July 10, 2012
The Power of a Cult's Lies, Ignorance and Hypocrisy*
As this blog has proven, the Republican, um, "Party" and entire right-wing movement is a cult. And they'll go to extraordinary lengths to protect it regardless of how foolish it makes them look. As I said in my previous post:
Exponential ignorance and a forced (manufactured) hatred of the "evil, baby-killing liberals" is why conservatives turn logic on its head. And they don't mind looking foolish doing so. But that's what cults get you to do.
I wanted to underscore the fact that Republicans are not embarrassed by their pathological lies, ignorance and hypocrisy and don't mind looking foolish at all. And get away with it. In fact, looking foolish for Republicans has not only become accepted as some sort of anti-liberal badge of honor, but a competition among themselves to see who can be the biggest liar, the biggest hypocrite, the most ignorant, the most uninformed and the most wrong the most often. Because it works. And I'll prove it by starting off with a classic from Mitt Romney.
Of course, no fiscal challenge is greater than the one we face with entitlements. As the President himself acknowledged three years ago, this is not a problem that we can kick down the road any further.
I’d be willing to consider the President’s plan, but he doesn’t have one. That’s right: In over three years, he has failed to enact or even propose a serious plan to solve our entitlement crisis.
Instead, he has taken a series of steps that end Medicare as we know it.
He is the only President to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare.
Jed Lewison at Daily Kos notices that Romney contradicted himself in a matter of six sentences:
Consider Romney's logic:
1. Our biggest fiscal challenge is cutting entitlement spending
2. Obama hasn't offered a plan to cut entitlement spending
3. Instead, Obama has cut entitlement spending by $500 billion, ending Medicare as we know it
Even if you didn't already know Romney's claims about Medicare were dishonest, even if you didn't know that he was the candidate to have proposed ending Medicare (in his words, "fundamentally transform Medicare"), the self-contradictions here are simply amazing.
In the space of less than one hundred words, Mitt Romney says we need to cut entitlement spending, slams Obama for not cutting entitlement spending, and then slams Obama for cutting entitlement spending. You literally don't need to know anything about the issue in order to see that Romney is full of crap; the internal inconsistency of his logic alone is enough.
And Romney gets away with all of it from the so called "liberal media."
And then there was this from Barbara Morrill, also of Daily Kos (emphasis hers):
On Wednesday, the news that Mitt Romney had come out in opposition to the Blunt/Rubio Amendment—a bill that will let employers deny coverage for birth control if they find it morally objectionable—caused shockwaves, both on the Left, who couldn't believe he was starting his lurch back to the center so soon and from the Right, who have always been suspicious of his anti-choice credentials:
ROMNEY: I’m not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I’m not going there.Almost immediately the Romney campaign complained that the story was being "incorrectly reported" and sent Romney out to claim that:
I didn't understand his question. Of course I support the Blunt Amendment. I thought he was talking about some state law … I simply misunderstood the question.So, what was the confusing question?
HEATH: Blunt-Rubio is being debated, I believe, later this week. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception. Have you taken a position on it? He (Santorum) said he was for that, we’ll talk about personhood ina second; but he’s for that, have you taken a position?Aha! Trick question! Gotcha by the librul media! So, Romney thought that Ohio happened to have a couple of state lawmakers named Blunt and Rubio who were pushing a bill on contraception at the same time U.S. Sens. Blunt and Rubio were pushing a bill on contraception—and he's totally against that bill. He's just for the other, Godly, Blunt/Rubio Amendment.
Okay, there's two things that could have happened. Either the question was confusing and Romney really didn't understand it, or he's lying. If it's the first one, then Romney's too stupid to be President of the United States. Hey Mitt, which one is it?
Here's a doozy from Rick Santorum:
In the Netherlands, people wear different bracelets if they are elderly. And the bracelet is: ‘Do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands but half of the people who are euthanized — ten percent of all deaths in the Netherlands — half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don’t go to the hospital. They go to another country, because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, they will not come out of that hospital if they go in there with sickness.”
It's not true. But even on its surface, who would believe such a thing? So either Santorum knew it wasn't true and lied to score political points - which is what I hate about politicians - or he's too stupid to be President too. Hey Rick, which one is it?
But Santorum was just warming up. He called Obama a "snob" for wanting everyone to go to college. No, really, he did. And the audience was dumb enough to applaud this monumental stupidity (of course they did because it was an attack on Obama).
A couple of weeks later Santorum said:
I was just reading something last night from the state of California. And that the California universities – I think it’s seven or eight of the California system of universities don’t even teach an American history course. It’s not even available to be taught.
He wasn't just wrong, he couldn't have been more wrong. They do offer American history classes. But again, on its surface, who would believe such a thing? So, again, either Santorum knew it wasn't true and lied, or he was trying to prove that he really was too stupid to be president.
But Santorum proves a number of points: 1) Republicans have to attack repeatedly with petty lies, and use exponential stupidity, to keep base conservatives perpetually enraged at those "evil, lefty, Communists" who, in the previous case, "don't teach American history in their colleges because they hate America," 2) the level of, um, "intellect" Santorum had to stoop to for votes, 3) Republicans are forced to oppose and attack everything Obama and Democrats are for, even college, 4) they look incredibly foolish doing so (a candidate for President of the United States is knocking sound educational advice that no one can disagree with! Except, of course, ignorant conservatives who have to attack Obama when given the chance because that's how they've been trained.), and 5) they don't mind looking incredibly foolish because it somehow helps them politically (see the applause after Santorum called Obama a "snob"). If it didn't, then they wouldn't be saying these things. Either that or they really are that stupid.
Imagine if we had politicians that engaged in mature, honest, intelligent discussions on jobs, health care, education and infrastructure, as opposed to what Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have to offer. But with the bar set so darn low, and getting lower all the time, this is what goes for, um, "honest debate" in Washington these days. Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it? And here's something that will make you even more proud.
Sen. Jon Kyle on the Senate floor last year:
Everybody goes to clinics, to doctors, to hospitals, so on," Kyl said. "Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don't have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that's well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does.
As usual for Republicans, he wasn't just wrong, he couldn't have been more wrong! Abortions account for just three per cent of Planned Parenthood's services. But that's not even the point. It's when Kyl was called on his 87 percentage point error. He released a statement that said - hang on for this one - the "remark was not intended to be a factual statement..."
No, really, that's how a United States Senator defended himself from an exaggerated lie that was designed to do nothing but rile up the pro-life Republican base - as if the remark was supposed to add something worthwhile to the, um, "debate" And we wonder why the state of politics in this country are what they are.
But this is what I mean about Republicans making politically calculating wise cracks that make them look so foolish - and in this instance Kyl did it a second time when he tried to spin himself out of it - that it should force them into hiding. But they're not embarrassed and not forced into hiding.
If Kyl was, he'd have company. Sen. Orrin Hatch claimed that abortions accounted for "about 95 percent" of planned parenthood's services. But when called on it:
(Hatch spokesman) Matt Harakal acknowledges Hatch got it wrong on the webcast and said the senator meant to refer to a letter he sent with the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins in April, which claimed that 98 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services for pregnant women involve abortions.So, yes, Hatch got it wrong. Abortions at Planned Parenthood account for 98 percent of their services, not 95 percent.
So Republicans aren't just wrong, not only couldn't be more wrong, but can't even get their corrections right! And Hatch still has the nerve to show his face in public, as does Kyl who looked foolish last week when he just had to attack Obama, by lying.
You know, I'd sooner trust a $3 bill then these guys. But wait, here's another one that can not be beat for its arrogance and stupidity.
In an appearance on Meet the Press in May, presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare voucher plan (which I'll get to in a bit) was a "bad idea." On Fox, um, "News" the next day, he tried to walk it back by saying, "Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood..."
So when I just wrote that Gingrich said Ryan's Medicare plan was a "bad idea," I'm the liar.
Can you imagine if Democrats said these things? Can you imagine if a Democrat said something so embarrassingly wrong that he tried to spin himself out of it by saying it "wasn't intended to be a factual statement?" Can you imagine if a Democrat tried to walk back something he said by saying anyone who "quotes what I said is a falsehood"? Can you imagine if a Democrat said "(an exaggerated percentage) of guns purchased legally were later used in a crime" (which may not be possible since most if not all guns used in crimes were originally purchased legally) and when called on it, tried to spin himself out of it by saying, "it wasn't intended to be a factual statement"? My God, it would be all over Fox, um, "News" and talk radio for
But Republicans aren't embarrassed and aren't laughed out of office. In fact, they use their pathological lies, ignorance and stupidity to not only build credibility and standing among the party's base, but raise money off it to run for office, including President of the United States.
Author and columnist Eric Alterman:
How else to explain the fact that while 97 percent of credentialed climate scientists concur that global warming is both extremely dangerous and caused by human activity, every one of the 21 Republican candidates who ran for Senate in 2010 denied that this could be the case?
When queried as to how it was possible that the scientific consensus could be wrong, while people with no particular knowledge of science could be right, they muttered something about a global “conspiracy,” though not a shred of evidence has ever been produced to back that claim and the very idea of such a thing is comical in its ridiculousness.
As evidenced by the global warming “debate,” Tea Party-style conservatives have a problem with reality...
This conservative “war against knowledge” is not exactly a new phenomenon. Way back in the 1980s, the Reagan administration began making noise about defunding government support for social science through the National Science Foundation.
...some of them really may be as foolish as they seem. Remember, the person picked by the Tea Party movement to represent it nationally in opposition to President Obama’s 2011 State of the Union Address, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), thinks that the famous “shot heard around the world in Lexington and Concord" credited with beginning the American Revolution was fired in New Hampshire, not Massachusetts. She thinks “the very founders that wrote” the U.S. Constitution “worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States” even though they agreed to extend it. She thinks something called the "Hoot-Smalley Tariff," allegedly passed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, caused the Great Depression, ignoring the fact that the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff was passed under Republican President Herbert Hoover together with the fact that the Great Depression was already in full swing when FDR was elected years later.
...There was that “interesting coincidence” Rep. Bachmann professed to discover during the swine flu scare at the beginning of President Obama’s term—“that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter.” Actually, “interesting” or not, it was under Republican President Gerald Ford.
Again, they're not just wrong, and stupid, they couldn't be more wrong and stupid...well, with Republicans, there's a good chance they will be more stupid. Whatever. It doesn't matter because they're not embarrassed by it one bit. And as I've shown, Republicans are allowed to be consistently wrong while Democrats are held to much higher (double) standards.
But wait, there's more (with Republicans there always is)!
No one re-writes history lies and gets away with it better then Republicans. Here's Mitt Romney in May taking credit for the auto bailout he was against:
I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet...So, I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry has come back.
But...
The course Romney advocated differed greatly from the one that was ultimately taken. GM and Chrysler went into bankruptcy on the strength of a massive bailout that Romney opposed. Neither Republican President George W. Bush nor Democratic President Barack Obama believed the automakers would have survived without that backup from taxpayers.
So Romney wasn't only against Obama's bailout plan, and had the nerve to take credit for it, but said, "(the auto industry's) demise will be virtually guaranteed." So once again, a Republican wasn't just wrong, he couldn't have been more wrong because the bailout worked. And you think that stopped Romney? Not in the least. He's still bragging and making stuff up about how wonderful his bailout plan was. (September 8 insert: And still does it!)
Then there's Rep. Paul Ryan's budget, which Romney endorsed. It's a fraud. It not only takes from the poor and gives huge tax breaks to the wealthy, but Ryan fails to identify what spending cuts he'd make and what tax loopholes he'd close to pay for them (psst...they'll be paid for with higher taxes on the middle class). He also wants to revolutionize Medicare by having grandma go into the "free market" and buy health insurance with a voucher that wouldn't cover its entire cost (September 9 insert: And even if it did, and assuming she was able to figure out the complicated policies and fine print and selected a plan, she could still be denied coverage because of her "pre-existing conditions." Because if Republicans had their way, the provision that prohibits it would have been repealed along with the rest of "Obamacare" - hell, they've already voted to repeal it 33 times...so far. Only a Republican would, um, "think" spin that as a step in the right direction for health care. But they have to because they have to oppose Obama and the Democrats. See what cults force you to do?) So under Ryan's, um, "plans" some senior citizens, and about 48 million Americans overall, would lose their health coverage (I guess "death panels" are okay when Republicans implement them).
Of course, the, um, "liberal media" sucks up to Ryan and his, um, "plans" because if it didn't, and called him/them out for what they truly are, the media outlet(s) that did so would be bombarded by faxes, e-mails and phone calls in protest...which happens all the time anyway. (August 13 insert: For more on Ryan and his, um, "plans" and how and why the media takes Ryan seriously and gives his, um, "plans" credibility, see this and this.) (August 16 insert: And this and this.) (August 19 insert: And this.)
This is why the, um, "liberal media" doesn't call out GOP talking points that contradicts facts like these:
Private sector job growth:
Full presidency:
Barack Obama: +35,000
George W. Bush: -646,000
Excluding first year:
Barack Obama: +4,220,000
George W. Bush: +1,771,000
Public sector job growth:
Full presidency:
Barack Obama: -607,000
George W. Bush: +1,741,000
Excluding first year:
Barack Obama: -510,000
George W. Bush: +1,199,000
Hey Republicans, I thought Obama was the Communist.
And you know that Republican "drill, baby, drill" mantra? Well, it turns out that Obama is drilling for more oil then George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
But what do facts and the truth matter? They don't because Republicans aren't held accountable for their lies, ignorance and stupidity. Why? Well first, by intimidating the media. The right's been "working intimidating the refs" for decades. They're pros at it and it's worked. (August 16 insert: Hunter at Daily Kos shows what sparked the "refs" into being outraged at the nasty political discourse and basically declared that both parties are equally to blame for it even though they're not equally to blame. But Republicans win when both parties are to blame. It's like when a bully gets into a tussle with a wimp over his lunch money. Even though they both get sent to the principal's office, the bully wasn't the one who got beat up. And got the wimp's lunch money.) Second, they have a massive propaganda machine second to none masquerading as a (cough, cough) "news organization" that spews their lies, spin, attacks, insults, ignorance, stupidity and talking points 24/7 to an audience that believes every word of it. Sometimes this, um, "news organization" produces the propaganda themselves. And third, they have an under the radar cottage industry that churns out venomous conspiracy books and DVD's - all for a fee, of course - on prominent Democrats who are a threat to this cult and therefore, their power (Rachel Maddow explains in a video I recommend watching).
Other then forcing them to to sign loyalty oaths - not to America, but to Republicans (yeah, really) - feeding the most ignorant and radical members with such hateful and inflammatory propaganda is how cults recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members. But this is also how the GOP keeps their base ignorant and in a perpetual state of rage at Obama, Democrats or whoever the enemy of the hour happens to be.
