Best, New Comedy on TV

This just In ... from POLITICO playbook:

BULLETIN - off embargo at 7 a.m. -- "RNC: Voters see GOP as 'scary' and 'out of touch,'" by: Maggie Haberman : "The Republican National Committee concedes in a sprawling report Monday that the GOP is seen as the party of 'stuffy old men' and needs to change its ways. Among the RNC's proposed fixes: enacting comprehensive immigration reform, addressing middle-class economic anxieties head on and condensing a presidential primary process that saw Mitt Romney get battered for months ahead of the general election. ... 'There's no one reason we lost,' [chairman Reince] Priebus plans to say [in remarks at the National Press Club]. 'Our message was weak; our ground game was insufficient; we weren't inclusive; we were behind in both data and digital; our primary and debate process needed improvement. ... So, there's no one solution: There's a long list of them.'" http://politi.co/16E3L1f

--FULL TEXT: 100-page "Growth & Opportunity Project" (GOP) report http://bit.ly/142VzYK

***

I found the best comedy show on TV and thought I'd share it with everyone.

Here's a snippet:

The Dream Team of Election Night Reporters ...

POTUS w Family

"My Dream Team"

Coach: Charles Osgood (CBS)

My personal Dream Team ...

Network: 

Center- Bob Schieffer (CBS)

Point Guard - Brian Williams (NBC)

SG - Norah O'Donnell (CBS)

SF - George Stephanopolous

PF- Scott Pelley (CBS) - Newcomer to the list ...

Sixth Man - David Gregory - (NBC Meet the Press)

Courtside reporters: Cokie Roberts (ABC), Andrea Mitchell (NBC)

MVP: Jon Stewart - Comedy Channel

Cable - The good, but also rans because on Cable...

PG - John King (CNN)

SG - James Carville (CNN)

SF - Donna Brazile (CNN)

PFs - David Gergen, Candy Crowley

*** DIVE for the REMOTE and switch to local (NECN) coverage when the following network anchors or reporters appear 

1. Diane Sawyer (ABC)

2. Sean Hannity (FOX)

3. Tucker Carlson (Fox News Channel)

4. Bill O'Reilly (Fox)

5. Glenn Beck (?)

6. Savannah Guthrie

Used to be good, but fading:

1. Wolf Blitzer

2. Jim Lehrer

Mitt Romney & the Women of the USA ...

Women of the USA, take note!  This coming Tuesday is an important day in your life.  Be sure to vote.  I need not add another word.

and

A GREAT TV spot ...

NBA and WNBA stars get the word out to register to vote. See their message:

Romney on FEMA: As Herm Edwards Would Say, "HELLO?"

Mitt? Since CNN's John King was probably reaching for a stun gun or maybe a pint of Scotch after your answer to this question and he failed to follow-up, I have to ask?

When a massive natural disaster, like Katrina or Sandy come along, are you saying the States should budget and pay for the clean-up, medical care or the injured, and the rebuilding projects that result from the damage? And, meanwhile, the rest of our country, including the Federal govt. is just going to stand back and watch its fellow American citizens suffer?  Won't your viewpoint result in State and local taxes soaring?

Take it further? I believe you said, "From the States to the private sector."

So instead of American Red Cross or FEMA coming to our aide, it would be a for-profit company ready to bill me or my local town to remove the 60-foot fir tree blocking the street?  Do I have that right, ole Mitt, me boy?

If I do, then just keep on campaigning and letting us all know how you feel, how you'll run the country and how your ignorant viewpoint will effect our lives, the budgets of the States, Towns and individuals living in these  United States.  Or, I guess under Mitt Romney, we can change the name of the country to "The Country formerly known as United States, now just sovereign States."

The question voters need to ask themselves before they walk in to vote next week is this:

"Is Mitt Romney just ignorant? Out of touch with reality? Did he just miss Math the day they taught Math? Does he think anything out to its fullest extent before he shoots his mouth off from a pulpit, err podium?

What will the trickle down of Romney's views on Federal government do to your local, state, property taxes, sales taxes?"  Where will the money come from?

If Mitt is elected, will a single woman choose to remain in the USA? 

Get rid of Planned Parenthood?

Get rid of Healthcare Act?

Require States to create their own versions of FEMA?

Where else would he choose to cut Federal responsibilities?

Transportation? Highway care? Air Traffic? (And, in the most telling action, see the story from Boston (dot) com below this video...

October 31, 2012 -

***

In the "Can't make this stuff up category of political comedy, here's what Flip, err, Mitt had to say today:


Mitt Romney on Wednesday stepped up his support of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, further rebuffing accusations that he would end funding for disaster relief if elected president.

