Romney Uses Middle East Crises for Political Gain - Epic Failure

Romney while trying to look Presidential instead looks like a political opportunist who does not have the best interest of the United States at heart as only his own personal aspirations count.

Where did Romney learn about the American Embassy Memo release about the video and the fact that it could set off riots?  It is alleged he worked on the press release for several hours, they embargoed the release, and it came out right after the State Department had learned at least one person had been killed.  Did he get the information from the intelligence briefing that is given to official candidates?  If it was, then Romney should only receive an overview of a national security briefing in the future.  The Romney news conference was a sham and absolutely disgusting since it happened before the President spoke to the American people.  Romney and the RNC Chair comments both were wrong about Lybya and are an embarrassment.  

Romney just accused Obama of not being truthful when Romney is the one who lies all the time.  How can he even say such a thing?  We all know Romney lies and doesn't believe in fact checking -- that is a fact.  Looks like Republicans are tanking for a reason with a candidate with zero integrity and empathy.  All Romney/Ryan are doing right now is pure politics when we have an ongoing foreign crises.  Neither one deserves to be near the White House.  

As a Republican I find Romney/Ryan and their comments this week reprehensible along with Republicans like Portman and RNC Chair Priebus who defended his comments without the facts.  When Portman admitted he didn't know about the memo from the American Embassy in Cairo when questioned by Norah O'Donnell he continued defending Romney anyway.  Says all you need to know.  Romney surrogates are saying what they are told to say and in the process are losing any ounce of integrity they have gained over the years. (Note:  I don't normally use the Daily KOS as a source but since I saw this interview myself and their comments said what I saw I am using them.  Conservative sites are lying or I didn't see and hear what I saw and heard.)

Most of the diplomatic corp is made up of non-partisan foreign service officers who work for Administrations of both parties and stay on the job even when there is a change at the Ambassador level.  Here is what a Foreign Service Officer has to say about the thought of a Romney becoming President:

09.14.2012 — 09:33 AMA Foreign Service Officer’s LamentFrom a Foreign Service Officer  

It’s probably not a surprise. But can I just say that if Mitt Romney wins in November, he is going to have a very chilly reception from his employees every time he goes abroad? I don’t think I can quite state the rage we’re all feeling towards him.

Josh Marshall 

Today Romney finally got around to condemning the anti-Muslim film or as Josh Marshall put it Apologizing to the Muslim Rioters which is what he accused President Obama of doing:

09.14.2012 — 11:20 AM

BREAKING: Romney Apologizes to Muslim Rioters 

AKA, condemns the anti-Muslim film now roiling the Middle East, like the White House and State Department did. 

Josh Marshall

Finally someone took on Sean Hannity who thinks he is a foreign policy expert -- he couldn't even carry McCain's briefcase IMHO.  Hannity, Rush, Levin and others should have used some common sense and lowered the rhetoric in the middle of an ongoing crises in the Middle East but they piled on the President treating him like he had no policy.  The one without a policy is their candidate Romney.  Finding the conservative media for the most part disgusting, unethical, and refuse to acknowledge the truth just like Hannity did with Senator McCain:

McCain to Hannity: Fox 'wrong about Libya'
By MACKENZIE WEINGER |
9/14/12 3:23 PM EDT 

Sen. John McCain on Thursday night clashed with Sean Hannity, telling the Fox News host that he and others on the network “were wrong about Libya.” 

McCain's remarks came after Hannity claimed he had accurately predicted that the Muslim Brotherhood would take control of Egypt, and pressed the Arizona Republican on why the Obama administration was not able to foresee this week's attacks on U.S. diplomats in North Africa. 

“How is it that Sean Hannity and a few others of us out here predicted with pinpoint accuracy that the Muslim Brotherhood would be in charge in Egypt? Their first task when they took over the Parliament was to declare Israel, our closest ally, an enemy. First, their number one enemy,” Hannity said. “How is it that the administration with all their intelligence and all the money we spend to help them and the CIA — how is it that they didn’t see this coming? And they kept telling the American people, this is democracy. Democracy. I don’t view the Muslim Brotherhood as democracy. They want Sharia law implemented now in Egypt.” 

McCain pushed back, telling Hannity that “that’s not clear that that’s true” and that he and Fox News were wrong with their take on the elections in Libya. 

“But also it was you and people on Fox that said in Libya, ‘we didn’t know who they were and let’s not help these people.’ They had an election and they elected moderates. They rejected Islamists,” McCain said. “And yes, there are Al Qaeda factors and there are extremists in Libya today, but the Libyan people are friends of ours, and they support us, and they support democracy. So you were wrong about Libya.” 

“I don’t think I was wrong about Libya at all,” Hannity replied. 

McCain jumped in, telling Hannity, “Yes I do, I know you were.” 

“No, I was not,” the Fox News host said. 

“I know you were. They had a free and fair election, and a democratic non-Islamic government was elected. So you were wrong,” McCain said. 

Hannity then said he was surprised McCain wasn’t siding with him. 

“They didn’t think the Muslim Brotherhood would take over? This is a known terror organization. We say we’re fighting a war on terror, we’re apologizing, our government, to Egypt after they raid our embassy and rip our flag down?” Hannity said. “Frankly, Senator, I would think you are with me on this.” 

The interview wrapped after McCain replied, “I am not taking the side of the administration. I am saying that the largest nation in the Arab world is something we have to carefully calibrate our actions with.” 

Source:  Politico

The arrogance of Hannity that McCain should agree with him is more then disgusting, it is despicable.  Then you have Sarah Palin accusing the President of palling around with terrorists who made a fool of herself last night attacking President Obama.  Why is Fox News even interviewing Palin?  Her comments are always strange and show a lack of comprehension about the issues.

