Is the pick of Paul Ryan Mitt Romney's concession

Even if he loses, he'll be back for more of the sameImagine for a moment that you are a political junkie. Imagine next that you on the way toward a vacation in the Mojave Desert where you know that you will have absolutely no access to the internet for four days. Imagine that you are on a desolate highway, half an hour from the point at which you expect your connection to the outside world to end. Now imagine that your Twitter stream starts filling up with the breaking news that presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney has just selected Rep. Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential Unit running mate against President Obama, and while everyone else in the political scene is analyzing, speculating, and responding rapidly, there's nothing for you to do but know that in a few days' time, you'll finally have a chance to observe the fallout.

Such a disconnected environment lends itself well to idle speculation around the only relevant question out there: Why on earth did he do that? It's common practice that a presidential ticket would want its second fiddle to be someone who seems to drag it to the center, rather than someone who represents the ideological fringe of the nominee's party; someone who is perceived as benign and is generally well-liked, rather than someone whose signature piece of legislation went down in flames. And even if that weren't the case, the last thing a nominee would want to do is jeopardize his party's chances at holding onto the House majority that would be driving the agenda of his first term, should he attain the presidency. Yet in one fell swoop on a Friday evening, Romney did exactly that, affiliating his candidacy with the darling vanguard of the far right while giving Congressional Democrats everything they could possibly want in terms of an electoral bogeyman for their campaigns. This deviation from what seems to be common sense, and what is certainly expected practice, raises the question of whether the Romney campaign believes he has a serious chance at winning.

Despite the neck-and-neck nature of national polling, the only math that matters in a presidential election is that of the electoral college, which presents a far less rosy picture for Romney. At this stage in the game, even Karl Rove has indicated that even if Romney won every single state that is a true tossup right now, Obama would still cruise to reelection. CNN's electoral map is somewhat more favorable, but any extended manipulation of the interactive map leads to the conclusion that most any viable path to a Romney victory must include a sweep of Florida, Ohio and Virginia?and even then, there are plausible scenarios under which the president could earn another four years by holding his support in Midwest and Mountain West. Even worse, only about five percent of voters in swing states report being open to changing their minds, meaning that for Romney to have an even-money chance, some sort of sea change in the electorate would have to arrive before the election.

The extremist nature of the conservative right presents another quandary. Despite its fervent loathing of President Obama, the activist base is lukewarm toward its party's presumptive nominee. Republicans know that they can't win this election if the base doesn't turn out, but what it would take to motivate the base could harm the candidate with the ever-shrinking number of swing voters that he would need to mount a comeback. All in all, if you're a Republican looking to get rid of President Obama in the short term, none of this bodes well: Master prognosticator and statistician Nate Silver currently gives Obama a better than two-to-one chance at winning in November. And while that constitutes an improvement for Romney compared to last week's forecast, it's hard to imagine that at least some of those gains won't be given back as Democrats continue to pound the drums of war against the extremist Ryan budget.

But if, by contrast, you're a conservative ideologue looking to push the transformation of Medicare into a profit program for private insurers even further into the realm of ideas that can be discussed as legitimate in American politics, the pick of Ryan as second in command is self-explanatory. Given the odds of defeat that the ticket faces as whole, it could be considered far better in the long run from their perspective to have Ryan on the ticket and force the open-air debate about whether to dismantle the Great Society rather than pick someone more moderate who could at best only slightly improve Romney's odds pulling off what would at this point be an upset. After all, it matters far less if Romney loses if his campaign manages to kick the can of wholesale privatization a few feet further down the road of ideological acceptability.

The first challenge for President Obama and Congressional Democrats will be to avoid all the pitfalls and do the work necessary to get boots on the ground and win. But the second will be to make explicitly clear that the defeat of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will not just be of them as candidates, but will rather constitute a wholesale rejection of the extremism that forced Ryan onto the ticket in the first place.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/PBxoI_-RI0s/-Is-the-pick-of-Paul-R
yan-Mitt-Romney-s-nbsp-concession

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Is the pick of Paul Ryan Mitt Romney's concession

Even if he loses, he'll be back for more of the sameImagine for a moment that you are a political junkie. Imagine next that you on the way toward a vacation in the Mojave Desert where you know that you will have absolutely no access to the internet for four days. Imagine that you are on a desolate highway, half an hour from the point at which you expect your connection to the outside world to end. Now imagine that your Twitter stream starts filling up with the breaking news that presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney has just selected Rep. Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential Unit running mate against President Obama, and while everyone else in the political scene is analyzing, speculating, and responding rapidly, there's nothing for you to do but know that in a few days' time, you'll finally have a chance to observe the fallout.

