GOP whackadoodle congressman Allen West has once again demonstrated the classlessness of the Republican Party. During an appearance on Fox News with Neil Cavuto, West went on another deranged rant against President Obama saying…
“Let’s be very honest and let’s put this military vernacular. If you’re feeding a person a crap sandwich with a smile, it’s still a crap sandwich. That’s what you see coming from President Obama. He said America is just a load of you know what.”
I would challenge West to document his claim that Obama ever said that America is “a load of you know what.” Obviously, that never occurred. However, West has said…
I believe there’s about 78 to 81 members of the Democrat Party who are members of the Communist Party.
If Joseph Goebbels was around, he’d be very proud of the Democrat Party.
President Obama seems determined to punish and wipe out economic success in this country, leveling tax weapons of mass destruction on all taxpayers.
Barack Obama is undeserving of the title Commander-in-Chief.
[Obama] can take [his message] to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America.
You [Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz] are the most vile, unprofessional, and despicable member of the US House of Representatives.
Mainstream media’s is no longer reporting the news, they are propagandizing […] Goebbels is doing somersaults and back flips in his grave.
Allen West is certainly one of the most mentally unstable people who was ever elected to office. He was virtually thrown out of the military after being fined and reprimanded for engaging in torture against innocent Iraqi citizens. And now he has the gall to talk about crap sandwiches. This inane and tasteless crack was featured as the top headline story on Fox Nation this morning. I particularly enjoyed the fact that it was accompanied by an advertisement for Whataburger.
West’s opponent for the 18th district congressional seat in Florida is Patrick Murphy. Feel free to toss him some support. And here’s his latest ad that shows that he has a pretty good sense of humor and an eye for creative messaging.
The Republican National Kvetch-a-Sketch™ scheduled to begin tomorrow has been set back due to the approach of Hurricane Isaac. On other occasions where natural disasters wreaked havoc on Haiti, New Orleans, or the Virginia city from where Pat Robertson broadcasts his television show, there was a deafening outcry that the reason for the tribulations was that God was angry and was punishing sinners.
So what does Robertson and his ilk have to say about the hurricane bearing down on Tampa, the second consecutive hurricane that has disrupted a Republican convention (remember Gustav in 2008)? It seems like the Lord has some issues with the GOP. But suddenly the explanations of divine intervention have come to a screeching halt. If there is one message that can be taken from this affair it is this: When the Republicans launched their War on Women they forgot that Mother Nature is a woman.
While mocking sanctimonious right-wingers and Tea-vangelicals is fair game, we should not forget that hurricanes are no laughing matter. Isaac has already resulted in fatalities in the Caribbean. And even if it misses Tampa, there is almost certainly going to be devastating damage to persons and property elsewhere before it is done.
The media, however, seems wholly focused only on how the hurricane will impact the political party goers at Mitt Romney’s coronation. If Republicans don’t take some time during their convention to acknowledge the suffering of Isaac’s victims, it will be emblematic of their notorious insensitivity toward Americans who aren’t fortunate enough to be members of Romney’s elite class.
Fox News has long served as the public relations arm of the Republican Party. Their purpose, as always, is to promote the GOP and the conservative agenda throughout their broadcast day. In pursuit of that mission they regularly feature Republican guests in the friendliest of environments. And whenever there is a conservative cause to promote (i.e. Tea Party, Palin movie, right-wing blog, anti-left messaging, etc.), Fox steps up to take the leading role.
Consistent with this mission, Friday night’s episode of Sean Hannity’s program on Fox News was a blatant infomercial promoting an anti-Obama movie by the people who brought us Citizens United. The crocumentary “The Hope and the Change” consumed the entire hour of Hannity’s program.
The primetime program featured lengthy clips from the film as well as interviews with the film’s creators, David Bossie and Steve Bannon. Bossie is the head of Citizens United, the organization that prompted the abhorrent Supreme Court decision that made it possible for individuals and corporations to donate unlimited sums of cash to political candidates and causes. Bannon is the director of the monumental flop, “Sarah Palin: Undefeated,” a movie that managed to fail miserably despite millions of dollars in free publicity courtesy of Fox News. Bannon went on to take the reins of Breitbart News after the sudden death of Andrew Breitbart, and he somehow succeeded in making the site even more idiotic.
Hannity opened the infomercial with the stark declaration that…
“I don’t say this lightly, but I mean every word of this. This is the most powerful documentary I’ve ever seen in my life.”
