That's all fair, but the problem with criticizing the Ryan pick is that Romney couldn't have made a different one. At least not in terms of policy. The Palin pick was ludicrous as a concept because McCain was strong enough in the base already, and should have focused on swing and moderate voters. Romney doesn't have that luxury. He must win over his base, and hope that the down economy is enough to convince swing voters that anything is better than Obama. I just mean "balance" in the sense of their history. Romney is, as everyone is so fond of pointing out, an architect of Obamacare, and Ryan is the architect of its proposed destruction. And while Mitt can remain elusive on the issue of immigration, people are free to suppose that he agrees with Ryan's position. (Whatever that happens to be; I don't actually know where he stands...though I could probably guess) Ryan provides the (zany) filling for the gaps in Mitt's policy. I would also argue that making this a policy election is what Mitt Romney wanted, too. As a kind of Obama-lite, Romney gets crushed in the election. As a bland avatar of the GOP, with some Ryan flavoring, he probably stands a much better chance. But I don't have the information or resources that Silver does, so maybe I'm wrong. It just seems right to me that he's better off for this pick, even if it does give the Dems something new to play with. Certainly that's better than them being able to say "Well, you agreed with me ten years ago!"
"Why America doesn't like Mitt Romney: "There are moments ... in which he comes across like the guy who doesn't wave when you let him into traffic because in his mind he was able to merge on his own."
It Comes to This? Libertarians Challenge Romney's Place on Washington State Ballot So, Then ... It Comes to This? This takes a little bit of explaining, but, then again, the issue isn't going to go anywhere, so ... right. Goldy explains: As I first reported some weeks back, the Washington State Republican Party's failure to nominate a candidate for US Senate in 2010 appears to have cost them "major party" status under the letter of RCW 29A.04.086. This failure should in turn have required Mitt Romney to qualify for Washington's presidential ballot under rules and deadlines applied to "minor parties," a deadline that has long since passed. It is worth noting the caveat from Goldy's first report: Of course I don't really expect Secretary of State Sam Reed to remove Romney's name from the ballot whatever the letter of the law, and it's hard to imagine a court forcing him to do so. But it sure would be fun to watch them sweat. Now, here's the thing. A few years ago, in an effort to make elections more friendly to Republican candidates, we stopped using specific party affiliations. A candidate for office is not a Democrat or Republican, or whatever. Rather, a candidate "prefers" a certain party. Admittedly, I chuckled at this a couple years ago, when Republicans listed themselves as preferring "GOP Party"—the Grand Ol' Party Party. Turns out, there's a bigger guffaw. Apparently, or so the scuttlebutt goes, the 2010 GOP nomination contest between Dino Rossi and Clint Didier was so fractious—and then add in some manner and degree of unknown factors in the party management—that the Republicans never officially nominated Dino Rossi. He was, for all intents and purposes, the Republican candidate, but apparently certain papers were never filed. The result, if we chase down the rabbit hole, is the arguable assertion that Mitt Romney should not be on Washington state's presidential ballot. Of course, that in itself is a hell of an argument and, besides, who really expects that Romney would be kicked off the ballot? As Goldy noted today, we have an answer: Today the Libertarian Party of Washington State filed suit (PDF) to have Romney's name removed from the November ballot. No, really. It comes to this. We'll see if any of it amounts to anything. ____________________ Notes: Goldy. "Libertarians Sue to Have Romney Kicked Off Washington Ballot". Slog. August 16, 2012. Slog.TheStranger.com. August 16, 2012. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...e-to-have-romney-kicked-off-washington-ballot —————. "Major GOP Fuckup Could Disqualify Romney from Washington Ballot". Slog. August 1, 2012. Slog.TheStranger.com. August 16, 2012. http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/ar...uld-disqualify-romney-from-washington-ballot/
So Romney says he paid at least 13% taxes in previous years. It is pretty obvious he is NOT going to release his taxes, so the Dems as a last effort tried to offer a deal, just release the last 5 years. I guess they figured there should be some dirt in that time period, since that also includes 2009, when the Swiss bank account tax clemency was enacted....
