Fuzzy memory

Why do Mitt Romney's handlers believe that having Mitt deny that he remembers incidents of bullying  (in particular, we are talking about an incident at Cranbrook School in 1965 in which Romney led a gang of his asshole friends in an assault on a classmate in which Romney held the boy down and cut his hair) make the situation better for Romney or somehow absolve Mittens of guilt or responsibility? (Well, guilt. Cranbrook School absolved Romney of responsibility in 1965.)

I suppose claiming not to remember allows for a tiny possibility that the event never happened, even though Romney didn't deny that it did and has, finally, apologized for it. But anyone who follows politics, reads the news or has a brain realizes there's a difference between claiming not to remember  an event and denying that it took place.

Don't you find it strange that Romney would apologize for an incident that he claims not to remember? If someone accused you of assaulting another person and you didn't remember doing so, wouldn't you first deny the accusation and apologize only after it had been confirmed that you actually did commit the assault? (And then address whatever is wrong with you that you have no memory of such an incident?)

That seems to be the normal course of action that a normal person would normally take. Unless the person was drunk at the time of the incident. Then there's at least some explanation for why the person cannot recall the incident. But the last thing candidate Romney needs is another thing in common with George W. Bush.

Speaking of explanations, why doesn't Romney remember assaulting a classmate? As BooMan points out, none of the other people who witnessed and/or participated in the bullying have any trouble remembering the incident. Is it that such callous, chickenshit acts of bullying were so routine for Romney that this particular one doesn't stand out in his memory? Or is it that Romney was so unmoved by the incident that it failed to make a lasting impression on him? Or is it that Romney has done so many dickish things in the past that, even though he claims to have no recollection of this event whatsoever, it's entirely possible that this happened exactly as five witnesses recall? BooMan's right: whatever the answer, it points to a serious character flaw in Mittens.

All of this is pretty much academic, however, because everyone knows Mittens probably does remember leading a group of his douchebag prep-school friends to attack a weaker, outnumbered and basically defenseless classmate because the boy's haircut was an affront to Romney, and that Romney's claim of a convenient memory lapse is just bullshit political damage control. But as I see it, saying you don't remember a bullying incident just makes things worse. Imagine how refreshing the truth -- an honest admission of guilt and a sincere apology -- would have been, especially from a candidate struggling to appear human.

How they voted

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
I Give Up - 9/11 Responders Bill
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Tea Party

on HR 847 to provide health care to 9/11 rescue workers.

Because not everyone will click through to see the shameful list of assholes, here are the 159 no voters. Of these, 155 are Republicans and four are Democrats (the Democrats are in bold).

Aderholt, Alexander, Austria, Bachmann, Bachus, Barrett (SC), Bartlett, Barton (TX), Bean, Berry, Biggert, Bilbray, Bilirakis, Bishop (UT), Blackburn, Blunt, Boehner, Bonner, Bono Mack, Boozman, Boustany, Brady (TX), Bright, Broun (GA), Brown (SC), Brown-Waite Ginny, Buchanan, Burgess, Burton (IN), Buyer, Calvert, Camp, Campbell, Cantor, Capito, Carter, Cassidy, Castle, Chaffetz, Coble, Coffman (CO), Cole, Conaway, Cooper, Crenshaw, Culberson, Davis (KY), Diaz-Balart L., Diaz-Balart M., Djou, Dreier, Duncan, Ehlers, Emerson, Fallin, Flake, Fleming, Forbes, Fortenberry, Foxx, Franks (AZ), Gallegly, Garrett (NJ), Gerlach, Gingrey (GA), Gohmert, Goodlatte, Granger, Graves (GA), Graves (MO), Hall (TX), Harper, Hastings (WA), Heller, Hensarling, Herger, Hunter, Inglis, Issa, Jenkins, Johnson (IL), Johnson Sam, Jordan (OH), King (IA), Kingston, Kline (MN), Lamborn, Latham, LaTourette, Latta, Lee (NY), Lewis (CA),Linder, Lucas, Luetkemeyer, Lummis, Lungren Daniel E., Mack, Manzullo, Marchant, McCaul, McClintock, McCotter, McHenry, McKeon, McMorris Rodgers, Mica, Miller (FL), Miller Gary, Myrick, Neugebauer, Nunes, Olson, Paul, Paulsen, Pence, Petri, Pitts, Platts, Poe (TX), Posey, Price (GA), Putnam, Rehberg, Reichert, Roe (TN), Rogers (AL), Rogers (KY), Rogers (MI), Rohrabacher, Rooney, Ros-Lehtinen, Roskam, Royce, Ryan (WI), Scalise, Schmidt, Schock, Sensenbrenner, Sessions, Shimkus, Shuster, Simpson, Smith (NE), Smith (TX), Stearns, Sullivan, Terry, Thompson (PA), Thornberry, Tiberi, Turner, Upton, Walden, Westmoreland, Whitfield, Wilson (SC), Wittman, Wolf.

