I'm proving I'm responsible by not paying my debts!

I'm reprinting an article below by Robert Creamer from the Huffington Post.  It contains several truths about the reasons for the approaching "fiscal cliff" including how we got here and why we'll probably have to go over it.
In short, we got here because the Republican party has become great at obscuring truth and its members of Congress are more afraid of losing a primary challenge than they are of wrecking the economy.
Republicans control one of two houses of the legislative branch (and the Supreme Court).  The Democrats hold the other house and the presidency.  Republicans will hold the economy hostage by refusing to lift the debt limit without concessions and Democrats will allow it.
The debt limit is not a forward facing entity, so when Mitch (turtle-man) McConnell says "we're not giving the president a blank check" and therefore Republicans won't vote to lift the debt limit, the whole thing is a lie and a ruse.  Congress has already authorized the spending which created the debt, the ceiling reflects the fact that they have spent more money than the treasury had, and therefore the difference must be borrowed, creating the "debt."  Its like running up a tab on your credit card, and trying to act responsible by refusing to pay when Visa sends the bill.  Its crazy, its dishonest, it has already caused the credit of the U.S. to be downgraded, but for Republicans, re-election is more important than the good of the country.
It can happen because there are enough ignorant Americans who cannot think rationally enough to see through this ploy.  Cynical and dishonest, period.
Creamer argues that this condition is now acute because gerrymandering districts have created solid Republican districts where Republicans now fear being defeated in the primaries by Tea Partyists running to their right.  Its why Marco Rubio, and educated man, cannot admit the existence of evolution or the true age of the earth.  Its why climate change must be denied.  Here's the article:

Often, economic crises are caused by real physical problems - like draught, war, demography, or technological innovation that robs one economy of a competitive advantage over another.
Other times, economic crises result when asset bubbles burst, or financial markets collapse. That was the case of the Great Depression - and more recently the Great Recession.
The economic crisis of the moment - the "fiscal cliff" - does not result from any of these factors. In fact it is not a real "economic crisis" at all, except that it could inflict serious economic hardship on many Americans and could drive the economy back into recession.
The "fiscal cliff" is a politically manufactured crisis. It was original concocted by the Republican Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell as a way to get past the last crisis manufactured by the Republicans - the 2011 standoff over increasing the Federal Debt Ceiling.
Theoretically, "the cliff" - composed of increased taxes and huge, indiscriminant cuts in Federal programs - would be so frightening to policy makers that no one would ever consider allowing the nation to jump.
Now, America is on the brink of diving off the cliff for one and only one reason: many House Republicans are terrified of primary challenges from the Tea Party right.
That's right, if your tax bill goes up $2,200 a year, or you're one of the millions who would stop receiving unemployment benefits, the cause of your economic pain is not some a natural disaster, or a major structural flaw in the economy. The cause is Republican fear of being beaten in a primary by people like Sarah Palin, Sharon Angel or Richard Mourdock - funded by far Right Wing oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson and the Koch Brothers. It's that simple.
Most normal Americans will have very little patience with Republicans as they begin to realize that GOP Members of Congress are willing to risk throwing the country back into a recession because they are worried about being beaten in low turn out primaries by people who do a better job than they do appealing to the extreme right fringe of the American electorate - and to the far Right plutocrats that are all too willing to stoke right wing passion and anger.
Nate Silver, of the New York Time's 538.com, argues in a recent column that one of the reasons for this phenomenon is the increasing polarization of the American electorate. That polarization translates in to fewer truly "swing" Congressional seats and an increasing number where Members are more concerned with primary challenges than they are with losing in a general election. He concludes that at this moment the number of solidly Republican seats is larger the number of solidly Democratic seats.
This, he argues is partially a result of redistricting by Republican legislatures that packed Democrats into a limited number of districts in many states. But he also contends it results from increasing polarization of the electorate in general. And it is due to the fact that solidly Democratic urban areas have very high concentrations of Democrats, where Republican performing areas tend to have relatively lower concentrations of Republicans. These reasons help explain why, even though Democrats got more votes in House races this cycle than Republicans, Republicans still have more seats in the House.
Increased political polarization in the United States is not a result of some accident or act of God. In 2006, political scientists Nolan McCarty, Kevin T. Poole and Howard Rosenthal published a study of political polarization called Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches. Their study found that there is a direct relationship between economic inequality and polarization in American politics.
They measured political polarization in congressional votes over the last century, and found a direct correlation with the percentage of income received by the top 1% of the electorate. It is no accident that the years following the second World War, a period of low political polarization, was also a period that economist Paul Krugman refers to as the "great compression" -- with robust economic growth for most Americans and reducing levels of economic inequality. In other words, it turns out that if you want less political polarization, the best medicine is reducing income inequality.
Of course, one of the other major factors feeding the GOP fear of primaries is that, because of the Citizens United decision, far right plutocrats can now inject virtually unlimited amounts of money into primary races. Unlimited independent expenditures have so far been much more successful in unseating incumbent Republican Members of Congress than it has been winning General Elections.
In the end, of course the relatively more diluted presence of Republicans in Republican districts - and the country's changing demographics -- may allow Democrats to win many currently Republican seats. What's more, Republican near term concern about primary challenges - and the stridency it breeds -- may alienate increasing numbers of moderate Republican leading independents. We've already seen this effect in the Presidential and Senate races and it would not be surprising that by 2014 many of the primary obsessed Republican incumbents are hoisted on their own petard in the General Election. Just ask Tea Party Members of Congress who were defeated in 2012, like Alan West and Joe Walsh. But in the near term, at least, there is also no question that many occupants of Republican seats appear far more concerned with primary challenges than they are with general elections.
If House Speaker Boehner is to be successful passing any form of compromise to avoid the "fiscal cliff" - either before the end of the year or after - he will need to convince Republican Members of the House that he is doing them a favor by bringing a bill the floor that can pass even with many Republicans voting no. That, of course requires that the deal is good enough to allow many Democrats to vote yes.
Boehner will get political cover for that kind of maneuver if a bill passes out of the Senate with bi-partisan support. But even then, he will certainly weigh whether he risks his otherwise certain re-election as Speaker on January 3rd if he acts before the country goes over the cliff at midnight, December 31.
Of course the many Republicans that will never support any form of tax compromise don't justify their position by explaining they are more concerned with primaries than they are of general elections. In fact they generally fall back on one of three myths that are themselves utter nonsense.
Myth #1 - You shouldn't tax the wealthy because they are "job creators". The plain fact is that no one invests money in any business if they do not think there are customers with money in their pockets to buy the products or services they produce.
