About two weeks ago, Mitt Romney suggested attack ads rejected by "the various fact-checkers" shouldn't be on the air. Last week, confronted with evidence that the various fact-checkers consider his welfare smear against President Obama to be an obvious lie, Romney changed his mind -- if there's scrutiny that points to his dishonesty, the scrutiny must be biased.
In an interview yesterday with USA Today, Romney's defense of the indefensible took another turn.
Romney defends the welfare ads as accurate, accusing Obama of offering state waivers as a political calculation designed to "shore up his base" for the election.
This is a quote in need of some follow-up. Obviously, there's the shameless, transparent lie itself, in which Romney continues to falsely accuse the president of weakening the work requirement in welfare law -- a racially-charged accusation that has literally no basis in reality.
But this new twist is arguably even more loaded -- Romney is not only standing by his smear, he's now saying Obama weakened the work requirement to "shore up his base."
Even if we put aside the blatant dishonesty, think about the underlying argument here: Romney is saying the president's political base wants welfare checks without work requirements.
Between this and Romney's birther "humor," the racial subtexts of Romney's attacks are getting increasingly more difficult to ignore -- a point Chris Matthews forcefully reminded Reince Priebus of this morning.
And speaking of the welfare smear, the Wall Street Journal had a report over the weekend on Steven Law, president of Karl Rove's American Crossroads, who is embracing the same attack.
Swing voters are "resistant" to the idea that Mr. Obama is radical or ideological, although Mr. Law believes that the administration's relaxation of work requirements in federal welfare rules could change that perception. "You can tell they're landing punches," he says of the Romney campaign's recent effort to raise this issue.
But the punches have to be targeted very carefully. Recent focus groups have convinced Mr. Law that the issue is "definitely resonating now with swing voters, including those who were Obama voters in 2008."
Note, the article makes it seem as if the attack is legitimate. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal reported, as if it were fact, that Obama "relax[ed] work requirements in federal welfare rules."
This never happened. We're talking about a racially-charged lie that Romney made up out of whole cloth.
But in our post-truth political landscape, it doesn't matter who's lying; it matters whether liars can get people to believe the lie.
Leave a Comment:
That's not a dog whistle. It's just a whistle. Everyone can hear it.
Only if you're ignorant that most welfare recipients are white.
Gee Shooter, I'm actually surprised that you've admitted that fact. But that's a fact that is lost on most of your GOTP buddies, and it's not the "image" that's conjured up by those on the right when referring to "welfare recipients".
You know, I've always thought the word "obtuse" was particularly interesting because it can mean either "actually dense and slow on the uptake" and "feigning innocence through pretended lack of knowledge of known facts." It's a particularly apt word when Republicans stir up racial resentment among whites.
Lee Atwater committed candor, and explained the game, back in 1981 (albeit anonymously until he died):
Romney's father walked out of the Republican convention in 1964 over this kind of filth. But then, that would be the same guy who set the precedent for releasing several years of tax returns so the American people can be assured they're not being asked to vote either for an outright tax cheat or for a guy who thinks "taxes are for little people" and demonstrates his sense of civic obligation in a willingness to push the tax laws to the absolute limits.
Whatever "Daddy Issues" George W. Bush may have had, they were nothing next to Romney's. Evidently, the lesson he learned from his dad is "convictions are for losers and principles are for saps."
No, it's the left that brought race up. Not Romney.
Yes, Shooter. And thanks to decades of conservatives doing what Romney and RNC PR BS are doing here, most people are.
Yeah, that's exactly how I knew this campaign was going to end up. Malignant fools who are too dumb to know the difference between a dog whistle and a police whistle insisting I didn't hear that loud, shrill blast they just blew into my ear and tut-tutting sadly over my having imagined such a thing.
That and idiots in the MSM saying the "controversy" on whether or not the loud, shrill police whistle blast they just broadcast actually happened isn't going away anytime soon. And anyway, both sides do it.
Keep in mind, folks, that the user who calls himself Shooter242 is just a bratty troll who doesn't even believe the bull@!$%# he's shoveling. Don't waste your time responding to him.
Romney is using the Jesse Helms Plan - the ad Helms had of the white hands holding the rejection letter, "...you didn't get that job". Now it's a white worker looking sad while the voiceover says "killed work requirements" - again, those people are getting something you should have that you deserve because you're white.
