Quiet and overcast this Friday morning along the peaceful Pacific’s northern California shore — the weekend is upon all of us, more so than others.
Politics and this particular work-week has worn my tired ass way out.

Maybe and most-likely, the big news byte today will be Mitt Romney’s change of heart, or the percentage of that heart that cares:

“I absolutely believe, however, that my life has shown that I care about 100 percent and that’s been demonstrated throughout my life.
And this whole campaign is about the 100 percent.
When I become president, it will be helping the 100 percent.”

(Illustration found here).

Now talk about a 100 percent whopper of a flip-flop.
Just a short space ago, Romney hadn’t backed off the now-infamous “47 percent” video tape recorded during a Florida fundraiser last May, though, declaring the shit was spoken without eloquence, but he stands as he says he stands.
Now after he thrilled himself during Wednesday night’s debate with a lackluster President Obama, Romney needs to make amends to that huge mass of US peoples he called non-worthies, and in appearances he will continue to try and do more flipping and flopping on the horrible, backwards poo that’s rained out of his mouth.
The big percentage, though, is an item he really should have noted first is that children’s icon, Big Bird, whom he would pink slip if elected.
The Washington Post:

Romney told moderator Jim Lehrer, “I’m sorry Jim. I’m gonna stop the subsidy to PBS.
I’m gonna stop other things.
I like PBS, I like Big Bird, I actually like you too.”
A collective stab pierced the heart of Generation X who grew up with Big Bird, Bert and Ernie and Oscar the Grouch as their best friends.
I immediately thought, “Oh no, Big Bird will be unemployed if Romney wins.”
I wasn’t alone.

And from USAToday, some social media conversations:

At that point, someone in the Twitterverse responded by creating a @FiredBigBird account, which, as of this writing shortly after 10 p.m. ET Wednesday, had almost 9,900 followers.

And seemingly one of the best, employing the ‘zinger’ technique: “I worked with Big Bird. I served with Big Bird. You, sir, are no Big Bird,” The Lance Arthur, @thelancearthur, of San Francisco tweeted.

What could one idiot say to that?
Nothing — Mitt will somehow refashion himself, however, on the plight of Big Bird and claim fowl.
HaHaHaHaHa…..

Meanwhile, there’s still ugly out there, this off a view at India’s The Hindu:

The surprise element of the debate was Mr. Romney’s sharp tenor, which handed him the dominant edge at several points in the discussion.
Contrarily, Mr. Obama appeared cautious and reactive, even opening the debate on a soft note by wishing his wife a happy anniversary.

And not treading too softly, however was Ann Coulter, a skinny gal with an enormous pie-hole which shit unsweetened pours through.
She blubbered  shortly after the debate (via Politico): “Obama was depressed and looking down,” the conservative commentator said Thursday morning on Fox News’s “Fox and Friends.” “You could see, at the end of that debate, he knew — anniversary or not — Michelle wanted to go home with Mitt.”

Ah, well…
Romney’s still an asshole liar, maybe the greatest at this high level.
A glance at Romney’s ‘shape-shifting‘ tax plan from US News and World Report:

The basic concept behind the plan is pretty simple.
The Republican presidential nominee wants to cut each of the six federal income-tax rates by one fifth, so those in the 15 percent bracket would pay 12 percent, those in the 25 percent bracket would pay 20 percent, and so on.
He’d also eliminate the estate tax and kill or reduce other levies.
President Obama, by contrast, would leave most rates where they are, while raising the rate for top earners by roughly 9 to 13 percent, depending on income.
The problem with Romney’s plan, of course, is that the federal government is already drowning in debt and can’t take on more to finance sizeable tax cuts.
…
But the irony is that a plan to cut taxes that doesn’t raise the deficit may have even less chance of ever becoming law than tax cuts that would require more borrowing.
That’s because markets and even some politicians may no longer tolerate the kind of legerdemain that it takes to cut taxes today while supposedly paying for them tomorrow.
The only way Romney would be able to cut taxes as deeply as he wants, without adding to the deficit or simply offsetting a tax cut in one place with a tax hike in another, is to boost the economy so much that total tax payments would actually go up, despite lower rates.
The idea that lower taxes stimulate growth is a core belief of many “supply-side” conservatives, even though there’s plenty of evidence to the contrary.
The federal tax burden today is the lowest in modern times, for instance, yet over the last decade that has corresponded with slowing growth rates and falling median income rather than the kind of boom that supply-side theory predicts.

All of that more than less would fall under Paul Krugman’s ‘confidence fairy‘ concept: Almost surely, you’ll discover that what sounds like hardheaded realism actually rests on a foundation of fantasy, on the belief that invisible vigilantes will punish us if we’re bad and the confidence fairy will reward us if we’re good. And real-world policy — policy that will blight the lives of millions of working families — is being built on that foundation.

Scream, scream, Open Sesame!
But in a vacuum, can anyone hear the scream?