Support NeoGAF

[FyreWulff]

I have no problem with voter Id laws as long as they are done enough in advance of an election and a valid ID can be obtained free of charge

ID is never actually free though. Should never be required to have ID to vote. It solves a problem that does not exist.

 

[PhoenixDark]

New York Times on secret corporate political donations to 501(c)(4)'s.

Groups Shield Political Gifts of Businesses
By MIKE McINTIRE and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE

American Electric Power, one of the country’s largest utilities, gave $1 million last November to the Founding Fund, a new tax-exempt group that intends to raise most of its money from corporations and push for limited government.

The giant insurer Aetna directed more than $3 million last year to the American Action Network, a Republican-leaning nonprofit organization that has spent millions of dollars attacking lawmakers who voted for President Obama’s health care bill — even as Aetna’s president publicly voiced support for the legislation.

Other corporations, including Prudential Financial, Dow Chemical and the drugmaker Merck, have poured millions of dollars more into the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a tax-exempt trade group that has pledged to spend at least $50 million on political advertising this election cycle.

Two years after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the door for corporate spending on elections, relatively little money has flowed from company treasuries into “super PACs,” which can accept unlimited contributions but must also disclose donors. Instead, there is growing evidence that large corporations are trying to influence campaigns by donating money to tax-exempt organizations that can spend millions of dollars without being subject to the disclosure requirements that apply to candidates, parties and PACs.

The secrecy shrouding these groups makes a full accounting of corporate influence on the electoral process impossible. But glimpses of their donors emerged in a New York Times review of corporate governance reports, tax returns of nonprofit organizations and regulatory filings by insurers and labor unions. ...

Some of the biggest recipients of corporate money are organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, the federal designation for “social welfare” groups dedicated to advancing broad community interests. Because they are not technically political organizations, they do not have to register with or disclose their donors to the Federal Election Commission, potentially shielding corporate contributors from shareholders or others unhappy with their political positions.

“Companies want to be able to quietly push for their political agendas without being held accountable for it by their customers,” said Melanie Sloan, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which has filed complaints against issue groups. “I think the 501(c)(4)’s are likely to outweigh super PAC spending, because so many donors want to remain anonymous.”

Because social welfare groups are prohibited from devoting themselves primarily to political activity, many spend the bulk of their money on issue advertisements that purport to be educational, not political, in nature. In May, for example, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies, a group co-founded by the Republican strategist Karl Rove, began a $25 million advertising campaign, carefully shaped with focus groups of undecided voters, that attacks Mr. Obama for increasing the federal deficit and urges him to cut spending.

The Internal Revenue Service has no clear test for determining what constitutes excessive political activity by a social welfare group. And tax-exempt groups are permitted to begin raising and spending money even before the I.R.S. formally recognizes them. Two years after helping Republicans win control of the House with millions of dollars in issue advertising, Crossroads GPS’s application for tax-exempt status is still pending.

During the 2010 midterm elections, tax-exempt groups outspent super PACs by a 3-to-2 margin, according to a recent study by the Center for Responsive Politics and the Center for Public Integrity, with most of that money devoted to attacking Democrats or defending Republicans. And such groups have accounted for two-thirds of the political advertising bought by the biggest outside spenders so far in the 2012 election cycle, according to Kantar Media’s Campaign Media Analysis Group, with close to $100 million in issue ads.

The growing role of issue groups has prompted a rash of complaints and lawsuits from watchdog organizations accusing groups like the American Action Network, Crossroads and the pro-Obama Priorities USA of operating as sham charities whose primary purpose is not the promotion of social welfare, but winning elections. Efforts in Congress to force more disclosure for politically active nonprofit organizations have been repeatedly stymied by Republicans, who have described the push as an assault on free speech. ...

Donations from corporations and unions alike must be disclosed if they go to expressly political groups like super PACs. ...

Among the largest beneficiaries of corporate donations in recent years have been trade organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which largely backs Republican candidates. As a nonprofit “business league” under the tax code, the chamber does not have to disclose its supporters, who helped finance its $33 million in political ads in the 2010 midterm elections.

But voluntary disclosures by corporations — usually at the prodding of shareholder advocacy groups — shed some light on the use of trade groups for lobbying or as pass-throughs for political spending. A search of voluntary disclosures, some collected by the Center for Political Accountability, which advocates for transparency in corporate political spending, found more than $6 million in chamber donations by 10 companies last year.

