Mitt Admits Mandate a Good Thing

Long, long ago, in a fantasy world far, far away (2010), a man named Mitt was trying twisted logic on questions regarding the health care law, insisting that there are differences between Romneycare and Obamacare, but admitting there are similarities and that the mandate is a good thing.

(Via Under the Mountain Bunker)

 

ROMNEY: "The similarities are that we have an incentive to become insured. And the incentive works - we have 98% of our citizens in Massachusetts that are insured, so that's working. Another similarity is you can't be denied insurance coverage because you have a preexisting condition, or if you change jobs you don't need to worry about losing your insurance, so our insurance is entirely portable. Those are perhaps the most important or well known similarities. 

We also have in place an exchange which allows individuals to purchase insurance at very low rates because you have the entire state as a pool of citizens. Everybody's in the insurance pool, as a result the rates are much lower than they otherwise would be."

Okay, let's stop there for a minute.

What's Romneycare's incentive to become insured? The individual mandate, that's what. Logic would dictate that a larger pool of arguably healthier people, whether it be across a state or across the country, would also result in lower rates across the board.

As far as the exchanges that are similar in the plan, it would be nice if Republican governors across the country would actually put them in place as is the law, and not ignore it, thereby ignoring their respective constituents' health care needs. Now, as for the differences...

ROMNEY: "The differences: One is, our plan was a state plan. I believe in Federalism. I believe the 10th Amendment gives to the states the right to create their own health insurance programs rather than have the federal government intrude on the rights of states. That's number one.

Number Two - Ours didn't raise taxes. The President's raises taxes by about a half a trillion dollars. 

Number Three - We didn't cut Medicare. His cuts Medicare by about a half a trillion dollars. 

And one more difference that is a problem from my standpoint is the price controls he puts in place. The government pricing insurance is, in my view, a recipe for difficulty and will end up encouraging the government to get in the insurance business. I think that's a mistake."

Let's go over the "differences" one at a time, shall we?

One: Yes, one the differences is that Mitt's is a state plan. That's the difference between state and federal. As far as the 10th Amendment? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people," though I'm not a Constitutional scholar or a lawyer, it seems to me that Article I, Section 8 supersedes  the 10th Amendment: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and GENERAL WELFARE of the United States..."


Two: Mitt claims his plan didn't raise taxes only because he didn't call his mandate a tax. They called it a penalty. And a quick look at verified Wikipedia information actually calls it a "tax penalty."

"[Romneycare] included tax penalties on residents for failing to obtain an insurance plan and tax penalties on employers for failing to offer an insurance plan to employees. In 2007 Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan which was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax. Beginning in 2008, the penalty became pegged to 50% of the lowest monthly premium for insurance available from [the state's insurance exchange clearinghouse.]"

Three: Medicare was not cut by half a trillion dollars. The savings to Medicare comes from the Medicare Advantage or  Part C overpayments due to their being tied to private insurance carriers.

There is considerable confusion about what the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or ACA) of 2010 did with respect to Medicare Advantage. As part of a broad set of reforms aimed to control the cost of Medicare, the ACA eliminated subsidies which the federal government first used to establish the Medicare Advantage program...  As of 2008, the federal government spent 12 percent more on Medicare Advantage than it did for comparable care under traditional Medicare. These subsidies (which added an additional $14 billion to the Medicare program last year alone) will gradually be reduced until payments to Medicare Advantage are in line with the cost of traditional Medicare.

Traditional Medicare will now cover what Part C did, something that should have happened when it was first implemented.

In any event, Obamacare does not cut Medicare benefits, but you won't hear that from the opposition. They'll just tell you that ACA cuts Medicare by $500 billion as a scare tactic, and not that it saves the government $500 billion in Medicare costs. And these finger pointers are the same people who want Medicare dead in the first place - or have seniors left to their own devices by putting a voucher program in place that wouldn't cover their insurance costs.

Also, Mitt, you didn't cut Medicare because you CAN'T cut Medicare. It's one of those "intrusive federal government programs" you were yapping about when you were going on with the 10th Amendment drivel. But go ahead and ask your state's and the country's seniors how they like that intrusion of their lives.

And finally there's this price control nonsense. I don't understand exactly what he was talking about because it was probably some talking point he spouted out, but my only guess it the ACA's provision that health insurance companies use at least 80% of your premiums on health care costs instead of overhead, advertising and profits. $1.1 billion in insurance rebates are headed our way because of Obamacare. I'll take it.

Cartoon of the Day

It's a Tax, It's a Penalty, It's Both!

Here's Mitt Romney during the 2008 Presidential Primary debates explaining that the mandate in Romneycare for Massachusetts is a good thing.

 

Fast forward four years and one Affordable Healthcare Act constitutionally upheld by the Supreme Court and here's Mitt Romney's Senior Campaign Advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom, outraged at Obama's "tax" and that Romneycare's mandate was a "penalty," not a tax, and twisting himself into a pretzel to describe... I don't know, you tell me.





Here's Mitt Romney 48 hours later, after realizing his message was going against the entire party, which thought beating the "it's a tax" message like a baby seal was good thing, telling us it's a tax.




Sorry Mitt, I know you don't want to stand on anything that you can be called on until after November, but eventually the lies and tangled webs are going to catch up to you.

