|
Does Your E-Vote Now Belong to the Romney Family? |
|
|
Saturday, 20 October 2012 15:33 |
|
Bello, Fitrakis and Wasserman write: "Will you cast your vote this fall on a faulty electronic machine that's partly owned by the Romney Family? Will that machine decide whether Romney will then inherit the White House?"
Companies with ties to the Romneys own a lot of voting machines. (photo: Getty Images)

Does Your E-Vote Now Belong to the Romney Family?
By Gerry Bello, Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman, The Free Press
20 October 12
ill you cast your vote this fall on a faulty electronic machine that's partly owned by the Romney Family? Will that machine decide whether Romney will then inherit the White House?
Through a closely held equity fund called Solamere, Mitt Romney and his wife, son and brother are major investors in an investment firm called H.I.G. Capital. H.I.G. in turn holds a majority share and three out of five board members in Hart Intercivic, a company that owns the notoriously faulty electronic voting machines that will count the ballots in swing state Ohio November 7. Hart machines will also be used elsewhere in the United States.
In other words, a candidate for the presidency of the United States, and his brother, wife and son, have a straight-line financial interest in the voting machines that could decide this fall's election. These machines cannot be monitored by the public. But they will help decide who "owns" the White House.
They are especially crucial in Ohio, without which no Republican candidate has ever won the White House. In 2004, in the dead of election night, an electronic swing of more than 300,000 votes switched Ohio from the John Kerry column to George W. Bush, giving him a second term. A virtual statistical impossibility, the 6-plus% shift occurred between 12:20 and 2am election night as votes were being tallied by a GOP-controlled information technology firm on servers in a basement in Chattanooga, Tennessee. In defiance of a federal injunction, 56 of Ohio's 88 counties destroyed all election records, making a recount impossible. Ohio's governor and secretary of state in 2004 were both Republicans, as are the governors and secretaries of state in nine key swing states this year.
As we have previously reported, H.I.G. Capital has on its board of directors at least three close associates of the Romney family. H.I.G. Capital directors John P. Bolduk and Douglas Berman are major Romney fundraisers. So is former Bain and H.I.G. manager Brian Shortsleeve. H.I.G. employees have contributed at least $338,000 to Romney's campaign. Fully a third of H.I.G.'s leadership previously worked at Romney's old Bain firm.
But new research now shows that the association doesn't stop with mere friendship and business associations. Mitt Romney, his wife Ann Romney, and their son Tagg Romney are also invested in H.I.G. Capital, as is Mitt's brother G. Scott Romney.
The investment comes in part through the privately held family equity firm called Solamere, which bears the name of the posh Utah ski community where the Romney family retreats to slide down the slopes.
Unlike other private equity firms, Solamere does not invest in companies directly. Instead, Solamere invests in other private equity funds, like H.I.G. Capital. Solamere calls them “partners.” These partners, like H.I.G., then invest in various enterprises, like Hart Intercivic, the nation's third-largest voting machine manufacturer.
As reported by Lee Fang of The Nation, Solamere was founded by Tagg Romney and Spencer Zwick, Papa Romney's campaign finance chair. Ann Romney and Mitt's brother G. Scott Romney are also invested. Mitt himself threw in $10 million "seed money" to get the fund going, and spoke personally to its first full investors conference. Solamere's public web presence has been reduced to a front page only, so a complete list of it's “partners” can not be found. But reportage by the New York Times, Boston Globe, Esquire and the Nation have slowly given us a partial picture of which funds are being funded by Solamere. Some $232 million has been raised so far, according to SEC filings and industry publications.
In addition to Romney's finance chair Spencer Zwick, Solamere has also provided the campaign with its finance director, Richard Morley, and a western regional finance coordinator, Kaitlin O'Reilly. O'Reilly is listed as an “executive assistant” at Solamere, and also at SJZ LLC, which was founded by her boss Spencer Zwick. The SJZ LLC campaign finance consulting firm has billed Mitt's campaign over $2 million this election cycle as well as doing another $9,687,582 in billing to various Congressional Campaigns. The host of the private fundraiser at which Romney made his infamous "47%" speech was Marc J. Leder, co-CEO of Sun Capital, another "partner" of the Solamere fund.
