Mitt Romney Gets It. Wife Ann? Not So Much.

In a not so shocking first interview since his presidential election defeat, Mitt Rommney admitted that it's "killing him" not to be in the Oval Office. In a more than surprising admission, he blames his campaign (and I'm assuming himself) for not being able to connect with black and hispanic voters, and points to his "47 percent" debacle as the turning point of the race.

In a complete yawner, however (and who didn't see this coming), his wife Ann "I love you women" Romney is still in the dark and is perfectly willing to blame the media for her husband's rout, apparently unaware of the fact that a journalist's job is to report what her husband and his campaign say and do. Ann, being a one percenter, is so totally insulated from the real world, that it is unfathomable to her that the actions of her husband are what caused his downfall. It wasn't made up. It wasn't a lie. It happened.

Now, perhaps in the days before social media, a 24 hour cable news cycle and practically real time reporting through the Internet, a guy like Mitt Romney could have gotten away with some of his ridiculous gaffes and his real thoughts spoken in "private rooms" away from the media, but that's no longer the case. And someone who runs a 1950's style campaign in 2012 is going to suffer.

But Ann just doesn't get it because in her insular world, she can't see past the fences of her estate or the walls of her gated communities. To Ann, this was an unfair, epic takedown by the "librul" media of the only man who could possibly have the ability to run the country.

“It was not just the campaign’s fault," Ann Romney said. "I believe it was the media's fault as well, in that he was not being given a fair shake--that people weren’t allowed to really see him for who he was. I’m happy to blame the media.”

See - Ann doesn't get that "who he really was" was the man that showed his real side through the gaffes and statemens made in private rooms when he thought the rest of the world wasn't listening. Mitt really does think corporations are people. Mitt really does think that 47 percent of the country were voting for President Obama because they're moochers looking for free stuff. Mitt really isn't concerned about the poor because of the safety net they have - the same safety net he would have dismantled given the chance. Mitt doesn't have a clue as to what the actual income is of more than 90% of the population, and how could he? He's just as isolated and insulated as Ann.  But Ann will never understand what the rest of the world understands when she pretends to shop at Costco and doesn't have to worry about filling up her gas tank. Or paying her mortgage. Or having a job.

Now that Romney has admitted what's eating him up inside, it's only a  matter of time before we find a World Weekly News headline on the ever reclusive Mitt Romney taking a Howard Hughes turn, complete with long beard, hair, gnarled fingernails and toenails, designing his own Air Force One made entirely out of wood.

The "Liberal" Media

Via Bob Cesca:



Must we continue to pretend that there is such a thing as a "liberal media" when the major markets are owned by corporations?

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.

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.

Olbermann Signs Off!

With no pomp and circumstance, Keith Olbermann revealed that Friday's Countdown telecast would be the last.

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

After eight years, Countdown is done. TPM's Josh Marshall was a guest on the show and was shocked to discover that he was on the final broadcast - the professionalism of the staff and crew didn't give it away.

According to the New York Times...

MSNBC announced that “The Last Word” with Lawrence O’Donnell would replace “Countdown” at 8 p.m., with “The Ed Show” with Ed Schultz taking Mr. O’Donnell’s slot at 10 p.m. Mr. Olbermann did not discuss any future plans, but NBC executives said one term of his settlement will keep him from moving to another network for an extended period of time.

And thus begins Comcast's demise of the liberal media.

ADDING... After letting it sink in for a few minutes, this was definitely personal. Lawrence O'Donnell can be just as bombastic as KO was. And Ed Schultz and his beady, red eyes can come across as a loon sometimes. Maybe even a firebagger. This was definitely a personal matter - there was always friction between Olbermann and his bosses.

The Non-Existent Double Standard

The more I think about these last few Carrie Prejean meltdown interviews, the more it pisses me off. It may be that the ladies on The View actually gave her her most challenging interview to date. And without fail, Prejean brings up liberal media double standard. Or should I say the non-existent liberal media double standard.

I suppose it feels real to her after participating in softball interviews on Hannity or some other Fox show. But as she appears on other shows, as evidenced on Larry King, I think she thinks she can dictate how the interview goes. Sure, you're going to get uncomfortable questions when not surrounded by supporters, but that's how these things work. If you write a book about yourself and start publicizing it at the same time that it's revealed that you made a sex tape, lied about the age at which you made it, then the fact comes out that there could be a couple of dozen of them at a LEGAL age, which you also lied about, you might wind up being in a couple of situations that don't feel so homey.

