blue-author
How can there be a war on women when one of them just got promoted to the highest office at Yahoo!? The depressing part is that she’s pregnant and yet still took the position. There is a war, but that war is being waged on good family values. Now I ask you, is it responsible to take on the job of CEO of a billion dollar corporation when you are about to have a child? I think not my friend. Marissa Mayer belongs at home with her baby, not running a company. Her child needs a mother. I know what it is like to be in charge of a company, I ran Bain until 20… ah, 1999. There is no feasible way she can adequately raise her child and be a successful CEO. It’s one or the other.

Willard Mitt Romney


The sad part is that Willard doesn’t even notice he answered his own damn question right there…

(via freedominwickedness)

Side note: I love how he trips up on the date he ran Bain at. To people not following that story, in order to distance himself from decisions made at Bain under his leadership he and his proxies have tried to claim he had nothing to do with it after 1999, even though he was the CEO and drew paychecks and flew back for meetings (plus however much business he took care of by phone/email/what have you) for years afterwards.

When he ran for MA governor after years of living and working in Utah, to prove his residency and establish ties to the state for voters he used the fact that he was running Bain during those years as proof. Now that it’s inconvenient, he says he wasn’t… he was happy to draw an executive paycheck but he did nothing for the company. He did nothing since 1999 and “retroactively retired” when he realized that.

It’s such a complete and total lie that he can’t keep it straight on the stump. 

(via alexandraerin)
darkjez

darkjez:

JAMELLE BOUIE

Once the general election kicked into gear, and it was clear that Barack Obama would have the overwhelming support of African American voters, a meme picked up among some white voters. “They’re only voting for him because he’s black.” This, of course, was at odds with the facts. Black voters were initially ambivalent toward the then-Senator, and only embraced him after the Iowa and South Carolina primaries. Moreover, by that point, African Americans had been loyal Democratic voters for four decades; their positive feelings may have stemmed from racial pride, but their material support everything to do with his political affiliation.

Now that we’re in an election year, voters are beginning to reevaluate the president. And for some in crucial swing states like Ohio, his race has reemerged as a sticking point:

“I’ll just come right out and say it: he was elected because of his race,” said Sara Reese, a bank employee who said she voted for Ralph Nader in 2008, even though she usually votes Democrat. […]

Many who raised race as a concern cast Mr. Obama as a flawed candidate carried to victory by blacks voting for the first time. Others expressed concerns indirectly, through suspicions about Mr. Obama’s background and questions about his faith.

“He was like, ‘Here I am, I’m black and I’m proud,’ ” said Lesia Felsoci, a bank employee drinking a beer in an Applebee’s. “To me, he didn’t have a platform. Black people voted him in, that’s why he won. It was black ignorance.”

There are a few ideas at work here. The first is a perception that Obama is an “affirmative action candidate.” Far from someone who pulled himself up from modest beginnings, Obama is seen as a victor of the (perceived) racial spoils system. Everything, from his Harvard law degree to his Illinois Senate seat, was the result of guilt-induced white generosity.

Second, is the striking attitude toward black political agency. Traditionally, overwhelming black support has always gone toward white candidates: John Kerry, Al Gore, Bill Clinton, etc. But this never came with complaints; no one questioned Clinton’s legitimacy because he received 84 percent of African American votes. 2008 was the first time in history that African Americans could give their one-sided support to a black presidential candidate, and at the same time, it was one of the few times (in the 20th century, at least) when voters questioned that president’s legitimacy because of his huge support from black voters.

This, I think, points to a broader discomfort with black political agency, and the relationship of African Americans to our political system. It’s not uncommon for voters to support in-group politicians—white Southerners and conservative Evangelicals come to mind. But African Americans are the only group challenged for doing so; the view captured by the New York Times, for example, is that it was illegitimate for blacks to vote overwhelmingly for Obama. This standard—a requirement to split their votes between the two parties black candidate is on the ballet—is unique to African American voters.

