Max

The vile and disgusting words out of Karger's mouth are beyond reprehensible. In addition to assuming that much of the money given to the Mormon Church funds "antigay activities," he is a hypocrite of the highest order. Given his "expertise" on Mormonism, and how convinced he his "that a member's obedience to the LDS Church supersedes loyalty to family and country," why doesn't he DEMAND Harry Reid step down as Senate Majority Leader? After all, doesn't he belong to a "homophobic" organization as well? (And isn't he funding "antigay activities" when he gives 10% of his income to the church?)

I suspect this as well, which is why I think that Romney is doing himself even more damage by refusing to release his tax returns (and fueling speculation that he did something illegal) as opposed to releasing them and doing damage control. (And as I said earlier, those who will be extremely upset over Romney finding legal means to pay little in taxes most likely have already made up their minds to vote for Obama.) I understand your point. The only reason I brought up Geithner is because he was appointed (and still remains employed) by Obama in spite of his tax problems, while Obama surrogates are attacking Romney over tax issues. (Thus, bringing up Geithner is meant to show Obama's own hypocrisy on these tax attacks. On the other hand, if I brought up Charlie Rangel as a counterpoint against attacks on Romney, it would be irrelevant, since Obama did not give him his job.) This is a very valid point. The only thing I can say in Romney's defense is that he is not one of the many Republicans who wears his religion on his sleeve (though he is very religious).

Geithner failed to pay his taxes on time, and that was illegal. We don't know if it is Romney is doing something illegal by holding some of his funds in offshore accounts (though we should be able to find out because he needs to release his tax returns). Unless you want to demand Geithner's resignation, it's hypocritical to trash Romney while letting Obama off the hook for having a tax fraud in one of the most important cabinet posts. (I'll say right now that there's no double standard on my part: Romney should drop out ASAP if he did anything illegal.) http://www.forbes.co...reign-accounts/ (Sorry for posting an old article, but it makes some relevant points.) We have no proof that Romney is doing anything illegal, but that isn't stopping Obama supporters from making accusations. Though I have remained silent, Obama bashers have been throwing out charges that Eric Holder acted illegally, when there is no proof (as he is refusing to turn over important documents relating to the Fast and Furious investigation). In both cases, it hurts their cases that full disclosure isn't being made, but nobody can conclusively say that one is breaking the law while the other is not. (I know that there is a higher ethical standard for a president than a cabinet secretary, but I am bringing up the cases of both Geithner and Holder to show that Obama supporters need to clean out their own closets when it comes to tax ethics and issues relating to full disclosure.)

He should have done this from the beginning, but--because he has been dragging this out for so long--so much irreversible damage has been done to the campaign. His advisers have been giving him horrendous advice, and he's too dumb to realize that and fire them.

I just wanted to clarify that Romney should not go after Geithner (and Obama, for choosing him) until after he releases more of his own tax returns. Then, (assuming that Romney himself didn't cheat on his taxes) he can bring up Geithner's legal troubles as a way of blunting Democratic criticism that Romney paid a low effective tax rate or didn't legally pay any income taxes one year.

With all due respect, does that make it alright to have a tax fraud as Obama's Treasury Secretary? How can Obama supporters attack Romney on his own tax returns with a straight face?

Given that Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner got into legal trouble for failing to pay his taxes on time, I do find it to be extremely hypocritical for Obama's supporters to be hammering Governor Romney on his personal tax issues. That being said, I am all for transparency, and Romney should release many more years of his tax returns to the public. Aside from partisans (who are speculating that he cheated on his taxes), others have raised more plausible speculations that Romney (legally) did not pay any taxes for the year 2009 because he offset his investment losses against the large amount of income he earned. Should this be true (or something else along those lines, such as him paying a "low" effective tax rate), I think that the governor is doing far more harm to his campaign by not releasing further tax returns as opposed to just releasing them and trying to do damage control. So long as he didn't do anything illegal, any other "injustice" involving his taxes will upset Democrats far more than it will upset independents. And, if he was a smart campaigner (which he most definitely is not), he would--after releasing more of his tax returns--turn the tables on the Democrats' outrage and remind voters about Geithner. But, because he was such a new face, don't you think that suggested that perhaps he wasn't ready to be president? And, the most honorable Senator McCain has proven once again that he is an absolute American treasure. Here he is denouncing Michelle Bachmann's vile comments against Huma Abedin: <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-IROi6UREjg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

That was terrible, but two wrongs don't make a right. Obama branded himself as somebody who put bring an end to this s#it, yet it was a member of his campaign staff who suggested Romney was a felon. By the way, while Romney didn't say boo while Kerry was being swiftboated, Senator McCain eloquently defended him. But his honorable actions didn't seem to matter to liberals in the long run, as they trashed him four years later.