“I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” Romney said in a statement. “As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.”

Romney’s comments last year during a GOP debate in New Hampshire were interpreted by some as a call to eliminate FEMA altogether.

“Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction,” Romney said. “And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.”

The topic has taken on greater political implications as the federal government mobilizes to provide relief for communities devastated by Hurricane Sandy this week.

Your Vote for Mitt to Assist Late Night Comedians Everywhere

TL: Endorses the re-election of President Barack Obama and veep Joe Biden, the election of Elizabeth Warren as Senator of Massachusetts and Joe Kennedy as Congressman to represent the 4th Congressional District of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

It's a week until Election Day 2012, so I thought it was my duty as a relatively new citizen of Massachusetts to wrack my brain to try to find just one single reason to vote for Mitt Romney and Scott Brown.

I tried and tried and tried.

I thought about the fact he was (is) a successful private equity investor and he has done a great job for his partners at Bain, making zillions and zillions of dollars. That's cool.  Capitalism is the American way. Unless, of course, your name is Elizabeth Warren and you are running against the Commonwealth's real soccer Mom, Scott Brown, who debunks Warren for the very thing he praises Romney for during his campaign stops in rural Massachusetts where the bard coat and pick-up gather votes to cancel those from Boston, Brookline, Cambridge and the more democratic confines.

Then, I found a reason. I identified the one single reason and it was to elect Romney so he could fuel the Late Night comedians and their posse of comedic writers with potent material for the next four years. Romney might even rival former President George W. Bush in terms of providing unintentional comedy relief to a nation of stressed out adults.

Here is his new campaign slogan:

Comedy is the Best Medicine wrote Reader's Digest and Mitt's the man for Late Night.

Here's a compilation reel of a few gems.

Or:

Amazon Product Reviews and Binders Full of Women

Amazon has a pocket-full of miracles and binders full of women.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

262 of 267 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars

Too small for women October 17, 2012

By daveyclayton

As an intern on the Romney 2012 election campaign, I was tasked with procuring binders for Governor Romney. While these binders are well made, attractive and reasonably priced, and while I'm sure they would make an excellent choice for those wishing to store written or printed documentation in a secure and easily accessible manner, they are unfortunately too small to put women in.

2 Comments | 

Thank you for your feedback.

166 of 172 people found the following review helpful

4.0 out of 5 stars

No women in it October 17, 2012

By Moi

On CNN, some guy named "Mitt" said that binders were full of women. Being lonely and single I bought several of these binders and had them shipped overnight. While they are quality binders, I was dismayed to find no women in any of the dozen binders I ordered. I will be returning them.

2 Comments | 

Thank you for your feedback.

139 of 144 people found the following review helpful

1.0 out of 5 stars

Limited Size for Women October 17, 2012

By Robin H.

This product might be sufficient for smaller projects, but I was looking for a binder that could be made "full of women." My project is aimed at improving women's historically lower employment and pay in the U.S. and an information program on TV last night featured a handsome salesman who suggested that binders was the way to go. I see you carry other, much larger binders and will check those out right away.

Comment | 

Thank you for your feedback.

Keeping your distance?

I find it very interesting that current advisers of one Willard "Mitt" Romney keep their man, the keeper of binders full of women, far, far away from previous Republican icons such as former Presidents George "41" Bush, candidate Bob Dole, George W. Bush, candidate and current Arizona Senator John McCain, 2012 party candidates Newt Gingrich, Texas Governor Rick Perry, magnate Herman Cain,  US Rep. Ron Paul, former veep Dick Cheney or, god forbid, former veep candidate Sarah Palin.

Hmm, wonder why?  

Embarrassed by the past? Looking toward the future?

Never in a million years would I ever think Veep Joe Biden would be compared to a Musk Ox running across the Tundra?

Here is the esteemed 2008 GOP veep candidate and she is downright hysterical:

Oh, Mitt - We need the FACTS, Not a FAX.

There's only one possible explanation.  When Mitt Romney is asked for the FACTS, he must think someone is asking him to send a FAX. The guy just doesn't compute.

It might be his ability to perform? It might spur from the day he stabbed his buddy in the back and hit on the other girl who eventually, thankfully, romantically, I guess, became his bride.  How nice. But, he must've missed math the day they taught math class. Or, maybe, calling upon his corporate background and wealth management resume, he simply knows how to cook the books.

