Romney’s not a witch

Presumed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has more than an “animal cruelty problem.”

He has a personality problem, a likeability problem, and a passion problem—to say nothing of his “consistency problem,” his “1 percent-status problem” and his “Mormon problem.”

He may have a “rugged jawline,” perfectly coiffed hair that has “gone gray in just the right places,” and boatloads of money—which allowed him to make generous contributions to virtually every politician at every level of government in New Hampshire prior to his primary victory there—but Romney comes up short pretty much everywhere else.

Which is troubling, particularly when the only thing a Republican presidential candidate has to do to get elected in this country is smile, kiss a few babies and regurgitate the time-tested talking points of the GOP’s master narrative.

Barack Obama, ‘food stamp president’: legacy or myth?

Presidential aspirant Newt Gingrich believes that campaigns are all about asking “legitimate questions” and demanding “facts and data” about a politician’s record.

It’s the reliance on such “facts and data” that allows Gingrich to sleep at night after publicly dubbing Barack Obama “the food stamp president.”

During an exchange with Fox News analyst Juan Williams during a debate in South Carolina on Jan. 16, Gingrich defended previous statements that poor kids lack a strong work ethic, that they should be put to work as janitors (child labor laws be damned), and that black Americans should “demand jobs, not food stamps.”

“Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?” Williams asked.

“No,” Gingrich responded, to roaring applause and rolling laughter. “I don’t see that.”

“It sounds as if you’re speaking to belittle people,” Williams added later in the exchange.

“Well, first of all, Juan,” Gingrich said, “the fact is, more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history.”

To Defecate in Terror: Mitt Romney gets Google-bombed

While the 99 percenters are destined to play a significant role in the 2012 presidential election, there is now another percent that very well may undermine the candidacy of Republican primary front-runner Mitt Romney.

Let us call it the 39 percent movement. 

Perhaps more damning than Bill Clinton’s “zipper problem,” George W. Bush’s “cocaine problem,” John Kerry’s “Catholic problem” and Barack Obama’s “progressive problem” combined, Romney’s “animal cruelty problem” has the potential to isolate a dog-lover demographic that cares so deeply for the 78.2 million canines in America that it spends more money pandering pets each year than most countries claim in total gross domestic product.

The story itself isn’t new.

More than five years ago, Boston Globe reporter Neil Swidey wrote about how, in 1983, Romney strapped his Irish setter, Seamus, to the roof of his wood-paneled station wagon during a 12-hour road trip to his family’s cottage in Canada. His eldest son, Tagg (not to be confused with Trig) “noticed a brown liquid running down the rear window” of the car. In what was spun as “a tiny preview of a trait he would grow famous for in business: emotion-free crisis management,” Swidey reported that “Romney coolly pulled off the highway and into a service station. There he borrowed a hose, washed down Seamus and the car, then hopped back onto the highway.”

From the Web site
DogsAgainstRomney.com

“The overall idea here is that Mitt Romney is unfit to be president because of the way he treated his dog,” MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow remarked during a segment of her Jan. 12 show.

Indeed.

Fox News’ Lanny Davis wrote exactly that in an article titled, “Why Romney’s ‘dog on car roof’ story makes him unfit to be president.”

Anyone who puts a dog in a cage on top of a car for a 12-hour drive and then deludes himself or tries to delude others that the dog really enjoyed it—to me, with all due respect, I feel such a man shouldn’t be president of the United States.

Money Can't Buy Mitt Love

Mitt Romney’s victory in the New Hampshire primary is big news.

It means that even if honesty, consistency, likeability and charm don’t come naturally—or even when forced—you can still win 10 percent less than a full majority.

All you need is three years of campaigning and a few million dollars to throw at every elected official at every level of government in the state. And once they’re campaigning for you, their constituents fall in line. (At least 40 percent of them.)

Money can’t buy you love, or popularity, or the ability to move your face muscles into anything that even remotely resembles a genuine expression. It can’t buy you a fan club or the support of the Republican establishment. But apparently it can buy you victory.