Customers with money in their pockets are "job creators" - and the root of our current economic problems can be traced directly to the fact that everyday consumers are receiving a smaller and smaller percentage of the national economic pie and as a result have less ability to to buy the increasing number of products and services our economy can create. In fact, wages and salaries now make up the lowest share of the nation's gross domestic product since the government started keeping records in 1947. And corporate profits have climbed to their highest levels since the 1960's.
Over the last two decades, per capita Gross Domestic Product has gone up; productivity per hour of work has gone up; but the median income of ordinary Americans has remained stagnant. That is only possible because all of the growth in our economy has been siphoned off by the top 2% of the population.
And it has meant that everyday people haven't had the money in their pockets to buy the increased numbers of goods and services that are the consequence of that increased productivity. Stagnation and slow economic growth has been the result.
Henry Ford had this right. For the economy to grow over time, workers need to be paid enough to buy the products they produce.
If you want the economy to grow, the fruits of economic growth must be spread equally throughout the economy - if not consumers won't have the money to buy and, as a consequence, investors won't invest.
Higher taxes on the wealthy - including higher estate taxes on fortunes left to the sons and daughters of multi-millionaires - are not "bad" for the economy - just the opposite. They help address the economic inequality that is the core problem in our economy.
Myth #2 - Our biggest problem is the federal deficit. This is just flat wrong. It is the economic equivalent of the medieval view that you should "bleed" patients when they are sick.
We have learned from centuries of economic history, that when an economy is recovering from a recession, the right medicine for sluggish economic demand is more fiscal stimulus - and in the short run that does not mean lower deficits.
More economic stimulus, of the type that the President proposed in the American Jobs Act over a year ago, puts money in people's pockets who can then spend it on more products and stimulate more investment. Austerity and reducing national debt will yield the same outcome we have recently seen in Europe - another recession. And that is exactly what the deficit hawks are likely to get if America slides of the fiscal cliff and stays there.
Right Wing deficit hawks are fond of warning that if we don't cut the deficit, the country could turn into Greece - or some other European country that can't pay it's bills. They ignore the fact that right now U.S. Treasury Bonds are considered the safest investments in the world, and interest rates are at a record low. They also ignore the fact that, unlike the Europeans, the American Federal Reserve can monetize the federal debt and assure that U.S. bond holders are always paid -- unless, of course, the Republicans refuse to pay the debts that we owe, which would be like committing economic Hara-Kiri.
In fact, the quickest way for America to become like Europe is a precipitous reduction of the federal spending. Ask the Brits how that worked out.
Finally, of course, let's remember that the way to reduce the deficit is not an inscrutable mystery. When Democrat Bill Clinton was President he did it, just a few short years ago. The recipe for success involved two factors: increasing revenue, especially from the wealthy, and growing the economy.
Today we would have to add, the need to control the spiraling increase in health care costs. While ObamaCare will make big steps in that direction, much more will be needed. Shifting costs to seniors and other consumers by cutting Medicare or Medicaid benefits is not controlling health care costs - it is simply shifting them from government to individuals. And what is needed is not more de-regulation of for-profit health care companies. In fact we ultimately need to follow the model of the Canadians - and most of the other industrial nations in the world - and provide a universal Medicare coverage to all Americans. Our system of private health insurance is simply too expensive. Americans, after all, pay 40% more than any other country per capita for health care and have outcomes that rank only 37th in the world.
Myth #3 - Government is always bad and- as Grover Norquist argues - must be shrunk so it can be drowned in a bathtub.
Let's ignore for a moment the fact that while Republicans talk about small government, they inevitably expand it when they control the White House - mostly in the form of larger military budgets.
Government, as Congressman Barney Frank says, is the name we give to the things we choose to do together--and that includes many of the most important things we do in our economy. From fire and police protection to providing free public education and health care for all, to building public infrastructure, to creating the Internet - government does a better, more efficient, more equitable job in many economic arenas than the private sector.
To hear the Republicans talk you wouldn't know it, but right now taxes are at their lowest levels since 1958.
Right now in America we need more government - more education, more roads and bridges, more mass transportation, more cancer research, more health care, more nutrition programs, more drug education and treatment - not less. More government shouldn't mean more regulation of our freedom - it should mean that when we co-operate together we have the ability to achieve more than if everyone is left to sink or swim. Government action is necessary to provide the foundation from which each person can individually excel.
The question of the type of society we want in America was squarely on the ballot in the election last November, and voters overwhelming voted for a society where we have each other's back - where we're all in this together, not all in this alone.
Progressives need to make all of these arguments to win the battle for the future. But let's remember that the unwillingness of most Republicans to compromise to avoid the "fiscal cliff" - or anything else - has less to do with their commitment to their ultra right principles than to the protection of their own political hides.
That being the case, there are only two ways to convince Republicans to compromise. One is to demonstrate that their obsession with primary challenges from the right will ultimately lead them to defeat in General Elections. The second is to defeat them so badly in the next General Election that they no longer have the power to impose the will of an extremist minority on the people of the United States.

Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, available on Amazon.com. He is a partner in Democracy Partners and a Senior Strategist for Americans United for Change. Follow him on Twitter

That dang cliff

I haven't published but one short entry since my mom fell and spent 3 weeks in hospital-like places until her death on December 1st.  Partly from being drained, partly just empty.  She was a fine lady.
I do have to note that the "fiscal cliff" is approaching and Speaker Boehner can't get further concessions from the president nor can he get any cooperation from his tea party contingents.  He had to pull a bill last week that he introduced which would have increased taxes on those earning one million or more because those wacky tea partyists wouldn't go for it.
And although Obama ran his campaign on a roll-back of the Bush tax cuts for those earning $250,000 and earned a decisive victory over that Mitt-droid guy, and although democrats gained both Senate and House seats, the Republicans still control the House (even though there were more than a million more democratic votes than republican votes, the retention due to gerrymandering), the tea party still knows whats best for America: continual hostage-holding and possible down-grading of US debt and/or default.
I wonder if the Koch brothers yet realize what they have birthed in the Tea Party.  It seems as if voters have (note the losses by Allen West, Joe Walsh, Mourdock and Todd Akins) but the monster is only weakened, not dead yet.
Paul Krugman says it's better to go over the cliff than continually giving up Democratic principles.  By this time next week we may know.

How did that black guy steal another election?

The republicans are still trying to figure out what hit them.  The party which believes that pregnancies don't come from "legitimate" rape, that medical science has advanced to the point that a mother's health exception to abortion laws is now unnecessary, that global warming is a myth, the president was born in Kenya, well, you get the point, is now dealing with the sudden, wholly unexpected loss at the polls last week.
OK, you might not have been quite as shocked had you watched the polls, but, hey, who can believe that lefty stuff?  The deluded ones at the top of the ticket spoke today.  The reason for their loss?
Romney:  "Its hard to run against someone who gives people stuff." Seriously, he said that.
I used to think that the Mittster wasn't a aloof and detached as he seems.  But after a week of reflection that's the best he can do?
Ryan:  We didn't think that many people from the urban areas would be voting.
I think that the real Romney, if there is such a beast, is the one from the "47%" presentation.  His disdain, his total disgust for half of us is truly remarkable.  I think is was David Brooks that dubbed him, "Thurston Howell Romney."
The power of self-delusion is alive and well.   

Oh, hypocrisy, thy name is Mitt (or Willard, or whatever)

Now guess who's guilty of sending our good jobs to China?  you got it, its not the vulture capitalist, its that scary black president who won't show us his real birth certificate, Barrack Obama!

From the Washington Post:  But in Romney-world, this became an attack on the president auto rescue because according to the campaign, Chrysler was planning to move all of their U.S. production of Jeeps to China. Romney: "I saw a story today that one of the great manufacturers in this state, Jeep, now owned by the Italians, is thinking of moving all production to China."

After Mitt showed the world how to save Chrysler and GM, he doesn't like Obama trying to take the credit.  I am reminded of the George Washington and the cherry tree story, and wonder if the US is really ready for a president who is so truth challenged.

At Bain Capital, he took over companies, heavily leveraged them with debt, eliminated pensions and sent jobs out of the country.  All to make obscene amounts of money for himself and his investors.  He invests his money overseas, uses the Morman church for tax credits, pays about 13% in federal taxes and  slurs those who pay even less, tho he'd like to be paying 20% less.

And after he's shown his disdain for the 47% who pay no federal taxes (tho they still are levied payroll taxes) and refuses to release more than 2 years of his returns, he still expects, and will receive, about 45% of the vote of those who show up.  What a country!

Does God hate Mitt?