DC: Washington Monument (T. Peter Lyons)

So after the POTUS stuck to the facts, abided by the so-called rules of a Presidential Debate where Jim Lehrer "let 'em play" like the old days of Earl Strom, Jake O'Donnell and Jack Madden, we were left to hear all the pundits claim victory for Mr. Romney, the former Governor of Massachusetts who instituted universal healthcare in the Commonwealth, seconds after the spin-room flacks hit the airwaves.

Long have I thought that the former Governor ...  Mr. Romney ... Mitt to his friends, family and followers ... has a tendency to omit (oh-Mitt?) the facts. He carves up a story, the studies or the analysis of the real economy to fit his pre-conceived notion for what he (honestly, I'm sure) hopes, prays, believes MIGHT occur. He overlooks specifics and has chosen not to make his plans public until after the election?

Problem-o! None of it adds up and - worse than that - our recent history a.k.a - The Bush presidency - proves the mathematics don't work.  They don't compuete in any way,  by any study - except in Sean Hannity's warped mind, may he be placed in a padded room and rest in peace.

Here's the scoop:

without raising taxes on the middle class. Those rate reductions would cost $5 trillion, according to the analysis, and Obama characterized Romney's plan as a $5 trillion tax cut during the debate. That statement that has drawn fire from conservatives who note that Romney has also proposed closing loopholes and ending deductions in the tax code, and the Romney campaign is currently running a television ad accusing Obama of misrepresenting Romney's plan by using the $5 trillion figure.
Romney adviser Ed Gillespie, appearing on "This Week," repeated Romney's debate claim that six other studies back up his contention that he can pay for the tax cuts without eliminating benefits for the middle class. As reported everywhere, however, three of the so-called studies are blog posts or opinion columns, and others say that Romney would have to eliminate perks for those making $100,000 a year in order to pay for his plan. Romney, meanwhile, supports extending the Bush-era tax cuts for those who make over $250,000 a year, which means he would have to raise taxes on people making between $100,000 and $250,000 while explicitly maintaining tax breaks for people making more than $250,000.>

So, where does this fall?

I might call this section of the debate to your attention:

PRIVATE EQUITY INVESTOR ROMNEY - (early on) - "First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don't have a tax cut of a scale that you're talking about. My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They'll do fine whether you're president or I am. The people who are having the hard time right now are middle-income Americans. Under the president's policies, middle-income Americans have been buried. They're just being crushed. Middle-income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a -- this is a tax in and of itself. I'll call it the economy tax. It's been crushing."

PRESIDENT OBAMA: (countering) - "Now, four years ago, when I stood on this stage, I said that I would cut taxes for middle-class families. And that's exactly what I did. We cut taxes for middle-class families by about $3,600.

"And the reason is, because I believe that we do best when the middle class is doing well. And by giving them those tax cuts, they had a little more money in their pocket, and so maybe they can buy a new car. They are certainly in a better position to weather the extraordinary recession that we went through. They can buy a computer for their kid who's going off to college, which means they're spending more money, businesses have more customers, businesses make more profits, and then hire more workers.

Now, Governor Romney's proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military. And he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he's been asked over 100 times how you would close those deductions and loopholes, and he hasn't been able to identify them.

But I'm going to make an important point here, Jim.

When you add up all the loopholes and deductions that upper-income individuals can -- are currently taking advantage of, you take those all away, you don't come close to paying for $5 trillion in tax cuts and $2 trillion in additional military spending.

FORMER BAIN & ASSOCIATES CEO ROMNEY: (attempting to counter) - "Well, but -- but virtually -- virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate."

What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. So there's no economist that can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.

Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know that you and your running mate keep saying that and I know it's a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it's just not the case.

OBAMA - (countering and making sense to any reasonable and educated person) - "Well, for 18 months he's been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he's saying that his big, bold idea is, "Never mind."

And the fact is that if you are lowering the rates the way you described, Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class. It's -- it's math. It's arithmetic.

Now, Governor Romney and I do share a deep interest in encouraging small-business growth. So at the same time that my tax plan has already lowered taxes for 98 percent of families, I also lowered taxes for small businesses 18 times. And what I want to do is continue the tax rates -- the tax cuts that we put into place for small businesses and families.

But I have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year, that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus, and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot. And the reason this is important is because by doing that, we cannot only reduce the deficit, we cannot only encourage job growth through small businesses, but we're also able to make the investments that are necessary in education or in energy.

And we do have a difference, though, when it comes to definitions of small business. Under -- under my plan, 97 percent of small businesses would not see their income taxes go up. Governor Romney says, well, those top 3 percent, they're the job creators, they'd be burdened.

