I am not basing this on some figment of my imagination.Harry Reid • “Doubling down,” as they say, on his allegation that Mitt Romney paid no taxes for ten years. Reid sourced this claim to an anonymous investor in Bain, Romney’s old company, and in a conference call with reporters today, said that he’s “had a number of people tell me that [Romney paid no taxes].” When asked to back up his claim, Reid replied: “The burden should be on him. He’s the one I’ve alleged has not paid any taxes. Why didn’t he release his tax returns?” On the one hand, it’s easy to attribute an incendiary allegation to an anonymous source, as Reid has done. On the other hand, the only way to confirm or discredit this allegation is—you guessed it—for Romney to release his tax returns. source (via • follow)
[T]he opposition research of the Obama campaign is looking for anything they can use to distract from the failure of the president to reignite our economy. And I’m simply not enthusiastic about giving them hundreds or thousands of more pages to pick through, distort, and lie about.Mitt Romney • Explaining why he doesn’t intend to release any of his tax returns from prior to 2010. As an analysis of President Obama’s reelection strategy, Romney is absolutely right: Obama does indeed want to distract from the economy as much as possible. But as an explanation as to why he’s not releasing his returns, this doesn’t cut it. If there’s nothing to hide in the returns, wouldn’t the Obama campaign’s efforts to “pick through, distort, and lie” fail? If not, that would imply that voters are gullible enough to be fooled into thinking there’s scandal when there isn’t—which, to be fair, may well be the case, but we don’t really think that’s the argument Romney should be making if he wants to be elected president. Also, saying stuff like that results in headlines like this. source (via • follow)
He needs to broaden the message out when talking about immigration, to make it an economic issue as much as it is a question of the rule of law, have a broader message and have a more intense message.Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush • Putting his experience with voters in Florida to good use by giving Mitt Romney some advice on how to handle the state. We know, now more than ever, that Bush will not be anyone’s running mate in this election, but that doesn’t stop him from giving his two cents. He goes on to say: “Great countries should be able to control their borders, plain and simple, and we haven’t done it to the extent that we should, although there has been significant improvement in the last seven, eight years — also because we’ve had a lot fewer people trying to cross the border, because our economy stinks.” source (via • follow)
» The rub: This is, largely, good news for Romney, as a net +21% of his base feels positively about him as their candidate. The catch is this: Only 11% of those polled said they’re excited by a Romney candidacy. Enthusiasm is a huge component in turning out voters; the difference in propensity to vote between a voter who’s “excited” and one whose merely “satisfied” with their candidate can be the difference between winning and losing.
» Ruh-roh. That’s a decline of, like, one percent a day.
In her last days, my mother occasionally became confused....”
One of the perks of being an early employee...
Over the last 90 days, the Digg...
Snowe’s retirement will have many lamenting the endangered moderate and wondering how we can turn back the clock. But we can’t. About that, Snowe is right. Polarization is with us now and will be with us for the foreseeable future. The question is whether we will permit it to paralyze our political system and undermine our country or whether we will accept it and make the necessary accommodations.Ezra Klein • Arguing that the problem with congress isn’t partisanship, or ideological polarization, but rather that the institutions and procedures codified in our political system aren’t well-equipped to handle a polarized congress. Klein’s prime example is the filibuster, which as we’ve seen the past couple of years, is absolutely crippling when the two parties in the Senate don’t agree on anything. “Our system, as any historian will tell you, was built by men who hated parties and anticipated their absence from American politics,” Klein says. “But as the two parties have polarized, we’ve learned that a system built for consensus is not able to properly function amid constant partisan competition.” source (via • follow)