Snark in Pictures - Thanksgiving, Pope Francis, Filibusters and Obamacare

Happy Thanksgiving to all my readers!

Romney Gets Middle Class Income Wrong

Oh, Mitt Romney ~ how ignorant you are! And you certainly aren't trying to get educated about the Middle Class. That's too bad because you are clearly out of touch with most Americans.

ABC News Complete Transcript: George Stephanopoulos Interviews Romney

MITT ROMNEY: Well, I said that there are five different studies that point out that we can get to a balanced budget without raising taxes on middle income people. Let me tell you, George, the fundamentals of my tax policy are these. Number one, reduce tax burdens on middle-income people. So no one can say my plan is going to raise taxes on middle-income people, because principle number one is keep the burden down on middle-income taxpayers.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Is $100,000 middle income?

MITT ROMNEY: No, middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less. So number one, don’t reduce– or excuse me, don’t raise taxes on middle-income people, lower them. Number two, don’t reduce the share of taxes paid by the wealthiest. The top 5% will still pay the same share of taxes they pay today. That’s principle one, principle two. Principle three is create incentives for growth, make it easier for businesses to start and to add jobs. And finally, simplify the code, make it easier for people to pay their taxes than the way they have to now.

But Romney's figures are skewed towards the high side of income for the vast majority of Americans, as Jillian Rayfield points out on Salon::

Obama has said in the past that he’ll cut taxes for middle-class families making $250,000 and less per year, but the way Romney put it certainly doesn’t help the narrative that he’s out of touch with the middle class.
According to the Census Bureau, the current median household income in the U.S. is slightly over $50,000.

Fehrnstrom: Romney Covered Afghanistan in Another Speech

I think something is seriously wrong with Eric Fehrnstrom, Mitt's senior adviser. Not only did he let his boss get upstaged by an empty chair on the most important night of his campaign, but he can't quite explain why Mitt avoided any mention of Afghanistan in his major speech at the Republican Convention.

Don't they realize how many young men and women are still in Afghanistan? Peopler are being hurt and maimed, mentally and physically, every single day. Don't they realize how many military families are involved in that effort? Stupidity doesn't even explain it - for instance, Sarah Palin mentioned the war and the veterans in nearly every speech she gave during the last election, and looking back that seems much more sensible than Romney's omission. I guess we have to assume he just didn't know what to say, so it's easier to slam China or Iran and talk about how Obama has "thrown Israel under the bus." Make up new threats to scare people instead of making them happy to have both Iraq and Afghanistan behind us.

Hey, Mitt - and you too, Eric - "Blessed are the peacemakers." Got that?

Here's the way Fehrnstrom explained it on CNN:

CROWLEY: Why didn't the president mention anything about there are troops as you know overseas still fighting in Afghanistan, but there was no mention of that in his speech. Was that deliberate, was it an oversight, what was that decision about?

FEHRNSTROM: Well, the day before the convention speech, Candy, Governor Romney traveled to Indianapolis on Wednesday and he gave a speech before the American Legion. Now that was an invitation that President Obama declined. Governor Romney thought it was a privilege to be speaking to people who had served so nobly. And in that speech, he talked about Afghanistan. He also talked about the $1 trillion in defense cuts that are going to be taking place under this president which his own defense secretary has said will be devastating to our national defense.

CROWLEY: Point taken. And I didn't mean the president, I meant the governor, He is your nominee, presidential nominee at this point. But it is not just the president and the Democrats, here is something that Bill Kristol, from the Weekly Standard, a conservative, a Republican, had to say, "what about the civic propriety of a presidential nominee failing to even mention in his acceptance speech, a war we're fighting and our young men and women who are fighting it? Has it ever happened that we've been at war and a presidential nominee has ignored in this kind of major and formal speech the war and our warriors? I doubt it. It has been since 1952, I read, where a Republican did not mention troops serving overseas."

Do you think it was an oversight -- in hindsight, should he have said something?

FEHRNSTROM: Well, again, he spoke to Afghanistan in a big speech before the American Legion the night before his convention speech, that was an invitation...

CROWLEY: Sure, but this is a huge, big audience.

FEHRNSTROM: President Obama declined. But Governor Romney's convention speech was an opportunity for him to introduce himself to millions of voters who were seeing him for the first time and in that speech he accomplished what he set to do, which is to talk about his better vision for America with more jobs and increasing wages, he talked about the failures of the Obama presidency over the last four years. And he talked a little bit about the personal side and what motivates him.

And we thought that speech was a home run.

Obama wondered why Romney would just overlook the role of President in the Afghan conflict:

"Gov. Romney had nothing to say about Afghanistan last week," Obama said at a campaign rally in Iowa on Saturday. "Didn't mention it. Didn't offer a plan in terms of how he might end the war or, if he's not going to end it, he's got to let people know."

Republican Bill Kristol blasted Romney in an Weekly Standard column:

What War?
The United States has some 68,000 troops fighting in Afghanistan. Over two thousand Americans have died in the more than ten years of that war, a war Mitt Romney has supported. Yet in his speech accepting his party's nomination to be commander in chief, Mitt Romney said not a word about the war in Afghanistan. Nor did he utter a word of appreciation to the troops fighting there, or to those who have fought there. Nor for that matter were there thanks for those who fought in Iraq, another conflict that went unmentioned.

Leave aside the question of the political wisdom of Romney's silence, and the opportunities it opens up for President Obama next week. What about the civic propriety of a presidential nominee failing even to mention, in his acceptance speech, a war we're fighting and our young men and women who are fighting it? Has it ever happened that we've been at war and a presidential nominee has ignored, in this kind of major and formal speech, the war and our warriors?

Bye-Bye to Best Buy?

