It's pretty damning.

The only defense for Pat Moran is that he does not initiate this scheme himself. It's the O'Keefe reporter who brings it up. And he does say that with all the energy and risk that would be required to illegally vote, it would be more effective to simply make sure the actual people actually vote.

But once it's brought up, Pat Moran is quite willing to advise him on how to vote in inactive voter's names, by pretending to be those voters. He advises faking up a utility bill.

He also says OFA lawyers would be willing to fight to get these illegal votes counted -- so long as the forged utility bills "look legit."

By the way-- Pat Moran works in an office shared by OFA (Obama), Tim Kaine, and Jim Moran.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:40 AM | Comments (365)
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Honey Badger don't give a shit.

The full details of the case and the nature of the hearing could not be learned, but Robert Jones, an attorney at the Boston law firm of Ropes & Gray, who is representing Romney in this matter told TIME in a statement, “This is a decades-old divorce case in which Mitt Romney provided testimony as to the value of a company. He has no objection to letting the public see that testimony.”

So apparently it was Theory 2 -- a new (?) claim that Romney attempted to help his friend by claiming a company was worth less than it was.

As I said, given that that Maureen Sullivan Stemberg was paid with a lot of shares in the company, I'm not really sure how undervaluing the company helped Tom Stemberg. Whatever the company was worth, the Former Sullivan Stemberg was getting a pile of shares in it. If it was worth more, the same number of shares would equal more money; it if was worth less, the same number of shares would equal less money. In other words, the very fact she was being given shares meant that whatever the company was worthy, she was being given the same fraction of it. The settlement scaled with the value of the company, both up and down.

Thus begins Chapter 76 of our neverending revenge novel in progress, Tom Stemberg Should Give Me More Money Or I'll Be Out On The Street, Unable To Afford My $5,200 Apartment (As of 2006).

Gallup: The lead is down to 50-47, alas. But @conartcritic predicted this. He actually expected the drop to occur yesterday -- apparently Romney's numbers were padded by one or two huge days for him in the track, and those days have fallen off.

So, it's sad it's down to 3; but it is still three, and Romney still is at 50%, and Obama's at... well, look at that. 47%.

Per @conartcritic's analysis (which I guess was right, given that his prediction was proven true), Romney's Big Fat Day of Outlier Results was padding this for a week, and now we're down to something more accurate.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 09:10 AM | Comments (282)
Post contains 382 words, total size 2 kb.

The ad will run in seven states -- Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio and Virginia. Which makes me a sad Panda, because there are obviously two more states it could run in.

Below: Trump offers $5 million to a charity of Obama's choice if he releases his college transcripts and passport.

I don't mind Trump's offer, per se. I'd like to see the college transcripts too. But he said, previously, that he had a "gigantic" story. This isn't a story; it's an attempt to get a story.

While there's nothing wrong with the offer, by overpromoting it, suggesting he already had the Holy Grail, he's made a lot of people disappointed today. So instead of being interested by this, I'm just let down.

Personally, last night, I was speculating to myself that maybe he had someone involved in the publication of Dreams From My Father, and that guy would say that most of his contacts for editing the book were with William Ayers.

That's sort of what happens when you say you've got something "gigantic." People start imagining things that they think might qualify as "gigantic."

Undersell, overdeliver isn't something Trump believes in, and I don't mean that snarkily; I mean that straight. He doesn't believe in it. He believes in the oversell as a sales technique.

Trump Crafty? A couple of readers make this point:

Don't know if anybody's said this yet, but what you're missing Ace is that this was Trump's preemptive strike against Gloria Alred. That's what this is about. Make her share the headlines with him. Bring her fully down to his level: P. T. Barnum.

Ah. Well then, well played.

I suppose it can't be a coincidence that Trump's Big Announcement just happened to come on the day Gloria Allred went to court.

more...

Posted by: Ace at 08:31 AM | Comments (321)
Post contains 318 words, total size 2 kb.

Having had their fun with Todd Akin in Missouri, the DMM (Democratic Machine Media) has found a new Republican chew toy they can use to try and scare women....Richard Mourdock in Indiana.

Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock said Tuesday that pregnancy that results from rape can be “something that God intended to happen.”