From all of us at ABLC, congratulations, Mitt. You bought earned this one!

Sorry, Greenwald, but Ron Paul’s no diamond in the rough

Barack Obama is running unopposed for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination.

Admittedly, that may be the single most obvious observation made thus far in the 2012 presidential election cycle.

Sadly, it’s one that deserves some attention—particularly for politically plugged-in progressives who’ve willingly subjected themselves to the broken record of purely ideological, unabashedly partisan, and intellectually vacuous sound bites that comprise the score of torturous GOP debates held over last eight agonizing months.

The blindly faithful Obamabots who initially cursed the bleeding hearts for even suggesting that another Democrat should challenge Obama for the presidency are now regretting that someone didn’t step in. At least it would have elevated the national dialogue above the monotonous (and backward) calls for further deregulation, even lower tax rates, and the end of “Obamacare” that all of the GOP candidates have used as the foundation of their presidential platforms.

In the absence of a Democratic primary, the party of sanity has been drowned out by the angry slurs of anti-government Republicans who’ve held a monopoly on the past year’s mainstream political news coverage with more than 20 debates held so far—and eight more scheduled before a GOP nominee is chosen and a Democrat is finally allowed to jump into the ring.

In the mean time, we can’t allow the intellectual deprivation of 24/7 GOP primary news to turn us into conservatives.

I’m talking to you, Glenn Greenwald, and whoever stumbled upon your two-part, 8,500-word series on the superiorly progressive platform of Ron Paul.

Bradley Manning’s ‘Gay Defense’ is Killing His ‘Hero’ Image

Bradley Manning is a “true American hero,” a modern-day Daniel Ellsberg, a brave and selfless patriot and soldier who sacrificed his own freedom in order to fight against the “enemies of public liberty” and awaken the American masses to the realities of war.

But even if you believe Manning is a “true American traitor,” a modern-day Benedict Arnold who betrayed his unit and disavowed his oath to country by haphazardly leaking hundreds of thousands of war reports and State Department cables, most of which he didn’t bother reading, Manning is entitled to a fair trial nonetheless.

Unfortunately for the Puritopian emoprogs of the far left who fueled this hero motif by peddling “Free Manning” T-shirts and tweeting “Free Bradley” hashtags, being a hero and getting a fair trial are mutually exclusive, at least as far as his attorneys can tell.

Glenn Greenwald Masters the Fox News Playbook on NDAA

America is lucky to have a designated area for fear-mongering bullshit.

It’s called Fox News, and it’s time for Salon.com to dump Glenn Greenwald and send him off to his rightful place among the Chicken Little conspiracy theorists and anti-Obama demagogues.

Greenwald’s “three myths” piece on the National Defense Authorization Act should allow this unprofessional lefty to sidestep the normal hiring procedures and join up immediately with Rupert Murdoch’s staff of paranoid nuts and bald-faced liars.

He’s earned it, after all.

For those found wanting in the art of elucidating congressional legislative legalese, or for those easily swayed by the emotional appeals of the attention-seeking Harold Campings of the world, Greenwald is a welcomed companion.

But he’s also a fool.

Rather than capitalizing on this golden opportunity to dissect the NDAA bill and start a national dialogue about the potentially harmful effects it could or may have with regard to the United States’ foreign policy, Greenwald instead chose to exploit one piece of the bill in order to gain some media attention and, apparently, boost his credibility among the anti-government, Tea Party Libertarian demographic of Fox News viewers.

It worked, but then he was debunked, and now he’s a laughing stock.

Romney’s Foreign Policy Strategy: Spineless Sycophancy & Ankle-grabbing Servitude

At least we’re clear.

The Romney Administration’s foreign policy strategy was rather obscure even after delivering a 23-minute speech on American “greatness” at the Citadel military academy on Oct. 7, but the looming cloud finally broke Saturday during the Republican presidential debate in Des Moines, Iowa.

