Click here to view this media
Monday was Mitt Romney's 65th birthday. Happy birthday, Mittens. In honor of his 65th birthday he announced that he would not be enrolling in Social Security or Medicare. How noble. Except, it's not.
In deference to the conservative dogs nipping his heels, Romney has endorsed the Paul Ryan Medicare plan which would voucherize Medicare and leave senior citizens floundering on their own with private insurance companies. Of course, if you asked Mitt Romney about it, what you'd get is a bunch of lies. Really awful, cynical, blatant lies. Here is a Romney campaign press release:
“There are two proposals on the table for addressing the nation’s entitlement crisis. Mitt Romney — along with a bipartisan group of leaders — has offered a solution that would introduce competition and choice into Medicare, control costs, and strengthen the program for future generations. President Obama has cut $500 billion from Medicare to fund Obamacare and created an unaccountable board with rationing power — all while America’s debt is spiraling out of control and we continue to run trillion-dollar deficits.
“If President Obama’s plan is to end Medicare as we know it, he should say so. If he has another plan, he should have the courage to put it forward.”
And as Greg Sargent points out, that's just a lie:
Get the trick here? The Romney campaign is accusing Obama of slashing Medicare, and hence “ending Medicare as we know it,” while simultaneously accusing him of failing to curb entitlement spending in ways that pose grave danger to the nation’s finances. This, even asRomney has endorsed a plan that would quasi-voucherize Medicare and end the program as we know it.
This debate is about to ramp up and yet it seems our press cannot call a lie a lie. They'll call it a falsehood, or as one headline read yesterday, a "mistruth." All of which leaves me nodding my head at Lawrence O'Donnell's rant last night about why it is that the word "lie" seems to be gone from the vocabulary of the Village press.
Romney won't take Medicare or Social Security because he's so incredibly rich that he doesn't need it. But lots of people do, and privatized accounts and vouchers aren't going to cut it. If seniors truly understood what Mitt Romney and all of the Republican candidates had in mind for Social Security and Medicare, they'd think twice before voting for any of them. But because our political reporters have some aversion to the word "lie", they may never realize what's in store under President RomneySantorumGingrich.
March 13, 2012 11:00 PM
Yet another casualty in the false equivalency battle in the GOP War on Women. This time, turncoat general Greta Van Susteren defended Rush Limbaugh by targeting yet another comedian who—in an isolated tweeting-while-drinking moment, for which he immediately apologized afterwards—said something unarguably offensive about a female public figure.
As part of the growing backlash to the backlash against Rush Limbaugh for his recent comments regarding Sandra Fluke, the host’s defenders have already latched onto Bill Maher as someone whose own remarks about women are every bit as misogynistic as Limbaugh calling Sandra Fluke a “slut” and “prostitute,” if you just remove them from all context. Now another, even more unlikely comedian is caught in the fray: Louis C.K., who late last week became a symbol of that alleged liberal hypocrisy, after Fox News correspondent Greta Van Susteren took a break from chewing on the day’s salient topics to blast him in a blog post as a “pig” who “denigrates all women”—though specifically Sarah Palin, citing a series of drunken tweets C.K. made in 2010, in which he spent a turbulent flight waxing rum-and-coke-fueled rhapsodic about Palin’s “c**t.” A just-now-highly-offended Van Susteren (long one of Palin’s most ardent champions) concluded by calling for a media boycott of the upcoming Radio And Television Congressional Correspondents dinner, where C.K. was scheduled to perform.
Somewhat surprisingly, she got her wish: Only a day after her post, C.K. pulled out of the gig, his representative saying only, “He just didn’t want to do it anymore”—which naturally gave rise to speculation that his change of heart was because C.K. wished to avoid getting mired any further in this sort of controversy.
These desperate false equivalencies are tiresome. Repeat after me, Greta: Sarah Palin is a PUBLIC figure. Public, as in, she chose to run for public office and thrust herself into the spotlight. Sandra Fluke has not. The standards of defamation are much higher for a public figure (who should be no stranger to criticism; hell, even in this small corner of the blogosphere, I've been subjected to being called the same as well. Get over it).
As a lawyer, you know this, even if your partisanship won't allow you to publicly admit it. This was an isolated incident, immediately regretted, directed at a specific individual. This was not a three plus day sustained attack on someone and EVERYONE who thinks like her. Louis C.K. tweeted his stupid statement (and I'm in no way defending the content of his message) which could only be seen in real time by people who followed both C.K. and Palin (he later deleted the tweets).
