Romney Says ‘Birth Certificate’ Joke Not Swipe at Obama

Mitt Romney says his joke that "No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate" wasn't a swipe at the president and once again declared "There's no question about where [Obama] was born."

Mitt Romney says his joke that “No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate” wasn’t a swipe at the president and once again declared “There’s no question about where [Obama] was born.”

CBS (“Romney says “birther” joke wasn’t a swipe at Obama“):

In an interview with CBS Evening News anchor Scott Pelley on Friday, Mitt Romney played down the remarks he made about President Obama’s origins, arguing that they amounted to a joke and not a “swipe” at the president.

“No, no, not a swipe,” Romney said. “I’ve said throughout the campaign and before, there’s no question about where he was born. He was born in the U.S. This was fun about us, and coming home. And humor, you know — we’ve got to have a little humor in a campaign.”

Romney was on the campaign trail in his home state of Michigan Friday when he made a crack at the “birther” suspicions that ultimately drove Mr. Obama to release his long-form birth certificate to prove he was born in the United States.

“I love being home in this place where Ann and I were raised, where both of us were born. Ann was born in Henry Ford Hospital. I was born in Harper Hospital,” Romney said in Commerce, Michigan earlier Friday. “No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised.”

Romney told Pelley that taking the stage in Michigan Friday was an emotional moment for him and his wife Ann.

“You just felt, you know, you felt sort of everything that happened to us here – how we grew up, how we met here, the sacrifices that our families made – coming to Michigan, you know, it all sort of just washed over me as we got up on that stage,” he said. “It was a very emotional feeling. It’s a feeling of coming home.”

This is a perfectly plausible explanation. Still, if he’s going to tell lame jokes, he should stick to ones about the height of the trees.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, Quick Takes, US Politics
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College and a nonresident senior fellow at the Scowcroft Center for Strategy and Security at the Atlantic Council. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm vet. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. bk says:

    This is a perfectly plausible explanation.

    Yeah, right.

  2. mattb says:

    This is a perfectly plausible explanation.

    Seriously? Sorry James, jumping off the train here.

    It was a bad joke and didn’t make much sense to begin with. But if you take away birtherism then it makes no sense. Whether or not it was a job at Obama, it was clearly a birth certificate joke.

  3. rudderpedals says:

    Undertakers aren’t funny. I’d be a bitter and angry politician too if my money was mostly out of the country.

  4. JoshB says:

    C’mon guys – he’s just following the long and storied republican tradition of discussing his birth certificate.

  5. C. Clavin says:

    I don’t know what’s worse…Romney not having the spine to own the comment…or James licking the spineless guys boots.

  6. James Joyner says:

    @mattb: @C. Clavin: Obviously, it’s a Birther joke. But Birther jokes can either be at the expense of the Birthers or at the expense of Obama. Romney has declared repeatedly that Obama was born in America. So, it’s perfectly plausible that he was making a joke at the expense of the Birthers and noting that people knows he’s from Michigan when he’s in Michigan.

  7. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Lighten up, Francis.

    Ace of Spades nailed it — the humor isn’t in Romney’s lame joke, but the sheer frothing-at-the-mouth OUTRAGE!!!!!111!!! reaction to it.

    Suckers, you just got trolled.

    Trolled by a MORMON.

    A Mormon felon who murdered a woman by giving her cancer.

  8. PJ says:

    @James Joyner:

    From the previous “joke” thread:

    swbarnes2:

    And again, where’s the evidence that this hurts him? When saying that Obama is not a “real American” is a major part of the Republican strategy, why do you dismiss him doing exactly that as not part of his campaign? A huge % of Republicans are birthers, how can you be so sure that appealing to them is an error?

    What, short of dragging a black person behind his touring bus, would get you to admit that Mitt and Republicans in general, use racism to appeal to voters?

    Katharsis:

    I actually would like an answer to this myself. I don’t mean something to the effect of Romney is a racist, however. What exactly would it take Mr. Joyner, for you to acknowledge that Romney is willing to stoke racial tension for partisan gain and would you consider it over the line?

    Add me to the list.

  9. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @PJ: I trust you were equally — if not more — incensed over Joe Biden’s “they want to put y’all back in chains!” race-baiting?

  10. OzarkHillbilly says:

    “No one’s ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised.”

    (my emphasis)

    “No, no, not a swipe,” Romney said. “I’ve said throughout the campaign and before, there’s no question about where he was born. He was born in the U.S. This was fun about us, and coming home.

    which is only funny in contrast to Obama’s experience. Since when is racism in America something to joke about?

    This is a perfectly plausible explanation.

    James, James, James, James…. Do you really think it is OK, for a candidate for Presidency of the United States to make jokes about racism in America?