And this right-wing propaganda machine is more prepared, more strategic and more powerful then you think. For instance, the few times Republicans are called out by someone smart and articulate - or at least made to look wrong and foolish - that person is attacked, insulted and ridiculed for the purpose of dragging their credibility down; see Elizabeth Warren and Sandra Fluke. And when a when a Democrat does something good that would give him/the Democratic party's poll numbers a pop, the right loads up the ammo and unleashes an overwhelming attack to water it down. Take the bin Laden killing for example (if only Republicans put 1/100th the time, energy and, um, "thought" into governing). Then Karl Rove tried to counter the one-year anniversary of it by running an ad saying that Obama didn't thank the Seal team that conducted this daring mission. It wasn't true. But what does that matter? The goals were to 1) enrage the Republican base, and 2) squash that (one point) pop Obama was going to get (for a day) in his popularity.
I'd say that Democrats should go on the attack with petty lies to put a damper on Republican poll numbers when they do something good. But Republicans never do anything that would warrant such a pop in their poll numbers.
On the rare occasions they might deserve some credit, it's usually indirectly or very little. But the propaganda machine tries so hard to build it up into something much, much bigger. Sort of like the 1962 Mets throwing a parade after they won a game.
Besides the pathological lies, colossal ignorance and monumental stupidity, there's the blatant hypocrisy.
RNC spokesman Sean Spicer has a problem with using the term "war" in a political sense.
I find it offensive that the Democratic National Committee is using a term like that to describe policy differences...It’s not only bad, but it’s downright pathetic they would use a term like ‘war’ when there are millions of Americans who actually have engaged in a real war. To use a term like that borders on unpatriotic.Well, when you force women to undergo unnecessary and extremely invasive big government medical procedures against their will (wait, that's not the hypocrisy. Well, it is, but not the point I'm trying to make), oppose birth control being part of insurance plans, blocked the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act, opposed re-authorization of the Violence Against Women's Act, blocked access to cervical cancer vaccines (except Gov. Perry of Texas), and even oppose chemotherapy to pregnant women, what should we call it if not a "war on women"? Wait, that's not the point either.
This is:
Obama's war on women
Obama's war on coal
Obama's war on Appalachia
Obama's war on success
Obama's war on bald eagles
Obama's (trade) war with Mexico
I guess it's okay to be pathetic and unpatriotic if you're a Republican.
Then the RNC blasted Obama on unemployment with robocallings in Ohio and Virginia. But they were set up by a firm the Philippines.
And in yet another knock against higher education - which as I pointed out scores political points among like-um-"minded" base Republicans - Mitt Romney said that President Obama "spent too much time at Harvard." Ah, Obama went to Harvard for three years; Romney went there for at least four.
And you know how the right works so hard to highlight that the solar panel company Solyndra went bankrupt after Obama gave them $535 million in loan guarantees (not surprisingly, it's a big deal on Fox, um, "News")? Well first, Romney made stuff up about Obama "steering the (Solyndra) money to campaign contributors." And second, not only did the vetting process for the guarantees begin under George Bush but he conditionally approved them. But that's not the hypocrisy - this is: while Governor of Massachusetts, Romney approved loan guarantees for two firms, run by campaign donors, that later defaulted. And here's another.
With Romney, the lies, hypocrisy and flip flops keep coming like the chocolate Lucy and Ethel were trying to wrap. He campaigned against "Obamacare" and has promised to repeal it even though he implemented the same plan in Massachusetts; a plan that he not only bragged about but basically said that Obama should imitate nationally. Individual mandate and all.
Romney should be laughed off the political stage with such colossal hypocrisy. And that goes for Sen. Hatch too since he's attacking "Obamacare" and the Supreme Court's ruling that upheld it even though he and 20 other Senators, including 18 Republicans, co-sponsored basically the same health care plan in 1993.
But Romney, Hatch and the rest of the GOP aren't laughed off the political stage because Republicans get away with it. It's sad, actually, because it reflects on the, um, "intellect" of the American people - at least half of them - that allow them to.
Joan McCarter of Daily Kos sums up Romney's response to the Supreme Court upholding the mandate - again, which he implemented in Massachusetts - compared to what he said in February:
It's personal responsibility when the state is asking for it, but it's an onerous tax when the federal government is asking for it. Yeah, that makes sense.
To colossal hypocrites who have absolutely no shame.
Days later, Romney spins this contradiction into a flip-flop. And it didn't go over well with the conservative media. But this is what happens when pathological liars and hypocrites are forced to spin themselves into and out of knots they put themselves in (if only Republicans put 1/100th the time, energy and, um, "thought" into governing). It makes them look incredibly foolish. It also insult's the public's intelligence. But the GOP gets away with it because base conservatives don't have an, um, "intellect" to insult. And here's proof: anyone protesting the health care mandate either already have insurance or they don't. So if they have it, what's the problem? If they don't, and the government forces you to buy it (which anyone with half a brain would want to have) from the private, free market insurance companies - and helps those who can't afford it - which would lower costs for everyone, what's the problem?
The problem is that the right has to stand logic on its head because they have disagree with those evil liberals they've been brainwashed to hate. Facts and logic be damned. This is how cults get you to, um, "think."
But wait, there's more (with Republican hypocrisy, there always is)!
Republicans keep saying "Obama's anti-business." But as Ezra Klein explains, it's Obama who bailed out the banks with a second round of TARP and then bailed out the auto industry. It was Mitt Romney who wanted the auto makers to "go bankrupt," remember? And yet, "Obama's anti-business." In another segment, Klein shows that "cap and trade," the DREAM Act, cutting taxes to stimulate the economy and the health care mandate were all Republican ideas. But now that Democrats have agreed to "cap and trade," the DREAM Act, cutting taxes to stimulate the economy and the mandate (which Republicans and their followers call socialism, unconstitutional and tyranny - tyranny I tell you, tyranny!), obstinate Republicans, who have to disagree with Democrats, no matter what, vehemently oppose all of it (yeah, Republicans opposed tax cuts. Go figure. I guess it's okay for Republicans to be "big government tax and spend liberals."). This is what we're dealing with here.
And since the so called "liberal media" doesn't call them out on such hide-your-face-in-shame hypocrisy and cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face partisanship, this cult - this massive, powerful cult - gets away with it.
In a video clip I also recommend watching, Rachel Maddow shows that the few times Republicans are caught and called on their lies and hypocrisy (on the low "political news junkie" level), including a doozy in which Mitt Romney made stuff up (again) about what's not in a recent book about Obama, they don't admit their mistake, they don't correct the record and just keep reciting them. They don't care. Why should they? They know that whoever is paying attention will hear the lie but not the truth so they won't pay a political price for lying and/or being a blatant hypocrite. And their base supporters, who are just as pathological, will believe the lie and shrug off the hypocrisy (assuming they even realize it). So why even bother being truthful when lying works?
Come to think of it, I'm wrong. There was one instance where Republicans have been true to their word. In 2010, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Well, that's exactly what Republican's have been trying to do. They've been blocking everything that moves in the Senate, including measures that would improve the economy. Heck, they've been trying to sabotage the economy; see last summer's debt ceiling fiasco. And the GOP's road blocks extend all the way to the Federal Reserve. Paul Krugman:
Why won’t the Fed act? My guess is that it’s intimidated by those Congressional Republicans, that it’s afraid to do anything that might be seen as providing political aid to President Obama, that is, anything that might help the economy.And then Republicans blame Obama and the Democrats for the lousy economy.
This is why Republicans don't run on facts, the truth or their record - they can't. And they certainly can't run on their ideas, intellect or accomplishments because they don't have any to speak of (except of course things like 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan). So they have no choice but to keep lying, keep attacking, keep repeating the same moronic talking points over and over and over again ("less government," "lower taxes" and "liberal media"), keep lying, keep attacking, keep being blatant hypocrites, keep lying and keep attacking so they can 1) create diversions from their horrendous policies and record, 2) force confrontations with Democrats (which is what the Republican base lives for), 3) blame Democrats for everything (which is what the Republican base lives for), which leads to, 4) more lies, more attacks, more spin, more rhetoric, more hypocrisy and more obstruction, and then 5) Repeat. And we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in.
But of course you need ignorant followers who shun facts, logic, knowledge, evolution and science (all of which are for liberals) and have been dumbed down, brainwashed and stripped of their ability to to think for themselves (assuming they had the ability to begin with), that they'll believe everything they're told by their leaders, no questions asked. Well, that's exactly what the GOP has. They've set up their propaganda machine so the followers get their
Bad news for Democrats - something like this and this (even though Obama probably had little to do with it), for example - or good news on a Republican (should there ever be any), regardless of the media source is not only highlighted, hyped and believed, but "why isn't this a bigger story on the lame stream liberal media?" And should the media fact check a Republican lie, or call them out on their hypocrisy, well, it's "biased reporting by the liberal media and can't be believed." And among base conservatives, it isn't. And as I pointed out, Republicans just ignore the fact check and keep repeating the lie and hypocritical talking points. Heck, they'll counter it by attacking the media outlet - or the, um, "liberal media" in general - that had the nerve to fact check their statement (so they'll think twice before doing it again). That builds more support among base conservatives who rally around Republicans when they're, um, "unfairly attacked by the 'liberal media.'"
So actually, Republicans want the media to call them out on their lies and hypocrisy because it "confirms" their propaganda that the media is 1) liberal, and 2) out to get them. Sort of like when FEMA fails to come the aid of hurricane victims. It "confirms" the conservative talking point that "government is incompetent" (and voila! A new cynical anti-government Republican voter is born!).
This is why Republicans are always making wise cracks about government: it reinforces the propaganda. And then they get elected and prove it.
So Republicans have created can't lose situations. And nothing is left to chance. For instance, they've gotten their followers to believe that George Soros funds the myth-busting Snopes web site. So when the site declares a right-wing anti-Obama/Democrat internet e-mail a hoax, well, "it's not true (the debunking) because Snopes is funded by that evil lying liberal, George Soros." But it's a lie. The right made it up. Of course they did, that's what cults do.
The members of this cult have been so well trained that they drown out the truth by acting like immature, belligerent children who cover their ears and scream la-la-la-la-la-la!...I can't hear you!..la-la-la-la-la-la!...I can't hear you!...la-la-la-la-la-la!... And Mitt Romney doesn't tell them to cut it out. In fact, by tooting its horn, his own campaign bus does it as well.
And this is how they responded when they didn't get their way on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold "Obamacare" (which should never have been brought up there in the first place). (July 25 insert: A majority of House Republicans are calling upon party leadership not to fund "Obamacare" because "most of the citizens we represent believe that (it) should never go into effect." Or else they'll shut the government down. This is what Republicans do because they have get their way, always. Hmm...I wonder what these Republicans would be
And then there's Jonathan Krohn, who as a 13-year-old conservative spoke at CPAC in 2008. Now 17 and grown up (and wised up) he's no longer conservative. And the right's giving him grief about it (bold mine):
...earlier this week, Politico released an interview in which I announced I wasn’t a conservative anymore — and the proverbial crap hit the fan. Since then, I have been treated by the political right with all the maturity of schoolyard bullies. The Daily Caller, for instance, wrote three articles about my shift, topping it off with an opinion piece in which they stated that I deserved criticism because I wear “thick-rimmed glasses” and I like Ludwig Wittgenstein. Why don’t they just call me “four-eyes”? These are not adults leveling serious criticism; these are scorned right-wingers showing all the maturity of a little boy. No wonder I fit in so well when I was 13.This is the
But the Republican, um, "Party's" biggest fear - something they're always on guard for and ready to counter at all times because it scares the hell of of them - is Democrats getting credit for good news or Republicans getting blamed for bad news. They will not allow either under any circumstances. So most of what you see and hear - their lies, spin and attacks - are strategic propaganda offensives designed to either water down Democratic good news or spin Republican bad news (they get plenty of work in with the latter). Sometimes, "the cause" is so great, where Obama's and Democratic poll numbers have the potential to skyrocket, on health care for example, the propaganda campaign is on massive scale. And it works. So much for the, um, "liberal media" (if only Republicans put half 1/100th the time, energy and, um, "thought" into governing.).
So the right always has an attack, lie or talking point ready to take credit for something they don't deserve, to take credit away from Obama and the Democrats, or to spin themselves out of blame their horrendous policies are responsible for: "Democrats want to cut and run from Iraq" (even though it's "pro-life" and was okay when Ronald Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon in 1984); "the Wall Street/economic collapse was Jimmy Carter's, Bill Clinton's and ACORN's fault" (not deregulation, the "free market" and "letting the industry police itself"); "Death panels;" "tax cuts increase revenues and create jobs"; "Bush deserves for credit for killing bin Laden"; "the auto bail out was Romney idea"; "the deficit is Obama fault"; "Obama's anti-business"; "Obama's going to take your guns away."
So in the bizzaro Republican/Fox, um, "News" world, lies are turned into, um, "facts" and used as propaganda. Don't believe me? Here's a perfect example. Here's another. And another. And another.
To get an idea how this cult manipulates and orchestrates an end result by pulling everything together - the lies, propaganda and attack accusations, the insane right-wing conspiracy theories, the paranoid, radical followers (in this case, the gun nuts and their sick obsession with firearms) who stand logic on its head to, um, "prove" their insane right-wing conspiracy theories, and how Fox, um, "News" uses the paranoid, radical followers (and vice versa) by promoting and pushing their insane right-wing conspiracies, as well as their calls of vandalism - check out this Rachel Maddow video clip. She not only explains how the gun nuts, illogically, made up an "Obama's going to take my guns away" conspiracy and how it led to Republicans holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over the botched "Fast and Furious"/Mexican gun-running operation, but also how much Fox, um, "News" dominates and controls the, um, "minds" of this cult's most ignorant and dedicated members (Maddow follows up in a second segment that includes a discussion with Bob Herbert. In a segment the following day, Maddow illustrates how Fox, um, "News" is trying to hype this made for Fox, um, "News," um, "story" and hopes the legitimate news media doesn't "take the bait.").
If you're only going to view one Rachel Maddow clip from this blog post, it should be that one because she encapsulates what this cult is all about; and without her realizing it, the power it has. It's scary if you ask me.
