ABLC Has Moved!
For details, click here!
Mitt Romney Thinks High Private Sector Growth and 4.3 Million New Jobs is a "Moral Failure of Tragic Proportions"
Mitt Romney is a liar. Lately, I'm finding it physically painful to listen to this man speak, or to read his remarks because he is shameless, unethical, and a bald-faced liar. It is unclear who Romney thinks he's running against, but it is clear that he is not running against President Obama. At least, he's not running against "IRL" President Obama. Mitt Romney is running against a strawman, all the while erecting strawmen and promptly setting them on fire.
Take Mittens' comments on Thursday about President Obama's economic policies:
Mitt Romney today declared that the floundering economy under President Obama is not just a “failure of policy” but a “moral failure of tragic proportion,” though he offered few new details as to what he would do differently as president.“This president’s misguided policies have seem muddled, confused and simply ineffective,” said Romney, speaking at the minority-run Production Products, a military contractor that manufactures shelters to shield from chemical and biological attacks, among others.
“When you look around at America’s economy, three-and-a-half years into this presidency, it’s painfully obvious that this inexperienced president with no experience as a leader was simply not up to the task of solving a great economic crisis,” said Romney. “This is not just a failure of policy; it is a moral failure of tragic proportion. Our government has a moral commitment to help every American help himself. And that commitment has been broken.”
“I will not be that president of doubt and deception,” said Romney. “I will lead us to a better place.’
Or take Romney's comments yesterday after President Obama's rhetorical "the private sector is doing fine" slip-up in a press conference:
“For the president of the United States to stand up and say that the private sector is doing fine is going to go down in history as an extraordinary miscalculation and misunderstanding by a president who is out of touch, and we’re going to take back this country and get America working again,” Romney said.
After you stop laughing at Mr. Roboto calling President Obama out of touch, let's take a look at the effect of President Obama's economic policies. (Don't groan! Stick with it. It's not that bad. The links in the list below are charts):
- The private sector has been adding jobs steadily since the end of Obama's first year, and today there are more private sector jobs than there were before Obama took office.
- The public sector, on the other hand, has fallen off a cliff: Total government employment is far below where it was when Obama started office.
- Excluding federal government workers, the decline in government employment is downright disastrous.
- President Obama's stimulus helped for a while, but it wasn't enough.
- Also: school construction spending is on the decline, spending on roads is down, public sector spending on public safety (firefighters and police) has collapsed, and public construction on the water supply is way down.
So, relatively speaking, the private sector is doing fine. The public sector, on the other hand, is a disaster. What party is responsible for the failure in the public sector? The GOP. The party led by this fucking guy:
"[Obama] wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers. He says we need more firemen, more policemen, and more teachers. Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people."
Mitt Romney is bathing in rightwing ideological talking points here. He thinks that the loss of government jobs means the country is moving in the right direction! The loss of government jobs that has led to increased classroom sizes, school closures, and the elimination of public safety departments (remember when the Tennessee Fire Department watched a man's house burn down with his pets inside?) is a good thing to Mitt Romney.
Yes. The man who thinks that President Obama's economic policies (which, when unobstructed, are working!) are a moral failure says we don't need more firemen, policemen, and teachers because we need to cut back on those sorts of jobs in order to "help the American people." I guess firemen (and women), policemen (and women), and teachers are not Americans.
It's bananas.
Look, I am not economist. I suck at math. I can barely count without using my fingers. I get halfway through an article by Ezra Klein and my eyes start bleeding because I don't know what a eurozone is and math is hard. So, definitely do not take my word on anything economics or math-related. Instead: READ THIS BUSINESS INSIDER ARTICLE AND LOOK AT THE CHARTS.
The charts don't lie.
Mitt Romney does.
President Obama's policies aren't a tragic moral failure. The Republicans -- which on the day after President Obama's inauguration, plotted a campaign of obstruction -- are a tragic moral failure.
And it's really pissing me off.
Keep reading...Show less
Terry "Burnin' Qur'ans for Jesus" Jones Hangs Obama in Effigy
It has been one of those weeks, people. One of those weeks. You ever had one of those?
Of course you have.
After having had one of those weeks, I find it hard to get outraged by the stupid shenanigans of a pastor who swiped his mustache from Yosemite Sam. Nonetheless, if Pastor Terry Jones is going to keep doing dumb shit, then I'm going to blog about it because it is my sworn duty, and if I didn't, I just wouldn't be able to live with myself -- or something.