The Democrats used a procedural tactic that prevented Republicans from adding all kinds of bullshit, pro-wealthy amendments to the very popular bill, which would have made it all but impossible for Democrats to vote against said amendments. But that tactic also requires a 2/3 vote for the bill to pass. So even though the vote was 255-159 in favor, the bill required 285 votes to pass. Sure, the tactic made it harder to get the bill passed, but getting Republicans to do the right thing shouldn't be so hard. This bill was a slam-dunk, but without amendments giving away what's left of the national treasury to the already super-rich, this bill just didn't seem like a good idea to Republicans. It's just more evidence that, unless you have obscene amounts of money, Republicans don't give a shit about you.

The procedural tactic isn't the reason the bill didn't pass. The 159 assholes who voted against it are the reason it didn't pass.

The 14th Amendment

I don't do this often, but I think I might agree with morons (or whores, depending on your view of the sincerity of their publicly proclaimed positions). Maybe Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl and so many other conservative dumbasses and lunatics are right: Maybe it is time to review the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, quit pussy-footing around the issue, bitches. Quit your cowardly floating of trial ballons and checking of polls. Let's repeal the fucker.

After all, why should U.S. citizenship be accorded to just anyone? To people who, through no effort or accomplishment of their own, just happen to be born within the borders of the United States? Since when do we just give away shit for free in this country? Citizenship isn't a right, it's a privilege. It's a responsibility that requires knowledge of our history and hard work to stay informed about issues affecting this great nation today. How could an uninformed citizenry possibly be effective stewards of our democracy? How could an ignorant, disinterested electorate keep its leadership honest and strike fear into a corrupt government? How could a lazy, apathetic public be anything more than a punch line, allowing thieving criminals with their hands on the levers of power to begin their lies with the phrase, "The American people ..."?

Citizenship is a serious responsibility that shouldn't be trusted to just anyone. If you can't be bothered to stay informed about the issues facing this country and protect it from those who would do it harm for personal gain; if you are too busy to learn the history of the nation you purport to love; if you are here just to take what you can from this country for yourself with no regard for it or anyone else who lives here; if you can't name the three branches of our government; if you couldn't pass what amounts to a high school civics pop quiz; then please explain to me why you deserve citizenship.

And don't hand me any of that shit about "my parents were here legally." This isn't about their citizenship, it's about yours. So what have you done to deserve to be an American citizen? And remember, if we repeal the 14th Amendment, being born here ain't gonna cut it no more.

If the extent of your commitment to this country is to fly American flags on your vehicle, find somewhere else to live. If you think patriotism is a weapon for divisiveness in a country founded on the virtue of tolerance by people fleeing persecution, if you think loving your country means hating others, get the fuck out of my country. You're too fucking stupid to live here.

No more free rides and no more getting credit for your parents' circumstances. If you want to be an American citizen, earn it. It's the American way.

Another fake controversy debunked

Remember the e-mails that proved climate scientists exaggerated the threat of global warming for ... uh, in order to ... I have no idea why?

Well...

The controversy known as "climategate" erupted in November 2009 with the publication of more than 1,000 e-mails to and from scientists at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia in eastern England.

The e-mails, dating back to 1996, were published on Web sites run by climate change skeptics who claim efforts had been made to manipulate data to exaggerate the threat of global warming.

The head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, stepped down from his post while reviews were conducted. It was announced Wednesday that Jones would return to the role of Director of Research at the university after an independent review cleared the CRU of manipulating or falsifying data.

"We concluded that these behaviors did not damage our judgment of the integrity, the honesty, the rigor with which they had operated as scientists," said the review's chairman Muir Russell.

In early July, an investigation by Penn State University into one of the authors of the e-mails, Professor Michael Mann, found that he had not strayed from accepted practices for "proposing, reporting or conducting research."

I hope this is the last we hear of a group of people with a political and/or financial agenda falsifying facts to exaggerate a controversy.

Their real goal

with programs like NCLB, "issues" like gay marriage, networks like Fox News and amendments like this is to try to keep us ignorant. The less informed and more distracted from the real issues we are, the more crimes they can get away with.

