Posts filed under ‘Mitt Romney’s Lies’
It’s one thing to tell women to have kids — I wouldn’t expect anything less from Mitt Romney — the guy who I’m so freakin’ glad we sent back to La Jolla — but who in the world says women should have a “quiver full” of kids?
This is a quiver:
What? WHAT? Who thinks like that much less talks like that?
Maybe it’s just me but I wonder if Ann Romney claimed she was a “big, big fan” of Dancing With the Stars because her husband was running for president. Nah! She’d never do that. Would she?
Ann Romney was offered a consolation prize — first lady of Rumba — but after seriously considering it she turned down “Dancing with the Stars” … TMZ has learned.
Sources connected to the show tell us … “DWTS” honchos approached Ann about the gig just after her hubby lost the election and she was “very interested.” You may recall, Ann showed up at last season’s finale and gushed that she was a big, big fan.
Mitt Romney on Wednesday:
“I spoke with president Clinton the day before yesterday, he called and spent thirty minutes chatting with me. He said a week out I thought you were going to win. And he said, but the hurricane happened, and it gave the president a chance to be presidential, and to look bipartisan, and you know he got a little more momentum, and of course he also said that when he was watching Ann speak at the Republican convention, he decided he was tempted to join the Republican Party. So he may have just been effusive with generous comments as he chatted.”
Take solace Republicans. You don’t have to pretend you like Mitt anymore.
Bye Mitt. Time to find another hobby.
First we have Paul Ryan faking that he’s “volunteering” and washing dishes at a soup kitchen, and how we have Mitt Romney pretending he’s holding a “storm relief event” for Hurricane Sandy victims and that his supporters are donating food:
Mitt Romney was really concerned that his “Storm Relief Event” in Kettering, Ohio yesterday would look like a dud, so he and his team stocked their donation tables with $5,000 worth of supplies at Walmart. The props, according to Buzzfeed’s McKay Coppins, were things like granola bars, canned food, and diapers which were strategically placed to make sure that the photographs taken at Romney’s “Storm Relief” campaign didn’t a show very un-busy, un-stocked relief table (what else do you expect when you give people short notice to donate their canned goods?).
And apparently, the event was so manufactured that they allowed supporters to use the donations which were bought by the campaign, to donate back to the campaign.
These guys are so cold-hearted they have to fake events like this.
How hard is it to genuinely volunteer at a soup kitchen and to wash real dirty dishes? And how hard is it to hold a real “storm relief event” and actually collect food (or cash, which the Red Cross prefers) from people who attend? Not hard at all. But these guys don’t do authentically compassionate. They can’t. They just can’t do it. They don’t have it in them.
This is how bad Mitt’s lying is getting:
In the final days of the 2012 race, Mitt Romney’s campaign is really making good on its pollster’s August promise to ignore fact checkers. To close the deal in the Ohio, Team Romney is blitzing the state with a series of wildly deceptive statements and ads suggesting that Chrysler is moving local jobs to China.
The latest is an unannounced radio spot, audio of which was posted by the Greg Sargent on Tuesday. The spot asks whether Obama rescued the auto industry for “Ohio — or China?”
“Now comes word that Chrysler plans to start making Jeeps in — you guessed it — China,” the ad’s narrator says. “What happened to the promises made to autoworkers in Toledo and throughout Ohio — the same hard-working men and women who were told that Obama’s auto bailout would help them?”
Chrysler, Jeep’s parent company, has publicly condemned Romney’s claims as false, writing on its website that they have “no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China” and that any expansion in Asia is to serve Asian markets. In fact, they are adding over 1,000 jobs to their Toledo factory as part of a $500 million investment in upgrading its capacity.
GM didn’t take well to the ad either, bristling at the notion that the auto rescue — which the Center for Automotive research estimated saved 1 million US jobs — encouraged outsourcing.
“We’ve clearly entered some parallel universe during these last few days,” GM spokesman Greg Martin told the Detroit Free Press. “No amount of campaign politics at its cynical worst will diminish our record of creating jobs in the U.S. and repatriating profits back to this country.”
Hell yeah. Mitt for Prez!
What does this tell ya?
