Why Republicans Want Mitt Romney To Go Away

Romney will carry the party's baggage off stage. “Toxic assets” into the bad bank of Mitt.

Ben Smith BuzzFeed Staff

Posted Nov 17, 2012 10:09am EST

Ten days after at least some Republicans were surprised to see Mitt Romney lose the presidency, the candidate is gone without a trace.

There appears to be no Romney Republicanism to propagate. No Romney strategy to emulate. No Romney technology to ape. No generation shaped by his failed effort. And no Romney infrastructure to inherit, though he may still be asked to write and bundle quite a few checks. Romney's bewildering post-election explanations of his defeat — Obama, he said, had bought off Americans — drew almost universal condemnation from leaders of his party, but the comments were more excuse than cause; party figures from Ari Fleischer to Bobby Jindal appeared to be waiting to kick Romney to the side of the road. The candidate did them a favor when he complained that Democrats had simply bought off young people and minority voters, a churlish line that erased any lingering Republican affinity for him as, when all else failed, a good-hearted guy.

Romney is being erased with record speed from his party's books for three reasons. First, many Republicans backed him because they thought he had a good chance of winning; that appeal, obviously, is gone. Second, Romney had shallow roots, and few friends, in the national Republican Party. And those shallow roots have allowed Republicans to give him a new role: As a sort of bad partisan bank, freighted with all the generational positions and postures that they are looking to dump.

"Romney is now a toxic asset to unload," the historian Jack Bohrer remarked Saturday. "The only interesting thing left to his story is how they dispose of him."

The simplest reason for Romney's quick fadeout is that his central promise was that he could win. He delivered immense fundraising prowess and ideological flexibility. He was never going to win partisan hearts like the two iconic, beloved losers of his father's generation, Barry Goldwater and George McGovern.

"This is ever the sad fate of the 'electability' candidate who fails to get elected," tweeted Red State editor Dan McLaughlin.

But other electability candidates have not been subject to the sort of forced amnesia already washing over Romney. John Kerry and John McCain both faced, perhaps, even more bitter recriminations on questions of tactics and strategy from inside their parties —but they returned to important Senate roles, positions of respect in Washington and in their parties, and Kerry may join the next Cabinet.

Other losers can draw, similarly, on deep wells of loyalty at high levels of the party structure. Bob Dole and Walter Mondale got crushed by the last two-term incumbents to serve two terms. They faded fast from the American public imagination, too. But they also retook their seats on the party dais. Mondale, a former Vice President with deep ties to a key constituency, organized labor, became his party's Senate nominee after Paul Wellstone died in 2002. Dole, a beloved war hero and longtime party soldier, received the Medal of Freedom from Bill Clinton in 1997, and was appointed by George W. Bush to chair a commission a decade later.

Romney was a party outsider who bought his way in. The campaigns he came up working for — his father's — operated in the essentially defunct moderate Republican tradition he abandoned, though a few of its stragglers staffed his headquarters in ... Boston. Much of his inner circle consisted of people whose loyalty was to Romney, not to his party or even his platform; that was also true of his most enthusiastic volunteers.

Now Republicans don't even seem to want to pile on Romney. Karl Rove and the SuperPAC infrastructure have absorbed as much disgust from donors and activists as Romney's campaign, which found a message in the fall after a dismal summer. Recriminations, such as they are, have focused on the collapse of a glorified digital list called Orca. Republicans just want to forget Romney.

That's because many of the Republican Party's leaders are, in fact, eager to change. Parties and politicians pivot faster than their friends or enemies ever imagine, and the Republican Party of Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio is pivoting very fast. And for all the reasons that Romney is easy for Republicans to forget, he offers them the ideal sacrifice. Conservatives were always too fond of Barry Goldwater to write him off as the "extremist" Democrats successfully cast him as; they never liked Mitt Romney anyway, and will gladly remember him for his most odious comments.

There is an irony that Romney, the moderate, will be forced to carry off Todd Akin's baggage on reproductive rights; Joe Arpaio's on immigration; and James Dobson on gay rights. But when he cast popular policies as "gifts" to Obama voters (ignoring both his and Obama's expensive promises to older voters), his decision to, as Bobby Jindal put it, "insult" the demographic groups who are a larger part of each successive electorate offered the Republicans the pivot they had been looking for toward presenting a younger, more diverse, and more inclusive party.

Now Romney's own party will gladly let him, and his reputation, carry off the values for which he is only now, for the first time, really the spokesman.

Human failure Joe Walsh threatens to run for office again

By Hunter

 

Please go, Joe.

When last we checked in with human failure Joe Walsh (R-No Longer A Deadbeat Dad) he had just lost his reelection bid to Tammy Duckworth, thus significantly reducing the odds that any of us would ever have to think about him again. Alas, that thought does not sit well with him, and so he is now threatening to run for something else, something like, oh, what the hell, a governorship:

"You know that I believe fervently in that vision. I don't know of many other candidates who articulate that vision. Am I going to do something? Oh gosh, I don't know. People approach me every day and ask, 'Walsh, are you going to run for the governor? Are you going to run for Senate?' I want to do my part to lead a movement to present a vision to this. I'd rather go down fighting. Democrats have ruined this state but they've been able to do it because the Republicans have allowed them to."

I'm not sure what vision Walsh is talking about here; his reelection bid seemed to be based mostly around the "vision" that his opponent was mean to him because she existed, and talked about her service too much, etc., etc.

Sorry, Illinois, Joe Walsh says he wants to govern you. If it's any consolation, I don't actually think he'll follow through with it. He's just pouting.

A Confederacy Of Dunces

By Silly Rabbit

When you stop and think about it, it's not really surprising that Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are having so much trouble coming to terms with their recent loss(es).

After all, it's been four years since John McCain got his ass kicked by President Obama, and he's still bitter about it; to say nothing of his former running mate.

However, this time is different.

In the wake of McCain's defeat, teabaggers (née Republicans) dedicated themselves to a single goal—"taking their country back" (even if they had to kill a few hostages in the process); and the mid-term elections showed some signs of success.

But now, having failed to achieve their goal, many of these same über-patriots are petitioning to secede from the country they claim to love so very much.

