Showing posts with label POTUS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label POTUS. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Questions for Mitt
I just had Martin Bashire on, who mentioned that 61% of the 47% figure Mitt mentioned pay payroll taxes and were the working poor, many working 2 or even 3 jobs to keep a roof over their heads. How would Mitt explain that they're not "taking personal responsibility of themselves?"
Or what about the 10%+ of the country who are seniors, on Medicare and SS, but don't earn enough to pay income taxes? What does he say to them, who have paid into the system their entire lives, some in nursing homes or otherwise sick or not as mobile as they used to be. Are they not "taking personal responsibility?"
How about people with disabilities? Or who've sent out a hundred resumes in a hundred days? Are they not taking personal responsibility?
Lynne talks about many of these same issues here, and asks what Scott Brown thinks about it. Every Republican should be asked the same question. Do they stand with Mitt? Are the working poor, disabled and seniors of the country 'moochers,' or people who deserve our respect?
Friday, July 13, 2012
Romney's Lies Have Finally Caught Up to Him
No matter how skilled the habitual liar, if they do it long enough, they're eventually going to get to the point where they can't come up with a new lie to cover the old ones.
As BMG makes clear, Romney's now there. Welcome, Mittens.
Let's look at this tangled web.
He claimed to be retired from Bain from 1999-2002 to the SEC/IRS, but Bain claimed he wasn't to the SEC, critically paying him a salary as chief executive. So, was Romney lying to the IRS, or was Bain lying to its investors and the SEC?
Now, Romney claims that his status as CEO of Bain from 1999-2002 was just technical jargon and wasn't his real position. In fact, he says he was totally removed from Bain and had no intention of coming back, despite the fact that he was still attending board meetings for companies Bain owned.
That's his answer to voters and his defense against what he listed on his SEC/IRS claims, but that's not what he was saying to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where he insisted his time in Utah was just a leave of absence and that he always intended to return to Bain -- as his basis for why he should remain eligible to be Governor of Massachusetts.
This latest claim of his undermines his previous claim, that he was never going to go back. It's all the more serious a lie because, without it, it's likely he wouldn't have ever been Governor of Massachusetts.
So, what are we supposed to believe? What Mitt told the SEC and IRS? What Bain told the SEC? What he said to explain away the divergence of what he said to the IRS and what Bain said to the SEC? Or what he told Massachusetts, in order to be eligible to run for Governor?
Each claim is slightly different than the next, and undermines the others more and more. All that's left is the facts: whatever he says, he was on salary to be the chief executive officer of Bain and, contrary to his insistence that he had nothing to do with the company, was regularly flying in to Massachusetts on Bain business, even while living in Utah.
The bottom line? Other people go to prison for the kind of lies Mitt Romney habitually makes.
As BMG makes clear, Romney's now there. Welcome, Mittens.
Let's look at this tangled web.
He claimed to be retired from Bain from 1999-2002 to the SEC/IRS, but Bain claimed he wasn't to the SEC, critically paying him a salary as chief executive. So, was Romney lying to the IRS, or was Bain lying to its investors and the SEC?
Now, Romney claims that his status as CEO of Bain from 1999-2002 was just technical jargon and wasn't his real position. In fact, he says he was totally removed from Bain and had no intention of coming back, despite the fact that he was still attending board meetings for companies Bain owned.
That's his answer to voters and his defense against what he listed on his SEC/IRS claims, but that's not what he was saying to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where he insisted his time in Utah was just a leave of absence and that he always intended to return to Bain -- as his basis for why he should remain eligible to be Governor of Massachusetts.
This latest claim of his undermines his previous claim, that he was never going to go back. It's all the more serious a lie because, without it, it's likely he wouldn't have ever been Governor of Massachusetts.
So, what are we supposed to believe? What Mitt told the SEC and IRS? What Bain told the SEC? What he said to explain away the divergence of what he said to the IRS and what Bain said to the SEC? Or what he told Massachusetts, in order to be eligible to run for Governor?
Each claim is slightly different than the next, and undermines the others more and more. All that's left is the facts: whatever he says, he was on salary to be the chief executive officer of Bain and, contrary to his insistence that he had nothing to do with the company, was regularly flying in to Massachusetts on Bain business, even while living in Utah.
