Month: October 2012

The national chairman of Romney’s campaign the toad-people isn’t very diplomatic about Colin Powell endorsing the president’s re-election:

John Sununu told CNN last night, “When you take a look at Colin Powell, you have to wonder whether that’s an endorsement based on issues or whether he’s got a slightly different reason for preferring President Obama?”

Asked what that other reason might be, the Republican added, “Well, I think when you have somebody of your own race that you are proud of being president of the United States, I applaud Colin for standing with him.”

Not too long ago, King Toad called the president ‘lazy’ and ‘not that bright.’ Back in August, he was at the forefront of the totally dishonest campaign to deceive people into believing that the president had dismantled the work requirement for welfare.

At this point, it’s hard to dismiss this fake Twitter feed as a hoax. And, yes, I know Sununu issued some kind of half-ass apology for his remarks about Powell. No one cares.

But for what?  

Today the Boston Globe reports they they succceeded in getting the Norfolk Probate and Family Court to unseal a 1991 post-divorce financial lawsuit brought by  Maureen Sullivan Stemberg against Tom Stemberg, former owner and CEO of Staples.  The Boston Globe dropped  the action to remove the gag order to confidentiality agreement the parties signed in the case to the displeasure of Ms. Stemberg’s attorney Gloria Allred (corrected.  

The background for those unfamiliar with the facts:

Tom Stemberg separated from his wife in February 1987.  The Stembergs reached a financial settlement and their divorce was finalized in June 1988.  Sullivan-Stemberg received 500,000 shares of Staples and the house with a large mortgage.  Mr. Stemberg retained 567,000 shares of Staples.  The private company stock for purposes of the divorce was valued at $2.25/share and on that basis the major asset split between the Stembergs would appear to be 50/50.  Sullivan-Stemberg sold 175,000 shares for $2.25/share and a couple months later sold an additional 80,000 shares for $2.48/share.

The Staples’ IPO took place in April 1989 with an initial offer price of $19.00/share.  That subsequent event led to Sullivan-Stemberg’s 1990 lawsuit and Mitt Romney testifying on behalf of Stemberg that the 1988 stock valuation was fair and reasonable.  The Stembergs reaching an agreement in the lawsuit  may or may not have said anything about the 1988 stock valuation, and therefore, neither confirmed nor disputed Romney’s testimony which appears to have been an opinion based on Bain Capital’s investments in Staples beginning in January 1986.

So, once again, what has the Boston Globe been digging for in this this post-divorce lawsuit?

Evidence of Bain finanacial activities on behalf of Staples that valued the stock at more than $2.50/share?  Or documentation of the IPO in preparation before the Stembergs property settlement agreement?  Or simply 1987 evidence refuting

Romney described Staples as dysfunctional at the time — a place with “surly” employees and slow checkout times.

Do hope this gets more interesting.    

[Update] What I said above about the divorce division of the Stemberg’s stock in Staples isn’t accurate. Boston Globe now reports that Sullivan Stemberg received 500,000 shares of Class D stock that was issued at the request of Stemberg to facilitate his divorce. AP reports a slightly different version of the transaction:

…
Under a plan approved by Romney and other board members in 1988, Maureen Sullivan Stemberg was given 500,000 shares of Staples common stock, then awarded a special “D” class of stock in exchange for those shares. …

The details of the special “D” class stock aren’t currently available. However, based on what is known nothing nefarious can be read into this transaction. There could be any number of valid reasons for such a transaction that had no impact on Sullivan-Stemberg’s financial share of Staples.

Now why would Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) accept a $45,000 donation from the National Right to Life Committee? Actually, strike that. Why would the National Right to Life Committee spend $45,000 on mailers for an ostensibly pro-choice senator? After all, Sen. Brown’s constituents in Massachusetts support women’s reproductive choice and will not be impressed to learn that the National Right to Life Committee supports his candidacy. But it’s not the case that this anti-choice group is trying to harm Brown’s candidacy. They know that Scott Brown will vote for whomever Mitt Romney nominates to the Supreme Court and they suspect that Elizabeth Warren will not.

And there is a good basis for their point of view. Sen. Scott Brown co-sponsored the Blunt Amendment which would allow employers to deny women health care plans that cover contraception or abortion if they have some religious objection. He also says that he is a big admirer of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who is an ardent opponent of Roe v. Wade.