Such a disconnected environment lends itself well to idle speculation around the only relevant question out there: Why on earth did he do that? It's common practice that a presidential ticket would want its second fiddle to be someone who seems to drag it to the center, rather than someone who represents the ideological fringe of the nominee's party; someone who is perceived as benign and is generally well-liked, rather than someone whose signature piece of legislation went down in flames. And even if that weren't the case, the last thing a nominee would want to do is jeopardize his party's chances at holding onto the House majority that would be driving the agenda of his first term, should he attain the presidency. Yet in one fell swoop on a Friday evening, Romney did exactly that, affiliating his candidacy with the darling vanguard of the far right while giving Congressional Democrats everything they could possibly want in terms of an electoral bogeyman for their campaigns. This deviation from what seems to be common sense, and what is certainly expected practice, raises the question of whether the Romney campaign believes he has a serious chance at winning.

Despite the neck-and-neck nature of national polling, the only math that matters in a presidential election is that of the electoral college, which presents a far less rosy picture for Romney. At this stage in the game, even Karl Rove has indicated that even if Romney won every single state that is a true tossup right now, Obama would still cruise to reelection. CNN's electoral map is somewhat more favorable, but any extended manipulation of the interactive map leads to the conclusion that most any viable path to a Romney victory must include a sweep of Florida, Ohio and Virginia?and even then, there are plausible scenarios under which the president could earn another four years by holding his support in Midwest and Mountain West. Even worse, only about five percent of voters in swing states report being open to changing their minds, meaning that for Romney to have an even-money chance, some sort of sea change in the electorate would have to arrive before the election.

The extremist nature of the conservative right presents another quandary. Despite its fervent loathing of President Obama, the activist base is lukewarm toward its party's presumptive nominee. Republicans know that they can't win this election if the base turns out, but what it would take to motivate the base could harm the candidate with the ever-shrinking number of swing voters that he would need to mount a comeback. All in all, if you're a Republican looking to get rid of President Obama in the short term, none of this bodes well: Master prognosticator and statistician Nate Silver currently gives Obama a better than two-to-one chance at winning in November. And while that constitutes an improvement for Romney compared to last week's forecast, it's hard to imagine that at least some of those gains won't be given back as Democrats continue to pound the drums of war against the extremist Ryan budget.

But if, by contrast, you're a conservative ideologue looking to push the transformation of Medicare into a profit program for private insurers even further into the realm of ideas that can be discussed as legitimate in American politics, the pick of Ryan as second in command is self-explanatory. Given the odds of defeat that the ticket faces as whole, it could be considered far better in the long run from their perspective to have Ryan on the ticket and force the open-air debate about whether to dismantle the Great Society rather than pick someone more moderate who could at best only slightly improve Romney's odds pulling off what would at this point be an upset. After all, it matters far less if Romney loses if his campaign manages to kick the can of wholesale privatization a few feet further down the road of ideological acceptability.

The first challenge for President Obama and Congressional Democrats will be to avoid all the pitfalls and do the work necessary to get boots on the ground and win. But the second will be to make explicitly clear that the defeat of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will not just be of them as candidates, but will rather constitute a wholesale rejection of the extremism that forced Ryan onto the ticket in the first place.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/PBxoI_-RI0s/-Is-the-pick-of-Paul-R
yan-Mitt-Romney-s-nbsp-concession

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

GOP Senate Candidate: Victims Of
‘Legitimate Rape’ Won’t Become Pregnant

Senate Candidate and Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO) told a local television station on Sunday that “legitimate rape” rarely produces pregnancy because “the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Akin cited conversations with unnamed doctors for the bizarre claim. Watch it:

Akin sponsored legislation that would redefine rape in federal law to limit funding for abortion providers and has a long track record of uninformed and extreme views about women’s health. He has a consistently radical anti-choice voting record in the House, wants to ban the morning after pill, and has expressed concern that criminalizing marital rape gives women “a legal weapon to beat up on the husband” during a divorce.

Akin’s crusade against women’s access to medical services fits with his broader worldview, which is heavily influenced by a particularly virulent group of fundamentalist thinkers described as “Christian supremacists” by the Anti-Defamation League.

Update

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who is going to face Akin in November, responds:

As a woman & former prosecutor who handled 100s of rape cases,I’m stunned by Rep Akin’s comments about victims this AM bit.ly/NahiHz

— Claire McCaskill (@clairecmc) August 19, 2012

Read The Full Article:
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/08/19/711991/gop-senate-candidate-victims-o
f-legitimate-rape-wont-become-pregnant/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Sounds of Blackness Testify

Artist: Sounds of Blackness Song: Testify What a great tune.

