Month: October 2012

Nate Silver’s analysis today is modestly encouraging despite the fact that we really ought to be talking not about who will win, but about how big Obama’s victory will be. The first debate changed the fundamentals of the race is a way that is hard to understand. Perhaps it was simply the sight of both men on a stage together that added to Romney’s standing as a candidate. If it were as simple as Romney having a better night, we would have seen more snap-back after Biden demolished Ryan and Obama humiliated Romney in the next two debates. What we saw, instead, was a halt to Romney’s momentum and a very modest move in the Democrats’ direction. It looks like things have stabilized with Obama holding enough of a lead in the truly key swing states to hold on to a narrow Electoral College victory.

My suspicion is that the most important thing Romney did in the first debate is bring home the support of his base, particularly in the South, where he was regarded with some skepticism until he spewed all their favorite talking point lies in the first debate. That helped Romney improve his standing in Florida, North Carolina, and Virginia, and it gave him a popular vote boost in the south more generally. But it didn’t do enough to move him into the lead in the key Midwestern states or in Colorado and Nevada.

The debate tonight appears, therefore, to present much greater risk to the president than to Romney. It doesn’t look like Obama can change the dynamics much by winning the debate unless Romney does something titanically stupid. But Romney has shown the ability to make leaps and bounds off a debate victory. Most of that is probably already baked in the cake, but I believe he has more potential upside than the president simply because he is less well known and opinions about him are more fluid.

However, there are some states that are close enough in the polls that any minor change can create a different outcome. Florida and Virginia are both states where that appears to be true, and I’d argue the same about New Hampshire, Iowa, and even North Carolina.

Tonight’s debate presents more risk for Obama, but his advantage is that, if nothing changes he is going to win.

The 2nd amendment allows you to purchase and own a firearm. That doesn’t give you the right to use that shoot at signs advocating for a political candidate you dislike intensely, in this case Barack Obama. From Lubbock Texas:

“Hundreds of Obama yard signs have been stolen from neighborhoods all across Lubbock,” Lubbock Democratic Party chairperson Kenny Ketner said at a press conference Sunday. “We have had over half a dozen of our large 4×4 and 4×8 signs stolen, vandalized, or shot. And as of about 1 a.m. this morning, we can add hate crime to the list, as two of our 4×4 signs at 26th and University Ave. were vandalized with the n-word written multiple times and mustard sprayed all over the signs.”

This is naked, raw terrorism. Because nothing sends a message that people shouldn’t exercise their first amendment rights of free speech, particularly political speech, than bullet holes through through their signs supporting a political candidate, any candidate. We’ve already seen a non-political business owner receive death threats for refusing to allow the Romney campaign to use his restaurant for a campaign event. We have seen bullets fired through the Denver office of the Obama campaign. How soon before someone is wounded or killed by someone for standing at on a street corner with an Obama sign or knocking on someone’s door distributing campaign literature? All I know is that we are getting awfully close to crossing the boundary into territory that no one with any conscience at all would find agreeable.

Daily, our airwaves and the internet are inundated with messages of hate, racism and even the advocacy of violence from conservative politicians, conservative media and anyone with a Twitter account, a Facebook page or the ability to post to a comment to a website who repeats the offensive propaganda that is now taken as holy writ by a not insignificant portion of our population. Don’t tell me that this mass of negative, demeaning, hateful and often inaccurate and false “speech” by partisans on the right does not stoke the fever of individuals who then take matters into their own hands. Don’t even try. When you, my conservative and Republican brethren persist in stoking the flames of hate and outrage, sooner or later, it has consequences. For life, for liberty, for the pursuit of happiness.

Stop going down this path.

And by god, stop brazenly lying about what’s happening:

In a separate post Monday morning, Ketner said Carl Tepper, head of the local Republican Party, accused the Democrats of vandalizing their own signs during an interview with a local radio station.