Two of the largest came from Prudential Financial and Dow Chemical, which each gave $1.6 million, while Chevron, MetLife and Merck each gave at least $500,000. Some of the donations were directed to the chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform, which lobbies for limits on liability suits.

Some contributions are disclosed by accident. Aetna’s check to the American Action Network, along with a $4.5 million contribution last year to the chamber, was mistakenly included in a filing with insurance regulators. The disclosure was first reported by SNL Financial, a trade publication. Even where companies pledge voluntary disclosure of political contributions, they often make an exception for donations to tax-exempt groups.

In 2007, Aetna signed an agreement with the Mercy Investment Program, a shareholders group, to disclose trade associations to which it made large contributions. On regulatory filings, the company initially described its $3 million contribution to the Chamber of Commerce as a lobbying expense, but the company now says it was intended to finance “educational activities.”

An Aetna spokesman would not say whether the chamber donation would appear on the company’s 2011 voluntary disclosure. Sister Valerie Heinonen, the director of shareholder advocacy for Mercy Investment Services, said that a failure to do so would violate the company’s pledge.

Beyond the contributions to large, established nonprofits like the chamber and American Action Network, corporate money is also quietly shaping the political discourse through more obscure groups, none of which are required to disclose their donors.

In Minnesota last year, Express Scripts, a major drug benefit manager, gave $10,000 to a Republican-linked group, Minnesotans for a Fair Redistricting, involved in a partisan fight over redrawing legislative boundaries. Express Scripts made the donation, previously unreported, because the “electoral maps in Minnesota were in doubt and we supported efforts to bring certainty to Minnesota voters,” said Brian Henry, a spokesman for the company, which is based in St. Louis. He added that the firm has a facility in Bloomington, Minn.

The reasons behind American Electric Power’s $1 million contribution to the little-known Founding Fund are less clear. The company characterized it as “lobbying” in a corporate governance disclosure last year, but the fund says it does no lobbying. The fund, whose address is a mail drop in Alexandria, Va., would not make any of its directors available for an interview.

The fund’s treasurer, Frank Sadler, is a lobbyist who previously worked for Koch Industries advising nonprofit groups that support free market causes, although he said the Kochs, major Republican donors, were not involved in the group. In its public filings, the fund said it expected to raise about $10 million this election cycle, primarily from corporations, and use it to promote free markets and “the narrowing of the scope and reach of the federal government.”

A spokesman for American Electric Power, Pat D. Hemlepp, said the company supports organizations “with positions on issues that align with AEP’s positions” and strives to be transparent on political giving. “We also respect the positions of others, including some of the organizations that receive funding from AEP, to not publicly disclose funding or activities. That’s their right under the law.”​

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/us/politics/groups-shield-political-gifts-of-businesses.html

It is important to rigorously exclude corporate participation in elections and re-establish the principle that state-created entities like corporations do not have free speech and are subservient in all respects to government. All political activity of corporations must be banned and strictly enforced. The US simply cannot be considered a democratic government based upon popular sovereignty until the people re-establish their sovereignty.

Beyond a constitutional amendment re-establishing that corporations do not enjoy any constitutional rights, I think a constitutional amendment taking powers of incorporation away from state governments and putting the power of incorporation solely in the federal government's hands would help quite a bit in this endeavor. This would make it much easier to enforce strict prohibitions against corporate participation in the political sphere. Penalties can include charter revocation and dissolution of the corporation. State governments are simply ill-equipped and cannot be trusted in any event to properly regulate the entities they create through their incorporation power. Narrowing the scope and reach of state governments has become essential.

Beginning of the end here folks. Obama might be the only candidate capable of withstanding that onslaught of money simply due to his popularity among multiple major parts of his base; that's not to say he's not guilty of corporate shilling, but moreso a general point on current democrat fundraising compared to republican fundraising. How does a "regular" non icon democrat combat such standing in the future? Outside of Hillary Clinton (who will certainly have plenty of corporate/Wall Street backing, to be fair). This will simply lead to more money polluting both sides, but as of right now the advantage is clearly lined up behind republicans.

It's interesting that the conservative response to the 2008 election was to open the flood gates on corporate money and attack voter rights. We're in for a bumpy ride.

 

[cartoon_soldier]

So, anybody see the reports on the Sunday show today?