    You don’t have many black friends, do you James?

  11. Scott O says:

    @James Joyner: So the joke is that half of the GOP is nuts?

  12. bk says:

    @James Joyner:

    So, it’s perfectly plausible that he was making a joke at the expense of the Birthers

    When one finds himself in a hole, one is normally advised to stop digging.

  13. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @James Joyner:

    Obviously, it’s a Birther joke. But Birther jokes can either be at the expense of the Birthers or at the expense of Obama.

    James, read the joke again, and tell me where the punch line is directed at the birthers?

  14. bk says:

    So, it’s perfectly plausible that he was making a joke at the expense of the Birthers

    Which is of course why, totally against his wishes, Arpaio and Trump and several other birthers are speaking at next week’s convention.

  15. Nikki says:

    Shorter Mitt: Vote for me! I’m the White guy!

  16. Good grief, liberals are a morose and humorless group people.

    But, then, their version of “humor” is to accuse Mitt of being a felon, killing a woman, and throwing granny off the cliff.

  17. al-Ameda says:

    I take him at his word, it was just joke.

    It was just some harmless pandering to the racist Birthers that happen to comprise the majority of the the Republican Party base.

  18. Nikki says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Sorry, but only people pandering to racists would push the meme that Biden was playing the race card. You wanna talk trolling? Biden showed you how it’s done.

  19. Me Me Me says:

    James, if Mitt makes fun with birthers rather than identifying with them, why is he having two major birthers, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Donald Trump, appear at his nominating convention?

    Mitt Romney – racist lying panderer Etch-a-Sketch Borat.

  20. Nikki says:

    The Republican convention begins next week. Mitt was supposed to have spent this little bit of time left making himself palatable to those outside of his base. His supporters will spend ALL WEEKEND explaining and defending and justifying what he said. How is this stupid comment supposed to make him more appealing to those few undecideds who are left, especially when it has become more than clear that the majority clearly don’t like the birthers? How is this whole Joyner post helping?

    He is a spoiled, bratty, entitled bully of a tax cheat who just can’t keep from making himself look like a spoiled, bratty, entitled bully of a tax cheat. This is the candidate you get when you choose wealth over statesmanship.

  21. al-Ameda says:

    @Nikki:

    He is a spoiled, bratty, entitled bully of a tax cheat who just can’t keep from making himself look like a spoiled, bratty, entitled bully of a tax cheat. This is the candidate you get when you choose wealth over statesmanship.

    Not to quibble, but you left out the part where he evidently does not believe in anything except getting elected.

  22. James Joyner says:

    @Me Me Me: I don’t get the Trump thing. Clearly, though, to the extent that he has an appeal, it’s on the basis of his status as a business icon and reality TV star rather than his weird Birther views. And Arpaio isn’t a convention speaker; he’s talking at a private gathering of Western state GOPers.

  23. Nikki says:

    @al-Ameda: I stand corrected. 🙂

  24. Franklin says:

    Despite the explanation, I guess I still don’t “get” the joke. How exactly does it make fun of birthers?

  25. Nikki says:

    @James Joyner:

    And Arpaio isn’t a convention speaker; he’s talking at a private gathering of Western state GOPers.

    And it didn’t fill you with revulsion to have to make this distinction?

  26. Me Me Me says:

    @James Joyner: Nice try, but “Sherrif Joe” is going to be addressing official delegates at an official RNC event. If Mitt didn’t want this to happen, all he would have to do is tell a minion to squelch it and it would be gone.

    The other flaw in the idea that this was a joke at the birther’s expense: the crowd didn’t laugh. They cheered.

  27. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    A Mormon felon

    Yes, Mitt committed a felony. Probably more than one. Proof. I’ve been trying to find someone who can explain away that proof. So far, no dice. Maybe you’re the one?

    william teach:

    their version of “humor” is to accuse Mitt of being a felon

    Ditto for you.

  28. jukeboxgrad says:

    james:

    to the extent that he has an appeal, it’s on the basis of his status as a business icon and reality TV star rather than his weird Birther views

    Trump’s “weird Birther views” should disqualify him from having a role at the convention. But they don’t, because birtherism is a major phenomenon in the GOP, which is why Mitt is pandering to birthers.

    Just more proof that the nuts are in charge, and that Mitt is not a leader.

  29. Nikki says:

    That Mitt would even consider it appropriate to make the joke is why he gets 0% of the black vote. That you, a Republican, are defending him tells you why your party gets so little support from black voters.

  30. al-Ameda says:

    To be fair, Mitt plans to fly to Mexico tomorrow, to the place of his father’s birth, and make the same joke. Muy bueno … si?

