Romney On Omitting U.S. Troops From RNC Speech: ‘You Talk About Things You Think Are Important’

This is a rather blase attitude toward the troops by someone who has engaged in belicose talk against Russia and Iran. I guess the 1% sees our troops as expendable as the workers he laid off while at Bain.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/09/07/813831/romney-rnc-speech-troops-important/

In an interview with Fox News this afternoon, Mitt Romney shot back at critics who complained that he didn’t mention Afghanistan or praise U.S. troops in his convention speech last week, arguing that he focused on issues that are “important.”

Fox News’s Brett Baier told Romney that “several speakers” at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte this week criticized the GOP presidential nominee for the omissions (actually it was right-wing foreign policy leader Bill Kristol who started the attacks) and asked him if he had any regrets. “I only regret you’re repeating it day in and day out,” Romney said, adding that his speech focused on things that are important:

BAIER: To hear several speakers in Charlotte … they were essentially saying that you don’t care about the U.S. military because you didn’t mention U.S. troops and the war in Afghanistan in your nomination acceptance speech. … Do you regret opening up this line of attack, now a recurring attack, by leaving out that issue in the speech.

ROMNEY: I only regret you’re repeating it day in and day out. When you give a speech you don’t go through a laundry list, you talk about the things that you think are important and I described in my speech, my commitment to a strong military unlike the president’s decision to cut our military. And I didn’t use the word troops, I used the word military. I think they refer to the same thing.

Revealed: The Dark Money Group Attacking Sen. Sherrod Browne

Source: Propublica

In May, a previously unknown group started pouring money into Ohio’s U.S. Senate race, considered one of the most important in the country and currently the nation’s most expensive. The group, the Government Integrity Fund, has spent over $1 million so far on TV ads bashing Democratic incumbent Sen. Sherrod Brown and praising his Republican opponent, Josh Mandel.

Like many other such non-profit groups that are playing a dominant role in this year’s elections, the Government Integrity Fund is shrouded in mystery. It isn’t required to reveal donors, nor has it answered questions about who runs the group. The Fund’s barebones website lists no contact information beyond a P.O. Box.

* * *
The Associated Press reported last month that outside groups have spent $15 million supporting Mandel compared to about $3 million on the Democratic side.

We still don’t know who is putting up the money for the Government Integrity Fund’s ads because the group is a non-profit “social welfare” group, which don’t have to release donor information or register with the Federal Election Commission. Such groups are supposed to be “primarily” engaged in promoting social welfare but they have been flooding the airwaves with political ads in the wake of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United case and decisions by regulatory decisions.


Read more: http://www.propublica.org/article/revealed-the-dark-money-group-attacking-sen-sherrod-brown

Ayn Rand's Fountainhead - Insight Into Paul Ryan's Understanding of Forcible Rape v. Kinky Sex?

Much of the focus on Paul Ryan and other Republicans' idolization of Ayn Rand has been on her work Atlas Shrugged. However, what is interesting is that her other well known work, the Fountainhead, has generally been ignored. In particular, no mention has been made about how the "hero," Howard Roark, would rape his antagonist/love interest, Domanique Falcon, and how she secretly enjoyed it. Indeed, the fact that she did not scream for help was proof of her implicit concent to Roark's abuse of her.

Yet, rather than being condemned, some folks describe this as erotic. For example, here is a review analyzing a sample rape scene to argue that despite the Domanique herself referring to Roark as "raping" her, the reviewer concludes that she really did consent. Is this what Republicans and Paul Ryan are referring to by focusing on forcible or legitimate rape?

http://www.braincrave.com/viewblog.php?id=14

Ayn Rand writes, "She fought like an animal. But she made no sound. She did not call for help." (bottom of p. 216). She goes on: "He did it as an act of scorn. Not as love, but as defilement. And this made her lie still and submit. One gesture of tenderness from him - and she would have remained cold, untouched by the things done to her body. But the act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted." Later, when Dominique wants to take a bath, she writes: "She turned the light on in the bathroom. She saw herself in a tall mirror. She saw the purple bruises left on her body by his mouth. She heard a moan muffled in her throat, not very loud. It was not the sight, but the sudden flash of knowledge. She knew she would not take a bath. She knew that she wanted to keep the feeling of his body, the traces of his body on hers, knowing also what such a desire implied."

In fact, after Roark leaves, Ayn Rand writes (middle of p. 219): "She could accept, thought Dominique, and come to forget in time everything that had happened to her, save one memory: that she had found pleasure in the thing which had happened, that he had known it, and more: that he had known it before he came to her and that he would not have come but for that knowledge. She had not given him the one answer that would have saved her: an answer of simple revulsion - she had found joy in her revulsion, in her terror and in his strength. That was the degradation she had wanted and she hated him for it." When Dominique is reading a letter from Alvah Scarret: "She read it and smiled. She thought, if they knew... those people... the old life and that awed reverence before her person. I've been raped... I've been raped by some red-headed hoodlum from a stone quarry... I, Dominique Francon... Through the fierce sense of humiliation, the words gave her the same kind of pleasure she had felt in his arms." Additionally, when Dominique goes to the quarry looking for Howard Roark and doesn't find him (bottom of p. 220), Ayn Rand writes: "She walked away. She would not ask for his name. It was her last chance of freedom." Finally, she had multiple scenes where Dominique would consider something a "win" (i.e., against Roark) and would then proceed to dominate him by being the more sexually forceful.

