxes-slavery/
Just What Mitt Romney Needed Just What Mitt Romney Needed It would seem that a volunteer for the Clay County GOP decided to go rogue. Well, that's what we're supposed to believe. An answering machine recording captured an inexplicable moment, a seemingly ad-libbed campaign call in which a woman stumblingly explains to senior citizens that President Obama is a socialist Muslim who is out to destroy Medicare; oh, and see that 2016 movie, and pay attention to FOX News. It really is astounding. Leslie Dougher, of Clay GOP, distanced the Party from the call: "It was off-script completely," she explained. "Those are clearly not the views of the Republican Party of Clay County or the Mitt Romney campaign." To the other, as we learn from the St. Augustine Record, "Dougher said the volunteer was counseled about that call but she wasn't sure if the woman was still making calls." Right. So this person might still be making calls. But, you know, that's probably not important, since Clay GOP doesn't like having that sort of dirty laundry aired: Dougher also questioned the legality of playing audio after the volunteer was unaware they were being recorded. "Can you air a recording like that?" she asked. "If not, I would question a station playing something like that illegally." [WMNF radio host Rob] Lorei said the decision to play the audio was an easy one to make. "This listener tells me that he frequently gets calls from the GOP," he said. "His answering machine did what answering machines do when a person is not there to pick up the phone, it recorded the phone call." I mean, come on. Really? It's a phone bank. You call people. You talk to them. You leave messages. You spread the campaign. Now, suddenly, Clay GOP wants to claim their privacy has been violated? Mitt Romney can't get a break. And, you know, a lot of it is his own damn fault. But at some point, we have to recognize that the poor old rich man is a Republican, and while that, too, is his own choice, there comes a point where you can't blame someone for being mugged simply because they went for a walk. One gets the feeling, sometimes, that Republicans are tanking this election. But that doesn't really make sense. Sure, it makes sense to cut a candidate like Todd Akin loose, even if it is only for cosmetic reasons. And, yes, it makes sense to sacrifice a down-ticket race that can't be won in order to support a winning effort elsewhere on the battlefield. But this is the presidency, and the risks associated with tanking a term are incalculable. In that sense, it's almost like some wicked social science experiment is playing out on a massive scale. In that case, Mitt Romney is expendable; he got the nod from the Party this year, as such, because a Romney loss won't tarnish an important career, like, say, some up-and-coming Republican. Although, yes, if that was the case ... what's with the Ryan selection? The bottom line is that none of it makes sense. Hiring Sproul, insulting half the electorate, lying through their teeth, undermining voting rights, surrogates we might describe with kind exaggeration as "lukewarm" ... sure, it might just be one moron in Florida palinating on a rough night, but a fresh injection of tinfoil xenophobia is just not what Mitt Romney needs. Oh, right. They're likely playing to the hardline right. Voter mobilization. Small swing share. Investment and return. That whole thing. Still, though, a semi-coherent, xenophobic ramble from some yokel sounding like she's crashing after a coke binge probably isn't part of the script, even if they're playing the hard-right gambit. No, really. It's almost enough to make me feel sorry for Mitt. Almost. ____________________ Notes: Dixon, Matt. "GOP volunteer calls Obama a Muslim". St. Augustine Record. September 28, 2012. StAugustine.com. September 29, 2012. http://staugustine.com/news/local-news/2012-09-27-0
Ryan on Taxes: I Ain't Tellin' You Ryan on Taxes: I Ain't Tellin' You We'll start with Dave Jamieson of Huffington Post: Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan promised again on Sunday that Mitt Romney's tax plan would bring lower tax rates for all Americans while remaining revenue-neutral, although he didn't fully explain how it would accomplish that. The Obama campaign has blasted the Romney-Ryan ticket for not providing details on how it would give Americans such large tax breaks without growing the deficit. Ryan reiterated in an interview on "Fox News Sunday" that the plan would drop taxpayers' bills by 20 percent without costing a dime, due to closed tax loopholes, but he was short on specifics when pressed by host Chris Wallace. “You haven't given me the math,” Wallace said in one exchange. “I don't have the ... It would take me too long to go through all of the math,” Ryan responded. “But let me say it this way,” he went on. “You can lower tax rates 20 percent across the board by closing loopholes and still have preferences for the middle class for things like charitable deductions, home purchases, for health care. What we're saying is people are going to get lower tax rates and therefore they will not send as much money to Washington.” Now, before anyone wastes a moment pointing out that it's HuffPo, I would note that the quote is actually merciful. "I don't have the ... It would take me too long to go through all of the