Credit Where Credit Is Due?

Not likely.

Republicans were o so quick to blame President Obama when prices were soaring and drivers were paying $4 per gallon on average to fill their tanks. Sen. John Barasso (R-Wy.) held the President "fully responsible" for the price of gas. Florida wingnut Allen West bitched about having to pay $70 to fill his Hummer. Yes, a fucking HUMMER. And don't we all remember then GOP primary candidate Newt "The Sky Is Falling" Gingrich predicting gas prices at $10 per gallon? Ah, the halcyon days.

But then just a few days ago, when it was noticed that gas prices have been steadily going down for a few months, the same intrepid politicians who were blaming the President and his policies for high gas prices, were a little less enthusiastic to give him credit for the price drop.

Barasso: “People are still feeling pain at the pump and pain at the plug, and it’s a result of the administration policies...”

West: “If you’re the chief executive officer of the United States of America, you should take responsibility for anything that’s occurring in this country, and you should not want to seek to get praise,” even though I don't remember President Obama looking for praise on falling gas prices. It was just a question from a reporter, Allen. And no, said reporter is not a communist.

Now, logic would dictate that if it was President Obama's policies that were causing the price of gas to increase, then those very same policies which are in place and haven't changed, are what's causing the price of gas to decrease. But hey, since when does the current Republican Party have anything to do with logic?

Granted, the rest of us in the real world understand that no administration or its policies really make an impact on the price of gasoline, a global commodity. The continuing debate and decisions on the XL Keystone Pipeline have nothing to do with what we pay at the pump, considering the fact that the oil isn't actually ours and it's put out on the global market just like the oil that's pumped out of Texas or Alaska, or Kuwait or Saudi Arabia.

So what are we to decipher when Donald "I have investigators in Hawaii" Trump (still waiting for the results of the investigation, by the way) makes the following statement?

...I think Saudi Arabia is doing Obama a big fat favor. I think he asked for the favor and prices are coming down, but also the economy's going bad so maybe it won't help that much. but as soon as -- assuming if Obama got elected, you're going to see something with oil like you've never seen before, it will go through the roof. The favor will be repaid many times over.

Wait, what? Is Donald Trump swimming against the Republican tide and actually giving President Obama credit for lower gas prices? Well, no, he's actually insinuating that the President is in cahoots with a Mooslim leader (you know, the same one that was kissing up to George W. Bush) but you get my point.

The Republicans and their wingnut supporters will do or say anything, ANTHING, to disparage, demean and discredit the President in order to push their twisted agenda.

The Big Gas Lie

Last week, I received an email from House Republicans. I guess I'm on their list, or someone being a wise guy put me on their list. But no matter - I love seeing the latest shit that comes out of their ass and their attempt to pass it as some kind of idea.

The email was hitting all talking points of the most recent attack on President Obama in blaming him for the current gas prices. Here's the chart they included:



Perhaps they should have included a wider timeline range... like this:



You see that big peak in June of 2008 when gas prices were $4.12 per gallon just before that precipitous decline? Can anyone remind me who was President in June of 2008? Oh, right! It was George W. Bush. Was he to blame for to blame for that? No. Just as President Obama isn't to blame for current prices. And the reason for the nose dive to $1.61 by December of 2008, just one month before President Obama took office was the huge recession that we are still recovering from these three and a half years later.

But that doesn't stop the GOP from trying to tie high gas prices to Obama administration policies. Hell, that's all they really have, isn't it? They scream about Keystone XL even though any oil from that project would go on to the global market. We are in our 24th straight month of private sector job growth, unemployment is down to 8.3% from a high of 10% in October of 2009 and more people are now encouraged to enter the job market which is why the unemployment rate remained steady.

So if they can't attack Obama on the economy, and they can't attack the man who gave the go ahead to take out Osama bin Laden as being weak on terrorism, and their attacks on the contraception battle are backfiring, what can they attack him with? Something he can't do much about: the price of a gallon of gas. Even though the fact is that no presidential or congressional policies can do much to affect the cost of gas.

