“Join Me In Welcoming The Next President Of The United States, Paul Ryan”
Mitt Romney had a bit of a verbal flub at the end of his speech introducing Paul Ryan:
No big deal, but amusing nonetheless.
H/T: Charlie Spiering
Mitt Romney had a bit of a verbal flub at the end of his speech introducing Paul Ryan:
No big deal, but amusing nonetheless.
H/T: Charlie Spiering
These things happen but they’re happening too often with Romney. As bad as George W. Bush was on the stump early, he got significantly better. This may be as good as Romney gets.
@James Joyner:
Yea but I think Joe Biden still holds the record
Oh oh, that sounds kind of “final destination.” Poor Mitt.
Too funny. Too too funny. Funny or Die funny. For someone who is absolutely humorless, he just keeps on giving.
I think Mitt may have been speaking the truth. After all, Ryan is a frontrunner for the Republican nomination in 2016.
@Doug Mataconis: Yea but I think Joe Biden still holds the record
Too, too true.
“Barack America!”
“Stand up, Chuck!”
“articulate and bright and clean…”
@Moosebreath:
DING, DING, DING
I think Romney just took one for the team and his pocketbook. While I’m sure he would like to implement his tax cutting agenda as soon as possible, whats another 4 years. You guys have to start thinking long term, whoever is on the horizon from the Republican side that would challenge their tax cutting orthodoxy has now been introduced to a formidable opponent with a national reputation. If this does nothing more than continue the current stalemate on taxes Romney comes out as the winner.
15% tax on capital gains, wow what a scam.
@Moosebreath:
Being the VP on a losing Presidential ticket isn’t something you want on your CV if you want to become President.
28 losing presidential tickets since 1900.
Of them, only three Vice President candidates later ended up being nominated as their party’s candidate for the Presidency.
And of those three, only one won the general election, FDR.
The other two being Bob Dole and Walter Mondale.
And being the VP on a winning ticket isn’t much better unless the President dies or is assassinated.
@PJ:
Yeah. One factor in Ryan’s favor is that he’s young. If we skips a cycle or two he come at it fresh.
it’s official, Mitt is the Manchurian Candidate.
@PJ:
Paul Ryan doesn’t ever have run for president let alone win, all he has to be is a credible threat to any Republican candidate whoever thinks of backing away from the anti-tax orthodoxy of the current Republican party.
@john personna:
FDR, 38 in 1920, waited two cycles.
Republicans may pick Ryan in 2020 or 2024, but I doubt that he will be electable in any shape of form.
While FDR was the youngest losing VP candidate, here are the other four under 50: Ferraro, 49, Hiram Johnson, 46, Quayle, 45, and Palin, 44.
Star quality.
@al-Ameda: Perfect!
This was no gaffe. Romney was told “release the tax returns or quit.” Watch a Ryan/Portman ticket emerge from Tampa. Offshore accounts in the hands of a sitting President poses a huge security risk as they can be used for any purpose and are beyond Congressional subpoena and FOIA requests. Add dodgy tax returns, and Mitt was told: release them or we will.
They’re drugging him already! For God’s sake, Ann – protect your man!!!
@James in LA: Sheesh, dude, don’t drink the bong water.
We know about Romney’s offshore accounts because he told us about them. As we heard over and over and over again in the “gays in the military” arguments, such things only make you vulnerable about blackmail if you keep it secret, and want or need to keep it secret. Anyone trying to shake down Romney over his accounts would be about as productive as threatening to out Barney Frank.
And “dodgy” tax returns? The ones released so far have been convoluted, but that’s entirely to be expected. To call them “dodgy” (dictionary definitions: “1. Evasive; shifty. 2. Unsound, unstable, and unreliable. 3. So risky as to require very deft handling.) is taking a huge leap.
I’d wager Romney’s been audited at least twice in the last decade, probably more. And if there had been anything “dodgy” about them, that would have been leaked by now.
