Romney Proves Himself To Be A Pandering Coward

Leadership takes guts. Leadership takes balls. Leadership means occasionally having to make a tough decision and stand up for what you think is right. And so far, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney has shown none of those leadership qualities. Why else would he let a comment about trying President Obama for treason go without comment at one of his own town halls?



Now, I do believe Mitt Romney when he says that he disagrees with the woman who made the treason comment while asking a different question. But why is it that it took someone else to actually ask the question of Romney? Why didn't Romney take the bull by the horns like Sen. John McCain did in 2008 when confronted with a similar situation?

The answer of course, is that Mitt Romney has proven himself to be a pandering coward. He is willing to say anything or do anything to garner potential votes. What he and his staff don't realize is that he needn't pander to the extreme right wing. He doesn't have to cater to the crazies, because those nut jobs have no intention of voting for Barack Obama in the first place. He already has their votes. What he needs are moderates and independents to think he would make a good president, and by letting pivotal moments like this slide, he's showing the opposite.

And this happened on the heels of strategic advisor Richard Grenell resigning from the Romney camp without so much as a peep after conservatives balked at the thought of an openly gay man advising Mitt Romney. Heaven forbid! And to top it off, the main culprit, the American Family Association's Bryan Fischer, who stirred that anti-gay shit in the first place had this to say of Romney after the Grenell resignation:

How is he going to stand up to the Chinese? How is he going to stand up to Putin, how is he going to stand up to North Korea if he can be pushed around by a yokel like me? I mean, I don't think Romney is realizing the doubts that this begins to raise about his leadership.

Doubts about Romney's leadership. I couldn't agree more.

Stay Classy, NY Post

The Spine of America

POSTED BY JHW22

OK, after this post, I will no longer give anti-Obama Democrats an ounce of my energy, a second of my time. Why? Because as much as they say they believe it's American to criticize or they're just holding him accountable or yadda yadda fart fart, they really just want to focus on certain things while removing all nuance, complexity and reality. They want to pretend that it's all easy peasy to get exactly what they want despite millions of Americans who don't want those exact same things the exact same ways at the exact same time. After about two years of their shit, I realized there is NO POINT debating, discussing or even acknowledging them. But I still try. Not anymore. After tonight, I am done with the anti-Obama left. We have an election to win and a fantastic President to re-elect. We need to ensure better state and federal legislatures and governorships. We have school boards and city councils to pay attention to. And the anti-Obama left doesn't deserve a fraction of me.

I want to make my final statement on them about one specific thing. One thing that I think symbolizes the difference between them and me.

"Spine."

For years now, I've heard Democrats say Obama "needs to grow a spine" or that he's "spineless." And as often as I, and other sensible Democrats, have tried to counter with facts and reality checks, we never looked at an actual spine.

A spine is the center of our body uniting the left and the right. It bends forward and backward, it turns side to side. It moves. Its point is to connect all the parts and keep us balanced. It is the part of the body used for movement and thought. It's a part of the body that, if damaged, could cause the entire body to stop moving completely. It's made up of parts rather than a single bone. It's a part of our body that we take for granted until we need an excuse to get out of heavy lifting. And it always has our back even when we don't see it. Our spine is what makes us flexible and strong. It makes us able to dodge or walk tall. It does what it needs to do on reflex. It supports the rib cage that houses our hearts and is the base of all the magic of our minds.

When you think of the truth of a spine, of the reality, of its actual role in our lives, Barack Obama not only has a spine. He IS our spine.

Limbaugh Defends Joseph Kony Solely To Be Anti-Obama

Some people will do or say anything strictly because it's in opposition to that evil, Socialist, Marxist, anti-colonial Kenyan world view, Manchurian candidate President Barack Obama. How much farther can Rush Limbaugh stick his head up his own ass. This time, Rush defends Ugandan leader of the Lord's Resistance Army, Joseph Kony. If you don't know what the LRA is...

The LRA is a militant group with a syncretic pseudo-Christian extreme religious ideology, known for the atrocities they commit against civilians, including murder, mutilations, rape, and in some accounts even cannibalism.