This is great news for Chuck Norris, who now stands one step closer to becoming the president of Texas.

When the truth hurts worse than losing

By Daryl Gale

OK, Republicans, we’ll go over this one last time: I am Black. I voted for President Barack Obama. I did not vote for him because he’s Black, and I’m willing to bet my meager paycheck that most Black politically astute voters didn’t vote for his skin color either.

I voted for the President because he was head and shoulders above the lying, smarmy, condescending, snake-eyed weasel you Republicans called a candidate. For most Black folk, and for most Americans in general, it turns out — it wasn’t even a choice.

Look, we Democrats didn’t complain when our nominee, the jelly-spined Michael Dukakis, got his ass kicked by George H.W. Bush in 1988. Dukakis was an idiot, and we knew it. Once we saw the ridiculous photo of that doofus riding in a tank wearing a battle helmet, we realized the race was over. But we sucked it up, and took the beating we deserved, because it was essentially our fault that our candidate was so weak.

Republicans seem to lack even that minimum degree of self-awareness. In defeat, the GOP has pointed fingers at everyone but themselves. Mostly, though, they’ve blamed Blacks and other minorities for their own dismal failures.

Paul Ryan, the phantom running mate — who magically disappeared as soon as he was named for the VP slot, blamed the loss on Obama’s turnout in “urban” communities — as if we’re too stupid to figure out the code. Mitt Romney, still clueless about his own culpability in turning off millions of potential voters, said Obama bought the election with lavish “gifts” to the president’s base supporters at taxpayer expense — “gifts” like health care and student loan forgiveness.

Only Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana, attempted to grasp the message voters were sending the GOP on Election Day — and even he only got it half right.

Jindal said, rightly, that the GOP would need to reach out to minorities and disenfranchised voters if the party ever wants to become viable again. He said they’d have to soften the divisive language on rape, homosexuality, immigration, and contraception, to name a few — or perish like the dinosaurs.

Jindal’s on the right track here, but he’s still on the wrong train. The GOP has got to reach out beyond its base of rich old white men, to be sure — but not just by softening the language. They’ll have to completely shift their divisive platform, politics and policies to even give themselves a chance with the millions of voters who rejected them last week in disgust. Just changing the tone will only mask their intentions, and add another layer of hypocrisy to their present pack of lies.

The fact is that millions of Americans — Black, white, gay, Hispanic, or whatever — voted for Obama not because they were snookered by a Democratic snake oil salesman, but because they were justifiably horrified by the things that actually came out of Republicans’ mouths for more than two years.

Did the GOP really think that the softer, gentler Romney who emerged at the very end of the campaign would somehow negate the 47 percent putdown, or the legitimate rape fiasco, or Rush Limbaugh attacking a college student as a slut, or invasive ultrasound procedures forced on women seeking to terminate their pregnancies? Did they think we’d forget about Newt Gingrich’s “food stamp president” slap, or Rick Santorum’s vow not to give white people’s money to lazy Blacks?

Were we supposed to look the other way while Michelle Bachmann blamed the economic recession on poor Black folks, or ignore Rick Perry’s frequent hunting trips to the Niggerhead Ranch?

We haven’t even gotten to their unashamed hatred of gays and lesbians, their plan to build an electrified fence to fry undocumented workers crossing the border like a giant bug zapper, or their apparent willingness to let their own grandmothers search through dumpsters for food scraps in exchange for hefty tax cuts for millionaires.

No, they’d rather believe that somehow Black people conspired to undo them, because if history has shown them nothing else, it’s that blaming dark-skinned folks is easier than looking in the mirror.

So go ahead. Call me racist for voting for Obama, while ignoring common sense and a mountain of damning evidence. Blame everything and everyone but yourselves — and your obsession with a continuing white pseudo-Christian plutocracy.

Keep it up all the way until 2016, when you can blame President Hillary Clinton and all those darned women for your next scheduled ass kicking.

Daryl Gale is the city editor of The Philadelphia Tribune.

Mitt Romney was a terrible presidential candidate

By GAIL COLLINS

It appears that Mitt Romney was a terrible presidential candidate.

O.K., some people have known that ever since the story broke about strapping his dog on the car roof. But now we seem to be reaching a consensus.

First, there was that matter of losing the election. Then this week Romney told some of his donors that while he was pursuing the “big issues,” President Obama had purchased the support of blacks, Hispanics and young people with goodies like college loans and health care reform. College-age women, Romney claimed, traded their votes for “free contraceptives.”

Show them a birth control pill and they’ll follow you anywhere.

Romney said all this in a private conference call, so he couldn’t have suspected that it would wind up in the media. There is no precedent whatsoever for reporters getting hold of remarks presidential candidates make to private groups about the inherent greediness of American voters.

Nevertheless, quite a few Republicans thought it was a bad idea to insult the integrity of American youth and minorities at a moment when everybody agreed that the electoral future belonged to American youth and minorities.

“Romney, take responsibility for being flawed candidate, w/delusional campaign w/no vision,” tweeted Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist.

“I don’t want to rebut him point by point. I would just say to you, I don’t believe that we have millions and millions of people in this country that don’t want to work,” said Senator Marco Rubio of Florida.

Florida is flooded with potential Republican presidential candidates, the top two being Rubio and former Gov. Jeb Bush. That’s reasonable — except, have you noticed that things in Florida always have a tendency to get a little weird? Is it an accident that the woman at the center of the Petraeus scandal — the one with the financial troubles and the glamorous twin — is from Tampa? This week former Gov. Charlie Crist officially repudiated reports in a London paper that he and the twin used to date.

For Republicans, the mood after the election was so bad that — I know you will be shocked to hear this — a Republican Party official in Texas advocated leaving the Union. “We must contest every single inch of ground and delay the baby-murdering, tax-raising socialists at every opportunity,” wrote Peter Morrison, treasurer of the Hardin County Republican Party. “But in due time, the maggots will have eaten every morsel of flesh off of the rotting corpse of the Republic, and therein lies our opportunity.” (To be fair, you can’t judge an entire state by one county political official. Although Bud Kennedy, a columnist for The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, pointed out that Morrison had once been chosen to help screen public school textbooks for the State Board of Education.)

