Mitt Romney at one of his presidential campaign rallies. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

By Bob Cesca: Yesterday, Mitt Romney received another pulse-poundingly enthusiastic endorsement. This time from former President George W. Bush, who could barely contain his incurable case of Romney Fever when he said: “I’m for Mitt Romney.”

And that was all.

It kind of reminded me of that viral video in which a kid is asked by a reporter about his zombie face-paint and he responds, “I like turtles.” Well, yes, that’s nice. Bush is for Romney. And…?

Of course Bush is for Mitt Romney — they’re both spoiled, entitled, wealthy, conservative, dickish frat boy sons of famous politicians. But Bush clearly doesn’t have anything else to say about the presumptive Republican nominee for president. Bush isn’t known to be a wordy talker, but perhaps his endorsement was so obviously concise because there’s really nothing else to say about Romney.

Other endorsements for Romney have been equally orgasmic.

“I think Gov. Romney is the nominee.” Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) on the Romney nomination

“I am excited that the process is over.” Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Idaho) on the Romney nomination

“I’m not as excited as I am desperate.” Rep. Louis Gohmert (R-Texas) on the Romney nomination

Here’s Newt Gingrich’s “endorsement” in which he describes Romney as a liar, but people should vote for him anyway because Republicans have to defeat the president.

At this rate, instead of the customary balloon-drop at the convention, staffers will have to drop antidepressants and Red Bull from the arena ceiling. But shhh! Don’t wake the delegates.

In all seriousness, this is what could ultimately sink the Romney campaign. Recent polls show a major enthusiasm gap:

Of those backing Mr. Obama, 64 percent said it is because they feel he deserves to be re-elected, while only 11 percent said they are trying to deny Mr. Romney the spot, another 11 percent said they are supporting the nominated Democrat, and 9 percent said the president is the “lesser of two evils.” [...]

Still, Mr. Romney suffers from a lack of enthusiasm. Less than half of his backers said they are supporting him because they think he is the best candidate. Nearly 20 percent said they are voting to deny Mr. Obama another term, and an additional 19 percent said Mr. Romney is the “lesser of two evils.” A final 10 percent said they are backing whomever the GOP offered up.

So more than half of all Republican voters would vote for anyone with an “R” after their name. They’re voting for Romney because he’s there.

Recent electoral history has proved that Republicans get excited about candidates who believe in something — who have convictions, values and moxie. Romney has none of that. Instead, primary voters absorbed the superficial attitude of congressional Republicans whose only goal is to defeat the president, irrespective of how ridiculous or pathetic they look in the process. So voters defaulted to a candidate who they were told could defeat the president — and not a candidate who is actually strong on his own merits. They’re backing a cardboard standee rather than a politician capable of human emotions.

And who’s going to be enthusiastic about cardboard?

At the risk of sounding defensive, I’m not necessarily concern-trolling here. I’m legitimately anxious about how this table is set. The last time Republicans chose a president despite their lackluster enthusiasm for him, he engaged the nation in all varieties of devilry in order to overcome his electoral and polling impotence. If Romney can convince enough independents to vote against the president, and if Romney succeeds in that endeavor, the first term of the Romney administration will be a nightmare of overcompensation. I’m positive he’ll roll back everything the president has accomplished including the repeat of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, healthcare reform, Wall Street reform, hate crime laws and all the rest. He’ll probably invade Iran, too, with North Korea in the on-deck circle.

So I guess what I’m saying here is that it’s imperative that Democrats keep up their enthusiasm for President Obama and get to work.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

By Bob Cesca: Shepard Smith was mostly right about politics. It’s weird and creepy and doesn’t have much of an attachment to reality.

I totally get it. It’s difficult to observe the day-to-day events from Washington without eventually becoming disillusioned by the apparent absurdity of it all. But we can’t allow ourselves to give up just because politics is irreparably weird and creepy. The stakes are too high.

Just about every day, I take a look around my usual political haunts and I wonder what the hell is going on. Are we perpetually stuck in a trash compactor between two opposing groups of mental patients (with the press slithering around just below the surface of the gunky trash water)?

So yes, I stood up and cheered for Shep when he delivered one of the most memorable several lines in recent cable news history.