Rush Limbaugh abused the public airwaves, with an alleged listenership of 20 million. Airwaves that we taxpayers provide for his hate speech. Nuance is difficult for Fox News talent, I know, but surely even you can see the difference.
Comedian Michael Ian Black chimes in:
The difference between what Louis said, and what Rush said is this: in his apology, Rush made a point of saying that his personal attacks on Ms. Fluke, were not intended “as a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.”
In other words, when he specifically called Sandra Fluke a “slut,” “a prostitute,” and encouraged her to post sex videos of herself online so he could watch, it was not personal. It was, therefore, general. Which I, for one, believe because it fits perfectly within the larger context of Rush Limbaugh’s twenty-plus years of ad hominem attacks on “feminazis” and gratuitous comments about all female journalists as “news babes.”
With Louis, his insult was actually the opposite: it was a highly personal attack. The target of his insult, Sarah Palin, so infuriated him that he felt the need to call her the very worst name he could think of. His insult referred to a specific woman at a specific time and place.
Did Louis cross the line? Yeah. Did Bill Maher? Yeah. Have I at times? Yeah. Has Greta Van Susteren ever crossed the line? Have you, in your personal conversations? Yeah. We all have. The difference is context. Do a Google search of the horrible s**t Rush Limbaugh has said about women. Then do a search on Louis C.K. See if it’s comparable.
Louis did use those words, and opted to drop out of an incestuous Washington dinner party rather than make himself the focus of this recurring debate on language. But the reason more people don’t give a s**t about what Louis C.K. said is not because of a liberal bias – does anybody even know what Louis C.K.’s politics are, aside from hating Sarah Palin (a sentiment shared by many Republicans)? – but because the charge of misogyny just doesn’t hold a lot of water with Louis. With Rush it does. Regular listeners to Rush Limbaugh’s program, as I have been for years, are not surprised when he finds himself lambasted for his petulance, name-calling, and race baiting. It’s what he does.
Considering what the Radio and Television Correspondents Dinner planners consider entertainment ...
... I'm not sure that this is a loss for Louis C.K.
March 13, 2012 10:00 PM
Hopefully the Justice Department can effectively block this stuff and disappoint the ALEC-stacked state legislatures, because it's obviously aimed at suppressing Democratic voter turnout:
(Reuters) - The Obama administration on Monday blocked a new law in Texas requiring voters to show photo identification before they can cast a ballot, citing a concern that it could harm Hispanic voters who lacked such documents.
The law, which was approved in May 2011, required voters to show government-issued photo identification, such as a driver's license, military identification card, birth certificate with a photo, current U.S. passport, or concealed handgun permit.
The Justice Department said that data from Texas showed that almost 11 percent of Hispanic voters, or more than 300,000, did not have a driver's license or state-issued identification card, and that plans to mitigate those concerns were incomplete.
And in the meantime, a Wisconsin county judge has issued a permanent injunction against the state's new photo ID law:
Dane County Circuit Judge Richard Niess has issued a permanent injunction against Wisconsin's new photo ID law. In doing so, Niess became the second judge in less than a week to strike the new law, but the first one did so on a temporary basis.
Four lawsuits have been filed against the law requiring people to present a valid government-issued photo identification card in order to receive a ballot. Monday's ruling was in response to the suit the League of Women Voters of Wisconsin filed. It contends the provision violates Wisconsin's constitutional protections for voters.
[...] Voters had to follow the law during February's primary and no major problems were reported. Election officials were making preparations for Wisconsin's April 3 presidential primary when a much bigger turnout is expected.
The Supreme Court turned away a challenge to the Indiana voter ID law:
The 65 page PDF file, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, the main opinion said " Valid neutral justifications for a nondiscriminatory law, such as SEA 483, should not be disregarded simply because partisan interests may have provided one motivation for the votes of individual legislators."
JUSTICE SCALIA, joined by JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE ALITO, was of the view that petitioners’ premise that the voter-identification law might have imposed a special burden on some voters is irrelevant. The law should be upheld because its overall burden is minimal and justified.
In related news:
- In Ohio, an 86-year-old World War II veteran with a government issued ID was unable to vote.
- In Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Corbett says he'll sign a voter ID bill expected to pass the state House.
March 13, 2012 09:00 PM
Click here to view this media
So it seems James O'Keefe has gone to Vermont and made a stupid video. It's stupid because it does what James O'Keefe always tries to do -- exaggerates a problem in order to shame public officials into accepting his point of view. Only the only one who should be shamed is O'Keefe.
