Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Segami
Segami's Journal
Segami's Journal
June 25, 2012
But what distinguishes this deal from the nearly 100 others that Romney did over a 15-year period was his close work with Milken’s firm, Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. At the time of the deal, it was widely known that Milken and his company were under federal investigation, yet Romney decided to go ahead with the deal because Drexel had a unique ability to sell high-risk, high-yield debt instruments, known as “junk bonds.” The Obama campaign has criticized the deal as showing Romney’s eagerness to make a “profit at any cost,” because workers lost jobs, and challenged Romney’s assertion that his business background best prepares him for the presidency. Romney, meanwhile, once referred to the deal as emanating from “the glorious days of Drexel Burnham,” saying, “it was fun while it lasted,” in a little-noticed interview with American Banker magazine.
The “glorious” part, for Romney at least, was that he used junk-bond financing to turn a $10 million investment into a $175 million profit for himself, his partners, and his investors. It marked a turning point for Romney, according to Marc Wolpow, a former Drexel employee who was involved in the deal and later was hired by Romney to work at Bain Capital. “Mitt, I think, spent his life balanced between fear and greed,” Wolpow said. “He knew that he had to make a lot of money to launch his political career. It’s very hard to make a lot of money without taking some kind of reputational risk along the way. It’s just hard to do. It doesn’t mean you have to do anything illegal or immoral, but you often have to take reputational risk to make money.” So it was that Romney decided to rely on a man and a company in the thick of one of the most intensive investigations ever undertaken by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It happened in 1988, the fourth year of Bain Capital’s existence. Romney was shifting his focus from venture capital, funding younger companies, to buying larger, established businesses, which sometimes were troubled.
- Romney, the famously cautious investment manager, embraced the philosophy of Milken, the embodiment of the high-flying 1980s. Romney, according to his former partners, viewed Milken not just as someone who built up piles of cash, but also as an innovator whose deals could force bloated companies to become leaner, more efficient, and more profitable.
cont'
http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-24/business/32395686_1_mitt-romney-drexel-employee-junk-bond
.
Willard Romney And The JUNK BOND KING Michael Milken
" It was at the height of the 1980s buyout boom when Mitt Romney went in search of $300 million to finance one of the most lucrative deals he would ever manage. The man who would help provide the money was none other than the famed junk-bond king Michael Milken. What transpired would become not just one of the most profitable leveraged buyouts of the era, but also one of the most revealing stories of Romney’s Bain Capital career. It showed how he pivoted from being a relatively cautious investor to risking his reputation for a big payoff. It is one that Romney has rarely, if ever, mentioned in his two bids for the presidency, perhaps because the Houston-based department store chain that Bain assembled later went into bankruptcy.But what distinguishes this deal from the nearly 100 others that Romney did over a 15-year period was his close work with Milken’s firm, Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. At the time of the deal, it was widely known that Milken and his company were under federal investigation, yet Romney decided to go ahead with the deal because Drexel had a unique ability to sell high-risk, high-yield debt instruments, known as “junk bonds.” The Obama campaign has criticized the deal as showing Romney’s eagerness to make a “profit at any cost,” because workers lost jobs, and challenged Romney’s assertion that his business background best prepares him for the presidency. Romney, meanwhile, once referred to the deal as emanating from “the glorious days of Drexel Burnham,” saying, “it was fun while it lasted,” in a little-noticed interview with American Banker magazine.
The “glorious” part, for Romney at least, was that he used junk-bond financing to turn a $10 million investment into a $175 million profit for himself, his partners, and his investors. It marked a turning point for Romney, according to Marc Wolpow, a former Drexel employee who was involved in the deal and later was hired by Romney to work at Bain Capital. “Mitt, I think, spent his life balanced between fear and greed,” Wolpow said. “He knew that he had to make a lot of money to launch his political career. It’s very hard to make a lot of money without taking some kind of reputational risk along the way. It’s just hard to do. It doesn’t mean you have to do anything illegal or immoral, but you often have to take reputational risk to make money.” So it was that Romney decided to rely on a man and a company in the thick of one of the most intensive investigations ever undertaken by the Securities and Exchange Commission. It happened in 1988, the fourth year of Bain Capital’s existence. Romney was shifting his focus from venture capital, funding younger companies, to buying larger, established businesses, which sometimes were troubled.