math", is how Jamieson quotes the Wisconsin congressman and vice presidential nominee. Written to a screenplay, the quote would actually go: "I don't have the time [laughs]. It would take me too long to go through all of the math." Paul Constant of The Stranger notes, "I like that little 'heh' he lets out where he stops himself from finishing 'I don't have the time.' It speaks volumes of exasperation." Maybe it does speak of exasperation. Or perhaps it suggests contempt for voters. Whatever the case, there isn't much here that is new. This is the campaign that tells you their budget can't be scored, but also tells you how it scores. But they won't tell you how they come up with that score, even and especially when it contradicts the economists who have scored the plan that allegedly cannot be scored. President Obama seems to have a point: "No matter how many times they tell you they're gonna start talking specifics really soon, they don't do it. And the reason is because the math doesn't work." Or we can believe the Romney/Ryan ticket, who insist the math works but won't tell us just how it works. Exasperation? Contempt? Does it really matter? In the end, Republicans are serving up this plate of steaming excrement because they're trying to con the American people. Contempt because they're trying. Exasperation because it doesn't seem to be working. Even FOX News, apparently, can see the problem. ____________________ Notes: Jamieson, Dave. "Paul Ryan: 'It Would Take Me Too Long' To Explain Mitt Romney's Tax Plan". The Huffington Post. September 30, 2012. HuffingtonPost.com. October 1, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/30/paul-ryan-tax-plan-mitt-romney_n_1926660.html Constant, Paul. "Paul Ryan Says 'I don't have the t...it would take me too long' to Explain the Romney/Ryan Tax Plan". Slog. September 30, 2012. Slog.TheStranger.com. October 1, 2012. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...e-too-long-to-explain-the-romneyryan-tax-plan
Another Republican Argument Unjustly Inconvenienced By Reality Another Republican Argument Unjustly Inconvenienced By Reality Adam Serwer explains: To hear Republicans explain it, the protests at US embassies around the world and the attack on a US consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead are a result of the Obama administration "projecting weakness." "When we project weakness abroad, our enemies are more willing to test us, they are more brazen and our allies are less willing to trust us," said vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan at an event in Colorado last week. "[T]hat will not happen under a Mitt Romney administration because we believe in peace through strength." Ryan was referring to potential defense cuts, so if Al Qaeda pays enough attention to American budget politics to base its strikes on funding cuts then they probably know Ryan projected weakness by voting for them in the first place. Romney adviser Richard Williamson went so far as to suggest to the Washington Post last month that under a President Romney, no protesters would dare defile an American embassy. "In Egypt and Libya and Yemen, again demonstrations—the respect for America has gone down, there's not a sense of American resolve and we can't even protect sovereign American property," he said. (Boldface accent added) It turns out that Mitt Romney and the Republican Party are, once again, simply full of excrement. I know, I know—big surprise, right? Interestingly, though, this is one of those things that people can often sense viscerally, but have a hard time wrapping their heads around intellectually. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Serwer continues: Having Ronald Reagan in office didn't mean an end to attacks on US diplomatic targets. Despite Reagan's refrain of "peace through strength," several high-profile attacks on US diplomatic facilities occurred on his watch, including the bombing of the US embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, by Islamic militants. Twice. According to the Global Terrorism Database compiled by the University of Maryland National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START), attacks on American diplomatic targets actually rose during Reagan's term—before beginning to subside in the mid-1990s. "That follows the trend of terrorism generally," says Erin Miller, a research assistant at START who manages the Global Terrorism Database. "In the early 1990s there's a drop-off worldwide in terrorism against pretty much all target types." Miller cites the collapse of the Soviet Union, and a subsequent wane in leftist terrorism as one possible explanation for the downturn beginning in the mid-1990s. The decline is probably not because terrorists were intimidated by Bill Clinton more than they were by George H.W. Bush. Two of the worst terrorist attacks on American diplomatic targets, Al Qaeda's bombing of US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, happened on Clinton's watch. It does however, make the Romney campaign's claim that having a Republican in office will frighten terrorists out of striking at American diplomats or staging violent protests at American embassies extremely dubious. The UMd. database lists 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets during the George W. Bush administration, including car bombs at the US embassy in Yemen and armed attackers assaulting a US consulate in Saudi Arabia. Naturally, it is unfair to expect our Republican neighbors to abide by facts. But, for the rest of us, it is enough to bear in mind that, statistically speaking, this whole "projecting weakness" argument coming from Romney, Ryan, and other Republicans is, like so much of who they are and what they say, dishonest excrement. ____________________ Notes: Serwer, Adam. "The Truth About Attacks on Our Diplomats". Mother Jones. October 3, 2012. MotherJones.com. October 8, 2012. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/10/libya-consulate-embassy-attacks-obama-romney