Money doesn't win out over all else, at least not when the Romney forces only have a little bit more than the Obama people. And all the money in the world makes little difference given that the idiots at the Romney campaign are choosing to spend little of it (and save it for the fall). Every single Republican is pissed because the Massachusetts governor just assumes that the shitty economy will carry the day while the Democrats are swiftboating his past. Now, Barry's friends are calling Romney a "felon," and CNN has called them out on it. But Romney himself needs to be aggressive in responding to these lies. http://www.cnn.com/2...bain/index.html

I don't believe it for one second either, Carl. That being said, I will be SERIOUSLY PISSED if Rice is not the VP choice, since I believe that is the difference between winning and losing. And that is not the only reason why I will be so ticked off: Romney, his wife, and his supporters are hyping up the VP choice, with the implicit message being that Rice will get the nod. Unless they are DAMN SURE that she will be on the ticket, their actions are nonsensical, since whomever else is chosen will look like a huge disappointment in comparison. (They don't need to pander to the "true believers" as you suggested, since they will be motivated enough to vote against Obama.)

If Governor Romney loses the election, there arises a very likely possibility that this man will become the next president: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/zkzzHjq6wJI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Don't say I didn't warn you.

Nobody has the political high ground. It is all about destroying the other man on a personal level, because--as I have pointed out earlier--presidential elections usually come down to personal popularity contests. (In the event that both candidates have deep flaws, the one who is hated less by the public wins.) Although I think that this would be an outstanding choice, I don't for one moment believe that Condi Rice will be Romney's VP choice. I honestly believe that it is just a story being hyped by the media to compensate for a slow news cycle. (The actual choice will most likely be somebody very boring like Portman or Pawlenty or somebody extremely conservative like McDonnell.)

Wales, I really appreciate you telling me this. I honestly didn't know that myself, as it is not often mentioned in the media. I've never heard of Jonathan Krohn before the last 24 hours (but then again, I really don't care much about the happenings at CPAC). One's certainly entitled to change his mind from what he believes at 13, and one's opinions are certainly more evolved at age 17. Then again, the political views that many have at age 17 are hardly set in stone, either (so I am a little puzzled why those on both sides are quick to assume he'll be a lifelong liberal). (To name some famous examples, Ronald Reagan and Hillary Clinton changed their political philosophies when they were older.)

Nobody could have said this better. In fact, your whole post is absolutely brilliant. Your posts (which most definitely are not rants) mean a great deal to me as well. Even when I disagree with you, I am always interested in what you have to say.

Though he looked familiar, I didn't realize that the same actor (Jeff Branson) who currently plays Ronan Malloy on Y&R was also the final Shayne Lewis on GL. Because I'm really impressed by his acting on Y&R, I wonder how long he would have lasted in the role had GL not been cancelled.

Wales, thank you so much for your kind response. I'm certainly culpable of adding to the political vitriol, and I should be inspired by you take the high road. I don't know all that much about Villaraigosa, but he has always come across as a phony to me. Unfortunately, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he was elected Governor of California in 2018.

Wales, I've never pretended that I don't have disdain for this man. What I take issue with is the suggestion (made by Roman and Ann) that I despise the man because of the color of his skin. In fact, his policies aren't even the main reason why I despise him. Instead, it's because he masquerades as somebody who is honorable and doesn't play politics, all the while living the high life amongst the elite.

"Barry" was the name Obama himself wanted to be called during this childhood and adolescence. (I've never once read that he preferred to be called "Boy.") And the majority of the time I see people in the media referring to Rangel as "Charlie" instead of "Charles." President Clinton's opponents sometimes called him "Willie." Were they also doing that out of racism? People who dislike politicians may call them by names they currently don't like (e.g., "Willard"). To suggest that it's done because of racism is absolute paranoia.

Jane, thanks so much for your very thoughtful response. Romney actually does have a 59-point economic plan, and this Washington Post article mentions several of the details: http://www.washingto...Wl6J_story.html Unfortunately, he rarely mentions this plan, and for that he is to blame. (And it's part of what makes him such a piss-poor nominee.) I do agree that presenting oneself as the anti-Obama is not enough to win the election. The constant references to Ronald Reagan make little sense to me, either. (Although Romney mentions him a lot less than the Santorum wing of the party.) Swing voters don't care all that much about the politics of somebody who was president 30 years ago. I just think the modern conservative movement wants to associate themselves with somebody who remains personally popular, in much the same way liberals did with JFK for decades after his death. Furthermore, I concur that the lack of experience helped Obama politically in 2008 (for the reasons you mentioned). It's a huge paradox, but the more experience a presidential candidate has the less electable he becomes. (This certainly explains why long-time senators always fail in their presidential bids.)