Romney supporters couldn’t believe that they had lost fairly. The Maine Republican chairman was breathlessly reporting that “dozens, dozens of black people” had mysteriously shown up to vote in rural areas.

Now things are calmer — perhaps because, if they want to, Republicans can just blame everything on Romney’s poor campaign skills. Really terrible skills! Maybe the worst presidential candidate in American history! Well, possibly not worse than Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, who got only 8 percent of the electoral vote against Thomas Jefferson. But Thomas Jefferson had the Louisiana Purchase. If Barack Obama had bought Manitoba, Republicans would have understood his winning.

And actually not quite as bad as John McCain, who got fewer electoral votes when he lost in 2008 than Romney just got. But at least McCain has gone on to provide service to the country in the Senate, such as his current attempts to warn the nation that we haven’t been told enough about what happened during the tragic attack on Benghazi.

McCain was so desperate to sound the alarm that he missed a classified briefing on Benghazi to hold a press conference complaining that he had not been given enough information. Which clearly he hadn’t. He knew nothing! Nothing whatsoever! And what was the administration going to do about that?

“It is essential for the Congress to conduct its own independent assessment,” said the senator, demanding that Congress form a special committee to look into Libya. This would be a double benefit, helping to inform all the members who missed their normal committee briefings while also addressing the continuing national crisis over the shortage of congressional committees.

Afterward, McCain was his normal even-tempered self. (“Because I have the right as a senator to have no comment and who the hell are you to tell me if I can or not?”) But you did have to wonder. McCain. Then Romney. Now, all these guys from Florida and Paul Ryan, who when last heard from was blaming his ticket’s defeat on the “urban” vote.

Somewhere, there’s a right-wing Michael Dukakis waiting for the phone to ring.

Filibuster Reform Now Official – Reid Presents New Filibuster Rule

This is the most important piece of legislation the Senate will debate all year.

If they don’t pass filibuster reform, we will simply have gridlock.

And the American people want governing.
‘To understand what is happening, you first need to understand the issue at hand’.

‘Right now, to pass a cloture measure, that is to close a bill to debate and then vote on it, you need 60 votes’.

‘In the past Senators wishing to block bills had to by debating endlessly. To address this, a rule was put into place in 1975 which allowed a 3/5 majority of senators sworn in to end debate’.

‘It rarely caused issues, until recently when the GOP began invoking the rule of cloture on every single piece of legislation, but then did not stand up to debate’.
 

‘In other words, they abused the rule intended to stop endless debate without actually debating’.

‘They would force a cloture vote, but there would be no debate for which to invoke cloture at all.

‘In 2011, when the new Senate was convened, Senator Reid met with the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and made a deal to limit the abuse of the filibuster in the new session’.

‘The handshake deal lasted for 40 days, with Senator Hutchinson of Texas invoking the rule on February 15′.

‘After that, 108 more cloture motions were filed, and of those 109, 70 had the majority vote. In the end, only 38 passed cloture and the bills voted’.

‘So much for the handshake deal’.

‘After Mitch McConnell lied to Harry Reid’s face, violating the agreement, the Senate Majority Leader will use the transition in January to the next congress as an opportunity to fix the rules so blatantly abused by the Republicans’.

‘The new rule would change this simple bit. When the rule of cloture is invoked, a vote is taken on the measure and should it not pass a simple majority, the bill is killed. If, however, a Senator invokes the rule of cloture, and when the vote is taken it does not pass on the 3/5′s majority, but does on simple majority, the floor is immediately opened up for debate. Four calls for debate will go out, and if nobody steps up to debate, the cloture would be voted on again, this time only needing a simple majority to pass’.

 

Some are calling this the Mr. Smith rule, after the classic movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington starring James Stewart. This simple rule change, the tying of cloture to the debate, is one long needed in Washington. As a result, now if a minority party wishes to block a measure, they will have to go on the record as being against it, with footage of it. Now they just can go “no cloture” and can avoid the political fallout of things like blocking the jobs act or stimulus bill.

To remind people what a filibuster properly is, below is an example of a true filibuster, at 8 hours, 34 minutes, Senator Bernie Sanders took to the floor on December 10th, 2010, to filibuster the tax-cut extension deal. This is what a filibuster will mean now, not the farce it has become:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/SandersF

http://thelastofthemillenniums.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/what-congress-does-filibuster-reform-now-official-reid-presents-new-filibuster-rule/

Ed Show viewers sound off on Denny’s Affordable Health Care Act surcharge

After a Denny’s franchisee threatened to impose a surcharge to cover the cost of The Affordable Health Care Act, Ed Show viewers react to the new cost.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The losing presidential candidate who won't go away

Mitt Romney's "gifts" remarks prompt Governor Bobby Jindal to issue a sharp rebuke. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell discusses the losing presidential candidate who won't go away with MSNBC's Chris Hayes and Alex Wagner.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Anonymous Claims It Stopped Karl Rove From Hacking The Election By Hacking ORCA

By Rebecca Schoenkopf



Oh cool, Anonymous (we think it is Anonymous?) says Karl Rove was gonna vote fraud all the Machines, and that’s why he was so flabbergasted and refused to believe it when Fox called Ohio for Bamz, but they stopped him from stealing all the Machines by jamming up ORCA, because it was not actually a GOTV system but a “steal the vote” system, but they stopped him, we are pretty sure that is what the following letter, which we guess is from Anonymous probably, says. Seems legit! But here is our question! If Anonymous hacked ORCA and caused it to explode miserably on Election Day, how could Anonymous ever prove that ORCA was actually a vote-thieving program? If they hacked in, couldn’t they have planted code to make it look like Rove was gonna fraud the election? (Not that we believe for a second that Rove wasn’t trying to fraud the election, we are just saying, it seems like “logic.”)

Oh, and is that Assange they’re talking about at the end? We assume that is Assange. We never did pay attention like we should have.
[scribd]

Hmmm… Why Was Karl Rove So Adamant that Romney Not Concede Ohio?

