NO ONE CARES: Disinformation allowed!


Part 3—The Court rules, then the deluge: Disinformation has ruled our discourse over the past thirty years.

In general, this disinformation has worked against progressive interests. Disinformation sent George W. Bush to the White House. It helped him proceed once there.

(If we lower our tax rates, we get higher revenue! Every American knows this.)

That said, does anyone care about this vast intellectual breakdown? Do “mainstream journalists” care? Do liberal elites seem to care?

Consider what happened on June 28, when a hoary old piece of disinformation was dragged center stage once again.

On June 28, the Supreme Court issued its now-famous ruling about the health care law. As part of that ruling, Chief Justice Roberts said that, “for constitutional purposes,” the penalty payment which supports the individual mandate “can be read as a tax,” even though that may not be “the most natural interpretation of the mandate.”

In the low-IQ world of American journalism, these statements meant that Roberts had said that the penalty payment “is a tax.” But that wasn't all:

Within hours, a disinformation machine swung into action. Using a hoary old line of attack, it built a disinformation campaign around that piece of simplification.

Presumably, tens of millions of American voters got misled in the process. As major elites chose to look away, disinformation was in the saddle again!

Within the past thirty years, the presence of such disinformation has been as American as cherry pie. Even worse, it’s abundantly clear that no one cares about this type of misconduct.

The mainstream press corps doesn’t care. Neither do “liberal leaders.”

In fact, the health law isn’t “the biggest tax increase in history;” it doesn't even come close. But so what?

Within hours of the court’s ruling, millions of voters were being told that it was. And this disinformation campaign wasn’t restricted to the Fox News Channel. Mainstream journalists played along, in acts of omission and commission.

Meanwhile, liberal leaders barely noticed that this hoary campaign had transpired. By now, disinformation is our culture’s life blood. To appearances, no one notices or cares when this sort of thing goes on.

No, Virginia: The health care law is not the biggest tax increase of all time. It doesn’t even come close, although there are some tax increases in the law.

But so what? The bogus cry of “biggest tax increase in history” had worked quite well, twenty years before, against Bill Clinton’s tax plan. Within hours of the court’s ruling, major figures on Fox News had repurposed the hoary old claim:
HANNITY (6/28/12) Jay, I'll start with you. From a legal standpoint, so a victory for the President, a victory for President Obama is the largest tax increase in American history, which may be followed up with the second largest tax increase in American history when the Bush tax cuts expire?
“Right,” Jay Sekulow replied. If you were watching the Hannity show, the health law was “the largest tax increase in American history.”

By Friday evening, June 29, Hannity was pushing this disinfo hard.

“This is now the largest tax increase or will be the largest tax increase in American history and then we got a double whammy because come, you know, January 1, the Bush tax cuts expire.” So Hannity said at one point in his show on that Friday night. Later, speaking with Sarah Palin, the disinformer said this:
HANNITY (6/29/12): That was Nancy Pelosi yesterday gleefully reacting to the controversial Supreme Court ruling and like the President and members of his administration, the former speaker is refusing to acknowledge even still that Obamacare is nothing short of the largest tax increase in American history.

And we continue with former Alaska Governor, Fox News contributor Sarah Palin.

You know, I listened to Nancy Pelosi. Listened to David Axelrod. Listen to the White House today, they still cannot acknowledge what this is, which is a tax. Largest tax increase in history. The president wants to follow that up with a double whammy and that is not extending the Bush tax cuts. Politically speaking, how should Congress deal with this and how should the Romney campaign deal with this if you were to give advice?

PALIN: Well first off, Nancy Pelosi is a dingbat and she is the perfect spokesperson for this whole agenda of the far left running the Democrat [sic] Party.
The health law was “the largest tax increase in history.” Pelosi, of course, was a dingbat.

On Fox, the hoary old claim was widely spread. On June 29, Mike Huckabee offered it to Neil Cavuto. (“Yes, Neil, it is a tax, which means every Democrat now gets to go out and defend the largest tax increase in the history of country.”) On June 30, Jim Pinkerton told the gang on Fox News Watch. (“Roberts has now declared this to be the giant, biggest tax increase in the history of the universe.”)