As in virtually every close presidential race, Ohio may well hold the key to the Electoral College decision as to who will become the nation's next chief executive. The presence of Hart Intercivic machines in Hamilton County, home to Cincinnati, means there is a high likelihood the votes that will decide the presidency will be cast on them. Major media like CBS have begun reporting that Cincinnati could be "ground zero" in this year's election.
But these Hart machines are deeply flawed and widely know to be open to a troubling variety of attacks and breakdowns. There is no legal or other means to definitively monitor and re-check a tally compiled on Hart or other electronic voting machines. Ohio's current governor and secretary of state are both Republicans.
Does this mean the Romney investment in Hart Intercivic through H.I.G. Capital and Solamere will yield it not only financial profits but the White House itself?
Tune in during the deep night of November 7, when the electronic votes in swing state Ohio are once again opaquely reported to the nation and the world, without meaningful public scrutiny or legal recourse.

|
|
Why Does Sexual Hypocrisy Flourish on the Right? |
|
|
Saturday, 20 October 2012 11:01 |
|
Parramore writes: "The question of why religious conservatives are so likely to be caught in the act is eternally compelling. From the Pentecostal televangelist Jimmy Swaggart's love for prostitutes to abstinence-preaching Senator David Vitter's extracurricular romps."
Dinesh D'Souza visits 'The Opie & Anthony Show' in New York City, Sept. 27. (photo: Cindy Ord/Getty Images)

Why Does Sexual Hypocrisy Flourish on the Right?
By Lynn Parramore, Reader Supported News
20 October 12
orty years ago, conservatives awakened to the fact that their agenda was getting little traction in American public life. So they hatched a plan to turn things around. Pooling their considerable financial resources, they would invest in the marketplace of ideas and fund books, professors, journalists -- anything to promote, amplify, and disseminate their right-wing worldview. In short, they would buy the American mind.
Quite a bargain, that. One of their most successful investments was the support of an eager young man who got his start writing for the Dartmouth Review, a conservative newspaper founded in 1980 by disgruntled students who thought that the college's daily paper was way too liberal. Dinesh D'Souza was carefully groomed to flower into what he is today -- a vitriolic, one-sided, outrageously craven wingnut who will say anything and everything as long as it supports the most rancid right-wing agenda. You might think of him as the inhabitant of the deepest, darkest spot in our political discourse, the Mariana Trench of American intellectual life.
If you look back over recent decades, you will find this creature surfacing in any number of conservative crusades. Stirring up jingoistic anti-Obama fantasies, for example. Or protecting traditional marriage from gays.
Which is why it has been amusing to hear D'Souza, until today the president of an evangelical college, explaining just how he came to be sharing a hotel room with a woman who is not his wife and introducing her as his fiancée. Apparently D'Souza was in the process of ending his marriage of 20 years, but had not quite gotten around to signing the divorce papers when he shacked up with his lady friend at a South Carolina conference. He has since "suspended" his engagement.
Frankly, as far as scandals go, this one ranks low on the excite-ometer. It would have been more fun if he had been caught sharing a men's room stall with Larry Craig.
But hell, we'll take it. The question of why religious conservatives are so likely to be caught in the act is eternally compelling.
From the Pentecostal televangelist Jimmy Swaggart's love for prostitutes to abstinence-preaching Senator David Vitter's extracurricular romps, hardly a year passes when some big-time right-winger isn't found to be coloring outside the box. Now lefties really don't care if Vitter, fondly known on the web by his fetish moniker "Diaperman," likes to get his kicks wearing adult diapers and paying someone to powder his butt. In fact, we might encourage him to let his freak flag fly and march in the diaper fetish parade. As long as the sexual activity doesn't hurt anyone, who cares? It's the fetish for moralizing, sermonizing, and finger-wagging that sets our teeth on edge. Particularly when it ossifies into laws that make it impossible for many women to manage their reproductive lives or prevents loving partners from getting hitched. Not only do public pieties fail to prevent personal improprieties, they seem to have an unusually strong correlation. When legendary conservative Strom Thurmond was promising never to force southern whites to admit blacks (not the word he used) "into our theaters, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches," he neglected to mention that at the age of 22 he had admitted one into his bed and impregnated the family's 16-year old black maid. His daughter was a secret until his death in 2003.