When Ohio was called for Barack Obama on Election Night, thereby pushing him over the top in the Electoral College, Karl Rove didn’t take it very well, as he encouraged Mitt Romney not to concede for several hours. In fact, Romney didn’t concede until after Obama had won enough states to win the election even without Ohio. From the Washington Guardian:

The prominent Republican strategist and former Bush White House guru didn’t seem able to deal with Mitt Romney’s loss on Election Night. When the network he was appearing on, Fox News, called that Ohio had voted for President Barack Obama, thereby effectively ending the election, Rove strongly pushed back.

"I think this is premature," Rove said, insisting that only part of the vote had been counted. "I don't know what the outcome is going to be, but we gotta be careful about calling things when we have like 991 votes separating the two candidates."

Rove put up so much protest, in fact, that anchor Megyn Kelly traveled back into Fox’s studio to speak with their statisticians and experts who were calling each state. Even before Rove almost had a conniption, Fox in fact had been one of the last to call Ohio for Obama.

Rove insisted that only part of the vote had been counted? As we all know, states are routinely called for one candidate or another when only part of the vote is counted – based on statistical analysis of a combination of the current vote count, exit polls, and what parts of the state have yet to be counted. So what was Karl Rove so sure he knew about the vote count – or looming vote count – that none of the network statisticians knew, even at FOX news? To consider that question, let’s go back to 2004:

Election Night 2004

In the official 2004 Ohio vote count, George W. Bush beat John Kerry by about 118 thousand votes, a margin of about 2.5%. But according to the final Ohio exit polls, John Kerry was predicted to win by a whopping 4.2% – thus producing a huge discrepancy between the exit polls and the official vote count.

Prior to Election Day 2004, it was evident that Ohio was the most critical swing state in the country. Late on Election Night, it became apparent that whoever won Ohio would win the presidency. TV commentators discussed how the situation looked very bad for George W. Bush. Even the right wing political hack Robert Novak acknowledged that Bush had little chance of winning Ohio – and thus the election.

So what happened then? Stephen Spoonamore, a computer expert and close associate of Michael Connell, who was widely known as “Karl Rove’s IT guru”, provided a likely answer to that question in a sworn affidavit on October 26, 2008.

During the evening and early morning on the 2004 General Election in Ohio, on my own computer I was watching the results of incoming counties and precincts. I believed there was a more than likely chance County Tabulators had been programmed to manipulate votes…. As early results showed Kerry ahead, I noticed a trend in a very few counties (I believe I noted 8 counties on election night) that at about 11 p.m. suddenly began reporting radically different ratios of Kerry to Bush votes. All in favor of Mr. Bush. This sudden rate of change… resembled a fraud technique called an Intelligent Man In the Middle, or KingPin Attack. This type of attack requires a computer to be inserted into the communications flow of an IT system…

Other experts found additional data indicating Bush's increase in votes from these counties, and Kerry's decrease in votes… When information about the SmartTech IT routing switch became public… I again stated that we now have confirmation of a KingPin, or Intelligent Man in the Middle position had been created… The SmartTech system was set up precisely as a KingPin computer used in criminal acts against banking or credit card processes and had the needed level of access to both county tabulators and Secretary of States computers to allow whoever was running SmartTech's computers to decide the output of the county tabulators under its control… The SmartTech computer would as the results of the evening proceeded be able to know how many votes Bush needed to steal from Kerry, and flip enough votes on the desired county tabulators to reverse the outcome of the election…

The aborted testimony of Michael Connell

The SmartTech system that Spoonamore referred to was operated by Michael Connell – “Karl Rove’s IT guru”. Two days after Spoonamore’s affadavit, attorneys filed a motion to compel testimony of Connell regarding his knowledge of the workings of the GOP computer systems. On October 31 a federal judge ordered Connell to submit to a deposition on possible election manipulation. Connell gave the deposition on November 4, providing as little information as possible, but eventually he was forced to admit that “he brought Triad and SmartTech into the Ohio election game”.

When it became apparent that Connell would testify in the case, Connell was warned not to fly his plane. Cliff Arnebeck, the Ohio lawyer who brought the suit and subpoenaed Connell, warned the U.S. Justice Department that Connell’s life might be in danger, and requested witness protection. Connell never did get to testify. On December 19, shortly before he was due to testify, he died in a plane crash, presumably caused by his plane running out of gas.

What happened on Election Night 2012?

If up to the point where the TV networks were discussing how hopeless Ohio looked for Mitt Romney on Election Night 2012 seems to you to be eerily similar to Election Night 2004, you’re not alone. As in 2004, Ohio was the critical swing state. As in 2004, the situation looked very bad for the Republican candidate. As in 2004, the Ohio election was being handled by a highly partisan Republican administration. As in 2004, Karl Rove seemed to be a key player. And as in 2004, SmartTech computers played a central role in tabulating the Ohio vote. As explained here two months prior to the 2012 election:

In 2012 the current Ohio GOP Secretary of State Jon Husted plans to once again use SMARTech for the 2012 Ohio Presidential Election. It would be interesting to know how SOS Husted plans to utilize SMARTech and if he will admit knowledge of the use of SMARTech. Will the computer IT architecture be similar to the one created in 2004 where Stephen Spoonamore claimed the architecture was a classic Man-In-The Middle attack format for the ability to manipulate vote totals.

But there were a couple of big differences between 2004 and 2012. One is that the Republican candidate apparently was substantially further behind in Ohio in 2012 than in 2004. And the other difference is that – as we found out soon – it turned out that the Democratic candidate didn’t need Ohio to win the election. So apparently for one or both of those reasons we didn’t see a repeat of 2004 in 2008. Perhaps the decision was made to pull back when it became apparent that even if he won Ohio Romney couldn’t win the election. Perhaps the decision was made a little sooner, when the approximate magnitude the number of votes needed became apparent.