The Best Buy company is in big financial trouble these days. I can't really remember the last time I shopped there - it's been years. I never enjoyed the feeling of being in a big warehouse with loud music blaring. I'd rather be able to think straight while making purchases . . . but that's just me.

My kids were the ones who usually begged to go there to look at the latest video games, and we would indulge them. The problem is, we could get the same game for half the price at Target, and even less on Amazon. I figured out quickly that Best Buy "sales" weren't really sales.

Their dvds and cds are always overpriced and not stocked well, and when we had to buy a refrigerator we chose the local neighborhood appliance store where we could get a better deal, a good warranty, and same day delivery. Also, while I know they have great sales around Thanksgiving, I hate to get in line at 4 a.m. and fight with other shoppers, so I just stay home and get the exact same half-price deal on Amazon with free Super Saver shipping. And no loud music - just Christmas Carols.

To me this is a problem very much like Netflix causing Blockbuster to lose business. Convenience matters, and service matters. And greed is not that good if your sales are making customers walk out the door without buying anything. I can't tell you how many times we used to go to our local Blockbuster with money in our pockets around Christmas, but nothing was discounted except used movies, and those don't make great presents. I wasn't even surprised when our BB closed down - corporate jerks.

This is more bad news for cities across the country. Each Best Buy store provides lots of local jobs, and they are talking about closing down 50 locations (see story below). That's a shame. I'm sure the corporate overlords are preparing their golden umbrellas, while the kids that work at Best Buy have to go work at fast food restaurants or Home Depot. And the adult employees with families face an uncertain Christmas season with only unemployment pay. Sad.

From Wall Street Journal

Best Buy Co....may be running out of time to turn around its troubled electronics business after posting a 91% plunge in quarterly profit Tuesday and suspending its annual earnings forecast heading into the holiday shopping season.

The world's largest electronics chain reported second quarter earnings fell to $12 million from $128 million a year earlier. Its business eroded by almost every measure, from revenue to gross profit margins to same-store sales, as gains in smartphones and tablets failed to make up for computer and television declines.

Story from CNBC

Best Buy's problems have been compounded by "dinosaur (store) formats that we just don't need any longer," Widlitz said.

Critics have complained that Best Buy has become a showroom for Amazon.com Inc and other online retailers as shoppers go to its stores to check out electronics like high-definition televisions, then buy them elsewhere for less.

Ending the practice of showrooming is a top priority, Best Buy said in June.

The company has also said it is working to improve its online business and wants to reduce retail square footage further than a March plan to close 50 of its 1,100 large U.S. stores. Many investors were looking for deeper cuts to turn around the chain.

The Voting Nightmare in Pennsylvania

This story keeps getting worse. I'm losing sleep over it because the whole thing is diabolical and shouldn't be happening in the United States.

The Voter ID Law was upheld yesterday by a Republican judge who saw no harm in disenfranchising hundreds of thousands of voters. The next thing to do is appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court which is deadlocked 3-3, Dem against Republicans. Time is of the essence, but there just seems to be no answer.

CNN Political Ticker Report:

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Judge Robert Simpson issued an order on Wednesday saying there was no constitutional reason to stop the law from taking effect. In his opinion, however, he wrote that he had "sympathy" for the witnesses.

The coalition, however, seeks to appeal the law in the State Supreme Court, requesting that the court hear the case on an expedited basis because the election is less than three months away.

The ACLU of Pennsylvania, the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, the Advancement Project and the law firm of Arnold & Porter filed the appeal jointly.

"The fight in this case could go on after the election. Judge Simpson's ruling was on the request for a preliminary injunction. There could still be a hearing for a final injunction," said the ACLU of Pennsylvania in a statement.

On the same day as that ruling - no coincide - the State of Penn decided to drop a plan to allow online absentee voter registration.

Talking Points Memo

A spokesman for the Department of State said county elections officials told the agency that implementing the new online initiatives as well as voter ID requirements was too much to handle less than three months before the election.

*sigh* I've lived half a century and I just can't believe this is happening in every presidential election.

"You Better Stop, Hey, What's that Sound?
Everybody Look What's Going Down."

John Sununu Loses it with CNN's Soledad O'Brien

Why is it that Republicans can't go on national TV without trying to out-shout someone? It's either just a macho thing, or they are running scared. I'll take the latter.

Because let's face it, no surrogate can prove that Romney isn't being influenced by Paul Ryan now. There's just no distance between them, as presidents and veeps are mostly one unit. But Sununu sounds in denial about that.

In this clip, Romney surrogate John Sununu erupts at Soledad O'Brien on CNN over whether Romney is embracing the Ryan Budget view on Medicare. Sununu gets so flustered he tells O'Brien to "put an Obama bumper sticker on her forehead." OMG At the end he gives a non-apology apology, and Soledad calls him out on that, too! Good for her!



CNN Transcript August 14, 2012

SUNUNU: It is. The nominee is Mitt Romney. Paul Ryan joins Mitt Romney. The budget plan, the approach on Medicare and all of that is going to be the Romney plan. What he has is a man as his number two who understands the details of budgets who has demonstrated a willingness to take on tough issues and who knows how to communicate with the public --

O'BRIEN: Isn't the Ryan plan the Romney plan --

SUNUNU: No, it isn't.

O'BRIEN: Let me read you a quote.

SUNUNU: It isn't. You keep wanting to say it and I'm telling you, it's not.

O'BRIEN: Then let me read you a quote from Mitt Romney. This is from Ryan Lizza's article. On March 20th in Chicago, "I'm very supportive of the Ryan budget plan. He said, I think it would be marvelous if the Senate were to pick up Paul Ryan's budget and adopt it and pass it along to the president." That sounds like a lot of support. Am I wrong?

