So, Markos has a speculative post up that Reid's "source" on Romney's taxes is John Huntsman Sr... Though a Republican, Huntsman Sr is a Reid-backer. There's obviously the Mormon and regional connection with Reid - but as Kos points out, Huntsman Sr is a business partner with the guy that used be Bain's managing director.

I always thought that Huntsman's (Jr not Sr) 2012 run was just a "save me a spot in line" run in preparation for 2016. It's all just idle, fun speculation - but I think this makes sense.

I would note, of course, that Huntsman Sr could be Reid's source and he could also be lying (and Reid could certainly be lying about having a source at all)... but this is fun!

To get back to the Presidential Race, who is going to be the Veep pick?

It's down to Palin or Bachmann.

I'll say that Mitt and co. try to shore up his dismal small-gov rep with someone who might keep Tea-Party types from staying home or fleeing to third parties with their hair on fire. Rubio is scandal-bait, Santorum is an embarrassment, and Jindal acts and sounds like someone squeezed him out of a tube. Now that Paul the Lesser and Rice are speaking at the convention, that leaves Ryan as the obvious and least embarrassing pick available; he even has some midwest cred and should help Romney win a couple of states that went Blue in 2008. At this point, Romney should recognize that the election is a referendum on Obama's economy, and there's no need to repeat McCain's mistake of trying to put the paddles to the electorate with a risky VP when you can just keep pointing to the scoreboard and asking Americans whether their lives were better before Obama took the throne. The price he pays is that he won't benefit from Paul's supporters, some of whom would go to Johnson before they'd vote for a candidate who they consider Obama-lite and whose agenda opposes their own in most substantive ways. I suspect that these voters carry little weight in swing states, which is why Romney feels safe in risking their defection.

And child labor, no workplace health & safety, no overtime pay, untreated, unfiltered toxins gushing into the air and watershed -- who couldn't prefer all that?

Yes, market advocates hate clean water, children, and education, and nothing pleases us more than the surprise of the occasional non-union factory worker in our breakfast sausage. And, of course, there is our legendary antipathy for roads. It's just too bad that there are no market-oriented explanations and solutions to concerns like these, which are no doubt the downfall of all free-market philosophies, most of which are formulated by 16-year-old boys who just finished their first Ayn Rand novel. I've long suspected that Matt Welch hides from these threads because, in the deep heart's core, he suspects what lefties have known all along, namely that leftists are just better people than those monocle-polishing idiots who are constantly barking about inflation and civil liberties (they can't even spell "civil rights" correctly). Like the rest of us, he's reluctant to engage in debate with a collection of people whose viewpoints are typified by a student of liberation theology who uses the word metaphysics as an insult--after all, statist arguments are just so sound and the world you've built is so, so just.

I understand that there are some who would rather pull out their eyeteeth than read the popular works of Rothbard, Block, and Friedman, but you're going to have to do that if you're ever to avoid becoming the political equivalent of a young-earth creationist who wins every debate via searing critique of the Piltdown Man. Free market advocates, many of whom actually read Chomsky, Krugman, and (God help us) Naomi Klein to get an idea of what the current left actually contends when they're not watching the Newsroom, generally don't accuse you of eating aborted fetuses, peeing on crosses, or sacrificing virgins to el Che. So please, before engaging in your next exercise in the condemnation of evil, try reading the unwashed heathen in their native tongue.

It's down to Palin or Bachmann.

Oh, you.

that leaves Ryan as the obvious and least embarrassing pick available

If Paul Ryan is the least embarrassing pick available to Romney, he's in trouble.

At this point, Romney should recognize that the election is a referendum on Obama's economy

If this were true, Romney would be leading. Romney, like any challenger, actually has to put forth ideas.

Ryan as the obvious and least embarrassing pick available

Ryan is exactly who Obama wants. It would solidify the 1% vs. the 99% argument which he's trying to make. He could then tie Mitt to the Ryan Plan railroad tracks. They'd be dancing in the White House if Ryan was the choice.

At this point, Romney should recognize that the election is a referendum on Obama's economy

Romney understands this but the real problem is the Romney economy is what drove us off the road. And, worst of all, Romney is the poster boy of the oligarchs. Not only does he pay no taxes but he forces people out of work for his own profits, outsources jobs to child labor camps and started Bain with money from El Salvadoran Death Squads. Romney makes Ebenezer Scrooge look like Mr. Rogers.

I understand that there are some who would rather pull out their eyeteeth than read the popular works of Rothbard, Block, and Friedman, but you're going to have to do that if you're ever to avoid becoming the political equivalent of a young-earth creationist who wins every debate via searing critique of the Piltdown Man. Free market advocates, many of whom actually read Chomsky, Krugman, and (God help us) Naomi Klein to get an idea of what the current left actually contends when they're not watching the Newsroom, generally don't accuse you of eating aborted fetuses, peeing on crosses, or sacrificing virgins to el Che. So please, before engaging in your next exercise in the condemnation of evil, try reading the unwashed heathen in their native tongue.

Currently I read Krugman second hand at an econ blog (not his own) and the libertarian stuff at another blog. If I was going to read an econ book I wouldn't read one by Krugman. I wouldn't read a libertarian philosophical book; I'd read 1,000 history books before one of those. I'd read history books because I want to better understand what happened, what might happen again. Very little libertarianism has happened. I am not surprised by this. But we'll see what happens in the future. I'm familiar with the arguments, coercion and such, just don't have the time in my life to go further down an alley I don't agree with.