But under Governor Romney's definition, there are a whole bunch of millionaires and billionaires who are small businesses. Donald Trump is a small business. Now, I know Donald Trump doesn't like to think of himself as small anything, but -- but that's how you define small businesses if you're getting business income.

And that kind of approach, I believe, will not grow our economy, because the only way to pay for it without either burdening the middle class or blowing up our deficit is to make drastic cuts in things like education, making sure that we are continuing to invest in basic science and research, all the things that are helping America grow. And I think that would be a mistake.

Jim, I -- you may want to move onto another topic, but I -- I would just say this to the American people. 

If you believe that we can cut taxes by $5 trillion and add $2 trillion in additional spending that the military is not asking for, $7 trillion -- just to give you a sense, over 10 years, that's more than our entire defense budget -- and you think that by closing loopholes and deductions for the well-to-do, somehow you will not end up picking up the tab, then Governor Romney's plan may work for you.

But I think math, common sense, and our history shows us that's not a recipe for job growth. Look, we've tried this. We've tried both approaches. The approach that Governor Romney's talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003, and we ended up with the slowest job growth in 50 years, we ended up moving from surplus to deficits, and it all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

Bill Clinton tried the approach that I'm talking about. We created 23 million new jobs. We went from deficit to surplus. And businesses did very well. So, in some ways, we've got some data on which approach is more likely to create jobs and opportunity for Americans and I believe that the economy works best when middle-class families are getting tax breaks so that they've got some money in their pockets, and those of us who have done extraordinarily well because of this magnificent country that we live in, that we can afford to do a little bit more to make sure we're not blowing up the deficit."

BAIN OFFSHORE INVESTOR ROMNEY: (at his low point of the entire campaign) - "Jim, the president began this segment, so I think I get the last word." ... All right. Well, but he gets the first word of that segment. I get the last word (inaudible) I hope. Let me just make this comment.

I think first of all, let me -- let me repeat -- let me repeat what I said. I'm not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. That's not my plan. My plan is not to put in place any tax cut that will add to the deficit. That's point one.

So you may keep referring to it as a $5 trillion tax cut, but that's not my plan.

Number two, let's look at history. My plan is not like anything that's been tried before. My plan is to bring down rates, but also bring down deductions and exemptions and credits at the same time so the revenue stays in, but that we bring down rates to get more people working."

***

TERRY LYONS: "So what do I think?  EXACTLY, what is the plan that will not add to the deficit, Mr. Romney?  Can I see the details of that plan before the election, please?  I think I have the right to ask that simple question and get a complete answer - maybe even a plan with a timeline and numbers on your campaign site before I vote, eh?  (If it's there, please send the URL).

Personally, after loking for days and days, I still can't find any details to Mr. Romney's "plan that's is not like anything tried before."  And, being in the toughest of financial times, certainly the toughest of our lifetime (not that of the Greatest Generation, who will really get screwed by Mr. Romney's so-called "plan") - I am NOT sure I'd like to try a plan that hasn't been tried before?

Maybe you'd like to roll the dice with a plan that looks an awful lot like what Mr. Bush did to us, before he rode off to the Texas sunset leaving the biggest mess in American history on the deak at the Oval office - (and, oh yeah, Obama was supposed to clean that up in four years with a Speaker of the House who won't give him the time of day).

By the way, I can't find his healthcare plan, either - other than "I'll leave it to the States" (where the USA is 1-for-49 ... that's .020 for you batting average or FT % guys).

So, now?

Who won this debate?

What are the FACTS?  Did anyone in the country of ours take a math class?  Ever?

Please be sure to vote.

Anticipation of a Great Debate ...

The first debate of the 2012 USA Presidential campaign is upon us.  Oh, my goodness, the time has come, like a Carly Simon song for a ketchup commercial.  The an-an-an-tic-ipation, it's making me wait!

Will it be as good as Ali vs. Frazier? Army vs. Navy? Lakers vs the Celtics? 

Maybe not.

Like a hit song stuck in the cortex... a.k.a. an ear worm ..  the only vision I have in mind when I think of President Obama debating against Mitt Romney is this:

Don't Back Down from ... The Truth

President Bill Clinton delivering the truth:

Every Which Way But Loose (Screw)?

This needs no introduction.

It is the worst on-stage performance since Richard Gere at The Concert for New York City. However, this was planned and staged. Yes, someone actually placed a chair on the stage for Philo Beddou himself. 

At the five minute mark, it's painful.