The sad fact is that the most "progress" that white people in America achieved on the question of race over the past 50 years is to not say "ni**er" in public.
Then "R. Preibus" or whatever he's called says Obama looks to Europe. I can so understand why Mathews is FURIOUS.
I think he just can't believe that Republicans would be so IGNORANT OF HISTORY that what Obama did isn't looking to EUROPE any more than all those previous Republican Presidents (including NIXON!) who wanted to move forward on healthcare in just this way that "Obamacare" does, were.
Ha Ha Ha! The left brought race up? It's the right who have been falsely accusing the President of the United States of America and the Commander of the Armed Forces of being born in Africa and of being a foreign traitor for four years now. They have continually demanded to see his birth certificate despite the fact that they have seen it over and over again.
The right just don't see an African American, or a Democrat as a legitimate President. Hell they didn't see Clinton as being legitimate either. That's the problem with the fundamentalist right wing. They are the same in every nation all over the world. They hate everyone who isn't in total agreement with their religious and political philosophies. Just like Al Qaeda and the Taliban. There is no difference.
@shooter242
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
No, it was Obama who claimed he was born in Kenya (Africa) in his bio.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/24/reminder-before-obama-ran-for-president-he-falsely-claimed-to-have-been-born-in-kenya/
So Edoc, which part of that are you bent out of shape about? That cliches are challenged or that I think people should be nice?
That you are a lying troublemaker.
Blanks, you are full of @!$%#.
The dailycaller is a right wing rag that has been exposed as a lying right wing rag as well.
"No, it was Obama who claimed he was born in Kenya (Africa) in his bio."
Is Shooter stupid, or lying? We may never know.
So the fact that Shooter is using a noted-dumb-person Jim Treacher/Daily Caller article from last Friday to push a story that was debunked three months ago....
Again: Stupid or Lying? I say, "Why not both?"
I vote for "agressively malicious".
Entropy, yes I make trouble. No, I never lie.
Brooklyn, Very simply that's not believable.
I don't believe Obama was born in Kenya, but I do believe he lied about it. You know, like Elizabeth Warren lied about her heritage to get a job. Stupid and lying.
Shooter, people who are given false or inaccurate information such as yourself are not lying, they are simply misinformed. You do not make trouble, you are just a little tiring at times. See the fact is we are not going to change your point of view, although you might pick up a fact or two, and you are not going to change our point of view. In an interview with Fox News your candidate compared himself to Popeye the sailor man - a Cartoon Character, that is sad.
What The Blank means is that he is never honest.
Shooter - It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than...oops. Too late.
See, if you're just going to repeat debunked talking points from Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck's little halfway homes for journalist wannabes (or is it Radley Balko's home for the terminally unhip?), you have to know that you've been debunked before you've even started. Fringe conspiracy theories always are.
But I'm sure you find them believable.
Tell you what Lorr, if I get get through a fact or two, I'll consider that success also.
Brooklyn, that's the best explanation I've seen from your side, but I'm still having trouble believing Obama never, ever saw his bio, was never, ever asked to vet the content, or never, ever had anyone remark about his birthplace. Writing a book is a very big effort and I also find it hard to believe Obama wrote it, then floated it out never to be seen again like a message in a bottle.
As for fringe conspiracy theories, being secretive about his college career tends to lead to speculation, no?
Shooter, it's hard to take you seriously for several reasons, not the least of which is you're a self-admitted troll with a passive-aggressive streak. So I never know if you're just being amazingly dense or willfully obtuse. For example, the answer to this:
...was right in the very first explanation from Miriam Goderich, the person who made the error:
Obama would have never seen it to begin with, and the actual jacket of the book had his bio correct; he was a relative unknown at the time, so no special notice would have been taken by the publisher or anyone else; soon after publication, he switched agecies, so no one would have taken another look at one bio among 96 in a pamphlet for circulation within the publishing industry only. You don't believe the obvious explanation because you're biased, and you steep yourself in, yes, fringe conspiracy theories. Occam's Razor just doesn't exist for you. Being secretive about his college career tends to lead to speculation, no? No. No it doesn't. Unless you're biased, paranoid or lying. Or some combination of all three.
And yet the Obama campaign found the industry only bio, and scrubbed it just in time for the campaign. Hmmmm.
If you think being secretive about his college career isn't cause for speculation, you'll have to count yourself among the terminally biased.