::clears throat::
Pastor Terry Jones, the whackadoodle who brought the country to the brink of disaster with his "I'm totally gonna burn this here Qur'an, you guys!" debacle of 2010 (which I wrote about here), and the subsequent "LMAO! J/K! No, I'm not!" cop-out (which I wrote about here), dialed up the crazy today and decided to hang Obama in effigy outside his church in Florida. Yup!
Because if there's one thing that goes together like Twinkies and cream, it's a black man with a noose around his neck:
The effigy is suspended from a makeshift gallows with a noose of yellow rope, has a doll in its right hand and a rainbow-colored gay pride flag in its left.In a telephone interview with The Huffington Post, Jones said the flag was meant to call attention to Obama’s stance on same-sex marriage and that the baby doll is there because the president is “favorable toward abortion.”
Jones also said that radical Islam is “the most dangerous threat to life and national security in America.”
There is also an Uncle Sam dummy standing at the base of the gallows outside the DWOC. Jones told HuffPost that the Obama effigy had originally been positioned to be hanging Uncle Sam when the display went up two weeks ago, but that the church changed the display on Wednesday.
The words “Obama is Killing America” are printed on a trailer nearby.
Ridiculous.
I love that Obama is clutching a doll, as if to say "where the tiny white women at?!"
In your hand, Mr. President. In your scary black hand.
Keep reading...Show less
Study Shows Media Coverage Favors Romney, Not Obama
A snippet from my article posted at The Grio on Monday about the meme that will not die:
*******
Was there ever a time that Republicans did not complain about the liberal media? If there is. I cannot think of it.
And even though each Pew Research Center study for the past year has conclusively demonstrated that the myth of the liberal media is precisely that — a myth, that has not stopped Romney and his many surrogates from complaining that the Liberal Media™ is out to get him.
Ann Romney has complained about media bias against her husband even as Hilary Rosen, who made a valid point about Ms. Romney’s inability to truly understand the woes of the average working mother,was nonetheless tarred and feather in the media.
Mitt Romney frequently complains about media bias against him, while stalwartly refusing to appear on Sunday shows on any network that is not Fox.)
And, last Thursday, Politico weighed in, claiming that the cries about liberal media bias “often ring true”:
Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary to President George W. Bush, said the personal coverage of Romney is silly and won’t cut it with voters, but that he finds the media inconsistency with regards to covering Obama to be galling.These stories are not unusual, except they were never done about then-Senator Obama in 2008,” Fleischer said. “The press never ran probing, sneering stories about candidate Obama, and yet The Washington Post and New York Times are on overtime covering who-cares stories about Mitt Romney.”
Really, Ari? You’ve got to be kidding. The press is still running probing, sneering stories about PresidentObama. Are you familiar with Maureen Dowd’s work? It is not for the faint of heart. And if you are brave enough to venture into the outer reaches of the Internet where World Net Daily resides, you are sure to find tales of Obama munching on puppies for lunch.
As for candidate Obama? I have two words for you: Jeremiah Wright. In 2008, the electorate was treated to “God d**n America!” on a loop for what seemed like ever. And now, thanks to Romney surrogate Donald Trump, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, and an assortment of conservatives, we are going to be treated to six months of intense Birther speculation that the media is still loathe to call racist because the word “racist” is so uncivil.
(I have to send you over to The Grio so you can read the rest; you know you want to!)
*****
One interesting point about the Pew Research Center charts that I did not touch on in my article is this: The only "media" outlet in which President Obama receives on-balance positive coverage (or tone) is on Twitter. As social media takes over as a primary news source, I wonder if it will force traditional forms of media to be better? One can hope. I'm not sure I want to live in a world where Buzzfeed -- which last night reported on a purported presidential blowjob joke last -- is a legitimate news source.
Keep reading...Show less
Michigan GOP Ramming Abortion Bill that is "Most Extreme in the Country" through Legislature
The "most extreme abortion bill in the country" award previously went to Kansas. Now Michigan is throwing its hat in the ring with HB5711 and HB5712:
A massive, 60-page omnibus bill that drastically limits abortion access and could shut down all abortion clinics in the state is being rushed through the Michigan State House of Representatives on Thursday.The bill was introduced just last week, but lawmakers held a hearing for it on Thursday morning and are sending it to a full House vote on Thursday afternoon. A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan said about 90 people showed up at the Health Policy Committee hearing to testify against the bill, but Committee Chair Gail Haines (R-Waterford) abruptly ended the hearing and cut off all testimony after a Michigan Right to Life spokesperson and only a few others were able to speak.