There was a time when I thought Scott Brown had a good idea how to win reelection. Those days are over. For some reason he thought that the strongest attack he could launch against his opponent is that she doesn’t look nearly as Native American as she claims to be. He even had his staffers out filming themselves making Indian war whoops and tomahawk chops in mockery of not only Elizabeth Warren but the very idea of civility and tolerance.

Then he suggested that a bunch of people who were supporting Elizabeth Warren in commercials were really paid actors when they were in fact people who had lost a family member to cancer caused by asbestos.

Then he started paying homeless black men to wear “Obama supporters for Brown” t-shirts. Then it turned out that one of the people who Brown used as a character witness had the following to say about about his college experience:

“I attended Brandeis,” he says underneath one photo. “Jew U. Great school. the people, not so much. One thing I learned is that Jews have a persecution complex and they hate themselves. That is why I believe they vote for liberals.”

He also called Elizabeth Warren a “douchebag” and the president “a Muslim.”

The truth is that Scott Brown had a chance to win reelection but he decided to act like a Rush Limbaugh wannabe instead of a moderate statesman. I have no idea why.

But it kind of reminds me of some of things I’ve seen elsewhere. For example, there’s Josh Mandel who is running to unseat Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). How can he think it is a good idea to embrace Richard Mourdock after he said that rape babies exist because God wants them to exist?

Or why does Wisconsin senate candidate Tommy Thompson think it is a good idea to brag about how well-qualified he is to destroy Medicare and Medicaid?

Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, and Sherrod Brown are probably going to be about the most progressive voices in the next Congress. And they have really stupid opponents to thank for that.

It sounds like this goddamned Frankenstorm is headed straight for me. If it comes ashore near Delaware, we are going to get slammed. And it sounds like it is going to be a giant disaster even if doesn’t come ashore. Some people are even saying that it could impact the election which won’t occur for a week or more after the worst of the storm. The worst will be if there is a lot of snow because there are still leaves on the trees. The weight on the branches will cause downed power lines from that alone, and then we’ll have tropical force winds on top of it. I can imagine a situation where the eastern half of Pennsylvania has no power and people are still clearing roadways. That would be great news for Mitt Romney. Hell, it could help him Virginia, too.

Go vote early if you can. In Pennsylvania, we can’t.

So what is it about Republican men which makes them so obsessed with and so expert on the subject of rape? And what is it about Republican male politicians who insist on raising the issue of no exceptions for rape in their anti-abortion legislation proposals even when it polls so badly and threatens  to hand winable Senate seats and perhaps the Presidency to pro-choice democrats? (H/T for charts below to Brainwrap on Daily Kos here and here)

More beneath the fold…

Todd Akin has already all but lost his senate race to Claire McCaskill because of his remarks quoted above – a race which should have been a shoe-in for a Republican pick-up in ultra conservative Missouri. Richard Mourdock is now threatening to do the same in Indiana jeopardising his early lead in the race. And the prominence of the issue cannot but help reinforce President Obama’s already strong lead amongst women voters more generally.

Let us take the most charitable view: Republicans generally, and more particularly tea party activist fundamentalist Christians are absolutely sincere in their belief that life starts at conception and that abortion is morally wrong even whilst the embryo is still absolutely dependent on the mother to sustain its life. The rape may be wrong, but the killing of an unborn child even when it is a tiny embryo is an even greater wrong. Women who have been raped and become pregnant have a moral duty to bear the child even when they have been severely injured or traumatised and must bear the consequences of their torment every day of their pregnancy. This is more or less the position of the Catholic Church and many fundamentalist protestant churches.

It is the stark brutality of this position, the risk of suicide or self harm, and the absolute injustice of this outcome which makes Republican politicians come out with all sorts of outlandish rationalisations for their position: That the life of the mother is rarely if ever at stake, that pregnancies resulting from rape are rare (because the female body has some kind of natural defensive mechanism against unwanted pregnancies – Akin), and that many so called rapes aren’t really rapes at all. Some have even proposed legislation mandating intrusive vaginal scans of all women seeking an abortion even when there is no medical reason to insert a scanning wand into the uterus – a new form of legally enforced medical rape?

But the bottom line is that it represents the imposition of one person’s religious views on others who do not share it, it represents the criminalization of the victim of a crime, and it reflects a highly selective and tendentious interpretation and implementation of Christianity itself. The Ancients who wrote the bible had no concept of conception, much less a theory that life should be considered to begin then. And what of the prohibition on divorce which is much more explicit in the Bible? Honoured only in the breach. Christians make much of God giving us free will and that becoming a Christian is an act of a free conscience. So where is the toleration, never mind the championing, of the free will and conscience of others?