By Monday, July 2, one apostle, Dana Perino, was spreading the claim into other lands. She spread the treasured disinformation on Imus' program that morning:
PERINO (7/2/12): If your new best friend in Washington is going to be Chief Justice Roberts, if you're on the left, you might—it would be honorable to quote him accurately. What he said is you are not allowed to do it [the penalty payment] under the commerce clause, but you are allowed to do it under the tax provision, therefore this can stand, it is a tax. And to try to say anything else is foolish.

I can understand why the White House doesn't want to, they don't want to be labeled in trying to defend the largest tax increase in American history on top of the other ones that could be coming at the end of the year, but it is what it is.
“It is what it is,” Perino declared, having just said what it isn’t. That evening, she sanded her claim a bit on The Five, declaring the health care law “the biggest tax increase in the last 20 years.”

We’ll return to Fox before we’re done, but here we reach a key point of departure: The disinformation was widespread on Fox. But the disinformation wasn’t restricted to that disgraceful channel.

On CNN, on network news broadcasts, members of the mainstream “press corps” spread the disinformation too. For a truly pathetic example, here is CNN’s Gloria Borger on the day of the ruling:
BORGER (6/28/12): You can almost read between the lines that the chief justice was sort of admonishing the administration for saying, you know what, call a tax a tax. If it looks like a tax, walks like a tax, it's a tax. Call it a mandate, a penalty, a fine, it's a tax.

So I think you're going to be hearing a lot more about what Mitch McConnell just said with Republicans saying that— They're going to say this is the largest tax increase to come down the pike, maybe in history.

BLITZER: But it's a little awkward for the Romney campaign to be doing that because Romney supported a mandate, an individual mandate in Massachusetts with penalties, i.e., tax increases in Massachusetts.

BORGER: Right.
Truly, that is pathetic. Ignore the part where Borger describes what we “can almost read between the lines” in the Roberts opinion.

In our view, Borger’s account of what Roberts "almost" said is impossible to square with the words found in his opinion. But good God! She then mouthed the “largest tax increase in history” line, telling us that this is what Republicans are going to say!

With people like Borger around to perform, Republicans don’t have to say it! And Blitzer permitted the hoary old point to stand. After Borger advanced this claim, he offered no challenge or warning.

Borger was first of many. As the days went on, many mainstream journalists would put the disinformation in play. Example:

On Friday’s CBS This Morning, Jan Crawford played tape of Rush Limbaugh saying this: “What we now have is the biggest tax increase in the history of the world. Obama lied to us about that.”

CBS viewers saw Limbaugh advance the hoary old disinformation. And Crawford simply let it stand. Having played tape of Limbaugh’s misstatement, she made no attempt to challenge the hoary old charge.

Blitzer, Borger and Crawford were just the start of the charge. All over TV news, “mainstream” figures stood politely aside as hustlers advanced the old charge. On the morning of June 29, CNN’s hapless Soledad O’Brien deferred to Governor Bob McDonnell during the 7 o’clock hour. She then rolled over and died for Michele Bachmann one hour later:
BACHMANN (6/29/12): Number one, what we can do is we can, instead of being the highest taxed nation in the world for job creation, we can lower our taxes. But Obamacare is the biggest tax increase in American history. That's what Obamacare does.

O'BRIEN: It sounds like she's not going to answer your question. Congressman Israel. Congresswoman Bachmann, thank you for being with us this morning.

ISRAEL: Thank you.

O'BRIEN: We certainly appreciate the feisty debate.
Praising Bachamn for being so feisty, the worthless O’Brien rolled over and died, as she so frequently does.

How poorly prepared (or compliant) are your “mainstream” press figures? This hoary old claim had first been used—incorrectly, of course—against the Clinton tax plan. Twenty years later, the RNC had unloosed the same bogus claim against the Obama health law.

