Keeping Track of Willard's Lies

It's time for Willard's Lies of the week. Once again, I will point out the site on the blog roll: Romney The Liar: because there are Liars, Damn Liars, and then there's Mitt Romney. Steve Benen, now at The Maddow Blog:. Here's this week's entry of Chronicling Mitt's mendacity: The Opening:

Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity, Vol. XXIV

By Steve Benen

Fri Jun 29, 2012 2:07 PM EDT.

The NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll that came out this week included an interesting, open-ended question: "What is the first thing that comes to mind when you think about Mitt Romney as president?" Poll respondents weren't offered any choices; they could offer any response they wanted.

The results weren't especially surprising -- the most common answer noted Romney being very wealthy. There were also plenty of folks who mentioned Romney's conservatism, his Mormon faith, his controversial positions on women's rights, etc.

Down towards the bottom of the list, however, was one that jumped out me: "Dishonest." For at least some respondents -- not a lot, but some -- the first thing that came to mind when thinking about Romney was the candidate's willingness to say things that aren't true.

It's good to know I'm not the only one who's noticed. In fact, the public response should probably be far more common given how quickly the Republican's record of falsehoods is growing. Consider, for example, the 24th installment of my weekly series, chronicling Mitt's mendacity.

1. Following the Supreme Court's ruling on Arizona's anti-immigrant law, Romney said "we are still waiting" for President Obama "to present an immigration plan."

No, actually, we're not. Obama endorsed a comprehensive reform plan years ago, and presented his own detailed plan more than a year ago.

2. At a campaign event in Salem, Virginia, Romney said Obama had "all the support he needed" in Congress to pass immigration legislation during his first two years in office.

That's plainly false. There were Democratic majorities in both chambers, but not enough to overcome Republican filibusters.

3. At the same event, Romney said Obama "did not deal with immigration" policy.

Sure he did. Obama introduced a comprehensive immigration reform proposal; he increased deportations; he strengthened border security; and he used his prosecutorial discretion to implement the goals of the DREAM Act. Romney may not approve of these policies, but he should deny their existence.

4. Romney also argued that Obama "promised" to keep unemployment "below 8 percent" through the Recovery Act.

As Romney surely knows by now, that's simply not true.

CNN, Fox Flub Supreme Court Ruling on ACA

I expect something like this from Faux News.... a complete imitation of a legitimate news organization. But CNN? I had a feeling something like this was going to happen. Of course all the networks and their pundits assumed that the Affordable Care Act would go down in flames. They had their stories pre-made and ready to go before the ruling... and they went with what they had before reading the decision. The media had bought into the negative punditry so much that it was almost as if the networks wanted to see a ruling against the ACA. I guess this proves that Obama is the darling of the media. Oh wait....

How the Ruling Will Inspire Conservatives

Today’s landmark Supreme Court ruling upholding Obamacare will go down as a bittersweet victory for progressives and the Obama administration. In upholding the individual mandate, the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional – as a tax.

This will become problematic in the 2012 election and beyond because Republicans will be able to effectively portray Obamacare as a tax increase in the billions of dollars.

Read the rest here.

The TRUTH about ' Fast and Furious'- nothing but a political witchhunt

The GOP controlled House is taking the unprecedented step of voting to hold the Attorney General of the United States in contempt.

Led by an actual criminal, Darryl Issa, this is nothing but a political witch hunt. They can't get the President, so they're going after the Attorney General.

Fortune Magazine published a long article following their investigation of Fast and Furious.

Here is part of it:

The truth about the Fast and Furious scandal

June 27, 2012: 5:00 AM ET

A Fortune investigation reveals that the ATF never intentionally allowed guns to fall into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. How the world came to believe just the opposite is a tale of rivalry, murder, and political bloodlust.

By Katherine Eban

In the annals of impossible assignments, Dave Voth's ranked high. In 2009 the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives promoted Voth to lead Phoenix Group VII, one of seven new ATF groups along the Southwest border tasked with stopping guns from being trafficked into Mexico's vicious drug war.

Some call it the "parade of ants"; others the "river of iron." The Mexican government has estimated that 2,000 weapons are smuggled daily from the U.S. into Mexico. The ATF is hobbled in its effort to stop this flow. No federal statute outlaws firearms trafficking, so agents must build cases using a patchwork of often toothless laws. For six years, due to Beltway politics, the bureau has gone without permanent leadership, neutered in its fight for funding and authority. The National Rifle Association has so successfully opposed a comprehensive electronic database of gun sales that the ATF's congressional appropriation explicitly prohibits establishing one.

