A Presidential Candidate I Could Vote For — With A Clear Conscience

(Click for larger image)

Who else but Sen. Bernie Sanders! Apparently Sanders is contemplating a Democratic primary run against Hillary Clinton. It's not clear in how many states he would appear on the primary ballot; many states have erected unbelievably high financial obstacles to prevent independents from doing just what Sanders apparently intends to do.

Sanders is not a Democrat but an independent who has for years decades caucused with Democrats in Congress. It is very unlikely he could beat Hillary in a Democratic primary. But if he could force her to take positions even one millimeter to the left of her Wall-Street-driven propensity, that would be a very good thing indeed.

Run, Bernie, run!

Of Unicorns And Karl Rove

Josh Marshall quotes Karl Rove:

With the election three days off, a growing chorus of Republican operatives and pundits are saying Sandy may be the game changer. Karl Rove says it’s turning out to be the “October surprise.”

“If you hadn’t had the storm, there would have been more of a chance for the [Mitt] Romney campaign to talk about the deficit, the debt, the economy. There was a stutter in the campaign. When you have attention drawn away to somewhere else, to something else, it is not to his [Romney’s] advantage,” told the Post in an interview published late last night.

Days ago Dick Morris predicted a 400+ EV Romney landslide. Now he thinks Sandy may undo Romney.

Let’s translate this from CYA-ese: I was right. Romney was winning. But that was before Sandy, the Mitt-slaying anti-Unicorn which changed everything. So, just to be clear, I was right, Romney wins. Except then there was Sandy, which no one could have predicted, so he doesn’t win. Bummer.

Poor Karl Rove. Poor, poor Karl Rove! Other people faced Sandy and lost their lives. Many faced Sandy and lost their homes and other valuable possessions. Karl faced Sandy from a distance and may... may... lose an election. And he still has a chance of stealing it. Bastard motherfucker should just shut his fucking mouth!

---

(Google "Sandy unicorn" for the odd incident that led to the whole "unicorn" meme. Or just view this YouTube. It's nothing to get excited about, but we've reached the point of giddiness...)

Holy Toledo Faults Unholy Rmoney For His Lies About Chrysler And GM

Tell Chrysler and GM executives that after receiving bailouts they are now shifting US production to China, and they will politely call you an outright liar. They are contemplating building plants in China to produce cars for Chinese consumption... that's how the auto industry works these days... but they are shipping zero American autoworker jobs overseas; indeed, they are adding workers at plants in Toledo, OH. In an NYT article by Jim Ruttenberg and Jeremy W. Peters, GM spokesman Greg Martin called Rmoney's ad "cynical campaign politics at its worst." Who am I to disagree

The entire "moving jobs to China" meme, on which Rmoney refuses to back down, is a red herring. And it's been out there long enough to start to stink. This was bad enough when Rmoney's "cynical campaign politics" were merely pointed out in the Times. But when the incidents multiplied and the Rmoney campaign doubled down on its false accusation, it reached the editorial page, where the NYT... quite rightly in my opinion... had no kind words for the Governor:

...

Mr. Romney apparently plans to end his race as he began it: playing lowest-common-denominator politics, saying anything necessary to achieve power and blithely deceiving voters desperate for clarity and truth.

...

I couldn't have said it better myself. I suppose all politicians lie, but there are differences among them in what they do when they are caught. Several dozen times so far we have seen Rmoney caught in a "misstatement," to put it politely, and inevitably he simply repeats the lie, louder, in more ads, emails, etc.

Mr. Rmoney is a deeply dishonest man. This character flaw precedes his run for president (see the post immediately before this one), but whether or not it is new, it is an absolute disqualifier for the office he seeks. Political lies are one thing. Lies that interfere with a current administration's practice of diplomacy, lies that compromise the legitimate business successes of US firms abroad, and... briefly put... lies that harm Americans... are another thing altogether.

If you haven't already voted, please go on Nov. 6 to send Mr. Rmoney home, where he can presumably lie his magic underwear off without harming our nation.