Well it is interesting that he is being so elusive regarding almost everything including his taxes. Notice, Romney didn’t limit his tax comments to income taxes. So if you take him at his word, that 13% includes property taxes, sales taxes, payroll taxes and Lord knows what other taxes. So that means his effective income tax rate was lower than 13%. I think what Dems are really interested in knowing is if he participated in the tax amnesty program offered by the IRS. Romney hasn’t said squat about that as of yet. But then we should also keep in mind that Romney has a proven track record of lying, including lying about his tax returns. So with Romney, his word should not be taken as truthful without solid evidence.
Even if 13% is just the rate on income, that's still shameful. People on the lower end of the middle class pay higher rates than that, and the guy is a multi-millionaire. That Romney would come out with a straight face and brag that he pays the same tax rate as someone who is barely scraping by, and expect that that should satisfy people concerned about his taxes, is preposterous. It is downright scandalous that people who are as fortunate and privileged as Romney are allowed to contribute less than just about anyone else, and shocking that he's fascist enough to come out in public and take pride in that fact. If he had any honor, he'd immediately donate 95% of his wealth to charity, apologize to the country for his participation in a system of rapacious greed and iniquity, and spend the rest of his life dedicated to advocacy for progressive taxation.
Agreed, and Romney wants to cut taxes for people like himself. Without a capital gains tax, Romney would have an effective tax rate of zero. Coincidentally that is just what Romney’s VP nominee, Congressman Ryan, has proposed. The Romney’s are fond of telling people that they donate 10% of their income to “charity” whenever they discuss their taxes. What they don’t tell people is that 10% is not to charity as you or I might think of charity, but a required donation/tithe to their church, the Mormon Church. If they do not tithe to the Mormon Church, they would not be able to attend sessions in Mormon Temples and would be ostracized. That means Romney would lose many of his valuable business contacts, the very contacts that allowed him to be so successful in business. So Romney’s charitable donations go almost exclusively to the Mormon Church and are more of a business investment. The Mormon Church then invests the money into church businesses and Mormon Church activities including temple building. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Management_Corporation P.S. And while the Romney's like to include their church tithes (donations) in any conversation related to their taxes, their church mandated tithes are really not relevant to the tax discussion. Perhaps the Romney's view their church mandated tithing (i.e. charitable donations) as a tax. And I can understand how they might view it that way, but it has nothing to do with their tax obligation to the US federal government, state or local governments. It is the price they choose to pay for their membership in the Mormon Church.
Quick Notes Quick Notes: • Hannity thinks Republican VP pick, Rep. Paul Ryan, is a "national sex symbol". • The man who would be veep also tried blasting Obama for the closure of a General Motors plant in Janesville, Wisconsin. Apparently, it is President Obama's fault that the plant closed before he became president. • Not to mention that whole embarrassing episode in which Ryan said he did not request stimulus money, which repeated itself this week. • And, of course, the difference is clear: Ryan backed the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, a $25 billion venture, when it arose under the Bush administration; now that a Democrat is in charge, he doesn't like it so much. • Mitt Romney, offered a compromise in the ongoing tax returns debacle, refused. • The Tax Policy Center would seem to resent Mitt Romney's dismissal of their budget analysis as "garbage. • Of course, it's worth noting that Romney and Ryan might not know what's in their budget plans.
As absurd as that may sound, I came across this: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! On a more serious note, here's part one of Ryans video series, The Path to Prosperity: [video=youtube;Xwv5EbxXSmE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xwv5EbxXSmE[/video] And, so far, Romney/Ryan are winning the battle over who is going to save/destroy Medicare: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...icare-plan-is-coming-back-to-haunt-obama.htmlIF there's one thing old folks are more scared of than Ryan's plan, it's Obamacare.
LOL, you are getting desperate. How did your political predictions and assessments of the last presidential election turnout for you? Not too well as I recall. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I just don't see what's to fear about Obamacare. More affordable coverage, a closing doughnut hole, and Medicaid gets extended to cover more people. If people are afraid of it, it's only because the GOP has been successful in spreading fear-based propaganda.
