Skip to Navigation | Skip to Content


Mitt Romney: “Terrorism wasn’t even mentioned in 2000 debates” — only it was.


Mitt Romney, Oct. 22nd, 2012: “In the 2000 debates there was no mention of terrorism, for instance. And a year later, 9/11 happened. So we have to make decisions based upon uncertainty.”

Survey says…

Sen. Joe Lieberman, Oct. 5th, 2000: “In fact, this administration has begun to transform the American military to take it away from being a Cold War force to prepare it to meet the threats of the new generation of tomorrow, of weapons of mass destruction, of ballistic missiles, terrorism, cyber warfare.”

Vice President Al Gore, Oct. 17th, 2000: “In the Congress, in the House of Representatives, I served on the House Intelligence Committee and I worked hard to learn the subject of nuclear arms control and how we can diffuse these tensions and deal with non-proliferation and deal with the problems of terrorism and these new weapons of mass destruction. Look, we’re gonna face some serious new challenges in the next four years.”

Now, if Romney had said that terrorism hadn’t been mentioned in the 2000 debates by George W. Bush or Dick Cheney, he’d be right.

Sorry, Mitt. Your point about terrorism is more like errorism.

Despite Court Order, Ohio’s GOP Election Chief Is Still Cutting Back Early Voting



Two federal courts said that the Ohio Republican Party’s effort to reduce opportunities to vote early must not go into effect. And the Supreme Courtrejected an attempt by Ohio Republican officials to reinstate a GOP-backed law taking away three days of early voting just this week.

Yet despite multiple court defeats, Ohio’s Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted is determined to restrict early voting as much as he can get away with. Indeed, Husted openly defied the first court order blocking the Republican restrictions on early voting, although he eventually backed down after a federal judge ordered him to appear in court personally to explain himself. Now, just two days after the conservative Roberts Court turned away Husted’s bid to reinstate the anti-voter law, he is still finding new ways to cut back early voting:

Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted swiftly limited early voting hours on those crucial three days to 8 am–2 pm on Saturday, November 3; 1–5 pm on Sunday, November 4; and 8 am–2 pm on Monday, November 5. That means Ohio voters will have a total of only sixteen hours to cast a ballot during those three days. And before the weekend before the election, Ohio voters will still not be able to cast a ballot in-person on nights or weekends.

In 2008, the most populous counties in Ohio allowed more time for early voting—both in terms of days (thirty-five) and hours (on nights and weekends in many places). For the three days before the election, early voting locations were open for a total of twenty-four hours in Columbus’s Franklin County (8-5 on Saturday, 1-5 on Sunday and 8-7 on Monday) and 18 and a half hours in Cleveland’s Cuyahoga County (9-1 on Saturday, 1-5 on Sunday, 8:30-7 pm on Monday). During those final three pre-election days in 2008, 148,000 votes were cast and “wait times stretched 2 1/2 hours,” reported the Columbus Dispatch.

There is a simple explanation for why Ohio Republicans are so determined to cut back early voting. Early voters are more likely to be minorities and are more likely to have lower incomes. They are also much less likely to have jobs that give them the flexibility to take time off to vote on election day. According to a recent Ohio poll, President Obama leads 57 percent to 38 percent among people who already voted, but is tied at 43 percent with Mitt Romney among likely voters who have yet to cast their ballot.


This shit pisses me off to no end. When you have to be shady to make sure your party wins, maybe there is a fucking problem with your party that needs to be addressed.

Here’s Jon Husted’s web page, which includes his Twitter account. In case you wanted to give him a piece of your mind, or something.

(via randomactsofchaos)

Respect the democratic process.


After serving two terms, President Washington prepared to step down and another leader (John Adams.) was elected to take his place, and everything went along without the presence of violence.

Does anyone remember learning about a little thing called the American Civil War? Do I need to paint a picture about how atrocious that was? 750,000 soldiers died, many families starved, and estimated 412,00 people were left broken and maimed from the fighting. Full cities were destroyed. It was a dark dark corner of our nation’s history that almost left us completely broken. Started in the wake of an election, and changing of laws. 

One thing that makes America so great is that every 4 years we have an election to pick the leader of our country.  The people can vote, and the people choose who our president will be. We can vote on so much in this country.

People legitimately want it to change how our process works. How about the 4 Soldiers (*cough terrorist cough*) in Georgia that bought almost $100,000 worth of weapons and explosives, with plans to bomb parks and a water dam, poison produce, and assassinate our President. All to give the government “Back to the People”? Don’t take those guys seriously? They took themselves seriously enough to murder 2 people, a fellow service member, and his girlfriend, who discovered their plans, and decided to report them to the authorities.

Of course there is a Texas Judge calling for Tax Increases so his county can hire more armed police officers, because he is convinced there will be a civil war if Obama is re-elected.

Or the Greene County Republican Committee in Virginia calling for an armed revolution in their newsletter in the event of an Obama victory.  