Directed by Kony, the LRA has earned a reputation for its actions against the people of several countries, including northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, South Sudan, and Sudan. It has abducted and forced an estimated 66,000 children to fight for them, and has forced the internal displacement of over two million people since its rebellion began in 1986.

But because Limbaugh and most of the GOP say and do everything they can to oppose President Obama, then they've got to be against this, right? It has to be some conspiracy to defeat the Christian faith if you go after someone who's "army" is called the Lord's Resistance Army. I mean, it's right there in the name! "Lord" is part of their name, therefore they must be fighting on behalf of God. ...Seriously.



How do you combat this type of idiocy and ignorance?

It reminds me of this Key & Peele comedy clip.



UPDATE: As Rush continued his statements, which aren't in the video, here's what he said:

...So that's a new war, a hundred troops to wipe out Christians in Sudan, Uganda, and -- (interruption) no, I'm not kidding. Jacob Tapper just reported it. Now, are we gonna help the Egyptians wipe out the Christians? Wouldn't you say that we are? I mean the Coptic Christians are being wiped out, but it wasn't just Obama that supported that. The conservative intelligentsia thought it was an outbreak of democracy. Now they've done a 180 on that, but they forgot that they supported it in the first place. Now they're criticizing it.

Lord's Resistance Army objectives. I have them here. "To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people." Now, again Lord's Resistance Army is who Obama sent troops to help nations wipe out. The objectives of the Lord's Resistance Army, what they're trying to accomplish with their military action in these countries is the following: "To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people; to fight for the immediate restoration of the competitive multiparty democracy in Uganda; to see an end to gross violation of human rights and dignity of Ugandans; to ensure the restoration of peace and security in Uganda, to ensure unity, sovereignty, and economic prosperity beneficial to all Ugandans, and to bring to an end the repressive policy of deliberate marginalization of groups of people who may not agree with the LRA ideology." Those are the objectives of the group that we are fighting, or who are being fought and we are joining in the effort to remove them from the battlefield.

Yes, President Obama is defending Muslims and killing Christians. That was what Rush was trying to get across to his ditto heads. And they'll buy it hook, line and sinker because they want to believe it.

House GOP Priorities

Is it jobs? Is it the economy? Is it foreign policy?

Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are fighting an effort by the Obama administration to make federally-subsidized school lunches more healthy.

A January proposal by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) aimed to limit — but not eliminate — fries and pizza on the lunch menu.

...Under pressure from lobbyists and some food companies that sell frozen pizza, salt and potatoes, Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee rejected the new rules, painting them as “burdensome and costly regulations.”

Pizza is a vegetable. See? It's all about the important things.

UPDATE (8:10pm): Also this.You know, because it's important.

The House of Representatives passed a measure Wednesday that would make a permit to carry a concealed firearm from one state valid in any state that allows citizens to carry concealed weapons. The vote was 272 to 154.

Will Bachmann Denounce This?

Mother Jones: With the Minnesota legislature in the middle of a heated debate over a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the state—the opponents of which, [Bradlee Dean, a Minnesota radio host, anti-gay activist] has pilloried on his radio show—the House Republican Caucus invited the controversial hair-metal evangelist to deliver the opening prayer for today's session.

How did it go? Well, the grand finale consisted of Dean alleging that the President of the United States is not a Christian. Via the St. Cloud Times:

"I end with this. I know this is a non-denominational prayer in this Chamber and it's not about the Baptists and it's not about the Catholics alone or the Lutherans or the Wesleyans. Or the Presbyterians the evangelicals or any other denomination but rather the head of the denomination and his name is Jesus. As every President up until 2008 has acknowledged. And we pray it. In Jesus' name."

I don't even know what to say about this because it's so stupifying.

The question is now whether Michele Bachmann, who has helped raise money for Dean’s traveling youth ministry and is a proponent of his anti-gay agenda, will denounce Dean and distance herself from that brand of lunacy in lieu of her possible presidential aspirations? I mean, she may be dumb, but she ain't stupid.

Newt Was For It Before He Was Against It... - UPDATED

...and it was only a matter of days before Gingrich decided to switch policy positions for the sole purpose of criticizing President Obama on Libya... whatever the stance happened to be at the time, consistency be damned.

