Saturday, December 1, 2012

Romney makes America glad he lost

Romney made America glad it didn't vote for him by his bizarre claim that Obama bought the election.

There was no mea culpa from Romney about his campaign or his characterization of ordinary Americans as morally deficient leeches. On the contrary, he justified his view of the public as unworthy by saying Obama handed out "gifts" to various constituencies to win them over.

This particular argument not only showed Romney is unwilling to take responsibility for his own defeat, but it also revealed that his statement to donors last spring that 47% of the public were spongers was no "gaffe" but a real reflection of his thinking.

The comments also confirmed that throughout the campaign, Romney saw the campaign as a competition of bribes. Thus when Romney promised to spend $2 trillion more on the military, to reach energy independence in five years, to make corporate tax cuts, to make individual tax cuts, to protect Medicare Advantage from reimbursement cuts, to create 12 million jobs, and to align our foreign policy more completely with Israel and Poland, he may well have been fishing for votes rather than actually planning to do these things.

 There is no evidence any other Republican has adopted any of his campaign themes.

Obama still invited him to the White House as he had promised, and Obama told us all we should be glad that a rich man like Romney would try to give back through public service, which ignores the point that Romney would have given himself tax cuts and invested public money in areas Bain Capital has businesses; and that Romney might see the presidency as a way to force all those spongers off the dole with higher taxes and reduced spending.  Obama is determined not to see Romney for the evil that he really represents.

Romney certainly lost credibility by his poor handling of defeat, however. It is difficult to see how he can "come back" from this, but it would be foolish to count him out entirely because the Republican talent pool is so thin and anybody with money can run campaigns (see Harold Stassen).

Why is it important or interesting that Romney despises the public that rejected him?  Ordinary Americans have never had a president who hated them and wished them to suffer before.  Calvin Coolidge was a misanthrope, but he had no mission to inflict pain on the country.  Romney did have that mission.

Before Romney made his comments, some did not really understand that.  Here, for example, was a typical "plague on both your houses" rationale that created a false equivalence between the Romney and Obama campaigns in lying.

In getting to their conclusion, the authors misrepresent Romney's quote. Romney was not only discussing election strategy.  The actual quote was...

Romney was speaking about his electoral strategy, but the emphasis was not on his strategy but on defining people who don't pay income tax or who receive government assisted health care, food, or housing as bad people.   He further hints that he sees the election as a bribery contest by saying he could never convince these people "to take personal responsibility for their lives" and that "they will vote for the president no matter what."  In other words, he cannot persuade them of his beliefs because they are greedy, but he could promise them things, and he did.

Presumably, the authors of that ill advised effort to "step back" and indict both camps now realize their error, and that Obama was not bending the truth when he said Romney didn't care about the 47%.  Hopefully, they now see that it was a mistake to draw any equivalence between the two sides in this election, and they now understand better than they did that Romney is an angry ideologue who despises the people he intended to govern.  It should have been obvious from his daily lying during the campaign that he had contempt for the public, but so ingrained is the notion that "all politicians are the same," that too many people voted for someone who was evil. I think if the election were held today, Romney's vote would be nowhere near the 47% he won on November 6.

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Romney Concedes Election

The United States has dodged a bullet, rejecting Mitt Romney by a narrow margin. 
I want to thank all my blog readers for going out to vote and spreading the word about His Nefariousness!
It was closer than it should have been, and it will be a hard time with Republicans still controlling the House of Representatives, but we can at least be glad of President Obama's re-election.  We all know GOP vote stealing went on even though they didn't succeed in the presidential race.  Someday maybe we will get the country we really voted for, that is to say, one without a "second party" that represents only 1% of the population.

Thank you one and all.

Vote Obama: The United States Under Romney is Unthinkable

Watching the long lines of people waiting eight or nine hours to vote in Florida and Ohio should seal the deal: the will to stop the Republicans is there.

A Mitt Romney presidency with a Republican Congress would be unthinkable.

Monday, November 5, 2012

Grounds for Hope

In the last year, since I started my blog when it seemed nobody would unmask the real Romney, the country has learned what a deeply disturbing personality he is.

