Zero Dark Dumbassery

Let's start at the beginning, it's a MOVIE and it is not a documentary.  Now that I've got that out of my system I'd like to move on to something that matters... and it isn't even if the CIA gave something classified to movie makers.

How about the question of whether the CIA handed disinformation to a movie maker to propagandize the American public?  Did Hollywood just take some information and then just make something up or did the CIA tell the movie makers something they didn't tell the Senate?  There are a lot of permutations that one could make up to ask about, but what does matter is just exactly what the CIA told them.  Considering the amount of absolute horse pucky the government sees fit to classify I won't get my shorts in a twist over that, but the CIA participated in the making of a movie that leaves an untrue and propagandistic impression regarding torture and that counts.

You have no idea how unfortunate I find it that this gives Sen John McPOW more excuses to run around on the TV machine. 

Disaster Relief - Really?

I'm going to use Business Insider for this quote so nobody can call me unfair:

"Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that's the right direction," Romney told debate moderator John King. "And if you can go even further, and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better. Instead of thinking, in the federal budget, what we should cut, we should ask the opposite question, what should we keep?” When John King interrupted to clarify, "Including disaster relief?" Romney continued, "We cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids, knowing full well that we’ll all be dead and gone before it’s paid off. It makes no sense at all."

Now what I'd like to ask Gov Christie and the rest of the complaining GOPers is just exactly who was it they backed in the last election?  I know they think we're idiots with the attention span of a Mayfly but dayyyammm. 

I'm done linking but maybe some of the screaming GOPers would like to wind the timeline back a bit more to where their fellow GOPers were in the House talking about how disaster aid for the suffering should get done just as soon as they figure out who else to make suffer and they never mentioned the outfit in the business of making people suffer and breaking things... Defense.

I just got done listening to whiz kid Mad Money Kramer state that discretionary spending was at 70yr low and about all we do is Defense, SS, Medicare and then say that though we've got the oldest limits in the advanced countries that, well - SS etc is where you go.  Defense got mentioned in where we spend money but that was it.

I hate to say this, but the olds and poor will get the shit kicked out of them way before Defense loses a cent and the People will swallow this as the cost of getting business done.  Yeah, there will be a handful like me jumping around screaming, "foul," and that will be it and we'll get pointed at and laughed at.

Cripes, and now we've got the nonsense that Gov Christie is a fricking reasonable GOPer.  In that Party today, such a thing does not exist.  PERIOD.

National Review Gets Sued, Finally Some Good News?

Once, in the dark ages before Blogs, I took a six month subscription to The National Review with the idea that maybe something Buckley had a hand in wouldn't be intolerably stupid.  The writing was childish (you get better here, if that's saying anything) and Buckley's only contributions were some sort of "Emeritus Letters" that clearly showed the man was well past whatever prime he had.  The subscription ran out... thankfully since that meant that I didn't need to read the waste of my money.  It isn't so much that I disagreed with them (I do, pretty much unequivocably) but that I don't care to pay for and read HS Freshman thinking and writing.  At NRO the ability to string words together has improved somewhat, but the logic and thinking still approximates the three year old's, "I want this now, don't tell me about facts!" screaming.  (I've had kids and I know they don't talk like that)

Now Michael Mann, a Penn State climatologist,  is suing NR for libel and defamation of character.

filed in District of Columbia Superior Court, Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, claimed that a July 15 article not only falsely accused him of misconduct, but crossed a line by comparing him to Jerry Sandusky, the former Penn State football assistant coach convicted of child molestation. He also sued the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank that ran a piece about Mann on its staff blog, OpenMarket.org.  

This place right here doesn't worry about calling somebody like Rick Santorum names or even saying Mittens is a liar.  Some of that has to do with the fact that they deserve it, but I'm sure I can get away with it because they're quite public enough in their assholery for me to be shielded.  I'm afraid that Mann has been enough of a public face on his own hook that NR could pretty much call him any damn thing they pleased, and just claim satire.  The part about accusing him of fraud may cause them a bunch of difficulty.

It seems it has:

As many of you know, National Review is not a non-profit — we are just not profitable. A lawsuit is not something we can fund with money we don’t have.