I have no difficulty with those who oppose abortion and apply that to their own lives. Typically, however they seek to impose that view on others whilst giving themselves a free pass on many other issues far more explicitly condemned by their own faith.

So what is the economics and psychology of this attempt to roll back the tide of Women’s Liberation which has become ever more entrenched since the 1960’s? Why are Republican men (in particular) threatened by the emergence of equality for women. Many of the same Republican legislators also voted against the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009 which guaranteed equal pay for equal work. Are often less educated Republican men particularly threatened by the emergence of women in the workforce as their employment attainment grows in response to their often better academic achievement?

And why the re-emergence of contraception and birth control as an issue in the Republican Primaries – is this an attempt to prevent sexually active women from having independent and successful careers? It seems any woman, not under the immediate authority, control and “protection” of a man in a marriage and busy having kids is a threat to these men.

I will leave it to the experts on this blog to decide…
I will leave it to the experts on this blog to decide…

I decided to check out the math in the post at National Review and it checks out. My numbers are a little different because more votes have been entered into the system since Jeff Dobbs did his calculations, but the results are about the same. Assuming Rasmussen Polls is correct that, in North Carolina, Obama will win only 4% of registered Republicans, only 84% of registered Democrats, and only 36% of Independents, then Obama’s early voting lead in the Tarheel State is a paltry 22,043 votes. And, if that is the case, it is probably accurate to say that Obama is trailing in North Carolina by a 52%-46% margin. However, Public Policy Polling has the race tied 48-48.

Now, PPP says that Obama is up big among early voters.

Obama has built up a lead over the first week of the early voting period in the state. Among those who say they’ve already voted he’s at 57% to 42% for Romney. Romney achieves the overall tie because of a 50/45 advantage among those yet to vote.

Yet, among the 991,788 people who have voted, only 502,837 (50.7%) of them are registered Democrats. For Obama to be up to 57%, he would have to be absolutely slaughtering Romney with independents, rather than losing them by 23% points as Rasmussen asserts.

Here’s what we know. So far, 200,000 more Democrats have voted than Republicans. If I simply substitute PPP’s estimate of the Independent vote for Rasmussen’s and keep everything else the same, Obama’s early voting lead would jump from 22,043 to 57,469. That would reflect an electorate where 17% of registered Democrats vote for Romney, Independents are split, and Romney gets 94% of registered Republicans’ votes. In a state like North Carolina, I don’t think those are unreasonable assumptions.

The troubling thing is that Democratic turnout has dropped off dramatically in the last three days relative to Republicans and Independents. Having 200,000 more Democratic votes sounds great, but it probably isn’t adding up to that big of a lead right now. MattTX has Obama with 104,000 votes in the bank. Jeff Dobbs has Obama with about a 12,000 vote advantage. I think the truth is closer to 60,000. I don’t know if that will be enough, but it could be if it continues to grow. Unfortunately, that is not the trend line so far this week.

.
Read the stupid from Texas … they are not from an UN organization!! Members of this group monitor elections in Eastern Europe and former Soviet Union satellite states. This is a reciprocal visit in agreement with US treaty obligations.  

A little secret for AG Abbott, the socialists are coming to count your votes and release election results. As covert action, NATO will send its troops to occupy Lubbock Texas for earlier threats and place Judge Head in protective custody. Most likely, he will be eligible for rendition and some waterboarding by our allies in Libya. Socialists don’t thrust them FBI lie detector machines.

Threat of criminal prosecution of observers at odds with established co-operation on United States elections

WARSAW, 24 October 2012 – Ambassador Janez Lenarčič, the Director of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), expressed his grave concern today over the threat of criminal prosecution of election observers.

This threat, contained in an open letter from the Attorney General of Texas, is at odds with the established good co-operation between OSCE/ODIHR observers and state authorities across the United States, including in Texas, Lenarčič said, adding that it is also contrary to the country’s obligations as an OSCE participating State.

The ODIHR Director shared his concerns in a letter to United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“The threat of criminal sanctions against OSCE/ODIHR observers is unacceptable,” Lenarčič said. “The United States, like all countries in the OSCE, has an obligation to invite ODIHR observers to observe its elections.”