“I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God,” Mourdock said at a debate. “And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

Mourdock isn't the second coming of Akin (Mourdock skipped the goofy pseudo-science and admitted it's a tough matter) but he's going to be tied around Romney's neck in an effort to scare women who are less and less impressed with Obama.

The Romney campaign quickly moved to distance itself from the remarks.

“Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views,” said Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for Romney’s campaign.

The Romney campaign did not respond to an Indianapolis Star email asking if the GOP presidential nominee still endorsed Mourdock.

Interestingly, Mourdock's Democratic opponent is one of the few pro-life Democrats out there.

Also interestingly, Mourdock is one of the few candidates Romney has actively supported with a TV ad.

I doubt this will hurt Romney much if at all, though in a race as close as this, it's not going to help to have to walk the tightrope between female swing voters and social conservatives with less than two weeks to go.

It won't matter to Romney at all in Indiana but the DMM is obviously going to make it a national issues on behalf of Democrats. What the DMM won't do is make an issue out a Democratic candidates extremism on abortion.

Meet Congressman Chris Murphy, who is running for the Senate in Connecticut. He thinks life "begins at birth". He also says he supports restrictions on late term abortions which makes no sense. If a human being isn't alive until they are born, why would you oppose abortion at any point? Now I suppose this is better than Obama's pro-infanticide position (which must not be discussed in polite media company).

I think Mourdock's position is appalling (not his thoughts on God's unknowable plans but the idea a rape victim should be forced to carry the pregnancy to term) but if we're going to label one party "extreme" let's be sure to take a look at the extremism of the other side as well. That's what real journalists would do but we have damn few of them today. Instead with have Democratic operatives with press passes.

Update: Hmmm, is Mourdock's statement more damaging than I thought? Congressman Mike Pence (a solid pro-life, social conservative who is running for Governor in Indiana) comes out pretty hard against him.

I strongly disagree with the statement made by Richard Mourdock during last night's Senate debate. I urge him to apologize.

I strongly disagree with Mourdock's position but what's there for him to apologize for? He believes what he believes. Just because you disagree with him doesn't mean he owes you and apology.

UPDATE 2: Mourdock holding a presser being carried live on CNN. Says he sorry that others twisted his words (which I think they did) and that he was inarticulate in expressing his deeply held views.

"God and I abhor rape"...that's not something candidates want to be having to say ever, let alone less than two weeks out.

Posted by: DrewM at 06:35 AM | Comments (786)
Post contains 615 words, total size 5 kb.

Happy Wednesday.

Last night, news broke that the White House was informed that Ansar al Sharia had taken credit for the Benghazi attack just hours after it happened. ICYMI, Ace had a post on it.

Bob Woodward has offered a sort-of explanation for why Obama might not have known that the idea for sequestration originated with the White House and not Congress, as Obama fatuously claimed at Monday's debate.

According to Woodward, "maybe [Obama] didnÂ’t know that they were doing this because itÂ’s kind of technical budget jargon." But that's stupid. Federal budgeting is technical and so are the details of the sequestration cuts, but the source of the idea of sequestration cuts isn't technical. It involves no jargon, no math, no obscure Congressional knowledge, nothing other than one or two or, at most, three names for the guys who proposed the idea. On the other hand, I think it's fantastic that Woodward is trying to protect the President by saying he's too stupid to understand budgets. Boy, wouldn't that explain a lot?

And the editor of the Des Moines Register, which I expect will endorse President Obama soon, is lodging a protest of sorts over the Obama campaign's inexplicable decision to require that the paper report nothing, record nothing, reveal nothing about their thirty-minute phone call with the President. As someone put it on Twitter, Obama has finally started talking to the press again, but only on condition that the press won't report on it.

Now at the end of the last campaign of his life, Obama is squirming like a worm on a hook. Even if Obama manages to win in two weeks, students of political science will study the failure of Obama's negative campaign for decades. The old conventional wisdom -- negative campaigning works -- is going to need a major revision.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 02:51 AM | Comments (607)
Post contains 312 words, total size 2 kb.

This is an update to the last post. TMZ is reporting Gloria Allred's supposed October Surprise is just a relitigation of the Stemberg divorce settlement from 1986 (yes, the year the Mets won the World Series, that long ago) at which Romney testified.

