Incumbent Kansas senator claims U.S. is heading towards "National Socialism"

I found this Talking Points Memo story through Kevin Drum, and even I can't believe it.  From Talking Points Memo:

Incumbent Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), who is facing an unexpectedly fierce challenge for re-election, warned Monday at a campaign stop that the United States is heading for "national socialism."

It's not clear whether Roberts intended to make a reference to Nazism or simply meant to invoke the run of the mill looming specter of socialism.

American Bridge, the liberal opposition research group that tracks Republican candidates, posted the video of Roberts's remarks at a Dodge City event.

"There's a palpable fear among Kansans all across this state that the America that we love and cherish and honor will not be the same America for our kids and grandkids," Roberts said, "and that's wrong. That's very wrong."

He lamented that people are "losing faith in their government" and that the government "is losing faith in our people. That is a bad situation to be in." He said he was running to change that dynamic.

"We have to change course because our country is heading for national socialism," Roberts said. "That's not right. It's changing our culture. It's changing what we're all about."

According to TPM's PollTracker average, Roberts trails independent candidate Greg Orman by 1 point, 39 percent to 38 percent.

You can watch the YouTube video here:



An incumbent U.S. senator is now saying that the United States is heading for "national socialism!"  Excuse me Senator Pat Roberts, but do you know what "national socialism" really is?  From Wikipedia:

Nazism, Naziism,^[1] or National Socialism in full (German: Nationalsozialismus), is the ideology and practice associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party and state as well as other related far-right groups. It was also promoted in other European countries with large ethnic German communities, such as Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and Yugoslavia.^[2] Usually characterised as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism originally developed from the influences of pan-Germanism, the Völkisch German nationalist movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary culture in post-First World War Germany, which many Germans felt had been left humiliated by the Treaty of Versailles.

German Nazism subscribed to theories of racial hierarchy and social Darwinism, asserted the superiority of an Aryan master race, and criticised both capitalism and communism for being associated with Jewish materialism. It aimed to overcome social divisions, with all parts of a racially homogenous society cooperating for national unity and regeneration and to secure territorial enlargement at the expense of supposedly inferior neighbouring nations. The use of the name "National Socialism" arose out of earlier attempts by German right-wing figures to create a nationalist redefinition of "socialism", as a reactionary alternative to both internationalist Marxist socialism and free market capitalism.

 Or I could put it in more simple terms by saying that "national socialism" was controlled and refined by this guy:

Now Kevin Drum speculates that Senator Roberts is too dumb to realize that "national socialism" really equates to Nazism--even Talking Points Memo questions Senator Roberts' reference.  According to this Washington Post story by Phil Rucker, Senator Roberts did not mean that the United States was heading towards Nazism, but "more like a European socialistic state..."  Okay, so Senator Roberts is too dumb to realize that "national socialism" really means Nazism. 

But is there a deeper story here? Senator Roberts claims that Kansas citizens are "losing faith in their government," while the government "is losing faith in our people."  Senator Roberts is now running to change that situation. 

And yet, what did Senator Pat Roberts do before this loss of faith between the Kansas citizens and government became apparent to him?  According to Wikipedia, Pat Roberts was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1980, serving for eight congressional terms.  Roberts was then elected to the U.S. Senate in 1996, and is currently serving his third term.  In other words, Pat Roberts has been serving in both the House and Senate for a combined 34 years!  And only now Roberts is running to restore the faith between Kansas citizens and the government?  What was he doing for the past 34 years--18 years in the Senate and 16 years in the House?  According to the Washington Post:

Shirley Deege is a proud Republican. For as long as she can remember, the nurse has been voting for Pat Roberts — in the 1980s, when he represented a vast patchwork of dusty plains hamlets in the House; in 1996, when he first ran for the Senate; and every six years after that.

“Looking back over my life, I’m wondering, ‘What major things has he done for Kansas?’ I’m coming up empty,” said Deege, 53, as she sipped coffee while waiting for Roberts to arrive at the county fairgrounds in Kinsley this week.

“He’s spent so much time in Washington,” she added. “I know he has a house in Virginia. Dodge City is supposed to be his home, just up the highway, but I don’t hear of him coming back too much.”

  [....]

Many Kansans feel the same about Roberts after his 33 years in elected office. Many more want him gone, even if it means replacing him with a political enigma named Greg Orman — a wealthy investor running as an independent who has declined to say whether he would caucus with Republicans or Democrats. 

The backlash against Roberts stems not from any single issue — ideologically, he has followed his party’s shift to the right — but from a widespread feeling that he has grown too insular in Washington and fallen out of touch.

“I’m 78 years old, and I’ve been voting for [Roberts] since the beginning,” Darrel Miller, a retired wheat farmer, said after seeing Roberts in Kinsley. “I don’t wish him any ill will. I just think we need a change.”

 What is especially ironic is that Roberts is running in a close Senate race with an unknown independent, in a heavily Republican state.  What is more, Roberts was seen with former Senate Republican leader Bob Dole in Kinsley, Kansas, where the ailing Dole is in the midst of his own farewell tour throughout his native state.  Bob Dole was a powerhouse U.S. Senator, Senate Majority and Minority Leader, and a former Republican presidential candidate in the 1996 election.  What did Senator Pat Roberts do in his career?  National GOP strategist and former Senator John McCain adviser John Weaver said, "He’s basically furniture in the Senate, and the people in Kansas know that....You could give the average Kansan 24 hours to come up with something Pat Roberts has done in the Senate, and after 24 hours, even the crickets would be standing there befuddled." 

The deeper story here is that Senator Pat Roberts is completely out-of-touch with ordinary Kansas citizens.  Pat Roberts was voted in during the same year Ronald Reagan took control of the Oval Office in 1980.   He has been in Washington for almost 34 years, probably voting a staunchly conservative, pro-business legislation and policies throughout his political career.  I'm also guessing Senator Roberts also supported Reagan's supply-sided economic theories and probably did not try to stop the 30-plus years of growing inequality between the extreme one percent rich and everyone else.   Pat Roberts' career was hobnobbing with the powerful political, business, and ubber-rich elites in Washington D.C. to the point of becoming an elitist himself.  He  ignored what's the matter with Kansas for years--decades even, as he played the elitist lifestyle..  Now that Kansas voters are waking up to this piece of furniture in the Senate, Senator Roberts is fighting for his political life in the tired, hard-right conservative meme of fear-mongering among the Tea Party activists in Kansas.  According to the WaPost article, Roberts has brought in former Alaska governor Sarah Palin, Senator Rand Paul (KY), Senator John McCain (AZ), and former Florida governor Jeb Bush to campaign for him.  In addition, the national Republican Party has forced Roberts to replace his campaign staff with out-of-state political operatives, who are now attacking independent Greg Orman, and attempting to "stir suspicions" among Kansas voters that the potential Republican Senate majority hinges on Roberts' re-election.  It is a classic, GOP fear-mongering technique to keep the voter base in check. 