Happy Independence Day

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.

Yawn of the Day

Huffington Post: Anderson Cooper has, at long last, publicly said he is gay. 

Cooper made the announcement in an email to writer Andrew Sullivan. 

"The fact is, I'm gay, always have been, always will be, and I couldn’t be any more happy, comfortable with myself, and proud," he wrote.

1 - We sorta figured it out a long time ago.

2 - Glad he made it public, but really, who cares?

Must Reads

Katherine Eban: The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal

EJ Dionne: Justice Scalia must resign

PHPGator: I am Republican, prepared to vote for Obama

Definition of Batshit Crazy Wingnuts

What you are about to see is a video of Congressional Rep. Jean Schmidt, Republican from Ohio, when she (as Fox News and CNN did) initially thought that the individual mandate on the Affordable Care Act was struck down by the Supreme Court. Hold on to your seats.

 

This is an elected representative acting like a spoiled child with Tourette Syndrome in public based on what she thought was a decision in favor of her ideology. I wish (and I hope someone has video out there) that we could have seen her reaction when she found out she was wrong. Did she run down the street tearing her hair out? Did she repeatedly slam her head against a wall? Did she self-immolate?

And she wasn't the only one. It seems that other Republican and conservative politicians, talking heads, pundits, bloggers and tweeters were apoplectic and hyperbole doesn't even begin to describe their reaction.

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has vowed to "repeal Obamacare on Day One" of his presidency, as has Republican House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Radio host Michael Savage blamed Chief Justice Roberts' decision on his epilepsy medication.

Rush Limbaugh claimed "a giant, total fraud was perpetrated on this country." I don't remember such a reaction to Citizens United.

Indiana  Congressman Mike Pence compared the expansion of health care coverage to millions of Americans to the biggest terrorist attack on American soil. Yes, 9/11. Seriously.

Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro likened the ruling to the Dred Scott decision. You know, the 1850s ruling that stated people of African descent were property whether or not they were slaves. And he ended his tweet (yes, he tweeted that) with "This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration." Nope. No exaggeration there!

And you have your usual, standard fare racist tweets; a self avowed Christian asking why they should pay for some "dumb nigger['s]" insurance, and one gem blaming "that nigger Coonance Thomas" for the Supreme Court's decision, even though Thomas was one of four who dissented. Classy.

This is what we find not only from fringe wingnuts, but actual mainstream and in some cases duly elected wingnuts. Is mental health covered under Obamacare?

Donate -- YOU

Posted by JHW22

Are you a Democrat who is shy or nervous about talking politics yet you want to play a role in getting Obama re-elected? Well, I have a solution for ya.

You can register at www.barackobama.com and go to "volunteer" and make phone calls from your own home. You will have a simple script and they don't make you ask for money and they don't want you to try to convince anyone to vote for the man. They just want you to reach out and remind people of some of his accomplishments and maybe give some people who are on the fence a chance to talk to someone who is willing to make the time to call. I've done it and it's less intimidating after the first couple of calls. The people are nice or quick to dismiss you. I've never been yelled at and if I were to be, I can just end the call. You can pace yourself and probably find that the more calls you make, the less nervous you feel.

So, if you want to play a part but in a way that's less intimidating, consider this option. It's really easy and makes you feel like you did something productive. And it's free. So if you can't afford a donation, it's perfect!

Middle Ground

POSTED BY JHW22

Studies have shown that Dems/Libs have pretty much been even on their views for the last decades -- in some cases even moving more conservative. Based on policies, votes, etc, we really haven't moved further left or gone extreme.

On the other hand, the GOP/Cons have gone drastically farther right in that time frame.

So, when Dems are consistently representing their views, we appear as extreme as the right just because the debate itself has become so divided. So, when we say that it's hard to find middle ground, or that both parties yadda yadda, it's not always true. In most cases, the left is stating what they've always stated. The right has moved so far away that they changed where the middle is. In some ways it's created a framing problem that implies the left hasn't been cooperative, either.

But we have been and going anymore toward the middle would be us going off the consistent path we've been on.

I will always admit there are times when Dems (whom I know personally and whom I see on the teevee) do or say things that make me cringe and think tit-for-tat or hypocrisy is as unbecoming of us as it is of the right. I refuse to pretend we never do stupid shit that blows our credibility. To ignore when we do stupid shit makes us lose even more credibility.

But overall, the level of extreme stupidity and hypocrisy and dangerous rhetoric and stunting of progress falls wholly on the right.

So my frustration always rests on the passive or the folks who just don't like all the conflict. They pretend it's as much the left's fault as it is the right's. And it's not about sharing blame or properly placing blame or running to mommy and saying, "but they did it, too". What it's about is acceptance of reality. We can't get anywhere if even the sideliners don't accept that the left isn't being extreme. We are being consistent. The left isn't being difficult. We are being fair. The left isn't being combative. We are defending what we have always defended. The right has changed the rules even on those within their own party. The right has forged a new path that changes where the middle is. Just because Dems aren't moving to the new middle does NOT mean we're extreme. We're right where we've been for a long time. People need to stop pretending we are playing a role in divisiveness simply so they can play a responsible role in society.

Dewey Beats Truman!

What happened at Fox News and CNN?!