Voth, 39, was a good choice for a Sisyphean task. Strapping and sandy-haired, the former Marine is cool-headed and punctilious to a fault. In 2009 the ATF named him outstanding law-enforcement employee of the year for dismantling two violent street gangs in Minneapolis. He was the "hardest working federal agent I've come across," says John Biederman, a sergeant with the Minneapolis Police Department. But as Voth left to become the group supervisor of Phoenix Group VII, a friend warned him: "You're destined to fail."

Voth's mandate was to stop gun traffickers in Arizona, the state ranked by the gun-control advocacy group Legal Community Against Violence as having the nation's "weakest gun violence prevention laws." Just 200 miles from Mexico, which prohibits gun sales, the Phoenix area is home to 853 federally licensed firearms dealers. Billboards advertise volume discounts for multiple purchases.

Customers can legally buy as many weapons as they want in Arizona as long as they're 18 or older and pass a criminal background check. There are no waiting periods and no need for permits, and buyers are allowed to resell the guns. "In Arizona," says Voth, "someone buying three guns is like someone buying a sandwich."

By 2009 the Sinaloa drug cartel had made Phoenix its gun supermarket and recruited young Americans as its designated shoppers or straw purchasers. Voth and his agents began investigating a group of buyers, some not even old enough to buy beer, whose members were plunking down as much as $20,000 in cash to purchase up to 20 semiautomatics at a time, and then delivering the weapons to others.

   

Read more »

Who Says Negative Ads Don't Work?

A still from LBJ's 1964 "Daisy" campaign ad, widely considered the first negative television ad. Click to watch.

Although voters say they don't want negative ads, the fact is, such ads work. This doesn't mean candidates should revert to boogeyman campaign tactics - Democrats shouldn't stoop to GOP tactics by resorting to distortions, lies and half truths. A Daisy style ad today might be a bit much, even if it were a legitimate vision of where the Country might be in the future based on facts about a candidate. But telling the truth in an a matter-of-fact way can produce results. The fact that tough, "negative" ads work has been known to Republicans for years. It's the Democrats who haven't gotten the memo.

Team Dukakis Obama has been stuck on the idea (since 2007/08) that negative ads should be avoided and that voters only respond to positive "America is a shining city upon a hill" commercials..."negative ads don't work". Of course this is complete nonsense. This may have been true at one time....  but it definitely hasn't been the case for the past 4 or 5 election cycles. Obama & Co. also has a tendency not to pre-empt opponents on negative ads...and they fail to respond aggressively to such ads once they are put out, particularly those with false or misleading information. The takeaway message from an NPR report last week on negative ads, should be that you have to fight back. I hope someone in the Obama camp is paying attention. John Kerry didn't get the message. He fell hard for the "Americans want to see a nice, happy, positive campaign" nonsense. Gov. Dukakis also learned the hard way. No longer can you just sit around and allow misinformation to fester and spread... especially in the age of digital media. A death panel can go from a conspiracy theory to a fact (although completely false...it can have the impact of a fact) in just a few days if left unanswered. This is what happened to the Affordable Care Act. The Democrats rolled it out without the proper preparations in place to defend it. Within a few months... the legislation was trashed by a huge negative ad campaign by the GOP and its allies. In the process, Republicans managed to successfully rebrand the legislation"Obamacare". If it takes negative ads to refute lies... then so be it. But you can't wait too long to respond. By the time Obama and the Democrats began to address the death panel nonsense... it was too late.

Whether team Obama plays the game or not.... they are going to be on the receiving end of negative GOP ads no matter what. And Romney & Co. will have an almost unlimited flow of cash to help them do it. The best way to deal with it is to fight back. Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. I personally don't prefer a candidate to go the negative route. But on the same token, you have to play by the rules of the game that you find yourself in. This is the American system at the moment. In the absence of 'The Fairness Doctrine', which I believe should be brought back, you have to do what you have to do....and sometimes that means getting a little dirty (it's fine to get tough, as long as you are using fact based information). Obama will either have to play the game... or risk a real nail-biter, or perhaps an upset in November.

Obama Hung In Effigy Once Again - Not a Word From GOP

Racist Conservative Pastor Terry Jones took it upon himself to hang Obama in effigy on his church's front lawn a couple of weeks ago. I won't post the disgusting photo directly. Just follow the link.

What I found interesting is that Romney and the GOP seemed to do little to distance themselves from Jones. The same was the case during the protests against the Mosque on Manhattan a couple of years ago. In an effort to appeal to radical Republicans, Romney will often avoid denouncing these kinds of acts. The same radical right that was once the fringe has now found its way into the base of the Republican party. As a result the GOP has gone farther to the right.

If something like this happened on the left Republicans, with the help of media, would corner Obama and force him to denounce it and denounce those who support it. It's odd to me that Romney has no such burden.