The question to ask now is will the Kansas voters be swayed by the stale, fear-mongering from Senator Roberts and the GOP, or will they decide to go for an unknown change? 

Florida GOP legislature bans teen interns from floor during abortion debate

I found this Gawker story through Daily Kos.  Even I'm a little surprised at it.  From Gawker.com:

During discussion of controversial issues on abortion and fetuses Wednesday, Republican leaders of Florida's Legislature sent all of the House's teenage pages out of the chamber, and they weren't allowed back in until debate opened on the next issue: guns.

The unusual "precaution" was noted by members of the Capitol press corps who attended the House session yesterday. The Legislature is considering a bill that would effectively ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, as well as a "crimes against the unborn" measure to put stiffer penalties on criminals who assault pregnant women leading to the death of their fetus.

The House pages and messengers, who have served the state's legislators since at least 1865, are all students who spend a week running errands for lawmakers and learning the business of state government. But Wednesday they were led off the floor, presumably so they couldn't be tainted by that business of government.

Okay, first thing I'm going to comment on is that these Florida teenage pages probably know more about what is going on inside a woman's body than the Republican legislators could ever imagine--or even dream about!  Are the Republican lawmakers so afraid of having young teens learning such words as "uterus" and "vaginas" in the government halls?  Do Republican lawmakers even say the words "uterus," and "vaginas?"  What is even more ironic is how they teenage pages were banned from the chambers during the abortion debate, but then it was okay to let them in during the gun debate! 

Talk about crazy incompetence....

Republicans bring up the Ghost of Monica against Hillary Clinton

I found this Washington Monthly story rather interesting:

Sen. Rand Paul, echoed by RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, think they’ve got a real game-changer in response to claims that the GOP is waging a “war on women:” bring back Monica Lewinsky! Reminding Americans of the Lewinsky scandal, you see, will not only provide a distraction from the godless liberal idea that letting women control their own reproductive systems and obtain equal pay are relevant measures of what it means to be “pro-women,” but will also cause problems for Hillary Clinton if she runs for president in 2016! Brilliant, eh?

Apparently, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus told MSNBC News that the Monica Lewinsky scandal was "on the table," in attacking Hillary Clinton's potential 2016 presidential run:

Rand Paul won't stop talking about Bill Clinton's "predatory behavior," and that's quite alright with Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus.

Priebus said Monday on MSNBC that the Monica Lewinsky scandal is fair game when it comes to evaluating Hillary Clinton's potential presidential bid.

"I think everything's on the table," Priebus told Andrea Mitchell.

"I don't see how someone just gets a free pass on anything. I mean, especially in today's politics. So, I think we're going to have a truckload of opposition research on Hillary Clinton and some things may be old and some things might be new. But I think everything is at stake when you're talking about the leader of the free world and who we're going to give the keys to run the United States of America."

Hillary Clinton, Priebus added, "provides a lot of opportunity" for Republicans.

The question I would have to ask is....Why?   Why are the Republicans bringing up this old scandal?  There is no new information to be presented here.  Monica Lewinsky did not sleep with Hillary--Monica Lewinsky slept with former President Bill Clinton, and she was a fully grown adult when she had her affair with Bill Clinton.  We all know that former President Bill Clinton lied about the affair, and that he went through the House impeachment process, the Senate trial, and his eventual acquittal.  There is nothing new here.  As for Hillary and Bill's marriage in the aftermath of the scandal, they have patched up whatever they had to and are still a powerful Washington DC couple.  I doubt the Republicans are going to sway women voters in attacking Hillary for her husband's infidelity--if anything, the women voters may just sympathize with Hillary and provide her with more votes.  Are the Republicans trying to rile up their own base? 

You mean to tell me the GOP base can't be riled up enough with a black, Kenyan-born, Marxist, socialist, dictator now sitting in the White House?

So the GOP is bringing up a tired, old scandal.  The only reason I can think of is that the Republican Party has shifted so rightward into Crazyland, that they have no coherent, working policies to help solve the problems of this nation.  Tax cuts to the rich and big corporations, when there is a huge inequality gap between the rich and everyone else, and corporate profits are still rising in this recession?  They have refused to compromise on any legislation with the Democrats--unless "compromise" is defined as the Democrats rolling over and giving the Republicans everything they want (And the Democrats have rolled over numerous times).  The Republicans have engaged in hostage taking on the government shutdown.  The Republicans have voted against unemployment insurance.  The list goes on. If the Republicans have no coherent policies to present to the table and refuse to compromise on any legislation, then what do they have left to sell to the voters?

So the Republicans turn to hate.  And who better to hate, than Hillary Clinton and her potential 2016 presidential campaign.  Time to ramp up the "vast, right-wing conspiracy!"

The Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote..

I found this Battleground Texas story through Americablog.   There is not much to comment on here:

When Battleground Texas launched three months ago, our mission was clear: to empower voters and expand the electorate. This stems from a deep and abiding belief that the future of Texas will be brighter when more people lift their voices and advocate for change in their communities.  Recently, we heard someone give a much different vision for Texas.

At a Dallas event featuring Steve Munisteri, the Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas, Ken Emanuelson, a leader in the Tea Party, said: “I'm going to be real honest with you – the Republican Party doesn't want black people to vote...” 

Why does this not surprise me, as the GOP has made a concerted effort to disenfranchise voting?

GOP's new leaders are Bill, Rush, and Glenn, according to young people

I found this interesting Scribe story through Kevin Drum:

During the January 2013 focus group research, respondents in the Columbus group of young men who voted for Obama were asked to name who they viewed as leaders of the Democratic Party. They named prominent former or currently elected officials: Pelosi, the Clintons, Obama, Kennedy, Gore. When those same respondents were asked to name Republican leaders, they focused heavily on media personalities and commentators: Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck.

This is a real problem for the Republican Party, when young people cite media personalities as leaders of your political party. Media personalities are not interested in formulating political policies to solve complex problems this country is facing. Media personalities are interested in building an audience to their TV and radio programs, so they can charge higher fees to advertisers. And how do you build that audience? How about manufacturing controversies and faux outrages to keep the hard-right, conservative base angry and looney all the time? How about pounding more stories on social issues of gays getting married, President Obama planning on taking away all your guns, the continuing "War on Christmas," ACORN, illegal immigrants getting government assistance while driving Cadillacs, or name-your-own culture war scandal?