Boston Globe endorses Barack Obama over former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney
The Boston Globe’s editorial board this morning said President Obama deserves a second term, opting not to back the Republican nominee and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
“Somewhere in the Republican presidential nominee is the sensible, data-driven moderate that the Bay State knew as governor,” the Globe’s editorial board wrote today. “But it may also be that Massachusetts didn’t know Mitt Romney very well, after all. Stuck in a party far to his right, Romney made a fateful bargain to adopt sharply conservative positions, and then start clawing back. Now, voters have no way of knowing what kind of president he’d be.”
“Identifying the real Romney on any major issue — social, economic, or foreign — is impossible,” the editorial added.
I have huge problems with Obama but one thing I know for sure about Romney: He’s a pathological liar and maybe it’s just me, but the idea of having a pathological liar for president doesn’t sit very well with me.
Here’s a link to the people-press.org poll cited.
So, Romney-leaning seniors are keen on preserving their benefits but not on cutting the deficit, yet they’re leaning Romney because why exactly? Romney’s VP has risen to the top of the GOP heap on his supposed miracle budget that slashes $700 billion in Medicare benefits in order to cut the deficit.
So, I’m trying to wrap my head around this. Why are Romney-leaning seniors leaning Romney if they want to preserve their benefits? Because all they’re seeing are propagandistic campaign ads (thanks to the Republicans on the Supreme Court and the Citizens United ruling) and the fact that so-called-news organizations don’t do news — as in facts – as inform us — anymore.
Mitt Romney Tuesday: “There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda.”
Mitt Romney today (Thursday): “I think I’ve said time and again that I’m a pro-life candidate and I’ll be a pro-life president. The actions I’ll take immediately is to remove funding for Planned Parenthood. It will not be part of my budget.”
Stay tuned. His position could change again any minute now.
I guess it doesn’t matter to Republicans what Mitt Romney says anymore because, thank God, there’s one thing he can’t erase with a shake of the Etch A Sketch and that’s the color of his skin. It’s still white so hey, hell yeah, he’s their guy:
Mitt Romney Abortion Stance Changes, As Candidate Says He Won’t Push To Restrict Access
Mitt Romney said Tuesday he has no plans to push for legislation limiting abortion, a softer stance from a candidate who has said he would “get rid of” funding for Planned Parenthood and appoint Supreme Court who would overturn Roe v. Wade.
“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” the Republican presidential nominee told The Des Moines Register in an interview.
Mitt Romney gave a “major foreign policy speech” this morning at the Virginia Military Institute. In it, Romney claimed Obama “hasn’t signed one free trade agreement.”
Now back to reality and this inconvenient fact from October 21, 2011:
Agreements with South Korea, Panama and Colombia are official.
President Obama signed them this morning — so we’re told.
The White House canceled plans for a formal signing ceremony, opting to have Obama sign the free trade pacts in the Oval Office.
Only photographers and special guests had access as Obama signed the pacts, using multiple pens that will be handed out as souvenirs to some of the business, labor and government officials in attendance.
The White House schedule says Obama will also attend “a reception in the Rose Garden with business and labor leaders as well as workers who will benefit from these bills.”
“These trade agreements will significantly boost American exports, support tens of thousands of American jobs and protect labor rights, the environment and intellectual property,” the White House said.
Congressional approval of the free trade deals last week brought a relatively rare moment of bipartisanship to Washington, D.C.
House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, issued a statement saying that “years of perseverance have been rewarded today as American job creators will have new opportunities to expand and hire as they access new markets abroad.”
This would be Mitt Romney 18 days ago:
Republican Mitt Romney says a video clip in which he said that nearly half of Americans think they are “victims” was “not elegantly stated.”… The Republican nominee did not disavow the comments but said they were made during a question-and-answer session.
This would be Mitt Romney last night:
“My life has shown that I care about 100 percent, and that’s been demonstrated throughout my life,” Romney told conservative commentator Sean Hannity on Fox News. “And this whole campaign is about the 100 percent.”
And here’s the WaPo’s Greg Sargent’s take on this Etch A Sketch moment:
At the debate on Tuesday, Mitt Romney masterfully obscured his true positions on everything from taxes to education to health care. He presented himself as the technocratic centrist he used to be and gave voice to a balanced approach to the role of government that is sorely lacking from his actual policy proposals.
