If the republicans have their way, they’ll drown it and the rest of in a bathtub.

The Pledge: Grover Norquist’s hold on the GOP

….As we first reported last fall, Grover Norquist, through the pledge, controls 279 votes, including both the speaker of the House, and the Senate minority leader. Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have signed it. And in the coming campaign, you can be sure that Grover Norquist won’t let them forget it….

“…I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” – Grover Norquist

….Vice President Joe Biden (D): Quickly. The bottom line here is that all the studies show that if we went with Social Security proposal made by Mitt Romney, if you’re forty, in your forties now you will pay twenty-six hundred dollars a year mo, you get twenty-six hundred dollars a year less in Social Security. If you’re in your twenties now, you get forty-seven hundred dollars a year less.

The idea of changing, and change being in this case to cut the benefits for people without taking other action you could do to make it work is absolutely the wrong way.

These, look, these guys haven’t been big on Medicare from the beginning. Their party’s not been big on Medicare from the beginning. And they’ve always been about Social Security as little as you can do.

Look, folks, use your common sense. Who do you trust on this, a man who introduced a bill that would raise it forty, sixty four hundred dollars a year, knowing it and passing it, and Romney saying he’d sign it, or me and the president?….

I know who I trust. And it’s definitely not the right wingnut voucher waving zombie eyed granny starver [thanks, Charles P. Pierce] from Wisconsin with the Edie Munster haircut.

“…I will be very specific. Number one, the, this lecture on embassy security, the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by three hundred million dollars below what we asked for, number one. So much for the embassy security piece…”

Paul Ryan (r): ….This Benghazi issue would be a tragedy in and of itself, but unfortunately it’s indicative of a broader problem. And that is what we are watching on our TV screens is the unraveling of the Obama foreign policy, which is making the (inaudible) more chaotic us less safe.

Martha Raddatz: I just want to you about right in the middle of the crisis. Governor Romney, and you’re talking about this again tonight, talked about the weakness, talked about apologies from the Obama administration. Was that really appropriate right in the middle of the crisis?

Paul Ryan (r): On that same day, the Obama administration had the exact same position. Let’s recall that they disavowed their own statement that they had put out earlier in the day in Cairo. So we had the same position, but we will, it’s never too early to speak out for our values.

We should have spoken out right away when the green revolution was up and starting; when the mullahs in Iran were attacking their people. We should not have called Bashar Assad a reformer when he was turning his Russian-provided guns on his own people. We should always stand up for peace, for democracy, for individual rights.

And we should not be imposing these devastating defense cuts, because what that does when we equivocate on our values, when we show that we’re cutting down on defense, it makes us more weak. It projects weakness. And when we look weak, our adversaries are much more willing to test us. They’re more brazen in their attacks, and are allies are less willing to…

[crosstalk]

Vice President Joe Biden (D): With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey.

Martha Raddatz: And why is that so?

Vice President Joe Biden (D): Because not a single thing he said is accurate. First of all…

Martha Raddatz: Be specific.

Vice President Joe Biden (D): I will be very specific. Number one, the, this lecture on embassy security, the congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by three hundred million dollars below what we asked for, number one. So much for the embassy security piece.

Number two, Governor Romney, before he knew the facts, before he even knew that our ambassador was killed, he was out making a political statement which was panned by the media around the world. And this talk about this, this weakness. I, I don’t understand what my friend’s talking about here.

We, this is a president who’s gone out and done everything he has said he was going to do. This is a guy who’s repaired our alliances so the rest of the world follows us again. This is the guy who brought the entire world, including Russia and China, to bring about the most devastating, most devastating, the most devastating efforts on Iran to make sure that they in fact stop (inaudible).

Look, I, I just, I mean, these guys bet against America all the time….

Paul Ryan (r): ….If these cuts go through, our Navy will be the smallest, the smallest it has been since before World War I….

Michael Bersin ‏@MBersin

Oh, God. The Navy of WW 1. More coastal defense monitors and dreadnaughts, please. #FactsMatter 8:59 PM – 11 Oct 12

What is it with right wingnut republicans and dreadnaughts? Just asking.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): comparing apples to navel oranges (February 16, 2012)

U.S.Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 1917-1923

11/11/18

Battleship 39

Monitors, Coastal 7

Cruisers 31

Destroyers 110

Frigates 17

Submarines 80

Mine Warfare 53

Patrol 350

Auxiliary 87

Surface Warships 204

Total Active 774

The last Coast Defense Monitor went out of commission in 1921.