- Romney, the famously cautious investment manager, embraced the philosophy of Milken, the embodiment of the high-flying 1980s. Romney, according to his former partners, viewed Milken not just as someone who built up piles of cash, but also as an innovator whose deals could force bloated companies to become leaner, more efficient, and more profitable.
cont'
http://articles.boston.com/2012-06-24/business/32395686_1_mitt-romney-drexel-employee-junk-bond
.
June 25, 2012
Michael Tomasky: Democrats Should Come Out Swinging Against the Court
If the Supreme Court overturns the health-care law, Democrats will be tempted to sulk and feel sorry for themselves. But that’s the last thing they should do.
I expect, as I think most of us do, an unfriendly decision (from the Democratic point of view) on the health-care law. Can’t yet say how unfriendly; at the very least, an overturning of the individual mandate, and maybe more. Assuming that’s correct, the question immediately becomes how the president and the Democrats should respond. There’s very little they can do legislatively. But I’ll be watching for rhetoric, tone, even body language. And on those counts, they had damn well better dispense with the usual liberal woe-is-me hand-wringing and shoulder slumping and come out swinging. They had better communicate to their base that they stand for something, it’s important to them, and they’re pissed. And if they do it the right way, they can make the Supreme Court an issue this fall in a way that might even persuade some swing voters that the court overstepped its bounds. I’d go so far as to say that an aggressive response can reset and reframe the whole health-care debate, once Americans have had their minds focused on this by a blatantly partisan court.
Let’s say the court overturns the mandate by a typical 5-4 vote, but leaves the rest of the law intact. What must the Democrats do? The main thing is all about tone. I can just picture already what I fear I will see: Obama coming out to a press conference with his head down, speaking in a dour monotone, still trying to point out the silver linings but in a way that sends the message to anyone listening that he’s really apologizing for them, and muttering that he is now “calling on the Congress to act” (this has become my least favorite Obama phrase) and get busy working on one of the alternative approaches that will still keep the law alive—which is nothing more than a punchline, really, because everybody knows Congress isn’t lifting a finger.
No, a thousand times no! He needs to stand up there and get mad. The law may be unpopular, but he and the Democrats are stuck with it, and being stuck with it, they need to stick by it. Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passed by the people’s representatives and in just two years’ time invalidated it. If that isn’t legislating from the bench, what is? Mr. Cool needs to get Hot. Against unanimous and ferocious opposition, and in the face of blatant lies about what this bill would and would not do, he and the Democrats came up with a way for people with cancer and diabetes and what have you to get the treatment they need and not be either turned away or gouged. He’s proud of that, he ought to say, and by God, he’s going to fight for it. That provision of the law is wildly popular—85 percent supported that, in a late-March New York Times survey. If you can’t play offense with 85 percent of the people behind you, I give up.
He should also go right at Mitt Romney, on two points. First, Romney flatly opposes coverage for all people with preexisting conditions. He backs care only for those who have had “continuous coverage,” and not for people whose insurance had lapsed at any point during their illness. So Romney is against something 85 percent of Americans support. I am sadly confident that you did not know that. Good work, Democrats.
cont'
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/24/michael-tomasky-democrats-should-come-out-swinging-against-the-court.html
.
Dear Dems: GET REAL ANGRY if ObamaCare Goes DOWN
Michael Tomasky: Democrats Should Come Out Swinging Against the Court
If the Supreme Court overturns the health-care law, Democrats will be tempted to sulk and feel sorry for themselves. But that’s the last thing they should do.
I expect, as I think most of us do, an unfriendly decision (from the Democratic point of view) on the health-care law. Can’t yet say how unfriendly; at the very least, an overturning of the individual mandate, and maybe more. Assuming that’s correct, the question immediately becomes how the president and the Democrats should respond. There’s very little they can do legislatively. But I’ll be watching for rhetoric, tone, even body language. And on those counts, they had damn well better dispense with the usual liberal woe-is-me hand-wringing and shoulder slumping and come out swinging. They had better communicate to their base that they stand for something, it’s important to them, and they’re pissed. And if they do it the right way, they can make the Supreme Court an issue this fall in a way that might even persuade some swing voters that the court overstepped its bounds. I’d go so far as to say that an aggressive response can reset and reframe the whole health-care debate, once Americans have had their minds focused on this by a blatantly partisan court.