.........my god. You're one of those.
If you weren't a self-admitted troll, I'd actually feel sorry for you. As it is, it's just well-deserved contempt.
I forgive you.
Brooklyn Michael,
As you can see, he is willfully obtuse and even worse. It ought to be painfuly obvious to everyone that he is fully aware of what he is doing, does it quite deliberately, and derives a great deal of perverse pleasure from doing it. Some people try to dismiss him as some sort of fool, but he is much, much worse than a mere fool.
The fainting couches were fully occupied this AM when Chris Matthews went "off script"!
It seems that a Presidential Cycle gets his old 'speech writing for Carter' blood aboilin'.
Who can forget Zell Miller challenging him to a duel? Of the thrill that ran up his leg, his pinching Hillary's cheek?
Please, Sir, can we have some more?
Chris was great on MJ!!!
and –as usual– Joe Scarborough and the rest of the panel behaved like a bunch of wusses. Reince P lack brains. Good for Chris. It's about time the media plays hardball with these talking-point parrots and make them say something substantial
Hear, Hear! MSM types won't look into anything because they have cut their reporting staffs to the bone to cut costs. They rely on press releases and then have their talking heads read excerpts. Chris said what needed to be said. I thoughts Joe would push because he has on things in the past, but, today, he wimped out. Go, Chris!
Chris came off looking a bit jerkish, but I'd rather have him do that than toss out softball questions that just let bedwetter Reince spew his garbage and lies. And Reince (who names a child that, by the way?) came off looking like the ass he is - smug, afraid to answer tough questions, nervous little giggles, and facial expressions that just make you want to smack him. Wouldn't be surprised if they had some serious words after the segment, off air. If so, I'd sure like to hear about it.
No, KJ, Chris didn't look "jerkish" at all. He did what newsmen are supposed to do: question politicians when they lie and dissemble. Priebus showed once again that bullies back down when someone confronts them.
He and his ticket are only too happy to toss out plenty of the coded racial nonsense, hoping enough of it sticks to the wall. When someone calls them on it, as Matthews did, they throw up their hands and say, "I don't know what you're talking about." They know darned well he's right, but they're sure not going to admit it.
What worries me is that, when they debate, Obama won't get in Romney's face about his lies and misrepresentations. He's shown himself to be too deferential and non-confrontational. That's gotten him in trouble. Chris gave him the blueprint here in his little tiff with Priebus. Obama needs to take notes.
Yes, Matthews looked jerkish. I thought he was going to have a heart attack as he spewed in a loud, ranting, diatribe. It wasn't a conversation it was verbal bullying, and Priebus didn't get pulled into it. Matthews is an ass.
Still, as I said above, I'd rather have him do that and call out Reince for the liar he is than sit back like all the other media sheep.
"Romney defends the welfare ads as accurate, accusing Obama of offering state waivers as a political calculation designed to "shore up his base" for the election."
"it's the left that brought race up. Not Romney."
yeah that makes sense...as long as you think that rmoney's idea of obama's base is white people on welfare.
kj, having someone ranting like a homeless guy off his meds is not impressive. Matthews is a good reason why the left should be ignored.
Russell, Obama's base is all people on welfare (mostly white), and those who think it's the best of all possible outcomes.
The Blank is unusually petulant and churlish today.
Has anyone else been affronted by the Romney lie ads on YouTube? And there's no way to confront them there. They are blatant and outrageous and aimed at a far younger audience.
The only problem with Romney's ad is that removing welfare work requirements is a two step process. The first step of illegally granting waivers has happened. Step two, changing requirements will be next. How do I know that? Have Democrats ever made work rules tougher? Not that I know of.
Romney is not wrong. Just early.
wow, Shooter, your alternate reality is becoming your real world. Take care.
"Have Democrats ever made work rules tougher? Not that I know of."
We are talking about the "work rules" implemented by Democratic President Clinton, right? At least your self report of the limits of your knowledge pretty well match what my assessment would have been.
It's kind of awkward for Shooter that welfare reform that made work rules tougher was signed by a Democratic president and that Mitt Romney himself signed a letter in 2005 touting these same waivers that Shooter thinks are illegal.
Bah! Your so call "facts" mean nothing to him. The truth of his gut and the people who tell him what to think on wingnut websites are all he needs to know.
