The ‘new Romney math’ on jobs he created: 100,000 is now thousands, and that number is also questionable

Romney lies about pretty much everything — of course he’s going to claim he created 100,000 jobs! Which one of his potential voters would bother to look that up or care?

Besides, if Mitt is elected president and taxes are cut further for the one-percent, himself included, maybe he’ll hire another housekeeper for that house they’re remodeling — the one with the car elevator. And maybe they’ll need a pool boy too. Lower unemployment numbers are just an election away, people.

Romney Campaign Massively Downgrades The Number Of Jobs It Claims He Created From 100,000 To ‘Thousands’

BuzzFeed’s Zeke Miller reports that, in the wake of the Obama campaign’s new ad attacking Romney’s record at Bain, the “new Romney jobs math” is significantly more modest than the old. This time, the campaign is asserting that Romney created a meager and vague “thousands of jobs” at Bain and “tens of thousands” of jobs as governor of Massachusetts.

This is nothing less than an admission from the Romney campaign that their 100,000 jobs claim was entirely bogus, and acceptance that Romney created vastly fewer jobs than he claimed he had just a few months ago. It’s a welcome return to reality, but calls into question any piece of evidence the campaign puts forward. (In 1994, he claimed in an ad that he created 10,000 jobs at Bain.)

Meanwhile, even the “thousands of jobs” figure should be suspect, as the evidence the campaign offers to support it is an editorial from the right-wing Washington Examiner endorsing Romney.

[...] And his assertion on his record as governor also fails to include the context that his state was 47th out of 50 on job creation.

You know what? The only jobs we know for sure that Romney has ‘created’ are four housekeeping positions for the personal homes of Mitt and Ann “Hardest Job in the World!” Romney. And those four lucky, lucky working women are paid only half of the lowest range of an average housekeeper’s salary by Mitt and Marie Antoinette who, out of an income worth a quarter-billion, paid their four housekeepers a whopping $20,603 –between the four of them.

Mitt also keeps people like these men gainfully employed as well:

Let’s go – it’s time for lunch

Source: Flickr / panna2006 | via: lightinwinter

Animals being cute

  

via:  laughcentre

Bird feeds dog … aw

Mitt Romney’s special gift: consistently repelling Americans

Michael Tomasky discusses why people really, really don’t like Mitt Romney (emphasis below is mine):

Mitt, the Unlikable 

Romney, though? This is the biggest washout of modern times, folks. Gallup just this week put the likeability ratings at Obama 60, Romney 31. It’s not that Obama’s number is unusually high. Look back at those Kerry-Bush numbers. Americans are an open-hearted lot, at least presumptively, so they want to like the guy who’s going be the president. But they Do. Not. Like. Mitt. Romney.

It would be more interesting for all of us if there were some great mystery here, but there isn’t. He reeks of privilege. Every time he says something off the cuff he says something obnoxious. Corporations are people, pal. I like firing people. Where on earth did you get those Godforsaken cookies? (Note: I still can’t believe what he said about the frigging cookies!)

He also—and this actually is interesting, because it’s something our normal public discourse does not like to admit or allow for—is way too rich. We’re constantly told that Americans don’t have any class envy, and compared to some European nations they don’t. But even Americans have limits. A few million, even $50 million; okay. But a quarter billion dollars? A house with an elevator . . . for the cars? It also matters to people how the money was made. It’s okay to be worth a gajillion dollars if you’re Bill Gates or Steve Jobs and have made everyone’s lives more interesting and cooler. But what’s Mitt Romney done? Helped give us Domino’s Pizza.

Even so, Romney might still pass muster, but he has no grasp of the one crucial reality of class in America: you can be filthy rich as long as you don’t look or act like it. Gates doesn’t comb his hair, much. Jobs wore sneakers. Romney just looks too pressed. Even when he’s wearing those jeans. You can look at Romney on television and practically sense how he smells—of costly ablutions whose brand names the rest of us probably don’t even know. And he acts relentlessly rich.

And this brings us back to the Cranbrook School incident. We might have learned from The Washington Post this week that Romney gallantly interceded on poor Lauber’s behalf. Or even, maybe, that he did the awful deed, but a few years later he got in touch with Lauber to say, “Gee, old scout, went a bit overboard there.” Or even that he acknowledged to one of his confederates that he regretted the incident. In other words, we might have learned something that showed he knows he behaved like an asshole. But all we learned is that he behaved like an asshole and is now pretending to forget it. A jerk is one thing. But a jerk who takes no responsibility for his jerkitude is pretty much the definition of an unlikeable person.

