Get Super PAC Ads Out of the Olympics

Let’s unPAC the 2012 Olympics by sending a powerful message to NBC

Last week, a super PAC called Restore our Future purchased $7.2 million worth of ads to run during this summer’s London Olympics—and we know more are coming. The Games are about national unity and fair competition; special interest negative ads are about division, half-truths, and unfair play. These ads have no place during the Olympics.

Let’s stop these negative ads from ruining the Olympics. Broadcast airwaves are owned by the public and leased to stations like NBC to create programing in the public interest. We have the final say in how they should be used. In the past, networks have set up special “no advocacy ads” policies during events like the Super Bowl. If enough of us raise our voice, we can pressure NBC to make the same commitment.

Olympic Rings image by Viktor Hertz

sign the petition here:  http://www.unpac.org/olympics/

 

Is That Ad Super PAC Backed? This App Will Tell You

In the run-up to Election Day, more than 670 super PACs have spent over $280 million to influence political advertising – and the numbers keep rising. So which super PAC finances certain ads? And which candidate does each super PAC lean towards? Well, there’s an app for that.

The Super PAC App, soon available for free in the iTunes store, will use audio fingerprinting technology employed by apps like Shazam andSoundHound to identify adverts. Users will be able to hold their iPhones up to an advert while it is playing, and the Super PAC App will draw on third-party data to tell the user which super PAC is running the ad. It will classify the super PAC’s political leaning, and identify the claims the ad is making. The app will then link the user to related articles that could help the user verify the advert’s claim. Users can share the information they find via email, SMS, Facebook and Twitter.

 

Born out of a class project at MIT’s Media Lab, the Super PAC App is the brain child of recent Harvard Kennedy School grad Jennifer Hollett and MIT Sloan grad Dan Siegel. The pair met and began working on the app in February, and are currently based out of the MIT Beehive Cooperative startup accelerator. The app is set to go live in time for the Republican National Convention at the end of August.

“I have an eternal interest in politics and business and was reading a lot about super PACs,” explained Siegel. “I remember reading an estimate that there would be $11 billion spent in this election – I remember thinking where is all this money going to? That’s the size of a small stimulus package.”

Since receiving funding from the Knight foundation last month, the startup’s programmer, Bob Caslin, has been hard at work building the app.

“Instead of just sitting there and letting the ads come at you, you have the opportunity to interact with the content,” explained Hollett.

Much of the third-party data the app sources will come from OpenSecrets.org, a research group that tracks spending in U.S. politics, as well as the New York Times. The app will not just be limited to super pac ads, but will also generate information on non-profit and campaign ads.

Hollett and Siegel hope their app will be of most use to voters in the swing states, and the pair seek high download numbers in those regions. “If we can get 1% or 2% of people in swing states based on the 2010 voting numbers to download the app then we’re looking at hundreds of thousands of people,” explained Siegel.

According to data from app researcher Xyologic, there were 378 million iPhone app downloads in theU.S. during April alone – far more than any other nation in the world. China, the second country in line, downloaded around 246.4 million iPhone apps the same month.

So is the future’s political landscape full of apps?

“I’m hoping we’ll see a lot of digital revolution in this election,” said Hollett. “I think it’s part of how our culture is moving, and how we’re engaging with everything.”

As for what’s next for the Super Pac App, Hollett and Siegel are undecided. Once the app has served its purpose in the U.S., the duo may take the app and apply it to international elections. Alternatively, they say they could pivot to use the app as a transparency tool, linking users to information that verify the claims made by other commercials.

Barack Obama the SMALLEST Government Spender Since Eisenhower.. REALLY!!!!

Who Is The Smallest Government Spender Since Eisenhower? Would You Believe It’s Barack Obama?

Lies republicans have said so many times we all believe they are true!!

It’s enough to make even the most ardent Obama cynic scratch his head in confusion.

Amidst all the cries of Barack Obama being the most prolific big government spender the nation has ever suffered, Marketwatch is reporting that our president has actually been tighter with a buck than any United States president since Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Who knew?

Check out the chart –

 

 So, how have the Republicans managed to persuade Americans to buy into the whole “Obama as big spender” narrative?

It might have something to do with the first year of the Obama presidency where the federal budget increased a whopping 17.9% —going from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. I’ll bet you think that this is the result of the Obama sponsored stimulus plan that is so frequently vilified by the conservatives…but you would be wrong.

The first year of any incoming president term is saddled—for better or for worse—with the budget set by the president whom immediately precedes the new occupant of the White House. Indeed, not only was the 2009 budget the property of George W. Bush—and passed by the 2008 Congress—it was in effect four months before Barack Obama took the oath of office.

Accordingly, the first budget that can be blamed on our current president began in 2010 with the budgets running through and including including fiscal year 2013 standing as charges on the Obama account, even if a President Willard M. Romney takes over the office on January 20^, 2013.

So, how do the actual Obama annual budgets look?

Courtesy of Marketwatch-

• In fiscal 2010 (the first Obama budget) spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.
•  In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.
• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.
• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion. Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook.

No doubt, many will wish to give the credit to the efforts of the GOP controlled House of Representatives. That’s fine if that’s what works for you.

However, you don’t get to have it both ways. Credit whom you will, but if you are truly interested in a fair analysis of the Obama years to date—at least when it comes to spending—you’re going to have to acknowledge that under the Obama watch, even President Reagan would have to give our current president a thumbs up when it comes to his record for stretching a dollar.

Of course, the Heritage Foundation is having none of it, attempting to counter the actual numbers by pretending that the spending initiated by the Bush Administration is the fault of Obama. As I understand the argument Heritage is putting forth —and I have provided the link to the Heritage rebuttal so you can decide for yourself—Marketwatch, in using the baseline that Obama inherited, is making it too easy on the President.

But then, with the Heritage Foundation being the creator of the individual mandate concept in healthcare  only to rebut the same when it was no longer politically convenient, I’m not quite sure why anyone believes much of anything they have to say any longer. With their history of reversing course for convenience, I can’t help but wonder, should they find themselves reviewing the spending record of a President Romney four years from today, whether they might be tempted to use the Obama numbers as the baseline for such a new Administration.

AND FOR MY FELLOW REPUBLICANS WHO USE FOX AS A REFERENCE AND  HAVE NO CREDIBILITY … .. OR  HAVE BOUGHT INTO THE LIES OUR OWN PARTY HAS BEEN SPREADING …. HERE IS JUST A LITTLE MORE FOR YOU BEFORE YOU GO ON A RANT ABOUT  HOW WRONG I AM . STOP THIS FUCKING HATING AND LYING AND BE A REAL AMERICAN AND NOT A RACIST BIGOT FOR A GOD DAMN CHANGE!!