At the 11-minute mark, the stage directors and RNC (empty) suits must've been committing (Dirty) Hari-Kari.

See for yourself.  And, ask yourself, your spouse, your neighbor. Are you gonna vote for the guys responsible for this dead act and the sham that was the Republican National Convention? (John Boehner and bar room brawls, Chris Christie and his self promotion at the cost of valuable time for his party's candidate?)  I guess Snooki wasn't available.

RNC Owes it to USA - No More Liars on Stage, please

The "liberal' media gave the RNC a free ride by not having a fact-checker and lie-detector unit hired and wired by each media outlet to buzz each and every lie put forth to a convention hall full of gullible stiffs who do not know any better than to believe their party leaders.

It's a sham and a shame.

While many of us view it for its value in setting a new bar in the unintentional comedy world record meter, others actually believe the stuff being tossed around as fact by the puppets of Mitt Romney, Karl Rove and their brothers in harm.

Want some insight?

Read this, written by a good friend and an honest journalism student:

TAMPA, Fla. — It was about halfway through the speech given by Mary Fallin, by the grace of a pitiless god, the governor of Oklahoma, where I finally came close to losing it. She rolled herself into this remarkable passage:

The history of my great state of Oklahoma offers a great example of pursuing the American Dream. It was built and settled by pioneers movibe west to seek better lives. During the Great Land Run of 1889, thousands of families rushed to put a stake down on empty plots of land. They built tent cities overnight. They farmed the land and they worked hard. And, in 1897, eight years after the land run, a handful of adventurous pioneers risked their own money — not the federal government's money — to drill Oklahoma's first oil well, the Nellie Johnstone. By doing so, these early-day pioneers changed the future and Oklahoma forever and today Oklahoma is one of the nation's key energy producers and job creators. President Obama wants us to believe that Oklahomans owe that success to the federal government — to the Department Of Energy,to the EPA, to the IRS, or maybe even to him. Mr. President, we know better. As we say in Oklahoma, that dog won't hunt.

Handed in as a seventh-grade history essay, this would get no better than a D. Delivered to the convention of one of our only two political parties, it was perhaps the most singularly dishonest speech I have ever seen a politician give, and I grew up in Massachusetts, and Willard Romney was once my governor. My god, Oklahomans wouldn't even have Oklahoma without the federal government, without the Homestead Act of 1889 or the Railroad Act — both, by the way, achievements of a Republican presidents named Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Harrison. And the land wasn't exactly "empty," Governor. It got emptied by a big-government program called the United States Army. You know what your state would be without the federal government, Governor, without the votes for the legislation from congressmen from the east and north, without the soldiers from New England and the Great Lakes? You know what Oklahoma would be?

Sand, with a whole lot of pissed-off Native Americans.

I'm not sure if it will be played this way. Ann Romney was sweet and lovely — and very defensive about people "attacking" hubby's success, but only as a "mom," of course — and Chris Christie brought down the house. But the Republican Party did something remarkable at its convention on Tuesday. It set out on an experiment to see exactly how much unmitigated hogwash the American political system can contain on a single evening. The Republican Party has set out at its 2012 convention in search of the Event Horizon of utter bullshit. It has sought to see precisely how many lies, evasions, elisions, and undigestible chunks of utter gobbledegook the political media can swallow before it finally gags twice and falls over dead, leaving the rest of America suckers all the same. What you didn't see in primetime, from Arthur Davis to Ted Cruz, and from one 2016 contender to another, was the GOP embarking upon the task of seeing exactly how much nonsense it could produce at top volume before democracy screams and gives up, like Noriega in Panama when they played the metal music at him.

It was something to see, I'll tell you. An entire evening based on a demonstrable lie.

The theme was We Did Build It — which, as every sentient being knows, is a mendacious barbering of something the president said a while back. (On the video screens in the hall, television commercials based on a severely edited version of the president's remarks were interspersed between the speeches, just in case somebody sought relief from the lies for a couple of seconds.) And there also was a lot of talk about how the various speakers Did Build It.

There was Jack Gilchrist from New Hampshire, the metal-shop owner, who was briefly an important Romney surrogate until it was revealed that his company took a few cool millions in small-business loans. There was Sher Valenzuela, running for lieutenant governor of Delaware, who talked about how she and her husband Did Build their business. She also talked about her husband, who was a soldier, and her father, the former drill sergeant and "a blue-collar union guy." She did not talk about her sideline, which is giving PowerPoint presentations to people — probably, I am sure, not in convention centers built with tax dollars — on how to suck up government contracts. There was a similar thing going on with Bob McDonnell, the slippery, up-and-coming transvaginalist of Virginia, who proved that his family Did Build It, by having his father join the army, his children doing the same, and himself, finding the "same job" in government once held by Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry. After listening to this laughable bafflegab for a spell, you begin to wonder whether or not the U.S. military is a rather large venture-capital concern with anti-tank weapons.
It was an entire evening based on a demonstrable lie. It was an entire evening based on demonstrable lies told in service to the overriding demonstrable lie. And there was only one real story for actual journalists to tell at the end of it.