AFTERTHOUGHT: I spent a couple of weeks in each of the summers of 1981, 1982 and 1983 in Ohio. A carload of Texans drove to Oberlin for the Baroque Performance Institute, an intensive three-week training course for professional musicians who perform on old instruments or exact copies of same... "early instruments" for "early music," meaning mostly the Baroque period. We took different routes in different years. I was mightily impressed; Ohio struck me as a very civilized place to live. Big cities like Cleveland are second to none (and I've explored a lot of cities) in opportunities to pursue the arts. Small cities like Canton have symphony orchestras of a quality not found in small-city Texas, that's for sure. I spent only one night in Columbus at the home of a friend, and another time I passed through Toledo and still another time Dayton, but they all struck me positively. Small towns are a marvel: Oberlin, of course; Alliance; Berea; Elyria; every one I saw was, from a human standpoint, a winner. All of this, and a Great Lakes coast almost as good as the open sea; Erie was nearest to our housing. In short, when you're messing with Ohio, you're messing with a part of our great nation that I love dearly. You'd best keep your Mitts off of it!

So THAT's Why Rmoney Was Concealing His Taxes

Bloomberg via Raw Story:

Bloomberg News: Romney ‘rented’ Mormon church’s exemption to defer taxes for 15 years

By David Edwards
Monday, October 29, 2012 15:08 EDT


Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney used a loophole to “rent” the Mormon church’s tax exemption status and defer paying taxes for 15 years, according to a new report.

Tax returns obtained by Bloomberg News through a Freedom of Information Act request indicated that Romney set up a charitable remainder unitrust (CRUT) in June 1996 just before Congress cracked down on the loophole in 1997.

“In this instance, Romney used the tax-exempt status of a charity — the Mormon Church, according to a 2007 filing — to defer taxes for more than 15 years,” Bloomberg’s Jesse Drucker explained. “At the same time he is benefitting, the trust will probably leave the church with less than what current law requires.”

Estates lawyer Jonathan Blattmachr told Bloomberg that Romney’s trust benefits from the Mormon church’s exempt status because charities don’t pay capital gains taxes when they make a profit from the sale of assets.

“The main benefit from a charitable remainder trust is the renting from your favorite charity of its exemption from taxation,” Blattmachr said, adding that the charitable contribution “is just a throwaway” and the church would receive little if any financial benefit from the trust.

...

I don't know about you, but this infuriates me well beyond Rmoney's raw wealth, which is after all not that unusual among the 0.01% in America today. It's his sense of privilege. I can just imagine Rmoney saying: "I, wealthy scion of a high-ranking Mormon family, can shelter much of my income from taxes for fifteen years, while you, stupid schmuck, have to pay your full amount yearly. And you deserve it, slave, for being who you are. I've got mine because of who I am, and fuck you if you don't like it!"

American presidents have been on the whole relatively wealthy more often than not. Some, like both Roosevelts, were very wealthy... and did not for the most part exercise their privileges to the egregious disadvantage of ordinary Americans. They seemed to have some ability to comprehend what it is like to be ordinary, or poor, or flat broke and on the street, even as they never were themselves.

Then there's Myth Rmoney.

The class schism has grown almost without bounds in America in my lifetime. The 99% are struggling down here and the 1%, especially the 0.001%, live in the economic stratosphere. And they have absolutely no since of noblesse oblige... none whatsoever. Does this mean they are "bad people"? IMHO, yes. And Myth Rmoney is one of those bad people.

If you want to support the Myth Rmoneys of the world on your tired backs for the rest of your life, go ahead and install this one in the presidency, or allow him to steal it.

If not... fight like bloody hell for the next few days. Your grandchildren's lives may depend on it.

(H/T ellroon.)

Absolutely Must-See Short Video By Michael Moore (NSFW!)

Here it is! (YouTube) Seniors, arise! You have nothing to lose but your... oh, never mind!

Rmoney's Lying Auto Ad

Rmoney Emblem

Few statements in this Rmoney ad (YouTube) are individually false, yet the statements are arranged in such a way that the whole ad tells several lies: "fact checkers confirm" (actually they don't; some are voicing outrage), "Mitt Romney has a plan to help the auto industry" (all best evidence is that when Detroit needed help, Rmoney advocated letting them go bankrupt with no assistance), that Rmoney's non-plan is supported by "Lee Iacocca and the Detroit News" (but NOT the Detroit Free Press), that "Obama took Chrysler into bankruptcy" (neglecting to mention that was with assistance and a bailout toward a structured bankruptcy and sale, rather than allowing catastrophic collapse as Rmoney advocated), that Chrysler was sold to "Italians" who plan to build Jeeps in China (neglecting to mention that this was part of the abovementioned deal that saved Chrysler, or that Fiat has no intention of closing its very successful Jeep manufacturing plants in the US... hey, even our tiny two-car household has one Jeep and one ancient Chevy).