But no matter how high their pedigree, your “journalists” are rarely ready to act. On NPR’s Tell Me More, Michel Martin sat and stared off into space as the “biggest tax increase” bomb dropped:
PABLO TORRE (6/29/12): There are two quick things I wanted to mention that I think in the longer term are probably huge blows against liberals. Which is the fact that the Commerce Clause, which is clearly designed to limit the powers of federal government, is pretty much gutted under Roberts' opinion. And second, that the re-branding of Obamacare as a tax—I mean, I was just looking at, you know, GOP conservative sites and everybody's proclaiming, you know, the largest tax increase in the history of the world is what Obamacare is. And it is an election year and I think that could be turn out—that could turn out to be a huge consolation prize for conservatives, coming out of this.

MARTIN: Well, you know, the only other point I'd make about this is one of the things that's intrigued me all along is how many polls say that if you take the label off of it and just ask people about the constituent parts of the law, how many Republicans support it? How many Republicans support it and how many self-described conservatives support it, as long as you don't label it an Obama initiative?
Torre dropped the hoary old bomb. Martin simply moved right along, noticing nothing to look at.

Again and again, mainstream journalists failed to react to the hoary old charge. For perhaps the most gruesome example, consider the effort by New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny.

On Monday, July 2, Zeleny appeared as part of the pundit panel on the Fox News Channel’s Special Report. By now, four days had passed since the court issued its ruling.

In this passage, Juan Williams tries to rebut the hoary old charge. He tries and of course quickly fails:
ROBERTS (7/2/12): What about that last statement, that this is the biggest tax increase in history? Juan, Jeff, go with that!

WILLIAMS: I think in fact, the Polifact and the Washington Post say it's one of the pants on fire lies of all time. If you look at the size of the tax increase it's very small compared to anything as a percentage of GDP. It's just not true.

KRAUTHAMMER: But if you add the other taxes in Obamacare together it's huge.

WILLIAMS: This is—you can add all the other taxes on—you are trying the pile on.

KRAUTHAMMER: Pile on? It's all in the bill.

WILLIAMS: Even right now, this is just not going to determine the outcome of the election. This is not the issue.

ROBERTS: All right, let's give it to Dr. Zeleny.
Williams had the right idea—but with one sharp word from Charles, he folded. He may have been unprepared. Or he may have felt, by the rules of the game, that it was time to stop.

Whatever! At this point, Roberts turned to Zeleny.

Roberts' question was still on the table. (“What about that last statement, that this is the biggest tax increase in history?”) This was the best the thoroughly useless Times reporter could muster:
ROBERTS: All right, let's give it to Dr. Zeleny.

ZELENY: I think it's up to the voters. Everyone has made their mind up on the tax issue, so I don't think we are moving voters through. The voters in the center of the debate, the independent swing voters I don't think will be moved by the argument. A few weeks from now neither Obama or Romney will talk about health care. Neither one of the want to talk about it.

ROBERTS: Hold it right there, gentlemen. We'll be right back.
Simply put, Zeleny turned and ran. "It's up to the voters," he said.

Fox viewers wouldn’t be forced to hear the truth about that old charge.

We’ll leave it here for today, though much more misconduct has occurred, including Anderson Cooper's disgraceful July 9 roll-over. Simply put, the disinformation was spread far and wide, with mainstream "reporters" assisting Fox in spreading the bullshit around. And please understand:

Anyone who knows modern politics understands that this hoary old claim was falsely used, to great effect, against the Clinton tax plan. Twenty years later, they still refused to speak or complain when this hoary old claim was brought back.

Disinformation defines our discourse; it's been this way for decades. In the current case, millions of voters have been disinformed as this hoary old claim has been advanced. It’s hard to find genuine examples of pushback. (Though there are a few.)

The mainstream press corps didn’t push back; the career liberal world barely noticed the problem. The truth is apparent:

Rather plainly, no one cares when voters get disinformed!

