At his first fundraiser of the day, Romney told the guests - who each had to have contributed $50,000 to the campaign to attend - that it was likely the "most expensive lunch" they've ever had.

"We're accused, by the way - in our party - of being the party of the rich," Romney said. "And it's an awful moniker, because that's just not true."

Really?

And, Jeff, of course, is correct. Both parties are a disgrace on some level.

jeff2sf wrote:He's right though, of course. You guys are just as bad as his guys.

So you think the manufactured Fast and Furious "scandal" is on par with the Bush plan to politicize the country's justice system?

Issa is just doing a round of payback and trying to score political points. For sure the dems tried to score political points in the Justice dept scandal, but that was a real scandal with potentially huge consequences, not some histrionics over something fabricated.

And members of Bush's cabinet DID use tax payer financed meetings to discuss campaign strategy, a clear violation of the Hatch Act. Obama's guys did not even attend the speeches, let alone used public funds.

Now I agree, as I've stated in the past, that there are some ways they are similarly bad. For example, they are both bought and paid for by the finance industry and they each have their own special interest groups. But they are not equally as bad when it comes to this stuff.

Rumor is that Romney's VP list is down to Portman, T-Paw and Jindal. No "game-changers" there, though I think Portman presents the smallest target and the most upside.

Pawlenty's a yutz who coined "Obamneycare," Jindal's amateur exorcism practice will stir up echoes of Christine O'Donnell, and neither is particularly electrifying on the stump. Mitt will win Louisiana and lose Minnesota (where T-Paw is about as popular as Romney is in MA) anyway.

Portman might help in Ohio, nobody hates him, and he'd probably be a good president--almost surely better than Mitt--if events forced him into the role. He's boring, but they're all boring, and he doesn't come across as a smug rich prick.

dajafi wrote:Rumor is that Romney's VP list is down to Portman...No "game-changers" there, though I think Portman presents the smallest target and the most upside.

She can be kind of hot and she brings the younger star wars geeks into the mix. Its not fair to beat on her for being short...

I think Pawlenty is the target, but ROB Portman has the best experience. He served both sides of congress and has been in cabinets twice (council, trade & OBM).

I really don't see what Jindal brings--he's a competent governor, but he's not evangelical, and I really think Romney needs one, which is why I still think Pawlenty is a leading contender. Also, I wonder how Jindal's fairly radical education reform will play with independents. Portman is a Methodist, which will probably be ok as long as he can say Jesus and sound authentic doing so.

I also imagine that Mitt might be trying to time the release of his VP with the release of some additional tax returns. I'm just imagining things right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of the stuff in those unreleased tax returns aren't going to damage him with the right--maybe a stray contribution to Planned Parenthood or something like that.

Love Mitt citing Teresa Heinz not releasing HER tax returns. Mitt, we know the Heinz's made pickles - what'd YOU make?

drsmooth wrote:Love Mitt citing Teresa Heinz not releasing HER tax returns. Mitt, we know the Heinz's made pickles - what'd YOU make?

Yet another reason the comparison to John Kerry is so apt. What a clown.

What about Christy and his guv'nor friends jumping on board adding taxation for internet sales. A new tax! Estimated to be $26B to the states. One of the senators (if I recall) said that this will help small businesses - if you consider Walmart an SB, the you are right.

Regardless of your feelings on this decrease in your spending capacity, it is the right answer for the states.

BTW - time to dump your B2C stocks.

Speculation now is that Romney's effective tax rate in 2009, because of losses after the slump, might have been... zero. Legal, totally, but bad optics is an understatement.

thephan wrote:What about Christy and his guv'nor friends jumping on board adding taxation for internet sales. A new tax! Estimated to be $26B to the states. One of the senators (if I recall) said that this will help small businesses - if you consider Walmart an SB, the you are right.

Regardless of your feelings on this decrease in your spending capacity, it is the right answer for the states.

BTW - time to dump your B2C stocks.

I'm not really crazy on the government missing out on billions of Amazon sales tax, and Amazon being able to edge small businesses pricewise through the lack of that tax

I guess you can say that business will all just go to Walmart, but I disagree. Pretty positive it would provide some boost to small bookstores, record stores, and comic shops

How Much Has Citizens United Changed the Political Game? - Another good piece, this time from the New York Times Magazine, going over what Citizens United changed and what it hasn't

Fighting the war against conventional wisdom one article at a time. (Not me, but the media...that sounds stupid on rereading)

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I guess you can say that business will all just go to Walmart, but I disagree. Pretty positive it would provide some boost to small bookstores, record stores, and comic shops

I really, really hope it does. I try to go to Target and Walmart and Costco only for commodities. There are not a lot of Mom & Pops stores in the DC metro area anyway, so maybe that is some of my disgust. But what ate the M&Ps is Amazon, walmart, Target, Total Wine, and other big box stores. Some places carved out of field and forest just started with boxes and never even paused to give a local a shot (I can really only think of restaurants, a specialty beer & wine join, a questionable jeweler, and a specialty construction materials place that has to be a money laundry).

dajafi wrote:Speculation now is that Romney's effective tax rate in 2009, because of losses after the slump, might have been... zero. Legal, totally, but bad optics is an understatement.

but think how much he gave to "charity" (Church of LDS)

and he's had years to "smooth" his "financials"

he's just not ready to compete at the national level

This race is a statistical dead heat, so if he's not ready I'd hate to see how Obama would be doing against someone who is.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:This race is a statistical dead heat, so if he's not ready I'd hate to see how Obama would be doing against someone who is.

Romney's not ready

There is no opponent of the incumbent who is

Explain to me your point

his point is maybe he is ready because he might win

John Sununu? John Sununu is your surrogate? The guy who'll reel in your independent voters? Who is it who doesn't understand how to "be an American"?

I'm sorry John fat old fucking stupid Sununu is

Houshphandzadeh wrote:his point is maybe he is ready because he might win

as Nightman notes - in a roundabout way - if he was ready, he would arguably be well ahead

I think Romney has been ready since the day he was born.

I think he just sucks a fat one.

Question for TV and jh (though others feel free too): what do you think turnout will be this year?

Do people now feel the exercise (voting) is pointless, or do they dislike The Other Guy so much that they'll get past the lack of excitement they have for Their Guy?

I think the record low was '88, at 50 percent. I can't imagine we won't top that, but not sure by very much.