In what appears to be a case of premature ejaculation on the part of the networks for the intense need to come out with the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act first, they both got it wrong.

 

Now, while I understand the need to put out information as they get it, maybe they could get past the first page of a 50+ page ruling before jumping to conclusions. They were so intent on putting out the news that the individual mandate was not necessarily covered under the Commerce Clause, it is permissible as a tax, and in their haste, they assumed the mandate was struck down and got the story completely wrong. In the case of Fox News, I'm sure it was also a bit of wishful thinking on their part.

As for CNN, they have apologized for the mishap. No so at Fox.

Fox issued a combative statement in which the network claimed they "gave our viewers the news as it happened," and went on to say that CNN's reporting had been worse. CNN issued a statement hours earlier that included a full-throated apology for their misstep.

BREAKING: ObamaCARES UPHELD!!

Posted by JHW22

YES, I saved my Obama mug all week just for today and YES you bet your ass I'm drinking my coffee out of it. :)

UPDATE: 

Quote of the Day

“Journalism in this country has always prided itself on being fearless, independent, willing to push back on government. Now we’re not even willing to push back on our own critics.” 

~Suspended Politico journalist Joseph Williams on the Daily Caller's and Brietbart's Big Journalism bully tactics.

Nora Ephron Dies at 71

People Magazine: Nora Ephron, one of the most powerful figures in Hollywood as the creative force behind such blockbusters as You've Got Mail, Sleepless in Seattle and When Harry Met Sally, died on Tuesday at age 71.

The three-time Oscar nominee died in New York of pneumonia brought on by acute myeloid leukemia, her son Jacob Bernstein tells The New York Times.

Must. See. TV.

If you haven't caught the season premiere of HBO's The Newsroom, you're doing yourself a disservice. Here's part of the opening scene:



Set your DVRs.

UPDATE: For those who don't have HBO, you can view the first episode here.

Must Reads

Dana Milbank: Nothing sweet about heckling Obama in the Rose Garden

Kate Conway: People with Down Syndrome Can Be Jerks, Too

Shaun, Addicting Info: The Right Wing Does Not Understand What Racism Is And What It Isn’t

Justin Rosario: For My Conservative Friend: You’re Asking The Wrong Question.

Margaret and Helen: Vagina is a 6 Letter Word

Jason Easley: 3 Things Barack Obama Did That Ruined Mitt Romney’s Week

Jim Wright: The Real Entitlement Mentality

SCOTUS & American Families

POSTED BY JHW22

Next week the Supreme Court will rule on ObamaCARES.

In case you are wondering what will happen if they rule against it:

• the private policy I have for my son & me will go up several hundred dollars
• if I try to switch plans my son's peanut allergy will be a factor in whether he gets coverage
• my c-section (from 6 years ago) will be a factor in the price of our coverage
• we won't be guaranteed that our annual exams will be covered at 100%
• the website that helped me find the plan we're on now, which is super user-friendly, will go away

So, whether you realize the benefit of ObamaCARES or not, families like ours will notice when our needs are no longer being met. Families like ours will notice when capitalism is tipped away from the consumer and toward a corporate bottom-line yet again.

**UPDATE** in response to a friend who suggested the Public Option:

*IF* SCOTUS gets rid of ObamaCARES, we're not going to be any closer to a public option. Americans may want reformed health care, but they REALLY want jobs and if the message pivots away from jobs (even though health care impacts jobs) Americans will get frustrated. Not only that, the health reform debate dragged on FOREVER and I doubt Americans are going to want to enter that debate again soon enough to make a difference for the families affected by the overturn. If it's overturned now, we still have a R-controlled House. That means until a new House, we won't get ANYTHING, let alone a public option. So between now and January we'd be back to where we started. UNLESS SCOTUS overturned everything but the mandate -- WHICH insurance companies won't want them to do since the mandate is how they pay for all the other parts.

Unless you can see a way for us to replace ObamaCARES with a public option next week, that still doesn't help the immediate problem American families will face.

And unless we can guarantee Obama is re-elected and we give him a mature Congress that would be filibuster-proof, even come January families will likely still be suffering.

A lot of things would have to fall into place for a SCOTUS over-turn to be OK for American families. And a lot of time in between. Some families can't afford that in-between time right now.

President Obama's Weekly Address - June 23, 2012

Congress Must Act on Transportation Bill and Student Loans

President Obama's NALEO Annual Conference Speech

President Obama Speaks at the NALEO Annual Conference

LeRoy Neiman Dies at 91

NY Times: LeRoy Neiman, whose brilliantly colored, impressionistic sketches of sporting events and the international high life made him one of the most popular artists in the United States, died on Wednesday in Manhattan. He was 91.

Don't Be Stupid

I'm tired.

I'm tired of ideologues who insist on absolutely no compromise when it comes to our President. They either have no idea how the world works, or they are so high and mighty/holier than thou, they could care less about reality. They are no better than Grover Norquist tax pledge signing Republicans. And I'm tired of hearing from fellow Democrats or liberals or progressives, PUMAs or whatever they want to call themselves, saying that they're soooo discouraged by President Obama that they're going to show him come November by staying home or refusing to vote for the President. Yeah, that'll show 'em.