Romney takes the lead 49 to 45 (likely voters, Pew) After his strong debate performance, Mitt Romney is now in the lead among likely voters according to Pew: The internals are even more interesting: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Romney has erased the gender gap, is now in the lead among the young & the old, and increased his support among African Americans by 50% (from 2% to 3%Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!). http://www.people-press.org/2012/10/08/romneys-strong-debate-performance-erases-obamas-lead/
Nothing to see here Nothing to see here ... no, really. Honestly. It's just ... funny. Andrew Kaczyinski of BuzzFeed managed to get this shot of Mitt Romney campaigning at an elementary school: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just call this one fortunately unfortunate. Okay, your Romney humor break is now officially over. Get back to work, or he'll take pleasure in firing you.
It's funny you didn't mention the Gallop Poll which shows the exact opposite, Obama leading. It's also funny that just a week ago when all the polls including the one you are now citing were showing your guy Romney failing in the polls and you and your fellow Republicans were poo pooing the polls claiming they could not be relied upon - funny how that works.
It's funny that the Gallup Poll does not say what you say it does: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! If you'll note that the Gallup poll is of all registered voters, it is actually in perfect agreement with the Pew poll which had Obama and Romney tied among all registered voters yet gave Romney a 4 point lead among likely voters.
Let's not get too worked up about any particular round of poll results, people. These things can get volatile, and they've certainly been badly wrong before. Obama does seem to have come down from the massive high he was on in previous weeks, but overall this election is still shaping up as a solid win for him, at least according to intrade.com and the 538 Electoral College blog at NYTimes.
Yes, another poll: With all the polling and TV ads being made, no wonder the jobs picture is a little brighter.
Personally I refuse to watch any political debates until they are hooked up to lie detectors. I don't believe in any of that crap. 2 sides of the same coin. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It Happened Again It Happened Again So ... really. What, exactly, is the deal— ... sometimes Mr. Romney goes on TV and says a different kind of lie, in a sense that he invents a brand new policy position he's never had before. But after he does that, his staff follows behind him and quietly releasing statements taking back his quotes. When Mr. Romney was asked in an interview with Univision America radio last week, he was about one of his immigration advisers, Kris Kobach, he's the guy who wrote the papers please law in Arizona, Mr. Romney said he had not met with Kris Kobach, and that he could not confirm whether Kris Kobach was a member of his policy team. That's what he said in the interview on Univision. But later that same day, the Romney campaign quietly corrected the record saying Mr. Romney has, in fact, met with Kris Kobach. And that yes, Kris Kobach is a Romney campaign adviser. So Mr. Romney tells an interview he's never met with Kris Kobach, but then his campaign says actually what he said was not true. Same thing happened last month when Mr. Romney came out with a whole new policy position on abortion rights when he was being interviewed on "60 Minutes". (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROMNEY: I'm in favor of abortion being legal in the case of rape and incest in the health of the life of the mother. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: Mitt Romney says he believes abortion should be allowed to protect a woman's health. You heard him say it right there. Afterwards, his campaign came out and said that's not actually what Mitt Romney believes. His spokesman, while refusing to say that Mr. Romney misspoke nevertheless told NPR that Mr. Romney doesn't actually support the legal right to have an abortion if you need one to protect your health as a woman. The same thing happened earlier this month when Mr. Romney came out with a whole new take on Obamacare during an interview on "Meet the Press". (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) ROMNEY: I'm not getting rid of all of health care reform. Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I'm going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with preexisting conditions can get coverage. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: I'm not getting rid of all of health reform. After Mr. Romney said that he wanted to keep the part of health reform that requires insurance companies to cover people with preexisting conditions, his campaign came out afterwards and said, what he just said there, he doesn't mean that. He does not want to keep that part of health reform, saying that Mr. Romney was not in favor of a law requiring that coverage. The same thing happened just a week ago when Mr. Romney suddenly retreated from his foreign policy attacks against President Obama, when he suddenly, surprisingly, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC said that his red line on keeping Iran from going nuclear is the same as President Obama's red line. After Mitt Romney said that on tape that he believes his red line is the same as President Obama's, his campaign quietly afterwards said actually what he just said there, he doesn't really believe that. They took the quote back. Mr. Romney doesn't believe that .... .... Same thing happened again this week. Mitt Romney conceded another one of his frequent attacks on the president. He's been charging for months that President Obama has raised taxes on middle class Americans. But then he admitted on tape that President Obama has not raised taxes. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) OBAMA: He's got one new idea, one thing he did not do in his first four years which is to raise taxes. (END VIDEO CLIP) MADDOW: So Mitt Romney admits that President Obama has not raised taxes during his first term as president. He says that on tape and his campaign says afterwards, what he said he does not believe that. What seems to be happening here is that in the moment, when he's talking to an interviewer or speaking to an audience, and maybe he can sense what it is they want to hear, he just says what they want to hear, even if it's not really his position or can't remember what his position is supposed to be, or if it not really what he believes. But his campaign can't have the flip flop be on the record .... So quietly, a few hours, or a few days later, they just erase the quote. They take it back. They say he never said that. They never admit that he might have said the wrong thing. They just try to erase from the record the wrong thing that he said. (Maddow) —with this? Yes, yes, yes. I know. I know. I posted this bit last month. I remind you, however, because, well, yeah. It happened again. Mitt Romney said Tuesday he has no plans to push for legislation limiting abortion, a softer stance from a candidate who has said he would "get rid of" funding for Planned Parenthood and appoint Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade. "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda," the Republican presidential nominee told The Des Moines Register in an interview. The Romney campaign walked back the remark within two hours of the Register posting its story. Spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the National Review Online's Katrina Trinko that Romney "would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life." (Foley) No, really. What the hell is going on here? ____________________ Notes: Maddow, Rachel. The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York. September 26, 2012. Transcript. MSNBC.com. October 9, 2012. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49195722/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/ Foley, Elise. "Mitt Romney Abortion Stance Changes, As Candidate Says He Won't Push To Restrict Access". The Huffington Post. October 9, 2012. HuffingtonPost.com. October 9, 2012. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/09/mitt-romney-abortion_n_1952780.html
Bill Makes the Case Bill Makes the Case Honestly, what could be better than Bill Clinton in Las Vegas, giving a campaign speech after having a few drinks? [video=youtube;N7EyYhbLn98]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7EyYhbLn98[/video] The transcript: "I had a different reaction to that first debate than a lot of people did. I mean I thought, 'Wow, here's old Moderate Mitt. Where have you been, boy, I missed you all these last few years!' "But I was paying attention in the last two years, and it was like one of these Bain Capital deals—you know where he's the closer. So he shows up, doesn't really know much about the deals and says, 'Tell me what I'm supposed to say to close.' "Now, the problem with this deal is the deal was made by 'Severe Conservative' Mitt. That was how he described himself for two whole years. Until three or four days before the debate, they all got together and said, 'Hey, Mitt, this ship is sinking faster than the Titanic, but people are still frustrated about the economy, they want it fixed yesterday. So just show up with a sunny face and say, 'I didn't say all that stuff I said the last two years. I don't have that tax plan I had for the last two years. You gonna believe me or your lying eyes here? Come on! What are you doing?' And if I'd been the president I might have said, 'Well I hate to get in the way of this. I miss you.'" But, really, watch the video; it's hilarious. This is why, after everything else is said and done, so many people just downright like Bill. To the one, he pretty much tacks Mitt Romney to the shed. To the other, he does it in absolutely awesome style. Ah, Vegas!