Unfortunately, I doubt that the GOP could change and shake off the media personality leaders of O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Beck. I'm guessing that Fox News has a strong viewership on older viewers, who have a history of regular voting. I am also guessing that Tea Party folks also regularly watch Fox News, or listen to Limbaugh and Beck, so they can become angry at the next latest outrage. Fox News will bring GOP congress critters to the studios to lob softball questions on culture war issues, or simplified solutions to complex issues--can you say flat tax anyone? The congress critters get free, and favorable, media coverage to their home states and districts, allowing them to keep the rabid, Tea Party conservative base angry enough to re-elect the same critters to office. Bill, Rush, and Glenn get to continue manufacturing their faux outrages to anger their audience, and sell more advertising. The system becomes self-serving for both the GOP and the conservative media establishment leaders that now control the GOP. With the development of blogs, Facebook, social media, Twitter, how many young people are getting their news and information from such social media sites, and not from the mainstream conservative media establishments of Fox, Rush, Bill, and Glenn?

Mitt's rescue plan is more campaign appearances over fundraising?

In my posting Romney campaign imploding, I noted a Real Clear Politics story, stating that the Romney campaign will be concentrating on fundraising over that of campaign rallies.  Now a Politico story has come out, contradicting that first claim:

After taking a beating for comments he privately wishes he never made and from conservative critics he wishes he could muzzle, Mitt Romney and his campaign are settling on a rescue plan to show more of him — in ads, speeches and campaign appearances. A big focus, according to campaign officials, will be on Romney talking a lot more about how his ideas will help regular Americans who remain deeply suspicious of him.

The aim: Switch the emphasis from Washington policies to personal pocketbooks. Look for a heavy emphasis on jobs and specific ways to cut government spending.

“He has to own his message for people, especially women, to buy the messenger,” one top adviser said.

A campaign official said: “In a lot of the current survey data, there’s a desire among the electorate to know more about Mitt in terms of how he would lead. Over the next six weeks, the campaign is going to provide a lot more of that.”

Aides also expect more joint appearances by Romney and running mate Paul Ryan – most likely in the swing states of Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin.

The plan, described by top aides and advisers in interviews this week, is an acknowledgment that Romney is in enough of a hole that he cannot depend on the presidential debates to turn his candidacy around. In fact, Romney, who recently did five mock debates in a 48-hour period to practice, has confided to advisers that it may be hard to win a debate because every attack against President Barack Obama will seem stale while the attacks on him will seem fresher and newsier to a hostile media.

Instead, Romney plans to dial back on fundraisers and vastly increase his personal appearances — on the stump and in ads — to convince what’s left of the undecided voters that Obama has been a disappointment and that he has a specific plan that is less risky than the status quo.

 It is almost like the hole that Mitt Romney has dug for himself has got half the campaign staff digging the hole deeper, and the other half of the staff filling the hole in with the freshly dug dirt. One Republican adviser said, "We are going to look back at this as the week he got his act together, or the beginning of the end."  The campaign is trying to calm nerves among top donors.  At a fundraising breakfast in New York, Friday, a will-Mitt-win poll was taken at one table of 10 men, where each paid at least $2,500, and some raised up to $50,000 for the campaign.  None of the 10 men said yes. 

Mitt Romney's got a perception problem--people think he is not going to win. The Libyan controversy and the unplugged video has pretty much sealed that perception problem.  Look at top Republican leaders who have criticized Romney on his 47 percent comment--Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, Mo. Senator Roy Blunt, William Kristol, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (who excused himself and did not take any questions from reporters), and even conservative columnist Peggy Noonan, who called the Romney campaign "an incompetent one."  Do any of these conservatives actually believe what Mitt Romney said in the video?  It does not matter--they at least know you do not say such a thing in public, for the American people to see.  The campaign is scrambling to reassure conservatives, but the conservatives are not buying it.  “We will, if you get your act together,” is the response.  The problem, as Politico points out, is that those same conservative pundits, politicians, and donors, have latched on to Mitt Romney as "a vessel for their ambitions to defeat Obama...."  They had an overwhelming desire to make President Obama a one-term president that they supported a stuffy, arrogant, wooden stick, who had no charisma, to run as their own.  Mitt Romney is not a man of the people--he could not even play-act a "man of the people's" candidate as a means to fulfill his political ambitions.  Now with the entire campaign crashing down on itself, is there even enough time, or even a campaign strategy, to reboot Mitt Romney before the election?

Tim Pawlenty leaving the Romney campaign

Talk about a top rat leaving a sinking SS Romney ship:

Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, is resigning as a national co-chairman of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign to take a job in Washington as a top lobbyist for a group representing banks and financial companies.

Mr. Palwenty’s new role as President and chief executive of the Financial Services Roundtable was announced by the organization Thursday morning. In a statement, the group said that Mr. Pawlenty would step down from his role at Mr. Romney’s campaign because the organization is bipartisan.

“My time in public service was rewarding and focused on achieving results,” Mr. Pawlenty said in the statement. “I am grateful to have had the opportunity to serve, but I am now moving on and committed to focusing fully on this new opportunity.”

In a statement issued by Mr. Romney’s campaign, Mr. Pawlenty added: “My work with Mitt has been a privilege. Mitt Romney is a truly good man and great leader. As the campaign moves into the home stretch, he has my full support and continued faith in his vision and his policies.”

Mr. Palwenty was a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination last year but dropped out of the race early after a disappointing performance at the Iowa straw poll. He endorsed Mr. Romney early in the fall of 2011 and campaigned for him during the height of the primaries.

He was also on the short list to be Mr. Romney’s vice-presidential running mate. But despite an aggressive campaigning effort by Mr. Pawlenty earlier this year, Mr. Romney passed him over in favor of Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin.

In a brief interview at the Republican National Convention in Tampa, Fla., last month, Mr. Pawlenty played down his role on Mr. Romney’s behalf.

“I’m just a volunteer,” he told The Caucus, “so I’ve got other stuff I’ve got to do. So as my schedule allows, I’ll go out and do surrogate speaking.”

Pawlenty was a general conservative, and a third-tier presidential candidate for the 2012 GOP primaries.  He, with possibly every other GOP presidential candidate has-been, were probably all on Romney's short-list for VP candidates that could inspire any type of enthusiasm among the fanatics and Tea Party voters. T-Paw threw his hat into the Romney ring, campaigned for him, and probably dreamed of a strong cabinet position within the future Romney administration.  But with the disaster of Romney's unplugged video, I'm guessing T-Paw has decided that the grass is greener with the bank lobbying industry.  Look at the timing--Pawlenty leaves a top, Romney campaign position two days after the video disaster story.  Top rat leaving a sinking ship!  Again, this is not going to be good for the Romney campaign trying to reboot their floundering campaign with having to perform more damage control spin. 