Romney campaign because it has not done any push back/defense on the outsourcing and "swiss bank account" attacks, all Republicans are doing is calling Obama campaign for going negative.

 

[MonkeyKing]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...care-calls-irs-new-gestapo.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) assailed the Affordable Care Act in his weekly radio address today and declared the Internal Revenue Service, which will require Americans to purchase health insurance or pay an annual fee under the individual mandate, as the “new Gestapo.”

“This decision has made America less free,” Le Page said. “We the people have been told there is no choice. You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo - the I.R.S..”

The Gestapo was Adolph Hitler’s official secret police that terrorized Nazi Germany, imprisoning and murdering thousands of people.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/5/turncoat-roberts/

Because our legislative, judicial and executive branches of government hold the 10th Amendment in contempt, I’m beginning to wonder if it would have been best had the South won the Civil War. Our Founding Fathers’ concept of limited government is dead.

Quite possibly, with his vote, Chief Justice Roberts just engineered the ultimate demise of this great experiment in self- government. If you think we are skating on financial thin ice now, just wait until 2014 when the full financial tsunami of Obamacare comes crashing down.

RNC Chair Reince Priebus framed the election in drastic terms Sunday morning, saying that another Obama term could put an ‘end to our way of life’ and that “liberty and freedom” are at stake in an appearance on “Fox News Sunday.”

“The fact is, it’s not a question of whether can Mitt Romney win,” Priebus said. “The statement is, Mitt Romney has to win for the sake of the very idea of America. Mitt Romney has to win for liberty and freedom. We have to put an end to this Barack Obama presidency before it puts an end to our way of life in America.”

I know, I know. Ted Nugent is a nutbag so he gets a pass on whatever he says. How about a governor? How about one of the leadership positions in the Republican party?

And what are they all upset about? Healthcare law. A victory for Obama on healthcare brings out this type of hyperbole. Its irrational. And its all just to win elections.

It really reminds me of the Clinton years, with the overheated rhetoric, which no one wanted to address until it manifested itself with the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. Whats going to happen this time?

 

[The Technomancer]

“This decision has made America less free,” Le Page said. “We the people have been told there is no choice. You must buy health insurance or pay the new Gestapo - the I.R.S..”

Goodwin's Law now applies in the real world... amazing.

 

[RustyNails]

Why not, Gaime? It'll probably work in the end.

I'm feeling a bit demoralized after the whole PA voter ID thing.

Our country has the worst politics of any westernized nation ever. It's literally bi-polar in nature.

1. You're assuming all the voters affected by stringent ID laws were going to vote in the first place.
2.also assuming that these people are going to sit on their butts and do nothing till november.
3. Electorate make up of voters isnt necessarily democratic. The ID laws are going to affect old people too.

 

[MonkeyKing]

Voter ID laws are based on the belief that Democrats cannot win elections without cheating; that if votes were accurately counted, the GOP would win every time. Absurd, but thats what they believe.

 

[MonkeyKing]

Goodwin's Law now applies in the real world... amazing.

Look on the bright side: bringing up Hitler et al is usually a sign that the debate is over and one side has run out of arguments.

 

[TacticalFox88]

Look on the bright side: bringing up Hitler et al is usually a sign that the debate is over and one side has run out of arguments.

That assumes one side had any argument in the first place.

 

[Kosmo]

Voter ID laws are based on the belief that Democrats cannot win elections without cheating; that if votes were accurately counted, the GOP would win every time. Absurd, but thats what they believe.

The hysteria is equally absurd. I show ID every election.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The hysteria is equally absurd. I show ID every election.

Problem is that not everyone is a successful young man such as we are. Many students don't have proper IDs, and a lot of people don't drive. To make matters worse, DMVs in some urban areas are purposely being re-located. DMV/Sec Of State offices have hours that are bad for many people who work during the day.

It's a bad system. This has more to do with continuing to sow doubt and illegitimacy on Obama's presidency than actual, real voter fraud (which is rare).

I certainly agree IDs should be required, I just feel the process for obtaining them should not be hard or partisan. I think you've agreed with that basic assessment in the past, so we have no disagreement here.

 

[Kosmo]

I certainly agree IDs should be required, I just feel the process for obtaining them should not be hard or partisan. I think you've agreed with that basic assessment in the past, so we have no disagreement here.