And when will the Country stop with this nonsensical notion that Obama's race has nothing to do with anything? All these effigy hangings, racial symbols, racial jokes, and other incidents are just my imagination running wild then? So I should believe that all of this would be taking place if the man in the White House were caucasian? 

Dating While Black: My Experience With Online Matchmaking

Well, I just jumped back into the dating market this past month and I am finding that the options are few. Although I am not looking for any serious matches…. only activity partners, since I am not in any position to delve into a serious relationship. I have not dated in almost 10 years. In fact, I will be 39 next month, and to tell you the truth, I have never really dated for any meaningful length of time. I dated one person for about 2-3 weeks (2 dates). I didn’t go on my first date until I was 29 (the last time I dated). So I have never really dated. When I tell people that my life is crap (because they ask) and that I hate how my life turned out, they have no idea what I mean. But this is just one example. 

I have always hated dating. I chalk most of my social aversion to the fact that I am pretty much an introvert (although I was much more social growing up). Common social situations that are enjoyable to most people (dating, going to social gatherings, crowded places, events) are a pain in the ass for me. I get stressed when in social situations, especially in large groups and with people who I don’t know. So that makes it hard to get out and meet people. I have adequate social skills… there is a switch that I can turn on and off…. And I can navigate through situations just fine… it’s just laborious and taxing. It’s more like a shy actors ability to get through a scene. They can do it just fine, but it takes extra work to function outside of  their normal character. It’s the same for me… I’m not at ease in those situations.

I’m using the most popular online service available…. Basically a service that takes your money. But this time, having some experience with online dating, my expectations have been lowered. I already know that I will run into the same problems that I ran into before - see the commentary entitled "White Men Only". In fact, after being online for a week or so… I am already seeing some of those problems popping up again. The two main problems before were that #1). I hated my job and basically had inadequate employment/ income. Unfortunately, that hasn’t changed. #2). To put it bluntly, I am the wrong ethnic group. Being a Black male is a permanent pain in the ass. It was a problem the last time I tried to date, and obviously that is the kind of problem that will never go away. The ideal mate across the board (all ethnic groups of women) is still a white male, successful, earning 50k or more a year. I’m in the category between 25k and 35k and I’m not considered a viable match for a lot of women from a financial standpoint (which is why I am not looking for any serious dating relationships. Instead i‘m just trying to get to know more people). Being a Black male who wants to meet women from a variety of ethnic groups… puts me into a tough category. Most non-black women want to see higher earnings/more lucrative employment. They also primarily want white males. Some will go for a guy of color… but he has to offer something that compensates (There is a penalty fee that you have to pay when you are Black and male). In other words, if he is a physician, attorney, or an executive, or has some other job that would give him an acceptable income, he can usually do just fine. On the other hand, Black women… (if I can find one that can appreciate a decent guy, who has a temperament that I can tolerate, and who matches up in terms of values and culture) often have irrational expectations when it comes to income as well. I typically have no interest in dating Black women…and exclusively date interracially… but if I wanted to go that route, there are obstacles there too.  I find them to be the most demanding/superficial (not all of course). They focus on the most shallow, non-substantive factors as deal breakers… such as… he has to be a certain height, he has to earn 50k to 75k, etc. They rarely seek anything substantive. Happiness for them is quantified in terms of money/material possessions. What they seek often seems to be something commercially manufactured.

Then of course there is the fact that from a standpoint of values, physical appearance, worldview, and mannerisms I don’t fit what they are typically looking for. They want a Rap mogul or professional athlete… a brute or thug in a $1000 suit. I have heard of the term Tupac w/ a degree or in a suit to describe what many of them are interested in. Many claim they don’t want this… but 39 years on this planet observing people has shown me otherwise. Even the 5-10% of top notch Black women seem to find favor with certain aspects of this type of Black male. The fact that I like to watch National Geographic, The Discovery Channel, like photography, and would rather listen to Jeremy Davenport, Miles Davis, Dexter Gordon or James Taylor than a Mary J. Blige album any day is probably a turn off. I’m about 96% reserved square…as in Alfonso Ribeiro or Bryant Gumble. I’m probably 4% street smart - the guy who can survive in just about any situation. Growing up in and near poverty in St. Louis in the 1970’s & 80’s taught me about survival…and how to be aware of my surroundings. But it’s that 96% that they find unattractive. Not exciting enough. So I have never been a match for Black women. We don’t typically match on any level. But if Halle Berry walked into my life, I wouldn’t turn her away. But I must be realistic.

This of course leaves me back at square one…. where I was before….where I left off a decade ago. And now a 3rd problem has cropped up -age. I am now too old to date most of the women in my desired age group (which is 24-36). Most women have a cut-off of 35. So I am past my prime years. I wasted all that time chasing that fairy tale called “The American Dream”. Just like Santa doesn’t exist… neither does the American Dream…. I just wish someone would have told me that sooner. I would have spent more time trying to live and enjoy the little time that we have on this planet instead of chasing money, career, material possessions just so that I could be viable and marketable to the opposite sex. It has all been a waste of time. I now realize that I wasted 20 years of my life on complete bullshit. Chasing absolutely nothing.