FROM Daniel Mitchell of The Cato Institute:

“The 2009 fiscal year began October 1, 2008, nearly four months before Obama took office. The budget for the entire fiscal year was largely set in place while Bush was in the White House. So is we update the chart to show the Bush fiscal years in green, we can see that Obama is partly right in claiming that he inherited a mess (though Obama actually deserves a small share of the blame for Bush’s last deficit since earlier this year he pushed through both an “omnibus” spending bill and the so-called stimulus bill that increased FY2009 spending).

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/dont-blame-obama-for-bushs-2009-deficit/

And how big of a deal was the portion of the year’s pending was attributable to the Omnibus spending bill?

Not much according to the Von Mises Institute!

“The 2009 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, for example, was signed by Obama six months before the end of the fiscal year, and coming in at less than half a trillion dollars, this spending was only a fraction of the 3.5 trillion or so in spending already signed into law by Bush earlier that fiscal year.”
archive.mises.org/16107/bushs-huge-budget-numbers-blamed-on-obama/

And it gets worse. Calling The Weekly Standard a bunch of idiots might get you drummed out of the Sons of Liberty brotherhood! Here’s what they have to say-
“In fairness, however, Obama can’t rightly be held accountable for the 2009 budget, which he didn’t sign (although he did sign a $410 billion pork-laden omnibus spending bill for that year, which is nevertheless tallied in Bush’s column). Rather, Obama’s record to date should really be based on actual and projected spending in fiscal years 2010 and 2011 (plus the $265 billion portion of the economic “stimulus” package, which he initiated and signed, that was spent in 2009 (Table S-10), while Bush’s should be based on 2002-09 (with the exception of that same $265 billion, which was in no way part of the 2009 budgetary process).”
The Weekly Standard http://www.npr.org/2011/01/25/133211508/the-weekly-standard-obama-vs-bush-on-debt

Costs and Insurance Regulations Vary Widely for People With Autism

Autism Costs Vary Sharply State To State

The cost of caring for a child with autism differs widely simply depending on where a family lives, new research suggests.

In a study looking at more than 2,000 kids with the developmental disorder, researchers found that state policy — specifically whether or not insurers were required to cover autism therapy — tremendously altered the financial situation for their families.

“We found that families who live in states that have passed parity legislation spent considerably less for their children with autism than families living in states without such legislation,” said Susan Parish, a professor of disability policy at Brandeis University who led the study.

Parish and her colleagues used data from the National Survey of Children with Special Health Care Needs to compare the experiences of families residing in states with and without autism insurance requirements.

Of those living in Massachusetts, Missouri and Utah — where there was no coverage requirement when the survey was conducted in 2005 — 60 percent said they spent more than $500 a year on services for their child with autism.

At the same time, in Maine where an insurance mandate was already in place, just 27 percent of families reported spending that much, according to the study published recently in the journal Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.

Even when researchers controlled for factors like the severity of the child’s disability and family income, costs continued to be significantly lower if families lived in a state with an insurance requirement, the study found.

Currently, 31 states have laws requiring insurers to cover autism treatment, according to Autism Speaks.

Sex so hot it’ll melt your face…

Components of a Successful Relationship

I’ve been thinking about sex lately.  Well, not just sex, but about the components of a happy relationship and what attracts people to each other.  In my mind, the components of a (successful) relationship are:

• Physical Chemistry (sexual compatibility)
• Physical Attraction (separate from physical chemistry)
• Personal Chemistry (non-physical bond that forms through communication)
• Personal Attraction (Mental, Intellectual, Family, Goals, etc.)
• Trust
• Respect

I split physical and personal chemistry and attraction because, in my experience, you can have one but not the other.  You can think someone is ‘hot’ but when it comes to the sex it falls flat.  No one part of a relationship can or should make a relationship, but each one can potentially break it.  What can break a relationship can vary for everyone, though.  For example, of the above components say your relationship lacks physical chemistry but all of the other components are A+.  Some people may be ok with this type of relationship – perhaps physical chemistry and/or attraction aren’t a high priority.  I think this particular situation is ok as long as both people agree on what’s important and what can slide.  When two people disagree it’s bound to become a problem sooner or later.

As I’ve gotten older (and presumably wiser) I’m less inclined to compromise on any of the above criteria – I want it all.  Shouldn’t we want the ‘complete package’, after all?  If we don’t, doesn’t that mean we’re settling somehow?  That then raises the question of how soon should you feel the pull of the attraction?  How long do you give it to see if a particular area of attraction has the potential to grow before you throw in your chips that it’s just not there?  Physical attraction can be immediate; physical chemistry can improve over time as you get to know one another and what the other person likes and doesn’t like. Personal chemistry and attraction can also be great right from the beginning as well.  Trust and respect often must be earned.

How long does it take you before you know if the chemistry and attraction is there?  Have you ever ignored any of the above that was lacking and it came around to bite you in the buttocks?

Top 5 Reasons to Date a Single Mom

From Memoirs of a Single Dad

You know here at Memoirs of a Single Dad we’re obviously single-parent friendly. Actually, we’re all-parent friendly because we know just how challenging it can be to be a parent! We want you to know that we’ve got your back as a single parent. When you’re juggling all of life’s compleities and you add dating to the mix – woah, watch out. It can be a huge challenge for even the most capable of us.

Of course, as a single parent and writer, I feel that it’s my job to inform the general populous about the awesome side to dating single parents. There are some distinct advantages to dating us, you know, so I’ve come up with a Top Five list – the Top 5 Reasons to Date a Single Mom for the fellas. Live ‘em. Learn ‘em. Don’t be afraid to date a single mom. I fell in love with one, after all!

1. Single moms are strong, independent and organized. They have to be: when they’re not making sure the kids have their lunches, homework and sports equipment ready for school the next day, they’re holding down jobs, sorting out the car, dealing with house maintenance, or planning a weekend sleepover. You go, single mom.

2. Single moms are sexy. They know what they want, and what they don’t, and they won’t be afraid to tell you. They’ve gone way past the “party girl” stage and are ready to commit to the long-term. You’ll always know where you are with them.

3. Single moms are appreciative. They’ll be charmed by small gestures and be thrilled by an evening in adult company, with grown-up conversation. They know what the important things in life are, and they’re less likely to be impressed with flashiness and more likely to be impressed by the things that matter, like kindness and sincerity.

4. Single moms have the world’s best sense of humor. You can’t be around kids for very long without laughing at some of their antics or the comments they come out with. Single moms will probably even laugh at your jokes.

5. Single moms are sincere. No loving mom would compromise the happiness of her children, so she’s paying you a huge compliment by simply accepting your invitation to date. That means she likes you for who you genuinely are – a great foundation for a long-lasting, loving relationship.

And just in case you need a 6th reason – single moms are also great at dishing up comfort food!
Memoirs of a Single Dad

A Woman Speaks About Being A Single Parent

There’s something about the label – “single parent” – that exudes hardship. And although many of us uni-parental home managers didn’t actually apply for this position, I personally couldn’t imagine my life any other way.

