More with Clarence Page, Jennifer Rubin, Erin McPike and Howard Kurtz on the new attacks on Mitt Romney's wealth
One thing I have actually noticed is always that there are plenty of fallacies regarding the financial institutions intentions if talking about foreclosure. One misconception in particular is the fact that the bank desires your house. Your banker wants your hard earned cash, not your own home. They want the bucks they loaned you together with interest. Steering clear of the bank will undoubtedly draw any foreclosed final result. Thanks for your article.
To be honest, I think that’s the sasetrmt choice for McCain You're out of your mind. Willard brings virtually nothing to the table. Hilarious that you would want to take all the shortcomings that failed to get Willard anywhere close to the GOP nomination despite an $80 million bankroll .and bring those shortcomings to a general election ticket. McCain needs someone who is young, appeals to conservatives, and can speak convincingly on the economy. Uh, Jay, Willard is 60, came in fourth place in the most conservative state's primary, and presided over the lowest-growth economy of all 50 states when Massachusetts Gov from 2003-2006. What Romney really delivers is some straight talk on the economy Promising a $40 billion federal bailout of Michigan in order to prolong his Presidential candidacy a few more weeks is straight talk ?Republicans would be best advised to do what they do best .be Republicans and divide Americans based on religion and culture. Either Obama and Hillary would be easy targets. The last thing McCain needs to do is adopt an economic policy that is exactly the same as the economic policy of George Bush which about 20% of Americans approve. I don’t know if the McCain camp is serious considering Romney as a VP or not, but on a number of levels that may be one of his best choices to unite conservatives and to give him some much-needed economic credibility.McCain (along with every other Republican candidate from 2008) hated Willard so much that they exchanged e-mails amongst each other to advise on how to hit him in the next debate. Very hard to imagine how that gut-level acrimony can be overcome for a negligible benefit to the ticket. Rather than uniting conservatives, a Willard selection would tear them further apart, with the values voters foot soldiers who hate Mormons realizing just how badly the Wall Street Journal/Jay Reding crowd takes them for granted.
Accusing Obama's campaign – and journalists – of asking questions that are "demeaning to the office of President" is an evasion, and an obvious one.
He is really saying is that nobody has the right to inquire about his finances. And he is correct – except when he chooses to run for president. At that point, he has CHOSEN to be a public person. The voters have a RIGHT to know these things, because they bear heavily on how he would lead the nation.
He is trying to become president, while retaining all his rights as a private citizen.This proves his utter ignorance about what the presidency IS. It is the most public and publicly scrutinized position on the planet. If he can't "take the heat" now, how will he take the inferno of "heat" that every president faces every day?
I seem to recall that the right-wingers had no compunctions about digging as deeply as they wanted to about Obama's private affairs, even as a sitting president. With that shoe on their own foot, the Republicans long ago forfeit any standing they had to make a statement like Romney did.
People are often very stupid, of course, and double standards don't usually faze them when they support their own agendas. But even other Republicans are having doubts about Romney's flat refusals about his finances, and the only way to remove those doubts is for him to be forthcoming, which he STILL refuses to do. It can only mean that his campaign will be more severely damaged if he releases the info than the harm his stubbornness is already causing him.
Like Iran, which would be showing off their nuclear facilities if their "peaceful purposes" were for real. The very act of hiding them means there is something TO hide.
I guess that means that Romney has a LOT in common with Iran... Can you see him castigating Iran for doing precisely what HE was doing to get himself elected?
The far right has a point when they say Obama has done nothing. Based on THEIR values, he hasn't. He brought us out of the economic hole we were in – but to the right wing, who want the middle class decimated, that is causing harm, you see? It is all in how they define "doing nothing." And their definitions are based on motives they won't admit to, but which are less than admirable.
First of all, this is like the pot calling the kettle black. When Obama counters his executive order sealing all of his information, Romney should do the same. How did Obama become President while retaining his 'private citizenship'? It is the media's responsibility to vet the candidates – BOTH! Who has a lot in common with Iran? You should be careful about your complaints. It seems they hit too close to home.
No president? I guess maybe I'm more of a cotntituniosalist than a libertarian. Other, than his position on immigration, I believe that Ron Paul is as close to a liberty loving candidate as is possible in a national figure. His voting record as a congressman mirrors his rhatoric, unlike most politicians.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.
Now more than ever, the press is a part of every story it covers. And CNN's "Reliable Sources" is one of television's only regular programs to examine how journalists do their jobs and how the media affect the stories they cover.
Tune in every Sunday at 11am ET.
Send Feedback | Subscribe
Subscribe on iTunes | Instagram
Click here to access transcripts from recent shows.