This isn’t a fringe perspective; Herman Cain’s appeal to conservatives was based, in part, on the notion that he had escaped the “Democratic planation.” Likewise, black voters have been described as “brain-washed slaves” who are addicted to government “dependency.” In other words, we can’t trust the political decisions of African Americans because they are tainted by a desire to advance their material interests. It’s “ignorance,” not an informed choice.

I’m not one who sees the current crop of voter identification laws as akin to Jim Crow voting restrictions; they have more to do with naked partisanship than they do with any notion of black inferiority. Buried in that, however, is a genuine unease with black political power and the (real) possibility that African Americans could decide the fate of the nation.

hamburgerjack

deliciouskaek:

GOP Unveils Plan to Gut Food Stamp Program

abaldwin360:

Politico reports that the changes mean “an average family of four would face an 11 percent cut in monthly benefits after Sept. 1 and, even more important, tighter enforcement of rules would require that households exhaust most of their liquid assets before qualifying for help.“  The Associated Press adds that elegibility changes would knock 3 million people off the program completely.

When people start getting hungry they start rioting in the street. This GOP is going to do it’s self in completely.

kay so the $82 i receive is going to go down to probably $75 or so? sure, i don’t mind starving. thanks for asking!

fuck the GOP and everyone who votes for them, i don’t even care if you’re someone i know at this point. fuck you too.

darkjez
darkjez:

Racially Coded Politics

Political Irony— Republican presidential candidates are increasingly using “racially coded language” in an attempt to win votes.
For example, when asked a question about welfare 2 days before the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum replied “I don’t want to make Black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” The problem is that the question didn’t mention blacks at all, and statistically far more whites receive low-income assistance than blacks. But somehow the word “welfare” has become coded as referring to blacks.
In addition to the quote in the comic, Newt Gingrich called Obama “the most successful food stamp president in American history.” I’m not even sure what that’s supposed to mean, but it sure sounds like someone tossing out red meat to the base.
UPDATE: Here’s some commentary from Jen Sorensen on her comic:

You’d think that decades in politics would knock the racist claptrap out of someone like Newt Gingrich, but, well, this is the GOP we’re talking about. Instead, he just substitutes polite-sounding phrases like “African-American community” and “demand paychecks” for “those lazy blacks.” How does one go about demanding a paycheck, anyway? I’d like to be able to do that, and have one show up. That would be cool.
The dialogue in the third panel refers to Ron Paul’s Paranoid Kook Reports, which contained the theory that the LA riots only came to a halt because everyone went to pick up welfare checks. And right-wing noise machine poopshoveler Brent Bozell said on Fox News that Obama looked like a “skinny ghetto crackhead.” Rick Santorum has also made similar comments to Newt’s.
For data on food stamp usage, I looked at this USDA report (big PDF, via the ThinkProgress article linked above; page 75 has the breakdown) and this, which documents disproportionate rural usage, largely by children.

darkjez:

Racially Coded Politics

Political Irony— Republican presidential candidates are increasingly using “racially coded language” in an attempt to win votes.

For example, when asked a question about welfare 2 days before the Iowa caucuses, Rick Santorum replied “I don’t want to make Black people’s lives better by giving them somebody else’s money; I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn the money.” The problem is that the question didn’t mention blacks at all, and statistically far more whites receive low-income assistance than blacks. But somehow the word “welfare” has become coded as referring to blacks.

In addition to the quote in the comic, Newt Gingrich called Obama “the most successful food stamp president in American history.” I’m not even sure what that’s supposed to mean, but it sure sounds like someone tossing out red meat to the base.

UPDATE: Here’s some commentary from Jen Sorensen on her comic:

You’d think that decades in politics would knock the racist claptrap out of someone like Newt Gingrich, but, well, this is the GOP we’re talking about. Instead, he just substitutes polite-sounding phrases like “African-American community” and “demand paychecks” for “those lazy blacks.” How does one go about demanding a paycheck, anyway? I’d like to be able to do that, and have one show up. That would be cool.

The dialogue in the third panel refers to Ron Paul’s Paranoid Kook Reports, which contained the theory that the LA riots only came to a halt because everyone went to pick up welfare checks. And right-wing noise machine poopshoveler Brent Bozell said on Fox News that Obama looked like a “skinny ghetto crackhead.” Rick Santorum has also made similar comments to Newt’s.