The next step in this makeover came last night, when he disavowed his remarks about the freeloading 47 percent.
And he’s doing this on issue after issue. What’s happening now is that Romney is busily obscuring the true nature of his policy proposals and the priorities that inform them, because they are out of step with what the American mainstream really wants. The real story coming out of the debate is that Romney is proving to be very adept at this. The question is whether the media focus on Romney’s undeniably excellent performance, rather than on the substance of his serial evasions, will enable him to get away with it.
In other words, Romney has to lie to be liked.
Good take on Romney’s lies last night from Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine. Here’s the meat of it:
At the debate last night, Romney didn’t phrase his promise in this misleading-but-true fashion. He promised, “preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.” That is not true. He dropped the legalistic mumbo-jumbo that renders his promise meaningless and promised something. But his plan doesn’t do that. And his adviser Eric Fehrnstrom, asked after the debate if Romney was really promising to cover people with preexisting conditions, admitted that he isn’t. (“With respect to pre-existing conditions, what Governor Romney has said is for those with continuous coverage, he would continue to make sure that they receive their coverage.”)
Romney won the debate in no small part because he adopted a policy of simply lying about his policies. Probably the best way to understand Obama’s listless performance is that he was prepared to debate the claims Romney has been making for the entire campaign, and Romney switched up and started making different and utterly bogus ones. Obama, perhaps, was not prepared for that, and he certainly didn’t think quickly enough on his feet to adjust to it.
Maybe, but why wasn’t Obama “prepared for that” (as in Romney lying) when the guy’s been lying and flip-flopping all over the place for years? Obama should have come to the debate prepared to hammer that home.
Lying is Romney’s one consistent consistent.
Why does the New York Times think “Mitt Romney Shifted to the Right on Energy” is news? He’s been “shifted to the right” on almost everything for six years.
When, oh when, will we have a better media?
One of the things — maybe the only thing — Romney has been consistent about is taking what President Obama says out of context and making a big deal out of it. So I’m loving this video from the Obama campaign in which they’ve done the very same thing (finally) as a way of showing how absurd that is.
An example of Romney taking an Obama quote out of context is happening as we speak. This morning Obama said,
You can’t change Washington from the inside,” Obama said during a town hall that was live-streamed on Univision. “You can only change it from the outside. That’s how I got elected, and that’s how the big accomplishments like health care got done, was because we mobilized the American people to speak out.
This afternoon Romney’s running around saying Obama said, “You can’t change Washington from inside,” leaving off the last two sentences.
Then again, let’s pretend Obama said what Romney said he said. He’s calling for 100% civic involvement. Cool!
The big campaign news this morning is what a mess the Romney campaign is in but wait!, that’s all behind us now because today he’s going to “sharpen” his message and “give voters a clearer picture of where he wants to take the country.”
Really? I don’t believe that for a second, and here’s why:
What if Romney can’t offer a clearer picture of the alternative he’s offering for the middle class because his specific intentions, to the degree that we understand them, would be deeply unpopular with the middle class?
This race is close because of the economy. The specifics we do know about Romney’s plans are the exact opposite of what Americans tell pollsters they want. He’d cut, rather than raise, taxes on the rich. Over time he’d transform, rather than preserve, Medicare’s core mission. By repealing Obamacare, he’d take away specific reforms that are popular, replacing them with little more than a pre-reform free-for-all that Americans certainly don’t want. Romney would deregulate Wall Street and big banks; the public supports regulating them.
The bottom line? Romney is being intentionally vague because he knows if we knew more, we’d like him even less. So don’t hold your breath on this new, ahem, message. It ain’t gonna happen.
More evidence Mitt’s response to the events in Cairo and Libya weren’t up to presidential snuff and that he isn’t ready for prime time: This from Talking Points Memo and an unidentified foreign service officer:
It’s probably not a surprise. But can I just say that if Mitt Romney wins in November, he is going to have a very chilly reception from his employees every time he goes abroad? I don’t think I can quite state the rage we’re all feeling towards him.
