geojanes wrote:["Romney holds $xx,xxx,xxx in off-shore tax haven." So when he releases the tax return the schedule with the sources of unearned income will not be included but the total will be.

Even in ABC's breathless Cayman expose, they made it plain it was not a "tax haven" and that they had no reason to think Romney had not paid all taxes.

No, it's not a tax haven. It's a leading centre for hedge funds. Who had nothing whatever to do with the 2008 crash, no sireee!

What's interesting to me is why Romney is not touting his handling of the Winter Olympics more. First of all, what he did in administering the Winter Olympics has far more relevance to being president than what he did at Bain. Secondly, it has little of the baggage associated with Bain. But I guess he figures running the Winter Olympics was a governmental enterprise so he needs to show he has business expertise, even if is of the sleazier side of business. Of course, there is also the issue as to how much tax he paid (clearly at a lower percentage than most Americans) As much as Steve wants to deny it, i don't think the middle is ready to vote for a guy who epitomizes Wall Street aggrandizement and tax unfairness

The best comment I've heard on this race is something like:

Any mammal can beat Obama; unfortunately, the Republican candidates are all reptiles.

That quote was in the BBC article that Neal posted the other day. Apparent;ly it came from un unnamed Republican with over a decade in Congress.

geojanes wrote:

Sassenach wrote:I've already explained what it I think might be found in Romney's tax returns and why that might be politically damaging for him so there's no real need to keep repeating myself. The reason I think it's not especially improbable is because Romney is a Wall St insider who made his fortune through financial engineering. He certainly wouldn't be the only one to have profited from the slump, far from it.

I've heard speculation on two things that might be damaging:
1) He gave a lot of money to the Mormon Church, like in the 8 figures. There is thinking that if he releases the tax return, it will just show the amount of charitable donations, but not the schedule showing who received what.

2) His sources of income are very complex and include partnerships and trusts in places like the Cayman Islands, Bermuda or such places. They are entirely legit & declared holdings, but the campaign is worried about the headline "Romney holds $xx,xxx,xxx in off-shore tax haven." So when he releases the tax return the schedule with the sources of unearned income will not be included but the total will be.

Complete speculation, though.

So, the big scandal? Imo, it's incompetence. The man paid a higher effective rate than Kerry did when he was running, says Ezra Klein.

Again, maybe this will play--if Romney is the nominee. I don't think so, but then again, I'm not a socialist. I think it's great that someone can work hard, play by the rules, and get wealthy.

However, the one thing we all know: Obama won't run on his record. That's just not going to work. So, this is one line of attack for him.

steve

However, the one thing we all know: Obama won't run on his record. That's just not going to work. So, this is one line of attack for him

well, Obama's sorta running on his record now... And according to Rasmussen (Dr, Fate Seal of Approval since 2004) he's now ahead of Romney by 3 and Gingrich by 9 points when a straight choice is offered.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

So whatever the republican nomination process is all about as a vetting process for republicans, it also seems to be making Barrack look better to more and more of the electorate as it moves forward.
And the economy is inching forward....

rickyp wrote:steve

However, the one thing we all know: Obama won't run on his record. That's just not going to work. So, this is one line of attack for him

well, Obama's sorta running on his record now...

Prove it.

Maybe this video will help. It's from his 2010 SOTU http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... yndra.html

And according to Rasmussen (Dr, Fate Seal of Approval since 2004) he's now ahead of Romney by 3 and Gingrich by 9 points when a straight choice is offered.

Again? I'll tell you what, since you refuse to pay any attention, why should anyone else?

Want to bet that Obama wins? If not, then shut up about the head-to-head polls. They are meaningless at this point. Not only is there still an internal struggle going on for the nomination, but for the 40th time--only Obama has 100% name ID. And, that does matter. People can't prefer someone they don't know--not to get all technical with you on polling.

Post on this again and I will be forced to conclude you are either an imbecile or just afraid to bet.

I'm placing my bet on the former.

So whatever the republican nomination process is all about as a vetting process for republicans, it also seems to be making Barrack look better to more and more of the electorate as it moves forward.

Duh. As they're attacking each other, of course Obama looks better.

However, is Obama running on his record? To keep this on the GOP, I'll start a forum later. Tonight, he will tout carefully edited "successes." There are many things he won't mention, which hit people right between the Lincolns in their wallet.

And the economy is inching forward....

Great. He can run on THAT!

It is the slowest recovery on record. He can run on THAT!

Gasoline prices are nearly 100% higher and are at an all-time high for January. He can run on THAT!

steve

Prove it.

Okay I'll quote this guy....

Steve: Jan 24, 9:20 AM

http://www.redscape.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=830&start=15

It doesn't matter that he's been campaigning for months already.

Steve
Pe

ople can't prefer someone they don't know--not to get all technical with you on polling.