[emphasis added]

U.S.Navy Active Ship Force Levels, 2007 to 2011

9/30/11

Carriers 11  

Cruisers 22

Destroyers 61

Frigates 26  

LCS * 2

Submarines 53

SSBN 14

SSGN 4  

Mine Warfare 14  

Amphibious 31  

Auxiliary 47  

Surface Warships 122    

Total Active 285  

* Littoral Combat Ship

[emphasis added]

Because modern defense systems have fewer capabilities than those of almost a century ago.

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): still obsessed with those navel oranges (July 24, 2012)

Apparently the republicans went to the fainting couch today. Vice President Joe Biden (D) gave them more to faint about:

Vice President Joe Biden (D): ….We don’t have to imagine anymore. The details are there. Here’s what Con, Congressman Ryan said. He said, we believe a renewed commitment to limited government will unshackle our economy. The Speaker of the House said, used the word unshackled as well, referring to their proposals. The last time these guz, guys unshackled the economy, to use their term, they put the middle class in shackles. [voice: “Yeah”, applause] That’s how we got where we are. [voice: “Yeah”, applause]

Nine million jobs lost. Wage stagnation. Sixteen trillion dollars in wealth you all lost in your home equity, in your 401Ks and your pension plans. You’re the ones that got nailed. All of America, except the very few.

And I’m told when I made that comment earlier today in Danville, Virginia the Romney campaign put out a tweet. You know, tweets these days? Put out a tweet, went on the air, airwaves saying, Biden, what’s out, he’s outrageous in saying. That I think I said instead of unshackled, unchained or. And outrageous to say that. That’s what we’ve had. I’m using their own words. [laughter] I got a message for ’em. If you want to know what’s outrageous, it’s their policies [cheers] and the effects of their policies on middle class America. That’s what’s outrageous.[cheers, applause] That’s what’s outrageous.

I think it’s outrageous to continue to give companies tax breaks to outsource rather than tax breaks to insource. To make massive cuts in education, massive cuts in college aid, massive cuts in Medicaid, throwing nineteen million people off, who desperately need healthcare, off of Medicare, including one million seniors. How many of you know somebody in a, in, in, in a home right now who is getting extended care. Eight’ll get you ten, they’re there because they have Medicaid. What happens when they do this? That’s outrageous. You want to know what’s outrageous. [applause] Massive changes. Massive cuts to Social Security for future generations. That’s the hard proposal….

Don’t you just love it when Democrats aren’t afraid to throw a punch?

…except for Mitt Romney (r).

Paul Ryan (r), with Bob Schieffer on 60 Minutes tonight:

Bob Schieffer: How many years of, uh, tax returns did you, uh, turn over to [crosstalk] the campaign?

Paul Ryan: Well, it, it was a very exhaustive, uh, uh, vetting process. It’s a confidential bri vetting process, so there were several years, but…

Previously:

The question (August 11, 2012)

Tax Returns: maybe he just handed them everything in a shoe box (August 12, 2012)

Previously: The question (August 11, 2012)

“Representative Ryan, how many years of tax returns did you provide to the Romney campaign in the vetting process?”

Today George Stephanopoulos asked Tim Pawlenty (r) the same question:

Former Governor Tim Pawlenty (r): …on behalf of our country.

George Stephanopoulos: You did bring up the tax returns. How many years of tax returns did you provide to the Romney campaign?

Tim Pawlenty (r): [pause] Well, I don’t know the exact number, George, but I, you know, there were several years I believe.

George Stephanopoulos: Several years, so more than two?

Tim Pawlenty (r): [pause] Well, we don’t get into the details [laugh] of the vetting process, but I, I gave ’em a bunch of tax returns. I don’t remember the exact number of years.

George Stephanopoulos: Governor Pawlenty, thanks…

“…Well, I don’t know the exact number…”

“…I, I gave ’em a bunch of tax returns. I don’t remember the exact number of years…”

Seriously? You’re being considered as the vice presidential nominee for your party and this is one of those minor details that slips your mind? Tim Pawlenty must think everyone in America is stupid.  