The evidence could hardly be more clear: No one cares about this sort of misconduct! That would seem to include the vast majority of your “liberal” heroes.

No one cares, including our tribe! Fiery liberals, why is that?

Tomorrow: Anthropology class


  1. "Presumably, tens of millions of American voters got misled in the process."


    There Bob goes again, thinking no one is as smart as him!

    People can think for themselves you know!

    Just because bullshit claims go unrebutted, or actually acknowledged as if they were in fact true ("OK. Point taken") -- that doesn't mean people are being misled!

    Anyway, what do you expect from a bough-and-paid for "press corps?"

    Quit your useless complaining and review Rachel Maddow's fabulous newish book instead!


    1. Just because untrue claims are acknowledged as if in fact they are true doesn't mean people are being misled?

      How do you figure?

  2. "And this disinformation campaign wasn’t restricted to the Fox News Channel. Mainstream journalists played along, in acts of omission and commission."


    Ugh! There Somerby goes again, pretending there's some kind of equivalence between FOX and the rest of the world.

    False equivalency! False equivalency! False equivalency!

    When FOX does it -- it's very bad and you should talk about it, because FOX is very important and influential.

    Never mind that you will have zero influence on them; it's still where you should concentrate your ire.

    When the "liberal" world does it -- you must first remember they aren't really liberal. And so you shouldn't criticize them.

    Because even though your readership comes from that "liberal" world and you might have some influence, it's just wrong to point these things out.

    Or are you just trying to help Romney win?


    1. I love anonymous' pre-arguments. They are my favorite part of the comments section.

    2. he's being sarcastic Dave

    3. I know. That's why I love them.

  3. Anonymous 12:30 & 12:40

    I think we all hope your posts aren't Bob's own pre-emptive sallies; wishing your intellectual content on him would be cruel and demeaning, even for his most persistent critics here.

    Note, however, that in creating that suspicion, you're not doing much for what's left of his reputation.

    1. Haha! See how I planted the suggestion that the comments were made by Bob, then immediately blamed you for creating the suspicion that I'm trying so hard to engender? I'm so clever!

    2. Don't know about clever, but the pre-arguments by this poster, (which I gather is you, Anon 7:55 PM?), along with what he deems to be "clever" summaries of posts by others, which end with "idiot" or Anonymous Idiot or I'm an idiot, are truly remarkable.

      A show of cleverness and charm which isn't clever or charming, and a tedious absence of any original content. And of course, the usual Bobista/Bobette/Bobarism tactic, taken directly from Your Dear Leader, insisting that anyone who doesn't see the world the way Somerby does, is a low IQ idiot.

      You've mastered the technique of being utterly obnoxious, bro. It's just a pity you can't make a living doing it.

    3. "insisting that anyone who doesn't see the world the way Somerby does, is a low IQ idiot"

      I wouldn't dream of it!

      And there's nothing in those comments that says anyone is a low IQ idiot.

      Now, if having *your* usual arguments laid out in such a plain way makes you feel like an idiot -- well, that's nobody's fault but your own.

      What you call "absence of any original content" is content that is exactly what you anti-Somerby posters bring each day.

      I would call it parody, but it really is just a parroty rehash of your own arguments.

      Don't like them? Stop bringing them.

    4. Exactly; it's not a parody. It's you, in insufferable doses. You have no idea, apparently.

      Go away, please. You're not doing Somerby any favors, even if you are Somerby.

    5. No, you go away. There, see how that works?

    6. Actually, it's not just parody, but brilliantly insightful parody.

      It's been a treat to see logical fallacies, jingoism, group-think, and chicanery exposed with such lucid, pithy, and incisive skill.

      I don't know who Parody Anonymous is, I just wish it was me.

      Keep it coming, PA.

    7. You finally convinced me, Parody Anon: a commentator whose posts are restricted to attempted caricatures of his own imperfect understanding of criticisms not yet posted or ludicrous summations of other posts he doesn't comprehend at all, all ending with "Idiocy" or "I'm an Idiot" (no implication that other people are low IQ idiots there!), really does deserve to have the blog to himself. Plus, you no doubt make other sterling contributions here, under other monikers!