Let’s say the court overturns the mandate by a typical 5-4 vote, but leaves the rest of the law intact. What must the Democrats do? The main thing is all about tone. I can just picture already what I fear I will see: Obama coming out to a press conference with his head down, speaking in a dour monotone, still trying to point out the silver linings but in a way that sends the message to anyone listening that he’s really apologizing for them, and muttering that he is now “calling on the Congress to act” (this has become my least favorite Obama phrase) and get busy working on one of the alternative approaches that will still keep the law alive—which is nothing more than a punchline, really, because everybody knows Congress isn’t lifting a finger.
No, a thousand times no! He needs to stand up there and get mad. The law may be unpopular, but he and the Democrats are stuck with it, and being stuck with it, they need to stick by it. Almost never before in American history has a Supreme Court taken a law duly passed by the people’s representatives and in just two years’ time invalidated it. If that isn’t legislating from the bench, what is? Mr. Cool needs to get Hot. Against unanimous and ferocious opposition, and in the face of blatant lies about what this bill would and would not do, he and the Democrats came up with a way for people with cancer and diabetes and what have you to get the treatment they need and not be either turned away or gouged. He’s proud of that, he ought to say, and by God, he’s going to fight for it. That provision of the law is wildly popular—85 percent supported that, in a late-March New York Times survey. If you can’t play offense with 85 percent of the people behind you, I give up.
He should also go right at Mitt Romney, on two points. First, Romney flatly opposes coverage for all people with preexisting conditions. He backs care only for those who have had “continuous coverage,” and not for people whose insurance had lapsed at any point during their illness. So Romney is against something 85 percent of Americans support. I am sadly confident that you did not know that. Good work, Democrats.
cont'
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/24/michael-tomasky-democrats-should-come-out-swinging-against-the-court.html
.
June 22, 2012
" Top GOPers keep stepping on Romney's message, because they're not sure
he'll be leading them after November "
Florida Gov. Rick Scott just keeps touting his state’s improved economy, even after a Bloomberg report that Romney campaign officials asked him to stop it because it doesn’t help make the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s case that the country’s gone to hell under Barack Obama. Scott denies he received such a request from Romney – but either way, he continues to hail Florida’s turnaround. This comes on the heels of Sen. Marco Rubio essentially endorsing President Obama’s decision to halt deportations of young people brought to the U.S. by their parents illegally. Rubio continues to insist that it “feels weird” to deport young people who have grown up here and who consider themselves Americans, sounding like an Obama surrogate as he chides both parties for “politicizing” immigration.
Only two weeks before that, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush rebuked Romney on both taxes and immigration, telling reporters that neither Ronald Reagan nor his father could be nominated by today’s Republican Party because of their record of bipartisan compromise and raising taxes. Bush also warned Romney to change his tone on immigration, saying, “Don’t just talk about Hispanics and say immediately we must have controlled borders. It’s kind of insulting when you think about it. Change the tone would be the first thing. Second, on immigration, I think we need to have a broader approach.”
At the time I wrote that Bush’s off-message remarks seemed to indicate he wasn’t sure Romney could win in November because of the former Massachusetts moderate’s rightward lurch to appease the Tea Party right. Now it’s Rubio and Scott stepping on Romney’s messaging. Is there something in the Florida water? But it’s not just Florida: Right after he survived a recall election, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker rebuked Romney for saying the recall showed Americans don’t want more teachers, cops or firefighters. 
And just this week Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell unintentionally revealed party leaders’ doubts again and sounded tepid about Romney’s election chances. McConnell told reporters he was waiting to hear Romney’s stance on repealing Obama’s immigration move, because “he’s the leader of our party from now until November.” McConnell quickly added “and, we hope, beyond.” But it was a strange way to put it in the first place. McConnell’s remarks did two things: put even more heat on Romney to take a stand on the issue, which he’s trying desperately to duck. It also sounded like McConnell only expects to have to defer to Romney until November – no matter what he added onto his message.
Clearly this is not Romney’s party – yet, anyway. Other Republicans’ willingness to buck and rebuke him signals not bracing political independence – party leaders haven’t had the guts to stand up to the birthers in their ranks – but insecurity about their November prospects. A lot of Republicans seem to have their eye on November – of 2016.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/22/its_not_mitts_party/
.