In any event, despite all the evidence to the contrary, both Karl Rove and Kenneth Blackwell (Ohio Secretary of State in charge of the Ohio election in 2004) denied any knowledge of SmartTech. Democracy Now! Producer Mike Burke summed up the situation two months prior to the 2012 election:

Do you think Karl Rove and Ken Blackwell need to take lie detector tests? How can they possibly deny knowledge of SMARTech with a straight face? Will Ohio election integrity folks check into the status of the use of SMARTech in the 2004 and 2012 elections? Perhaps for the integrity of the vote totals in Ohio it would seem like a pretty good idea.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021835756

Twinkies maker Hostess going out of business

Nearly 18,500 workers will lose their jobs as the company succumbs to the crippling effects of a nationwide union strike.

By MSNMoney partner

By Tanya Agrawal, Reuters

Hostess Brands, the bankrupt maker of Twinkies and Wonder Bread, said it has sought court permission to go out of business after failing to get wage and benefit cuts from thousands of its striking bakery workers.

Hostess said a national strike by members of the Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union that began last week had crippled its ability to produce and deliver products at several facilities.

The liquidation of the company will mean that most of its 18,500 employees will lose their jobs, Hostess said on Friday.

The 82-year-old company said it took the decision to shut down after determining that not enough employees had returned to work by a deadline on Thursday.

The company, which filed for bankruptcy in January for the second time since 2004, said it had filed a motion with U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain in White Plains, New York, for permission to shut down and sell assets.

The Irving, Texas, company has 565 distribution centers and 570 bakery outlet stores, as well as the 33 bakeries. Its brands include Wonder, Nature's Pride, Dolly Madison, Drake's, Butternut, Home Pride and Merita, but it is probably best known for Twinkies -- basically a cream-filled sponge cake.

"We deeply regret the necessity of today's decision, but we do not have the financial resources to weather an extended nationwide strike," Chief Executive Gregory Rayburn said in a statement.

"Hostess Brands will move promptly to lay off most of its 18,500-member workforce and focus on selling its assets to the highest bidders," Rayburn added.

Union President Frank Hurt said on Thursday that the crisis at the company was the "result of nearly a decade of financial and operational mismanagement" and that management was trying to make union workers the scapegoats for a plan by Wall Street investors to sell Hostess.

Hostess said its debtor-in-possession​ lenders had agreed to allow it to continue to have access to $75 million to fund the wind-down process.

"There's no way to soften the fact that this will hurt every Hostess Brands employee. All Hostess Brands employees will eventually lose their jobs - some sooner than others," Rayburn said in a letter to employees.

The company has canceled all orders in process with its suppliers and said any product in transit would be returned to the shipper.

In its filing with the court, the company said it would have incurred a loss of between $7.5 million and $9.5 million from November 9 to November 19 in lost sales and increased costs.

"These losses and other factors, including increased vendor payment terms contraction, have resulted in a significant weakening of the debtors' cash position and, if continued, would soon result in the debtors completely running out of cash," it said.

Hostess had already reached agreement on pay and benefit cuts with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, its largest union.

Republicans lick their wounds

Republicans are trying desperately to make sense of President Obama's decisive victory over Mitt Romney last Tuesday. MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell discusses with Newsweek's David Frum, author of "Why Romney Lost" and The Grio's Joy Reid.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The real Mitt Romney on display

Martin Bashir examines the real Mitt Romney on display via his newly discovered “free gifts” remarks to donors – and then explains that while Romney no longer has a chance to put his fiscal ideas into practice, Paul Ryan does.

 

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Republicans distance themselves from Mitt Romney

See you later. Or never. Is never good for you?

As the Republican Party struggles to understand why their platform of screwing over pretty much every group of Americans that do not personally own their own yachts was not the path to election-day success they thought it would be, they have undertaken that first, crucial step: the ceremonial dismantling of the last Republican nominee to make way for the next.

Marco Rubio, angling for a 2016 spot himself, let it be known that he wanted nothing to do with Mitt's old/new theory that Obama's supposed "gifts" to voters is what turned the election:

"I don’t want to rebut him point by point," Rubio said of Romney. "I would just say to you, I don’t believe that we have millions and millions of people in this country that don’t want to work. I’m not saying that’s what he said. I think we have millions of people in this country that are out of work and are dependent on the government because they can't find a job."

Sen. Kelly Ayotte:

Senator Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), who endorsed Romney for president and was once mentioned as a potential vice presidential candidate, told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell that she doesn't agree, but also doesn't know the "full context" of the comments. "I don't agree with the comments," Ayotte said.

Indeed, there's no doubt some "full context" here that we've been missing. Perhaps Romney prefaced his remarks by saying, "If I were a gigantic, irredeemable asshole, I would have to say that …" Past Republican important person Bobby Jindal, of course, was among the more forceful objectors:

“Two points on that: One, we have got to stop dividing the American voters. We need to go after 100 percent of the votes, not 53 percent. We need to go after every single vote. “And, secondly, we need to continue to show how our policies help every voter out there achieve the American Dream, which is to be in the middle class, which is to be able to give their children an opportunity to be able to get a great education. … So, I absolutely reject that notion, that description. I think that’s absolutely wrong.”

And Reagan-era strategist Ed Rogers was exceedingly blunt about it:

“There is no Romney wing in the party that he needs to address,” said Ed Rogers, a longtime Republican strategist. “He never developed an emotional foothold within the GOP so he can exit the stage anytime and no one will mourn.”

Past Virginia representative Tom Davis was happy to pile on:

“It shows a huge misreading of the electoral landscape. A rather elitist misread. Where does he think his votes came from in rural America?”

Florida Gov. Rick Scott. Et tu, Florida Gov. Rick Scott?

“It’s wrong, it’s not true,” Scott told POLITICO, adding: “What we’ve got to do is say we want every vote, we want to take care of every citizen in our state.

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad:

“I don’t think it’s helpful,” [...] “I guess my feeling is that we need to turn the page, and we need to focus on the future and not make excuses for the past.”

Hear that, Mitt? You're already "the past." The very, very unhelpful past.

Hands Off Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid

WASHINGTON - A group of progressive lawmakers led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Thursday called for protecting Social Security and Medicare benefits in any deficit reduction deal.

"We're going to send a loud message to the leadership in the House, in the Senate and President Obama. Do not cut Social Security, do not cut Medicare, do not cut Medicaid," Sanders said. "Deficit reduction is a serious issue but it must be done in a way that is fair. We must not balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the sick, the children or the poor."