From 1144, quoting someone else (Krikorian?):

That’s because the meaningful social divide in our country is — and always has been — not white/non-white but black/non-black. Everyone on the non-black side of that divide eventually becomes part of the majority population, starting with Quakers in New England (who, despite being English Protestants, were the wrong kind of English Protestants),

What does this mean? What are they saying about Quakers here? Something like Quakers were X, then became Y? If so, what are X and Y?

If I was going to read an econ book I wouldn't read one by Krugman.

Why wouldn't anyone interested in Krugman not read some of his best work? International Economics is a must-read and reading Krugman, Brilliant Economist always serves as a pleasant anecdote whenever I run into Krugman, Invective-Spewing Ranter.

Free market advocates, many of whom actually read Chomsky, Krugman, and (God help us) Naomi Klein to get an idea of what the current left actually contends when they're not watching the Newsroom, generally don't accuse you of eating aborted fetuses, peeing on crosses, or sacrificing virgins to el Che. So please, before engaging in your next exercise in the condemnation of evil, try reading the unwashed heathen in their native tongue.

Despite his NY Times drivel, Krugman should not be grouped with Chomsky or Klein. He's an actual economist and anyone interested in economics ought to be familiar with his serious work, especially concerning trade. That's like turning out a Hall of Fame ballot of Jeff Bagwell, Lee Stevens, and Ryan Theriot.

Dan's back!

When a private company is able to take over an entire company like the British East India company' then you can say private businesses have way too much power.

Heh, I was about to bring up the East India Company, but I figured enough history hi-jacks for one day.

What does this mean? What are they saying about Quakers here? Something like Quakers were X, then became Y? If so, what are X and Y?

I read it to be a brief on the vagaries of "whiteness" for all ethnicities other than "black"/West African. The Quakers were originally excluded from the cool-kids' white people table, as were the Irish, the Jews, the Italians, and every other immigrant community which came to America, the first generation or two after immigration. To the point, here's Ben Franklin going all Krikorian/ICS/Stormfront on the "swarthy" alien menace he saw sweeping over good, wholesome, English Pennsylvania circa 1751 (all emphasis in the original):

23. In fine, A Nation well regulated is like a Polypus; take away a Limb, its Place is soon supply'd; cut it in two, and each deficient Part shall speedily grow out of the Part remaining. Thus if you have Room and Subsistence enough, as you may by dividing, make ten Polypes out of one, you may of one make ten Nations, equally populous and powerful; or rather, increase a Nation ten fold in Numbers and Strength.

And since Detachments of English from Britain sent to America, will have their Places at Home so soon supply'd and increase so largely here; why should the Palatine Boors be suffered to swarm into our Settlements, and by herding together establish their Language and Manners to the Exclusion of ours? Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.

24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

Ah. Those dark skinned, layabout, no-good alien Germans...

Yes, market advocates hate clean water, children, and education, and nothing pleases us more than the surprise of the occasional non-union factory worker in our breakfast sausage. And, of course, there is our legendary antipathy for roads. It's just too bad that there are no market-oriented explanations and solutions to concerns like these, which are no doubt the downfall of all free-market philosophies, most of which are formulated by 16-year-old boys who just finished their first Ayn Rand novel. I've long suspected that Matt Welch hides from these threads because, in the deep heart's core, he suspects what lefties have known all along, namely that leftists are just better people than those monocle-polishing idiots who are constantly barking about inflation and civil liberties (they can't even spell "civil rights" correctly). Like the rest of us, he's reluctant to engage in debate with a collection of people whose viewpoints are typified by a student of liberation theology who uses the word metaphysics as an insult--after all, statist arguments are just so sound and the world you've built is so, so just.

I'll award you points for style, but you lose some for failing to stick the landing. "Metaphysics" is an insult, obviously.

as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth.

My favorite bit. Parsing Germans. And all those "swarthy" Swedes and Danes and Norse and .... sigh. A good reminder that today's brilliant, forward thinking person is the future's "Really?", progress marchs on, but people really do need to be judged relative to their time.

My favorite bit. Parsing Germans. And all those "swarthy" Swedes and Danes and Norse and .... sigh. A good reminder that today's brilliant, forward thinking person is the future's "Really?", progress marchs on, but people really do need to be judged relative to their time.

Did you know it was technically illegal to speak German in America until 1923?

Great timing on that one, too.

jdbkaput,

I get the principles you are referring to (though I admit I am not terribly well read on the details), but one thing Liberals get dinged on all the time is not living in the real world, how they are always in their ivory tower.

Can you bring this discussion to the real world? What nation best exemplifies the principles you want to see in a government? Where is the model we should aspire to that has been shown to work?

In its pure "Ivory Tower" form Communism would be a fine way to run a society, except for the fact that it just flat has never worked in the real world at a scale much larger than a commune. So where have your principles been enacted? What is closest? Is it the US, or is there somewhere which we should look to? You don't like the Gilded Age example which is fine, what is a better one?

from politico:

“One factor made the 2012 grind bearable and at times even fun for Obama: he began campaign preparations feeling neutral about Romney, but like the former governor’s GOP opponents in 2008 and 2012, he quickly developed a genuine disdain for the main. That scorn stoked Obama’s competitive fire, got his head in the game, which came as a relief to some Obama aides who had seen his interest flag when he didn’t feel motivated to crush the opposition. Obama, a person close to him told me, didn’t even feel this strongly about conservative, combative House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the Hill Republican he disliked the most. At least Cantor stood for something, he’d say.

“When he talked about Romney, aides picked up a level of anger he never had for Clinton or McCain, even after Sarah Palin was picked as his running mate. ‘There was a baseline of respect for John McCain. The president always thought he was an honorable man and a war hero,’ said a longtime Obama adviser. ‘That doesn’t hold true for Romney. He was no goddamned war hero.’”