While true that I wish I had someone to help me clean out the garage, and I do wonder why I’m the only self-starter here who “gets it” when it’s time to change the toilet paper roll – I’ve come to a point where the positives of being a single mom outweigh the negatives.

For one thing, I get time off. REAL time off that sometimes lasts for days. Two-parent families consider themselves lucky if they get an hour to themselves – and I feel their pain. Truly. But on the days when my kids are with Exy-Poo, I make sure to take full advantage. In other words I don’t cook, which is preceded by I don’t have to shop, and ends with I don’t have to clean up. It’s like a mini vacation in my own home. Sweet Club Med. (Minus the beads. And the skanky bikini.)

Another benefit to being a single parent is that I get to actually spend time with people that I’m not related to. Like friends. I haven’t been able to find anything as therapeutic as a quiet dinner with a girlfriend.

Still not convinced?

How about empowerment?

As a single parent, I’ve met challenges head-on over the years that have proven to me that I can achieve anything – when I put my mind to it. And although there are many strong couples out there, there’s just something about doing it on your own that gives you a sense of confidence and even works on your self-esteem!

To back this point up I have to mention my house. Operative words? MY HOUSE. Yes, I have a mortgage but there’s only one name on the deed and it’s mine. I love the fact that I was able to fulfill my dream of providing my kids with a home we can be proud of. And as we all know, providing for our kids is what makes us feel like we’re doing something right in the world.

And here’s my personal favourite reason why I love being a single parent. When the kids finally come home from their father’s I’m relaxed and feel like a whole person, which I believe makes me a better parent.

Conclusion: As single parents, we get to share our awesomeness with the people who matter the most. Our kids.

 

Study: American Daters Prefer Personality Over Money

If being jobless is preventing you from asking a girl out on a date, think again. A 2011 survey on American singles revealed that 50 percent of the respondents would still go out with someone who is unemployed as long as they find the person interesting and cute.

The Age-Old Date Debate: Who Pays?

Here’s more good news: Don’t feel daunted by the prospect of having to pay a hefty bill after the date as chances are she’ll pick up the check herself and spare you the embarrassment of having to wash the dishes.  The study shows only 19 percent of the female respondents believed the men should always pick up the tab after the first date. An astounding 87 percent admitted they would be willing to pay the bill under special circumstances (presumably if the guy only has cab money left in his wallet).

The survey, commissioned by online dating site Match.com, looks into how money plays a role in the dating mechanics of modern American singles.  These findings might boost the morale of male daters who might feel that the down economy has put a damper on their dating skills. .

There’s an interesting twist, though: While mere good looks and lively conversations alone might earn you access to her heart (and wallet) while still dating, it’s going to be an entirely different ballgame after the walk down the aisle.  Once married, women would still expect the man to provide for the family.  Two out of three (or 66 percent) of female daters surveyed said no to reversal of roles.  That means, it’s either you shape up or ship out!

Launched on the Web in 1995, Match.com is a matching service with over 20 million members.  The 2011 survey provides an interesting peek into how American females tend to be quite open-minded when it comes to money matters during the dating stage, although it doesn’t necessarily mean they are open to the idea of having a ‘househusband’. While role reversal is still frowned upon by both sexes, they are more liberal toward gender equality, with less than 20 percent of the singles surveyed saying the home — particularly the kitchen — is solely a woman’s domain.

The same survey also revealed that women of the 21st century are more likely than their male counterparts to require more space in the relationship, freedom to pursue their own interests, and maintain separate bank accounts.

Some 5,200 American singles aged 21-65 participated in Match.com’s 2011 study of American singles. The survey was conducted by MarketTools in collaboration with biological anthropologist Dr. Helen Fisher and Stephanie Coontz, a social historian. Justin Garcia, an evolutionary biologist, and the Institute for Evolutionary Studies at Binghamton University also took part in the study.

As for me? I am old fashioned. If I cannot afford to take a woman out to dinner I have no right to ask her out!!

 

10 Dating Rules for the Nice Guy

Nice guys may finish last, but at least they finish.  This saying seems to apply to dating, especially in a day and age when women are just as direct and bold as men in times past.  Women have become so bold, in fact, that some of the nicer guys among our sex have virtually given up on dating.  Women just seem to eat them alive.  What can these guys do?  How can they learn to survive the vicious arena we call dating?

 

What follows are 10 rules, that if followed, are GUARANTEED* help even the nicest guy finish in good standing.

1. Test her:  Find out from the start what kind of girl you are dealing with here.  Lock your car doors when going to get her (yes, it is still customary for a man to retrieve his date from her home).  On returning to the car, open her side first and get the door for her.  Notice if she reaches over to unlock your door.  If she does not, cut your losses.  This girl will not like a nice guy and will end up being more trouble than she is worth.
2. Be yourself:  It should go without saying, but she agreed to go out with you because you are nice.  If you listen to your buddies and try to be some kind of tough guy you are not, she will see through the ploy.
3. Don’t be a patsy:  You can be nice without letting the doorman leer at your date.  A simple, “dude” stated firmly and in the offenders direction should suffice to tell her you are nice, but within reason.  A woman just wants to know you have her back. Ya dig?
4. Be and smell clean:  This may sound like a no-brainer, but I once knew a “nice” guy who complained that he could not get women to give him a second thought, or even a first one.  I told him to take a bath and wash his clothes.  He stunk and looked like he stunk.
5. Try to get into her pants**:  I know, that sounds crude, but guys, it sends a very clear message that you find her desirable.  She wants you to desire her or she wouldn’t have spent hours getting ready (and she did).  But the kind of girl who will continue to date a nice guy will not give it up right away.  She will put you off, but likely in such a way as to whisper, “later.”  You had better be listening.
6. After trying to get into her pants, be genuinely apologetic, but honest.  Say something like, “you just look so, so…wow.  I don’t normally act like this.”  This reminds her that you are sensitive to her needs; that you are a nice guy.
7. Don’t plan:  Spontaneous dates favor nice guys.  Spontaneity allows the real person to bubble up and be seen.  This is the guy you want your date to meet.
8. Let your sense of humor show:  Everyone has a sense of humor, whether it is dry or sarcastic.  The trick is to use humor in such a way as to lighten the mood and have fun.  A date is all about fun, so don’t try to suppress your humor.  Let it out.  Either you click or you don’t, but better to find out sooner rather than later.
9. Walk her to her door at the end of the date:  It may seem old-fashioned to do so, but women expect certain behaviors from “nice” guys.  Chivalry may be dead, but the dream lives on in many women.
10. Ask her out again:  It should not even need to be mentioned, but nice guys tend to miss the subtle cues a woman gives when she wants another date.  Even without these cues, if you want to see her again, just tell her so and ask when.  The worst thing that can happen is she says no or makes some excuse.  The best thing that can happen is she says yes and the next date is much easier.