What's the Buzz? Tell me what's a-happenin'. Back and Forth and Back Again .... Mitt Romney, yesterday: "There's no legislation with regards to abortion that I'm familiar with that would become part of my agenda." (Jacobs) Mitt Romney's campaign, two hours later: "[Mitt Romney] would of course support legislation aimed at providing greater protections for life." (Trinko) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Mitt Romney, today: I think I've said time and again that I'm a pro-life candidate and I'll be a pro-life president. The actions I'll take immediately is to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. It will not be part of my budget. And also I've indicated that I will reverse the Mexico City position of the president. I will reinstate the Mexico City policy which keeps us from using foreign aid for abortions overseas. (Weiner) The "Mexico City" policy is an executive order instituted by Ronald Reagan in 1984; its name comes from the fact that President Reagan announced the policy while in Mexico City in 1984: The "Mexico City" policy prohibits US dollars and contraceptive supplies from going to any international family planning program that provides abortions or counsels women about their reproductive health options. The policy isn't about money going to pay for abortions. Even those groups that use only private funds for abortion services—where abortion is legal—are barred from assistance. This is money going to family planning programs. President Clinton rescinded the Mexico City policy in 1993. But President Bush reinstated and expanded it on his first day in office. Now not only are organizations that provide or counsel about abortion services affected; those that dare to take part in a public discussion about legalizing abortion are also affected (hence the name "global gag rule"). Of course, those that call for restricting abortion rights are not affected. This policy has nothing to do with government-sponsored abortions overseas. Ten years before the gag rule was in place the law strictly prohibited that. This policy is about disqualifying prochoice organizations from receiving US international family planning funding. Under Bush's policy, organizations that play a vital role in women's health are forced to make an impossible choice. If they refuse to be "gagged," they lose the funding that enables them to help women and families who are cut off from basic health care and family planning. But if they accept funding, they must accept restrictions that jeopardize the health of the women they serve. (Meehan and Felt) Defunding Planned Parenthood, though, is not an executive order; it requires Congressional action—in other words, legislation. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, an anti-abortion organization, in defense of Romney: "No one likes to be caught flat-footed or see your hero flat-footed. But those moments do come," said Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List. Dannenfelser said she thinks Romney's comment to the editorial board was nothing more than a slip—that he just has too much else on his mind to keep issues like abortion front and center. "I think the simple truth of the matter is his head is in jobs and the economy almost all day long, almost every single day," she said. "And of course we want at least a third of his focus to be on it all the time, but you don't always get everything that you want." (Rovner) I'm sorry, but will the real Mitt Shady please stand up? ____________________ Notes: Jacobs, Jennifer. "Romney says abortion legislation isn’t part of his agenda". Iowa Politics. October 9, 2012. Blogs.DesMoinesRegister.com. October 10, 2012. http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/...n-legislation-isnt-part-of-his-agenda/article Trinko, Katrina. "@andreamsaul on Romney's abortion comment to DMR". Twitter. October 9, 2012. Twitter.com. October 10, 2012. https://twitter.com/KatrinaTrinko/status/255815438695559168 Weiner, Rachel. "Romney again promises to defund Planned Parenthood". Election 2012 Blog. October 10, 2012. WashingtonPost.com. October 10, 2012. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/10/romney-ill-be-a-pro-life-president/ Meehan, Marty and Gloria Feldt. "Lift the family planning gag". Boston Globe. August 12, 2004. Boston.com. October 10, 2012. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ed...cles/2004/08/12/lift_the_family_planning_gag/ Rovner, Julie. "Romney's Remarks On Abortion Cause A Stir". Shots. October 10, 2012. NPR.org. October 10, 2012. http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/10/162667478/romney-causes-yet-another-abortion-stir