Top GOPers Keep STEPPING On Romney's Message
" Top GOPers keep stepping on Romney's message, because they're not sure
he'll be leading them after November "
Florida Gov. Rick Scott just keeps touting his state’s improved economy, even after a Bloomberg report that Romney campaign officials asked him to stop it because it doesn’t help make the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s case that the country’s gone to hell under Barack Obama. Scott denies he received such a request from Romney – but either way, he continues to hail Florida’s turnaround. This comes on the heels of Sen. Marco Rubio essentially endorsing President Obama’s decision to halt deportations of young people brought to the U.S. by their parents illegally. Rubio continues to insist that it “feels weird” to deport young people who have grown up here and who consider themselves Americans, sounding like an Obama surrogate as he chides both parties for “politicizing” immigration.
Only two weeks before that, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush rebuked Romney on both taxes and immigration, telling reporters that neither Ronald Reagan nor his father could be nominated by today’s Republican Party because of their record of bipartisan compromise and raising taxes. Bush also warned Romney to change his tone on immigration, saying, “Don’t just talk about Hispanics and say immediately we must have controlled borders. It’s kind of insulting when you think about it. Change the tone would be the first thing. Second, on immigration, I think we need to have a broader approach.”
At the time I wrote that Bush’s off-message remarks seemed to indicate he wasn’t sure Romney could win in November because of the former Massachusetts moderate’s rightward lurch to appease the Tea Party right. Now it’s Rubio and Scott stepping on Romney’s messaging. Is there something in the Florida water? But it’s not just Florida: Right after he survived a recall election, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker rebuked Romney for saying the recall showed Americans don’t want more teachers, cops or firefighters.
And just this week Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell unintentionally revealed party leaders’ doubts again and sounded tepid about Romney’s election chances. McConnell told reporters he was waiting to hear Romney’s stance on repealing Obama’s immigration move, because “he’s the leader of our party from now until November.” McConnell quickly added “and, we hope, beyond.” But it was a strange way to put it in the first place. McConnell’s remarks did two things: put even more heat on Romney to take a stand on the issue, which he’s trying desperately to duck. It also sounded like McConnell only expects to have to defer to Romney until November – no matter what he added onto his message.
Clearly this is not Romney’s party – yet, anyway. Other Republicans’ willingness to buck and rebuke him signals not bracing political independence – party leaders haven’t had the guts to stand up to the birthers in their ranks – but insecurity about their November prospects. A lot of Republicans seem to have their eye on November – of 2016.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/22/its_not_mitts_party/
.
June 22, 2012
" Is Mitt Romney giving up on self-deportation strategy?
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee appeared to have abandoned the harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric he invoked earlier this year during the GOP debates.
Gone was the tough, enforcement-only talk that Romney had touted as a way to get 11 million undocumented immigrants to pack up and “self-deport.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-romney-immigration-latinos-20120621,0,1774055.story
New poll: Latino voters in battle ground states enthusiastic about Obama DREAM announcement, oppose Romney ‘self-deport’ alternative
A new poll released June 17, 2012 by Latino Decisions and America’s Voice finds that Latino registered voters are very enthusiastic about President Obama’s recent announcement and action on immigration policy that will halt deportations and provide temporary work permits to some young undocumented immigrants. This new finding stands in clear contrast to the low levels of enthusiasm among Latino voters towards the previous deportation policies under the Obama administration. The joint survey between Latino Decisions and America’s Voice polled Latino registered voters in five key battleground states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Virginia, and is part of a larger survey on Latino battleground states to be released later in June.
- Respondents were asked whether Romney’s statements calling on undocumented immigrants to self-deport back to their “home” countries, and to make immigration laws in Arizona a model for the nation, made them more or less enthusiastic about Romney. Among Latino registered voters in five key battleground states, 10% said the Romney statements made them more enthusiastic, while 59% said the statements made them less enthusiastic about Romney, a net enthusiasm deficit of -49 points.
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2012/06/17/new-poll-latino-voters-enthusiastic-about-obama-dream-announcement-oppose-romney-policy-of-self-deport/
.
WILLARD ROMNEY = SELF DEPORTATION
Running scared from " SELF-DEPORTATION " Willard Romney should be branded as the ' Self-Deportation Candidate ' Lets NOT make this weasel Etch-A-Sketch his way out of his own past statements by blurring the facts and re-writing his position.