They'd rather cut their ideological noses off their idiotic faces and let Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney win the election, than cast a vote for someone who's apparently been such a disappointment in their eyes. You know, because under a Republican president, we would have repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell; because under a Republican president, we would have managed to pass the start of a universal health care system that previous presidents have tried and failed to enact over the last hundred years; because under a Republican president, we would have gotten a law in place protecting pay discrimination toward women in the workplace; because under a Republican president, we would still be in our 29 straight month of private sector job growth after shedding over 800,000 jobs a month by the end of the previous administration.

I could go on, but you get my point. Despite certain disappointments in an ideological fantasy world some of us would love to live in, the fact of the matter is that President Obama has been more successful in pushing a center/left agenda than any previous Democratic president.

I had been thinking about this for a while now and lo and behold, my co-blogger Jennifer, was on the same page and hit the nail on the head with a Facebook update today.

It's been a long time since I've invited people to unfriend me. But if you're a Democrat who would even consider not voting in the Presidential election because you're disappointed in Obama, then you're a disappointment to me and I don't want your energy around here. So, you can unfriend me. It's called time-management.

Unfortunately, someone didn't think her statement through and commented:

Don't forget the importance of listening to opposing/different opinions to avoid being in a self-reinforcing bubble.

Jennifer's response:

I reject the suggestion that I don't listen to opposing/different opinions. I reject the implication that I am in a bubble. Believe me, I hear/read opposing views as much or MORE than I hear agreement. What I clearly stated above is my refusal to make time in my life for people who won't vote for him because of a single issue. I didn't say they have to agree with him on everything. I didn't say that they have to agree with me. I said that anyone who won't vote for him because of an issue, or who would encourage others not to vote because of a single issue, are not worth my time. It has NOTHING to do with disagreement. It has to do with being so fucking stupid as to not vote at all. I really dislike the LEAP from me saying not voting is unacceptable to me saying disagreement is unacceptable. I mean I REALLY dislike that leap. So don't fucking go there with me. 

I have more respect for Republicans who actually believe Romney would be a better choice than I do for Democrats who DON'T FUCKING VOTE! It's about the vote, not the disagreement. GOT IT?! 

And furthermore, just because I don't agree with much of the dissent and disappointment and frustration does not mean I am oblivious, to it, naive to it, in denial of it. Guess what? I can actually disagree with people, too. Just because I am more supportive of Obama doesn't mean I haven't given a great deal of thought and research to each issue. Just because I disagree with the disappointed left doesn't mean I have blocked their reasoning from my life. Just because I filter how much I discuss it does not mean I filter their perspective. I just choose not to waste my time trying to convince Democrats the value of FUCKING VOTING! 

The leap you made is equivalent to people who say gay marriage will lead to man on dog sex. It's ridiculous and unfounded and fucking insulting.

I think Jennifer was insulted.

Let's not forget that a Romney presidency would pretty much destroy the Supreme Court as we know it. Currently, we have eight justices split evenly on the scales of justice with a ninth who straddles the balance point. A spine-shuddering thought like a President Romney might tilt the Supreme Court balance to the ultra-conservative side for the next forty years. Do we really want to add to a Roberts/Scalia/Alito/Thomas style court?

Think about that before you decide to stay home on Election Day to make your fruitless point.

Parody Is Dead...

...at least according to the Fox Nation website.

to·tal·i·tar·i·an·ism: absolute control by the state or a governing branch of a highly centralized institution.

Yes! Lawless! Totalitarianism!

They keep using that word. I don't think it means what they think it means.

Quote of the Day

"What this man did yesterday is something new, to me wrong and unusual. I think it is probably the result of the growing incivility of the times, the competition among reporters and news organizations to be noticed not only for the work product but for the theatrics of the gathering…and there is one more factor, let’s face it: Many on the political right believe this president ought not to be there – they oppose him not for his polices and political view but for who he is, an African American! These people and perhaps even certain news organizations (certainly the right wing talkers like Limbaugh) encourage disrespect for this president. That is both regrettable and adds, in this case, to the general dislike of the press on the part of the general public."

~Sam Donaldson on The Daily Caller's Neil Munro's interuption (some call it heckling) during President Obama's prepared remarks on immigration policy in the Rose Garden.

For those unfamiliar with this reporter's debacle on behalf of Tucker Carlson's hack website, here's some edited video.



Of course, to save what little face he has left, Munro said he mistimed the question, thinking the President was finishing his remarks. The video obviously shows his disrespect and disdain for the Commander in Chief. Had he mistimed his question, it would make sense that he wouldn't continue the interruption after being corrected by President Obama.

How many times are we going to witness the unbelievable disrespect on the part of the right wing and GOP, not only in an attempt to delegitimize President Obama in the eyes of their lemmings, but a continual insolence to the office of the presidency itself? From birthers to tea party troglodytes, it just never stops.

This Quote of the Day was followed up by the Tweet of the Day:



And for those who aren't familiar with that story, I suppose 65 year old Mitt Romney is still in high school prank mode.

Must Reads

Ben Cohen: Is Glenn Greenwald Aware of How Smug he Sounds?

