Friday, 10 August 2012
Background On Mitt Romney for this post:
Continuing from the last post...
Romney is hiding something in his taxes from over the last 13 years or more...
From Mother Jones: "The Romney campaign and Bain insist that Romney had not a thing to do with Bain after February 1999, though he signed filings and pocketed millions. But they won't answer specific questions about Romney and Bain during this period—just as Romney won't come clean on his tax returns.(See this Vanity Fair blockbuster report on Romney's personal finances and what is still unknown about them.) He remains the opaque quarter-billionaire—with mystery surrounding his wealth and the business career he touts as a steppingstone to the presidency. He has yet to be fully vetted."
From Maddow Blog: Regarding Bain Capital, Mitt Romney is being forced to effectively tell the public, "Sure I was the CEO of my own firm, and sure I was paid handsomely, and sure I filed formal documents that said I was in charge, but don't worry, the buck stops somewhere else."
And these documents challenge Romney's claim that he left Bain Capital in early 1999!
Mitt Romney's lies have gotten to a point where it's just mind boggling that he isn't under public investigation... and he still has support amongst the GOP!!!! I think that's why, with Obama's strong defense against white trash such as Mitt Romney he has dumbed down his campaign. He doesn't need to lie to get Mitt Romney, no one does. Mitt Romney is so corrupt a 10 year old could get him on the evidence. Obama has to literally LIE to keep the polls on even keel. Possibly because if he told the truth Mitt Romney would have been dead by now.
At a certain point, you have to feel sorry for Mitt Romney. He’s so determined to hide his Massachusetts moderate past, to deny his years as governor there, that he’s gone into his own self-created Mittness protection program. Now he wears a brand new identity, “severely conservative,” as he tries to court the GOP’s ultra-right Tea Party base.
Except every once in a while, though, Romney or the folks closest to him trip up. Something makes them tell, well, something like the truth. A month ago, after days of Romney hitting President Obama for the “massive tax increase” allegedly represented by Obamacare, Romney advisor Eric Fehrnstrom famously defended the fine levied on those who refused to buy insurance as a penalty not a tax, because his boss had done the same thing in Massachusetts.
This week Andrea Saul has unleashed the hounds of hell trying to defend her boss from a pro-Obama SuperPAC ad, in which a steelworker laid off in a Bain Capital buyout alleges his wife died because she lost her health insurance thanks to Romney. Amazingly, Saul resorted to touting Romneycare, insisting “if people had been in Massachusetts, under Gov. Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care.” The right immediately exploded with rage: how dare Saul invoke her boss’s signature accomplishment as governor, which he’s spent the entire campaign running away from? Have you no decency, madam?
RedState.com editor Erick Erickson headlined his post “The Moment All the Doubts About Romney Resurfaced on the Right.” Rush Limbaugh called the remarks “a goldmine for Obama supporters.” And Ann Coulter lost it completely it with Sean Hannity, shrieking that Saul, who she calls a “moron,” be fired:
Anyone who donates to Mitt Romney, and I mean the big donors, ought to say if Andrea Saul isn’t fired and off the campaign tomorrow, they are not giving another dime, because it is not worth fighting for this man if this is the kind of spokesman he has…
There’s no point in you doing your show, there’s no point in going to the convention and pushing for this man if he’s employing morons like this. This ad is the turning point and she has nearly snatched victory from the jaws of defeat! She should be off the campaign.
(Two tiny things: I think Coulter meant to say “snatched defeat from the jaws of victory,” but she was upset. And it’s nice to hear her announce that the whole point of Hannity’s show is “pushing for this man” Romney.)
These Romney campaign “gaffes,” for lack of a better word, make me think of Freud’s concept of “the return of the repressed,” in which the tension involved in suppressing an uncomfortable truth occasionally becomes just too much, and the truth rises up, either in what Freud called “neurotic symptoms” or on the campaign trail as “gaffes.” You don’t have to be a Freudian to believe that Team Romney’s trouble avoiding their candidate’s actual record reflects the Herculean – and perhaps impossible — effort such deception requires.
It’s not just his record as Massachusetts governor that Romney is repressing. He doesn’t like to talk about his any of “the three Ms,” as Joe Scarborough Tweeted Thursday: Massachusetts, Mormonism or money.
When Bloomberg Businessweek’s Josh Tyrangiel did a recent interview, he gently asked Romney about his religion, pointing to the many Mormons in politics, business and sports and wondering “what about Mormonism creates leaders?” But the candidate replied with “an elegant dodge,” Tyrangiel told Scarborough on “Morning Joe” Thursday. The Republican no longer talks about his Bain Capital “job creating” years, either, given the controversy over Bain’s job destruction. And he’s never liked discussing his vast wealth, first inherited from his father and then dramatically engorged by his own private equity success.