And her accusations continue to have the mainstream media by the balls. For any criticism by talking heads or news outlets about a Republican or Conservative, especially when that criticism is truly warranted, they are all accused of the "double standard" that Carrie Prejean was whining about. How many times has that idiot already said, "If Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly said some of the things about Michelle Obama or Sonia Sotomayor that Keith Olbermann has said about me, they would be off. The. Air." They know it's coming. They've seen previous interviews. And they know that that pretty, little vacuous head of hers can't hold too much information except for the usual talking points, but do they prepare for a rebuttal?

Something like, "Well, actually, Hannity has constantly taken quotes from Michelle Obama's Princeton thesis completely out of context to make it sound like some racial views she was quoting were her own. Did you know that? Did you watch Fox News Channel at all during the election when pretty much every program was characterizing Michelle Obama as a bitter, militant, angry black woman?" But nothing. Prejean, and every other Republican or Conservative frankly, attacks the non-existent "liberal" media bias and the talking heads walk to the corner with their tails between their legs and don't bother challenging that lie for fear of being labeled "liberal."

But fine. Let them keep propping up Prejean's tome, the life of a 22 year-old beauty pageant queen. Riveting reading. Let Oprah hawk Sarah Palin's new, five chapter book. Then let's see Palin run in 2012. It's a win-win, and you know the GOP is quaking in its shit-kicking boots. If she runs on a Conservative ticket she'll fracture the party and the Democrats win just like NY-23. If the Republicans are stupid enough to nominate her, they'll lose the Independents and the Democrats win. Sit back and think for a minute on a debate between President Obama and Sarah Palin. Oh. My. God.

Do you think he'll have to bone up on some winking and some fancy pageant walkin'?

Rush Blames Liberal Media For His Racist Views

This is truly classic. Rush Limbaugh, syndicated right wing talk show host and all around asshole, has been dropped from the group of investors bidding for a minority stake in the St. Louis Rams. Doesn't that give you a nice, warm, fuzzy feeling?

Of course, Limbaugh, who has always insisted that liberal and progressive media doesn't have an audience is now blaming liberal and progressive media for his demise. And while yesterday he ranted that he would sue anyone that was maligning him for his past statements he deemed false, he hasn't said a word about it today. I suppose his lawyers made it known you can't deny something you said when there is audio and video evidence.

Imbeciles like Sarah Palin's lap dog, John Ziegler are moaning about Limbaugh's 1st Amendment rights. News flash, Ziegler: Rush can say any damned thing he wants, but that doesn't mean he can't be held accountable for it.

You know, things like,

"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL. The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well. There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve. The defense carried this team."

Or...

"Look it, let me put it to you this way. The NFL all too often looks like a game between the Bloods and the Crips without any weapons. There I said it."

And who can forget...

"What do you spend the money on to fight gang violence? Afterschool program -- don't we already have afterschool programs? Don't we already have -- what do you call it, extracurricular events? Midnight basketball -- I mean, we've done it all. We've taken the favorite sport of gangs, and we put it at midnight to get them on the basketball court."

And this is just pertaining to sports. This doesn't even begin to mention his screeds on President Obama. Such hits as "Barack, The Magic Negro," or "Halfrican-American," or "[I]n Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering" or on the Gates controversy: "Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman."

So now the free market capitalists that conservatives love to espouse so much have decided that their business is too important for them to have a scumbag like Limbaugh ruining their image. Suck on it, Rush.

*Artwork couresty of TheDailyPost-It.com

Nope, try again

posted by Armadillo Joe

Apparantly, Keith Olbermann thinks that Rush Limbaugh's kidneys are off-limits:



And I would say to Keith that he can get all sanctimonious about a black comedienne saying something mean about the kidneys of a charter member emeritus of the white plutocratic Establishment to, oh I dunno, let's say um... Michael J. Fox:



Sorry, Keith, but the depth and putresence of Rush's œuvre makes every part of that porcine, drug-addled sex tourist's ample anatomy fair game for mocking and derision. If anything said about his shriveled, diseased body parts happens to shock! shock! the sensibilities of the insulated, fatuous media elite of D.C., well hey... live by the sword, die by the sword, motherfuckers.

Fuck Rush Limbaugh and screw you for taking his side in a fight.

A Case of the Moondays

While Mr. & Mrs. Carl are going three sheets to the wind on Jesus Juice out on "Lawn Guy-Lint" I thought I'd check in and see how things are here in the O-Mania HQ. Look around, see how everyone's doing. Nothing really amiss, I see.