You may not know much about NR but I'm pretty sure you do know that they are great whacking bangers of the "Free Market" drum.  They are not a news magazine any more than this site is so they don't have the excuse of running a large information gathering staff eating their income.  What they have are opinion writers that the market doesn't value highly enough for them to earn a profit.  That market would be the right-wing grifting machine that has given us Newt and his plastic wife earning a fine lifestyle and Dick Morris not looking at all as if he's missing meals.  You could run down a pretty fair list of right-wing noise makers (Rush?) that don't seem to be poor, though begging is big with all of them.  Somebody/s are being over-paid, there is that little matter of deficit spending or even the Right To Work For Less.

To be sure, the profit their investors are looking for isn't from $$$$s generated under that "Masthead" but from the benefits of keeping the marks in line and on script so "not profitable" works for them.  It doesn't have a damn thing to do with the "Market" they're always on about - it has everthing to do with manipulating politics to subsidize their betters - the antithesis of their individuality fetish.  NR is essentially paid advertising for all the rest of the RW grifting and their plutocratic overlords.  They're not pointless, that machine managed to get a Mitt Romney sort of close.  You only have to think about that in relation to everything else going on for about a minute to be very frightened... or at least a bit ill.

Anyhow, it is an early Xmas gift. 

Governor Chris Christie Fer Christ's Sake

Gov. Christie is running for re-election to be Governor of New Jersey - that would be Republican Governor of that Blue State of New Jersey.  That would mean that he will have to run for that re-election as a Republican governor of a blue state with policies designed to win in a blue state, a northeastern blue state.  There has been talk about Gov. Christie running in 2016 for the GOP Presidential election.

Uh...

The GOP Primary voters really didn't like Mitt Romney, you know - the Blue State Republican Governor - but he did manage to money bomb and campaign competence bomb his rivals into extinction after his 180 on being a Republican Blue State Governor - barely (see Santorum).  Consider that damn near anybody breathing polled higher than Mittens for awhile.  The GOP ran a fairly democratic Primary this last time and the results were... disappointing for the GOP.

I'm sure the GOP can manage to jury rig the Primary process to get something closer to their desires but I'm not sure they can tilt the field enough to get the Confederate Party of Republicanism to swallow Christie, even as abrasive as he can be.  Tough talk isn't going to cover the realities of being a blue state governor - especially not in The Old Confederacy (and The New Confederacy).  Well, the Media needs something to talk about...

there's always Jeb BUSH

ahahahahaha, please do that.

Goodbye Mr rMoney - Please...

I would hope, that after 7 years of running to be POTUS, that Mr rMoney will take what I consider to be a very well earned retirement from politics.  For god's sake Mitt, go concentrate on scraping the last cent of value out of companies or even better dancing horses.  I really don't want to hear any more about this guy being the head of the GOP.  It is bad enough that I have to listen to Orange John repeat your Mittens' tax plans as though somebody elected you.  There are car elevators to be ridden, speed boats to be driven, and dogs to be strapped on roofs (no, don't do that one) and I'm sure the LDS can use some of your help and expertise to... something.

I don't want or need any more of your version of political speech which was debased enough prior to your campaign.  I can get your idea of discourse any time I'm willing to insult my intelligence with Rush Limbaugh or half of the House GOP Caucus.  It is quite possible to take a measure of Corporate Spending on your failure and wonder just how many products at what price could have been made or employees hired or (horrors) given raises.  Business bemoans the insurance costs of the employee mandated insurance and yet were the drivers of the demise of a public model and threw even more money away on a corporate raider as though he was experienced at adding value to the economy.

Mitt's failures as a candidate were manifold as were the GOP failures as a campaign machine and resulted in Electoral College disaster and popular vote loss.  But those failures of charisma and machinery were nothing next to nothing compared to the failure of messages.  Racism will work in some House districts and even in a lot of the Confederacy but in the nation at large and most larger states it just flatly sucks - and your scared white vote just isn't big enough any more to do the job.  St Ronnie's demographics are gone (at least partly due to his Amnesty) and America is reaping the "benefits" of the voodoo of Reaganomics.  It is beginning to look as though the results of voter disenfranchisement efforts may be backlash and upped vote enthusiasm from those groups - though hard numbers to back that feeling will be near impossible to garner - and those insulted by those efforts will most likely never support the bastards who did it. 

I expect 2016 to be a replay of of 2012 and even 2008, though probably the racism directed at the actual candidate will be a bit lesser, mostly because I don't see another dark skinned candidate in the wings although female isn't out of the question.  The racism regarding policies Democrats support won't be lessened, probably even heightened since there is so little room to go another direction.  The plutocratic politics will not be touched because while the GOP can't remember history in any accurate manner, they can read checkbooks.