Of course, it was Republican governors who asked to revise the welfare requirements. For those who believe Dems are always weaklings, the fact that it will be Republican governors who will be revising the requirements will undoubtedly mean the rules will be strengthened, thanks to Obama giving those Republican governors the option to make things tougher.
You're giving credit where it isn't due. Republicans wrote the rules and Clinton vetoed them twice before letting them through. It was also Republicans that put in the language making waivers illegal, because they anticipated Democrats would try doing something like this.
It's so nice to have clicked on Pooper's "avatar" and gone to the newsvines page where I could click "Ignore this author." Everybody else can do it too, and soon Pooper won't have anyone left to annoy with his ignorant, inaccurate b.s.
None of that has anything to do with the fact that republicans asked for these waivers and Obama granted them. But you knew that. Or you would if you genuinely cared about the arguments you were making and not stockpiling up masturbatory material when people on the internets tubes notice you.
Here, grow another inch, courtesy of slappy magoo.
http://moelane.com/2012/06/09/troll-hunting-101/
AirBall 042 clearly hasn't read the HHS memo and letter to the states. They clearly require that in order to get a waiver, the state must demonstrate that its program will increase the number of people put to work, and that if the program is put into place and does not achieve that goal, the waiver will be revoked.
And while AirBall 042 claims the whole W-to-W with no waivers is thanks to Republicans, he fails to mention that it was Republican Governors, including Romney, who asked for the waivers...
Oh brother, what in the world makes you think a waiver is required to get more people actual work? Where in the law do you think it requires special permission to give more people jobs?
That is truly inane.
Shooter - you are jaw-droppingly stupid. The HHS is saying that they may grant a waiver to a state if the state can demonstrate that they have a program that goes outside current wlefare rules and will be effective in putting more people back to work. But HHS will only grant the waiver when a state can convince them it will work. If it ends up not working, the waiver will be revoked. So there is no removal of the work requirement, and Romney's claims are ridiculously false.
Since I'm sure you don't believe me, I posted a link to the documents in the other thread where you replied to me. Here it is again:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/im-ofa/2012/im201203/im201203.html
If you can't figure it out from that, there is no hope for you.
Shooter - you are jaw-droppingly stupid.
So kj, I have to ask. Why are you and most of the others here incapable of disagreeing with someone without personal insults?
Meanwhile, I've seen the HHS rationale which is neither legal nor believable. An entire section of the law (407) is dedicated to ensuring this kind of BS doesn't happen.
Now, if you want to argue that contravening law even when it specifically says you can't do something, there's no need for either Congress or the Judiciary. Future President Romney will find that handy for rounding up liberal bloggers and commenters, no?
The aggressively malicious do not deserve even civility, let alone courtesy.
Sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities, Shooter. Nope, no Tourette's; there's some of that on my wife's side of the family but of course they're not blood relatives. I feel perfectly adequate without issuing an insult; in fact, I rarely do. I don't particularly enjoy bellittling others unless they continuously ask for it. I'm just calling it like I see it - after all, those who troll are basically asking for it.
So you saw the "Scope of Authority" section of the memo, where it discusses section 407 and HHS's resulting authority? I'll admit I have not wandered around in those sections of the law yet, but we digress from the point of this whole argument. Mitt continues to say that Obama "gutted" Welfare and eliminated the work requirement, and that you can just get your check and not have to work or do any training. Setting aside the legality of this memo from HHS and reading said memo, isn't it clear that Obama has done nothing to eliminate the work requirement? Where exactly does Romney get the language that makes it accurate for him or anyone else to interpret it this way?
Well done.
Obama hasn't gutted workfare, yet. That's step two. Like I said Romney isn't wrong, just early.
I'd have been a fool to expect more of a response. Of course, there's no defending Romney here. You just choose to ignore what's in front of you, and believe there will be a step two, like some conspiracy theory. So that makes it okay for Romney to lie, I guess.
I'll smile when, after four more years, Obama hasn't "gutted" Welfare like you think he wants to.
Well, I suppose you achieved a Troll Goal by taking up so much of my time today. But hey, it was worth it to me to get some facts out there for others to see.
Matthews:
Based on what? Massachusetts? Or that he looks like he knows what he's talking about?
The result for Romney: 94% of the black vote for Obama, 0% for Mitt.
Since he hasn't got even one fraction of one percent of the black vote, he's going for the white racist vote, where I'm sure if it were pollable, the results above would be reversed.