Dissent Magazine - "Todd Akin, Julian Assange, and 'Legitimate Rape'"

Thought proving article on Dissent Magazine.

http://www.dissentmagazine.org/atw.php?id=819

Akin’s use of the word “legitimate” will arguably have longer-term (if subtle and immeasurable) repercussions than his easily debunked magical medical thinking. Outrage over Akin’s term “legitimate rape” has been, rightfully, widespread. This week both the New York Times and the New Yorker published pieces written by editors that noted the significance of Akin’s qualifying adjective.

In her blog, “Close Read,” senior New Yorker editor Amy Davidson asked, “What is ‘illegitimate rape’?” Akin offered some idea when he cosponsored a bill that tried to change language about federal funding for abortions for victims of “rape” to cover only “forcible rape.” And on Monday the New York Times published an editorial explaining that though Akin’s comments had proved embarrassing for many Republicans, his views fit with beliefs of the party’s abortion opponents. Many claim that women who are not really raped would abuse a rape exception to get abortions.

* * *

Another debate about what “really raped” and “not really raped” means is going on at the moment over the four allegations made against Julian Assange by two women in Sweden. These include one allegation that Assange had unprotected sex with a woman without her knowledge (she had specified that she only wished to have sex if a condom was used) and another accusing Assange of beginning sex with a woman who was asleep.

Yesterday the Times published an op-ed written by Michael Moore and Oliver Stone called “WikiLeaks and Free Speech.” The lauded left-wing filmmakers argued that since they believe WikiLeaks to be an important and worthy project, Ecuador, in granting Assange diplomatic asylum in its London embassy, “has acted in accordance with important principles of international human rights.” Presumably, the rights of the women who have accused Assange of sex crimes to see him fairly brought to justice are not covered by Moore and Stone’s version of international human rights. They introduced the allegations using a patronizing mansplaining tone: “Most Americans, Britons and Swedes are unaware that Sweden has not formally charged Mr. Assange with any crime. Rather, it has issued a warrant for his arrest to question him about allegations of sexual assault in 2010.” Legal expert David Allen Green had already addressed this point and other confusions surrounding the case for the New Statesman on Monday. “[T]o those who complain that Assange has not yet been charged,” he wrote, “the answer is simple: he cannot actually be charged until he is arrested.” The rest of Moore and Stone’s piece is based on the logic of the myths that Green’s post debunks.

Ever Wonder Why The Media Plays The Same RW Talking Points?

And, why corporate talking points are like zombies that keep on being spread even after they have been proven false? Well, keep in mind that there is an illusion of choice regarding what you see, watch and read, since it all likelihood it is filtered through six outlets:

Republican Medicare plan would be a gamble

Source: LA Times

WASHINGTON — While Mitt Romney and Paul D. Ryan are campaigning on a promise to "preserve and protect" Medicare, their proposal to revamp the popular government health insurance program would be the plan's biggest gamble since it was created nearly half a century ago.

The members of the Republican presidential ticket argue that giving seniors vouchers to shop for a private insurance plan would spark competition among health insurers, holding down costs and ensuring the long-term viability of Medicare.

But several previous experiments with privatizing Medicare insurance coverage have ended up raising costs to taxpayers. And on the other side, there is little evidence that moving millions of elderly and disabled patients into commercial health plans will protect their coverage or tame the nation's skyrocketing healthcare tab.

"Doubling down on private insurers is a risky proposition," said University of North Carolina health policy professor Jonathan Oberlander, a leading Medicare historian. "Medicare has lost money on private plans for a long time."

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-medicare-20120819,0,7076443.story

CU professor calls “BS” on Romney’s 13 percent tax rate claim

Source: Fox Denver

“What Romney’s saying is technically true, but it’s misleading,” Victor Fleischer told FOX31 Denver. “The reason it’s misleading is because it’s 13 percent of what?

“Of his taxable income, that may be true. But you can have a lot of economic income that isn’t taxable and Romney has shown himself to be quite sophisticated in keeping his taxable income low even as his economic income remains high.

“He’s got interests in a lot of different investment stocks, and he can basically choose when he wants to recognize income from those funds. So he can use capital losses to offset capital gains and keep his taxable income low.”

* * *

“When you have a wide portfolio of investments, you can have a good year, but still not have a lot of taxable income, as long as you sell some losers as well as some winners,” Fleischer explained to FOX31 Denver. “That appears to be what Romney did in 2009, paid tax on whatever income he had, but it doesn’t mean he paid a lot.”