" Is Mitt Romney giving up on self-deportation strategy?
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee appeared to have abandoned the harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric he invoked earlier this year during the GOP debates.
Gone was the tough, enforcement-only talk that Romney had touted as a way to get 11 million undocumented immigrants to pack up and “self-deport.”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-romney-immigration-latinos-20120621,0,1774055.story
New poll: Latino voters in battle ground states enthusiastic about Obama DREAM announcement, oppose Romney ‘self-deport’ alternative
A new poll released June 17, 2012 by Latino Decisions and America’s Voice finds that Latino registered voters are very enthusiastic about President Obama’s recent announcement and action on immigration policy that will halt deportations and provide temporary work permits to some young undocumented immigrants. This new finding stands in clear contrast to the low levels of enthusiasm among Latino voters towards the previous deportation policies under the Obama administration. The joint survey between Latino Decisions and America’s Voice polled Latino registered voters in five key battleground states: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Nevada and Virginia, and is part of a larger survey on Latino battleground states to be released later in June.
- Respondents were asked whether Romney’s statements calling on undocumented immigrants to self-deport back to their “home” countries, and to make immigration laws in Arizona a model for the nation, made them more or less enthusiastic about Romney. Among Latino registered voters in five key battleground states, 10% said the Romney statements made them more enthusiastic, while 59% said the statements made them less enthusiastic about Romney, a net enthusiasm deficit of -49 points.
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2012/06/17/new-poll-latino-voters-enthusiastic-about-obama-dream-announcement-oppose-romney-policy-of-self-deport/
.
June 22, 2012
Another Reason For Mitt To Treat Bush Like Poison
Washington, D.C., June 19, 2012 -- The National Security Archive today is posting over 100 recently released CIA documents relating to September 11, Osama bin Laden, and U.S. counterterrorism operations. The newly-declassified records, which the Archive obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, are referred to in footnotes to the 9/11 Commission Report and present an unprecedented public resource for information about September 11.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB381/
Hammering nails into the coffin of the Bush administration's involvement in 9/11 hasn't been easy: Republicans have avoided the topic for a decade. They'll certainly be spinning everything they can with this latest revelation: pointing to Clinton, distancing themselves from Bush, painting the CIA as dunderheads, maybe even saying that al Qaida didn't really exist before 9/11. Whatever the spin, however, the fact remains: Bush knew about imminent attacks from the very beginning of his Presidency and even hampered efforts to catch/kill Bin Laden.
Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 -- but didn't get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al - Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. "I don't think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn't get the institutional support they needed," says Barbara Elias- Sanborn , the NSA fellow who edited the materials.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_nsa_docs_reveal_911_truths/singleton/
From June to September 2001, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. Documents also show that the CIA gave warnings to the out-going Clinton administration, indicating that Bush knew about them from the very onset of his Presidency.
But can Bush be held accountable IN TIME?
And will Democrats make the revelation a stance against any of Romney's foreign policies? As de -regulator in national economic affairs, Romney has struggled to distance himself from the disastrous effects of the Bush administration while trying to convince the American public that Bush had set the stage for bin Laden's death. "I think the tools that President Bush put into place -- GITMO , rendition, enhanced interrogation, the vast effort to collect and collate this information -- obviously served his successor quite well," Rove said on Fox News.
The newly revealed documents now catapult statements like this into the highest category of BS in U.S. history.
cont'
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Could-A-Treason-Trial-Be-I-by-Rev-Dan-Vojir-120620-294.html
.
TREASON TRIAL Be In The Air? Newly Declassified 9/11 Docs Reveal The REAL ENEMY: George W. BUSH
Another Reason For Mitt To Treat Bush Like Poison
Washington, D.C., June 19, 2012 -- The National Security Archive today is posting over 100 recently released CIA documents relating to September 11, Osama bin Laden, and U.S. counterterrorism operations. The newly-declassified records, which the Archive obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, are referred to in footnotes to the 9/11 Commission Report and present an unprecedented public resource for information about September 11.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB381/
Hammering nails into the coffin of the Bush administration's involvement in 9/11 hasn't been easy: Republicans have avoided the topic for a decade. They'll certainly be spinning everything they can with this latest revelation: pointing to Clinton, distancing themselves from Bush, painting the CIA as dunderheads, maybe even saying that al Qaida didn't really exist before 9/11. Whatever the spin, however, the fact remains: Bush knew about imminent attacks from the very beginning of his Presidency and even hampered efforts to catch/kill Bin Laden.
Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 -- but didn't get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al - Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. "I don't think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn't get the institutional support they needed," says Barbara Elias- Sanborn , the NSA fellow who edited the materials.
http://www.salon.com/2012/06/19/new_nsa_docs_reveal_911_truths/singleton/
From June to September 2001, a full seven CIA Senior Intelligence Briefs detailed that attacks were imminent, an incredible amount of information from one intelligence agency. Documents also show that the CIA gave warnings to the out-going Clinton administration, indicating that Bush knew about them from the very onset of his Presidency.
But can Bush be held accountable IN TIME?
And will Democrats make the revelation a stance against any of Romney's foreign policies? As de -regulator in national economic affairs, Romney has struggled to distance himself from the disastrous effects of the Bush administration while trying to convince the American public that Bush had set the stage for bin Laden's death. "I think the tools that President Bush put into place -- GITMO , rendition, enhanced interrogation, the vast effort to collect and collate this information -- obviously served his successor quite well," Rove said on Fox News.
The newly revealed documents now catapult statements like this into the highest category of BS in U.S. history.
cont'
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Could-A-Treason-Trial-Be-I-by-Rev-Dan-Vojir-120620-294.html
.
June 22, 2012
On Thursday, Public Citizen president Robert Weissman led a protest outside the office of Crossroads GPS.
" On Tuesday, a lawyer for President Barack Obama filed a compliant with the Federal Elections Commission over Karl Rove’s organization, Crossroads GPS. Robert Bauer, the Obama campaign’s chief counsel, claimed the organization was unlawfully hiding its donors from the public by masquerading as a “social welfare” organization.
Legal action against Crossroads GPS is likely to succeed, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). But not until after the November elections.
“While there is a strong chance the lawsuit will be successful, it won’t be until long after the election is over,” CREW’s executive director Melanie Sloan told Raw Story in an email. “He hasn’t filed a lawsuit yet, just an FEC complaint and there is not much chance the FEC will do anything about this.
“By the time Obama can sue, the election will be over. By filing the complaint, however, Bauer is putting donors on notice that their identities may be revealed eventually. That may or may not impact the decision of some donors over whether or not to make a contribution.”
cont'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/21/strong-chance-lawsuit-against-crossroads-gps-would-prevail-after-november/
.
Robert Weissman Speaks at CROSSROADS GPS RALLY
On Thursday, Public Citizen president Robert Weissman led a protest outside the office of Crossroads GPS.
" On Tuesday, a lawyer for President Barack Obama filed a compliant with the Federal Elections Commission over Karl Rove’s organization, Crossroads GPS. Robert Bauer, the Obama campaign’s chief counsel, claimed the organization was unlawfully hiding its donors from the public by masquerading as a “social welfare” organization.
Legal action against Crossroads GPS is likely to succeed, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). But not until after the November elections.
“While there is a strong chance the lawsuit will be successful, it won’t be until long after the election is over,” CREW’s executive director Melanie Sloan told Raw Story in an email. “He hasn’t filed a lawsuit yet, just an FEC complaint and there is not much chance the FEC will do anything about this.
“By the time Obama can sue, the election will be over. By filing the complaint, however, Bauer is putting donors on notice that their identities may be revealed eventually. That may or may not impact the decision of some donors over whether or not to make a contribution.”
cont'
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/21/strong-chance-lawsuit-against-crossroads-gps-would-prevail-after-november/
.
June 22, 2012
" The Obama campaign's top lawyer fired off a letter to Karl Rove Thursday, demanding a retraction of a "mystifying" comment Rove made and raising questions about his upcoming appearance at a Mitt Romney campaign event.
The letter is the second that Bob Bauer has sent to Rove this week. The first argued that Rove could no longer insist that his advocacy group, Crossroads GPS, was policy oriented -- a distinction that allowed it to shield the names of its donors. The follow-up letter, obtained by The Huffington Post, makes that same point, arguing that there is no "social welfare" component to the group's operations.