I agree with Ezra Klein’s take on Romney’s handling — such as it was — of the Egypt / Libya news we got this morning:
The Romney campaign isn’t run by amateurs. They knew this statement* was incendiary. And, presumably, they knew it was wrong. It conflates a tweet sent by a staffer in the Egyptian Embassy, who was trying to calm a potential mob, with the Obama administration. It conflates unrest in Egypt with the murder of American diplomat, among others, in Libya. And it accuses the Obama administration of something that they not only didn’t do, but that would have been horrific of them to do: To sympathize with terrorists who had just murdered one of their ambassadors.
The backlash has been brutal. The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg called Romney’s statement a “slander.” Time’s Mark Halperin tweeted that it was the “most craven+ill-advised move of ’12.” Josh Marshall wrote that it was “reminiscent of John McCain’s rash call four years ago to cancel the presidential debates and the campaign itself to deal with the unfolding economic crisis.”
Romney’s comments were, to be sure, unusually noxious and indecent. But this is also what happens when campaigns get desperate. Like a gambler who’s already lost too much, they begin taking risks in the hope of making it all back. And then, more often than not, they pay the price.
Ezra isn’t alone in blasting Romney. Check this out: Foreign Policy Hands Voice Disbelief At Romney Cairo Statement
* I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.
Larry Flynt took out this full-page ad in today’s Washington Post:
I couldn’t get a screenshot of the whole thing. Go here to see the bottom third.
Here’s more on Mitt Romney appearing with Pat Robertson today in Virginia. Not only was good ol’ Pat there (yes, the same Pat Robertson who said Katrina was caused by God’s hate for gays), but Mitt went full insane mode and implied that Obama will remove the word God from our coins:
I pledge this under God, I will not take God out of the name of our platform [sic], I will not take God off our coins and I will not take God out of my heart. We’re a nation bestowed by God.
Yep, full hardcore southern Christian revival mode. All that was missing was the tent.
The big lie du jour Republicans are telling as they look you straight in the eye these days is that the GM plant in Paul Ryan’s home town of Janesville, Wisconsin closed in 2009, on Obama’s watch. That. Is. A. Lie. It closed in December, 2008, on Bush’s watch.
And if that doesn’t do it, check out this article from the Rockford Register Star, dated December 23, 2008: Hugs, Tears as GM Workers Leave Janesville Plant for Last Time. If you skip to Page 5, you’ll see a timeline of “Janesville’s history with General Motors.” These are the last three entries:
2005: Workers finish 16 millionth vehicle.
June 2008: GM announces it will close plant in 2010 or sooner because of weak SUV sales.
December 2008: Last full shift ends in Janesville. A final truck order will be completed by June 2009.
So the next time anyone says or implies the Janesville GM plant closed under Obama’s watch, remember, they’re lying!
In October, only 7 percent of respondents picked “honest” as the one word they would use to describe Mitt Romney. This month that number has risen to 32 percent. That’s an astonishing increase given political junkies like me know Mitt Romney has changed his position on almost every issue at least once and that he’s a pathological liar.
Ah yes, the power of the “liberal media.”
The other day wingers had a collective fit when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews accused Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus (rightly) of playing the race card.
Now we have this:
Yesterday, the National Journal’s Ron Fournier got into a spirited panel discussion in which said that Mitt Romney’s welfare ad “touches a racial button.” This got some attention, and Fournier is back with another piece today that’s generating more chatter, in which he explains why he believes the Romney ads constitute playing the “race card.”
Fournier says GOP strategists who have either worked for or shared information with the Romney campaign have candidly told him that the welfare attacks are about angering blue collar whites and turning them on Obama. And it’s bearing fruit, as evidenced by movement among these voters in Romney’s direction.
This strategy confirms that Romney has decided he can’t win on his supposed economic prowess alone and needs to inject resentment-based themes into the race.
And we can only hope this will come to pass:
What makes this all noteworthy is who Fournier is. He’s well respected in Washington journalism, having worked as the Associated Press’s Washington correspondent — where he was called on first in many presidential press conferences — before becoming editor in chief of the National Journal Group. Having him come out and explicitly charge the Romney campaign with race-baiting will make this a safer topic among some of the top-shelf commentator and journalist types who might otherwise have shied away from it.