Exactly. And Mitt has made it really clear that there are some things he needs to keep secret. The part he’s hiding includes something much worse than the part he’s shown us.
@jukeboxgrad: Just where is your proof that Romney “needs” to keep things secret? Maybe he just prefers to keep some things private, and doesn’t feel the need to give away more personal information than he is legally required to. Maybe he’s pulling the same stunt Obama pulled with the birth certificate, and letting the fevered nutcases keep ranting themselves into a corner until he pulls the rug out from under them. Or maybe he’s seen what the shipdits have done with the info they already have, and doesn’t feel like giving them more ammo to lie about.
But “need?” That’s a totally unsupportable assertion of fact. And entirely typical of you.
Mitt has released this many complete tax returns: zero. The only plausible explanation is that he’s hiding something.
Many people are making this comparison even though it’s wrong. Prior to Obama, this many presidents presented a BC: zero (we ultimately saw Reagan’s, but not until after he left office). There is no precedent for expecting a candidate to show a BC. On the other hand, there is indeed a strong precedent for candidates to show extensive tax records (and Mitt’s dad helped establish that precedent). Also, Obama released his BC in 2008, before he was even nominated (which means there was no “stunt;” by dismissing what he released in 2008 you are essentially identifying yourself as a kind of birther). And then he released it again, but despite this birthers still make up roughly half the GOP.
When you make this comparison you’re basically taking the position that Obama needs to do more than what’s normal, but it’s OK for Mitt to do less than what’s normal.
Your comparison also fails because Mitt has a record of going to great lengths to avoid taxes. Look up what he did as head of the audit committee at Marriott. This adds credibility to Reid’s claim. Also adding credibility to Reid’s claim is the fact that Mitt picked Ryan, who has proposed that people like Mitt pay no taxes at all.
A candidate is not “legally required” to show proof of birth. This fact never got in the way of birtherism, and Trump’s birtherism didn’t get in the way of Mitt leaping into bed with Trump. As usual, Mitt thinks it’s OK to apply one set of rules to himself and a different set of rules to everyone else.
And since you understand that the birthers are “fevered nutcases,” you should explain why Mitt is willing to get so close to the most prominent of those “fevered nutcases.” And you’ve also identified yourself as one of the “fevered nutcases,” because only the “fevered nutcases” took the position that the birth certificate Obama released in 2008 wasn’t good enough.
“The fevered nutcases” include prominent Rs such as Bill Kristol, George Will, Haley Barbour, Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley, Ed Rollins and the WSJ editorial page. They all say Mitt should release more tax information.
If there’s nothing shady in his taxes, then there’s no “ammo.” Mitt is essentially saying voters are stupid when he suggests that they won’t be able to make up their own minds with regard to whether or not his taxes are shady, and that they will just trust alleged lies told about his taxes.
Also, if Mitt is opposed to lying he needs to set a better example. Link.
And speaking of lying, I’m still waiting for you to deal with the falsehood I pointed out to you here. There are many similar examples, but we can start with that one.
What’s “entirely typical of you” is that you make false claims and then pretend to not notice when they are proven to be false. There are numerous examples. I’ve just cited one that happens to be recent.
@jukeboxgrad: You’re obviously not stupid, so I’m left wondering if you’re fundamentally dishonest, or insane.
Or, possibly, both.
The Romney taxes/Obama birth certificate comparison IS valid. In both cases, the candidate largely ignored the demands for “conclusive” documentation, and let the howling crowds build and build. (Note that only Romney’s enemies are insisting that there must be something to hide; the supporters are pushing it to “shut them the hell up.” That’s a pointless aspiration.)
In Obama’s case, he kept it going until he was ready to pull the rug out from under them. Romney could be doing the same.
When you make this comparison you’re basically taking the position that Obama needs to do more than what’s normal, but it’s OK for Mitt to do less than what’s normal.