79% of Irish people back President Obama, while only 5% want Romney to win the election according to a new poll.
Poll shows vast majority back Obama – The Irish Times – Mon, Oct 22, 2012

THE VAST majority of Irish voters want Barack Obama to win the US presidential election in less than three weeks time, according to the latest Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI poll. It shows a tiny level of support among the electorate for Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

When asked who they would support if they had a vote in the US election, 79 per cent of respondents said Obama while just 5 per cent opted for Romney and 16 per cent had no opinion.

The survey was undertaken last Monday and Tuesday among a representative sample of 1,000 voters aged 18 and over, in face-to-face interviews at 100 sampling points in all constituencies. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 per cent.

Fine Gael voters give twice as much support to Romney than supporters of any other party but, even so, 81 per cent of them would prefer to see an Obama victory.

Labour voters are the least likely to back the Republican challenger, with just 3 per cent of them in his camp. Better-off AB voters are twice as likely to support Mr Romney as those in the poorest DE socio-economic category, but again the level of support for Obama in both groups is overwhelming.

Support for the incumbent is consistent across all age groups with a slight dip in the over-65s, who are more likely than any other age category to back Romney.

Overwhelming support among voters for the Democratic Party candidate is due in part to the historical associations between the party and this country as well as a clear preference for Obama over Romney.

While Irish-American voters are no longer nearly as supportive of the Democrats as they were in the past, the view from this side of the Atlantic has not changed.

The response of the Irish public to visits from Democratic presidents John F Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Obama was in stark contrast to the muted reception afforded to Republicans Richard Nixon and George W Bush.

Ronald Reagan, who secured a significant proportion of Irish American vote, received a slightly better reception in Ireland than other Republican presidents. But he also attracted considerable hostility over American foreign policy.

One of those who led the anti-Reagan protests was President Michael D Higgins.

.
IMO a bogus story to delegitimize President Obama’s Iran policy, see witness statement by Hamid Reza Zakeri. A cess pool of stink.

The story that started it all: Obama cuts deal with Iran over nukes

(WND) – Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, expects a letter from President Obama in a few days guaranteeing the details of the agreement, arrived at recently during secret negotiations in Doha, Qatar.

The source, who remains anonymous for security reasons and is highly placed in Iran’s regime, said that once Khamenei receives Obama’s guarantees, he will authorize an announcement by Iran on a solution to the nuclear crisis before the U.S. presidential elections.

The agreement calls for Iran to announce a temporary halt to partial uranium enrichment after which the U.S. will remove many of its sanctions, including those on the Iranian central bank, no later than by the Iranian New Year in March. Iran is in the throes of massive inflation and citizen unrest because of the sanctions.

French intelligence verified today that Yukiya Amano, the current director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has been given the go-ahead by the U.S. to be ready to travel to Iran and announce the agreement, according to Hamid Reza Zakeri, a former intelligence officer in the regime who has defected to Europe.

 « more on author

Author Reza Kahlili served in CIA Directorate of Operations, as a spy in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, counterterrorism expert; currently serves on the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, an advisory board authorized by Congress. He is the author of the award winning book “A Time to Betray” and regularly appears in national and international media as an expert on Iran and counterterrorism in the Middle East.

U.S. Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said Kahlili has convinced him of the importance of supporting the opposition and hardening sanctions against Iran.

Former CIA spy advocates overthrow of Iranian regime – LA Times July 2012

• October Surprise – Iran Suspension To Help Re-elect Obama

After two days of voting in Nevada, the Democrats have a big lead. But, before you get excited, things are not what they seem. While it’s true that it’s nice to have rolled up a 13,400 vote advantage in just two days, four years ago the Dems rolled up a 16,000 advantage in two days. Four years ago, among registered voters, the Dems had a 60-24 advantage. Right now, they have a 53-31 advantage. On the other hand, the Dems are outperforming the relative registration split by seven points, and that’s after dramatically improving their registration numbers over where they were at the beginning of the year.