What is driving up the price of gas is global oil prices,  Wall Street speculation, Middle East unrest (I'm looking at you Iran and Israel.)

But that doesn't stop Newt Gingrich's from bellowing that he can give us gas for $2.50 a gallon while we are headed for $10 per gallon at the current rate because of that meddling President Obama. Gingrich is lying. Plain and simple. Not that it matters. Anti-Obama factions will believe what they want to believe. They'll even believe a thrice married, twice adulterer, disgraced former Speaker of the House who was run out of town on ethics violations. But I never claimed those people were smart.

Herman Endorses Newt

Wait... I thought Herman Cain endorsed "the people" just last week.

“There are many reasons, but one of the biggest reasons is that I know that Speaker Gingrich is a patriot,” Cain said. “Speaker Gingrich is not afraid of bold ideas and I also know that Speaker Gingrich is running for president and going through this sausage grinder. I know what this sausage grinder is all about. I know that he is going through this sausage grinder because he cares about the future of the United States of America.”

Bold ideas like a moon base/future state? Also, sausage grinder!

You just can't make this shit up.

Politifact Can't Be Trusted

This is so disappointing. I was a regular reader of Politifact and linked to them on many occasions as a reference in previous posts. But no longer. Something happened between their inception and the present day that has caused them to skew their fact checking - you can call it opinion management - to avoid the dreaded "liberal bias" label.

Here is a fact, perfectly stated by President Obama in his State of the Union Address last night:

In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.

Those are the numbers. Plain and simple. But for some unfathomable reason, Politifact originally labeled this statement as "Half-True" then upgraded it to "Mostly-True." And for what reason? After all, it's a simple statement. It's either true or it's false. How can it possibly be half-true? I'll let Paul Krugman explain:

...Unfortunately, Politifact has lost sight of what it was supposed to be doing. Instead of simply saying whether a claim is true, it’s trying to act as some kind of referee of what it imagines to be fair play: even if a politician says something completely true, it gets ruled only partly true if Politifact feels that the fact is being used to gain an unfair political advantage.

...fact-checking should be about checking facts — not about trying to impose some sort of Marquess of Queensbury rules on how you’re allowed to use facts. Aside from undermining the mission, this makes the whole thing subjective — notice that Politifact wasn’t even analyzing what Obama said, they were analyzing their impression about what he might have been trying to imply.

... in practice this turns into a partisan affair. The simple fact is that in today’s US political scene, Republicans make a lot more factual howlers than Democrats. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is. Yet Politifact wants to be seen as nonpartisan. If it just stuck to the facts, it could say look, we’re just reporting the facts. But having defined its role as something that goes beyond checking facts to saying whether the facts are being used in some “proper” way, it then finds itself under pressure to be “even-handed”, which ends up meaning making excuses for Republican falsehoods and finding ways to criticize Democratic true statements.

Combine this ridiculousness with their 2011 Lie of the Year, and Politifact is Politi-shit. They are supposed to be objective arbiters of statements and they are either true or false. But they've decided to be subjective and my only conclusion is because they're afraid of being labeled a left leaning organization because Republicans are less truthful.

Just in the latest debate Newt Gingrich was asked the following:

Moderator: You've talked about the millions of jobs created by the Reagan tax cuts. If tax cuts create jobs, why didn't the Bush tax cuts work?

Here is the beginning of Newt's answer. Hold on to your seats:

Well, the Bush tax cuts, I think in a period of great difficulty, with the attack of 9/11, actually stopped us from going into a much deeper slump. I think we would have been in much, much worse shape, and I think most economists agree, that in 2002 and '03 and '04 we'd have been in much worse shape without the Bush tax cuts.

What. The. Fuck.

Newt Gingrich actually said the Bush tax cuts, that added a $1.8 trillion to our national debt, stopped us from going into a deeper slump?! I'd like to have a list of "most economists" to which Newt referred. What planet does this motherfucker live on? I'll tell you where - he lives on the planet where people get million dollar credit accounts from jewelry stores and make millions by being the consummate Washington insider.