SUNUNU: It's support for the concepts that are in the Ryan plan. But Mitt Romney for six months has had on the table his package, his plan and his approach for dealing with Medicare. If all you want to do is keep repeating the garbage that comes out of the White House, then you've got a problem. The American public is going to see that the plan that is being put forward is the plan Mitt Romney has put forward.

O'BRIEN: Let's read then what comes out of MittRomney.com, which I have right here. Key elements of mitt's plan, nothing changes for current seniors, Medicaid is reformed as a premium support system, repackaged as a fixed amount benefit they can use to purchase an insurance plan. All insurance plans must offer what Medicare provides today. This is from MittRomeny.com It sounds awfully like the Paul Ryan Medicare plan.

SUNUNU: But it's very different. For example, when Obama gutted Medicare by taking $717 billion out of it, the Romney plan does not do that. The Ryan plan mimicked part of the Obama package there. The Romney plan does not. That's a big difference.

O'BRIEN: But you know, and I understand that this is a Republican talking point because I've heard it repeated over and over again. And these numbers have been debunked as you know by congressional --

SUNUNU: No, they haven't.

O'BRIEN: Yes they have.

SUNUNU: I have the Congressional Budget Office right here dated July 24th from Doug Elmandorf. Read page 13 and 14 --

O'BRIEN: I can tell you what it says. It cuts a reduction in the expected rate of growth, which you know, not cutting budgets to the elderly, benefits will be improved, the focus is on hospitals and focus is on health insurance.

SUNUNU: He gutted the program by $711 million.

O'BRIEN: The expected rate of growth is being cut.

SUNUNU: It reduces services to Medicare beneficiaries currently on the package. What the difference is, is that Romney says no impact to anybody 55 or over. The -- it is clear in here that the reduction in services starts on January 1st, 2013. And Obama stole that money to put it in the --

O'BRIEN: The hospitals agreed to that and drug providers agreed to that because their theory is they will make up by the number of people that come into the system. It doesn't reduce or cut the benefits. The older people who --

SUNUNU: It does --

(CROSSTALK) SUNUNU: Soledad, stop this. All you're doing is mimicking the stuff that comes out of the White House and gets repeated on the Democratic blog boards out there. If you're going to mouth garbage that comes out of the White House.

O'BRIEN: I'm telling you what FactCheck.com tells you. I'm telling what the CBO and CNN's independent analysis does.

SUNUNU: I have the CBO report right here.

O'BRIEN: And I'm telling you what it says. I've read it several times.

SUNUNU: Put a Obama bumper sticker on your forehead when you do this.

O'BRIEN: You know, let me tell you something, there is independent analysis that details what this is about.

SUNUNU: No, there isn't.

O'BRIEN: Yes, there is.

SUNUNU: (CROSSTALK)

O'BRIEN: Sir, let me finish. There's independent analysis, fact check.com, the CBO and CNN has already done its own independent analysis, and name calling to me and somehow acting as if by repeating a number of $716 billion that you can make that stick when that figure is being stolen from Medicare, that's not true. You can't just repeat it and make it true, sir.

SUNUNU: Reduction in services and reduction --

O'BRIEN: A reduction in the expected rate of growth, a reduction in the expected rate of growth.

SUNUNU: And reduction in services and reduction in support for Medicare advantage. That is taking money from the program.

O'BRIEN: Which by the way, Paul Ryan, right, has in his budget, which by the way -- SUNUNU: Mitt Romney does not.

O'BRIEN: Which Romney has said in the quote I just read to you, he thinks it's brilliant.

SUNUNU: But he likes the Ryan plan for its guts, but he has his own plan out there, which is carefully crafted to protect the seniors from 55 and up and does not take the $700 billion that Obama took.

O'BRIEN: John Sununu, always nice having you, pleasure.

SUNUNU: Yes.

O'BRIEN: It doesn't sound like he means it.

BERMAN: I just wish John Sununu would come out of his shell a little bit. He's very timid in the morning.

Harry Reid Responds to Republican "Henchmen" and "Cowards"

Harry Reid has responded to all the Republican accusations on the Sunday Talk Shows, as posted here: Journalism Derp and Question Fail

Give 'em Hell, Harry Reid!!!

From Politico

“They’re a bunch of cowards and they’re avoiding the issue,” said David Krone, Reid’s chief of staff, in an interview with POLITICO on Sunday night. “Lindsey Graham, Reince Priebus - they’re a bunch of henchmen for Romney and they’re all reading off the same talking points. They couldn’t hold a candle to Harry Reid.”

Krone added: “What Harry Reid said is the fact of what he was told. To turn it around, all their childish rants this weekend about calling Reid a ‘liar’ and all that, it just shows you how scared they are that Harry Reid was telling the truth.”

Via Talking Points Memo

Late Sunday morning, Reid’s spokesman Adam Jentleson responded via email to TPM.

“Republicans can try to cover up for Mitt Romney’s stonewalling all they want, but this issue is not going away until Romney decides to be straight with the American people and release his tax returns. It is sad that the most secretive candidate since Richard Nixon has forced his party to defend his decision to hide the truth about his tax returns. As Senator Reid has said, an extremely credible source informed him that Mitt Romney did not pay taxes for ten years. From the one year of returns Romney has released, we’ve seen that he uses secret offshore accounts in places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands to avoid paying U.S. taxes. It’s clear Mitt Romney is hiding something, and the only way for him to clear this up is to be straight with the American people and release his tax returns.”

Some stories are so juicy that you wish they would never end. I almost hope Mitt Romney never releases his income taxes so that Harry Reid can keep the Republicans in an uproar about this, Sunday after Sunday, till the election, LOL.

Sunday Talk Shows ~ Journalism Derp and Question Fail

The Sunday talk shows were horrible this week, with even seasoned journalists lined up in bipartisan support with Republican pundits, trying to save Mitt Romney from the dastardly clutches of the evil Harry Reid, who dared ask the national candidate to do something every other politician or federal employee has to do and release his taxes.

