U.S. 2012 Election

[cupper]

Nice analysis by Ezra Klein on how the 112th Congress is the worst Congress Ever.

14 reasons why this is the worst Congress ever

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/13/13-reasons-why-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/?hpid=z6

1. They are not passing laws.

2. They're hideously unpopular.

3. They're incredibly polarized.

4. They've set back the recovery.

5. They've lost our credit rating.

6. They're terrible even when they are "super". [Failure of the Super Committee]

7. Repeal, Repeal, ... Repeal, Repeal. [33 votes to repeal Obamacare]

8. The budget shenanigans of Senate Democrats.

9. They can't get appropriations done on time.

10. The transportation-infrastructure fiasco.

11. The FAA Shutdown.

12. Failing the Fed. [Blocked appointments to open seats on the board]

13. The experts agree. [Ornstein & Mann "It's Even Worse Than It Looks"]

14. There actually are problems they need to solve.

It's well worth the few minutes to read. And shows that there is blame enough for all, GOP, Dems and the White House.

 

[cupper]

Maybe Romney needs to retool his approach, at least according to the GOP Governors.

Republican governors want Mitt Romney to hit back

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78509.html

WILLIAMSBURG, Va., — Republican governors gathered here this weekend gently nudged Mitt Romney to wage a more aggressive campaign, urging the GOP standard bearer to share more about his background and draw a sharper contrast between his vision and that of President Barack Obama.

In a series of interviews, the chief executives said they’d like to hear their presidential nominee rebut Obama’s criticism about Bain Capital, the company Romney formerly led, by explaining what the venture-capital firm did while offering a more forward-leaning recitation of what he’d do in the White House.

The governors all expressed a belief that the still-wheezing economy would ultimately doom Obama, casting the incumbent’s pugnacious campaign to define Romney as an out-of-touch tycoon as the product of a president unable to run on his record.

But as they chatted this weekend between sessions of the summer meeting of the National Governors Association in Virginia’s colonial capital, the Republican leaders said the time was coming for Romney to go on the offensive.

...

Other GOP governors, however, channeled the increasingly common complaint among conservatives when it comes to Romney, contending that he needed to go beyond mere criticism of Obama and detail his own plans for the presidency.

And at the same time it seems Dem Governors have an opinion on the President's campaign as well:

Democratic govs to Obama: Message still needs work

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78498.html

Democratic governors have a message for President Barack Obama: A lot of his economic rhetoric still isn’t catching, and he’s leaving out key points that could help.

Asked whether Arkansas voters have faith in Obama to fix the economy, Gov. Mike Beebe replied: “That’s hard to say.”

The reason, said Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear, is because “he’s allowed the other side to pin a lot of this economy, over which he’s had no control in terms of the recession occurring, on him.”

Like Beebe and Beshear, most of the 20 Democratic governors left in office after the Republican landslide sit in solidly blue or red states with little chance of producing a November surprise in the presidential election. They say they’re confident in Obama’s chances, but not as confident as they’d like to be.

 

[a_majoor]

Nice analysis by Ezra Klein on how the 112th Congress is the worst Congress Ever.

14 reasons why this is the worst Congress ever

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/07/13/13-reasons-why-this-is-the-worst-congress-ever/?hpid=z6

It's well worth the few minutes to read. And shows that there is blame enough for all, GOP, Dems and the White House.

The biggest part of the blame should sit on the Senate, they have failed to propose or pass a budget for three years (and will make it four by the end of this session) and simply sit on anything that comes from the House. Regardless of which party is in power in the House, the Senate has a legal and moral responsibility to act on legislative bills passed by the house, and if they don't like it, propose something of their own.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The biggest part of the blame should sit on the Senate, they have failed to propose or pass a budget for three years (and will make it four by the end of this session) and simply sit on anything that comes from the House. Regardless of which party is in power in the House, the Senate has a legal and moral responsibility to act on legislative bills passed by the house, and if they don't like it, propose something of their own.

No! The whole place is unpatriotic, it is downright Un-American. The Democrats are, to be sure, negligent and irresponsible, but the Republicans are no beter - no worse, but not even one tiny iota better. 99% of the senators and representatives have forgotten that they are there to serve their country, not the blind, greedy, partisan interests of their party. Nor were they elected to serve the ravings of fools and charlatans and backroom activists like Grover Norquist - people who are too lazy, or to crooked or just to cowardly to stand for office themselves.