Romney campaign imploding

In the wake of Mitt Romney's unplugged video, it appears that the entire Romney campaign is starting to implode.  First up is a couple of Politico stories, starting with Mitt Romney woes jangle Republican nerves:

If political campaigns have nine lives, nervous Republicans feel Mitt Romney has used up at least eight.
While insisting the party is still short of full-fledged panic, the video of Romney disparaging Americans who don’t pay income taxes and the GOP nominee’s consistently unsteady explanation of what he meant has prompted a chorus of fed-up Republicans to speak out about a campaign they see as badly in need of a jolt.
[....]
Opinion is mixed on just how damaging Romney discussing “the 47 percent” at a spring fundraiser will ultimately be for the campaign. But longtime GOP hands find the video and Romney’s attempt to neither fully embrace nor fully apologize for his comments to be symptomatic of a larger problem. The former Massachusetts governor can’t seem to string consecutive positive days together and often is his own worst enemy. A month’s worth of woes, beginning with a forgettable GOP convention, has taken its toll on the Republican psyche.
“The problem is the campaign is now in a spiral and no one knows how to pull out,” said Republican strategist Greg Strimple, who worked on John McCain’s 2008 campaign. “Romney needs a big idea, then he needs to shift the debate to spending.”
[....]
Another senior Republican who’s also deeply involved in this cycle’s campaign was more blunt about what many in the party are concluding about their standard-bearer this year.
“As a candidate, he is just not going to improve,” said the source.
This Republican, looking at fresh polling showing President Barack Obama still in the lead in key states such as Ohio and Nevada, described the mood among GOP officials as: “Not panic, but a recognition that the way to get [to 270 electoral votes] is limited.”
And that is what has Republicans more worried than Romney’s latest stubbed toe: They’re looking at grim swing-state numbers with the soundtrack of a ticking clock.
“We’re losing,” said veteran GOP strategist Jim Dyke. “And when that happens — it doesn’t matter if it’s a Republican or Democratic campaign or whether the campaign has been run masterfully or has been total crap — when the election gets closer, people start to get nervous.”

The second Politico story, titled, Mitt Romney, man of constant sorrow, seriously skewers the campaign:

Now, Romney heads into the final seven weeks of the campaign struggling to shed the aura of a candidate on the skids — an Inspector Clouseau-like figure who can’t perform the basic tasks of his job without getting into trouble. It’s an image wildly at odds with Romney’s background as a successful businessman and entrepreneur, the picture of managerial competence in the board room and the governor’s office.
[....]
“You don’t see them calling ‘silly season’ on this,” [Democratic strategist Tracy] Sefl continued. “The problem is, [Romney] is the cause of the silliness. He’s the one making the silliness, he’s the one approving Eastwood’s appearance [and] approving the half-baked statements and talking in private fundraisers in terms that are questionable.”

Of course, when I think of Inspector Clouseau, I often think of Peter Sellers in his iconic role:


Is this an apt metaphor of Mitt Romney's attempt to get into the White House?

Apparently, a "mood of gloom" is starting to afflict the campaign:

A palpably gloomy and openly frustrated mood has begun to creep into Mr. Romney’s campaign for president. Well practiced in the art of lurching from public relations crisis to public relations crisis, his team seemed to reach its limit as it digested a ubiquitous set of video clips that showed their boss candidly describing nearly half of the country’s population as government-dependent “victims,” and saying that he would “kick the ball down the road” on the biggest foreign policy challenge of the past few decades, the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.

Grim-faced aides acknowledged that it was an unusually dark moment, made worse by the self-inflicted, seemingly avoidable nature of the wound. In low-volume, out-of-the-way conversations, a few of them are now wondering whether victory is still possible and whether they are entering McCain-Palin ticket territory.

[....]

Still, a flustered adviser, describing the mood, said that the campaign was turning into a vulgar, unprintable phrase.

Aides did little to hide their annoyance: on Monday night, a Romney aide cursed loudly as he tried to corral reporters into an impromptu news conference in Costa Mesa, Calif.

Mr. Romney himself seemed pensive on the early-morning flight Tuesday from California to Utah, sitting alone with a white legal pad and a pen as he picked at a vegetarian breakfast burrito. An aide said that he had eaten dinner alone in his hotel room the night before as the video controversy began to unfold.

Perhaps Romney realized then, sitting pensively on that early morning flight from California to Utah, that he was getting into trouble with all the flack he was getting over his negative attacks against the Obama administration during the crisis in Libya this last weekend. The staff was stressed out in applying an unsuccessful damage control to Romney, and right on the heels of the Libyan controversy comes the video controversy. No wonder the vulgar curses started flowing freely.

Now Talking Points Memo is reporting that the Romney campaign's Libyan response may have hurt Mittens:

Polls show significant swaths of America are interested in the Mideast attacks and generally unhappy with Romney’s reaction.

A Monmouth University survey released Monday indicated that 90 percent of respondents were familiar with the crises in Libya and Egypt, including 61 percent who had heard “a lot” about it. Among likely voters, Obama got positive marks for his handling of the situation from 39 percent of respondents and negative marks from 27 percent. But only 25 percent approved of Romney’s behavior during the same period versus 29 percent who disapproved.

“If the past week was Mitt Romney’s opportunity to show how he would handle a foreign crisis, the GOP nominee did not put his best foot forward as far as voters are concerned,” Patrick Murray, director of the Monmouth University Polling Institute, said in a press release.

Another poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & Press, also released Monday, found that 43 percent of respondents followed the Mideast news “very closely” last week, more than the 42 percent who said they followed the presidential campaign with the same intensity. Obama earned high marks among those who paid close attention to the attacks: 45 percent approved of his handling of the situation, versus 36 percent who disapproved. Twenty-six percent approved of Romney’s response, versus 48 percent who disapproved.

If Mitt Romney was getting voter disapproval for his screw-up on the Libyan crisis, what will the poll results reveal as voters digest Romney's unplugged video comments?

Finally, Steve Benen has a good roundup of the GOP's freaking out in the aftermath of Romney's unplugged video fiasco.

So what is the Romney campaign doing in the wake of this latest disaster? Ironically, the Romney campaign has decided to make fundraising its top priority in the last two months of the campaign:

Romney’s light public schedule in the heart of the campaign’s final sprint has led some GOP donors to grumble that he should be paying less attention to them at this point and spending more time winning over voters who will decide the election at the ballot box.

“There’s not really a campaign here,” said one Republican with extensive ties to the party’s fundraising community. “He’s getting ready for the debates, and he’s out fundraising. You’ve got enough money!”

Over the last seven days, Romney’s public events have included just two rallies: one with supporters at a campaign office in Florida, and a speech to the United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in California.

During the same time frame, he has attended seven private fundraisers and had two days with no events scheduled at all, choosing instead to prepare for the three upcoming debates with President Obama and conducting one TV interview.

In all, Romney has spent only nine of the 19 days since the conclusion of the Republican National Convention campaigning in battleground states.