Then we have this article which words fail me that this man is involved in a Presidential campaign and is someone who Romney relies on -- these words by and adviser are beyond reprehensible.  Mitt Romney is despicable to keep people like this on his staff.  It shows Romney has no integrity at all left as he panders to the Tea Party and far right fringe by keeping someone like this on his staff:

Top Romney Adviser Faults Obama For Murder Of U.S. Ambassador, Claims Romney Would Have Prevented AttackBy Judd Legum on Sep 13, 2012 at 11:30 pm 

The Romney campaign has escalated their attacks on President Obama following the murder of four Americans, including the ambassador, in Libya. In an interview with the Washington Post, Mitt Romney’s top foreign policy adviser pinned the blame for the attacks squarely on Obama and flatly claimed they would not have happened if Romney had been president:
Advisers to Mitt Romney on Thursday defended his sharp criticism of President Obama and said that the deadly protests sweeping the Middle East would not have happened if the Republican nominee were president. 

“There’s a pretty compelling story that if you had a President Romney, you’d be in a different situation,” Richard Williamson, a top Romney foreign policy adviser, said in an interview. “For the first time since Jimmy Carter, we’ve had an American ambassador assassinated.”

Previously, Romney, his campaign and the Republican Party accused Obama of “sympathizing” with the terrorists who killed Americans in the hours after the attack. The accusation quickly recieved widespread, bipartisan condemnation. Romney then repeated the charge.  

Source:  Think Progress

Mitt Romney has no core so he has adopted the core of the Tea Party and far right fringe it seems by following the "Southern strategy" which he seems to be doing to get elected:

In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party strategy of winning elections or to gain political support in the Southern section of the country by appealing to racism against African Americans

This Romney/Tea Party Republican Party is going to lose a lot of Republicans with this Southern strategy which has moved into the north with voter suppression.  When Republicans take their blinders off and see them for what they are -- a group of bigoted people, they are going to vote against this group.  I didn't like Palin in 2008 when she ran with McCain -- thought her comments were over the top time and time again.  I voted for McCain not Palin.

I am so happy I took my blinders completely off this time.  Thanks to Mitt Romney I am seeing today's Republican Party for what it is -- no core, no ethics, and bigoted.  Senator McCain called out the fringe elements in 2008 while Romney embraces them in 2012.

Ron Reagan said it best:  Romney does not look Presidential -- he has a lack of character and judgement!

Mitt Bain Capital Document Lists Mitt Romney As 'Managing Member' In 2002

How are Romney and his Romneybots going to spin this one?  Romney has backed himself into a corner and frankly couldn't happen to a better person.

Are the leaders of the Republican Party going to be dumb enough to nominate Romney after the evidence is piling up that Romney's visit to the five networks on Friday night to say he had nothing to do with Bain after 1999 was an outright LIE?  One of the anchors Friday night said they believed that Romney doing his act Friday night on Bain along with not releasing tax returns was going to cause more investigation and that is exactly what has happened.  Michael Steele said basically the same thing.

Was Michael Steele undermined at the RNC so he could be taken out and put a Romney loyalists in his place to make sure Romney got the nomination?  That would go along with the modus operandi of this group of Romney people who have completed a hostile takeover of the Republican Party with the help of the Koch Brothers and others.  Don't recognize today's Republican Party who could care less about the middle class or poor as they pander to the wealthy donors and hold up legislation that would help the economy.

Had to wonder when I saw he had his retirement from Bain backdated to 1999 if there wasn't something suspicious.  But people like me didn't have a clue about Romney who I said he was unethical as I have been told many times.  There is only one problem -- opposition research from 2008 when a lot of us worked for other candidates.  I am proud to say that I was member of the Rudy team before he was taken out by the far right -- same far right who has now teamed up with Romney who was as a liberal for MA Governor in 2002.  He is the perfect chameleon candidate who changes depending on the audience.  That same Romney who in 2001 was head of Bain when they invested in a company that disposed of  'aborted fetuses' per Andrew Sullivan of The Daily Beast.  The usual comeback is that Sullivan is a liberal but he has the evidence and unlike some Republican journalists this time around, he is not making it up.  It has been out there waiting for the media to investigate.

What has happened to honesty and integrity in the Republican Party this election and looks like back in 2010?  From the Congressional Republicans holding up bills that might make Obama look good, to lying that they were working with the President, and turning into pretzels to support Romney for President early on which made no sense, it makes you wonder about anything the GOP is saying today.  What happened to the GOP backbones?  Are they so entrenched with the wealthy that when a member of leadership, Cantor, bets against the US Treasury to make money that he doesn't get a reprimand.  What kind of Majority Leader bets against the US?  But then he is the same one who donated money to an organization trying to take out incumbents including some TX Republicans who won big.  This is a microcosm of today's Republican leaders who put party and big donors ahead of the American people.  Why should any of us be shocked that they refuse to take action on Romney?

Republicans are going into the fall election most likely with an outright liar heading the ticket which brings back memories of John Kerry who Republicans savaged for lying which they should have and I was one who was thoroughly disgusted with his lies.  He couldn't tell the truth about his time in Vietnam and Romney cannot tell the truth about his time at Bain.  Why?  We can go for a trifecta and ask what is in the drinking water in MA that causes their politicians to lie because Sen Scott Brown (R-MA) keeps talking all these imaginary phone calls he gets from Democrats and world leaders.  He was poised to keep his seat before his foot in mouth took over -- now it is toss up.

The Alabama Governor, Robert Bently, along with NRCC Chair Pete Sessions have called for Romney to release his tax returns.  Michael Steele did the same on Friday night, Bill Kristol has joined the chorus, and we expect that chorus to get louder.  What is Romney hiding that he was so arrogant to say only two years of tax returns was enough when his Father released many more?