Both Bob Schieffer and George Will said Reid is practicing McCarthyism. Hmmm, I don't remember them ever saying anything about Michele Bachmann and her witch hunts.

. . . isn't this kind of like Joe McCarthy back in the era when he said, "I have here in my hand the names of 400 people in the state department who are communist?" It turned out he didn't and he was saying the way to prove that they're not is for them to come forward here. I mean, asking somebody to come forward to, to just because there's been an unsubstantiated charge, that's a little thin to me.
~ Bob Schieffer on CBS Face the Nation

Look, in 1950, Joe McCarthy went to West Virginia, didn’t know what to tell to the Women’s Republican Club of Wheeling, West Virginia, so he said I have in my hand a list of 205, we think that are — 205 communists in the State Department. Didn’t have a list. Harry Reid doesn’t have any evidence either. This is McCarthyism from the desert (ph).
~ Republican pundit, George Will on This Week

Nice to see you both got your talking points straight, fellas. Does Reince Priebus email them to you directly? And speaking of our favorite Republican leader (not), here is Priebus on ABC This Week calling Reid a "dirty liar" and saying he hasn't released his taxes either. Oh yeah?

RNC Chairman, Reince Priebus: And as far as Harry Reid is concerned, listen, I know you might want to go down that road, I’m not going to respond to a dirty liar who hasn’t filed a single page of tax returns himself. Complains about people with money but lives in the Ritz Carlton here down the street. So if that’s on the agenda, I’m not going to respond to that. This is just a made-up issue. And the fact that we’re going to spend any time talking about it is ridiculous.
George Stephanopolous: Mr. Chairman, you say you're not going to respond, but you just called him a 'dirty liar.' You stand by that, you think Harry Reid is a dirty liar?”
Priebus: I just said it.
ABC News This Week with George Stephanopolous

Most Democrats were probably screaming the obvious point at the TV, which Stephanopoulos ignored - it's easy to prove whether Reid has released his taxes as a member of the Senate. Why didn't George just say that? And you know what? Reid has released his taxes for many years.  Going back to 1995. Yet George Stephanopoulos didn't question that outrageous statement at all, even after cuckoo Ann Coulter repeated the lie, and she was babbling like an idiot.

Must be a good gig to get on these shows and lie your brains out week after week with no "journalist" to call you on it. Coulter also tried to deflect the criticism back on Obama and even on Bill Clinton for some unknown reason, but all of it still begs the question of why Coulter  is so afraid for Romney to release his taxes. She might as well have been talking to herself for all the questioning anyone gave her. She even implied that people are asking for Romney's taxes because he is a Mormon, which is absurd because Harry Reid is also a Mormon, LOL. Derp de Derp.

He absolutely should not release any more tax returns. He has released two years. Bill Clinton wouldn’t release his medical records. You know, people kind of wondered about that. We know after the JFK presidency, you could have an issue with a drug addict president, but he just dug in his heels. We have two years on Romney. You know perfectly well, the media, this is Obama’s modus operandi, and unfortunately Romney isn’t divorced. Hopefully, his vice presidential candidate won’t be divorced. It’s always dirty politics. You remember when Romney was — or Obama was running against McCain and Sarah Palin. What did we get? False rumors of a McCain affair. We had investigations into the Palin marriage, claims they were getting divorced. They have nothing on this Mormon, and they want his tax records. If they releases 10 years, they’ll demand 20 years.
~ Ann Coulter on This Week

Everyone expects Coulter to sound like a partisan wingnut, but what about a so-called "Senior White House Reporter," in this case Jonathan Karl of ABC News? What's his excuse for protecting Romney? And how does this guy "know" that Mitt Romney paid any taxes at all? He doesn't know!

It's one of the most outrageous charges that I've ever seen actually made on the Senate Floor. . . . When Harry Reid takes to the floor of the Senate and makes this outrageous charge that has absolutely no evidence. . . I mean Mitt Romney paid $3 million in the one tax return we've seen. He's paid taxes, so it's a completely false charge.
But Reid loves this. The Democrats love this. Because no matter how he digs in, no matter how much he gets attacked, you know - here or by John Stewart - or anywhere else, it gets the story out there again and again.
And I tell you - Mitt Romney played right into this by telling Harry Reid to 'put up or shut up,' so it becomes this back-and-forth. Instead, he should have laughed it off, he should have made a joke about Harry Reid's imaginary friend, and moved on . . .
Jonathan Karl, ABC senior White House reporter, on This Week

Over on CNN, Senator Lindsey Graham, R-SC, also called Reid a liar, and "journalist" Candy Crowley was just too busy and in a hurry to ask any follow-up questions. *snort* What a joke! These alleged "interviews" are like little commericials for the Mitt Romney campaign.

Senator Lindsey Graham: I think he's lying about his statement about knowing something about Romney's . . .
Candy Crowley of CNN: That's pretty stiff. You think the leader of the Senate is lying?
Lindsey Graham: I really do - I think he's created an issue here, I think he's making things up. And at a time when the country is just about to fall apart.
. . . I just can't believe that the Senate Majority Leader would take the floor twice, make accusations that are absolutely unfounded in my view, and quite frankly making things up. . . .
Candy Crowley: Senator Lindsey Graham, I wish we had more time. I've got to run. Thank you so much.
From CNN's State of the Union with Candy Crowley

Of course, CNN as usual had "two sides" so everything could cancel out evenly, and at least Robert Gibbs got in a few lines of truth:

We can put all of this to rest tomorrow. Mitt Romney can go to Kinko’s, he can photocopy his tax returns, they’re several hundred pages. He can hand them out to people like CNN, he can hand them out to reporters all over the country, and you know what? We wouldn’t talk about this tomorrow.
~ Robert Gibbs on CNN, quoted by Politico

Indeed! Come on Mitt - show us the taxes!!!