Not that long ago Hurricane Isaac skirted Tampa ahead of the Republican Convention and shutting down the first day of it.
Now, Hurricane Sandy rips the east coast cancelling a couple of the last days of campaigning and reminding voters that Mitt promised to eliminate FEMA during the Republican debates.  (I know, just because Mitt promised to do something doesn't really mean he had any intention of ACTUALLY doing it).  And this, all when Mitt's pollsters are reporting a surge in his support.
And its left President Obama looking presidential and Mitt looking, well, less than presidential.  And to top it off, even though he had promised to call off campaigning for a couple of days, Mitt (or his handlers) couldn't resist keeping his face in the public and has rebranded his campaigning as "disaster relief," and he's now collecting supplies for some of those 47 percenters that he has great respect for, notwithstanding the fact that the Red Cross has asked for monetary donations, not cans of soup.
Anyway, I figure those donations are headed for a landfill somewhere, while Mitt and Paul Ryan try to come up with some photo-ops, maybe at a soup kitchen.  Strike that, already done.
Maybe they could get some Hollywood extras and re-create a disaster scene at some studio back lot and have the two distributing the goods there.  MAKEUP!!!!!! ACTION!!!!!!
After all, as long as it looks like you're doing something.....
And I hate to try to supplant Pat Robertson in explaining God's thinking in sending natural disasters, but does anyone else think maybe God is trying to bring the voters around here?

I haven't seen much discussion on this....

but in the first presidential debate, the Mittster said: “No economist can say, ‘Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds five trillion’ if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.”
Can anyone explain exactly what that means?

My Mother, the deadbeat!

Mitt's comments on the 47% of the population who are moochers that pay no income tax really hit home.  At first I thought of my mom who is 90 years old and lives primarily off social security and savings and pays no income tax.  Slackart!
And I have a sister with MS that gets social security disability and who pays little or no federal income tax.  Deadbeat!
And I have a brother-in-law, a retired colonel from the Army who just reminded me he's in that 47%.  Moocher!
I'm not aware that any of them consider themselves "victims," but if the Mittster says so, that's good enough for me.
It is hard for me to not see this as fermenting class warfare, but Republicans hate class warfare so it can't be that.
All this comes from a guy who makes millions, has overseas bank accounts and pays a rate of about 13%.  One of the columnists from the Washington Post wrote today that, although Mitt would be a disaster as president, what fun it would be to see this out of touch gaffe-machine elected!  The detachment between his brain and his mouth would generate so much interesting news it might be worth it.  And after all, he's unemployed, too.

Will someone please call Pat Robertson?

I'm curious as to why God is sending that hurricane to Tampa to disrupt the Republican convention.

good god, why isn't Herman Cain the nominee?

 More pain should be inflicted on the poor and middle class so that Romney can be elected. So wrong on so many different levels... http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/07/herman-cain-not-wrong-to-hope-gas-prices-rise-to-hurt-obama/
 and while I'm venting, let me add that venture capitalism is as much about job creation as rape is about child creation. you may end up with that result, but its entirely a unintended consequence of a wholly unrelated primary goal.

well Mitt's my first name, too! or not, whatever....