The Republicans simply don't care.

They don't care that they lie. They don't care that their lies are obvious. They don't care that their lies wouldn't fool an underpaid substitute Social Studies teacher in a public middle school, who would then probably go out one night and get yelled at by Chris Christie. ("They believe in teacher's unions. We believe in teachers," he said in his speech. Yeah, you just don't believe in paying them.) They don't care that their history is a lie and that, by spreading it, they devalue the actual history of the country, which is something that belongs to us.

Did Ted Cruz really quote Martin King in this hall? Did Artur Davis, the newly minted Republican turncoat from Alabama, just cite Jack Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Lyndon Fking Johnson as examples of "leaders" who "reached across the aisle"? Lyndon reached across the aisle? Yeah, he did, and he grabbed their peckers and put them in his pocket, and he didn't give them back until the skinflint bastards coughed up Medicare. Jesus, this was pathetic. They don't care that they lie so obviously that they always get caught, like they did with the evening's entire theme, like they have in and around the Tampa Bay Times Forum, or with the story of poor Jack Gilchrist. The Republicans will just tell the lie again. And again. And once more, until people get tired of telling the truth in response.

It was an entire evening based on a demonstrable lie because it was an entire evening based on rejecting — publicly and dishonestly, and without caring that the facts of your own biographies give the lie to the words you're saying — the idea of a general political commonwealth as expressed through the national government, which has been the great engine behind the expansion of the country's size, the country's wealth, and, yes, the country's freedom. It was a purchase in that political commonwealth, and not in a loose confederation of states, that King sought, and that Lyndon sought to give the country's poorest citizens, including the vote, which the government of John Kasich in Ohio is presently working assiduously to roll back.

It was an entire evening based on a demonstrable lie, and it was topped off by a demonstrable liar named Chris Christie, who talked about how the president can't lead, and that nobody wants to tell the Americans the truth of the sacrifices we have to share, and talked about "politicians who pander" at a convention that is preparing to nominate Willard Romney, which was the final hilarious lie of the night, since Romney hasn't stopped pandering since he walked down the steps of the Massachusetts State House in 2006.

Earlier, though, Christie rang the theme of the evening's overriding demonstrable lie, too. He talked about how his family Built It, his Irish father and his Sicilian mother.

They both lived hard lives. Dad grew up in poverty. After returning from Army service, he worked at the Breyer's ice-cream plant in the 1950's. With that job, and the GI Bill, he put himself through Rutgers University at night to become the first in his family to earn a college degree.

Chris, old man, you didn't even build yourself - yourself. The tax dollars — the federal tax dollars — of, among other people, my parents paid your father's Army salary, and they paid for the G.I. Bill. The tax dollars of thousands of other people paid for his education at Rutgers, which is, as it proclaims, The State University Of New Jersey. All of them were proud to do it, because they knew that they were part of a political commonwealth that has as its proudest expression a national government in which all citizens have purchase.
And, Chris, and Bob, and Sher, and Jack, and all of you, you're welcome.

Liars.

Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/rnc-tampa-night-one-12158408#ixzz24xalShNQ

Obama Wouldn't Believe his Eyes

President Barack Obama would not believe his eyes if he were to log-in to the moderately liberal web log that is TerryLyons.Blogspot.com - and see .... Oh My!  Ads for O-Mitt Romney and Scott Brown.

The ad system utilized spews the material according to the guys with the Ad Budgets and it seems like O-Mitt is outspending the Democratic incumbents.  We'll see in November.

Just don't click on their ads. I don't need the Ad Revenue that much.  

Oh, yes I do...

This is the United States Calling ...

Camelot in 2012

By LARRY CAMELOT

HELLO: United States Olympic Committee, may I help you?

Yes. Hi, I'm an intern from the office of the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney, may I speak with Mr. Sandusky, please? 

US: Patrick Sandusky?

MITT-TERN: Is there another?

US: Well, um, yes, but PATRICK Sandusky works here.  He's the head of communications for the USOC.