And how did Politifact rate that whopper of a statement? It wasn't worth mentioning. But a completely truthful statement was rated at best "mostly true" for fear of appearing left leaning.

I rate Politifact's objectivity, Pants on Fire.

Early Entry for Headline of the Year

Worst. Psychiatrist. Ever.

I'm guessing if you lined up 100 psychiatrists and asked them the same question, only Fox News' head shrink Keith Ablow would come up with such a ridiculous answer, the other 99 would demand to see his credentials and recommend revoking his license.

How else can you explain Ablow's amazing analysis when he comes to the conclusion that Gingrich might make a better president because of his infidelity? And if three women fell in love with him, then why not the entire country? You know, because Newt's such a Svengali.

1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.

2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.

3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.

Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.

Really, "Doctor" Ablow? I have no such worries.

But witness the analytic mind at work. It may be working at an insane asylum, but working nonetheless, complete with bullet points, assumptions that Marianne Gingrich wanted to punish Newt,  and his "logical" conclusion.

Before you think this is a satirical piece, just remember that Ablow is part of Fox News Channel's  "Medical A-Team." That's got to be worth something, right? My guess is that he's the Howling Mad Murdoch of the group. He continues:

4) Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.

Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.

Yes, because we all know that Gingrich is so truthful in his political life, he was reprimanded and fined for ethic violations during his tenure as Speaker of the House in the 90's. (And a Happy Anniversary to you on that one, Newt.) And it looks like the "great price he would pay financially" comes in the form of Tiffany's charge accounts.

But don't stop there, read the rest. I'm sure you'll have a good laugh, but keep a barf bag near you just in case.

I pity the fool that follows Ablow's psychiatric advice.


UPDATE: A previous version of this post mentioned Ablow insulting Marianne Gingrich's looks which was a misreading on my part. He is actually comparing Callista Gingrinch's attractiveness to... Newt's!

In Follow-Up to the Newt Affair

POSTED BY JHW22

Ooops, I probably shouldn't have called it an affair. I might hurt Newt's feelings and make him go all nukuler on me.

But, anyway, here's this.





h/t Rick Parry on Facebook.

Why Am I Not Surprised?

Gingrich flatly denied [Marianne Gingrich's] story and attacked ABC News at Thursday's GOP debate. He said, "Every personal friend I have who knew us in that period says the story was false. We offered several of them to ABC to prove it was false. They weren't interested because they would like to attack any Republican."

On Friday, ABC senior vice president Jeffrey W. Schneider said that Gingrich's account was "just not true." He said in a statement, "His daughters were interviewed for our 'Nightline' story last night and we sought interviews with Gingrich or surrogates very aggressively starting Tuesday morning. We would have been happy to interview anyone they put forward."

At this point, who are you going to believe? If what Gingrich said was true, he would have been accommodating in at least having someone fight back the open marriage allegation, but the better political road would be to claim it's a witch hunt and blame the media. How very Herman Cainsian of him.

I Really Tried

I took a deep breath, grabbed my remote and tuned in to CNN last night to watch the latest Republican debate. Normally, when I flip these things on in passing (the GOP debates, I mean) it's just to make sure something miraculous hasn't happened and they started debating in truths rather than whatever fantasy world they live in. But alas, that moment never comes.

Well, while still not living in reality, this night had the makings of being different. After all, Rick Perry had bowed out just that morning and now the GOP Nomination Clown Car was down to four. Newt Gingrich's second ex-wife, Marianne, accused him of wanting an open marriage after he began an affair with his now third wife, Callista. And after two weeks of recounting Iowa caucus votes, we found out that Rick Santorum actually beat Mitt Romney, but since Iowa takes its voting so seriously and eight precincts worth of votes went missing, the recount will never be complete, so we'll never really know, will we?

I knew I was in for a long night when the first question out of the gate was directed at Newt and the open marriage accusation. And an angry, defiant Gingrich went after moderator John King for having the gall to ask such a question at the debate, blamed the media for attacking him and "protecting Barack Obama" and the crowd lapped it up and went along for the ride.

