propasaurus: ...his guest-list:
1. James A. Baker III
2. Former Minnesota Senator Norman Coleman
3. Tennessee senator Bob Corker
4. Weekly Standard editor and co-founder Bill Kristol,
5. Former Utah governor Mike Leavitt.
6. John McCain
7. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
8. CEO of Hewlett Packard Meg Whitman
9. Billionaire financier Ken Langone,
10. Rep. Paul Ryan
11. Sen. John Thune.
12. GOP attorney Ben Ginsberg
13. Weekly Standard and Fox contributor Fred Barnes
14. GOP strategist Mary Matalin
15. Condoleezza Rice
16. Ann Romney
17. Former Olympic figure skater Dorothy Hamill
18. Jeb Bush
19. Rob Portman
20. Bob McDonnell
21. Tim Pawlenty
22. Former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu
23. Woody Johnson, owner of the New York Jets

The VP short list

Put Dick Cheney on there, and Rick Scott, and you have the Legion of Doom.

Put Dick Cheney on there, and Rick Scott, and you have the Legion of Doom.

That made me chuckle.

I'm surprised Rand Paul isn't on the list... still pretty sure he's going to get the VP nod.

LouDobbsAwaaaay: Colbert and Stewart already proved how absurdly meaningless these "pinky-swear you guys aren't collaborating" rules are. It's insulting that they even bothered to write those rules down, as if I'm supposed to be satisfied that everything is above-board because of them.

As true as that is, this "revelation" about Rove and Romney is far sketchier than what Colbert and Stewart were doing on TV.

I'm afraid that until a memo on American Crossroads letterhead shows up stating that the campaign has specifically requested something (and I am not at all suggesting that some Yes Men shenanigans should be started by anyone), then it's pretty much not worth it to get worked up over this.

There's not really much more evidence here than there was with the whole Obama/Ayers connection.

It's political theater, meant to reinforce the asinine belief that there's more than a hair's breadth difference between these two idiots (they're closer than they are to most of the members of their own parties).

Oh well. Either way, I'm still planning my move to Finland. I've had enough.

FrailChild: If only the media put the actual president under such scrutiny instead of giving him a free pass on every tyrannical decision he makes & throwing him softballs (when he allows the press to ask questions).

You want the ACTUAL President put under such scrutiny? Not one of those pretend presidents, like in the West Wing or Mars Attacks!?

Red Barchetta: I don't like either candidate, so in the interest in full disclosure let me just put this right here.

(CNN) - In a change of position, Barack Obama's reelection campaign will begin using administration and campaign aides to fundraise for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC backing the president.

"This decision was not made overnight," one campaign official said. " The money raised and spent by Republican super PACs is very telling. We will not unilaterally disarm."

In an e-mail to supporters, Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said the decision was a reaction to massive fundraising posted by super PACs supporting GOP presidential candidates.

Obama campaign to support super PAC fundraising - CNN Political Ticker

I'm not really sure I'd conflate "assisting to raise money" to "coordinating election strategy."
In one, you are using people to build financial coffers
In the other, you are directly coordinating election strategy.

I'm not really sure those are the same thing, at all.

ox45tallboy: mat catastrophe: they're closer than they are to most of the members of their own parties

I take issue with this. Maybe, policy wise, there's not a lot that would be done differently. I mean, some things are just "common sense". However, I don't think it's naive or disingenuous to believe that Congress would pass THE EXACT SAME legislation proposed by Romney that they would cry to high heavens and bury under a mountain of filibuster if proposed by Obama.

And there are plenty of things Congress would pass that the Romneybot would sign but Obama would give to Bo as a chew toy. The worst legislation that Obama signed IMHO was the military funding bill which also gave the President the right to indefinitely detain American citizens. He had to sign it - it was passed by a veto-proof majority, and getting a veto overridden is never a good thing for a President.

And come on - do you want a President beholden to this guy:

[img2.timeinc.net image 400x400]

"Sorry to bother you, Mr. President, but there is genocide going on in Rwanda. Can you take a look when you get a minute?"

or this guy:

[www.usnews.com image 425x283]

"Look you Mormon f*ck. I told you not to even THINK about signing that. Now get on the f*cking TV, and give some kind of speech about how bad Iran is. I didn't get you elected to sit on my f*cking ass watching you raise my f*cking taxes."