In North Carolina, it’s interesting to look at a graph that compares the early voting for blacks and whites in 2008 and so far this year. Overall, the numbers are up among both groups, but the enthusiasm jump among whites disappeared by the weekend. According to Dr. Michael Bitzer on Twitter, Sunday’s early voting was 60% registered Democratic, 20% registered Republican, 19% unaffiliated. For perspective, the Dems had 4,000 more votes yesterday than on the same day in 2008, while the Republicans only had 2,400 more. Unaffiliated voters were up by 2,000 votes.

Here’s a good write-up of how to go about interpreting early results in Florida. There are two ways to vote early in Florida. You can request an absentee ballot or you can go to an early voting center. In 2008, the Republicans had a big lead among people who used the absentee method and Democrats had a bigger lead among those who voted early in person. To address this Democratic advantage, the Republican governor cut down early in-person voting hours dramatically, which led the Democrats to make a major effort to get their voters to use the absentee method this year. In-person voting hasn’t started yet, but we can compare the absentee ballot voting to 2008.

As of yesterday, the Republicans have 5.3% advantage among those who have already returned their absentee ballots. In 2008, the Republicans had a 15% advantage with absentee voters. So, that’s about ten points better the Democrats are doing this year, so far. However, there are two reasons not to get excited. First, every voter the Democrats convinced to vote by absentee this year will not be able to vote again in person. Second, because there are going to be fewer hours to vote in person, the Democrats will bank less votes that way this year than they did four years ago. In 2008, the Democrats had an overall 8.3% advantage in early voting of all types, despite having a 15-point disadvantage with absentees. So, it’s a promising sign that the absentee deficit has been narrowed, but it could be a wash.

Nate Cohn has some hard to decipher thoughts on the early voting in Iowa.

According to the rules, at the end of tonight’s debate Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will each have two minutes to make a closing statement.  That’s the last time the candidates will be in the same room—and likely the last time they’ll take serious questions from a journalist—before election day.  The final two weeks of the campaign will be devoted to the candidates’ making their closing arguments, their best case for why voters should elect them president.

My guess is that Pres. Obama and his campaign staff have been studying up on how Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick—another young, African-American, Harvard-educated lawyer-turned-politician who ran a powerful grassroots campaign on themes of hope, unity and change to win election as chief executive and had to run for re-election against a formidable opponent during troubled economic times (in 2010)—made his closing argument…and in doing so, won a second term in office.

   
1. Patrick reminded people of his major promises during the campaign and how he had worked to keep them.  For Obama, on foreign that’s ending the Iraq War, refocusing on al-Qaeda and the Afghanistan War, bringing our troops home and restoring America’s alliances and reputation around the world.  On domestic policy, that’s education (Race To The Top), energy (investing in renewables, using an “all of the above” approach), and health care.  Message: I’ve tried to do what I said I would try to do.

   

2. Patrick, somewhat ruefully, told voters “I didn’t count on the worst economic collapse in 80 years”, before explaining how he’d responded to that collapse and why it meant he hadn’t been able to accomplish some of what he wanted.  Obama (in my view) would benefit from acknowledging—with a similar wry humor—just how bad a situation he inherited.  Then he can pivot to defending the Recovery Act, the auto bailout, etc., while explaining that the combination of the economic crisis and the unprecedented opposition of congressional Republicans (supported by Romney) meant that he hasn’t been able to accomplish other goals (e.g., comprehensive immigration reform, the American Jobs Act).

   

3. Patrick then concisely explained why he wanted a second term as governor and what he would do if re-elected.  For a variety of reasons, Pres. Obama has shied away from saying what his second term goals are; and it’s probably best that he not be seen as overpromising.  But I think there is room for him to take his “Forward.” theme and flesh it out: making the wealthy pay their fair share, implementing Obamacare, investing in education, energy and research, a “balanced” approach to deficit reduction.

Given the longstanding friendship between Patrick and Obama, the similarities in their approaches to campaigning (Patrick’s 2006 campaign slogan was “Together We Can”) and governing, and the fact that they share David Axelrod as a chief campaign strategist…well, I’m not saying I know what Obama will do.  But I do have a hunch.