I agree - it should be tied to voter registration - register to vote, get your State ID free of charge. The problem is how to get there without those who oppose it shouting "there's not a problem!"

 

[empty vessel]

Problem is that not everyone is a successful young man such as we are. Many students don't have proper IDs, and a lot of people don't drive. To make matters worse, DMVs in some urban areas are purposely being re-located. DMV/Sec Of State offices have hours that are bad for many people who work during the day.

It's a bad system. This has more to do with continuing to sow doubt and illegitimacy on Obama's presidency than actual, real voter fraud (which is rare).

I certainly agree IDs should be required, I just feel the process for obtaining them should not be hard or partisan. I think you've agreed with that basic assessment in the past, so we have no disagreement here.

This is reasonable. If an ID is required to vote, then the onus should be on the state to ensure that every voting eligible person has ID. That means, to me, that the state will have to assume an enormous expense to accomplish this before every single election. And there must still be exceptions in the law for when the state failed to fulfill its legal duty to provide IDs to eligible voters (e.g., the voter can make a sworn affidavit at the polling station, notaries being provided during all hours of voting at state expense).

 

[Dude Abides]

The hysteria is equally absurd. I show ID every election.

The hysteria about non-existent voter fraud is definitely absurd.

 

[XMonkey]

Interesting chart on Krugman's blog comparing tax rates on income groups over the past 5 decades:

The paper it comes from is here (full of a lot of other good information, too): http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saezJEP07taxprog.pdf

 

[Aaron Strife]

I agree - it should be tied to voter registration - register to vote, get your State ID free of charge. The problem is how to get there without those who oppose it shouting "there's not a problem!"

But there isn't a problem. I've voted in 3 Minnesota elections now, I've never had to show any ID, and we have among the highest participation rate and most transparent process for counting votes in the country.

The last two close elections (Franken vs. Coleman, Dayton vs. Emmer) were put through recounts and for Franken vs. Coleman, they actually streamed the videos of the SOS and his team counting up Franken and Coleman's challenges. I don't know if they did the same for Dayton vs. Emmer, but that was nowhere near as close, and Dayton's lead actually grew.

If you can show me proof of voter fraud swinging an election - I'll be nice and give you within .1% of the vote total - I'll acknowledge there might be an issue.

 

[Oblivion]

Just got home after being internetless for about 2 days or so. Anything good I missed?

 

[thatbox]

Just got home after being internetless for about 2 days or so. Anything good I missed?

Mittens's opinion of lemonade as a liquid, RNC chair's opinion of Obama's diabolical plan to destroy liberty and freedom in his second term, and a righteous crusade to defend states' rights to keep poors from voting.

Same as it ever was.

 

[pigeon]

Voter ID laws are based on the belief that Democrats cannot win elections without cheating; that if votes were accurately counted, the GOP would win every time. Absurd, but thats what they believe.

This is a pleasant but naive theory. Voter ID laws are based on the belief that the GOP can harness the preexisting structures that make it hard for the disenfranchised Democratic base to participate in society to dishonestly force them out of politics. As nice as it would be to think that the voter ID laws are driven by delusion, they're actually driven by malice.

 

[Wilsongt]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-team-targets-romney-over-taxes-republicans-cry-191702427--business.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama's campaign and top Democrats on Sunday called on Mitt Romney to release more personal tax records and raised questions about his offshore assets that the Republican challenger's campaign condemned as an "unseemly and disgusting" character assault.

As if the Republican's haven't done "unseemly" and "disgusting" character tactics. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[ezekial45]

Like they matter, but the polls show that Obama's ads against Romney are working well in the battleground states.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...nce-in-battleground-states.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

 

[PantherLotus]

This is a pleasant but naive theory. Voter ID laws are based on the belief that the GOP can harness the preexisting structures that make it hard for the disenfranchised Democratic base to participate in society to dishonestly force them out of politics. As nice as it would be to think that the voter ID laws are driven by delusion, they're actually driven by malice.

Agreed. What he meant is how they're driven at the polls -- what they're sold to do.

 

[The Technomancer]

Holy shit, haha, I just got a postcard from Hennepin county (Minneapolis) letting me know that my voting precinct has changed. Except a.) it was addressed to the people who lived in this apartment before us and b.)it included their voter ID number printed right at the top on a postcard

 

[Buddha Beam]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-team-targets-romney-over-taxes-republicans-cry-191702427--business.html

As if the Republican's haven't done "unseemly" and "disgusting" character tactics. That's the pot calling the kettle black.