"We had a lot of doctors there and members of the committee asking questions about what the full ramifications of a lot of these provisions could be, and quite frankly a lot of folks couldn't answer them," said Meghan Groen, a spokesperson for PPMSM.
Specifically, the omnibus bill would criminalize all abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, without exceptions for rape victims, the health of the woman or in cases where there is a severe fetal anomaly. It would require health centers that provide abortions to have surgery rooms, even when they don't provide surgical abortions. It would require doctors to be present for medication abortions and to screen women for "coercion" before providing an abortion.
~snip~
The bill would also ban "telemedicine" abortions, or the use of technology to prescribe medication for abortion services and the morning-after pill.
"It could shut down most reproductive health centers in the state of Michigan," said Groen. "It's the most extreme legislation we're seeing anywhere in the country."
I have not yet read the bill, but based on reports on what the bill contains, the bill includes the same restrictive measures that were included in the omnibus abortion bills passed in Kansas and Arizona.
Again, I ask you: What war on women?
(h/t eclectablog: read eclectablog's post for the inside Michigan scoop. He's a warrior in the Michigan political scene.)
***Link to TeamU page for Michigan. (Has not yet been compiled.)
***Join TeamU. Register and fill out a volunteer application. We need your help.
***What is TeamU? Glad you asked.
[image via Amanda Underwood, all rights reserved]
Keep reading...Show less
The Greenwald/Scahill Kerfuffle
Politics is a blood-sport, and you never learn that more keenly than during an election year. Sometimes it's easy to forget that we're all human beings, no matter what we think of one another's politics.
Sometimes rhetoric gets overheated and politics becomes personal and it's at those moments, we need to stop and think. So, when it was brought to my attention that one of my co-bloggers, who goes by Extreme Liberal, implied on Twitter that Salon's Glenn Greenwald and The Nation's Jeremy Scahill work for the Taliban and al Qaeda because of their opposition to the President's use of drones, I realized it was time to take a moment. Although I didn't write that tweet, it wouldn't be right for me to pretend that it's not relevant to me, or that it's okay to let things like that slide if it's directed at someone I don't like or agree with politically. That would make me a hypocrite, and I don't want to let a personal or political differences make me -- or this blog -- into someone I don't want to be.
Greenwald and I obviously have our differences and will probably continue to disagree. We are creatures of our experiences which inform our views of the world, and mine have been very different from his. Nonetheless, he deserves exactly what I want from him and everyone else who reads my work, whether they agree or disagree: to be treated like a human being.
So look, that kind of thing is not cool, people. We need to take things down a few notches from eleventy and remember that opposition is not "the enemy." This doesn't mean we all have to hold hands, sing Kumbaya, and pretend to be BFFs, but it does mean that we must not let politics rob us of our ethics or human decency. I truly respect the work that Jeremy Scahill has done in his career -- his book Blackwater was a true eye-opener -- and although Glenn Greenwald and I rarely agree about politics, (although it may surprise you that I actually do share some of his foreign policy concerns and his concerns about imperialism in the Middle East), that doesn't mean that he's a traitor or a terrorist. Any suggestion of such is wrong and grossly inappropriate. I don't wish him harm. I don't believe that he deserves to be dehumanized. And I don't want anyone who supports me or enjoys my writing to think that I support or enjoy extreme, outrageous, or dehumanizing attacks on him or anyone because of public disagreements.
Because I absolutely mean that, I've asked Extreme Liberal to step down as a blogger at ABLC, and I'm writing this to let everyone know where I stand and to reiterate that my views are my own and not representative of any of the management of Raw Story or of Raw Story itself.
Here is what I want: I want to move forward with my women's rights advocacy with PowrPAC and the Team Uterati Wiki Project. I want to get Obama re-elected because he is unequivocally the best choice for those goals. I want Democrats to keep the Senate so that we have a better chance of seeing the thousands of bills passed that harm women's health and equality stopped, and so we can get the Equal Rights Amendment ratified. I want us to have a running chance at a reasonable Supreme Court so that unjust and discriminatory laws can be challenged and overturned.