If you keep these ten simple rules in mind when finally getting that date with the redhead in the cubicle down to the right, you will find yourself more at ease and dating more frequently.  Get too good at these rules and you may turn into a heartbreaker.  Then you will no longer be a nice guy and will have to find another rulebook.

*Yeah, right. We all know there are no guarantees in dating!
**Not on the first (or second or third) date, doofus!

Boehner Touts Based and Flawed Jobs Study

Biased and politicized Study says Obama tax proposals could cost 700,000 jobs—Boehner pounces.

ANOTHER Reason I am FEED UP with MY REPUBLICAN PARTY and the tactics that are just irresponsible!!!!

Republican House Speaker John Boehner hammered President Barack Obama on Tuesday after accounting firm Ernst and Young released a study funded by pro-business groups hostile to the Democrat’s agenda. The firm’s results showed that Obama’s proposed tax hikes on the wealthy could cost the already sputtering economy more than 700,000 jobs.

“Our economy is still struggling under President Obama’s policies, and his massive tax hike will only make things tougher,” Boehner said in a statement. “It’s one of the worst possible ideas at one of the worst possible times for families and small businesses.”

Obama has been campaigning on calls to extend the Bush-era tax cuts on income up to $250,000 but let them expire above that level. He and fellow Democrats have accused Republicans of holding middle-class tax relief hostage to help the very rich (in fact, the wealthy would see the benefits on their first $250,000 of income). Recent polls have suggested that the public broadly supports the president in principle, though Republicans have noted that his proposal does not yet exist as legislation, and Democrats are expected to water down some of the president’s recommended changes.

The Ernst and Young study looked at the impact of seeing the top marginal tax rates rise—but also studied the effects of a range of other proposals included in the president’s budget and broader tax plans.

This report examines four sets of provisions that would increase the top tax rates:

· The increase in the top two tax rates from 33 to 36 percent and from 35 to 39.6 percent.

· The reinstatement of the limitation on itemized deductions for high-income taxpayers (the “Pease” provision).

· The taxation of dividends as ordinary income and at a top income tax rate of 39.6 percent and increase in the top tax rate applied to capital gains to 20 percent.

· The increase in the 2.9 percent Medicare tax to 3.8 percent for high-income taxpayers and the application of the new 3.8 percent tax on investment income including flow-through business income, interest, dividends and capital gains.

Here is what the accounting firm concluded would happen:

·  Output in the long-run would fall by 1.3 percent, or $200 billion, in today’s economy.

·  Employment in the long-run would fall by 0.5 percent, or roughly 710,000 fewer jobs, in today’s 
economy.

·  Capital stock and investment in the long-run would fall by 1.4 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively.

·  Real after-tax wages would fall by 1.8 percent, reflecting a decline in workers’ living standards 
relative to what would have occurred otherwise.

Ernst and Young prepared the report on behalf of several pro-business groups, including the Independent Community Bankers of America, the National Federation of Independent Business, the S Corporation Association and the United States Chamber of Commerce. (One of the co-authors, Robert Carroll, served as deputy assistant secretary for tax analysis in George W. Bush’s Treasury Department.) Asked for a formal response to the study, two White House officials declined to do so on the record.

But Rep. Sander Levin, the top Democratic member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee, blasted the report.

“The study’s bias is obvious, its methodology is flawed and its purpose is clear: Republicans are seeking every opportunity to repeat a tired and discredited claim about small businesses in an effort to protect the highest earners from contributing toward deficit reduction,” Levin said in a statement.

“The fact is that extending the high-income tax cuts would cost $850 billion and it is far past time for Republicans to join with Democrats in asking the very wealthiest to contribute toward deficit reduction,” Levin said.

One flaw, according to Levin: The report allows for two possible uses for the revenues generated by allowing the high-bracket tax cuts to lapse—more government spending, or returning the money to the public “through an across-the-board reduction in tax rates.” But Levin said: “The president has made clear this revenue should be used for deficit reduction.”

In his statement, Boehner underlined that the Republican-led House will vote this month to extend all of the Bush-era tax cuts and set the stage for a broader debate on overhauling the tax code.

“This report shows the president’s small business tax hike threatens hundreds of thousands of jobs, and will lead to even less economic growth, less investment and lower wages for American workers,” Boehner said.

LUKE SKYWALKER: Romney NOT Human … Alicia Keys Might Agree

Actor Mark Hamill—still, decades later, best known for his turn as Luke Skywalker in the original “Star Wars” trilogy—is warning voters that Mitt Romney “only imitates human behavior. He’s not actually human himself.” No word from Hamill on whether the Republican standard-bearer is more machine, now, than man, twisted and evil. Or whether the ugliness of the 2012 campaign is giving Mos Eisley a run for the title of most wretched hive of scum and villainy.

The actor made his comments to the entertainment website OnTheRedCarpet.com at Comic-Con in San Diego. The riff began as Hamill fondly recalled watching “Zorro” as a kid.”I knew nothing about Mexican history or anything. But just the idea of a privileged person fighting for the underdog—there’s something very romantic about that,” Hamill said. “I guess it goes back to Robin Hood. People that are fighting for the middle class and for the have-nots. It’s something that we see even playing out in the presidential race.

“And if you don’t vote for Barack Obama, you’re insane,” said Hamill, who gave his voice to the Joker in the recent smash-hit video game “Batman: Arkham City.”

“‘Cause without him, I think the middle class will completely disappear. And you look at Romney—and I’m sure he’s a nice guy, but I think he’s like The Thing: He only imitates human behavior. He’s not actually human himself. “

NO MR ROMNEY, NOT ASHAMED OF SUCCESS; ASHAMED OF YOUR LACK OF HUMANITY FOR COMMON FOLK

Romney gets aggressive against Obama: ‘He wants Americans to be ashamed of success’

Mitt Romney unveiled an aggressive new stump speech Tuesday, accusing President Barack Obama of being too cozy with political donors and suggesting the president wants Americans to be “ashamed of success.”

Speaking to several hundred supporters at a wireless services company outside Pittsburgh, Romney took aim at Obama’s comments at a campaign event in Virginia last Friday in which he emphasized the role government played in building private enterprise.

“Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive,” Obama said Friday, citing the teachers and people who build “roads and bridges.” He continued: “If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

Romney seized on Obama’s comment, calling it “foolishness” and “insulting to every entrepreneur and every innovator in America.” He said it exposed what Obama “really thinks” about the country and argued it was more proof that the president’s administration is hostile towards business.

“President Obama attacks success. And, therefore, under President Obama, we have less success,” Romney said. “I will change that.”

Addressing the crowd in a more passionate tone than he has exhibited on the campaign trail in months, Romney called Obama’s comments “startling and revealing” and said he found it “extraordinary that a philosophy of that nature would be spoken by the president of the United States.”

Linking back to an argument he made early in his campaign but has not repeated in recent months, Romney argued that Obama’s comments were proof that that the upcoming election is about the country’s “soul.”

