Category: Election 2012

Faux Scandal 122345!

As the IRS scandal – which involves activity that goes over and beyond anything that led to another president’s resignation – heads towards day 500 of being ignored by the collectivists, and revelation after revelation of one kind of abuse of power and/or downright criminal activity keeps being buried by the LSM to cover for the “Most ethical administration evah!”, we find out that there is more:

The Department of Labor coordinated with the White House on whether or not to release hidden portions of former Labor Secretary Hilda Solis’ schedule as Solis battled an FBI investigation into her illegal fundraising for President Obama.

New emails provided to The Daily Caller from the nonprofit legal research firm Cause of Action show the White House thanking the Department of Labor for “flagging” a public information request for “withheld” portions of Solis’ schedule. (SEE THE EMAIL CHAIN). The White House then asked for the name of the conservative group making the request — information that Labor officials were eager to give up.

As TheDC previously reported, Solis illegally fundraised for the Obama campaign and headlined a Latino-themed Obama fundraiser while on a trip in her official capacity as a Cabinet member, which is forbidden by the Hatch Act (AUDIO: SOLIS LEAVING A PHONE MESSAGE ILLEGALLY FUNDRAISING FOR OBAMA).

YAWN! They are starting to notice now that this crime syndicate doesn’t give a fuck about campaign financing regulations? Remember this is the group that got caught using foreign credit cards in a system that didn’t validate this information, to raise campaign funds, and got away with it. Why think that they stopped at that and were not doing other illegal and criminal things to get money? After all, to these progtards, the end justifies the means. I guess they didn’t have the people that deleted the email for them at the IRS to do the same in this case.

I am sure Holder, Obama’s consigliore will be on this clearly criminal act ASAP. Unless you have a republican in the WH the left, and especially the leftards in the LSM, really don’t much care about abuse of power, crime, and justice. The left is its own best parody. You can bet that whatever they accuse the other side of they are actually doing themselves, or doing far worse. Cheat, steal, and even murder or use murder for profit? Check, and double check. And yet they keep pretending that they are champions of the people. Heh! Obama will soon be on the right made this up too.

About that IRS non-scandal Obama told us not to worry about

As if there was any doubt that the left’s desire to have the LSM help them kill this story’s news cycle and the WH’s constant denial that there was nothing wrong here wasn’t a dead giveaway that the IRS targeting of Tea Party organization was deliberate and planned, probably at the highest levels of our collectivist controlled government, we now find that with the release of the latest drab of information, we have confirmation that the DC office was behind the orders. And it doesn’t end there, Senator Levin, whom suddenly isn’t running for reelection – after owning his seat for decades – we now find out, was behind a lot of the pressure. Can you imagine these sorts of revelations coming out about a republican president only to have the LSM ignore the story still?

From the Judicial Watch site we get:

One key email string from July 2012 confirms that IRS Tea Party scrutiny was directed from Washington, DC. On July 6, 2010, Holly Paz (the former Director of the IRS Rulings and Agreements Division and current Manager of Exempt Organizations Guidance) asks IRS lawyer Steven Grodnitzky “to let Cindy and Sharon know how we have been handling Tea Party applications in the last few months.” Cindy Thomas is the former director of the IRS Exempt Organizations office in Cincinnati and Sharon Camarillo was a Senior Manager in their Los Angeles office. Grodnitzky, a top lawyer in the Exempt Organization Technical unit (EOT) in Washington, DC, responds:

EOT is working the Tea party applications in coordination with Cincy. We are developing a few applications here in DC and providing copies of our development letters with the agent to use as examples in the development of their cases. Chip Hull [another lawyer in IRS headquarters] is working these cases in EOT and working with the agent in Cincy, so any communication should include him as well. Because the Tea party applications are the subject of an SCR [Sensitive Case Report], we cannot resolve any of the cases without coordinating with Rob.