That's where my passion is, and that's what I want to do with my life. I do not want to spend it in a Twitter circular firing squad with Glenn Greenwald and his supporters over NDAA, indefinite detention, drones, and other issues that I have repeatedly stated are outside the mainstay of my activism. I don't want to be involved in that sort of infighting, and I do not want my other ABLC bloggers to be involved in it either. So please, if you care about women's rights and you support what I'm doing, the best thing you could do is throw in and help with my projects and not contribute to this kind of distracting rhetoric that ultimately lowers the discourse and makes us into people we don't want to be as liberals.
I apologize to the management of Raw Story, in particular Megan Carpentier for this mess. I take responsibility for it. And I thank her for giving me an opportunity to "clean house" as it were so that I can redouble my focus on the things that I know are important, and make sure those who write with me do the same.
Keep reading...Show less
Equal Pay for Women: Morning Joe's Mika Brzezinksi Calls Shenanigans on Michael Steele
Republicans are the worst. Seriously. They are the worst.
Equal pay for women is a simple concept. What's not to love about it? If Beth and Joe both work at the same job, then Beth and Joe should get paid the same amount of money. That's it! It's simple. But for some reason, the Republicans are trying to convince us women that the GOP is super lady-friendly and totally on our side, you guys -- all the while they are kicking women in the ham wallet.
Take, for example, this morning's edition of Morning Joe. Claire McCaskill appeared with Michael Steele to talk about the Paycheck Fairness Act. Claire was all, "Why won't they pass this, bro?" And Mika Brzezinksi, co-host of Morning Joe and author of Knowing Your Value, her bestseller which examines inequality in the workplace, was all, "I know, right?" Mika and Claire wanted answers and Michael had none to offer. (I know, you're shocked.)
After Chuck Todd wondered "How are we still here after twenty years?" Mika asked Michael to help her understand the intentions of the clowns voting against this bill: "Help me understand why someone would vote against this at this time, especially.”
Michael, of course, had nothing intelligent to say in response, and instead offered up some word salad that would have made Sarah Palin blush:
“Well… you know… again, you’re between a, a, a rock and a hard place politically. It’s... it's... one of those…those arguments that you want to be on the right side of it, obviously. But the reality of it is…what is the politics, here? What is the, what is the get? [How about equal pay, jackass!? -ed.] Chuck [Todd] made the point. This is not a new battle. This is not the first time Republicans or Democrats have confronted this issue. You've gone from 73 cents to 77 cents, even if you went, you know, ten cents... The reality of it is, right now, in this political cycle, as heated and as polarized as it is... uh... a lot of folks will see this as nothing more than a way to sort of back one party in the corner and there’s nothing that’s really going to change beyond the legislation. [Nothing will change except that women will have legal recourse if they are getting screwed out of money they are owed by their employer, you mean. But sure... nothing will change. -ed.] And you talk about the corporate board, uh... corporate boards out there, to be political about it, we've already acknowledged that a lot of those boards... are CEOS are Democrats... uh.., they've given to Obama, they've supported this administration, yet here we are waiting until this heated election cycle to bring this up. Why wasn't this one of the top agenda items when the president came in to lay out his economic plan?”
At this point, I must confess I yelled out at the top of my lungs to no one in particular, "WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?! HE PASSED THE LILLY LEDBETTER ACT, YOU SHITBAG!! IT WAS THE FIRST THING HE DID!!!" (At which point my neighbor walked by and looked very alarmed, indeed.)
And then Mika made the same point that I had just inadvertently screamed at my neighbor, and told Michael Steele, "you got nothin'," to which Michael Steele replied, "Well that's just the politics of it and the question is, where do we go from here?"
And then he said -- I shit you not -- he actually answered his own "Where do we go from here" question and said: "Probably nowhere."
That is about the most honest Michael Steele has ever been. We are going nowhere, and that is entirely due to the fact that Republicans are so hellbent on getting the Kenyan Usurper out of office that they are doing nothing but acting like obstructionist jackwagons. . They blocked the Paycheck Fairness Act. They blocked the WORK Act. Block, block, block. Actually, that's a bit unfair. The Republicans are going to do two things: Jack and Shit.
These people are unbelievable. No wait -- scratch that. These people are entirely believable. And I can't stand them.