Gingrich on Van Susteren's show, March 7th:

VAN SUSTEREN: What would you do about Libya?

GINGRICH: Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. … It’s also an ideological problem. The United States doesn’t need anybody’s permission. We don’t need to have NATO, who frankly, won’t bring much to the fight. We don’t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we’re intervening. And we don’t have to send troops. All we have to do is suppress his air force, which we could do in minutes.

March 20th from Politico:

“It is impossible to make sense of the standard for intervention in Libya except opportunism and news media publicity,” Gingrich said in a statement to POLITICO, his first public comments since President Barack Obama gave the go-ahead order on Saturday.

March 23rd on The Today Show:

GINGRICH: The standard [Obama] has fallen back to, of humanitarian intervention could apply to Sudan, to North Korea, to Zimbabwe, to Syria this week, to Yemen, to Bahrain. This isn't a serious standard, this is a public relations conversation. The Arab League wanted us to do something. The minute we did something, the Arab League began criticizing us doing it. I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot. I think that the problems we have in Pakistan, Egypt — go around the region. We could get engaged by this standard in all sorts of places. I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of other allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.

Does your neck hurt from the whiplash yet? Within a matter of 13 days, Gingrich went from "exercise a no-fly zone now" to "intervention makes no sense"; from "intervene because slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable" to "I would not have intervened."

In less than two weeks, Gingrich went from "The United States doesn't need anybody's permission" to "I would not have used American and European forces." Apparently Matt Lauer didn't challenge him on his previous statement supporting a no-fly zone led by the U.S. Good job, Matt. Do your homework next time.

And this lying, hypocritical rat bastard wants to run for president. This fickle fuck wants to be the leader of the free world. But what else can you expect from a jackass who used hard work and patriotism as an excuse to reason away philandering on two of his three wives? I'd watch my back if I were you, Callista.

(H/T Think Progress)

UPDATE (3:30pm): Pathetic backtracking begins.

This is such a sorry attempt to redefine his stance, but the timeline still doesn't add up. If Newt thought allies should have been used and not American forces, why did he initially say that we didn't need permission from the UN and didn't need NATO "who frankly wouldn't bring much to the fight"? If not NATO, what allies is he talking about? The French? The British?

And trying to blame is flip-flopping mind on Obama's statement of March 3rd doesn't make sense when Newt made his statement on March 7th. Of course, since every right wing nut has to oppose everything Obama says and does, we know the real reason he flip-flopped was because Obama actually did commit to a no-fly zone, something Newt was on board with... until Obama agreed. He can never be seen concurring with the President, so just say the opposite. No one will notice, right?

UPDATE II (3/24/11, 11:15am): Newt goes the Sarah Palin route. Enough with the lamestream gotcha media, I'll just post on Facebook!

The Brainiacs at Fox Nation and The Imbeciles Who Read It

Mediaite: "...Fox Nation editors were apparently so enamored with an Onion piece from today entitled “Frustrated Obama Sends Nation Rambling 75,000-Word E-Mail” that they reposted the first two paragraphs in their culture section with nary a sign as to its fictional nature. The only clue that this wasn’t real (besides a quick peek at your inbox to confirm that Barack Obama hasn’t been emailing you) was a link at the bottom instructing readers to go to TheOnion.com for the real story. This tiny link was, unfortunately, not enough for the vast majority of FN readers. At least, that’s the way it seems from the comments section."

Some of the comments left by the MENSA members reading Fox Nation, which can be seen in Mediaite's screenshot, ramble on from the President being incompetent and calling his mental health into question, to suggesting he smoked marijuana and calling his presidency an affront to American exceptionalism. So exceptional was that commenter that he couldn't discern between truth and satire.

Finally someone chimed in with some realism:

professorbrown: WOW! I can't believe how many readers think this is REAL! I can't believe FoxNews is touting this as REAL news! This link will be removed within an hour.  That is if anyone with a brain is working at FoxNews today...
It's "The Onion" for God's sake!! We as a country are hurting when the right [can't] tell the difference...

Well, "professorbrown" nailed it. Here's what you get when you click the Fox Nation link now:




If you ask me, the only ones "lost at sea" are the Fox Nation editors and their readers.

