And that candidate, of course, is Mitt Romney, from some time ago.

Seems there was a time, sometime in the misty past, when it was okay to suggest that the GOP ought not simply claim that everything a corporation does is noble and good.

But that time has now passed.

Fall in line, fellers.

Mitt Romney

Because "electability" doesn't have to mean an actual record of winning elections.

Posted by: Ace at 12:53 PM | Comments (416)
Post contains 88 words, total size 1 kb.

Now that we've got the Romney folks singing hymnals about the leveraged buy-outs being a cherished part of our Constitution, I'm sure we'll be hearing this proposed assault on free political expression likewise savaged.

2002: Mitt Romney’s plan to fund the state’s Clean Elections public financing program was to take 10% of the contributions made to privately financed candidates. As Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said at the time, “Under the plan, clean elections candidates would be entitled to 10 percent of the campaign funds of candidates who are running under standard campaign rules. The 10 percent would not entirely pay for clean elections campaigns but would supplement public funding.” (Associated Press, 9/8/2002. Accessed via Lexis-Nexis.)

There is an upside, though: He apparently abandoned that quickly. Big surprise.

Or:

1994: Mitt Romney spoke about the need to reduce the influence of money in our elections and said he would ban political action committees (PACs). “These kinds of associations between money and politics are in my view wrong and for that reason I would like to have campaign spending limits and to say we are not going to spend more than in certain campaigns... because otherwise I think you have money playing far too important a role,” he said.

Versus now:

July 5, 2011. On the support from outside groups, Romney campaign spokesperson Andrea Saul said, "We are pleased that independent groups will be active in fighting this entrenched power so the country can get back to work.”

As Baseball Crank wrote:

Every time I try to talk myself into thinking we can live with him, I run into this problem. It's one that particularly bedeviled Republicans during the Nixon years - many partisan Republicans loved Nixon because he made the right enemies and fought them without cease or mercy, but the man's actual policies compromised so many of our principles that the party was crippled in the process even before Watergate. We can stand for Romney, but we'll find soon enough that that's all we stand for.

We had the same problem with McCain. There was no such thing as a "McCainism" to go with McCain. There was only a belief in McCain's personal integrity -- that's all he ever talked about. The only political cause he firmly believed in seemed to be that he was personally incorruptible.

That's not a general politics people can get behind.

Because Romney has, almost literally, argued passionately on both sides of every issue, he also does not stand for any politics we could call "Romneyism." He only stands for his own purported competence, evidenced, he says, by an arcane area of financial business with little discernible relationship to government.

So when we pick Romney, we will stand or fall on Romney himself, not "Romney's ideas" (quick, name some), but Romney himself, personally.

I hope you're very satisfied that Romney is that kind of stand-out person who can win on a platform of little but himself.

Mitt Romney

He's everywhere you want him to be.

Posted by: Ace at 12:33 PM | Comments (140)
Post contains 540 words, total size 4 kb.

Listen to all three clips.

Here's why these guys are honorary morons: They do not just blurt out their Ba-Ba-Booeyisms. They have a whole rap prepared, where they offer their credentials and appear to be normal, thoughtful engaged citizens, before hitting CSPAN with the hot issue on everyone's lips.

You know who this helps? No seriously, it helps Mitt Romney.

Thanks to spongeworthy.

Posted by: Ace at 12:09 PM | Comments (69)
Post contains 83 words, total size 1 kb.

On Laura Ingraham. Doesn't sound so dumb to me. Seems to understand leveraged buyouts. more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:35 AM | Comments (276)
Post contains 116 words, total size 1 kb.

LENR, or Low Energy Nuclear Reaction power.

Actually the question mark is unwarranted -- NASA is working on LENR, as this video indicates.

My question is more "Is this for real? Or is this a pipe dream?"

Oh, by the way, if Global Warming ever becomes a real problem, rather than something that megarich fat-assed white people fret about because they have no genuine problems, we can always seed the atmosphere with molecules that spur cloud formation, and reflect sunlight away.