Huffington Post authors have discovered one more piece of evidence to add to the pile -- this one from Bain itself in 2002 -- is that going to be another lie according to Romney and his surrogates?

A corporate document filed with the state of Massachusetts in December 2002 -- a month after Romney was elected governor -- lists him as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors, LLC "authorized to execute, acknowledge, deliver and record any recordable instrument purporting to affect an interest in real property, whether to be recorded with a Registry of Deeds or with a District Office of the Land Court." 

Yet Romney told the Feds in August 2011 in his federal disclosure that he retired from Bain on Feb 11, 1999, but we know that retirement was backdated to 1999 AFTER he won the Governorship of MA in 2002.  That was confirmed this morning by a Romney spokesman saying that it was a retroactive retirement to 1999 and Romney didn't have anything to do with Bain.  Lies keep mounting up because he told the MA Ethics Commissions when trying to get on the ballot for Governor that he had taken a leave of absence from Bain to work for the Olympics but has been reported he took numerous trips back to MA to participate in Board Meetings, Thanksgiving, etc.  Yet Romney goes on TV Friday night and says he had nothing to do with Bain after he left for the Olympics in 1999.  Is he lying now or did he lie on documents earlier.  Going out on a limb here and say he is lying now.  Doesn't have to be a big limb to support that one.

How many of you would like to take a retroactive retirement and get paid for it?  Bet most would but you see we are not wealthy so those rules don't apply to all of us.

If he thinks any of this is going away, he needs to think again.  For the good of the Republican Party he could come clean with his lies, pull out of the race, and allow the Republican Party to have an Open Convention but that would take honesty and integrity along with ethics which are missing with Mitt Romney.  In the meantime the Chairman of the RNC Priebus and others who orchestrated this crooked primary process need to resign immediately.  They have disgraced the Republican Party with choosing Romney as the nominee.  Anyone who thinks the primaries were fair haven't been reading where one state was proportioned and another wasn't, or missing ballot boxes, dead voters, multi-state voters, turning people away from voting in caucuses or running a shadow GOP in NV for starters when they didn't like the person who was elected to head the GOP at the Convention for starters.  How about the debates where the RNC Chair scheduled and picked the moderators and kept people out of the debates that might show up Romney like former Gov of NM Gary Johnson.

Only hope for the Republican Party in November is to have an Open Convention IMHO!  If they go down the road with Romney and his lies and arrogance, expect collateral damage to the GOP Congressional races in November.  I am not enjoying seeing what Romney and his supporters have done to the Republican Party along with the Koch Brothers and their meddling, but I am enjoying the mess Romney has gotten himself in after what he has done to candidate after candidate to fulfill the Mormon prophecy of becoming President.  He didn't even follow his Father's lead who I believe was an honorable person who did release tax returns.  Doesn't phase his son as he is always right and the anyone who questions him is called names by his surrogates like socialist, communists, traitor, and the list goes on.

I put my principles over my Party so no way do I support or vote for the MA liberal Romney who has a problem with the truth and if people don't like it, don't talk to me because I could less.  I will not vote for a candidate who I know to be unethical who has no integrity just because there is an (R) behind their name.  Not happening.

Mitt Romney Bain Capital Document Lists Him As 'Managing Member' In 2002
Ryan Grim and Jason Cherkis
Posted: 07/15/2012 9:36 am Updated: 07/15/2012 10:40 am

WASHINGTON -- Add another document to the pile of evidence contradicting Mitt Romney's continued insistence that he ended his active role with Bain Capital in early 1999, part of his long-running effort to avoid responsibility for the company's activity, related to outsourcing and bankruptcies, during the years that followed. 

A corporate document filed with the state of Massachusetts in December 2002 -- a month after Romney was elected governor -- lists him as one of two managing members of Bain Capital Investors, LLC "authorized to execute, acknowledge, deliver and record any recordable instrument purporting to affect an interest in real property, whether to be recorded with a Registry of Deeds or with a District Office of the Land Court." 

In August 2011, Romney told federal authorities, as part of the financial disclosure process, that he "retired from Bain Capital on February 11, 1999 to head the Salt Lake Organizing Committee [for the 2002 Winter Olympics]. Since February 11, 1999, Mr. Romney has not had any active role with any Bain Capital entity and has not been involved in the operations of any Bain Capital entity in any way."

Bain Capital Investors is a Bain Capital entity. 

Previously reported evidence shows that Romney was listed as the CEO, chairman and president of the company after 1999 in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission; took a six-figure salary; signed corporate documents related to major and minor deals and attended board meetings for at least two Bain-affiliated companies. The state document was filed two and a half years after Romney now says he retired from the company, demonstrating his deep and ongoing connection to the firm. 

The mountain of evidence that Romney had a connection to the firm after 1999 leaves him with two possible explanations, neither of them political appealing: Either Romney was officially in charge of the company but took no actual responsibility for it, or he was involved then and is either lying or shading the truth now. 

The latter has its obvious drawbacks, and the former doesn't paint Romney as a portrait of stand-up leadership. President Barack Obama over the weekend seized on Romney's attempt to shed responsibility for the company he officially ran, arguing that a U.S. president doesn't have the luxury of picking and choosing when he's responsible for what happens on his watch.
"Ultimately, I think, Mr. Romney is going to have to answer those questions because if he aspires to being president, one of the things you learn is you're ultimately responsible for the conduct of your operations," Obama said in an interview with the District of Columbia's WJLA-TV. 

It's a line of attack Obama employed with deftness against his Republican opponent in 2008, when Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) suspended his presidential campaign to address the financial meltdown. 

