Search Results for: pit bulls

By Christophe Simon/AFP/Getty Images

Today on the Dish, while Andrew ripped apart Romney advisor Glenn Hubbard's vague and reckless economic plans, The Daily Caller missed a few zeroes, though Jenna Jameson probably doesn't care – since being rich makes her a sudden Republican. Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom was a hypocrite, and the Princeton Election Consortium showed that Bain is killing Mitt's odds. Stratfor called out America's love of bullshit, which the FCC probably didn't help when they built a crappy website to inform an America that barely understands what a Super PAC is. A chart put Obama's lousy job creation in perspective, and there were lots of reax to today's better-but-still-meh job numbers. Either way Stan Collender pointed out we actually still haven't stepped back from the fiscal cliff that is the Bush tax cuts mayhem.

Perry Link explained China's lack of charismatic leaders, and while we rounded up growing unrest in Mali, Instagram rounded up the unrest in Syria. In the Dish's continued look at the Olympics, Steven Walt and Alpha Abebe considered nationalism via the Games, while Michael Phelps beat out entire nations in the medal count and readers marveled at Gabby Douglas's achievement in the context of American history. Meanwhile David Sirota got high blood pressure from "U-S-A" chants, while Hampton Stevens shook his head at Middle East politics getting in the way of sportsmanship.

Readers weighed in on Amy Siskind's attack column and Andrew discussed the Dish's attempted balance with regards to women. While Christianists bucked the environment in NC, Megyn Kelly bucked the GOP on gay marriage and earned herself a Yglesias Award nomination. Simon Critchley lamented the modern university-as-dolt factory, and we once again considered the effect of cannabis legalization on minors. Jesse Walker and Andrew contemplated the sexual life of Mormon history, which Dishedly led to a remarkable FOTD. Lots of readers made it clear Mayor Bloomberg doesn't know breast when it comes to banning baby formula. Amazon made it clear that if they have to hand over sales tax, everyone does. 

We profiled the world's heaviest bony fish, which almost looks as weird as the mascots at the London Olympics, which almost look as top-heavy and gender-neutral as the mascots at the Beijing Olympics. But everything was OK, because beards proved useful yet again. What else is useful? Toilet paper – and the Dish explored its history. Oh and a Steelers fan memorialized his foreskin. Yes you read that correctly.

Alex Gibney pointed his lens at the rotten institution that is the Vatican, and Jim Holt shared his thoughts on the new generation of atheists. The NYT clarified Gore Vidal's sex and insult choices, while YouTube showed him, and TV, in fine form. It was a gorgeous Utah view from a reader's window. Wing covered Beyonce in our MHB. Christopher Middleton gave us a short and lovely poem.

– C.D.

The rest of the week after the jump:

A reader writes:

As a current corporate/securities lawyer, the import of this issue is immediately apparent to me. This stuff is pretty much my job all day – to make sure all of these SEC filings are correct. So I agree with you that it casts some serious doubt on Romney as a candidate. But I don't agree with your political analysis. I can't imagine this becoming a big issue for voters. SEC filing rules are incredibly complicated, and frankly to most people (including my wife every time I try to explain what I do) they seem a little silly even if/when they are properly and thoroughly explained.

Another expert weighs in:

It is rank sloppiness on the part of Bain not to have fixed this within three years (!), but unfortunately even with sophisticated enterprises this isn’t all that uncommon.  I help manage dozens of subsidiaries for a big public company, and it is often hit or miss whether we are notified when an officer/director leaves his position and we need to replace him.  Usually we catch these within a few months even if we aren’t notified, but sometimes it can be two or more years before we properly update the corporate records to reflect reality when someone leaves.

Now, the fact that Romney hasn’t released his tax returns, talks up his Bain experience as making him qualified to help fix the economy, and still collected $100,000 salary from Bain are probably going to create problems for him, but I think the talk of "felony!" and "liar!" are probably overblown here.

Another counters:

I am a lawyer who does some securities litigation.  Some of the commentary from people who say this is "no big deal"  sounds like corporate lawyers arguing technicalities to regulatory boards and policy wonks.  Romney is running for President.  If he wants to win (I hope he loses) he needs to know his audience.  The average voter is more like a member of a jury than an SEC board member or securities lawyer.  Here is the case that I would make against Romney on this issue, in a nutshell:

More readers sound off on the controversy:

You're missing the point of why the Poles are taking such offense at the "Polish death camps" slip-up.

@fakedansavage, I accept and look forward to debating you. As I said in my challenge, anytime, any place. myop.us/KFsOG8 — Brian S. Brown (@briansbrown) May 29, 2012 Dan explains the backstory: Brian Brown, the head of the National Organization for Marriage, publicly challenged me to a debate in the wake of Bullshitgate. Brown said he would debate me … Continue reading Tweet Of The Day

How else to interpret this graph? One key fact: the author attributes the fiscal year of 2009 to Bush (while assigning the stimulus extras to Obama). Why? The 2009 fiscal year, which Republicans count as part of Obama’s legacy, began four months before Obama moved into the White House. The major spending decisions in the … Continue reading If You Want Another Debt And Spending Binge, Vote GOP

9.55 pm. Romney simply refuses to answer an interesting question about the biggest misconception about him. Major fail. Santorum played his best card – that he's the underdog who can do a lot with a little. Gingrich cited his ability to manage Washington. Paul tried to dispel the notion that he cannot do well against Barack Obama.

Maybe I've lost my mind after all these debates, or maybe I secretly want him to win (because he would finally expose all the insanity that has been building in this party and needs venting). But I thought Santorum was on form tonight. My sense is that he will not lose his current momentum after tonight. I didn't feel Newt tonight. Romney doesn't wear well. Paul was great and funny and human.