ADDING... This wouldn't be such a big deal except for the fact that some right wing ideologies have become so full of rage and rabid hate for all things Obama, they'll eat anything up and trust it as fact without the slightest hesitation or fact checking.  It's also the reason right wing humor is not funny. There's no way you can be humorous when you don't understand satire and your idea of a funny joke is a parody song called, "Barack, the Magic Negro." Seriously, when was the last time you laughd at anything Dennis Miller said since he crapped his pants after 9/11?

The Hitler Comparisons Continue...

... from an unlikely source.



Now, in Greenwald's defense, he was not comparing Obama to Hitler, as he said so repeatedly in defense of his tweet. He was just comparing the website owner to Leni Riefenstahl, the famous Nazi propaganda movie maker. But obviously, the logical conclusion to everyone except Greenwald, is that if he's comparing the website owner to Riefenstahl, then the subject must be...

Still, he stood his ground at least for a while with tweets like, "Nobody whose brain works thinks I compared Obama to Hitler. If I wanted to do that, I'd do it directly - & not deny it after" and " I've slammed the Bush-following Right for doing the same thing many times - of course, nobody among those weeping now objected." I'd like to see the tweet or article Greenwald wrote that comes close to comparing a Bush follower to a Nazi propagandist. Maybe he did, but I didn't catch it.

And what was Greenwald so disgusted about? A blog called The Only Adult In The Room, dedicated to daily Obama news, albeit positively spun, but in no way inaccurate or misleading in touting Obama's accomplishments. For example, his latest trade deal with South Korea that wasn't completed on his trip there and therefore labeled a failure by the mainstream media. Or perhaps it was the photos of joyous soldiers in the midst of their excitement to meet the President on his trip to Afghanistan. Maybe that's what propelled Greenwald to send his tweet. Are we not allowed to see that perhaps some members of the military are happy to see the President? That perhaps some of them are *GASP* Democrats?

I don't really frequent that site, but maybe I should every once in a while to see some positive news on our President instead of listening to how much of a failure he is 24/7.  Look, I get disappointed as much as the next liberal when I don't think things are going as well as they could be due to a certain White House decision or the perception of capitulation disguised in the form of "compromise," but maybe if the general public who doesn't follow politics on a micro level could see or hear something positive... or at least in a non-partisan manner, we wouldn't be talking about his approval rating daily (which, by the way, still happens to be higher than Reagan's was at the same point in his tenure).

Anyway, after all was said and done, I suppose Greenwald had received enough backlash to realize he was being a total dick and mistaken in the perception of his tweet.



Does anyone have a percentage of Greenwald posts or tweets that are negative as opposed to positive towards Obama? Does the President deserve credit for anything good that's happened these last two years? Unfortunately, the cat's out of the bag on this tweet and in my opinion, it hurt Greenwald's credibility and solidified the notion that he is against ALL things Obama.

More Like This, Please

I know this is old news, but Anderson Cooper did a great job and took the time to debunk the "$200 million a day" myth for President Obama's current trip to Asia. If only more journalists would follow suit.

I add this here for archival reasons, as I'm sure you'll eventually get an outrageous anti-Obama smear email sooner or later pertaining to this issue.

This Is Disgusting

Look, I completely understand disagreeing with the President on the issues, as long as you are basing your analysis on these pesky, little things called facts.  But this ad is just flat out fucking reprehensible.



Note: The voiceover is actor Robert Davi, the same schmuck that did those freaky "demon sheep" Fiorina ads.

ADDING... At least the video doesn't show Obama kissing or holding hands with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah. Or sabre dancing for that matter. And why are they showing Obama with the Prince every time the narration makes a mention of "Israel's enemies"? The same fucking guy Bush sat down with! Man, they really think their audience is stupid. ...And they're probably right.

Quote of the Day

[Newt Gingrich], the conservative who fancies himself a historian and visionary did not use his critical faculties to resist his party’s lunacy but instead has embraced it, shamelessly. He has given a full-throated endorsement to a dangerously irresponsible and un-Christian theory by Ann Coulter-in-pants Dinesh D’Souza.