  31. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: “Proof.”

    “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

    1.
    evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
    2.
    anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
    3.
    the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
    4.
    the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
    5.
    Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

    What you have is EVIDENCE, but not PROOF. Countless actual legal experts whose job it is to understand the insanely arcane laws and regulations that are our laws and codes (quite a few of those Obama political appointees) have looked at the matter, and Romney remains quite thoroughly unindicted.

    And really, dude… your ego is, as usual, totally out of control. You declare an absolute fact here, backing it up with a… link to another absolute declaration of yours, which links to PDF documents that YOU SAY mean exactly what you say. You’re using third-hand links, forcing people to go through two paeans to how clever you are.

    You’re so vain, you probably think this comment is about you, don’t you? Don’t you?

    Hey, you’re such an expert on things. Could you explain how Joe Biden’s saying “they want to put y’all back in chains!” to a mostly black audience is NOT race-baiting? That’s a dog-whistle so out of tune, anyone can hear it.

  32. rudderpedals says:

    So we’re cool with jokes about the candidate’s magic underwear and cleavage to afterlife that’s half Sims half Galactic Civilizations?

  33. Buffalo Rude says:

    Buffalo Rude, while addressing his campaign supporters in his attempt to oust James Joyner from public office:

    Buffalo Rude: Nobody has ever asked me to prove I don’t beat my wife or diddle little boys in my spare time.

    [the crowd, half of whom believe Mr. Joyner is a wife beater and pedophile, roars]

    [a little while later. . .]

    Buffalo Rude: Now obvious I don’t believe any of the allegations about my opponent are even remotely true. But the crowd loved it, so quit whining.

    /scene

    But it’s “plausible“, amirite?

  34. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @rudderpedals: You mean, like has been done all along?

    One major distinction: your shot is at Romney and all Mormons.

    Romney’s trolling was very precisely aimed just at Obama.

    Stick to the dog on the roof bit — it’s better targeted. And then that brings “Obama eats dog” back into play.

  35. Nikki says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: I see. White people are simply better at discerning dog-whistles than, basically, everyone else. Got it.

  36. PJ says:

    @Buffalo Rude:
    That’s seriously out of line.
    I’m guessing you’re not a regular commenter?

  37. Nikki says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13:

    Romney’s trolling was very precisely aimed just at Obama.

    See? Even you disagree with James.

  38. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    What you have is EVIDENCE, but not PROOF.

    What I presented here is proof, not just evidence.

    Countless actual legal experts whose job it is to understand the insanely arcane laws and regulations that are our laws and codes (quite a few of those Obama political appointees) have looked at the matter, and Romney remains quite thoroughly unindicted

    Show us the experts who cite the statements I cited and explain how they are not contradictory. I think the “experts” you have in mind ignore those statements. Like you, they ignore all inconvenient facts.

    which links to PDF documents that YOU SAY mean exactly what you say

    You need to show us the magic GOP dictionary where words like “retired” and “Chief Executive Officer” mean something other than what they obviously mean, so that it is possible to be both of those things at the same time.

    Romney’s trolling was very precisely aimed just at Obama.

    It was aimed at all people who don’t look like Mitt. The essence of birtherism is to tell them that they have a burden of proof that was not applied to the prior presidents who look like Mitt.

  39. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Those documents have been out in the open for a long time, and there’s no investigation, no lawsuit, no indictment.

    Res ipsa loquitur.

    Oh, and your “lying to the federal government is a felony?” Were you singing that tune back during the Clinton administration?

  40. PJ says:

    @James Joyner:

    I don’t get the Trump thing. Clearly, though, to the extent that he has an appeal, it’s on the basis of his status as a business icon and reality TV star rather than his weird Birther views.

    You actually believe that?
    You think that Trump’s appeal is about him being a business icon and a reality TV star rather than him being the most prominent Republican birther?

    Justification beyond belief.

  41. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    Hey, I just heard from a guy in Harry Reid’s office. It turns out that the big secret is that a dog ate Obama’s long-firm birth certificate… and then Obama ate the dog.

    (insert rimshot here)

  42. James Joyner says:

    @PJ: Trump has long struck me as a clown. But he’s been a hugely influential cultural figure for, what, 25 years now? He was writing best-selling books and had his own TV show before anyone had ever heard of Barack Obama, much less had an opinion about where he was born. I didn’t even know Trump was a Birther until his bizarre and short-lived presidential campaign.

  43. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    Those documents have been out in the open for a long time, and there’s no investigation, no lawsuit, no indictment.

    Many crimes result in “no investigation, no lawsuit, no indictment.” That doesn’t change the fact of the crime. An unprosecuted crime is still a crime.