“This campaign is to a great degree about the soul of America,” Romney said. “Do we believe in an America that is great because of government or do we believe in an America that is great because of free people allowed to pursue their dream and build their future?”

Coming after days of criticism from fellow Republicans that he hasn’t shown enough “fight” in the race, Romney’s remarks were longer than his usual stump speech—lasting almost a half hour. And, unlike other recent speeches, he repeatedly made mention of “God,” telling the crowd that the country was created by “God’s will,” not government—statements that elicited wild cheers and applause from his fired-up crowd of supporters.

The presumptive GOP nominee renewed his attack launched Monday, in which he accused Obama of rewarding political contributors and supporters with political stimulus funds and access to federal loans.

“I’m ashamed to say that we’re seeing our president hand out money to the businesses of campaign contributors,” Romney said at one point.

But Romney largely focused on the larger picture of what he called Obama’s hostility toward business—which he argued has been a setback to efforts to revive the economy and has, in turn, made life tougher for struggling Americans. He accused Obama of “crushing economic freedom” in the country with burdensome regulations.

“I’m convinced he wants Americans to be ashamed of success,” Romney declared. “I want Americans to welcome and celebrate success and to encourage people to reach as high as they can. … I don’t want government to take credit for what the individuals of America accomplish.”

Romney called the upcoming election a “defining choice about what America is going to be”—a choice, he said that will not only impact future generations of Americans but the “world.”

Sununu: The Obama campaign is a ‘bunch of liars’

IRWIN, Pa.—John Sununu, a top surrogate to Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, issued a withering attack against President Barack Obama Tuesday, accusing him and his campaign of being “a bunch of liars” for their attacks on the presumptive GOP nominee.

Speaking on a Tuesday conference call with reporters, the former New Hampshire governor, who has emerged as one of Romney’s most aggressive defenders, slammed Obama’s campaign for suggesting Romney might have committed a “felony” for misstating his role at Bain Capital.

But Sununu issued a nearly equal counterpunch, telling reporters Obama “comes out of that murky political world in Chicago where politician and felony has become synonymous.”

Still, Sununu added, “I am shocked that the president introduced the word ‘felon’ into the political discourse.”

The call was organized by Romney aides to attack Obama’s handling of the economy, which they argue has stifled job creation and hurt small business. But Sununu seemed to take it a step further, telling reporters at one point, “I wish this president would learn how to be an American.”

Asked to clarify his statement, Sununu walked it back, explaining he only meant that he wished Obama would adopt the “American formula” for creating businesses and introducing an environment where “entrepreneurs can thrive.”

Still Sununu was back on the attack seconds later. Asked about a new Obama ad that suggests Romney won’t release additional years of his tax returns because they might show he didn’t pay taxes, the former governor trashed the Obama camp as “stupid.”

“If (Romney) didn’t pay taxes, you don’t think the IRS would be knocking on his door? The IRS would have knocked at his door, and we would know all about it,” Sununu said. “The Obama campaign has once again demonstrated that they are clearly and unequivocally a bunch of liars.”

In response, Lis Smith, a spokeswoman for the Obama campaign, said the Romney campaign “has officially gone off the deep end.”

“The question is what else they’ll pull to avoid answering serious questions about Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital and investments in foreign tax havens and offshore accounts,” she said in an email to reporters. “This meltdown and over-the-top rhetoric won’t make things better. It only calls attention to how desperate they are to change the conversation.”

Romney: Releasing Past Tax Returns Would Give Obama More Ammunition

Mitt Romney again insisted he will not release additional years of tax returns, arguing he doesn’t want to give President Barack Obama more ammunition to attack his campaign.

In an interview with National Review’s Robert Costa, Romney said he’s already released “hundreds of pages” of tax records, with more records from his 2011 tax return to come. He argued that should be enough.

“In the political environment that exists today, the opposition research of the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the failure of the president to reignite our economy,” Romney told Costa. “And I’m simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort and lie about.”

Asked why he hadn’t gotten rid of his offshore investments, which have been the subject of several Obama attack ads, Romney reiterated that he has no influence over the makeup of his investments, which are kept in a blind trust. But he offered new details about at least one of his investments: a Cayman Islands account.

“The so-called offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands, for instance, is an account established by a U.S. firm to allow foreign investors to invest in U.S. enterprises and not be subject to taxes outside of their own jurisdiction. So in many instances, the investments in something of that nature are brought back into the United States,” Romney said.

He added: “The world of finance is not as simple as some would have you believe. Sometimes a foreign entity is formed to allow foreign investors to invest in the United States, which may well be the case with the entities that Democrats are describing as foreign accounts.”

Romney’s explanation is likely to fuel more questions about his overseas investments, given that he is not technically a foreign investor.

Asked about his vice presidential search, Romney offered no details, but he explained what he’s looking for.

“In my own view, the people I’ve worked with over my career have been people who have the capacity to lead, who share my philosophy, and in some cases, people who provide perspectives and skills that I may not share,” Romney said.

States saying no to ‘Obamacare’ could see downside

For Gov. Rick Perry, saying “no” to the federal health care law could also mean turning away up to 1.3 million Texans, nearly half the uninsured people who could be newly eligible for coverage in his state.

Gov. Chris Christie not only would be saying “no” to President Barack Obama, but to as many as 245,000 uninsured New Jersey residents as well.

The Supreme Court’s recent ruling gave governors new flexibility to reject what some Republicans deride as “Obamacare.” But there’s a downside, too.

States that reject the law’s Medicaid expansion risk leaving behind many of their low-income uninsured residents in a coverage gap already being called the new “doughnut hole” — a reference to a Medicare gap faced by seniors.

Medicaid is a giant federal-state health insurance program for the poor, now mostly covering children, mothers and disabled people. The expansion in Obama’s health care overhaul was originally expected to add roughly 15 million uninsured low-income people, mainly adults without children, who currently are not eligible in most states. Washington would pick up the entire cost for the first three years, with the federal share then dropping to 90 percent. The Medicaid expansion accounts for about half the total number of uninsured people projected to get coverage under the law.

If every state were to reject that Medicaid expansion — as the Supreme Court ruling now allows — some low-income people would still be picked up by other coverage provisions meant to help the middle class.

But nearly 11.5 million uninsured people below the federal poverty line would be left behind in a new coverage gap, according to recent estimates from the Urban Institute. That brings to mind the infamous “doughnut hole” in the Medicare prescription drug benefit, in which seniors with high drug costs find themselves paying out of pocket much of the year.

Those who fall into the new gap would neither qualify for Medicaid in their states under current rules nor be eligible for subsidized private insurance in new state marketplaces that Obama’s law calls exchanges.

Low-income children and mothers would continue to have insurance through Medicaid. Then, starting in 2014, millions of people over the poverty line would have subsidized private coverage through the new exchanges. “And then this group in the middle has nothing,” said Matt Salo, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. His organization takes no position on what states should do.

Things only get trickier from there.