"Hey Mitt, do what every presidential candidate since your father has done and show the country your financial and tax history."
"How dare you! Asking Mitt Romney to do that is such and unseemly and disgusting tactic!"

Romney is the type of person who makes me desperately hope that there really is a Hell so I can someday watch him burn in it.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Like they matter, but the polls show that Obama's ads against Romney are working well in the battleground states.

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2...nce-in-battleground-states.php?ref=fpnewsfeed

Romney's camp hasn't found a proper response in two weeks, and Obama's camp keeps twisting the knife; the swiss bank shit is icing on the cake.

The Bain stuff was potent even in the republican primary until the other candidates started backing off. GOP insiders couldn't tell then that Obama would magnify that shit by 10 in a general election race? As that article says, voters already know Obama. Outside of a few issues, there isn't much new shit to hit him with. Which is why I'm not tooo concerned about the PAC spending

 

[PantherLotus]

Let's be honest, PD -- Romney (and Romney's advisors) are so fucking flawed that Obama is actually running on Obamacare now.

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLL!!

 

[ezekial45]

I'll be honest, I'm not too concerned about the presidential election itself. Currently, anyway. Obama can clearly handle himself against Romney. Like you said, PD, people know the President and he's still favorable despite the economy and whatever the GOP is trying to throw at him. It's not working, and they're already using much of their campaign funds to do it. Negative campaigning is much less effective against someone you're familiar with for the past 4 years, y'know? What does concern me, however, is the senate/house seats in play.

There's the possibility that both can be taken by the GOP. If that happens, and Obama is re-elected, then he'll truly be in the lion's den. It'll be a much more worse position he's been in for the last two years. Though of course, it'll be much worse if the GOP takes everything; since they'll have free rein to go through with whatever goal they have.

 

[Talon]

Very, very dangerous quote there. Does the RNC really want to go down that path? Again?

Let's not pretend that salty Howard Dean wasn't the DNC chair 4 years ago.

I'm more interested to see how Europe and LIBOR will affect the conversation come 2012. Unfortunately, I have no faith in the American people to understand it. The reality is that economic fluctuations are outside of the control of the president - especially in an increasingly G0 state, but that won't stop the nonsense.

 

[PantherLotus]

I'll be honest, I'm not too concerned about the presidential election itself. Currently, anyway. Obama can clearly handle himself against Romney. Like you said, PD, people know the President and he's still favorable despite the economy and whatever the GOP is trying to throw at him. It's not working, and they're already using much of their campaign funds to do it. Negative campaigning is much less effective against someone you're familiar with for the past 4 years, y'know? What does concern me, however, is the senate/house seats in play.

There's the possibility that both can be taken by the GOP. If that happens, and Obama is re-elected, then he'll truly be in the lion's den. It'll be a much more worse position he's been in for the last two years. Though of course, it'll be much worse if the GOP takes everything; since they'll have free rein to go through with whatever goal they have.

This is the right fear, I think, especially when Republicans are outraising Dems 10-1 as corporations and billionaires try to buy their way out of responsibility.

 

[Talon]

This is the right fear, I think, especially when Republicans are outraising Dems 10-1 as corporations and billionaires try to buy their way out of responsibility.

The numbers will shift as we get closer to election day. Money tends to run towards the winner.

Obama won the fundraising battle against McCain from insurance companies and banks around August of 2008, I believe. Was right in the middle of an election finance course with a former Clinton (and REAGAN, the horror) aide.

 

[PhoenixDark]

If Obama wins, dems will probably hold the senate imo. House is out of reach but the GOP's lead will decrease

I wouldn't be concerned with Romney if I was Obama. He started quite impressively and still has time to rebound...but right now it's looking like amateur hour. Obama is running against the economy, not Romney. Unless something big happens

 

[PantherLotus]

If Obama wins, dems will probably hold the senate imo. House is out of reach but the GOP's lead will decrease

I wouldn't be concerned with Romney if I was Obama. He started quite impressively and still has time to rebound...but right now it's looking like amateur hour. Obama is running against the economy, not Romney. Unless something big happens

So basically what we've all been saying for a year and a half, except for how easily you're impressed. I still fail to see what you think was so impressive -- the man barely beat Newt Gingrich, a secessionist male Palin, a born again creationist zealot, and a born-again creationist zealot McCarthy-ite with a closeted husband!