The bottom line? Other people go to prison for the kind of lies Mitt Romney habitually makes.
Sunday, July 08, 2012
Five Things to Remember this November
Every time I think of why people shouldn't vote for someone like Scott Brown, Mitt Romney or Richard Tisei, my mind immediately goes to great lengths to come up with things about complicated policy reasons people aren't going to remember. Sometimes, it's the simple things that count -- and will allude to the more complicated things anyway.
Here's five simple things that you should tell your friends, family and neighbors for this November.
- If a candidate has a Swiss bank account, a Cayman Islands bank account and a bank account in Bermuda, one he kept secret while in office, you should probably vote for the other guy.
- For as much as Republicans politicians like to rail against government, it's amazing just how much they love it when it comes to extracting everything they from it for their Wall St. friends. Wars they can't pay for (or finish)? Check. Bailing out the banks and giving tax loopholes to Fortune 500 Companies? Check. Then, when all the money's gone, they'll try to use your Social Security funds to pay for it.
- If a candidate's entire campaign is based on how nice his family is, he doesn't have anything to to run on. If he does so while talking about how much time he spends with his family during the daytime as an office holder, that means he wasn't doing his job.
- If a candidate runs on being a moderate, but will vote for John Boehner or Mitch McConnell, he's lying.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
I Found McCain's Palin Interview!
Update: For actual, real news...
While the Alaska State Troopers and most municipal police agencies have covered the cost of exams, which cost between $300 to $1,200 apiece, the Wasilla police department does charge the victims of sexual assault for the tests.In Wasilla, smaller taxes are more important than rape victims. Compassionate conservatism in action.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Monday, September 01, 2008
Palin: Over/Under 7 Days
Here's the latest revelation by McCain's campaign: Palin's daughter is pregnant. It pretty much means this is baby number one, but it begs the question: how long will Palin last as VP? She supports abstinence-only education, yet her very own daughter has a baby at 17 out of wedlock. She thinks a fetus has more rights than a woman who was raped, yet would avoid hospitals for more than a dozen hours while in labor - all to give a keynote speech in Texas, then fly to Alaska, then skip Anchorage hospitals for driving 45 more minutes to get to a backwater clinic. That's truly a Britney Spears-like moment (since the McCain campaign likes making Britney comparisons).
I don't like peddling in mud - this is really a first for this blog - but there's too much at stake and, unlike the Swiftboaters, this stuff is actually true. Something fishy was going on and now it's out in the open. Not that this is anything new, but there's Republicans being hypocritical.
Here's the question, though: It's Republican Convention Week. Now's the time for them to throw her under the bus. Will she last the week? The over/under is 7 days. I'm saying under.
Update: 2 more thoughts. VP nominee Romney is almost inevitable at this point & this is Harriet Miers all over again. Thanks, McCain.
I don't like peddling in mud - this is really a first for this blog - but there's too much at stake and, unlike the Swiftboaters, this stuff is actually true. Something fishy was going on and now it's out in the open. Not that this is anything new, but there's Republicans being hypocritical.
Here's the question, though: It's Republican Convention Week. Now's the time for them to throw her under the bus. Will she last the week? The over/under is 7 days. I'm saying under.
Update: 2 more thoughts. VP nominee Romney is almost inevitable at this point & this is Harriet Miers all over again. Thanks, McCain.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
All About Huckabee on Air
Over at LeftAhead, Lynne, Mike and I talk up the Mike Huckabee campaign for POTUS. We explored many of his largely unearthed baggage, but questioned whether there is enough time for voters to catch on (I doubted it; Mike and Lynne didn't). Lynne came on to talk about the dynamics of the Republican Race - and thinks Willard Mitt Romney has a far greater chance of winning this than I'd give him credit for. Over all, this was one of our best shows we've done to date, so go listen in.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Wanted: Decent Presidential Candidate
Reward: My political support (for whatever that counts).