G'bye Mr Mitt, please go much farther away and much quieter than Sen McPOW.  I won't miss you.

Polling The 47% Statement

NBC/WSJ did some polling and one of the questions was how did Mitt's 47% comment affect your view of him?

More positive ......................................................... 23

More negative ....................................................... 45 

Not much difference .............................................. 24 

Don’t know enough ............................................... 8

Despite the media's obsession with this tape and its effects this thing shows what I've been dismissing. Yeah, a 45 more negative view isn't helpful, but look at the rest of it, if you add the rest together you get 53% that aren't pushed Obama's direction. I'm more than happy to go with the idea that the statement froze some leaners in Obama's camp, but that is far from agreeing with the idea that the statement is persuading people into voting for him that weren't already there. I'd be more inclined if that "more negative" number was in excess of Obama's general polling but it isn't.

The media loves "a moment" in campaigns, the ones that change everything, so this thing takes on a life as one of them.  The slow drip drip of GOPer bullshit from the Primaries on to now as an r-Money definer seems a lot more reasonable backed up by what this poll says.  This is the guts of what I find offensive by the "a moment" theme in this case.  If the definition continues on, what will happen is that r-Money gets the blame as a clueless bumbler for a loss that was avoidable minus this particular fumble. 

If you think some really charismatic person could sell the bill of goods that Mittens has been peddling I'm really frightened for the America of that vision.

 

Rape Is Rape?

I suppose that if you're a part (VP) of the R-money campaign sudden 180 degree swerves, er - turns, um - flipperfloppers are sort of ordinary. It would seem from Paulie's terseness when pushed on the rape is rape line that he's had a really big change of heart in the last... I don't know, couple days. I say that recently since in January of 2011 he was one of the cretins pushing for the language in HR3 that contained the phrase "forcible rape" in place of "rape." This was about the third time around he'd made that play so "forcible rape" apparently held real meaning for him in his proudly held Pro-choice career. I don't know, maybe Mitt secretes a secretion of pheronomes that drives flipperflopperism. (you know kinda like that spermicidal secretion - also known as God's Little Shield) You don't suppose this'll put the wooden stake in the vampire heart of the "brave principled Ryan" media theme do you?

I'll admit I've heard Ryan repeat the "work requirement" Romney lie and I've heard him talk about the Prez "raiding Medicare" and even the "didn't build that" bullshit lies without any real pushback on his "honorableness." He is still the "brave thoughtfull budget hawk" despite voting for every one of BushCo's budget busting measures and proposing a budget that would explode the deficit even under favorable filling in of the details he refuses to provide - along with now being R-money's second on that guy's similar messy budget nonsense. I strongly doubt there'll be any such pushback on his mythological status since it seems the media has a macro for Ryan with those adjectives filled in.

Who Apologizes?

There has been a lot of talk about the Non-Apology - the one about "two words." Other than the fact that it took a lot more than two words to demand sex tapes, to make references to frequency of sex, and to lie completely about Ms Fluke referring to her sex life at all, you might take it as complete horse manure, anyhow. But...

Since we seem to be talking about apologies, I'd like to remind everybody just exactly who it is that does the apologizing when it comes to Rush, and it ain't Rush. If you've got memory cells in operation, some anyhow, it will be stuck in there somewhere that it is Republicans who apologize to Rush. Repeatedly. Just in case you were wondering what the GOP is all about...

Update Edit:
A couple things occurred to me, one of which is that thinking Rush is going away soon is, well, an error. This won't have hurt him with his audience and radio advertising is a competitive advertising method. There will be those who will measure loss against gain by talking to that audience, but the audience will be there, anyhow.

This isn't about the audience at all. Forget the audience - they agree. Mitt Romney "wouldn't have chosen those words," is potent with people who haven't gone crazy and have daughters, wives, girlfriends, hell - in general see women as something other than chattel. Make it clear, Mitt agrees but he just doesn't like the "words." Mitt agrees she's a slut, just another word would be better. Mitt agrees she should make sex tapes for Rush and his ilk. Mitt agrees that Ms Fluke was all up in Congress' face about her sex life. That would make Mittens a softer spoken Rush... So somebody will ask Mitt about this?

These people (GOPers/candidates) and their apologists are pigs (sorry porcine mammals). No pissed off father is going to get up and slap Mittens silly but keep in mind that he just did "I'm Mitt Romney and I approve this message."