That’s quite a testimonial. Hannity didn’t reveal what other documentaries he’s seen, but it’s fair to guess that his second favorite would be “Triumph of the Will,” Hitler’s propaganda film directed by Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl. Now that may seem like an unfair attempt to associate Hannity and the anti-Obama film with the Third Reich, but the film actually incorporates portions of Riefenstahl’s score, and Bossie openly admits to intentionally including the music for effect. When asked about his choice of music Bossie confessed that “There are no accidents in this film.” So the Hitler reference was deliberate on the part of the filmmakers.
Along with Bossie and Bannon, a key figure in the film’s production was Pat Caddell, the former democratic pollster who has become a fixture on Fox News whenever they need someone they can falsely identify as a Democrat who will mercilessly, and dishonestly, savage his former colleagues. Caddell’s role was to assemble a group of disenchanted Obama supporters who could be manipulated to bash the President’s reelection bid.
In fact, the whole focus of the film’s message was that there are some folks who voted for Obama in 2008 who don’t plan to vote for him again. That isn’t exactly an earth shattering revelation. Many people on both sides of the political spectrum change their minds. But the people featured in this film were particularly daft. They expressed their disappointment in the President because he didn’t fulfill their expectations of miraculous healings and the saving of souls. In their own words they seemed to believe that Obama could achieve the impossible, and when he didn’t they abandoned him. That is probably a tiny demographic in America and they are not likely to have a noticeable impact on the election.
By comparison, the Obama campaign just released a video of former Republicans who will be supporting the President in November. Their stories are far more representative of typical moderates who are surprised and appalled by the extremist leanings of the modern Republican Party.
Republicans just adopted a platform for the party’s convention that illustrates how far from the mainstream they have drifted. It includes an anti-abortion plank with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the life of the mother; an immigration plank that calls for “self-deportation;” a plank advocating a return to the gold standard; a provision denying women a role in combat; opposition to same-sex marriage; and support for turning Medicare into a voucher program that will cost seniors thousands of dollars more.
Those are real issues that will drive the voting decisions of rational moderates. The glassy-eyed sycophants plucked out of obscurity by the anti-Obama film crew will have zero effect on clear-thinking voters as they evaluate the agendas put forward by Obama and Romney. What may have an effect, however, are the millions of dollars the filmmakers have promised to spend on advertising their crocumentary. They can finance their campaign with funds acquired from the sort of Super PACs that their Supreme Court decision enabled.
What’s disturbing about this is that they freely admit that their purpose is not so much to promote the film, but to let their ads serve as disguised political messages aimed at disparaging the President and affecting the outcome of the election. The reason that they chose this month to release the film was so their advertising would appear during the campaign season and they could pretend that it was merely marketing for the movie. And I repeat, this is not a conspiracy theory, it is something they specifically admit to and boast about.
Of course, the filmmakers always have Fox News to fuel their hype. The GOP network is more than happy to donate as much time as necessary to promote the movie, just as they have done for prior projects. The Hannity show was just the beginning. The film will officially debut at the Republican National Convention Etch-a-Sketch next week, and there will surely be more segments devoted to the film on Fox News. And while they will help to boost the success of this commercial, for-profit hit piece, it is highly unlikely that Fox will give much time (if any) to the political communication above from the Obama campaign. That would, after all, be too much like actually reporting the news which, as we know, Fox doesn’t do.
In keeping with his promise to change the tone of the campaign, Mitt Romney just dove head first into birtherism in a speech to supporters in Michigan:
“Now I love being home in this place where Ann and I were raised, where both of us were born. Ann was born in Henry Ford Hospital. I was born in Harper Hospital. No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised.”
First of all, I need to point out that Romney is factually wrong. I have asked to see his birth certificate and he has yet to comply. There have also been numerous others who have called on Romney to produce the document. He did release a “certificate of live birth” last May that is obviously a fake. We know that it’s a fake because when President Obama released a similar document the birthers uniformly denounced as an outright fraud.
By asserting that nobody has asked to see his birth certificate, Romney is illustrating the undisguised racism that has fueled the birther movement. Of course no one asked a wealthy white man to prove his citizenship. Why would they? That’s only a question for foreign looking people who differ from the majority.
In the past week Romney has been complaining that much of the campaign has been about trivial matters that are distractions from issues like the economy and jobs that Romney says he wants to focus on. He whined about having to respond to questions about his tax returns, abortion, and Medicare. So apparently he is taking the initiative to raise the tenor of the campaign by reminding people that President Obama has been accused of being a Kenyan agent sent to deliver America into the hands of godless Muslims and socialists. That is the sort of substantive subject that Romney thinks the nation should be talking about.