Read all of it, it’s good. My one question to conservative voters would be: what’s there to like about Mitt? If your first response is that he’s not Obama and that’s enough, then what’s that say about you?


image: mittromneysamerica

We’re all Mormons now: politicizing marriage and calling it ‘deeply held religious beliefs’


via: Where are MY magic underpants?

The completely political lens of ‘deeply held religious beliefs’ on marriage:

Social Conservatives “Never Viewed” Marriage “Through A Political Lens Before”?

Al Cardenas, president of the American Conservative Union, made this unusual statement about how social conservatives view marriage: 

Social conservatives believe that marriage is a traditional event between a man and a woman. Some do it for moral issues, some do it because of deeply held religious beliefs, and some purely because they think a family should constitute — should be constituted by a man and a woman raising their children. But we never viewed it through a political lens before. It was more viewed as a deeply held religious belief. This puts it in a political context. [...]

Seriously?… That’s… revisionist. Neither Gregory nor the other panelists challenged Cardenas, though their facial expressions during his remarks may have betrayed some incredulity. [...] Back in February, Mitt Romney gave his speech to the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference — which is hosted every year by Cardenas’ ACU — and one of the headline-grabbing moments from that speech was when Romney boasted of his efforts to combat same-sex marriage in Massachusetts:

[...] On my watch we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage. When I am president I will defend the Defense of Marriage Act, and and I will fight for an amendment to our Constitution that defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman.

The crowd, of course, loved it. Perhaps the political activists in the audience just didn’t realize that the politician speaking to them was politicizing marriage. 

Religious ‘belief’ is the excuse for the war on marriage equality, which is fought on the political battleground:

That GOP Gay Marriage Memo

You may already have seen the following memo on the gay marriage issue from President Bush’s 2004 pollster Jan van Lohuizen… It’s a fascinating document — not so much for the argument it makes (that Republican should essentially embrace marriage or call off the war against it) as the data it advances. Because the numbers it shows pretty convincingly make the argument that the war over gay marriage is basically over.

[...] Recommendation: A statement reflecting recent developments on this issue along the following lines:

“People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination and their relationship should be protected under the law. People who disagree on the fundamental nature of marriage can agree, at the same time, that gays and lesbians should receive essential rights and protections such as hospital visitation, adoption rights, and health and death benefits.”

Straight political calculation, based on public opinion, for the best electoral outcomes.

Meanwhile, fundagelicals, your ‘deeply held religious beliefs’? Keep ‘em. They’ve got nothing to do with equality under the LAW.  Establishment Republicans agree (secretly, for now) with average people on that much.

Morning Bunker Report: Monday 5.14.2012

WHAT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY STANDS FOR TODAY—————————–—

MAN OF GOD: It seems that some people would rather not extend the statute of limitations for the crime of sexually abusing children. What kind of monster — no, wait… Cardinal Timothy Dolan has made defeating statute of limitations reform one of his top legislative priorities. This is the guy, remember, who made such a loud fuss about contraception that the president had to cut a compromise deal that caused Dolan and the rest of the clerical errors to make an even louder fuss. And who, most recently, opened his well-stuffed piehole on the subject of the president’s support for marriage equality: “We cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society. The people of this country, especially our children, deserve better.” — Charles P. Pierce

Mitt Romney’s mantra: Avoid John McCain’s mistakes (PALIN!) — Many of the current strategy discussions are centered on not falling into the traps McCain did: looking wobbly as a leader and weak on the economy in the final weeks of the campaign. The private discussions include ruling out any vice presidential possibilities who could be seen as even remotely risky or unprepared; wrapping the entire campaign around economic issues, knowing this topic alone will swing undecided voters in the final days; and, slowly but steadily, building up Romney as a safe and competent alternative to President Barack Obama. McCain, according to Romney advisers, blew it on all three scores. And of the three, the most conscious effort by Romney’s team to do things differently will be in the V.P. selection process. One Republican official familiar with the campaign’s thinking said it will be designed to produce a pick who is safe and, by design, unexciting – a deliberate anti-Palin. The prized pick, said this official: an “incredibly boring white guy.” — POLITICO

Dimon On Whether JP Morgan’s $2 Billion Loss Proves Banks Are Still Too Risky: ‘I Don’t Think So’ — [JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie] Dimon has been one of the biggest critics of the Volcker Rule, which is meant to prevent banks from making massive bets with federally insured dollars. [...] Of course, the point isn’t whether JP Morgan, the biggest bank in the U.S., can survive a trade like this. It’s whether the financial system can sustain this sort of trading by all of the big banks, many of which are not in the same financial shape as JP Morgan. As the New York Times detailed yesterday, JP Morgan and the rest of the nation’s biggest banks have been fighting to widen exemptions to the Volcker Rule that would allow banks to continue making risky trades of this sort. ”I hope that the final [Volcker] rule will prevent this,” said Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), whose name graces the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, on ABC today. “The Volcker Rule is still being formulated.” — Think Progress

  • RNC Chief: Leave Wall Street alone — Host David Gregory asked a straightforward question: “In light of the losses on Wall Street this week, you think we need less financial regulation rather than more?” In Preibus’ mind, it’s not even a close call: “I think we need less.” The RNC chief added that Democrats have “made things worse” by approving new safeguards and adding new layers of accountability to the financial system. It reminded me of an Upton Sinclair line: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.” — Steve Benen
  • Democratic Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren called for JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon to resign his position as a director at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. In a statement posted on her website, Warren said Dimon stepping down would “send a signal to the American people that Wall Street bankers get it and to show that they understand the need for responsibility and accountability.” — The Hill
  • JPMorgan Chase has been lobbying to make exactly the kind of trades that just lost the company billions of dollars. — Edward Wyatt in The New York Times
  • JPMorgan Chase’s loss proves the need for bank regulation. — Paul Krugman in The New York Times
  • More from Ezra Klein
  • How Wall Street Killed Financial Reform — The fate of Dodd-Frank over the past two years is an object lesson in the government’s inability to institute even the simplest and most obvious reforms, especially if those reforms happen to clash with powerful financial interests. From the moment it was signed into law, lobbyists and lawyers have fought regulators over every line in the rulemaking process. Congressmen and presidents may be able to get a law passed once in a while – but they can no longer make sure it stays passed. You win the modern financial-regulation game by filing the most motions, attending the most hearings, giving the most money to the most politicians and, above all, by keeping at it, day after day, year after fiscal year, until stealing is legal again. “It’s like a scorched-earth policy,” says Michael Greenberger, a former regulator who was heavily involved with the drafting of Dodd-Frank. “It requires constant combat. And it never, ever ends.” That the banks have just about succeeded in strangling Dodd-Frank is probably not news to most Americans – it’s how they succeeded that’s the scary part. —  Matt Taibbi | Rolling Stone

PRESIDENT OBAMA / DEMOCRATS————————————————————

The coming issue of Newsweek: Andrew Sullivan on Barack Obama’s Gay Marriage Evolution — The president’s bold support shifted the mainstream. Andrew Sullivan on why it shouldn’t be surprising—Obama’s life as a biracial man has deep ties to the gay experience. [...] To have the president of the United States affirm my humanity—and the humanity of all gay Americans—was, unexpectedly, a watershed. He shifted the mainstream in one interview. And last week, a range of Democratic leaders—from Harry Reid to Steny Hoyer—backed the president, who moved an entire party behind a position that only a few years ago was regarded as simply preposterous. And in response, Mitt Romney could only stutter.

A new two-minute Obama commercial stars steelworkers somberly dismantling Mitt Romney’s record as a job creator at Bain Capital. “I know how business works. I know why jobs come and why they go,” says Romney in the clip. But the veterans of Kansas City’s GST Steel tell a different story of the Bain takeover, which occurred in 1993 and resulted in about 750 people out of work: “They made as much money off of it as they could. And they closed it down,” laments Joe Soptic, a steelworker for three decades. “It was like a vampire,” says another. “They came in and sucked the life out of us.” The extra-long spot has an extended version online at RomneyEconomics.com, and both are packed with soundbites. “It was like watching an old friend bleed to death,” adds one worker. “Bain Capital walked away with a lot of money that they made off this plant. We view Mitt Romney as a job destroyer.” — Steelworkers Slam Mitt Romney and Bain Capital in Harsh New Obama Ad — Daily Intel

Why the ’80/20 rule’ matters — Over the summer, 16 million Americans are going to get some nice checks in the mail from their insurance company, due entirely to the fact that the much-derided health care law is looking out for consumers, not insurers. As the segment explained, folks like getting unexpected money in the mail. When they realize it’s because of Obamacare, maybe the law will start to look a little better in those consumers’ eyes. That checks will hit mailboxes a few months before the election probably doesn’t hurt Obama’s potential benefit, either. It’s also worth keeping in mind these rebate checks will disappear if/when Republicans kill the entirety of the law, replacing it with nothing: “Some House and Senate Republicans are now admitting what’s been obvious from the start: that the Republican vow to ‘repeal and replace’ Obama’s health law has always been a bait-and-switch.” — Steve Benen

Seize the day… or whatever

joelshreds:</p> <p>exactly how i brush<br />

via: laughcentre