Jess Zimmerman: Giant dog adopts baby chimpanzee

Bob Cesca: Millions of Old People Are Benefitting from Obamacare, But Are Voting for Romney Anyway and A Reality Check in the Progressive Civil War

Mark Gruenberg: Firefighters formally endorse Obama

Jim Wright: The Only Thing To Fear…

Robert Reich: Why The Economy Can’t Get Out of First Gear

Paul Krugman: We Don’t Need No Education

Andy Kroll: Getting Rolled in Wisconsin:  Why Electoral Politics Sold Out the Popular Uprising in the Badger State -- and Why It’s Not All Over

President Obama's Weekly Address - June 16, 2012

Ending the Stalemate in Washington

Another Republican Coward

Former Florida Governor and once Presidential hopeful (until George W. put a stake through the heart of the Bush name) Jeb Bush, was recently in the news doing what some would describe was "standing up" to Grover Norquist and his ridiculous tax pledge...

“If you could bring to me a majority of people to say that we’re going to have 10 dollars of spending cuts for one dollar of revenue enhancement – put me in coach,” Bush told the House Budget Committee. “That would be wonderful. Let’s see it. That’d be spectacular.”

A week later he posited that today's GOP would have been too extreme for his father, George H.W., as well as invoking St. Ronald's name.

"Ronald Reagan would have, based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad – they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party – and I don't – as having an orthodoxy that doesn't allow for disagreement, doesn't allow for finding some common ground," Bush said, according to the website Buzzfeed... 

..."Back to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time – they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan suport," he said. Reagan "would be criticized for doing the things that he did."

But all it took was a little bitchslapping from Norquist to set Jeb back in line and blame partisanship on... you guessed it, President Obama. This despite the fact that unless you've been living under a rock for the last three and a half years to completely miss the overt musings of GOP leaders making an Obama election loss their primary goal, you'd know who was trying to "find common ground" and seek bipartisanship, and who was flipping the bird at compromise.

Earlier Tuesday, Bush used Twitter to say his remarks were taken out of context. He told the AP that he was talking about partisanship in Congress as a whole.

"Both parties are at fault. Rep. Paul Ryan is one of the few who has shown courage. He proposed a well thought-out budget as a starting place for real discussions," Bush told the AP.

"What was he met with - incredible criticism from both parties. But, I hold Democrats more accountable because they control two of the three offices - president & Senate. Over the last four years, they have had multiple opportunities and have opted to take the politically expedient route over working together to find a policy solution."...

..."I don't believe it's a party that doesn't allow for disagreement among members - but that is often what it sounds like," he said.

A spine! A spine! My kingdom for a Republican with a spine!

Quote of the Day

"You can pretty much put their campaign on a tweet and have some characters to spare."

~President Obama on the GOP's campaign tactic for this presidential election.

Breitbart Knight Painting a Photoshopped Video Game Character

Boy, these conservatives sure do love their copyright infringement.

Wonkette: So, you know that painting by David Bugnon of Dead Guy Andrew Breitbart as a Teutonic Knight in Heaven, ready to take on commies, liberal scumbags, and innocent Department of Agriculture employees from beyond the grave?... The painting which The Patriot Update bravely calls, “The Painting Obama Fears?” Yeah, it’s not so much a painting as a Photoshop mashup of a stock photo of Andrew Breitbart and a character from the copyrighted computer game Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood, with a pretty sunset-and-clouds background that probably also came from some stock photo website — no doubt somebody will find that soon, too.

Must Reads

Theresa Riley: How to Spot Income Inequality From Space? Count the Trees

Greg Sargent: Mitt Romney: We don’t need more cops, firefighters or teachers

Pat Garofalo: Governor Christie Cheers Firing Of Public Employees: ‘That’s The Right Direction’

Christopher Brauchli: The Nuns, the Butler and the Pope

Jill W. Klausen: David Axelrod Got It All Wrong: How He, The President, And All Progressives Need To Address Obama's Economic Record

Justin Rosario: Standard Right Wing Propaganda: Evolution Disproves Homosexuality! Not That Evolution Is True…

President Obama's Weekly Address - June 9, 2012

Congress Must Act to Keep Our Teachers On The Job

Context, ladies

POSTED BY JHW22

OK, I've had a couple of days now where I accidentally watched Andrea Mitchell and only just saved my TV by putting heavy objects away before throwing them at her.

Today's "WHY THE FUCK AM I WATCHING THIS?!?!" moment was when Andrea and two other female journalists (I think Ruth Marcus and another gal whose name escapes me) were going ON AND ON about the Obama ad with Sarah Jessica Parker. You'd think the campaign broke some advertising 101 rule or something. You'd think the Obama campaign just ran an ad worse than the Daisy ad or the sheep with glowing eyes ad or the "I'm not a witch" ad (side note: that "I'm not a witch" ad STILL makes me think of "I'm not a witch, I'm your wife"). Anywho, Andrea and crew acted as if going the celebrity route was the horror of campaign ad horrors.

But just now, while watching Lawrence O'Donnell, I learned that the SJP ad was aired during... THE MTV MOVIE AWARDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As someone who worked in advertising, let me just say that the ad was great, for starters, because it encourages people to A) Donate B) Register at the Obama site and C) Stars a WOMAN that many WOMEN based years of their lives' schedules around. Genius. Now to learn it was aired to target the YOUTH VOTE, I want to find every object in my house and throw them at my TV posthumously for Andrea and ladies being so CLUELESS.