Shorter version: What Romney has done until now hasn’t worked so he’s throwing the race card on the table. Even shorter: He’s desperate.
Cheryl Valenzuela is a scheduled speaker at the Republican National Convention. Not only does she have an Hispanic last name which Republicans love when they can exploit it to their benefit, but she’s a small business owner who will speak about the taken-out-of-context quote from President Obama Republicans can’t get enough of. As a refresher, this is what he said:
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen. The Internet didn’t get invented on its own. Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.
But again, Republicans, being the sneeze bags they are, are using only the four words, “you didn’t build that,” as their convention theme and Cheryl Valenzuela will supposedly be “proof” that small business owners do build their companies without any help from anybody, dammit.
The thing is, according to a program published by the National Small Business Week (pdf) for a May, 2012 convention at which the Valenzuelas were honored, the couple received a whole heck of a lot of help from the government to get where they are:
For First State Manufacturing, Inc., the dream began in 1998 with a man, a woman, and a sewing machine in yes, you guessed it, a garage in Milford, Del. Today, that dream has become First State Manufacturing (FSM), a thriving business employing more than 40 technicians working in a new 66,000 square-foot facility funded by a $1.8 million U.S. Small Business Administration 504 loan.
Eli Valenzuela learned the upholstery trade from a correspondence course he took in the Army; he applied what he learned while working at Dover Air Force Base upholstering enormous C-5 Galaxy airlifters. With help from SCORE and the Delaware Small Business Development Center, Eli and his wife Cheryl composed a business plan, and opened FSM in their garage. With an initial $20,000 SBA-guaranteed loan they secured larger contracts and also became certified in SBA’s 8(a) Business Development Program.
In 2001 FSM was ready to grow again, with a $96,500 SBA-guaranteed loan to modernize and expand inventory. After the 9/11 tragedy and its economic fallout, FSM obtained a $65,800 SBA disaster loan to maintain their business and employees until revenues returned. FSM revenue doubled from 2007 to 2010, increasing from $2.2 million annual revenue to $4.5 million.
Instead of being the anthesis of what Obama was supposedly talking about, they’re the poster people for it. But psssst, Republicans will never tell.
(H/t Dave B.)
OUCH! Check out this great new ad put out by the Obama campaign:
An apparently desperate Romney, who has been whining for weeks about how mean Democrats have been to his poor self, went birther today:
I love being home, in this place where Ann and I were raised, where both of us were born. Ann was born in Henry Ford Hospital, I was born in Harper Hospital. No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate; they know that this is the place that we were born and raised.
Romney knows Obama was born in the U.S. but — really? — he just joined the folks who believe Obama perpetrated an elaborate plot to fake his birthplace and ascend to the presidency. Really?
Steve Benen over at the MaddowBlog has been chronicling Mitt Romney’s lies for 29 weeks. This week’s edition is a doozy with 29 lies to Mitt’s credit. Check them out here.
Here are the first ten:
1. In a radio interview yesterday, Romney said of the president, “His campaign and the people working with him have focused almost exclusively on personal attacks.”
That’s both ironic and untrue.
2. In an attack ad launched this week, Romney said Obama “quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements.”
This is as obvious a lie as any presidential candidate has ever told.
Romney has the balls to stand in front of our flag:
3. In the same ad, Romney claims, “Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.”
Even putting aside the racial subtext, the claim has no foundation in reality whatsoever.
4. In reference to voting rights in Ohio, Romney wrote on Facebook that Obama believes “it is unconstitutional for Ohio to allow servicemen and women extended early voting privileges.”
This is ridiculously untrue. Obama wants servicemen and women to have extended early voting privileges, just like every other eligible voter in Ohio
5. In the same written message, Romney argues that Obama intends to “undermine … the voting rights of our military.”
No sane person could believe this.
6. In a speech in Des Moines, Iowa, Romney said, “Do you know what’s happened to the median income in America over the last three-and-a-half years? It’s dropped by $4,000 a family.”
That only makes sense if we count Obama’s first year in office, which relies on a standard Romney believes is fundamentally unfair.