    And they haven’t “been out in the open for a long time.” Take another look at the dates, and then show me where these documents were cited other than recently.

    and your “lying to the federal government is a felony?”

    Yes, it is.

    Clinton

    Yet another lame attempt at changing the subject.

    Still waiting for you to cite the “countless actual legal experts” who explain how the contradictory statements I cited are not contradictory.

  44. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @James Joyner: Oh, James… don’t you know that history started with the ascendancy of Barack Obama? All that success and popularity of Trump’s was just groundwork so he could one day irritate the first black president.

  45. rudderpedals says:

    Alright then. Putting @Jenos Idanian #13 down as not cool with jokes about the Republocan candidate’s GalCiv cosplay expectations or magic underwear.

  46. jukeboxgrad says:

    james:

    I didn’t even know Trump was a Birther until his bizarre and short-lived presidential campaign.

    Exactly. He was never a major figure in the GOP until he decided to become a major birther. Those two things are connected.

  47. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad:Good lord, you’re so blinded by your own ego.

    The “experts” are speaking through their silence. They’re the dog that isn’t barking in the night.

    Oh, and don’t look now, but… you’re taking me seriously again.

    I thought you weren’t going to do that any more.

  48. jukeboxgrad says:

    The “experts” are speaking through their silence.

    This is what you said:

    Countless actual legal experts whose job it is to understand the insanely arcane laws and regulations that are our laws and codes (quite a few of those Obama political appointees) have looked at the matter

    If someone is being silent, how do you know they “have looked at the matter?” When are you going to name the “countless actual legal experts” who “have looked at the matter?” You are able to present this many “actual legal experts” who have addressed the statements I cited: zero. They are so “countless” that you can’t even name one.

    As usual, you have nothing but pure wind, and you cannot even begin to explain how “retired” and “Chief Executive Officer” are not a blatant contradiction.

    you’re taking me seriously again

    No, I’m not. I’m proving, again, that you’re a fool and a liar.

  49. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Go ahead, make the case that the IRS, the SEC, and the tax people at the DNC (there’s likely quite a bit of overlap there) have NOT looked at those documents with a fine-toothed comb. I double-dog-dare you.

  50. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Oh, and can you tell us again how to tell when you’re not taking something seriously?

    (insert Pink’s “Why So Serious?” line from “Raise Your Glass” here)
    (alternately, insert Heath Ledger’s “Why So Serious” ilne)
    (or both)

  51. jukeboxgrad says:

    make the case that the IRS, the SEC, and the tax people at the DNC (there’s likely quite a bit of overlap there) have NOT looked at those documents with a fine-toothed comb

    It would be bad politics for the Obama administration to pursue this as a crime. He decided to overlook far worse crimes, like torture.

    Still waiting for you to cite those “countless actual legal experts” who can explain how “retired” and “Chief Executive Officer” are not a blatant contradiction.

  52. Me Me Me says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Releasing those documents would be a felony – even looking at them out of curiosity gets you fired. And given that the vast majority of current federal employees have jobs that were created during the massive expansions of the federal government that occurred under Reagan and the Bushes, there are undoubtedly numerous Republicans in cubicles at the IRS who would blow the whistle if anyone tried to do something so monumentally stupid. As well they should.

  53. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: I’m just going on past precedent.

    Feel free to file your own lawsuit or pester the authorities to take your seriousness seriously. I’m too sick — you give me a near-terminal case of the giggles.

  54. jukeboxgrad says:

    I’m just going on past precedent.

    The “past precedent” is that Obama leans in the direction of not prosecuting Republicans. Exhibit A: torture.

    Feel free to file your own lawsuit

    I don’t have to. I made the point that needs to be made: that no one can explain how “retired” and “Chief Executive Officer” are not a blatant contradiction. Which means Mitt is a felon.

  55. al-Ameda says:

    @William Teach:

    But, then, their version of “humor” is to accuse Mitt of being a felon, killing a woman, and throwing granny off the cliff.

    What problem do Republicans have with any of that?

    being a felon (entrepreneurial)
    killing a woman (pro-life until birth)
    throwing granny off the cliff (reduces Medicare costs)

  56. Gustopher says:

    I grow weary of attempting to figure out with every comment whether Romney is lying, misinformed, clueless, appealing to racists, or just plain racist. It wears me down.

    I’m going with horrible human being. Also, racist.

  57. OzarkHillbilly says:

    James, I asked a simple question,

    You don’t have many black friends, do you James?

    a yes or no will do.

    If it makes you feel any better, I have exactly 17 black friends at this moment, but the truth is, I have lost contact with all but 2 since I moved to Wash. Co.