      And you've got a new fan in CeceliaMc.

      Aggravating as Somerby may be, it would appear his defenders here (defenders, at least when he's ragging on MSNBC and those he calls liberals) have an even lower opinion of him than his critics. What a triumph for Bob, that the only people who can read him with pleasure are, well....

    8. "are, well..". [A republican whose ideology he differs with and fellow liberals who appreciate his insightful critiques.]

      Who wouldn't disdain a man who is admired by friend and foe?

    9. No exactly, CeM.

      I was going to say, "self-described 'conservatives' (i.e., American right-wingers so extreme they would find themselves without a party in any other industrial democracy), who when riled, invariably proclaim their intellectual superiority and call their interlocutors 'morons' and 'idiots'.

      In any event, why not win yourself some heaven bonus points by restraining yourself for speaking for "fellow liberals", of which you know absolutely nothing?

      I know you folks like to speak for both sides -- Parody's demand that all those who don't appreciate his contributions vacant forthwith, being only the latest example -- but how about showing a little restraint, at this valedictory moment, when Parody gets his wish?

    10. "Parody's demand that all those who don't appreciate his contributions vacant forthwith"

      My god, you are such a baby.

      Also, a liar.

      But it's all upthread.

      *You* are the person who footstompingly demanded: "Go away."

      It's all there.

      Are you going to continue making yourself look foolish? I can see you hardly need my help in doing it.

      As far as "appreciating my contributions" goes, it seems you have appointed yourself the arbiter. Hilarious! You are the object of the parody, son. Of course you would object.

      And it is *you* of course who is the person here asserting the right to speak for others: "we all hope," you had the temerity to say.

      And it it *you* also, despite your protestations, who is the one here calling into question others' intelligence: "imperfect understanding," "he doesn't comprehend at all" -- those are *your* coinages.

      *You* are the one who disdains others' intelligence, always while shouting that you're the one being put down.

      No one could make you up, Anonymous.

      But I will keep doing my little bit to make you more bearable through mockery.

    11. No, Anon 11:38am, I'm not speaking for anyone else simply by stating the fact that Somerby has liberal admirers and at least one conservative one.

      We both know that is true and that is why you are in the position of having to deign that the liberal fans aren't ...truly...liberals, and the conservative one ain't truly conservative. Oh, salient and logical, you...

    12. CeMc, to close -- really, for the last time -- I would simply remind you that "Anonymous" is not anybody's first or last name. Call me a liar if you must, but the foot stomper, the "please go away" and sundry other Anonymi are, as far as I know, different people. Because a post here is by "Anonymous" and you don't happen to like it, doesn't mean I wrote it.

      In any event, I'm pleased to see you've picked up some my rhetorical devices, and I wish you well of them, as the scourge of TDH -- at least when Bob is attacking when he deems the liberal media from the right, as he is wont to do, since we simply can't find enough of that in right-wing media.

      And for that program, if no other, you would appear to have great enthusiasm.

    13. There, that was... almost-coherent.

      We've got acknowledgement, or at least the failure to contradict this:

      -The parody hater(s) are the instigators of the intelligence insults;

      -The parody hater(s) will use the royal "we" to pretend that there is broad agreement that the parody is unappreciated;

      -The parody hater(s) will demand the parodist "go away";

      -The parody hater(s) will attempt to rewrite history (in the very same thread! BALLS!!) to make the parodist guilty of these sins;

      -The parody hater(s) will slink away, tail(s) between legs, mumbling almost-coherently.

      You just CAN'T make them up!

    14. I did reply to a post by referencing a time stamp. If you're concerned about not being the anon in question, my advice would be to get a handle.

      Chippy would be an apt one for you.

      To illustrate a certain lack of insight inherent in your implication about the relativity of my enthusiasm, I'm not here denouncing the blog owner from either a left or right perspective.