Jon Stewart shows how hard Fox, um, "News" was trying to turn this, um, "scandal" into something that's "worse then Watergate" - that's what massive propaganda machines do - and their hypocrisy while doing so. Stephen Colbet takes on this right-wing paranoia and loonacy as well by trying to make sense out of their, um, "logic." But Americablog's John Aravosis is more serious (bold mine):
There is no different between what Issa - the Republican House member leading the charge on the "Fast and Furious" issue - and 9/11 Truthers. Their conspiracies are identical: The President let people die on purpose, wanted people to die, so he could justify a policy that would otherwise be unpopular.That's putting it mildly because the, um, "idea" that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms allowed illegal guns to flow into Mexico so they'd cause mayhem, and used to implement tougher gun control here in the States (somehow with a dysfunctional Congress) didn't make much sense. We have an enough gun violence in the country already to justify more stringent gun laws, but never do it. Hell, it's never even mentioned! Goes to show who's calling the shots (so to speak). If anything, gun laws are being repealed (this is how things work these days). So why create gun violence in Mexico when there's plenty of it here in the States to justify tougher gun laws? Well, no one said the gun nuts were all that bright. But now we learn that it's not true, the ATF didn't purposely allow guns to flow into Mexico.
This is the way the leadership of the Republican party thinks. It's insane.
This also shows the power of the NRA in American politics, and how it controls the Republican party (and far too many Democrats). The notion that the Bush administration started this policy, and the Obama administration continued it, in order to hope that Mexican drug cartels would get weapons and kill Americans, so that the administration could then crack down on all Americans and their guns, is beyond bizarre...
Oh, right it won't happen until the second term. Right. The fact that Democrats haven't done squat to take away your guns - and they should take them away - is proof that they're trying to take away your guns.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Brilliant.
And freaking nuts.
Katherine Eban of Fortune (bold mine):
...there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.So there you have it. The ATF wasn't allowing guns to flow to Mexico. There was no conspiracy to take anyone's guns away and there was no conspiracy to enact gun control legislation (unfortunatly). Oh wait, I'm wrong. There was a conspiracy. It was between the paranoid, radical followers, the conservative propaganda machine and Congressional Republicans. They conspired to placate their sick paranoia by making stuff up to push their insane agenda for the sole purpose of whipping up their followers into a hysterical frenzy against gun control. That's exactly what cults do.
Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that (Dave) Voth (in charge of the ATF's lead Group assigned with the task of stopping the flow of guns into Mexico) and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies...
That chill that just went down your spine did so for a good reason.
The fact that the NRA and the gun nuts are so paranoid and scared to death of new much needed national gun laws being implemented proves they know they're on weak ground after every shooting. So they have to be on the offensive - lying, intimidating and accusing Democrats of conspiring to take their guns away - to make sure that there aren't any new gun laws passed (as if they don't have that power already). Says a lot about a country that takes its orders from psychotics like this. Armed psychotics.
Maybe if Republicans and the right put 1/100th the time, energy and, um, "thought" into whipping up Americans into a frenzy on
How Fast and Furious reached the headlines is a strange and unsettling saga, one that reveals a lot about politics and media today...Indeed. And about that standing logic on its head...
Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal...
This is what we're dealing with here.
Speaking of conservatives standing logic on its head, here's
But outside of the sick radical fringe and obsessive Fox, um, "News" viewers (one in the same), the biggest Republican crock of all is that Barack Obama - who cut taxes not once not twice, but three times (contrary to Republican lies and talking points ), leveled federal spending (in a recession), had the stock market almost double since he took office, implemented a Republican/Mitt Romney health care plan, put Social Security and Medicare cuts on the table, gone easy on Wall Street regulation, killed bin Laden, received an 'F' grade from a gun control group, is "drilling, baby, drilling," deported two-thirds the illegals George Bush did in his eight years (as of September, 2011), and appeased and capitulated to Republicans at every turn - is the Communist/Marxist/Socialist who has completely destroyed the country. Huh? What? But George W. Bush's eight years - the gross negligence and incompetence behind his failing to even try to prevent the 9/11 attacks, an incompetent war on terrorism, an incompetent and feckless Mid-East policy, the Iraq war lies, the Iraq war disaster, the quagmire in Afghanistan, failing to come to the aid of Katrina victims, exploding the deficit and debt, a dismal economic record (what did he do to get us out of the 2001 recession except huge tax cuts for the wealthy and $300 checks for everyone else, which was the Democrat's idea? Nothing! What did he do as the banks and financial markets were collapsing in 2008? Even less!), setting up a warrentless wiretapping program in the United States, authorizing torture and leaking an undercover CIA agent's name (for childish, petty reasons) - never happened.
Only a massive and powerful cult with tens of millions of members and a massive and powerful propaganda machine can accomplish that.
Conclusion
Given the cynicism surrounding politicians these days you'd think the front runner for the Republican nomination would kick off his campaign with a simple and - dare I say it? - honest TV ad. You'd think so, but no, because Mitt Romney took his second chance at making a good first impression (because he ran for President in 2008) and deliberately lied. And in the process, told us what a phoney he truly is.
With the help of some shrewd editing in the first few seconds of his very first TV ad last year, Romney took a line from one of Obama's 2008 speeches in which he was quoting a John McCain strategist and attributed it to Obama.
God forbid a politician be honest...hey, there's a novel idea...just one freakin' time. And politicians wonder why the country thinks they suck. But that's besides the point.
Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstorm tried to justify this trickery and deception (if only Republicans put half 1/100th the time, energy and, um, "thought" into running a campaign of intellect, ideas and substance) by saying, "We used that quote intentionally to show that President Obama is doing exactly what he criticized McCain of doing four years ago" (not talking about the economy) (Bold mine.)
But that's a lie - shocking, I know - because Obama does talk about the economy. But that's not the point.
Here we have a presidential campaign admitting that they lied intentionally. Not only does that show how deceptive that spliced video was, but what lengths this campaign will go to trick the public. So let's be clear - the first few seconds of Romney's first campaign ad was a deliberate deceptive lie designed to fool prospective voters. Yup, that's exactly who I want occupying the Oval Office. A candidate that starts his campaign with an ad that was purposely designed to trick me!
Yes, I know, all politicians lie. But this was more then just a lie. It was the deceit and intent behind it. Gives us great insight into the character of the candidate that ran it. It's also what you'd expect out of, say, North Korea. But that's what cults do. Hmm...
But that ad was preceded months before by a lie that was just as egregious because it was there for the world to see. After saying that Obama made the recession "worse," Romney denied saying it despite the comment being on video tape. And after being called on his, um, "facts" - Obama didn't make the recession worse - he had the nerve to keep saying it.
If that slick campaign ad and the spin afterwards that defended it, that comment and denial, and this blog post don't tell you what pathological liars Mitt Romney and the Republican, um, "Party" are, well, then they deserve you.
As this blog has proven over and over and over and over and over and over again, the GOP is not a legitimate political party. All they have are a mountain of lies, blatant hypocrisy, nauseating spin, redundant talking points, hateful, destructive, calculating, intransigent and coercive attack politics (because they have to get their way, always, and will never, ever, give an inch), a massive propaganda machine and tens of millions of mindless followers who believe every word of it, no questions asked.
Laurence Lewis of Daily Kos (bold mine):
Unfortunately, being wrong — even stupidly wrong — is not in itself proof of unfitness to govern. As the Bush-Cheney team proved, it is in fact now a prerequisite for any Republican aspiring to national office.Mr. Lewis is too kind because I'd say any office.
But the destructive policy agenda of congressional Republicans is not even remotely the worst of it, because in order to impose these policies they have resorted to tactics that are nothing more than political extortion, and government cannot function by extortion. It cannot function when hard fought agreements are blithely broken for the purpose of further extortion. And that's what the Republicans now are about. They operate like criminal thugs and they cannot be trusted to keep their word. And it's not merely a game of daring high stakes brinksmanship, for merely playing the game is itself dangerously destructive...
...The Republicans don't want to solve the nation's problems, they only want to gain and maintain political power. And in pursuit of that goal they are openly and dangerously reckless. And their new presidential standard-bearer not only wants to impose policies similar to those that continue to devastate Europe, he is a deliberately dishonest cipher, not only about where he stands on issues but even about whether or not he actually has any stands on issues. He doesn't merely dis-inform, he openly mocks even the concept of informing.
...But when Republicans shatter precedent by attempting political extortion that by itself endangers the full faith and credit of the United States, when they threaten to crash the economy if they don't get their way, when they consider winning more important than responsible governing, when they consciously attempt to undermine the very concept of an informed electorate, that isn't politics, it's the deliberate destruction of politics. It makes mere thuggery appear relatively benign in comparison. It reveals the Republicans as not only ideologically and intellectually incompetent, but also as dangerously unstable of temperament.
With the modern Republican Party, the danger isn't merely that they will succeed in imposing more disastrous policies, the danger is that even allowing them to have any influence at all on the process of making policy can and will be abused, with potentially disastrous consequences. Modern Republicans are not merely lousy at governing, they are unfit to govern.
And yet, the country keeps electing them to office at all levels. Again, only a massive and powerful cult with tens of millions of members and a massive and powerful propaganda machine can accomplish that...because for all intents and purposes, there should no longer be a Republican Party.
Again, Republicans have zero interest in governing responsibly maturely at all. Their one and only priority is to keep their followers in a perpetual state of rage at Democrats, liberals or who whoever their enemy of the hour happens to be so they can keep this cult together, and therefore, hold onto power. And they've done both because the followers believe the lies, spin and hypocrisy, play along with the ignorance and stupidity, and not only support and encourage a Republican record that couldn't have been more wrong and disastrous, but - as they've been trained to, um, "think" - when things go wrong it's always Obama's and the Democrats' fault...or ACORN's, or Bill Clinton's, or Planned Parenthood's, or the union's... never the GOP's or George Bush's. And it's the Democrats (and the unions) who are the liars, thugs and bullies even though it's the Democrats who've been bullied and intimidated by Republicans into sprinting to the right.
It's incredible. It really is. The fear, the paranoia, the hate, the rage, the lies, the spin, the duplicity, the hypocrisy, the rhetoric, the divisiveness, the incompetence, the irresponsibility, the immaturity, the obstinance, the obstruction, the spite, the selfishness, the self-righteousness, the sanctimoniousness, the arrogance, the ridicule, the hostility, the intimidation, the bullying, the attacks, the toe-the-line conformity and lack of individuality and independence, the apathy - hell, the anathema and abhorrence - of policy, legislating, governing and investing in America, the colossal ignorance and stupidity, the take-us-back-to-the-15th-century/couldn't-be-more-wrong agenda and disastrous record has perverted and hijacked the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. But that's what cults do.
Despite all that, Republicans and the Republican, um, "Party" have credibility and are taken seriously by half the country...and the, um, "liberal media." What does that tell you?
But wait, as always with this cult, there's more.
With a lousy economy, a crumbling infrastructure, electric grids that need upgrading, mass transit systems that are in dire need of a 21st century modernization, college tuition soaring and green technology that needs strategic governmental support so it can grow and compete with the rest of the globalized world, Republicans at the state level have brushed that all aside (as if they'd deal with issues like that anyway) and instead spent their valuable time ramming through legislation that has restricted or banned abortion, suppressed the right to vote (among Democratic constituencies, of course, and they admit it), and not only cut union benefits and pensions, but repealed their bargaining rights (take away the unions and you take away the Democratic Party's main source of campaign funding).
Think about that. Why would Republicans ban abortion, suppress the Democratic vote and weaken unions at the state level while ignoring what's really important to their constituents (at least to those with half a brain)? It's about power and control. And Republicans and the Republican, um, "Party" have gotten that by, 1) cutting the Democrat's main source of campaign funding and suppressing the Democratic vote, 2) whether in the legislative or executive branch, playing exclusively to talk radio listeners, Fox, um, "News" viewers and staunch conservatives nationally (Republicans couldn't care less about their cities, states, districts, constituents and country, in case you haven't noticed), and 3) keeping those listeners, viewers and staunch conservatives enraged, paranoid and believing so they don't wise up and leave the cult (fat chance as it is) so the campaign contributions keep flowing in from all directions.
Power and control. That's what cults are.
So the Republican, um, "Party" isn't a political party at all. Not even close. Political parties give a crap about the country and its people; at least a little bit. Republicans only care about the unborn and clinically dead. And if you're somewhere in the middle, then they hell with you - except, of course, the wealthy, corporations and gun owners.
They sure have their priorities in order, don't they? Well, at least half the country thinks so. What does that tell you? Tells me that the Republican, um, "Party" and the entire right-wing movement is a massive and powerful cult made up of Christian fundamentalists, fascists, demagogues, anarchists, neanderthals, political terrorists, street thugs, bullies and gun nuts (who need to get a freakin' life). How much proof do you need?
Note: Halfway through, I wrote, "And their (Republican) base supporters, who are just as pathological, will believe the lie and shrug off the hypocrisy (assuming they even realize it)."
It's only fair that I point out that the left has shrugged off hypocrisy as well. For instance, we disagreed with George Bush's controversial and unconstitutional terrorism policies. But now that Obama has continued and even expanded on them, it's not an issue among most liberals. And that's wrong. Because if it was wrong when Bush did it, then it's wrong when Obama does it too.
July 14 insert:
Romney has lied again. Go figure. This time about when he left Bain Capital.
Put the lie and why he lied aside. If this is how Romney handles "a situation," imagine how he'd deal with a terrorist attack or Iran testing a nuclear bomb, as president. You think lies and spin would work with terrorists and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Heck, since Romney's such an ignorant lie-first-and-spin-later boob, the Chinese just might test him by threatening a move on Taiwan. If so, they'd have control of the island before Romney even acted because he would have been busy blaming Obama for it.
Of course, the knee-jerk conventional wisdom is that he'd have have a qualified staff that would tell him what to do. But a Romney administration would be filled by former Bush (43) staffers. So Romney would be the, um, "smart one." That sure inspires confidence.
Also, Romney was paid $100,000 by Bain in 2001 and 2002 even though he "wasn't there," at least according to Romney. And to think that Republicans have blasted "Welfare Queens" who "mooch of the government."
So either Romney lied and he was there in some capacity after 1999, or he wasn't but was still getting paid like a "Corporate King" that "mooches off its corporation." Hey Mitt, which one is it?
Of course the right would spin that as something different. Oh, I see, so stockholders and employees have no problem paying an executive a six-figure salary to do nothing.
To finish off this insert, here's more spiteful GOP hypocrisy, courtesy of Gov. Rick Perry.
July 16 insert:
Republicans at the state level want flexibility when implementing federal government programs, right? That's what they're always screaming for, right? So you'd think that when Obama gives them that flexibility with a Welfare program, Republican governors would be thankful, right? You'd think so, but no, these are Republicans. They took this flexibility and - what else? - attacked it and attacked Obama.
Why would anyone take Republicans seriously? They don't even take themselves seriously!
But this is nothing new. The Republican answer to everything is "tax cuts," "competition" and "personal responsibility." Well, that's the framework behind "Obamacare" which, again, was the Republican plan. And yet they opposed it, tried to block it, continue to attack it and keep trying to repeal it.