By my count, that's one lie every five seconds, in a 30-second ad. And they wonder why I so often use the pants-on-fire symbol for Rmoney.

Court Unseals Testimony In Divorce Trial: Did Rmoney Lie Under Oath To Protect Friend's Financial Interests?

From Laura Gottesdiener at AlterNet:

Breaking Update: Court Unseals Potentially Devastating Testimony --
Romney Said Stocks Sold at 1/10th of Eventual Value Was 'Good Price'
Romney does appear to have covered for his friend.
October 25, 2012 |

[AlterNet] Editor's Update: The Boston Globe reports: "Mitt Romney testified under oath in 1991 that the ex-wife of Staples founder Tom Stemberg got a fair deal in the couple’s 1988 divorce, even though the company shares Maureen Sullivan Stemberg received were valued at a tenth of Staples’ stock price on the day of its initial public offering only a year later. At the time the Stembergs split, Romney suggested, there was little indication that Staples’ value would soon skyrocket. Romney’s testimony in a post-divorce lawsuit brought in 1990 by Sullivan Stemberg was unsealed on Thursday in Norfolk Probate and Family Court at the Globe’s request. Sullivan Stemberg sued unsuccessfully to amend the couple’s financial agreement after Staples went public in 1989 and closed its first day of trading at $22.50 per share, 10 times the value she had received."

According to the Globe, Sullivan Stemberg sold 175,000 shares of Staples stock at $2.25 per share, and sold 80,000 shares at $2.48 a few months later. “In my opinion, that’s a good price to sell the securities at,” Romney testified. "But on April 28, 1989, barely a year after Sullivan Stemberg sold more than half of her shares on the premise that they were worth less than $2.50 apiece, the company made its initial public offering at $19 per share and ended its first day at $22.50," the Globe reports.

...

I'm not an expert on investments, but this sounds like fraud coupled with a kind of insider trading: perhaps Rmoney knew of the firm's intent to go public at a dramatically higher price, and testified otherwise to save his buddy some money in the divorce. It also sounds as if it might be a very difficult thing to prove.

I'm convinced that guys (it's always guys) at Rmoney's high-rolling level do this sort of thing, and get away with it, all the time. There are probably few large financial transactions that would bear close scrutiny, but an overwhelming majority of them take place under no scrutiny at all. Even now, 20 years after the divorce, Rmoney could probably get away with an "everybody does it" argument. Or maybe not. Again from the AlterNet article:

In the testimony, however, Romney allegedly lied about the future of the company, saying it was “overvalued” and that Stemberg was a “dreamer” for thinking the company could grow large. As a result, Maureen received very little in the divorce settlement--only to learn that her husband and his cohort Mitt Romney quickly turned around and cashed in their own stocks in Staples for a small fortune right after the divorce was finalized.

Women, including those who routinely vote, are not keen on being ripped off in divorce settlements, and their empathy with other women in this matter is often understandably high. Rmoney has enough (pardon the expression) woman troubles already, without this. I've no idea how it will turn out, but it may be in the news, despite its being unfavorable to Rmoney, because the case has all the other ingredients: popular office supply store Staples, celebrity divorce lawyer Gloria Allred, Mittens, money, power, and legally questionable activity. How could a gossip-seeker ask for more?

Rmoney's Buzzwords: 'Peace' And 'Greece'

"Message: I care. I'm not scary." That seemed to be what Rmoney was trying to say, perhaps directed at women, who heretofore seemed to find his views on social issues more than a bit frightening. Several times, in the frame of one or another segment, Rmoney would say he wanted "peace"; in a few other places, he likened the allegedly collapsing American economy to that of "Greece." I suppose those words were focus-group-tested, but if I were Greek, or even Greek-American, I would certainly be insulted!

Offhand, I'd guess that this debate performance would not be a game-changer. Rmoney committed no horrible gaffes; Obama relentlessly defended his record and worked to show Rmoney as unqualified to be president. (Rmoney seemed to me to be on cocaine, but he often gives me that impression. Hey, he could afford the stuff...) If you went into the debate supporting one man or the other, you probably came out facing the same direction. Then again, I am not very good at applying the "who would I rather have a beer with" standard that seems ubiquitous among typical Americans. (I would think that Rmoney probably doesn't drink beer, at least not in public view. Then again, again, there's his appearance of speeding...)