Many states might actually go along with the Medicaid expansion.

“This is a lot of federal dollars that will lead to a lot of people having health care,” said Salo. That means federal taxes from states opting out would be helping to subsidize coverage elsewhere.

And hospitals in opt-out states would still get hit with cuts programmed in the law under the assumption that every state would take the Medicaid expansion and fewer uninsured people would be needing charity care.

“You are still paying for that coverage expansion but not getting the benefit of it,” said Herb Kuhn, president of the Missouri Hospital Association. “So you as a state are exporting your dollars to another state. If you have some adjoining state that accepts (the Medicaid expansion) then you are basically sending your dollars to your neighbor.”

Kuhn’s state is leaning against the expansion. Since the Supreme Court ruling last month, Republican leaders in at least 10 states have indicated they will reject or lean toward rejecting the Medicaid expansion. They cite a combination of reasons, including strained budgets, lack of confidence that Washington will honor its financial commitments in the long run and years of frustration with Medicaid mandates that limit state choices and shift costs from the federal government.

But other state officials are saying they will study their options and wait until after the November elections to decide. If Republican Mitt Romney wins the White House and starts dismantling Obama’s law, opt-out states might not have to face the Medicaid doughnut hole. But the whole calculation changes if Obama is re-elected and his overhaul starts looking more and more like a done deal.

If that happens, some experts expect that states now refusing will try to cut deals with the federal government, angling for concessions on the expansion itself or the rest of their Medicaid programs.

“One of the things that happens in cases like these is negotiated settlements with specific states,” said Dan Mendelson, president of Avalere Health, an analytical firm serving health care industry and government clients. “What I expect to happen here is that the federal government is going to be more flexible and allow states to do the expansion in ways that suit them.”

It’s hard to see that happening now. Opponents of the health care law are as adamant as ever, even after the Supreme Court upheld most of it, including the mandate that most Americans carry health insurance or pay a fine.

“I will not be party to socializing health care and bankrupting my state in direct contradiction to our Constitution and our founding principles of limited government,” Texas Gov. Perry said last week. About one-fourth of Texas residents are uninsured, the highest percentage of any state.

But John Hawkins, top lobbyist for the Texas Hospital Association, says his group isn’t dropping the subject.

“We have told the governor we are willing to continue the discussion,” said Hawkins. “It’s hard to imagine how you get from here to there without accessing federal funds at some level.”

Obama campaign sues over Ohio early voting law

President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit against Ohio’s top elections official in a dispute over the battleground state’s law that restricts early, in-person voting during the three days beforeElection Day.

The lawsuit filed in Columbus comes after a series of election lawchanges cleared the state’s Republican-controlled Legislature and were signed by Republican Gov. John Kasich.

Obama’s campaign and Democrats argue that the law unfairly ends early, in-person voting for most Ohioans on the Friday evening before the Tuesday election, while allowing military and overseas voters to cast a ballot in person until Monday.

Before the changes to the law, local boards of election had the discretion to set their own early, in-person voting hours on the days before the election. And in-person voting on the weekend varied among the state’s 88 counties.

The state’s elections chief, Secretary of State Jon Husted, has argued that all counties should have the same early voting hours and be open on the same days. Husted and his fellow Republicans contend it’s unfair that a voter in one county can cast an early ballot on a day when a voter in a neighboring county cannot.

“I didn’t see a lawsuit occur when six counties had weekend voting and extended hours and 82 of them didn’t,” Husted said in an interview with The Associated Press. “I’m sympathetic to the idea that we should have consistency, because that’s exactly what we’ve been doing on a number of fronts.”

Obama for America was joined in the lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee and the Ohio Democratic Party.

Ohio is one of 32 states that allow voters to cast an early ballot by mail or in person without an excuse. About 30 percent of swing state’s total vote — or roughly 1.7 million ballots — came in ahead of Election Day in 2008.

Obama won Ohio in last presidential election, but Republican rival Mitt Romney is expected to make a strong play for it.

The state doesn’t track its early voters by party, so the stats don’t show exactly how much Obama might have benefited from early voting in Ohio. But both parties are sure he did.

An extended voting period is perceived as benefiting Democrats because it increases voting opportunities for those harder to reach for an Election Day turnout — Hispanics, blacks, new citizens and poor people.

Asked why the lawsuit shouldn’t be seen as a political play by the campaign, the state’s Democratic Party chairman, Chris Redfern, told reporters Tuesday that he assumes that both parties will be working to get out the vote

Celebrating “Nelson Mandela” International Day on his 94th Birthday

On July 18, 2012 Nelson Mandela will turn 94 years old. I hope to see him for his 95th Birthday next year if god is willing for both of us. 

Nelson Mandela International Day (or Mandela Day) is an annual international day in honor of Nelson Mandela, celebrated each 18 July (on Mandela’s birthday). The day was officially declared by the United Nations in November 2009, with the first UN Mandela Day held on 18 July 2010. However, other groups began celebrating Mandela Day on 18 July 2009.

On 27 April 2009, the 46,664 concerts and the Nelson Mandela Foundation invited the global community to join them in support of an official Mandela Day. Mandela Day is not meant as a public holiday, but as a day to honour the legacy of Nelson Mandela, South Africa’s former President, and his values, through volunteering and community service.

Mandela Day is a global call to action that celebrates the idea that each individual has the power to transform the world, the ability to make an impact.

The Mandela Day campaign message is:

“Nelson Mandela has fought for social justice for 67 years. We’re asking you to start with 67 minutes.”

“We would be honoured if such a day can serve to bring together people around the world to fight poverty and promote peace and reconciliation,” according to a statement issued on Mandela’s behalf.

To mark the first global celebration of Mandela Day on 18 July 2009, Mandela’s 91st birthday, a series of educational, art exhibit, fund-raising and volunteer events leading up to a concert at Radio City Music Hall on 18 July were organized by the 46664 concerts and the Nelson Mandela Foundation. In November 2009, the United Nations General Assembly formally declared 18 July to be “Nelson Mandela International Day”.

He was and always will be my friend whom I admired not just for his dedication but because of his personal touch in everything he did. He has always been a man with heart and conscious and a true friend to me when I was there. 

UN SECRETARY GENERAL: MESSAGE ON NELSON MANDELA INTERNATIONAL DAY

Everybody remembers – and, indeed, needs – an inspirational figure who has played a signal role in their lives. Nelson Mandela has been that role model for countless people around the world.
 
Mr Mandela has been a lawyer and a freedom fighter, a political prisoner, a peacemaker and president. A healer of nations and a mentor to generations, Mr Mandela – or Madiba, as he is affectionately known by millions – is a living symbol of wisdom, courage and integrity.
 
As we celebrate his 93rd birthday and this second Nelson Mandela International Day, I join with the Nelson Mandela Foundation in encouraging people around the globe to perform 67 minutes of public service on Mandela Day – one minute for every year of Mr Mandela’s own service to humanity.
 