The September 19, 2012 New York Times reported that the Romney campaign raised, "$106 million in June and $101 million in July," but that most of the money went into political entities, such as the Republican National Committee. The campaign is apparently on a tight budget, and has borrowed another $20 million to fund expenses. Mittens himself has not used any of his personal wealth to fund his 2012 bid. He is apparently happy to use other rich people's, and corporate, money to buy his way into the Oval Office, but will not spend a dime of his own money to fulfill his political ambitions. And now with the crap hitting the fan, instead of going out and seriously campaigning for vote, Mittens is taking more time to raise money. Maybe the campaign realizes that they've lost the race, and are either going to raise money to settle their accounts, or raise money and embark on a scorched-earth policy of attacking President Obama with everything they have in the final two weeks of the campaign--a Hail Mary pass of lies, mud, innuendo, character assassinations, smelly excrement, dirty underwear and whatever else they could find to drag President Obama into the slime-encrusted gutter the Romney campaign has inhabited in a wet-dream hope of angering enough Republican voters to select Mittens, over Democrats voting for Obama. I can't say if that strategy will be successful.

Or maybe the Romney campaign wants to be the spoiled child, destroying everything in their path because Mittens can't get into the White House which he thinks he's entitled to?

Mitt Romney's father was on welfare

I found this Buzzfeed video through Daily Kos.  This is part of a 1962 film, produced for George Romney's gubernatorial campaign, which shows Mitt Romney's mother saying that George Romney was on welfare.  Here is the video:



I would guess that George Romney was part of the 47 percent that Mittens would happily fire now?

Romney campaign uploads video: "Mitt does not disdain poor," then pulls video off their site

I found this video, through Americablog, with the original source at Buzzfeed.  According to Buzzfeed, the Romney campaign released this video on their official campaign site of Mitt's wife, Ann Romney, giving an interview to Denver's Fox 31 News station over the comments Romney made on writing off half the country as moochers to his millionaire donors. Here is the video:


John Aravosis, at Americablog, likens Ann Romney as one of "the red-shirted characters on Star Trek. When they show up in a scene you know something bad is about to happen, though in her case it means it's already happened. To bring her out every single time the campaign makes a disastrous mistake. At this point she's not fixing the problem anymore, she's telegraphing it." And in one sense, it is true. I'm guessing that Ann Romney was scheduled to be interviewed by Fox 31 News well before this latest Romney gaffe took place today. I don't know what talking point Ann Romney was planning to recite, but the Romney gaffe forced her to back peddle, and polish the latest, stinking turd the campaign has presented. You watch the video, Ann Romney does look haggard and disheveled. I don't think she's having a blast on the campaign, and is probably ready to kill a few campaign advisers.

And yet, the Romney campaign seems to be in panic mode now. Daily Kos has posted a timeline, showing the Romney campaign taking almost three hours to respond to the release of the video with a press release, and then another three hours for Mitt Romney to make his TV press statement. It is almost like the campaign was paralyzed, possibly realizing they had pretty much lost the election. Maybe they did not know what to do, and latched on to any source of denial they could present. Hence, the Fox News interview to be posted on the campaign website, only to be removed for....Why? Is it really because Ann Romney is tired of being the red-shirt guy on Star Trek--always getting killed by the blood-sucking alien monster in the first five minutes of the episode? Again, this shows the Romney campaign, not as a well-oiled machine, but a car filled with red-shirted clowns.

Has Mitt Romney jumped the shark?

In light of today's political news insanity, I have to ask, has the Mitt Romney campaign jumped the shark?  From YouTube:


Then again, the Fonz could probably run a better presidential campaign than Mitt Romney could ever jump the shark....

Romney campaign: "Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans"

The Romney campaign has issued a statement regarding the video of GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney telling millionaire donors on what he'd like to do to the Obama voters.  According to Talking Points Memo:

Mitt Romney's campaign responded to the hidden camera footage of Romney at fundraiser claimg that Obama's voters are "are dependent upon government" and "believe that they are victims" posted online in a statement Monday evening.

"Mitt Romney wants to help all Americans struggling in the Obama economy. As the governor has made clear all year, he is concerned about the growing number of people who are dependent on the federal government, including the record number of people who are on food stamps, nearly one in six Americans in poverty, and the 23 million Americans who are struggling to find work," Romney spokesperson Gail Gitcho said in a statement. "Mitt Romney's plan creates 12 million new jobs in four years, grows the economy and moves Americans off of government dependency and into jobs."

So which is the true Mitt Romney, and which is the lying Mitt Romney?  Was Mitt Romney lying to his millionaire donors that 47 percent of the American people are both mooching off the government, and not paying any income tax?  If so, then why was Romney lying to his big money donor base?  Or is Mitt Romney lying in saying that he wants to help all Americans who are struggling in the Obama economy, and are dependent on government programs to survive, when he is really concerned about his millionaire donors big tax cuts?  If this is true, then the 47 percent of Obama voters can drop dead, according to Romney.  So which is it?

Update:  Now Mitt Romney is responding to the video:


Here is the printed quote, via Daily Kos:

I believe the point I was made is that the president starts off with a large number of the voters, 47, 48, 49 percent, something like that. These are people who are in his camp and, uh, they will vote for him almost no matter what. [...] I point out I recognize that among those that pay no tax, approximately 47 percent of Americans, I’m not likely to be highly successful with the message of lowering taxes. [...] And so I then focus on those individuals who I believe are most likely to be able to be pulled into my camp and help me win the 51 or 50.1 percent that I need to become the next President.

So I guess Mitt Romney is more than happy to screw half the country. And he is more than happy to lie, according to the Romney campaign statement.

Mitt Romney tells millionaire donors that Obama voters can screw themselves

This is from Mother Jones.com:

During a private fundraiser earlier this year, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told a small group of wealthy contributors what he truly thinks of all the voters who support President Barack Obama. He dismissed these Americans as freeloaders who pay no taxes, who don't assume responsibility for their lives, and who think government should take care of them. Fielding a question from a donor about how he could triumph in November, Romney replied:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what…These are people who pay no income tax.

Romney went on: "[M]y job is is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."
Mother Jones has obtained video of Romney at this intimate fundraiser—where he candidly discussed his campaign strategy and foreign policy ideas in stark terms he does not use in public—and has confirmed its authenticity. To protect the confidential source who provided the video, we have blurred some of the image, and we will not identify the date or location of the event, which occurred after Romney had clinched the Republican presidential nomination. [UPDATE: We can now report that this fundraiser was held at the Boca Raton home of controversial private equity manager Marc Leder on May 17 and we've removed the blurring from the video. See the original blurred videos here.]