“On foreign policy,” Romney said, “I would lead like a spineless lackey with Stockholm syndrome, a Yes Man who speaks only when spoken to and asks ‘How high?’ when told to jump by a foreign leader of any or no repute, because I have no self confidence and all I want in life is for someone to like me, and if that means bending over and taking one or two or three for the team—the royal team, the one-man team of me, myself and I—then I’m willing to do it, silently, clandestinely, behind closed doors and without a whimper.”

Those weren’t his exact words, but that’s essentially what he meant when he said that he’d deal with foreign leaders, specifically Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu, by asking, “Would it help if I said this? What would you like me to do?” by disagreeing with foreign leaders only “in private,” and by telling allies exactly what they want to hear.

Romney’s $10,000 Blunder: Who’s Right?

Mitt Romney’s $10,000 bet with Rick Perry has been called many things: a “rare but likely costly unforced error,” a re-enforcement to “the perception that he’s the out-of-touch elitist in the race,” a very “1 percent” thing to do.

But would he have won that bet?

At issue was Perry’s repeated attack against Romney’s alleged support of a national health care mandate, which Perry says was written in Romney’s book, “No Apologies,” but then redacted when the paperback version was printed.

In the hardcover edition, Romney writes under the subhead “The Massachusetts Model” that “We can accomplish the same thing for everyone in the country, and it can be done without letting government take over health care.”

This is the line Perry continues to quote in attacking Romney for supporting the same type of “Obamacare” insurance mandate that conservatives believe is bankrupting America.

Is it proof that Romney supported a national mandate? Not exactly, but...actually...yeah, it is.

For clarification, Romney also wrote that “My own preference would be to let each state fashion its own program to meet the distinct needs of its citizens. States could follow the Massachusetts model if they choose, or they could develop plans of their own. These plans, tested in the state ‘laboratories of democracy,’ could be evaluated, compared, improved upon, and adopted by others. But the creation of a national plan is the direction in which Washington is currently moving. If a national approach is ultimately adopted, we should permit individuals to purchase insurance from companies in other states in order to expand choice and competition.”

Perry’s exact words were, “I’m listenin’ to you, Mitt, and I’m hearin’ you say all the right things, but I read your first book and it said in there that your mandate in Massachusetts which should be the model for the country. And I know it came out of the reprint of the book, but you know, I’m just sayin’, you were for individual mandates, my friend.”

Romney responded, “You know what? You’ve raised that before, Rick, and you’re simply wrong.”

But is he?

Seeing that Washington was moving in the direction of a national plan, Romney advocated the idea of a Massachusetts model being used for other states. He didn’t specifically say that the “mandate” in Massachusetts should be a model for a national health care policy, but he did say the “model” in Massachusetts could be followed in crafting a national plan, and the Massachusetts model included a mandate.

So if A plus B equals C, then Romney would be $10,000 poorer were Perry a gambling man.

The ability to purchase health care across state lines is actually written into President Obama’s “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” and Obama has said that if states create their own health care exchanges, they are essentially exempt from the federal law.

In summary, then, “Obamacare” does everything Romney called for in his book, the White House did as Romney suggested by using “Romneycare” as the model for a national health care policy, and Romney is an out-of-touch elitist 1-percenter who just isolated millions of voters by throwing around a five-figure bet like it was nothing.

Anti-tax Republicans fight against tax cuts for the bottom 98 percent

What does an oil pipeline through the middle of the United States have to do with payroll tax cuts?

Absolutely nothing.

Grasping for whatever leverage they can find in a tax battle with Democrats they’re sure to lose, and hoping to “sweeten the deal” for Teapublican House members weary of supporting any measure backed by the Obama Administration, Republican leaders have proposed speeding up the highly controversial Keystone XL pipeline project and eliminating some environmental protections as a lure to Republican lawmakers to get on board with a payroll tax cut extension affecting 98 percent of Americans.