[Ryan] even has some midwest cred and should help Romney win a couple of states that went Blue in 2008.

How much does the VP really help win a state? A quick look at electoral results doesn't look good. Bill Clinton won Tennessee twice, but Al Gore didn't win in it in 2000, so maybe he made a difference, or maybe Clinton would have won without him. George HW Bush won Indiana in '92 when all the surrounding states, which had voted for him in '88, voted for Clinton, so Dan Quayle probably helped. Jimmy Carter won Minnesota in '80, and since Mondale's only win in '84 was Minnesota, he certainly helped. The Original Triple H, Hubert H. Humphrey, won Maine in '68, a state that went blue the previous year (but red the next), so did Edmund Muskie really help? Kennedy of course won Texas and many southern states thanks to LBJ, that's probably where the notion a VP candidate sticks from. All the other VP candidates were either from states that always went that candidate's way or the Presidential candidate didn't win them anyway.

Sure, all things being equal, take the guy that might help a swing state, but all things are never equal.

so, i guess that would be bob mcdonnell. or maybe rick snyder. or john thune. or pat toomey. or paul ryan.

If you get close enough to Toomey to shake his hand, he has crazy eyes. I don't think it'll be him.

The blandest guy in the bunch is probably Thune, so I'll put my money on him.

Free market advocates, many of whom actually read Chomsky, Krugman, and (God help us) Naomi Klein to get an idea of what the current left actually contends when they're not watching the Newsroom, generally don't accuse you of eating aborted fetuses, peeing on crosses, or sacrificing virgins to el Che.

And that's just the problem; they refuse to give us credit for ANYTHING.

George HW Bush won Indiana in '92 when all the surrounding states, which had voted for him in '88, voted for Clinton, so Dan Quayle probably helped.

Except Indiana always votes Republican. Obama's (narrow) win there was the first Dem win in the state since '64. There's no way Dukakis was winning Indiana no matter who HW's VP pick was.

EDIT: Oops--I misread. But Clinton wasn't gonna win there either; IN's the most solidly Republican state east of the plains and north of the Mason-Dixon.

There's no way Dukakis was winning Indiana no matter who HW's VP pick was.

Dukakis might have taken it if he'd gone with Larry Bird.

so, i guess that would be bob mcdonnell. or maybe rick snyder. or john thune. or pat toomey. or paul ryan.

Snyder is a possibility. Romney needs Michigan and Snyder, unlike Romney, was for the auto industry bailout. That is a third rail topic for Romney, which might push Snyder off the list. McDonnell - Mr. Vaginal Probe - has no chance. Thune does nothing for Romney, Ryan and Toomey are negatives.

Dukakis might have taken it if he'd gone with Larry Bird.

Or at least Tilda.

Well, you had a corrupt and colluding business sector, corruption at all levels of government, and rampant alcoholism.

We have all of that right now.

Sounds like a libertarian paradise.

Sounds like you don't know much about libertarians. Except perhaps for the alcohol part.

Except Indiana always votes Republican. Obama's (narrow) win there was the first Dem win in the state since '64. There's no way Dukakis was winning Indiana no matter who HW's VP pick was.

Yeah, I overlooked that. Whoops. That makes the VP even less helpful.

#1175 is as intense display of passive/aggressive speech as I have ever seen.

Yes, market advocates hate clean water, children, and education, and nothing pleases us more than the surprise of the occasional non-union factory worker in our breakfast sausage. And, of course, there is our legendary antipathy for roads. It's just too bad that there are no market-oriented explanations and solutions to concerns like these, which are no doubt the downfall of all free-market philosophies, most of which are formulated by 16-year-old boys who just finished their first Ayn Rand novel. I've long suspected that Matt Welch hides from these threads because, in the deep heart's core, he suspects what lefties have known all along, namely that leftists are just better people than those monocle-polishing idiots who are constantly barking about inflation and civil liberties (they can't even spell "civil rights" correctly). Like the rest of us, he's reluctant to engage in debate with a collection of people whose viewpoints are typified by a student of liberation theology who uses the word metaphysics as an insult--after all, statist arguments are just so sound and the world you've built is so, so just.

New winner!

Romney should recognize that the election is a referendum on Obama's economy, and there's no need to repeat McCain's mistake of trying to put the paddles to the electorate with a risky VP when you can just keep pointing to the scoreboard and asking Americans whether their lives were better before Obama took the throne. The price he pays is that he won't benefit from Paul's supporters, some of whom would go to Johnson before they'd vote for a candidate who they consider Obama-lite and whose agenda opposes their own in most substantive ways.

I think this is mistaken in a couple of ways.

1. Johnson, like every other recent 3rd party candidate other than Perot, is not going to be a meaningful factor. (Of course, it's possible that, if you add Johnson's votes to Romney's in every state, it might convert an Obama victory to a loss. But that'd pretty clearly be complete baloney math.)

2. Although of course you're right that Romney wants to make the election a referendum on "Obama's economy", you can't take that too far and offer nothing, and that certainly seems to be what Romney is in the process of doing.

3. Tabbing Ryan would make the election more about a clash of philosophies. Although I do think this would be good for the country, it would probably not be good for Romney's chance to be elected, for the exact reason you just stated Romney's winning play is to say Obama hasn't gotten the job done. It isn't to tout the current Republican agenda, which becomes less popular the more it is exposed to sunlight. (Which probably explains why Romney has been acting the way I describe in #2. I think Ryan pulls him too far towards a "concrete alternative", though.)

I'm hearing a lot of Bobby Jindal chatter today. I love how Twitter has made news into a vague impression rather than a collection of concrete facts...