Perhaps Romney is just offering a preview of the Republican National Convention Etch-a-Sketch that begins next week and will feature speeches by notorious birthers Donald Trump and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The theme of the GOP event is “We Built That,” a dishonest, out-of-context reference to remarks Obama made in praise of the American system that has helped so many people to prosper. It is unlikely, however, that Romney will acknowledge that the Tampa Bay Forum where the GOP convention will be held, was built by mostly government funding.
Judging by Romney’s latest attempt at humor, next week should be a barrel of laughs.
In a monumental display of [Pick One:] 1) Irony; 2) Hypocrisy; 3) Arrogance; 4) All of the Above; Mitt Romney unloaded two barrels of hollow-point criticism at businesses who use foreign tax shelters to shield their income from U.S. taxes.
Romney: “We’ve got to make it easier for small businesses. Big business is doing fine in many places – they get the loans they need, they can deal with all the regulation. They know how to find ways to get through the tax code, save money by putting various things in the places where there are low tax havens around the world for their businesses. But small business is getting crushed.”
That’s the same Mitt Romney who fails to acknowledge how he has benefited from similar financial shenanigans. The same Romney who refuses to release his tax returns. The same Romney who steadfastly defends the tax manipulations he engaged in, at least when he will admit to them.
Romney was speaking to a private group of supporters at a fundraiser in Minnesota yesterday. He seemingly is unaware of the hypocrisy in his remarks, as well as the tone-deaf insensitivity to the majority of Americans who cannot take advantage of the loopholes that people like Romney have created for themselves. And while he lambastes big businesses for exploiting the tax code and foreign stash accounts, he has yet to propose any reforms that would address the matter.
Also notable in his remarks is the statement that “big business is doing fine.” When President Obama made a similar remark about the private sector, Romney and his surrogates plucked it of its original context and misrepresented the President as having said that the economy overall is fine. How would Romney respond if Democrats were to do the same thing with this comment? And Democrats would not even have to obscure the context because Romney actually did say this without qualification.
If big business is doing so well, then why aren’t they hiring? Romney’s assessment is a direct contradiction of his previous analysis of the economy. He has been adamant that Obama’s stewardship of the economy has failed and that a course correction would produce more prosperity and jobs. But now, before a freindly audience of wealthy donors he hails the success of businesses but fails to explain why the prosperity and jobs have not followed.
In these remarks Romney has demonstrated that he is a poor judge of economic affairs and astonishingly lacking in self-awareness as he castigates others for exploiting off-shore tax shelters that he uses himself. No wonder he so obstinately refuses to level with the American people about his tax returns. And next week he will enter the GOP convention with the theme “We Built That,” but will decline to acknowledge that the facility hosting the event was built with a majority (62%) of government funds.
Posted by Mark NC on August 21, 2012 at 8:29 am.
NOComments :
Much of the discussion about Medicare has centered around the question of who will be affected by the proposed reforms. The Obama campaign correctly points out that Romney’s pledge to repeal ObamaCare would immediately subject seniors to higher costs for prescription drugs and preventive care. The President also notes that the $716 billion dollars his plan saves would come from administrative expenditures and the reduction in waste, fraud, and abuse. Not a single dime would be cut from seniors’ benefits.
However, a major talking point from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is that their plan to create a voucher program would not impact anyone who is 55 or older. The first question that raises is: Why not? If it’s so great, why are they preventing current Medicare recipients from enjoying it? Obviously, they recognize that their plan is objectionable and unpopular.
But the the more pressing problem is the notion that they can pacify today’s seniors by assuring them that they will not be harmed by the changes. They think that seniors will respond by saying…
“OK, thanks for not taking away the Medicare plan that is working so well for us. But go ahead and take it away from our children because who the hell cares about them. So long as we get ours those little snots can fend for themselves.”
If Rom-n-Ry think that seniors in Florida, or the rest of the nation, are going to be satisfied with assurances that their own benefits will be preserved but their kids will be hung out to dry, they are going to be in for a big surprise. Most seniors really do love their kids and grandkids and want the best for them. They will not willingly sacrifice the welfare of their children for promises that exempt themselves from the changes that reduce benefits and cost more.
The absurd suggestion that current recipients will not be effected is the very first item in a list of the “Key Elements of Mitt’s Plan.” Other elements are just as deceptive and/or harmful. For instance (taken directly from Mitt Romney’s web site):
#4: If seniors choose more expensive plans, they will have to pay the difference between the support amount and the premium price; if they choose less expensive plans, they can use any leftover support to pay other medical expenses like co-pays and deductibles.