Thursday's press conference was the latest in a series of high-profile events surrounding negotiations to avert the so-called "fiscal cliff," a set of tax increases and spending cuts set to go into effect on Jan. 1. Although no immediate economic damage will be inflicted if Congress and President Barack Obama fail to act by the new year, several months of higher tax rates on the middle class would likely throw the country into a recession.

Obama has said forcefully that he will allow the Bush-era tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year to expire at the end of the year, but he has been much less clear about the fate of Social Security and Medicare. On Wednesday, Obama told reporters he wants to cut "a big deal, a comprehensive deal" with Republicans to reduce the federal budget deficit that will tackle "entitlements."

President Obama – Get Tough Against GOP Obstruction

Last week, Progressives across the country were put into positions of power in Washington, sending a message to conservatives that their reign of terror was over. Mike Papantonio spoke with Katrina Vanden Heuvel, editor and part owner of The Nation Magazine, about what Obama can do with his progressive surge to overcome the obstruction of the right wing.

Grand Theft Auto V Official Trailer

Grand Theft Auto V, commonly shortened to GTA V, is an upcoming open world action-adventure video game being developed by games developer Rockstar North, and published by Rockstar Games.

The game will be the first major title in the Grand Theft Auto series since Grand Theft Auto IV (2008), and a continuation of the fictional universe that was introduced in that game.

The fifteenth game in the series overall, GTA V is to be set in fictional Los Santos in the state of San Andreas and its surrounding areas, based on modern-day Los Angeles and Southern California.

A rendition of Los Santos was previously featured as one of three cities in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, released in 2004.

According to Rockstar, Grand Theft Auto V is destined to be their biggest open world game to date. The game will concentrate on "the pursuit of the almighty dollar". A highly anticipated game, Grand Theft Auto V was officially announced on 25 October 2011, but it was a further year before the release window of Q2 2013 was announced.

The debut trailer for the game was unveiled on 2 November 2011. The first demo of the game was revealed to press on 11 October 2012. Release date: Q2 2013

New Grand Theft Auto V trailer. Here it is.

The New Economic Patriotism: A Look At Obama’s 27 Point Economic Plan (Part 1)

By Elisabeth Parker

The president presents his 27-point job plan at a swing state rally in October, 2012. (Photo courtesy of Barack Obama’s facebook timeline)

The New Economic Patriotism: A Look At Obama’s 27-Point Economic Plan
This is Part 1 (Manufacturing and energy) | Tune in tomorrow for Part 2 (Small businesses, education, the deficit, healthcare, and social security)

While astutely leveraging cutting-edge technology and social networking, President Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign also gave a nostalgic nod towards the classic medium of print with a beautifully designed, eight-page booklet entitled The New Economic Patriotism: A Plan for Jobs and Middle Class Security (we, here at AI, have obtained the PDF file for you to read, print, and enjoy in its full glory). Distributed mainly in swing states during the increasingly chaotic and acrimonious final weeks of the presidential election, the booklet was overlooked by much of the media. After all, how can one compete with that dog in the tin hat trying to get more Facebook “likes” than conservative pundit, Glenn Beck?

Obama’s 27 points are organized under his seven main priorities, which are to:

1. Revive US manufacturing;
2. Increase domestic energy production;
3. Grow small businesses;
4. Revamp education;
5. Eliminate the deficit;
6. Reform healthcare; and
7. Protect retirement (Social Security).

This article discusses the first two sets of proposals for reviving U.S. manufacturing and increasing domestic energy production. Tune in tomorrow for Part 2, which will discuss Obama’s plans for growing small businesses, revamping education, eliminating the deficit, reforming healthcare, and shoring up social security.

Why Obama’s Plan Is Worth A Look

Now that the dust has settled, the booklet is worth a look. Although The New Economic Patriotism offers little fresh material, this writer finds it notable for three reasons: (1) It so charmingly harks back to the political pamphlets of our “ye olde mouldey historie,” like Thomas Paine’s Common Sense back in 1776; (2) The authors assume voters are intelligent, and jam-pack their booklet with facts, numbers, and almost 4,000 words — many of which have more than two syllables — in addition to the usual photos, charts, and other eye candy; and (3) The booklet provides Obama-watchers with a clear-cut guide to the president’s positions on employment and the economy in one handy-dandy document.

Will Obama’s Plan Work?

Sure it will, but is that necessarily the point? Economists and pundits have long debated whether the solutions proposed (and sometimes even partially- or fully- implemented) will have the desired effects on improving America’s economic prospects. It may not even matter whether all of Obama’s plans work right away, so much as whether the majority of people believe that he’s doing everything possible to help them, that things will get better, and that the system will treat them fairly.

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried a variety of approaches towards ending the catastrophic Great Depression (1929-1941), including public works projects, financial reform (including the Glass-Steagall act — the 1990′s GOP-led repeal of which led directly to our current economic crisis), increased regulation, subsidies, and more. When FDR assumed the presidency for his first of his unprecedented three terms, few people believed that the government could — or even should — intervene. Now, the vast majority of Americans expect their Federal, State, and/or Local governments to do something when disaster strikes. In keeping with these expectations, Obama is doing everything he can, and has managed to accomplish quite a lot despite a hostile congress and filibuster-proof minority of Senators.

Photo meme by Elisabeth Parker for Addicting Info.

On Reviving US Manufacturing (Points 1-5)

The President has emphasized the importance of manufacturing jobs to America’s declining middle class from early on. In his  2010 State of the Union Address, Obama announced his National Export Initiative and pledged to “double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America.” When accepting the Democratic Party’s nomination for his second term at the 2012 convention, Obama declared, “After a decade of decline, this country created over half a million manufacturing jobs in the last two and a half years.”  With a dash of whipped cream and a cherry on top, the campaign brochure proudly adds that “exports have risen 36%” since Obama took office.

Obama’s five proposals for increasing manufacturing jobs in the US are as follows:

1. Cut tax rates for domestic manufacturing by nearly 25%. According to Business Insider, this would lower the top rate to 26.25%. It is unclear whether lower domestic tax rates would create more manufacturing jobs.

