Now facts have a liberal bias?

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), who this year, either on his own or through his presidential campaign, has racked up X fails to President Obama’s Y. But I probably shouldn’t be pointing that out, lest he and his people start accusing me of having a liberal bias, which hasn’t been the case for a good four years. Who has he already accused? The online fact-checking sites, of all sites. They pointed out, quite rightly, that a Romney ad accusing Obama of removing the work requirement in the Personal Opportunity and Work Requirement Act of 1996 was a lie.

You don’t need any third-party website to tell you that; by looking at Obama’s proposed paperwork waiver and the act itself, you can figure it out on your own, as I’ve done here. But that’s too inconvenient for Mitt “Pants Afire” Romney:

Fact-checkers on both sides of the aisle will look in the way they think is most consistent with their own views. It’s very clear that others who have looked at the same issue feel that the president . . . guts that, he ends that requirement for those who seek that welfare.

LIE. The waiver allows states to bypass reporting requirements for recipients’ work search activity, which routinely gets in the way of assisting that search. That version of the story need not be consistent with anyone’s views; it’s consistent with reality. But don’t let that get in the way of a good campaign ad. Think of the donations they’d be missing out on otherwise!

Now, some of you might be tempted to remind me that we’ve seen our share of falsehoods in Obama campaign literature, which is true. But when they’ve gotten caught, they’ve at least attempted to save their asses by blaming the super PACs behind them. And even that’s more plausible, if you have any faith in the de jure prevention of coordination between campaigns and super PACs. What does Romney have to gain from spinning some yarn about FactCheck.org or PolitiFact being on any side of the aisle at all? The Breitbart/Blaze vote? Yeah, that’s a real gain thar. Get those little trolls behind you and watch your numbers go all the way up!

A bigger downside is that he’ll never again be able to cite either of these sites when they give his opponent the “Pants on Fire” treatment. The only people who can be counted on to be biased are the people who these sites expose, and this proves it better than anything else.

Disposal Day #134: The one where everybody lies

STORY #1: Ad mortem

From the left: The Obama campaign’s contention that it knew nothing of Joe Soptic’s story of his wife’s death from cancer after his company, GST Steel, was closed by Bain Capital and he couldn’t afford insurance. It’s all in an ad by the Priorities USA super PAC. It’s fine, albeit unnecessary, to attack vulture capital. But Romney left Bain before GST Steel was shut down, and Soptic told his story on a campaign conference call in May. Oops.

From the right: The Romney campaign’s contention that President Obama’s contraception mandate is tantamount to a “war on religion.” (This is an ad his campaign made itself, by the way, not one that a super PAC essentially foisted upon them.) I’d hate to think that any religion suffers that much when one of its adherents is told to pay for an employee’s birth control. Question his authority to mandate this? Sure. Claim he’s opposed to religion as a concept? Just don’t waste our time.

STORY #2: Well, I heard . . .

From the left: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on Romney’s alleged neglect to pay taxes for 10 years. Want to know how badly this has worked out for him? Except for House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Democrats are embarrassed to be seen with that. Memo to Pelosi and Reid: If you’re not sure if it’s true or not, don’t talk about it. High-school girls do that.

From the right: Minnesota House candidate Mike Parry (R-MN1), accusing Gov. Mark Dayton (D-MN) of popping “15 to 16 pills” during an unspecified meeting, which even Republicans are finding ridiculous. Thankfully, Parry has had the courtesy to admit that he is aware, as are most Minnesotans, that Dayton takes medication for depression. How he thinks an accusation like this will get him any closer to the Minnesota legislature is bewildering.

STORY #3: You’re still here?

From former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA): Remember that bilge water about how allowing states to reduce the paperwork involved in reporting efforts to find jobs for welfare recipients = “gutting welfare reform?” After defending that, all Gingrich could say to Anderson Cooper was, in a nutshell, “I bet he would!” This fucking guy.

Summary of all of the above stories: All of you have a ton of completely factual material you could use against each other. There is absolutely no need for this nonsense. And you might tell the super PACs raising money for you to play by the rules or, as my dad would say, go intercourse the penguin.