Again, the article that link took me to had nothing to do with the issue of what (if anything) the NAACP is saying about alleged voter fraud on Charlie Rangel's part. I can't refer to you personally, but Bush was called much worse things than "Barry," such as "murderer," "deserter," and "election stealer." The crazy things that enemies of Bush and Clinton accused them of doing (being responsible for 9/11, killing Vincent Foster) are far more severe than floating around absurd theories like the current president is a Kenyan-born, Muslim socialist. Obama supporters conveniently forget the s#it Bush and Clinton went through in order to advance the narrative that their commander-in-chief is the most persecuted president in history. You're one to talk, Roman, given that you have called Governor Romney "Willard" on multiple occasions. So if you're gonna suggest that those who call the president "Barry" are racists, then you are anti-Mormon for calling the governor "Willard." You can't have it both ways. (If somebody wants to use the terms "Barry" or "Willard," I'm perfectly alright with that, since those are their actual names. What's not acceptable is for you to trash me for using "Barry" while you yourself proudly use the term "Willard.") Exactly how do you know that all conservatives have "no use for small business" and only care about the one percent? Instead of actually addressing the concerns that small business owners have (as laid forth in the article), you go and make a very broad, simplistic generalization (as if you know exactly what all conservatives are thinking). Are you currently unemployed (like I am)? (I not assuming anything, which is why I asked.) At least in the field of accounting, there are few decent paying jobs available because companies are so reluctant to hire. (Just about all the employers I see are being extremely selective in the Obama economy, where they won't even give you an interview unless you've done essentially the same exact job in another company, and also are knowledgeable about some obscure IT system.) So yeah, I get more than a little emotional when talking about the very likely prospect of four more years of this s#it. If one's job prospects seemed hopeless--though no fault of their own (I was laid off 14 months ago because the failing company I worked for was acquired by a competitor; as what always happens in these situations, all overhead personnel in the acquired company were terminated)--I'd venture to say that person would want to change presidents as well (especially when one reads reports that business owners are even more reluctant to hire because of his policies). Racism has nothing to do with it, nor the desire to worship the one percent. The 2016 GOP nominee could certainly be somebody very far to the right (who is unlikable/unelectable), but I suspect that the most likely right-wing fire breathing nut isn't Brownback (who failed badly in 2008) or DeMint (who realizes he is unelectable, which is why he didn't run this year). If the GOP wants to go the far-right route, their darling will be Rick Santorum, whose supporters will be super-energized and say that he's "owed" the 2016 nomination because he correctly warned that a moderate nominee (which is the perception many have of Romney, whether you agree with it or not) would lose. If you don't mind me asking, I am curious as to which states you think Romney will carry. (I don't blame you for thinking that Romney will win, because if I was a Democrat, I probably would think/fear the same thing.) Right now, the only safe Romney states are the 22 McCain states, along with Indiana and North Carolina (which total 206 electoral votes). Strangely enough, Romney is leading in historically Democratic Iowa, so that brings his total up to 212 (which his how I foresee the election turning out, barring some major game-changing event). Romney can basically only win if he also carries Florida, Ohio, and Virginia, but he's trailing in all these places.

According to an article in the far-right New York Times, Obama is also a member of the one percent: http://www.nytimes.c...ax-returns.html But, since he's liberal, that's OK, right? Barry never attends parties and fund-raisers with the Hollywood elite, because that would be the sort of heartless and out-of-touch as thing Willard would do. Instead, I take heart that our beloved president spends his free time socializing with the homeless. Since you seem to be so concerned about the 99%, may I point out that small businesses are likely to get hit hardest by the "taxes" Obamacare puts on them. (Ironically, the massive health-care conglomerates love Obamacare; they'll get millions of new customers who will likely fatten their profits even more.) http://www.cnbc.com/id/48000806 I'm not sure how you've "constantly shown [me] to be wrong." (I never once got overconfident and foolishly predicted that SCOUTS would overturn Obamacare, so that can't be what you're referring to.) Unless you are a small business owner, I'm puzzled how you'll be able to prove me wrong once again and explain why your knowledge of running a small business (and managing the health care costs involved) is superior to actual owners who say they now have ZERO incentive to hire people. Even the most noble intention of Obamacare doesn't seem achievable. That's because there aren't enough health-care professionals to handle the new load of (currently) uninsured individuals: http://www.dispatch....-obamacare.html I'm honestly not sure if liberals ever thought about any serious flaws that existed in this legislation (other than arguments concerning it not being "progressive" enough). Rather, the attitude of the Democrats seems to be laid out in Nancy Pelosi's philosophy that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it."

Based on what I saw from the clip, I think he was trying to advocate giving people the right to fire their insurance providers if they didn't like them. Though the "I like to fire people" was badly taken out of context, I'm not trying to defend what Romney said, either (because it was terrible politics). The fact of the matter is that he should have been aware of his public perception as a rich elitist and never said anything that could be distorted by opponents. Since he made such a mistake, it shows just how poor his political skills are. It's a strange coincidence that political tone-deafness is a disease that mostly affects people from Massachusetts (see Dukakis and Kerry). I didn't mean to imply that these huge GOP Congressional majorities will be permanent. If the economy is still sucks in 2018 (like it did in 2010), then control will revert back to the Democrats. Carl, I personally dislike both men, but the common idiot voter perceives both men as likable. With Rubio, I can understand it, because he is very suave and charismatic. Christie's likability seems to defy logic, but he has skillfully turned the fact that he is a temperamental bully into (what many consider) a positive trait by carefully crafting an image of a straight-talking "Jersey guy." Despite their lack of experience (which swing voters don't care about, anyway), either of them would have defeated Obama. (Not only because of likability issues, but also because the GOP base is actually enthused about them.) Does anybody honestly believe that Obama would win re-election if he wasn't given an opponent who can easily be portrayed as an unlikable, one-dimensional villain?

Romney's career wasn't based on firing people, as he had more successes than failures at Bain. Private equity firms maximize profits when they invest in successful start-ups (which themselves obviously need to hire as they are growing). Of course, not every investment is successful, so it's easy for Democrats to cherry-pick the failures and dupe the idiot public into thinking this is typical (and--all the while--switching the discussion away from the country's horrendous economy). Thankfully, President Clinton--whose popularity and economic record will forever eclipse that of Barry's--had the bravery to point out that Governor Romney had a "sterling" business career: http://www.mediaite....y-its-bad-work/ Regarding Romney's statement that he "likes to fire people," the Obama campaign and the liberal media distorted what he said. The context of the statement was that he likes having the option of firing people who provide bad services to him (which is hardly something reprehensible). <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nBfWB64iHAs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> I'm not at all surprised that these types of vicious attacks have succeeded in making Romney unelectable, even in the Great Recession. The stupidity of the American people never ceases to amaze me. The silver lining of an Obama victory will be that nobody will be able to credibly bitch about SuperPACs, the "conservative" media, or about what a "homophobic" and "racist" country the USA is. Also, four more years of Obama will lead to four more years of the economy in shambles. While that's terrible news for America, it will lead to hugely lopsided GOP Congressional majorities, and the GOP nominee in 2016--most likely somebody "likable" and extremely conservative like Marco Rubio or Chris Christie--will handily defeat a Democratic nominee who is "not as cool" as Obama. (I foresee even a strong Democrat like Andrew Cuomo or Hillary Clinton losing in 2016 in a similar manner to John McCain's 2008 loss.)

I'm glad you're essentially admitting the fundamental truth of politics: that presidential elections are personal popularity contests. (Which is why Romney can't win, regardless of how bad the economy is.) To hell with those poor, unemployed bastards! Let's stay with the shitty status quo, because having a "cool guy" in the White House is what really matters! Your link didn't work for me, so I can't specifically address it. However, the "screen tip" that appears (when I mouse over it) indicates that the article is about a voter registration drive they are organizing (and not about the disputed election going on in Rangel's district). Sure, the NAACP bitches about "voter fraud" when a candidate they endorse ends up losing, but are they coming to the aid of Rangel's Hispanic challenger? It's more than a little disingenuous for an organization to claim it is the champion of voting rights, only to stay silent when some extremely serious charges of voter fraud are levied against an African American political icon.

Romney's religion was attacked by evangelicals in the GOP Primary. And his religion hurt him terribly in the deep south, where he failed to win a single GOP Primary. Why do you think Mitt got crushed in South Carolina (where, if he had won, he would have effectively clinched the GOP nomination): because they don't want a Mormon president. It's true that you are not seeing any vicious anti-Mormon attacks from evangelicals in the general election campaign. But, something else is happening: a complete lack of enthusiasm exists from the religious right. No matter how much the GOP hates Obama, indifference (or worse) towards Romney will cause a sizable number of evangelicals to stay home on Election Day. This, in turn, will be the reason why he'll lose swing states with large evangelical populations, such as VA and FL. (Romney himself isn't exactly helping matters with his insistence on choosing a boring VP like Pawlenty or Portman. He needs to stop being so damn cautious and realize that he can't win unless his VP choice is able to energize the base and help overcome some of their anti-Mormon bigotry.) In other news, tax cheat Charlie Rangel is involved in a bitterly disputed election: http://www.foxnews.c...itics+-+Text%29 His Democratic challenger--whose vote total continues to grow--is charging voter fraud and suppression. In the shock of the century, the NAACP isn't saying jack s#it about this election, even though they claim fighting voter fraud is one of the most important things they stand for.