Romney knows this. It's very similar to the legislation that he championed for Massachusetts. As I believe he's an intelligent and well informed person, I do not believe that he really thinks there is anything (or anything much) wrong with the PPACA. But he knows that, for reasons that have almost nothing to do with the actual legislation, his path to the White House lies in exploiting the hysterical, irrational fears of a certain percentage of the voting public. These people need to be educated about what the legislation means, and its actual consequences; exploiting their fears for political gain, all the while knowing that's exactly what you're doing? That's terrible.
Romney simply does not care about policy. He cares about power. That's why he doesn't have any policy positions to speak of, and just says whatever he thinks the GOP wants to hear.
Ryan Bounce in Wisconsin Wisconsin, which Obama won by 14 points in the last election and has not gone Republican since the eighties, is now in play. The most recent poll there actually has Romney ahead of Obama (albeit only by one point): http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/21/poll-romney-grabs-lead-wisconsin/ In other election news, is the media turning on Obama? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html
That presupposes that there was something to turn. While playing to Republican/Tea Party mythology, this notion has no basis in fact. The press is treating Obama as it always has nothing more nothing less. And of course the Republican media certainly has not changed course. They have always been against anything not Republican and obviously President Obama is not Republican. My how surprising another negative commentary by a Republican/conservative activist. That is not new. Niall Ferguson, the author in your opinion piece, is a conservative activist not known for his adherence to fact. Like many Republicans he does not constrain himself with little things like facts. How surprising is it to find that Niall plays fast and loose with the facts in his opinion piece? It’s not surprising at all. How surprising is it that Niall conveniently overlooks some important and inconvenient facts and Republican culpability? It’s not surprising at all. It is more of the same. But you are trying to represent it as some form of change. Why I am not surprised? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niall_Ferguson
There exists another thread in this same subforum for posts about Obama specifically, with no specific bearing on Romney.
While the Romney camp are running in the opposite direction from the Akin controversy, even going so far as to now claim that they support a woman's right to an abortion if she is raped (in stark contrast to Ryan's stance on abortion matters, the Republican platform seems to be trying to counter Romney's response in the hope of keeping the ultra-right conservative voters, it seems the party is also still trying to ensure they continue to garner the support from the ultra-right wing voters. One would say a step in the right direction. However, then we have this, a couple of days later: Interesting, isn't it? So which is it to be? Perhaps Romney will provide an answer to that question, when he provides all of his income tax information....
Romney Ahead in Michigan & Wisconsin? Recent Polling has Romney ahead of Obama Not only in Wisconsin, but also Michigan. http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/story/19329562/new-michigan-poll-has-romney-ahead-of-obama
The label, "Path to Prosperity", sounds like a Christian motivational speaker's name for a get-rich-quick scheme. I wonder if he's advocating ( or whether he ever advocated) mortgage-backed securities. And where does he get the authority to propound an economic panacea? Does he have a PhD in economics? No. He's a former speech writer with a BA. Big deal. That's another fabrication. The only way to cut the cost of Medicare is to cut benefits. But wait: those premiums came out of my check all my life. And I'm going to be getting sick from time to time after I'm too old to work. So I'm going to need my benefits. So let me see, should I vote for Ryan, and sacrifice my benefits for the sake of some joker's "Path to Prosperity"? No. Not a chance. The people, young and old, who voted Obama into office specifically were looking for health care reform. What a short memory you have. Count the elderly who are afraid of another failed Republican government, that keeps getting us into these messes, and the hatchet job they did on the voter mandated bill. And older folks really don't like to be patronized. Ryan will be up to his jodphurs in doo-doo trying to appease folks who are not about to give up their entitlements.
The presumptive presidential nominee normally gets a boost in polling after the VP selection. It worked for McCain in 2008, but not so much for Romney this year. So your hype Mad just does not withstand the daylight test. http://content.usatoday.com/communi.../paul-ryan-poll-vice-president-mitt-romney-/1
