Friday, June 29, 2012


Yes, Willard has been caught again by the miracle of electronic recording, which he apparently thinks does not exist:

In what is now a well-known exchange from ABC News’ January 2008 Republican presidential debate at St. Anselm College in New Hampshire, Mitt Romney declared “I like mandates” when asked by moderator Charlie Gibson about his approach to health care reform in Massachusetts.

But there’s another moment from the debate that’s getting more traction after yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling — one in which Romney says “yes,” when asked is the health reform law he ushered in as governor constituted a tax.

GIBSON: ”Governor … you imposed tax penalties in Massachusetts?”

ROMNEY: ”Yes, we said, look, if people can afford to buy it, either buy the insurance or pay your own way; don’t be free-riders.”

Remember that the next  time Romney is spouting his lying BS about the health care decision.

Oh, and since Willard is so keen to destroy "Obamacare"--and make millions of people suffer needlessly--why not ask him what he intends to "replace it" with.

But don't expect a straight answer.

Or the truth.

Thursday, June 28, 2012


I mean Willard wasted no time

Mitt Romney claimed the country would receive a $500 billion tax increase because of Romneycare, excuse me, Obamacare. BuzzFeed posted 2007 video of Romney Thursday morning calling the individual mandate contained in his Massachusetts universal healthcare legislation “ultimate conservatism,” but don’t expect the facts to matter to Romney. In fact, the law’s penalties would hit between 2 and 5 percent of Americans, according to the Urban Institute; in Massachusetts, fewer than 1 percent of residents paid the penalty in 2009, according to Think Progress. [Emphasis added.]

In fact, let's go to that video RIGHT NOW!

Nope, facts never matter to Willard. In fact, his twisting and turning on health care, backed by his non-stop lies, has bordered on the grotesque. 

Expect the grotesque spectacle to continue.

(BTW, to thank President Obama, you might want to get an account on and express your gratitude in a concrete way right here

Tuesday, June 26, 2012


That's because anything Willard says in the court of public opinion can and will be used against him--and he knows it. Let's get specific right here :

Mitt Romney has a problem with specifics...His responses on questions from tax reform to immigration have been thin or nonexistent. When reporters tried to get an answer about the candidate’s reaction to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s immigration law, his spokesperson was so evasive, my colleagues might want to plant a mulberry bush in the press section to make the next round of the game more lively. Usually you have to win the White House before you can be that skilled at ducking and weaving.

But wait. The Romney campaign told Politico’s Jonathan Martin, when he wrote about this topic, that they have offered an "unprecedented" level of specificity. How can these two things both be true?

Is Romney offering an “unprecedented” level of specificity? This is an exciting claim, but it is contradicted by history. Next to me is my worn copy of Renewing America's Purpose, the 450-page volume of George W. Bush's policy addresses and proposals from 1999-2000. By this time in the 2000 campaign, Bush had unveiled mountains of detailed policy, including a plan to offer workers the ability to invest some of their Social Security money in private accounts. "Mr. Bush is dominating the policy debate," the Economist wrote 12 years ago this month. "[He] has seized on the opportunities to appear both bipartisan and statesmanlike." 

It's also hard for the Romney campaign to boast about specificity when the candidate is doing the opposite. He's talked about why he won’t give details because they were used against him in his Senate race and how his programs can't be evaluated by any experts because he hasn’t provided details. [Emphasis added]

How then can the Romney campaign claim to be so specific? The same way politicians like to believe that a response is the same as an answer. In background material offered by the campaign to show where Romney has been specific, many of the items were not so much Romney proposals but criticisms of President Obama. (This is also true of Romney’s 160-page briefing book entitled Believe in America, which should have the subtitle Because Obama Doesn't.)

That's Willard's game plan in a nutshell:

1.  Avoid revealing his plans to govern America from the radical Right,  utterly beholden to the Teabaggers, Grover Norquist, and the Koch Brothers. In particular avoid talking about how he's going to adopt Paul Ryan's wildly destructive plan to smash Medicare to pieces so as to pour more money into tax breaks for the rich. 

2. Lie more incessantly and relentlessly than any other presidential candidate of the last 100 years.

3. Attack, lie about, and smear President Obama on every conceivable occasion.

4. Try to convince people that the Republicans had nothing to do with the utter catastrophe Barack Obama inherited in 2009

Yeah Willard is saying, "What will I do as president? You'll like it. TRUST ME."


Monday, June 25, 2012


The thing we need to remember about Romney is this: 

Anyone who's willing to lie this brazenly to the American people is an outright danger to this nation's future. Never in modern American politics has there been a more vicious, unprincipled, amoral liar than Willard Mitt Romney. He will lead our country to disaster--and lie about it every step of the way.


Saturday, June 23, 2012


A must-read from the UK's Guardian right here. Excerpts:

Granted, presidential candidates are no strangers to disingenuous or overstated claims; it's pretty much endemic to the business. But Romney is doing something very different and far more pernicious. Quite simply, the United States has never been witness to a presidential candidate, in modern American history, who lies as frequently, as flagrantly and as brazenly as Mitt Romney.