 

[cupper]

The conservative narrative this week has been bad for the Romney campaign, as I've shown in my past few posts.

And it is only getting worse:

From David Frum (who has become completely dissatisfied with the Way the far right has co-opted the party):

Romney: Too Weak?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/15/romney-weak.html

This is powerfully said by Josh Marshall on Friday the 13th, a bad day for Mitt Romney:

I’m not sure how many people watching this spectacle even remember that it’s nominally about whether Romney is responsible for outsourcing Bain did post-February 1999 or its investment in a company that serviced abortion clinics. I barely remember it myself. What’s driving this now is that the Obama camp has backed Romney into a position in which he looks ridiculous — something much more lethal for presidential candidates than most people appreciate.

Romney had absolutely nothing to do with Bain after 1999, no responsibility for anything it did, barely even knew what it did. Only he was the owner, the Chairman of the Board and the CEO. At least according to all the official documents, many of which he signed. Only he wasn’t any of those things, says Romney.

Marshall's column is titled "Weak, weak, weak," and it puts its finger on a core weakness of Romney as a candidate. It's not just his arguments that are weak. For the past year, we have watched him be pushed around by the radical GOP fringe. He's been forced to abjure his most important achievement as governor, his healthcare plan. In December, he was compelled to sign onto the Ryan budget plan after months of squirming to avoid it. Last fall he released an elaborate economic plan. On the eve of the Michigan primary, he ripped it up and instead accepted a huge new tax cut - to a top rate of 28% - that has never been costed (and that he now tries to avoid mentioning whenever he can). Romney has acknowledged in interviews that he understands that big rapid cuts in government spending could push the US economy back into recession. Yet he campaigns anyway on the Tea Party's false promise that it's the deficit that causes the depression, rather than (as he well knows) the other way around.

A big majority of this country is rightly frightened and appalled by what the congressional Republican party has become over the past four years: a radical cadre willing to push the nation over the cliff into utterly unnecessary national default in order to score a political point.

The hope for many of us was that a Republican president could do a better job constraining them than Barack Obama has been able to do - especially if (as I personally also hoped) the very act of electing such a president would deflate the radicalism of the congressional GOP and revive a more constructive spirit.

But at every point, Romney has surrendered to the fringe of his party. Weak. And now in his first tough encounter with Barack Obama, Romney is being shoved around again. This is not what a president looks like - anyway, not a successful president.

And the original article Frum references from Talking Points Memo:

Weak, Weak, Weak

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/07/honest_question_does_anything_think.php?ref=fpblg

Honest question: does anyone think Romney helped himself with this round of television interviews? This is more fact-finding than rhetorical. And the people whose opinions I’d be most curious to hear are those of Republican operatives — people who want the answer to be ‘yes’ but are politically sophisticated enough to know if it’s not.

The headline in the Times is “Romney Seeks Obama Apology for Bain Attacks”.

In the Journal “Romney Defends Bain Capital Tenure”.

This is ‘bitch slap’ politics played with a gusto and coldness seldom seen from Democrats, at least since the Bill Clinton days. Asking for an apology is losing. Saying you want something you clearly have no power to get is losing.

There’s a meta-politics Obama is playing by slashing at Romney with suggestions he might be a felon. He’s wounding Romney, who is clearly rattled and angry about the charges, but just as clearly can’t defend himself or strike back. As I’ve noted many times, a thick layer of presidential politics (in a way that’s distinct from US politics at really every other level) resides at the brainstem level of cogitation — with gambits to assert power and demonstrate dominance. Obama looked in control of this situation; Romney didn’t.

TPM Reader JL could barely contain himself …

    Bitch slap politics at it’s finest.

    Step 1. Obama tells Romney to man up and take responsibility.

    Coming soon …

    Step 2. Romney whines that it’s beneath the office.

    Step 3. BO Surrogates tell Mitt, you’re running for President for God’s sake. Don’t be such a girly man!!

    I love it!! Are we sure Obama’s a Dem?

There’s another part of this equation: I’m not sure how many people watching this spectacle even remember that it’s nominally about whether Romney is responsible for outsourcing Bain did post-February 1999 or its investment in a company that serviced abortion clinics. I barely remember it myself. What’s driving this now is that the Obama camp has backed Romney into a position in which he looks ridiculous — something much more lethal for presidential candidates than most people appreciate.