While the GOP try to blame POB's economic policies on European leanings, they push austerity which is failing all over the Common Market. Every time the GOP mouthpieces get confronted about a specific, they try to deflect with a generalization or outright try to change the subject. It is a bitch to try to defend a lie that has been disproved.
Romney is your basic cheap shot artist.
Right. You know, I haven't seen Romney's ad where he blames Obama for killing some guys wife.
Shooter, you also haven't seen a single ad where either Obama or a super-pac that raises money for Democrats blames Romney for "killing some guy's wife."
To be fair, Shooter believes a lot of things he has no evidence of...
Shooter probably believes that "The Flintstones" was a documentary.
June you go right ahead believing that if you like, but no one seeing that ad is going to believe anything else. That's not even addressing the fact they still had health insurance after he lost his job or that he was offered a buyout.
June you seem like a reasonable person, why in the world would you go along such obvious lying?
Shooter,
If you can point to an ad by the Obama campaign, or by a Democratically-aligned super pac, that claims Romney killed someone’s wife, please do so. Otherwise, you’re engaging in hyperbole.
So June, you're going to rely on legalism? Even Wolf Blitzer, reliable shill for the left says:
If relying on highwire semantics keeps you warm at night, fine. Personally, I was hoping you were better than that.
blanks,
Once again, you are full of @!$%#.
You need to go back to your stormfront and dailycaller websites where slugs like you belong.
Shooter - Joe Soptic told his story about how as a consequence of Romney's business practices, he lost his job and insurance, and what happened to his wife because of that. That's what the ad says. Republicans are the only one spreading the "Romney killed some guy's wife" meme. Thanks for the favor!
Anyone who can call Wolf Blitzer a "reliable shill for the left" is devoid of conscience and incapable of shame. But we already knew that about The Blank.
I saw that this morning on MJ. Funny thing about Chris, he only seems to get that way on MSNBC. Forceful, strident, whatever adjective you'd like to choose.
I've heard him speak about the exact same topics on NPR and other places and he delivers even, soft-spoken, highly reasoned, political analysis and arguments that, to my mind, are more devastating than the scene on MJ this morning.
Chris was great, but what he didn't point out to the RNC chair was
the FACT that there are 7, count 'em, 7 "birthers" invited to speak at
their convention. That's quite a bit more than the Priebus contention
that Romney's birther joke was just "a little levity."
Yes Molly , but that is not about race either , just ask turnip head donny trump and his pal mtt , calling a guy an illegal immigrant and claiming he does not even know how to act like an american has no racial over tones at all ( sarcasm )
Oh, and remember the "they just want free stuff" jibe?
That Romney! What a kidder (whose jokes all manage to evoke not very subtle racist tropes)!
racist is as racist does- Willard
Ordinary citizens love one of the favorite Republican talking point arguments. Almost half of the American population pays no taxes, with no "skin in the game." Consequently, their votes should matter less than those that do pay taxes, if they should be counted at all.
The argument carefully (or carelessly) neglects the simple fact that unregulated capitalism concentrates the wealth in the hands of the few, by definition.
"All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it."
Read more about the comfortable life of elective office in The Establishment Paradise at
http://lifeamongtheordinary.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-establishment-paradise-part-three.html
I notice that the other cast members of Mourning Joe were shocked and embarrassed by Matthews outburst. I could almost hear the entire cast mumbling that we can't tell anybody that Romney is making stuff up (I would use stronger language but you get my point) when he makes his welfare and medicare claims.
After Obama won in '08, we heard from some commentators that America was entering a "post-racial" period. Black people NEVER believed that. And now the GOP is trying to win the presidency by dipping into their racist bag of tricks again. When Chris Matthews went after Preibus about these tactics on "Morning Joe", how did most of the panel respond?? They tried to SHUT CHRIS UP! Tom Brokaw knows better. His reaction was disappointing, but not surprising. He was playing it "safe" as usual. I doubt Joe Scarborough ever knew better.
Romney's comment on Obama's birthplace was NOT a joke. It was an obvious attempt to appeal to the bigot vote. Using racism to get votes in politics will never end as long as the media keep pretending it was just "a bad joke"!
At the risk of sounding self-congratulatory, I'm white and I never believed that the US was entering a "post-racial" period. Oh, sure, some of the more naive good wittle wibewals were spouting such nonsense, but I just thought, "You'll have to learn the hard way."