Read this. It's from a Boston Herald opinion piece (well, it sure looks like opinion) that's no longer available. You can find it by searching on the Boston Herald site for "Maureen Sullivan Stemberg." It's the fourth article down.

From 2006:

Maureen Sullivan Stemberg, ex-wife of Staples founder, sits in her $5,200 a month, 14th-floor, concierge-at-the-door, elegantly furnished Back Bay apartment and tells you sheÂ’s broke. She canÂ’t work. She canÂ’t afford a car, her medications, her rent, even the family springer spaniel, J.J., who she just gave away.

She produces doctors notes detailing medical woes: possible lupus, bouts of pneumonia requiring hospitalizations, a history of cancer, petit mal seizures, plus recommendations for thrice weekly psychotherapy and psychiatry. She says her insurance wonÂ’t cover mental health care.

“I’m going to be out on the street,” says Sullivan Stemberg, a tiny, 50-ish woman who alternates between an overanxious recitation of worries, and tears. “I’ve had a change of circumstances.”

And now she wants her ex-husband, Tom Stemberg, whose worth has been estimated at upwards of $150 million, to dramatically increase his support, guarantee health insurance forever and buy her another home in a concierge building. “I’m sicker and thinner every day,” she says. “I’m not asking for anything more than he did for his other wife and girlfriend.”

Now, even in 2006 Romney was planning a presidential bid, so the Herald notes the "political" angle:

Tom Stemberg, meanwhile, hailed as an entrepreneurial genius, has just gone through a second divorce and is now living with the mother of his newest child. His paternal shortcomings are evident in a letter he wrote to his then-12-year-old son with Sullivan Stemberg. “It will not be possible for you to be part of our family in the foreseeable future” because of the child’s supposed misbehavior during their divorce, he wrote, blaming the child for taking sides between parents and creating unbearable hassles, such as monthly court appearances.

Enter a political angle: That same child, the same year - 1996 - approached Mitt Romney, an early Staples money man, during a chance vacation meeting. The Wall Street Journal and Sullivan Stemberg herself say her son asked Romney for an appointment to speak about his motherÂ’s problems, financial and otherwise.

Apparently this did not cause Mitt Romney alarm. In April, our would-be president began an op-ed article, also for the Journal, this way: “Only weeks after I was elected governor, Tom Stemberg told me that if you really want to help people, find a way to get everyone health insurance,” Romney wrote. When Romney expressed doubts, he said, Stemberg insisted, “You can find a way.”

Long story short, although Maureen Sullivan Stemberg had a pretty big settlement, in normal human terms, it wasn't a mega-settlement, and her ex-husband wound up mega-rich. And she seems to have spent a lot of it on contesting the settlement itself. And then she was hit with medical problems.

So, she wants more money.

So the 2006 version of this story was put out, it seems, to pressure Romney to pressure Stemberg to open his wallet and voluntarily agree to increase Sullivan Stemberg's support.

I mean, that is the whole point of the Herald article. It concluded:

The story is what a rich, local superstar has done, or not done, for the mother of his son who canÂ’t support herself anymore. ItÂ’s hard for mere mortals to relate to this, I know. Still, despite the awfulness on both sides, he should give her the money.

Until then, hereÂ’s hoping Romney and other local luminaries skip the Stemberg accolades. The personal is political here, and the personal reeks.

She'd been arguing for years -- apparently "shopping her story" around -- that her husband should increase his upkeep payments to her.

But this divorce is now 25 years old.

I see the 2006 story as essentially arguing the former Mrs. Stemberg should be paid more, because, Romney.

Should a president be friends with such a heartless skinflint?, the argument seems to go.

And, Should a president be friends with someone who turns away his own son?

That last one is bad... for Stemberg. I don't really see the Romney angle, except in extremely contrived fashion.

I do not see any reason to think the six-years-later version of the story is much different.

I note there were no prior allegations of "juicy stuff" about Romney. Seems to me the Former Mrs. Stemberg's just relitigates the terms of her divorce every few years.

I'm not taking any position on the case of Stemberg v. Stemberg. I'm just asking what the hell on earth this has to do with Mitt Romney, except that he is -- as he was in 2006 -- a convenient catspaw.