For data on food stamp usage, I looked at this USDA report (big PDF, via the ThinkProgress article linked above; page 75 has the breakdown) and this, which documents disproportionate rural usage, largely by children.

deliciouskaek

10 of The Craziest Things Newt Gingrich Has Ever Said

abaldwin360:

By Rania Khalek | AlterNet

1. No free speech for you!

In 2006, at an awards dinner honoring the preservation of free speech no less, Gingrich unleashed the scary specter of terrorism to argue that free speech must be curtailed, which he admitted would ignite “a serious debate about the First Amendment.”

Gingrich said:

Either before we lose a city or, if we are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break up their capacity to use the Internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech, and to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

His remarks immediately sparked controversy, leading him to write an op-ed days later in which he clarified that the First Amendment should not be used as a shield for terrorists working “to build ‘franchises’ among leftist, antiglobalization groups worldwide, especially in Latin America.”

2. Muslims don’t count

Remember last year when the right freaked out over Park 51, the planned Muslim Community Center in lower Manhattan? Because of its location, two blocks from the World Trade Center site, the right renamed the proposed interfaith, Muslim-run community center the “ground zero mosque.”

Some of the most appalling right-wing statements against Park 51 came from none other than Newt Gingrich, who made one bigoted comment after the next. First, he demanded that America adopt the same religious intolerance that marks the repressive monarchy of Saudi Arabia: “There should be no mosque near Ground Zero in New York so long as there are no churches or synagogues in Saudi Arabia,” he said.

He then proceeded to equate American Muslims not just to terrorists, but Nazis,arguing that building a mosque near Ground Zero “would be like putting a Nazi sign next to the Holocaust Museum.”

3. Yay for child labor!

Newt Gingrich longs for an era when children as young as five could slave away for 14 hours a day in a sweatshop. At least that’s the impression he gave whendeclaring to a crowd at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government that child labor laws should go.

“It is tragic what we do in the poorest neighborhoods, entrapping children in, first of all, child [labor] laws, which are truly stupid,” said Gingrich, adding, “Most of these schools ought to get rid of the unionized janitors, have one master janitor, and pay local students to take care of the school.”

Weeks later Gingrich doubled down:

Really poor children in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works, so they literally have no habit of showing up on Monday.

They have no habit of staying all day. They have no habit of “I do this and you give me cash” unless it’s illegal.

But not to worry, even Gingrich has his limits. When speaking to WNYM radio host Curtis Sliwa, he clarified, “Kids shouldn’t work in coal mines; kids shouldn’t work in heavy industry,” but he still supports having poor school kids scrub toilets in public schools.

4. Blame the gays

In October, during a campaign stop in Iowa, Gingrich called gay marriage a “temporary aberration” that “fundamentally goes against everything we know.” He reminded his audience that “marriage is between a man and woman” and “has been for all of recorded history.”

This coming from a past adulterer who has been married three times. It’s not the number of marriages or even the affair that makes this statement outrageous, but rather the hypocrisy. In his personal life, he has no problem disrespecting the so-called “institution of marriage,” yet when it comes to giving same-sex couples the right to marry, Gingrich is suddenly raging with concern about the sanctity of marriage and commitment.

And, as someone who constantly reminds his audiences that he’s a historian, it’s odd that Gingrich doesn’t know that polygamy has been the most common domestic arrangement in human history.

Gingrich’s disdain for LGBT marriage equality was on display one month earlier during an interview with Catholic radio, where he cast blame on same-sex marriage for the country’s economic woes.

5. Life as a white man is so unfair

Gingrich, like most conservatives, loves to play the victim card, like the time he called then Supreme Court Judge nominee Sonya Sotomayor a “reverse racist.” This was in response to a statement made by Sotomayor during a 2001 lecture at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, where she said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

However, Gingrich and his fellow conservatives conveniently ignored the broadercontext of Sotomayor’s speech. She was making reference to former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s famous saying: “A wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.” Sotomayor went on to say that she hoped her gender and race would give her unique insight into cases that others on the bench, such as wise old men, may lack.