David Corn, of Mother Jones concludes with this:

 Here was Romney raw and unplugged—sort of unscripted. With this crowd of fellow millionaires, he apparently felt free to utter what he really believes and would never dare say out in the open. He displayed a high degree of disgust for nearly half of his fellow citizens, lumping all Obama voters into a mass of shiftless moochers who don't contribute much, if anything, to society, and he indicated that he viewed the election as a battle between strivers (such as himself and the donors before him) and parasitic free-riders who lack character, fortitude, and initiative. Yet Romney explained to his patrons that he could not speak such harsh words about Obama in public, lest he insult those independent voters who sided with Obama in 2008 and whom he desperately needs in this election. These were sentiments not to be shared with the voters; it was inside information, available only to the select few who had paid for the privilege of experiencing the real Romney.

Not only is this the Mitt Romney raw and unplugged, but it also shows America what a President Romney will really be like.  You can bet he will slash all government spending on social programs, Social Security, Medicare, and every "entitlement" program he feels the poor, or working class family are mooching off the government.  He would certainly cut taxes on the rich, and raise taxes on everything else.  He is not a policy wonk, but a rubber stamp for his millionaire donor friends, and "corporations are people too."  And he is more than happy to lie to everyone, as long as it helps him get what he wants.  Is this the president we want?

Romney continues sinking into Libyan morass....

In one sense, this is getting painful to watch. In another sense, I'm happy to see the Romney campaign continue to sink into their own incompetence. Yes, it is another story about the Libyan terrorist attacks, and Mitt Romney's flailing attempts to capitalize on them. Let's go to Talking Points Memo:
 

The Romney campaign continues to defend its increasingly isolated response to the Libya consulate attack, claiming that the White House implicitly acknowledged its criticism was accurate by disavowing an earlier statement from the U.S. embassy in Egypt.

“If Gov. Romney ‘jumped the gun’ why were White House officials also distancing themselves from the statement?” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement. “Why didn’t President Obama take any questions from the press this morning to explain?”

Saul was referring to a statement released Tuesday by the U.S. embassy in Cairo, which said that it “condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims — as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions.” The White House later disavowed that press release and subsequent tweets from the embassy’s Twitter account that referred to it were deleted.

Here’s the problem: The fallout over Romney’s reaction has much less to do with the content of the initial embassy statement and a lot more to do with the timing of what unfolded Tuesday night. The embassy’s condemnation of an anti-Muslim film was issued before the compound in Egypt was breached and before an attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya killed four people, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens. That order of events directly undercuts Romney’s statement Tuesday night that “the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

Romney tried to get around this blatant contradiction Wednesday by saying he was referring to tweets by the embassy affirmed their initial statement after the Egypt protest got out of hand (but well before the Libya murders). But even those tweets actually included a condemnation of the embassy breach as well. Either way, it takes a pretty massive leap to get from ambiguous tweets by besieged social media outreach staff member at an embassy in Egypt to claiming the White House itself reacted to the death of Americans in Libya by expressing sympathy for militants.

In fact, the first reactions from the State Department and White House were strong condemnations.

“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet,” said a statement from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issued Tuesday evening. “The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”

That reaction did not satisfy Romney, either: He said the administration’s decision to break from the embassy’s statement and take a harsher tone constituted “mixed signals.”

Romney could still be upset that the US condemned an anti-Muslim film promoted by Florida pastor Terry Jones. And indeed, many critics have bristled at the idea that America should have to account for an individual citizen’s speech abroad.

But according to talking points from the Romney campaign obtained by CNN, Romney’s surrogates have been instructed to condemn Jones using language nearly identical to Clinton’s:

- Governor Romney rejects the reported message of the movie. There is no room for religious hatred or intolerance. - But we will not apologize for our constitutional right to freedom of speech.
- Storming U.S. missions and committing acts of violence is never acceptable, no matter the reason. Any response that does not immediately and decisively make that clear conveys weakness.
- If pressed: Governor Romney repudiated this individual in 2010 when he attempted to mobilize a Quran-burning movement. He is firmly against any expression of religious hatred or intolerance.

The Romney campaign’s latest attempt to clean up their Tuesday attack ignores the reasons it generated so much backlash to begin with, without providing any new explanation as to why it attacked the White House so quickly and fiercely before all of the facts surrounding the attacks were clear.

What I find so very interesting is not the simple fact that the Romney campaign screwed up with the actual timeline of events, when they initiated this attack against the Obama administration.  Instead we have a campaign that now, in the face of overwhelming evidence which shows the Romney campaign to be completely wrong in conducting their baseless attacks, that the campaign continues presenting these discredited talking points--even as they are repeatedly told how wrong they are. My impression is that the Romney campaign has passed a point of no return in what could be an eventual loss of the presidency for Romney.  If the campaign admits that they were mistaken in their attack against President Obama, then Mitt Romney can kiss his Oval Office dreams goodbye.  This was the big, foreign policy crisis for the campaign to show the American people how a business leader could handle such a crisis better than President Obama.  Instead, Mitt Romney stepped into it big time.  If Romney admitted to stepping into it big time, then why would the American public want to select him, over Obama--who has already demonstrated his own foreign policy skills.  And I'm not talking about this crisis--remember Osama bin Laden? He's rotting away with the fishies. 

So the Romney campaign really has no choice, but to continue to defend their response to the Libyan attacks.  They could try to ignore the issue, however I'm guessing the media and blogs will continue raising questions regarding the campaign's response and why?  The Romney campaign could try to deflect the issue, but that may cause a campaign spokesperson to misquote, or misinterpret a campaign talking point, resulting in more questions of why are they spinning and contradicting themselves again and again?  Neither ignoring, nor deflecting the issue will help the Romney campaign, as it could seed even more doubts among independent and swing voters.  So the only choice is to triple down, and continue to defend their talking points, even though everyone is now realizing that the Romney campaign is blatantly lying.  The more they defend their position, the more the Romney campaign continues to lie, and the more Mitt Romney appears weak, and incompetent in running for the White House.  In the end, Mitt Romney is sinking deeper in a morass of his own incompetence.  Will it be enough to sink his presidential campaign in November?

And as for President Obama not taking questions from the press to explain the issue?  It is obvious that the press were going to ask Obama questions about Romney's statement, saying Obama "sympathized" with the terrorists?  The last thing Obama wanted to do was get into a political pissing match with Romney as the crisis was unfolding throughout the morning.  By not talking to the press, Obama's statement on the crisis looks "presidential" for the evening news.

Mitt Romney's fallout on Libyan terrorist attack continues

The fallout from Mitt Romney's disastrous political attack against the Obama administration over the events happening in Libya just continues on.