Chris Matthews was quite right in his questioning of Reince Priebus. The reaction of the rest of the panel - particularly Mika Brzezinski, clutching her pearls and cluck-clucking to Mr. Matthews that he should watch his tone - was utterly nauseating. I'm glad that someone in the media has the guts to call this what it is - pandering racism. Mr. Romney does not deserve to be President with this sort of behavior, let alone his wretched policies.
And the look on that pasty faced self effacing pious little Kochsucker was priceless
As journalist , Mika and brokov believe you should not offend their millions of dollars with things like the truth and gop racism , their don't ever rock the boat media savy is more worthless than The National Enquirer
@sick-n-effin-tired, LOL, now that's PRICELESS!
A term that clearly applies to The Blank, too.
And I had forgotten that Ms. Brzezinski is quite the supporter of Governor Chris Christie, and has on at least one occasion supported him in his berating of his own constituents. She found it audacious that one of them questioned him sending his own children to private school while slicing back teachers, etc. and believed it quite appropriate and warranted for him to lash out at the questioner. So his tone, as an elected official, is fine, but Chris Matthews' tone, as a journalist/columnist in a position to challenge a public figure was a bridge too far. Most of the panelists on Morning Joe are an embarrassment.
Go for it, Chris. I want to see Mitt's tax returns- what does he have to hide?
Exactly, Muggleborn! I happened to tune in to MJ this morning just as Matthews was starting to make his point, and I knew that the other folks on the set would find Matthews' outburst more distasteful than Romney now openly appealing to bigots.
On another note, did anyone else catch sight of the three nuns in Romney's crowd who absolutely loved his bigoted "joke," and who eagerly applauded his declaration that he plans to throw millions off their health insurance (repeal Obamacare). That was as disgraceful to me as anything that comes out of Romney's mouth.
Way-ta-go Chris!! It's about time somebody in the media stood up to this constant barrage of lies and innuendo! The media's been giving them a free pass for too long!
It's truly amazing seeing Preibus talk slower...and slower...and slower...trying to think of SOMETHING to say Matthews won't/can't tear to shreds, knowing all along he will fail.
Romney's strength is in his lies, while these are marketed in campaigns at the wholesale and retail levels by a 7 x 24 message machine.
The substance of his lies has, as its only value to enrage the opposition to hope fully provoke some level of irrational irresponsibility.
The presence of his lies has the overwhelming power to push every substantial issue over board.
Economic issues that have substantial Romney ownership gained over four long, long years have been granted primacy by the worse performing Congress in the history of represented government.
That issue in, all caps intended, is to control of the Economy. The Economy is the plank in the platform designed to hang all who are not to be hung separately. The Economy is the place where are bets are placed, everything is on the table, in a winner take all gamble. How is this so? Reduced to cash money as the de facto sign of the wealthy and the power "the dollar so simple" that only the plan need be shown. The faux financial boom instigated at core by financial deregulation was funded by property speculation gone wild, producing though finance to finance transaction, immense wealth of shallow dimensions. Immense wealth for some, that is, until the drawstrings pulled the curtains down. With those curtains pulled over our heads, the FED the great uncle of the Economy, flooded and continues to flood the country with capital.
Capital surely is needed to fill those vast holes in the corrupted economic system, where everyone in the know, still knows, is hollow, just as holes filled with water floating insoluble oil would illustrate. The effect is not to make the holes look filled, but make the outlook appear normal. This is the complete erasure of "normal business risk", those with the faux money are to cover up loss, hide problems with cash flow, and give window dressing to make appear business as usual, a Potemkin village. Back to the political science, it is necessary for this four year charade, to continue and for a sitting president to be unseated, even if this does not make a hoot of difference, it serves to support the faux financial system, until the general public cannot retaliate.
The size of the Romney lies, are staggering, when you consider that they will, for this election, block his plans from being vetted and as double bonus blue light special, to keep democratic ideas from gaining traction. Slippery as silicon grease used in Xerox copying machine producing bogus Houdini hand bills for the great economic disappearance act of all time, by the action of pure distraction.
The bottom line for the future, the best investments made will benefit the same wealthy and powerful, even if the future is paid for in Ron Paul, Tiddlywinks.