Scalpers

In Congress, selling Sox-Nationals tickets at a hefty markup. Oh yeah, the tickets come with the access that lobbyists crave.

When the Boston Red Sox come to Washington next week for a three-game interleague series, they’ll bring one of baseball’s best records and an impassioned Northeastern fan base. They’ll also bring in a major league cash haul for members of Congress.

More than a dozen lawmakers — including seven from Massachusetts and its neighboring states (aka Red Sox Nation) — have scheduled fundraisers at Nationals Park when the Sox come to town to play the cellar-dwelling Washington Nationals.

For between $1,500 and $5,000, lobbyists and political action committee managers can take in a game and a beer with a powerful lawmaker who controls the fate of legislation they’re paid to sway.

Donors who give $5,000 to Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) get two tickets to the game, plus the chance to watch batting practice from the exclusive President’s Club seating area beforehand, according to his invitation. Rep. Jim Langevin (D-R.I.) says donors will enjoy a pregame “dinner reception at the President’s Club, then enjoy the game in the best seats in the house — behind home plate!”

Langevin — a big Sox fan, according to his spokeswoman, Joy Fox — quickly sold out 50 tickets for between $1,500 and $2,500 a pop. Not a bad markup, when you consider the face value was $200 each.

Seriously, why don't you whores just put on some fishnets and stroll the streets and get it over with?

How underwhelming

You mean a lifelong politician is making a move to protect his own self-interest? Big deal.

Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter will switch his party affiliation from Republican to Democrat and announced today that he will run in 2010 as a Democrat, according to a statement he released this morning.

Do you think this had anything to do with his decision?

Specter as a Democrat would also fundamentally alter the 2010 calculus in Pennsylvania as he was expected to face a difficult primary challenge next year from former Rep. Pat Toomey. The only announced Democrat in the race is former National Constitution Center head Joe Torsella although several other candidates are looking at the race.

Arlen realizes that he can't beat Toomey in the GOP primary and that a Republican can't win the general election. So he did what he had to do to get re-elected, just like he's been doing for decades. Those of us who remember Specter's chameleon act in 2004 -- Specter went from running TV ads during the primary (when he barely beat Toomey) in which he bragged about his loyalty to George Bush (and was shown walking alongside Bush) to spotlighting the instances when he voted against Bush policies during the general election -- are not suprised by this move. Specter explains the switch by saying all the standard stuff about "political philosophy," but this is really about only one principle: that it's better to win re-election than to lose.

If Specter really feels that his "political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans," as he says, then that should be reflected in the way he votes. Let's wait and see. Given that Specter has already said that he hasn't changed his "thinking" on the Employee Free Choice Act, I'm not optimistic that we're going to see much of a change in Specter. And if that turns out to be the case, his switching parties is nothing more than an opportunist seizing opportunity.

UPDATE: The change in Specter is pretty dramatic so far. I wonder how much longer Republicans will be able to feign anger over the "defection" without laughing.

UPDATE 2: Specter's first vote as a "Democrat." It's uncanny how much his "political philosophy" is "more in line with Democrats than Republicans."

The party of stupid

Krugman:

Know-nothingism — the insistence that there are simple, brute-force, instant-gratification answers to every problem, and that there’s something effeminate and weak about anyone who suggests otherwise — has become the core of Republican policy and political strategy. The party’s de facto slogan has become: “Real men don’t think things through.”

In the case of oil, this takes the form of pretending that more drilling would produce fast relief at the gas pump. In fact, earlier this week Republicans in Congress actually claimed credit for the recent fall in oil prices: “The market is responding to the fact that we are here talking,” said Representative John Shadegg.

What about the experts at the Department of Energy who say that it would take years before offshore drilling would yield any oil at all, and that even then the effect on prices at the pump would be “insignificant”? Presumably they’re just a bunch of wimps, probably Democrats.

In the Republican worldview, everything is black and white, and stopping to think before doing things like drilling holes that you KNOW won’t produce oil for years or even starting a war is weak-willed hand wringing.

So why are Republicans gushing about offshore drilling, even though the U.S. Dept. of Energy’s Energy Information Administration says, “access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030”? That's exactly why. You don’t think Republicans are in a hurry to take a real bite out of the hands that feed them, do you? No, they’d rather take a fake bite and bullshit voters into believing that it’s a real bite.

And the bullshit campaign is starting to pay off. A recent poll shows that 51 percent of voters now believe that offshore drilling will have a significant impact on oil prices within a year, even though both George Bush and John McCain have said that the only short-term impact of drilling would be “psychological.”