The reference to Rob is believed to be Rob Choi, then-Director of Rulings and Agreements in IRS’s Washington, DC, headquarters.

And plenty more. And yet, this is not a major news story that results in salivating journalists, eager for a Pulitzer, going after the facts. Nixon was robbed, I tell you. I am sure it isn’t caused because the media is dominated by liberal democrat ass kissing sycophants, and that media bias is just something sore losers invent to explain why so many of the unwashed masses buy the liberal clap trap. The left is corrupt. Beyond anything people could imagine. They are dirty players. There is a reason they accuse the other side of all manner of illegal and bad things, but contrary to their assertion that it is because that’s happening, it is now obvious that they do this because they assume since they are doing it the other side must be doing it too.

Nixon called. He wants his presidency back.

D’Souza in the Gunsights

Dinesh D’Souza, who has written a book and made a movie heavily critical of Obama was indicted last week on charges of breaking federal campaign finance laws. The allegation is that he made strawman donations — reimbursing employees and friends for donating to the failed senate campaign of Wendy Long so he could exceed the $5000 campaign contribution limit. D’Souza has responded that he broke the law accidentally due to a “misunderstanding”.

This has given rise to accusations that Obama is targeting D’Souza. In particular, there has been focus on the case of Tab Turner, who organized strawman donations to the John Edwards campaign and paid a $50,000 fine. The problem is that this case is a bit cherry-picked. As noted by Reuters, these kind of prosecutions are very common although the punishment tends to be a bit inconsistent.

But if so, the politics are inscrutably Byzantine. Take Whittemore, for example. The Nevada lobbyist was accused and ultimately convicted of illegally funneling $150,000 to the re-election campaign of Senate majority leader Harry Reid. In addition to the mystery of why the Obama Justice Department would find it politically expedient to prosecute a Harry Reid supporter, there’s the twist that a Nevada developer who allegedly broke the same campaign finance laws as Whittemore by facilitating conduit payments to Reid’s campaign was never indicted and settled with the FEC. Why was one Reid supporter let off with a civil fine and the other prosecuted? Only the Justice Department knows for sure.

That very disparity, however, suggests that simple party-line retaliation doesn’t drive campaign finance enforcement decisions. In fact, if you look at the Whittemore sentencing memo, you’ll see that supporters of both Democratic and Republican candidates have been prosecuted over the last several years. And it’s not as though the Bush administration went after only Democratic boosters and the Obama Justice Department targets only Republicans. Former FEC chairman David Mason, who served on the commission from 1998 to 2008 and is now senior vice-president of compliance services at the political consulting firm Aristotle, tracks campaign finance cases closely. He told me they’re just not generally motivated by politics.

The decision to prosecute, according to Justin Shur of MoloLamken, who handled campaign finance cases in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section from 2008 to 2012, is usually a matter of the defendant’s intent and the magnitude of the supposed wrongdoing. “I brought cases against Democrats and Republicans alike,” Shur said.

Steven Taylor points out that if Obama were going after his enemies, D’Souza would be an odd place to start.

The conspiracy theories are amazing, as they have to assume that D’Souza is some sort of huge thorn in Obama’s side. That is, even if we stipulate for the sake of argument that Obama is willing to use the DOJ as a political tool of this type, why on earth would he be targeting D’Souza? It is a bizarre notion. If Obama was willing to sic Holder on enemies, why not Rush Limbaugh? Roger Ailes? You know, people who actually influence the discourse. Or, for that matter, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, etc?

D’Souza is a big figure on the Right, but he doesn’t have a lot of mainstream cache. And his career took a big hit when had to resign from King’s college after carrying on with a married woman while he was still married to his first wife. I was a big fan of D’Souza a while back — his Reagan biography is very good. But he’s sort of drifted to the margin.

But then again, a guy making $20,000 in straw man contributions to a failed Senate campaign seems an odd place to enforce federal finance law as well.