Rush Goes Where The GOP Is

It has been kind of funny to watch GOPers tripping over nasty impediments like the truth to get some distance from good ole boy Rush Limbaugh. The GOP has made not a single statement regarding male erection drugs and freedom of religion. This in the face of a hell of a lot of religious doctrine regarding adultery where there seems to be no requirements that those "ED" drugs be dispensed to only married faithful men. You might even get to an WTF sort of moment where there's no heterosexual requirement...

They really do mean "sluts" and yes, Rep "Bo(eh)ner" it really is about a War On Women. The "Ultrasound Bills" are part and parcel with that attitude. C'mon, what mentally capable woman has some kind of doubt what an abortion is about removing? There really exists some doubt as to whether a woman knows an abortion involves a baby and that baby means child? She's a slut and must be shamed.

What the GOPers are objecting to right now is that Rush has said exactly what they mean and getting people upset by the saying of it. Beat them and their fellow travelers over the head with this - repeatedly and forcefully.

Have I mentioned that "oh there's a middle way liberals" make me want to puke?

WaPo Both Sides Do It, cough, gag, choke

You'd have to read this entire piece of junk by the WaPo Editorial Board to understand how far that paper has fallen.

Incivility is not a one-way street in America. Far from it: Mr. Limbaugh’s left-wing equivalents have trashed any number of conservatives over the years. Conservatives have a point when they protest that the “mainstream media” don’t always heed their legitimate grievances.

No shit, they actually published something containing this line. Drowning these idiots in their own sea of mediocrity and false equivalence would be doing the journalist world a giant favor. They can't go bust too quickly for me.

Do me a favor and don't add to their clicks, find abstracts elsewhere.
BalloonJuice will do.

Breitbart Is Dead...

I suppose this is an oportunity to be gracious. I guess I can try.

Good people also died today and I'm sorry for everyone's families.

The GOP's Difficult Primary

I just got done listening to Dana Milbanks essentially apologizing for the GOP by blaming its Primary, paraphrasing, he said this primary has made things difficult for the GOP and blaming a handful of extremists for hijacking it. This almost in the same breath as saying David Brooks has spent decades as a "reasonable Republican." David goddamn Brooks, who has spent those decades justifying and rationalizing each step the GOPers have taken into lunacy. Up until right now, Our Mister Brooks hasn't found a damn thing to complain about. Rather than actually complain, he's blurred the lines and blunted the edges of craziness with sociological crap drooled into his column.

The Primary is the problem? This is the breeding program of the GOP finally maturing. They've played at this for decades upon decades and just now the "reasonable" people are saying, "Huh?" This is supposed to make anyone whose paid attention think that maybe Goldwater, Nixon, and St Ronnie were just kidding? Dana Milbanks is credited with being an astute observer of politics and he comes up with blaming the goddam Primary? Nobody was watching Sarah Palin's campaign in '08? Apparently not Milbanks.

I'd be seriously remiss if I didn't call out the Democrats who kept finding a middle way and being all "collegial" and not using plain language to call stupid and crazy, "stupid and crazy." "My esteemed colleague is making a mistake" scarcely covers the ground of being a lying batshit crazy fuckhead. When Sen Kyl stood on the Senate floor and made his "not intended as a factual statement" nobody stood up and said, "That, sir, is a flat out lie." 95% vs 3% is not a mistake and "not a factual statement" is a fucking lie.

I would surely be just as remiss for not assigning blame to the nasty equivocators who wear (D) labels as they shifted politically farther and farther right and sabotaged everything marginally liberal. That is liberal, not goddam LEFT. Sure, the media has played stenographer and the voters just paid no attention, but that sure is easy to do if the elected officials just suck the corporate tit and say not spit that might serve the interest of the public.

Oh hell, just put the President back in and elect whatever (D) happens to be running and we won't go into the toilet quite as quickly. Some of you might actually have the pleasure of voting for someone that IS a Democrat and DOES give a damn about the public. Most of you, oh well... Dana is on your side.

Bye-bye Paddy...

...I wish we'd scarcely known ye. Yup, Pat Buchanan is out at MSNBC and oddly enough he's unhappy about it. He's been blacklisted.

In the 10 years I have been at MSNBC, the network has taken heat for what I have written, and faithfully honored our contract. Yet my four-months’ absence from MSNBC and now my departure represent an undeniable victory for the blacklisters.