If Jindal is Romney's pick, Obama should immediately come out in favor of more volcano monitoring.

I love how Twitter has made news into a vague impression rather than a collection of concrete facts...

It's always been that way, Twitter just makes it more blatant.

If Jindal is Romney's pick, Obama should immediately come out in favor of more volcano monitoring.

And no government money for exorcisms.

I'm hearing a lot of Bobby Jindal chatter today. I love how Twitter has made news into a vague impression rather than a collection of concrete facts...

Bobby Jindal is one of the worst possible VP picks. He provides no foreign policy experience to balance the ticket, he's never been vetted in a national campaign, he is gaffe prone and he comes from a state Romney's going to win by 20 points.

I mean, it's possible, but that's just a horrible, horrible VP selection.

Thune does nothing for Romney

At this point, I think it's about finding a candidate who doesn't actively hobble Romney with some important constituency. Thune can do that, since he's an empty suit with a smile on the front.

Thune does bring nothing but an empty suit. Portman brings the empty suit and maybe some votes from Ohio. I could see Thune as he is the best person for a risk averse candidate, like Romney.

At this point, I think it's about finding a candidate who doesn't actively hobble Romney with some important constituency.

And that is why my man T-Paw is the perfect fit. Even Minnesotans have a hard time remembering the guy other than "Yeah, a politician right? I think he was OK". Plus despite his really bland nature he is actually a pretty good politician and will not make a gaff. His one issue, and it may be big to the right wing, is he once raised a fee on cigarettes. The Horror!

One factor made the 2012 grind bearable and at times even fun for Obama: he began campaign preparations feeling neutral about Romney, but like the former governor’s GOP opponents in 2008 and 2012, he quickly developed a genuine disdain for the main.

Romney seems to bring that out a lot in people, if you can believe what you read:

1: Romney's Bain co-workers hate him
2: All of Romney's 2008/2012 GOP primary opponents (and their relatives) despise him
3: His father's ghost hates him
4: His dog hates him.
5: His wife's horse hates him, and she would too if she didn't like his money so much

Fun campaign.

At this point, I think it's about finding a candidate who doesn't actively hobble Romney with some important constituency. Thune can do that, since he's an empty suit with a smile on the front.

Thune does bring nothing but an empty suit. Portman brings the empty suit and maybe some votes from Ohio. I could see Thune as he is the best person for a risk averse candidate, like Romney.

And that is why my man T-Paw is the perfect fit. Even Minnesotans have a hard time remembering the guy other than "Yeah, a politician right? I think he was OK". Plus despite his really bland nature he is actually a pretty good politician and will not make a gaff. His one issue, and it may be big to the right wing, is he once raised a fee on cigarettes. The Horror!

I'm really not seeing anything here that smells like upside. At this point, I realize it's not likely to happen, but why in the hell would Romney not pick Rubio? He's telegenic, charismatic, helps with one of Romney's biggest liability and probably pushes a state that is leaning Obama into lean Romney.

I mean, what's the downside of Rubio? Gaffes? No national vetting? All of those guys have the same downside! I feel like I am taking crazy pills hearing the Romney camp talk about anyone but Rubio. Romeny, for all his faults, is pretty good at understanding campaigning fundamentals. All a VP is good for is a 2% bounce in one state. Pick the guy who comes from the state you need!

Plus despite his really bland nature he is actually a pretty good politician and will not make a gaff.

He didn't corner Mitt on Obamneycare during the debate. He has no backbone. And he believed that Romneycare and Obamacare were one in the same. He can't be on the ticket.

BTW, gaffe is spelled with an e on the end.

3. Tabbing Ryan would make the election more about a clash of philosophies. Although I do think this would be good for the country, it would probably not be good for Romney's chance to be elected, for the exact reason you just stated Romney's winning play is to say Obama hasn't gotten the job done. It isn't to tout the current Republican agenda, which becomes less popular the more it is exposed to sunlight. (Which probably explains why Romney has been acting the way I describe in #2. I think Ryan pulls him too far towards a "concrete alternative", though.)

Ryan is the guy the Obamaites want, nothing polls worse than Ryan's tax/medicare plan. Ryan fits in perfectly with the narrative that Obama wants to sell.

He didn't corner Mitt on Obamneycare during the debate. He has no backbone. And he believed that Romneycare and Obamacare were one in the same. He can't be on the ticket.

BTW, gaffe is spelled with an e on the end.

Correct. But as long as nits are being picked, the phrase is "one AND the same," not "one IN the same."

#1237. He is not a great politician, but he won't make a gaffe (not attacking is different). I didn't know backbone was a req, though I suppose someone on the ticket should have one.

And yes, I suck at spelling.

I'm really not seeing anything here that smells like upside. At this point, I realize it's not likely to happen, but why in the hell would Romney not pick Rubio? He's telegenic, charismatic, helps with one of Romney's biggest liability and probably pushes a state that is leaning Obama into lean Romney.

Every now and then I see a rumor of some scandal waiting to explode... but nothing happens.
He apparently lied about when and why his parents left Cuba, but that lie, like Warren's claim of being part-Amerindian, has really had no effect on him it seems.

I like Rubio, he'll help remind Mexican Hispanics that there are other, better Hispanics that America welcomes in unlimited numbers. With enough hard work and dedication, even you beaner illegals can pass for upstanding Cubans.

Correct. But as long as nits are being picked, the phrase is "one AND the same," not "one IN the same."

HUZZAH!

In 1208, I wrote:

From 1144, quoting someone else (Krikorian?):

That’s because the meaningful social divide in our country is — and always has been — not white/non-white but black/non-black. Everyone on the non-black side of that divide eventually becomes part of the majority population, starting with Quakers in New England (who, despite being English Protestants, were the wrong kind of English Protestants),

What does this mean? What are they saying about Quakers here? Something like Quakers were X, then became Y? If so, what are X and Y?