Keep the real West Wing out of primetime

I’m going to pose a question to everyone I know who is currently employed in or near the advertising industry. If you were making ads for an incumbent candidate, and you wanted visuals that conveyed a sense of authority and trustworthiness in your next TV spot, where would you shoot the spot? If you answered “the candidate’s office,” you are (highlight between the arrows to see the answer) →WRONG!!!← If you find that answer confusing, please read on, and pick up a newspaper once in a while.

The newest commercial for President Obama’s re-election campaign was filmed inside the West Wing of the White House. (For those who answered “the candidate’s office”: That’s where all the actual work gets done. I hope you’re writing this down, because there’ll be a test later.) That may seem like nothing worth complaining about; after all, he and his staff are the current occupants of that part of the complex. However, occupancy is not the same as ownership, especially when we’re talking about taxpayer resources.

Do you know how much the White House is worth? According to one writer, 2008 operating expenses and salaries for everyone and everything involved in the Executive Office of the United States of America totaled just shy of $1.6 billion. And that’s only when we talk about the White House in the synecdochic sense; it includes the entire Executive Office of the United States of America, including the Vice President’s office, Camp David and presidential transportation. That’s a hell of a lot of property you can’t use.

There’s nothing legally preventing any president from using any of this stuff in a campaign ad. But nobody quoted in the above article found it proper, and rightfully so. Those are all resources belonging to the state, not the man, and Americans want it to be used for state business. We saw a similar argument in favor of shutting down the White House Office of Political Affairs in 2010; the office belongs to the state, but it sure isn’t designed for state business.

It ought to be a rule of thumb that, during election season, no candidate shall use anything listed as an expense for the office they hold in their campaign literature. Did you pay for that pen you’re holding yourself? Fine, use it. Did you bill taxpayers for it? Here, take my pen. (No, nobody cares that much about pens; it’s just an example.) Remember, charity begins at home.

For the spending hawks, I also want it noted that the Office of Political Affairs didn’t come to be until the Reagan administration. Left-wingers can feel free to stand off to the side and smirk a little.

Obama beats a dead terrorist

The death of Osama bin Laden will be hailed as President Obama’s greatest accomplishment, and rightfully so, seeing as a) nobody in America wanted him alive and b) his accomplishments on the domestic front haven’t been quite so impressive. If I were him, I wouldn’t be talking about it any more; his campaign proxies can do all the reminder work, unnecessary as it may be. Alas, it’s too late, not only not to talk about it, but not to be petty about it.

Obama’s team is running an ad speculating that former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA), had he been president at the time, would not have given the order to kill bin Laden. Romney quickly fired back by saying yes, he would have. That’s really all he needed to say. Any counter-rebuttal from the Obama faction would inevitably lead to an interminable stream of “Would not!” “Would so!” “Would not!” “Would so!” “Would not!” “Would so!”

In all fairness, Romney has earned his share of accusations of indecisiveness, and I’m not just talking about what he believes in. Turn your copies of Game Change to page 294:

. . . his advisers found him indecisive, an incorrigible vacillator. He would wait and wait, asking more and more questions, consulting with more and more people, ordering up more and more data. The internal debates over his message and even his slogan went on for months, without end or resolution.

Can you imagine someone with a reputation like this in the Situation Room? Sure, Obama probably asked plenty of his own questions to determine how actionable the operation was, but he got it done. I keep having visions of Romney calling his pollsters in to figure out which plan of attack voters would like best.

But it’s OK for me to make that accusation – I’m just a blogger, and as such don’t have to worry about sounding too contemptuous. The circumstances are drastically different for an incumbent president who has had just south of four years and rack up achievements of his own. In running the above ad, Obama is engaging in the kind of character assassination unbecoming of a sitting politician that we normally find in Congress. Except “assassination” implies that it killed the way Romney comes off. It actually gave him a chance to look better, the last thing you should give an opponent.

There’s also his out-of-context quote about not “moving heaven and earth . . . just trying to catch one person.” At the time, Romney was actually referring to the need for a comprehensive anti-jihadism plan. Maybe I’m being a little on the nitpicky side about the contempt, but at least make an effort to look like you’ve read the statement before you attack it on YouTube!