But it also challenges Rove in more direct terms. Bauer hints that Rove, the chief strategist to former President George W. Bush, is colluding with Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, by homing in on Rove's presence at a Romney retreat in Utah this upcoming weekend. He also expands the scope of his complaint to Rove's role with American Crossroads, the super PAC arm of Crossroads GPS.
"I understand that you will [be] traveling to join Governor Romney this weekend at a luxury fundraising event in Utah –- an appearance that press reports note 'could raise questions because of campaign finance laws barring any coordination between super PACS and actual campaigns,'" Bauer wrote, likely alluding to American Crossroads, the super PAC arm of Crossroads GPS. "But I would ask that this trip not delay the immediate correction of your misstatements I am requesting."
The letter also picks up on an exchange between the two that was escalated Wednesday night when Rove accused Bauer of having a political vendetta against him that was rooted in earlier legal conflict. In an appearance on Fox News, Rove insisted that Bauer had represented Dana Jill Simpson, the former Republican operative in Alabama who served as a whistleblower against Rove and others in the case of former Gov. Don Siegelman.
READ THE FULL LETTER
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/123162095/BauerRove
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/bob-bauer-obama-campaign-karl-rove_n_1616021.html
Obama's Top Campaign Lawyer, DEMANDS Retraction From KARL ROVE
" The Obama campaign's top lawyer fired off a letter to Karl Rove Thursday, demanding a retraction of a "mystifying" comment Rove made and raising questions about his upcoming appearance at a Mitt Romney campaign event.
The letter is the second that Bob Bauer has sent to Rove this week. The first argued that Rove could no longer insist that his advocacy group, Crossroads GPS, was policy oriented -- a distinction that allowed it to shield the names of its donors. The follow-up letter, obtained by The Huffington Post, makes that same point, arguing that there is no "social welfare" component to the group's operations.
But it also challenges Rove in more direct terms. Bauer hints that Rove, the chief strategist to former President George W. Bush, is colluding with Romney, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, by homing in on Rove's presence at a Romney retreat in Utah this upcoming weekend. He also expands the scope of his complaint to Rove's role with American Crossroads, the super PAC arm of Crossroads GPS.
"I understand that you will [be] traveling to join Governor Romney this weekend at a luxury fundraising event in Utah –- an appearance that press reports note 'could raise questions because of campaign finance laws barring any coordination between super PACS and actual campaigns,'" Bauer wrote, likely alluding to American Crossroads, the super PAC arm of Crossroads GPS. "But I would ask that this trip not delay the immediate correction of your misstatements I am requesting."
The letter also picks up on an exchange between the two that was escalated Wednesday night when Rove accused Bauer of having a political vendetta against him that was rooted in earlier legal conflict. In an appearance on Fox News, Rove insisted that Bauer had represented Dana Jill Simpson, the former Republican operative in Alabama who served as a whistleblower against Rove and others in the case of former Gov. Don Siegelman.
READ THE FULL LETTER
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/123162095/BauerRove
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/21/bob-bauer-obama-campaign-karl-rove_n_1616021.html
June 21, 2012
Why would ANY woman in their right mind remotely consider for even a nano second to give up their vote for these knuckle-dragging morons?
" Michigan state Rep. Wayne Schmidt (R) recently compared prohibiting two Democratic women legislators from speaking to punishing a child. “It’s like giving a kid a timeout for a day,” he told Lansing radio host Patrick Shiels. “You know, hey, timeout, you wanna comment too far, you spoke your piece. We’re gonna let these other people have their dissenting comments, and then we’ll get back to business.”
The group Progress Michigan on Wednesday slammed Schmidt for the remark, saying it “only draws more attention to the inherent disrespect women serving in the legislature are unnecessarily encountering.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/20/mich-lawmaker-on-silencing-female-colleague-its-like-giving-a-kid-a-timeout/
.
Michigan Rep. Wayne Schmidt (R) On SILENCING Female Colleague: "IT'S LIKE GIVING A KID A TIMEOUT"
Why would ANY woman in their right mind remotely consider for even a nano second to give up their vote for these knuckle-dragging morons?
" Michigan state Rep. Wayne Schmidt (R) recently compared prohibiting two Democratic women legislators from speaking to punishing a child. “It’s like giving a kid a timeout for a day,” he told Lansing radio host Patrick Shiels. “You know, hey, timeout, you wanna comment too far, you spoke your piece. We’re gonna let these other people have their dissenting comments, and then we’ll get back to business.”