Here's the video:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Serenity now.
Keep reading...Show less
Republicans Block Paycheck Fairness Act; Debunking their Talking Points
Now that the Paycheck Fairness Act was defeated, 52-47, you can expect the Republicans to jump-start a meme that they started a few weeks ago. I wrote about it yesterday, but it was buried in another post, so I thought I'd do a quickie re-post that explains exactly why that meme is bullshit.
A few weeks ago, the Free Beacon published a story claiming that female Democratic Senators employed female staffers whom they paid less than their male staffers, and that such was a “betrayal” of Lilly Ledbetter:
A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.
Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent.
That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.
A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s.
Boxer’s female staffers made about $5,000 less, a difference of 7.3 percent.
The Free Beacon used publicly available salary data from the transparency website Legistorm to calculate the figures, and considered only current full-time staff members who were employed for the entirety of fiscal year 2011.
Of course, the Free Beacon made no mention that the Lilly Ledbetter Act was passed to ensure equal pay for equal work. As such a simple comparison of female and male staffers is entirely pointless. A comparison of female and male staffers in the same roles would be required before Republicans can cry, “Both sides do it!” and no such comparison has been forthcoming. But who cares! Everybody knows that Republicans don’t deal in facts and logic.
Oh and Mitt Romney still won't take a stand on equal pay for women. What a leader!
Keep reading...Show less
Democrats? Prepare to be Devastated by the GOP's 'Devastating' Ad on the #WarOnWomen
This video is supposed to be devastating. Devastating! Sure, ok -- if by "devastating" you meant "Laugh OL ridiculous."
You laughed. Admit it. Either that or you sat there with your jaw agape before you quit watching around the one minute mark because what the crap was that?
Sigh.
If there's one thing that drives me up a fucking wall, it's this asinine notion that women are asking that the government hand out free birth control. I mean, what is that? Why? Why do these people continue to believe shit that simply isn't true? (That's a rhetorical question.)
All women want is to have contraception coverage in health insurance plans that they are already paying into. Why is that so hard to understand? Wingnuts are convinced that Obama is going to force woman to take birth control pills and pass the cost of those pills on to innocent couples who live and die by the rhythm method.
It's driving me nanners.
[cross-posted at Balloon Juice]
Keep reading...Show less
Paycheck Fairness Act: Let's See Where the GOP Stands on the #WaronWomen
Republicans have been trying desperately to reframe the GOP's relentless assault on women's rights as a war being waged on women by Democrats.
Last week's shenanigans with PRENDA (the "don't abort all the girls" bill) was a perfect example. The wingnuts claim that President Obama and the Democrats blocked PRENDA (Pregnancy Non-Discrimination Act) which proves that it's really Democrats who hate women because shut up that's why. (Of course, this is nonsense. As I wrote last week, PRENDA is about further divesting women of their right to make decisions about their own bodies, and as asiangrrlMN wrote last week, PRENDA employs vicious stereotypes about Asian-American women to do so.)
Such claims about a war on women being waged by Democrats don't pass the smell test, but that hasn't stopped the Romney-led Republicans from trotting out their finest women to convince Americans that the "War on Women" is like the "War on Caterpillars" -- a figment of Democrats' imagination. They have called upon Nikki Haley, Nikki Haley (again!), Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and even Campbell Brown to make the case that the war on women is fake, even as Republicans float the idea of criminal charges for women who terminate pregnancies.
So here's the deal: Tomorrow's Senate vote on the Paycheck Fairness Act offers the GOP to put its money where its collective mouth is when it comes to equal rights for women. From Zerlina Maxwell at Ebony:
The GOP "War on Women" has taken many forms but Senate Democrats are now determined to fight back, pushing for the passage of the Paycheck Fairness Act (PFA) which is legislation that protects women who sue when they discover they are being paid less than their male counterparts. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has said the vote will take place on Monday, June 4th (now said to be Tuesday, June 5th).In an ideal world, the PFA wouldn’t cause a Democrat vs. Republican fight, as it is an obvious necessity and a step toward equality for all citizens. But in this hyper-partisan environment, anything that seeks to make the playing field more level for women becomes a battle The PFA is supposed to help end pay discrimination for women by closing loopholes that make it very difficult to enforce fair pay labor laws. Legislation would prohibit employer retaliation, allow workers to join class action lawsuits, as well as ensure that the victims received back pay from discriminatory employers. For some women the difference in pay for a man that does the same job can add up to $24,000 dollars a year in lost wages and nearly $431,000 over the course of a lifetime.