It was a GENIUS ad. A GENIUS ad buy. The only people who didn't "get" that? Three old white ladies who didn't watch MTV even when it HAD music.

Can You Get It Painted on Velvet?

What a waste of artistic talent.

Via Wonkette: Patriot Depot, supplies for the conservative revolution, has what you crave, and that is seven different versions of this amazing portrait of Ghost Andrew Breitbart titled Fight. You could buy it in a pack of post cards; you could buy a giclee print; you could buy a $49.95 version, or a $3,999.95 version...

I can't wait for the artist, David Bugnon, to create his next masterpiece, James O'Keefe in a Brunhilda costume.

This monstrosity is almost as awesome as Jebus holding the Declaration of Independence or President Obama burning the Constitution.

Must Reads

Dana Milbank: A new conspiracy theory: Is Romney a unicorn?

Eugene Robinson: Romney plays his Trump card

Ed Kilgore: Sauce for Gander

Bill Moyers and Michael Winship: Pity the Poor Billionaires

Jim Wright: Things That Chap My Ass About Facebook

Johan Santana Pitches 1st Mets No-Hitter

President Obama's Weekly Address - June 2, 2012

It’s Time for Congress to Get to Work

Why Won't Romney Talk About His Tenure as Massachusetts Governor?

More like this, please.



The one time he was actually a government executive, as Governor of Massachusetts, is off the radar for the Romney campaign when he touts his experience. Why? Because he sucked at it, that's why. You can thump your chest about the successes of vulture capitalism all you want, Mitt, but when the shit hits the fan, you can't sell off Alabama or Louisiana because they cost more in federal tax dollars than they take in.

What will you do then? Add "fees" instead of raise "taxes"?

ADDING... The only good thing he did while Governor of MA was Romneycare, which he's trying to run away from as fast as possible. We are really deep through the looking glass, huh folks?

Socialist Jon Stewart is Back!

After a two week hiatus, The Daily Show came back with guns blazing! Enjoy.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Is Mitt Romney's Birth Certificate Fake?

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Yesterday, as a cherry on the top of clinching the Republican nomination and playing grab ass with billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson and not really reality TV host Donald Trump, Mitt Romney released his birth certificate.

Was it a Romney wink of the eye to the Birther crowd and a jab in the eye to President Obama while in the middle of a .0001Percenter circle jerk with Adelson and Donald "Obama was born in Kenya" Trump? No, says the Romney campaign, they were responding to a reporter's request from the previous day.

But let's take a look at this document, shall we?



1- Clearly, this is not the original. It's a copy that was issued on January 18, 2012. Where is the original?

2 - I think the request was for Mitt Romney's "Birth Certificate," not "Certificate of Live Birth" as is displayed on the title. What is Mitt Romney trying to hide?

3 - Mitt's father, George Romney was born in Mexico. Does that mean George Romney was actually a Mexican citizen and not a US citizen? If so, why is Mitt eligible?

4 - This is a short-form copy. Where is the long-form birth certificate? Why should this short-form be sufficient?'

Again, I don't buy it. I'll need to see Mitt Romney's original, long-form birth certificate with a raised seal before I find another reason not to believe the piece of crap above is a forgery.

Attention, Donald Trump...

...if you have questions about President Obama's place of birth, then by definition, you are a Birther. Trying to qualify it is nonsense.

"A lot of people are questioning his birth certificate," Trump said on CNBC on Tuesday. "They're questioning the authenticity of his birth certificate." 

"I've been known as being a very smart guy for a long time. I don't consider myself birther or not birther but there are some major questions here and the press doesn't want to cover it," he said.

Douchenozzle.


ADDING...

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

Wait, WHAT!?

POSTED BY JHW22

Remember when West Virginia election results were reported as "an inmate got almost as many votes as Obama in the Dem primary"? Why didn't we hear that Obama got almost as many votes as ALL the GOP candidates COMBINED and that the inmate only got 5,000 votes fewer than Romney?

State results are oh, so interesting.

The Mitt App

I thought Mitt Romney was running for President of America. Where's Amercia?





UPDATE: I downloaded the app to make sure it wasn't a bad joke. And yes, this is legit.

Here's one I took myself:

Quote of the Day

"I guess I'm known as a RINO now, which means a Republican in name only, because, I guess, of social views, perhaps, or common sense would be another one, which seems to escape members of our party. For heaven’s sake, you have Grover Norquist wandering the earth in his white robes saying that if you raise taxes one penny, he’ll defeat you. He can’t murder you. He can’t burn your house. The only thing he can do to you, as an elected official, is defeat you for reelection. And if that means more to you than your country when we need patriots to come out in a situation when we’re in extremity, you shouldn’t even be in Congress." 

~Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.)

Immune To Facts

Usually, I don't read or post comments on YouTube under President Obama's weekly addresses because they are filled with moronic, non-thinking statements - and really, who wants to be subjected on a Saturday morning to the fact that almost half the country's citizens are either brainwashed by the Fox News/Rush Limbaugh faction, or are complete morons, idiots and racists, or a combination of all of the above?