Nothing exceeds like excess:

October 22, 2008

Republicans spent $150,000 on Sarah Palin’s clothes

The Republican Party has spent $150,000 in upmarket designer stores on dressing Sarah Palin for the part of vice-president…

…The Republican Party has tried to play down the extraordinary sum it has spent on packaging Ms Palin.

“With all of the important issues facing the country right now, it’s remarkable that we’re spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses,” said Tracey Schmitt, a party spokeswoman…

[emphasis added]

They must not remember this:

No More Mr. Nice Guy

By Dana Milbank

Tuesday, December 11, 2007; Page A10

…Sounds like a bit of class warfare — coming from a man with a 28,000-square-foot house, $30 million in assets and a $400 haircut…

[emphasis added]

Yes, the republican party is seriously irony impaired.

They forgot. They created this world, but we all have to live in it.

D’oh.

“…This doesn’t happen in America, maybe Ohio, but not in America…”

How appropos. Use this a a vice presidential debate open thread.

From the McCain campaign:

For Immediate Release

September 1, 2008 Contact: Press Office

Statement from Sarah and Todd Palin

ARLINGTON, VA — Today, Sarah and Todd Palin issued the following statement regarding today’s Reuters story:

“We have been blessed with five wonderful children who we love with all our heart and mean everything to us. Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood, she knows she has our unconditional love and support.

“Bristol and the young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. We ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the tradition of children of candidates.”

###

As a general rule of thumb in presidential politics – when running for such a high profile office one tries to avoid surprises.

This definitely falls under the “surprise” category.

I wonder how Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty really feel right now?

What are they saying in Alaska?

Okay, not so briefly noted. Use this as an open thread. Meanwhile, the usual suspects are about their business in the State of Missouri.

We have a state Supreme Court vacancy. The Appellate Judicial Commission has submitted three names. The probability is high that the governor doesn’t like any of them because they’re, you know, actual judges with judicial temperament and not right wingnut ideologues.

From the office of Governor Matt “lame baby duck” Blunt:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, August 21, 2008

Contact: Jessica Robinson

Gov. Blunt Receives Supreme Court Panel by the Appellate Judicial Commission

JEFFERSON CITY-Gov. Matt Blunt today received a panel of three candidates as presented by the Appellate Judicial Commission and will begin the review process to fill the vacancy left by former Supreme Court Judge Stephen Limbaugh who has been appointed as a U.S. District Court Judge.

“The Appellate Judicial Commission has selected three candidates who they believe should serve on the Missouri Supreme Court and I will thoughtfully review their selections,” Gov. Blunt said.  “My office will have a selection process that is open and transparent and I will carefully review and research the qualifications and experience that each panelist could bring to the Missouri Supreme Court.”

In Missouri, the governor does not appoint a judge to the Supreme Court from citizens at large. Instead an Appellate Judicial Commission, made up of the presiding chief justice, three lawyers chosen by the Missouri Bar and three people appointed by governors, selects a panel of three candidates. Gov. Blunt has appointed only one of the three commissioners, and the others were appointed by former Gov. Bob Holden.

The governor and his top staff will thoroughly review each candidate and their qualifications.  As with all gubernatorial appointments, the candidates will first work with the Office of Boards and Commissions to complete an initial interview and facilitate official background checks. A historic review of public documents and available information related to each candidate will also be collected and thoroughly reviewed. References, judges, local and state bar association members, community leaders and citizens will be consulted as a part of the information gathering process. In addition, letters of reference and recommendations are collected, confirmed and assembled.

Candidates will then meet with the governor’s general counsel and members of his senior staff for an interview and discussion of the judicial branch and Supreme Court. Gov. Blunt will then carefully review all available information and resources regarding each candidate and plans to meet with each candidate before making his final decision.

The governor has 60 days to appoint one of the three nominated candidates to the Supreme Court.

[emphasis added] tiny URL

Is it just me, or does this press release come off as whiny? Gee, he got to purge all the license offices in the state, why not the Appellate Judicial Commission? And what about that continuing vacancy in the 17th Judicial Circuit? Matt “baby” Blunt must feel he got rolled on that one, trying to be too clever by half, eh?