They generally don't vote for someone who's name they don't know either.
But the importance of ;looking at these polls is that they provide a sense of the direction...nothing else. And since Rasmussen had Romney edging Obama previously, the shift indicates that as the electorate gets to know more about him, from the nomination process, they seem to like him less and Obama more...
Not to get all technical on you.

But I only need to wait for you to contradict yourself anyway.
Steve

Duh. As they're attacking each other, of course Obama looks better

I don't know what you're actually arguing here? You have a problem with the manifestation of evidence for the very problem you seem to think Gingrich causes ?

Doctor Fate wrote:

And the economy is inching forward....

Great. He can run on THAT!

It is the slowest recovery on record. He can run on THAT!

Gasoline prices are nearly 100% higher and are at an all-time high for January. He can run on THAT!

Of course, the US recovery may be slower than usual (I'd like to see your proof that there's never been a slower one, the late 19th Century depression was a real doozy), but it's a lot faster than it is for other countries.

The IMF has today given projections for 2012. The USA to grow at 1.8%. Sounds low, but then they give the UK rise of 0.6%, the Eurozone a fall of 0.5% (Germany up by 0.3%, France up by 0.2%)

And they warn against cutting too fast:

It also called on governments to avoid imposing drastic spending cuts on already sickly economies. Fiscal tightening is necessary to correct the hefty debt burden left from the boom years, the IMF said, but it, "should ideally occur at a pace that supports adequate growth in output and employment".

"Countries with enough fiscal space, including some in the euro area, should reconsider the pace of near-term adjustment," it added, in a suggestion that will be widely viewed as aimed at Germany, which is pressing ahead with austerity measures despite its healthy budget position.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012 ... -forecasts

Now, Steve will tell us (with pride?) that Americans don't care about the outside world, only their own backyard. I think, however, that if they see the US as being in a relatively calm port in a worldwide storm, they might have more time for the current captain.

rickyp wrote:steve

Prove it.

Okay I'll quote this guy....

Steve: Jan 24, 9:20 AM

http://www.redscape.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=830&start=15

It doesn't matter that he's been campaigning for months already.

You are a fool. Apparently you cannot understand the difference between "campaigning for months" and "campaigning on his record."

That puts you at about third grade reading comprehension.

They generally don't vote for someone who's name they don't know either.
But the importance of ;looking at these polls is that they provide a sense of the direction...nothing else. And since Rasmussen had Romney edging Obama previously, the shift indicates that as the electorate gets to know more about him, from the nomination process, they seem to like him less and Obama more...
Not to get all technical on you.

I'll give you all the respect a dishonest fool deserves.

I don't know what you're actually arguing here? You have a problem with the manifestation of evidence for the very problem you seem to think Gingrich causes ?

Not my fault that you are a lying twit, and one that pays no heed to what others pots.

How many times have you/we been asked to not argue about polls? Does that stop you?

Nope.

steve

That puts you at about third grade reading comprehension

Yes but at Canadian third grade which is good enough for University in South Carolina..

An incumbent cannot escape running on his record. Period. And he's been in election mode for a few months already (as you noted) , positioning his record .
As you take delight in noting the public doesn't approve of the job he's been doing. Although its moving closer to a toss up on that too....
In the last few months he's attempting to pass blame around, especially to the Republicans in congress, and contrasting what he's tried to do, what he'd like to do, with both Republicans in Congress and the Republican presidential candidates.
Since the republican congress has the lowest job approval numbers that does seem to be to his advantage.
However, since Obama has consistently polled behind a "generic" republican opponent.... not really enough. People were obviously hoping that there was someone better out there.

Now I'm not arguing about polls Steve. I'm simply using them to offer evidence for a viewpoint. I have always couched my reference to poll numbers as I know first hand that they are an imperfect science. However, like the weather reports they can be useful. Especially at pointing to the direction of an electorates mood. They sure nailed the shift in South Carolina didn't they?
And what they indicate is that the more the electorate gets to see of Newt and Mitt the better Barrack looks.
Kind of the opposite effect you'd want from a nominating process.

I love science and I especially love space. The idea of space exploration scratches my nerd itch in the right place. Newt's call for space exploration and lunar mining and settlement, is undeniably cool. But, honestly, I can't believe he's saying this stuff outside a star trek convention. What is he thinking? More here:

http://ideas.time.com/2012/01/27/newt-for-president-of-the-moon/

Interesting article

You heard it first here

And check this out

Thats the same general quoted two weeks ago, in the Washington Times . So its been throught the laundry at Fox and other right wing outlets gaining import and strength with each retelling. But there's nothing in the way of additional information.
Is there really such a General ? What position does he hold? What authority does he have? How do you know NDTV didn't just make this up? Its not like this has any weight as an official state communication... Or that this previously unknown middling ranked general represents anything other than his opinion. (If he really exists)