This is what we're dealing with here.
July 17 insert:
Mitt Romney isn't the only one that selectively edits video to make it look as if Obama said something he didn't. Fox, um, "News" does it as well (shocking, I know). And along with Republicans and Rush Limbaugh, they had the nerve to attack Obama for saying what he, um, "said."
This is exactly what cults and its propaganda machine do.
Update: Romney must have gotten the memo. Now he's attacking Obama for saying something he didn't say.
Goes to show not only how much Republicans and the right care about the truth - they don't - but also how much they rely on manufactured lies.
July 18 update: OMG! A day after Mitt Romney attacked Obama for saying what he didn't say, Romney's saying (stole) what Obama actually said in his stump speeches to score political points! And it's a call for what Republicans would attack as big government!
The lies, hypocrisy and chutzpah surrounding just this alone are so far off the charts, that there are no words do describe it.
July 26 update: Jon Stewart shows that when Fox, um "News" ran the clip of what Obama said - to prove that he really did say what they said he said - they did so with the key words removed. That would be like a baseball network giving you a replay of a close play at the plate but cutting out the tag!
So to recap, Fox, um "News" ran edited video to make it look like Obama said something he didn't say, and attacked him for it. And when they got called on it, they, um "proved" that they didn't edit the video by running edited video.
July 27 update: Ezra Klein explains that in their attack ads, the RNC is also using crafty video editing to have Obama, um, "say" things he didn't say.
Wait a second, I don't understand something. If Obama really was this Communist/Marxist/Socialist that's destroyed the country, why does Mitt Romney, Fox, um "News" and the RNC have to keep using slick editing tactics to, um, "prove it?" Because if Obama really was this evil, leftist dictator who hates small business owners, capitalism and America, they wouldn't have to. Speaks volumes about the right and how important lies, trickery and deception are to their agenda, strategy and propaganda everything they do.
July 17 insert:
More exponential Republican hypocrisy is here. Mitch McConnell has some nerve with that one. But that never stopped him/Republicans before.
July 24 insert:
More proof that Mitt Romney's an ignorant, embarrassing, hypocritical flip-flopper...and doesn't care.
First, he blasts Obama's planned 2014 Afghanistan troop withdrawal as a "politically timed retreat" that is the "route to more war." But in the very next sentence he says, "As president, my goal in Afghanistan will be to complete a successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014." Um, that's exactly what Obama's currently doing which he just attacked.
Second, in a press release that attacked Obama for leaking national security secrets, Romney uses quotes from campaign adviser Eric Edelman who was one of George W. Bush's Under Secretaries of Defense. Only one problem with Mr. Edelman. He was implicated in the leaking of secret CIA agent Valerie Plame's name.
The next time a Republican - any Republican - is credible, genuine, honest, or just says something intelligent worthwhile that doesn't have any lies or hypocrisy behind it, it'll be the first time. Seriously.
August 18 update:
Seriously.
August 8 insert:
Courtesy of Rachel Maddow, more blatant Romney/Republican lies, hypocrisy and fake, made-up outrage is here.
August 9 insert:
Oh. My. God.
“You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad,” Romney said on the radio. “They were embarrassed. Today, they just blast ahead. You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they’re wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them.”
August 17 insert:
Paul Ryan is a blatant hypocrite. Then keeping with Republican protocol, denies it and lies about it, tries to spin himself out of it - looking foolish every step of the way - and finishes with an attack on Obama. Rachel Maddow ties it all together here.
Also, on another matter, as Chariman of the House Budget Committee you'd think Paul Ryan would run the numbers on his own budget plan. But he didn't. I guess he couldn't since his, um, "plan" is a fraud. That said, courtesy of Rachel Maddow, this is how foolish Republicans look when they're forced to spin themselves out of the knots their lies, incompetence, rhetoroic, spin and lack of seriousness get themselves into.
August 21 insert:
Should you have any doubts about exponential Republican ignorance, or think I was exaggerating when I said there's a competition among Republicans to determine the most ignorant, I offer this:
Rep. Todd Akin (R-Middle Ages):
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Akin tried to walk it back with even more exponential stupidity.
I was talking about forcible rape. I used the wrong word.
And this guy's a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. And we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in.
If you think that's just one extremly ignorant comment about rape made by one extremely ignorant Republican, think again. Here's Rachel Maddow with other Republican examples, including from Paul Ryan.
I'll finish this insert with more Paul Ryan hypocrisy, here, and more Romney/Ryan flip-flops here.
Note: I must apologize for all the inserts. But I can't help it if Republicans keep proving me right.
August 23 insert:
Rachel Maddow is why you pay for cable. Here she shows Paul Ryan saying he doesn't want to "split hairs" over rape victims and abortion when he split hairs over rape victims and abortion in his own anti-abortion legislation (you can pick it up at the 7:00 mark).
Might as well finish this one off with more Ryan hypocrisy, here.
August 29 insert:
When he was Governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported abortion rights. But last year he said he was "absolutely" for a "life begins at conception" amendment to the constitution and that he and was against all abortions. Then he said there should be exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. But then his campaign said:
“Gov. Romney’s position is clear:Hahahahahahaha!
he opposes abortion except for cases of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is threatened.”They sure inspire confidence, don't they? I mean, if Romney and Ryan keep tangling themselves into contradictory knots on
Oh wait, they wouldn't be governing. Never mind.
By the way, the Republican convention - surprise, surprise - is based on nothing but lies.
(August 30 insert: Also here.) And their welfare Obama attack ads are lies. And they know it. But they don't care. Because they work.
August 30 insert:
As I've pointed out, Republicans took something Obama said totally out of context - the "We Built It" nonsense - and used it as one of their convention
It really is incredible. This cult haven't just put their followers in a bubble to shield them from the round-the-clock media stream. They put them in a proverbial cave so deep that the followers are not only insulated from facts and the truth, but so the, um, "news" and "information" they do receive can be manipulated and controlled.
It also blocks the follower's ability to comprehend, learn and most important, think; asssuming, of course, they had those abilities to begin with. But, again, that's exactly what cults do.
Oh, Paul Ryan's speech last night was filled with so many lies that even a Fox, um, "News" analyst declared that they were a "world record." (August 31 insert: Also here, here and here.)
August 31 insert:
If you were wondering what would happen if you were to combine this cult's incessant demagoguery and vitriol of "liberals" with the power, control and domination this cult has over its members, see this.
September 2 issert:
Paul Ryan lied about his marathon time.
Can these guys be truthful about anything? Ask a silly question...
September 4 insert:
Romney in his nominating acceptance speech:
(President Obama's) trillion dollar cuts to our military (triggered automatically as per last years debt ceiling deal) will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and also put our security at greater riskWait a second. Cutting military spending would eliminate jobs? I thought government spending, like the stimulus, didn't create or save jobs (like teachers, firemen and police officers). And these would be private sector jobs. I'm confused. Since when did Romney become a Keynesian?
He didn't (he can't because he has to disagree with liberals). It's just another contradictory knot Republican dogma puts them in. But, as I've said, they don't care.
Paul Krugman goes into more detail.
September 10 insert:
Paul Ryan says he didn't vote for defense cuts he voted for.
September 11 insert:
In just twelve hours, Romney took four different positions on pre-existing conditions.
Once again, I have to apologize for all these inserts. It is getting ridiculous. But keep in mind the hypocrisy, lies and contradictions that I didn't add.
September 13 insert:
While Americans and American sovereignty was under attack in Libya and Egypt, Mitt Romney had the nerve to release a statement:
I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.In regard to "Obama's first response was not to condemn the attacks" - the attacks had barely ended! The smoke, literally, hadn't cleared yet! What does Romney expect Obama to do? My God, the White House was trying to figure out what was going on at the time. And besides, why is condemning the attacks such a big deal? First, it goes without saying; second, it won't help the situation; and therefore, third, who the hell cares?
But this is what a desperate Romney is stooping to. Blasting Obama for not "condemning" the attacks while they were taking place. Give me a freakin' break. I think Obama had more things to do at the time.
In fact, if Obama did release a statement "condemning" the attacks that night, Romney would have blasted him for "playing politics" and not doing his job and securing the facilities!
In regard to "sympathizing with those who waged the attacks" - when did Obama do that? Why would he do that? Well, he didn't do that.
What Romney is referring to is the statement the Cairo embassy put out 10 hours before the attacks began to try and calm things down to prevent them from occuring. What a dick.
But you see what I mean? Since Republicans can't run on facts, their record, policies or ideas, the only way they can win elections is by making stuff up, attacking their opponents and trying to make them look worse then they do. But that would be like trying to make a head cold look worse then Stage 4 cancer.
So when Obama or a Democrat does or says something wrong, or doesn't do something he should have - regardless if it's true or not - Republicans scream as if it's the Fourth of July and New Year's Eve combined to milk it politically for what it's worth. As I said, that's all they got. Attack, attack, attack and attack.
Just look at how fast Romney was to "pounce" on this horrible job Obama was doing as it was unfolding. Look at what he did with that statement from the embassy in Cairo before the violence erupted. My God, does he really think undecided voters are that stupid?
Apparently so.
Is Romney that stupid, that partisan and that big of a dick?
Yes, yes and obviously. (September 18 insert: Obviously.)
Why didn't he just release a statement the following day after the facts were in that expressed sadness for the Americans who were killed and leave it at that? And let the President handle it.
Oh wait, that would have been the smart thing to do. Never let intellect get in the way of a Republican trying to score political points...while Americans are in the process of being killed.
You know, maybe if Romney ran a campaign of truth, facts, substance and ideas, maybe he'd have a shot to win.
Wait a second, what the hell am I talking about? Never mind.
Side note: It's
Call me a crazy liberal, but I think we should be electing intelligent, well-read people to the White House. A man, or woman, who not only know a lot about many things - from having a basic understanding of human genome, to the intricacies of farm subsidies, to a how solar panels generate power (and setting a goal of them generating twice the power at half their size at half the cost - and providing the subsidies, tax incentives and resources to do it) - but is also curious and inquisitive and wants to learn and understand things that they may not know much about. That's what we need in Presidents and Vice Presidents, as well as Senators, Congressmen, Governors and legislators. Obama's a smart guy (his problem is that he's a sap with Republicans), but overall, we don't elect
In 2000 and 2004, 50 million Americans voted for an imbecile who didn't have the intellect to take the White House tour, let alone be its occupant. In 2008 50 million Americans voted for an imbecile for Vice President who didn't have the intellect to take the White House tour, let alone work there (anyone see a pattern here?). And in 2012, 50 million Americans will, once again, vote for an imbecile who doesn't have the intellect to take the White House tour, let alone be its occupant. Cults will make you do things like that. And we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in.
September 14 insert:
Trying to untangle himself from the political knot he put himself into regarding the Libya and Egypt attacks, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Mitt Romney basically reiterated what the Cairo embassy had said in its statement before the attack began.
Why does Romney sympathize with the terrorists?
September 19 insert:
That September 18 insert/link was about Romney disparaging 47% of the electorate as being "victims" who don't pay taxes - federal income taxes - and think they're "entitled" to government handouts. A few points:
A good portion of that 47% do pay payroll taxes such as Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance. Ironically, as a percentage, they probably pay a higher tax rate then Romney does. So those taxes "don't count" when Romney wants to point out the moochers of our society.
Now, in August Romeny said he paid about 13% in taxes, wanting you to believe that that's federal income taxes. Since he won't release his returns we really don't know what he's paid. But I'd bet he pays little to no federal taxes and that his "13% in taxes" are ancillary taxes, just like the moochers who don't pay taxes.
So payroll taxes don't count when you want to identify the moochers of our society. But they do count when you're trying
Yeah, based on what we've seen and heard from him, that's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect out a lying boob like Mitt Romney.
Oh, by the way, Romney's father would have been part of that "47%" since he received public assistance.
September 20 insert:
Again, I know this is getting ridiculous, but I couldn't resist this one.
After Obama had said, "you can't change Washington from the inside—that you have to change it from the outside..." Romney, who had to attack him on it, said:
The president today threw in the white flag of surrender again. He said he can't change Washington from inside...Romney's going to change Washington? The typical lie first attack second partisan Republican is going to "change Washington"? Give me a freaking break. But that's not the reason for this insert. This is: Romney contradicted himself (what a surprise). From 2007:
I can change Washington, I will change Washington. We'll get the job from the inside. Republicans and Democrats will come together.
I don't think you change Washington from the inside. I think you change it from the outside.
That's what Obama said!
September 21 insert:
I couldn't resist this one either.
Romney released his 2011 tax return and in order to be true to his word that he's paid about 13% of his income in taxes, he didn't take all the deductions he could have for charitable contributions. So he ended up paying more in tax then he should have. But by doing so he admitted that he's not qualified to be president.
No, really, he did!
I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president.Hahahahahaha!
There's nothing stopping Romney from filing an amended return and get his rate back to 9% where it should be; which is probably a lower rate then those "victims" and "moochers" he spoke of when you consider the taxes they do pay.
October 13 insert:
Couldn't resist this one because it's a doozy. Via Rachel Maddow, here's
As this blog has proven, the Republican, um, "Party" and entire right-wing movement is a cult. And they'll go to extraordinary lengths to protect it regardless of how foolish it makes them look. As I said in my previous post:
Exponential ignorance and a forced (manufactured) hatred of the "evil, baby-killing liberals" is why conservatives turn logic on its head. And they don't mind looking foolish doing so. But that's what cults get you to do.
I wanted to underscore the fact that Republicans are not embarrassed by their pathological lies, ignorance and hypocrisy and don't mind looking foolish at all. And get away with it. In fact, looking foolish for Republicans has not only become accepted as some sort of anti-liberal badge of honor, but a competition among themselves to see who can be the biggest liar, the biggest hypocrite, the most ignorant, the most uninformed and the most wrong the most often. Because it works. And I'll prove it by starting off with a classic from Mitt Romney.
Of course, no fiscal challenge is greater than the one we face with entitlements. As the President himself acknowledged three years ago, this is not a problem that we can kick down the road any further.
I’d be willing to consider the President’s plan, but he doesn’t have one. That’s right: In over three years, he has failed to enact or even propose a serious plan to solve our entitlement crisis.
Instead, he has taken a series of steps that end Medicare as we know it.
He is the only President to ever cut $500 billion from Medicare.
Jed Lewison at Daily Kos notices that Romney contradicted himself in a matter of six sentences:
Consider Romney's logic:
1. Our biggest fiscal challenge is cutting entitlement spending
2. Obama hasn't offered a plan to cut entitlement spending
3. Instead, Obama has cut entitlement spending by $500 billion, ending Medicare as we know it
Even if you didn't already know Romney's claims about Medicare were dishonest, even if you didn't know that he was the candidate to have proposed ending Medicare (in his words, "fundamentally transform Medicare"), the self-contradictions here are simply amazing.