Romney had absolutely nothing to do with Bain after 1999, no responsibility for anything it did, barely even knew what it did. Only he was the owner, the Chairman of the Board and the CEO. At least according to all the official documents, many of which he signed. Only he wasn’t any of those things, says Romney.

Partisans can be walked through the arguments of how this might be true, just as you could explain what John Kerry meant by saying he was for a bill before he voted against it. But it still makes no sense. And doubling down on nonsense makes you look silly and trapped. That’s especially dangerous for someone already saddled with a reputation for shifting his stories and positions to suit the moment.

This is and will remain a low single digit race. But the President’s team is making Romney look shifty and silly and weak. (I half expect them to start goosing surrogates to call him Slick Willard.) And they’re well on their way to defining him in a way that will be difficult to undo.

Even though Romney is the presumptive nominee, is it possible that if things do not improve soon, that we could see some back door maneuvering to put someone else at the top of the ticket? It would be conceding the race to the Dems, but with the focus shifted to the congressional races they could gain control and spend 4 more years obstructing and controling the agenda.

 

[cupper]

the Senate has a legal and moral responsibility to act on legislative bills passed by the house

Show me the definitive section of the Constitution that says this.

Article One Section 7 Clause 2 says:

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States; If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

Furthermore, Section 5 Clause 2 states:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

There is nothing that says either house is required to take up legislation that has been passed by the other house.

Mr. Campbell is correct in his response.

Both parties and both houses are morally (if not legally) corrupt for having taken their salaries paid by the taxpayers they were elected to represent, and do essentially nothing for it. In a time of economic crisis, we get bills and amendments that have nothing to do with getting the economy back on track, instead we get bills and amendments trying to limit or eliminate abortion, women's access to contraception, 33 votes over 18 months (more than 2 per month, assuming that congress actually sat the whole time) to repeal the ACA. We've gotten extension after extension to current appropriations, but only after taking it to the edge of the cliff.

And now we have discussions about how after the election, regardless of the outcome, we could well see the whole thing go over the cliff to make a point.

No, don't point the finger only at the Democrat led Senate. Point it at the obstructionist Senate GOP minority, the Tea Party tail that wags the rest of the GOP dog. A clueless, spineless House speaker and his power hungry majority leader. An impotent Democratic house. And a directionless Democratic President who was forced to shift from trying to get a consensus to fighting for every crumb he was able to extract.

 

[cupper]

Something else that is telling about Romney's lack of transparency regarding his tax returns.

We are hearing from more and more GOP notables and conservatives, but conspicuously absent from the discussion is McCain, or anyone involved in the vetting of Veeps in the 2008 campaign who had access to 20 plus years of Romney's financial records.

You would think that if there wasn't an issue with them, they could at least indicate such, without violating any confidentiality agreements.

Conservative Pundits Wonder If Romney’s Hiding Something In Unreleased Tax Returns

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/conservative-romney-taxes-returns-hiding-something.php

It’s a bad sign for Mitt Romney when conservatives begin to question why the presumptive Republican nominee won’t release more of his tax returns. But on Sunday, that’s what happened. Conservative analysts joined Democrats in wondering whether Romney is just being impolitic in not releasing several years worth of returns — or whether he’s trying to hide something.

Democrats have been calling on Mitt Romney to release more than one year of his tax returns with a series of web videos and public statements. So far, he has released his 2010 returns and an estimate of his 2011 returns.

To politicos across the ideological spectrum, Romney’s unwillingness to release anything beyond these two years raises the question: if it’s worth the bad press to keep the tax returns private, they must contain something worse.

“The cost of not releasing the returns are clear,” said conservative columnist George Will, on ABC’s “This Week.” “Therefore, he must have calculated that there are higher costs in releasing them.”

Further in the article, Rohm Emmanuel makes an interesting point, even if it doesn't hold up under deeper scrutiny:

On ABC’s “This Week,” Chicago’s mayor and Obama’s former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said that in 2008, John McCain saw 23 years of Romney’s tax returns and opted for Sarah Palin instead.

