Archive for flubs

Chief Justice Roberts was wrong. He misconstrued census data in voting rights argument.

Photograph: Jason Reed/Reuters

Photograph: Jason Reed/Reuters

Dear Chief Justice Roberts,

If you base your arguments on misconstrued data, then your argument is faulty at best and without merit at worst.

If your final judgment of a case is based on your own worthless arguments, then you are erroneously and egregiously changing and affecting lives and law, not to mention disenfranchising voters and altering election outcomes.

Oh, and your credibility goes down the toidy.


Americans who care about democracy


At the voting rights argument in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts tore into Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, grilling him on his knowledge of voting statistics.

The point the chief justice was trying to make was that Massachusetts, which is not covered by the preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act, has a far worse record in black voter registration and turnout than Mississippi, which is covered by Section 5 of the act.

But a close look at census statistics indicates the chief justice was wrong, or at least that he did not look at the totality of the numbers.

oopsie cat

He also “mangled the wording” of presidential oath in 2009, but who's counting?


L.A. Times: Both Pres. Obama AND Chief Justice Roberts "mangled the wording" of presidential oath in 2009. Not quite.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. re-administers the oath of office to President Obama in the Map Room. (By Pete Souza -- White House)

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. re-administers the oath of office to President Obama in the Map Room. (By Pete Souza -- White House)

Here's what I read in my morning L.A. Times today:

Roberts and Obama proceeded carefully through the oath, the third time the duo have gone through it. At Obama's first inaugural in 2009, they mangled the wording, prompting White House lawyers to summon the chief justice to the White House for a do-over.

"They"? "They mangled the wording"?  Really, L.A. Times?

Not so much.

First Read, January 20, 2009:

But Chief Justice John Roberts, using no notes, flubbed his lines, and Obama knew it.

WaPo, January 22, 2009:

After flubbing his one role on Inauguration Day -- administering the oath of office to Obama -- Roberts traveled to the White House to re-administer the oath.

L.A. Times: Your "librul media" at work.

bias liberal media my ass smaller


“Romney’s silence speaks volumes about his willingness to sell his soul to the homophobic far-right to get elected.”


We just switched to a new server here at TPC (thanks to your generous donations, we were able to do that), so posting has been non-existent since early this morning while all that tech stuff was taken care of (thank you Lucian!). We apologize for the delays.

While I start nosing around for some newsyosity to snark about, here are today's L.A. Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter. These are responses to a Michael Kinsley op-ed about Flubmeister Mitt, which we previously brought to your attention:

Re "Romney's flub," Opinion, May 4

If there was any doubt about who is in charge of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign, it is crystal clear that right-wing groups, in an effort to create a non-inclusive White House club, have the power to intimidate an openly gay campaign spokesman into resigning.

Romney's silence speaks volumes about his willingness to sell his soul to the homophobic far-right to get elected.

Phyllis Landis

Ocean Hills


The irony is, the one thing Romney is supposed to be great at, the thing that sets him apart, is his executive ability. Good executives select the best talent and then back up their people and give them room to do their jobs. Fail and fail.

I certainly wouldn't want to work for him.

Joanne Zirretta

Aliso Viejo


Mitt Romney's first big general election "flubs"


According to Michael Kinsley, the controversy over Willard Romney's former foreign policy spokesman, Richard Grenell, who is gay and got forced out by anti-gay conservatives, "is the first big flub of the general election campaign." Undoubtedly, just one of many, many more to come, as you'll see below.

Romney's "well-oiled machine" got a little squeaky with that episode. So much for all that businessman acumen and efficiency he was supposed to bring to the presidential race. Think Progress:

If Romney campaign can’t stand up to a bigoted special interest on personnel issues — for what they clearly thought was the best man for the job — how could a Romney administration be expected to make the politically tough decisions needed to successfully govern the country?


Why did Romney appoint him in the first place if he was going to hang the guy out to dry as soon as there was any criticism? (And there never was much.) If you're going to be a bigot, at least be smart about it. [...]

[T]his episode does make you wonder about Romney's guts. He portrays himself (and probably thinks of himself) as a hard-nosed businessman, ready to make the tough decisions that professional politicians won't. ... [H]as he stopped to ask himself how he will manage to fill a Romney administration if he excludes all gay men (and women?) from the candidate pool?

As Michael Kinsley so rightly points out, if you're going to change your mind on issues, "you should (a) be prepared to admit it and (b) be prepared to explain it.

Then we have Mitt's ridiculous comments criticizing President Obama for daring to express some pride in the demise of Osama bin Laden (He was ultimately responsible for it, after all. He gave the orders. SEAL Team Six didn't get bored one day and decide to pounce on their own).

Other than the blatant hypocrisy of accusing the president of politicizing by the candidate who was politicizing, other than the fact that it is an election year so politicizing a victory (as opposed to a horrific attack that took American lives) kinda makes sense, Mitt has been outright lying, not to mention unfairly ridiculing a former president.

An L.A. Times editorial nails Willard for "laughably minimizing the significance of Obama's success in authorizing the operation that ended the terrorist's life" among other things:

More offensive, however, is the suggestion that Obama's foreign policy has been characterized by a return to Democratic timidity in the use of American force abroad, as exemplified in the Republican mind by Carter. That's not only unfair to Carter, it's plainly false about Obama, who has increased U.S. forces in Afghanistan, sharply stepped up drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, authorized the killing of Al Qaeda leaders, supported the overthrow of Moammar Kadafi in Libya and approved covert actions in Somalia and Yemen. National security analyst Peter Bergen described Obama in the New York Times as "one of the most militarily aggressive presidents in decades." Indeed, his aggressiveness has caused some Obama supporters to worry about an excessive reliance on force, even if it's failed to impress Romney.

If supporters are worried about the president's reliance on force, just imagine electing Mitt "Attack Iran" Romney commander in chief. Now, that would be one colossal "flub".

Added: Here's his "biggest fib".