Mitt Dog-Whistles to his Base at the NAACP

Why would Mitt Romney to make a fool of himself at the NAACP convention in Houston? Why would he tell an audience of mainly Democratic Obama Supporters that he wants to repeal "Obamacare," causing them to boo him off the stage?





But wait ~ isn't he trying to gain African American support in the November election? Isn't he trying to appeal to black independent voters?

Actually, no, he isn't trying to do that at all.

What he's trying to do is show the Tea Party Republicans that he's a "real man" who will stand up to Democrats, and especially people of color.

So he got up in front of the NAACP and blew his "dog whistle," or a message that most of us will take one way, but the "in crowd" of Republicans will hear another way, just as a dog can hear a dog whistle that is inaudible to most humans. Most Democrats or Independent voters will think "poor Romney, he screwed up again," while the Tea Party will cheer it as a victory.

Unlike Ted Nugent or Rush Limbaugh, a man running for the highest office in the land has to use a subtler form of dog whistle. He has to pretend that he wants to be everyone's president, which is what he said today, but at the same time he gave his party red meat with the contradiction that no matter what the members of the NAACP want from a President, they won't get it from him. And that's how we know it was a dog whistle, not some slip-up by an incompetent campaign.

Oh, and also too . . . he admitted that he expected to get booed. He knew he was going to get a reaction that would be a sound-byte on the news.

ABC News Story

Mitt Romney said after being booed at the NAACP today that he "expected" the strong objection in response to his pledge to repeal President Obama's health care law.
. . .
Avis Jones-DeWeever, the executive director of the National Council of Negro Women, said Romney had accomplished a "calculated political ploy" by signaling to conservatives that he's willing to tell backers of the health law that he wants to cut it.

"That was like a victory lap on Fox News," she said. "That was exactly what he went there intending to do."

Martin Bashir Discussion on MSNBC

Bashir: Was Mitt Romney really addressing the audience that he was in front of or was he speaking to some other people in that speech? Because -- the speech itself was a stump speech that I have heard when he's been in New Hampshire, when he has been in Wisconsin. It didn't seem any different. Who was he really speaking to?

Jonathan Capehart: He was speaking to both audiences and in his stump speech is void of any specifics which has, you know, Democrats and Republicans alike scratching their heads and begging for more. But -- in all speeches there are multiple audiences. On the one hand he's saying to African Americans you are just like everyone else I talk to. You are a part of the united states . Here's my overall message.

Bashir: Thank you for reminding us of that. Excellent.

Capehart: But the other audience is still his core constituency. His base. His being booed by saying he will repeal Obamacare, I think that will inure to his benefit. It shows his constituency that, one, he is not afraid to say "Obamacare" to the audience that's the most loyal constituency to -- to president Obama. And that he then took in the boos and went off script and ad-libbed this study that you called bogus shows he . . . he's not afraid of -- not afraid of a fight. So he's doing -- he is doing multiple things. I think tactically speaking, politically speaking, not so bad.

Bashir: Clarence , what do you think that Mitt Romney actually welcomed the booing in some ways? Maybe it kind of was helpful to him because of course he's going off to Montana and then he's going to see Dick Cheney in Wyoming, he can go there and wave this one and say "look, boys, I got booed at the NAACP."

Clarence Page: Martin, how can you have such a cynical Machiavellian notion as to think that Mitt Romney might find some value in triangulating a situation like this?
(laughter)
Seriously. I was wondering the same thing. I don't know the -- I don't mean Mitt Romney wants to be portrayed as a man black people don't like. When you look at the speech, indeed it was the same talking points he normally gives when campaigning to his base. But also, the same words, I mean, when you talk about Obamacare, to say Obamacare to the NAACP, it's like praising cheeseburgers to a convention of vegans.
(laughter)
This organization has been very much -- in favor of Obamacare for a variety of Republican Code. He never says "Romneycare." He's very happy to say "Obamacare." It was very much loaded like he was talking to a group of Tea Party folks. I don't think he was really surprised by the booing. and certainly he scores points either way with middle of the road folks important just the fact he showed up. But he's making the outreach. George W. Bush did it as a candidate but then went several years without showing up at the NAACP as President.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The Right's Circular Firing Squad over Romney Campaign

I read news all day and half the night, and I can't keep up with all the negative comments directed at Mitt Romney from his own party. It's like when they aren't praising him and saying he can beat Obama, they are taking pot shots at him. Of course they hardly need to, since Romney's campaign shoots itself in the collective foot almost daily with the accuracy of Barney Fife.

But the loathing for their own candidate is incredible. Just the past few days we've had:

Rush Limbaugh calling Romney a "Placeholder"

A wealthy Republican donor calling Mitt a "Plastic Ken Doll"

Speaker John Boehner Saying People Can't Fall in Love with Romney

And let's not forget:

Rupert Murdoch of Fox Criticizing Mitt on Twitter

Today Media Matters for American published their own list of Romney criticisms coming from the Right:

What Romney's Right-Wing Revolt Tells Us About the GOP

This time it's the right-wing media that's taken upon itself to launch a running critique of Romney's campaign:
*Fox's Eric Bolling says Romney should fire his whole staff
*Fox's Brian Kilmeade suggests Romney has to "toughen up"
*Fox's Bill Kristol compares Rommey to Michael Dukakis and John Kerry and says he needs to "get off autopilot."
*Fox owner Rupert Murdoch tweets that Romney needs to shake up his staff
*Murdoch's Wall Street Journal editorial page eviscerates Romney's campaign team as being incompetent
*Fox's Laura Ingraham mocks Romney's jet-skiing ways
Did you spot the trend?
It's amazing how the conservative press feels completely empowered at this point to brazenly dictate how the Republican Party candidate ought to run for the White House. (No matter how kooky the suggestions.)