In a few days we'll see if the polls change, but I'd be surprised if they change much. Polls of the popular vote continue to be very close; projections of the electoral vote continue to say that Obama should win unless Rmoney "runs the table" of swing states. Remember Rmoney's advantage, though: he doesn't have to win all those states; he can steal some of them... Republican right to rule, and all that shit.

I don't have much left in me, and tomorrow I have both a doc appointment and (possibly) a trip to the polls, so I'm going to defer further poo-flinging until tomorrow afternoon. I hope you feel the CPD debates were as worthwhile as I did (namely, not at all).

Avedon Carol And Stuart Zechman: Vote To Make A Statement, Knowing The New Deal Is Going Down No Matter How You Vote

Please read. Ms. Carol (interleaving quite a bit of Mr. Zechman's prose) has contemplated the same bone-chilling possibilities I foresee, whoever is elected. She comes to a different conclusion on whom to vote for, but only by a hair. You'd better start thinking about what life will be like without the crux of the New Deal to civilize the jungle that is America today, because neither major party candidate will keep it safe, and no minor party candidate has a chance in Hell. Go vote, and Dog preserve you all from the worst possible results.

Rmoney Myth #571428: Bain Was Ever A Small Business

Paul Krugman has the basics regarding Myth Rmoney's repeated claims to be a "small" businessman:

... making Bain sound like a scrappy little start-up. And it’s true it had only 10 people at first — that, and $37 million, yes, $37 million, in seed money.

Where did that $37 million come from? A large part from foreigners, in many cases investing via Panama-based shell companies. Also, funds from families of Central American oligarchs, who were sitting things out in Miami while death squads sponsored by their class, and in some cases by their relatives, were roaming their home countries.

...

Right. Myth started a $37 million "small" business underwritten by possibly unsavory MOTU outside the US.

Myth, boy, let me tell you something about REAL small businesses. I started mine with about $10,000 pulled out of my personal savings, an analytical mind, and the gumption to bet my livelihood on those two assets. I earned a respectable but not luxurious livelihood for 20 years that way, and I slept well at night because I had nothing like death squads on my conscience. My business did not just run itself; I had to beat the bushes for work on an ongoing basis. (Hey, I like the idea of beating the Bushes! What? oh. <emily_litella_voice> Never mind! </emily_litella_voice>) But I had never before experienced such professional satisfaction, and I didn't miss any meals. I believe I am more deserving of comparison to those Mom-and-Pop businesses you keep mentioning than you are... no one staked me $37 million, and my success was anything but assured.

Mr. Rmoney: you haven't a clue what it takes to run a small business. Not a clue. Some honest well-off business people will at least admit to their parental or other Head Start program. C'mon, Myth: 'fess up.

MassGAP: 'Binders' Incident Didn't Happen The Way Rmoney Described

Government employing women:
a great tradition!

One kindly disposed toward Myth Rmoney could overlook the discrepancy as a slip of his memory since 2002. Other possibilities suggest themselves. But a fairly diligent research effort by Evan McMorris-Santoro at TPM reveals that several people on the provider end of those "whole binders full of women" for use as cabinet appointees remember the episode differently: according to former officials of MassGAP, an advocacy group for more equitable participation of women in powerful government positions, the surveys (the "binders") were prepared prior to Rmoney's gubernatorial victory, and completely without Rmoney's participation. In other words, he did not seek them out, and he did not consult with them. Oversight, or lie? You decide.

One could partially credit Rmoney for some of the result of the process. From TPM:

...

The Romney source told CBS the new governor hired around 10 women to top gigs in his administration and “roughly two or three” of them were on MassGAP’s list.

CBS declared Romney’s statement at Hofstra “misleading.”

MassGAP points out that regardless of how his binders came together, Romney wasn’t all that successful by the end of his four-year term when it came to achieving MassGAP’s goal of putting more women in Massachusetts leadership.

“Prior to the 2002 election, women comprised approximately 30 percent of appointed senior-level positions in Massachusetts government. By 2004, 42 percent of the new appointments made by the Romney administration were women,” MassGAP said in the Wednesday statement. “Subsequently, however, from 2004-2006 the percentage of newly-appointed women in these senior appointed positions dropped to 25 percent.”