"Presidents are going to have to deal with more than one thing at a time," Obama said then, rejecting McCain's request to postpone debates. "It’s not necessary for us to think that we can do only one thing, and suspend everything else." 

On Friday evening, Romney responded to the barrage of Bain reporting and attacks by the Obama camp by scheduling a raft of interviews with major media outlets, during which he repeated his claim that he had had nothing to do with Bain after 1999. 

Source:  Huffington Post

Romney Speaks to NAACP and House Republicans Vote for the 33rd Time to Repeal "Obamacare"

Do you remember when the Republicans used to make fun of Clinton/Gore for busing supporters to their events and then Gore when he ran against George W. Bush?  It was a Democrat deal where their supporters would get a free lunch and be bused to the events.  Lo and behold, it is no longer a Democrat ONLY deal as Mitt Romney has co-opted the Democrats by:

Even Later Update, 10:58pm: And Roland Martin of TV One's Washington Watch, tweeted earlier today: "Romney bussed in about 200 supporters, including a number of African Americans, including Fla Lt Gov Jennifer Carroll."

Turns out those black leaders Romney touted he spoke with at the NAACP to Fox News were all people he brought in so he could get applause which is Democrat lite but then Romney has stacked his Town Halls including in 2008 with fellow Mormons and planted questions.  The people at the NAACP Convention were respectful of Romney for showing up but it looks like that respect was a one-way street.  Romney went on to say he knew he would be booed when he used 'Obamacare' instead of the real title 'Affordable Health Care Act' so why did he use that term which many blacks consider a slur against Obama?  Was it really so he could show the right how conservative he was to go into the NAACP and used Obamacare knowing he would get booed as has been alleged?  Sure looks like it after he had this to say at the fundraiser he attended after the event:

"If they are looking for free stuff, look to the other guy" (Mitt Romney, 7/11/2012)

With that statement, he is slandering blacks like they are all lazy who belong to the NAACP which is not the case.  It is the oldest Civil Rights organization in America -- don't always agree with some of their leaders and what they have to say or support, but also am not dumb enough to think they are all looking for free stuff.  Bet the Romney reception at the NAACP Convention after the facts have come out would not be close to the same as he received yesterday.

As a Republican and former party office holder, I find Romney and the people surrounding him an embarrassment and their tactics offensive and disgusting but then many of us have considered Romney Dem-lite from Day One.  The days of Ronald Reagan Republicans have come and gone when we could expect a large number of blacks to vote for the Party that gave them their civil rights.  That party has been replaced by a lot of former Democrats from the south and other places who decided to become Republican to get elected.  It is not a good fit for those of us who believed in working across the aisle for all Americans not just a select few rich donors and lobbyist we see today who have bought and paid for some Republican members of the Congress now.  Looks like a lot of this goes back to Abramoff and has gotten worse.  They are acting like Democrats.  When I see Republicans accusing Democrats of what they are doing, I cringe because that is an old Democrat tactic.

For more details on the Romney speech to the NAACP from the perspective of people who were there, please visit MSNBC

Did you know that Republicans in the House have voted 33 times to repeal and replace the Affordable Healthcare Law?  There is one slight problem -- there is no replacement.  Last night, the word came out that 1/3 of all major votes in the House since Republicans took over have been to repeal and replace the Affordable Healthcare Law so 33 times the Republicans in the House have lied since there is NO replacement?

I have to admit that I burst out laughing at the clip of Democrat Congressman Al Green from Texas last night on the floor of the House who said his district had demanded he read the original bill and the replacement bill before voting.  He went on to say he was now going to read half of the replacement bill -- silence -- then he was going to read the other half -- silence and then the whole replacement bill -- silence.  The look on his face was worth a 1,000 words:

Have to give it up to Cong Green for his comments. This is one of those it doesn't make a difference which party, it is just funny and humor always wins when it is showing the truth. Makes the House Republican leadership look stupid and inept.  We have some on our side like Mike Pence who I could see doing similar if the rolls were reversed.  

This would be even funnier if it wasn't highlighting on the floor of the House the total disregard by the Republican leadership for the truth about a replacement bill.  Integrity seem to be missing from a lot of people on both sides of the aisle in Congress today which many of us are finding despicable and frankly not what the Founding Fathers had in mind for members of Congress.  How did we get such unethical people elected that used to be honest before they started making their millions while members of Congress?  Doesn't anyone question where all that money comes from when some could barely rub two cents together when elected?  It is both sides of the aisle who are for sale to the highest bidder not just one side.  Maybe the calls for anyone tainted by the Abramoff scandal to resign should have been heeded.  There is an Ethics Committee in the House that has trouble actually going after members for being corrupt no matter who is in charge.  

In a conversation this week with other Republicans, we all came to the same conclusion that the honest members of Congress are vastly outnumbered by those in the hip pocket of lobbyists and big donors on both sides.  I got in a disagreement with someone earlier this year who said 'kick them all out and start over' because I have two honest Senators.  He was right for the most part and I told him so yesterday.  When you have a candidate running who has numerous offshore accounts along with many other wealthy people who cost the US Treasury a $100,000,000,000 (yes it is $100B in lost tax revenue a year) with their offshore accounts, it makes you wonder where are the ethical people in this Country?  It doesn't look to be in politics.

On the radio on the way back from Denver on Monday, heard someone suggest that a new bill be put into law that NO former members of Congress can be a lobbyist -- make them go HOME when their time is up.  That may be the best recommendation for a new law I have heard in years.  I would also extend it to the high ranking military and civil service who retire and go to work for major defense contractors who then lobby members of Congress.  

Then there was the guy who said that he was never for term limits for Congress but has changed his mind since so many members of Congress consider it a permanent job today.  Dr. Tom Coburn (R-OK) said when he was elected to the US Senate, he would voluntarily only serve two terms.  Wish we had more Dr. Coburns and less Harry Reid's or Orrin Hatch's who have been there way too long. 