Now, in general, those of us in the pundit class are really not supposed to accuse politicians of lying – they mislead, they embellish, they mischaracterize, etc. Indeed, there is natural tendency for nominally objective reporters, in particular, to stay away from loaded terms such as lying. Which is precisely why Romney's repeated lies are so effective. In fact, lying is really the only appropriate word to use here, because, well, Romney lies a lot. But that's a criticism you're only likely to hear from partisans.

My personal favorite in Romney's cavalcade of untruths is his repeated assertion that President Obama has apologized for America. In his book, appropriately titled "No Apologies", Romney argues the following:

 "Never before in American history has its president gone before so many foreign audiences to apologize for so many American misdeeds, both real and imagined. It is his way of signaling to foreign countries and foreign leaders that their dislike for America is something he understands and that is, at least in part, understandable."

 Nothing about this sentence is true.


And the list goes on. Romney has accused Obama of raising taxes – in reality, they've gone down under his presidency, and largely because of that stimulus bill that Romney loves to criticize. He's accused the president of doubling the deficit. In fact, it's actually gone down on Obama's watch.

Romney took credit for the success of the auto bailout – even though he wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post titled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt". He's said repeatedly that businesses in America see Obama as the "enemy", and that under his presidency "free enterprise" and economic freedom" are at risk of disappearing. In reality, since taking office, corporate profits, industrial production and the stock market are up, while corporate bankruptcies have actually decreased. 

Then, there is the recent Romney nugget that the Obama administration passed Obamacare with the full knowledge that it "would slow down the economic recovery in this country" and that the White House "knew that before they passed it". It's an argument so clearly spun from whole cloth that according to Jonathan Chait, the acerbic political columnist for New York Magazine, Romney is "Just Making Stuff Up Now".

It's a shame that a British journalist can tell the truth so bluntly and yet most American journalists are reluctant to call Romney on his NON-STOP DAMNED LIES. It's up to you and me to spread the word about the terrible danger our nation is in from this lying sociopath Romney. 

I still believe the truth can win out.

If we make it happen.

Friday, June 22, 2012


Two videos for your consideration. One was from the Gingrich campaign this past winter, the other is a report from David Parkman from April. So I need your help: what, in your opinion, was going on? And does this need to be investigated more fully?


Must be because he's such a "job creator". The ugly details are here:

Mitt Romney’s financial company, Bain Capital, invested in a series of firms that specialized in relocating jobs done by American workers to new facilities in low-wage countries like China and India.

During the nearly 15 years that Romney was actively involved in running Bain, a private equity firm that he founded, it owned companies that were pioneers in the practice of shipping work from the United States to overseas call centers and factories making computer components, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

While economists debate whether the massive outsourcing of American jobs over the last generation was inevitable, Romney in recent months has lamented the toll it’s taken on the U.S. economy. He has repeatedly pledged he would protect American employment by getting tough on China.

 “ They've been able to put American businesses out of business and kill American jobs,” he told workers at a Toledo fence factory in February. “If I’m president of the United States, that’s going to end.”

 Speaking at a metalworking factory in Cincinnati last week, Romney cited his experience as a businessman, saying he knows what it would take to bring employers back to the United States. “For me it’s all about good jobs for the American people and a bright and prosperous future,” he said. [!!!!!!!!!!!!]

For years, Romney’s political opponents have tried to tie him to the practice of outsourcing American jobs. These political attacks have often focused on Bain’s involvement in specific business deals that resulted in job losses.

But a Washington Post examination of securities filings shows the extent of Bain’s investment in firms that specialized in helping other companies move or expand operations overseas. While Bain was not the largest player in the outsourcing field, the private equity firm was involved early on, at a time when the departure of jobs from the United States was beginning to accelerate and new companies were emerging as handmaidens to this outflow of employment.

When I see Willard say the kind of things he says in the part I highlighted, and then contrast them to the way he actually acts, it just reminds me again of his fundamental dishonesty and mind-boggling hypocrisy.  This is a man who will try to deceive you in EVERY way imaginable. Killing jobs, shipping jobs overseas--all in a day's work for Willard.

You know--the guy who's all about "good jobs". 

Wednesday, June 20, 2012


DAY-UM, this clown Willard just doesn't know how to stop lying. He was ready to let the U.S. auto industry DIE. The record couldn't possibly be any clearer. He was willing to wipe out about 1.2 MILLION jobs (both in the auto industry itself and its suppliers). The facts on this are IRREFUTABLE. Now, along comes Willard and AGAIN he's lying about the whole thing. To quote Willard:

"My policy had the same objective as the people in Detroit: I wanted to see the auto industry thrive and grow, and felt it needed a managed bankruptcy to be able to do so. It took the president a little longer to come around to that way of thinking," Romney told WOOD TV8, according to a portion of the interview the network previewed. "He ultimately took the auto industry through bankruptcy. They went through that process. And now, with support they have received from government and the American people, they have come back strong. That's a good thing. I would have done it faster than he did and saved us about $20 billion."