So what is that? Why condemn what you desire? Part of the answer can be found in the style of religion you embrace if you are a right-winger. Monotheistic religions like Christianity are especially patriarchal and tend to be built on the denial of the feminine and a special abhorrence of those flesh packages known as "bodies." If you're only going to have one god, that god is probably going to be male, and so you've got to suppress the female element of spirituality so that He doesn't have any competition. Women are associated with the processes of nature, which can be scary, and you've got to do something about that, too. They give birth, and anything that is born must die, which is an unpleasant thought, so to get rid of that you just go around pretending that life is eternal and that everything really springs from the Great Celestial Father. Pretty soon you have concocted possibly the most unnatural idea in human history: The Virgin Mother.
Polytheistic religions don't tend to operate this way, which is why you can see male and female gods frolicking with abandon on the walls of ancient Egyptian temples. Which is also why the Second Commandment in the Bible tells you not to ever, ever look at them. In fact, you're really not supposed to look at or think about bodies at all. They are inconvenient encumbrances to your eternal life, and the sooner you get rid of them, the better. Anything that upsets the fragile order of this strange system where males are celestial beings and women are nasty creatures whose bodies reek of dirty sex -- like gay love, for example -- will have to be squelched at all costs. Holding all these contradictory thoughts in your head deforms the mind into a labyrinth of twists and turns and on top of that there's a phantom floating around in there.
Thanks to Freud, we know that humans are often haunted by something called The Return of the Repressed. The more you try to deny the undead incarnation of your repressed desires, the stronger he becomes, and he will hunt you down. Before long you find yourself in a park restroom in Florida asking an undercover policeman to fellate you for 20 bucks. And your boss John McCain is pissed.
D'Souza himself provides a curious perspective on the subject. In a meditation on the high standards of conservatives in which he deplores the adulteries of both Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich, D'Souza imparts this gleaming nugget of insight:
"Even hypocrisy is in the conservative view preferable to a denial of standards because such denial leads to moral chaos or nihilism."
Let's call this Conservative Chaos Theory. Without hypocrisy, the conservative mind would explode from the sheer force of its eternal contradictions and Dinesh D'Souza, along with his phantom, would be sucked into the void. Hypocrisy is the glue that holds it all together. Tolerance for others is corrosive to hypocrisy and must be avoided come hell or high water. In that South Carolina hotel room, Dinesh D'Souza was taking a stand against moral relativity. Maybe even the General Theory of Relativity. Anything which denies the absolutes and standards that protect the insecure human from the knowledge of his mortality -- and ultimately, his insignificance in the great design of things. People, this is courage. And I submit that it is not easy to take a stand while you are lying down.
This is why, friends, that you will very likely soon turn on the news to hear that yet another promoter of God's word has been caught with his pants down.
In motel rooms across America, these men are bravely resisting chaos.
Amen.

|
|
|
Mitt Romney the Pure Bull Artist Takes Flight |
|
|
Friday, 19 October 2012 14:47 |
|
Taibbi writes: "The point is to win an election by promising a 20% tax cut with one hand while promising that nobody will have to pay for it with the other. It's brilliant stuff - the ecstasy of pure bull. I'm not sure how Obama counters it, but he'd better think of something, fast."
Mitt Romney during the second presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. (photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

Mitt Romney the Pure Bull Artist Takes Flight
By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
19 October 12
ou know those Balsa wood airplanes - not the glider-types but the deluxe models, powered by rubber bands, with little propellers on the nose? I thought of those planes watching Mitt Romney debate Barack Obama the other night.
Romney's journey toward the presidency has been a marvel to behold. Dating back to his first political steps - his race against Ted Kennedy, followed by his assault on the Massachusetts governorship - Romney has been constantly twisting and contorting himself, exchanging position for position, trading pro-choice for anti-choice, flirting with pro-gay rhetoric before shifting swiftly the other way, pioneering state health care reform before bashing virtually the same plan designed on a national scale, claiming the center on everything from guns to global warming before careening right as a presidential candidate.