Media Matters points out that things have changed in a short amount of time, since the Party has yet to recover from the one-two punch of the Immigration and Health Care rulings of the Supreme Court.

. . . What must be so upsetting for conservatives is that up until recently Romney was basking in their praise and the right-wing media was crushing on the candidate. Last month, partisan players cheered when the Romney campaign sent staffers to yell and boo Obama strategist David Axelrod at a press conference, and when a Romney campaign bus drove round and round honking at Obama supporters. For far-right fans, those juvenile antics signaled determination and willingness by the Romney campaign to do away with etiquette and the type of simple decorum that conservatives were so angry McCain abided by in 2008.

"I'm telling you," Limbaugh announced on the day after the heckling spectacle,  "This is not the McCain campaign." The talker meant it as a compliment, as BuzzFeed noted how Romney was "uniting the right by playing the role of the bomb-thrower."

The admiration was flowing just a few weeks ago when Breitbart editor Larry O'Connor typed up quotes from Romney strategists about how wonderful and influential the right-wing media has become (especially Breitbart.com!) and how it was working seamlessly with the Republican candidate on messaging to defeat Obama.
But that has since changed. The Obama haters feel betrayed on key policy issues and by Romney's tepid response to the recent immigration and health care rulings by the Supreme Court.
The right-wing media complained loudly.  Message: They want their campaign back.

Obamacare Chaos as Republican Talking Heads Disagree

Health care is a big hot-button issue in light ofthe Supreme Court ruling so surely the Republicans had some agreed-upon talking points ready, right? At the very least, they could all get on board with the idea that the health care mandate is a tax - Obamatax - because at least their own Tea-publican base loves that idea, right? Am I right?

Wrong. They cannot get on the same page. Confusion reigns. They have a few memes like "Repeal and Replace" but beyond that each talking head seems to not know what the others are saying, so they are like a cross between a mythical Chimera with several heads and Dr. Dolittle's Push-Me-Pull-You. If what they babble about seems chaotic, what the public hears is mostly crickets chirping. There is no there there. They got nothin'.

Mythical Chimera = Republicans on Health Care

Mitch McConnell: Diabolically unable to show compassion, but also no plan.

* Repeal and Replace ~ Message Fail ~ Crickets Chirping ~ Empathy Fail *

Via Mother Jones ~ Mitch McConnell on Fox News

WALLACE: One of the keys to "Obama-care" is that it will extend insurance access to 30 million people who are now uninsured. In your replacement, how would you provide universal coverage?

MCCONNELL: Well, first, let me say the single the best thing we could do for the American health care system is to get rid of Obamacare....

WALLACE: But if I may, sir, you've talked about repeal and replace. How would you provide universal coverage?

MCCONNELL: I will get to it in a minute. The first step we need to take is to get rid of what is there....

WALLACE: But respectfully sir, because we are going to run out of time and I just want to ask, what specifically are you going to do to provide universal coverage to the 30 million people who are uninsured?


MCCONNELL: That is not the issue....

WALLACE: You don't think the 30 million people that were uninsured is an issue?

MCCONNELL: Let me tell you what we are not going to do....

Cricket Chirping.MP3


Also too . . . Talking Point Chaos - Tax or Penalty, Penalty or Tax

WSJ: Is the Mandate a Tax or a Penalty

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) attacked the new law, saying it amounts to a “middle class tax increase” that’s largely going to affect Americans making less than $120,000 a year.

“It will cost the economy between 800,000 and a million jobs,” Mr. McConnell said on “Fox News Sunday.”

. . . White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew hit back, saying that the new health-care law was a “penalty” that only 1% of the population who can afford insurance, but decide not to purchase it, will pay.

“The law is clear: it’s called a penalty. Second of all, what the Supreme Court ruled was that this law was constitutional,” Mr. Lew said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “Everyone who has insurance–everyone who chooses to buy insurance–will not pay it.”

The Romney Campaign Agrees . . . with the White House???

* surrogate confusion *

CHUCK TODD (MSNBC): What you just said is that Governor Romney agrees that it's not a tax. But you guys call it a penalty.

ERIC FEHRNSTROM (TOP ROMNEY AIDE): The governor disagreed with the court. He agreed with the dissent that was written by Justice Scalia which very clearly stated that the mandate was not a tax.

TODD: So ... I think we're talking around each other. The governor does not believe the mandate is a tax, that's what you're saying?

FEHRNSTROM: The governor believes that what we put in place in Massachusetts was a penalty and he disagrees with the court's ruling that the mandate was a tax.

TODD: But he agrees with the president that it is not, that you shouldn't call the tax penalty a tax, you should call it a penalty or a fee or a fine?

FEHRNSTROM: That's correct.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

John Boehner: Unable to explain anything about the Republican health care plan, or which parts they will keep or discard.

* Repeal and Replace ~ Message Fail ~ Empathy Fail ~ It's a Tax! ~ Crickets *



CBS Transcript - Face the Nation, July 1, 2012

NORAH O'DONNELL: But access to affordable health insurance, but you're not saying you would be for a law that would prevent discrimination of those individuals?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: No, we just believe there is a better way to make sure that they have affordable access to quality health insurance.

NORAH O'DONNELL: So when you repeal this, what are you going to replace it with?


REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: I just started pointing out. We're going take a common-sense, step-by-step approach that puts in place the kind of policies that will make our-- our health insurance system more what I call patient-centered and lower cost. The only proposal out there last year that would lower the cost of health insurance came from Republicans. Why? Because we've got policies that really will help bring down the cost of health insurance. It's clear that Obamacare is increasing the cost of health insurance for all Americans and making it virtually impossible for small employers to hire new workers.