Of all the damned NERVE. Every observer has pointed out that there was NO PRIVATE MONEY available in early 2009 to stave off disaster in the auto industry. This blog has pointed out Romney's brazen lies on this point and on his true position in regard to the auto industry before. See here and here and here and here and here. That's what's so appalling and infuriating about him: HE REPEATS THE SAME LIE OVER AND OVER AND OVER, JUST IN DIFFERENT WORDS.  Oh, and this BS about "I would have done it faster and saved us about $20 billion"--that's one of those "facts" that Willard simply made up out of thin air, backed by no evidence and no explanation whatsoever.

I've been telling you since Day 1--this guy is a totally morally bankrupt sociopath. He will lie right to your face to get whatever he wants. His election would be a tragedy.

One that we MUST--and WILL--stop.


Robert Parry lays the lumber to Willard in this powerful piece located here. Excerpts:

In Romney’s previous career – as a corporate raider – lying may have been a part of the job, in lulling a company’s long-time owners into complacency or convincing some well-meaning investors that massive layoffs won’t be necessary. Then, wham-o, the company founders are out, their loyal workforce is on the street, and the company can be “reorganized” for a big profit.

Arguably, Romney learned his skill as a liar from those days at Bain Capital – and he has put it to good use as a politician, taking opposite sides of issue after issue, from abortion rights to global warming to government mandates that citizens buy health insurance to whether stay-at-home mothers “work” or not.

Indeed, as New York Times columnist Paul Krugman noted [in April], Romney’s whole campaign is based on a cynical belief that Americans suffer from “amnesia” about what caused the nation’s economic mess and that they will simply blame President Obama for not quickly fixing it

To illustrate the point [in April], Romney staged a campaign event in Ohio at a shuttered drywall factory that closed in 2008, when Bush was still president and was watching the collapse of the housing market which had grown into a bubble under Bush’s low-tax, deregulatory policies.

Krugman wrote: “Mr. Romney constantly talks about job losses under Mr. Obama. Yet all of the net job loss took place in the first few months of 2009, that is, before any of the new administration’s policies had time to take effect.

 “So the Ohio speech was a perfect illustration of the way the Romney campaign is banking on amnesia, on the hope that voters don’t remember that Mr. Obama inherited an economy that was already in free fall.”

As they say in the biz, read the whole thing--and be warned.

P.S. If you really want to feel despair for your country, read the incoherent, bizarre, confused, ranting, hate-filled comments about the article posted by Parry's right-wing critics.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012


Or should I say DAMNED LIE, which is exactly what it is.  Here is Willard going all the way into the gutter, pandering to the U.S. Catholic Bishops:

The decision by the Obama Administration to attack our first Freedom, religious freedom is one in which, I think a lot of people were shocked to see. Cardinal Dolan in New York City who was the Chairman of the Catholic Council of Bishops was surprised to see the President turn and take a different course than one he had promised during the campaign. A course, which says to the Catholic Church that they would be required to violate their own. 

Mind you, this is about an insurance issue. This is the monumental, Earth-shaking issue according to the Catholic Health Association

The CHA did not focus on objections to contraception coverage per se. Instead, it stressed that if the administration wants to go ahead with the plan to provide free birth control coverage for all employees through health insurance, then it should "find a way to provide and pay for these services directly without requiring any direct or indirect involvement of 'religious employers,' as broadly defined." 

That's it, folks. That's the big, bad, horrible nasty attack by the big, bad, horrible, nasty Obama on our freedoms!!

It's also about the Catholic hierarchy DEMANDING that any Catholic (or other religious) employer be given the right to strike ANYTHING out of his employees' insurance he doesn't like. (!!) 

The invaluable Charles Pierce is on the case:

Of course, exhibiting the infallible political maladroitism that has marked his entire career, Romney signs aboard just after the Clan (the Bishops) found itself using the bankruptcy process to get a sweetheart deal on a settlement regarding unresolved abuse claims in Spokane, and also just after the Jesuits got hit with the entire train on cases regarding the abuse of Native American and Native Alaskan children.

And he cuts to the heart of the matter: 

The whole "religious liberty" distraction is about getting us not to notice stuff like this. I can see where it would appeal to Willard. 

By the way, I'd like you to know that the Cardinal Dolan Mittens referred to is the same sumbitch associated with this

Archdiocese of Milwaukee confirms it paid suspected pedophile priests $20,000 to help them transition to life outside the priesthood. 

A document that surfaced in the archdiocese’s bankruptcy case shows the money-to-transition policy was formed under Milwaukee’s then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan. Dolan is now a Cardinal and head of the archdiocese in New York.

According to a document published by abuse victim’s advocates, Dolan discussed the policy during a Financial Council meeting in 2003.

The 2003 policy discussion was apparently put into practice, according to the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. The group cited a 2006 document which confirmed Fr. Franklyn Becker was paid $10,000 to sign his laicization papers.

Hey, here's a novel idea! Instead of paying child rapists to leave the Church, HOW ABOUT TURNING THEM OVER TO THE POLICE?

