Two guys carrying the “Women for Mitt” banner with one lone woman walking beside them.
Two guys carrying the “Women for Mitt” banner with one lone woman walking beside them.
A video tribute to the unspeakable, soul-crushing awkwardness and general vapidity of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
“One of the great wonders of the conservative movement is how effectively they’ve constructed this inverted narrative in which the rich are victims, and the poor are perpetrators. They’ve managed to convince tens of millions of decent Americans—many of them poor—to ignore any evidence that contradicts this worldview. You can jump up and down and scream, ‘Hey, the Americans who don’t pay income tax are dirt poor, or serve in the military, or are aged!’ Or, ‘Listen, the top ten percent of our country controls 75 percent of our wealth, while the bottom half controls 1.1 percent!’ These are factual statements. But they don’t register. The reality conservatives cling to resides in their hearts. The poor wind up poor not because they lack access to opportunity—to good education and good jobs—or because they lose their jobs, or get sick, but because they’re parasites. The rich are rich not because they were born that way, not because they’ve rigged the system in their favor, or because they’re ruthless or unethical, but because they’re braver and more noble than the rest of us.” — Steve Almond (via: azspot)
Here’s a Romney “rapid response” ad to the REDISTRIBUTION theme he was trying to run with late last week, desperate to distract from his own buffoonery:
As you know by the previous post, the audio used is clipped and wildly out of context.
Here’s a funny response from the Obama campaign, mocking Romney by taking him out of context — which is nothing less than he deserves:
Mitt Romney doesn’t want you to dwell on his criticism of the embassy attacks, his hidden camera commentary about the 47 percent, his Univision brown face appearance or his just released 2011 tax return. LOOK OVER HERE, CITIZEN!
14 years ago Barack Obama, as a state senator said: “I think the trick is figuring out, how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.” This is completely uncontroversial — but note, it’s only a part of Obama’s full comments. Most of the replays in Romney ads and rightwing reporting have even left off the last part “to make sure that everybody’s got a shot.”
Mitt Romney seized on the word “redistribution” with all the frantic desperation and flop sweat one would expect from a man who has fcked up as badly as Romney has in the past week. The editorial board of the Washington Post describes the attack as a “desperate, clownish portrayal of Mr. Obama:”
The campaign apparently thinks that voters will find “redistribution” a scary word. But does Mr. Romney really disagree with the belief that part of government’s role is, in Mr. Obama’s words, to help “make sure that everybody’s got a shot”? To tax is to redistribute. To govern is to redistribute. Benefits from government spending flow in different amounts to different individuals and different states. Unless Mr. Romney envisions government stripped down to the role of providing for the national defense and building a road or two, and it is clear that he doesn’t, it is hard to imagine a world in which government does not play some redistributionist role.
First of all, when Mitt Romney says “redistribution has never been a characteristic of America,” that should clue you in that redistribution has always been a characteristic of America.
And, of course, out on the stump, Paul Ryan was ready to explain the whole thing….
“Mitt Romney and I are not running to redistribute the wealth, Mitt Romney and I are running to help Americans create wealth,” Ryan said during a rally at the Piedmont Precision Machine Company in Danville.
Actually, of course, the last few decades have seen the greatest redistribution of wealth upwards in the nation’s history, and these guys are campaigning on a plan that would accelerate that redistribution whole hog. But, let us also remind the zombie-eyed granny-starver from Wisconsin that he likely never would have gone to college if somebody hadn’t redistributed some of my limited wealth in his direction through Social Security survivor’s benefits.
Jonathan Chait asks if there has never been a political campaign “more reliant upon seizing on its opponent’s words (and wrenching them out of context)? This appears to be the hallmark of the Romney 2012 campaign method.”
NBC News: “Yet NBC News has obtained the entirety of the relevant remarks, which includes additional comments by Obama that weren’t included in the video circulated by Republicans. That omission features additional words of praise for “competition” and the “marketplace” by the then-state senator.”
Fox “news,” of course, steadily hyped the out-of-context remarks all day for Romney’s campaign.
Here is Obama’s full remarks, from the entire clip: “I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level to make sure that everybody’s got a shot. How do we pool resources at the same time as we decentralize delivery systems in ways that both foster competition, can work in the marketplace, and can foster innovation at the local level and can be tailored to particular communities.”
The Reverend Emily C. Heath has come up with an excellent ‘quiz’ for American fundamentalists, rightwing bloggers, and Fox “News” anchors and hosts: How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions
Quick Questions.” Just pick “A” or “B” for each question.
1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.
2. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.
3. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.
4. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.
5. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.
6. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.
7. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.
8. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.
9. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.
10. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.
Scoring key: Continue reading
To fundamentalists of any Abrahamic religion, women are property and must be managed by men.
The voter purges have resulted in roughly 60% of black voters in that city no longer being registered. That’s 41% of the city’s total votes in 2008. Some perspective on it from reddit user BiscuitCrisps:
You know, back when I lived in a majority-black voter ward, I got purged from the voter rollsevery single year. And every year, I had to trudge back to the registrar of voters, and show them a driver’s license and two months of utility bills to prove that I still lived where I was registered. It’s why I didn’t vote from 1999-2001. I just got sick of re-proving my residence over and over.
My first reaction was: “Fucking incompetent bureaucratic machine”
Then, I moved to a majority-white voter ward … I registered once. I haven’t been purged once in the past seven years.
I used to say: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”.
I’m now inclined to chalk the purging up to malice.
This whole thing is fucked.
Don’t let them get away with it.
Yep, the one who said “lucky lady” was Brian Kilmeade, renowned rocket scientist and celebrated brain surgeon.
How different were the Univision forum experiences for Mitt Romney and President Obama? First of all Romney agreed to only 35 minutes on stage, while the President gave them a full hour. That the Univision hosts mentioned this fact while introducing Romney caused him to throw a tantrum and demand a re-taped introduction before he’d appear onstage. Finally the two audiences were completely different as well: Obama’s campaign went along with Univision’s “parameters” for ticket distribution, while Romney threatened to reschedule if he wasn’t allowed to deviate. Coincidentally, the university official who coordinated both forums, Rudy Fernandez, is also a member of Romney’s Hispanic steering committee.
According to Buzzfeed, Romney was allowed to “bus in rowdy activists from around southern Florida in order to fill extra seats,” because not enough “sympathetic” students took tickets. And, naturally, “Romney’s non-student activists ignored instructions to hold their applause,” which explains the weird, rally-like cheering after every one of his responses. Thanks, Rudy Fernandez!
Meanwhile Obama’s campaign went along with Univsion’s requests and “allowed a large chunk of the tickets to be distributed to interested students on campus. The result was a quiet, well-behaved crowd — and a lot of no-shows. Minutes before Obama’s forum was to begin, producers began frantically directing university staff and volunteers to sit in the empty seats.”
But it gets better. Mitt actually threw a tantrum before he came on stage:
While introducing Romney at the top of the broadcast, Salinas’s co-anchor, Jorge Ramos, noted that the Republican candidate had agreed to give the network 35 minutes, and that Obama had agreed to a full hour the next night. Ramos then invited the audience to welcome Romney to the stage — but the candidate didn’t materialize. Apparently, Romney took issue with the anchors beginning the broadcast that way, said Salinas, and he refused to go on stage until they re-taped the introduction. (One Republican present at the taping said Romney “threw a tantrum.”)
They’re also explaining Mitt’s stunning ‘brown face’ look that night as a “sunburn” and not a special makeup request. I think we all know what a sunburn looks like, Mittens. That was no sunburn.
This is yet another example of the impressive “leadership” qualities Romney would bring to the White House — if by impressive you mean Orwellian.