Have a great day and my sympathies go out if you are in a battleground state and are getting bombarded with ads from both candidates.  Might make some people decide to get a DVR, record their shows, and watch later with NO commercials.  This could be a boon for the makers of the DVR which is optional with cable and satellite.  I would highly recommend you get one until after the election if you like to watch TV.

Romney super PAC donors put at credit card risk with Lack of Online Security

Why turn off security on donations?  Only one reason and that is so a campaign can take money from people normally ineligible to give like foreign contributors.  No security and you can use prepaid credit cards so no one knows for sure who gave.  Turning off security has been part of the Democrat plan when Obama was running.  If you use prepaid cards, you cannot track the person who donated.  We have been saying the Romney camp was being run like the Democrats and looks like that could be a true statement.

Late Thursday, Restore Our Future issued a written statement saying: “Because we will be targeted by hackers based on your story, we made the switchover today.” It added a secured donation page and left the old one intact. Ms. Gross did not say that the group would notify those affected. 

The surprisingly amateur digital public face of the group that has had an enormous influence on the presidential campaign is telling about the nature of super PACs. While the presidential candidates bombard email lists with daily pleas for donations, the idea that a casual Romney supporter might be stirred to send money to the PAC seemed almost an afterthought.   

The Super PAC would have left the security hole open if not for this article from the Washington Times as they were afraid of being hacked.  By not notifying the donors that their information could be comprised shows a great lack of concern about those donors.  Anyone donating to Romney or his Super PAC better think twice if they want their information to be secure because this group doesn't seem to care as long as Romney gets his money.   This campaign's lack of ethics is astounding and even more is their lack of caring about donor information:

Romney super PAC donors put at credit card risk
Online security called lacking
By Luke Rosiak-
The Washington Times Thursday, May 3, 2012  

 The political fund that has raised more than $50 million to support Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidency has been collecting money online with a system so insecure that it exposes donors’ credit card information to even casual snoopers. 

Computer-security specialists say that using such low-tech systems can violate laws and that the group should notify anyone who has donated. 

Restore Our Future, the super PAC helmed by former top Romney campaign officials that runs ads attacking the former Massachusetts governor’s opponents, has for months been accepting credit card information without any type of security, leaving the card numbers easily accessible. 

“Quite frankly, the lack of credit card data protection on the site is unconscionable, and there is no excuse for it,” said Diana Kelley, an analyst at the technology firm SecurityCurve, which reviewed the site. “They should stop taking card data until the problem is remediated and should notify their donors that their card numbers were at risk and may have been compromised.” 

The lack of basic, standard methods for dealing with personal information means anyone on the same wireless network could effortlessly record a donor’s credit card number as it is submitted. The numbers also could be stored in the browser, and people could later use the publicly available donor lists to target contributors with a solicitation that would unknowingly cause the information to be sent to them. 

It also could indicate deeper problems that could jeopardize the financial information of some of the wealthiest men in America, technologists said. 

“This is pretty bad. It’s very unprofessional. And if a developer doesn’t know how to provide SSL security, it’s probably a safe bet that his server isn’t storing donors’ credit card information in a secure way, either. You’d be a fool to donate money through this form,” said Tom Lee, a computer programmer at the Sunlight Foundation, which studies money in politics.
SSL security is a protocol known as “secure socket layer” for encrypting information over the Internet. 

Told of the security hole Wednesday, Restore Our Future spokeswoman Brittany Gross did not express concern and would not say how many have given to the campaign via credit cards.

Excerpt:  Read More at The Washington Times 

If the FEC doesn't demand all the records from this Super PAC, they are not doing their job.  The following practice of the Romney Super PAC is so wrong they should be shut down and banned from participating in political campaigns.  IMHO, they are crooked:

The lack of a polished presence on the Web — its main pro-Romney pitch is titled “sample-page” — highlights broader absences. The super PAC has no office or phone number. No staffers appear on its payroll. A money machine for television ads, it deals in the millions of dollars with almost no organizational presence and often pays it out not to the actual recipient of the money, but to corporations designed as conduits. 

For his efforts in wooing donors, former Romney aide Steve C. Roche recently paid himself an $800,000 “fundraising commission” — through a payment to “Podium Capital Group” at a post office box. 

The maker of the super PAC’s website says it will create similar sites in as little as one day and for as little as $500, but disclosures in which political committees must detail how they spend their money also list no payments to that company.

It is more obvious by the day that the Romney campaign and its Super PAC are not ethical as rules don't apply to them.  Is this what a Romney Administration would be?  Rules are for the little people not the privileged?  This is worse then the Democrats in some ways.  They turn off security along with having a webpage they will develop to hide who you are by using post office boxes.  They are breaking every rule in the book to hide donations.

We have Karl Rove's Crossroads who doesn't have to reveal donors and now Restore our Future Super PAC who turns off security and openly flaunts the rules of the FEC.  What has happened to the Republican Party or are we just now finding out what has been going on behind the scenes for years as they were better at hiding their moves.  Since I donated to President GW Bush and always has to provide my security number from the back of the card, I believe it is the new way of doing business that Rove along with Soros started exploiting to the stage it is out of control.  Seems they believe that the only way to win a major election is to buy it using millions of dollars and unethical attacks.

No money in politics for any group should be secret on who the donor is as we need to know who is funding these campaigns.  I don't care if it is 5 cents or $100,000 that is donated as long as it is full disclosure as to who gave so we know who is really behind these campaigns.   These Super PACs are so far out of control on the Republican side it is embarrassing especially with Restore our Future who truly believes according to what we are finding out that no rules apply to them.