Pierce is absolutely right. This whole "they're attacking my religion" argument is a crock, an outright lie, a distraction. When some idiot priest goes on Scum Hannity's wretched excuse for a show and actually implies that he's just like Dietrich Bonhoeffer bravely resisting Hitler, it makes me want to break something over the guy's head. I get the same reaction when some borderline psychotic bishop compares President Obama to Hitler and Stalin.

Of COURSE Willard is going to gravitate to people like this.

The liars and the frauds have to stick together, after all.

Sunday, June 17, 2012


Ah, that Willard. He can always be relied on to trot out the same lies over and over. He likes to say that President Obama had a "filibuster proof" majority in the first two years of his presidency. (I guess the blue dogs and backstabbers like Ben Nelson and Lieberman don't count.) Willard has trotted this lie out in the service of a new issue: immigration policy.  He was discussing the DREAM act with Bob Schieffer. To wit:

SCHIEFFER: “[W]ould you repeal [Obama's immigration] order if you became president?” …

ROMNEY: “This is something Congress has been working on, and I thought we were about to see some proposals brought forward by Senator Marco Rubio and by Democrat senators, but the President jumped in and said I’m going to take this action … [H]e was president for the last three and a half years and did nothing on immigration. Two years he had a Democrat House and Senate, did nothing of a permanent or long-term basis. What I would do, is I’d make sure that by coming into office, I would work with Congress to put in place a long-term solution for the children of those that have come here illegally.” …

Not only is that [a] false comment: "Two years he had a Democrat House and Senate, did nothing of a permanent or long-term basis." It is the New-GOP False Talking Point.  

FACT: The fact is Republicans in the Senate Filibustered the DREAM Act twice in 2010. So, Mitt is lying when he falsely claims President Obama "did nothing of a permanent or long-term basis."

September 21, 2010: Senate Republicans Filibuster DREAM Act 

December 18 2010: Senate Republicans Filibuster DREAM Act 

May 2011: Harry Reid re-introduces DREAM Act in the Senate but Republican's vowed to withhold their votes. 

Factually speaking, Democrats have introduced the DREAM Act three times since President Obama took office and the GOP have obstructed and filibustered the DREAM Act three times since President Obama took office. Factually speaking, it is Republicans who have done nothing except Filibuster immigration since President Obama took office.

Well said! Read the entire item, and be reminded why Willard Mitt Romney can only be relied on to do two things in this world.

1.  Line his own pockets

2.  Lie through his teeth.

HT: CC on DKos

Saturday, June 16, 2012


I swear, it's like Willard doesn't know that things he says are actually recorded. Mittens recently castigated the President for wanting more teachers, firefighters, and police officers, as if advocating such a thing in a growing nation were some kind of sin. He quite properly got jumped on for it, and the outcome is obvious:

Willard claims the government can't do anything to help state and local governments anyway.

Here's what he said, verbatim:

He wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.

Now, here's what he said in response to criticism:

Of course, teachers and firemen and policemen are hired at the local level and also by states. The federal government doesn't pay for teachers, firefighters or policemen. So obviously that’s completely absurd. He’s got a new idea, though. And that is to have another stimulus and to have the federal government send money to try and bail out cities and states. It didn’t work the first time. It certainly wouldn’t work the second time.

You see what Willard does there? First of all, he's LYING about the role the Federal government plays in funding education. About one-ninth of all education dollars come from Washington. Federal money goes into law enforcement and fire fighting as well. (You can read the details here.)

Secondly, Willard is LYING about the effects of the 2009 stimulus law. 

From an important study located here:

Based on my preferred measure of spending, announced funds, the results imply that its first year ARRA spending yielded about eight jobs per million dollars spent, or about $125,000 per job. Extrapolating from that marginal local effect to the national level, the estimates imply ARRA spending created or saved about 2.0 million jobs, or 1.5% of pre-ARRA total nonfarm employment, in that first year. The estimated employment effect is estimated to have grown further over time, reaching 3.4 million (based on announced funds) by March 2011. The estimates are moderately larger if one measures ARRA spending by obligated funds or actual outlays. Despite the use of a very different methodology, these estimates are in line with the range of estimates of the ARRA’s impact generated by studies using the macroeconometric modeling approach.

(Oh, and we won't mention the 1.2 million auto-related jobs that Willard wanted to flush as well.)

Third, Willard is LYING about the sentiments he expressed.
He specifically ridiculed the idea that we need more teachers, cops, and firefighters. It's absolutely clear. And his tactic is simply denial.

No, Willard CANNOT be allowed to run this country. He and his right-wing masters know only one way to run America:

Straight into the ground.

Friday, June 15, 2012


Willard is, if anything, a persistent liar. He's also a highly inventive one. Now Willard is claiming that a small business was forced to move its operations because of the provisions of Obamacare.

Just one thing: it's a CROCK. Greg Sargent explains:

Romney’s claim is based on a local interview Obama gave in Iowa, in which the president was told by a reporter that a local company had closed and was moving jobs to Wisconsin because of Obamacare. Obama reacted with incredulity, noting that the law’s provisions impacting such a company haven’t been implemented yet. That led Romney to remark that Obama “didn’t understand that Obamacare was hurting small business,” and “you have to scratch your head about that.”

