This is supposedly from Mitt Romney at a fundraiser:

“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the President no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that’s an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax

My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

Yes it would be a terrible thing to have to represent the other half – the part that you think contributes nothing.  But there has been a mistake, obviously. We were led to think that you were applying.  Not to worry.  You’ll be able to go back to Bain full time.  We’ll entrust this job to someone else.  In fact..  well .. we really already have someone.  We can validate your parking though.

Update:  The spin doctors are working overtime today.   This is not a “gaffe”.  He wasn’t ambushed.  It’s not liberal media twisting his words.  It’s just Mitt.  He does not get what the job entails  and he doesn’t even understand where he went wrong.  He tells the Chinese factory story as if he envies the position that company is in.  Incidentally Mitt, you may recall that Russia always claimed that the Berlin wall was to keep undesirables out.  I’m not saying that’s the case here, but you could at least look below the surface – ask the people and not just the party official.    Mitt also says that the Palestinians don’t want peace.  He goes on to explain how the situation with the borders presents a security concern for Israel.  Certainly some radical elements don’t and certainly the mainstream is not going to be for peace while they feel they are victims of occupation.   But to make it sound like they don’t want a settlement is to dismiss the Palestinians as another group of people who can’t be dealt with and who he can’t be bothered to worry about.  He admits that it’s a complex situation and he should know that it can’t be dramatically reduced.  He doesn’t understand that the situation is a tinderbox.   This will be a separate post, but someone neeerds to get him on record regarding the waiver of the Jerusalem Embassy Act.

Tag words:  blunder, blundering, clueless, wrong, unfit, contempt, alienated, irrecoverable

Why do people see  Romney as a flip-flopper?
Answer:  This is not just media bias.  It is because it’s not one person speaking.
Try this on:  Last week Romney said, on NBC’s Meet the Press, “Of course, there are a number of things that I like in health care reform that I’m going to put in place. One is to make sure that those with pre-existing conditions can get coverage.” This set off a firestorm among conservative Republicans. Later that day, Romney’s campaign again reconfirmed he was against covering people with pre-existing conditions who have not had continuous health coverage.
Then an embarrassing video exposed contents of Mitt’s speech at a fundraiser.  His initial response was along the line of: that’s not how I meant it.  Then Grover Niquist says it can be made into a plus and Rush follows by calling it a golden opportunity.  Now Mitt says, I meant what I said, although I do intend to strengthen the safety net.  There – another statement that will have to be walked back (not to mention fallout from his statement on the two state solution for Israel and the Palestinians, which Ryan has initially supported).
Conclusion:  Mitt is the press agent for someone who makes the big decisions. If there is an actual Romney position on anything we won’t know for sure because at any time he could ask us to believe that he meant it the other way.

Remember the victims today, but tomorrow read this article:

New York Times

The Deafness Before the Storm


To quote that article:  “neoconservative leaders who had recently assumed power at the Pentagon were warning the White House that the C.I.A. had been fooled; according to this theory, Bin Laden was merely pretending to be planning an attack to distract the administration from Saddam Hussein”

What a commentary.   But this fits with everything else that has come to light regarding the over-riding obsession with Saddam and indications that planning for the war with Iraq preceded 9-11.

Mitt cites “studies” supporting his economic claims, which turn out to be mostly blogs, editorials and a paper he wrote himself.

“Romney .. referenced five studies in an interview with Meet the Press on Sunday. His running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), said the same during his run through the Sunday show circuit. A closer examination, however, calls into question the fact that there are even five studies at all.  Last week, the Romney campaign passed along the five documents that the candidate had referenced on NBC’s Meet the Press. Three of the five are blog posts or op-eds (as opposed to academic literature), and two of those three are written bythe same author: Harvard economist Martin Feldstein.

Of the remaining two studies, one is the tax reform white paper authored by Romney-backing economists and paid for by Romney for President, Inc. (in an email to PolitiFact, the Romney campaign highlighted several Wall Street Journal editorials in place of the campaign white paper as the “fifth” study).   The final [and only actual] study, produced by Princeton University’s Harvey Rosen, backs the Romney campaign’s assertions by arguing that people will work more, accumulate more income, pay more taxes, and seek out fewer loopholes if their tax rates are lowered. But even that report has several nuances that complicate the candidate’s use of it.”

So this plan is paid for by taxes on future growth in revenues – while tax rates are being reduced. But taxes are not the only factors which affect growth. This is nothing more than a gamble. He could just as well be proposing to pay for the cuts with derivatives or Enron stock options.

I tried to come up with another way to say it in few words, but it boils down to simple and blatant hypocrisy.    That is, claiming that spending is about jobs when Republicans want to do it, but wrong if Democrats do it.