And I think that's what disgusted me most about this South Carolina debate - the audience was chomping at that red meat like there was no tomorrow. They were cheering Gingrich's "fuck you" attitude while simultaneously forgoing their Christian conservative selves in support of a thrice married, twice divorced, serial adulterer. Let alone the hootin' and hollerin' when Newt once again chose to go after welfare recipients (you know, because there are no white people on government assistance) to appease the blood thirsty crowd who'd left their torches and hoods at the coat check.

Somewhere along the line I felt my blood pressure rise and decided my health was more important than a futile exercise. I noticed the time was 8:36pm EDT, probably the longest I've sat through a GOP debate this season... and actually the first time I consciously tried. But to tell you the truth, besides the Newt opener and Santorum claiming victory in Iowa, the rest is a blur. It's hard to concentrate when you have blood boiling in your eyes.

Confession Time For Santorum

When I was growing up, I was told lying was a sin and since you have to confess your sins in the Catholic faith, I'm waiting for Rick Santorum to head for the nearest confessional.

A few days ago, GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum put his foot in his mouth by saying “I don’t want to make black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money.”

Santorum allegedly made the controversial comments when discussing welfare in an interview Wednesday night with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, but he maintained that people misheard the word "black" when he stumbled on a word.

“I looked at that, and I didn't say that. If you look at it, what I started to say is a word and then sort of changed and it sort of - blah - came out. And people said I said ‘black.’ I didn't," Santorum said while smiling away.

He said, "blah?"



Sounds like Newt Gingrich a few months ago: "Any ad which quotes what I said Sunday is a falsehood."

Oh, Rick. You can't have it both ways. Either you meant "black" to demonize the have-nots and push the the welfare queen meme (as if there aren't poor white people in this country) or you meant "poor." Either way, you're frothing up the base in an "us again them" class warfare mentality. But for a "blah" candidate, maybe he did say "blah."

Look! An INSANE Republican Candidate!

No, not all of them... just lil' ol' Newt Gingrich for this:

"[Sarah Palin] is certainly one of the people you would look at [as a running mate.] I am a great admirer of hers, and she was a remarkable reform governor of Alaska. She's somebody who I think brings a great deal to the possibility of helping in government and that would be one of the possibilities. There are also some very important cabinet positions that she could fill very, very well. I can't imagine anybody that would do a better job of driving us to an energy solution than Gov. Palin, for example. Tell her that she would certainly be on the list of one of the people we would consider."

If ever there was a wingnut pander in the face of free falling poll numbers, this is the mother of all panders. Sarah Fucking Palin, Newt? Seriously?

The only other thought that comes to mind is that Gingrich is purposely sabotaging his campaign because he never really wanted to be President in the first place. This was all a ruse to increase his exposure for the latest book sale. It's all about money for Newt, and since his child labor law schtick didn't implode his candidacy, you know because the current GOP voting public has gone bats hit crazy, why not throw Palin into the mix?

(H/T Chez Pazienza)

Gingrich View on Confederate Flag

Does Gingrich think South Carolina should fly the Confederate flag on its capitol? I'll give you one guess.

“I have a very strong opinion. It’s up to the people of South Carolina.”

Why would anyone be surprised with his answer? After all, this is an "historian" who wrote a trilogy of alternate history novels in which the Confederacy won the Civil War. But hey, at least he's against slavery.

Go To NewtGingrich.com

You'll like what you'll see.

Gingrich owns Newt.org, but NewtGingrich.com is controlled by someone with very different motives.

The website alternately redirects to a slew of websites with negative association to Newt: from the homepage of Tiffany, to the Freddie Mac homepage, to negative news articles about his campaign.

Try it: NewtGingrich.com

Down Goes Cain! Down Goes Cain!

Seriously, Republican voters? Is this what it took?

Yesterday, Herman Cain announced that he was suspending his campaign.