ABC News did a good fact check of this claim, noting that Romney had distorted what Obama said. But it gets better still.

It turns out that the company didn’t close because of Obamacare at all, according to a company spokesperson. What’s more, the company sees lack of demand as the key problem — a lack of demand that is partly due to the drive to repeal or modify Obamacare, not to the implementation of the law itself.

The company in question is called Nemschoff Chairs, and it manufactures a whole range of health care furniture for waiting rooms and so forth. Around 100 jobs are being moved out of Iowa as part of a consolidation with another plant in Wisconsin, where around 50 of those jobs will be preserved.

But Obamacare’s implementation had nothing to do with the decision, Mark Schurman, a spokesman for parent company Herman Miller, tells me.

“We never said health care reform is the reason we’re closing and consolidating that operation,” Schurman said. “We never said it’s the result of the health care reform legislation.” [Emphasis added.]

D'oh! Looks like Lyin' Willard (TM) has struck again. He's so determined to distort the truth about the health care law that he'll seize on anything that he thinks will be of advantage. But don't think that because he's been slapped down on this lie that he won't tell it again and again. 

That's not Willard's style. He'll repeat any lie, anywhere, any time.


Wednesday, June 13, 2012


And why does Willard want to avoid doing that? It's simple. Because despite the verbal gymnastics of Wall Street Journal writer Gerald Seib, there is one overall fact about Romney's plan:

It's a fraud.

1. Romney refuses to offer a detailed plan, so there are few specifics to analyze.

2. Romney wants huge increases in military spending, but he won't tell us which domestic programs will have to be cut back, or by how much.

3.  Romney wants huge tax cuts (mostly for people like himself) which will make the deficit worse.

To quote from the article:

Romney’s proposed tax cuts are huge — bigger than George W. Bush’s — so even without boosting military spending, he wouldn't be able to achieve his imaginary spending cuts without either massively slashing politically popular programs like Medicare or blowing up the deficit into realms unimagined by even the most ambitious Big Government Democrat.

According to a May 12 study on the proposed Romney budget co-authored by CBPP’s [Richard] Kogan, to make his numbers, Romney would have to cut 29 percent of the budget for Medicare and Medicaid by 2016. That number would grow to 40 percent by 2022. And that’s along with similar cuts everywhere else, cuts that would devastate Americans struggling in a tough economy... 

But those cuts are not going to happen. A Republican Congress will not sign its own death warrant by slashing Medicare in half. If Seib was honest, he’d tell his readers that a Romney presidency virtually guarantees a rerun of the George W. Bush show. Tax cuts plus military expansion will make it impossible to pay for social welfare programs that the voting public supports. The deficit will grow. Or, in other words, complete fiscal irresponsibility.

Hmmm. You know, if I were going to return to the policies that got us into the mess Barack Obama INHERITED in January 2009, I'd avoid letting people know exactly what I was going to do, too. 

You see, Willard claims he knows how to "turn things around". That's a lie. His "program" is deliberately non-specific and deceptive. There's only one thing Willard really knows how to do:

And that's line his own pockets.

Tuesday, June 12, 2012


The blogger Avenging Angel is doing a fantastic job of exposing Willard's non-stop stream of BS, and his work deserves recognition. Here he nails yet another disgusting lie by Mittens: the myth that America is heading to a "hollow military", a lie first uttered by George W. Bush, aka "Commander Codpiece" in reference to the Clinton administration.

First, the figures (click to enlarge):

Now the truth of the matter, from Politifact:

During the Jan. 16, 2012, Republican presidential debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C., former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney took aim at President Barack Obama’s support for the U.S. military.

 "The most extraordinary thing that's happened with this military authorization is the president is planning on cutting $1 trillion out of military spending," [This is a lie in itself, BTW] Romney said. "Our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917. Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947. We are cutting our number of troops. We are not giving the veterans the care they deserve. We simply cannot continue to cut our Department of Defense budget if we are going to remain the hope of the Earth. And I will fight to make sure America retains military superiority."

 This comment includes a lot of separate claims, but after a number of readers contacted us, we decided to focus on two of them: "Our Navy is smaller than it's been since 1917," and, "Our Air Force is smaller and older than any time since 1947."

His underlying point: The U.S. military has been seriously weakened compared to what it was 50 and 100 years ago.

 In recent years, the number of active ships has fallen low enough to approach its 1916 level. In both 2009 (the most recent year of the Heritage report) and 2011, the number was 285.

 So Romney has a point. However, even using this metric -- which, as we’ll argue later, is an imperfect one for measuring military strength -- this is not the lowest level since 1916.

The same data set shows that during the years 2005 to 2008, the number of active ships was 282, 281, 278 and 282, respectively -- each of which were below the levels of 2009, 2010 and 2011. In other words, each of the final four years under George W. Bush saw lower levels of active ships than any of the three years under Obama. The number of surface warships also bottomed out in 2005 under Bush, later rising by about 10 percent under Obama.

How about the Air Force? First, let’s look at the total number of aircraft.