“The Romney campaign isn’t stupid,” Emanuel said. “They have decided that it’s better to get attacked on a lack of transparency, lack of accountability to the American people, versus telling you what’s in those taxes.”

 

[Sythen]

And they called Conservatives "crazy" and "stupid" for demanding Obama's birth certificate. He should not release his tax returns, but his birth certificate instead, in order to show how stupid this is, and immediately give a ton of interviews and only talk about the real issues. Which is why Obama and his supporters are so focused on this ridiculous thing, because if anyone looks at how he has run the country, then he will lose.

 

[cupper]

It may be a trivial point, but it is relevant to the discussion. Are his tax policies influenced by his own financial experiences, with the potential of enhancing his own fortune? Did he game the system by moving money off shore? The tax payers deserve an answer when making their decision in November.

Furthermore, it has been the practice to release a significant number of years worth of returns. The current narrative is set by the Obama campaign. Is he hiding something? The only way to counter act it is to face it head on and release the information. Otherwise it comes across as a weakness.

Oh, and it wasn't conservatives that were called crazy for demanding the birth certificate. It was the looney fringe conspiracy theorists such as Donald Trump they were calling crazy. The majority of conservatives knew this was a bogus trap that should have died a quick death back in 2007 / 2008.

 

[Sythen]

The tax payers deserve an answer when making their decision in November.

Actually, no they don't. His personal finances, as long as he stayed within the law, is no one elses business. Its a distraction and pure nonsense. If they want to judge him, go off his record as Governor or as CEO of Bain Capital. Heck, even lefty CNN had an article claiming Obama implications that Romney was in charge after Feb 1999 are ridiculous, so let his records speak for themselves.

Furthermore, it has been the practice to release a significant number of years worth of returns. The current narrative is set by the Obama campaign. Is he hiding something? The only way to counter act it is to face it head on and release the information. Otherwise it comes across as a weakness.

Its also been practice recently to release their birth certificate. Funny how that goes, eh? Ignore the rhetoric, and come out swinging on the facts and real issues. Anything else is just Obama swinging at flies. Its like him trying to focus the election on the gay marriage debate, which Romney very intelligently avoided.

Oh, and it wasn't conservatives that were called crazy for demanding the birth certificate. It was the looney fringe conspiracy theorists such as Donald Trump they were calling crazy. The majority of conservatives knew this was a bogus trap that should have died a quick death back in 2007 / 2008.

And this issue should be treated with equal scorn and disdain as anyone with a head of their shoulders can see the Obama campaign trying to focus on anything but actually leading the country.

 

[cupper]

Actually, no they don't. His personal finances, as long as he stayed within the law, is no one elses business. Its a distraction and pure nonsense. If they want to judge him, go off his record as Governor or as CEO of Bain Capital.

Romney needs to address this. He is putting his record as CEO up as a reason why he is a better choice than Obama. Part of that record is how he profited from that. None of which has been made public, hidden by a thin legal claim of proprietary business privilege by Bain, a company he has repeatedly claimed to have been retired from and had no executive involvement with since 1999.

I agree that whether he retired in 1999 or 2002 is irrelevant in the whole scheme of the debate. A  red herring.  But again it goes to the perception that Romney is not being fully forthcoming about his history.

In an election that is going to be won or lost by single digit margins, it's the narrative that will win or lose you the election, not policy and platform. Obama is now guiding the narrative about Romney, and the best that his campaign has come up with is to whine about how they are being attacked. And Obama gets another news cycle where the focus is not on the economy.

Which is the whole point that I've been putting across. Release the info, take the heat, and pull the focus back to the economy and take control of the narrative. In politics optics trump reason and policy.

And enough with the birth certificate BS. No one gives a rat's patootie it any more. And why? Because they released it.

Amazing how that works isn't it? :sarcasm:

 

[Sythen]

Romney needs to address this. He is putting his record as CEO up as a reason why he is a better choice than Obama. Part of that record is how he profited from that. None of which has been made public, hidden by a thin legal claim of proprietary business privilege by Bain, a company he has repeatedly claimed to have been retired from and had no executive involvement with since 1999.

I agree that whether he retired in 1999 or 2002 is irrelevant in the whole scheme of the debate. A  red herring.  But again it goes to the perception that Romney is not being fully forthcoming about his history.