Read more: http://kdvr.com/2012/08/16/romney-on-taxes-ive-paid-at-least-13-percent/

Kaiser Health News - "Can GOP Deliver On Its Promise To Preserve Traditional Medicare?"

Here is an excellent article that explains how even Ryan's second Medicare plan that offers to promises to preserve traditional "Medicare" as an option actually hastens its demise.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2012/March/09/GOP-Dilemma-What-To-Do-About-Medicare.aspx

NY Times Editorial - "In Thrall to Sheldon Adelson"

Very good read that just underscores how the Republican ticket is brazenly selling out Americans for ultra rich.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/opinion/in-thrall-to-sheldon-adelson.html?_r=1&src=recg

Three days after Paul Ryan became the presumptive Republican vice presidential candidate, he made a pilgrimage on Tuesday to the Las Vegas gambling palace of Sheldon Adelson, the casino tycoon who is spending more than any other donor to try to send Mr. Ryan and Mitt Romney to the White House. No reporters were allowed, perhaps because the campaign didn’t want them asking uncomfortable questions about the multiple federal investigations into the company behind Mr. Adelson’s wealth.

Those questions, though, aren’t going away, and neither are the ones about the judgment of Mr. Romney and Mr. Ryan in drawing ever closer to a man whose business background should lead them to back away — fast. By not repudiating Mr. Adelson’s vow to spend as much as $100 million on their behalf, the two candidates seem more eager to keep the “super PAC” dollars flowing than to preserve the integrity of their campaign.

The issues swirling about Mr. Adelson’s business practices are not new and can hardly come as a surprise to the Romney campaign. Last year, his company, the Las Vegas Sands Corporation, announced that it was under investigation by the Justice Department and the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act — specifically, that it bribed Chinese officials for help in expanding its casino empire in Macau. Later, the F.B.I. became involved, and even Chinese regulators looked askance at the company’s conduct, fining it $1.6 million for violating foreign exchange rules, The Times reported on Monday.

Hidden Truth - Obama Is Outraising Romney, But Not Romney, RNC, Adelson AND Koch

The media has been happily pushing the narrative of Mitt Romney as this amazing fundraiser with the Romney campaign embracing this idea and claiming that the money is reflective of people flocking to Romney's "cause." Yet, the hidden truth behind the numbers is that President Obama's campaign committee is actually outraising Romney's campaign committee by a significant amount!

However, rather than report this, the media combines the funds raised by each campaign committee along with various other fundraising devices that Romney has utilized to enable to rich contributors to circumvent limits on the amounts that any one person can contribute directly to candidate. Worse, some reports also throw in the amounts that are contributed by SuperPACS such as those controlled by Sheldeon Adelson and the Koch Brothers.

So, the truth is that President Obama is actually raising money at a rate similar to his record setting 2008 campaign. Indeed, President's Obama has raised significantly million more in July 2012 than July 2008. Yet, there is a real gap because Romney is being carried by SuperPACs and rich donors who are utilizing various tricks to circumvent the limits on direct contributions to Romney's campaign committee.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/31/barack-obama-fundraising-2012_n_1721176.html

Recent media reports have said that Romney has caught up with the president in fundraising, but they involve a slightly different comparison -- between all the political committees raising money for each presidential candidate. In Romney's case, that means also counting checks to the Republican National Committee and a joint fundraising vehicle, Romney Victory, that will send millions of dollars to a host of state-level party committees. Romney's official campaign committee has never beaten Obama's in fundraising for any period of time in the 2012 election cycle.

Both campaigns combine their own fundraising with the amounts raised by their respective party committee and joint fundraising vehicles in their press releases announcing monthly totals. This gives the impression of much larger war chests than the official campaign committees actually have.

It is true that, for all intents and purposes, money sent to the Republican and Democratic national committees will be spent to elect their respective nominees. And Romney and the RNC are currently outraising Obama's team. This was noted in a Tuesday email from Obama to his supporters: "Over the past two months, we have been outraised by our opponents." In a Monday email solicitation, Vice President Joe Biden raised the same worry in stark terms: "If we don't win this election, it will be because we didn't close the spending gap when we could."

But federal rules that limit how the parties can spend their money, particularly on television ads, force the candidate committees to raise huge sums for themselves.

In 2008, then-Sen. Barack Obama raked in $750 million, shattering fundraising records and earning a reputation as the single best fundraiser in the history of American politics.

Now, Obama faces the very real prospect that he will be outraised (and outspent) in this election by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.

So how does Romney’s fundraising to date stack up with that of Obama during his 2008 campaign? We break it down after the jump.

* * *
Obama the candidate has continued to outraise Romney the candidate this cycle. (Check out this great Paul Blumenthal analysis.) But when you add in affiliated committees, Romney is opening up a sizable lead.