Cricket Chirping.MP3

NORAH O'DONNELL: How does it make it hard for small employers to hire more workers?

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER: Because they're being required to either provide health insurance or pay a fine. Well, I'm sorry, a tax. It's now a tax since the court said it was a tax.

NORAH O'DONNELL: Chief Justice John Roberts said it was a tax.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (overlapping): He-- even though, the President had tried to admit for, you know, over a year that it wasn't a tax and nobody believed it and now we know it. But it-- it's getting in the way of employers hiring new workers. Because of these increased costs of government-run health insurance and the fact that, if they don't, they have to provide a tax, so employers--

~~~*snip*~~~

NORAH O'DONNELL: Why not, then, if you like some of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act, why not work with it rather than ap-- repeal the whole thing.

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (overlapping): No, no, no.

NORAH O'DONNELL: Even Mitt Romney said--

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (overlapping): No, this has to be-- this has to be ripped out by its roots. This is government taking over the entire health insurance industry. The American people do not want to go down this path. They do not want the government telling them what kind of insurance policy they have to buy and how much they're going to pay for it and if you don't like it, we're going to tax you. It has to be ripped out and we need to start over, one step at a time.

NORAH O'DONNELL (overlapping): And so you say so-- so-- so to heck with all these provisions like additional preventative care for children, for women--

REPRESENTATIVE JOHN BOEHNER (overlapping): All of them. All of-- we can-- we can replace. While we replace this, we can have a common-sense debate about which of these provisions ought to stay and which ought to go.

Governor Scott says Florida Will Sue Homeland Security for List of Voters to Purge

This guy is all kinds of crazy. Even with his popularity dropping and all his Election Officials in mutiny, he can't stop the purge. He's the Captain Queeg of Florida looking for his strawberries illegal voters.

From Talking Points Memo

“The Florida’s Secretary of State office wil be filing a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security to give us that database,” Scott said. “We want to have fair, honest elections in our state and so we have been put in a position that we have to sue the federal government to get this information.” The move comes after Scott disregarded a request from the Department of Justice on Wednesday to abandon efforts to purge eligible voters.

Neil Cavuto, who conducted the interview, pressed Scott on why many of those who objected to the purge were Republican election supervisors. Cavuto also noted that other prominent Florida Republicans, notably Sen. Marco Rubio, were notably silent on the purge.

Facebook Faceplant Causes Facepalm

I hate to say "I told you so," but the other day I wrote that I was underwhelmed by the Facebook IPO and thought it might fall apart quickly in spite of all the media hype and high-profile buyers such as Bono of U2.

And looks like I was right - headline after headline. I don't pretend to be an economist and have no money in the stock market and probably never will, but I think I can spot a trend. Facebook is not an up-and-coming commodity anymore. It's been around too long to have an IPO, and not everyone is as thrilled about Facebook as they were about Google.

Of course, no one out here in the 99% real world should feel sorry for these new billionaires. But there are problems with the fact that Facebook employees are stuck with the stock for many months and are barred from selling quickly while the price is still decent. And what about investment portfolios that included Facebook as a sure thing? We probably won't know until the bottom drops out.

WSJ: Facebook Slides Again

Facebook's stock was recently trading down 4.5%. The stock lost 11% on Monday as more investors and analysts began to question the size of the company's public debut, which initially valued the company at $104 billion. The company is now worth about $90 billion, based on Tuesday's stock price.

"Dreams of Riches"

Facebook Provides Cautionary Tale

"It was the casino effect a little bit here," said Steve Cordasco, a registered investment adviser with Philadelphia-based Cordasco Financial Network, which oversees about $700 million in assets. "It's good for the average investor to realize that you just don't know, that the experts just don't know."
Mr. Cordasco, who referred to Facebook's debut as a "face-plant," had advised one qualified investor who wanted to put a large amount in the stock not to buy on the first day of trading. The investor took his advice and bought Mr. Cordasco a beer on Friday as they watched Facebook lumber to its close.

 Bloomberg: Analysts Who Shunned Facebook Are Heroes

Analysts who broke away from the herd and told investors to avoid Facebook Inc. (FB), the biggest initial public offering ever by a technology company, are looking like heroes after the stock plunged.
While bulls forecast benefits as companies shift advertising to the Internet, Wieser said Facebook’s price is too high and the path to growth unclear. “There’s always a risk of buying into excessive hype, using rules of thumb for valuation that are divorced from fundamentals,” Wieser, a New York-based analyst at Pivotal, said in a telephone interview yesterday. “There are many things that really speak to the uncertainty investors should be incorporating when they’re thinking about Facebook.”

SFGATE: Facebook Hedge Funder Furious

We just got off the phone with a hedge fund manager who says his fund owns Facebook stock "in excess of a $100 million.
. . . His allegations/claims/opinions:
---->NASDAQ knew it systems were broken before the Facebook IPO, and instead of aborting the offering and facing huge embarrassment, it went ahead. Traders then lost hundreds of millions of dollars as they tried to buy and sell Facebook stock without getting confirmation that their trades had been executed.
---->NASDAQ made the problem worse on Monday. NASDAQ told traders who thought they had sold their Facebook stock on Friday – but had actually not – to fill out a form by noon. This form asked traders to list the price at which they thought they had sold their stock and they price at which they actually had. Problem was: Many of these traders had not yet actually sold their stock. Because the form required an actual selling price, many did, dumping tens of millions of shares of Facebook stock on the market, and sending the stock price plummeting.

Rise in Minority Birth Rate Rattles Republicans

For the first time in U.S. history, the minority birth rate exceeds that of Caucasion Americans. As the LA Times reports:

The United States has reached a historic tipping point -- with Latino, Asian, mixed race and African American births constituting a majority of births for the first time, theU.S. Census Bureau reported Thursday.