Over and over again, all I keep hearing from everyone is how the Republicans have such a "weak field" and how the Democrats are so inherently stronger. Rubbish. The Republicans have a very bad war, but their candidates are not inherently weaker than our's - because our candidates have been greatly overrated. Name me the one candidate who's truly anti-war, pro-equality and doesn't mince words? Not a single candidate supports marriage equality and our current front-runner, Hillary Clinton, who is leading by wide margins in today's polls (which are as meaningful as my political support at this point), was as much of a war hawk as anyone in the Senate. She wants to leave Iraq as much as Senator Lieberman did; let's not make the same mistake as the people of Connecticut and think her pandering is any different than Holy Joe's. Hillary's plan calls to leave troops in Iraq, to 'train' and 'counteract terrorism.' That, my friends, would amount to over a hundred thousand of them in Iraq, permanently.
So, who do we turn to? Sadly, there just doesn't seem to be that much else. Looking for a candidate seems to be reminiscent of those commercials from that Christian charity organization, showing the family searching the garbage heaps for some hidden treasure - when the far greater likelihood is they will be met with useless stink. For a while, the Obama buzz was really buzzing. Now, it seems more like the buzzing noise are flies surrounding a political carcass. The man never won a tough election - and it shows.
However, I could deal with inept campaign moves - heck, sometimes they can be endearing. When John Edwards has screwed up, he kinda looks cute. 'Whoops, sorry guys, you caught me building a real, big house.' It sort of reminded me when my Governor, the very progressive and awesome Deval Patrick, was lambasted by his campaign opponent for building a nice house. That campaign opponent got big media excitement for calling it the "Taj Deval," while he was firmly whooped in the actual primary. Edwards's house may have gotten bad press, but anyone can relate to someone who grew up poor wanting a very, very nice house... so those words fall on deaf ears, especially when every man (and woman) running for President owns a very, very nice house.
The real problem here isn't stupid moves. Like I said, I could deal with a few stupid Obama mistakes. However, it's these kinds of mistakes that really get me. Here's a gist of what Americablog had to say,
Over and over again, all I keep hearing from everyone is how the Republicans have such a "weak field" and how the Democrats are so inherently stronger. Rubbish. The Republicans have a very bad war, but their candidates are not inherently weaker than our's - because our candidates have been greatly overrated. Name me the one candidate who's truly anti-war, pro-equality and doesn't mince words? Not a single candidate supports marriage equality and our current front-runner, Hillary Clinton, who is leading by wide margins in today's polls (which are as meaningful as my political support at this point), was as much of a war hawk as anyone in the Senate. She wants to leave Iraq as much as Senator Lieberman did; let's not make the same mistake as the people of Connecticut and think her pandering is any different than Holy Joe's. Hillary's plan calls to leave troops in Iraq, to 'train' and 'counteract terrorism.' That, my friends, would amount to over a hundred thousand of them in Iraq, permanently.
So, who do we turn to? Sadly, there just doesn't seem to be that much else. Looking for a candidate seems to be reminiscent of those commercials from that Christian charity organization, showing the family searching the garbage heaps for some hidden treasure - when the far greater likelihood is they will be met with useless stink. For a while, the Obama buzz was really buzzing. Now, it seems more like the buzzing noise are flies surrounding a political carcass. The man never won a tough election - and it shows.
However, I could deal with inept campaign moves - heck, sometimes they can be endearing. When John Edwards has screwed up, he kinda looks cute. 'Whoops, sorry guys, you caught me building a real, big house.' It sort of reminded me when my Governor, the very progressive and awesome Deval Patrick, was lambasted by his campaign opponent for building a nice house. That campaign opponent got big media excitement for calling it the "Taj Deval," while he was firmly whooped in the actual primary. Edwards's house may have gotten bad press, but anyone can relate to someone who grew up poor wanting a very, very nice house... so those words fall on deaf ears, especially when every man (and woman) running for President owns a very, very nice house.
The real problem here isn't stupid moves. Like I said, I could deal with a few stupid Obama mistakes. However, it's these kinds of mistakes that really get me. Here's a gist of what Americablog had to say,
I never thought I'd have to be calling out Barack Obama for race-baiting, but herewe are. And he's not race-baiting whites, or Asians, or even Latinos. No, the African-American Senator from Illinois is race-baiting dark-skinned people. (A bit like me race-baiting Mediterraneans.)