OK, cool. Well, we do have certain standards around here we have to maintain. Since our advanced (possibly terminal) case of Bush Derangement Syndrome compels us to find at least one news story about #43 a week and then highlight it with a generous dollop of East Coast urban hipster elitist snark for humorous effect, here's the news story:

C-SPAN 2009 Historians Presidential Leadership Survey

WASHINGTON — Just days after the nation honored the 200th anniversary of his birth, 65 historians ranked Abraham Lincoln as the nation's best president.

Former President George W. Bush, who left office last month, was ranked 36th out of the 42 men who had been chief executive by the end of 2008, according to a survey conducted by the cable channel C-SPAN.

Bush scored lowest in international relations, where he was ranked 41st, and in economic management, where he was ranked 40th. His highest ranking, 24th, was in the category of pursuing equal justice for all. He was ranked 25th in crisis leadership and vision and agenda setting.

In contrast, Lincoln was ranked in the top three in each of the 10 categories evaluated by participants.

In C-SPAN's only other ranking of presidents, in 2000, former President Bill Clinton jumped six spots from No. 21 to 15. Other recent presidents moved positions as well: Ronald Reagan advanced from No. 11 to 10, George H.W. Bush rose from No. 20 to 18 and Jimmy Carter fell from No. 22 to 25.

This movement illustrates that presidential reputations are influenced by present-day concerns, said survey adviser and participant Edna Medford.

"Today's concerns shape our views of the past, be it in the area of foreign policy, managing the economy or human rights," Medford said in a statement.

After Lincoln, the academics rated George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt and Harry Truman as the best leaders overall. The same five received top spots in the 2000 survey, although Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt swapped spots this year.

Rated worst overall were James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, William Henry Harrison and Warren G. Harding.

The survey was conducted in December and January. Participants ranked each president on a scale of one, "not effective" to 10, "very effective," on a list of 10 leadership qualities including relations with Congress, public persuasion and moral authority.

Here's "The List":



And here's the snark:

See you tomorrow!

Liberal Media's New Version of 'My Pet Goat'

Yesterday, President and Mrs. Obama stopped in on a class of second graders to visit and read a story and answer questions. Although the visit was planned, it was not announced.

The president and first lady Michelle Obama slipped out of the White House early Tuesday and visited second-graders at Capital City Public Charter School, a public school in D.C. "We were just tired of being in the White House," the president candidly told the students. "We got out! They let us out!" Mrs. Obama said as the kids and their teachers laughed. He and his wife read the students a book about the inspirational story of astronauts landing on the moon. He took a class photo, accepted hugs from the children, thanked them for pictures they made him, and even delivered them a couple of brown-paper bags full of books.

Our "liberal" media took the opportunity to make a comparison of this visit with the infamous 'My Pet Goat' Deer-in-the-Headlights - Run-For-Your-Lives debacle on the morning of September 11, 2001.

MSNBC's CONTESSA BREWER: Tamron, this was something of a flashback for many of us. As his nominee for Health Secretary was going down, the first couple paid a surprise visit to a DC charter school to read a book to children.

And Maureen Dowd of the 'liberal' New York Times, had this to say:

On 9/11, President Bush learned of disaster while reading “The Pet Goat” to grade-school kids. On Tuesday, President Obama escaped from disaster by reading “The Moon Over Star” to grade-school kids.

Are these bastions of liberal media, MSNBC and Maureen Dowd*, comparing Obama's visit as HHS nominee Tom Daschle withdrew his name from consideration to the madness of King George sitting in frozen terror for nine minutes while airliners kamikazied the World Trade Center's Twin Towers, the Pentagon and another went down in Pennsylvania?

Did Brewer just compare Tom Daschle "going down" to the airplanes going down? Or just the Towers? Did Dowd compare the 9/11 disaster that killed 3,000 Americans to Daschle's tax "disaster" and infer that Obama took off to a local school in order to avoid it? Even after he went on every major network to express his disappointment and anger but take responsibility for and apologize to the American people? (Something we never saw Bush do in eight long years.)

Boy, we certainly are lucky that we have a liberal media that has President Obama's back. Can you imagine if they were against him?

* That was Dowd's opening paragraph, and it didn't get much better after that.

(H/T Bob Cesca)

Lewis Black - Conservative Media Fights Back

One of my favorite comedians, Lewis Black gives us a quick look at the response to the "liberal bias" in the media. Yeah, I know you're laughing.