I was reading an interesting article on Mitt Romney and gun control and was reminded what a prolific liar he is. He's been a hunter "pretty much all his life" although there are only 2 documented hunts, rabbit when he was 15 and a quail hunt in 2006? one of the comments listed some of his flips: Mitt Romney’s FlipFlops Flip 1: “Roe v. Wade has gone too far.” Flop 1: “I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.” Flip 2: “I respect and will protect a woman’s right to choose.” Flop 2: “I never really called myself pro-choice.” Flip 3: “I’ve been a hunter pretty much all my life.” Flop 3: “Any description of my being a hunter is an overstatement of capability.” Flip 4: “It was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.” Flop 4: “I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there.” Flip 5: “I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” Flop 5: “Ronald Reagan is… my hero.” Flip 6: “I will work and fight for stem cell research.” Flop 6: “In the end, I became persuaded that the stem-cell debate was grounded in a false premise.” Flip 7: “I think the minimum wage ought to keep pace with inflation.” Flop 7: “There’s no question raising the minimum wage excessively causes a loss of jobs.” Flip 8: “I like mandates. The mandates work.” Flop 8: “I think it’s unconstitutional on the 10th Amendment front.” Flip 9: “I saw my father march with Martin Luther King.” Flop 9: “I did not see it with my own eyes.” Flip 10: “This is a completely airtight kennel mounted on the top of our car.” Flop 10: “They’re not happy that my dog loves fresh air.” Flip 11: “It’s not worth moving heaven and earth spending billions of dollars just trying to catch one person.” Flop 11: “He’s going to pay, and he will die.” Flip 12: “Those… paying taxes and not taking government benefits should begin a process toward application for citizenship.” Flop 12: “Amnesty only led to more people coming into the country.” Flip 13: “I’m not in favor of privatizing Social Security or making cuts.” Flop 13: “Social Security’s the easiest and that’s because you can give people a personal account.” Flip 14: “Based on the numbers of American Muslims… I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified.” Flop 14: “A person should not be elected because of his faith nor should he be rejected because of his faith.” Flip 15: “I’m a strong believer in stating your position and not wavering.” Flop 15: “I changed my position.” Flip 16: “I would like to have campaign spending limits.” Flop 16: “The American people should be free to advocate for their candidates and their positions without burdensome limitations.” Flip 17: “I supported the assault weapon ban.” Flop 17: “I don’t support any gun control legislation.” Flip 18: “The TARP program… was nevertheless necessary to keep banks from collapsing in a cascade of failures.” Flop 18: “When government is… bailing out banks… we have every good reason to be alarmed.” Flip 19: “I’m going to take burdens off the back of the auto industry.” Flop 19: “Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.” Flip 20: “When I first heard of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, I thought it sounded awfully silly.” Flop 20: “‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell has worked well.” Flip 21: “I believe the tax on capital gains should be zero.” Flop 21: “It’s a tax cut for fat cats.” Flip 22: “These carbon emission limits will provide real and immediate progress.” Flop 22: “Republicans should never abandon pro-growth conservative principles in an effort to embrace the ideas of Al Gore.” Flip 23: “Relative to the leading candidates, some people see me as being more conservative.” Flop 23: “I’m not the most conservative candidate.” Flip 24: “It does take a village.” Flop 24: “It takes a family.” Flip 25: “I don’t line up with the NRA.” Flop 25: “I’m a member of the NRA.” Flip 26: “The all-Democrat stimulus that was passed in early 2009 will accelerate the timing of the start of the recovery…” Flop 26: “The all-Democrat stimulus passed in early 2009 has been a failure.” Flip 27: “…the costs of health care will be reduced.” Flop 27: “We were unable to deal with… health care costs in Massachusetts.” Flip 28: “If Massachusetts succeeds in implementing it, then that will be a model for the nation.” Flop 28: “What works in one state may not be the answer for another.” Latest Flip 29: "As president I will stand for a path to legal status for anyone who is willing to stand up and defend this great nation through military service." . Flop: "For those that are here as the children of those that came here illegally, I want to make sure they have a permanent answer to what their status will be. And I've indicated in my view that those who serve in the military and have advanced degrees would certainly qualify for that kind of permanence."

Aurora, Colorado

It's tragic when some nut arms himself and sets out to kill a bunch of innocents. I can't help but believe that at least a part of the reason its done is to gain some kind of infamy, to satisfy the need for fame, no matter what the cost. And the news networks are only to happy to satisfy that need. When a nut goes off, the network news rushes in. Experts are called in to determine what was the "motive," as if there was one. Then we'll have the interviews with victims families and witnesses. And if the interviewer can cause a good cry to break out, all the better. And what about grief counseling? We need to line up some of those experts. Post traumatic stress disorder? Covered. Anything learned from it all? Nope. Mr. Holmes will take his place among those who suffer from feelings of inadequacy and did something about it. And the networks will bemoan the terribleness of it all, willfully silent and purportedly ignorant of their role in it all.

