Ad War Update

The Romney campaign runs against crony capitalism:

Politico fact-checks:

Romney’s campaign takes liberties: lumping in facts with conjecture, citing job losses without mentioning that many of them occurred in Europe and Asia and vaguely charging that somebody’s “friends and family” wound up with taxpayers’ money. Rather than being failures, some of the projects mentioned in the ad have actually been purchased by major energy companies. Of course, the ads’ main facts about Solyndra aren’t in dispute: The California solar manufacturer did indeed get a $535 million DOE loan guarantee and subsequently go bankrupt. 

American Crossroads echoes Romney's attack that targets "public equity President Obama": 

As the presumptive GOP nominee cozies up to Donald Trump in Las Vegas, the Obama camp invokes nostalgia for their previous opponent's leadership – and relative restraint: 

Alex Burns weighs the strategies: 

Romney's trying to discredit Obama as a steward of the economy. Obama's trying to discredit Romney as a strong leader. It's a familiar pattern. … The message in the Romney video isn't a new one for Republicans to be delivering, but some of the details — risky investments, large-scale layoffs — sound a little different in the context of Democratic attacks on Romney's time in private equity. Returning fire by going after Solyndra (and similar companies) could be where Romney's Bain pushback goes next.

Previous Ad War Updates: May 24May 23May 22May 21May 18May 17May 16May 15May 14May 10May 9May 8,  May 7May 3May 2May 1Apr 30Apr 27Apr 26Apr 25Apr 24Apr 23Apr 18Apr 17Apr 16Apr 13Apr 11Apr 10Apr 9Apr 5Apr 4Apr 3Apr 2Mar 30Mar 27Mar 26Mar 23Mar 22Mar 21Mar 20Mar 19Mar 16Mar 15Mar 14Mar 13Mar 12Mar 9Mar 8Mar 7Mar 6Mar 5Mar 2Mar 1Feb 29Feb 28Feb 27Feb 23Feb 22Feb 21, Feb 17, Feb 16, Feb 15, Feb 14, Feb 13, Feb 9, Feb 8, Feb 7, Feb 6, Feb 3, Feb 2, Feb 1, Jan 30, Jan 29, Jan 27, Jan 26, Jan 25, Jan 24, Jan 22, Jan 20, Jan 19, Jan 18, Jan 17, Jan 16 and Jan 12.

Your Mom’s Erotica, Ctd

A reader writes:

You quoted Dan Savage: "[N]on-kinky filmgoers and readers can't seem to relax and allow themselves to enjoy a good kinky fantasy unless they're told—unless they're reminded over and over again—that this kink shit is crazy and that kinksters are fucked up." I'm a published Romance author. Grey's disturbing past and Ana's doe-eyed acceptance of him fit the mold of old-style 1970s Romances. Romances these days have held onto this idea of redemption for characters who have experienced or done horrible things – that the unselfish love of another person can put someone broken back together. This is Romance's core message.

However, Romances these days have let go of the doe-eyed, inexperienced and all-accepting heroine. I read the first 100 pages of Fifty Shades Of Grey, but gave up when I realized that Ana hearkens back to this old-style heroine.

The kink didn't bother me – there are plenty of better written erotic Romances available – but what did bother me is Ana's virginity means she is unable to give true, informed consent to her relationship with Grey. Just like so many heroines in those old-style Romances, she has nothing to compare him to, no idea of what "normal" might be for her. I wasn't so much annoyed by Grey, even though his characterization was uneven and inconsistent with who he is supposed to be.

While I get that many readers put themselves in Ana's place and her virginity is symbolic of their own inexperience with this kinked-up world, as a reader and a writer I'm very happy to see this sort of heroine becoming more rare. I'd find it much more interesting to read about two people with equally messed up psyches, find their way to healing, together. Because female readers can't all be (or want to be) doe-eyed, accepting women ready for deflowering. Having said all that, the reader and media reaction to Shades has been readily dissected by the Smart Bitches, Trashy Books blog:

So is it any wonder that healthy sexual curiosity and arousal are something women might prefer to keep to themselves? God forbid Rush Limbaugh see you buying a book that's sexually explicit or that congress hear you defending your own right to sexual arousal… I wish things were very different, especially the way folks talk about sexuality in books predominantly written by and read by women. I wish that female arousal wasn't mocked, laughable, or demeaned. I wish it were as acceptable for a woman to say, "Hot damn, that turned me on," as it is for a man to say the same…

We cannot examine female arousal without demeaning condescension. And that is a shame. I wish it were possible to speak candidly about what books turned women on, and why. It would be fascinating to see what those books have in common, and why some work and some don't.

These issues of what "good girls" should and shouldn't do obscure the larger problems with the story but feed the sales and media frenzy. Some even write off those issues by claiming that the book is just "smut," so it shouldn't be held up to any sort of standard, but I disagree. What this book says about men and women in relationships is disturbing – and it has nothing at all to do with the kink and everything to do with consent and women's ability to choose their own fantasies without judgement.

Trump Doubles Down

Romney supporter and fundraiser Donald Trump proudly displays his birtherism:

David Graham wonders what the hell Romney is thinking. Allahpundit bets it won't matter:

Tolerating Trump lets Romney show the most ardent anti-Obamaites that he’s willing to “take it to The One,” even if it makes the Steve Schmidts of the world cry big salty tears. Meanwhile, everyone else rolls their eyes or shrugs. 

Jamelle Bouie looks beyond the horserace:

In what world can Romney acquiesce to obvious charlatans like Trump, but stand up to congressional Republicans once in office? As president, he’ll still have political considerations, and the pressure to adopt the line of right-wing Republicans is far greater than the pressure to stand with Trump.

Peter Foster's two cents:

The impression, like when Romney failed to protect his openly gay national security adviser earlier in the campaign, is of a candidate cowering before his hardline base.

All I can say is that Romney's embrace of Trump and passive letting go of Grenell are signs of personal weakness, not strength.

The Television Cycle

It was originally set by automobiles:

Television has always been an advertisement-based platform and when television began, the only major national advertisable industry was cars. Since every year new cars were being introduced in September, September was when the television season would start. There was no reason to put up new shows in the summer if all the major ad dollars were coming in the fall. And it just stuck…

But that's changing:

Where before advertisers had the biggest say on when we watch television shows, now television has to work to shape itself around its audiences viewing habits. Just like the networks having to figure out a way to make money off DVR and Hulu views, they will also have to adapt to audience looking for summer content. It takes television networks, after decades of stagnation that correlated with decades of innovation elsewhere, accepting they're not in the automobile industry anymore. 

A European Redemption Pact?

A new idea out of Germany squares some circles in the eurozone crisis.

The German scheme — known as the European Redemption Pact — offers a form of "Eurobonds Lite" that can be squared with the German constitution and breaks the political logjam. It is a highly creative way out of the debt crisis, but is not a soft option for Italy, Spain, Portugal, and other states in trouble… In effect, Germany would share its credit card to slash debt costs for Italy, Spain and others. Yet it is the exact opposition of fiscal union. While eurobonds are a federalising catalyst, the fund would be temporary and self-extinguishing. "The fund is a return to the discipline of Maastricht with sovereign control over budgets," said Dr Benjamin Weigert, the Council of Experts’s general-secretary.