Here’s the thing: as it stands now the Senate vote on the PFA is going to be very close---but it is not expected to pass. The importance of the act in framing the debate in key Senate races however cannot be understated. For example, Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) has promised to make this fight to pay equity a central tenet of her re-election campaign. Another key Senate race where the PFA will take center stage is the race to watch in Massachusetts between Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) and Harvard Law Professor and democratic darling Elizabeth Warren. In 2010, Senator Brown voted against a previous component of PFA and that vote will allow Warren to attack him hard for being against pay equity at a time when the war on women is in full swing.
President Obama has waded into the fight, "This is more than just about fairness. Women are the breadwinners for a lot of families and if they're making less than men do for the same work, families are going to have to get by for less money."
Governor Romney, if you'll recall, didn't even know what the Lilly Ledbetter Act was, and later claimed that "he wouldn't repeal it." Gee whiz, Mittens. Thanks ever so much.
And, let's not forget that GOP golden child Scott Walker repealed Wisconsin's Fair Pay Act (which is why you should pick up a phone right now and help the recall effort.)
It's put up or shut up time for the GOP.
Contact your Senators and ask them to support equal pay. Click here for more information.
Keep reading...Show less
Florida Rep. Cliff Stearns Thinks Women "Making" An Abortion Should Face Criminal Charges
I wrote last week about PRENDA and how the Republicans are attempting to push a narrative that the "real" war on women is being waged by Democrats and President Obama because they are perfectly willing to allow the murder of pre-born girls. I also wrote that that particular narrative is a crock.
Nonetheless, Cliff Stearns went off the deep end last week, when, in defending PRENDA, he claimed that criminal charges should be the punishment for women who terminate a pregnancy:
MATTHEWS: So it should be a criminal matter for the woman as well as the doctor?STEARNS: I think so. You are killing an embryo and in some cases you are killing an embryo that is four or five months into gestation.
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
This is where we are, folks. Republicans are advocating that women who make a choice about their own bodies be subject to criminal charges for it. What's next? Throwing women in jail for crimes against the unborn?
Oh wait -- We're already doing that.
Keep reading...Show less
New York Congresswoman's Spokesman Who Suggested "Throwing Acid on Female Senators" Resigns
Last week a top campaign aide for Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-NY) jokingly claimed that Hayworth supporters should "hurl some acid" at female democratic Senators who claim to be fighting the War on Women but who pay their female staffers less:
On a Facebook discussion board maintained by local Democratic activists, Jay Townsend mockingly suggested throwing acid on female Senators who supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act but paid their male staffers more than their female staffers.“Listen to Tom,” he wrote Saturday, in reply to another Facebook user who had criticized Republicans. “What a little bee he has in his bonnet. Buzz Buzz. My question today…when is Tommy boy going to weigh in on all the Lilly Ledbetter hypocrites who claim to be fighting the War on Women? Let’s hurl some acid at those female democratic Senators who won’t abide the mandates they want to impose on the private sector.”
Today, Townsend tendered his resignation to Rep. Hayworth:
“I posted a stupid, thoughtless and insensitive comment on a Facebook page,” Townsend later wrote on his Facebook page. “It was stupid because my words were easily misconstrued; thoughtless because my choice of words obscured a point I was trying to make, and insensitive because some have interpreted the comment as advocating a violent act.”
Poor little Townsend -- he jokingly suggested using the sorts of violent tactics used against girls in Syria (because it's funny, get it?!) but everybody missed the great point he was trying to make because his words were misconstrued.
Wah.
Incidentally, the point he was trying to make was stupid because the false equivalency on paycheck equality is bullshit. A few weeks ago, the Free Beacon published a story claiming that female Democratic Senators employed female staffers whom they paid less than their male staffers, and that such was a "betrayal" of Lilly Ledbetter:
A group of Democratic female senators on Wednesday declared war on the so-called “gender pay gap,” urging their colleagues to pass the aptly named Paycheck Fairness Act when Congress returns from recess next month. However, a substantial gender pay gap exists in their own offices, a Washington Free Beacon analysis of Senate salary data reveals.Of the five senators who participated in Wednesday’s press conference—Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), Patty Murray (D., Wash.), Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.), Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) and Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.)—three pay their female staff members significantly less than male staffers.