Let’s all pardon Romney’s French

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) for either signing off on this ad or refusing to denounce it. Had it been the work of his super PAC, Winning Our Future, I might have felt sorry for having those idiots raise money for him, especially considering the hell of a job they did with the attacks on former Gov. Mitt Romney’s (R-MA) years at Bain Capital. But a candidate’s business history is fair game, more so if they insist their specific business history makes them the ideal candidate. (FALSE.) Their language skills, on the other hand . . .

Yes, seriously. I thought everyone had gotten beyond the anti-French stuff as of 2004, but they’re bringing it back in the hopes of establishing Romney as the next Sen. John Kerry (D-MA). True, they’re both rich, they’re both from Massachusetts, they both voted for Democrats at least once and they both look like a comic strip’s parody of what businessmen really look like. And they both speak French, which must be the kicker since the ad mentioned it last, in a particularly demonic fashion. Considering that this race let in Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX), it’s a miracle all six of them can speak English without their eyes crossing.

Admittedly, some languages would be far more useful to an American president these days, Spanish chief among them, but also Hebrew, Chinese (yup) and even Arabic. In Romney’s case, he learned French while traveling in France as a missionary, when it would have been especially useful. At one point I also spoke French fairly well, but I assumed then that I’d be staying in Canada. If he has better language retention skills than I do, more power to him.

You’d think someone like Gingrich would have learned at least five languages (probably all the ancients, plus Esperanto and Klingon) and made a habit long ago of bragging about it. That he’s playing the too-much-knowledge-is-evil angle suggests one of two things: 1. He’s not as smart as we thought and doesn’t see the dozens of weak points available on Romney. 2. He’s so desperate that he’ll say anything now, not caring how he looks anymore, as long as Romney looks worse.

And the most annoying thing? It’s forcing the rest of us to defend Romney, and make him look more resilient than he really is. Maybe that’s Gingrich’s plan, as it would improve the chances of a Republican victory? Either way, this guy is diabolical.

Disposal Day #99: Ad nauseam

STORY #1: Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz . . .

Stock footage found in former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s (R-GA) Iowa ad, in order of appearance: wheat, picket fence, Newt in library, mountains, factory, flag, small business, factory, small business, Newt in library, troops, Statue of Liberty, church steeple, office building, steer roping (oh, good Lord), state house, wheat, teacher, farm, Newt in library. Is anyone else reminded of that Krusty for Congress ad (skip ahead to 0:33)? “When a maaaaaaan loves his countryyyyyyy . . . like Gingrich loves Americaaaaaaa!” Spare me.

The worst part? All of these overtired campaign tropes add up to a message of absolutely nothing. Just Gingrich talking about how wonderful America will be again if you elect him. (Uh-huh.) Literally any candidate of any party from any state within any level of government could have made this thing and it would have made sense for their campaign. But the point of political advertising is to establish a point of difference, and he did not. Yes. We all know America is, was and should be wonderful. Thanks for the update, asshole.

STORY #2: AAAAAH! GAYS!

How do I know this ad featuring Gov. Rick Perry (R-TX) is one of the worst ideas his campaign has ever crapped out? It was enough to make the most conservative people I know laugh at it. (OK, they’re Canadian, but they’re not exactly attending Pride rallies anywhere.) The message: “We dropped Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. BAD! Our kids can’t pray openly in school. ALSO BAD!” Not “This was a good first step, let’s move forward with it.”

I’m not entirely surprised, though. Perry was never a big-tent politician before, but since he has nothing to lose at this point, he figured he’d try to snake the Religious Right vote from the three other people who want it. Not hard to accomplish. And since when did President Obama declare war on religion? He just had a Hanukkah celebration, dammit, and it’s not even Hanukkah yet! Not only is Perry not bothering to appeal to anyone new, he’s just making shit up.

STORY #3: Trust the man

Former Gov./Ambassador Jon Huntsman (R-UT) finally found a word to encapsulate his campaign: “Trust.” Mostly he’s referring to his consistent conservatism, but my personal (and, admittedly, biased) takeaway is that we can trust him to do what makes sense. It’s like the “3 a.m.” ad, only much less on-the-nose. Admit it: You’d trust this guy better than any of the others to handle the 3 a.m. call. My only criticism is that the ad could have been a full minute shorter, but that’s just the PR exec in me talking.