In an election that is going to be won or lost by single digit margins, it's the narrative that will win or lose you the election, not policy and platform. Obama is now guiding the narrative about Romney, and the best that his campaign has come up with is to whine about how they are being attacked. And Obama gets another news cycle where the focus is not on the economy.

Which is the whole point that I've been putting across. Release the info, take the heat, and pull the focus back to the economy and take control of the narrative. In politics optics trump reason and policy.

And enough with the birth certificate BS. No one gives a rat's patootie it any more. And why? Because they released it.

Amazing how that works isn't it? :sarcasm:

His personal finances have absolutely NOTHING to do with how he ran the company. Period. Any attempt to try to make that assertion is just as crazy as birthers. btw, he didn't release the long form or whatever of it. I didn't really keep track of that nonsense after the first month as it became clear it was foolish. Just as foolish as releasing tax forms.

If Romney were to succumb to this nonsense and release his info, the next news cycle would just be some other foolishness or outright lie from the Obama campaign/supporters that would be distracting. Ignore it, because regardless of what Romney says or does, most media outlets will pine for Obama. Keep your speeches about the economy, the declining American influence overseas and the fact Obama is probably the worst president in history, who outright refuses to take personal responsibility for anything. For attack ads, I'd focus them on him getting involved with things that are none of his business, like that professor and police officer who he ended up inviting for a beer, if Zimmerman is found not guilty before the election, focus on him trying to sway the verdict early on for political points. Focus on him not attending the NAACP meeting. The key for Romney, I believe, is not necessarily getting a lot more votes, but disenfranchising the "black vote" so they stay home on election day.

 

[cupper]

btw, he didn't release the long form or whatever of it.

Actually he did. The first release way back in 2007 / 08 was a short form copy. The tin foil hat society wouldn't accept that as proof, and kept bringing it up. When Trump flapped his gums, they brought out the long form.

if Zimmerman is found not guilty before the election, focus on him trying to sway the verdict early on for political points. Focus on him not attending the NAACP meeting. The key for Romney, I believe, is not necessarily getting a lot more votes, but disenfranchising the "black vote" so they stay home on election day.

Seriously? I really need to start investing in Alcoa. :

 

[Sythen]

Actually he did. The first release way back in 2007 / 08 was a short form copy. The tin foil hat society wouldn't accept that as proof, and kept bringing it up. When Trump flapped his gums, they brought out the long form.

Since I am too lazy to fact check this, I'll take your word on it and admit I was wrong. This does not change the fact that the same people who are calling birthers everything but decent people are now demanding its basic equivalent in terms of foolishness and distraction from the actual issues.

Seriously? I really need to start investing in Alcoa. :

Not really sure what you meant by this.

 

[cupper]

Not really sure what you meant by this.

You really want to invoke Zimmerman into the presidential race?

If you do, you're no better than the birthers and their conspiracies.

And God knows we're getting lots of examples of conspiracies this election cycle.

So, I could make some big money investing in aluminum products, specifically  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

 

[Redeye]

You really want to invoke Zimmerman into the presidential race?

If you do, you're no better than the birthers and their conspiracies.

And God knows we're getting lots of examples of conspiracies this election cycle.

So, I could make some big money investing in aluminum products, specifically  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

That's the thing that's most amazing - the number of bizarre things that are being brought out in the campaign.

Here's my favourite: all these voter ID laws to deal with the non-existent problem of alleged fraud. What these rules are mainly set up to do is disenfranchise large numbers of voters who conveniently happen to be likely to vote Democratic.

It's one thing to point fingers at what's obviously happen. Then there's GOP politicians like the Pennsylvania GOP Speaker of the House openly admitting why they're doing it. http://www.politicspa.com/turzai-voter-id-law-means-romney-can-win-pa/37153/

And that is, I think the rational behind all such movements. The Democrats are going to have to get busy making sure they get around all these rules - making sure people have the ID they need so they can exercise the right that the US Constitution guarantees them.

 

[a_majoor]

The Obama team may have already taken their most effective shots. Look for continuing panic as the economy continues to be front and center for voters:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/july-panic-for-obama--for-good-reason/2012/07/15/gJQARQFXmW_blog.html%22

July panic for Obama — for good reason
By Jennifer Rubin

Why has the Obama team been publicly wailing about losing out to Mitt Romney in the money race? Why would the president accuse his opponent of not merely being wrong or unqualified but criminal? After all, the polls are tied, so why so much worry in Obamaland?