MITT-TERN: Yes. That's the guy.  May I speak with Mr. Sandusky, please?

US: Well, he's a pretty busy man.  The London Olympics are about to begin and Mr. Sandusky...

MITT-TERN: I know, I know, he's very busy, but I'm calling on behalf of Mitt Romney, the presumed republican candidate for the office of the President of the United States. Mr. Romney is a busy man, too, and he is trying to become the President of the United States. Indirectly, Mr. Romney could become Mr. Sandusky's boss.

US: Good point, but, I'm here in London and the people around here have a very different opinion.

MITT-TERN: Well, I know. That's why I'm calling.

US: Are you in London?

MITT-TERN: No. I'm just an intern. Mr. Romney's in London, though.

US: Oh yes, we know. He's made quite a name for himself with our colleagues over at the London 2012 Organizing Committee, and, with the British press, God Save the Queen.

MITT-TERN: Well, I know, that's why I'm calling.

US: You see, your candidate, your presumed candidate - and I do stress presumed - decided to undermine the efforts of the entire London Olympics on the day before the Games were about to begin with the Opening Ceremonies. In one fell swoop, he managed to un-do about four years of painstaking preparations, millions of hours of hard work and he thoroughly and unabashedly embarrassed the entire nation.  He was asked a simple question in a television interview -- over here, they call it, the telly - and he began an unnecessary rant about the lack of qualified security officers, then he started in on ticket sales issues, And, then ...

MITT-TERN: I know, I know, that's why I'm calling.

US: Hold on, now, your candidate is trying to beef-up his resume on the foreign relations side but he proceeded to second-guess one of our closest and longest standing allies? On the nightly news?

MITT-TERN: Yes, yes. he did. I know. I'm calling to get the emails and phone numbers of some of the media people over there in London.  We need to contact them with a new statement.

US: You mean, Romney wants you to call up or email the media to cover up his mistake?

MITT-TERN: Oh, no, we wouldn't want to use the word cover-up, that's too strong.  How about back track?  Or, better yet, we'll clarify what Mr. Romney actually meant to say. Cover-up reminds people of President Nixon, one of the great Republican Party Presidents, along with President George W. Bush, uhh.

US: You mean during his live, on-camera interview, they might've mis-quoted him?  We have the tapes, here, and most - make that all - of the London tabloids have already called seeking apologies from the State Department or at least the Olympic Committee.  It's late over here, you know?  It's well past deadline.  They still have deadlines here in London because they actually have newspapers that people read.  They sell dozens of them, all day and night.  Your man is on most of the covers of all of those broadsheets and tabloids tomorrow, you know?  And, since you brought up President "W" - he was quite the darling of the British media, you know. I think they're looking for a new foil, and your man stepped right into his tea and crumpets.

MITT-TERN: Oh no.

US: Oh yes. On the Olympics, he's quoted as saying, "It's hard to know just how well it will turn out.  There were a few things that were disconcerting." He said that on camera to NBC News, then, he went on to talk about the bane of all event organizers, the hated (psst) SECURITY ISSUES, then, he speculated about a proposed customs strike that never materialized.  The guy has no clue! Even when he went to apologize today, he said something to the head of the organizing committee that really pissed him off.  Let me get it for you, hold on."

Silence ...

US: Oh yeah, all the reports say he met with the Prime Minister, not the head of the organizing committee, that guy's too busy. Romney is quoted as saying, "Of course there will be errors from time-to-time" but they'll be over-shadowed by inspiring performances. So, even in his "back-track" he totally blew it.

MITT-TERN: I know, I know, but can I JUST speak with Mr. Sandusky?

US: Well, Patrick Sandusky is on another line, right now, can I put you through to his voice-mail?  He checks it often, and it works great, except when the mailbox is full, like this past Friday, Saturday, Sunday, when your Romney candidate caused this stir, this semi-international incident of the most ridiculous proportions, especially for someone who is already so weak at foreign relations.  

MITT-TERN: Now, wait, that's not fair.  Mr. Romney is a good man.  He's helped many nations by taking decent paying American jobs and while he worked with his old company, Bain, he bought-out companies, then directed them to out-source those jobs to places like India.  Millions of Americans lost their jobs, but they need those jobs in India, you know, it's one of the burgeoning world powers, just the way China was a few years back. Mr. Romney catches quite a bit of flack for that portion of his life, when he started Bain, made hundreds of millions of dollars that he's been living off from off-shore accounts he's invested in heavily for the past decade or so, while he avoids paying high income taxes and tools around in politics.

US: Really? I thought he had some type of Olympic Games experience?