In 1212, Rickey replied...

I read it to be a brief on the vagaries of "whiteness" for all ethnicities other than "black"/West African. The Quakers were originally excluded from the cool-kids' white people table, as were the Irish, the Jews, the Italians, and every other immigrant community which came to America, the first generation or two after immigration.

Ok, I get how your interpretation fits the words that were written.

That said, I'm not sure I understand why the author makes that point. The author is anti-immigration, right? He is arguing that each wave of immigration puts off the time when blacks intermarry with non-blacks which will remove the distinction between black and non-black and thus the strife between the two groups, right? But it's not as if all of the groups he lists as minorities-who-joined-the-majority would have ceased to be minorities by NOT coming to the United States. It's not as if Americans were all "it's okay to be THAT minority" up until the minority came to the US. All of the minorities (the black minority and the listed non-black ones) were on the outs with white people until they non-black ones spent enough time with the dominant non-black majority to become accepted. By stopping immigration, those non-black minorities will be just putting off the time when they themselves will become accepted.

And the whole inclusion of Quakers is so silly for an anti-immigration point. One could possibly argue that with some of the other non-black minorities, they, being bottom-men on the non-black totem pole, had negative interactions with the black minority as the two fought for a place at the bottom of society's pecking order. But that's clearly not the case with the Quakers. The Quakers weren't especially poor (just somewhat disliked), and they were one of the earliest groups to fight for the rights of the disenfranchised. Exclude the Quakers, and one might more reasonably argue that a new wave of minority immigration leads to strife with the already-present black minority which hurts the black minority in the long run. But Quakers ruin that argument by their inclusion.

HUZZAH!

I mean, the phrases are the same, for all intensive purposes. I suppose I'm a bonified pre-Madonna for even pointing it out.

#1240 Among the most cruel things that Gary Trudeau ever did was the stuff about Bush handing his manhood over to Regan. (See also Tom Lehrer's Hubert. Not nearly as cruel to be sure)

But he wasn't really wrong. VPs are often forced to swallow a lot of ####. Bush certainly did. A backbone is certainly not a requirement.

Correct. But as long as nits are being picked, the phrase is "one AND the same," not "one IN the same."

That is just the best. There is nothing better than to be killed with your own sword.

I feel like I am taking crazy pills hearing the Romney camp talk about anyone but Rubio.

Personally I see that as evidence they are going to pick Rubio...


McCain picked Palin because he wanted someone to appease the right end of the base, and he wanted a woman- because all these strategists were telling him that there was a sizable contingent of pro-Hilary female voters who hated Obama - and were going to ditch the dems and vote GOP if he picked a femme running mate*.

Well Palin did energize the right end of the base, but the idea that pro-Hilary female voters were going to vote for McCain over Obama was delusional wishcasting.

So with regard to Romney:
1: What does Romney/his people think he needs in a Veep?
2: Who best fulfills #1?

Romney may think he needs a bland veep who makes few mistakes
Romney may think he needs a specific gender- he does poorly among women in polling
Romney may think he needs a specific ethnicity (take that you libs who claim that the GOP is racist!)
Romney may think he needs someone like himself - i.e., someone who matches Romney's self-image of himself- successful and competent
Romney may think as McCain did- the base does not like/trust him and they have to be motivated to not stay home

I don't know what he or his people are thinking- but if forced to guess I'd say the top one- he wants someone who will
A: Not go off the reservation
B: Will work- will know what Romney's positions are (ok, no one actually knows what his real positions are- but his candidate must be someone who knows what the 2012 campaign's positions are)
C: Will not overshadow Romney- In some ways Palin overshadowed McCain in 2008- Mittens doesn't want that- if he worries that any candidate will make the GOP electorate swoon ("We should have nominated this guy instead") then Romney won't pick him- if Romney thinks that way about, say Rubio, then Rubio is not gonna get picked

A backbone is certainly not a requirement.

Not once in office but when being portrayed as a heartbeat from the presidency it helps to look as if you have one even if you don't. That moment sunk his candidacy. It will return.

That said, I'm not sure I understand why the author makes that point. The author is anti-immigration, right? He is arguing that each wave of immigration puts off the time when blacks intermarry with non-blacks which will remove the distinction between black and non-black and thus the strife between the two groups, right? But it's not as if all of the groups he lists as minorities-who-joined-the-majority would have ceased to be minorities by NOT coming to the United States. It's not as if Americans were all "it's okay to be THAT minority" up until the minority came to the US. All of the minorities (the black minority and the listed non-black ones) were on the outs with white people until they non-black ones spent enough time with the dominant non-black majority to become accepted. By stopping immigration, those non-black minorities will be just putting off the time when they themselves will become accepted.

The author makes the claim that immigration delays the acceptance of blacks into mainstream US society, because he's trying to convince blacks to oppose immigration.

Put Krik in front of ANY group- and he will tailor an argument to that specific group to try to convince them that immigration is bad for that specific group.

I think Christie just took himself out of the running, there's a video of him going around where he accuses a bunch of wingnut bigots of being bigots... pissing match is ensuing

Romney doesn't want a running mate who does that kind of thing.

Nabbed from Jonathan Bernstein's Plain Blog: (From a comment by Geoff G.)

Balance is very important, and Mitt knows it. Evidence? Every single name on the shortlist is a human being. The perfect complement.