Like a mystery novel, the answer is in front of our noses: The candidates are still tied in the polls. Let’s go step by step with the most logical explanation of the Obama campaign’s conduct.

The Obama team knew months ago that the economy would not sufficiently improve before Election Day to justify his reelection. Its polling showed simply blaming President George W. Bush wouldn’t be sufficient. The president and his political hacks concluded that it was too late and too risky to adopt a whole new second-term agenda. (It would risk offending either the base or centrists and reveal his first-term agenda to have been entirely inadequate.) So what to do?

Extend the Republican primary by running ads hitting Romney and encouraging Democrats to vote against Romney in Michigan and elsewhere. Then, before Romney could fully get his bearings, unload a barrage of negative attacks, scare mongering and thinly disguised oppo attacks through the mainstream media, taking advantage of many political reporters’ relative ignorance about the private equity field and their inclination to accept whole-hog President Obama’s version of “facts.”

The extent of that effort is only now becoming clear. The Associated Press reports: “President Barack Obama’s campaign has spent nearly $100 million on television commercials in selected battleground states so far, unleashing a sustained early barrage designed to create lasting, negative impressions of Republican Mitt Romney before he and his allies ramp up for the fall.” Think of it like the Confederacy’s artillery barrage on the third day of Gettysburg before Pickett’s charge — you have to in essence disable the other side before the charge begins or its curtains.

Virtually all of the ads were viciously negative, and judging from the number of Pinocchios they’ve racked up, continually and materially false.

But it didn’t work. Romney and Obama are still deadlocked. (The AP quoted Republican operative Carl Forti: “I don’t think . . . [Obama’s] got a choice. He has to try to change the dynamic now, but the polling indicates it’s not working. He doesn’t appear to be making any headway in the polls.”)

Few Democratic pundits are as sharp or as honest as William Galston, who concedes:

On the one hand, the last round of Bain attacks has clearly rattled the Romney campaign, and a smattering of survey evidence suggests that the sustained ad campaign in swing states has scored some points. On the other hand, the Pew survey found no shift since May in swing-state voter preference.

But it’s not too early to say that Obama’s vital signs look dicey. Over the past 33 months, his job approval has been lower than George W. Bush’s at a comparable time in his presidency for all but one week. Bush averaged above 50 percent in the quarter before his successful reelection campaign, while Obama has been stuck in the 46-48 percent range for months. And the famous “wrong track” measure now stands at 63 percent, versus 55 percent in the days preceding the vote in 2004. If these two numbers don’t improve for Obama, his presidency will be in jeopardy. And they probably won’t — unless the economy perks up noticeably.

So the Obama team has shot its wad. Its opponent has more ammo and more money now. Romney hasn’t been mortally wounded. And there isn’t money from Obama to keep up the 4-to-1 spending barrage. In fact without it, Obama might well have fallen behind in the race. So the Obama team pleads for money and turns up the volume of the attacks. (After calling Romney a criminal in July, what’s left for September and October?)

Obama is now committed to a strategy that isn’t working. He’s left to unleash his attack dogs and to pray for a miracle. Maybe the economy will rebound. Perhaps Romney will implode or pick a Sarah-Palin-type for vice president.

The reason, you see, that Obama’s camp has become so frantic in July is that its ineffectiveness in the summer subjects its side to grave risks. Having to defend his record, rely on his debate prowess and be evaluated on the economy over the last three years is as risky as, well, as sending thousands across a vast, empty field as enemy fire rains down upon them.

 

[vonGarvin]

The Democrats are going to have to get busy making sure they get around all these rules - making sure people have the ID they need so they can exercise the right that the US Constitution guarantees them.

So....

You're okay with people not showing proof that they are who they say they are? 

(Just curious)...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

So....

You're okay with people not showing proof that they are who they say they are? 

(Just curious)...

There is a Supreme Court challenge over that very issue in Canada right now.  So which is it- ID or no ID to vote?

Or does it depend entirely on who wins the election whether ID was a good thing, or not?

 

[a_majoor]

Or does it depend entirely on who wins the election whether ID was a good thing, or not?