I think the energy required to suppress the truth on those three fronts is part of what forces Romney to behave like a robot and speak in bizarre faux-platitudes. Trying to avoid anything remotely controversial, he praises Michigan’s trees for being “the right height.” Lemonade becomes “Lemon. Wet. Good.” A chocolate donut becomes “one of those chocolate, um, chocolate goodies.” The exhausting effort to hide the advantages that come along with a lifetime of wealth results in head-scratching screw-ups like talking about Ann Romney’s two Cadillacs or his NASCAR-team owning friends, offering to make a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, or making bizarre “jokes” about being unemployed when talking to unemployed voters. The repressed inevitably returns, and often at the worst moment.
But another way Romney copes with his inauthenticity is being absolutely brazen in his lying. Just this week, he bashed Obama for granting welfare-reform waivers he himself sought as governor. But since he doesn’t even admit he was ever Massachusetts governor, safe within his Mittness protection program, he doesn’t have to take any responsibility for what he did then. Now, even Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are acknowledging the Romney lie was a little bit too bald-faced, and that the presumptive GOP nominee went too far in claiming that the president relaxed work requirements. Gingrich admitted “we have no proof” the waivers did that, and said if anyone asked him his opinion about the ad’s claims, he “would have said this makes it possible.” Santorum likewise acknowledged Romney’s falsehood, saying on a conference call that Obama could only “potentially gut” welfare reform at some point in the future.
Of course, that’s less the return of the repressed that the return of the GOP primary rivalry. It’s safe to say that after the truckload of manure Romney dropped on his GOP confreres, nobody likes this man. (His 2008 rivals hated him too). Santorum actually chuckled Thursday when asked to comment on Saul’s remarks. He chuckled! He’s got to love the fact that his famous warning – “Mitt Romney is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama” — has become a routine soundbite in this campaign.
But wait, there’s more: Romney’s welfare lie displayed another of his signature forms of brazen dishonesty: Citing an “expert” who allegedly agrees with you, when said expert in fact disagrees with you. Former President Bill Clinton, whose welfare reform law Obama allegedly unraveled, released a statement rebuking the Romney ad and supporting Obama’s moves. The very same day, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein found that every economist cited in a Romney economic policy paper disagreed with the way the campaign had used their research. Only last week, author Jared Diamond wrote a New York Times op-ed to refute Romney’s claim that his book “Guns, Germs and Steel” provided a basis for Romney’s racist claims about Palestinian “culture.”
Then there are the Romney lies that don’t even bother pretending to be based on expert opinion or fact. I never got over the very early campaign ad that featured a clip of Obama saying “if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose”—which was in fact a 2008 clip of Obama quoting an aide to John McCain. Just last week we enjoyed his bald-faced lie that the Justice Department’s efforts to secure early voting for all Ohio voters was an “outrage” that would disenfranchise military voters. (Please note I’m not even listing Romney’s claim that Obama told business owners “You didn’t build that,” since you could at least argue Obama himself left the door open to misinterpretation by not adding the word “alone,” though his meaning — everybody gets help from government infrastructure, education and military investment.)
I was tempted to go off on my standard rant about the media’s failure to fact-check Romney’s outrageous claims – except you know what? By and large reporters have been pretty good about debunking Romney’s lies. Ohio papers immediately made clear there was no basis for Romney’s military-voter lie. Journalists quickly discovered and reported that Romney himself asked for the welfare waivers he criticized Obama for granting. The hypocrisy in Andrea Saul’s Romneycare remarks became immediate news.
And while it sometimes feels like Romney lies with impunity, maybe voters are picking up on his utter inauthenticity – about “the 3 Ms,” and maybe more. In the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, Romney’s favorability ratings are at an all time low, at 40 percent; 49 percent of all voters view him unfavorably, including 50 percent of independents. The Saul controversy reminded the party’s right wing base that they don’t trust him, but neither do most of the rest of the voters, apparently. Romney has turned his back on his past and revised his political beliefs so thoroughly he almost seems willing to sell his soul to be president. But what if nobody’s buying it?
"Romney sharpens criticism of Obama." "Romney blasts Obama's 'hide and seek' presidency."
These were some of the headlines accompanying media reports of Mitt Romney's speech to the Newspaper Association of America on Wednesday. The GOP front-runner's address was a harsh assault on President Barack Obama and marked another effort on Romney's part to present himself as the inevitable Republican nominee and to strike at the incumbent president rather than his remaining and hobbling-along GOP primary rivals. But as important—if not more so—as his biting and sarcastic tone was the fact that Romney repeatedly tossed off false accusations against Obama. And he did so—and got away with this—in front of a large audience of journalists.
At the start of his remarks, Romney praised the media—while noting he was sometimes irked by coverage of his campaign—and nobly observed that voters will be "informed by your coverage" and will "hopefully…have an accurate understanding" of the 2012 race and the choice at hand, due to hard-working journalists chronicling the contest. But then Romney went on to hurl a series of utterly untrue remarks.