2. End tax deductions for shipping jobs overseas and create tax credits for bringing jobs home. Unfortunately — as reported by The Hill’s Ramsey Cox  – GOP senators blocked Obama’s Bring Jobs Home Act bill with their usual obstructive filibustering. The “Insourcing Bill” would have created a 20% tax credit for companies that move their operations back to the US.

3. Create a Trade Enforcement unit to “level the playing field” with China. Many Americans feel that China’s devalued currency, lack of regulation, government-subsidized industries, trade barriers, theft of intellectual property, and low wages gives their workers and companies an unfair advantage. Obama’s administration therefore acts aggressively towards China with lawsuits, sanctions, and other approaches. On September 17th, the U.S. filed the latest in a barrage of complaints against China with the World Trade Organization — this time on behalf of the Auto industry — and the President announced, “We’ve brought more trade cases against China in one term than the previous administration did in two — and every case we’ve brought that’s been decided, we won.” On October 19th, Tom Miles and Rachelle Younglai from Reuters reported that the World Trade Organization barred China from charging tariffs on steel from the U.S. Each case brought before the WTO takes a year-and-a-half or longer to decide.

4. Train two million workers through partnerships between community colleges and employers. Partnerships that match career training with needs in the workplace would help address mismatches between the skills workers have and the skills companies need. In her 2011 Slate article – “Does Job Retraining Work?” — Ann Lawrie wrote that the answer depends on whether the unemployment is “cyclical” (temporary lack of demand) or “structural” (permanent shifts in the labor market). Today’s improving, but still sluggish, economy seems more like the latter. According to Lawrie, some economic sectors are still growing, demand is up for “science, engineering, plumbing, and various health trades.” A survey conducted by The Manufacturing Institute revealed that two thirds of manufacturers had a “moderate to severe” shortage of workers in specialized, skilled trades.

5. Create a network of 15-20 “Manufacturing Innovation Institutes.” A collaboration among businesses, research universities, and government could help “ensure that the next generation of products are invented and manufactured here.” The development of the Internet — which evolved through universities participating in the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) — could serve as a model for how such a partnership could work. More ominously — as Business Insider points out — so could the World War II-era partnership between the U.S. government, industry leaders, and the University of California at Los Alamos, which resulted in the atomic bomb.

CNN Money’s Chris Isidore agrees that our exports have increased, but points out that our imports have also increased, leaving barely a dent in our trade imbalance. Some experts — including Robert Reich (Secretary of Labor under the Clinton administration) — express skepticism about whether manufacturing offers the answer to the middle class’s economic woes. In his February, 2012 article for the Christian Science Monitor, Reich explains: ”The real issue isn’t whether and how we get manufacturing back. It’s how we get good jobs and good wages back. And they aren’t at all the same thing.” He goes on to explain that US manufacturers are “doing wonderfully well,” and the real problem is “the declining power of American workers to get a portion of the gains. That’s why we need strong unions.”

So far, Obama hasn’t had much to say about unions, though he met with union leaders on Tuesday and is talking tough to Congress about the looming fiscal cliff.

This writer sincerely apologizes to her beloved Hayao Miyazaki, creator of Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind.

Increase Domestic Energy Production (Points 6-10)

Increasing domestic energy production seems like a no-brainer, since it would create jobs, reduce dependence on foreign oil, decrease energy costs, and diminish our carbon footprint … But leave it to resourceful Americans on both sides of the political aisle to find issues they can vehemently object to:

6. Increase exploration and development. Tired of those danged mullahs in Iran sticking it to us with high gas prices? No problem, we can drill ’n’ hydro-frack our own. Obama cheerily pledges to open up “millions of acres for exploration and development, including undiscovered oil and gas resources in the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic.” But wait … there’s a REASON why we aren’t ALREADY drilling and fracking in these places … because nobody wants this stuff going on anywhere near them, due to earthquakes, oil spills, pollution, unsightly installations, and other inconveniences. Hey, kids, it’s the new NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard), and it’s gone totally BANANAs (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near ANYTHING)!

7. Invest in clean energy. Obama calls for big investments in carbon neutral energy sources, like wind and solar. What’s not to love? Other than the facts that the sun and wind are often unreliable, and their energy can only be captured and saved in very limited quantities (though that could improve — see item #8 regarding high tech batteries, below). Technology is improving, but it still takes a huge bank of solar panels the size of a small living room to provide enough electricity to this writer’s mom and step-dad, who live off the grid — and very sparingly — in the Bahamas. Their power supply is adequate, but it’s a good thing my mom adores mathematics: Living off-the-grid requires a LOT of calculations concerning electric usage vs. available kilowatts, despite the long hours of sunlight. As for wind energy, that’s great, as long as you’re not among the half million birds killed by wind turbines each year. And please don’t get the psycho, anti-government, Ayn Randers started on Solyndra — a promising solar company that got the rug ripped from under them when Chinese companies stole their technology and flooded the market with cheap solar panels. Oh, and did you know that Obama’s big tent of “clean energy” now includes “clean coal” and “safe nuclear” plants under its all-encompassing umbrella? D’OH! I feel like such an (oxy)moron!

8. Double down on fuel economy. Obama wants to ramp up standard mileage for cars and light trucks to 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, which will reduce oil consumption by 2.2 million barrels a day and save consumers more than $8,000 per year at the gas pump. This all sounds impressively sleek, shiny, and futuristic, unless you’re old enough to remember the energy crisis throughout the 1970′s, followed by — and strongly related to — the Iran hostage crisis of 1979-1981. Back then, you could easily snap up one of those cheap, teensy, new-fangled Japanese gas-sippers that got 40-50 miles per gallon, easy! Back then, the sort of cheap, poorly made crap that now says “Made in China” used to say “Made in Japan,” so you had to be totally desperate to try one of these things. But lots of folks really WERE desperate — hammered by high gas prices, stagflation, and waiting on long lines for gas (you had to plan ahead because your turn alternated, based on whether the first or last number — I can’t remember which — on your license plate was even or odd). One day in 1979, my dad took took the plunge and bought this silvery, new-fangled, pod-shaped thang called a “Celica” from this Japanese company called “Toyota.” Since it looked like something from the Star Trek episodes we regularly watched, plus we now had extra time and money for Dunkin’ Donuts or White Castle stops, I was totally down with that “Celica” thang. But seriously, please don’t expect me to feel impressed with a measly 54.5 miles per gallon by 2025, when my dad drove a car that got 50 MPG highway way back in 1979, before some of you young whippersnappers were even born!