But I'm hoping that Mitt goes outside the box by hiring a Ronald Reagan impersonator and claiming that it's Ronald Reagan. "But Reagan is dead!" says the liberal media. "Don't you wish, Com-symps! The liberal media claimed he was dead so they could put socialist GHW Bush in the White House and his son could betray conservatism by governing as a conservative. He's as alive as you and me." (A song comes to mind)

The fact-check sites investigate, but can't find conclusive proof that Reagan is dead. Yes, Romney has referred to "the late Ronald Reagan," but you can't believe anything he says. California refuses to release the long-form death certificate, and Peggy Noonan refuses to have the body exhumed. The fact that the alleged impersonator has on at least two occasions said in front of credible witnesses, "I'm getting sick of this; just give me my check and I'm out of here," is suggestive, but reports from the '80's confirm that Ronald Reagan said the same thing at the end of nearly every cabinet meeting.

We rate the claim that Ronald Reagan is dead as half-true, and the claim that he is alive as half-false.

Christie calls anti-Muslim conservatives "Bigots"

That moment sunk his candidacy.

Nah. His inability to get money killed him. That moment hurt. Having crazy lady Bachmann steal his MN cred and win the Ames Straw Poll hurt a bunch too. Besides failing to attack the guy who might pick you to be VP is not a negative when it comes time to pick. Mitt is going to pick someone he likes.

I'm not seeing any data in this .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) to support his argument.

Lupica: The Year of the Gun

...The dangerous math continues to be the same: Too many guns on the street, not enough cops.

...

It all keeps happening in New York as the men running for President constantly run away from the National Rifle Association, and the President himself only finds his voice and outrage when a man with an assault weapon walks into a movie theater in Aurora, Colo. You know what assault weapons do? Make it easier and quicker than an illegal handgun on a New York street — or park, or playground — does.

Lol. Is Obama now supposed to comment on every local gun incident in the country?

He was in the middle of the pack of dwarves, in polling, behind Romney and Palin a week before the Obamneycare incident. That labeled him as a washout and two months later he lost the Ames Straw Poll. Once he showed he wouldn't stand up to Romney to his face then whatever chance he had as a candidate fell away.

Romney may like that Pawlenty wouldn't challenge him and has worked hard for him since but if he's chosen - Axelrod says he thinks that's the choice - they will attack him as weak. And have video evidence.

At this point, I realize it's not likely to happen, but why in the hell would Romney not pick Rubio?

Because it's generally bad policy to choose a VP who overshadows the nominee?

That, and he's a brown person, which won't make the nativist/xenophobe part of the base happy. It doesn't matter to them that Rubio's one of the "good ones".

Portman brings the empty suit and maybe some votes from Ohio.

Portman also brings a bunch of Bush administration baggage. One have their main attack lines lately has been the supposedly out of control spending under Obama, and Portman pretty much takes that attack out back and shoots it in the head, since he was Bush's budget director.

“You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad,” Romney said on the radio. “They were embarrassed. Today, they just blast ahead.

The man...he isn't afraid to go deep with his lack of soul.

That, and he's a brown person, which won't make the nativist/xenophobe part of the base happy. It doesn't matter to them that Rubio's one of the "good ones".

Would these be the same nativist xenophobes who voted overwhelmingly for Ted Cruz over David Dewhurst last week in Texas?

Would these be the same nativist xenophobes who voted overwhelmingly for Ted Cruz over David Dewhurst last week in Texas?

Because Texans voting for the Bible-thumper is perfectly analogous to a general election for POTUS.

Obama down to 43 percent approval at Gallup, with 51 percent disapproval, and he's a whopping 30 points underwater on right track/wrong track. The idea that Obama is a 70 percent favorite in November is laughable. He doesn't have a prayer if those numbers don't start to improve.

Sure he doesn't. If he was running against Ronald Reagan. It isn't just about not liking the incumbent. The voters have to actually like the guy who would be replacing him as well or else the incumbent isn't going to get unseated. See John Kerry and George Bush as further proof of this.

See John Kerry and George Bush as further proof of this.

Bush just squeaked by in '04 and his approval never dipped below 46 percent. Right now, it's a beauty contest, but it won't be in October and November when people start asking themselves if they're better off than they were four years ago.

Right Track

Things are looking up.

Obama down to 43 percent approval at Gallup, with 51 percent disapproval

You may have missed this


FOX NEWS POLL

Things are looking up.

LOL. "Wrong track" is at a record high, and consumer confidence dipped yet again this week.

Here's a handy list of all incumbent presidents who had negative approval and won reelection:

1. ...

And now a list of Presidents who had a negative approval rating in August of the election and went on to win, if you please.

Sure, here you go:

1. ...

Harry Truman for the win in both queries.

I didn't realize that "..." was shorthand for "Harry S Truman".

The idea that Obama is a 70 percent favorite in November is laughable.

Yep Silver now has him at 73.3...

Seriously I've been at 50/50, now I think may be 55.5% Obama

Didn't think Romney would spit the bit and then gag on it like he's been doing.

Harry Truman for the win in both queries.

I didn't realize that "..." was shorthand for "Harry S Truman".

You guys are hanging your hopes on the worst-polled election in U.S. history? Good luck with that.

You guys are hanging your hopes on the worst-polled election in U.S. history? Good luck with that.

So the results from the best polled election process in history, the one with Obama consistently forecasted to win, means nothing because . . .

I still think Obama is roughly 65/35 in favor of being reelected. That's looking at all the numbers. But hey I have been wrong before.

You guys are hanging your hopes on the worst-polled election in U.S. history? Good luck with that.

On the other hand, you have to hang your hat on Mitt Romney, so there's that. And polling is a lot more accurate now than it was six decades ago.