You can also check out Ken White on the difficulty D’Souza will have proving a selective prosecution.

In short, a mere suspicious appearance — like the indictment of a vigorous critic of the administration — is not enough to show unconstitutionally selective prosecution. D’Souza’s attorneys should certainly explore the issue, but it will not be an easy motion to win. The system only nominally protects rights; for the most part the system protects the system.

To sum up: the prosecution is a bit suspicious and D’Souza’s attorneys will have a chance to look into it. But I am dubious that anything will come out of this.

Regardless of what comes out in D’Souza’s discovery, I do think we should revisit campaign contribution limits. While D’Souza appears to have broken the law and should punished for breaking the law — preferably with a civil not a criminal case — the law is kind of stupid. If D’Souza had donated that money to a single-minded PAC that supported his preferred candidate, it would have been perfectly legal. What he’s being punished for is more stupidity than corruption. I’d actually prefer that we remove the facade of campaign finance laws and just let people bankroll the campaign they want to. If George Soros wants to give a $1 billion campaign contribution to Hillary Clinton, let him … as long as it’s all out in the open where we know about it. I’d much rather see politicians bought and sold honestly than through strawman PACs called things like “Americans for America”. As far as I can tell, all our campaign finance laws have accomplished nothing when it comes to cleaning up Washington. All they do is allow the occasional prosecution of someone like Dinesh D’Souza.

To close 2013 and open 2014, lets do some more of the same

When you are a progressive, your failures are always someone else’s fault. We spent the first 3 years of Obama’s criminal tenure with them constantly blaming Boosh. And they did so even when they took the very things the left pretended to hate about the Boosh tenure to new and unbelievable heights. The list of broken promises is staggering. Remember Gitmo? Don’t hear much about it these days, but it not only is still there, from accounts whenever you do get the DNC propagandists to actually pretend they care, the place is worse than it ever was. Then we have the new wars, erm, kinetic actions – the new term that the LSM & this WH concocted to not say the Nobel peace prize winner and his criminal gang were starting new wars – in half a dozen places. Remember the need to bomb Syria immediately? What happened with that? Maybe it’s the disastrous condition Libya and Yemen have been left in. And team Obama managed to not just pull defeat out of the jaws of victory in Iraq, they managed to do the same in Afghanistan. Illegal operation in Benghazi goes bad? It is some dweeb that made a Youtube movie, not the inept idiots running the show.

Let’s not forget the drone strikes that have cost so many their lives, including US citizens that were killed without due process. Sure, for now they claim these were real terrorists, but who knows with this gang of mobsters? It’s not like we lack evidence that they have used other government agencies against their political enemies. From the selective enforcement of our laws by Holder at the DOJ to the IRS targeting Obama’s political enemies to help him for the 2012 election, and more such acts of intimidation to follow that win, by the IRS, this government has used every agency they can against those they want to cower and/or shut up, so why think they would stop at using military force? Shit, they have the NSA spying on us all, and they even tried to pretend that that despite the fact that the Boosh people would have had a permanent boner if they had been able to do what they are doing under this administration, that this was all started by Boosh. The abuses of power and anti-constitutional behavior by the Obama crime syndicate has been staggering, but it never seems to stick to these crooks.

Take a quick look at the economic damage and misery they have caused. Obama and his cronies have spent the last 5 years pretending they would fix an economic implosion they conveniently attribute to the other side, while ignoring that this came precisely because people that worship at the same altar of collectivism they do tried to socio-engineer a reality that completely ignored the laws of economics and human nature in the real world. Ironically they spend a lot of effort and time blaming Wall Street right after they engineered a huge wealth transfer of tax payer money to these people. Pelosi doubled the money that the idiots in the Boosh administration intended to hand out, then engineered an illegal government buyout of two US car makers, for the first time ever screwing over bond holders in a move that compromised confidence in our bond market, causing the US bond rating to be dropped for the first time ever, all to favor their union buddies. How many times has Obama told us he was going to finally focus on fixing the economic woes of the policies and extralegal maneuvering policies he and his people have subjected us to have caused? My recollection is that we are on iteration 19 or 20. We have the largest percentage of unemployed and underemployment of my lifetime, and they keep passing more social engineering regulations that only serve to make things worse. And the list of things they have done that have gone abysmally wrong goes on and on. And it with all of this, it is always someone else’s fault things are not getting better.