PS: Tom Brokaw, in the interview shows himself to be the leading "apologist" for the establishment, favorite Mitt Romney, it the habit of his justifying Romney by bartering for important access to his reputational clients. Someday Brokaw, might side with the earnest and honest public warts and all, before but too late. America Must Work, not just apologize for broken furniture.
I was appalled at Brokaw. He did the "I don't want to offend anyone, so I'll say that both sides are equally at fault" number. His comments were unworthy of his (obviously unearned) status as a political analyst and commentator. David Gregory wasn't much better on MTP yesterday.
Only one side is guilty of shameful behavior in this campaign. And it isn't Obama's.
Once again, isn't there a Tim Russert successor out there anywhere?
Chris is right. Where does the GOP get these guys? The GOP Chairman is weaker than their candidate - hard to believe. I didn't see these so called journalists confront RRRRReince about voter suppression which is shameful and un-American.
And Chis was so right about that pile of dog vomit Sununu
What kind of campaign puts a blithering talking point spewing turd like him out as the face of the Republicans
He has had his hat handed to him by Solidad Obrian and even the non journalist Wolf blitzkreig
There were hundreds of relevant topics about which Romney could have joked. He consciously chose that line because he intended to throw in that little racial/ethnic slur. With that remark, he showed his true "colors."
Or, Romney is so stupid and tone-deaf that he doesn't deserve to be President.
Which is it?
JeffWilliams-- Who cares what's in Romney's tax returns???? The Dems are screaming for his returns as they can't stand on the current POTUS falied poilicies. Romney paid tax's on his investments which will be lower than the 24% most of us currently pay in our 9-5's. It seems to me he's a good business man who's invested his money well.
President Obama had his chance and with perhaps some tough circumstances. It's time for him to step down and allow someone with tons more experience run the country, not a junior Senator with 2 years of experience.
News flash - the US Government is not Bain Capital. Romney had success there, sure, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of workers whose jobs were sent overseas. Olympics - had to become a registered lobbyist and ended up getting hundreds of millions in funding from the goverment to pull it off. Massachusetts - poor record of job creation (47th out of 50 states), increased the state's debt, etc. Oh, he did start Romneycare there, but we're not supposed to remember that.
Frankly, I'd put up Obama's list of accomplishments, in spite of GOP obstructionism, against Romney's record any day. And I'd rather have a constitutional law professor over a vulture capitalist too.
So your stating that want a Law professor VS someone who's made a great deal of money making inteligent investments, Governor of a state, and saved the Olympics. I'm truley not going to say the POTUS is all bad as you have to select the lessor of two evils..... One accomplishment is he outspent 42 other Presidents...combined.
I work for a company who's Outsourced a lot of jobs and i dislike it. Unfortunatley the people in those positions are held responsible to the share holders who invested in thier company. Bain wasn't the only company to ever outsource jobs.
Of course Bain wasn't the only company to do that. But they did it. Obama has said many times that we need to give tax breaks to companies that bring jobs back to our shores, and close tax loopholes for those that ship jobs overseas. Romney will never say this because it goes against what all of his 1%er friends and their already-wealthy investors get wealthier doing. And he'll never do it either, for the same reasons. So it's impossible for me to believe that he'll do things that result in more jobs here, unless of course he adopts some of what Obama is trying to do with our infrastructure and education.
If you're against Americans having jobs, vote for Romney.
I somewhat agree with you KJ....I work for a company that has over 1000 jobs outsourced. I really dislike that tactic however, the companies officers are responsible to the share holders. So to make more money for the investors, who provide the company with captial, outsourcing has become the normal with most every mid sized company and larger. I very much dislike it but it's being going on for 30 years so Romney's not to blame. The POTUS blocked the pipeline consrtuction that would have created tens of thousands of jobs, so what infrastructure are you referring to? Bridges and roads which the Republicans announced in Jan of this year.?
I agreed a lot with Chris Matthews, but he'd actually reach more people if he brought the tone down. It's something where... Rachel once had a segment on Harry Reid speaking out against unnecessary abortion amendments in flood insurance bills. Rachel pointed out that Reid's words were harsher than his mild-mannered tone would suggest and she had an actor come in to read Reid's words with emotion. It was all in fun; however the problem with playing up the emotion is that people stop hearing the reasoning behind what you're saying and they just hear the anger. It's something I've seen in acting classes, where a teacher will tell a student to not play the mood as much, so that the meaning of the words can come through.
