08-14-12, 03:30 PM #321
But at the heart of it we see why Ryan is considered a desperation pick. It is not so much "balance"—the policy potential for this ticket treads quite literally in the realm of the unbelievable—but in order to shore up conservative support and rekindle conservative enthusiasm; as I asserted last month, right-wing voter enthusiasm can be a tenuous proposition. Putting Ryan on the ticket clearly plays to those voters. Whether the Ryan candidacy continues to stoke that enthusiasm remains to be seen.
Of course, it's early; there is nothing I'm saying that is impervious to argument. But this is the early perspective, and at the heart of why people are suggesting a sense of desperation or late summer about the pick. What Ryan's November value is remains to be seen, though Silver suggested it will be minimal at best. And January? Well, by Mitt Romney's own unusual standard, Paul Ryan is not qualified to be president. It's an interesting situation. Ryan as the vice presidential nominee is a toss-up for me. To the one, it makes a certain amount of sense when GOP superstars are either staying out or getting thrown out. But it's also one of the picks Democrats wanted; the referendum is off, and it's now a real policy election. That's a fight Democrats really think they can win. And why not? The unbelievable is now the GOP ticket.
Very, very interesting.
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!"
08-14-12, 09:03 PM #322
"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."
08-16-12, 11:35 PM #323
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.
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.
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/arc...hington-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/arc...ington-ballot/
08-17-12, 10:58 AM #324
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....
08-17-12, 11:25 AM #325
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.
08-17-12, 01:03 PM #326
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.
08-17-12, 01:41 PM #327
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.
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.
Last edited by joepistole; 08-17-12 at 03:19 PM.
08-17-12, 06:50 PM #328
• 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.
08-18-12, 11:47 AM #329
Originally Posted by TMZOriginally Posted by TMZ
And, so far, Romney/Ryan are winning the battle over who is going to save/destroy Medicare:
Last year, Democrats gleefully attacked Paul Ryan as a granny killer for daring to take on Medicare reform. They thought their point was won; Ryan was buried in an avalanche of ridicule. Americans typically don’t like their entitlements threatened; seniors and near-seniors—the groups most likely to turn out on Election Day—are particularly wary, as they should be.
But Mitt Romney pulled a surprise, nominating Ryan as his running mate. R-squared then launched a direct attack on the president’s cuts in Medicare spending. And “Boom!” The big stick just came back and hit the Dems: A recent poll in all-important Florida shows folks there are a bit more terrified right now—and even more so among seniors—of the president’s health-care law and its affect on Medicare than of Ryan’s proposal.
Last edited by madanthonywayne; 08-18-12 at 03:10 PM. Reason: quoted material not set off well enough
08-20-12, 05:50 PM #330
08-20-12, 09:14 PM #331
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.
08-21-12, 01:08 AM #332
08-21-12, 01:00 PM #333
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.
08-21-12, 02:34 PM #334
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):
In other election news, is the media turning on Obama?
08-21-12, 02:54 PM #335
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?
08-21-12, 03:32 PM #336
08-21-12, 06:55 PM #337
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.
Akin's remarks and the ensuing outrage from both parties forced Mitt Romney to rein in his running mate's conservative position on abortion. The Romney campaign announced Sunday night that the Romney/Ryan ticket supports abortion in cases of rape, even though Ryan previously opposed it.
The Republican platform committee approved the draft on Tuesday that calls for a constitutional ban on abortion without exception for rape victims, Politico reports.
"I appreciate the good work that that committee did -- in past platforms that has been hours of discussion -- and I applaud the committee's work in affirming our respect for human life," said Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, chairman of the committee. "Well done."
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....
08-21-12, 09:30 PM #338
Romney Ahead in Michigan & Wisconsin?
Recent Polling has Romney ahead of Obama Not only in Wisconsin, but also Michigan.
08-21-12, 11:30 PM #339
And, so far, Romney/Ryan are winning the battle over who is going to save/destroy Medicare:
IF there's one thing old folks are more scared of than Ryan's plan, it's Obamacare.
08-22-12, 12:35 AM #340
By Saint in forum Computer Science & CultureLast Post: 02-11-11, 02:28 AMReplies: 0
By wynn in forum Computer Science & CultureLast Post: 08-05-10, 01:55 PMReplies: 28
By Tiassa in forum Computer Science & CultureLast Post: 10-25-09, 09:44 PMReplies: 21
By Tiassa in forum PoliticsLast Post: 02-09-08, 11:56 PMReplies: 24