Here are a few examples:
* In slamming Obama's stimulus package, Romney declared, "The administration pledged that it would keep unemployment below 8 percent…it has been above 8 percent every month since." This charge—a favorite on the right—has been debunked repeatedly. Obama never promised to bring unemployment below 8 percent. Two economists on his presidential transition staff produced a report prior to Obama's inauguration projecting unemployment would fall below 8 percent if Obama's stimulus were to be enacted. But this projection came with all the usual caveats, and it was written before the full impact of the economic crash under way was realized. (In fact, the stimulus did lift employment as this projection predicted, yet the economic hole was deeper than most economists at the time assumed.) The Washington Post's "Fact Checker" has deemed the 8 percent accusation false. Yet Romney and others keep on repeating it.
Moments Of Zen?
Ron Paul is the only true consistent conservative in the race, not Romney...
Satirical look at GOP Hypocrisy:
Money Talks - The Haves & the Soon-to-Haves
John Hodgman explains that the haves are creating an exclusive world of luxury and privilege for the soon-to-haves to have -- soon.
Money Talks - Men of a Certain Wage
Moneyed American John Hodgman defends his people against America's attack on the wealthy.
World of Class Warfare - The Poor's Free Ride Is Over
The government could raise $700 billion by either taking half of everything earned by the bottom 50% or by raising the marginal tax rate on the top two percent.
Money Talks - The Maopets & Wealth on Film
Fox News identifies "The Muppets" movie as communist propaganda, and John Hodgman analyzes Hollywood's depiction of the rich and powerful as greedy, bloated space turds.
3. FROM Bill Moyers: "So what do you get when you combine Mitt Romney, expensive horseflesh, fancy dinners and a financial scandal in the City of London? An interesting confluence of people and events that once again raises questions about the wealthy Republican candidate’s ability to relate to ordinary Americans and highlights the overwhelming, caustic influence of big money in this year’s presidential race.
Bill Moyers on Political ADDS...
*BILL MOYERS: Here's a footnote to the backward and the forward. Some conservatives seized on Obama's motto to claim that Marxists and Socialists used the same word to describe how the march of history was moving us forward beyond capitalism to communism and socialism, and to suggest, that if Obama uses the word that European leftists used, he must be one of them.
They even took up the fact that "forward" was the name of the newspaper in Germany whose writers included Ingles and Leon Trotsky and that the name in Russia for a magazine founded by Lenin was Forward. I mean, you could play this out in many ways.
Spring forward, comrades. Fast forward, red brigades. Forward march through Red Square. Put your best foot forward, leftie. Isn't this one more notion to keep alive the suspicion out there that Obama is not one of us?
KATHLEEN HALL JAMIESON: Yes. And it's also a classic way in which guilt by association works. Find some coincidental similarity between something and something else. And then try to attach everything else that those two dissimilar things have in common to each other. And so, yeah, the point at which, fortunately, none of this has migrated into anything that is mainstream.
This is basically, you know, Web content-- talking to people on the fringe. But it's a classic pattern. You find some single use of language, find some other single use of language and say, "Ah, they both use that language," and as a result, you know, I bet if you went through the New Testament you could find a word for forward. And I bet you could find that Jesus used it, too.*
So Many Lies!!!
Ann Romney's Role (set him up to look good and help hide his gaffes & lack of policy explanations)...
Extension for this trick: "These are NOT the taxes you are looking for" Mitt Romney & Karl Rove...
The Paul Ryan EXOPOSOTHON Link Ring...
The MITT ROMNEY EXOPOSOTHON Link Ring...
Rick Santorum's Personal Link Ring...
On Fox News...
1. Bill O'Reilly Defends His Nazi Analogies.
2. 24 Hour Nazi Party People.
3. Glen Beck's Nazi Tourette's Syndrome.
Moment Of Zen: Glenn Beck agrees with the CIA... that Osama should attack America!!!!
"Advance, and never halt, for advancing is perfection. Advance and do not fear the thorns in the path, for they draw only corrupt blood." Khalil Gibran (Khalil Gibran was a Catholic Christian from Lebanon)
On My "Rhetoric": Everything in my blogs is proven. You want rhetoric based on lies then you can go back to the arguments between the Founding Fathers. You can't touch my proofs.
1. Founding Fathers arguing in context of today's politics...
The only thing different this election is Mitt Romney using Newt Gingrich's tactic when Newt gets caught lying, i.e. you're getting mean be polite! Well, the founding fathers didn't do that. Let's see if Mitt Romney can handle truthful attacks against his outright and proven lies (see above).
2. Mitt Romney's Is Using Divisive politics like when he endorsed Scott Walker who divided his State so badly he went through a recall election - He was doing the opposite of Ronald Regan too! (i.e. Mitt is DEFINITELY using Frank Luntz - see video of Frant Luntz above)