Yes:

http://americanglob.com/2012/07/10/journalists-required-to-show-ids-at-eric-holders-talk-on-the-evil-of-ids/

Journalists Required To Show IDs at Eric Holder’s Talk On The Evil of IDs

If you think it’s fine for the government to force you to buy something but you’re insulted by the idea of having to prove your citizenship in order to vote… you might be a liberal.

Obama’s attorney general Eric Holder spoke to the NAACP today and described voter ID laws as racism…

Attorney General Eric Holder went off script today to say that voter ID laws like one being implemented in Texas are “poll taxes,” equating the requirement that voters show a state-issued photo ID in order to cast ballots to the Jim Crow laws of the early 1900s.

“Many of those without IDs would have to travel great distances to get them and some would struggle to pay for the documents they might need to obtain them,” Holder said in a speech to the NAACP on Tuesday, referring specifically to a law being implemented in Texas. “We call those poll taxes.”

Too bad every single journalist in the room was subjected to such a harsh form of racism.

The media advisory below is from the Joe Pags Show via The Gateway Pundit…

*******MEDIA ADVISORY*******

ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER TO DELIVER REMARKS TOMORROW TO
NAACP NATIONAL CONVENTION

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder will deliver remarks at the NAACP National Convention during the plenary session on TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2012, at 12:00 p.m. EDT/11:00 a.m. CDT.

WHO: Attorney General Eric Holder

WHAT: Remarks at the NAACP National Convention

WHEN: TUESDAY, JULY 10, 2012
12:00 p.m. EDT/
11:00 a.m. CDT

WHERE: George R. Brown Convention Center
1001 Avenida De Las Americas
Houston
OPEN PRESS

NOTE: All media must present government-issued photo I.D. (such as a driver’s license) as well as valid media credentials. Members of the media must RSVP to receive press credentials athttp://action.naacp.org/page/s/registration. For security purposes, media check-in and equipment set up must be completed by 9:45 a.m. CDT for a 10:00 a.m. CDT security sweep. Once the security sweep is completed, additional media equipment will NOT be permitted to enter and swept equipment will NOT be permitted to exit.

Isn’t that interesting?

Is the left really this dumb or do they think we are?

and:

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/07/11/doj-witness-can-fly-to-washington-but-cant-get-voterid/

DOJ Witness Can Fly to Washington, But Can’t Get Voter ID (Updated)
July 11, 2012 - 2:19 pm - by J. Christian Adams     

This is too much.  The Justice Department actually called a witness in the Texas Voter ID trial today in Washington, D.C.  The witness complained she couldn’t find the time to get her parents to drive her to get the free photo ID, but she obviously had time to fly to Washington, D.C., from Texas to testify at trial!

Henry Jackson writes at the Associated Press.

Victoria Rose Rodriguez, 18, told a federal court in Washington that she had limited documentation — a birth certificate, a high school transcript and a student ID card with a photo on it — but is currently a registered voter in Texas. She said her parents are too busy to take her or her twin sister to get the new voter identification cards required by the law.

Naturally, Henry Jackson doesn’t seem to note this obvious laugher, that Rodriguez has parents too busy to get the ID, but can hop a plane in San Antonio and spend at least a day in Washington, D.C., and then ride back home.  In fact, Jackson (and the rest of press) simply laps up the government’s stories without question.

There was a time in the Voting Section when the DOJ wouldn’t introduce such absurd evidence.  The conversation would go something like this:

Young lawyer: I want to call Victoria Rodriguez.  Her parents are too busy to give her a ride to get photo ID.  They don’t have the 30 minutes to spare.

Older seasoned lawyer: Well, do you really think that is a good idea?  Don’t you think we open ourselves up to a devastating cross examination about priorities?

Young lawyer: I’m not sure I follow.

Older seasoned lawyer: We’re not going to call her.  Texas will point out the absurdity of us calling a witness to say she doesn’t have time to get a photo ID but can fly 2000 miles to testify at trial.  Who took the time to drive her  to the airport?  We’d need to get her a cab to make this story work.  Isn’t going to happen. It could prove embarrassing.

Add a southern accent to the old seasoned lawyer and I’m pretty sure this is the exact conversation that would occur.  These days, as we know, irrational decisions are being made from root to branch.

Update: Did the Associated Press Airbrush an Inconvenient Quote?

Of course anyone boarding an airplane in the United States also needs to show ID......