We found extensive data in a report titled, "Arsenal of Airpower: USAF Aircraft Inventory, 1950-2009," authored by retired Air Force Col. James C. Ruehrmund Jr. and Christopher J. Bowie and published in November 2010 by the Mitchell Institute, a research and analysis organization founded by the Air Force Association.

The figures for 2009 show 5,988 total aircraft (4,460 active, 375 reserve and 1,153 in the Air National Guard). That’s a lower number than any year going back at least to 1950, the earliest year tallied in the report. So while we don’t have data going back to 1947, the specific year Romney cited, his claim about the size of the Air Force seems credible. 

But what do those numbers mean? Not much, a variety of experts told us.

Counting the number of ships or aircraft is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades. Romney’s comparison "doesn’t pass ‘the giggle test,’ " said William W. Stueck, a historian at the University of Georgia.

Consider what types of naval ships were used in 1916 and 2011. The types of ships active in both years, such as cruisers and destroyers, are outfitted today with far more advanced technology than what was available during World War I. More importantly, the U.S. Navy has 11 aircraft carriers (plus the jets to launch from them), 31 amphibious ships, 14 submarines capable of launching nuclear ballistic missiles and four specialized submarines for launching Cruise missiles -- all categories of vessels that didn't exist in 1916.

As for the Air Force, many U.S. planes may be old, but they "have been modernized with amazing sensors and munitions even when the airframes themselves haven’t been," said Michael O’Hanlon, a scholar at the Brookings Institution. Human factors matter, too. "The vast superiority of the U.S. Air Force has little to do with number of planes, but with vastly superior training, in-flight coordination and control, as well as precision targeting and superior missiles," said Charles Knight, co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives at the Massachusetts-based Commonwealth Institute.

[Defense experts] Ruehrmund and Bowie write in their report that "although the overall force level is lower, the capabilities of the current force in almost all respects far exceed that of the huge Air Force of the 1950s. Today’s Air Force can maintain surveillance of the planet with space and air-breathing systems; strike with precision any point on the globe within hours; deploy air power and joint forces with unprecedented speed and agility; and provide high-bandwidth secure communications and navigation assistance to the entire joint force."

"The Air Force now buys more unmanned than manned aircraft every year, and that trend is not going to change," said Lance Janda, a historian at Cameron University. "Within our lifetime, I think you’ll see an end to manned combat aircraft, because unmanned planes are more capable and a lot cheaper."

 Or as John Pike, director of, puts it: "Would anyone care to trade today's Navy or Air Force for either service at any point in the 20th century?"

 There’s also another problem with Romney’s claim. He appears to be throwing blame on Obama, which is problematic because military buildups and draw-downs these days take years to run their course. Just look at the long, slow declines in the number of ships and aircraft. These are not turn-on-a-dime events that can be pegged to one president.

...a wide range of experts told us it’s wrong to assume that a decline in the number of ships or aircraft automatically means a weaker military. Quite the contrary: The United States is the world’s unquestioned military leader today, not just because of the number of ships and aircraft in its arsenal but also because each is stocked with top-of-the-line technology and highly trained personnel.

Thanks to the development of everything from nuclear weapons to drones, comparing today’s military to that of 60 to 100 years ago presents an egregious comparison of apples and oranges. Today’s military and political leaders face real challenges in determining the right mix of assets to deal with current and future threats, but Romney’s glib suggestion that today’s military posture is in any way similar to that of its predecessors in 1917 or 1947 is preposterous.

In addition, Romney appears to be using the statistic as a critique of the current administration, while experts tell us that both draw-downs and buildups of military equipment occur over long periods of time and can't be pegged to one president. Put it all together and you have a statement that, despite being close to accurate in its numbers, uses those numbers in service of a ridiculous point. Pants on Fire.

Bush's accusation twelve years ago was a lie. Romney's accusation today is just as much of lie. Romney is promising a gigantic increase in the defense budget, one that is completely unnecessary. Coupled with his latest Millionaire's Tax Cut, it will blow a huge hole in the budget, no matter how savagely Willard screws the poor, the elderly, and kids by destroying the social safety net. No, the real danger to America's security is named Willard Mitt Romney.

You may have heard of him. He's the lying sociopath who has no real qualifications to be president, but would very much like to be anyway.

Oh, and about veterans? Willard plans to cut veterans care by $11,000,000,000 if he becomes president.

So much for giving "veterans the care they deserve".

Monday, June 11, 2012


You gotta hand it to Willard. He manages to tell multiple lies in a single statement. Now, he's lying about both the stimulus AND the number of government employees in the United States. The lowdown on low-down Mittens is right here:

“That stimulus he [President Obama] put in place — it didn’t help private sector jobs, it helped preserve government jobs. And the one place we should have shut back — or cut back — was on government jobs. We have 145,000 more government workers under this president. Let’s send them home and put you back to work.” — Mitt Romney, in Craig, Colo., May 29, 2012 

We have to admit that the statement is bit confusing, because it appears to mix different thoughts. The stimulus bill included payments to states to help save “government” jobs, such as those of teachers, firefighters and the like. But then Romney refers to “145,000 more government workers,” which is correct only if he is referring to federal workers, not state workers.