It is entirely possible that this cretin doesn't know what the term "blacklisted" refers to. It may have missed him that it refers to an industry wide blanket non-employment of a class of people - in particular the "villains" of McCarthyism. Now since he can say this:

If my book is racist and anti-Semitic, how did Sean Hannity, Erin Burnett, Judge Andrew Napolitano, Megyn Kelly, Lou Dobbs, and Ralph Nader miss that? How did Charles Payne, African-American host on Fox radio, who has interviewed me three times, fail to detect its racism? How did Michael Medved miss its anti-Semitism?

it is pretty hard to see how he's been subjected to a blacklisting - even if he does list a bunch of cretins as references. Cretinism seems to be alive and well in the industry and with friends like these it is hard to see that Pat will be lacking a forum to spout his inanities.

Pat's been a big one for the Free Market horseshit and it would seem a bit odd for him to be all BLACKLISTED about a corporate decision on product. You see, this was the product:

My days as a political analyst at MSNBC have come to an end.

It would seem that MSNBC didn't want to pay for what Pat calls political analysis. It isn't shown that his voice has been silenced or that MSNBC has made any effort at all to do more than not pay him for what they had been paying him for.

It should be noted that MSNBC can get Pat's crap free from elected GOPers and wannabe elected GOPers. Further, on a couple shows they get to do their act without fear of contradiction.

Why Is Scumbag Ralph Reed On My TV?

When the hell did Jack Abramoff get rehabilitated in GOPer circles sufficiently that his bag boy Ralph Reed gets to talk about anything other than scamming the rubes on the Religious Right? Ralph played hit man for Abramoff in the Indian Gambling scandal using his "pulpit" to get the religiously oblivious to cut the throat of one gamer for the benefit of another. This smarmy little dweeb pretends to have morality and honor, c'mon. CNN, purveyor of crap and pulpit of shitheels, home of Erin Burnett.

You have no idea how pissed I am that James Carville can't work up to call out the rat bastard? Oh yeah the goddam liberal media...

Mitt Plays Caude Rains Playing The Invisible Man

I guess today at the CPAC fantasy camp Mitt finally got the starring role he's been auditioning for - as Claude Rains as The Invisible Man. He stood up in front of god and everybody and started unwrapping... and voila - no more Mitt, he vanished like a fist when you open your hand (to steal from one of the best). The thing, of course if you read the book or watched the movie, a foggy drizzle took care of that vanishing act.

Romney has a record, both as a Governor and as several candidates.(I mean that just like that) There are laws, transcripts, audio tapes, and video tapes that will act as a foggy drizzle creating an outline. Since you're dealing with, well, CPAC there is no telling how that'll play. I, frankly, couldn't give less of a rat's ass what those CPACers do with the crap shoveled by Mitt, they're a smidgen of the general vote. I am glad that Mitt has put more stuff into the public record available to be used on him.

Balanced Media...

Why in the name of whatever deity it is you like is Ramesh Ponnuru doing on my goddam TV when it is tuned to something other than goddam FauxNews, not to mention on with Chuck Todd, Andrea Mitchell, and Chris Cilliza on goddam MSNBC? Thank that same deity that they couldn't or didn't find somebody as crazy and as big a liar to represent their idea of some nutty leftism to balance that dirt bag with. What information am I supposed to come away from this with? That he doesn't drool in public?

Gee, I wonder why politics in this country is such an exercise in goddam stupidity.

goddam

News Or Stenography

I guess some questions would seem jaw dropping in another era of media, but the NYT actually asks Should The Times Be a Truth Vigilante?. I wonder if the name Judith Miller has dropped out of institutional memory? I wonder if the appellation, paper of record, has any meaning?

There are some things that take awhile to dig out, especially if they've just suddenly popped up. Most political issues aren't in the least like that, particularly with the GOP. Any reporter that is anything more than a stenographer knows about most of the GOP hobby-horses and from a simple understanding ought to know what can be quickly analysed and what is going to take some time. Some things have been around long enough that if the reporter gave a rat's patoot about facts they'd already have gone over that ground and there would be an institutional archive.

Mitt Romney is scarcely a new phenomenon and neither is his bragging about Bain Capitol. If something like Bain Capitol has not already been researched by the NYT you'd have reason to question their competence and if it is already there, for it to not appear in direct juxtaposition to a candidate's claims is a source of question. That would be any candidate's claims regarding Bain. If a politician is going to make claims about "death panels" on whatever side they shouldn't be able to do it without any question by someone who purports to provide news.

There is a very serious difference between being partisan and being objective and there is also a very real difference between objective and being a stenographer. That a politician has something to say is not news, the content my be news. It is immaterial to buy the NYT (or other) to find out what any campaign will be happy to provide - a transcript or their talking points around it. What is meant and its relationship to facts is what actually counts and it is exactly what is not provided.