The polls right now reflect Romney's terrible past few weeks, so the gap seems bigger than it probably really is. On the other hand, Romney's negatives are solidifying, a tough sign for a candidate trying to make up ground. RomneyCare doesn't help him with conservatives, he hasn't presented any sort of solid economic plan (and the one he HAS put forth, the "revenue neutral" one) has already been shredded. There's months left, but Romney thus far hasn't really come up with anything that seems particularly inspiring; he's essentially hoping to goose national dissatisfaction into an electoral win without actually coming up with something positive himself. It's possible to win like that, of course, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

You guys are hanging your hopes on the worst-polled election in U.S. history? Good luck with that.

Joe, you said the list was zero and it wasn't... I don't think they said they were "hanging their hopes" on anything.

I do find it interesting that only one (?) president won re-election with a negative approval rating in August, but I'm not sure how much this would apply to modern politics, and the sample size is pretty small anyway. I mean, certainly it's not a _good_ thing, but is it meaningful? It sounds kind of like the "Obama can't win because senators don't win much" thing, which sounded great and all until Obama and McCain both faced off against each other.

I'm legitimately curious about Joe's opinion on FOX's poll in #1266.

Ray, were you actually looking for Lupica to be anything but hacktastic? Don't hang his stupidity on the liberals.

So the results from the best polled election process in history, the one with Obama consistently forecasted to win, means nothing because . . .

Yes, the polling this year is so much better than the last 15 elections that it renders the prior conventional wisdom moot. That's funny.

Yes, the polling this year is so much better than the last 15 elections that it renders the prior conventional wisdom moot. That's funny.

Yet you think the Gallup poll is really, really accurate.

Joe, I think you need to face facts: Obama is very likely to win this election. I would rather have a tarantula lay eggs in my ear than vote for him, but even I can see what's plain as day.

You guys are hanging your hopes on the worst-polled election in U.S. history? Good luck with that.

No, Joe. They, unlike you, are simply gauging the race based on the actual opponent, not the wishcast delusion that Mitt Romney is going to morph into Ronald Reagan overnight. You always ignore the fact that as bad as the opinion polling is for Obama, on any given day, it's *better than Mitt Romney.*

Joe, I think you need to face facts: Obama is very likely to win this election. I would rather have a tarantula lay eggs in my ear than vote for him, but even I can see what's plain as day.

Ray, with the voice of reason. FUXCKING RAY!

Portman also brings a bunch of Bush administration baggage. One have their main attack lines lately has been the supposedly out of control spending under Obama, and Portman pretty much takes that attack out back and shoots it in the head, since he was Bush's budget director.

Picky point, but at least if four years ago is any indication, they won't worry about contradicting their own narrative, since their big argument last time was "inexperience" and yet they picked Palin. I do think being "Bush's budget director" (probably not a literally accurate description, but the Dems will call him that) is a weakness in and of itself for Portman, and probably the bigger issue is that no one even in Ohio gives a crap about him. See my #577 for Portman vs. Rubio numbers.

Going after the Vice-Presidential candidate for being a milquetoast seems weird and stupid, honestly. It will be an opportunity cost disadvantage for Romney if he picks Pawlenty over someone stronger, but I don't think it'll actually become a campaign issue that the VP candidate is a wimp. (Even more so if the "video proof" of said wimpdom is him deferring to the Presidential candidate! If you can make your Pres candidate look commanding at the expense of your VP candidate, that sounds like a nice tradeoff for you.)

You always ignore the fact that as bad as the opinion polling is for Obama, on any given day, it's *better than Mitt Romney.*

I was going to say the same thing and it harkens back to my Ronald Reagan comment. People don't like Obama but they like Romney even less. You don't unseat an incumbent like that. Based on past trends two things are likely to happen. Dislike for Obama is likely to crystallize and his approval rating plummets and he loses the election or dislike for Romney crystallizes and Obama's approval rating goes up and Obama wins the election.


Personally, I never wanted Obama to win, didn't think he was going to win a year before the election, and thought 2008 was an extremely weak field of candidates. Looking back and with the benefit of hindsight I wish Hilary would have won the primaries and won the presidency. I don't know if Hilary could have won and I don't know if she could have gotten better results than Obama but she was clearly the best candidate available in any party that year.

If you're asking if you are better off now than when you were 4 years ago, you should also be asking if the guy you are going to voting for will make it better in the next 4 years. To be honest, I'm not sure a lot of people would say yes to Romney.

I would rather have a tarantula lay eggs in my ear than vote for him...

That could be arranged.

Joe, you said the list was zero and it wasn't... I don't think they said they were "hanging their hopes" on anything.

No, the list *is* zero. Gallup didn't even poll Truman's approval after June of 1948, so McCoy's use of him as a rebuttal was pure fiction.

Joe, I think you need to face facts: Obama is very likely to win this election. I would rather have a tarantula lay eggs in my ear than vote for him, but even I can see what's plain as day.

I'm not a huge Romney supporter by any means, but I disagree. Even with Romney's negatives, this is a coin-flip election right now given the bad economy and the horrible underlying metrics in the polling (consumer confidence, right track/wrong track, presidential approval, etc.).

I do find it interesting that only one (?) president won re-election with a negative approval rating in August, but I'm not sure how much this would apply to modern politics, and the sample size is pretty small anyway. I mean, certainly it's not a _good_ thing, but is it meaningful?

The problem is I think that Obama's approval ratings are both worse than Presidents who have been re-elected- and yet better than most who were not.... He's kind of in that gray area IOW.

The economy now is both better and trending better than in 1980. The economy is worse than in 1992, but trending better...