Just as he did in New Hampshire, he sent in "undercover" people with video cameras to ask for ballots in the name of voters, living and dead. In each case on the video, O'Keefe's minions ask whether they need to show ID, and in each case, poll workers tell them they don't.
One of the more interesting anomalies on the video are the dates. The first subject, "Mohamud" is dated March 9, 2009. The "John Adams" video is dated February 27, 2012, as is "Adam Berger." "Travis Houle" is dated March 8, 2009. "Evan Bean" is March 8, 2009. The date of the Vermont primary was March 7, 2012. None of these videos have that date. The 2009-2010 Vermont elections calendar does not have any elections scheduled for March 8-9, 2009, nor was anything scheduled for February 27, 2012. There was a very close mayoral election in Burlington, VT on March 3, 2009, which went to an instant runoff where a progressive was elected over the Republican candidate, knocking the Democrat out of the race altogether. But why would video referring to a city race be dated March 9th when the election was March 3rd? The ballots cast on March 3rd were used in the instant runoff voting, so there wasn't a new vote on the 8th or 9th.
Vermont does, however, permit voter registration until five days before the election. In the case of "John Adams" and "Adam Berger", it's possible they were requesting voter registration forms, which they would not need ID to request, but would need ID to submit.
In Vermont, a valid photo ID is required when one registers to vote. Applicants are also required to take the "Voter's Oath", which must be certified by an appropriate official before the registration is valid. Once those requirements are met, the voter's name is entered on the rolls.
All of this begs the question: Where were these videos filmed and for what elections? It would appear they weren't even filmed in Vermont! And if they were filmed in Vermont on those days and actual ballots were requested, then O'Keefe forgot about this:
While one can indeed register to vote (in most places) without showing an ID via third party, what O'Keefe fails to mention in his video, is that the federal Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002 already requires those who do not register in person to provide ID when voting for the first time at the polling place. In other words, if "Thomas Brady" registers to vote via the registration forms received via O'Keefe's video, he would be required, by federal law, to show an ID the first time he votes in person at the polling place.
He also evidently ignored this as he continues to push Voter ID laws with his highly suspect videos:
The only type of voter fraud which could possibly be deterred by such measures would be in-person, polling place impersonation, which is so rare that even George W. Bush's own Dept. of Justice was unable to find even a single instance of it, out of hundreds of millions of votes cast across the nation during the years from 2002 to 2005, when they placed unprecedented resources into ferreting out such instances of voter fraud.
The bulk of this video is O'Keefe trying to make false equivalences between showing ID to drink, get a hotel room, and complete a civil union, while completely ignoring the fact that yes, ID is required to vote, at the time of registration to vote rather than on Election Day. He also ignores the fact that voting is a Constitutional right rather than an optional act such as drinking, renting a hotel room, or entering into a contractual civil union with another person. What's truly laughable is that this particular line of thinking is one that's already been pushed on by conservatives, including J. Christian Adams. Via Media Matters:
Finally, don't fall into the silly and constitutional incorrect argument that you have to show ID to cash a check and get on a plane. Flimsy arguments like that are what the left wants from you. The 15th Amendment is in play when it comes to voting. It prohibits racial discrimination in voting, and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is passed to enforce that part of the Constitution. Cashing a check isn't found in the Constitution, and people who love the Constitution shouldn't equate a plane trip with the right to vote free from racial discrimination.
Still, that didn't stop Mr. Christian from appearing on Fox News this morning while they made that argument about the DOJ's recent decision to object to the Texas voter ID law.
As has been argued in many other posts here, elsewhere and in the courts, Voter ID laws are intended to do one thing, and one thing only: suppress votes of Latino, black, poor and elderly voters. Whether James O'Keefe likes it or not, the Department of Justice will continue to challenge laws which can be shown to do that.
If you google the term "Vermont voter fraud" right now, you will turn up page after page of the right-wing echo chamber sending their usual bat signals out to the right-wing Internet denizens who will righteously exclaim that they now have "proof positive" that voter ID is a necessary and good thing. After all, O'Keefe showed us, right?
Except he didn't. He can't prove the videos were even shot in Vermont and certainly can't prove ballots were cast in the names of dead voters or identity thieves acting on O'Keefe's orders. Who wants to bet on how long it takes Fox News to start shouting about all the fraudsters in Vermont? I'm sure they'll get to it right after they finish whining about Texas:
March 13, 2012 08:00 PM