Gingrich was so outraged by her remark that he went to Twitter to air his grievances. “Imagine a judicial nominee said ‘my experience as a white man makes me better than a Latina woman.’ New racism is no better than old racism,” wrote Gingrich, adding: “White man racist nominee would be forced to withdraw. Latina woman racist should also withdraw.” 

6. Obama the secret Kenyan

It seems like it was ages ago that Gingrich told the National Review that President Obama was some sort of undercover Kenyan out to destroy America. That is the conclusion he reached after reading a Forbes article by Dinesh D’Souza that accused Obama of having an “African socialist” agenda that he adopted from his Kenyan father. From the National Review interview:

Gingrich says that D’Souza has made a “stunning insight” into Obama’s behavior — the “most profound insight I have read in the last six years about Barack Obama.”

“What if [Obama] is so outside our comprehension, that only if you understand Kenyan, anticolonial behavior, can you begin to piece together [his actions]?” Gingrich asks. “That is the most accurate, predictive model for his behavior.”

“I think Obama gets up every morning with a world view that is fundamentally wrong about reality,” Gingrich says. “If you look at the continuous denial of reality, there has got to be a point where someone stands up and says that this is just factually insane.”

The words speak for themselves.

7. Religious radical atheists?

In March, Gingrich gave a chilling speech about the frightening future in store for his grandchildren if godless liberals have it their way. Or was it Muslim liberals?

I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age, they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.

Who knew that one could be both a secular atheist and radical Muslim at the same time?

8. So what if women get paid less?

In the land of Gingrich, the fact that women still make less than men isn’t all that important. During a recent campaign stop at Harvard, Gingrich fielded a questionfrom freshman undergraduate Holly Flynn, who said:

I’d like you to clarify your stance on women’s rights. And I’d like to know what you’d do to ensure gender equality in the United States. Given that even today, women make 77 cents to every man’s dollar.

Not only was Gingrich dismissive of the pay gap, he even twisted the facts around to showcase men as the real victims here:

Well, the latter is going to change dramatically in the next generation, because more women are going to college than men. And they’re doing better than men and entering professions more than men,” replied Gingrich. “In fact, if anything, you’ll be here in 15 years wondering what we’ll do about men inequality and male unemployment. Because the people who had the deepest decline of income are males who don’t go to college.

His analysis feeds into a larger narrative that says women are rising to the top and men are losing out, which is most apparent in what Alice O’Conner calls “the myth of the mancession,” referring to the notion that the recession has been far more devastating for men than women. O’Conner notes that men lost a greater share of jobs when the recession first hit, but only because “they are disproportionately represented in traditionally hard-hit and better-paying sectors of the economy.”  

9. Guilty until proven innocent

At the Nov. 22 CNN Republican debate on National Security, Gingrich said, “I think it’s desperately important that we preserve your right to be innocent until proven guilty,” but only “if it’s a matter of criminal law.” He rejects applying these same basic standards in cases of national security — crimes for which he believes due process should be thrown out the window. 

Gingrich makes the bizarre argument that if we allow alleged terrorists due process, America could be nuked. His words: “If you’re trying to find somebody who may have a nuclear weapon that they are trying to bring into an American city, I think you want to use every tool that you can possibly use to gather the intelligence.”It’s unclear what this unlikely Jack Bauer scenario has to do with trying people who are already in custody.

10. Torture is not torture

At a town hall last week at town hall at the College of Charleston in South Carolina, an audience member asked Gingrich about his position is on torture. Newt replied:

Waterboarding is by every technical rule not torture. [Applause] Waterboarding is actually something we’ve done with our own pilots in order to get them used to the idea to what interrogation is like. It’s not — I’m not saying it’s not bad, and it’s not difficult, it’s not frightening. I’m just saying that under the normal rules internationally, it’s not torture.

I think the right balance is that a prisoner can only be waterboarded at the direction of the President in a circumstance which the information was of such great importance that we thought it was worth the risk of doing it, and I do that frankly only out of concern for world opinion. But we do not want to be known as a country that capriciously mistreats human beings. 