We had already heard that the Romney camp was making up phony companies names to hide donors and now according to the article it is true.

Romney and his campaign are rivaling Obama's in 2008 for lack of ethics and accountability.  I didn't think it was possible but the Romney camp may have taken it to a new low level in order to win the election for Romney.  Why would anyone vote for a candidate that has shown such poor judgement in his campaign from 'scorched earth' against other Republican candidates, obvious coordination with the Super PAC as people move from one part of the campaign to the Super PAC and back, and now this -- no security for major donors?  If he willing to skirt the laws as a candidate then what would he do as President?  This is so Nixonian that it is scary.

Michigan GOP Changes Delegate Rules (After the Vote), Gives Primary Edge to Romney

Have suspected that the Romney campaign is ethically challenged when it comes to voting with all the irregularities in states where he has won starting in Iowa with the eight missing ballot boxes that were never found and then there was the little problem that they couldn't add the numbers.

Now because Romney got mad, the Michigan GOP wants to change the rules AFTER the vote.  They want to take a delegate that Santorum won fair and square and give it to Romney.  One delegate doesn't sound like much but what if Romney won the nomination by one delegate?

It is time for Mitt Romney to bow out of the Republican Primary and take his 'scorched earth' policy with him.    In 2008, the Clinton campaign complained about voter fraud and intimidation along with changing of rules in favor of the Obama campaign. In fact some think they stopped the voting at the convention because she was going to win.

Now one of the Republican candidates doesn't see anything wrong with changing the rules AFTER the vote.  That is not Republican and it is past time for Romney to exit stage left.  If he gets mad because Republicans  ask him to leave then let him go elsewhere because if he is the nominee, there are a lot of Republicans who will be looking for a new home.  If our leadership is too weak to do anything, then they need to exit right along with Romney.

Already there is going to be a challenge at the convention on Florida not following the rules of proportioning delegates, VA is crooked to keep people off the ballot, Iowa as stated had the missing ballot boxes and couldn't seem to add up the numbers which finally gave Santorum the win not Romney, NH had dead voters, Maine announced Romney won without the results from two counties which won't be available until after Super Tuesday, Nevada took days to count and turned away voters not supporting Romney, and then there is FL high rises with the absentee ballot fiasco once again where voters are registered in two and some in three states and they just happened to go heavily for Romney where the Romney people spent a lot of time.  See a pattern?  Romney wins and you find out about the cheating.  Then there is the classic from VA where only two candidates are on the ballot and the GOP Governor is a Romney person.

Don't think I have ever been as embarrassed or as disgusted as a Republican as I am having Romney even running with his dirty shenanigans representing the Republican Party.  He thinks money solves it all and why he should be elected as he spends more money.  You cannot buy class or ethics no matter how rich you are.  It is his choice to spend the money and it is our choice to demand he leave the race and continue to vote for other candidates.  

This email from the Santorum campaign and my reading the ABC article sent me through the roof.  Even some Romney supporters say it is not right.  Looks like he bought and paid for the Chair of Michigan GOP like he did FL, NV, NH, ME, VA, and IA where the Chair did resign.  Think there should be more resignations by the GOP Chairs.

Sharon 

There is breaking news about an election scandal in Michigan. 

ABC News headline states: "Michigan GOP Changes Delegate Rules, Gives Primary Edge to Romney" and the Associated Press states "Michigan GOP changes delegate award after vote." 

Last night there was an unannounced closed-door secret meeting of the Michigan Republican Party credentialing committee. During the meeting, they voted 4 to 2 to allocate delegates differently than was previously stated in a memorandum that was issued to all of the campaigns. One of the 2 dissenting votes was Former Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, a Romney supporter, who stated: "I have this crazy idea that you follow the rules. I'd love to give the at-large delegates to Mitt Romney, but our rules provide for strict apportionment." 

We’ve all heard rumors that Mitt Romney was furious that he spent a fortune in his home state, had all the political establishment connections and could only tie Rick Santorum. It appears that he has now called on those establishment connections to orchestrate a back room deal to allocate additional delegates to him that he did not earn. 

Changing the rules after the election is something that happens in Iran, but not in America. This type of political maneuvering should not be tolerated. 

Please stay tuned as we learn more about what the Romney campaign "establishment" insiders are up to in Michigan. 

Mike BiundoCampaign Manager

Here is the article from ABC that was referenced in the Santorum email:

Mar 1, 2012 4:40pm
Michigan GOP Changes Delegate Rules, Gives Primary Edge to Romney 

The Michigan Republican Party voted to break a delegate tie Wednesday night, awarding 16 delegates to Mitt Romney and 14 to Rick Santorum. 

The decision, which broke a 15-15 tie that would have resulted under the pre-primary interpretation of the rules, caused disbelief at Rick Santorum’s campaign. A spokesman rejected the decision. 

Even Romney supporters in the Michigan GOP said the decision was unfair to Santorum. 

“I have this crazy idea that you follow the rules,” said former Attorney General Mike Cox said after a 4-2 vote by a Michigan GOP credentialing committee, according to the AP. “I’d love to give the at-large delegates to Mitt Romney, but our rules provide for strict apportionment.” 

Santorum had claimed partial victory and ABC News projected a delegate tie from Michigan’s Tuesday primary based on the rules as originally laid out by the Michigan GOP.
Romney won the popular vote 41 percent to Santorum’s 38 percent. 

There could be a lot of fuss over this one delegate. The notion of a delegate tie has encapsulated the Santorum campaign’s spin on Michigan, but perhaps more importantly, Santorum is counting on an energized conservative, tea-party base to oppose Romney for the rest of the primary season. Winning this one delegate could hurt Romney more than it helps him, if the Michigan GOP’s contradiction gins up an added sense of injustice in the anti-Romney contingent of GOP primary voters. 