Most still don't want to believe he is as bad as he is, but the fact is that nobody trusts him, and all his votes will be protest votes against Barack Obama.  Could America vote for a man they know to be compulsive liar and a bully: uncaring, secretive, and a fraud, as in this video which summarizes again the Damon Scandal?

(Obama should just run that 7 minute video tonight or tomorrow, nationwide on all three television networks. Of course he won't.)

If America did vote for Romney, then America would deserve the corporate and military dictatorship we would get.  That won't happen, and that the only way Mitt Romney can win the election is to steal it.  The same is true of Republican control of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives.

Are there reasons for optimism? Yes.

1. Polls show Obama winning

2.  Polls already contain a red shift to account for differences between actual results and what people tell them.  All polls model the electorate and so no poll is presenting raw data.

3.  Polls show people think Obama will win, so while complacency may cost him some votes, but there is no dangerous trend of people thinking Romney has momentum or smells like a winner.

4.  Obama has been outperforming national polls in Swing States; that is, wherever his ads run on equal terms with Romney's, Obama does better, suggesting ignorance is Romney's main support in the race.

Does that mean Republicans can't steal the election? No.  Check out the strange lady responsible for counting much of Wisconsin's vote.  She shares an office floor with Michelle Bachmann's campaign.

But there is reason for hope there too.

5. Chuck Hagel endorsed a Democrat.

This may mean less than you think it does. Hagel is involved with the largest voting machine company ES&S.
In 2006 and 2008 he was also at pains to seem "independent" of the GOP.  Democrats won both those elections.  However, it is not clear that Hagel actually is independent of the GOP or that less effort was made to steal those elections by ES&S in those years. After all, Democrat Kerrey has the same background in Vietnam operations that Hagel has, making them natural allies.

Hagel has been mentioned extensively in an article on vote fraud in Harpers Magazine, and while that may not mean much, the finding of subsequent strong statistical correlation between precinct size and Republican vote could mean the jig is up, and we are close to finding a way to see what the GOP is actually doing.   In previous years, it has been noted that early voters tended to lean Democrat more than election day voters.  What made this finding suspect is that early voters were not more likely to be Democratic constituencies, suggesting vote stealing is done on election day itself.

6. Gallup has confused the issue with its early voting poll.

Gallup says early voters are favoring Romney, but they are including absentee ballots with early voting, and absentee paper ballots usually aren't counted until election day and overwhelmingly favor Republicans because so many elderly and military vote absentee. Many military voted for Obama last time, but hardly enough to overmatch the elderly. In addition, the red shift from early voting is based on what the counting authorities say, not based on what the surveyed public says about how they voted.

Some Republicans, listening to Gallup,  may think they need to steal less than they do.

What proof do I have that Gallup's wrong about early voting? Rick Scott refused to extend early voting even with people waiting five hours in line.  Scott would not be doing that if Republicans were winning the early voting.

People are waiting 8 or 9 hours in line to accomplish early voting in both Florida and Ohio.  Ohio says it has had the heaviest early voting turnout ever, putting the lie to the claim that people have no enthusiasm for Obama.

 In some sense, a Republican president to protect their election secrets, with a Democratic Congress, to puncture claims of nationwide fraud, would be in their best interests this year, but even then Obama would have two months to look into it.  We have to get out to vote to make sure that doesn't happen.

Tuesday, October 30, 2012

Mitt Romney: The biggest liar in American history

Mitt Romney has told more lies in the last year and a half than any American candidate for any office in history.  He is quite simply the most dishonest person ever to run for any office of any kind in America. You could not find a compulsive liar who has told more lies than Mitt Romney in the last eighteen months.
Every single day he goes out and tells whoppers, and very often the inspiration for the whopper is to misrepresent his immediate environment or to lie about what he said yesterday, when he was lying about the day before.

The result, if he is elected, will be national calamity.  Our Founding Fathers understood that bad people can go into politics, which is why they tried to limit power.  We have survived many self-serving demagogues, crooks, and liars, and even people with delusions, although we are remarkably lucky that our presidents before have had at least an idea of a public good apart from what they could steal.  But we have never tested the system with such a thoroughgoing evil before. Even George W. Bush had the saving grace of sloth, and an unwillingness to use WMD except in depleted uranium weapons.  Romney has a lot more energy than Bush, and no moral limits at all.