As we have noted before, Romney has previously used the 145,000 figure in a misleading way, but in that instance he clearly said he was referring to federal workers. In this context, since the first part of his statement suggests he is talking about state government workers, the second part would be wrong, because the number of government workers overall has dramatically declined under Obama.

The latest figures from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that nearly 610,000 government jobs have been lost since January 2009, with much of the loss coming since 2010, as the stimulus funds have begun to run out. Just in the past few months, about 30,000 government jobs have been lost, even as the number of private sector jobs has increased by more than 300,000. (Overall, since January 2009, the number of private sector jobs has increased by 55,000 because the numbers plunged deeply in 2009. 

If we assume that Romney was actually referring to federal government jobs, not all government jobs, then the claim of a 145,000 increase since January 2009 is accurate. (The May data released on June 1 dropped the figure slightly, from 146,000 to 143,000.

But as we have written, much of that increase has come in areas that Romney says he wants to bolster as president, such as defense (80,000 additional jobs), veterans affairs (38,000) and homeland security (20,000). Presumably he would think such increases are a good thing — not jobs he would want to eliminate.

Of course Willard is trying to deceive us, to make us think that Big Gubmint is expanding all over America. He's lied about public employee numbers before. He's lied about the effects of the stimulus. Hell, he's lied about the need for a stimulus. And it should be noted that the private sector has added about 4 million jobs since the recession hit bottom in June 2009

Can you IMAGINE the catastrophe that would have descended on us if Mittens had been president in 2009? No economic boost, and the American auto industry left to die.


But what else can you expect from someone whose "business expertise" consisted basically of an uncanny skill at lining his own pockets?

But here's something you can DEFINITELY expect from Willard:

Whatever issue he's talking about, he's lying to you.

Sunday, June 10, 2012


It should be clear to any reasonably sentient being on this or any other planet that Willard is a lying, shameless hack. But this one really makes you shake your head. He's blaming the lack of congressional action on jobs on Barack Obama, when it is the Republicans in Congress that have effectively blocked everything the President has proposed.

Willard claims that President Obama had a "supermajority" in Congress to pass legislation, conveniently forgetting people like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson who knee-capped the Administration whenever possible, and also forgetting that the Democrats nominally had 60 seats in the Senate only for about six weeks in 2009, between the time Al Franken was finally seated and Ted Kennedy's death. Kennedy was too ill to vote, as was the dying Robert Byrd for most of that time. When Romney says Obama could have gotten his jobs bill passed over fanatical right-wing Republican opposition, HE'S LYING.

And when Willard says the lack of a jobs program is Obama's fault, he's uttering a DAMNED LIE. To wit:

[From October 2011]: In a major setback for President Obama, the Senate on Tuesday blocked consideration of his $447 billion jobs bill, forcing the White House and Congressional Democrats to scramble to salvage parts of the plan, the centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s push to revive a listless economy.

The legislation, announced with fanfare by the president at a joint session of Congress last month, fell short of the 60 needed to overcome procedural hurdles in the Senate. 

The vote in favor of advancing the bill on Tuesday was 50 to 49. Two moderate Democrats facing difficult re-election campaigns, Senators Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Jon Tester of Montana, joined a solid phalanx of Republicans in opposition. In addition, the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, switched from yes to no so that he could move to reconsider the vote in the future.

Given Mr. Obama’s repeated demands, as he traveled the nation in recent weeks, that Congress pass the bill intact, the Senate’s vote to block the measure represented a significant setback and came after leaders of his own party had adjusted the measure to include a surtax on incomes of more than $1 million to round up additional Democratic votes.

Not only the Senate,  the Teabagger House Republicans have, since January 2011, strangled every single proposal. They have even been willing to destroy the credit of the United States in order to blackmail President Obama over raising the debt ceiling. (House Majority Leader Eric Cantor very piously announced his opposition to raising the limit without conditions. Funny, in the SEVEN times he voted to raise the ceiling under Bush, he demanded no such conditions.)

The truth of the matter is that the Republicans in Congress are deliberately sabotaging the economic recovery for political reasons--and Mitt Romney is lying about it.

To paraphrase Jonathan Swift, 

I never wonder to see Romney lie, but I often wonder to see him not ashamed.

Saturday, June 9, 2012


One thing that really steams me about so many of these  Republican so-called "super patriots" is their utter hypocrisy on the issue of military service. They give lip service to the bravery and sacrifice of our men and women in uniform, but when it was their turn to serve, they found ways to remove themselves from harm's way. Willard is a particularly glaring example of this disgusting phenomenon. But, being Willard, he has to make it worse through flagrant, shameless lying. To wit:

...Romney’s shifting stories on his Vietnam status could have real political consequences, as an Associated Press expose revealing that he sought and got four deferments from military service during the Vietnam War gets more play. It’s not the deferments that will hurt – Dick Cheney got five. It’s the fact that over the years, Romney has lied about it. 

AP politely says his story has “evolved,” but tracks the puzzling changes. Running for president in 2007, Romney told the Boston Globe, “I longed in many respects to actually be in Vietnam and be representing our country there, and in some ways it was frustrating not to feel like I was there as part of the troops that were fighting in Vietnam.” 