Rmoney's 42% of new appointments, the only number over which he had control, is greater than the 30% already in government that he inherited; I suppose that is creditable, though it still isn't 50%. But women appointees dropped over the next two years to 25%, which by my arithmetic is less than he inherited.

How Rmoney favors growth

In Rmoney arithmetic, however, 25% is greater than 30%. That's hardly surprising. I wonder why the other net 5% left... was it voluntary? were they canned? Presuming their departure was of their own volition, what were their motives, and what does that say about Rmoney as a supervisor of women employees? In any case, as those women left the Rmoney government, they clearly were replaced by men (or possibly not replaced at all). What does that say about Rmoney's true motives?

CBS calls Rmoney's story "misleading." I call it a probably knowing misrepresentation of the facts. How many Pinocchios does he get for this one?

'Binders Full Of Women' — Watch Out For Those Posts!

I can't help myself, even knowing that everyone is focusing on that phrase Rmoney uttered, because it goes so directly to the kind of person he is. In case you didn't see it, here's the exchange from CNN. Rmoney was discussing the fact that when he won the governorship of Massachusetts, his staff had no problems finding large numbers of potential cabinet members who were white and male, but neither knew of nor could immediately find suitable women candidates for cabinet posts. Here's CNN's political staff:

(CNN) - As Mitt Romney explained, "I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks,' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

Binder, not full of women

I suppose there's some way Rmoney could have made the same statement in a way that was more insulting to women and their qualifications in general, but I can't think of it. It was, IMHO, a catastrophically bad choice of language.

Binders hold massive printouts of data. Binders hold listings of gargantuan computer programs.

Binders do not hold human beings.

But enough of that. How did Obama and Rmoney do?

Obama soundly dominated the debate, as in fact he had to, to recover from the Denver disaster. Obama is not a clean-your-clock sort of guy by nature, but within the limits of his personality, he faulted Rmoney for virtually every item that must have been on his list, and he did so despite Rmoney's efforts to approach, finger-stab and get in Obama's face. Not to mention Candy Crowley's efforts to short-change Obama time whenever possible...

Rmoney acquitted himself adequately, though he obviously found it more difficult tonight than in Denver to come up with lies fast enough, even though he had obviously memorized some. The lies just didn't flow. They seemed awkward. They seemed like... well... lies.

Obama did two things that he absolutely had to do: reestablished his creds with women, and no doubt won back some Hispanic voters he may have lost.

I heard that Obama also mentioned Planned Parenthood five times. Good. About damned time!

You all know I don't do horserace stuff based on snap polls, so I'll post a bit more tomorrow. Game-changer? maybe; I think it's too early to tell.

For Paul Ryan & Family, Charity Begins ^And Ends^ At Home In Front Of A Camera

Via John Aravosis of AMERICAblog and the WaPo, we find the Ryan family doing their Catholic duty by _washing pretending to wash _{^^{already clean}^} dishes at a soup kitchen _{^^{for 15 minutes in front of a camera}^}.

No word was available on whether GOP legislation regarding social programs for assisting the poor would visually resemble the paragraph above, or the dishes at left, after Ryan's markup. Ryan's parish priest  declined comment, and also declined to recite a Bible verse appropriate to the occasion. There was also no report of whether any dishes broken due to Ryan's unfamiliarity with housework were replaced. Asked about breakage, Ryan quoted homespun Republican wisdom from a sampler on the wall of the kitchen at his home: "It's your problem!"

(Note: this post looks more like I intended it in Mozilla Firefox [I'm using 16.0.1]. Google Chrome seems to have trouble properly rendering a SUP tag in the same text as a SUB tag. Whatever else you may say of Chrome, it's not a SUP kitchen.)

Medicaid, Or One Reason I'm Voting For Obama Instead Of Punting

I've been steeling myself for a half hour to write this post, and I'm still not sure I can make it through without bursting into tears of rage. But I owe it to you, your parents, your children and our nation to tell this story. My family's story.

My mother and father did everything Americans of their generation ("the greatest," so says tradition) were supposed to do. Both busted their buns (Dad more than Mom, whose family had enough resources to fund her education) to make it through college. Remember those radio and early TV ads that said "To get a good job... get a good education!"? They believed them. Youth of modest (Dad) and middle-class (Mom) means, they had what it takes to make their bid for the American dream. Both graduated and went to work in the oil business, planning to marry soon.