      I don't find his opinions infuriating when he bemoans the fact that the media is too "invested" in Wall Street, and too dedicated to the lowest common denominator/narrative to take on Romney's tenure at Bain ( such a rightward attack, ...right?), and I don't find them infuriating when the conservative media services as his default symbol for all that is corrupt, dumb, and tribal in our times, and therefore worthy of him sounding an alarm when he sees them being imitated by liberals.

      I don't launch into screeds about how some compromises of smaller truths are necessary in order to reveal bigger truths of little interest to a largely liberal media. I offer up no agenda other than an agreement that I find our political discourse (pushed by both sides of the media) more and more appalling.

      I have given no indication of a partisan enthusiasm one way or another, and simply being a conservative or simply concurring with my host, is not automatically
      indicative of that.

      You assume my interest in him is just as partisan as your disapproval. You make abundantly clear the partisan nature of that disapproval, but about me you have nothing but assumptions. You know nothing of my coming to age process on the Internet and you know nothing of the direction that I seek.

      In that you've underestimated my sincerity, just like you've always undervalued the integrity of your host.

      You have no idea of

    15. BTW, I don' t offer up "screeds of how some compromises of smaller truths are necessary in order to reveal larger truths" because that's bullshit.

    16. Blather on all you want, CeceliaMc, demanding not only the last word, but the second to last, and third to last, words. Your views are so very vital!

      And if you think you haven't revealed your political associations, you're vanity has gotten the better of your judgment.

      And you're still confusing two or more Anonymi ("screeds" of what???), which leads to preposterous charges on your part. If you weren't so determined to attack posters personally, this wouldn't be a hazard for you. But like any number of over Somerby-defenders, you're obsessed with the ad hominem.

      Speaking of ad hominen, I think you might be a man.

      Now, how many more posts will you require to vindicate yourself and prove your virtue?

      Nobody cares, CeceliaMc. Everybody already knows where you're promoting here and what your political convictions here, and the dishonesty of the enterprise. You might want to reflect that ultimately you're revealing yourself here, not anyone else.

    17. In order to deny someone else their supposed need to have "the last word," you post... that garbage?

      And you again give us your superior tone and certainty of what "everybody" thinks.

      We CAN NOT make you up, Anonymous!!

      But we had your number back at 3:00PM.
      See you again soon! Much too soon, I am sure.

    18. "really, for the last time"

      "I'll be posting here less and less often."

      No, THAT was some *other* Somerby-hating Anonymous.

      BwahHAHAHHA!!! Stop already, you're killing us!

    19. Anon at 4:55pm

      I EXPRESSLY stated my political associations-- EARLY!...Upfront and CENTRAL!

      I suppose it only makes sense that an Anonymous who bemoans being mistaken from others named Anonymous, would totally overlook that fact in order to question my motives.

      Just like it makes sense that any political allegiance should make me compltely unable to brook any dissent, just as it should with Somerby...

      Sheesh.... I wouldn't wish this clown on any ideology or any political persuasion.

    20. "Speaking of ad hominen, I think you might be a man."

      I do think like one, don't I.


    21. Hey C.M -- you may not believe me, but I'm a heretofore unheard from Anonymous commenter. You haven't yet called me a moron (don't think so, anyway). I think "I think you might be a man" was supposed to be mean or witty, and not refer to enhanced intellectual abilities, especiallt as some might take that implication to be sexist. In my experience, hardcore Republicans are impossible to talk to generally, male or female, but I'm just a moron or maybe an Anonymous Idiot, if we're talking about the other guy who's posts you love so much. If that guy is a guy.

      The conservative presence here sorta feels like negative campaigning - doesn't win many votes for the the candidate, but does discourage turnout. If that's the goal, I'd say you were succeeding. Can't know for sure, but I would guess folks are running away in droves.

    22. Well, let me be the first here to call you an idiot!

      Since conservatives are all over the place (like people of color, or gays ,or Dancing with the Stars fans) you're lying for dramatic partisan effect.