Add your own hunches and thoughts in the comments section.  How do you think Pres. Obama (and Gov. Romney for that matter) will end this campaign?

Crossposted at: http://masscommons.wordpress.com/

It’s a pity that Chris Cook doesn’t post on the European Tribune anymore, but his latest piece on the front page of the Asia Times on secret US Iranian negotiations is an excellent discussion of what might yet become a positive “October Surprise” prior to the US Presidential election on Nov. 6th.

Asia Times Online :: Iran talks denial adds debate spice

Firstly, we saw an Iranian ex-Revolutionary Guard insider outlining – in remarkable detail – discussions he claimed had been held between the United States and Iran. These apparently culminated within the past three weeks in high level contacts in Qatar between a close confidante of President Barack Obama – Valerie Jarrett, who was actually born in Iran – and one or more high level Iranian officials.

The outcome of these talks, in respect of which the source was allegedly at the highest level in Iran, was that an agreement between the US and Iran would be announced before the US presidential election takes place on November 6, provided that Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei receives the written guarantees he requires from President Obama.

Given that Romney has made his hawkishness on Iran a centrepiece of his foreign policy, it might also give the President some ammunition for tonight’s Presidential debate on foreign policy. However there is one point on which I would disagree with Chris. He goes on to state:

Asia Times Online :: Iran talks denial adds debate spice

President Obama is in a position, if he has the killer instinct, to make life very uncomfortable for the challenger in the upcoming final debate, which will cover foreign policy.

Firstly, Romney would be forced to agree that he too will be prepared to negotiate bilaterally with Iran since he would find it very difficult to hide behind the coat-tails of the 5+1. Secondly, he would find it very difficult to explicitly support a negotiating position that leads to regime change, such as imposing zero enrichment.

Once these issues have been publicly conceded, I have no doubt that Iran will make – whoever is elected – whatever concessions are necessary to meet the requirements of Russia, China, and above all, the European Union. I do not believe that the US is any longer in any position to act unilaterally in the way desired by its long-standing Israeli partners.

Perhaps Romney, if elected, will become more nuanced. Who can say seeing he has adopted so many conflicting positions on so many issues? However prior to the election he will be anything but. Determined not to allow any daylight between his foreign policy and Bibi Netanyahu’s wet dreams, he will be asking Obama at the debate why he hasn’t bombed Iran’s nuclear facilities yet, or at least encouraged and enabled Bibi to do so. Romney is for regime change in Iran, so imposing impossible negotiating positions on the Iranian Government is not a problem for him or his Bush era foreign policy advisory team including neo-conservative war mongers like John Bolton.

It remains my nightmare scenario that Netanyahu, despairing of a Romney victory, might launch a nuclear strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities prior to the election – to make it very difficult for Obama to respond robustly to what would be the most outrageous use of nuclear weapons of all time – a surprise peacetime attack on a neighbour who has not yet got, nor is close to getting a nuclear bomb or a missile capable of delivering it effectively whilst draconian economic sanctions are already in place and diplomatic efforts to resolve the impasse are ongoing.

Netantanya might be forced to resort to using a nuclear warhead because he doesn’t have conventional bunker buster bombs capable of destroying Iran’s deeply fortified underground facilities, but how would the rest of the world respond to such a provocative and unprecedented use of nuclear weapons? Would it not break the long sustained doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction which has long inhibited the nuclear powers from doing the same? What would happen if Iran’s key ally, the Russian Federation, decided that this was an unacceptable attack on its near neighbour and proceeded to launch missiles intended to destroy Israel’s long denied nuclear facilities? Civilian as well as military casualties on a large scale would be unavoidable in the case of both attacks.