The group Progress Michigan on Wednesday slammed Schmidt for the remark, saying it “only draws more attention to the inherent disrespect women serving in the legislature are unnecessarily encountering.”
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/20/mich-lawmaker-on-silencing-female-colleague-its-like-giving-a-kid-a-timeout/
.
June 21, 2012
All Paulite eyeballs WATCHING the Republican National Committee to see if they attempt to change Rule 40 ..... 
" WASHINGTON -- This may be the Ron Paul gambit we've been waiting for.
An obscure rule change made four years ago by the Republican Party has opened the door for Paul forces to cause a major headache for Mitt Romney when he tries to nominate his choice for vice president at the party convention in August. The Republican National Committee could change Rule 40 in the week leading up to the convention, but that would risk the appearance of jamming Romney's nominee through, and likely cause a subsequent backlash.
Republican officials are still waking up to the fact that Paul loyalists -- who control the majority of delegates in Maine, Minnesota and Iowa, and have sizable contingents in a number of other states -- could very likely enter Paul's name into nomination for vice president....
This would force a roll call vote where each delegate of each state is polled on the floor of the convention.
Such a move would transform a symbolic procedure that has taken mere minutes in the past several conventions into a chaotic and time-consuming spectacle that could eat up the better portion of a day. Not only would such a floor fight step all over the message of party unity and strength that the Romney campaign hopes to drive through the convention, it would also open the door for alternatives to Romney's choice to gain momentum and further drive the process off the rails...
For example, if Romney chose Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) as his vice presidential pick, but the Paul forces leveraged their impressive foothold in several states to nominate Paul from the floor, then someone like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) could emerge as the preferred pick for many delegates as the convention goes into a roll call vote. And Rubio's name could be entered into nomination, in addition to Paul's, if a plurality of five states voted to nominate him. Where things would go from there is anybody's guess. It is the word "plurality" that is key. On January 17, 2008, eight months before the GOP convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul, the RNC's rules committee changed the process for nominating the presidential nominee or vice presidential nominee, so that instead of requiring a majority of delegates from five states, a candidate needed only a plurality of delegates from five states.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/ron-paul-vice-president-nomination-republican-national-convention_n_1613763.html
.
This May Be The RON PAUL GAMBIT We've Been Waiting For.
All Paulite eyeballs WATCHING the Republican National Committee to see if they attempt to change Rule 40 .....
" WASHINGTON -- This may be the Ron Paul gambit we've been waiting for.
An obscure rule change made four years ago by the Republican Party has opened the door for Paul forces to cause a major headache for Mitt Romney when he tries to nominate his choice for vice president at the party convention in August. The Republican National Committee could change Rule 40 in the week leading up to the convention, but that would risk the appearance of jamming Romney's nominee through, and likely cause a subsequent backlash.
Republican officials are still waking up to the fact that Paul loyalists -- who control the majority of delegates in Maine, Minnesota and Iowa, and have sizable contingents in a number of other states -- could very likely enter Paul's name into nomination for vice president....
This would force a roll call vote where each delegate of each state is polled on the floor of the convention.
Such a move would transform a symbolic procedure that has taken mere minutes in the past several conventions into a chaotic and time-consuming spectacle that could eat up the better portion of a day. Not only would such a floor fight step all over the message of party unity and strength that the Romney campaign hopes to drive through the convention, it would also open the door for alternatives to Romney's choice to gain momentum and further drive the process off the rails...
For example, if Romney chose Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) as his vice presidential pick, but the Paul forces leveraged their impressive foothold in several states to nominate Paul from the floor, then someone like Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla) could emerge as the preferred pick for many delegates as the convention goes into a roll call vote. And Rubio's name could be entered into nomination, in addition to Paul's, if a plurality of five states voted to nominate him.
Where things would go from there is anybody's guess. It is the word "plurality" that is key. On January 17, 2008, eight months before the GOP convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul, the RNC's rules committee changed the process for nominating the presidential nominee or vice presidential nominee, so that instead of requiring a majority of delegates from five states, a candidate needed only a plurality of delegates from five states.
cont'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/20/ron-paul-vice-president-nomination-republican-national-convention_n_1613763.html
.
Profile Information
Member since: Tue May 13, 2008, 03:07 AMNumber of posts: 14,923