And sure enough, the Obama memo talks a good deal about outsourcing, though in ways that do seem to skirt the line of racism or at least xenophobia (calling her "HILLARY CLINTON (D-PUNJAB)") and noting that "Hillary Clinton Accepted Almost $60,000 In Contributions From Employees Of Cisco Systems, Which Laid Off American Workers to Hire Indian 'Techies.'" (I was a bit uncomfortable with the use of the word "Indian" over and over and over again in the memo.) But I still wasn't sure that we had moved from outsourcing to racism until we hit the paragraph about all the money and support that Hillary has received from "Indian Americans." Sure, the rest of the memo deals with how one of Hillary's top Indian-American supporters is allegedly a bit shady, and that's fair game, but the memo is about more than that. The memo is clearly trying to make the point that Hillary gets lots and lots of support from Indian-Americans, and apparently there's some kind of problem with that. I guess because their kin back home are stealing all of our good white jobs. (No word on whether they're sleeping with our women too.)
This is more than a stupid mistake. This is, well, revealing. I'm not even going to pin this on Obama himself, but even if this came from his campaign people it's disturbing. First, these are the guys he is hiring - that does not inspire confidence. Second, it truly invokes the win-at-all-cost-now attitude that Obama has created for himself during this entire campaign. He didn't want to create a large Senate record - so he's running now. He's afraid of, well, standing on the issues - and it shows. Not to mention the fact that he's convienantly the "anti-war" candidate without ever making so much as a peep before he decided to run for President. Just as bad, as a minority who's likely had to deal with racism at some point in his life, he refused to truly support glbt-equality by not standing up for gay marriage.
Clearly, Barack Obama doesn't want my support. However, John Edwards - a man who is bleeding his support in the polls - has little in the way of credentials and while solidly anti-war, just 'isn't there yet' on marriage equality. The real weird thing here is he supports the repeal of DOMA - the Defense of Marriage Act - which would effectively create marriage equality by mandating every state honor marriages from Massachusetts. Is it some sort of code that Edwards is using? I'll be honest, I don't want a President who speaks in tongues. If you fully support equality, don't shy away from it - embrace it.
Governor Bill Richardson's poll numbers are improving - and, in many ways, they should be. Out of all the candidates in this race, his credentials are by far the most impeccable. He's been the Ambassador to the United Nations - clearly someone who would make a great President-Diplomat and could do a lot to restore the leadership of this country around the world. In just the last few years, he's made deals in both Darfur and North Korea. The day Richardson would be elected, Iraq would be all but over. He's the popular Governor of New Mexico - and helped make a good deal of progress in that state. He was Bill Clinton's Secretary of Energy and has a decent track record on green issues.
Furthermore, he's wined and dined with the likes of the Human Rights Campaign, the highest-funded GLBT rights organization, but his record sadly doesn't match his rhetoric. When Richardson was a Congressman - did I mention he was a Congressman yet? - he voted for the most vile piece of homophobic legislation ever, DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA is the reason why people with a same-sex marriage or civil union can't, for example, receive federal benefits - like filing federal taxes together. It's why if one partner dies, when he or she worked for the Federal Government, the other won't receive that partner's pension, like any married couple would. It's why gay citizens can't bring their married immigrants to this country. The worst part of this whole thing is that Governor Richardson still sticks by that vote today.
So, who? Mike Gravel? Good on gay rights and Iraq, crazy as a bed-bug - he wants the freaking Flat Tax. He wants English as the Official Language. Don't even start about Kucinich: one of America's worst mayors ever, and while the fact that he believes weird mystical crap isn't really a problem, the fact that he'd turn that into a new Federal Department is a big one. Oh, and he was pro-life until the day he first ran for President - even a man with no chance panders.
There isn't a single candidate in this race that inspires me. There isn't a single candidate who's built a true netroot following, either. The candidates, this year, have divided everyone - none of the major blogs seem to be all that supportive of anyone. Barrack Obama could have so easily been that person, but his friendship with Joe Lieberman clearly made an impact - and not the good kind. If someone had a gun pointed to my head today, I'd vote for John Edwards. Let's just say, I'm proud to be in favor of gun control, because this race is really starting to scare me - hence, the Wanted Sign.
Cross posted at Progress Now
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)