It Also Seems To Me... That this is not a political story. It seems to me that the Romney Card has been played simply in hopes of pressuring Romney into pressuring Stemberg.

That's how it was played in 2006.

Again, I have no idea if the Former Mrs. Stemberg "deserves" more money or whatever.

I know the law seems pretty clear that she's not legally entitled to more. The settlement has been litigated (apparently more than once) and has been on the books for 25 years.

Hence, a series of non-legal arguments about it.

And I think the devious Ms. Allred is playing the media (and Drudge) for fools in what is simply a straight money play.

Stoke up interest by suggesting this is a ROMNEY SCANDAL and hope that that serves to open the vault.

And I Repeat... This is 25 year old divorce.

Are there really "juicy allegations" about a third party in the divorce papers?

Still juicy 25 years later?

Juicy allegations that apparently haven't been previously known?

Juicy allegations usually get passed around a spell. That's what makes them juicy.

This is Gloria Allred's Second Finest Moment. Here's her finest.

Theory 2: A reader suggests maybe Allred will claim that Romney testified falsely about the value of Stemberg's worth, or the shares he was offering her in the settlement.

First, you have to understand that a big part of the settlement was Staples shares. Maureen Sullivan Stemberg apparently sold half of these before the company went public... which was a big mistake, because the share value soared. Per TMZ:

According to an article in the Boston Globe in 2005, Maureen received nearly 500,000 shares of Staples stock in the divorce ... but sold half her shares before the company went public.

So her argument might be that Romney was testifying about the value or potential value of the stocks and gave a low valuation which caused her to sell and thus deprived her of millions.... and so pay me.

But if Romney was trying to help his friend, he would have offered a high valuation of the stock, because then Stemberg can give her less. He wouldn't claim the stocks are worth less than he knows they are -- that would just mean Stemberg has to give her more stock to make the same payoff.

This just seems to be a very bad (as it turns out) decision by the Former Mrs. Stemberg.

And, besides, Romney wasn't acting as her financial adviser, even if he did guestimate the value of the stocks. He would have been providing a valuation for the trier of fact (the jury or judge), not for Mrs. Stemberg to take as some kind of financial advice for her to act upon.

If that's the avenue of the complaint: It's not juicy and it doesn't even make any sense. "Lowballing" the value of the stocks just means that Stemberg has to give her more of it, which I'm pretty sure is not the outcome he sought.

Someone Posting as "Maureen Stemberg" on HuffPo... ...who claims to have once been married to Romney's "Partner in Crime, Mr. Staples," says she likes Obama a whole heck of a lot and Mormons not a bit.

Gloria's History of Late Election-Season Shakedowns. "Blackmail," Greta alleged.

Well, it sure does look like a shakedown. These cases are brought at a particularly sensitive time because they have such little merit that only the pressurized atmosphere of a political campaign can invest these nuisance shakedowns with Cash Money Settlement Value.

Posted by: Ace at 08:04 PM | Comments (401)
Post contains 1457 words, total size 10 kb.

Unless Romney was boinking the woman -- which seems unlikely -- I don't know what they hope to get out of this.

Mitt Romney was heavily involved in the extremely messy divorce of one of his key supporters ... and the Boston Globe is going to court first thing Wednesday morning in an attempt to unseal the court file as well as lift a gag order ... TMZ has learned.The divorce was between Staples co-founder Tom Stemberg and his first wife Maureen. We're told the divorce battle lasted for years and was extremely ugly.Sources tell us Romney gave both a deposition in the divorce and testified in the trial. According to our sources, the Boston Globe got a tip that there was "juicy information about Romney" in the sealed documents.

TMZ believes Gloria Allred represents Maureen, but they haven't confirmed it.

My only speculation, apart from the Boink Scenario which seems silly, is that Maureen believes Romney was evasive in defending his friend/not giving up dirt on him.

This would be a fitting cap to Obama's political career -- going out the same way he got in. Unsealing divorce records.

That observation is from Allah, who I wanted to link anyway because of the Trump Situation. Apparently Trump is saying it's not the coke claim, and the NYPost's Page 6 hears it's also not the alleged divorce papers.

Here's Trump, promoting it in his understated manner:

“I have something very, very big concerning the President of the United States,” Trump said. “[It is] large – bordering on gigantic… “It’s all in one. Everything. It’s very big — bigger than anybody would know.”