What's so impressive?

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

I love how the latest attack ads against Obama are the whole stupid "largest tax increase in America" bullshit regarding Obamacare. Do these PACs not realize those sort of ads literally only cater towards the right anyway? Liberals and most independents know that's not the case and know that all or most of the facets of the bill benefit them.

 

[ezekial45]

So basically what we've all been saying for a year and a half, except for how easily you're impressed. I still fail to see what you think was so impressive -- the man barely beat Newt Gingrich, a secessionist male Palin, a born again creationist zealot, and a born-again creationist zealot McCarthy-ite with a closeted husband!

What's so impressive?

He has lots and lots of money backing him. That's pretty much all he's got at this point.

 

[Loudninja]

Romney, Obama Campaigns Duel Over Offshoring Attacks

The Obama campaign’s latest unfounded character assault on Mitt Romney is unseemly and disgusting. Mitt Romney had a successful career in the private sector, pays every dime of taxes he owes, has given generously to charitable organizations, and served numerous causes greater than himself. Barack Obama has become what he once ran against – a typical politician willing to use false and dishonest attacks to save his job after failing to do his job. The American people expected more from this president, and he continues to let them down.

Oh man haha.

If highlighting the fact that Mitt Romney had a Swiss bank account and put his money in offshore tax havens is “unseemly and disgusting,” perhaps he shouldn’t have done it in the first place. He can put this whole debate to bed by following decades of precedent and releasing additional years of tax returns to prove that he didn’t use these offshore accounts and corporations to avoid paying U.S. taxes. Until he does, Americans have to wonder just what he is hiding.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-obama-campaigns-duel-over-offshoring-attacks

Ben Labolt: Mitt Romney's Offshore Bank Accounts and Tax Returns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vsAbeGJqVs&feature=player_embedded

 

[empty vessel]

The reality is that economic fluctuations are outside of the control of the president - especially in an increasingly G0 state, but that won't stop the nonsense.

I agree with this to the extent you intended to limit it to just the president--who, alone, has little control over any policy. But Congress, in conjunction with the president (who is necessary to enact policy), have tremendous control over the economy through its spending and taxing powers. The Congress is currently sabotaging the US economy. (With his emphasis on fiscal consolidation, Obama seems just as pernicious and/or oblivious.)

 

[PantherLotus]

If I'm Romney, I'm hiring Rove NOW. Then he can just call Obama the off-shorer and be done with it. Oh, the Swiss Bank account thing? He can just say he was protecting his money from evil Obama. What else you got chumps?

 

[Talon]

I love how the latest attack ads against Obama are the whole stupid "largest tax increase in America" bullshit regarding Obamacare. Do these PACs not realize those sort of ads literally only cater towards the right anyway? Liberals and most independents know that's not the case and know that all or most of the facets of the bill benefit them.

We're due a market correction with ad spend once people realize that people under the age of 30 don't watch television in the same way that babyboomers do.

I agree with this to the extent you intended to limit it to just the president--who, alone, has little control over any policy. But Congress, in conjunction with the president (who is necessary to enact policy), have tremendous control over the economy through its spending and taxing powers. The Congress is currently sabotaging the US economy. (With his emphasis on the fiscal consolidation, Obama seems just as pernicious and/or oblivious.)

Remember that deal that died last summer? I have no faith in congress to move anything of worth, particularly in a precious election year.

I find the greatest flaw in our system of governance the (by design) fracture in continuity that prioritize congressmen to focus on their reelection bids once they get into the office. There are advantages to it (ostensibly anti-corruption due to the inability to consolidate power due to constant flow, etc.), but I think it'll become a weakness of ours that will become more evident in the coming century.

 

[ezekial45]

If I'm Romney, I'm hiring Rove NOW. Then he can just call Obama the off-shorer and be done with it. Oh, the Swiss Bank account thing? He can just say he was protecting his money from evil Obama. What else you got chumps?

Isn't Rove tainted by Bush? Much like that campaign manager that Romney hired who happened to work under George W. Bush? He got a ton of flack for having anyone associated with the Bush presidency.

 

[PantherLotus]

^ Romney's entire foreign policy advising committee are former Bushees. As for taint, Rove is above taint. Actually, if taint had a taint, Rove would be a taint's taint. And it wouldn't matter. Nobody that his arguments would work for dislikes him.