But there’s more to it. And a few things that are worth remembering.

The United States might be home to the most effective and enduring constitutional system in history. It’s been consistent, rarely amended and quite successful. Nowhere else in the world have all varieties of ethnic groups and religions coexisted (more or less) in a single nation, while most other nations are formed exclusively around one ethnicity, and seldom has there been a democratically elected central government capable of maintaining order and relative cohesion across a geographic land mass as vast as this one. Despite egregiously vile historical episodes (slavery, Japanese internment camps, indigenous genocide) most Americans enjoy a considerable amount of personal liberty and wealth compared with just about any other nation.

No, America isn’t perfect. And we shouldn’t walk around with a petulant, entitled sense of exceptionalism. But let’s face it. A few omissions aside, the framers of the Constitution got it really damn right.

But honestly I don’t think there would be a Constitution without weird and creepy politics. Specifically, the framers couldn’t have done it without haggling, backstabbing, grandstanding, in-fighting, feuding and, ultimately, negotiation and compromise — sausage-making, to use a common analogy.

In his brief monologue, Shep was specifically referencing a statement by Mitt Romney who, as we all know, is a serial liar. The statement was an obligatory measure designed to mend fences with Newt Gingrich after Romney and Gingrich eviscerated each other throughout the primaries and via their respective Super PACs. Glad-handing aside, it was a sign of good sportsmanship. Romney won, Gingrich lost, now let’s move on and defeat the president (with lies and bumper sticker sloganeering).

So how does it all work?

On one track of the American system, there’s reality: the trials and tribulations we experience on a daily basis. Feeding ourselves, paying our bills, staying alive and healthy and so forth. Everyone human being in the world is engaged in this same mission in one form or another.

And just below that track is the weirdness and the creepiness of governmental politics. It simply can’t function on our track, in the same way the wheels on your car can’t function if they’re sitting on your lap. More than anything else, and all contrivances aside, the mission of politics is to negotiate and compromise in a way that supports our “reality” within the rules established by the Constitution.

That process of negotiation and compromise is very, very weird. In order for it to be successful, the negotiators must be capable of conceding and perhaps betraying (temporarily or permanently) some of their own values and, by proxy, some of your values. In a complicated system governing 300 million people, with complicated rules, complicated personalities, massive populations, massive personal ambitions and an enormous economy that essentially sustains the broader world economy, negotiation and compromise is inevitably going to look really, really, really weird and creepy.

Without negotiation and compromise, as well as the politicians who are capable of doing it, America crashes and burns. For example, the American Civil War, as Shelby Foote once said, was the consequence of a lack of compromise on the issue of slavery. More than 600,000 Americans were killed as a result.

A common mistake is to expect politics to be run like a business wherein one or two powerful executives and, to an extent, a small board of directors, makes every decision irrespective of what the employees or the public demands. Absent of that, a system that must keep in mind the interests of everyone is going to seem erratic and inconsistent, mainly because a large population is going to have very different views and whims. Couple that with the basic task of negotiation and compromise and the weirdness and creepiness is simply part of the game. Put another way, politics will never be normal — it will always be different degreesof weird and creepy.

Dennis Kucinich: Right, but a little bit creepy? (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And the best way to reduce the degree of weirdness and creepiness is to choose the right politicians. Specifically, we should be voting for men and women who are effective and smart, even if that means choosing politicians with whom we don’t always agree. Let’s say you absolutely agree with everything Dennis Kucinich says. Literally everything. He’s your guy. You’re well within your right to vote for him for president next time around, but think about what might happen if he’s elected. Will he be able to effectively govern? Or will his personality and his positions make things weirder and more creepy?

Once again, the American people/voters exist on a the reality track, while the weird and creepy political track supports that reality. Representative democracy makes the barrier between the two tracks permeable so we all have the power to choose how weird and creepy the political level will be. Sadly, when too many Americans choose poorly and the weird and creepy quotient rises.