Before the primary, party officials repeatedly explained the rules as splitting the two at-large delegates between any candidate getting more than 15 percent of the vote. Under that interpretation, as laid out by party officials, Santorum should have gotten an at-large delegate.
Santorum’s campaign accused Romney’s campaign of trying to rig the results. 

“There’s just no way this is happening,” Santorum communications director Hogan Gidley said in an email statement to press after the Michigan GOP’s announcement. “We never thought the Romney campaign would try to rig the outcome of an election by changing the rules after the vote. This kind of backroom dealing political thug-ery [sic] just doesn’t happen in America.”
There was no evidence Thursday to show Romney’s campaign was involved with the delegate allocation. 

Santorum’s campaign had declared Michigan a tie in delegates after the vote, predicting that the two candidates would each win 15 delegates. The campaign based its prediction on news reports, published county vote results, and “anecdotal evidence” that each candidate would win 15 delegates. 

“This is not a win for Mitt Romney. This is a tie in his home state,” senior Santorum strategist John Brabender told reporters on conference call Wednesday morning. 

ABC News projected the 15-15 delegate allocation would hold true, based on how the Michigan GOP had explained its delegate-allocation system. In Michigan, delegates are mostly awarded by congressional district, with each district awarding two delegates on a winner-take-all basis. The state’s two at-large delegates were to be doled out proportionally to candidates who beat a 15-percent threshold.   

Excerpt:  Read More at ABC

Now we know that Michigan GOP is dishonest because the rules for awarding delegates they briefed before the election has now changed after the election because Santorum tied Romney for delegates.  Did the Michigan GOP Chair think they could do this and Republicans would just sit down and shut up like some of us have been told by Romney people?  Not happening!

Howard Kurtz: The Truth about Roger Ailes and the Orlando Debate

Once again you have to go to The Daily Beast to find out the facts because it is obvious that you are not going to get the facts from Fox News now.  When I first went after Fox News during the Gulf War as not being as conservative as they claimed, I was clobbered on site after site but I maintained Fox News was scamming conservatives.  To me anyone cable news or network who kept Geraldo after what he pulled during the Gulf War was not a legitimate news organization.  I can truthfully say it has been confirmed that I was 100% right on Roger Ailes and Fox News owned by Murdoch's News Corp.

Guess Ailes didn't want Pawlenty touting Romney when he already has Rove who pretends he is just a pundit when anyone with a brain knows he is out to tank Perry and will use whatever to ensure that Jeb Bush can run in 2016.  It is not secret and has not been for sometime.

Three weeks after dropping out of the race, Tim Pawlenty showed up to ask for a gig at Fox. But there was a complication: Pawlenty was on the verge of endorsing Romney. “I’m not sure I want to sign you as a paid spokesman for Romney,” Ailes said.

What do some conservatives think of Fox News now that Ailes wants to tank the Republican candidates?  Who does it benefit?  Obama of course and a continuation of soft money so the rich get richer and the middle class takes it on the chin once again.  They want to be able to borrow tons of money at little to no cost.

Was told by several people that this debate was going to be a set-up and sure enough it was.  This is one of the most disgusting things that Fox News has done today and heads should roll but we expect more of the same.  Any conservative that watches Fox News needs to get a clue that Fox News is no friend of conservatives.  Roger Ailes and the rest need FIRED!  Better yet Fox News needs tanked and Murdoch fired!

Republican candidates should refuse to do any more debates until the RNC ensures that the debates are fair and square.  Time for the RNC Chair Priebus to step forward and stand up for the Republican candidates against the likes of the Obama media including Fox News, Roger Ailes, and Rupert Mudoch.

Time to take the gloves off and say exactly how unethical Fox News has become in this election cycle including refusing to hire Pawlenty but keeping Rove on the air with Fox News along with Huckabee who trashes Republican candidates.  Is the reason we are having so many Republican debates is to help Obama and tank Republicans?  Sure looks like it!

Thanks to Howard Kurtz for the TRUTH which is something Fox News knows little about!

Roger’s Reality ShowSep 25, 2011 10:00 AM EDT  

Howard Kurtz 

First, Ailes dialed back the Tea Party talk. Now he’s turning the GOP race into a political X-Factor—and steering the election agenda one more time.  

It was part political spectacle, part American Idol, part YouTube extravaganza, a pure Roger Ailes production—and the latest sign that the Fox News chairman is quietly repositioning America’s dominant cable-news channel. 

Hours before last week’s presidential debate in Orlando, Ailes’s anchors sat in a cavernous back room, hunched over laptops, and plotted how to trap the candidates. Chris Wallace said he would aim squarely at Rick Perry’s weakness: “How do you feel about being criticized by some of your rivals as being too soft on illegal immigration? Then I go to Rick Santorum: is Perry too soft?” 

“That’s going to get some fireworks going,” said managing editor Bill Sammon, grinning. 

When showtime arrived, producer Marty Ryan choreographed the action from a crowded trailer outside the convention hall: he called for a two-shot when Wallace invited Mitt Romney to criticize Perry’s immigration stance, so the audience could watch both men’s agitated expressions. But Ryan barked, “Let’s just be on Perry,” as the Texas governor demanded to know whether Santorum had ever been to the Mexican border, capturing the moment. Afterward, Ailes phoned a top lieutenant: “Tell the team we’ve been kicking ass in these debates.” 

Ailes has always been a master showman—he even gave advice on triple-checking the audio—and Fox’s partnership with Google produced striking videos, graphics, and a backstage smoothie bar. But the real eye-opener was the sight of his anchors grilling the Republican contenders, which pleases the White House but cuts sharply against the network’s conservative image—and risks alienating its most rabid right-wing fans. 