No, what I’m doing is pointing out parallels and speculating on rationales. I’m making no judgments on what either should do or should have done.
I’ll repeat what I’ve said before: in light of Romney’s wealth and incredibly complicated finances, I am comfortable wagering that he’s been audited at least a couple times in the past few years. And given past examples of theoretically-confidential information being leaked by the administration and its supporters for political gain (the highly-classified details of the Bin Laden raid, the outing of Joe The Plumber’s private info), I am certain that had those audits found anything untoward, it would have been leaked by now.
Oh, and FactCheck.org says you’re full of crap on the Marriott thing.
Only birthers treated the 2008 document as not “conclusive.” You’re a birther, birther. And aside from that, there was never any basis for any “demands,” because no prior candidate had ever released a BC. You’re doing an excellent job of ignoring most of what I have said, as usual.
That link is broken.
Thanks for making your birtherism so clear. Let’s review a few basic facts. Obama released his BC twice, on 6/12/08 and on 4/22/11. Notice this from WSJ/Taranto, 7/29/09:
Let’s recall what you just said:
You are claiming that what Obama released on 6/12/08 was not “conclusive.” According to WSJ/Taranto (and I could cite lots of other, similar sources), that makes you this: “insane.”
Nice to know that you’re a birther, birther. In your own words, this means you are one of the “fevered nutcases.” Of course we already knew that, but it’s nice to have this extra confirmation.
@jukeboxgrad: So, then, what was so different about whatever the hell it was that Obama showed off in April, 2011?
Oh, just go take a flying fark at a rolling donut. I should have grown bored with your “crusading prosecutor” schtik ages ago. Besides, don’t you have some more apologias to issue for convicted domestic terrorist and perjurer Brett Kimberlin?
In terms of substance, nothing. It’s only the birthers who claim it was “different,” in any material way. And that’s precisely what you have done, and that makes you a birther, birther. One more time, let’s recall what you said:
You’re claiming that the 4/22/11 release was “conclusive” and the 6/12/08 release was not. That makes you a birther, birther. It’s you, not me, who is claiming that there was something “different about whatever the hell it was that Obama showed off in April, 2011.”
You’re too stupid to realize that the question you just asked me is precisely the question you need to answer yourself. And you can’t answer it, which proves that your statement (“the candidate largely ignored the demands for ‘conclusive’ documentation”) is baloney.
English translation: ‘I’m annoyed that you have proven, again, that I’m completely full of shit.’
You’re like clockwork. Whenever you paint yourself into a corner you make a really lame attempt at changing the subject.
@jukeboxgrad: The birther thing died a long time ago. The only ones keeping it going are the necrophiliacs on both sides who see some kind of advantage in schtupping that dead horse.
Are you that desperate for a little gratification? On second thought, please don’t answer that. I’d rather not know.
Which is why I chose it as a historical example as a parallel.
But back on topic… Obama did the exact same thing when he introduced Biden. I guess it’s now a tradition or something.
Here’s the result of a poll done 1/12. In response to the statement “Barack Obama was born in the United States,” Republicans responded as follows:
True: 27%
False: 37%
Not sure: 35%
As usual, your claims are contradicted by reality.
There is no “parallel” unless you take the position that what Obama released on 6/12/08 was not “conclusive.” That is, unless you take the position adopted by the birthers. But of course that’s precisely what you did when you said this:
So you either have to admit that your “parellel” is bogus, or you have to admit that you’re a birther. Or you could do neither, which is a good way of reminding everyone that your intellectual integrity is nil.
@jukeboxgrad: Yeah, I’m a “birther.” I believe that Obama was born (to a human woman, in Hawaii), and don’t agree with those that believe that Teh Messiah descended from heaven to save us all and pay all our bills. You got me.
But now that you’re making assertions based on your own credibility, let’s take a look at your credibility.
Do you agree that Joe Biden is a serial fabricator and plagiarist?