George Carlin suggested that maybe politicians don’t suck — maybe it’s the people who suck, and we likewise choose sucky politicians. Carlin said, “If you have selfish ignorant citizens, you’re gonna get selfish ignorant leaders.” Very true. Obviously. We resign ourselves picking leaders based on the wrong things, then complain when the weirdness gets weirder. We pick leaders based on what Fox News Channel says and how they report the news. Shepard Smith, for all of his bravery and honesty, is part of that problem. So is AM talk radio. In 2000, we chose a Republican politician for president because we were convinced that he was just like the Democrat, so what’s the difference? This Republican appointed two conservatives to the Supreme Court and now we have Super PACs — yet another gateway to more weird and creepy politics.

It’s critical that we don’t give up and walk away from American politics. We all have a role to play, and we have to play it wisely and with great vigilance in spite of how weird and creepy it might seem.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below:

Newt Gingrich finally ended his Republican presidential candidacy Wednesday, unbowed and with a backhanded endorsement of the party’s presumptive nominee.

Flanked by members of his family at a suburban Virginia hotel, the former House speaker said he would work to elect Republicans at all levels this fall.

“As to the presidency, I’m asked sometimes, ‘Is Mitt Romney conservative enough?’ And my answer is simple: ‘Compared to Barack Obama?’ You know, this is not a choice between Mitt Romney and Ronald Reagan. This is a choice between Mitt Romney and the most radical, leftist president in American history,” he said.

Technically, Gingrich “suspended” his candidacy, allowing him to turn his attention to retiring a campaign debt of more than $3 million. The announcement wasn’t news, since he had said last month that he would be doing so, after running out of excuses to keep going. His second and last primary victory was almost two months ago, in his former home state of Georgia.

Gingrich choked up once, briefly, at the outset, when he recalled a familiar line about his grandchildren, Maggie and Robert, being his best debate coaches. The youngsters stood alongside him on a small stage before several dozen supporters and aides.

The 68-year-old former Georgia congressman called his campaign “a truly wild ride,” adding, “I could never have predicted either the low points or the high points.”

Read more at the LA Times…

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Gingrich has won only two primaries since January. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich is expected to suspend his campaign next week and endorse Mitt Romney, his spokesman has said. Mr Gingrich now says he expects Mr Romney, who won five primaries on Tuesday, to be the Republican nominee.

The campaigns are said to be working out an orderly endorsement, with Mr Romney keen on Mr Gingrich’s support. He has won only two primaries – South Carolina and Georgia – since the election season began in January. The Gingrich campaign had indicated it would reassess its future if he did not win the contest in Delaware. Mr Gingrich will reportedly hold his last campaign event on 1 May in Washington DC.

During a campaign stop in North Carolina on Wednesday, Mr Gingrich all but conceded.

“You have to at some point be honest about what’s happening in the real world as opposed to what you would like to have happened,” Mr Gingrich told supporters.

“I don’t think we can lose by 30 points in Delaware and feel good about it”

He added that Mr Romney “had a very good day yesterday. You have to give him some credit.”

The former House Speaker said he would continue to campaign for the next week as a “citizen”, adding he would discuss economic issues, such as high unemployment.

“We are going to stay very, very active and we are working out the details of our transition,” Mr Gingrich said. “But I am committed to this party. I am committed to defeating Obama.”

Read more at the BBC…

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Romney wins again (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Mitt Romney will win all five Republican presidential primaries Tuesday night, completing a sweep of contests in New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Delaware, CBS News projects.

Romney boasted more than 50 percent of the vote in all five states, according to early returns.

In Connecticut, with 90 percent of the expected votes in, Romney led Ron Paul 67 percent to 13 percent. In Rhode Island, with most of the expected votes counted, Romney led Paul 63 percent to 24 percent.

In Pennsylvania, with nearly all of the votes in, Romney had 56 percent. Rick Santorum, who dropped out of the Republican presidential contest earlier this month, followed with 20 percent of the vote.

In Delaware, with most of the votes counted, Romney led Newt Gingrich 56 percent to 27 percent. And in New York, with 51 percent of the expected votes in, Romney led Paul 60 percent to 17 percent.

Romney is likely to add more than 200 delegates to the 692 estimated delegates he had already secured before the evening’s five contests.

Romney will still lack the 1,144 delegates necessary to formally clinch the Republican nomination after Tuesday — but the former Massachusetts governor is clearly claiming the mantle of presumptive Republican nominee. Even as he continues to put in the requisite work toward officially sealing up the Republican nomination, he pivoted to the general election in a speech Tuesday night in New Hampshire.