Mr Mandela himself once said: “We can change the world and make it a better place. It is in your hands to make a difference.” Let us embrace this message. Tutor a child. Feed the hungry. Volunteer your time at a local hospital or community centre. Make the world a better place.
 
Together, the best way we can thank Mr Mandela for his work is by taking action for others and inspiring change.

 

Bill Clinton pays a visit to former President Nelson Mandela

Former US President Bill Clinton today paid a visit to former President Nelson Mandela at his home in Qunu, Eastern Cape, to wish him a happy 94th birthday for tomorrow, 18 July 2012.

President Bill Clinton with Nelson Mandela on the eve of his 94th birthday at his home in Qunu. Image copyright: Peter Morey

President Bill Clinton with Nelson Mandela and Graca Machel on the eve of Madiba’s 94th birthday at his home in Qunu. Image copyright: Peter Morey

Why Won’t Republicans Agree to Disclosure on WHO is Funding Politics Today

The DISCLOSE Act has died again.

Senate Democrats’ second attempt in less than 24 hours to advance the campaign finance bill failed Tuesday — even after at least 16 senators held the floor for six hours Monday night in support of the measure.

On a strictly partisan 53-45 vote, it fell short of the 60 votes needed to break a GOP filibuster. Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who is recovering from a January seizure, and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) did not vote.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), would force unions, nonprofits and corporate interest groups that spend $10,000 or more during an election cycle to disclose donors who give $10,000 or more. Whitehouse’s version no longer required sponsors of electioneering ads to have a disclaimer at the end and pushed the effective date to 2013.

“When somebody is spending the kind of money that is being spent, a single donor making, for instance, a $4 million anonymous contribution, they’re not doing that out of the goodness of their heart,” Whitehouse said on the floor.

Prior to the vote, Democrats called upon Republicans who have previously spoken in favor of greater transparency and campaign finance reform  to vote “yes” on the bill today. Those targeted Republican senators such as Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), all voted against the DISCLOSE Act both times.

In a floor speech against the DISCLOSE Act, McCain, co-sponsor of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which overhauled campaign finance law, said Whitehouse’s bill doesn’t cut it.

“The American people will see it for what it is – political opportunism at its best, political demagoguery at its worst,” McCain said.

Republicans, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), maintain that the measure favors unions and violates the First Amendment.

“This could best be described as a selective disclosure act,” McConnell said in his weekly press conference. “It has managed to generate opposition from everybody from the ACLU to NRA. That’s quite an accomplishment.”

Sununu Feigns Apology After Calling Obama Un-American

Sununu showed this past week  how the old white hairs of the Republican party have no idea how to differentiate Business from Government roles.  Taking the untenable position of a know it all Sununu showed his ignorance again about the President and about the Condition of Americans who are not wealthy Republicans shaming those republicans like myself who care about AMERICANS over MONEY.

Romney surrogate John Sununu apologized Tuesday afternoon for suggesting that President Obama is un-American.

“Frankly, I made a mistake. I shouldn’t have used those words, and I apologize for using those words” Sununu told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. But, he continued, “I don’t apologize for the idea that this president has demonstrated that he does not understand how jobs are created in America.”

On a campaign conference call with reporters this morning, the former governor of New Hampshire said, “I wish this president would learn how to be an American,” a sound-bite that sent off alarm bells among reporters and drew criticism from the Obama campaign.

Sununu tried to walkback the remark later in the phone call, claiming he was referring to the President’s economic philosophy, a point he reiterated in his interview with CNN.

But Sununu did not back down on his general line of attack against President Obama, which is that the President has no business experience, is guilty of crony capitalism, and is denigrating the values of capitalism.

“He thinks that jobs are created by giving grants to your cronies, to your bundlers and your cronies,” Sununu said.

“The president has to stop denigrating American values,” he later said. “He makes success a terrible thing. He’s sending a wrong message to the young people of America: that if you get rich you’re somehow evil.”

Alicia Keys Explains Why She Supports President Obama Over Romney

Alicia Keys: We need a ‘human’ president

Singer Alicia Keys explained why she supports President Obama at a summit in Philadelphia on Monday, Politics PA reports:

“President Obama cares about the issues we care about… That’s something I know deep in my core and I think we all relate to. You see him speak, whether it’s on TV or if you get a chance to see him in person, you know that there’s a really genuine spirit that comes from him, it’s a really human spirit. That’s the spirit of a person that I’d like to see run the country – someone that’s human. Thank you! Give me someone human!”

Senator McCain Believed Sarah Palin Was A Better Candidate Then Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney’s tax returns had nothing to do with Sen. John McCain’s decision to choose Sarah Palin as his running mate in 2008, according to the Arizona Republican, saying he chose the former Alaska governor because she was a “better candidate.”

McCain received more than two decades worth of Romney’s tax returns as the former Massachusetts governor was undergoing the vetting process four years ago, far more than Romney has released publicly in the 2012 campaign. Democrats have questioned whether McCain saw something untoward in those tax returns and decided to choose Palin instead.

But on Tuesday, McCain flatly rejected that assertion and grew angry at questions over his decision to choose Palin over Romney.

“Of course not,” McCain told POLITICO when asked if the contents of Romney’s tax returns disqualified him from the selection process. “I don’t know what depths these people won’t reach. Obviously, it’s just outrageous. That’s just outrageous. It shows the – it’s so disgraceful for them to allege something that they have absolutely no knowledge of.”

Asked why he chose not to go with Romney, McCain said: “Oh come on, because we thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate. Why did we not take [Tim] Pawlenty, why did we not take any of the other 10 other people. Why didn’t I? Because we had a better candidate, the same way with all the others. … Come on, why? That’s a stupid question.”

Steve Schmidt, McCain’s top campaign adviser in 2008, told the Huffington Post that the contents of the tax returns were not viewed as a problem for their campaign. But Romney’s vast wealth was seen as a political liability that McCain could ill afford, he said.

“Sen. McCain got caught flat-footed answering a question about how many houses he owned,” Schmidt told the news website. “In fact, they were Cindy McCain’s properties but that distinction was lost in the political optics and we knew it would be a big liability that the presidential and the vice presidential candidates together owned more than a dozen homes. It was like something out of a ‘Saturday Night Live’ skit. I mean, come on.”

 

McCain irked by blowback over Palin remark

Sen. John McCain was none too pleased by the uproar over his remarks Tuesday about why he chose Sarah Palin and not Mitt Romney as his running mate in 2008.

The ruckus started after POLITICO published McCain’s response to a question about whether Romney’s tax returns caused the Arizona Republican not to tap the wealthy ex-Massachusetts governor for VP. He said the returns were not a factor in his decision.

Asked why he chose not to go with Romney, McCain said: “Oh come on, because we thought that Sarah Palin was the better candidate. Why did we not take [Tim] Pawlenty, why did we not take any of the other 10 other people. Why didn’t I? Because we had a better candidate, the same way with all the others. … Come on, why? That’s a stupid question.”