This proposal reveals that the costs awaiting seniors will include unspecified co-pays and deductibles that will not be covered by the voucher, or “premium support.” The burden of that expense will fall on the recipient. It also makes clear the choices that seniors will face with regard to their health care. If their budgets are constrained they may have to settle for “less expensive plans” that fail to meet their needs. If it’s a choice between insurance or rent or groceries, it puts the recipient in an untenable situation. That is a big difference compared to what they get today from Medicare. It is also notable that any of the savings from choosing a an inferior plan cannot be spent on anything but authenticated medical expenses.
#5: “Traditional” fee-for-service Medicare will be offered by the government as an insurance plan, meaning that seniors can purchase that form of coverage if they prefer it; however, if it costs the government more to provide that service than it costs private plans to offer their versions, then the premiums charged by the government will have to be higher and seniors will have to pay the difference to enroll in the traditional Medicare option.
That is an admission that the “traditional” plan that today’s seniors are familiar with will cease to exist. The costs for the recipient may be substantially higher than they are now. And they will be competing with private insurance companies whose plans may be less expensive, but also less comprehensive. That also forces seniors into making decisions driven more by budget than by need.
#7: Competition among plans to provide high quality service while charging low premiums will hold costs down while also improving the quality of coverage enjoyed by seniors.
The assertion that competition among private insurance plans will hold down costs is refuted by the current market for heath care insurance. Does anyone reading this know of any insurance policy that has added benefits and cut premiums? Insurance companies are notoriously greedy in the way they administer their products, despite the fact that they are more profitable year after year. Most policies increase significantly over time while coverage is narrowed. That’s the free market that Rom-n-Ry want to force seniors into. And by encouraging seniors to exit Medicare, it will shrink the coverage pool, thus forcing costs higher while diluting the influence of Medicare to negotiate provider costs downward.
There are some services that ought not to be subject to the whims of the free market. Health care is one. Social Security is another. Just imagine the devastating hardship beneficiaries would have faced if their Social Security had been in the stock market in 2008. Yet that’s precisely what Rom-n-Ry support in their privatization plan. It is a plan that demonstrably harms seniors today and tomorrow. And seniors are not going to selfishly secure advantages for themselves at the expense of their kids. That would be a poor display of family values.
The comments of GOP senate candidate Todd Akin regarding “legitimate rape” are not out of place for conservative Republicans. He was expressing a view that is commonly supported by his colleagues, albeit in a uniquely distasteful manner.
Akin has been an outspoken advocate of banning abortion in all circumstances, including rape, incest and the life of the mother. It’s a position that is also held by Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and many others in the Party. In fact, both Akin and Ryan cosponsored a bill to redefine rape so that only cases where it was determined to have been “forcible” would be approved for federal funds for victims.
But on an even larger scale, the GOP conservative cabal has long aspired to be the authority that certifies what is legitimate in America. They want to rule over legitimacy in patriotism, religious faith, scientific credibility for evolution or climate change, citizenship, and even what constitutes personhood.
Republicans have appointed themselves the martinets of virtue and all Americans must pass their test to be considered legitimate. Submit to their judgment, ye heathens.
Calls for Akin to withdraw from the Senate race are pouring in. The Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, Tea Party Express, the National Review, and more are among them. Even Karl Rove has announced that his Super PAC is pulling all funding from the Missouri senate campaign. As a GOP candidate, if you’ve lost Karl Rove you are in deep manure.
However, I am pulling for Akin to hold firm. He was the candidate that the Republican voters of Missouri chose to represent them in the campaign and their voice should not be canceled out by a political machine who would replace Akin with an unelected crony chosen by party insiders. That’s simply undemocratic. In 2000 a Democratic candidate for the senate, Mel Carnahan, died during the campaign and his name was not taken off the ballot. So why should Akin be forced out if Missouri is OK with running corpses? By the way, Carnahan went on to a posthumous victory over former Attorney General John Ashcroft.
To be frank, I really would like to see Akin continue his candidacy and fight to defend his views for another couple of months. After which he will likely lose to incumbent Claire McCaskill. The last thing I want is for Akin to be replaced by a candidate who will fare better in November. So hang Tough, Todd. Democrats are rooting for you. You bring much needed attention to the despicable agenda of the right.
Update: Congressman Allen West has joined the chorus of Republicans condemning Akin. He wrote on his Facebook page: “I found Congressman Todd Akin’s comments about rape to be…simply unacceptable.” That’s the same Allen West who said that half the Democrats in Congress are Communists and compared them to Joseph Goebbels. You’ve sunk pretty low when someone like West thinks your comments are unacceptable.