Speaking to supporters, the presumptive GOP nominee focused his attention solely on President Obama. Romney did not mention either of this remaining Republican rivals by name,  instead casting himself as an improvement over the current president and promising “the start of a new and better chapter.”

Read more at CBS…

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Is Condoleeza Rice in the running for VP?

By Ben Cohen: Now we know for certain that Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee for President this year, we can expect a brand new media circus over who he will pick for his running mate.  We’ll get fancy graphics, charts, polls, and hours of analysis from the pundits – enough to put any sane person over the edge. While it will be painful to watch, it is actually quite an interesting process, largely due to Mitt Romney’s extraordinary inability to connect with the public and his decidedly liberal past.

To beat Obama, Romney will have to close the massive gap with women, get the base out, attract minorities (particularly the Latino community), and woo the center – all of which are completely contradictory. It’s a tough decision for Romney, and one he will have to think about very carefully.

Here’s The Daily Banter’s summary of Romney’s top choices:

1. Jeb Bush

Pros: Gets the base out – a huge pro given Romney’s weak showing with the Right in his party. Jeb Bush is also very popular in Florida, a swing state that could be a big factor.

Cons: He’s a Bush, does nothing for Romney for women and has the ‘old white guy’ factor that Romney should probably stay away from.

Likelihood: 5/10

2. Marco Rubio

Pros: The jr Senator from Florida almost has it all – he’s charismatic, Latino, is in a crucial swing state, and is well respected by conservatives. He would add an ‘X Factor’ to Romney’s campaign and is the betting favorite for a reason.

Cons: Rubio is inexperienced on the national stage and has only spent 2 years in the Senate. As a Cuban American, he also supports the DREAM act that allows illegal immigrants to become citizens under certain circumstances – a big no no with the Right.

Likelihood: 7/10

3. Rick Santorum

Pros: Helps Romney massively with the evangelicals and hard Right in his party. Santorum has a far better ability to connect with voters as he is seen as a genuine candidate.

Cons: He’s a religious nut and is positively toxic to the center and women. Santorum and Romney have also fought bitterly over the past few month and Santorum has still refused to endorse Romney despite dropping out of the race. It’s unlikely Romney’s team will want anything to do with him going forward as the cons seriously outweigh the pros.

Likelihood: 2/10

4.  Newt Gingrich

Pros: Gingrich is respected by conservative voters and would definitely help bring out the base.

Cons: The worst thing about Gingrich is that he’s an ego maniac and Romney would never be able to control him. Gingrich is also personally despised by the establishment, hated by women and not trusted by the center. Gingrich would have to completely change his personality to come on board, and that simply isn’t going to happen.

Likelihood: 0/10

5. Ron Paul

Pros: Paul could help Romney with the Tea Party activists and libertarians.

Cons: Paul is far too divisive for national elections – both sides consider him an extremist and he would alienate the center and base. Not a good choice for Romney.

Likelihood: 0/10

6. Condoleeza Rice

Pros: She’s black and a woman, two demographics Romney needs serious help with. The former isn’t that important as Republicans rarely attract African American voters, but the latter is becoming a real issue for Romney. He needs women to come out and vote for him, and Rice would help him do that. Obama’s former green jobs czar Van Jones recently spoke on the possibility of a Romney/Rice ticket, stating it would do wonders for Romeny’s campaign: “She’s actually tested. She is actually a national figure. She has foreign policy experience. She was secretary of state. And she’s sitting there. Now people say, you know, you want to do something bold, put Condoleezza Rice on the ticket and watch the Obama campaign go crazy.” Jones is right and team Romney would be smart to seriously consider her.

Cons: Rice is mistrusted by the base (she’s pro choice), and hasn’t expressed any real desire to be on a national ticket. She’s also a private person seemingly more comfortable out of the limelight these days.

Likelihood: 3/10

7. Paul Ryan

Pros: Ryan is hugely popular with the base given his extremist views on austerity and budget measures. He’s young, well spoken and a major figure in GOP politics these days, and no doubt has Presidential aspirations of his own.