Is the economy better or worse than 4 years ago? In some ways the 2012 economy is to the 2008 economy what the 1984 economy was to 1980 - but how it got there was very different- from 1980-1984 the economy went down sharply after Reagan took over, rebounded and was viscerally improving in 1983/84. Now, the real sharp downturn really took place before and just as Obama was taking office- and the economy in 2012 has been "rebounding" for quite a bit longer than the 1984 economy had been- but at a much lower pace. In 1982 the average unemployment rate for the year was 9.7, in 1983 it was 9.6, in 1984 it was 7.5 (It was 7.1 in 1980 and 7.6 in 1981). In 2009 it was 9.3, in 2010 it was 9.6, 2011 it was 8.9, TYD 2012 it's been 8.2 (and FLAT- but the first halves of 2010 and 2011 were each flat, if 2012 follows the same annual curve as 2010 and 2011, its; likely going to at or under 8.0 by the election).

I don't know if Hilary could have won and I don't know if she could have gotten better results than Obama but she was clearly the best candidate available in any party that year.

If she was "clearly the best candidate available", then how did she lose?

Sure, nitwits like Mark Penn didn't help her any, but who made the decision to rely on the Mark Penns of the world in the first place?

No, the list *is* zero. Gallup didn't even poll Truman's approval after June of 1948, so McCoy's use of him as a rebuttal was pure fiction.


It was a rebuttal to ". . ."

If she was "clearly the best candidate available", then how did she lose?

Well, a)I said in hindsight and b)I think she was clearly the best candidate available, now.

The economy is worse than in 1992, but trending better...

It is?

***

It was a rebuttal to ". . ."

You claimed it was a rebuttal to the "negative approval in August" list. Since Gallup didn't even poll Truman's approval past June, your claim was pure fiction.

I'm not a huge Romney supporter by any means,

Does such a thing exist?

Even with Romney's negatives, this is a coin-flip election right now

I agree it's a coin flip, but so far that due more to Romney's negatives than anything else- as you note, with the underlying "metrics" such as unemployment rate, slow rate of growth, poor consumer confidence, etc., this *should* be a year where the opponent is beating the President- and yet Romney is trailing- trailing even though there is a dedicated motivated base that will walk through fire to oust the incumbent-

because IMHO, Romney is a terrible candidate, Dukakis/Kerry level terrible (I sense a pattern here), and there is also the fact that a good chunk of the GOP has been working tirelessly the last few years to make themselves as unpalatable as humanly possible to anyone outside their base.

People hate congress, they hate gridlock, they "want" bipartisan compromise, and yet the GOP is running a chunk of candidates who openly/proudly campaign that they have no intention of engaging in bi-partisanship - if they and their party win they want tor am through their agenda with no compromises- if their party doesn't- well they openly promise to be as obstructionist as possible. I've never seen that before recent years.

Forget economics/taxes etc- let's talk social issues- the country has been moving "left" for decades- a good chunk of the GOP base remains stubbornly rooted on the right- and in many states 2010-2012 that the GOP took over- or achieved effective super control- they've been moving on those "social" issues- which is why the GOP's support among some groups- such as urban women have been cratering to never before seen levels- In Mass Romney was a "social liberal," - obviously he's not running as one now- his party's base would revolt- and quite frankly the GOP's social platform is less popular nationally than Obamacare.

The economy is worse than in 1992, but trending better...

It is?

It was declining at this point in 1992, it is flat now.

Flat is a better trend than declining.

there is also the fact that a good chunk of the GOP has been working tirelessly the last few years to make themselves as unpalatable as humanly possible to anyone outside their base.

This. There was a time not too long ago that I was very sympathetic to the GOP; now I can barely tolerate being in a room with a large portion of their supporters. Obama gets my vote practically by default.

If she was "clearly the best candidate available", then how did she lose?

Misallocation of resources- her campaign really botched up the period after super-Tuesday (her campaign had assumed all along that she'd effectively clinch that day), temporarily ran out of money, and had no organized ground game in several upcoming states... People seem to forget how close that Primary was, Obama v. Hilary was a lot closer than Obama v. McCain later turned out to be.

and yet Romney is trailing- trailing even though there is a dedicated motivated base that will walk through fire to oust the incumbent-

Romney is trailing because America has reached the point where almost half the electorate is content to keep voting for people like Obama who promise to give them more and more "free" handouts.

because IMHO, Romney is a terrible candidate, Dukakis/Kerry level terrible

Maybe Kerry, but certainly not Dukakis. Obama isn't putting a single McCain state in play, plus Romney is almost assured of winning a few 2008 Obama states, and reapportionment narrows things a little further.

It was declining at this point in 1992, it is flat now.

No, GDP was also flat in 1992, and was actually above the historical 3 percent average. The Bush 41 economy of 1992 was far better than the Obama economy of 2012. But don't hold your breath waiting for the same liberal media that loved "It's the economy, stupid" in '92 to tell people this.

There was a time not too long ago that I was very sympathetic to the GOP;

There was a time when I was a (registered) Republican (NY variety), in fact I have identified myself here as the "last Rockefeller Republican"

If I was a resident of NYC when he was running I damn well would have voted for Guiliani, as it was I later voted for Bloomberg- all three times. I think Pataki was a generally decent Governor- better anyway than the Spitzer/Paterson democrat combo that followed him. I voted for Reagan and I think George HW Bush (ie., Bush the elder) was a very good president, who was unfairly maligned and abandoned by the party's idiot fringe.

I do not like the democratic party, but I truly despise the 21st century republican party.

Romney is trailing because America has reached the point where almost half the electorate is content to keep voting for people like Obama who promise to give them more and more "free" handouts.

Good thing there are no groups that expect "free" handouts from the Republican party.