Americans have a more negative than positive immediate reaction to Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney's comments, secretly caught on video, about the 47% of Americans whom he said are Obama supporters and dependent on the government. Thirty-six percent of voters say Romney's comments make them less likely to vote for him, while 20% say the remarks make them more likely to vote for him, and 43% say the comments won't make a difference.

A substantial majority of Americans have already made up their minds about their vote choice, so it is likely that many of those who claim to be "more likely" or "less likely" to vote for Romney are, in essence, indicating that the comments reinforced their pre-existing vote choice.

....independents -- voters who are, by definition, less fixed in their partisanship -- tilt toward the "less likely" over the "more likely" view by a 29% to 15% margin -- although more than half say Romney's comments make no difference.

By Matt Flegenheimer, New York Times, Sept. 18/19, 2012

[...] New Yorkers will soon encounter another potentially inflammatory rendering of Islam: an advertisement in the transit system that reads, “In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man.” It concludes with the words, “Support Israel. Defeat Jihad,” wedged between two Stars of David.

After rejecting the ads initially, then losing a federal court ruling on First Amendment grounds, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority said on Tuesday that the ads were expected to appear next week at 10 subway stations.

“Our hands are tied,” Aaron Donovan, a spokesman for the authority, said when asked about the timing of the ad.

In July, Judge Paul A. Engelmayer of Federal District Court in Manhattan ruled that the authority had violated the First Amendment rights of the group that sought to place the ad, the American Freedom Defense Initiative. The authority had cited the ad’s “demeaning” language in barring its placement [...]

Interesting and curious:

Before the Republican National Convention, Mitt Romney was the Republican nominee in all but name. By law, however, he could only spend primary donations until he officially became nominee. To increase cash flow during the interregnum, the Romney campaign borrowed $20 million.

“We realized that we could collateralize this debt with $20 million of general-election funds that were already sitting in our bank account,” a senior Romney aide says, speaking exclusively with National Review Online.

“This is permitted by Federal Election Commission rules,” the aide explains. “In the past, the FEC has specifically contemplated candidates putting up their public financing payments as collateral.” Since Romney is not taking public funds, his finance team found another option.

In order to compete with President Obama, the senior aide continues, Romney’s advisers could not sit on their hands until they were able to use general-election funds.

So far, $9 million has been paid back. Five million was paid back before the end of August and an additional $4 million has been paid back in September.

When federal election reports are released later this week, they’ll show debt of $15 million, but the campaign’s actual debt is roughly $11 million. The campaign will soon begin fundraising to pay off the remainder.

The Romney campaign borrowed the money in August from the Bank of Georgetown, just as many of its primary dollars were drying up.

“We took advantage of the law as it exists to secure this line of credit,” the aide says. “We were able to stay competitive in a period when we were looking at a tilted playing field.”

By Robert Costa

Buoyed by an upswing in economic optimism, President Barack Obama has strengthened his support among voters and is now rated as equal to Mitt Romney on which candidate can best improve the economy, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

By Andrew Tilghman - Staff writer, Army Times, Sep 14, 2012

Top military investigators downplayed warnings about the alleged shooter in the November 2009 massacre at Fort Hood, Texas, and opted not to interview him before the tragedy because they feared casting suspicion upon him would harm his Army career, experts told lawmakers Friday.

Investigators from the Defense Criminal Investigative Service knew of email exchanges between U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, accused of fatally shooting 13 people, and notorious terrorist leader Anwar Nasser al-Awlaki, but they halted their investigation before seeking a face-to-face interview with Hassan.

Details of the Fort Hood shooting investigation emerged Friday at a hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee’s oversight, investigations and management panel.

An expert witness said DCIS was invited to participate in the FBI task force investigating Hasan before the shooting because the agency could provide detailed insider knowledge of military matters that might help the probe, but the DCIS agent “also brought the subjectivity of an insider to the assessment.”

“That subjectivity may have caused undue deference to the Army chain of command and undue concern about the potential impact of an interview on Hasan’s military career, which appear to have driven the decision not to interview Hasan or contact his superiors,” according to a statement submitted to the panel [....]

Karma is a bitch.

According to the Tax Foundation, in 1974, before the earned-income tax credit was instituted, 19.2 percent of tax filers had no federal income tax liability. This rose to 25.2 percent in 1975 when the credit took effect.

During the 1990s, about 24 percent of filers had no income tax liability, but this number took a big jump during the George W. Bush administration as Republicans added a large child credit to the tax code. The percentage of filers with no income tax liability rose to 36.3 percent in 2008, from 25.2 percent in 2000.

According to new data from the Tax Policy Center, this year 46.4 percent of tax filers will have no federal income tax liability.

Romney tells wealthy donors that 47% of the electorate will vote for Obama to avoid having to take responsibility for their own lives.

By Mike Allen and Jim Vandehei, Politico.com Sepetember 16, 2012

Stuart Stevens, Mitt Romney’s top strategist, knew his candidate’s convention speech needed a memorable mix of loft and grace if he was going to bound out of Tampa with an authentic chance to win the presidency. So Stevens, bypassing the speechwriting staff at the campaign’s Boston headquarters, assigned the sensitive task of drafting it to Peter Wehner, a veteran of the last three Republican White Houses and one of the party’s smarter wordsmiths.

Not a word Wehner wrote was ever spoken.

Stevens junked the entire thing, setting off a chaotic, eight-day scramble that would produce an hour of prime-time problems for Romney, including Clint Eastwood’s meandering monologue to an empty chair [...]

This article is based on accounts from Romney aides, advisers and friends, most of whom refused to speak on the record because they were recounting private discussions and offering direct criticism of the candidate and his staff, Stevens in particular [...]

Most damning part of Politico piece: After 6 yrs running for WH, Romney didn't have anyone in-house he trusted w/biggest speech of his life.

— Ross Douthat (@DouthatNYT) September 17, 2012

By Julie Pace, Associated Press, September 16, 2012

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama will launch a new trade enforcement case against China Monday, using the power of incumbency to counter Republican Mitt Romney's criticism that he is ceding American jobs to the Asian power.

Senior administration officials said the president will announce the new case, targeting Chinese subsidies for exports of automobiles and automobile parts, Monday during a campaign trip to Ohio. The swing state has a large manufacturing base where many blame China for depressing its industry [....]

Officials said the administration will launch enforcement action at the World Trade Organization because it says China is illegally subsidizing exports in their autos and auto parts sectors [....]