Cons: Ryan does not help Romney with the center – which may not be a problem as Romney does quite well there any way, but he doesn’t really help with women, minorities or Romney’s lack of charisma either. There isn’t a huge X factor in a Romney/Ryan ticket, and to take on Obama in the general, people need to be excited.

Likelihood: 3/10

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Gingrich: His own worst enemy

By Ben Cohen: The reason why Newt Gingrich never had a chance in the Republican Presidential primary wasn’t because of his political views or even his lack of funding. Gingrich was destined to fail because every now and then, he spoke his mind.

Before he decided to run for President, Gingrich actually believed in global warming, siding with science and Democrats over the idiocy of his own party, much to his own political disadvantage.  Gingrich also more recently called Paul Ryan’s genocidal plan for medicare ‘right-wing social engineering‘ – a serious blunder when the entire GOP establishment had lined up behind it. Gingrich did eventually renege on both accounts, but the damage had been done. Gingrich has a reputation for going against the establishment, and it continues to cost him dearly.

Now that Gingrich is basically out of the primary, he is lashing out at the establishment for his failure to succeed. And this time, he is focusing his rage at Fox News, his former employer and the PR arm of the Republican party.

This is a suicidal move given his future in politics is basically over, and no other self respecting news network will go anywhere near him.

At a meeting for Tea Party activists, Gingrich stated the following:

I think Fox has been for Romney all the way through. In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than Fox this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of Fox, and we’re more likely to get distortion out of Fox. That’s just a fact.

Fox has responded venomously, claiming Newt is vying for a job at CNN. They released the following hilariously snarky statement to the Guardian:

This is nothing other than Newt auditioning for a windfall of a gig at CNN – that’s the kind of man he is. Not to mention that he’s still bitter about the fact that we terminated his contributor contract.

Gingrich is almost certainly right about Fox New’s subordination to Republican party interests. Roger Ailes no doubt pegged Romney as the most viable candidate to run against Obama and ordered the network to give him favorable coverage. Gingrich and the rest of the Republican field were not only fighting Romney’s money, but the establishment and Fox News – an insurmountable task in modern politics.

Regardless of whether Gingrich was right or not, had he kept his mouth shut, he may have got another gig at Fox given his ability to attract an audience. However, due to his inability to take orders, his one shot at staying in the limelight has vaporized as quickly as his Presidential campaign did. Unfortunately for Newt, burning bridges is a common theme in his storied career – one that has left him with many more enemies than friends.

It’s hard to feel sorry for Gingrich even though he has displayed some courage in bucking his party and taking on Fox News. The truth is, a man whose personal life even nastier than his political one  should not be shown a great deal of sympathy. On the contrary, thanks to Gingrich’s rebelliousness, we should be glad that we may never have to see him again.

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

Newt Gingrich slams Fox News

Newt Gingrich’s blistering attack on Fox News, in which the former House speaker accused the network of favoring Mitt Romney in its coverage, has drawn the ire of at least one of its on-air personalities.

“I think Fox has been for Romney all the way through,” Gingrich said Wednesday during a meeting with Delaware tea party leaders, according to RealClearPolitics, which was given access to the private meeting. “In our experience, Callista and I both believe CNN is less biased than Fox this year. We are more likely to get neutral coverage out of CNN than we are of Fox, and we’re more likely to get distortion out of Fox. That’s just a fact.”

Several spokespeople at Fox did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but one on-air personality at the network took to Twitter to respond to the candidate’s remarks.

“Such sentiments nowhere apparent in my intvu w/him on Fox News Sunday. New Newt. Seems Old Newt loose again,” Brit Hume wrote on Twitter Wednesday evening.

In another tweet, Hume wrote, “Newt griping about Fox News, like Rick before him, is reminder: winners take responsibility; losers blame.”

During Wednesday’s meeting, Gingrich had also accused News Corporation CEO Rupert Murdoch of perpetuating the network’s slanted coverage of the 2012 race.

“I assume it’s because Murdoch at some point said, ‘I want Romney,’ and so ‘fair and balanced’ became ‘Romney,’” Gingrich said, according to RealClearPolitics. “And there’s no question that Fox had a lot to do with stopping my campaign because such a high percentage of our base watches Fox.”