9.  Lead the world in high-tech batteries. Obama wants to extend tax credits to support manufacturing in industries related to clean energy, and particularly wants the good old U.S. of A. to emerge as the “world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries.” Personally, I would rather be the “world’s leading manufacturer of fabulous hair,” but on second thought, high tech batteries are a good thing, too — as anyone who constantly has to recharge their iPhone can appreciate. Long-life, lightweight batteries that can be recharged quickly and disposed of safely are the Holy Grail for campers, electronics manufacturers, and parents of children who love battery-operated toys alike. There are some highly promising technologies out there, including: photovoltaic paint that turns any surface into a battery; lighter and longer-lasting lithium ion batteries, and even the formerly novel combination hand-cranked and solar-powered emergency radios which are now commonly available.

10. Mandate 80% clean electricity by 2035. Obama wants to create a universal standard for utility companies to ensure that 80% of America’s electricity comes from clean sources by the year 2035 — 32 years from now. This would give us “cheaper, more secure energy” while creating a new market for American manufacturers. For a quick overview of your electricity’s cleanliness (based on power grid information from 2009) visit the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Power Profiler” page and type in your zip code. You can then select your power company from a pull-down list (if your area has more than one) to display a page that shows how your “fuel mix” (energy sources) and emissions rate compares with the rest of the country. Here in San Jose, CA, our nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide emissions are well under half the nation’s average, but the amounts of fossil fuels (gas and coal) we consume are through the roof!

The New Economic Patriotism: A Look At Obama’s 27-Point Economic Plan

This was Part 1 (Manufacturing and energy) | Tune in tomorrow for Part 2 (Small businesses, education, the deficit, healthcare, and social security)

Elisabeth Parker is a writer, Web designer, mom, political junkie, and dilettante. Come visit her at ElisabethParker.Com, friend her on facebook, or follow her on Twitter.

Romney rides off into the sunset, as big a dick as always

By kos

Mitt Romney didn't lose because he was awful and the GOP message was awful and the rest of the Republican Party was awful. No, it was because President Barack Obama gave people free shit.

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest, was a big gift,” he said. “Free contraceptives were very big with young college-aged women. And then, finally, Obama care also made a difference for them, because as you know, anybody now 26 years of age and younger was now going to be part of their parents’ plan, and that was a big gift to young people.

They turned out in large numbers, a larger share in this election even than in 2008.

”The president’s health care plan, he added, was also a useful tool in mobilizing African-American and Hispanic voters. Though Mr. Romney won the white vote with 59 percent, according to exit polls, minorities coalesced around the president in overwhelming numbers — 93 percent of blacks and 71 percent of Hispanics voted to re-elect Mr. Obama.

“You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity, I mean, this is huge,” he said. “Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus. But in addition with regards to Hispanic voters, the amnesty for children of illegals, the so-called Dream Act kids, was a huge plus for that voting group.”

 Phew! He no longer has to pretend that his 47 percent remarks were "just completely wrong."
He can go back to his belief that 47 percent of Americans are leeches on society. And bragging to his country club friends about all the NASCAR team owners he knows, as if anyone gives a shit.

Dear President Obama, Please do not sit down with Romney

Respectfully, after Romney's horrendously racist summation to his donors, as to why he thinks he lost, sitting down and speaking with him would be slap in the face to those who voted for you.

Mr. Romney has forfeited any right to have any input at all. Perhaps you and your team think it's good politics and a good optic to have Mr. Romney to the White House. I don't believe that's so. It legitimizes the racist and classicist tripe that both Mr. Romney and Representative Ryan are spreading.

Sincerely,

a supporter.

And now a message from sore fucking racist loser Mitt Romney

Romney Says Obama Only Won Because He Gave ‘Big Gifts’ To Blacks And Latinos

By Igor Volsky

Mitt Romney is attributing his loss in the 2012 election to the “gifts” President Obama gave to minority voters, the Los Angeles Times is reporting. Speaking to donors on Wednesday, the former Massachusetts governor praised his own campaign, but speculated that Obama won because he was “very generous” to his base:

Mitt Romney told his top donors Wednesday that his loss to President Obama was a disappointing result that neither he or his top aides had expected, but said he believed his team ran a “superb” campaign with “no drama,” and attributed his rival’s victory to “the gifts” the administration had given to blacks, Hispanics and young voters during Obama’s first term.

Obama, Romney argued, had been “very generous” to blacks, Hispanics and young voters. He cited as motivating factors to young voters the administration’s plan for partial forgiveness of college loan interest and the extension of health coverage for students on their parents’ insurance plans well into their 20s. Free contraception coverage under Obama’s healthcare plan, he added, gave an extra incentive to college-aged women to back the president.

“The President’s campaign,” he said, “focused on giving targeted groups a big gift—so he made a big effort on small things. Those small things, by the way, add up to trillions of dollars.”

The comments echo the claims Romney made during a private high-dollar fundraiser earlier this year. In the video first published by Mother Jones, Romney argued that 47 percent of Americans are “dependent upon government.”

UPDATE

The New York Times has more quotes: “Our campaign, in contrast, was talking about big issues for the whole country —military strategy, foreign policy, a strong economy, creating jobs and so forth,” he said. “And by the way, as you’ll hear from Neil, our strategy worked well with many people, but for those who were given a specific gift, if you will, our strategy did not work terribly well.”

http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/11/14/1193471/romney-says-obama-only-won-because-he-gave-big-gifts-to-blacks-and-latinos/

It has been a week and one day since President Obama kicked Mitt Romney's ass!



http://www.democraticunderground.com/101778182