First up, is a small error on the part of the Romney campaign staff.  According to Americablog, the Romney campaign issued a press release on Mitt Romney's statement regarding the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, Egypt and U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.  Within the statement, the word "embassy" was used three times--especially with the phrase "the attack on our embassy at Benghazi, Libya."  The capitol of Libya is actually Tripoli, where the U.S. embassy is located.  The terrorist attacks took place at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.  According to John Aravosis, "Any first year international relations student knows that our diplomatic offices in the capital are "embassies," and our offices in cities that are not the capital are "consulates."  Mitt Romney never caught the error.  He just simply read through the statement:



I went back into my previous post, and I also made the mistake as well.   It is a dumb mistake that possibly any ordinary American can make.  However, I am a small blogger, and I am not running for the Oval Office--Mitt Romney is running.  I can probably understand Mitt Romney not knowing the difference, or even caring about the difference, and just reading through the script.  But I would expect that someone on the Romney campaign staff would know the difference, and make sure that the correction was made.  Did any Romney campaign staffer with foreign policy experience, or credentials, even proofread the statement?  Is there even anyone on the Romney campaign that even has foreign policy knowledge or experience?  Or do the top Romney foreign policy advisers feel it is demeaning for them to proofread  press releases in the wake of an American foreign policy crisis?   Because if you think about it, this is a crisis that a president will be confronted with, and the Romney campaign is showing just how screwed up they are in dealing with this crisis.  You can also bet that the Obama campaign is not making such a juvenile mistake as we're seeing with Mitt Romney.  So this dumb mistake really shows an incredible level of incompetence that Mitt Romney has in running his own presidential campaign.  Do we really want this level of incompetence in the White House?

However, there is an even worst fallout from the Romney campaign that has taken place in the wake of this crisis.  Throughout his press conference, Mitt Romney had the unfortunate habit of smirking.  Daily Kos' Jed Lewison caught these smirks here, here, and here, while Americablog's John Aravosis catalogs 15 different images of Mitt Romney's smirks.  Here are a couple of photos for your viewing pleasure:

Finally, here is a photo of Mitt Romney walking away from the podium, after his press conference, with another smirk.  This photo was taken by Associated Press photographer Charles Dharapak:

I can not say if Mitt Romney's smirks are an emotional response to this crisis, or are the smirks an unconscious tick that Romney has when speaking before a group?  Is Mitt Romney happy that this crisis presented him with an opportunity to crassly attack President Obama as sympathizing with the terrorists?  Or is this just his speaking style?  In one sense, it does not matter--A smirking photo is worth more than a thousand-word political spin.  American moderates and independents will be watching the news of this crisis on TV at 6pm.  They are going to see both President Obama and Mitt Romney, making their statements on the attacks.  They are going to see the smirk.  Perhaps in the back of their mind, these moderates and independents may wonder if Mitt Romney cares that four Americans died in the wake of these attacks.  Will they see Romney as a callous, uncaring individual who has no morals, other than his crass, political desire to win the presidency and gain political power?  Again, is this the kind of individual you want in the Oval Office--especially when he get the 3am wake-up call?

Romney campaign outraises Obama in Big Money

This is from Talking Points Memo:

Mitt Romney and the RNC raised $76.8 million in May, easily outpacing $60 million from President Obama’s campaign and the DNC. With outside conservative groups alone already outspending the Obama campaign in swing states and Democrats begging donors for help, the money race is tilting quickly toward the GOP.

Romney and the RNC now have $107 million cash on hand, with $12 million of their monthly haul coming from donations less than $250.

 “We are encouraged by the financial support from a broad range of voters,” Romney’s National Finance Chairman Spencer Zwick said in a statement. ”To them, whether they are Republican, Democrat, Independent, a first time political donor, or a former Obama donor, this is not just a campaign; it’s an opportunity for the country. It is clear that people aren’t willing to buy into ‘hope & change’ again. Voters are making an investment because they believe that it will benefit the country.”

The Obama camp minimized the gap, with press secretary Ben LaBolt tweeting that it was expected now that Romney has entered the general election and can collect a new round of maximum donations from his top primary backers. As TPM previously reported, this is especially relevant to Romney since his new joint Victory Fund with the RNC can take donations of up to $75,800, far above the primary campaign’s $2,500 limits. It’s possible Romney’s latest haul is a one-time trick that represents these big money backers making their investment in the general election, but combined with Republicans’ success luring a handful of billionaires to single handedly match Obama’s own spending, it looks like trouble for Obama ahead either way.

Again, we're looking at the effects of Citizens United, where corporations and billionaire donors can buy their own elections.  Out of the $107 million in the Romney and RNC campaign coffers, only $12 million came from donations of $250 or less.  Small donors are not giving to the Romney campaign--corporations and the super rich are.  And with Romney out raising President Obama in the money field, you can bet that Romney will be spending a good chunk in negative advertising to smear Obama, while refusing to tell the nation's voters his vision and policy issues when he is elected.  Mitt Romney is an empty suit, just waiting to be instructed by his overlords, once he gets into the White House.  And with the kind of money Romney is raising, this could become a disaster for the country.

Then again, we have the best democracy that money can buy.  Those without the money are screwed.

Mitt Romney fears Obama conspiracy to sabotage his press conference

This is just insane. From Talking Points Memo:

Mitt Romney’s campaign justified its secrecy in setting up a press conference in front of Solyndra’s California headquarters Thursday by warning of a conspiracy by White House officials to potentially sabotage their efforts.

“We knew, if word got out, that Solyndra would do everything in their power, and the Obama administration would do everything in their power, to stop us from having this news conference,”an unnamed adviser told reporters, per CNN.

Reporters raised the question of how this devious plot to derail the event would work, given that the freedom to hold a press conference in public is a fairly basic right.

“Well, he’s only the president of the United States,” the adviser replied. “I mean, they could work with town officials to deny us access.”

Romney alluded to similar concerns in his press conference.

“I think there are people who don’t want to see this event occur, don’t want to have questions asked about this particular investment,” Romney told reporters when asked about the secrecy behind the event, according to the New York Times.

DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse dismissed the claim of conspiracy as a fringe notion.

“It’s actually bizarre,” he said. “I don’t want to use the term ‘weird,’ but I don't know where he would get that idea from.”

Woodhouse noted the irony that Romney supporters actually interrupted an Obama campaign press conference in Boston with chants and a bubble machine earlier the same day.

“He’s delusional,” another Democratic aide told TPM when asked about the charge.