In the space of less than one hundred words, Mitt Romney says we need to cut entitlement spending, slams Obama for not cutting entitlement spending, and then slams Obama for cutting entitlement spending. You literally don't need to know anything about the issue in order to see that Romney is full of crap; the internal inconsistency of his logic alone is enough.
And Romney gets away with all of it from the so called "liberal media."
And then there was this from Barbara Morrill, also of Daily Kos (emphasis hers):
On Wednesday, the news that Mitt Romney had come out in opposition to the Blunt/Rubio Amendment—a bill that will let employers deny coverage for birth control if they find it morally objectionable—caused shockwaves, both on the Left, who couldn't believe he was starting his lurch back to the center so soon and from the Right, who have always been suspicious of his anti-choice credentials:ROMNEY: I’m not for the bill, but look, the idea of presidential candidates getting into questions about contraception within a relationship between a man and a women, husband and wife, I’m not going there.Almost immediately the Romney campaign complained that the story was being "incorrectly reported" and sent Romney out to claim that:
I didn't understand his question. Of course I support the Blunt Amendment. I thought he was talking about some state law … I simply misunderstood the question.HEATH: Blunt-Rubio is being debated, I believe, later this week. It deals with banning or allowing employers to ban providing female contraception. Have you taken a position on it? He (Santorum) said he was for that, we’ll talk about personhood ina second; but he’s for that, have you taken a position?Aha! Trick question! Gotcha by the librul media! So, Romney thought that Ohio happened to have a couple of state lawmakers named Blunt and Rubio who were pushing a bill on contraception at the same time U.S. Sens. Blunt and Rubio were pushing a bill on contraception—and he's totally against that bill. He's just for the other, Godly, Blunt/Rubio Amendment.
Okay, there's two things that could have happened. Either the question was confusing and Romney really didn't understand it, or he's lying. If it's the first one, then Romney's too stupid to be President of the United States. Hey Mitt, which one is it?
Here's a doozy from Rick Santorum:
In the Netherlands, people wear different bracelets if they are elderly. And the bracelet is: ‘Do not euthanize me.’ Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands but half of the people who are euthanized — ten percent of all deaths in the Netherlands — half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don’t go to the hospital. They go to another country, because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, they will not come out of that hospital if they go in there with sickness.”
It's not true. But even on its surface, who would believe such a thing? So either Santorum knew it wasn't true and lied to score political points - which is what I hate about politicians - or he's too stupid to be President too. Hey Rick, which one is it?
But Santorum was just warming up. He called Obama a "snob" for wanting everyone to go to college. No, really, he did. And the audience was dumb enough to applaud this monumental stupidity (of course they did because it was an attack on Obama).
A couple of weeks later Santorum said:
I was just reading something last night from the state of California. And that the California universities – I think it’s seven or eight of the California system of universities don’t even teach an American history course. It’s not even available to be taught.
He wasn't just wrong, he couldn't have been more wrong. They do offer American history classes. But again, on its surface, who would believe such a thing? So, again, either Santorum knew it wasn't true and lied, or he was trying to prove that he really was too stupid to be president.
But Santorum proves a number of points: 1) Republicans have to attack repeatedly with petty lies, and use exponential stupidity, to keep base conservatives perpetually enraged at those "evil, lefty, Communists" who, in the previous case, "don't teach American history in their colleges because they hate America," 2) the level of, um, "intellect" Santorum had to stoop to for votes, 3) Republicans are forced to oppose and attack everything Obama and Democrats are for, even college, 4) they look incredibly foolish doing so (a candidate for President of the United States is knocking sound educational advice that no one can disagree with! Except, of course, ignorant conservatives who have to attack Obama when given the chance because that's how they've been trained.), and 5) they don't mind looking incredibly foolish because it somehow helps them politically (see the applause after Santorum called Obama a "snob"). If it didn't, then they wouldn't be saying these things. Either that or they really are that stupid.
Imagine if we had politicians that engaged in mature, honest, intelligent discussions on jobs, health care, education and infrastructure, as opposed to what Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum have to offer. But with the bar set so darn low, and getting lower all the time, this is what goes for, um, "honest debate" in Washington these days. Makes you proud to be an American, doesn't it? And here's something that will make you even more proud.
Sen. Jon Kyle on the Senate floor last year:
Everybody goes to clinics, to doctors, to hospitals, so on," Kyl said. "Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don't have to go to Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood, and that's well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does.
As usual for Republicans, he wasn't just wrong, he couldn't have been more wrong! Abortions account for just three per cent of Planned Parenthood's services. But that's not even the point. It's when Kyl was called on his 87 percentage point error. He released a statement that said - hang on for this one - the "remark was not intended to be a factual statement..."
No, really, that's how a United States Senator defended himself from an exaggerated lie that was designed to do nothing but rile up the pro-life Republican base - as if the remark was supposed to add something worthwhile to the, um, "debate" And we wonder why the state of politics in this country are what they are.
But this is what I mean about Republicans making politically calculating wise cracks that make them look so foolish - and in this instance Kyl did it a second time when he tried to spin himself out of it - that it should force them into hiding. But they're not embarrassed and not forced into hiding.
If Kyl was, he'd have company. Sen. Orrin Hatch claimed that abortions accounted for "about 95 percent" of planned parenthood's services. But when called on it:
(Hatch spokesman) Matt Harakal acknowledges Hatch got it wrong on the webcast and said the senator meant to refer to a letter he sent with the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins in April, which claimed that 98 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services for pregnant women involve abortions.So, yes, Hatch got it wrong. Abortions at Planned Parenthood account for 98 percent of their services, not 95 percent.
So Republicans aren't just wrong, not only couldn't be more wrong, but can't even get their corrections right! And Hatch still has the nerve to show his face in public, as does Kyl who looked foolish last week when he just had to attack Obama, by lying.
You know, I'd sooner trust a $3 bill then these guys. But wait, here's another one that can not be beat for its arrogance and stupidity.
In an appearance on Meet the Press in May, presidential candidate Newt Gingrich said Rep. Paul Ryan's Medicare voucher plan (which I'll get to in a bit) was a "bad idea." On Fox, um, "News" the next day, he tried to walk it back by saying, "Any ad which quotes what I said on Sunday is a falsehood..."
So when I just wrote that Gingrich said Ryan's Medicare plan was a "bad idea," I'm the liar.
Can you imagine if Democrats said these things? Can you imagine if a Democrat said something so embarrassingly wrong that he tried to spin himself out of it by saying it "wasn't intended to be a factual statement?" Can you imagine if a Democrat tried to walk back something he said by saying anyone who "quotes what I said is a falsehood"? Can you imagine if a Democrat said "(an exaggerated percentage) of guns purchased legally were later used in a crime" (which may not be possible since most if not all guns used in crimes were originally purchased legally) and when called on it, tried to spin himself out of it by saying, "it wasn't intended to be a factual statement"? My God, it would be all over Fox, um, "News" and talk radio for
But Republicans aren't embarrassed and aren't laughed out of office. In fact, they use their pathological lies, ignorance and stupidity to not only build credibility and standing among the party's base, but raise money off it to run for office, including President of the United States.
Author and columnist Eric Alterman:
How else to explain the fact that while 97 percent of credentialed climate scientists concur that global warming is both extremely dangerous and caused by human activity, every one of the 21 Republican candidates who ran for Senate in 2010 denied that this could be the case?
When queried as to how it was possible that the scientific consensus could be wrong, while people with no particular knowledge of science could be right, they muttered something about a global “conspiracy,” though not a shred of evidence has ever been produced to back that claim and the very idea of such a thing is comical in its ridiculousness.
As evidenced by the global warming “debate,” Tea Party-style conservatives have a problem with reality...
This conservative “war against knowledge” is not exactly a new phenomenon. Way back in the 1980s, the Reagan administration began making noise about defunding government support for social science through the National Science Foundation.
...some of them really may be as foolish as they seem. Remember, the person picked by the Tea Party movement to represent it nationally in opposition to President Obama’s 2011 State of the Union Address, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), thinks that the famous “shot heard around the world in Lexington and Concord" credited with beginning the American Revolution was fired in New Hampshire, not Massachusetts. She thinks “the very founders that wrote” the U.S. Constitution “worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States” even though they agreed to extend it. She thinks something called the "Hoot-Smalley Tariff," allegedly passed by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, caused the Great Depression, ignoring the fact that the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff was passed under Republican President Herbert Hoover together with the fact that the Great Depression was already in full swing when FDR was elected years later.
...There was that “interesting coincidence” Rep. Bachmann professed to discover during the swine flu scare at the beginning of President Obama’s term—“that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under another Democrat president, Jimmy Carter.” Actually, “interesting” or not, it was under Republican President Gerald Ford.
Again, they're not just wrong, and stupid, they couldn't be more wrong and stupid...well, with Republicans, there's a good chance they will be more stupid. Whatever. It doesn't matter because they're not embarrassed by it one bit. And as I've shown, Republicans are allowed to be consistently wrong while Democrats are held to much higher (double) standards.
But wait, there's more (with Republicans there always is)!
No one re-writes history lies and gets away with it better then Republicans. Here's Mitt Romney in May taking credit for the auto bailout he was against:
I pushed the idea of a managed bankruptcy, and finally when that was done, and help was given, the companies got back on their feet...So, I'll take a lot of credit for the fact that this industry has come back.
But...
The course Romney advocated differed greatly from the one that was ultimately taken. GM and Chrysler went into bankruptcy on the strength of a massive bailout that Romney opposed. Neither Republican President George W. Bush nor Democratic President Barack Obama believed the automakers would have survived without that backup from taxpayers.
So Romney wasn't only against Obama's bailout plan, and had the nerve to take credit for it, but said, "(the auto industry's) demise will be virtually guaranteed." So once again, a Republican wasn't just wrong, he couldn't have been more wrong because the bailout worked. And you think that stopped Romney? Not in the least. He's still bragging and making stuff up about how wonderful his bailout plan was. (September 8 insert: And still does it!)
Then there's Rep. Paul Ryan's budget, which Romney endorsed. It's a fraud. It not only takes from the poor and gives huge tax breaks to the wealthy, but Ryan fails to identify what spending cuts he'd make and what tax loopholes he'd close to pay for them (psst...they'll be paid for with higher taxes on the middle class). He also wants to revolutionize Medicare by having grandma go into the "free market" and buy health insurance with a voucher that wouldn't cover its entire cost (September 9 insert: And even if it did, and assuming she was able to figure out the complicated policies and fine print and selected a plan, she could still be denied coverage because of her "pre-existing conditions." Because if Republicans had their way, the provision that prohibits it would have been repealed along with the rest of "Obamacare" - hell, they've already voted to repeal it 33 times...so far. Only a Republican would, um, "think" spin that as a step in the right direction for health care. But they have to because they have to oppose Obama and the Democrats. See what cults force you to do?) So under Ryan's, um, "plans" some senior citizens, and about 48 million Americans overall, would lose their health coverage (I guess "death panels" are okay when Republicans implement them).
Of course, the, um, "liberal media" sucks up to Ryan and his, um, "plans" because if it didn't, and called him/them out for what they truly are, the media outlet(s) that did so would be bombarded by faxes, e-mails and phone calls in protest...which happens all the time anyway. (August 13 insert: For more on Ryan and his, um, "plans" and how and why the media takes Ryan seriously and gives his, um, "plans" credibility, see this and this.) (August 16 insert: And this and this.) (August 19 insert: And this.)
This is why the, um, "liberal media" doesn't call out GOP talking points that contradicts facts like these:
Private sector job growth:
Full presidency:
Barack Obama: +35,000
George W. Bush: -646,000
Excluding first year:
Barack Obama: +4,220,000
George W. Bush: +1,771,000
Public sector job growth:
Full presidency:
Barack Obama: -607,000
George W. Bush: +1,741,000
Excluding first year:
Barack Obama: -510,000
George W. Bush: +1,199,000
Hey Republicans, I thought Obama was the Communist.
And you know that Republican "drill, baby, drill" mantra? Well, it turns out that Obama is drilling for more oil then George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan.
But what do facts and the truth matter? They don't because Republicans aren't held accountable for their lies, ignorance and stupidity. Why? Well first, by intimidating the media. The right's been "working intimidating the refs" for decades. They're pros at it and it's worked. (August 16 insert: Hunter at Daily Kos shows what sparked the "refs" into being outraged at the nasty political discourse and basically declared that both parties are equally to blame for it even though they're not equally to blame. But Republicans win when both parties are to blame. It's like when a bully gets into a tussle with a wimp over his lunch money. Even though they both get sent to the principal's office, the bully wasn't the one who got beat up. And got the wimp's lunch money.) Second, they have a massive propaganda machine second to none masquerading as a (cough, cough) "news organization" that spews their lies, spin, attacks, insults, ignorance, stupidity and talking points 24/7 to an audience that believes every word of it. Sometimes this, um, "news organization" produces the propaganda themselves. And third, they have an under the radar cottage industry that churns out venomous conspiracy books and DVD's - all for a fee, of course - on prominent Democrats who are a threat to this cult and therefore, their power (Rachel Maddow explains in a video I recommend watching).
Other then forcing them to to sign loyalty oaths - not to America, but to Republicans (yeah, really) - feeding the most ignorant and radical members with such hateful and inflammatory propaganda is how cults recruit, indoctrinate and retain its members. But this is also how the GOP keeps their base ignorant and in a perpetual state of rage at Obama, Democrats or whoever the enemy of the hour happens to be.
And this right-wing propaganda machine is more prepared, more strategic and more powerful then you think. For instance, the few times Republicans are called out by someone smart and articulate - or at least made to look wrong and foolish - that person is attacked, insulted and ridiculed for the purpose of dragging their credibility down; see Elizabeth Warren and Sandra Fluke. And when a when a Democrat does something good that would give him/the Democratic party's poll numbers a pop, the right loads up the ammo and unleashes an overwhelming attack to water it down. Take the bin Laden killing for example (if only Republicans put 1/100th the time, energy and, um, "thought" into governing). Then Karl Rove tried to counter the one-year anniversary of it by running an ad saying that Obama didn't thank the Seal team that conducted this daring mission. It wasn't true. But what does that matter? The goals were to 1) enrage the Republican base, and 2) squash that (one point) pop Obama was going to get (for a day) in his popularity.
I'd say that Democrats should go on the attack with petty lies to put a damper on Republican poll numbers when they do something good. But Republicans never do anything that would warrant such a pop in their poll numbers.