Here's the danger part: our Republic used to be so large that people could do unspeakable things in one section (slavery, Jim Crow, genocide, corporate corruption), but countervailing centers of power would contest and (eventually) neutralize them. That's not happening anymore.   The U.S. has never been larger in population and diversity, but it has never been smaller in concentration of political, economic, and communications power.  All Americans are getting the news from the Associated Press, controlled by Republicans, and from a limited number of television outlets, controlled by Republicans. Their credit is being controlled by a few companies and their creditors are a few banks.  Their votes are being counted by a small number of companies, all Republican. There is no foreseeable rebellion that could take on the U.S. military, and no sense that organization would split into different factions.  Wealth has never been more concentrated, or more concentrated in fewer locations.  There are no rich guys in Alabama or Nevada who could organize to launch a populist assault on Wall Street.  If the New Yorkers don't do it, nobody will, which is why Occupy Wall Street has caused such an extreme vindictive response.

The result is that in power centers our BIG republic has become a small one.  Our Founding Fathers rightly saw that small republics had a harder time remaining republics, and that, conversely, Republics could be too big.. James Madison used the former as a principal reason for abandoning the Articles of Confederation for a stronger Federal Union. When Republics grow too big, he said on the other hand, "The larger a country, the less easy for its real opinion to be ascertained, and the less difficult to be counterfeited." National Gazette Dec. 19, 1791.  We see that peril every day when we are told to take on faith news reporters' assertions about the true beliefs of 300 million Americans.

If Romney is elected, domestic enemies will likely be assassinated, since Congress gave Bush that power and never repealed it.  Nuclear weapons will possibly be used under trivial pretexts, since only the moral character of the president has prevented that happening since 1945. The economy will sputter and fail.  You cannot elect Mitt Romney president without consequences. There have been bad liars as president, and one reason the system is so broken today is that the American people have had such a high tolerance for them.  Mitt Romney, though, is not like any other politician in American history, even George W. Bush.  Mitt Romney can justify anything to himself.  He's a perfect storm of magical thinking, manic energy, and the challenged masculinity and bullying nature of the spoiled rich kid.

Every day, new dirt on Romney emerges.

He set up a trust with a million dollars of shares that would go to the Mormon church on his death.  When that trust buys and sell shares under his management they pay no taxes.  Meanwhile, every year the trust pays Romney 8% of its assets. Since he is not managing the trust to make money, Romney is running it down, effectively taking back his "charitable donation."  Essentially, it was a way to trade shares but avoid tax.  Lots of rich people  did it, which is why the loophole was tightened by Congress, but not for trusts already created, like Romney's.  It was always and obviously unethical, though, especially as Romney probably included the original deferred gift as satisfying his church tithe.  Romney probably doesn't do his own taxes, but he certainly agrees with principle of going to any length to cut taxes.

An accountant has found pretty strong smelling evidence that Romney actually had a Net Loss, not Net Income, in tax year 2009, and that his statement about paying 14% tax is either 1) a lie; or 2) including other taxes such as foreign income taxes; or 3) likeliest of all, Romney is saying paying negative tax on negative income is still positive 14%, even though the public would interpret that as a man worth at least $250 million paying no tax in 2009.

Moreover, admitting a Net Loss in 2009 would puncture his supposed business genius. He might have had losses related to some Madoff  type investment, which would make him look gullible.  If, in contrast, he got there by writing off the money he loaned his 2008 campaign, people would say, you know it shouldn't reduce your taxes that you wanted to be president so badly that you spent $40 million on it.

It also raises the question of Romney's reason for running for president.  Perhaps his plans are so vague and his lying is so obvious because he never intended to be president, and all along he's just done it so he can write off what he spent against taxes. I don't think that's true: I think he's been burning all his life with a desire to be president.  But you can't prove it by his actions, and still less by his tax returns.

Romney received exactly $1 back on his federal return for 2010 for creating American jobs, and his tax returns show he has substantially more overseas investments than has been admitted to in his campaign disclosure forms.