Another problem is that when I mention I don’t want a serious relationship… women run. They assume that I am a cheating husband…or I just want to get laid (not necessarily the case…. ). I simply want friends/activity partners because I don’t have the time and resources required for a relationship. Being able to market yourself as a viable man is expensive. Women have no idea. I want a better employment situation before dealing with a serious relationship. I also want the opportunity to meet more people before I settle and confine myself to one person. If they can’t have you exclusively, it usually means no dice. I would rather have a relationship develop naturally on its own from friends/dating partners. (isn’t that what women wanted at one time?). Today it seems as if they want you to be committed to them from the first date…which is ridiculous. But in order to meet someone… it looks like I will have to change that part of my dating profile. I hate being dishonest about what I’m looking for. Although I think that excuse (used by a couple of women so far) was actually just a cover for the real issue - race. Last time around I had to eventually remove my photos to increase my chances of success… (because of the race issue). I will probably do the same thing again, while leaving my ethnicity blank. There is no doubt in my mind that my photos hold me back. They certainly don’t help me. Whenever I remove my photo and leave my ethnicity unanswered… my connections mysteriously increase… and I have better correspondence.

I have recently started to come to the conclusion that meeting someone or even having a decent dating life may not be in the cards for me. The key for me will be finding decent employment (it always seems to come back to that). In the meantime, I plan to partake in fellowship at some area churches. I am looking to find a congregation to possibly join and will start attending potential churches this year. I am looking for Progressive, robust, unorthodox, innovative churches centered around service. Looking for congregations that have volunteer opportunities. I have reached an age where I have realized I have been running the wrong race….and need to start running a different one. Not really having a family bond of my own… I have to find “family” elsewhere (another revelation from this past year). So I have several reasons for seeking a church. This is something I would suggest for anyone in the same boat.

SCOTUS Gets One Right: Rules 5-4 Against Life in Prison for Juveniles

The Supreme Court got one right today with its 5-4 ruling that juveniles should not be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. To rule otherwise would essentially dictate that there is no difference between juvenile offenders and adult offenders.

This decision is consistent with Roper v. Simmons (2005) wherein the Court held that capital punishment for juveniles is unconstitutional.

Read the rest here. 

Keeping Track of Willard's Lies

It's time for Willard's Lies of the week.

Once again, I will point out the site on the blog roll: Romney The Liar: because there are Liars, Damn Liars, and then there's Mitt Romney.

Steve Benen, now at The Maddow Blog:. Here's last week's entry of Chronicling Mitt's mendacity:

The opening:

Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity, Vol. XXIII

By Steve Benen

Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:30 PM EDT.

For those who are watching the 2012 presidential race closely, Mitt Romney's penchant for falsehoods is hard to miss. Michael Cohen summarized the issue nicely this week in a piece for The Guardian:

Granted, presidential candidates are no strangers to disingenuous or overstated claims; it's pretty much endemic to the business. But Romney is doing something very different and far more pernicious. Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney.

Now, in general, those of us in the pundit class are really not supposed to accuse politicians of lying -- they mislead, they embellish, they mischaracterize, etc. Indeed, there is natural tendency for nominally objective reporters, in particular, to stay away from loaded terms such as lying. Which is precisely why Romney's repeated lies are so effective. In fact, lying is really the only appropriate word to use here, because, well, Romney lies a lot.

If there are any lingering doubts about the accuracy of this observation, consider the 23rd installment of my weekly series, chronicling Mitt's mendacity. (I've been at this for several months now, and this week's list is the longest to date.)

1. In an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity, Romney claimed it's fiscally responsible to eliminate the entirety of the Affordable Care Act: "It saves $100 billion a year to get rid of it."

That's the opposite of the truth. According to the CBO and other nonpartisan budget estimates, killing the law would make the deficit go up, not down, and would cost, not save, the country hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming years.

2. In the same interview, Romney said, "I think a lot of people forgetting is there is only one president in history that's cut Medicare by $500 billion and that is President Obama."

Romney says this a lot. He's not telling the truth.

3. Romney also said, "I see people holding up signs, 'Don't touch my Medicare.' It's like, hey, I'm not touching your Medicare."

Romney endorsed Paul Ryan's House Republican Budget plan, which ends the Medicare program and replaces it with a private voucher scheme.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. In the same interview, Romney said President Obama has "never had the experience of working in the private sector."

Actually, that's not true. Obama worked at a private-sector law firm before entering public service.