Then, just within this year, the contortions took him all the way around again, in a corkscrewish motion, as he first careened as far right as he could stand to win the primary season, and then twisted some more to come all the way back to his version of the center to run as a kindler, gentler sort of centrist alternative to Obama. I was shocked to hear him say aloud in the second debate that the richest people would not have their tax burdens reduced, especially since he spent the entire primary season running as a supply-sider who would create growth by cutting taxes on capital gains, interest, dividends, and eliminating the estate tax, cuts that overwhelmingly favor the very rich.
From the start of the first debate, Romney has almost seemed liberated, spouting line after line of breathless, ecstatic inventions - things that are, if not lies exactly, at the very least just simply made up out of thin air, and seemingly on the spot, too. The business about the $25,000 "bucket" of deductions which he prefaced, with seemingly half of America watching, with the phrase, "Let's pick a number": awesome. Then there was the jobs plan that creates 12 million jobs, another number seemingly plucked out of the ether: it turned out that when asked to justify the number, the Romney campaign cited three studies, none of which came anywhere near justifying claims of a 12 million-job increase. This is from Paul Krugman's new column on the subject: Just for the record, one study concluded that America might gain two million jobs if China stopped infringing on U.S. patents and other intellectual property; this would be nice, but Mr. Romney hasn't proposed anything that would bring about that outcome. Another study suggested that growth in the energy sector might add three million jobs in the next few years — but these were predicted gains under current policy, that is, they would happen no matter who wins the election, not as a consequence of the Romney plan.
Finally, a third study examined the effects of the Romney tax plan and argued (implausibly, but that's another issue) that it would lead to a large increase in the number of Americans who want to work. But how does that help cure a situation in which there are already millions more Americans seeking work than there are jobs available? It's irrelevant to Mr. Romney's claims.
That jobs line is when I thought of the Balsa wood plane. Romney has spent his whole political career being so careful: in all his previous races, he's used his admittedly very quick mind and slick presentation skills to walk one political tightrope and rhetorical razor-edge after another, trying to run as a pseudo-conservative Republican in traditionally liberal Massachusetts, while in primary season this year, he tried his best to maintain a whiff of centrist cred as a national politician even as the immediate demands of the Republican primaries forced him to veer sharply right. The psychic energy it takes to internally manage all of those past contortions (and future calculations) while publicly walking a razor's edge is no joke: it takes a special man to do it.
But now Romney's finally all the way to the endgame, and he's just letting go. No more being careful, and weighing himself down on debate stages with painstakingly parsed positions (this was frequently the situation in the primaries, where Romney's performances were always restrained and cautious, even when he "won"). Now there's no more future to worry about and he's just casting off from his moorings and being what he basically is at heart, which is a salesman and bullshit artist of the highest order.
Romney's realized that numbers don't matter, and past facts don't even matter that much: he's run all fall on completely made-up, mathematically-incoherent jobs and tax plans, and not only is he not suffering, he's made it all the way to a statistical tie with the president (or even a lead, if you believe the Gallup polls), and the presidency is in sight. He's finally released the burden of all those internal contradictions, and the inventions and devious distortions are coming so fast and so furious now, it's energized him psychologically, and he seems to be taking flight before our eyes.
When Obama tried to nail him on his record on contraception, noting that Romney had suggested that employers should be able to decide whether or not to allow insurance coverage of contraceptives, Romney effortlessly replied: "I don't believe employers should tell someone whether they could have contraceptive care or not. Every woman in America should have access to contraceptives."
Now, I suppose that's technically true, in the sense that Mitt Romney never suggested that Bill Gates should be able to physically prevent any Microsoft employee from going to her corner store to buy condoms, but that pretty clearly was not what they were talking about. Obama tried to protest, but the moment was past, and Romney looked jazzed. You could see him thinking: "This just saying-anything-that-pops-into-my-head thing is great!" Over and over again he went to that well. The stat about 583,000 women having lost their jobs under Obama - where the hell did that number come from?
It doesn't matter. None of it really matters, at this point. Romney has all of America right now running head-scratching analyses of his tax and jobs plans, trying to figure out if there's any way the numbers fit. But my guess is, independent voters are not reading those dense commentaries, and instead are responding more to the general vibe surrounding Romney's campaign, which is clearly benefiting from the fact that he's being so aggressive that the whole world is left scrambling to react to his bullshit.