“As of today, with a lot of prayer and soul-searching, I am suspending my presidential campaign,” Mr. Cain said at a rally in Atlanta, surrounded by supporters chanting his name. “Because of the continued distractions, the continued hurt caused on me and my family, not because we are not fighters. Not because I’m not a fighter.”

...With his wife, Gloria, at his side at the Atlanta rally, Mr. Cain said the accusations of sexual harassment and of a 13-year affair were untrue. “I’m at peace with my God,” he said. “I’m at peace with my wife, and she is at peace with me.”

In yet another example of the death of the Republican Party, the Sociopath Who Would Be President fell to earth not because of his stellar foreign policy, not because he jokes/doesn't joke about electrocuting illegal immigrants crossing the border, not because of his video game economic plan, not due to his lack of knowledge on China's 47 year old nuclear program, not even because he didn't have the first clue on what the hell was going on in Libya. No, it would seem that the only thing that took down Herman Cain was Herman Cain.

The wingnuts can forgive stupidity when it comes to running the country, but not when it comes to various cases of sexual harassment claims and an alleged 13-year extramarital affair. That is of course, unless you're Newt Gingrich.

The difference between Cain and the thrice married, serial adulterer Gingrich, is that if you admit you're wrong, even if your explanation is complete bullshit, all is forgiven. But every indicator suggests Cain has never and will never admit to doing anything wrong.

Behold the Republican Party

The party of Lincoln, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, even the party of Ronald Reagan just doesn't exist anymore. When anyone argues an old Republican talking point, remind them that that party no longer exists. Ronald Reagan would not even be considered for the 2012 nomination in the new, current batshit GOP. The inmates now run the asylum.

When the merry-go-round of who leads in the polls every six weeks has completely done a 360° turn and landed on Newt Gingrich once again, bypassing the only real shot the GOP has in making the 2012 election a competitive race in Mitt Romney, perennially polling second, you know they have a problem.

How else would you describe it when a candidate says something that's actually logical but the analysis afterwards says that it'll sink him in the polls? Here's what Newt said on his immigration stance at last night's 437th GOP debate that is going to ruin him:

"I do not believe that the people of the United States are going to take people who have been here a quarter century, who have children and grandchildren, who are members of the community, who may have done something 25 years ago, separate them from their families, and expel them," he said.

After the debate, Gingrich defended his position, telling CNN, "I can't imagine any serious person who will walk down the street, see someone they know for 20 years and say, 'You're leaving your family, you're leaving your church, you're leaving the community... and we are kicking you out forcibly.'"

Apparently, that sentiment is just too sane for today's Republican Party. He was immediately attacked by Mitt "What's My Stance Today?" Romney's campaign. Yet, when questioned if Romney is in favor of deportation of 11 million or so undocumented immigrants, Romney's advisor would not answer the question directly.

Romney has done the same thing in regards to his stance on a payroll tax cut, something you'd think the entire cadre of GOP candidates would agree to except for that nagging little fact that they'd then be in agreement with evil socialist, Marxist, Communist, Kenyan-born President Obama. They twist themselves in knots trying not to get caught on video agreeing with the President even on things with which they fundamentally agree.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not defending Newt in any way; he's just as fucked up as the rest of these nitwits. I'm just pointing out the fact that when any of them have a moderate stance on any issue, when it's not the furthest far right stance, they are exposed to criticism and they lose the nutjob vote. The same thing happened with Rick Perry when he was asked about his bill making in-state tuition available to undocumented students in Texas.

"If you say that we should not educate children who have come into our state for no reason than they've been brought there, by no fault of their own, I don't think you have a heart," he said. "I still support it greatly."

For this statement, he was jeered.

If this presidential race is even close with this collection of loons, American society is a lot worse off than I thought.

Just Say "Oops" and Get Out!

This may be the fastest implosion of a presidential campaign in US history.

Newt Gingrich's campaign manager and numerous other key aides have resigned together, a strong blow to his hopes for the Republican presidential nomination.