    Look, there is a real divide between black and white America. I have never been able to bridge that divide…. But I try.

    Anybody else? Try?

  58. @James Joyner:

    But Birther jokes can either be at the expense of the Birthers or at the expense of Obama. Romney has declared repeatedly that Obama was born in America.

    You don’t see the unfortunate implications of a white male born into a rich family making light of the fact he’s never had his credentials challenged, versus a black male born into a working class family? The problem with the joke isn’t that it makes Romney look like birther, it’s that it makes him look like an asshole. It continues a string a gaffes that have resulted from Romney making light of the suffering of someone of lesser means than him; it’s hard not to see this as evidence of a personal character flaw in Romney and how he sees those who have not had the fortune to grow up with the advantages he enjoyed.

  59. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Stormy Dragon: It continues a string a gaffes that have resulted from Romney making light of the suffering of someone of lesser means than him; it’s hard not to see this as evidence of a personal character flaw in Romney and how he sees those who have not had the fortune to grow up with the advantages he enjoyed.

    Oddly enough, that’s a trait we’ve seen in Obama many times — “making light of someone” who is “of lesser meains than him.”

    When talking about his predecessors, he bobbled and said something slightly silly — and covered by dumping on frail old Nancy Reagan. “…in terms of speaking to former presidents, I have spoken to all of them, that are still living, obviously, president Clinton… hey, I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about, you know, doing any seances…”

    For the record, Nancy’s oddness was astrology, not speaking to the dead. That was Hillary Clinton who spoke to Eleanor Roosevelt.

    When a reporter tried to ask Candidate Obama a question, he blew her off with a “hold on one second, sweetie, we’re gonna do a press avail.” She didn’t get her chance to ask her question until after she reported on the “sweetie” incident.

    Let’s not forget Barack Obama, the Special Olympics bowler. Sure, let’s have the president make fun of the disabled. Maybe he figured he’d earned enough good will by making Special Joe his vice president and bestest friend that he could get away with it.

    And then there are the times he arranges to cheap-shot people to their faces under circumstances where they are constrained from defending themselves. Like the time Obama held an event in Ryan’s district, and invited Ryan to attend. Normal protocol is for the president to say something nice about the representative. Instead, Obama took the opportunity to insult and mock Ryan, who had to sit there and smile and pretend he hadn’t been set up.

    or the Supreme Court. Obama took the opportunity of his State of the Union address to not only slam them over the Citizens United decision, but out and out lied about the whole matter. (Obama said it would open the floodgates for foreign money in elections, but the decision deliberately did NOT touch the century-old ban on such funding and left that intact.)

    Obama is the master of the cheap shot. That he’s only been hit with something this mild shows that his opponents have a greater sense of decency than he does.

  60. anjin-san says:

    That he’s only been hit with something this mild shows

    Yes, Obama is a lucky guy. They are polite when they remind him he is a n**gger. And, shockingly, in Jenos’ tiny little universe, that is being stand up.

  61. Nikki says:

    Go ahead, make the case that the IRS, the SEC, and the tax people at the DNC (there’s likely quite a bit of overlap there) have NOT looked at those documents with a fine-toothed comb. I double-dog-dare you.

    I guess we can trust them about as much as you guys trust the IRS, the SEC, the FEC, the Clinton campaign and the oppo-research folks at the RNC who you continue to accuse of not properly vetting Obama in 2008.

    BTW, when are you guys gonna finish that?

  62. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    Obama said it would open the floodgates for foreign money in elections, but the decision deliberately did NOT touch the century-old ban on such funding and left that intact.

    Except that Obama is right and you’re wrong. Link, link.

  63. Me Me Me says:

    @Jenos Idanian #13: Jenos, you claim that Obama has “many times” “made light of someone” who is “of lesser meains than him.”

    You then provide a set of sentences that make no sense internally and which also do nothing to support your claim.

    Fail.

  64. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Your “proof,” Circular Douche, is that some “experts” say you’re right, and some “experts” say you’re wrong.

    There’s an easy way to prove your case, though. The case was settled years ago. Just cite a few examples of foreign money that’s been donated so far.

    Go ahead. Please. Show how the Court’s verdict — which specifically did NOT address Section 441E, which bans “foreign nationals” from contributing — actually did nullify that law.

  65. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @Me Me Me: OK, then, how about three examples?

    Obama like to (mis)quote the Bible about being our brother’s keepers.

    1) His aunt is an illegal alien living in public housing in the Boston area.

    2) His uncle is also an illegal alien living in the Boston area, recently arrested for drunk driving.

    3) His half-brother in Kenya lives in a slum, and recently had a major financial crisis. Instead of reaching out to Barack, he contacted the last prominent person he talked to — Obama critic Dinesh D’Souza. And D’Souza sent him a quick grand to cover the president’s nephew’s medical bils.