I don't know what it could be, except for a birther thing or one of the strands of that. College paid for by some unsavory individual? Maybe something like that?

I don't know.

Trump also says, however, that it could "possibly" affect the election. I don't get that. If it's gigantic, presumably it would affect the election. Maybe he's just being coy, or maybe he's really not sure whether it would have a big impact or not.

Given the Globe's and Allred's games, I don't mind if he dishes dirt. Turnabout is fair play. I just hope it's not so dumb it backfires.

Trump's a smart guy. Most of the time. Sometimes....

And speaking of gigantic, Romney's crowd at Red Rock, Colorado was just that.

Another picture here.

Joe Biden just sneered derisively, "Oh, so you're Bono now, huh?"

Apparently the center holds 20,000 people (though another report says 10,000) and thousands more were turned away, as it was over capacity.

So, that's nice, at least.

Sorry about stamping on DRI's ONT but a lot of late news tonight.

Posted by: Ace at 07:25 PM | Comments (298)
Post contains 494 words, total size 4 kb.

And he looked the American people in the eye and gave a rehearsed "How dare you accuse me" speech.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

The actual emails are posted at GretaWire.

For the third email, the crucial one, you have to look carefully-- the key information is in the subject line, not the body of the email.

On Intrade, Obama's fallen to around 54%.

Posted by: Ace at 06:52 PM | Comments (315)
Post contains 136 words, total size 1 kb.

Ace of Spades HQ's favorite moronette, Candace Kita was featured recently on CBS' weekly news magazine "48 Hours" in which she provided tips on how attractive women can avoid unwanted attention in the sexual cesspool known as Hollywood.

Kita has had many roles on TV shows including "Two and a Half Men," "Ugly Betty", "Nip/Tuck" and "House M.D." Like many an on-screen beauty, Kita has also had a stalker. Here, the author of "The Hottie Handbook: A Girl's Guide to Safety" shares what it's like staying safe while still trying to find success as an actress.

Candace stated that she feels safer on the AoSHQ blog than on other wimpier blogs. "At night when I am in my bunk, I sleep peacefully knowing that rough AoSHQ morons stand ready to do violence on my behalf against scary hobos and ironic hipsters." she said.

(Video ofter the break.)

ALSO (pardon the add on dri): Please remember today, the 241 Marines killed in the Beirut bombing attack, in 1983. 29 years. Semper Fidelis. [DiT] more...

Posted by: Open Blogger at 04:46 PM | Comments (590)
Post contains 253 words, total size 2 kb.

Coulda been a contender.

In an article for the November Philadelphia Style magazine, a cocky Chris Matthews wistfully recounted a considered 2010 run for Senate, bragging at how incredible he would have been: "I'm not dreaming here. I would be one of the stars of the Democratic Party—there aren’t that many."

The liberal MSNBC anchor flirted with, but ultimately decided against, running in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Perhaps wondering what might have been, he lamented, "I know this: If I had run and won and beaten [Senator Pat] Toomey, I would be one of the Democrats people talk about today."

He also compares himself favorably with Barack Obama, noting that Obama doesn't have the street-smarts and instincts of... well, of a Chris Matthews.

That's not a direct quote, but that's what Matthews is getting at. He'd use his People Smarts to help bail out his wannabe husband Obama. See, Obama has the Book Smarts, but Matthews could have saved him by adding his own People Smarts.

You guys know what a "Mary Sue" is, right? If you don't, a "Mary Sue" is a character inserted into fanfic who is a thinly disguised version of the amateur author; the Mary Sue usually saves the hero. It's thus a wish fulfillment fantasy. The author wants to be important in the life of her imaginary hero, so she writes a silly story where she saves Bella, or Edward, or Jacob, or Spock. Or whoever.

What Matthews just described is a Mary Sue fantasy. He's just constructed a fanfic in which a character much like Chris Matthews, who is in fact also named Chris Matthews, bails Obama out of his troubles using his Street Smarts and Irish blarney in an alternate universe America of 2010-2012.

He is deranged.

Posted by: Ace at 03:29 PM | Comments (365)
Post contains 316 words, total size 2 kb.