...Gingrich, who ditched two wives (the first when she was battling cancer; the second after an affair with the third — a House staffer — while he was impeaching Bill Clinton), now professes to be a good Catholic. Evidently the first two wives don’t count because he hadn’t converted to Catholicism... But he is downright un-Christian when he does not hesitate to visit the alleged sins of the father upon the son....If it wasn’t so sick it would be funny. It’s worse than a conspiracy theory because this conspiracy consists of a single dead individual.

...If the conservatives are so interested in psychoanalyzing father and son relationships, why didn’t they do so back when W. was rushing to avenge and one-up his father by finishing what daddy started with Saddam?

~ Maureen Dowd on Newt Gingrinch's latest anti-Obama rant.

How Does the Tea Party Help Republicans?

I've been mulling this question over while watching Republican incumbents in primary after primary fall to the Tea Party candidates and I can't see that they help the Republicans at all. In fact, the whole GOP is tacking to the right to embrace the Tea Party for fear of extinction. So why is it that all the polls and pundits are convinced that the Democrats are doomed on Election Day 2010?

It's all really a matter of common sense. The Tea Party is basically an extreme, conservative group to the right of the Republican Party. Regardless of the spin they try to put on the demographics of the movement - that they are equal parts Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are tired of the status quo in Washington - we know better. The chance that even conservative Democrats in the general election would flock to vote for a Tea Party candidate is slim to none. And knowing that Freedom Works is basically behind the Tea Party movement, I view it as the political equivalent of the Frankenstein monster.

If anything, we are witnessing angry Republicans not only fearful of the evil, Kenyan, socialist, Marxist, Nazi Obama, but upset with their own party and knocking them off in the Republican primaries with candidates who are at the least inexperienced, and at worst, the fringiest of the fringe who think Social Security is unconstitutional and continue the myth that Social Security is bankrupt, want to privatize Social Security and Medicare, because as you know, Wall Street bankers will protect your assets, and forward blatantly racist, anti-Obama emails.

And yet we keep hearing (literally just now I heard this as a bumper on MSNBC) that "the Tea Party is proving it can shape the political landscape and will have a huge impact on the midterm November elections."

Let's face it, Democrats will mostly likely vote for Democrats. Republicans will most likely vote for Republicans, even if that means they have to cast a ballot for Christine "Masturbation Is Bad" O'Donnell or Carl "Humans are Racist" Paladino. But the Independent voter, the voters that swung for President Obama in 2008, don't normally ride the crazy train.  And I don't think they'll punch a ticket for it this time either.  Hell, even the GOP party chairman said O'Donnell has no business running for dog catcher, let alone US Senate. And evil spawn Karl Rove is calling some of her comments "nutty" for which he is getting backlash from Wingnuttia.

So maybe the Tea Party really is reshaping the political landscape for the November midterms, but in my opinion it's coming at the peril of the Republican Party. Eight of the Republican Party backed establishment candidates lost to the Tea Party challenger. And although Republicans have no choice but to support the primary winners (even after saying they wouldn't) the fracture in the GOP is clearly visible.  They have just as much to lose as any Democrat in office.

Yes, anti-incumbent rage might cost some Democratic seats in the House and Senate just like it does after every midterm against the majority party incumbents whose party controls the White House, but I don't believe it'll be anywhere close to the devastation that the pundits are predicting, because the one thing all the talking heads keep dismissing in all of the analysis is the quality of the candidate.

Adding... Maybe all the wingnuts winning Republican primaries are just what the Democratic doctor ordered to gin up the base and finally get some enthusiasm rolling.

Quote of the Week

If Obama’s first legislative priority had been immigration or financial reform or climate change, we would have seen the same trajectory. The conjunction of a black president and a female speaker of the House — topped off by a wise Latina on the Supreme Court and a powerful gay Congressional committee chairman — would sow fears of disenfranchisement among a dwindling and threatened minority in the country no matter what policies were in play. It’s not happenstance that Frank, Lewis and Cleaver — none of them major Democratic players in the health care push — received a major share of last weekend’s abuse. When you hear demonstrators chant the slogan “Take our country back!,” these are the people they want to take the country back from.

~ Frank Rich, March 28th, 2010 New York Times Op-Ed