So fast forward to the latest, and probably most destructive progressive policy of the last 8 decades – aptly labeled Obamacare to link the destructive unconstitutional and insane law with a president of the same ilk – and would you be surprised that the problem isn’t the fact that this pile of shit is defective, ill conceived, destructive, ignores the way things work in the real world, was put together by people that we shouldn’t even trust to run a lemonade stand, and ultimately seems to have been engineered to fail, precisely because they hope bringing the system we have crashing down will finally let them have government take over all healthcare. No surprise then that they want to blame someone else for their failure.

This year began with promise. But, it ended with disappointment for many African-Americans. Tragically, this country is quite used to bad things happening to Black people within the justice system.

In January, President Barack Obama began his second term. However, southern White radicals vowed to stop implementation of the Obama-care law leading one to wonder if Tea Party members would oppose affordable healthcare if it came from a nonBlack President.

Ah yeah, this thing is a disaster, not because the fools that put it together were high and totally disconnected from how things work in the real world, but because of racist southern honkeys! I guess blaming the insurance industry just rang too hollow of a lie for even these morons. So queue the racists! I am sure they are the ones that wrote this dysfunctional 2000 page plus behemoth in the first place only to follow up that coup by sabotaging the Obamacare website! I could spend page upon page trying to show how insane and stupid these people and their “blame someone else” practice are, but it is a waste of time. Those of us that see the cult for what it is get it: those that are part of the cult will never give up doing what they do. The tragedy is that there are so many low information people out there that used to not pick up on this fact, until the very Obamacare disaster started screwing them over.

Being a progressive must mean you are not ever going to be bothered by reality. Why would you when there is always someone to blame or fleece?

Election Night 2013

No real surprises tonight. As predicted, corporate cronyist and all-around despicable Democrat Terry McAuliffe won the Virginia governor’s race, although it turned out to be much closer than expected. McAauliffe is up by one point with 98% counted. Polls a couple of weeks ago showed a double digit lead. There may be many reasons for the narrowing of the polls — receding anger over the shutdown, rising anger over Obamacare, the natural tendency of polls to narrow. But the biggest is probably that the voters of Virginia, at some point, realized they were about to elect Terry McAuliffe.

While I think Cuccinelli’s history and positions turned a lot of people away, it’s also likely that Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis, who polled a solid-for-a-third-party-that-was-stupidly-excluded-from-debates 7%, cost him the election. So in many way, this is not a bad result. McAuliffe was barely elected and looks weak and will probably be hit by a scandal before I finish this post; the Virginia House stays in Republican hands and some 150,000 Virginians supported the libertarian candidate.

In New Jersey, Christ Christie is winning by over 20 points. For all the whining his RINOhood, Christie has enacted a conservative agenda and now twice done what no Republican Presidential candidate has done since 1988: win a blue state. His speech tonight (like his convention speech in 2012) sounded more like the precursor to a Presidential run. We’ll see what develops.

Also, as expected, New York elected Bill de Blasio as mayor. de Blasio wants to massively increase taxes and spending, create universal pre-K and after school care, charge rent to charter schools and has been endorsed by every liberal celebrity under the sun. It would appear that the 20-year reign of sanity that began with Giuliani has come to a close. New York, don’t say you weren’t warned.