I don't think the public care if Romney is a tax cheat.   What they should care about is that he can't tell the truth about anything, which means he has no respect for the public's opinion of him.

Monday, October 29, 2012

Endorsement Derby: Romney camp newspaper endorses Obama

The Des Moines Register endorsed Romney, reportedly their first Republican endorsement since Richard Nixon.  The Romney camp were ecstatic...but why?

The Des Moines Register is part of the Gannett chain, and as reported here in March, their largest shareholder is Integrity Asset Management, a hedge fund owned by Munder Capital Management of Boston and Birmingham, Michigan (Romney's adult and boyhood homes), whose former CEO Lee Munder is a Romney campaign finance co-chair in Florida.  Is it really a big story to get endorsements from a company controlled by your campaign?  Gannett's CEO was formerly with Brysam Global Partners, a private equity firm which invested in consumer credit companies in Mexico and Russia.  There are other private equity types on the Gannett board as well.

What would be more newsworthy is if any Gannett papers DO NOT endorse Romney.  Could this happen?

The Detroit Free Press has endorsed Barack Obama.

The Detroit Free Press is the tenth largest circulation newspaper in the country. However, the Detroit News retains the right to publish its editorial page (the News endorsed Mitt Romney) in the Sunday Free Press.  The very fact such a condition was made when the two papers were un-merged demonstrates the importance conservatives place on media control, since the Detroit News is historically the conservative paper in the Detroit area, and the Free Press the liberal paper. Nonetheless, the Free Press staff showed a rare courage in taking on their own employers. I hope they were clever enough to make it a collective responsibility, or some (all) of them may be losing their jobs!

Friday, October 26, 2012

NSA analyst demonstrates GOP systematically stealing votes in the larger precincts

A retired national security analyst working on Arizona, then national, results; and another researcher looking into South Carolina Republican primary results, found a startling and ominous correlation between precinct size and Romney votes.

What are these analysts saying? They are saying that all across the country, Republicans get more votes from larger precincts. This is counterintuitive, right? Rural areas are supposed to be more conservative, but more populous precincts are more likely to vote for Republicans in general and Romney (but not Santorum) in particular.  Even more amazing, in the South Carolina Republican primary, there was no trendline on Gingrich votes, which did not depend on precinct size, but Santorum and Paul votes both dropped in the larger precincts, and Romney votes rose. When that researcher tried to control for income level, rural percent, population density, etc. there was no correlation. There was only correlation around precinct size, nothing else.

Why does that indicate fraud? If you steal in smaller precincts, it is more likely you will end up with negative votes, or there will be few enough people so they can all compare votes and note that the final totals do not match.  It therefore makes sense to steal votes from larger precincts in order to hide what you are doing and also to reduce the number of results you are touching.  Different voting results for larger precincts is exactly what you would expect to find when elections are being systematically stolen.

 What can be done? I'm not sure, but I think these systems still use phone lines for reporting.  Maybe the Dems (or the Feds) could jam electronic signals at every Secretary of State's office to prevent remote vote tampering.  There has to be a technical way to foil whatever is planned, even if it's in the proprietary software of the voting machine companies.

In the meantime, when you hear of polls showing the presidential race neck and neck, all of which presume a white landslide for Mitt Romney, remember that they are already factoring in Republican election stealing to get these numbers.  Also pay attention on election night to clues they are manipulating the exit polls.

Right now, for instance, we are hearing that Obama leads 53-45 in early voting.  How would we know that, why would anyone publish that, and isn't that just an instruction to steal more than 10%? Obviously, if you only steal 8-10% in the larger precincts, that wouldn't be enough to overcome an 8% Obama lead among voters.  Therefore, you would have to steal more than that to be sure of victory.

Think of what this all means.  Americans have probably not voted for a Republican for president since 1988.  Republicans probably lost Congress probably in 2004, not 2006; and they never regained it.  Imagine how much better life would be today in the US without the hard right turn it has taken since 1994.  We pretend we would fight for freedom, but all future generations are going to think is that we didn't care enough to do anything about an obvious usurpation.