ACA, nothing like Mittcare, gets past gang of 9

The affordable health care act passed constitutional muster today and Dana Milbank of the Washington Post had the best pun of the day: "In his confirmation hearing seven years ago, Roberts famously described himself as an umpire calling balls and strikes, employing humility and confronting “every case with an open mind.” Since then, many on the left have come to view Roberts as just a more affable version of Scalia, Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito. But in the case that counted most, the umpire struck back. "

musings on Bain Capital

Haven't posted in a long while, but this is a short one on the blow-back from Obama's Bain Capital ads. Hullaballoo (sp?) reminds us of some of those comments from those socialist Republican candidates: Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry: “The idea that you’ve got private equity companies that come in and take companies apart so they can make profits and have people lose their jobs, that’s not what the Republican Party’s about.” Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: “The Bain model is to go in at a very low price, borrow an immense amount of money, pay Bain an immense amount of money and leave. I’ll let you decide if that’s really good capitalism. I think that’s exploitation.” Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry: “It’s all about how much money can we make, how quick can we make it, and then get out of town and find the next carcass to feed upon” Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: “We find it pretty hard to justify rich people figuring out clever legal ways to loot a company, leaving behind 1,700 families without a job.” Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry: “Now, I have no doubt Mitt Romney was worried about pink slips — whether he was going to have enough of them to hand out because his company, Bain Capital, of all the jobs that they killed” Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: “He claims he created 100,000 jobs. The Washington Post, two days ago, reported in their fact check column that he gets three Pinocchios. Now, a Pinocchio is what you get from The Post if you’re not telling the truth.” Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry: “There is something inherently wrong when getting rich off failure and sticking it to someone else is how you do your business, and I happen to think that’s indefensible” Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: “If Governor Romney would like to give back all the money he’s earned from bankrupting companies and laying off employees over his years, then I would be glad to then listen to him” Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry: “If you’re a victim of Bain Capital’s downsizing, it’s the ultimate insult for Mitt Romney to come to South Carolina and tell you he feels your pain, because he caused it.” Republican former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: “I think there are things you can legitimately look at in Bain Capital. I think there are things you can legitimately look at in anybody’s record including Mitt Romney’s record. Republican Texas Governor Rick Perry: “They’re vultures that sitting out there on the tree limb waiting for the company to get sick and then they swoop in, they eat the carcass. They leave with that and they leave the skeleton” I knew this stuff would be helpful someday.

New update from the memory hole...

this is precious....
as it turns out, it was actually George W. Bush who saved the economy!!!!

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/21/mitt-romney-george-bush_n_1371073.html">



(Related story, George W. Bush's press secretary, Dana Perino said, "no terrorist attacks took place under George W. Bush.")

Just relax, this new version of history won't hurt a bit.

No, politics isn't screwed up!

I love this story:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Robert De Niro says he meant no offense when he joked at a presidential fundraiser featuring Michelle Obama that America might not be ready for a white first lady.

"My remarks, although spoken with satirical jest, were not meant to offend or embarrass anyone — especially the first lady," De Niro said in a statement.

The joke drew criticism Tuesday from Newt Gingrich, who said the racial reference to the Republican candidates' wives was "inexcusable" and demanded an apology from President Barack Obama.

The White House referred questions to Obama's re-election campaign. Mrs. Obama's campaign spokeswoman Olivia Alair called the joke "inappropriate" but declined further comment.

The tough-talking star of "Taxi Driver," ''Raging Bull," ''Casino," and "Meet the Parents" was host of the re-election fundraiser Monday night in New York. He opened by listing the wives of Republicans running for president.

"Callista Gingrich. Karen Santorum. Ann Romney," De Niro said. "Now do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady?"