But there was a winner, it seems to me. He's in the White House.

9.40 pm. Santorum really does seem to be implying that Obama has some kind of secret agenda vis-a-vis Iran. And he pretty obviously would launch a massive war on Iran. We're hearing the kind of language we heard after 9/11. Exactly the same language; exactly the same arguments; exactly the same paranoia.

There seems to be no memory of the Iraq war at all. It never happened. There was no error. There is nothing to explain. And yet they do not seem to realize that that catastrophic war is the reason Barack Obama is president. It's like an etch-a-sketch party. Shake it one election cycle – and the past disappears completely! A reader is more succinct:

Gingrich says he is inclined "to believe dictators." Isn't that the exact logic that got us into Iraq? We believed that they had WMD's basically just because they said they did?

Shhhh. They would have to acknowledge reality. This is a party about ideology, not reality.

9.34 pm. Santorum has no idea that the Iranian Green movement did not want the US president to play into the regime's hands by coopting their cause. He also brings up Satan!

9.30 pm. Newt attacks General Dempsey on the rational international conduct of the Iranian regime. Then Gingrich repeats exactly the same argument used for the Iraq war. Exactly the same. And blames the experts in the military for not "believing" what is apparently obvious. Romney then buys into the Santorum line that Iran wants to use a nuke against the US. He then lies about Obama "opposing" crippling sanctions. Does Romney believe that if he simply says that Obama hasn't placed sanctions on Iran, it will somehow become true?

So that's another bald-faced lie.

9.28 pm. Ron Paul brings up Catholic just war theory, which bars pre-emptive, aggressive war and torture, both of which are backed by the two Catholics.

9.26 pm. The president who destroyed al Qaeda and captured and killed Osama bin Laden is "the most dangerous in the history of America." Yep: that's what Newt just said.

9.20 pm. "Resolute." The perfect meaningless Romney self-description. A reader writes:

I really liked Santorum's style and substance when he responded to Romney on why he supported Arlen Specter. Santorum seems like he has thought stuff through a bit, which lends him confidence. I totally disagree with him on who should be on the Supreme Court, but I like the way he stands up for his worldview.

I think that Santorum and Paul clearly have integrity and that is part of what is making this race interesting. I think that Santorum is actually a better debater than Gingrich. Gingrich knows how to blow hard, and he is willing to appeal to people's baser instincts, but he lacks the sort of rigorous coherence that Santorum has, and over time that starts to become more evident. Gingrich, one senses, would say anything to win a debating point or a short term political boost. Santorum is more principled. People pick up on that kind of stuff and I think it influences how they vote.

9.17 pm. A reader notes one of many ironies in this soul-deadening "debate":

Did you get that? Arizona is doing great on immigration with e-verify, unlike the federal government. E-Verify is a federal program.

Sure is.

9.16 pm. Yep, it looks as if Romney lied. More here. I'll wait for more confirmation before saying so. But if Romney obviously lied on this issue, he's in trouble.

9.13 pm. A reader differs:

Santorum is getting pwned from both sides. Mitt is in full peacock attack mode, while Ron Paul hits Santorum from the purist's side. Mitt may be an asshole, but he's winning this thing big. Which makes me ill, frankly.

9.04 pm. Paul challenges Santorum on government promoting abstinence. Then Santorum uses the weapon Obama gave him: conflating Obamacare with Romneycare. Then Romney really punches back by blaming Santorum for backing Specter thus ensuring Obamacare's passage.

Santorum fights back with a doozy: essentially equating Romney with Dukakis for balancing the state budget as mandated by the constitution; and then pummeling him for taking federal money to underwrite Romneycare. I'd say it was a pretty even mudfight, but Santorum held his own. And that's what's amazing to me: Santorum is emerging as the not-Romney. And they seem on an equal level rhetorically and optically. But if I were a Christianist, Santorum is easily more trustworthy.

In other words: I can't believe that Santorum has gotten this far. But he has.

In general, however, I think this debate has been very, very insidery – especially between Romney and Santorum. I'm not sure any of them has won anyone over tonight.

10.08 pm. My final take? Newt lost it by flubbing the debates. When you're out-gunned 5 – 1 on television, you have to pwn your opponent in the debates. Gingrich choked – and it was particularly striking given his sterling demagoguery in South Carolina. Tonight, Newt gave the kind of speech he needs to redefine … Continue reading Live-Blogging The Florida Primary

Bruce Bartlett on the blizzard of new complexities and gimmicks Obama said he wants to add to the tax code last night:

A reader writes:

He doesn't sound like this is his speech. He doesn't have his usual cadence and his usual enthusiasm. He sounds like he was handed this speech this afternoon and is now faxing it in.

Another writes:

I'm following your live blog, and I fear you're missing the big picture. Remember, President Obama is always playing the long game, as you so astutely argued in your Newsweek essay. So, ask yourself, what does he lose by proposing very popular (or "populist") tax reforms that energize his base, but have virtually NO chance of passing such a hostile congress? Nothing. He sets them up for further obstruction. Even if that obstruction is ultimately based on "real" fiscally conservative values, it won't matter. All the public will see is that the Republicans won't entertain any of his ideas, even those that make visceral sense to regular folks and that appeal to most Americans' sense of fairness and common sense. Yes, he's pushing some of your buttons. But think big picture here.

Another:

I am a firm supporter of Obama, and believe for the very necessary mission of restoring sanity to this country it is important that he be reelected.  However, I have to say that I am deeply disappointed with tonight's almost unserious SOTU.