As a dagger in the heart of Democrats, this is a beautifully repugnant example of partisan politics. As an incentive to the staunchly conservative, anti-everything Tea Party members in the lower chamber, it’s yet another sign of just how reliant Republican leaders are on the sanity of the opposition party when it comes to keeping government functioning.

“Talk is cheap,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told reporters Friday, according to a report in The Hill.

When President Bush said the country was in trouble, Democrats responded in a bipartisan way. When the Republicans couldn't keep government running without our help, they got our help. The second time they couldn't keep government running without our help, we gave them our help. They couldn't make sure that America paid its debts, paid its bills, (and) Democrats helped. Democrats have shown — not just talked about it — have shown that we are prepared (to cross the aisle).

Considering that Republicans are the anti-tax party, you’d think a payroll tax cut would move swiftly through the House with a rubber stamp and a parade of worship for GOP lawmakers sticking up for American workers everywhere. Instead, the “Taxed Enough Already” caucus apparently wants to increase taxes on all but the rich.

“I know many Republicans have sworn an oath never to raise taxes as long as they live,” President Obama said at a Monday press briefing. “How could it be the only time there's a catch is when it comes to raising taxes for middle class families?”

“Tax cut” is a term used liberally in the ideological rhetoric of partisan demagogues, but beyond the big talk there’s little evidence that Republicans actually support any sort of tax relief to anyone on the bottom 98 percent of the economic food chain.

I’m dying of not-surprise.

Herman Cain Supporters, Rejoice!

In a meandering, cliché-drenched speech that made George W. Bush sound like a world-renowned scholar of the oratorical arts, Republican Herman Cain announced on Saturday, Dec. 3, 2011—a day that will live in infamy thanks to the candidate’s head-scratching paraphrasing of a Pokémon quotation—the immediate suspension, some say permanent, of his pie-in-the-sky presidential campaign.

Herman Cain in Atlanta, Ga., with wife, Gloria.

For those who saw Cain as the everyman candidate, the Average Joe, the overweight/black/male/bald version of Sarah Palin; for those who donated to his campaign, cheered at his rallies and courageously defended his economic, social and foreign policy blunders against the lamestream media’s factual clarifications vicious attacks; and for those whose loyalty didn’t waver even when those lying bitches accused Cain of sexual harassment, philandering and faithlessness to his wife of four decades, do not despair. There is a silver lining to every dark, thunderous, campaign-killing cloud.

In this case it’s the avoidance of post-primary shame from which all ye Republican dipshits would be suffering had karma not intervened and forced Cain’s cheatin’ ass to drop out.

The Curse of the Anti-Romney Candidates

For Newt Gingrich, the latest in a series of unelectable Republican presidential contenders to rise up as a frontrunner, any endorsement, even from “America’s worst newspaper*,” is a welcomed endorsement.

New Hampshire Union Leader,
Sunday Edition, Nov. 26, 2011

The New Hampshire Union Leader may not have a strong track record when it comes to influencing presidential elections, but when international pundits are making the observation that the Republican Party would have to be “feeling particularly suicidal” to award Gingrich the nomination, it’s no-cred fish rags like the Union Leader that give a depressed presidential campaign reason to stay the course, however doomed.

As everyone predicted, the Herman Cain wave crashed, and as a result the former Speaker of the House found himself floating to the top of the polls after six months of being anchored to the bottom of the shallow end of the GOP candidate pool.

Mostly disregarded by the press as a washed-up, burnt-out, has-been shellback whose presidential ambitions were assumed to be recorded as an “also-ran” footnote in whatever  post-’90s history books that bothered mentioning him at all, Gingrich is now the undisputed leader of an eight-deep presidential roster, according to polls.

He was next in the line of third-tier candidates to be beckoned from the shadows of irrelevance and emerge as the latest and greatest—if still generally unacceptable and unelectable—conservative alternative to the loathed frontrunner, Mitt Romney.

And that, in essence, is the only real significance of the Union Leader’s endorsement: the slightly more electable, moderately more likeable Mitt Romney was “snubbed” by the largest-circulation newspaper in the first state to hold a primary election in 2012.