The Democrats Open the Gubernatorial Clown Car

One thing I’ve mentioned in this space before is that while I frequently despair of Republicans on the national level, there has been a surge of Republican governors who are competent, conservative and effective. This can not, however, be said of their Democratic counterparts. Last week, I countered the assertion that Jerry Brown is the Best. Governor. Ever. But two more races are drawing attention to the complete dearth of ideas that is the Democratic Party.

The first is in New Jersey, where Chris Christie looks ready to easily win a second term. Christie is winning because of his first term performance and popularity in the state. But if I were a Democrat, I would be embarrassed by the opposition. I showed last week how Buono completely muffed a softball question in the debate. Her performance has been so bad, however, that the Star-Ledger spends half of its governor endorsement slamming Christie as a fraud only to endorse him because Buono is so awful:

Begin with education. Buono’s close alliance with the teachers union is a threat to the progress Christie is making in cities such as Newark and Camden. She is hostile to charter schools, which now educate nearly 1 in 4 kids in Newark.

Buono opposes the Newark teacher contract, which freezes the pay of the worst teachers and grants bonuses to the best. She wants a traditional union deal, in which no distinction is made. She would return control of the schools to Newark, which would spell the end of Superintendent Cami Anderson’s promising stewardship.

Her critique of Christie centers on property taxes and jobs, but she lacks a convincing strategy to do any better herself. She has a long list of expensive plans, from universal preschool to more aid for public colleges. But she can’t name a single spending cut beyond the traditional promise to attack “fraud and abuse.”

(I think it’s hilarious that the Star-Ledger, in criticizing Buono, inadvertently highlights Christie’s achievements. It’s like they can’t quite bring themselves to admit he’s been pretty good.)

But it’s worse. The other race is in Virginia. This should be a gimme for the Democrats. The McDonnell Administration has been hit by scandals and the state, thanks to the exploding public sector in the DC/NoVa area, has been trending blue. The Republican nominee is Ken Cuccinelli, a deeply divisive attorney general who only won the nomination by changing the rules. So the Democrats looked around and nominated … you won’t believe this … Terry McAuliffe. McAuliffe is such an awful candidate that the Richmond Times-Dispatch decided to endorse … no one:

The Democrat stumbles when he proposes major spending hikes, which he claims can be financed by the federal dollars the state would receive by expanding Medicaid. He offers an easy answer to a tough question … On energy generally, McAuliffe has spun like a top and now supports items he once opposed, such as the exploration for energy sources off Virginia’s shores … McAuliffe styles himself a businessman and entrepreneur. He inhabits the crossroads where the public and private sectors intersect and sometimes collide. His experience with GreenTech does not generate confidence. He located the plant in Mississippi, which is not known for its social enlightenment. The company has not lived up to expectations. If it eventually does, no credit will accrue to McAuliffe, for he has, he says, stepped away from it. He is not the reincarnation of Henry Ford. His ignorance of state government is laughable and makes Rick Perry, the notorious governor of Texas, look like a Founding Father.

I’ve watched this race for a while and McAuliffe crosses me as someone who thinks it is basically his turn. He’s been involved in politics for a while, dammit, and he thinks he deserves this. He doesn’t know the issues and doesn’t seem terribly interested in learning about them. He doesn’t know Virginia government and doesn’t seem terribly interested in learning about it. And he’s the best the Virginia Democrats could come up with. Seriously.

The T-D comes close to endorsing Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis but shies away because of his lack of experience. I find that spineless. I endorse Sarvis and if I still lived in Virginia, would vote for him. What he lacks in experience, he makes up for in not being a buffoon. As it is, McAuliffe is leading in the polls. Whatever failings Sarvis may have, he’s got be better than McAullife. If you think McDonnell has had scandals, just wait until that jackanapes is in the Governor’s mansion.

Next year may even more amazing. The Democrats want to run Wendy Davis for governor of Texas. You may remember her from the abortion filibuster earlier this year as well as … well, nothing. Davis’s only real claim to fame is filibustering a bill that had the support of two-thirds of Texans. Whatever you may think about abortion, this is not an issue that is going to win Democrat the Texas state house. In my own state, Tom Corbett has become deeply unpopular but it’s not clear that the Democrats will nominate anyone in 2014 who has more credibility than Shakes the Clown.

The Republicans at the national level have been criticized for being out of ideas. But I think that applies even doubly so to Democrats at the state level. They seem to think that because they see Republicans as evil monsters, everyone else does too and all they need to is prop someone up who can spew liberal bullshit long enough to win. They’re in for a rude shock in the next year.

I was wondering when someone would finally point this out…

And it looks like Buzzfeed has done the deed. Say what you want about Romney, but the guy was dead on. I think all the lame asses that pilloried this man and called him out of touch need to line up to kiss his ass. From the piece:

Ten months after Mitt Romney shuffled off the national stage in defeat — consigned, many predicted, to a fate of instant irrelevance and permanent obscurity — Republicans are suddenly celebrating the presidential also-ran as a political prophet.

From his widely mocked warnings about a hostile Russia to his adamant opposition to the increasingly unpopular implementation of Obamacare, the ex-candidate’s canon of campaign rhetoric now offers cause for vindication — and remorse — to Romney’s friends, supporters, and former advisers.

Yes, and he also got Detroit, the employment problems, the education bubble, immigration, the 47%, the disaster in the ME because of the Obama admin’s policy or lack there off, and much more, but especially the tyrannical Obama administration and its over reach of power, totally right. And they demonized him for every one of these things too. Shows you that the truth isn’t something the left welcomes. I wonder if the idiots in the LSM that did the dirty work for Team Black Jesus ever feel like they were had? Sycophants rarely care. As long as they get that ass to kiss, I guess

We need a Romney “Miss me yet” poster, I tell ya.

The Dubious Menace of Voter ID

Voter ID laws have been a point of heavy contention over the last few years. Republicans think that Democrats are only winning because of massive voter fraud and want strict ID laws. Democrats think ID laws are a conspiracy to disenfranchise poor people, minorities and students. It sure would be nice to have some data to constrain their imaginations.

Oh, look!

North Carolina is considering a strict new voter ID law, so North Carolina’s Secretary of State has conducted an analysis estimating how many voters have a state-issued photo ID. This isn’t necessarily new; states have done these sorts of analyses before. But North Carolina’s analysis overcomes many of the limitations that reduced the usefulness of previous assessments, like Pennsylvania’s. Other efforts required an exact match between voter registration and DMV databases; North Carolina expanded their matching criteria to allow for slight variations in names and data entry errors. North Carolina didn’t just look at how many registered voters didn’t have voter ID, they also looked at how many voters from the 2012 general election didn’t have voter ID. That’s very important, since it’s easy to imagine that voters without a car, or the elderly and the young would be especially likely to stay home on Election Day. And since North Carolina tracks voter registration by race and party, we have a pretty clear idea of how they would have voted.

The long and short is this. About 300,000 eligible voters don’t have ID. And about 138,000 people who voted in North Carolina in 2012 didn’t have ID. Of the voters without ID about half were non-white (compared to 30% generally) and 58% were Democrat (compared to 43%). So the impact was stronger on traditionally Democratic voters. However, even if all the people who didn’t have ID were denied the ability to vote — and in actual voter ID situation, that number would have been far less than 138,000 — the impact would have been minimal:

As a result, Obama’s share of the vote in North Carolina might have dropped from 48.3 to 48 percent, expanding Romney’s margin of victory from 92,000 to about 120,000 votes. 25,000 to 30,000 votes could flip a very close election, but nothing more. In 2012, no state was so close.

That’s Nate Cohn at the New Republic, by the way, who opposes voter ID laws and thinks they are a conspiracy to disenfranchise Democrats and steal elections. But even he is forced to acknowledge that impact would be minimal even in a state that has a large minority population and lots of students. Moreover, no voter ID law was being enforced. If it were, the number of ID-less voters would have been lower as the state and the parties made pushes to get IDs for eligible voters.