    As is noted, Obama’s incredibly generous — as long as it doesn’t actually come out of his own pocket.

  66. jukeboxgrad says:

    Just cite a few examples of foreign money that’s been donated so far.

    I think you need to discuss this problem with your party’s last POTUS nominee.

    Still waiting for you to cite those “countless actual legal experts” who can explain how “retired” and “Chief Executive Officer” are not a blatant contradiction.

  67. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: And I’m still waiting for you to understand my Doyle allusion as an answer. Guess that was “above your pay grade.”

    And McCain here is clearly wrong — as are you. Adelson is an American citizen. The law specifically bans “foreign nationals” from directly contributing to campaigns. That Adelson earns money overseas is irrelevant.

    Circular Douche Circles Drain, Denounces Racist Ti-D-Bowl Man.

  68. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @OzarkHillbilly:

    James, I asked a simple question,

    You don’t have many black friends, do you James?

    a yes or no will do.

    James, I will not let you dodge this question. Yes or no?

  69. jukeboxgrad says:

    jenos:

    Guess that was “above your pay grade.”

    Since your “pay grade” involves understanding how “retired” and “Chief Executive Officer” are not a blatant contradiction you should let us in on the secret and tell us how that works. Where can we find the magic GOP dictionary you’re using?

    That Adelson earns money overseas is irrelevant.

    OK, so it’s no problem that Mitt’s biggest moneyman is someone whose main business is essentially a joint venture with the government of China. Thanks for clearing that up. On the other hand, maybe giving rich Communists a way to buy the White House isn’t such a great idea.

  70. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @OzarkHillbilly: You “will not let” the owner of this blog do something?

    Talk about having more balls than brains. If he doesn’t jump through your hoop, just what will you do? Hold your breath until he answers? Whine? Appeal to the site’s owner to compel him to comply with your demands?

    This could be really, really fun.

  71. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Boy, if Adelson is bad, then you must be totally out of control over George Soros. There’s a convicted felon and Nazi collaborator who’s spent a hell of a lot more money on American politics than Adelson has.

    Oh, that’s right. Soros is on your side, so he doesn’t count.

    The old saying is right. If you want to know what underhanded things the left is doing, just listen to what they’re accusing the Right of. The odds are pretty damned good that they’re doing the same thing, but worse.

  72. jukeboxgrad says:

    convicted felon

    He was convicted in France for insider trading. Show us your proof that it was a felony.

    Nazi collaborator

    No, he’s not a Nazi collaborator.

    who’s spent a hell of a lot more money on American politics than Adelson has.

    Prove it. His total US political donations appear to be a fraction of what Adelson is putting behind Mitt.

    Soros is on your side, so he doesn’t count.

    If he was in bed with the Chinese government and spending $100 million on this campaign, he would count. Those things are true about Adelson. They are not true about Soros.

  73. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Soros, convicted of financial crimes in France, killed the Bank of England, helped the Nazis round up and deport Jews in Hungary.

    And here’s a link that shows that Soros has spent over 100 million trying to buy elections. Sadly for him, he’s chosen the incredibly inept left to back.

  74. Jenos Idanian #13 says:
  75. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Let’s see… your “proof” that Obama was right about the consequences of Citizens United were two stories that said “some experts say A, but others say B” and your “proof” that foreigners are buying our elections is an American citizen. And you are defending a convicted swindler and Nazi collaborator.

    Seems like you’re having a bad night there, sport. Maybe you oughta quit while you’re… well, seriously losing.

  76. jukeboxgrad says:

    here’s a link that shows that Soros has spent over 100 million trying to buy elections

    From that page:

    Organization-Driven Political Activity … When it comes to the combination of institutional lobbying, 527 group donations and PAC expenditures, Koch Industries far out-spends Soros’ hedge fund and think tank, $57.4 million to $12.8 million. Most of this money is attributable to lobbying expenditures. …

    Individual-Funded Political Activity … Soros rules this category, having poured more than $34.2 million into political channels, compared to $4.06 million for the Koch brothers.

    12.8+34.2=47. So you’re only short 53 million. And this is the claim you made:

    [Soros] spent a hell of a lot more money on American politics than Adelson has.

    The Soros total on the page you cited is $47 million. Adelson promised $100 million to Mitt just for this one election. So your own link makes you a liar.

    your “proof” that foreigners are buying our elections is an American citizen

    Adelson is an American citizen who is making most of his money in what is essentially a joint venture with the communist government of China. I realize you have no idea why this is a problem.

    a convicted swindler

    You said he was a “felon.” Where’s your proof? Why are you backpedaling?