America's entry into W.W. II intervened. Dad, again doing what he was supposed to do for his country, enlisted in the Navy, displayed real skill and judgment, became a fire control officer on a landing ship and took fire on several of the beaches of Europe. He and his crew (he always credited them; Dad never bragged on himself) gave as good as they got. Most of them survived the war with, in Dad's case, minimal shrapnel wounds. In a way, my existence is a miracle. But Dad did his duty, the war ended, Mom and Dad married, and here I am. Do stories have endings any happier than that?

But that's not the end. Decades later, Mom, in her mid-sixties, began showing signs of what proved to be Alzheimer's disease. The dread disease progressed quickly, and she was soon to a point at which Dad, himself in declining health, could no longer take care of her at home. Our hearts filled with a sorrow I cannot describe in words, we committed Mom to a nursing home in Houston. Some time after that, we transferred her to an Alzheimer's specialty home.

Long story short...

DAD WENT ALMOST BROKE PAYING MOM'S NURSING HOME BILLS, awaiting the level at which the stingy-assed State of Texas would qualify him for Medicaid.

The week Dad qualified for Medicaid WAS THE WEEK MOM DIED.

I am willing to bet nothing like that ever happens to Governor-until-Preznit GeeDubya Bush. Or Governor-for-Life Goodhair Perry... or King Myth Rmoney. None of them have any such worries for their personal descent into old age.

Enough of my family's personal tragedy. Let me point you to David Dayen's FDL article, The Dividing Line Between the Presidential Candidates on Social Insurance Really Falls on Medicaid, for a few words about the real difference between Obama's ACA and King Myth's medical care "reform" as best we can discern it. Dayen's conclusion caught my eye:

...

You might suggest that the Obama campaign doesn’t have much of a record on this issue for differentiation. You would be wrong. The Affordable Care Act includes an expansion of Medicaid that would allow 16 million more low-income individuals into the system. That would unquestionably help defray the nursing home costs of more low-income seniors.

This chart above, via Kevin Drum, shows the difference pretty clearly. The level of spending on the health care safety net program for the poor veers almost entirely between Obama and Romney. And this ad shows that the Obama campaign has finally decided to make a fight on that point.

...

The point is that, even if Obama wanted to keep Medicaid spending constant, this would represent a huge difference with Romney. But he actually has signed legislation expanding it. If Medicaid doesn’t come up in the context of the safety net in tomorrow’s town hall-style debate, then somebody isn’t doing their job.

I have a hunch... how many times have I begun with that statement, only to have the rug pulled out from under me... that Obama is ready for this one. We'll know soon.

A Lot Of Malarkey!

When I heard Vice President Biden begin one of his early responses with that phrase (or something similar), I knew it would be a rough-and-tumble evening, and that Young Boy Paul Ryan was going to be pressed to his limit just to break even. In that, I was not disappointed: Biden turned Ryan every way but loose, even allowing for debate moderator Martha Raddatz's repeated (IMHO) favoring of Ryan. (Face it: debate moderators among TV journalists are the punditry elite, and most of them are likely Republican. I expected nothing different. At least she wasn't as bad as Jim Lehrer.)

How did Ryan do? He did pretty well, for a green kid against a vastly more experienced opponent. But I think he failed to anticipate Biden's initiatives, frequently taken in the face of adversity and pursued to some occasionally devastating conclusions. Ryan clearly didn't anticipate questions about Mitt's 47% remarks, or his own 30% remarks, and Biden made him pay for that. I'm not sure Ryan anticipated a question so blunt about abortion and his Catholicism (or the effect it would have that Biden is also Catholic), and Ryan made himself pay for that, with a one- or two-second delay in beginning his response. People know where Rmoney and Ryan stand on abortion. When Ryan hesitated before answering Raddatz's question of whether women had anything to fear from his personal outlook, that slight delay, together with the momentarily distracted expression on his face, conveyed more than a thousand words would have. Ryan eventually managed to stammer out the Rmoney/Ryan position of the day on abortion (different from yesterday's position, which was in turn different from the day before's position) that abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape or incest. That's the first I've heard that out of Rmoney or Ryan, and Ryan sounded very uncomfortable with it, as well he should be... it doesn't help that mere weeks ago, he answered a similar question with the unequivocal statement, "I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life." Biden of course pointed this out, and inquired, speaking to the camera (i.e., to women in the TV audience), "Who do you trust?" Well, duh.