But in 1994, running against Ted Kennedy for his Massachusetts Senate seat while in his “I’m not a typical Republican” phase, he admitted “it was not my desire to go off and serve in Vietnam.” Fair enough: His father, George Romney, turned against the war, and so did a lot of Republicans...Indeed, in 1970, at 23, Romney told the Globe, ”If it wasn’t a political blunder to move into Vietnam, I don’t know what is.” 

But while telling the truth about his lack of “desire to go off and serve” in 1994, Romney lied again, telling the Boston Herald he didn’t “take any actions to remove myself from the pool of young men who were eligible for the draft.” That’s absolutely not true. He got his first deferment while at Stanford University, where in his prep-school prankster phase he counter-protested a Vietnam draft protest. That’s another lie, in a way: While posing as pro-draft and pro-war, he was evading the draft with an “activity in study” deferment. After his freshman year, he got deferment status as “a minister of religion or divinity student,” which he’d keep while working in France as a missionary for his Mormon church.  

Yet the AP reveals that other young Mormons were denied that deferment. And since the church itself strongly supported the war, its leaders eventually limited such deferments, but Romney kept his.

Yes, Willard "longed" to be in Vietnam. Funny how he didn't simply volunteer for active duty. Even funnier, he sought deferments to keep him out of the Vietnam War he so "longed" to be a part of. And of course, he lies about all of it.

In all honesty, is there ANYTHING Willard won't lie about?
If there is, I can't see it. But I have seen the Vietnam War Memorial in Washington, DC. You know, the one with the names of 58,000 Americans who died in southeast Asia.

You know, the wall that the name Willard Mitt Romney isn't on because he did his damnedest to avoid the war.

The same war he demanded that others be a part of.

Thursday, June 7, 2012


Ah, Willard. So many lies, so little time. Mittens is now claiming that President Obama has been knowingly damaging the economy, and he claims the author of a book about the Obama presidency supports this view. Only one problem:


Here is the truth of the matter:

The author of a book documenting the White House’s policy making strategy, cited multiple times by GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, says the former Massachusetts governor is using the book to dishonestly accuse President Obama of intentionally harming the economy.

“That is false, in a variety of ways. I don’t believe that it’s substantively true,” Noam Scheiber, author of The Escape Artists, told TPM by phone Thursday morning.

On Wednesday Romney said President Obama and his aides believed the health care reform law would harm the recovery but pushed for it anyway, and sourced the argument to Scheiber’s book. But the claim is not true. 

“There are a couple of claims wound up together there in Romney’s remarks,” Scheiber said. “One claim is that [Obama’s team] knew that the Affordable Care Act itself — something about the Act — would derail the recovery…. They do not believe that it’s substantively true. So it’s not something that they felt, and it’s not something I argue in the book.”... 

“Romney’s imputing one big claim that I just do not make and that I just do not believe to be true,” he said. “Which is that there’s something substantively, sort of intrinsically about the Affordable Care Act that would derail the recovery. That, I personally don’t believe, and I don’t believe they believe it. The only argument I make in the book is an opportunity cost argument — that they deprived themselves of capital and time and space to do more stimulus.”

In short:

1. The Obama team did NOT believe that the ACA would derail the recovery.

2. Noam Scheiber did not make any such statement in his book.

In other words, every aspect of Romney's claim is false.

Willard lies with impunity because he thinks no one will call him on his BS.

But he's wrong--WE WILL. And we're going to make him pay for his lies.

Count on it.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012


Hey, I'm back home and back at my job of tracing Mittens' endless damned lies. Today's falsehood by Lyin' Willard (TM) concerns the failed Solyndra renewable energy investment. This is what Willard said about it:

An independent inspector general looked at this investment and concluded that the Administration had steered money to friends and family and campaign contributors.

There's just one problem with that statement:


From the article exposing Willard's falsehood:

Small problem: No inspector general ever "concluded" such a thing, at least not based on any written reports or public statements.

Romney seemed to be referring to Congressional testimony offered up by Gregory Friedman, inspector general of the U.S. Department of Energy, from March 2011. In it, he said: "We currently have 64 open investigations associated with the Recovery Act… Schemes under investigation include the submission of false information in applications for funding, fraudulent claims for rebates, claims for unallowable or unauthorized expenses, the directing of contracts and grants to friends and family, weatherization fraud to 7 include mischarging, and other attempts to fraudulently obtain Recovery Act funds." 

Not only did Friedman never specifically cite Solyndra, but his office never brought charges related to any "directing of contracts and grants to friends and family." A spokeswoman for the DoE Inspector General's office declined to say whether any such investigation remained open, except to say that it never made the type of conclusion asserted by Romney.

Naturally, when questioned about all of this, the Romney campaign tried to lie again, and then they simply went silent.

Folks, they're going to try to get away with this kind of garbage again and again and again. We have to nail them on it EVERY TIME. Romney and the Flying Monkeys (TM) have unlimited resources to spread their lies. It's up to us to fight back.

And we will.