The crowd of big-dollar donors waiting to hear from the nation's first black first lady roared in approval, and De Niro finished: "Too soon, right?"

Note: Robert Deniro makes a "joke", offends the Newster, who demands that President Obama apologize. (It probably took him a minute to mentally run through the list of ex-wives to insure that all of them were white).
And while he's at it, I don't remember him apologizing for Romney calling Santorum "an economic lightweight." Has Obama no decency?

On George Will and Willard Romney

I'm a bit worried that I've had to agree with conservative writer George Will twice in the past week.
First, he wrote in his Washington Post column last week that the Republicans need to start concentrating their efforts on taking the Senate and House in November because he thinks that the current Republican presidential field is too weak to have any chance to beat Obama.
Then, as a panelist on ABC's talking head show Sunday, he was asked about Rush Limbaugh's statements on calling the law school student who wanted to testify to Rep. Darrell Issa's committee on contraception a "slut" and a "prostitute" and later Rush's walk-back from the statement. His comment was that Rush's apology said the language was "inappropriate." Will said, "eating your entree with your salad fork is "inappropriate," what Rush said was far beyond that.
Finally, I just wanted to comment on the Mittster, who attended NASCAR's Daytona 500 last week and, when asked if he was a NASCAR fan, said he didn't follow it closely, but "I have friends that are NASCAR team owners."
If he's not a man of the people, who is?
It got me thinking, he's so much of a common guy, and with the Republicans now re-fighting the culture wars of the 60's, I'm hoping that someone asks him if he approves of the Republican war on women.
And, along the lines of his NASCAR answer, I would suggest, "actually, I love women, I always have, and its a strong family tradition. My great-grandfather was married to 5 of them."

Jonathon Turley in Washington Post

today's Washington Post has an article on 10 reasons we are no longer the land of the free. Interesting post.

">http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-united-states-still-the-land-of-the-free/2012/01/04/gIQAvcD1wP_story.html?hpid=z3">

Thomas Sowell is an idiot, too.

Thomas Sowell, another right-wing fanatic, has a new column today about the reasons we need to get rid of the post office.
Now generally, we see these pious dumbasses railing over how much they love the constitution and if something is not listed in the constitution, its unconstitutional. Today he'll make an exception, because maybe he doesn't realize that the postal service is constitutionally mandated under Article One, section 8. But you must give Mr. Sowell some leeway, he's an idiot and he has a typewriter.
My favorite part of his rant, though, is the crux of his argument, that no other company is allowed to carry mail.
And why not, you may ask?
"Moreover, the government makes it illegal for anyone else to put anything into your mail box, even though you bought the mail box, and it is your property." Now, hold on, the next sentence is a masterpiece of logical deduction....
"That means you don't have the option to have some other private company deliver your mail."
WHAM!!! BRILLIANCE ON STEROIDS!!! That's what that means! Except that it doesn't. I've have both UPS and Fed Ex deliver mail to me, did'nt they realize they are breaking the law?
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Palo Alto, California. Watch out for other drivel emanating from that fine "think" tank.

Mitt v. Truth

A number of people have pointed out that Mitt Romney is truth-challenged, so this won't be a ground breaking column. I'm still waiting for someone to point out how natural it is for him to lie lately-like when Wolf Blitzer started one of the debates by saying, "yes, Wolf is my real first name," to which Mitt replied, "well yes, Mitt is my real first name." Its not, though, its Willard.

Lately he's been making up stuff out of whole cloth, completely fact-free. And the press, in their new role as stenographers, generally won't challenge, although the Washington Post has examined some new claims and says they are at best, misleading, and at worst, lies. Greg Sargent wrote on this recently and I'll post a link when I can find it.

Having said all that, I ran across the above recent photo of Mitt, Willard or whatever being fitted with a brace designed to keep his nose from growing from all that fabricating. Lets hope it works.