Skip to main content

Public photo of Sarah Palin
A woman Mitch McConnell voted for.
Alison Lundergan Grimes has taken a lot of heat for refusing to say if she voted for Obama. It's time for her to take the gloves off, pivot on this question, and land a blow on Mitch McConnell.

Here's what she should say in a stump speech:

I don't know if any of you have heard, but there seems to be a lot of interest lately in how I voted in the past couple of presidential elections.

We have a great tradition in this country where we have privacy at the ballot box, and I believe in that tradition, but there is something more I would like to say about this question.

Six years ago America had to choose who would lead: Barack Obama and Joe Biden or John McCain and Sarah Palin. [laughter and boos] Sarah Palin. [More laughter and jeers. Pause and let it build.] Remember Sarah Palin?

Please, let's never forget it was the Republican Party that was ready to put Sarah Palin one heartbeat away from the Presidency. Just imagine that.

If you think partisanship in Washington is bad now, just imagine the brawl we would be having if Sarah Palin was in the mix. [laughter]

I am not ashamed to say that when it was time to choose between the Democrats, Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and the Republicans, John McCain and Sarah Palin, I voted for the Democrats. [loud cheers]

My opponent voted for Sarah Palin. [boos]

Leadership is about good judgment and making the right choices.

Yes, Mitch McConnell voted for Sarah Palin, but that's not the only bad vote he's cast.

[Segue to attack on Mitch McConnell's voting record.]

No need to spend money on any ads to put this issue to bed. The media is already all in on this story and they will broadcast the message over and over at no cost to the campaign. McConnell voted for Sarah Palin. Case closed.
Repuglican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin
OK, so this lying piece of crap email from the good folks at just hit my inbox and I have to share it with you all. (The sender name on the email is Repuglican Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, but the actual address is

The subject line is "I'm suing the President".

The Obama Administration has announced they’re delaying another part of ObamaCare — but not for you.

The Obama bureaucrats are rewriting the law, again, because it doesn’t work.

Democrats passed this law, and now that they’re forced to campaign on it, they’re begging for more delays. And this Imperial President is ignoring the Constitution and giving into them.

Obama thinks he’s above the law — and it’s time to rein him in.

I’m suing the Obama Administration to make sure Democrat politicians live by the same laws as the American citizens they represent.

Stand with me and sign the petition to overturn this outrageous executive overreach.


Ron Johnson
U.S. Senator from Wisconsin

OK, we already know that creating blind rage based on willful ignorance is the core strategy for GOP fundraising, but this little stinker really takes the gold in the GOP Olympic competition for best Deceptive Hatemongering.

See this email is just link bait for a petition that leads to a fundraising page.
And that's when it really gets good and stinky.

Continue Reading

If your level of outrage over Lara Logan’s botched 60 minutes piece on Benghazi has reached the point that you would take pleasure in watching those responsible undergo a diabolically sadistic form of psychological torture, then you should check out Newsweek editor Jeff Stein’s latest piece "Lara Logan’s Mystery Man."

In his brilliant hit piece, Stein uses as a starting point his investigation of Lara Logan’s husband, Joseph W. Burkett, and the potential role he may have played in the discredited 60 Minutes Benghazi report:

While Davies was the central on-camera personality in that report, the most interesting figure in this mystery was never on screen, nor listed as a contributor to the piece. It is Logan’s husband, Joseph W. Burkett, a former Army sergeant and onetime employee of a private intelligence outfit hired by the Pentagon to plant pro-U.S. stories in the Iraqi media in 2005.
While he holds Burkett’s feet to the fire, Stein brilliantly eviscerates Lara Logan, 60 Minutes, CBS News, and puts them on notice that until they take responsibility for their journalistic malpractice and punish those responsible, they will continue to suffer long-term collateral damage to their professional reputations.
The piece works brilliantly on so many levels. Continue below for just a few...
Continue Reading

Tue Oct 01, 2013 at 07:42 AM PDT

Plenty of blame to go around

by PeaceLoveHarmony

A number of pundits have commented on the false equivalence of media reporting on the GOP government shutdown.

James Fallows of the Atlantic says the following:

As a matter of journalism, any story that presents the disagreements as a "standoff," a "showdown," a "failure of leadership," a sign of "partisan gridlock," or any of the other usual terms for political disagreement, represents a failure of journalism and an inability to see or describe what is going on.
It's as if the Beltway media world is some kind of weird parallel universe where bad actors who take hostages and refuse to compromise are treated like good faith negotiaters.

If these guys were consistent, this is how they would describe the attacks of 9/11:

On September 11, 2001, over 3000 Americans were killed, the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York were destroyed, and the Pentagon was severely damaged, when the U.S. Government and 19 Saudi hijackers failed to reach a compromise.

Mon Nov 05, 2012 at 10:22 AM PST

The Case for Romney

by PeaceLoveHarmony

A Romney voter speaks:

So, I was on a road trip with my two chauffeurs, and one of them drove the car into a ditch and bent the axle. I let the other chauffeur (a black guy, not that it really matters) take over driving. But after 35 minutes, I decided to let the guy who drove the car into the ditch start driving again. Because the black guy was just driving to slow and things were kind of bumpy.

OK, so yeah, the black guy did kill a deadly hornet that was hiding under the dashboard, even though I told him to ignore it. But anyone would have done that.