Excerpt:  Read More at The Daily Beast

I am not one to boycott but this time I can state that I will NEVER watch Fox News again and I was one of the people in my community to beg to get them on the air.  I was 100% wrong and the local cable company person who said you cannot trust Murdoch or Ailes was correct.  Should have listened back then.                           

E-mails lay bare firms' pay-to-play links to lawmaker Rep Peter J. Visclosky (D-IN)

Imagine this -- a Democrat Congressman getting donations for earmarks. This one must be serious because it is actually was investigated by the House Ethics Committee investigators. Ethics Investigators released the emails so Will these charges have legs or will they die in the Democrat controlled Ethics Committee?

After all the unethical charges against Cong Rangel (D-NY) were whitewashed, we expect nothing from the Ethics Committee on Visclosky except maybe a slap on the wrist. There is one thing that could lead to problems for Visclosky and that is the fact this was a Defense contractor and since the Democrat leadership is not pro-defense, they may be more inclined to toss him under the bus.

What we would like to see is his Congressional District standing up to him on November 2nd, 2010, and kicking him to curb for his unethical behavior. A Republican from Indiana had an affair and the Republican House Leadership told him to step down from running in November which he did. That is Leadership.

The Democrats turning a blind eye or giving one of theirs a slap on the wrist is no leadership. This Indiana Progressive was requesting earmarks for a NEVADA defense contractor not even an Indiana company.

E-mails lay bare firms' pay-to-play links to lawmaker
Earmarks closely follow donations

By Chuck Neubauer
8:43 p.m., Monday, June 21, 2010

Defense contractors who openly discussed a suspected pay-to-play scheme in e-mails released by congressional ethics investigators had ties to a powerful lobbying firm and won millions of dollars in federal earmarks after contributing to the campaign of an Indiana congressman.

Democratic Rep. Peter J. Visclosky requested a $2.5 million federal earmark for Nevada-based defense contractor Sierra Nevada Corp. (SNC) five days after a March 2007 fundraiser for which the company's owners and its political action committee contributed $18,800 to the congressman's campaign.

Similarly, Mr. Visclosky requested $2.5 million for defense firm 21st Century Systems — five days after its employees ponied up $17,050 for the same fundraiser. The firm's chief executive was awarded an "honorary seat" next to Mr. Visclosky at that fundraiser.

In both cases, company executives wrote e-mails linking campaign donations to earmarks Mr. Visclosky secured or special access to the congressman, a congressional ethics board concluded.

At the time, SNC and 21st Century, along with other defense contractors, had secured the services of the then-high-flying Washington area lobbying firm, the PMA Group — now the target of a federal grand jury investigation.

Government watchdog groups have long questioned the ties between PMA and its three key allies on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee — Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, who died in February; Rep. James P. Moran, Virginia Democrat; and Mr. Visclosky.

All three members of the powerful subcommittee that doles out millions of dollars annually in Pentagon appropriations received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from PMA employees and the firm's clients who wanted earmarks — often within mere days of each other.

PMA, which earned more than $16.4 million in 2007 specializing in defense earmarks for clients, was one of the 10 top-grossing lobbying firms in Washington before it imploded. Federal agents raided it and owner Paul Magliocchetti's home in November 2008.

Late last year, the Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE) accused Mr. Visclosky of soliciting PMA clients for campaign donations in 2008 and then giving them special access to him and his staff one week before authoring their defense earmarks.

The eight-member OCE Board of Directors referred the findings on Mr. Visclosky to the House ethics committee, saying they found "probable cause" to believe he solicited or received contributions in exchange for earmarks.

Excerpt: Read More at Washington Times

Pelosi loath to drop hammer on Rangel (Democrat Corruption Alert!)

Politico
By: Glenn Thrush
September 5, 2009 06:47 PM EST

Why is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refusing a growing chorus of calls to drop the hammer on ethics-challenged Charlie Rangel?

Because, at the moment, doing nothing creates a lot less trouble for Pelosi than doing anything, current and former House aides tell POLITICO.

Stripping the Harlem Democrat of his chairmanship of the House Ways and Means Committee would force Pelosi to make a series of unpalatable decisions about Rangel’s successor that would create a ruckus in the Democratic caucus.

It would also infuriate the Congressional Black Caucus, which is still sore over Pelosi’s decision to strip committees from former Louisiana Rep. Bill Jefferson – even after Jefferson had been found with a wad of tainted cash in his kitchen.

“Unless they find $90,000 in his freezer, like they did with Jefferson, we’re going to wait [for the outcome of a House ethics probe],” said a Democratic aide familiar with Pelosi’s thinking on the matter.

Staffers say the speaker has been so focused on the health care battle that she simply hasn’t devoted much time to Rangel’s recent troubles – and there’s no push among House Democrats to heed the fire-Rangel cries of Republicans, the New York Times, Washington Post and Buffalo News.

“She hasn’t even spoken to the congressman about this latest episode,” said a close Rangel associate, referring to recent published reports that the 78-year-old Rangel underreported his assets by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“The speaker is totally behind him, and she told him that the last few times they have spoken,” the person added.

(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...

Comment: Let's get this straight. If you are member of the Black Caucus in the House, you don't have to follow the law or ethics because no one will do anything to you. Former Congressman Jefferson was found guilty on numerous counts (11 counts), yet, before the trial even after they found all the money, the Black Caucus stood behind him. What if that was a white Republican? Wait, we had that and the Democrats called for removal immediately, but then so did the Republicans when it came Duke Cunningham. Double standard at play. It seems if you are black, you can do anything in the House now and get away with it, but watch out if you are a white Republican. This is the same Black Caucus that didn't want Republican JC Watts to be member.