...Latino’s were 16.7% of the U.S. population in 2011, up from 16.3% in 2010.
...African Americans were the second-largest minority group in the United States, at 43.9 million in 2011, up 1.6% from 2010.
...Asians, who numbered 18.2 million nationally in 2011, were the second fastest-growing minority group, up by 3% since 2010.

Of course, these statistics scare the majority base of the Republican Party, who are lily-white in the main and not "into" inclusion anymore. Not to mention that it's the trend right now during a mean election year to slam immigrants, even those here legally, as somehow "Un-American" as if the phrase "melting pot" only applies to those of Irish, German and Italian descent. But this way of thinking is a logical dead-end, and can only signal the further marginal status of the right-wing.

Think Progress: quotes Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum

It is not a good thing. The immigrants do not share American values, so it is a good bet that they will not be voting Republican when they start voting in large numbers.
[...]
Instead, the USA is being transformed by immigrants who do not share those values, and who have high rates of illiteracy, illegitimacy, and gang crime, and they will vote Democrat when the Democrats promise them more food stamps.

What Ms. Schlafly and her group forget is that these children are American citizens by birth, and therefore equal to everyone else. And she is confusing "minority" with the word "immigrant." Some and probably most of the minority children counted by the Census come from families whose ancestors have been in the country for well over 100 years.

Yes, they might grow up and vote Democratic someday, perhaps because the Democrats never questioned their legitimacy as citizens or their equal right to have a good life in the United States. Or they might grow up to vote Democratic because they remember which party helped their families to cope with the Great Recession when they needed help from the government. I'm sure their families will remember who did NOT want to help them, who wanted to cut off their health care and education, not to mention the food stamps - which are mostly given to WHITE needy families anyway. They will remember who didn't want them around, so just go ahead, Republicans - make yourselves obsolete by rejecting these innocent children who will grow up to be the MAJORITY. See how that works for you.

Dick Lugar's Republican Manifesto of Doom

 By Wayne Bertsch on Nuvo 
Senator Dick Lugar of Indiana just lost a Republican Primary race against Richard Mourdock, a member of the Tea Party. Lugar is - was -  an elder statesman of his party in the Senate, a member since the mid-1970s. He served on and sometimes led the Foreign Relations Committee, and was well-known for working on bipartisan efforts to dismantle weapons systems around the world. When he worked with Senator Sam Nunn (D-Georgia) on such a project they were nominated for a Nobel Prize.

So why don't the Republicans want him anymore? For one thing, in the past he sometimes tried to work with Obama instead of against him. *horrors* For another, he was critical of the Tea Party and their influence on Republicanism as a whole. But basically, he just wasn't conservative enough for the right wing, although no one would have called him a true centrist until now.


After his concession speech to Mourdock, Lugar wrote a manifesto of sorts about why he thinks he lost - over 1,000 words of it! He also sternly took Mourdock to task for his partisan and obstructionist views, and prophecied that if elected the new candidate would get nothing done as a Senator.
Here's an excerpt from CNN

The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy. One does not highlight such headwinds publically when one is waging a campaign. But I knew that I would face an extremely strong anti-incumbent mood following a recession. I knew that my work with then-Senator Barack Obama would be used against me, even if our relationship were overhyped. I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators.

. . . If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it. This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve.

. . . Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.

Ironically, while Mourdock explains that his opponent was "out of touch" with Indiana and the rest of the country, Lugar's message actually echoes the thoughts of a majority of Americans that things are too divided, too negative, and basically caught in political gridlock, especially in Washington. Most people want Senators and Congressmen to work together for the common good instead of being purists and didactic theocrats.

So how did Mourdock answer Lugar's Manifesto? He proved him correct by making a ridiculous statement about how everyone should just agree with Republicans because they are always right. I think Lugar knew his opponent and the Tea Party mindset quite well. No middle ground, no compromise. The Tea Party counters Lugar's verbosity with its own one-word manifesto - NO.

"I certainly think bipartisanship ought to consist of Democrats
coming to the Republican point of view."
~ Richard Mourdock of Indiana ( Miss the Point Much? )

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Limbaugh Spews at Fluke and Clinton

Rush Limbaugh must be feeling more confident in spite of the exodus of advertisers from his radio show a month ago. We knew it wouldn't be long before he started his attacks on women again.

Last week Rush Limbaugh attacked Law Student Sandra Fluke again:
From Huffington Post

Sandra Fluke is just a poor, uh, isolated, alone little college student worried about her contraception at Georgetown," he said. "But now she's represented by the flacks in the White House—Hilary Rosen, Anita Dunn—and they're coordinating with Obama, scaring students about the interest rates on their student loans."

Fluke responded on MSNBC's Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell:

Saying that Rush had become "confused by his own propaganda" she pointed out that he keeps referring to her as a "co-ed" when she is a graduate Law student.

But Limbaugh never lets the facts get in the way of a good insult.

This week Jabba the Rush is going after one of his favorite targets, Hillary Clinton.
From ThinkProgress:

Today, Limbaugh turned his attention to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Limabugh said that Clinton “has reached a pinnacle and all she is is a secretary,” adding that the left has “the strangest definition of success.” Limbaugh then said he was being prodded to talk about Clinton’s need to wear “Spanx,” but suggested she had a greater need for “Spankles.” Spanx are undergarments designed to reduce the visibility of body fat.

Yeah, right. A secretary. Only Secretary of State, Rush. Get it right!

And how in the world can someone with Rush's physique criticize Hillary? Of course, he only knows one type of attack - ad hominem. Or shall we say, "ad femina."

Of course, he's just an entertainer - isn't that what his supporters always say? Are we entertained yet? Not really. Not ever.