Plus, Republicans finally found a talking point that stuck. After months of failed narritives, Republicans have finally realized that it’s the economy, stupid, that voters care about. It’s hard to blame them for taking their time in getting around to economic issues, considering who is responsible for the current state of the economy. (Remember that $128 billion surplus someone inherited?) So after months of bragging about the alleged success of "the surge" to a war-weary public and accusing Obama of being a “celebrity” in the mold of Britney Spears and Paris Hilton, the GOP finally hit a nerve. And all they had to do was take advantage of the desperate by telling them what they desperately want to hear: That there’s a simple, immediate answer to their trouble that won’t cost them anything.



(And while we’re at it, John McCain is going to eliminate the deficit without raising taxes. Yeah, that’s going to happen.)

So Krugman says that the Republican party is the party of stupid, but he’s only talking about the simple-minded solutions the GOP offers to problems facing the American people. But I will go a step further and say that Republicans count on stupid. They need stupid. Stupid is as essential to their success as fundraising. They need voters to believe bullshit, like Hurricane Katrina caused no oil spills and that offshore drilling is the immediate answer to skyrocketing fuel prices. That’s why Fox News is so important to the Republican party: it’s williness to say anything, to repeat any lie — no matter how ridiculous — to support the GOP narrative. More to the point, Fox News is important to Republicans because it helps keep people stupid.

Source
It’s significant, I think, that for the Republican party, simple-mindedness is reserved only for policy positions. They’re quite shrewd when it comes to campaigning, election tampering and disseminating talking points. Which leads me to believe that these are the areas where they are focusing their attention, and that they aren’t interested in solutions to the problems of American people. They’re interested in power, not governing.

American pariah

Big deal, lots of people want to be on American Idol. You’ve seen the length of those lines at the auditions.

Nigel, 58, also spilled that during the planning for the second annual Idol Gives Back fundraising special, which aired in April, America’s biggest TV show had a spat with no less a power than the White House!

He said that the show’s producers were so disappointed with President Bush’s efforts to combat the very poverty that the show was trying to relieve that they were embarrassed to have him on their TV show.

But Nigel said that Idol relented under pressure from the Pres's people, and allowed him to speak during the star-studded broadcast.

“The President is always saying ‘I want to be on [Gives Back],” said the Brit.

“We didn't ask the President this year to say anything because we are all a bit embarrassed about him, and the office insisted that, because the [primary] candidates were on it, the President would like to come on and say ‘thank you.’"

Of course Bush begged to appear on Idol Gives Back. Given that Bush has done exactly nothing about poverty in eight years, the television show appearance is basically his entire anti-poverty agenda.

Seriously, Bush just wants to be seen in the context of caring about poverty, and near people who are doing something about it. It’s all part of the stagecraft, the appearance of action and results in place of actual action and results, that has marked his entire term in office. In short, it’s insincere bullshit, backed up by nothing.

UPDATE: I agree with Richard Clarke.

Governing, GOP style

This is what passes for governing in the Republican party.

“The goal is for a theme (e.g. climate bill = higher gas prices) each day, and the focus is much more on making political points than in amending the bill, changing the baseline text for any future debate, or affecting policy.”

Those who have no substantive ideas of their own, no will to address the issues facing the American people or the planet, and are tasked only with protecting at all costs the broken, failed status quo and the people who benefit from it have no other recourse but to obstruct the path of those working toward progress.

Whether or not you support partisan gameplaying such as this, if you vote for a Republican, this is exactly what you’re voting for. You’re enabling this instead of progress.

Next time you’re bitching about how Congress never seems to get anything done, remember this GOP memo. Remember the 109th Congress. Remember who is responsible.

Happy Mother’s Day

Happy Mother’s Day Mom, and to all mothers everywhere.

Speaking of mothers, people often say Republicans would sell their mothers for political gain, and it appears they’re right.

Mamas, don’t let your babies grow up to be Republicans.

Supporting the troops

Global warming denier James Inhofe lacks the courage of his dumbass convictions.

Impeachment

In case you were wondering what it takes for Republicans to support impeachment proceedings.

Pressure mounted Tuesday on Gov. Eliot Spitzer to resign because of a prostitution scandal, with a top state Republican threatening to push for impeachment proceedings if the governor doesn't step down in 48 hours.

State residents "cannot have this hanging over their heads," said Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco.

So it’s not lying the nation into a war that makes Republicans see the need to remove a corrupt officeholder, not breaking the law to violate Americans’ civil rights, not holding prisoners without charges for years at a time. The crime that moves them to action is being a Democrat.