Gingrich press spokesman Rick Tyler told The Associated Press that he's resigned along with campaign manager Rob Johnson, senior strategists and aides in key early primary states.

And I don't blame them. What serious candidate blames his extramarital affairs with two previous wives on his hard work and patriotism, has a half a million dollar rolling account at Tiffany's while touting fiscal conservatism, gets destroyed in a moment of clarity for criticizing the Paul Ryan budget and his Vouchercare program but soon backtracks after the backlash and says anyone who uses his words against him are liars, and decides to go on vacation just a couple of weeks after kicking off his campaign on YouTube?

Just says oops and get out. NEXT!

John Edwards Indicted

AP: A federal grand jury has indicted two-time presidential candidate John Edwards over massive sums of money spent to keep his mistress in hiding during the peak of his 2008 campaign for the White House.

The case of USA v. Johnny Reid Edwards contains six counts, including conspiracy, four counts of illegal campaign contributions and one count of false statements. The indictment was returned in the Middle District of North Carolina Friday.

So, here's the thing. He's a total idiot for running for the Democratic nomination at such a crucial moment in our political times with this HUGE skeleton in his closet. He's a scumbag for cheating on his cancer stricken wife and betraying his family. But is he guilty of what he is accused of?

To my knowledge, and this theory is purely speculative since I don't have a dog in this race and therefore haven't really researched the minutia, the money that was used to hide Edwards' affair did not come from official campaign contributions. From what I understand, supporters of Edwards ponied up the dough to try and keep the affair quiet. So how far can the definition of "campaign contributions" be stretched?

It's just a question - I don't care either way whether he's found guilty or not, so long as the verdict is attained appropriately, and not through some jumping of hoops to shoehorn the actions taken into what constitutes a campaign contribution because it's such a high profile case.

On a side note, it's interesting how something like this can kill a political career for Edwards, but a guy like Newt Gingrich can do it twice, decide to run for President, and no one really bats an eye. But I guess he was just a scumbag out in the open and didn't try to hide it, so there's that.

Rrrruhh?! Newt Trashes GOP/Ryan Plan

TPM: Newt Gingrich slammed the House GOP budget on Meet The Press this morning, telling interviewer David Gregory that replacing Medicare with a voucher system was too "radical" an approach.

..."I don't think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering," Gingrich said, calling the plan "too big a jump" for the country. "I don't think imposing radical change from the right or the left is a very good way for a free society to operate."

Behold, Newt the Moderate!

Of course, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out Newt is just saying what anyone in their right mind who just threw his very large hat in the presidential ring (see, what I did there? I made a big head joke) would say after looking at polls showing a majority of Americans, Republicans and Tea Partiers included, are opposed to government hands on their Medicare.

It's just proof that Newt will say anything to advance his position. I'm sure he'll shoot toward the top of the current list of GOP candidates with this one. How he'll be perceived on his comments about Kenyan, anti-colonial mindsets or our "food stamp president" is another matter.

Dumbass Quote of the Day

"I have two grandchildren - Maggie is 11, Robert is 9. I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they're my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American."

~Newt Gingrich, addressing Rev. John Hagee's congregagtion

Newt Gingrich - serious Republican presidential candidate.

By the way, remember Rev. Hagee? He's the guy whose endorsement of John McCain was rejected by the Maverick after it was revealed that Hagee is a Hitler fan because, you know, he was only doing God's work.

..."God says in Jeremiah 16: 'Behold, I will bring them the Jewish people again unto their land that I gave to their fathers. ... Behold, I will send for many fishers, and after will I send for many hunters. And they the hunters shall hunt them.' That would be the Jews. ... Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone who comes with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter," Hagee said, according to a transcript of his sermon.

Now that's someone Newt wants to be associated with, huh? I wonder what he'll do if he gets Hagee's endorsement.

Newt Was For It Before He Was Against It PART 2

Rachel Maddow explains my previous post in 2 minutes. That's why she gets paid the big bucks while I... do not. I ♥ Rachel Maddow.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy