The big news for political pundits is the chance that Mitt (a 2 time loser) may be ready to try for a third attempt at the presidency.
The news has been all over the place…….but the chance of covering Mitt is all consuming for them……
The most common reaction on both the left and right to the news that Mitt Romney is genuinely serious about another White House run seems to be … why? Some examples:
- Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post: In a blog post headlined “His time has passed,” the onetime Romney backer writes that “he may have been the best of a crummy field in 2012, but in 2016 he’d be a very flawed candidate in a field of more exciting contenders.” Unless he can come up with specific answers to a series of questions (about the 47%, etc), she thinks his friends must explain to him that “we need to find someone who can win—and that person is not you. … Running for personal redemption is a rotten rationale for a presidential campaign.”
- Jonathan Chait, New York: He swears he won’t believe Romney is running again, even during his oath of office. Among the reasons: Remember when Romney warned of unemployment doomsday under President Obama? No doomsday. “Romney’s sole advantage, his self-styled persona as a business guru who can get under the hood and fix the American economy, would seem to have little remaining credibility.”
- Jazz Shaw, Hot Air: “I still have all the respect in the world for Mitt, but his time has come and gone. He can still play an important role in the national discussion and will certainly be able to help steer some significant fundraising operations, but I think he should keep his hat out of the ring this time.”
- Jamelle Bouie, Slate: He is among the few who think Romney could make a strong candidate. Bouie argues that Romney wasn’t a “bad” candidate in 2012, but he was up against an incumbent and an improving economy, and that kind of political math rarely works. “There won’t be an incumbent in 2016, and there’s a good chance Americans will want a different party at the helm,” writes Bouie. “If Romney were the nominee, there’s no doubt that he could win the presidency.”
My personal opinion of the possibility of another Mitt run for the roses……YAWN!
The man is as boring as watching flies f*ck!
By now you have formed your opinion on the latest ruling by our bought and paid for supreme court…..but while you were listening to Bill or Joe or Wolf they quietly refused other rulings that could have been landmark…..really? What would those be?
Thank you for asking….let me throw the stuff the cowards would not touch……
The Supreme Court quietly made a bunch of headlines today, mainly by rejecting potentially explosive cases. Here’s a roundup of the day’s (in)action:
- Gay rights: The court announced that it would not take up the highly charged case that began when a New Mexico wedding photographer refused to do the honors for a same-sex commitment ceremony, Politico reports. New Mexico’s Supreme Court ruled that this amounted to illegal discrimination. That ruling will now stand in New Mexico, but only in New Mexico.
- NSA: The justices declined a conservative lawyer’s unusual request that it bypass the usual appeals process and immediately take up a case arguing that the NSA’s bulk collection of millions of Americans’ telephone records violated the Constitution’s ban on unreasonable search and seizure, the AP reports. A lower court had agreed with the lawyer that the program was “almost certainly” unconstitutional.
- Campaign finance: After last week’s ruling, reform advocates are likely happy that the court decided not to take up a challenge to the 100-year-old rules banning direct contributions from corporations to candidates. Iowa Right to Life had asked the court to rule that corporations had the same free speech rights as individuals, the AP explains.
As is customary, the Court offered no commentary on any of the decisions.
Apparently there is NO money in ruling on these issues…..with the exception of the campaign finance….they avoided that one because of the fuss they raised with the one ruling last week……..they will most likely see it again under the guise of another precedent…….watch for it!
I have a contest every year where my readers and friends get to vote on the most anal statement of the year…..that is coming next month….I decided to do a “Best Quote Of The Year” award starting this year….and I already have one and the year is not over….I do not think this one can be topped…….
The winner is my ex-governor Haley Barbour…….as my readers will remember I do not have much loike for Barbour but I give him his props for being a very astute politician……
Since the election the GOP has being promising a lot of re-examination of policies and stances since they got their pee pees spanked at the ballot box……first, I think it is ludicrous that they did not notice how bad they were on issues during the campaign….but I guess hindsight is 20/20…….
Anyway, when asked what the GOP should do about their focus in the next election….Barbour said……
“The ground game is really important, and we have to be, I mean we’ve got to give our political organizational activity a very serious…” he said, taking a pause and looking for the right word. “Proctology exam. We need to look everywhere.”
Like other Republicans in recent days, Barbour stressed the importance of being more inclusive to Latinos, African-Americans and other minorities. Barbour in particular chided the party for its tone on illegal immigration, saying many illegal workers contribute to the economy and comprise an important part of society.
He is the same person that said, “We (GOP) had shitty candidates”………hopefully the conservs will listen to Barbour….he does know what he is talking about……..I guess we will see just how serious the GOP is about an all inclusive party……..like I said….WE SHALL SEE……..
I know it is the weekend and I usually take a break from politics to post on other happenings in the real world….but this election is nearing its end and there are a few things that I feel need to be discussed before the fatal day of voting…….
The income gap between the rich and everyone else is large and getting larger, while middle-class incomes stagnate. That’s raised concerns that the nation’s middle class isn’t sharing in economic growth as it has in the past. And it sparked the Wall Street protests that spread to other cities in the country.
President Barack Obama would raise taxes on households earning more than $250,000 a year, plus set a minimum tax rate of 30 percent for those who earn $1 million or more. He also wants to spend more on education, “a gateway to the middle class.”
Republican Mitt Romney blames Obama’s economic policies for failing to create enough jobs so that middle- and lower-income Americans can earn more. He wants to cut taxes more broadly and says that will generate enough growth to raise incomes for all Americans.
Why it matters:
Income inequality has risen for three decades and worsened since the recession ended. A report in mid-September from the Census Bureau found that the highest-earning 20 percent of households earned 51.1 percent of all income last year. That was the biggest share on records dating to 1967. The share earned by households in the middle 20 percent fell to 14.3 percent, a record low.
Poverty has deepened. Fifteen percent of Americans were below the poverty line in 2011, the Census Bureau says, slightly lower than the 15.1 percent in 2010. That was the first drop after four straight years of increases.
But the recession has pushed up the poverty rate sharply since it stood at 11.3 percent in 2000. About 46.2 million people were poor last year, 46 percent more than in 2000.
Some economists argue that income inequality contributed to the financial crisis. As middle-class incomes stagnated in the 2000s, Americans borrowed to fuel more consumption and buy larger homes. That caused an explosion in household debt that couldn’t be sustained when the housing bubble burst.
At stake, says Obama, is “the basic bargain at the heart of America’s story, the promise that hard work will pay off.” Romney says Obama’s policies have made the middle class poorer. He says he will remove barriers to opportunity, such as excessive regulation of small business, so that more Americans can succeed. “We’re not the party of the rich,” he said. “We’re the party of the people who want to get rich.”
This is a subject was seldom talked about on the campaign trail……it is something that needed more attention, in my opinion.
This is my last attempt to inform the voter in this election…….remember go vote on Tuesday!