That's a very valid set of points and, I hate to say, probably closer to where my thinking lies these days than my last comment might lead you to believe. Certainly, twelve years ago as a young anarchist, I was on board with the "Billionaires for Bush (or Gore)" bandwagon and I think that there's a case to be made that turned out very badly, since because everyone was so focused at that point on the inscrutability of their economic stances they completely missed the fact that the Bush foreign policy team was made up of some extremely dangerous crackpots.

That said, guess who's on Romney's foreign policy team?

Unfortunately, it seems like the choice now is between hawks that want to kill lots and lots of people openly and hawks that want to kill people (slightly) less indiscriminately and covertly.

And that's as far as foreign policy is concerned.

Either way, we get more of the same center-right bullshiat that is going to be decried as either socialism or fascism by whichever side loses and accomplishes next-to-nothing but continuing the slow decline (getting steeper and faster) of America as a relevant player in the world.

The only problem is that the people who benefit won't necessarily be China or any other nation state but rather the upper elites who have successfully insulated themselves from social, political, or economic chaos.

Quasar: ArcadianRefugee: I don't know much of anything about PACs, so no.

Seriously: if someone can nutshell this for me, it'd be appreciated. After a quick Google/Wikipedia search I am still ignorant as to what they are and can/can't do.

:K

I believe what the article is doing is conflating "talk to" with "receive orders from." A candidate is not allowed to tell a SuperPAC what they should be doing with their money. A candidate is, I believe, allowed to talk to someone who runs the SuperPAC.

You, I believe, represent absolutely everything that is wrong with your country.

You are willfully blind, intentionally ignorant and purposefully mendacious when, and only when, it benefits your "team".

Enjoy the 3rd world shiathole your national is becoming. Be proud of your efforts for, as small and inconsequential you may be, you did play a role in your country's demise.

Counter_Intelligent: Mess around with Jim?

I heard some guy named Slim broke that rule.

Quasar: ArcadianRefugee: I don't know much of anything about PACs, so no.

Seriously: if someone can nutshell this for me, it'd be appreciated. After a quick Google/Wikipedia search I am still ignorant as to what they are and can/can't do.

:K

I believe what the article is doing is conflating "talk to" with "receive orders from." A candidate is not allowed to tell a SuperPAC what they should be doing with their money. A candidate is, I believe, allowed to talk to someone who runs the SuperPAC.

This explains a lot. I wondered why people were surprised Rmoney was getting marching orders from these guys...

SuperPACs have rules? I thought Citizens United took care of the last of those pesky rules.

Yep. As on Colbert's Herman Cain initiative (when he used Cain as the surrogate for his name, that is), "collaboration" is very strictly defined to mean a chain of command.

If a candidate happens to lay out his vision of what his campaign will be about, and his Super PACs just HAPPEN to organize a strategy that compliments that plan, then "no harm done" (there are no quotations big enough).

From my estimation, the only thing that makes this a bigger deal for Romney than Obama is 1) the fact that Romney's campaign is patchwork Super PACs more so than Obama, which has a solid core of "Obama campaign money", by comparison. While it may make coordination (this time in the broad sense, not legal) harder, his campaign will be more responsive. And 2) I see an argument between Obama's campaign and his Super PACs, where Obama may push the "a safer America" angle as a primary focus (hypothetically), his fanboys will be gushing on Hope and Change 2.0. I don't see that kind of argument between Romney and his boys here.

But that's just a tactical perspective. There isn't anything to "nail him to the wall" with.

keylock71: Here's what Mitt Romney said about Super PACs in December:

John the Magnificent: Quasar: ArcadianRefugee: I don't know much of anything about PACs, so no.

Seriously: if someone can nutshell this for me, it'd be appreciated. After a quick Google/Wikipedia search I am still ignorant as to what they are and can/can't do.

:K

I believe what the article is doing is conflating "talk to" with "receive orders from." A candidate is not allowed to tell a SuperPAC what they should be doing with their money. A candidate is, I believe, allowed to talk to someone who runs the SuperPAC.

You, I believe, represent absolutely everything that is wrong with your country.

You are willfully blind, intentionally ignorant and purposefully mendacious when, and only when, it benefits your "team".

Enjoy the 3rd world shiathole your national is becoming. Be proud of your efforts for, as small and inconsequential you may be, you did play a role in your country's demise.

OK, now someone explain to me what this looney is blathering about.