Ben Armbruster at Thinkprogess had this to say: Republicans Abandon ‘Government Doesn’t Create Jobs’ Mantra In Fight To Preserve Military Spending
Defense industry-backed Republicans are so desperate to stave off the automatic military spending cuts that they’re trying to scare Americans about job losses and an ensuing nose-diving economy should the military spending cuts hold. Except there’s one problem.  “Republicans aren’t supposed to believe that government spending creates jobs. But in this last act of desperation, however, it seems that Republicans pushing to preserve America’s bloated military budget have come to a pretty significant epiphany.”

Now they play on fears and tell you that it’s about saving lives.    Then   other Mitt, on Omitting U.S. Troops From RNC Speech said: ‘You Talk About Things You Think Are Important’.   (in other words,  it’s devastating when I say it is, but not when I need it not to be).   It must be hard to keep track when you are all over the map on an issue.

CATO expert Chris Preble said … the industry is just “trying to save their profits.” There’s also no evidence that the military spending sequester will be “devastating” as some have argued and polls show that an overwhelming majority ofAmericans favor cutting DOD’s budget.  (But even after cuts  – voted for by Ryan and the republican Congress – military spending will still be above what it was in [    ]. )  But Republicans will most likely ignore these facts and fight to preserve the Pentagon’s needlessly bloated budget, all while abandoning a central tenet of their party’s ideology.

This is about campaign contributions. period.  Romney now rips Paul Ryan: Calls Running Mate’s Vote For Defense Cuts ‘A Big Mistake’.  Well now Ryan is back peddling as well –   “No, no — I have to correct you on this,..; I voted for the Budget Control Act.” Norah ODonnell: “The fact that Ryan may have wished that the bill didn’t contain said defense cuts does not absolve him of the fact that he and 201 other Republicans voted for the bill as-passed. Moreover, Ryan’s statement after voting for the bill contained not a single word of criticism about the defense cuts. Ryan said the bill “represents a victory for those committed to controlling government spending..”

The decision has been made and Todd Akin is still running.   So everyone should just drop the subject, they say.

Republicans put ridiculous claims out in front of the press which calls attention to what is in the GOP platform.  Then they don’t want to see the issues debated.  They just want to be able to quietly and without disussion pass restrictive measures which have been grown from ideas with no basis in fact.   Well things don’t work that way in this country, at least not for now.   We will make every effort to keep people who promote bad ideology from taking the country back to the 1400’s


If it comes from Kansas,  I won’t buy it – in the store or online.   I’ll buy from China first.


On Mitt and Egypt:  The oval office is no place for someone short on ability – or willingness – to weigh all available  options before acting.  This is  something that can’t be pinned on strategists or advisers  and it’s not something for a prospective commander in chief to learn as he goes.  The candidate needs to be able to determine the best course, which may or may not mean to decide on an action immediately.  It’s far more important to stand his ground in the face of calls to do the wrong thing than to stand his ground after having acted impulsively.

This proves once and for all that the trickle down theory is false.  Corporations are supposed to be able to save the economy if they only had tax cuts.  Here, Joseph Brusuelas, senior economist at Bloomberg said, “$1.7 trillion in corporate cash is sitting on the sidelines.”  Why? “Businesses are not hiring because there is no clear sign that the economy will improve”.

So they actually have money to get moving now, but they aren’t going to let anything trickle down until there is a guarantee that they will win.  A profit is no longer enough. It has to come with zero risk – and, of all things, they WANT GOVERNMENT to make it happen.


The report by the Bipartisan Policy Center cited here is calling for Iraq chapter II all over again – wanting to march into a war without thinking it through and at the same time claiming “..the group chose not to explicitly advocate military action.”  

“Without explicitly calling for an attack on Iran, the report says:  The United States needs to make clear that Iran faces a choice: it can either abandon its nuclear program through a negotiated arrangement or have its program destroyed militarily by the United States or Israel,”  
They claim to not advocate military action while they clearly want to set up circumstances where military action will follow.  And this is not just an air strike being proposed “the report says such a strike would include an air campaign of several weeks to target key military and nuclear installations, accompanied by the U.S. special forces on the ground.”

We need to be looking closely at the motives of this organization.  We already have a National Security Council and the president has not taken military action off the table.  Why do we need these people second guessing?  It sounds very similar to the end-around game played by Bush’s staffers when they created a new “intelligence group” to prop up conclusions which didn’t have support elsewhere in the intelligence world.

They also are not saying a lot about a report [here] and [here] stating that “An American attack on Iran will be viewed by Moscow as an attack on Russia.”  That’s not a minor detail to be addressed later.

Wake up America!