I pledge allegiance to the pledge

Ever feel like some politicians spend their entire careers trying to impress the same people over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and (takes a deep breath) over and over and over and over and over and over and over again? Is that person ever you? Well, if you hate taxes, spending, deficits and debt, all of these people have heard your call – and so have the sitting officials and GOP candidates who have sucked up to them.

The principles of the Cut, Cap and Balance pledge are threefold: 1. Cut federal spending. 2. Put a cap on it. 3. Add a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. Signatories thus far include the following candidates for the 2012 Republican nomination: former Godfather’s Pizza CEO Herman Cain (R-GA), former Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), former Govs. Mitt Romney (R-MA) and Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), and former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA). Expect at least one or two more to come within weeks.

On the other hand, our favorite guy, former Ambassador Jon Huntsman (R-UT), is refusing to sign, on the ground that he just doesn’t sign pledges of any kind. That was the same reason he gave to inquiries about why he didn’t sign a similar pledge which would bind him to pro-life everything, from judges to executive appointments to legislation to funding. His spokesman adds that people who have solid records on certain issues need not sign pledges to those effects.

One point he didn’t add – likely because ideologues wouldn’t understand it – is the fact that pledges, even those not requiring a signature, are more symbolic than effective when you consider roadblocks posed by Congress, special interests and rank-and-file voters. Consider that President Obama has yet to close Gitmo. It’s not because he doesn’t want to – it’s because taking that kind of executive authority is next to impossible, almost un-American, as it should be.

It’s all well and good for a candidate to stand for a series of principles. It’s not OK for them to give higher priority to those principles, and the few holding them to that standard, than the many desiring a more pragmatic approach. If the above noted signatories of the Cut, Cap and Balance pledge truly want to be president, they’ll have to decide whether they’d rather be an intractable movement avatar or a genuine statesman.

And if you don’t know what I mean by that, a statesman represents the entire state, not just the people who agree with them on everything. We don’t have many left.

Disposal Day #31: Can’t stop the primaries

STORY #1: Pawlenty squared

If even Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) spends too much for your tastes, you probably subscribe to the ridiculous notion that a government can and should function like a business, only operating within its own budget and doing little to guarantee more revenue. That’s how GOP gubernatorial nominee Tom Emmer thinks, according to his ad that has run multiple times on KARE 11 (the Twin Cities NBC affiliate, which we pick up here on basic cable). He has rarely polled ahead of any possible Democratic counterpart, so it seems this strategy isn’t working out that well for him.

Meanwhile, the three DFL candidates spent their TV ads highlighting the need for more spending, mostly on education. Eventual winner Mark Dayton (D-MN) was even so bold as to call for increased taxes on the wealthy. As far as I can tell, Minnesota has few other problems that require a governor to step in, so my prediction is that this election will be little more than a referendum on social services spending.

STORY #2: The Rand Paul gaffe machine

Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) may not have much to say that nobody’s heard before, but at least he does a good job of not royally screwing himself up – unless you count imparting those lessons on sonny boy Rand Paul (R-KY). His latest: “Well, shucks, I sure hope no one throws beer on me at this church picnic!” The mistake: It’s a church picnic. The kind to which children are invited. How often do you expect people to drink beer at such an event, let alone throw it, regardless of its legality? (Read on.)

It’s unlucky for Rand that the ability to energize voters on the basis of ideology isn’t hereditary. Whoever his opponent is – their name will probably be lost amid many accounts of Rand’s foot-in-mouth disease – expect them to win simply by virtue of being boring in a good way, as opposed to mightily fascinating in a bad way.

STORY #3: Wrestling with her past

Things Senate nominee/ex-WWE CEO Linda McMahon (R-CT) should be buying with her money: An economic platform that distinguishes her from any other Republican; a tangible reason to want to participate in politics; an ability to highlight her actual good ideas about energy and social issues amid her WWE identity; and a back-up plan in case this election thing doesn’t work out. I predict a KO on the part of Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), if he can exploit these flaws in her campaign.