On the rare occasions they might deserve some credit, it's usually indirectly or very little. But the propaganda machine tries so hard to build it up into something much, much bigger. Sort of like the 1962 Mets throwing a parade after they won a game.
Besides the pathological lies, colossal ignorance and monumental stupidity, there's the blatant hypocrisy.
RNC spokesman Sean Spicer has a problem with using the term "war" in a political sense.
I find it offensive that the Democratic National Committee is using a term like that to describe policy differences...It’s not only bad, but it’s downright pathetic they would use a term like ‘war’ when there are millions of Americans who actually have engaged in a real war. To use a term like that borders on unpatriotic.Well, when you force women to undergo unnecessary and extremely invasive big government medical procedures against their will (wait, that's not the hypocrisy. Well, it is, but not the point I'm trying to make), oppose birth control being part of insurance plans, blocked the Lilly Ledbetter Equal Pay Act, blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act, opposed re-authorization of the Violence Against Women's Act, blocked access to cervical cancer vaccines (except Gov. Perry of Texas), and even oppose chemotherapy to pregnant women, what should we call it if not a "war on women"? Wait, that's not the point either.
This is:
Obama's war on women
Obama's war on coal
Obama's war on Appalachia
Obama's war on success
Obama's war on bald eagles
Obama's (trade) war with Mexico
I guess it's okay to be pathetic and unpatriotic if you're a Republican.
Then the RNC blasted Obama on unemployment with robocallings in Ohio and Virginia. But they were set up by a firm the Philippines.
And in yet another knock against higher education - which as I pointed out scores political points among like-um-"minded" base Republicans - Mitt Romney said that President Obama "spent too much time at Harvard." Ah, Obama went to Harvard for three years; Romney went there for at least four.
And you know how the right works so hard to highlight that the solar panel company Solyndra went bankrupt after Obama gave them $535 million in loan guarantees (not surprisingly, it's a big deal on Fox, um, "News")? Well first, Romney made stuff up about Obama "steering the (Solyndra) money to campaign contributors." And second, not only did the vetting process for the guarantees begin under George Bush but he conditionally approved them. But that's not the hypocrisy - this is: while Governor of Massachusetts, Romney approved loan guarantees for two firms, run by campaign donors, that later defaulted. And here's another.
With Romney, the lies, hypocrisy and flip flops keep coming like the chocolate Lucy and Ethel were trying to wrap. He campaigned against "Obamacare" and has promised to repeal it even though he implemented the same plan in Massachusetts; a plan that he not only bragged about but basically said that Obama should imitate nationally. Individual mandate and all.
Romney should be laughed off the political stage with such colossal hypocrisy. And that goes for Sen. Hatch too since he's attacking "Obamacare" and the Supreme Court's ruling that upheld it even though he and 20 other Senators, including 18 Republicans, co-sponsored basically the same health care plan in 1993.
But Romney, Hatch and the rest of the GOP aren't laughed off the political stage because Republicans get away with it. It's sad, actually, because it reflects on the, um, "intellect" of the American people - at least half of them - that allow them to.
Joan McCarter of Daily Kos sums up Romney's response to the Supreme Court upholding the mandate - again, which he implemented in Massachusetts - compared to what he said in February:
It's personal responsibility when the state is asking for it, but it's an onerous tax when the federal government is asking for it. Yeah, that makes sense.
To colossal hypocrites who have absolutely no shame.
Days later, Romney spins this contradiction into a flip-flop. And it didn't go over well with the conservative media. But this is what happens when pathological liars and hypocrites are forced to spin themselves into and out of knots they put themselves in (if only Republicans put 1/100th the time, energy and, um, "thought" into governing). It makes them look incredibly foolish. It also insult's the public's intelligence. But the GOP gets away with it because base conservatives don't have an, um, "intellect" to insult. And here's proof: anyone protesting the health care mandate either already have insurance or they don't. So if they have it, what's the problem? If they don't, and the government forces you to buy it (which anyone with half a brain would want to have) from the private, free market insurance companies - and helps those who can't afford it - which would lower costs for everyone, what's the problem?
The problem is that the right has to stand logic on its head because they have disagree with those evil liberals they've been brainwashed to hate. Facts and logic be damned. This is how cults get you to, um, "think."
But wait, there's more (with Republican hypocrisy, there always is)!
Republicans keep saying "Obama's anti-business." But as Ezra Klein explains, it's Obama who bailed out the banks with a second round of TARP and then bailed out the auto industry. It was Mitt Romney who wanted the auto makers to "go bankrupt," remember? And yet, "Obama's anti-business." In another segment, Klein shows that "cap and trade," the DREAM Act, cutting taxes to stimulate the economy and the health care mandate were all Republican ideas. But now that Democrats have agreed to "cap and trade," the DREAM Act, cutting taxes to stimulate the economy and the mandate (which Republicans and their followers call socialism, unconstitutional and tyranny - tyranny I tell you, tyranny!), obstinate Republicans, who have to disagree with Democrats, no matter what, vehemently oppose all of it (yeah, Republicans opposed tax cuts. Go figure. I guess it's okay for Republicans to be "big government tax and spend liberals."). This is what we're dealing with here.
And since the so called "liberal media" doesn't call them out on such hide-your-face-in-shame hypocrisy and cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face partisanship, this cult - this massive, powerful cult - gets away with it.
In a video clip I also recommend watching, Rachel Maddow shows that the few times Republicans are caught and called on their lies and hypocrisy (on the low "political news junkie" level), including a doozy in which Mitt Romney made stuff up (again) about what's not in a recent book about Obama, they don't admit their mistake, they don't correct the record and just keep reciting them. They don't care. Why should they? They know that whoever is paying attention will hear the lie but not the truth so they won't pay a political price for lying and/or being a blatant hypocrite. And their base supporters, who are just as pathological, will believe the lie and shrug off the hypocrisy (assuming they even realize it). So why even bother being truthful when lying works?
Come to think of it, I'm wrong. There was one instance where Republicans have been true to their word. In 2010, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." Well, that's exactly what Republican's have been trying to do. They've been blocking everything that moves in the Senate, including measures that would improve the economy. Heck, they've been trying to sabotage the economy; see last summer's debt ceiling fiasco. And the GOP's road blocks extend all the way to the Federal Reserve. Paul Krugman:
Why won’t the Fed act? My guess is that it’s intimidated by those Congressional Republicans, that it’s afraid to do anything that might be seen as providing political aid to President Obama, that is, anything that might help the economy.And then Republicans blame Obama and the Democrats for the lousy economy.
This is why Republicans don't run on facts, the truth or their record - they can't. And they certainly can't run on their ideas, intellect or accomplishments because they don't have any to speak of (except of course things like 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan). So they have no choice but to keep lying, keep attacking, keep repeating the same moronic talking points over and over and over again ("less government," "lower taxes" and "liberal media"), keep lying, keep attacking, keep being blatant hypocrites, keep lying and keep attacking so they can 1) create diversions from their horrendous policies and record, 2) force confrontations with Democrats (which is what the Republican base lives for), 3) blame Democrats for everything (which is what the Republican base lives for), which leads to, 4) more lies, more attacks, more spin, more rhetoric, more hypocrisy and more obstruction, and then 5) Repeat. And we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in.
But of course you need ignorant followers who shun facts, logic, knowledge, evolution and science (all of which are for liberals) and have been dumbed down, brainwashed and stripped of their ability to to think for themselves (assuming they had the ability to begin with), that they'll believe everything they're told by their leaders, no questions asked. Well, that's exactly what the GOP has. They've set up their propaganda machine so the followers get their
Bad news for Democrats - something like this and this (even though Obama probably had little to do with it), for example - or good news on a Republican (should there ever be any), regardless of the media source is not only highlighted, hyped and believed, but "why isn't this a bigger story on the lame stream liberal media?" And should the media fact check a Republican lie, or call them out on their hypocrisy, well, it's "biased reporting by the liberal media and can't be believed." And among base conservatives, it isn't. And as I pointed out, Republicans just ignore the fact check and keep repeating the lie and hypocritical talking points. Heck, they'll counter it by attacking the media outlet - or the, um, "liberal media" in general - that had the nerve to fact check their statement (so they'll think twice before doing it again). That builds more support among base conservatives who rally around Republicans when they're, um, "unfairly attacked by the 'liberal media.'"
So actually, Republicans want the media to call them out on their lies and hypocrisy because it "confirms" their propaganda that the media is 1) liberal, and 2) out to get them. Sort of like when FEMA fails to come the aid of hurricane victims. It "confirms" the conservative talking point that "government is incompetent" (and voila! A new cynical anti-government Republican voter is born!).
This is why Republicans are always making wise cracks about government: it reinforces the propaganda. And then they get elected and prove it.
So Republicans have created can't lose situations. And nothing is left to chance. For instance, they've gotten their followers to believe that George Soros funds the myth-busting Snopes web site. So when the site declares a right-wing anti-Obama/Democrat internet e-mail a hoax, well, "it's not true (the debunking) because Snopes is funded by that evil lying liberal, George Soros." But it's a lie. The right made it up. Of course they did, that's what cults do.
The members of this cult have been so well trained that they drown out the truth by acting like immature, belligerent children who cover their ears and scream la-la-la-la-la-la!...I can't hear you!..la-la-la-la-la-la!...I can't hear you!...la-la-la-la-la-la!... And Mitt Romney doesn't tell them to cut it out. In fact, by tooting its horn, his own campaign bus does it as well.
And this is how they responded when they didn't get their way on the Supreme Court's decision to uphold "Obamacare" (which should never have been brought up there in the first place). (July 25 insert: A majority of House Republicans are calling upon party leadership not to fund "Obamacare" because "most of the citizens we represent believe that (it) should never go into effect." Or else they'll shut the government down. This is what Republicans do because they have get their way, always. Hmm...I wonder what these Republicans would be
And then there's Jonathan Krohn, who as a 13-year-old conservative spoke at CPAC in 2008. Now 17 and grown up (and wised up) he's no longer conservative. And the right's giving him grief about it (bold mine):
...earlier this week, Politico released an interview in which I announced I wasn’t a conservative anymore — and the proverbial crap hit the fan. Since then, I have been treated by the political right with all the maturity of schoolyard bullies. The Daily Caller, for instance, wrote three articles about my shift, topping it off with an opinion piece in which they stated that I deserved criticism because I wear “thick-rimmed glasses” and I like Ludwig Wittgenstein. Why don’t they just call me “four-eyes”? These are not adults leveling serious criticism; these are scorned right-wingers showing all the maturity of a little boy. No wonder I fit in so well when I was 13.
This is the level of intellect and maturity bullying cult that we're dealing with here. And note how the followers members rally around "the cause" and come to the aid of Republicans and conservatism their leaders and dogma.
But the Republican, um, "Party's" biggest fear - something they're always on guard for and ready to counter at all times because it scares the hell of of them - is Democrats getting credit for good news or Republicans getting blamed for bad news. They will not allow either under any circumstances. So most of what you see and hear - their lies, spin and attacks - are strategic propaganda offensives designed to either water down Democratic good news or spin Republican bad news (they get plenty of work in with the latter). Sometimes, "the cause" is so great, where Obama's and Democratic poll numbers have the potential to skyrocket, on health care for example, the propaganda campaign is on massive scale. And it works. So much for the, um, "liberal media" (if only Republicans put half 1/100th the time, energy and, um, "thought" into governing.).
So the right always has an attack, lie or talking point ready to take credit for something they don't deserve, to take credit away from Obama and the Democrats, or to spin themselves out of blame their horrendous policies are responsible for: "Democrats want to cut and run from Iraq" (even though it's "pro-life" and was okay when Ronald Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon in 1984); "the Wall Street/economic collapse was Jimmy Carter's, Bill Clinton's and ACORN's fault" (not deregulation, the "free market" and "letting the industry police itself"); "Death panels;" "tax cuts increase revenues and create jobs"; "Bush deserves for credit for killing bin Laden"; "the auto bail out was Romney idea"; "the deficit is Obama fault"; "Obama's anti-business"; "Obama's going to take your guns away."
So in the bizzaro Republican/Fox, um, "News" world, lies are turned into, um, "facts" and used as propaganda. Don't believe me? Here's a perfect example. Here's another. And another. And another.
To get an idea how this cult manipulates and orchestrates an end result by pulling everything together - the lies, propaganda and attack accusations, the insane right-wing conspiracy theories, the paranoid, radical followers (in this case, the gun nuts and their sick obsession with firearms) who stand logic on its head to, um, "prove" their insane right-wing conspiracy theories, and how Fox, um, "News" uses the paranoid, radical followers (and vice versa) by promoting and pushing their insane right-wing conspiracies, as well as their calls of vandalism - check out this Rachel Maddow video clip. She not only explains how the gun nuts, illogically, made up an "Obama's going to take my guns away" conspiracy and how it led to Republicans holding Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress over the botched "Fast and Furious"/Mexican gun-running operation, but also how much Fox, um, "News" dominates and controls the, um, "minds" of this cult's most ignorant and dedicated members (Maddow follows up in a second segment that includes a discussion with Bob Herbert. In a segment the following day, Maddow illustrates how Fox, um, "News" is trying to hype this made for Fox, um, "News," um, "story" and hopes the legitimate news media doesn't "take the bait.").
If you're only going to view one Rachel Maddow clip from this blog post, it should be that one because she encapsulates what this cult is all about; and without her realizing it, the power it has. It's scary if you ask me.
Jon Stewart shows how hard Fox, um, "News" was trying to turn this, um, "scandal" into something that's "worse then Watergate" - that's what massive propaganda machines do - and their hypocrisy while doing so. Stephen Colbet takes on this right-wing paranoia and loonacy as well by trying to make sense out of their, um, "logic." But Americablog's John Aravosis is more serious (bold mine):
There is no different between what Issa - the Republican House member leading the charge on the "Fast and Furious" issue - and 9/11 Truthers. Their conspiracies are identical: The President let people die on purpose, wanted people to die, so he could justify a policy that would otherwise be unpopular.That's putting it mildly because the, um, "idea" that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms allowed illegal guns to flow into Mexico so they'd cause mayhem, and used to implement tougher gun control here in the States (somehow with a dysfunctional Congress) didn't make much sense. We have an enough gun violence in the country already to justify more stringent gun laws, but never do it. Hell, it's never even mentioned! Goes to show who's calling the shots (so to speak). If anything, gun laws are being repealed (this is how things work these days). So why create gun violence in Mexico when there's plenty of it here in the States to justify tougher gun laws? Well, no one said the gun nuts were all that bright. But now we learn that it's not true, the ATF didn't purposely allow guns to flow into Mexico.
This is the way the leadership of the Republican party thinks. It's insane.