WTF???? Mitt Romney has to hold a super-secret press conference in front of Solyndra's headquarters because the Obama campaign may intentionally sabotage the Romney campaign's efforts to hold a press conference in front of Solyndra's headquarters? This does not make any sense. If Mitt Romney wants to hold a press conference in front of Solyndra's HQ, then he can hold as many press conferences as he wishes. Why would the Obama campaign try to stop him--because of the Solyndra loan controversy? President Barack Obama can relentlessly attack Romney on his Bain Capital record, or even his record as Massachusetts governor. Why would the Obama campaign want to stop a Romney press conference? Then again, perhaps the Romney campaign is really that paranoid. This could be another attempt by the Romney campaign to connect with conservative, conspiracy-theory crazies, while at the same time projecting the Obama campaign as engaging in such secret conspiracies. This certainly is a classic, Karl Rove trick of using your candidate's weakness against your opponent. It is also ironic that Romney campaign aids disrupted an Obama press conference today in Boston. So the question I would have to ask is really, who is the more paranoid, delusional, conspiracy-minded, and willing to crash an opposing candidate's press conference? I'll give you a hint--it ain't Barack Obama.

Update: Now Mitt Romney is accusing the Obama campaign of sending staffers to disrupt Romney campaign rallies. So Mitt Romney is supposedly justified in disrupting Obama press conferences. From YouTube:

Strangely enough, I have not seen any reports of Obama campaign staffers disrupting Romney campaign rallies or press conferences though.

Senate candidate Hoekstra wants to create a National Birther Office

I'm trying to wrap my head around Former Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) crazy idea of creating a "national birther office." From Talking Points Memo:

Former Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI), who is running for Senate to take on Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, told a tea party town hall last month that the federal government should establish an official committee to review presidential candidates’ birth certificates.

The full-length video of the Q&A was posted online four weeks ago by the Lapeer County Tea Party Patriots. An excerpt, in which Hoekstra is asked about Obama’s birth certificate, has been posted online by the Michigan Democrats, injecting Hoekstra into a recent resurgence in birther theories espoused by Donald Trump, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett and Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO). A man in the audience complained to Hoekstra about President Obama’s birth certificate, “It’s on the computer, it’s everywhere, you hear people talking about it,” but nobody is doing anything about it, and he wanted Hoekstra’s thoughts on the matter.

“Sure. I mean, I think — you know, I think, throw something at me if you want, I think with this president, the book is closed, all right?” Hoekstra tells the man. “It’s kind of like, I hate to say it, but I think the debate’s over — we lost that debate, and we lost that debate in 2008, when our presidential nominee said, ‘I ain’t talking about it.’ OK, I’m sorry.

“But I do now believe that I’d like to establish a three-person office in Washington, D.C., OK — knowing it, we’ll go to five (audience laughs). But there’s no reason why we should have this kind of question, you know, for the president of the United States. So that at any future election, all right, that someone would have to walk into that office, and prove that they meet the minimum qualifications to be president of the United States.”

Hoekstra then defended his national birther office position on CNN, saying:

“Well, what happened is you’re still having this ongoing debate with some people moving this forward,” he said. “I’m not participating in that debate, I think this issue has been settled and, you know, I just want to make sure in future elections — and this is not a top priority for me, OK? This is kind of like, you know, this can take care of itself.”

As far as I can recall, we've never had the issue of a presidential candidate's citizenship, or birth record come up in a presidential campaign--at least not until an African American became a serious contender for the White House. Even after President Barack Obama's birth certificate was released, the right-wing crazies are still questioning President Obama's citizenship. And now we've got a crazy GOP senate candidate claiming it is now time to create a federal office to determine future candidates' citizenship? It is like the Tea Party crazies can not accept that a minority individual, or in their view a black, Kenyan, Muslim, can be elected into the Oval Office. They hate the fact that Obama is president, and must keep their hatred fresh with this rotten garbage. Hoekstra keeps this garbage alive to stay on the crazies' good side, and garner their votes. Donald Trump jumped on the birther bandwagon because...does Donald Trump need a reason to get more press attention to his egotistical, arrogant self? Then there is Mitt Romney. On Tuesday, the Trump hosted a fundraiser for the Republican presidential candidate in Las Vegas. Trump told CNN that "A lot of people do not think it was an authentic certificate," just hours before the fundraiser began. Trump's remarks place the Romney campaign squarely into this birther morass, which should have became a non-issue in the 2008 presidential campaign, but is still being kept alive by the Tea Party crazies. What was Mitt Romney's response to Trump's remarks? According to CBS News:

Romney did not address the issue directly at separate events in Colorado and Nevada, but on Monday night he told reporters aboard his campaign plane that Trump is entitled to his opinion.

[....]

"I don't agree with all the people who support me. And my guess is they don't all agree with everything I believe in," Romney said. "But I need to get 50.1 percent or more. And I'm appreciative to have the help of a lot of good people."

The birth question wasn't brought up at the Las Vegas fundraiser, and Romney spoke highly of Trump's efforts on his behalf.

"Mr. Trump, thank you for letting us come to this beautiful hotel and being with so many friends," Romney said. "Thank you for twisting the arms that it takes to bring a fundraiser together. I appreciate your help."

So Mitt Romney does not agree with Trump and the Tea Party crazies, but he's apparently happy for them to spout their crazy ideas regarding President Obama's citizenship status. Bravo Mittens! Again you show the country just how much of an empty suit you are, with no morals or convictions--other than what will propel you into the Oval Office, and help the 1 percenters, like Donald Trump, twist your arm after you get there.

Mitt Romney's new iPhone app--A Better Amercia

Someone on the Romney campaign forgot to use their spell checker. From Gizmodo.com:

Mitt Romney's new iPhone app, With Mitt, "lets you customize photos with a variety of Mitt-inspired artistic frames." Slogans like "Believe in America," "Obama Isn't Working," and "I'm a Mom for Mitt" are just a few of the Mitt-tastic phrases that can be slapped on your iPhone photos, proudly pronouncing your support of the GOP candidate. If only he was equally as concerned with supporting our great nation. Much to the delighted displeasure of Twitter, one particular frame option betrays Romney's secret agenda working toward bettering a place known as Amercia. Yes, that's A-M-E-R-C-I-A.

A Tumblr page, Amercia is with Mitt, is ripping into this Romney campaign gaffe. Which brings me to the question of is this really how to run a presidential campaign? This is a gaffe goes beyond clumsy and enters into the realm of stupidity. I can see a programmer creating this application, and making this error. But this error should have been caught by higher level supervisors and managers, and quickly corrected before being placed on the net. This WaPo article states that the Romney campaign "submitted a corrected version of the app to Apple," telling me the campaign created the application itself. And they performed no proofreading of the final product. Stupid mistakes like this tell me that either the Romney campaign cannot find qualified people to produce these applications, or maybe the campaign just does not care and is going through the motions here.

Mitt Romney's "The Promise of America"

I saw this post through the Daily Kos, and went to GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's Youtube page. I watched the video with the sound off, and wanted to look at the images in this latest Romney political ad. This video is creepy: There is not one close up of an African-American, Hispanic, or any minority individual face in this video. The faces in this video are all white. Disturbing.