Murray, who has repeatedly accused Republicans of waging a “war a women,” is one of the worst offenders. Female members of Murray’s staff made about $21,000 less per year than male staffers in 2011, a difference of 35.2 percent.
That is well above the 23 percent gap that Democrats claim exists between male and female workers nationwide. The figure is based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, and is technically accurate. However, as CNN’s Lisa Sylvester has reported, when factors such as area of employment, hours of work, and time in the workplace are taken into account, the gap shrinks to about 5 percent.
A significant “gender gap” exists in Feinstein’s office, where women also made about $21,000 less than men in 2011, but the percentage difference—41 percent—was even higher than Murray’s.
Boxer’s female staffers made about $5,000 less, a difference of 7.3 percent.
The Free Beacon used publicly available salary data from the transparency website Legistorm to calculate the figures, and considered only current full-time staff members who were employed for the entirety of fiscal year 2011.
Of course, the Free Beacon made no mention that the Lilly Ledbetter Act was passed to ensure equal pay for equal work. As such a simple comparison of female and male staffers is pointless. A comparison of female and male staffers in the same roles would be required before Republicans can cry, "Both sides do it!" and no such comparison has been forthcoming. But who cares! Everybody knows that Republicans don't deal in facts and logic.
Funny how those who oppose equal rights for women look for ways to prove that Democrats are worse than or just as bad on women's rights as Republicans, instead of trying to -- you know -- do something about it.
Keep reading...Show less
Holy Crap! Scott Walker Might Have a Love Child! [Updated]
UPDATE: It's not true! Wrong Scott Walker, apparently.
UPDATE 2: Sarah Jones has an important update to this story: "Wrong Scott Walker or Political Smokescreen: Questions Remain On Walker Baby Daddy Story"
UPDATE 3: This post has caused a bit of a kerfuffle in the blogosphere, so I thought it would be best to explain. As many of you who regularly read my writing understand, I often intersperse irreverent posts with serious posts. This post was intended to be irreverent and not a serious journalistic effort. I thought I had made that clear in the semantic choices that I made. Nonetheless, I must admit that I failed in that regard and take full responsibility for it.
Dr. Bernadette Gillick is accusing Scott Walker of impregnanting his college girlfriend and, after encouraging her to get an abortion, abandoning her.
INORITE!?
The girlfriend (who is going by Ruth) had the child after having been berated by Walker's mother for trying to ruin Walker's reputation. Dr. Gillick was college roommates with "Ruth" and was witness to these shenanigans. She claims she was present for the birth of the child. She also claims that after a paternity test, Scott Walker conceded that he was the father but then had nothing further to do with Ruth or the child.
Dr. Gillick says she decided to come forward after watching Scott Walker in the debate last week, droning on about his integrity and lookit me! I'm a Boy Scout! It pissed Dr. Gillick right off because Scott Walker has no soul.
HOLY CRAP, RIGHT?
I hope this is true. It's like right out of Scandal or something. Scott Walker has gone Hollywood:
Bernadette Gillick was a college freshman in 1988 when she first met Scott Walker. It was spring semester, and she had just transferred to Marquette University. She was assigned a room in O’Donnell Hall (then a women’s dormitory), which she shared with her new roommate, Ruth (not her real name). Ruth was dating Scott Walker, who was 20 at the time, and, according to Bernadette, Ruth was deeply in love with him.Midway through that spring semester, Bernadette alleges, Ruth found out she was pregnant. She informed her boyfriend, Scott, and initially he was supportive. That support changed to callous indifference for his girlfriend’s predicament after Scott informed his parents of the pregnancy.
Bernadette reports that at this point Scott began denying that he was the father of the baby, and when Ruth said she was considering an abortion, he claimed he didn’t care, as he wasn’t the father anyway.
Bernadette remembers being present when Ruth was dealing with the wrath of Scott’s mother, who allegedly admonished Ruth for trying to “ruin [her son's] reputation.”
“I supported her [Ruth] as he [Scott] went from encouraging her to get an abortion, to telling me it was in my best interest to keep my mouth shut, to denying that he was the father and having his own mother call her and tell her to stop erroneously accusing her son of paternity,” Bernadette recounts.