But after watching President Obama's innocuous address today regarding the remembrance of our troops on this Memorial Day weekend, I went against my better judgment and decided to see who could possibly disagree with the President on something as nonpartisan as "supporting the troops." That was my first mistake. The vitriol was palpable, you know, because there are those who insist on disagreeing with the President about everything. And so after reading a few comments from the Obama haters, I had to chime in and got into a debate with another commenter.

The following is what I can put together in hopefully the correct chronological order. I've also included links to references I made that aren't allowed in YouTube comments.

Broadway Carl: It's pretty amazing to see such ridiculously nasty comments regarding this particular video message. The hatred against this President astonishes me, even when he's making a statement about honoring the fallen on Memorial Day; a simple, mundane message that has been repeated by every President before our current one. And yet some will call this political exploitation. Those same idiots would also criticize him had he not made this type of statement. Q: How do you live with such hatred day to day? 

Joey Juarez 1: To quote Queen Moochelle Obama, it sounds like for the first time in your adult life, you are proud of your country, Carl...and what is amazing is that this president will single-handedly bring this country to it's knees and you don't care at all about that... 

BC: People like you say stuff like that all the time, joeyjuarez1, but you never have any facts to back it up. President Obama will "single-handedly bring this country to its knees"? How? By saving the auto industry? By destroying Al-Qaeda? By cutting taxes for 95% of all Americans? By stopping us from going over the financial cliff we were headed for? Prove it and stop talking in simplistic GOP/Fox News talking points. Don't just parrot what someone else says because you want to believe it, prove it. 

JJ1: He "saved" the auto industry???? Dude, he threw tens of thousands of non-union auto workers under the bus! Now that $85 million dollar bail out is part of the $6 Trillion dollar debt that he's racked up "single-handedly"!! AND he brags about it! 

BC: Auto bailout facts from 8/25/11 LA Times: "After a massive restructuring and several high-profile bankruptcies, a leaner, more aggressive auto industry is making a comeback, hiring workers and ramping up manufacturing plants. From a trough 2 years ago, Ford, General Motors, Chrysler and other auto companies have added almost 90K manufacturing jobs, a 14% increase, according to federal employment data." 

Every economist agrees over one million manufacturing related jobs were saved.

JJ1: Oh, wow...this dude...the LA Times?? The articles says "TAXPAYERS bailed out much of the U.S. auto industry. Now the CARMAKERS MIGHT be what saves the nation's economy from falling back into recession." Remove your blind Choombama cataracts and put your glasses on and learn to read and not "spin" the facts...what a liberal!

I'll pause at this point to point out that he's called me "dude" twice, referred to Michelle Obama as "Queen Moochelle," apparently in reference to the false meme that she's some kind of moocher, and now calls President Obama "Choombama." I don't even know what the fuck that means. But we continue:

BC: Yes, I used the conservative LA Times to make a point. And I did point out the article is 9 months old. But who made the decision? And if it was such a bad one, why is Romney trying to take credit for it when he originally wrote an op-ed titled, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt"? And before you say that it was structured bankruptcies that he was in favor of, remember that there was no private equity flowing - even Bain passed on it. So the government was the only solution. Hell, even Bush knew that.

JJ1: He destroyed Al-Qaeda (this from a man who didn't want them referred to as "terrorists")...he is sending 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS in military aid to the Muslim Brotherhood...and the terrorism continues...


BC: If you're going to claim funds going to the Muslim Brotherhood, you should read up on these pesky little things called facts instead of Breitbart or Beltway Pundit.
 

From The Guardian: "US officials and lawmakers said Sec of State Clinton has determined that it's in the US national interest to allow $1.3 billion in military assistance to flow. She also certified that Egypt is meeting its obligations to the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty, which frees up an additional $200 mil in economic aid... All of the $1.3 billion in foreign military financing is obligated to pay U.S. defense and security companies for contracts they have to supply equipment and support for the Egyptian military." 

So no, it's not going to the Muslim Brotherhood. Good try, though.

 

Need I mention Osama Bin Laden is dead? Maybe, but I didn't.

JJ1: There you go, leaving out facts to "spin" the article your way once again...the beginning of the article says: "The OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TOLD CONGRESS on Thursday it will waive democracy requirements to release up to $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt despite concerns that the country is backsliding on commitments it made to democratic governance and rule of law." Read and don't spin, stupid!

BC: Continue reading, jackass. It's going to US contractors. "All of the $1.3 billion in foreign military financing is obligated to pay U.S. defense and security companies for contracts they have to supply equipment and support for the Egyptian military." Not the government, not the Muslim Brotherhood, the military.
 

My main point remains: the guy can't even commend the troops on Memorial Day without guys like you criticizing it as some ulterior motive. You'd think everyone would agree with something so nonpartisan, but no. Hate and fear trumps even thanking the troops.

JJ1: Carl, buddy, you're missing the point...this guy has lied over and over and over again that when we see him on camera, when we hear his lying voice and false words filled with false promises, we can't help but scorn everything that comes out of his mouth...like one politician stated to Choombama 'YOU LIE!!!" and he continues to lie and you believe him... 

BC: Joey, I'm asking you to show me what he's lied about. Give me one example where he's been caught in a red handed lie, you know, like Romney saying Obama has "doubled the deficit." Just give me a few examples if he's lied so much. 