I think the new strategy, rather than try to swim down into the deep waters of Romney's bogus plans, should be to stay on the surface and simply ask him simple questions. For instance, on his convoluted tax plan, just ask these two questions:
1) You've talked a lot about who's getting a tax break under your plan. But who's paying more? Where's the pain coming from?
2) If there is no pain, and the whole thing really is "revenue neutral," WHAT IS THE FUCKING POINT?
Now, cynically, we know what the "point" is. The point is to win an election by promising a 20% tax cut with one hand while promising that nobody will have to pay for it with the other. It's brilliant stuff - the ecstasy of pure bull. I'm not sure how Obama counters it, but he'd better think of something, fast.

|
|
FOCUS | How Obama Can Smoke Out Mitt |
|
|
Friday, 19 October 2012 11:09 |
|
Intro: "President Obama should propose that the nation's biggest banks be broken up and their size capped, and that the Glass-Steagall Act be resurrected. It's good policy, and it would smoke out Mitt Romney as being of, by, and for Wall Street."
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)

How Obama Can Smoke Out Mitt
By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog
19 October 12
resident Obama should propose that the nation's biggest banks be broken up and their size capped, and that the Glass-Steagall Act be resurrected.
It's good policy, and it would smoke out Mitt Romney as being of, by, and for Wall Street - and not on the side of average Americans.
It would also remind America that five years ago Wall Street's excesses almost ruined the economy. Bankers, hedge-fund managers, and private-equity traders speculated on the upside, then shorted on the downside - in a vast zero-sum game that resulted in the largest transfer of wealth from average Americans to financial elites ever witnessed in this nation's history.
Most of us lost big - including over $7 trillion of home values, a $700-billion-dollar bailout of Wall Street, and continuing high unemployment.
But the top 1 percent have done just fine. In the first year of the recovery they reaped 93 percent of the gains. The latest data show them back with 20 to 25 percent of the nation's total income - just where they were in 2007.
The stock market has about caught up to where it was before the crash. The pay and bonuses on the Street are once again sky-high. So are the pay and perks of top corporate executives. The Forbes list of richest Americans contains more billionaires than ever.
And the tax rates of the top 1 percent are lower than ever - courtesy of their armies of lobbyists.
Mitt Romney, private equity manager and financier - well within the top one-tenth of 1 percent, collecting more than $20 million a year yet paying 14 percent in taxes because of tax preferences for capital gains and for private-equity - is the avatar for all that's happened.
Just like the rest of the Street, Romney used other peoples' money to make big bets, leveraging like mad, pumping and then dumping companies regardless of the human costs.
Worse, Romney wants to cut taxes even further on the top 1 percent - giving them them lion's share of a $4.7 trillion tax cut - while shredding safety nets the rest of us rely on.
And he wants to repeal the Dodd-Frank Act that goes some way to preventing the worst excesses of the Street.
And this man has an almost 50-50 chance of becoming president?
The President should counter Romney's extraordinary solicitude toward the Street with a proposal to cap the size of the nation's biggest banks so that no bank is ever again too big to fail. And to resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act, which once separated commercial from investment banking.
In the 1980s the ten biggest banks had less than 30 percent of bank depositary assets. Now they have 54 percent. And the four biggest now dominate the Street almost completely. Because lenders and investors know they're too big to fail, the four biggest banks have a competitive advantage over smaller rivals that pose larger financial risks. That means they'll only get bigger.
Breaking up the biggest banks and capping the size of all banks is hardly a radical suggestion these days. The Dallas Federal Reserve Board, which has never been accused of excessive liberalism, has called for it. So has Sanford Weill, the creator of Citigroup, one of the biggest of the big. So has Daniel Tarullo, the Federal Reserve governor charged with bank regulation. So have conservative commentators such as George Will.
It's not too late for the President to advocate these measures. In fact, now may be the perfect time. Besides, it's not as if Wall Street is going to pour campaign contributions into Obama's coffers anyway; the Street is going with Mitt.
Calling for a breakup of the biggest banks and a resurrection of Glass Steagall would smoke out Mitt Romney - revealing clearly and decisively he's not on the side of most Americans.
Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

|
|