McCain recoiled after the media seized on his “better” remark.

“We’ve taken an answer to a question as to why I selected her not Romney and twisted it around of course to some interpretation which is obviously not the case,” McCain told reporters. “It’s really getting a little disgraceful, twisting someone’s words when clearly I said and meant that she was the best fit for our campaign.”

McCain continued to criticize what he called a “Chicago sleaze style campaign” on its hammering of Romney over the tax issue.

“To somehow intimate that there was something wrong with someone’s tax returns without any basis of fact whatsoever, it’s really low,” McCain said. “It’s gutter politics. And they should be ashamed. But they will never be ashamed.”

McCain also said “of course not” when asked if Romney should release more returns, even to quell his critics.

“So if your opponent makes a big deal out of some issue then you’re supposed to do something that no one else has done?” he said. “If you’re married to a very wealthy billionaire should you be revealing her tax returns? I don’t recall that happening with the Kerry campaign.”

The Arizona Republican said he could “personally vouch” that there was nothing in Romney’s returns that would have disqualified him as a running mate.

“The only reason why I’m saying what I’m saying now is because (of) the scurrilous, scurrilous Chicago style sleaze intimations with no basis in fact whatsoever that there might’ve been something wrong with Mitt Romney’s tax returns, which is disgraceful,” he said.

Bankers Finally Facing Possible Arrests

Push for cuffs in banking scandal.

If the Obama administration plays its cards right, liberal critics say it might finally get to do what voters angry over the financial crisis have wanted for years: slap some cuffs on banking’s bad actors.

The Libor controversy — over whether big international banks were manipulating a key interest rate — has fallen straight into the administration’s lap at the perfect time, they say.

If the Justice Department files charges in the coming months, far from a certainty given the tricky legal questions involved, President Barack Obama gets to contrast himself – a president who went after the worst of the worst bankers – with his vision of Mitt Romney — a billionaire Wall Street tycoon who now keeps his money offshore.

Populist critics have latched on to the moment as a prime opportunity to punish Wall Street.

“Considering the importance of the financial markets to the U.S. economy from the perspectives of employment, growth and tax revenue, we believe that continuing to let criminals off the hook is an intolerable situation that must end,” Occupy the SEC, the wonky wing of the Occupy Wall Street movement, wrote on its website.

Four years after the complete meltdown of the country’s financial system the president and his Justice Department have been under fire from liberals who say he has little to show for his promise to go after Wall Street players responsible for the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Financial regulators and the Justice Department have dealt hundreds of millions of dollars in fines against big banks including JPMorgan Chase & Co, Citigroup Inc and Wells Fargo & Co in civil cases, but often without making them admit to the shady practices that they’ve been accused of.

Diehard proponents of cracking heads on Wall Street have been agitating for more action from an administration whose record on the issue, they say, leaves much to be desired.

Enter the Libor scandal.

“This should be a slam dunk criminal case,” said Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets, a Washington based nonprofit that bills itself the “Wall Street watchdog.” “It will be inexcusable if people aren’t arrested pretty quickly here.”

Last month, London’s Barclays bank was fined hundreds of millions of dollars after being accused of manipulating a benchmark interest rate during the financial crisis that measures the cost of bank’s lending to one another and is used as a baseline for a wide range of consumer loans.

With U.S. and British authorities investigating which other of the 18 banks involved in Libor may have taken part in the scheme, the scandal seems poised to grow bigger. And over the weekend, the New York Times reported that the Justice Department is building criminal cases against several financial institutions and individuals at the center of the international controversy – charges that could hand down more hefty penalties and, more importantly, jail time.

“The Criminal Division has an ongoing criminal investigation into other institutions and individuals,” DOJ spokeswoman Alisa Finelli said on Tuesday in response to a question about the Libor probe. She said the agreement entered into with Barclay’s last month “applies only to the institution, not to any individuals and as part of the agreement, Barclay’s agreed to continue cooperating.”

If criminal charges are filed, the move could help Obama shed the image of an administration that talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk when when it comes to Wall Street malfeasance.

“If the narrative that you’re trying to build is one of cracking down, putting people in jail in handcuffs is a lot more effective than fines because frankly voters can’t tell difference between – and most people, can’t really tell the difference between $100,000, $1 million, $500 million and $5 billion — they’re all just a lot of money,” said Doug Usher, a consultant with the bipartisan consulting firm Purple Strategies. “But a CEO resigning, a CFO going to jail — that’s really palpable”

High profile charges against Wall Street power brokers could also lend itself to the Obama campaign’s effort to draw a contrast Romney.

In recent months, the Obama camp has been ratcheting up its attacks on the presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s private sector experience – most recently labeling Romney the “outsourcer-in-chief” — as it continues to try to paint the former Massachusetts governor as a wealthy, out-of-touch venture capitalist whose allegiance lies with big corporations over every day, middle-class Americans.

The interest rate manipulation controversy comes as Romney struggles to shed his Wall Street image while being pummeled for not releasing more of his tax returns.

“The Republicans have now nominated someone from the financial sector at a time when the financial sector is an extremely bad odor,” conservative columnist George Will said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.” “Hardly a day goes by – the Libor scandal, TARP, the condition of the country to believe that we’re allowing the banks to keep profits private and socializing losses – all of this conditions the atmosphere in which this is occurring.”

It is far from certain what type of cases can be brought as a result of the the Libor scandal and the Justice Department has repeatedly emphasized that its legal decisions about the financial crisis are not affected by political pressures.

“Every decision that’s being made by our prosecutors around the country is being made 100 percent based on the facts of that particular case and the law that we can apply,” Lanny Breuer, the head of the DOJ’s criminal division, told “60 Minutes” in December.

Finelli declined to comment about the timing of any possible charges.

Criminal prosecutions are not expected to be easy slam drunks — far from it. Legal experts say prosecutors will face significant challenges trying to prosecute individuals over interest rate manipulation, and there is plenty of speculation about whether attorneys will be able to demonstrate intent to lie and conscious wrongdoing.

Jill Fisch, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who is an expert on securities regulation, said she has yet to see criminal conduct arising out of the financial crisis.

“I know there’s public appetite for that, but you need some actual criminal wrong doing to file criminal charges,” she said. “It’s misguided to focus on sort of individual witch hunts. The Libor scandal is one more example of either insufficient regulation or insufficient oversight or inappropriate incentives.”

The rate-setting scandal also poses potential political headaches for the president.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner was the head the New York Federal Reserve when the alleged misdeeds were taking place. The New York Fed recently released documents showing that Geithner made suggestions to his British counterparts in 2008 for tightening up the system, and Republicans are expected to press him in hearings this month about what exactly he knew and how much he pushed to have his suggestions put into practice.

The administration could also face questions from Republicans about the timing of any perp walks or criminal charges so close to an election.