JJ1: So, Carl, do you REALLY think that Obama has our best interests at heart? Are you really buying into the lie that things are getting better? One only needs to look around and see what is really going on all around us...businesses closing down, multiple families living together to make ends meet, not being able to travel across town to see relatives because gas is too high, opting for no-name brand products at grocery stores, less out-to-eat evenings or "sharing plates" at restaurants...really? 

BC: Yes, I do. Maybe it's not as fast as we'd like, but things are getting better. Unemployment is slowly coming down. The only reason it isn't lower is because public sector work is being slashed, you know, that "smaller government" stuff. We were losing 700,000 jobs a month 3½ years ago. Stock market is up 5000 points in the last 3 years. Retail and growth are up. Gas prices are down from this time last year and have dropped the last seven weeks in a row (not that any administration can affect gas prices directly, that's just another straw man argument). 

JJ1: The WSJ: Number of the Week: Half of U.S. Lives in Household Getting Benefits - "As of early 2011, 15% of people lived in a household that received food stamps, 26% had someone enrolled in Medicaid and 2% had a member receiving unemployment benefits. Families doubling up to save money or pool expenses also is likely leading to more multigenerational households. But even without the effects of the recession, there would be a larger reliance on government." 

The Census data show that 16% of the population lives in a household where at least one member receives Social Security and 15% receive or live with someone who gets Medicare. There is likely a lot of overlap, since Social Security and Medicare tend to go hand in hand, but those percentages also are likely to increase as the Baby Boom generation ages.

With increased government spending comes the need to pay for it, and if taxes aren’t going to increase that means deficits. Nearly three-quarters of Americans blame the U.S. budget deficit on spending too much money on federal programs, according to a Gallup poll last year, but when the conversation turns to which programs to cut, the majorities are harder to find. For example, 56% of respondents oppose making significant changes to Social Security or Medicare.

The more people who receive benefits, the harder it’s going to be to make cuts, and it’s never popular to raise taxes. In some respects that argues for letting a combination of tax increases and spending cuts that is set to automatically hit in 2013 take effect. There’s just one problem: the Congressional Budget Office says it would sink the economy into recession.

BC: I agree with your entire last comment. So where is the lie? The CBO also says that Obama's current budget would decrease the debt by $2 trillion over 10 years, while Romney's would raise the debt $5 trillion over the same period. But it's Obama that's pointed to as spending like a drunken sailor when he's lowered the budget each of the last three years.  

JJ1: The Food Stamp President 

BC: So those people that you just used as an example of things not getting better, you'd cut off their government assistance until they get back on their feet? 

JJ1: Senator Obama crossed the country promising that his campaign, and administration would be the most transparent in history. He promised that he wouldn’t allow lobbyists in his staff, or money in his funds. That was in 2007, as it stands today the President has accepted millions of dollars from lobbyists and special interest groups. The President even took it one step farther by appointing many of those lobbyists into positions of power and influence. 

BC: I'm not entirely happy with it, but hey, it's politics.  

"...another watchdog, Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center, praised Obama’s rules as “a good starting place” and urged patience in judging their efficacy. 

“Any good set of ethics rules has the opportunity for waivers, but if the waivers become the rule, rather than the exception, then you have to look at whether the waivers are being sought too frequently or whether there’s a problem with the rule. I don’t think we’re at that point yet.”

I did fail to mention that, while not as transparent as we hoped the Obama administration would be, there's no doubt that they've been more transparent than any previous administration has been. I also didn't bring up the "No lobbyists" rule was defined as no one who'd been a lobbyist the previous two years - with few exceptions that continues to be the case. And while I may consider it a "promise broken," I wouldn't call it an outright lie. Lies are intentionally told to conceal something or to malign another. But I digress...

JJ1: "President Obama falsely claimed that no Republicans in the Senate voted for the payroll tax cut. “Virtually every Senate Republican voted against the tax cut last week,” he told reporters. 

There's only one huge problem. The statement is completely false. According to the Senate Roll Call, twenty Republicans voted for the measure to proceed, including Idaho's Mike Crapo and James Risch. On the other hand, every Democrat but one voted against it." 

BC: Don't try conflating the two separate bills (I know it's not you necessarily, but the author of the article you site). 

S. 1917 (Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2011) was a 51-49 vote. No Republican voted for it. 

S.1931, which the author tries to confuse the reader with, could be more accurately described as ONLY 20 Republican Senators voted for it. It failed 20-78, which means 27 Republican Senators voted AGAINST it, with all the rest of the Democrats. 

JJ1: Carl, vote for Obama in Nov 2012, ok...you are all too happy to do so...thank you for contributing to the ruin of the lives of the American people...we thank you so much...your blind eyes will never let you see...your drone mind will never change...continue to support this sheep in wolves clothing...not until all of American's cities turn into what Detroit is today will you fully understand what will happen if this man stays in office...good luck... 

BC: I will, and you'll thank your lucky stars in avoiding a President Romney who says things depending on which way the wind blows any given day. Thanks for having the conversation though. I appreciate it. Good luck.

And there you have it. My good faith attempt to try and enlighten the unenlightenable. Faced with facts, JJ1 decides to give up and thank me for dooming the future of the country with my intended vote for President Obama in November. I'll never waste my time like that again.