You know -- like the Sun already does, thus accounting for our 11-year solar cycle of warmth and cooling.

Thanks to Classical Values.

So that's Hot and Cold. And hot: more...

Posted by: Ace at 11:21 AM | Comments (96)
Post contains 307 words, total size 2 kb.

Wait, what?

They actually do cover the womanizing, at some length?

Well then I'll watch. Or at least I'll watch the YouTube snippets about the womanizing.

[A] lmost a full hour of the documentary ends up focusing on ClintonÂ’s personal struggles with fidelity, coupled with harsh, blunt language from many of his colleagues and chroniclers...

“There was this growing skepticism in the press that this guy was just a big phony,” says TIME’s Joe Klein, discussing Clinton’s reaction then to the allegations. “He was too slick. He was too smooth. And he would lawyer answers to questions.”

The things you find out later. Well guys, you certainly hid your skepticism like pros. You sold that claim that the Flowers recordings were "doctored" like you really believed it.

Or like you wanted us to believe it, anyway.

...

The Lewinsky scandal occupies a nearly 40-minute stretch towards the end of the film, and is largely used as the coda to ClintonÂ’s time in office.

“There were almost these sparks flying between them from that first moment when they saw each other,” said Ken Gormley, a law professor at Duquesne University and the author of “The Death of American Virtue: Clinton vs. Starr.”

Here comes one of the funnier paragraphs I've read.

“It’s almost as though there was a part of Bill Clinton that he had no control over,” said William Chafe, a history professor at Duke University.

That's what she said.

"That whenever it had the opportunity to come out, it was going to come out..."

That's what she said.

""...and with no forethought, with no calculation, with no sense of the consequences, it was simply going to happen. And that’s terrifying.”

And that is, in fact, what she said.

More silliness, as his henchmen, like Robert Reich, explain that his problem is that he needed to be adored.

And/or bent. Adored, or bent.

Anyone notice this odd habit the press has of digging up stuff on Democratic politicians after they're safely out of politics and even their wives' careers are effectively over?

Bill Clinton

He just needs to be adored, for just like five minutes, under the Resolute Desk.

And also, he's going to need to adore you in the face.

Posted by: Ace at 10:58 AM | Comments (161)
Post contains 398 words, total size 3 kb.

Superbowl shuffle?

He recorded it before Christmas but now it's gone viral. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:33 AM | Comments (327)
Post contains 260 words, total size 2 kb.

Ad by the RNC. more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:03 AM | Comments (118)
Post contains 120 words, total size 2 kb.

Shark-toothed whore.

She claims she'd "never" politicize Tucson, immediately after politicizing Tucson and blaming it on the Tea Party.

Here's video of her comments.

More extensive video below.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:35 AM | Comments (169)
Post contains 84 words, total size 1 kb.

Yes, Barack Obama is running as a Defender of Jerusalem.

Politifact rates this claim -- that Romney, Gingrich and Perry have proposed "zeroing out" aid to Israel -- as Pants on Fire.

I don't like citing this guys but this claim is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is Obama's attempt to claim he's standing up for Israel, but that's a different story.

Budget experts we contacted agreed that that the Obama camp erred in using the term "zeroing out" to describe what Perry was proposing. "Zeroing out" means that funding will be terminated. The actual term for what Perry suggests is "zero-based budgeting."

"Nothing the candidates said indicated that Israel would get a cut," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that analyzes federal spending. "Zero-based budgeting just means funding levels must be justified year-to-year, rather than starting from a baseline. Funding for a particular program, in this case aid to Israel, could well end up being more than the previous year, or it could be less. The campaign is taking advantage of the word ‘zero’ without putting it in the proper budget context."

The Obama claim ignores them then saying they'd expect Israel to be a recipient of substantial foreign aid.

You know, politics would be a lot more interesting and intellectually satisfying if we could just get rid of the stupid lies and focus on the intelligent lies.

via @gabrielmalor

Posted by: Ace at 07:45 AM | Comments (235)
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.