Do you agree that Brett Kimberlin is a convicted perjurer and plagiarist?
Do you agree that Barack Obama was for gay marriage, then against it, and now is for it again?
You’re like a hermit crab. You live in your little troll cage and only emerge to attack those who disagree with you. You’re no honest “fact-checker,” because you either ignore the lies, misstatements, and fabrications of those who agree with you, or say you have no knowledge of the matter.
It’s a waste of time to try to discuss things with you, because you have no interest whatsoever in actually engaging in discussion. You just want to shut up those with whom you disagree.
And for some reason, I keep acting like you might actually be sincere and treating you accordingly. More fool me.
You might believe that now, but you obviously didn’t believe it prior to 4/11. We know that because you said this:
Which means you think what he released prior to that time was not “conclusive.” There’s a name for people who think that: birther.
When did I do that?
More lame attempts at changing the subject.
@jukeboxgrad: It’s too bad that “jumping to conclusions” isn’t an Olympic sport; you’d win the gold.
I put “scare quotes” around “definitive,” indicating skepticism of the term. If I’d meant it sincerely, I’d have boldfaced the term. And Romney hasn’t released his taxes, so OBVIOUSLY he has something to hide. And I think you were one of those arguing that Romney must have committed a felony when he was on his leave from Bain to save the Olympics.
If I cared enough, I’d see if you also backed the Romney is a murderer” bullshit.
On the other hand, I recall your comment about Kimberlin where you said you had no knowledge of whether or not he was convicted of domestic terrorism and perjury, but you knew a LOT about those he is waging war on…
Such selective knowledge and outrage and integrity. Must save you a lot of time and energy…
So everything you write that isn’t bold is not meant sincerely? I already knew that most things you say are insincere, but thanks for admitting it.
Your ability to contradict yourself is quite spectacular. Is there another Jenos in here? Because someone using that name said this, above:
I didn’t realize “Romney’s enemies” was a group that includes you. Then again, maybe your later statement is intended facetiously, but if so I have no idea what your point is.
I realize you mean “conclusive,” not “definitive.” One more time, this is what you said:
As usual, you’re contradicting yourself and trying to have it both ways. There are only two possibilities:
A) In 2008, Obama released proof of birth that was conclusive.
B) In 2008, Obama released proof of birth that was not conclusive.
If you think B, you are a birther. If you think A, the thing you are calling a “parallel” is not a parallel. Let’s recall something else you said, since you obviously have a hard time remembering your own statements:
“Pulls the rug out from under them” makes no sense unless you think there is a material difference between what he released in 2008 and what he released in 2011. There’s a word for people who believe that: birthers. Non-birthers understand that the 2008 release was “conclusive,” which means “pulls the rug out from under them” is what he did in 2008.
When Taranto called the birthers “insane” (in 2009), he was saying they never had a “rug … under them,” to begin with. That figure of speech is about someone who appears, at least initially, to have solid position. If you think the birthers ever had a solid position, that makes you a birther.
Your claim about a “parallel” would be less incorrect if we already had some “conclusive” way of knowing that Mitt’s taxes before 2010 contained nothing shady. But obviously we do not have such a thing. Mitt has not given us something “parallel” to Obama’s 2008 release. Therefore your claim about a “parallel” is bogus. There can be a “parallel” only if you accept the birther position that Obama’s 2008 release was not “conclusive.” (To claim a “parallel,” you also have to ignore this problem: that it’s normal for candidates to releases taxes but not normal to release a BC. But of course you are also ignoring that problem.)
Not exactly. He committed a felony when he lied to the federal government. Proof.
(Starting a new comment because otherwise multiple links will trigger the spam filter.)
What I said about that is here.
By the way, thanks for reminding me that you never addressed your falsehoods that I pointed out here and here, in that thread. You were too busy finding a new thread to load with falsehoods.
That’s 100% bullshit. I never said that.