A new poll by the Fox News house pollsters, Rasmussen, shows that President Obama has gained on Mitt Romney since the announcement of Paul Ryan as Romney’s vice-presidential running mate. That’s a striking achievement for Obama considering the notorious right-wing bias of Rasmussen. But first, a little background…
Last week I reported that Fox News was feverishly hyping pro-Romney polls while ignoring those that show President Obama in the lead. I noted that Fox Nation had posted an article showing the results of a Rasmussen poll with a headline that beamed “Romney Opens Up Lead Over Obama.” However they neglected to report any news of all the other polls that showed Obama ahead, including a poll conducted by Fox News itself:
This week Rasmussen’s presidential daily tracking poll shows a significant five point swing in Obama’s favor. Last Friday, Romney led Obama 47% to 43%. Today he’s trailing Obama, 46% to 45%. That shift took place since the announcement last Saturday of Paul Ryan to join Mitt Romney’s campaign. So apparently Ryan’s addition to Romney’s team has not yielded any benefit in the polling by the GOP’s favorite pollster.
But What’s most notable about this news is that Fox News, who were quick to post the Rasmussen poll results last week, have blackballed Rasmussen this week. As of this writing there has been no coverage whatsoever of Rasmussen’s most recent poll results. Obviously Fox is afraid of presenting any information to their dimwitted audience that might cause them to fret about a socialist Kenyan being reelected. And they certainly don’t want their glassy-eyed viewers to get wind of the fact that Ryan is being received as a dud. As I noted last week, this is…
“…the sort of biased cherry-picking that is the hallmark of Fox’s “news” charade. […It’s] a crystal clear message to pollsters from Fox: If you want to be covered, you better say what we like.”
Last week Rasmussen’s results pleased Fox and they were rewarded with front page coverage. This week Rasmussen’s results upset Fox and they were given the silent treatment. This is further evidence of why Fox viewers are repeatedly shown to be more ill-informed than all other news consumers.
Rage Against the Machine guitar shredder, Tom Morello, took offense to the fact that Mitt Romney’s choice for vice-president, Paul Ryan, cited Rage as his favorite band. In an op-ed for Rolling Stone, Morello clearly explained his objections:
“I wonder what Ryan’s favorite Rage song is? Is it the one where we condemn the genocide of Native Americans? The one lambasting American imperialism? Our cover of “Fuck the Police”? Or is it the one where we call on the people to seize the means of production? So many excellent choices to jam out to at Young Republican meetings!
“Don’t mistake me, I clearly see that Ryan has a whole lotta “rage” in him: A rage against women, a rage against immigrants, a rage against workers, a rage against gays, a rage against the poor, a rage against the environment. Basically the only thing he’s not raging against is the privileged elite he’s groveling in front of for campaign contributions.”
Ouch. It can’t be pleasant getting smacked down like that by one of your musical idols. Morello also wonders whether Ryan might have learned a thing or two from RATM’s songs and “Maybe he’ll fill Guantanamo Bay with the corporate criminals that are funding his campaign – and then torture them with Rage music 24/7.”
Morello had something specific to say in Ryan’s home state of Wisconsin last year when he was there supporting the people against a governor who sought to strip rights from workers. Perhaps Ryan wasn’t paying attention.
The headline story on Fox News now is “Romney Answers The Tax Question.” What Fox regards as an answer is curious. The article reports that Romney is remaining obstinate following “months of calls for him to release his returns, including from some top Republicans,” so apparently the answer is “Go F@$k Yourself.”
Fox characterized Romney’s remarks as “his most expansive answer yet,” but Romney merely claimed, without offering any proof, that he has “never paid less than 13 percent” in taxes over the last 10 years. He promised to provide evidence of that to ABC News in an interview a couple of weeks ago, but has still not kept that promise.
Romney also held a Glenn Beck-like seminar, complete with a white board, to attempt to explain his position on Medicare. It was a typically substanceless waste of time wherein Romney simply wrote down that he was good and that Obama was bad. I’m glad he cleared that up because otherwise I might not have known where he stood.
I thought I’d have a bit of fun with Romney’s white board:
And if you’d like to play along at home, here is a blank white board that you can use to create your own Romney White Board memes. Be sure to let me know if you post these on Facebook or elsewhere so I can link to them.
That’s the same Mitt Romney who fails to acknowledge how he has benefited from similar financial shenanigans. The same Romney who refuses to release his tax returns. The same Romney who steadfastly defends the tax manipulations he engaged in, at least when he will admit to them.
However, a major talking point from Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan is that their plan to create a voucher program would not impact anyone who is 55 or older. The first question that raises is: Why not? If it’s so great, why are they preventing current Medicare recipients from enjoying it? Obviously, they recognize that their plan is objectionable and unpopular.
