Saying PA was the only swing state where the ID laws might make a difference of a point or two. If PA is within a point or two, then Obama has certainly lost... PA is one the bluer swing states. So I don't think it will make a difference.

While domestic economic policies (including healthcare issues) probably will be the main driver in this election,  I think the Romney campaign will have to come up with some sort of viable (i.e. palatable-to-the-public) alternative program outside of the same-old, same-old "tax-cut" mania and "spending" hysteria. What the GOP team is offering the country as an economic alternative seems to be a variety - albeit self-imposed - of the "austerity" programs currently afflicting so many countries in Europe, and I don't see that these are (or will be) any more popular here than they are over there. "Throw the bums out!" is, of course, a tried-and-true political rallying-cry: the problem is, one has to have a credible slate of new bums to offer up. And so far, ISTM the Romney campaign is falling short. For now.

BTW, I have a feeling that, given the recent brouhaha, the Republican campaign will probably want (if they haven't already) to shift the focus of Romney's pitch away from the purely "economic" and back to "social" issues, i.e. the usual "God, guns and gays" hatemongering: with a hefty dose of abortion-hysteria on top to stir up the tribalistic politics (in the Rwandan sense) out there in the "Heartland". It's pretty thin ice, I think: too much overt bigotry will probably scare away an unacceptably large segment of the "undecideds", but what else have they got? Besides, a platform of economic royalism with a facade of prejudice and religious mania has always worked for them in the past: if Mitt's poll numbers don't substantively improve post-Convention, they won't have much in the way of options.

and that Carter and Bush I show all you need is a lousy economy not to get re-elected.

An optimistic point is that I thought Obama would already be losing in an economy with 1% GDP growth and job growth that isn't keeping pace with the population. But here we are and Obama has a slight lead in the polls. Romney is a terrible candidate. 

I still say Obama loses, but my lean in that direction is very tiny. 

Pawlenty even bored himself while talking on the campaign trail.

Huntsman committed a whole series of missteps, starting with how he positioned himself at the outset. The Utah governor really was the more conservative candidate compared to Romney and Gingrich, but he let himself be painted as a moderate.

I did the same thing several years ago. The only hard part was finding a bank that would let you hold private stock and/or warrants in your IRA (or in my case a SIMPLE plan). Of course when I say the same thing I mean I tripled my investment over 5 years, I didn't get 1000%+ a year for ten or fifteen years.

was to depict a nude Romney singing "America the Beautiful" to his ding-a-ling.

So try and praise the above given its comparison class.

Also, my ad isn't alleging illegality. It's trying to put ROmney on the defensive over how his fancy exploitation of legal loopholes allowed him to play by different rules.

And really, how do you get stock in the 10s of thousands to be worth in the hundreds of millions several yrs. later? That initial valuation of Bain stock is shady. Legal perhaps, but shady. 

Romney hasn't followed the spirit of the law that everyday Americans follow.  

And it's where most of his $ is.

From your own link: "the perfectly fair question ... is whether the "little or nothing" value that Romney attributed to the investments when he contributed them was actually a fair valuation--or whether Romney low-balled the value to dodge some taxes."

Reuter's Felix Salmon comments: "Several estate-planning experts said they know of others with IRAs of more than $100 million, but they are rare. Typically, they said, that occurs when founders of companies invest in their own shares, which then take off."

So Romney's in a select few and he looks bad. They should run with it.

but you're wrong about one thing  - it was the fact that she had no problem attacking, even mindlessly, that made her a hit with Republicans. She was very much in the mold of Spiro Agnew - never stop, never admit anything, just keep attacking. That kind of candidate rallies the base.

over at the Great Orange Satan:

"McCain: Half-wit hockey mom with knocked-up teen daughter better candidate than Romney"

.

At July 19, 2012 1:03 PM,  Aunt Snow said...

Nonsense. She's not a c*nt. She lacks the required warmth and depth.

At July 19, 2012 1:39 PM,  SFAW said...

I think the dressage horse and the therapeutic horses are not one and the same. Not sure which of them "earned" the $77K write-off, but the horse in London is not the medical one.

Outside of that, no problem. (With you, that is; Her Nibs is another story, of course.)

At July 19, 2012 1:42 PM,  jurassicpork said...

Auntie, you owe me and the missus for two coffee-stained monitors.

OK, so by your rubric, I guess "@sshole" would also be out?

At July 19, 2012 1:49 PM,  phoebes in santa fe said...

You know, I hate the "c" word. I won't even write it out and I am not at all shy about using every other bad word in the book. But the "c" word I stay away from, unless talking about Barbara Bush.

And now I'm adding it to Ann Romney. If anything, she's worse than her husband.

 

Best Wishes, Traveller