Post-debate, the usual range of pundits on TV delivered the expected answers. One commentator whose very initials spell "NO" said she was disappointed that Biden was not behaving, as I've heard the quip, like an NPR (nice, polite Republican). Most people seemed to feel that Biden "won" in the sense that he gave Democrats some reason to feel that the campaign momentum was not totally lost in last Wednesday's debate. Time will tell if there was any sustained effect; vice presidential debates rarely change anyone's mind about whom to vote for. But I'll take all the help I can get under the circumstances, considering the super-PAC dollars being dumped into the race from the now unfettered opposition.

AFTERTHOUGHT: Josh Marshall had a significant thought:

...

After the debate ended, Republicans were calling it a draw and Democrats were calling it a strong win for Biden. That tells you all you need to know.

Yet I don’t think any of those things compare to this: Biden made the whole Democratic argument — on policy and values and he hit Romney really everywhere Democrats wanted him to. He left nothing unsaid. You can agree with those points or not. But this was exceedingly important for recovering the damage from last week’s debate when many Obama supporters simply felt that Obama wasn’t willing or able or something to make the case Democrats around the country are hyped up to make. Why didn’t you say this? Why’d you let him get away with that?

Biden said it all. And for Democrats around the country that was extremely important.

...

That's about the size of it. Biden serviced the base, and that was the most important thing he could have done tonight.

How Does Mitt Lie To Thee? Let Me Count The Ways...

I'm running into bandwidth problems viewing my own blog on this ancient computer, so I don't want to post yet another video right away. But when I refer you to this YouTube video of Mitt Rmoney's lies (H/T TPM) from last Wednesday's debate, thirty (30) of them laid end to end (apologies to Dorothy Parker), I hope you take it as seriously as if I had posted it right here. Seeing all of Rmoney's lies debunked in one place is no shocker, of course; it must have been a systematic if tedious effort by the debunkers. But seeing that virtually every significant statement Rmoney made that entire night long was a lie, including all his manifestly false accusations against Obama, surely gives us insight into Rmoney's character. Why would anyone consider voting for this con man?

Another Yellow Peril Besides The Yellow Doggerelist?

So says Mitt Rmoney...



No critters were harmed in the making of this message. The harm comes later, when Rmoney starts pulling plugs...

Rmoney's Foreign Policy

We already have a pretty good idea of Rmoney's foreign policy capabilities from the gaffes he committed on his July world tour. (YouTube, Al Jazeera) Now the Rmoney campaign has announced a foreign policy speech today at VMI (time? awwww, c'mon, we're talking about TPM here; you don't expect them to give you details, do you?) in which Rmoney... well, here it is in one graf:

The Romney campaign cast Obama as an outlier president who failed to continue a bipartisan tradition of a strong military and leadership in the world. Several times on the call, his advisers described Romney as following a tradition that included Presidents Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton while President Obama’s approach, they said, was similar to Jimmy Carter’s. Romney’s approach is “a restoration of a strategy that served us well for over 70 years” and will renew a “bipartisan vision” of foreign policy, Wong said. “[Obama’s] foreign policy is marked by passivity, by delay and by indecision.”

 

First of all, Rmoney's faulty memory has lost all but one recent Republican president; presumably he doesn't want to think about the Bushes and he doesn't want you to think about them either. One can hardly blame him, but if his heroes include Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy and Bill Clinton... WTF is he doing running as a Republican? The fact is that Truman, Kennedy and Clinton, for all their flaws, were inarguably competent presidents when it came to international matters, while the two Bushes ranged from throwing up on a foreign host to being unable to navigate off the stage after a foreign presentation. Rmoney's first trip abroad as presidential candidate suggests that he would follow in the tradition of the Bushes: nauseated and lost, just what America needs.

There's one other thing... the matter of nu‑cu‑lar weapons. Truman ordered the only use in history of an atomic weapon against a human population... two human populations, in fact. I'm not here at the moment to argue right or wrong on that decision, but admiring Truman (which I do) involves embracing or otherwise recognizing the fact that he dropped The Bomb on a lot of people (I do not embrace that decision). Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan and the President with No Name in Rmoney's Campaign (GeeDubya) spent their entire two terms each as president exhibiting some real enthusiasm for the use of nuclear weapons... indeed, I don't know if Bush 43 convinced Iraq that he would use The Bomb, but he certainly convinced me. Does Rmoney share that enthusiasm? I ask the question because whichever nation initiates nuclear conflict today probably triggers the end of the civilized world for at least decades to come.

