(h/t Scarce)
Ruh roh...art imitates life:

The hit AMC TV show “Mad Men” took a not-so-subtle swipe at a Romney Sunday night — George Romney, the father of presidential contender Mitt Romney, that is.

In the 1960s-era series, the character Henry Francis, who in previous seasons worked as a political aide for New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, calls Gov. George Romney, who led the state of Michigan from 1963-1969, a clown.

“Well, tell Jim his honor’s not going to Michigan,” Francis says during a work-related phone conversation in Sunday’s episode. “Because Romney’s a clown, and I don’t want him standing next to him.”

Some media outlets are calling this "blasting" Romney, but seems fairly mild to me. Your mileage may vary.

But there was one person who took great umbrage to this throwaway line (and honestly, weren't viewers paying more attention to Betty than Henry this last episode?) and that's George Romney's grandson, Tagg, the eldest of the Romney sons.

Tagg tweeted his unhappiness this morning:

First of all, "lib media"? Give it a rest. "Mad Men" is not the media. It's a show--a fictional show, at that. Set in the early 60s when your grandfather was, in fact, the governor of Michigan. And I'm sure it's hard to hear, but there were obviously people who didn't like him. Just like EVERY. SINGLE. POLITICIAN. EVER.

Gotta grow a tougher skin, Tagg, if you want to play in the big leagues. You don't see the Kennedy kids clutching their pearls over the endless movies and teleplays on their families, none of which are entirely glowing with praise. You don't see the Nixon kids getting the vapors over "Frost/Nixon". You never see Chelsea Clinton taking umbrage at the startling number of hatchet jobs against both her parents.

It's part of the game. Those freedoms that your dad professes to want to protect as the highest officer in the country means dealing with those slings and arrows as people exercise their free speech.

Toughen up or get out.

As The New York Times suggested last week, the fate of President Obama's Affordable Care Act in general, and its mandate that Americans obtain health insurance in particular, may hinge on Justice Anthony Kennedy's notion of "liberty." While Solicitor General Donald Verilli posited "a profound connection" between health care and liberty, his opponent Paul Clement argued, "that it's a very funny conception of liberty that forces somebody to purchase an insurance policy whether they want it or not."

Of course, that very conception of liberty has been the law of the land for decades. Today, tens of millions of Americans must purchase health insurance and a pension plan for their golden years. And as it turns out, the Medicare and Social Security mandates for individuals and employers dwarf anything required by the dreaded Obamacare.

As we learned during the recent debate over the extension of the payroll tax cut, 160 million Americans pay taxes to fund the Medicare and Social Security trusts for today and tomorrow's retirees. Since 1935, workers and their employers have each paid into the Social Security trust fund, a figure which next year will return to its 6.2 percent rate on the first $106,000 of income. In addition, employer and employee alike are on the hook for another 1.45 percent for Medicare, the insurance program for the elderly established in 1965.

In comparison, the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate impacts just a small fraction of Americans. For starters, over 80 percent already have health insurance, compared to roughly 17 percent who do not. The Economic Policy Institute estimates that 59 percent of those under age 65 receive employer-sponsored insurance, while another 22 percent are covered by public programs including Medicaid and SCHIP. Of the 50 million people who are currently uninsured, about 20 million (including undocumented immigrants and those with religious objections or claiming economic hardship), are not covered or are otherwise exempt from the health insurance mandate. As a recent Urban Institute analysis concluded:

What may be surprising, however, is that if the ACA were in effect today, 94 percent of the total population (93 percent of the nonelderly population) or 250.3 million people out of 268.8 million nonelderly people would not face a requirement to newly purchase insurance or pay a fine.

As Ryan Grim noted, that's because "98 percent of Americans would either be exempt from the mandate — because of employer coverage, public health insurance or low income — or given subsidies to comply." The Urban Institute estimated that 8.1 million Americans would have their insurance paid for by the expansion of Medicaid to 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Another 10.9 million people would receive subsidies to buy private insurance in the new state exchanges, while only 7.3 million (2 percent of the total U.S. population) would be required to purchase a health plan using their own resources alone. As for those Americans choosing to instead to pay the penalty for failing to obtain insurance at all, the CBO estimated that number at 4 million. (That forecast is almost double the rate in Massachusetts, where only 48,000 in a state of 6.6 million people opted to pay the penalty rather than acquire health insurance under Mitt Romney's version of the individual mandate.)

But if far more Americans pay the Social Security and Medicare mandates, the number of direct beneficiaries of "Obamacare" is much lower.

Continue reading »

It appears that both Romneys are prone to gaffes.

Ann Romney defended her husband’s sense of humor today during a radio interview, explaining that if people think the candidate seems too stiff at times as the host suggested, she thinks “we better unzip him and let the real Mitt Romney out.”

That's what she said.

And -- it gets better.