I'm happy to say that in my contacts with local papers of whatever stripe their questions almost always were directed at illumination rather than obfuscation - the sole offender in that regard was The Oregonian, which also purports to be a "paper of record." I'd see it as hopeful that the NYT asks the question, but I find it too distressing that they'd be in a position to find it necessary. I guess that's the result of a generation's worth of screaming "LIBERAL MEDIA !!!"

What Is Too Stupid For NYT OpEd?

It seems from campaigning that maybe Mittens wishes that NYT had said his attack on the auto industry government deal wasn't good enough and wasn't out there to haunt him. Well, sure that's one thing but maybe Bill Keller's Hillary VP OpEd should have gotten the spike. You can read the thing for yourself to see what sort of silliness this thing gets up to in order to make its case, but I'd suggest saving your time and just laughing.

I'm not going to go into it, I read it to see if it was nearly as stupid as it sounded - it was (edit) worse. (h/t JG -BJ)

Who Gets To Have Nice Things?

DAVID GREGORY: All right. We're gonna come back to the question of obstacles to the nomination, but let me get to policy, Governor Huntsman. This is, by all accounts, an age of austerity for this country. A jobs crisis. Also a spending crisis in Washington. I wonder what specifically you would do to say to Americans, "These are cuts I'm going to make in federal spending that cause pain, that will require sacrifice?"

From the MTP "debate" transcript.

By all accounts... Age Of Austerity... Jobs Crisis... Spending Crisis... Sacrifice.

Hmmm. You know, if you took all those themes and addressed them as regarding working and poor Americans you might really have something. They are not, of course, regarding working/poor Americans other than the SACRIFICE. Every one of the people this horseshit question was addressed to has a tax plan up that would cut the taxes on wealth and increase the taxes on work and cut programs designed to keep people out of abject poverty.

If you were to read the comments on the MTP Debate transcript you'd find a whole lot of them attacking Gregory for being a LIBERAL trying to stir up trouble and - by the way - shorting Ron Paul's time to be a Confederate.

You would think that from the time of St Ronnie the Raygun there'd be enough data laying around to make something like a coherent case for something in regard to tax policy and the state of the economy. Well - it happens there is. The really big problem is that it doesn't support Clinton era tax rates much less StRR or GWB. The case that gets made in regard to the overall economic health is that StRR screwed things up and pretty much everybody made things worse and Bill Clinton only managed to mildly stem the tide in some regards.

Working/poor Americans have been sacrificing every damn day from StRR on in one way or another. Some of them tried to avoid that sacrifice and used their houses as a credit card or profit center but most just kept working harder for less while watching their betters rake in more of the scraps that might have fallen off the banquet table.

Now you have - no shit - the kid of Geo Romney talking about being "unemployed" and having to worry "about getting a pink slip," as if he had a worry about falling into the lap of luxury instead of off the face of the freaking earth. This is the kind of crap that gets served up as a goddam question by the goddam liberal elite media by talking head that has about as much to worry about or goddam sacrifice as Willard Mitt Romney does.

Mittens seems to make about $15M per year for doing nothing for Bain Capital (numbers vary - mostly up) which sounds like a bit of money, but probably ought to get taken in the context of $43K/yr median income family of four which works out to be 349 of them. Yes you suckers, Mittens makes that much money being un-damned-employed. Taken another way, he virtually makes DAILY that median income.

How it could be made much clearer to the rubes that these guys want to give themselves and their pals a big break while cutting your throat is way the hell beyond me. I don't begrudge these bastards their wealth... but I'm not hot on the idea of being their human sacrifice.

Wolf Wonders

At 1:13 PM during an interview regarding the Perry campaign talking about Mitten's job destruction record Wolf wondered if after the Primary they'd talk about the "tens of thousands of jobs Bain created at Staples and..." Nothing to indicate that this was an assertion of Mittens with any questions involved about the numbers. Stated as bald fact.

Gee, would one have cause to "wonder" if Mittens is Wolf's boy?

Oh yeah, "the liberal media"

*UPDATE
About twenty minutes later Wolf has POW on and feeds him the line about job creation and then goes on the fluff Bain, himself. Correcting the record is laudable - repeating a campaign's talking points is a bit of a different horse. CNN - news? There are a lot of measures of Bain, including how many jobs under their direction and what kind of paying jobs were involved - Wolf couldn't be bothered...