Disposal Day #21: The most stressful midterms of all

STORY #1: Sorry they got caught

What was it that I said about congressional candidates being offered White House jobs in order to drop out of primaries? “. . . now that everyone knows about this sort of thing happening . . . it may devolve into only a matter of guessing who got it and who didn’t.” I did get results, but it’s not a cause for celebration this time. Republicans have come at at least three more elections with these questions, with such ferocity that they seem to have forgotten how good they were at running on policy matters (this year).

Honestly, guys, you had your fun and now it’s time to get back to work. Acting like one primary candidate is no longer potential competition won’t do you any favors if they either a) turned down a job offer or b) never got one, which are by far the likeliest scenarios. Our time has been wasted enough on this.

STORY #2: Living for the next moment

We’ve all had a hearty laugh over Carly Fiorina’s (R-CA) political advertising before. This time, I have a hard time deciding whether I should laugh or say “Wow, that’s not a bad idea.” The California Senate primary isn’t over, but Fiorina’s newest ads already show her as the presumptive nominee against incumbent Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and launching attacks on her counterterrorism record.

I’m not a huge fan of Boxer, but I personally think it would be hilarious to see her and Fiorina running against each other. Boxer has held the same seat for 17 years; she chairs one standing committee and one select committee; and she’s the Chief Deputy Majority Whip in the Senate. Fiorina has had exactly two years of political experience and is really, really rich with no marketing skills. No Tea Party would back her up, at least not with the strength of Boxer’s fans.

STORY #3: Rush to judgment

What have I told you Republicans about assuming that bands will enjoy hearing their music being used as your campaign themes? Don’t do it. You’re not good at making up for it. This time, it’s Rand Paul’s (R-KY) fandom of Rush on the list of music-related election flaps. The band’s lawyer says it’s for copyright reasons, but I’m highly skeptical.

I do have to ease up on Paul, though, because this article suggests that he’s doing it because he really likes Rush and not just because some of their lyrics sound like things he’d say. At least he’s not doing the other thing the article suggests and using Ted Nugent’s music, despite the “safety.”

Two minutes for logo interference

It’s time once again for The Future American’s FAIL OF THE WEEK! Every Saturday, I name a person or group who has spent the past seven days behaving in a particularly idiotic way. Since it’s my belief that idiocy knows no politics, nobody is safe.

This week’s fail was brought to you by the communications staff for Mark Delphine, a candidate for Senate in Oregon. If you’ve never heard of him, that comes as no surprise, as he is a member of the Libertarian Party. If you’re a hockey fan, though, you should have heard of him; as with another Senate candidate whom we will not name again, his staff’s fail is so spectacular that it makes its own headlines.

This just made me laugh. On the left of this banner is the logo Delphine wanted to use. This is the logo for the Columbus Blue Jackets. (If you’ve never heard of them, they’re currently the fifth-worst team in the league and at the bottom of the Central Division. Although their captain, Rick Nash, was a beloved figure on Team Canada this year, and – sorry. Hockey always makes the Canadian mind wander.)

Anyway, except for the flags (the former has the national flag and the latter uses the state flag of Ohio), the shape of the end of the flag, and the thickness of the navy blue outline, the logos are exactly the same, only flipped on both sides. The design and angle of the stars is the same; the shape of the bulk of the flag is the same; the colour scheme, the same. I would find it very difficult to argue that this hadn’t been plagiarized before having my Internet search history and Photoshop files very carefully examined.

Perhaps to prevent this from happening again, someone should create an extensive online database of logos from around the world. Instead of allowing searches by company name, you could plug in the elements of the logo and they’d spit out everything that meets those criteria. I don’t know what would be more likely than the Blue Jackets logo to come out of a search for “star flag letter,” and, no, national flags would not be included as “logos.”

Hey, I just realized that the last Fail of the Week presented a business opportunity, too. I wonder if this is becoming a trend. If I ever start creating merchandise for The Future American, this and my CD of politically corrected music will be available at very reasonable prices.

Also: Plagiarize this logo, and you’ll be toast. Courtesy of me. I mean it.