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/WheresTheOutrage/~3/6Yq8B2X7G34/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Pennsylvania Nixes Steps to Make Voting Easier,
After Judge Allows Making Voting Harder

Viviette Applewhite, the 93 year-old who was one of the plaintiffs in the Pennsylvania voter ID case, received her ID card this week. Despite voting in practically every election since she became eligible, she didn't have a driver's license or Social[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/tnmawP1NMeQ/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Todd Akin: 'Legitimate' rape victims don't get
pregnant

Todd Akin (R-Dumbfuckistan)The GOPs Senate nominee in Missouri, Rep. Todd Akin, is fluent in wacked-out crazy:

?First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,? Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. ?If it?s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.?

What "ways" might those be? Akin must be talking to Michele Bachmann's 7-foot doctor. But even if a woman's magical defenses against rape-caused pregnancies fails, fuck you. Or something.

?Let?s assume that maybe that didn?t work, or something,? Akin said. ?I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.?

There's not a single assertion made above that is accurate. Not one.

It's this kind of crazy that has put Sen. Claire McCaskill back in the game.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/iDc3kMgM8Jk/-Todd-Akin-Legitimate-
rape-victims-don-t-get-pregnant

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Todd Akin: Legitimate rape victims don't get
pregnant

Todd Akin (R-Dumbfuckistan)The GOPs Senate nominee in Missouri, Rep. Todd Akin, is fluent in wacked-out crazy:

?First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare,? Akin told KTVI-TV in an interview posted Sunday. ?If it?s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.?

What "ways" might those be? Akin must be talking to Michelle Bachmann's 7-foot doctor. But even if a woman's magical defenses against rape-caused pregnancies fails, fuck you. Or something.

?Let?s assume that maybe that didn?t work, or something,? Akin said. ?I think there should be some punishment, but the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.?

There's not a single assertion made above that is accurate. Not one.

It's this kind of crazy that has put Sen. Claire McCaskill back in the game.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/iDc3kMgM8Jk/-Todd-Akin-Legitimate-
rape-victims-don-t-get-pregnant

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Todd Akin (R-MO) Says Rape Victims Can 'Shut
Down' Pregnancies

Click here to view this media

FSM, grant me the strength not to strangle this idiot.

After a bizarre, rambling speech of how great America is because we value life (citing the examples of firefighters running into the World Trade Center and Marines protecting Iraqis), Republican Missouri Senate nominee Todd Akin tells local Missouri Fox News host Charles Jaco that "real" rape victims can "shut down" a pregnancy.

No, really:

This morning, Akin told the anchor of the Jaco Report that, from what he "understands from doctors" (which doctors, he does not say), that assuming we are talking about "cases of legitimate rape" the "female body has a way of shutting that down" (i.e. preventing pregnancy).

So ladies, according to Mr. Akin, if you are raped, you not only have to prove to Mr. Akin that your rape was "legitimate," you also are at fault for allowing yourself to become pregnant.

WTF???? I really am beginning to feel strongly that men who have not a single clue on the reproductive system of women have absolutely no right to opine on it, much less legislate. However, this is par for course for Akin:

Akin is perhaps the boldest among a crop of conservative 2012 nominees who could hamper GOP efforts to take back the Senate in the fall. Akin has called for an end to the school-lunch program and a total ban on the morning-after pill. [..]

Nor is this Akin?s first time suggesting some types of rape are more worthy of protections than others. As a state legislator, Akin voted in 1991 for an anti-marital-rape law, but only after questioning whether it might be misused ?in a real messy divorce as a tool and a legal weapon to beat up on the husband,? according to a May 1 article that year in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

The PollTracker Average shows Akin leading McCaskill by a margin of 49.7 percent to 41.3 percent.

For the love of everything holy, I have issues with Claire McCaskill, but she is light years more evolved than this troglodyte. We cannot allow Todd Akin a seat in the Senate.

Updated with facts: (h/t Matt Yglesias) Akin wonders dismissively how prevalent rape-related pregnancy occurs. Turns out, pretty often:

Rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency. It is a cause of many unwanted pregnancies and is closely linked with family and domestic violence. As we address the epidemic of unintended pregnancies in the United States, greater attention and effort should be aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.

I'm sure Akin will say those women are just not trying hard enough to shut down the pregnancy.