Tell us, Mr. Rmoney... would you drop The Big One? on whom? with what degree (to use a singularly Republican phrase) of "acceptable losses"?

I know it is traditional not to make an issue of a presidential candidate's religion, but I can't help doing so: Mormon folklore (not specifically Joseph Smith's prophecies) contains references to future events some of which sound downright apocalyptic. Is it possible that Mr. Rmoney sees himself as helping to bring about the fulfillment of these events? I'm crazy, you say? really? who is crazy?

Foot Notes; Post-Debate Polls

I have a doc appointment this morning, so this will be a quick one. First, the foot is healing pretty well; the process will still take months, not weeks or days, but progress has been steady.

Now about the aftermath of the presidential debate. The consensus seems to be that while Rmoney "won," he may pay more for having lied his way through virtually every issue than he gained from appearing to have more "conviction" than Obama.That suits me: Rmoney should indeed have more conviction(s)... As the mainstream media more or less ignores Obama (the network execs are all Republicans, and yes, that does make a difference), this will probably take some money to bring Rmoney's worst prevarications before the public.

Nate Silver says it's too soon to have a firm idea of how the debate affected the polls. That fact alone should provide some comfort to Obama's supporters.

Robert Reich offered this observation:

In Wednesday night’s debate, Romney won on style while Obama won on substance. Romney sounded as if he had conviction, which means he’s either convinced himself that the lies he tells are true or he’s a fabulous actor.

Well, maybe. I believe Rmoney is completely and unabashedly a flim-flam man, a car salesman, a huckster. He is indifferent to the truth or falsehood of his statements, as long as they have the impact he desires. So he can spend an evening with Obama, pretending he's a moderate, disavowing everything else he has said during and since the GOP convention.

In other words, Rmoney's stellar debate performance may work to Obama's advantage, if the Obama campaign can repeatedly enumerate Rmoney's lies. That process is mainly a matter of spending a lot of money. We shall see if O has enough to do the job... Rmoney certainly handed him the material.

One final thought: Obama is going to have to stop being Mr. Nice Guy. It doesn't look presidential; it just looks weak. Obama needs to dismantle Mittens in the next presidential debate, no holds barred. Will he? Has he got it in him to eviscerate the guy?

I guess we'll find out!

I Am One Of The 89 Million

There was considerable argument last night over Rmoney's unsupported statement that his proposed replacement for Obamacare assured coverage for individuals with preexisting conditions.

Well, apparently, he held that position for the duration of the debate and a few hours on either side of it. Via Paul Krugman, we have Sarah Kliff on Ezra Klein's Wonkblog:

...

Pants on Fire!

It started with the Republican presidential candidate saying during an appearance on “Meet the Press” that he liked the Affordable Care Act’s provision that requires insurers to cover preexisting conditions, and would support something similar. Hours later, his campaign clarified he did not, however, support a federal ban against denying coverage for preexisting conditions. Around 10 p.m., the Romney camp had circled back to the same position it held back in March: that the governor supports coverage for preexisting conditions for people who have had continuous coverage.

...

Please read both Krugman's and Kliff's posts; both are informative... and eyebrow-raising. In short, Rmoney lied about favoring coverage of preexisting conditions. How many Americans would fall through the cracks if continuous coverage were required to obtain coverage of preexisting conditions?

About eighty-nine million... 89,000,000.

I am among the 89 million. Many of my friends are among the 89 million. How many of those people watched the debate, but did not stay tuned for long enough to hear Rmoney's staff issue the correction? In essence, Rmoney used the way the debate is framed to swindle the American people out of preexisting condition coverage... while telling them the exact opposite.

Older Republicans and Republicans with chronic illnesses must be desperate to capture the presidency if they can vote for this chronic liar.

AFTERTHOUGHT: this phenomenon may explain in part why Rmoney effectively won the debate. Obama saw it as his duty to explain how things are and how they can be repaired. Rmoney, not the first politician to do so, feels free to promise anything... anything, true or false... if it gains him votes. Republicans promise pie-in-the-sky; what they deliver is all too often pie-in-the-face. But some Americans inevitably believe them. Suckers!