Romney, Obama Campaigns Duel Over Offshoring Attacks



Oh man haha.



http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/romney-obama-campaigns-duel-over-offshoring-attacks

Ben Labolt: Mitt Romney's Offshore Bank Accounts and Tax Returns
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vsAbeGJqVs&feature=player_embedded

It is worth noting that a lot of this is because he chose to put his cash in untouchable accounts (Cayman Islands/Swiss Banks) as well as tax code exploitation well after he knew he was running for President.

Seriously, I don't REALLY have a problem with being a selfish prick and hoarding your cash because you're a terrible person (ok, I actually do since these types gain the most from the system in which they refuse to pay their fair share), but the bigger issue is that this shows an amazing about of hubris, not to mention terrible decision making.


Let's review Romney's appeal to wingnuts:
Health Care: He literally started Obamacare.
Taxes: Evasion in chief, off-shore accounts, raised taxes in MA, "rich guy"
Military: Said he wouldn't pursue Bin Laden in Pakistan, no family ever served.
Southern Pride: lol
Born Again Christians: lol

Seriously, he's he worst candidate one could plausibly imagine. A super-rich, unlikable, unrelatable Mormon New England fat cat with no military experience, governing experience he can't possibly run on, and business experience that plays directly into the hands of the 99% movement.

It's as if Romney has been running against himself for the past six years, saying the absolute worst thing possible at every single turn, whether it's about Bin Laden and Pakistan, Romneycare and tax penalties, or firing people. It's so fucking sad it's hilarious.

 

[Averon]

I'm actually surprised at how well the Obama team is controlling the tone and messaging of the campaign at this point. Have the SuperPACs not launched their assault yet?

 

[Talon]

I forget who it was, but there was a piece written saying the GOP does not want to win 2012 because they don't think they'll be able to win 2016 as incumbents due to the Eurozone mess and China's looming inflation issues.

 

[Diablos]

I forget who it was, but there was a piece written saying the GOP does not want to win 2012 because they don't think they'll be able to win 2016 as incumbents due to the Eurozone mess and China's looming inflation issues.

So they hand Obama another term.

Okay then.

I doubt this

 

[PantherLotus]

I forget who it was, but there was a piece written saying the GOP does not want to win 2012 because they don't think they'll be able to win 2016 as incumbents due to the Eurozone mess and China's looming inflation issues.

This reasoning (i'm sure it's not yours) is called something, but I'm not sure what is is. Bullshit?

 

[Oblivion]

Robert Gibbs sez Obama's 100% super cereal on letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire.

 

[PantherLotus]

please be true
please be true
please be true
please be true

 

[Oblivion]

please be true
please be true
please be true
please be true

It's not.

 

[MonkeyKing]

This is a pleasant but naive theory. Voter ID laws are based on the belief that the GOP can harness the preexisting structures that make it hard for the disenfranchised Democratic base to participate in society to dishonestly force them out of politics. As nice as it would be to think that the voter ID laws are driven by delusion, they're actually driven by malice.

That's not a belief, its a strategy. The intent is obvious. My point is that the GOP doesn't come out and say "we're trying to screw the Democrats and those who might vote for them", they make the astonishing (and largely unproven) claim that Democrats win elections because of voter fraud. Accuse the other side of gaming elections while busily gaming it for themselves.

Its just a remarkable position to take, that theres no way the majority of voters in a given election would actually prefer a Democratic candidate over a Republican. No sir, there has to be some funny business involved.

 

[MonkeyKing]

I forget who it was, but there was a piece written saying the GOP does not want to win 2012 because they don't think they'll be able to win 2016 as incumbents due to the Eurozone mess and China's looming inflation issues.

I'm sure they want to win, but they also know that they're running a mediocre candidate against a fairly popular incumbent. By all rights, Romney shouldn't even be close to Obama in this election. I think they'll continue to run a scorched earth campaign and hope for a miracle win; but they shouldn't expect to.

If they lose, they'll just blame it on Romney not being conservative enough and push even harder to the right.

 

[Averon]

Robert Gibbs sez Obama's 100% super cereal on letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire.

That's nothing a bit of hostage taking by the GOP can't "fix". It worked incredibly well so far. No reason in their minds why it shouldn't work just as well again....and again, and again, and again....