Read The Full Article:
http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/todd-akin-r-mo-says-rape-victims-can-

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Midday open thread

• Arguably folks should be out in the streets over the blatantly systematic efforts to suppress votes in Democratic strongholds by now, but failing that, at least we can keep track of them a little better now: There's an app for that, thanks to the heroes and sheroes at Election Protection. So get the app here, and spread the word.
• If you like many continue to ask yourself "Why Can't We End Poverty in America?" Georgetown professor and overall great guy Peter Edelman explains it in language even politicians can understand?if they can stand to look at themselves in the mirror that long without feeling shame.
• CEO compensation between 1989 and 2012If you are a low wage worker busting your butt harder than ever before for a large corporation, you've probably just wanted to say to the Man, "Show me the money!" Here's why most of them won't: They continue to keep a lot of it for themselves. Forbes confirms that Fortune 500 CEO compensation is still "gravity defying," thanks to an average increase in compensation of 16.2 percent last year while workers were thanking the heavens that they just kept up with inflation at three percent. But don't feel bad; the investors are getting screwed, too?and this handy interactive chart shows why. From an average $2,548,000 in total comp in 1989 to an average of $10,502,000 in 2012 (a 312 percent increase, or a 13.5 percent raise a year) ain't too shabby. Especially compared to the cumulative seven percent increase that low-wage workers have gotten since 1973. Mo money, mo money, MO money!
• Fortunately some folks (such as the policy wonks at the Economic Policy Institute) are not afraid to call a spade a spade, when it comes to the United States economy, and public ask the ugly question in ugly words: Are we are heading towards a servant economy?
• Speaking of ugly, imagine a world filled with butterflies that don't look like butterflies anymore, and you can't help but cringe at horror reading about the ecological impacts already being seen just 18 months after the Fukushima meltdown. If this is what has happened just three butterfly generations after the meltdown, ask yourself what we will see after three human generations have been born.
• Acceptance of DACA [Deferred Action for Child Arrivals] applications began this week at USCIS, implementing President Obama's executive order stopping removal actions for those brought into the United States as children without legal immigration status. DACA allows a two-year deferral and work authorization for any young person under the age of 31 that otherwise qualifies for relief. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, no doubt still butt hurt from the spanking her SB1070 got from SCOTUS earlier this year, is doubling down on the hateful quotient and has issued an executive order refusing drivers' licenses and "other public benefits" to those who qualify for DACA relief. God bless her racist hating heart.
• If you are one of the many who ask yourself why, oh why, nobody has really been called to answer for what happened to the economy, you need look no further than the federal courts, which continue by and large to dismiss lawsuits alleging corporate negligence and malfeasance when it came to the mortgage and securitization practices that almost took down our economy. This week's beneficiary of judicial largesse? Goldman Sachs, which won dismissal of a suit alleging that it not only tolerated robosigning and other predatory servicing practices by Litton Mortgage Servicing (which Goldman acquired in 2007), but that it deliberately pulled out of its TARP commitment early just so it could raise executive pay. Adding insult to injury Goldman made its money off Litton's malfeasance then last year sold: Litton's $42 billion mortgage portfolio to well-known predatory lender Ocwen Financial (which actually believes that changing its name from Ocwen Federal to Ocwen Financial is going to fool anyone who follows predatory mortgage and servicing companies)?just to keep the "make a fortune by screwing homeowners party" going, I guess.
• Wikileaks founder Julian Assange is going to be soaking up the sun in Ecuador, which granted him asylum despite pressure from both the U.S. and Great Britain not to grant him that status. Some argue that both countries should have seen it coming, despite the very real questions about whether Assange is guilty of committing sexual assault on two women in Sweden, as yet another reminder from Latin America that "[first world]" nations ain't the boss of me." Now, Assange just has to find a way get out of the London embassy he's been hanging out at for the past two months without the British government arresting him the second he steps foot on the sidewalk, given its Foreign Minister's statement that it will refuse to recognize "diplomatic asylum."
• $25 baggage fees. $150 ticket change fees, and the usurious prices you have to pay to get some stale cheese and crackers on a flight is going to feel like nothing if other airlines take the lead shown by Air France this week and start hitting up the passengers hostage for gas money.

Read The Full Article:
http://feeds.dailykos.com/~r/dailykos/index/~3/w_A6StD3A6k/-Midday-open-thread

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!

Former British Ambassador Craig Murray: We Need
Whistleblowers Now More Than Ever

Craig Murray, a former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and a whistleblower, delivered a speech in support of WikiLeaks editor-in-chief Julian Assange just before Assange gave his speech from the balcony of the Ecuador embassy in London."We should not[...]

Read The Full Article:
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/firedoglake/fdl/~3/QCDOhpnKe2g/

Add to del.icio.us   Digg this   Post to Furl   Add to reddit   Add to myYahoo!