After 11 September 2001, enhanced co-operation with UN as partner in security

Texas AG Warns International Election Monitors Of Prosecution

AUSTIN, Texas (Keye TV) – Keep your distance from the polls or face criminal prosecution: that’s Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott’s message to a UN-affiliated organization [the stupid: must have listened to Judge Head from Lubbock Tx– Oui], which is planning to send 55 foreign observers to monitor elections in Texas and around 40 other U.S. states. The observers have been in the country since Oct. 4.

“Texas does not cede its sovereignty to any foreign groups,” Abbott says.

Strong words from Abbott following a strongly written letter to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE).

“Seems to be an international group cloaked in mystery, only to be unveiled once they get here,” said Abbott, who says he received no information on where the group planned to operate or what their specific activities would be.

Abbott says he also disagrees with the group’s opposition to Texas’ Voter ID laws and ended his letter by warning observers to stay at least 100 feet away from the polling place. When asked if Texas elections needed to be monitored by an outside group, he replied, “Texas will never be open to either monitoring, approval, or have judgment passed on it, or interference by any kind of international group.”

What is the OSCE?
With 56 participating States in North America, Europe and Asia, the OSCE is the world’s largest regional security organization,
working to ensure peace, democracy and stability for more than a billion people.

• Think Progress – Texas Official Threatens Election Observers With Arrest And Prosecution

In 2008, Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama over John McCain. This morning, he endorsed Obama again. Apparently, John McCain is still mad about 2008.

“General Powell, you disappoint us and you have harmed your legacy even further by defending what is clearly the most feckless foreign policy in my lifetime,” McCain said Thursday on the Kilmeade and Friends radio program.

Because feckless is what McCain calls anyone who doesn’t “Bomb-bomb-bomb Iran.”

Writing a defense of Richard Mourdock is a pretty thankless job. What it really comes down to is defending the position that any egg that is fertilized and implanted in a uterus is presumed to have a moral claim on the owner of that uterus because Jesus. What James Taranto doesn’t understand is that that clump of cells doesn’t just need the woman’s uterus. It needs her blood. It needs the calcium from her bones. It needs nutrition from the food she eats. And it needs her to care for it for roughly twenty years after it is born. You can see how blind James Taranto is to this symbiotic relationship in the following passage:

But what’s interesting about [Joe] Donnelly’s statement is that he claims to agree with Mourdock’s central premises: that God exists, and that unborn children are human beings worthy of legal protection (or, as the Hill puts it, Donnelly “is also against abortion rights”). Donnelly differs from Mourdock only in reaching the opposite conclusion on the specific question of a rape exception.

That position could be coherently defended on various grounds. One might, for example, conceive of abortion in such cases as akin to justifiable homicide. Or one might offer a purely pragmatic argument: that abortion is wrong in all cases, but only a law with such exceptions is politically attainable.

Defenders of abortion rights do not consider “homicide” to be an appropriate term for describing the termination of a early pregnancy any more than most people think an early miscarriage is a death of a person requiring a funeral and notification of kin. Trust me on this. I’ve been through it.

The defense of our position for rape victims is not that we can justify a homicide or that we are winning a political concession. The defense is that a woman is an autonomous being who has the right to decide whether she wants to continue a symbiotic relationship. If she is not mentally prepared for that relationship or if she isn’t healthy enough to have that relationship or if she in no way consented to begin that relationship, she should be free to end it up to the point that the symbiosis is no longer required.

Babies are not pop-tarts. Mothers are not toasters. But that is how men like James Taranto view pregnancy and childbirth and mothering. Ironically, it’s an infantile way of looking at things.

I was having so much fun with the last thread that I didn’t want to create a new one. But I guess we have an election to win, so, FORWARD! I really got a boost out of reading this excellent article about Obama’s superior ground game. You know, as much as I’d like to win this election by twenty points, a small part of me would like to win it narrowly because our community organizers out-hustled the Republicans. I’m still a community organizer at heart, and I’m like anyone else. I don’t like to be disrespected.

The following paragraph says a lot:

Some Republicans admit that the ground game is a weakness for the party. In Colorado, one top GOP consultant who has worked on presidential campaigns told me he mentally added 2 to 4 points to Obama’s polls in the state based on superior organization. In Florida, GOP Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart said Republicans would win in other ways: “They’re very organized. They’re very, very organized, and you have to admit they’re very organized,” Diaz-Balart said of the Democrats. “However, I think Republicans are very motivated.

The Republicans are very motivated by greed and racism. The Democrats are very organized around making this country a better place.

I can’t wait to see the OFA do its stuff.