      Yeah, you're an Anonymous alright.

      Who could blame you for wanting a means of escaping ownership of your own posts. The Borg never sleep.

  4. At some point, likely in the near future, "Anonymous" will be the only commenter, thus raising the very real possibility that Bob has been reduced to talking to himself.

    1. Maybe, but there are a lot of people who are "Anonymous."

  5. I've been frustrated by reporters saying the insurance mandate is a tax. This is jounalistic malpractice of the highest degree. "The penalty can be assessed under Congress' taxing power" and "the mandate is not a tax" is what they should be saying. When the Diane Rehm show talked about this issue I posted a comment saying I wished reporters would quit saying the mandate is a tax, but my comment was totally ignored.

    1. It's a lot more fun to talk about horse-race issues ("how will this ruling affect Obama/Romney"). Fact-checking and clarifying misinformation is so tedious and pedantic...

  6. No one cares, including our tribe! Fiery liberals, why is that?

    There's no money in it.

  7. I don't understand why "liberals" would be such apologists for "mainstream" media mouthing Republican/Fox talking points, regardless how false they may be. Why defend their ilk, they're not your friend.

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. Hi Mr. Somerby, I've seen you post again and again that Mitt Romney is the worst-ever, the most despicable candidate, some kind of insane extremist, or whatever. I'm just curious if you have a post you can point to where you can explain how you came to this conclusion.

    On one hand, it obviously sounds like something the shrill hyperpartisan lunatics on MSNBC would say. But from what I've seen reading your blog for the past 5 years you're not the type who engages in that kind of paranoid meltdown. So I would really appreciate it if you could at least link to something that would explain why Mitt Romney is worse than every single Presidential candidate of the past two hundred and thirty six years. Because when you make this statement without any support, you sound a whole lot like the psychotic partisans who insist that EVERY Republican is the worst candidate of the past two hundred and thirty six years.

    1. How about how he claims he is going to balance the budget while reducing taxes, including for the richest, drastically and increasing military spending - by eliminating tax deductions, but won't explain which ones - because there no way it can be done. Presumably, there'd be gigantic cuts ingovernment spending, costing millions of jobs. This is ony one example of how awful he is.

    2. Bob has provided plenty of links that support his claim that Romney is an awful candidate.

      One such link is the Jan. '12 Reuters article on his work for Bain Capital. The article explains how Romney looted the pension funds of Kansas City steel workers, stuck Uncle Sam with the tab to the tune of $44 million, and made a hefty profit in the process. If that isn't awful, what is?

  10. The disrespectful slur against President Obama "Obamacare" at one time was only used by
    radical conservatives, now everyone is using it
    instead of the bill's actual name the Affordable
    Care Act.

    Another piece of propaganda is the word "businessman"
    or phrase "successful businessman" used as a euphemism
    for the words "hero" and "savior".

    One can't say that the right wing does not have a jobs
    program when an obvious jobs program that has had openings for the past two decades in the field of journalism. It is now possible to be an incompetent
    journalist, with a talent for articulate mendacity and find a good paying job in the media.

    Modern tyranny is governance through public relations.

  11. I'm actually a bit disappointed in Pinkerton, who has shown signs of honesty and character at times.
    I would put some of this down to the left not knowing how to follow up a win. They tend to let up, thinking they have proved there point, as if the right is going to ease back in defeat (See the first two years after Obama won.) They feel guilty when they win, it confuses them, and they think they have proved their point.

  12. I have it on good authority that CeceliaMc is actually Peggy Noonan.

    That mixture of treacle and poison, the Sister of Piety who puts arsenic in your soup, your BFF as long as you don't contradict her, can only be Peggy N.

    The same source claims the Anonymous Idiot is Andrew Breibart, but since that claim involves channeling and I'm a reality-based community liberal, I remain skeptical.

    1. Noonan for sure, but the smart money for the idiot guy is on Liz Cheney, with outlier positions on Joe Lieberman and Ann Coulter.