Subscribe

Ben Cohen's feed

Enter email below:

By Bob Cesca: The big news of the last 24 hours isn’t that Rick Santorum finally dropped out of the race for the Republican nomination, allowing Mitt Romney to focus his money and protocol droid attention on the general election. The truly big newsis the fact that Rick Santorum made it to April as a relatively strong candidate.

Rick Santorum: Truly the least impressive rival imaginable. (Photo credit: Talk Radio News Service)

Every four years there are inevitably several candidates from each party who are, to be frank, obvious losers. There’s an expectation that the weak no-names, the freaks and the vanity projects will never reach top shelf, A-list status leaving the truly solid candidates to direct their attention at winning and not deflecting shots from the cheap seats. Some of the D-list crowd will drop out before the Iowa and New Hampshire, others will stick around as an exercise in electoral masturbation. But they’re never talked about in terms of being a potential nominee or even vice presidential short-lister.

In 2008, on the Democratic side, no one expected Mike Gravel, Chris Dodd or Tom Vilsack to make it very far. Dennis Kucinich, Joe Biden and Evan Bayh never came close to being a frontrunner. So Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and (kind of) Bill Richardson could afford to maintain a narrow focus on a relatively small candidate pool. And even elbow-deep into the primaries, Edwards and Richardson never had a realistic shot.

This year, on the Republican side, almost every candidate attained frontrunner status at some point in the proceedings. We’re all familiar with the clown car passengers. And out of all of the clowns who wedged their giant shoes into the driver’s seat, very few people ever would’ve expected Rick Santorum to make it this far — much less enjoy a series of 10 primary victories. Ten!

That’s remarkable considering Santorum’s most recent electoral contest, his 2006 reelection campaign for the U.S. Senate, was an unmitigated failure in which he lost by 18 points, and, meanwhile, most of the internet community knew more about the Dan Savage frothy butt spooge meme than Santorum’s actual history and platform. His stunning longevity and unpredictable success as a candidate seemed incongruous with who he actually is.

So what does this say about Santorum and the Republican Party?

On one hand, Santorum should get a little bit of credit for surviving and, in fact, flourishing for this long. Mitt Romney raised $76 million to Santorum’s $16 million. Yet Romney had to flail and fight to pry every vote out of Santorum’s fringy grasp. If Santorum gets any credit as a candidate for making it this far, it was really due to two things: he could speak quite fluently and precisely during the debates, and the things he said were squarely in the psycho-wheelhouse of the tea party base. While Mitt Romney was jittery and uncomfortable, and while Newt Gingrich was, well, a dick, Santorum, in the eyes of the base, seemed like a the perfect cocktail of slick, effortless talking and unflinching conservatism. No one else in those debate could boast such a combination.

On the other hand, it’s very likely that history will remember Santorum’s successful failure (with apologies to Apollo 13) as being symptomatic of a collapsing, disjointed, leaderless Republican Party. So the primary process was, like the personal lives of Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh, an ongoing dramatic narrative of marriages, affairs and divorces, with the “we’ll settle for [blank]” candidate — Romney — waiting in the wings. Practically speaking, it was just a matter of time and attrition before it would be Santorum’s turn.

If we match this revolving door, 15-minutes-of-fame process with the Supreme Court-sanctioned Super PAC money, we have Rick Santorum surviving into April. Wealthy financier Foster Friess was Santorum’s leading non-campaign spokesman and pumped $1.7 million into his Santorum Super PAC. Without it, it’s unlikely Santorum’s disorganized, piss-poor campaign could’ve survived. While we’re here, we can probably write a similar epitaph for Newt Gingrich who was out of money and knee-deep in scandals (remember the bling and the “right-wing social engineering” things?) more than a year ago and yet somehow managed to get this far.

If I were forced to choose which factor contributed most to Santorum’s longevity, I’m absolutely siding with the latter: the spastic Republican Party and the existence of Super PACs allowed an otherwise D-list candidate get to a point where he was a potential spoiler, and maybe even the nominee in a brokered convention scenario.

So it’s Mitt Romney versus President Obama this year. The real poop-flinging insanity hasn’t even started yet. Hang on tight.

Subscribe

Bob Cesca's feed

Enter email below: