xiav: look at this fucking idiot ironing his sleeve while its on his wrist
Good grief, we really dodged a bullet here.
“I wish the hurricane hadn’t happened when it did because it gave the President a chance to be presidential and to be out showing sympathy for folks. That’s one of the advantages of incumbency. But you know, you don’t look back and worry about each little thing and how could that have been different. You look forward.”
All the deaths and destruction, people hurt, all the homes and property gone forever… little things! To Mitt, the real tragedy of Hurricane Sandy is that it put him at a disadvantage and he lost an election. Obama had all the “luck” — getting to be out SHOWING sympathy…
That’s an interesting turn of phrase – showing sympathy. But the fact of the matter is that Willard wasn’t programmed to feel sympathy (for others) but he has practiced looking sympathetic in the mirror for hours and hours. Like this:
God’s going to give this sociopath his own planet? Hey, GOP: nice choice for presidential candidate.
Romney voters vs. everyone else in the world.
On Bill Maher’s New Rules segment this week, he talked about a “relatively small group of very shrill people [who are] devoted to — and succeeding at — convincing us that this is a much more conservative and religious nation than it is.”
Maher goes on to explain that CPAC is merely an extension of such devotion:
Maher discusses his term Shit Kicker Inflation “the phenomenon of all things conservative being portrayed as way bigger than they really are” with the following examples:
Here are some highlights from a few of CPAC’s featured who’s who of WTF:
Sarah Palin: “We’re not here to rebrand a party [but to] put on a fresh coat of rhetorical paint.” Then she said: “More background checks? Dandy idea, Mr. President. Should’ve started with yours.” Fresh birther paint!
Next, she dazzled the audience with a boob joke followed by heroically (according to crowd reaction?) drinking from a Big Gulp. Wolverines!
“Outside the ballroom afterward, CPAC attendees raved about the stunt. “Hilarious.” “I thought that was awesome.” “I loved that.” One woman I spoke to said the moment “just really symbolized American freedom.” A man named Tomas told me that Palin holding up the Big Gulp “gave a new look to the Statue of Liberty.” Whether or not anyone, including Palin, realized that Mayor Bloomberg’s soda restrictions wouldn’t even have affected Big Gulps is not clear.” — Dan Amira
Donald Trump: “Behold, the scene at Donald Trump’s CPAC speech this morning in the main ballroom. Empty seats were everywhere, although it’s not entirely Trump’s fault. He was given an 8:45 a.m. speaking slot, the very first of the day. Many CPAC attendees aren’t even out of bed yet. Still, Trump was invited not because of his conservative bona fides (he’s donated more money over the years to Democrats than to Republicans), but because he’s supposedly a crowd-pleasing draw.”
Photos via ‘flunky’ Dan Amira
Mitt Romney: “‘It’s up to us to make sure that we learn from our mistakes — and my mistakes,’ Romney told the crowd Friday. [...] Romney’s re-emergence at CPAC comes after months spent almost entirely out of public view. People close to him say he consumes large volumes of news every day on his iPad and on Fox News. He stews as he reads the coverage of the various budget showdowns in Congress, frustrated that the president has pursued what he sees as an aggressively liberal agenda that won’t solve the country’s economic problems.”
So to Mitt Romney, “learning from his mistakes” includes continuing to bravely watch Fox and continuing to bravely label the President’s insistence on a balanced approach to deficit reduction (spending cuts alongside closing loopholes and subsidies for the wealthy) an “aggressively liberal agenda.” Sure. Apparently the only mistakes Mitt made with his CPAC speech were omitting some birther jokes and not drinking from a Big Gulp.
Let’s be honest: the theme “America’s Future: The Next Generation of Conservatives” really doesn’t describe CPAC. This annual gathering of wingnuts could be more efficiently labeled “Keep F*cking That Chicken.”
Related: Keep F*cking That Chicken
God Save Us from the next generation of conservatives.
Following the last post on the sequester and comparisons between average salaries of federal workers and defense contractor executives ($45,000 to $760,000), in case you didn’t already know: Republicans are not interested in balancing the budget or saving money. That’s not the business they’re in, no matter how much Fox airtime they expend towards that particular party propaganda. Their business is to take revenue from programs and services that benefit the average American and divert it to corporations — and that’s especially true for the military-industrial complex.
Remember when Mitt Romney made the ridiculous claim that federal workers make more than he does? Take a gander at how much his campaign raked in from three defense contractors (see larger table below):
|NORTHRUP GRUMMOND||LOCKHEED MARTIN||GENERAL DYNAMICS||TOTAL|
|Romney, Mitt (R )||$111,014||$165,244||$86,829||$363,087|
|Obama, Barack (D)||$108,756||$126,932||$41,457||$277,145|
And, yeah, the President received contributions from them too. You know what the difference is? Obama hasn’t ever claimed federal workers are overpaid or make more than he does. He wanted to give feds a measly 0.5% salary increase this year, and the GOP rebelled.
By the way, a 0.5% increase on an average annual salary of $45,000 would be a massive $225.00 a year. Who was against that? In January, Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) introduced a bill to block the planned raise in 2013 of 0.5% for federal workers, which was co-sponsored by 28 Republicans, including Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.). The Washington Post reported that Eric Cantor’s (R-Va.) “quick scheduling of the bill for a vote demonstrates the priority House GOP members give to holding down federal pay.” Ever notice Republicans never suggest reducing the pay of defense contractors?
The DeSantis Bill currently has 35 co-sponsors and is being held in the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Let’s look at how much the bill’s author (and the 10 fastest co-sponsors) received from three of the largest defense contractors:
|Ranked by who co-sponsored the quickest||2012 CAMPAIGN DONATIONS FROM:|
|Cosponsors: H.R.273 [113th]||NORTHROP GRUMMAN||LOCKHEED MARTIN||GENERAL DYNAMICS||TOTAL|
|Issa, Darrell E. [R-CA-49]*||$5,000||$10,000||$15,000|
|Farenthold, Blake [R-TX-27]*||$1,000||$2,000||$3,000|
|Mica, John L. [R-FL-7]*||$18,250||$10,000||$7,000||$35,250|
|Duncan, John J., Jr. [R-TN-2]*||$1,000||$4,000||$5,000|
|Jordan, Jim [R-OH-4]*||$1,000||$2,000||$10,000||$13,000|
|Collins, Doug [R-GA-9]*||$1,000||$1,000|
|Meadows, Mark [R-NC-11]*||$0|
|Yoho, Ted S. [R-FL-3]*||$0|
|Massie, Thomas [R-KY-4]*||$0|
|Hudson, Richard [R-NC-8]*||$2,000||$2,000|
And, for good measure:
|Cantor, Eric [R-VA]||$20,000||$10,000||$10,000||$40,000|
And don’t you even worry about Meadows, Yoho, and Massie — they’re brand new and were elected by the tea crowd. They’re still working on their bona fides for future contributions from the big boys. Farenhold and Collins, on the other hand, will simply take even one to three pieces of silver from whomever they can get it.
“Round two’s coming. And we’re going to have one hell of a contest about the direction and the vision of this country.” — Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), discussing the upcoming debt ceiling / sequestration negotiations.
Steve Benen explains that Lindsey Graham and much of the rest of the Republican Congress seem confused and, for the good of the country, need to begin accepting the results of the election. After all, Republicans told us repeatedly that,
“Election Day 2012, in other words, was for all the marbles. It was the big one. The whole enchilada was on the line. The results would set the direction of the country for a generation, so it was time to pull out all the stops and fight like there’s no tomorrow — because for the losers, there probably wouldn’t be one And then President Obama won fairly easily, Senate Democrats defied expectations and expanded their majority, and House Democrats gained seats. [...]
Not to put too fine a point on this, Lindsey Graham seems to be missing the point of the democratic process. In this country, we have elections in which candidates present their ideas about the direction and the vision of this country, and the American people express a preference. Then, once that’s over, there’s an expectation that the fight over the direction and the vision of this country would end and governing would begin. [...]
But wait, Republicans say, didn’t the electorate also elect a right-wing House majority? To a certain extent, yes, but in raw vote totals, Americans cast 1.362 million more votes for Democratic House candidates than GOP House candidates, which hardly points to a powerful Republican mandate.”
So the contest about “the direction and vision of this country” occurred on Nov. 6th with pretty solid results:
“Barack Obama is the first president in more than five decades to win at least 51 percent of the national popular vote twice, according to a revised vote count in New York eight weeks after the Nov. 6 election. [...] The president nationally won 65.9 million votes — or 51.1 percent — against Republican challenger Mitt Romney, who took 60.9 million votes and 47.2 percent of the total cast, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Obama is the first president to achieve the 51 percent mark in two elections since Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower, who did it in 1952 and 1956, and the first Democrat to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt, who won four consecutive White House races. Roosevelt received 53.4 percent of the vote — his lowest — in his last race in 1944.”
Lindsey’s petulance won’t reverse reality or change the election results. Maybe a good therapist is the only solution at this point. Or an intervention from the voters:
Daily Intel: “According to multiple Fox sources, [Fox News chief Roger Ailes] has issued a new directive to his staff: He wants the faces associated with the election off the air — for now. For Karl Rove and Dick Morris — a pair of pundits perhaps most closely aligned with Fox’s anti-Obama campaign — Ailes’s orders mean new rules. Ailes’s deputy, Fox News programming chief Bill Shine, has sent out orders mandating that producers must get permission before booking Rove or Morris. Both pundits made several appearances in the days after the election, but their visibility on the network has dropped markedly. Inside Fox News, Morris’s Romney boosterism and reality-denying predictions became a punch line… Multiple sources say that Ailes was angry at Rove’s election-night tantrum when he disputed the network’s call for Obama.”
It was a great idea, right?
The Atlantic Wire: “By all accounts, the past month has been most difficult on Romney’s wife, Ann, who friends said believed up until the end that ascending to the White House was their destiny. They said she has been crying in private and trying to get back to riding her horses.”
Ezra Klein reports: Chrystia Freeland is editor of Thomson Reuters Digital and author of “The Plutocrats: The Rise of the New Global Super Rich and the Fall of Everyone Else.” We spoke Tuesday about how the plutocrats she reported on for the book were handling Mitt Romney’s loss:
Ezra Klein: You’ve written about the revolt of the very rich against President Obama, and all the money they spent and time they dedicated to defeating him. So what’s the mood in those circles now that they’ve lost?
Chrystia Freeland: There’s a great joke on Wall Street which is that the bet on Romney is Wall Street’s worst bet since the bet on subprime. But I found the hostility towards Obama astonishing. I found the commitment to getting him out astonishing. I found the absolute confidence that it would work astonishing. On that Tuesday, the big Romney backers I was talking to were sure he was going to win. They were all flying into Logan Airport for the victory party. There’s this stunned feeling of how could we be so wrong, and a feeling of alienation.
The Romney comments to his donors, for which he was roundly pounced on by Republican politicians, I think they accurately reflected the view of a lot of these money guys. It’s the continuation of this 47 percent idea. They believe that Obama has been shoring up the entitlement society, and if you give enough entitlements to enough people, they’ll vote for you.
EK: Here’s my question about those comments. Romney was promising the very rich either a huge tax cut or, if you believe he would’ve paid for every dime and dollar of his cut, protection from any tax increases. He was promising financiers that he would roll back Dodd-Frank and Sarbanex-Oxley. He was promising current seniors that he wouldn’t touch their benefit. How are these not “gifts”?
CF: Let me be clear that I’m not defending any of them. But I think the way it works — and I think Romney’s comments were very telling in this regard — there are two differences in the mind of this class. First, they’re absolutely convinced that they’re not asking for special privileges for themselves. They’re convinced that it just so happens that their self-interest coincides perfectly with the collective interest. That’s where you get this idea of the “job creators”. The view is that to seek a low tax environment or less regulation, that’s not special pleading for yourself, it’s not transactional politics. It’s that this set of rules is the most conducive to economic growth for everybody. It will grow the pie. Now, it also happens to be an incredibly convenient way of thinking. If you’ve developed an ideology that what’s good for you personally also happens to be good for everyone else, that’s quite wonderful because there’s no moral tension.
What a convenient and self-serving justification for taking everything for yourself! Sort of like this:
Bob Cesca: “Even though Hostess is asking for permission to cut employee pensions by over $1 million per month, they’re also still asking for permission to dish out bonuses [to senior management] totaling $1.75 million.”
Bloomberg: “Las Vegas Sands Corp. (LVS), the casino company led by billionaire Sheldon Adelson, voted a special dividend that will pay [Sheldon Adelson] about $1.2 billion before an expected increase in federal taxes.”
That’s BILLION with a B. Or this special spin:
Think Progress: “Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) argued Wednesday: ‘People need to understand that the reason we worry about raising taxes on anyone – even raising taxes on the rich – it’s not that we’re looking out for the rich, it’s not that we’re concerned that the rich won’t be able to fend for themselves, because they will. It’s because we worry about the consequences that will inevitably result from that action and that will hit the poorest among us the hardest.’“
“Son, in politics you’ve got to learn that overnight, chicken shit can turn to chicken salad.” — Lyndon B. Johnson
TPM: President Obama hosted his former Republican challenger Mitt Romney for lunch that lasted over an hour at the White House on Thursday. …
This afternoon, President Obama and Governor Romney visited for an hour over lunch in the Private Dining Room adjacent to the Oval Office. Governor Romney congratulated the President for the success of his campaign and wished him well over the coming four years. The focus of their discussion was on America’s leadership in the world and the importance of maintaining that leadership position in the future. They pledged to stay in touch, particularly if opportunities to work together on shared interests arise in the future. Their lunch menu included white turkey chili and Southwestern grilled chicken salad.
Paul Constant: I have two thoughts about this:
1. As Boston.com notes, Mitt Romney kicked off his 2012 campaign by serving big bowls of Ann Romney’s turkey chili to fans in New Hampshire. There is no way that today’s menu was a coincidence.
2. “Let’s stay in touch, particularly if opportunities to work together on shared interests arise in the future” is the new “fuck you, you fucking fuck.”
A closer shot:
Eavesdropping on Obama and Romney’s Lunch Meeting — Rolling Stone: Here’s what we imagine they might be saying to each other…
zainyk: A Milford man.
The part of this day that Romney “carried” was exactly 206 to Obama’s 332. I believe the GOP would have called that an ass-whooping, had the numbers been reversed…
Stuart Stevens, the “chief strategist” for the Romney presidential campaign, puts things into a little perspective in an op-ed penned yesterday, in which he argues that by winning wealthier and whiter voters, Romney secured the moral victory over Obama:
“On Nov. 6, Mitt Romney carried the majority of every economic group except those with less than $50,000 a year in household income,” Stevens wrote. “That means he carried the majority of middle-class voters. While John McCain lost white voters under 30 by 10 points, Romney won those voters by seven points, a 17-point shift.”
Stuart goes on to say,
“There was a time not so long ago when the problems of the Democratic Party revolved around being too liberal and too dependent on minorities. Obama turned those problems into advantages and rode that strategy to victory. But he was a charismatic African American president with a billion dollars, no primary and media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical. How easy is that to replicate?”
As a commenter responds: “‘… a media that often felt morally conflicted about being critical.’ He’s right. Aside from Benghazi, his birthplace, his religion, socialism, naziism, communism, dog-eating, hatred of America, Libya, Affirmative, Action, school transcripts, the war on Christianity, gays, Iraq, abortion, welfare, foodstamps, Bin Laden, Afghanistan, drones, the economy, Bo, Hillary, Wall Street, drought, taxes, partisanship, disaster response, and that damn Michelle trying to force us to eat broccoli, I recall very little criticism coming from the media.”
Stuart’s brave finish: Romney lost the election but he won!
“Yes, the Republican Party has problems, but as we go forward, let’s remember that any party that captures the majority of the middle class must be doing something right. …And Republican ideals — Mitt Romney — carried the day. On Nov. 6, that wasn’t enough to win. But it was enough to make us proud and to build on for the future.”
Rich, conservative white men are collectively shaking their heads at the reality that today, in 2012, the votes of the poors and the blahs count exactly the same as theirs. Obvious solution? Build more conservative white men, build the future!