Ann Romney’s remarks came during an interview with Baltimore radio station WBAL, during which the host asked her, “And one of the things, Ann Romney, that folks talk about with your husband, Mitt Romney, and I’ve seen him in casual conversation-He comes off very smooth and okay. But sometimes he comes off stiff. Do you have to fight back some criticism, like ‘My husband isn’t stiff, OK?’”

My work is done here.

As TV Newser mentioned earlier today, Sarah Palin will be co-hosting on Tuesday.

Melissa Harris-Perry and her guests were somewhat incredulous at the news, figuring it had to be an April Fool's joke. The dumbing-down of American media continues.

As we mentioned Saturday, Lester Holt announced on “Nightly News” that Sarah Palin would be a guest on the “Today” show Tuesday. But this morning on Weekend “Today”, Holt said that Palin will be co-hosting Tuesday’s show.

While Palin is not stranger to TV — she had a short-lived career as a sports anchor in Alaska (below) — she has made a career out of hating on what she has dubbed the “lamestream media” mostly through her segments on Fox News Channel where she is a paid political analyst.

And much of her criticism has been directed at Katie Couric whose award-winning interview with Palin in 2008, when Couric was with CBS News, continues to haunt the former VP nominee. The irony of pitting Palin and Couric head-to-head on the two leading national morning shows is just too sweet.

This guest list for the week is somewhat telling. From Fox News:

Other high-profile guests appearing on "Today" this week are "Octomom" Nadya Suleman, Kim Kardashian, the Duggar family and rapper Nicki Minaj.

Here's the promo for it:

Vice President Joe Biden sat down with Face the Nation's Bob Schieffer this Sunday morning and was asked about his criticism the other day, calling Mitt Romney "out of touch" and allowed Biden to elaborate on just what he meant by that. I'm not sure why Schieffer even felt the need to even ask Biden to explain his remarks if he's been following Romney on the campaign trail at all over the last year. It should be obvious to anyone who's watched him that the man doesn't relate to anyone who's a member of the working class.

Biden followed up by noting the fact that for the first time since he's been running for office Republicans aren't even trying to hide how they'd prefer to govern and who they're looking out for:

SCHIEFFER: Are you enjoying this Republican primary? I-- I know you said one day, "God love them, I hope they have another twenty debates."

BIDEN: Well, look, I find it-- look, the one thing, Bob, and by the way, it remind myself of my grandfather's admonition, he said, "Joey, any team can beat any other team on any given day." So this is not because I'm so sure that we're going to win. But what I do find is of all of the times I've run for office, Bob, this is the first time the Republicans aren't hiding the ball. They're saying exactly what they think.

They're not talking about compassionate conservatives. And they're not talking about the need for health care in America, but we have a different way. They're not talking public education being the key to economic growth and stability in the country. They're just saying straight up-- straight up what they believe. And so, in that sense, I think this is going to be an incredibly stark choice, the American people are going to have--not just on the economy, but on social policy, as well as educational policy. I think across the board, they have been very straightforward about where they are, and-- and so, in that sense, God love them, they're not hiding the ball. They're just saying exactly what they believe.

h/t TPM

Earlier this week, President Obama released a special message to Planned Parenthood and women. It didn't get a lot of attention in the mainstream at all, but it's important nevertheless. I confess to being so preoccupied with the Supreme Court arguments I let it get away from me.

Here's the transcript:

For you, and for most Americans, protecting women's health is a mission that stands above politics. And yet, over the past year, you've had to stand up to politicians who want to deny millions of women the care they rely on, and inject themselves into decisions that are best made between a woman and her doctor.

Let's be clear here: Women are not an interest group.

They're mothers, and daughters, and sisters, and wives. They're half of this country. They're perfectly capable of making their own choices about their health.

So we're grateful that, through it all, you never forgot who you're fighting for: The woman with a new lease on life because a mammogram caught her cancer in time; the woman who can sleep easier at night because of a cervical cancer screening; the woman who is able to choose when to start a family, because she could afford contraception.

So when some professional politicians casually say that they'll "get rid of" Planned Parenthood, don't forget what they're really talking about: Eliminating the funding for preventive care that millions of women rely on, and leaving them to fend for themselves.

That's why, last year, when Republicans in Congress threatened to shut down the government unless we stopped funding Planned Parenthood, I had a simple answer: No.

But we know this debate is far from over. We must continue to send the message loud and clear: If you truly value families, you shouldn't play politics with a woman's health.

It's why I know that Planned Parenthood will continue providing care, no matter what. I know you'll never stop fighting to protect the healthcare and the choices that America's women deserve.

As long as I have the privilege of being your president, neither will I. Thanks.

Planned Parenthood appreciates the support, and if you want to show your appreciation, they have a petition here.