This also shows the power of the NRA in American politics, and how it controls the Republican party (and far too many Democrats). The notion that the Bush administration started this policy, and the Obama administration continued it, in order to hope that Mexican drug cartels would get weapons and kill Americans, so that the administration could then crack down on all Americans and their guns, is beyond bizarre...
Oh, right it won't happen until the second term. Right. The fact that Democrats haven't done squat to take away your guns - and they should take them away - is proof that they're trying to take away your guns.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Brilliant.
And freaking nuts.
Katherine Eban of Fortune (bold mine):
...there's a fundamental misconception at the heart of the Fast and Furious scandal. Nobody disputes that suspected straw purchasers under surveillance by the ATF repeatedly bought guns that eventually fell into criminal hands. Issa and others charge that the ATF intentionally allowed guns to walk as an operational tactic. But five law-enforcement agents directly involved in Fast and Furious tell Fortune that the ATF had no such tactic. They insist they never purposefully allowed guns to be illegally trafficked. Just the opposite: They say they seized weapons whenever they could but were hamstrung by prosecutors and weak laws, which stymied them at every turn.So there you have it. The ATF wasn't allowing guns to flow to Mexico. There was no conspiracy to take anyone's guns away and there was no conspiracy to enact gun control legislation (unfortunatly). Oh wait, I'm wrong. There was a conspiracy. It was between the paranoid, radical followers, the conservative propaganda machine and Congressional Republicans. They conspired to placate their sick paranoia by making stuff up to push their insane agenda for the sole purpose of whipping up their followers into a hysterical frenzy against gun control. That's exactly what cults do.
Indeed, a six-month Fortune investigation reveals that the public case alleging that (Dave) Voth (in charge of the ATF's lead Group assigned with the task of stopping the flow of guns into Mexico) and his colleagues walked guns is replete with distortions, errors, partial truths, and even some outright lies...
That chill that just went down your spine did so for a good reason.
The fact that the NRA and the gun nuts are so paranoid and scared to death of new much needed national gun laws being implemented proves they know they're on weak ground after every shooting. So they have to be on the offensive - lying, intimidating and accusing Democrats of conspiring to take their guns away - to make sure that there aren't any new gun laws passed (as if they don't have that power already). Says a lot about a country that takes its orders from psychotics like this. Armed psychotics.
Maybe if Republicans and the right put 1/100th the time, energy and, um, "thought" into whipping up Americans into a frenzy on
How Fast and Furious reached the headlines is a strange and unsettling saga, one that reveals a lot about politics and media today...Indeed. And about that standing logic on its head...
Irony abounds when it comes to the Fast and Furious scandal. But the ultimate irony is this: Republicans who support the National Rifle Association and its attempts to weaken gun laws are lambasting ATF agents for not seizing enough weapons—ones that, in this case, prosecutors deemed to be legal...
This is what we're dealing with here.
Speaking of conservatives standing logic on its head, here's Rachel Maddow making a fool out of yet another Republican who does exactly that (you can pick it up at the 2:30 mark). It too is another video clip worth watching (if for no other reason then the incredulous and sarcastic way Maddow mocks the Republican who deserved it).
But outside of the sick radical fringe and obsessive Fox, um, "News" viewers (one in the same), the biggest Republican crock of all is that Barack Obama - who cut taxes not once not twice, but three times (contrary to Republican lies and talking points ), leveled federal spending (in a recession), had the stock market almost double since he took office, implemented a Republican/Mitt Romney health care plan, put Social Security and Medicare cuts on the table, gone easy on Wall Street regulation, killed bin Laden, received an 'F' grade from a gun control group, is "drilling, baby, drilling," deported two-thirds the illegals George Bush did in his eight years (as of September, 2011), and appeased and capitulated to Republicans at every turn - is the Communist/Marxist/Socialist who has completely destroyed the country. Huh? What? But George W. Bush's eight years - the gross negligence and incompetence behind his failing to even try to prevent the 9/11 attacks, an incompetent war on terrorism, an incompetent and feckless Mid-East policy, the Iraq war lies, the Iraq war disaster, the quagmire in Afghanistan, failing to come to the aid of Katrina victims, exploding the deficit and debt, a dismal economic record (what did he do to get us out of the 2001 recession except huge tax cuts for the wealthy and $300 checks for everyone else, which was the Democrat's idea? Nothing! What did he do as the banks and financial markets were collapsing in 2008? Even less!), setting up a warrentless wiretapping program in the United States, authorizing torture and leaking an undercover CIA agent's name (for childish, petty reasons) - never happened.
Only a massive and powerful cult with tens of millions of members and a massive and powerful propaganda machine can accomplish that.
Conclusion
Given the cynicism surrounding politicians these days you'd think the front runner for the Republican nomination would kick off his campaign with a simple and - dare I say it? - honest TV ad. You'd think so, but no, because Mitt Romney took his second chance at making a good first impression (because he ran for President in 2008) and deliberately lied. And in the process, told us what a phoney he truly is.
With the help of some shrewd editing in the first few seconds of his very first TV ad last year, Romney took a line from one of Obama's 2008 speeches in which he was quoting a John McCain strategist and attributed it to Obama.
God forbid a politician be honest...hey, there's a novel idea...just one freakin' time. And politicians wonder why the country thinks they suck. But that's besides the point.
Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstorm tried to justify this trickery and deception (if only Republicans put half 1/100th the time, energy and, um, "thought" into running a campaign of intellect, ideas and substance) by saying, "We used that quote intentionally to show that President Obama is doing exactly what he criticized McCain of doing four years ago" (not talking about the economy) (Bold mine.)
But that's a lie - shocking, I know - because Obama does talk about the economy. But that's not the point.
Here we have a presidential campaign admitting that they lied intentionally. Not only does that show how deceptive that spliced video was, but what lengths this campaign will go to trick the public. So let's be clear - the first few seconds of Romney's first campaign ad was a deliberate deceptive lie designed to fool prospective voters. Yup, that's exactly who I want occupying the Oval Office. A candidate that starts his campaign with an ad that was purposely designed to trick me!
Yes, I know, all politicians lie. But this was more then just a lie. It was the deceit and intent behind it. Gives us great insight into the character of the candidate that ran it. It's also what you'd expect out of, say, North Korea. But that's what cults do. Hmm...
But that ad was preceded months before by a lie that was just as egregious because it was there for the world to see. After saying that Obama made the recession "worse," Romney denied saying it despite the comment being on video tape. And after being called on his, um, "facts" - Obama didn't make the recession worse - he had the nerve to keep saying it.
If that slick campaign ad and the spin afterwards that defended it, that comment and denial, and this blog post don't tell you what pathological liars Mitt Romney and the Republican, um, "Party" are, well, then they deserve you.
As this blog has proven over and over and over and over and over and over again, the GOP is not a legitimate political party. All they have are a mountain of lies, blatant hypocrisy, nauseating spin, redundant talking points, hateful, destructive, calculating, intransigent and coercive attack politics (because they have to get their way, always, and will never, ever, give an inch), a massive propaganda machine and tens of millions of mindless followers who believe every word of it, no questions asked.
Laurence Lewis of Daily Kos (bold mine):
Unfortunately, being wrong — even stupidly wrong — is not in itself proof of unfitness to govern. As the Bush-Cheney team proved, it is in fact now a prerequisite for any Republican aspiring to national office.Mr. Lewis is too kind because I'd say any office.
But the destructive policy agenda of congressional Republicans is not even remotely the worst of it, because in order to impose these policies they have resorted to tactics that are nothing more than political extortion, and government cannot function by extortion. It cannot function when hard fought agreements are blithely broken for the purpose of further extortion. And that's what the Republicans now are about. They operate like criminal thugs and they cannot be trusted to keep their word. And it's not merely a game of daring high stakes brinksmanship, for merely playing the game is itself dangerously destructive...
...The Republicans don't want to solve the nation's problems, they only want to gain and maintain political power. And in pursuit of that goal they are openly and dangerously reckless. And their new presidential standard-bearer not only wants to impose policies similar to those that continue to devastate Europe, he is a deliberately dishonest cipher, not only about where he stands on issues but even about whether or not he actually has any stands on issues. He doesn't merely dis-inform, he openly mocks even the concept of informing.
...But when Republicans shatter precedent by attempting political extortion that by itself endangers the full faith and credit of the United States, when they threaten to crash the economy if they don't get their way, when they consider winning more important than responsible governing, when they consciously attempt to undermine the very concept of an informed electorate, that isn't politics, it's the deliberate destruction of politics. It makes mere thuggery appear relatively benign in comparison. It reveals the Republicans as not only ideologically and intellectually incompetent, but also as dangerously unstable of temperament.
With the modern Republican Party, the danger isn't merely that they will succeed in imposing more disastrous policies, the danger is that even allowing them to have any influence at all on the process of making policy can and will be abused, with potentially disastrous consequences. Modern Republicans are not merely lousy at governing, they are unfit to govern.
And yet, the country keeps electing them to office at all levels. Again, only a massive and powerful cult with tens of millions of members and a massive and powerful propaganda machine can accomplish that...because for all intents and purposes, there should no longer be a Republican Party.
Again, Republicans have zero interest in governing responsibly maturely at all. Their one and only priority is to keep their followers in a perpetual state of rage at Democrats, liberals or who whoever their enemy of the hour happens to be so they can keep this cult together, and therefore, hold onto power. And they've done both because the followers believe the lies, spin and hypocrisy, play along with the ignorance and stupidity, and not only support and encourage a Republican record that couldn't have been more wrong and disastrous, but - as they've been trained to, um, "think" - when things go wrong it's always Obama's and the Democrats' fault...or ACORN's, or Bill Clinton's, or Planned Parenthood's, or the union's... never the GOP's or George Bush's. And it's the Democrats (and the unions) who are the liars, thugs and bullies even though it's the Democrats who've been bullied and intimidated by Republicans into sprinting to the right.
It's incredible. It really is. The fear, the paranoia, the hate, the rage, the lies, the spin, the duplicity, the hypocrisy, the rhetoric, the divisiveness, the incompetence, the irresponsibility, the immaturity, the obstinance, the obstruction, the spite, the selfishness, the self-righteousness, the sanctimoniousness, the arrogance, the ridicule, the hostility, the intimidation, the bullying, the attacks, the toe-the-line conformity and lack of individuality and independence, the apathy - hell, the anathema and abhorrence - of policy, legislating, governing and investing in America, the colossal ignorance and stupidity, the take-us-back-to-the-15th-century/couldn't-be-more-wrong agenda and disastrous record has perverted and hijacked the party of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. But that's what cults do.
Despite all that, Republicans and the Republican, um, "Party" have credibility and are taken seriously by half the country...and the, um, "liberal media." What does that tell you?
But wait, as always with this cult, there's more.
With a lousy economy, a crumbling infrastructure, electric grids that need upgrading, mass transit systems that are in dire need of a 21st century modernization, college tuition soaring and green technology that needs strategic governmental support so it can grow and compete with the rest of the globalized world, Republicans at the state level have brushed that all aside (as if they'd deal with issues like that anyway) and instead spent their valuable time ramming through legislation that has restricted or banned abortion, suppressed the right to vote (among Democratic constituencies, of course, and they admit it), and not only cut union benefits and pensions, but repealed their bargaining rights (take away the unions and you take away the Democratic Party's main source of campaign funding).
Think about that. Why would Republicans ban abortion, suppress the Democratic vote and weaken unions at the state level while ignoring what's really important to their constituents (at least to those with half a brain)? It's about power and control. And Republicans and the Republican, um, "Party" have gotten that by, 1) cutting the Democrat's main source of campaign funding and suppressing the Democratic vote, 2) whether in the legislative or executive branch, playing exclusively to talk radio listeners, Fox, um, "News" viewers and staunch conservatives nationally (Republicans couldn't care less about their cities, states, districts, constituents and country, in case you haven't noticed), and 3) keeping those listeners, viewers and staunch conservatives enraged, paranoid and believing so they don't wise up and leave the cult (fat chance as it is) so the campaign contributions keep flowing in from all directions.
Power and control. That's what cults are.
So the Republican, um, "Party" isn't a political party at all. Not even close. Political parties give a crap about the country and its people; at least a little bit. Republicans only care about the unborn and clinically dead. And if you're somewhere in the middle, then they hell with you - except, of course, the wealthy, corporations and gun owners.
They sure have their priorities in order, don't they? Well, at least half the country thinks so. What does that tell you? Tells me that the Republican, um, "Party" and the entire right-wing movement is a massive and powerful cult made up of Christian fundamentalists, fascists, demagogues, anarchists, neanderthals, political terrorists, street thugs, bullies and gun nuts (who need to get a freakin' life). How much proof do you need?
Note: Halfway through, I wrote, "And their (Republican) base supporters, who are just as pathological, will believe the lie and shrug off the hypocrisy (assuming they even realize it)."
It's only fair that I point out that the left has shrugged off hypocrisy as well. For instance, we disagreed with George Bush's controversial and unconstitutional terrorism policies. But now that Obama has continued and even expanded on them, it's not an issue among most liberals. And that's wrong. Because if it was wrong when Bush did it, then it's wrong when Obama does it too.
July 14 insert:
Romney has lied again. Go figure. This time about when he left Bain Capital.
Put the lie and why he lied aside. If this is how Romney handles "a situation," imagine how he'd deal with a terrorist attack or Iran testing a nuclear bomb, as president. You think lies and spin would work with terrorists and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Heck, since Romney's such an ignorant lie-first-and-spin-later boob, the Chinese just might test him by threatening a move on Taiwan. If so, they'd have control of the island before Romney even acted because he would have been busy blaming Obama for it.
Of course, the knee-jerk conventional wisdom is that he'd have have a qualified staff that would tell him what to do. But a Romney administration would be filled by former Bush (43) staffers. So Romney would be the, um, "smart one." That sure inspires confidence.
Also, Romney was paid $100,000 by Bain in 2001 and 2002 even though he "wasn't there," at least according to Romney. And to think that Republicans have blasted "Welfare Queens" who "mooch of the government."
So either Romney lied and he was there in some capacity after 1999, or he wasn't but was still getting paid like a "Corporate King" that "mooches off its corporation." Hey Mitt, which one is it?
Of course the right would spin that as something different. Oh, I see, so stockholders and employees have no problem paying an executive a six-figure salary to do nothing.
To finish off this insert, here's more spiteful GOP hypocrisy, courtesy of Gov. Rick Perry.
July 16 insert:
Republicans at the state level want flexibility when implementing federal government programs, right? That's what they're always screaming for, right? So you'd think that when Obama gives them that flexibility with a Welfare program, Republican governors would be thankful, right? You'd think so, but no, these are Republicans. They took this flexibility and - what else? - attacked it and attacked Obama.