It was a “horrible time” for her friend. “Imagine her being 18 years old and pregnant, walking around Marquette’s Jesuit Catholic campus with her boyfriend denying he was the father,” says Bernadette.
All this was taking place while Walker was running for student body president. As one of his classmates, Dr. Glenn Barry recalled in a remembrance published last week, Walker’s campaign was, “one of the dirtiest in school history.” The student newspaper Marquette Tribune called him “unfit for office” after his campaign was discovered collecting and throwing out copies of their paper that endorsed his opponent. Commenting on the election and Walker’s political career and style at Marquette, he noted, “Walker lost on all counts, but not before destroying a few people’s reputations, and amassing personal power.”
If Bernadette’s story is true, Ruth – and eventually their child – were just a few of the people who got in the way of Walker’s quest for power.
After consulting with her family, Ruth decided against an abortion. Bernadette was with Ruth in the hospital for the birth of her child later that year (and says Walker was not present), and later stood up as a bridesmaid in Ruth’s 1992 marriage to another man. She says Walker eventually had to concede that he was the father, after the birth and paternity test.
~snip~
Over the phone, Bernadette recounted how she watched a recent televised debate between Scott Walker and Tom Barrett. As he talked about his “lifelong integrity” her anger grew. This was a man who had abandoned his pregnant young girlfriend — completely turned his back on her at the most fragile point in her life. She notes his “now-convenient ‘pro-life’ proclamations” after burying his past “indiscretion.” Says Bernadette, “I cannot listen to his lies anymore … I cannot dream of how anyone would support such an evil man. Once a man shows that he has no soul, there is nothing more.”
Apparently, the Walker campaign isn't commenting, and some guy who used to work for the Walker campaign refused to comment and also said he couldn't disclose the source of his current employment. So, that's weird.
Also weird? That this didn't come out years ago. So I don't know what to believe, but I love it anyway.
Sarah Jones at PoliticusUSA has much more on this new development. WalkerGate. Or GillickGate. Or Walker/GillickGate. Do we have a name yet? Somebody get back to me. At any rate, go read Sarah's post, Pro-Life Scott Walker Accused of Abandoning Pregnant Girlfriend in College.
It's about to get velly intellesting in Wisconsin. Seriously. If anything can destroy a political campaign, it's being pro-life, encouraging your girlfriend to get an abortion, and then having a secret love child. Other things that fuck up political campaigns, like all the time: homosexuality, daughters of evangelicals who had secret abortions, and alien attacks.
Just sayin'.
Keep reading...Show less
ABL on The Hal Sparks Radio Program Talking -- Ranting, Really -- About Lady Business and Drones [Updated]
Today was chock full of ranty goodness. Enjoy. As for me, I'm off to Manhattan Beach to enjoy brunch, the sun, and champagne cocktails with my good friend Ramy. Mimosas! Six Deep!
Update: I was so busy this weekend that I didn't have time to add links relevant to Hal and my discussion on Saturday. So I have added related posts. I think I will start doing that each Saturday since I'm now a regular on HSRPM. Woo!
RELATED POSTS:
Keep reading...Show less
Mitt Romney Wants to Make it Easier for you to Hunt and Shoot Your Family
[This is old news. It broke on May 10th or so, which in blog years, means the first person to publish it was Johannes Gutenberg. But I don't care. I love this little nugget of GTFO. I'm a grammar enthusiast and I can't not address this, so cut me a little slack, wontcha?]
Mitt the Liar loves him some guns. Grammar? Not so much -- as demonstrated by the description of his gun policy which is on his website -- still:
As president, Mitt will work to expand and enhance access and opportunities for Americans to hunt, shoot, and protect their families, homes and property, and he will fight the battle on all fronts to protect and promote the Second Amendment.
I'm not sure "Family Hunger Games" is a platform the Romney campaign wants to adopt, although as a game show, it sounds far more exciting than "Family Feud."
In any event, hunting and shooting one's family is incompatible with protecting said family, so which is it, Mitt? Do you want to expand Americans' right to hunt and shoot their families or to protect their families?
Mitt Romney: Ever the flip-flopper.
***image via Amanda Underwood, all rights reserved.
Keep reading...Show less
MORE POSTS
Copyright © 2025 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 |
Masthead
|
Privacy Policy
|
Manage Preferences
|
Debug Logs
For corrections contact
corrections@rawstory.com
, for support contact
support@rawstory.com
.