I caught this clip of Ralph Reed waxing eloquent in Wisconsin at the Faith & Freedom Coalition pre-primary "warm up the crowd and get them frothing" before he introduced Rick Santorum this weekend, and I confess, I may have cut it off just a little bit early so that it might sound like he is excited about President Obama's inaugural in 2013.

I know it's a bit of a bait and switch but then I view his current operation as a bit of a bait and switch, too. Let's have a closer look at Ralph Reed's "business dealings."

After the Christian Coalition fell apart and Reed was exposed for using earnest Christian soldiers as pawns to screw some Native American tribes out of casino deals so other ones who just happened to be clients of Jack Abramoff's could get a decent deal, Ralph Reed tried to run for office and failed. You'd think at some point he might actually be held accountable by those pious conservatives out in the Midwest, but instead they laud him as some kind of prophet. Go figure.

And now I can't help but wonder if he's up to the same old tricks. In 2009, he started up his new operation with seed money of $500,000 from an unknown donor. That $500,000 was earmarked for "voter education" according to the initial tax filing. The name used on that tax filing was "Freedom and Values Alliance, Inc." While Reed was named as Chairman of the Board, he received no compensation in 2009.

I guess he just serves out of the goodness of his itty-bitty little heart. Then I had a look at the 2010 filing, which uses the same tax identification number, but now has a different name. For 2010, the name of the same organization with the same identification number was now the "Faith and Freedom Coalition, Inc" with a related entity, the "Freedom and Values Alliance, Inc."

Once again, Reed received no compensation from the Faith and Freedom Coalition, Inc., but the organization received over $5 million dollars in 2010 and of that, over $1 million went to the sister organization, Freedom and Values Alliance, Inc.

Are you following me so far? The organization in 2009 has one name and in 2010 it has another, with a newborn sister organization carrying its first name but with no federal disclosures. And a million dollars went to it.

Continue reading »

Via Juan Cole. As a result of a Polish newspaper article published in February, the Polish PM is admitting that his country's security forces helped torture al-Qaeda suspects for the U.S.:

Poland’s Prime Minister Donald Tusk is now more or less admitting what has long been suspected: The Bush administration established a secret CIA prison in Poland and had Polish security officials help torture al-Qaeda suspects there.

These steps were unconstitutional in Poland on two grounds: first, high Polish officials surrendered sovereignty over Polish territory to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Second, torture is forbidden in Poland. In addition, it contravenes European Union conventions and treaties.Poland had only escaped the grip of the Soviet Union in 1989, and so its democracy was a fledgling one. For the Bush administration to seduce its high officials into committing torture risked permanently marring its politics and undermining that democracy. Polish human rights workers have been deeply critical of Soviet-era torture, and to be put in the position of having to acknowledge this practice in their own country weakens their moral standing and besmirches the name of those tortured in the Stalinist era. Waterboarding and extreme stress techniques are also illegal in US law and practice.

One of the suspects tortured in Poland was Abu Zubayda, an addled safehouse keeper whom the Bush administration built up into a mythical ‘number three man in al-Qaeda.’ Abu Zubayda still suffers ill health and increased symptoms of mental illness as a result of the torture.Some detainees at Guantanamo are guilty of plotting or carrying out terrorist operations of some magnitude, and that George W. Bush should have transformed them into victims of torture is the most degrading thing he did to those killed on September 11. In other instances, the U.S. swept up a lot of innocents or petty criminals in its dragnet against al-Qaeda, and torturing them was not only useless and illegal, but actually a way to lose hearts and minds in the Muslim world and so was supremely self-defeating.

Continue reading »

The Boomtown Rats don't like Mondays, but let's get our week off to a good start! --Tengrain

Lotsa 'Splainin' 2 do 'splains lotsa stuff to us, within an acceptable margin of error.

Pleasantly Eccentric writes a letter to potential business owners in Kansas, you know, to offer some advice.

Occasional Planet discovered some notes that The Supremes left behind!

Bonus Track: One Foot Tsunami doesn't like Comic Sans. Does anyone?

Round-up by Tengrain of Mock, Paper, Scissors who also blogs at Dependable Renegade. Send tips to: mbru@crooksandliars.com

Mitt Romney's staff decided to play a little April Fool's joke on him:

Rep. Paul Ryan and Sen. Ron Johnson—two key Romney surrogates here in Wisconsin—were in on the joke. Ryan introduced the candidate as planned in the empty room, as Romney and Johnson listened off stage. But as Romney prepared to enter the room to his usual soundtrack of Kid Rock's "Born Free," his staff warned him that turnout at the event had been lighter than expected.

"I go in there, and it's completely empty. There's nobody there!" Romney giggled, as he later recounted the prank to his audience at the real event. "I thought, oh boy, this is going to look really bad on the evening news, let me tell ya."

Don't know why he's so upset...it's not exactly the first time he's had to deal with empty rooms before, is it?

Open thread below...