Why would anyone take Republicans seriously? They don't even take themselves seriously!
But this is nothing new. The Republican answer to everything is "tax cuts," "competition" and "personal responsibility." Well, that's the framework behind "Obamacare" which, again, was the Republican plan. And yet they opposed it, tried to block it, continue to attack it and keep trying to repeal it.
This is what we're dealing with here.
July 17 insert:
Mitt Romney isn't the only one that selectively edits video to make it look as if Obama said something he didn't. Fox, um, "News" does it as well (shocking, I know). And along with Republicans and Rush Limbaugh, they had the nerve to attack Obama for saying what he, um, "said."
This is exactly what cults and its propaganda machine do.
Update: Romney must have gotten the memo. Now he's attacking Obama for saying something he didn't say.
Goes to show not only how much Republicans and the right care about the truth - they don't - but also how much they rely on manufactured lies.
July 18 update: OMG! A day after Mitt Romney attacked Obama for saying what he didn't say, Romney's saying (stole) what Obama actually said in his stump speeches to score political points! And it's a call for what Republicans would attack as big government!
The lies, hypocrisy and chutzpah surrounding just this alone are so far off the charts, that there are no words do describe it.
July 26 update: Jon Stewart shows that when Fox, um "News" ran the clip of what Obama said - to prove that he really did say what they said he said - they did so with the key words removed. That would be like a baseball network giving you a replay of a close play at the plate but cutting out the tag!
So to recap, Fox, um "News" ran edited video to make it look like Obama said something he didn't say, and attacked him for it. And when they got called on it, they, um "proved" that they didn't edit the video by running edited video.
July 27 update: Ezra Klein explains that in their attack ads, the RNC is also using crafty video editing to have Obama, um, "say" things he didn't say.
Wait a second, I don't understand something. If Obama really was this Communist/Marxist/Socialist that's destroyed the country, why does Mitt Romney, Fox, um "News" and the RNC have to keep using slick editing tactics to, um, "prove it?" Because if Obama really was this evil, leftist dictator who hates small business owners, capitalism and America, they wouldn't have to. Speaks volumes about the right and how important lies, trickery and deception are to their agenda, strategy and propaganda everything they do.
July 17 insert:
More exponential Republican hypocrisy is here. Mitch McConnell has some nerve with that one. But that never stopped him/Republicans before.
July 24 insert:
More proof that Mitt Romney's an ignorant, embarrassing, hypocritical flip-flopper...and doesn't care.
First, he blasts Obama's planned 2014 Afghanistan troop withdrawal as a "politically timed retreat" that is the "route to more war." But in the very next sentence he says, "As president, my goal in Afghanistan will be to complete a successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014." Um, that's exactly what Obama's currently doing which he just attacked.
Second, in a press release that attacked Obama for leaking national security secrets, Romney uses quotes from campaign adviser Eric Edelman who was one of George W. Bush's Under Secretaries of Defense. Only one problem with Mr. Edelman. He was implicated in the leaking of secret CIA agent Valerie Plame's name.
The next time a Republican - any Republican - is credible, genuine, honest, or just says something intelligent worthwhile that doesn't have any lies or hypocrisy behind it, it'll be the first time. Seriously.
August 18 update:
Seriously.
August 8 insert:
Courtesy of Rachel Maddow, more blatant Romney/Republican lies, hypocrisy and fake, made-up outrage is here.
August 9 insert:
Oh. My. God.
“You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad,” Romney said on the radio. “They were embarrassed. Today, they just blast ahead. You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they’re wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them.”
August 17 insert:
Paul Ryan is a blatant hypocrite. Then keeping with Republican protocol, denies it and lies about it, tries to spin himself out of it - looking foolish every step of the way - and finishes with an attack on Obama. Rachel Maddow ties it all together here.
Also, on another matter, as Chariman of the House Budget Committee you'd think Paul Ryan would run the numbers on his own budget plan. But he didn't. I guess he couldn't since his, um, "plan" is a fraud. That said, courtesy of Rachel Maddow, this is how foolish Republicans look when they're forced to spin themselves out of the knots their lies, incompetence, rhetoroic, spin and lack of seriousness get themselves into.
August 21 insert:
Should you have any doubts about exponential Republican ignorance, or think I was exaggerating when I said there's a competition among Republicans to determine the most ignorant, I offer this:
Rep. Todd Akin (R-Middle Ages):
“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,” Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”
Akin tried to walk it back with even more exponential stupidity.
I was talking about forcible rape. I used the wrong word.
And this guy's a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. And we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in.
If you think that's just one extremly ignorant comment about rape made by one extremely ignorant Republican, think again. Here's Rachel Maddow with other Republican examples, including from Paul Ryan.
I'll finish this insert with more Paul Ryan hypocrisy, here, and more Romney/Ryan flip-flops here.
Note: I must apologize for all the inserts. But I can't help it if Republicans keep proving me right.
August 23 insert:
Rachel Maddow is why you pay for cable. Here she shows Paul Ryan saying he doesn't want to "split hairs" over rape victims and abortion when he split hairs over rape victims and abortion in his own anti-abortion legislation (you can pick it up at the 7:00 mark).
Might as well finish this one off with more Ryan hypocrisy, here.
August 29 insert:
When he was Governor of Massachusetts, Romney supported abortion rights. But last year he said he was "absolutely" for a "life begins at conception" amendment to the constitution and that he and was against all abortions. Then he said there should be exceptions for rape, incest and the life of the mother. But then his campaign said:
“Gov. Romney’s position is clear:Hahahahahahaha!
he opposes abortion except for cases of rape, incest and where the life of the mother is threatened.”They sure inspire confidence, don't they? I mean, if Romney and Ryan keep tangling themselves into contradictory knots on
Oh wait, they wouldn't be governing. Never mind.
By the way, the Republican convention - surprise, surprise - is based on nothing but lies.
(August 30 insert: Also here.) And their welfare Obama attack ads are lies. And they know it. But they don't care. Because they work.
August 30 insert:
As I've pointed out, Republicans took something Obama said totally out of context - the "We Built It" nonsense - and used it as one of their convention
It really is incredible. This cult haven't just put their followers in a bubble to shield them from the round-the-clock media stream. They put them in a proverbial cave so deep that the followers are not only insulated from facts and the truth, but so the, um, "news" and "information" they do receive can be manipulated and controlled.
It also blocks the follower's ability to comprehend, learn and most important, think; asssuming, of course, they had those abilities to begin with. But, again, that's exactly what cults do.
Oh, Paul Ryan's speech last night was filled with so many lies that even a Fox, um, "News" analyst declared that they were a "world record." (August 31 insert: Also here, here and here.)
August 31 insert:
If you were wondering what would happen if you were to combine this cult's incessant demagoguery and vitriol of "liberals" with the power, control and domination this cult has over its members, see this.
September 2 issert:
Paul Ryan lied about his marathon time.
Can these guys be truthful about anything? Ask a silly question...
September 4 insert:
Romney in his nominating acceptance speech:
(President Obama's) trillion dollar cuts to our military (triggered automatically as per last years debt ceiling deal) will eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs, and also put our security at greater risk
Wait a second. Cutting military spending would eliminate jobs? I thought government spending, like the stimulus, didn't create or save jobs (like teachers, firemen and police officers). And these would be private sector jobs. I'm confused. Since when did Romney become a Keynesian?
He didn't (he can't because he has to disagree with liberals). It's just another contradictory knot Republican dogma puts them in. But, as I've said, they don't care.
Paul Krugman goes into more detail.
September 10 insert:
Paul Ryan says he didn't vote for defense cuts he voted for.
September 11 insert:
In just twelve hours, Romney took four different positions on pre-existing conditions.
Once again, I have to apologize for all these inserts. It is getting ridiculous. But keep in mind the hypocrisy, lies and contradictions that I didn't add.
September 13 insert:
While Americans and American sovereignty was under attack in Libya and Egypt, Mitt Romney had the nerve to release a statement:
I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama Administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
In regard to "Obama's first response was not to condemn the attacks" - the attacks had barely ended! The smoke, literally, hadn't cleared yet! What does Romney expect Obama to do? My God, the White House was trying to figure out what was going on at the time. And besides, why is condemning the attacks such a big deal? First, it goes without saying; second, it won't help the situation; and therefore, third, who the hell cares?
But this is what a desperate Romney is stooping to. Blasting Obama for not "condemning" the attacks while they were taking place. Give me a freakin' break. I think Obama had more things to do at the time.
In fact, if Obama did release a statement "condemning" the attacks that night, Romney would have blasted him for "playing politics" and not doing his job and securing the facilities!
In regard to "sympathizing with those who waged the attacks" - when did Obama do that? Why would he do that? Well, he didn't do that.
What Romney is referring to is the statement the Cairo embassy put out 10 hours before the attacks began to try and calm things down to prevent them from occuring. What a dick.
But you see what I mean? Since Republicans can't run on facts, their record, policies or ideas, the only way they can win elections is by making stuff up, attacking their opponents and trying to make them look worse then they do. But that would be like trying to make a head cold look worse then Stage 4 cancer.
So when Obama or a Democrat does or says something wrong, or doesn't do something he should have - regardless if it's true or not - Republicans scream as if it's the Fourth of July and New Year's Eve combined to milk it politically for what it's worth. As I said, that's all they got. Attack, attack, attack and attack.
Just look at how fast Romney was to "pounce" on this horrible job Obama was doing as it was unfolding. Look at what he did with that statement from the embassy in Cairo before the violence erupted. My God, does he really think undecided voters are that stupid?
Apparently so.
Is Romney that stupid, that partisan and that big of a dick?
Yes, yes and obviously. (September 18 insert: Obviously.)
Why didn't he just release a statement the following day after the facts were in that expressed sadness for the Americans who were killed and leave it at that? And let the President handle it.
Oh wait, that would have been the smart thing to do. Never let intellect get in the way of a Republican trying to score political points...while Americans are in the process of being killed.
You know, maybe if Romney ran a campaign of truth, facts, substance and ideas, maybe he'd have a shot to win.
Wait a second, what the hell am I talking about? Never mind.
Side note: It's an embarrasement scary that the Republican nominee for President of the United States is not only an ignorant lying boob when it comes to his behavior, but ignorant on the issues and policy, foreign and domestic. Like George Bush, I don't think he's read a newspaper in 20 years. At least.
Call me a crazy liberal, but I think we should be electing intelligent, well-read people to the White House. A man, or woman, who not only know a lot about many things - from having a basic understanding of human genome, to the intricacies of farm subsidies, to a how solar panels generate power (and setting a goal of them generating twice the power at half their size at half the cost - and providing the subsidies, tax incentives and resources to do it) - but is also curious and inquisitive and wants to learn and understand things that they may not know much about. That's what we need in Presidents and Vice Presidents, as well as Senators, Congressmen, Governors and legislators. Obama's a smart guy (his problem is that he's a sap with Republicans), but overall, we don't elect many of them.
In 2000 and 2004, 50 million Americans voted for an imbecile who didn't have the intellect to take the White House tour, let alone be its occupant. In 2008 50 million Americans voted for an imbecile for Vice President who didn't have the intellect to take the White House tour, let alone work there (anyone see a pattern here?). And in 2012, 50 million Americans will, once again, vote for an imbecile who doesn't have the intellect to take the White House tour, let alone be its occupant. Cults will make you do things like that. And we wonder why the country's in the shape it's in.
September 14 insert:
Trying to untangle himself from the political knot he put himself into regarding the Libya and Egypt attacks, in an interview with George Stephanopoulos, Mitt Romney basically reiterated what the Cairo embassy had said in its statement before the attack began.
Why does Romney sympathize with the terrorists?
September 19 insert:
That September 18 insert/link was about Romney disparaging 47% of the electorate as being "victims" who don't pay taxes - federal income taxes - and think they're "entitled" to government handouts. A few points:
A good portion of that 47% do pay payroll taxes such as Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance. Ironically, as a percentage, they probably pay a higher tax rate then Romney does. So those taxes "don't count" when Romney wants to point out the moochers of our society.
Now, in August Romeny said he paid about 13% in taxes, wanting you to believe that that's federal income taxes. Since he won't release his returns we really don't know what he's paid. But I'd bet he pays little to no federal taxes and that his "13% in taxes" are ancillary taxes, just like the moochers who don't pay taxes.
So payroll taxes don't count when you want to identify the moochers of our society. But they do count when you're trying defend spin the fact that you (probably) don't pay federal income taxes on millions and millions of dollars of income.
Yeah, based on what we've seen and heard from him, that's exactly the sort of thing I'd expect out a lying boob like Mitt Romney.
Oh, by the way, Romney's father would have been part of that "47%" since he received public assistance.
September 20 insert:
Again, I know this is getting ridiculous, but I couldn't resist this one.
After Obama had said, "you can't change Washington from the inside—that you have to change it from the outside..." Romney, who had to attack him on it, said:
The president today threw in the white flag of surrender again. He said he can't change Washington from inside...Romney's going to change Washington? The typical lie first attack second partisan Republican is going to "change Washington"? Give me a freaking break. But that's not the reason for this insert. This is: Romney contradicted himself (what a surprise). From 2007:
I can change Washington, I will change Washington. We'll get the job from the inside. Republicans and Democrats will come together.
I don't think you change Washington from the inside. I think you change it from the outside.
That's what Obama said!
September 21 insert:
I couldn't resist this one either.
Romney released his 2011 tax return and in order to be true to his word that he's paid about 13% of his income in taxes, he didn't take all the deductions he could have for charitable contributions. So he ended up paying more in tax then he should have. But by doing so he admitted that he's not qualified to be president.
No, really, he did!
I don't pay more than are legally due and frankly if I had paid more than are legally due I don't think I'd be qualified to become president.Hahahahahaha!
There's nothing stopping Romney from filing an amended return and get his rate back to 9% where it should be; which is probably a lower rate then those "victims" and "moochers" he spoke of when you consider the taxes they do pay.
October 13 insert:
Couldn't resist this one because it's a doozy. Via Rachel Maddow, here's Paul Ryan lying and being a blatant hypocrite at the same time. She follows up with Chris Hayes who goes into - what else? - more blatant Republican hypocrisy.
Oh, and here's some more Republican hypocrisy...on steroids.
A pro-life, family-values congressman who worked as a doctor before winning election as a Tea Party-backed Republican had an affair with a patient and later pressured her to get an abortion, according to a phone call transcript obtained by The Huffington Post.
December, 2012 insert:
Steven Benen at Maddowblog chronicled every lie Romney told this year; all 970 of them. And here's Jon Perr of Daily Kos with a very good listing of the lies and propaganda the GOP has used over the years.
+/- show/hide this post