(The amount of googling I’ve done for this post has probably lead to a tap being put on my internet activities from the FBI. But really, google “Armed Revolution Obama Re-election.” and see what comes up. Pages and pages of personal blogs and narratives from American’s claiming the desire to revolt if our President is reelected. )

Are Republican’s really so incapable of handling life through another 4 years of President Obama? They are so opposed to his healthcare plan, copious spending, and the threat of having millionaire taxes raised, that they would rather overthrow our current system in a violent and bloody revolution than respect our democratic process that the Framers of our nation worked so hard to implement? We are allowed to vote in this country, the people decide who leads our nation, and every 4-8 years a new leader emerges, and the old leader hands over responsibility peacefully and with much ceremony. The key point there is the people decide. 

Maybe, there is a threat to the people deciding. But President Obama isn’t that threat. If you’re concerned the Government no longer belongs to the people, you need to question this. 

Question the Supreme Courts decision on Citizens United. That allows corporations to funnel as much money, and resources as they want to political endeavors all protected by the First Amendment. 

Question the amount of Police brutality in this country, particularly Police Brutality towards minorities.  

Question why more than two dozen states are trying to pass new voter ID laws that end up siginificantly restricting the right to vote in students, elderly and minority communities. (all groups that typically vote liberally.) States are going so far that South Carolina, Arizona, South Dakota, Texas, Georgia and Alabama GOP Attorney Generals have filed an Amicus Brief with the Supreme Court challenging KEY PROVISIONS within the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that allows racial minorities to vote, as Unconstitutional. 

I will respect the democratic process, even if President Obama is not reelected. Because I know in 4 more years, I can vote. I know that my country was founded on the idea of majority decides. My worry is that other people will not. With the amount of violence already present in this country, the violent rhetoric flying around the campaign trail, and a summer filled with mass shootings, I don’t think this fear is unfounded. 

(Source: kissing-whiskey)

Romney’s Bain drain: Is he repeating the mistakes of his 1994 campaign against Ted Kennedy? | The Ticket - Yahoo! News


Mitt Romney would later describe it as one of his biggest regrets about his first run for public office.

In 1994, Romney was a virtual unknown running to unseat Ted Kennedy as U.S. senator from Massachusetts. He campaigned on his business record as a turnaround artist at Bain Capital. But Democrats turned Romney’s Bain record against him, casting him as a cold-blooded capitalist who put profits before workers.

The Democratic argument was illustrated by a strike at the Ampad paper plant in Marion, Ind., which had recently been acquired by Bain. The firm had fired most of the plant’s employees, offering to rehire them back for reduced wages and benefits. Romney, who was on leave from Bain at the time because of the campaign, had no direct role in the Ampad dispute, but Kennedy seized upon the drama inside the company. Kennedy even appeared with some of Ampad’s workers, who traveled to Massachusetts to protest Romney’s claim of being a job creator at Bain.

Romney distanced himself from Ampad and other Bain-controlled companies by insisting he had no day-to-day role in what Bain was doing. Yet in an interview with the Boston Globe a few weeks after his loss in November 1994, Romney admitted that he was haunted by his failure to respond to the attacks on his record at Bain. He often woke up at night thinking about his missed opportunities in the campaign, he said.

And he said his biggest mistake was failing to quickly respond to Kennedy’s attacks over Ampad.

“It left in the minds of voters I was a bad guy, a corporate downsizer and raider, and I should have responded more vehemently,” Romney told the Globe. “I am a big boy and I know how politics is played. But I thought it would play more to the facts.”

Eighteen years later, President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies have spent tens of millions of dollars on television ads casting Romney as a dangerous corporate raider who doesn’t care about the middle class. In recent days, the Obama campaign has expanded that attack, accusing Romney of being secretive about his estimated $250 million personal fortune, much of which he accrued during his time at Bain. It’s all a part of a larger effort by Democrats to cast Romney as a rich guy out of touch with the Americans who are struggling under the bad economy—a strategy that could help Obama deflect criticism that he hasn’t done enough to turn the economy around.

Romney and his staff have been slow to push back on the Democratic attacks, which has prompted much hand-wringing among Republicans who worry that the Obama campaign is going to cement an impression of Romney in voters’ minds before the party’s presumptive presidential nominee can define himself.

The Romney campaign signaled a more aggressive tactic toward the Obama campaign on Thursday, unveiling a new TV ad airing in key swing states that accuses the president of lying about Romney’s record. That was followed up on Friday by a second ad that uses Obama’s own words to decry “scare tactics” in campaigns. They also unveiled a new page on the Romney website, calling out Obama for his distortions.