MITT-TERN: Well, he did, but that's another story. You know, he was the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts when they began a universal healthcare initiative on his watch.  He was quite proud of it until all his Republican colleagues started to criticize President Obama for trying to do the same thing, you know?  And, while we're on that topic, I saw where the Opening Ceremonies paid quite a tribute to Great Britain's (National Health System) NHS, they had a lot of nurses out there, along with Peter Pan, Mary Poppins and even Paul McCartney!

US: Well, that's not here nor there, because those Republican friends of your man, Romney, keep voting down the healthcare bill, then when it passed, they keep trying to repeal it, even though the Supreme Court made a ruling that's it's certainly constitutional. Then they tried some word-smithing, the way you are trying now, with this “Mitt-Flip,” and some guy named Boehner who always cries when he gets emotional said it was a TAX!”  Can you believe that? You think those guys don’t think the American public can tell when they are lying right through their teeth, trying to manipulate the truth, then pointing fingers all over the place. Even when the Supreme Court rules, they try to reverse it, always trying to make things stand still, always stagnant, stuck in the same old place without trying to fix things their predecessors screwed up from 2001 until 2008.

MITT-TERN: Well, now. If that's what you say? You didn't have to bring the United States Supreme Court into the issue, now did you?

US: So, well, Mr. Sandusky's line is free now, let me see if I can connect you.

MITT-TERN: Thanks.

Silence...

US: Oh, sorry, he's stepped away from his desk and he said something about Mitt Romney making him sick.  Can I connect you to his voice mail?

Iowa Straw Poll

Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Michele Bachman, Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich and Texas' Governor Rick Perry.  

The unintentional comedy meter has never hit higher ground, although the fact the GOP dealt a ticket like John McCain (who turns 75 on August 29th) and Sarah Palin (no comment necessary) was enough to trip the UCM scales to record heights in 2008.

As this political campaign enters the preseason for 2012, the one thing I would like the 2012 GOP candidates to recognize and acknowledge, is the fact that the eight-year presidential stint of their fellow Republican George W. Bush has a lot more to do with the current state of the union and state of the economy than the more recent three-year administration of President Barack Obama.

Let me take a quick quote from an informative op-ed piece entitled "What Happened to Obama?" which appeared in the NYT last weekend to illustrate my point:

When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment, with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.

Three quarters of a million jobs that month.  That month!

So, please GOP candidates, especially Gov. Perry of Texas who was patting himself on the back and stump-speeching a misleading statistic that 40% of the net new jobs in the USA have been created in Texas.  Please don't insult my intelligence, Mr. Perry.  Please include the caveat that most of those jobs are low wage jobs to the point where Texas has the highest percentage of low-wage jobs in our nation coupled with the highest number of uninsured workers among all the 50 States and maybe Perry should add the fact that the low wage earners pay considerably high state taxes, compared to the richest wage-earners in the great state of Texas. And let us not forget, Perry employed the one and only Karl Rove to assist his first campaign before he stepped up to replace another Rove candidate in former President George W. Bush.

Lastly, dear GOP candidates, whenever you speak of President Obama and the troubles this country faces in foreign policy and the war, please use the name of Donald Rumsfeld in the same sentence. On Sunday, this editorial will appear to address the issues of foreign policy the US fostered during the Bush administration.  See: HERE.

Clinton unveils healthcare plans ...

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton announced her new plans for nationwide universal healthcare today and became the third Democratic presidential candidate to promise better, cheaper healthcare for all Americans.

Previously, candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama separately announced their plans to create healthcare plans to become the base of their 2008 presidential campaigns.

On the other side of the aisle, former NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani proposed a plan, similar to that of President George Bush, whereby individuals would be provided with tax breaks in order to use the money to secure their own health plan or to increase healthcare benefits from a limited plan through an employer.

Here is a pretty interesting blog that covers the various healthcare issues


Former Commonwealth of Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney used the healthcare issue to blast the democrats and to lump all democratic healthcare plans into one campaign bashing bucket.

Romney's web site lists his view on future healthcare.

The Romney Webmaster and PR team seem to be overlooking Mssrs. Edwards, Richardson, Dodds and Obama, among others, just by their URL and arrogance to claim its a two horse race in the presidential race?

In addition, Romney's plan calls for State-by-State regulation of healthcare rather than a universal plan to be instituted by the federal government. And, he backs 'free-market' proposals for private companies to delve into the healthcare business that his government policy would turn its back on.

Great. Thanks Mitt. Keep your daytime job.