We would be right back in a cold war scenario – and with a US President denied the means of any nuanced response short of attacking Russia’s nuclear facilities and threatening Armageddon. After all it was a US ally which launched the first attack and the Russian response could be construed as no more than a proportionate response. And what then if Iran threatened to send its huge army to its ally Syria (conveniently shoring up its tottering regime) as a base for a possible invasion of Israel? All hell would break loose and the geo-political order which has been relatively stable since the Cold War would once again threaten to collapse – particularly with a President Romney at the helm…

I leave you to discuss such awful but not entirely implausible scenarios…

.
Consider this a follow-up dairy to An SEC Action I Missed [Update] by Marie2.

Was Mitt Romney Running His Own Bankruptcy Ring?

After looking at some of the companies Bain Capital managed and eventually bankrupted, a pattern develops that begs the question; did Mitt Romney & Bain Capital own a bankruptcy ring consisting of Jack Bush, Barry Gold, Paul Traub, and Michael Glazer?

Matt Taibbi’s Rolling Stone cover story, “Politics: Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital,” provided a description of how Romney leveraged companies with debt, zero assets, and eventual bankruptcy. Taibbi briefly mentioned KB Toys as an example of Bain Capital’s practice of taking out millions of dollars in cash, adding millions more to the company’s bottom line, and leaving creditors claiming Romney’s team was “breaking open the piggy bank.” If Taibbi had delved deeper into Romney’s record, he would have discovered that besides KB Toys, his incestuous bankruptcy team also were involved in Jumbo Stores, Stage Stores, FAO Schwartz, and eToys bankruptcies that always worked for Bain’s benefit and left investors and creditors with nothing to show for their trouble.  

Morris Nichols Arsht & Tunnel

Jon E. Abramczyk, partner at MNAT,  successfully represented Bain Capital, Vornado and KKR in the Court of Chancery litigation challenging their acquisition of Toys-R-Us, and recently served as co-lead counsel to Pan American Energy, Inc. in a jury trial in the Superior Court.

Papers imply Bain, others partnered in bid-rigging conspiracy

I’m fried. I got up very early so we could drive down to an orchard in southern Chester County and have family photos taken in a picturesque setting. That went great. Then I came home and watched the New York Football Giants break the hearts of Washington Redskins fans. RGIII is going to be a headache for years to come, though. He can play. Then it was off to Home Depot and the grocery store. Finally, we introduced Finn to the wonders of popping popcorn. I have nothing left in the tank. I guess it doesn’t matter too much. All I see is a bunch of stories about bullshit. Did I mention that I have the worst Fantasy Football team ever? I had the last draft pick this year so I took some chances. None of them have panned out.

The foreign policy debate is tomorrow? Maybe Romney will explain how to make a whole country of people hate you in under 24 hours.

What’s on your mind?

Before getting to that, suggest reading the Truth-Out article Employees of Romney Family’s Secret Bank Tied to Fraud, Money Laundering and Drug Cartels .  Plenty of disturbing any juicy bits in it.

One thing that caught my attention was this:

…According to Iran-Contra Whistleblower Al Martin (Lt. Cmdr. USNR ret.) “Anything with the name Stanford on it belonged to Secord”. When finally brought to trial, Stanford employed the same defense attorney, Dick DeGuerin, as Iran-Contra defendant Oliver North.

Had almost forgotten about ole Richard Secord.  Where’s he been?  Well, since nobody asked, beginning in 2002, he’s been the CEO of Computerized Thermal Imaging, Inc. (COIB) Located in Ogden, Utah.  It’s sort of went under at some point.  Old SEC filings might be informative.

What may be more interesting is SEC Acts Against 379 Companies Largest Massive Trading Suspension in History.  COIB is on the list.

…
According to the SEC, pump-and-dump schemes are among the most common types of fraud involving microcap companies. Perpetrators will tout a thinly-traded microcap stock through false and misleading statements about the company to the marketplace. After purchasing low and pumping the stock price higher by creating the appearance of market activity, they dump the stock to make huge profits by selling it into the market at the higher price.
…

Wonder if there was some unusual activity that prompted the SEC to act.  

 

[Update]: More food for thought:
Was Mitt Romney Running His Own Bankruptcy Ring?