And when the oil light came on, he did stop long enough to save the engine by adding a quart, even though I told him to just keep driving.

So, yeah, that's another reason I switched chauffeurs. The black guy ignores my advice.


The good folks over at Media Matters, in an article about Jennifer Rubin's defense of Mitt Romney's "apology tour" lie have deftly used her own twisted right-wing "logic" against her.

"Right-wing Rubin" protests that fact-checkers are wrong, wrong, wrong, when they say Romney's "apology tour" smears should set his pants on fire. She then proceeds to twist the meaning of the word "apology" to make it fit into her reality-defying right-wing narrative. Sadly, she twisted it so much, she broke it.

Liberals don’t even see that Obama’s excoriating his predecessor is apologizing for this nation, but of course it is. George W. Bush wasn’t acting as a private citizen, and whatever actions he took were done in the name of the United States
OK. Interesting. Let's replace the specific names with titles, so we can understand this proposition in it's generic sense:
excoriating [a President] is apologizing for this nation...of course it is. [The President] wasn’t acting as a private citizen, and whatever actions he took were done in the name of the United States."  
Fabulous. Jennifer Rubin's brilliant new definition of the word "apology" means that Mitt Romney's entire campaign is nothing but a non-stop "apology tour".

Or, as Media Matters puts it:

Here's a fun question: if criticizing the commander-in-chief for actions taken in the name of the United States constitutes "apologizing for this nation," then aren't people like Mitt Romney and Jennifer Rubin, who have spent the last four years doing little beyond that, serial America apologists?

And doesn't that render the title of Romney's book, No Apology, which is sharply critical of the president's foreign policy, a lie?


The right-wingers are out in force today having a hissy fit because Candy Crowley backed up our President when he said he had called the Benghazi attack an act of terror.

Why the confusion?

Here's what President Obama said in a Rose Garden speech the day after the Benghazi attack:

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
So, yes, President Obama did put the Benghazi attack in the context of "acts of terror" and called it "this terrible act". But right-wing nitpickers are still having a field day claiming that Obama "lied" and Candy Crowley backed him up in his "lie".

Apparently, Obama's Rose Garden speech was just too confusing and ambiguous for right-wingers to understand.

But is it really that confusing?

Let's do some simple substitution to see if the construction of the President's speech was really that open to interpretation:

No willfully ignorant right-wing moron with his own talk show will shake the resolve of this great nation. We will not waver in our commitment to the American people just because of Rush Limbaugh.
Nope, the meaning of those two sentences is totally confusing. We could be talking about ANY willfully ignorant right-wing moron with his own talk show. Lord knows, there are so many.

Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:15 AM PDT

Let's help Mitt meet a liberal

by PeaceLoveHarmony

If you subscribe to Mitt Romney's email campaign, you have probably gotten an email that says something like this:


Dear Beavis,

The big announcement is getting closer! Soon everyone will know who Governor Romney selects as his running mate. And we're giving a few lucky supporters the opportunity to meet America's Comeback Team in person sometime soon.

Two winners have been selected already, and a third is being chosen this week. Will you be that lucky winner?

Well, here's the thing.

You don't have to donate to enter the drawing.

So, if you would like a chance to face Mitt and his VP in person and ask him some real questions (like "Hey Mitt, did you ask to see your running mate's tax returns?"), then click on this link and enter your info.

Have fun!


Wed Mar 14, 2012 at 11:44 AM PDT

Some Dare Call It Patriotism

by PeaceLoveHarmony

There’s a lot of speculation today about the decision of Maj. Gen. Mark Gurganus at Camp Leatherneck in Afghanistan to disarm the Marines when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta paid the troops there a surprise visit. The official explanation is that the General did not want the unarmed Afghan soldiers in the room to feel singled out, so the same policy was applied across the board. But anyone who is even remotely aware of the insanity of the right-wing liar hate machine cannot help but wonder if there may now be credible worries that members of our own military have been so brainwashed by the likes of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh that they would view the worst form of treason, political assassination of civilian leaders, as an act of patriotism.

As awful as it may be to acknowledge, the terrible truth is that today’s “Grand Old Party” is not the party of Abraham Lincoln; it is the Party of the Grand Old Confederacy. A majority of that party now believes with a fanatical zeal in a construct of treasonous lies that is daily broadcast and reinforced by the leaders and opinion makers of the Party. Is it the goal of the right-wingers to create an atmosphere in which the freely-elected civilian leaders who hold the highest offices in the land must fear for their lives from their own military? If you pay any attention at all to their claims (completely unhinged from reality mind you) that Obama is a Communist, Muslim, Terrorist, Nazi, Dictator, you realize that if a Marine were to commit the ultimate act of Treason, many, perhaps even a majority, of today’s Republicans would consider it an act of Patriotism.

Every Republican politician in this country, from Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, and Ron Paul, to the members of the House and the Senate owe the nation a moral civic duty, to speak out against the treasonous rhetoric that is now woven into the very fabric of the right wing’s daily discourse. If Republican leaders do not speak out against the hate in their own Party, and the ultimate act of treason against a sitting President or Cabinet Member takes place, their silence in the face of the evil they have helped create will make them as complicit as the misinformed zealot who has pulled the trigger.


Should GOP Presidential candidates be held accountable for the extreme rhetoric of their Party?

85%17 votes
5%1 votes
0%0 votes
10%2 votes

| 20 votes | Vote | Results

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.


Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site