    Nazi collaborator

    Where’s your proof?

    And speaking of proof, I’m still waiting for you to cite those “countless actual legal experts” who can explain how “retired” and “Chief Executive Officer” are not a blatant contradiction.

  77. jukeboxgrad says:

    Something relevant to your claims about Soros and the Nazis:

    The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today criticized as “completely inappropriate and offensive” remarks by Glenn Beck on his radio and television programs, in which he inaccurately connected George Soros, who was then a young boy, to the actions of others in sending Jews to death camps during the Holocaust.

    So you should apologize for your “inappropriate and offensive” claim, and you have a long list of other bogus claims you need to withdraw.

  78. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Fine, you wanna play more? I tried being nice, but apparently gentle mockery isn’t a language you understand. Let me put on my jukeboxgrad big-girl panties and speak your own lingo.

    You said that Obama was correct in his State of the Union address, when he said that the decision“reversed a century of law to open the floodgates – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.” When challenged, you lied and cited a source that said “some experts say A, some experts say B.” Then you compounded that lie by citing a second source that also said “some experts say A, some experts say B.”

    I was kind and gave you a second chance to prove your case — by citing an example from the 2 1/2 years since it came down where “foreign corporations” could “spend without limit in our elections.” You lied a third time, citing an American citizen’s spending. Not a corporation, not a foreigner, and most definitely not a foreign corporation.

    This is why everyone knows it’s pointless to argue with you. You simply get all authoritarian and assert things as facts that simply aren’t true, and trust that your manner and style will bully your opponent into silence. And when you do get tripped up, you simply double down your attacks and act as if you hadn’t been caught lying and fabricating.

    Now, this is where I’d take up your challenges and show you the Steve Kroft interview with Soros where he talks about assisting the Nazis in Hungary, his 2005 conviction in France for insider trading, And I might also toss in his role in Black Wednesday, when he made an estimated cool billion dollars — a textbook example of “vulture capitalism.”

    But that would be playing your game, taking up my assigned role in it. And here, I’m borrowing your role. So instead, I’ll just recap: you lied when you said Obama’s statement was true, then lied about it three more times to cover up your own lies. So I see no reason to take you seriously.

    Oh, and for the bonus round: True or false — Harry Reid represents Utah in the US Senate?

  79. jukeboxgrad says:

    You lied a third time, citing an American citizen’s spending.

    Adelson’s main business partner is the government of China, which means there’s no meaningfulness difference between a check signed by him and a check signed by them.

    the Steve Kroft interview with Soros where he talks about assisting the Nazis in Hungary

    Yes, I know all about that interview. I also notice you haven’t lifted a finger address what ADL said about this.

    his 2005 conviction in France for insider trading

    You said he was a “felon.” I notice you’re not using that word anymore. Why are you backpedaling?

    And I’m still waiting for you to cite those “countless actual legal experts” who can explain how “retired” and “Chief Executive Officer” are not a blatant contradiction.

  80. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: And I’m still waiting for you to answer for your lies I’ve cited. I’ve decided to adopt your tactic of demanding answers instead of offering them.

    …while we’re both waiting, wanna play some cards or something?

  81. jukeboxgrad says:

    I’m still waiting for you to answer for your lies I’ve cited

    You’ve “cited” an impressive number: zero.

    I’ve decided to adopt your tactic of demanding answers instead of offering them.

    “Demanding answers instead of offering them” is what you have always done, so the idea that you just started doing this is yet another false claim.

    Still waiting for you to explain why it’s OK with you for a partner of the Chinese government to spend $100 million to buy the White House. Also waiting for you to show your source for your claim that Soros is a “felon.” Also waiting for you to retract your false claim that he spent more than Adelson (a claim proven false by your own source).

    Also still waiting for you to cite those “countless actual legal experts” who can explain how “retired” and “Chief Executive Officer” are not a blatant contradiction.

    And that’s just the baloney you’ve manufactured in this thread, which is a tiny amount compared with your record in prior threads. But of course you will not address these problems, because you need to save your energy for all the crap you’ll be depositing in future threads.

    Keep up the good work, because your inadvertent public service is considerable.

  82. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: I see you’re too ignorant to catch a Sherlock Holmes allusion, so I’ll educate you.

    The experts I’m talking about? They’re all the experts at the DNC, the Obama campaign, and in the Obama administration (but I repeat myself) who’ve gone over all of Romney’s records looking for dirt. If there was something substantive there, they would be shouting it from the rooftops. I’m taking their silence as sufficient evidence to me that there’s nothing there.

