Republican Lies category archive

. . . and the Booman suspects he knows why (emphasis added):

Jonathan Chait wants to know why it is suddenly so popular for Republicans to tell the public that they are not scientists and therefore are unqualified to have an opinion about whether or not climate change is actually occurring. It’s because they lack even an iota of moral courage. It’s because they are paid liars. This is not complicated and it shouldn’t even be debatable. Outside of a very small handful of genuine dunces who actually managed to get elected despite having personal beliefs about science that would make John Calvin blush, every single Republican who is either denying climate change or saying that they can’t make up their mind about it is actually just being dishonest. For money and career.

In related news, Bill Maxwell totals the cost of denialism.

To call this a “kangaroo court” is to insult kangaroos.

Via Bob Cesca’s Awesome Blog.

Eugene Kane tries to figure out the Republican fascination for Benghazi and hits on something (much more at the link):

Republicans will tell you the public demands new Benghazi hearings, but much of the public that they speak about probably would be hard-pressed to find Libya on a map. The deaths of four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador, also often are cited as the main reason for continued focus. But if you ask people to name the four victims, it’s likely many won’t be able to.

The people who have called for the new hearings on Benghazi are often woefully short on facts or even concrete ideas about what the hearings are supposed to be looking for, but they do know Hillary Clinton was secretary of state and President Barack Obama was somehow involved in the loop of information.

For this crowd, that’s all that’s necessary.

In other words, when you got nothing, make something up. Benghazi is the something of the moment.

PoliticalProf explains how this works:

1. political figure makes absurd claim about an opponent/policy;
2. partisans respond, defending or the denying the claim according to their ideologies;
3. the focus rapidly turns onto the person or policy against whom the original charge was made: the person or policy has to “prove” it does not do/say what the accuser claims;
4. the firestorm cools down until new charge X is made and the cycle repeats.

Video moved below the fold because it autoplays on some systems.

Read more »

Climate change is not something “to believe in.”

It’s something that is.

Via the Green Miles.

Eugene Robinson offers a qualifying test.

Before asking a question at the coming show trial, each self-righteous congressional inquisitor should be required to correctly locate Benghazi on an unlabeled map.

Via Bob Cesca’s Awesome Blog.

I have not mentioned the melting of the West Antarctica ice sheet because I kept thinking, really, what else is there to say? Soon, probably not within my lifetime, but soon, Pine View Farm and its environs–and Virginia Beach, for that matter–will be all gone because of greed and inertia.

Shaun Mullen answered my question today. Just read it.

Read more »

Never-say-diers.

Via C&L.

As Dave Johnson points out,

Here is the difference: Republicans seem to sincerely believe that Americans only rally around Republican Presidents when the country is attacked. This is probably related to their sincere belief that no Democratic President is legitimate.

So their logic is that if the country heard that this was a terrorist attack they would turn against the President before the election, and to Mitt Romney. And therefore Romney was “cheated” out of a victory.

Benghazi appears to be about a Republican belief that Americans do not rally around their President when the country is attacked, but only around Republican presidents (or candidates apparently.)

Image via Juanita Jean.

Oliver Willis narrates the life of Barack Obama as told by conservatives.

I cannot excerpt or summarize it and do it justice. Just go read it.

Steven M. looks at the latest Republican attempt to gin up something out of nothing once more all over again.

PoliticalProf stuffs Republiconomics in a peanut shell (like a peanut, it has two kernels).

The forces of truth, justice, and the American way win another skirmish against the Republican gut-out-the-vote movement.

Wisconsin’s voter ID law suffered another welcome blow Tuesday when a federal judge struck it down, ruling that it violated the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. The law, ruled Judge Lynn Adelman, “results in the denial or abridgment of the right of black and Latino citizens to vote on account of race or color.”

As we’ve argued for years, Adelman found that there really isn’t any voter fraud in Wisconsin that a voter photo ID could address — one of the key arguments of supporters of the law.

The story goes on to inform us that the forces of disenfranchisement plan to regroup and counter-attack.

A bit of good news in Pennsyltucky.

A Commonwealth Court judge on Monday denied the Corbett administration’s request to reconsider his ruling overturning the state’s two-year-old voter identification law.

In a 29-page decision, Judge Bernard L. McGinley said the law requiring Pennsylvania voters to produce photo ID at the polls failed “to provide liberal access to compliant photo ID” and, as a result, disenfranchised voters.

“The evidence showed the voter ID provisions at issue deprive numerous electors of their fundamental right to vote, so vital to our democracy,” wrote McGinley, who struck down the law in January.

Details at the link.