7. In the same speech, Romney said in reference to the deficit, “Instead of cutting it half, he actually doubled it and more.”
Maybe Romney doesn’t know what “double” means. The deficit on Obama’s first day was $1.3 trillion. Last year, it was also $1.3 trillion. This year, it’s projected to be $1.1 trillion. When he says the president “more than doubled” the deficit, as he has many times, Romney’s lying.
8. He went on to say in Iowa that Obama is “the first president in history to have a deficit above $1 trillion.”
That’s a lie. George W. Bush was the first president in history to have a deficit above $1 trillion.
9. Romney added, “He’s on track in four years to put together almost as much debt held by the public as all the prior presidents combined.”
Romney has said this before. It’s still a lie.
10. Romney also said, “We must restore and I will restore work into welfare.”
There’s nothing to “restore”; the work requirements weren’t removed.
Three months ago Yahoo’s CEO, Scott Thompson, was forced to resign because of “misrepresentation of his college credentials” on his CV. Old school people like me think only cheaters and scumbags lie on their CVs so good riddance Thompson. It’s about one’s character.
Forget one “misrepresentation.” Now we have a presidential candidate — a presidential candidate! — who
misrepresents lies two, three four times a day over the course of a week for weeks and weeks. At this point, I don’t care what Romney’s position is on anything. If he has so little respect for himself, for our political process and for our culture and country as a whole, well, he repulses me.
These two paragraphs, from an article about Mitt Romney’s difficulty in dealing with health care issues as he tries to distance himself from his own Massachusetts law while simultaneously trying to appeal to a base broader than Tea Partiers, leapt out at me because it perfectly sums up his campaign:
Romney consistently attempts to make up with tactics what he lacks in vision. Romney’s campaign isn’t driven by any core ideology or governing philosophy, but by responding to news cycles. It is a campaign that was perhaps best summed up by senior advisor Eric Fehrnstrom, when he proudly tweeted yesterday, “On Fox just now Romney was asked to respond to ‘RomneyHood’ charge and called it ‘Obamaloney.’” Conservatives, rest assured – Romney will not allow himself to be called a childish nickname without responding by calling Obama a childish nickname.
So, if Romney thinks touting his past support for government-run health care today can help defend against baseless attacks on his business career, then he’ll tout away, even if it’ll weaken the case against government-run health care he’ll make tomorrow.
It begs the question: Why in the world does Romney want to be president anyway? Does anyone know? At his core, I think he’s competing with, and trying to one-up, his daddy. But as that unfolds, we watch a soulless campaign, void of passion, willing to do and say anything in order to win, except release tax returns and talk about what Romney would actually do if he did win.
It’s scary, creepy and loathsome all rolled into one.
Mitt Romney seems unable to open his mouth without lying. It’s gotten so bad, I essentially shrug my shoulders when I hear about them and move on. But this one is really outrageous. It’s so outrageous I’m going to call my local station(s) if they air it:
It’s important to realize this is as dishonest an ad as you’ll ever see — in 2012 or in any other campaign cycle.
For those who can’t watch clips online, the ad shows President Clinton signing welfare reform into law in 1996, “requiring work for welfare.” The spot then argues, however, that President Obama “quietly announced a plan to gut welfare reform by dropping work requirements.” The voiceover tells viewers, “Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check…. and welfare to work goes back to being plain old welfare.”
We then learn, “Mitt Romney will restore the work requirement because it works.”
Romney’s lying. He’s not spinning the truth to his advantage; he’s not hiding in a gray area between fact and fiction; he’s just lying. The law hasn’t been “gutted”; the work requirement hasn’t been “dropped.” Stations that air this ad are disseminating an obvious, demonstrable lie.
All Obama did is agree to Republican governors’ request for flexibility. That’s it. Indeed, perhaps the most jaw-dropping aspect of this is that Romney himself, during his one gubernatorial term, asked for the same kind of flexibility on welfare law that Obama agreed to last month. Romney, in other words, is attacking the president for doing what Romney asked the executive branch to do in 2005.
The entire line of attack is simply insane.
Someone should tell New York for Mitt that NASA is a government program:
(Via. H/t Dave B.)