But at the same time, the Romney campaign appeared to be caught flat-footed by a story in the Boston Globe that suggested Romney may have worked at Bain Capital longer than he previously suggested. Although the campaign issued statements calling the story inaccurate, the story itself noted that Romney officials would not be quoted on the record responding to the Globe’s questions. The move appeared to reflect a Romney strategy that was frequently exercised in during the primaries, in which the campaign tried to kill news stories by simply not responding to them—a tactic that is unlikely to be as successful heading into the heat of the general election.

The Obama campaign immediately latched on to the Globe report, with Stephanie Cutter, Obama’s deputy campaign manager, going so far as to accuse Romney of potentially committing a felony by misstating his role at Bain Capital.

h/t: Yahoo! News’s The Ticket

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

Bad news for the Righties: Four Reasons Why The Court’s Decision To Uphold Obamacare Is Good News For The Economy


The Supreme Court today upheld the Affordable Care Act, the health care reform law signed by President Obama in 2010, ruling 5-4 that the law was constitutional. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagan on the opinion. The individual mandate, the requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance or pay a fine, was upheld as legal under Congress’ taxing ability.

Health care reform isn’t important just because it expands access to quality, affordable care, but also because rapidly rising costs and the fact that 30 million Americans don’t have insurance are weighing down the American economy. Here are four reasons why the Court’s decision is good news for the still-struggling economy:

1) Obamacare will reduce the deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2011 that Obamacare will reduce the federal deficit by $210 billionover the next decade. The law is expected to save about $1 trillion over its second decade, according to other CBO analyses. The CBO found that repealing the law, as Republicans attempted to do in 2011, would increase the deficit by$230 billion over the next 10 years.

2) Health care costs for young Americans won’t skyrocket. More than 3.1 million young Americans have insurance thanks to Obamacare. Without the law, the cost of acquiring an equivalent health care plan would have risen dramatically at a time when young people are still struggling with the effects of the Great Recession.

3) Millions of jobs will be created. Health reform will help create roughly 4 million jobs over the next decade, according to a 2010 Center for American Progress report, by reducing the cost of health care and making it cheaper for businesses to hire. The law will create between 250,000 and 400,000 jobs a year, and they will be spread across sectors: according to the study, the law will help create more than 200,000 manufacturing and 900,000 in the service sector by 2016.

4) It will be cheaper for employers to provide health care. American businesses are under tremendous pressure thanks to rising health care costs, and these costs are often passed on to customers (one study estimates that each car sold by General Motors contains $1,200 in built-in health costs). The ACA, however, will make it cheaper for businesses to provide care, and not just by reducing the cost of care. Small businesses are already receiving tax credits contained in the law to help insure their employees, and it has already offered more than $4.7 billion in reinsurance payments to companies that are providing health care to retirees who aren’t yet eligible for Medicare.

Even a judge who was a finalist for appointment to the Supreme Court under George W. Bush agreed that striking down health care would have had disastrous consequences for the American economy. 

h/t: Travis Waldron at Think Progress Economy

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

Race to the bottom with Romney!


The politics of resentment (or how to gin up the rubes):

ROMNEY THINKS federal workers’ pay and benefits are ‘unfair’ — “We will stop the unfairness of government workers getting better pay and benefits than the taxpayers they serve,” Romney said. Among the other items Romney listed as unfair: “urban children being denied access to the good schools of their choice,” “politicians giving taxpayer money to their friends’ businesses,” and “requiring union workers to contribute to politicians not of their choosing.” – GovExec

Of course, if regular people think it’s ‘unfair’ that Fortune 500 CEOs make 380 times what average workers make or that multi-millionaires, like Romney, pay less federal tax on their incomes than we do, Romney considers that class warfare. Mitt and the Republican Party need the working and middle class to resent each otherand not think too much about him and his wealthy friends and how the Bush tax cuts increase income inequality in our country.

Here’s an idea: what if the private sector was expected to offer a living wage and benefits too? Or even create some jobs with all the money they’ve been hoarding? For the GOP, it really is a race to the bottom: how many Americans can they get to work for minimum wage and no benefits? And how easily can they get their conservative base to agree that people with good wages and benefits are their enemy? (Very easily, unfortunately.)

Those corporate CEOs are only making 380 times more than average workers — shouldn’t we all suck it up and take even less money so that CEOs can earn 400 or even 500 times more? Republicans have so brainwashed their base that the rubes would actually be okay with that idea — as long as a Republican, any Republican, was in the White House.


(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)

Mitt Romney misunderstands his audience - again.


Bradley University, Ill.: Romney says people should vote “for the other guy” if they want “free stuff” like female contraception.

I guess Romney doesn’t understand rule number one about college: FREE STUFF IS KING. Seriously - if you want people to show at your event, you offer free food, or free t-shirts, or something that is free. COLLEGE KIDS WANT “FREE STUFF” ESPECIALLY CONTRACEPTION.

So, to re-cap, Mitt Romney is against everything college kids hold dear: free stuff and the ability to have sex without fear of pregnancy. Good work, Mittens.

Page 1 of 5