Romney Can Lie, But You Can't Call Him a Liar WSJ: Romney Can Lie, But You Can't Call Him a Liar Daniel Henninger, the Deputy Editorial Page Director of the Wall Street Journal has had enough: The election campaign of the 44th U.S. president is now calling another candidate for the American presidency a "liar." This is a new low. It is amazing and depressing to hear this term being used as a formal strategy by people at the highest level of American politics. "Liar" is a potent and ugly word with a sleazy political pedigree. But "liar" is not being deployed only by party attack dogs or the Daily Kos comment queue. Mitt Romney is being called a "liar" by officials at the top of the Obama re-election campaign. Speaking the day after the debate in the press cabin of Air Force One, top Obama adviser David Plouffe said, "We thought it was important to let people know that someone who would lie to 50 million Americans, you should have some questions about whether that person should sit in the Oval Office" .... .... Explicitly calling someone a "liar" is—or used to be—a serious and rare charge, in or out of politics. It's a loaded word. It crosses a line. "Liar" suggests bad faith and conscious duplicity—a total, cynical falsity .... .... The Obama campaign's resurrection of "liar" as a political tool is odious because it has such a repellent pedigree. It dates to the sleazy world of fascist and totalitarian propaganda in the 1930s. It was part of the milieu of stooges, show trials and dupes. These were people willing to say anything to defeat their opposition. Denouncing people as liars was at the center of it. The idea was never to elevate political debate but to debauch it. The purpose of calling someone a liar then was not merely to refute their ideas or arguments. It was to nullify them, to eliminate them from participation in politics. That's what is so unsettling about a David Axelrod or David Plouffe following accusations of dishonesty and lies with "whether that person should sit in the Oval Office." And that is followed by President Obama himself feeding the new line in stump speeches without himself ever using the L-word. This Obama campaign is saying, We don't want to compete with Mitt Romney. We want to obliterate him. It really is astounding. Henninger goes on to explain that the "L-word" is as "skuzzily [sic] routine as the F-bomb has become among 15-year-old girls". Absent from his tirade is any consideration of just how one should deal with serial liars. I mean, if you can't call a person who routinely lies a "liar", what, then, do you do? Well, that doesn't matter to Henninger; how dare anyone call the guy the Wall Street Journal is trying to elect to the White House a liar! Mitt Romney ought to be able to lie through his teeth all day, every day, and nobody gets to impugn an honest man like Mitt by calling him a liar. No, really, this is what it comes to. Conservatives are setting a new low bar for American politics. Of course, when we stop to think about Nixon, Atwater, and Rove, it quickly becomes apparent that this is a longstanding habit. I mean, if Henninger wants to make an ADA case, or saying that Republicans can't help themselves, and need to be protected against the denigration of being called liars when they are caught in lies, that would be one thing—I'm willing to hear that case out. But, then, we need to get Republicans a little blue placard. Or maybe he can declare this the new Affirmative Action. What, then, should be the proper quota of outright lies a Republican gets to tell? It will be interesting which variation of "lie"—if any—comes out of Joe Biden's mouth in his debate with Paul Ryan. Mr. Biden comes from a political generation that could play rough, but it knew the limits of going too low at the presidential level. Or used to. Well, yeah, but in that sense, he also comes from a political generation that understood the difference between spinning the facts and simply making shit up. Of course, that consideration is too complicated for Henninger and the folks at the Wall Street Journal. Or maybe it's not so complicated. Maybe it just won't help Mitt Romney for them to acknowledge the point. ____________________ Notes: Henninger, Daniel. "Obama and the L-Word". The Wall Street Journal. October 11, 2012; page A17. Online.WSJ.com. October 11, 2012. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443749204578048682120159150.html
So Joe, wasn't I correct when I told you lying works? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Just look at Mitt's numbers now...
Note that is only 4%, even if ALL deductions were eliminated (not only those above some cap like $50,000 Romney mentions) and 4% << 20% of revenue increase that Romney claims would compensate for across-the-board reduction in tax rates. The Tax Policy Center paper is the only supporting argument for Romney´s plan that is not just a blogger´s opinion or a right-wing newspaper´s OP-ED view. It is obvious why Romney is not giving details and using the excuse that they must be negotiated with Congress. Hundreds of lobbyist submit very detail suggestions – actual drafts of legislation – to Congress every week. Why Can´t Romney do the same if he had the plan he claims is not from fantasy land (as even right-of-center leaning Bloomberg suggests it is.)?