    Soros? Convicted in France. If you want to make a federal case on whether or not that translates into “felony,” go chase your own tail some more. He’s still a convicted criminal who was far more of a Vulture Capitalist than Romney ever was.

    You want more answers? Answer mine. Address how the “facts” you cited on Citizens United absolutely did NOT represent what you claimed they did, as I’ve already shown several times.

    But you won’t. You can’t. You’re all about the offensive.

    And yes, I mean that in both ways.

  83. jukeboxgrad says:

    If there was something substantive there, they would be shouting it from the rooftops.

    They made their point, which is that Mitt might have committed a felony. They decided that making a stronger statement was not the right move, politically. That doesn’t mean the stronger statement isn’t true. Here’s the stronger statement, which I proved is true: Mitt committed a felony.

    To prove I’m wrong, all you have to do is explain how “retired” and “Chief Executive Officer” are not a blatant contradiction. For some strange reason, you haven’t even attempted to do that. You also haven’t cited anyone who has attempted to do that. That’s because it can’t be done.

    I’m taking their silence as sufficient evidence to me that there’s nothing there.

    Except that Cutter wasn’t silent, and Mitt made a big deal about her not being silent. Your claim about “their silence” is yet another example of you creating an alternate reality that doesn’t exist. Here on Earth, there wasn’t “silence.”

    If you want to make a federal case on whether or not that translates into “felony”

    It’s not a federal case. It’s just another example of you making a claim you can’t support. One more in a never-ending series. You’re trying really hard to make sure everyone remembers that nothing you say should be trusted, because you regularly make claims you cannot and will not support.

    Address how the “facts” you cited on Citizens United absolutely did NOT represent what you claimed they did

    Take your complaint to McCain.

  84. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Cutter, like you, offered zero facts. Further, she’s hardly an “expert” at anything besides being a really crappy spokesperson.

    And the same arguments that I put forth why you were wrong apply to his statements. Any reason you’re hiding behind a crippled veteran hero, instead of standing by your own remarks? Or does John McCain speak for you on all matters? Are you really John McCain?

    Oh, yeah. You don’t stand by your own remarks because you can’t. You demand evidence, but when challenged to provide your own you either ignore it, demand more from the other party, or just plain lie about it — as you did on the Citizens United case, where you flat-out lied about what your own sources said.

    My, what interesting characters you leap to defend. Brett Kimberlin, George Soros… you must be one of those “honest” hacks who, when bought, stays bought. How honest of you.

  85. jukeboxgrad says:

    Cutter, like you, offered zero facts.

    The documents I cited are definitely “facts.” In your usual style, you are ignoring all facts you find inconvenient.

    Here’s another fact: you cannot and will not explain how “retired” and “Chief Executive Officer” are not a blatant contradiction. Which means that Mitt is a felon.

    Any reason you’re hiding behind a crippled veteran hero

    I’m hiding behind no one. I’m simply pointing out that you haven’t explained why he’s wrong.

    And since you probably forgot already: still waiting for you to explain why it’s OK with you for a partner of the Chinese government to spend $100 million to buy the White House. Also waiting for you to show your source for your claim that Soros is a “felon.” Also waiting for you to retract your false claim that he spent more than Adelson (a claim proven false by your own source). Also still waiting for you to cite those “countless actual legal experts” who can explain how “retired” and “Chief Executive Officer” are not a blatant contradiction.

    But surely you can post yet another comment where you pretend to not notice that you are failing to address all those questions.

  86. Jenos Idanian #13 says:

    @jukeboxgrad: Oh, I’ve explained the Romney departure severar times. I can explain it to you. I just can’t understand it for you. Especially when you are starting with an unshakeable belief that it is not explainable. I can explain it to any reasonable person — a standard you don’t come close to meeting.

    And who whatshisname partners with for business deals doesn’t change that he is both an individual and an American citizen, so even Obama’s totally wrongheaded interpretation of Citizens United is totally irrelevant.

    Which you also support, and lied about your supporting evidence. Just own it.

  87. jukeboxgrad says:

    I’ve explained the Romney departure severar times.

    Not on this planet. You have never explained how “retired” and “Chief Executive Officer” are not a blatant contradiction. If you ever did so, you should show us where that explanation is hidden.

    And no one else has ever provided such an explanation, because it can’t be done without a magic dictionary.

    he is both an individual and an American citizen

    His main business partner is the government of China, which means he is inevitably representing their interests. His joint venture with the government of China is the main reason he has $100 million available to use to buy the White House. I understand that you don’t understand why this is a problem.

  88. Nikki says:

    Wow, jukeboxgrad, I think I need a cigarette after witnessing this exchange.

  89. jukeboxgrad says:

    My time with Jenos is always special. I’m glad you like to watch.