Re: Romney, maybe they could put an ad up where they highlight the Republican governors who had requested the flexibility in requirements and highlight that as Obama's base.
These days I've been thinking of Shirley Sherrod, who was forced to resign some years back because a video was made taking her words from an NAACP speech out of context.
The point of the original speech was that she realized that (discrimination/societal disadvantages) wasn't as much about race as she had grown up thinking. She saw that impoverished white farmers were less likely to get help because of their financial status and she realized that it had more to do with class than race. She had said there was a point historically when race relations among the indentured servants, black and white, had actually been quite good. However the higher class, fearing that the freed servants would cause problems if united, instituted racist practices to keep the lower class divided. Racism was more about dividing people to allow the higher class to remain advantaged "conquerors."
I saw some interview clip made with Romney a while ago, where he said people were attacking him because of his success. People aren't attacking him for having a lot of money. It's because the way he went about it reflects a lack of empathy. Yes, he was good at running a business which maximized the profits for the management and the shareholders. A lot of big businesses are like that and they believe they're superior because they think they're promoting efficiency. But running a country is not just about managers and shareholders. but also everyone in the organization. And all those people who lost jobs through Bain, well, they're part of the country that you can't just ignore because they're no longer a part of your business.
Hiding personal wealth in offshore tax havens is perfectly legal, but again, it's Romney looking out for Romney and his church. I can't say he's completely self-centered. But taxes aren't just revenues the government takes from you. The idea is that the money goes collectively to support society and that indirectly helps the rich. If people have more opportunities to make money through jobs and to get a good education with good teachers, then they aren't going to care as much about how much people like Romney have. But if there aren't a lot of jobs or opportunities, then people will more inclined to turn to crime including theft.
Expalin to me why every American voting shouldn't have an ID card that states they are citizens and have right to vote. Anyone??
Facts - I don't disagree that voters probably should have IDs. The problem is that not everyone, particularly those who are older, has a birth certificate. Before 1950 or 1960, many people weren't born in hospitals and birth certificates were not automatically issued. Now, the rules are such that you cannot get a birth certificate without a form of ID, and (ironically) you can't get an ID without your birth certificate. Many of these same people have been voting for decades without any issue, without committing fraud, and without incident. The people working the polls know them personally, have for years, and now they cannot let them vote because they don't have an ID? That's unreasonable.
I'm okay with having a voter ID law, but phase it in so as not to disenfranchise those who were born before a certain year or something. The way these states are implementing the laws, it is clearly designed to gain an advantage in this election.
KJ- Most of these people probably have a drivers license or social security cards or some form of ID identifying them. Hospitals may not have issued birth cirtificates but a record of there birth was recorded within the hospital. We know that the POTUS's birth was recorded in the Honoluu news paper on two differend occassions. The interesting thing is everytime I've voted within the last 15 to 20 years, I've always had to present an ID showing who I am. I have a lot or relatives in thier 80's and they all have drives license with one exception, my oldest Aunt who has a social security card. I think the means is available to seek an ID. It sometimes appears that the Democratic party is seeking the illegal alien vote and is using this as an excuse as to why this isn't a requirement to vote. We probably couldn't be on a work visa or vacation in another country and vote in thier elections. Good day everyone....
Facts - I wasn't claiming that tens of millions of people don't have birth certificates. It's probably only a few million or less. The majority of people certainly do have birth certificates. But there are enough who do not that it can matter in an election. And I don't think anyone can show up with a newspaper clipping announcing their birth in order to get an ID or a birth cert. I also don't think Dems are trying to get illegal aliens to vote. Don't you have to have an ID to register? How many would consider it worth the risk of being caught and deported?
Thats what I thought as well. I always have to show my ID when voting so why is it a crime to ensure everyone voting has the right to. The refernce to the news paper was the POTUS took an enourmous amount of time to produce a birth certificate so investigators found old news papers from Hawaii anouncing his birth then his birth certificate was released.
...
This is the smartest, most coherent thing you've ever posted here, Shooter....Now if only more of your comments were this wise and pithy.
I agree, Michael. We weren't sure if Shooter was capable of posting something that showed intelligence and restraint.
So he posted his estimation of the number of truthful statements that Romney and Ryan have combined to make during this campaign and the value of the two candidates on the Republican ticket to our society.
Well done, Shooter.
Hillarious but not accurate.