Besides the fact that (a) waterboarding is morally reprehensible and (b) torturedoesn’t work, there is no doubt under international law that waterboarding is indeed a form of torture, according to Juan Mendez, the United Nations’s Special Rapporteur on Torture. The U.S. Army Field Manual also bans the use of waterboarding, because it’s considered a form of torture.

[FULL STORY & Bonus 11th Crazy thing]

squeetothegee-deactivated201111

No Jobs Bill, and No Ideas

abaldwin360:

New York Times Editorial

Republicans are good at shooting down useful economic plans, but have none of their own.

It was all predicted, but the unanimous decision by Senate Republicans on Tuesday to filibuster and thus kill President Obama’s jobs bill was still a breathtaking act of economic vandalism. There are 14 million people out of work, wages are falling, poverty is rising, and a second recession may be blowing in, but not a single Republican would even allow debate on a sound plan to cut middle-class taxes and increase public-works spending.

The bill the Republicans shot down is not a panacea, but independent economists say it would have a significant and swift effect on the current stagnation. Macroeconomic Advisers, whose forecasts are often used by the Federal Reserve, said it could raise economic growth by 1.25 percentage points and create 1.3 million jobs in 2012. Moody’s Analytics estimated new growth at 2 percentage points and 1.9 million jobs. Those economists say that Republican ideas for increasing growth would have no measurable effects in the next year.

[FULL STORY]

moniquill
timetruthhumor:

what’s wrong with ron paul?
 

He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.
He believes abortion should be illegal.
He doesn’t support the repeal of DoMA and didn’t support the repeal of DADT.
He doesn’t support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools.
He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
He doesn’t believe HIV causes AIDS.
While he doesn’t support a federal ban on gay marriage, he also doesn’t support a federal law legalizing gay marriage. Some see this as a states’ rights issue, and this is how he frames it, but he does support other federal legalization movements (drugs, for example).
His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years. He denies writing any of it, but if he allowed this content to go out under his name, he either approved it or was so ignorant of both the type of people he associates with and the type of content going under his name that he shouldn’t be trusted to run anything.
He believes in reinstating the gold standard, which most economists believe was one of the major causes of several financial crises during the early part of the 20th Century, including the Great Depression.
He believes in free market capitalism.
He wants to get rid of Affirmative Action.
He is a frequent guest on the Alex Jones radio show. Alex Jones is a government-hating conspiracy theorist nutter. If you don’t know who Alex Jones is, then Google him.
Any of these items should keep a sane liberal from voting for Ron Paul.
His stance on drugs and wars win him a lot of liberal fans, but only if they don’t look at literally anything else he stands for.
Source: steviemcfly 

timetruthhumor:

what’s wrong with ron paul?

  • He doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state.
  • He believes abortion should be illegal.
  • He doesn’t support the repeal of DoMA and didn’t support the repeal of DADT.
  • He doesn’t support putting more money into inner-city schools, but does support vouchers for religious schools.
  • He believes creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools.
  • He doesn’t believe HIV causes AIDS.
  • While he doesn’t support a federal ban on gay marriage, he also doesn’t support a federal law legalizing gay marriage. Some see this as a states’ rights issue, and this is how he frames it, but he does support other federal legalization movements (drugs, for example).
  • His newsletter spouted horrible racist content for twenty years. He denies writing any of it, but if he allowed this content to go out under his name, he either approved it or was so ignorant of both the type of people he associates with and the type of content going under his name that he shouldn’t be trusted to run anything.
  • He believes in reinstating the gold standard, which most economists believe was one of the major causes of several financial crises during the early part of the 20th Century, including the Great Depression.
  • He believes in free market capitalism.
  • He wants to get rid of Affirmative Action.
  • He is a frequent guest on the Alex Jones radio show. Alex Jones is a government-hating conspiracy theorist nutter. If you don’t know who Alex Jones is, then Google him.
  • Any of these items should keep a sane liberal from voting for Ron Paul.

His stance on drugs and wars win him a lot of liberal fans, but only if they don’t look at literally anything else he stands for.

Source: steviemcfly