This from the party that gave David Vitter a standing ovation after he did the same thing. I guess it’s OK for the people of Louisiana and the U.S. Senate to have this hanging over their heads.

Fucking hypocrites.

Why do they call him McSame?

And what do they mean by “third term”? It appears that John McCain exhibits some personality traits that we have become all-too familiar with over the last eight years.

And you've heard, no doubt, about McCain's stubbornness. "No dissent, no opinion to the contrary, however reasonable, will be entertained," says Larry Wilkerson, a retired army colonel who was former Secretary of State Colin Powell's top aide. "Hardheaded is another way to say it. Arrogant is another way to say it. Hubristic is another way to say it. Too proud for his own good is another way to say it. It's a quality about him that disturbs me."

Sound familiar? In case you’re still unclear, click here.

Endorsement

Can someone explain to me how this helps McCain?

He's got the GOP nomination locked up. So how does the endorsement of the Worst President in American History help him? Who is this endorsement supposed to sway in McCain’s favor? Who still thinks George Bush is capable of sound political judgment when every single thing he has touched has turned to shit?

Oh, I’m exaggerating? Name one thing Bush has done in eight years as president that can reasonably be called a success. OK then.

Given Bush’s ongoing popularity problem, I think this hurts McCain more than it helps him. I can only assume McCain wants access to the BushCo fundraising machine.

For his part, by waiting until after the nomination was locked up to endorse, Bush is clearly sending the message that he would have endorsed whomever won the GOP nomination. And Bush endorsing a Republican whose only opponents are Democrats isn’t exactly shocking, or even noteworthy.

If Bush really wanted to help McCain (and this assumes he believes that his endorsement helps McCain), he would have endorsed him a month ago, when McCain was getting the shit kicked out of him by Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. But then Bush might have risked backing a losing horse, and no way were Bush’s handlers about to expose Junior to the possibility of having his infallibility bubble pricked.

So Bush supports a Republican for president? No shit. He held a rose garden press conference to announce the “news”? Big fucking deal.

UPDATE: Looks like the McCain campaign is wondering about the value of Bush’s endorsement too.

As of this writing, there's no mention of it on the home page of McCain's Web site. There's no mention of it all on the Republican National Committee's home page. In fact, I can't find any mention whatsoever of the event on either Web site at all.

Kinda makes you wonder why McCain even bothered showing up.

Puppet

Imagine dancing at the command of a dim bulb like Duh-bya. I can see why Arlen might be miffed.

Taking offense at being described as a “puppet” of President Bush, Sen. Arlen Specter fired back at Majority Leader Harry Reid on Wednesday, suggesting the Nevada Democrat isn’t up to running the Senate.

Reid on Dec. 4 had blamed what he called Republican obstructionism in the Senate on allegiance to Bush.

“He is the man who is pulling the strings on the 49 puppets he has here in the Senate,” Reid said, referring to the chamber’s GOP members.

I can’t imagine why Reid would say such a thing about Specter.

A Senate Judiciary Committee vote on contempt resolutions against Karl Rove and White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten were postponed following an objection by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). Under Judiciary Committe rules, the vote will be postponed for one week.

Nope, just can’t imagine.

Rogues gallery

Playing the part of reporters at FEMA's phony presser, pictured above, were:

From left to right: Nathaniel Fogg, Counselor to the Director and Deputy Director; John "Pat" Philbin, former Director of External Affairs; Michael Widomski, Public Affairs Specialist; Eric Heighberger, Special Assistant, Office of the Administrator; Cindy Taylor (in tan suit), Communications Deputy Director; Dan Shulman (red tie), Director of Legislative Affairs; Debbie Wing (curly blond hair), Media Response Liaison; Aaron Walker (back to camera), National Spokesman.

Highlights from the CBS News story:

At the podium on the left is Vice Admiral Harvey Johnson, the second in command at FEMA.

The former director of public affairs at the agency, John "Pat" Philbin told CBS News last week, "I am not aware that he knew what was happening and all of sudden staff were asking questions."

[...]

The agency's deputy administrator, Harvey Johnson, called on FEMA employees by name during the news conference and knew they weren't reporters.

Nice to know that FEMA’s PR team can’t produce a cover story that can withstand a nanosecond of scrutiny. Given this and the news that the FEMA-supplied trailers that Katrina evacuees are living in are too dangerous for FEMA employees to even set foot in, let alone the fact that Katrina evacuees are still living in trailers more than two years after the storm, can anyone tell me what these people at FEMA do well?