The wild claims of stolen elections were always a bit ridiculous. If massive vote fraud were occurring, we would expect participation rates to be much higher in inner cities instead of much lower. But so were the hysterical claims that elections were being stolen by Republicans. The simple fact is that 95% of the population has some form of acceptable identification.

Now I oppose the idea of 138,000 people being denied the right to vote if they are entitled to it. I think any voter ID laws needs to come with provisions to make it easy for legitimate voters to obtain ID and exercise their rights. But this study indicates we can back away from the abyss and move the debate and the law to more reasonable terms. In my opinion, those reasonable terms are requiring ID while making it easy for voting citizens to get them (including provisional ballots for those who forget or lose their ID). It may not swing many elections. But it will diffuse an issues that has dragged on for far too long.

The Reluctant Candidate


Over the Christmas break of 2010, Mitt Romney and his family took an internal poll on whether he should run for president once more. Twelve family members cast ballots. Ten said no. One of the 10 was Mitt Romney himself.

The doubts that the former Massachusetts governor harbored before ultimately launching his second unsuccessful bid for the presidency are one of several attention-grabbing details in “Collision 2012,” the newest book on the 2012 campaign.

Mitt Romney had other reasons to think that not running might be the wiser choice. Winning as a moderate from Massachusetts who happened to be Mormon was always going to be difficult. “A lot of the thinking on the part of my brothers and dad was, ‘I’m not sure I can win a primary given those dynamics.'” Tagg Romney said. The prospective candidate also knew the sheer physical and family toll another campaign would take. “He’s a private person and, push comes to shove, he wants to spend time with his family and enjoy his time with them,” his son said. “Even up until the day before he made the announcement, he was looking for excuses to get out of it. If there had been someone who he thought would have made a better president than he, he would gladly have stepped aside.”

In an interview with Balz that’s placed at the very end of “Collision 2012,” Romney explained that he ultimately decided to run when he saw the other (leaving-something-to-be-desired) candidates in the GOP field.

“I didn’t think that any one of them had a good chance of defeating the president,” he told Balz, “and in some cases I thought that they lacked the experience and perspective necessary to do what was essential to get the country on track.”

As you can imagine, gloating liberals are piling all over Romney with such clever lines as “he lost an election in his own family.” But this actually makes me much more sympathetic to Romney. It shows a good political awareness. It confirms what I long suspected — that he didn’t like the limelight and was much more comfortable with family, friends and the numerous good causes he’s involved it.

But more importantly, it shows that he was motivated by something other than his own ego. Romney didn’t want to run. But when he looked at the GOP field, he realized what a catastrophe loomed for the GOP (if we were lucky) and potentially the country (if we weren’t). The GOP field was so lackluster in 2012 that Rick Santorum looked like the sane one. It included Herman Cain, who had zero political experience and mistook a campaign slogan for a platform. It included Newt Gingrich, whose best skills were debating himself and abandoning wives. It included Ron Paul who, as much as I like him, is totally unsuited to be President. It included Michele Bachmann, who was just fucking nuts.

A handful of decent candidates eventually emerged but Rick Perry quickly swallowed his own foot up the waist and, in my opinion, was running more because people wanted him to than any genuine interest. Jon Huntsman was my favorite, but never went anywhere.

As bad as election 2012 was for the GOP, I still think that Romney was the best of the nominees. Maybe someone who really wanted it would have done better. But I think that had the GOP really nominated someone like Gingrich or Bachmann, it would have been one of the most epic political defeats of all time, with the GOP likely losing the House. In the end, Obama’s narrative — “it was on fire when I got here” — won the day. But I still think Romney would not have been a bad President — certainly not as awful as the liberals like to pretend he would have been. And the fact that he ran reluctantly and only because he felt the country needed him makes me a little sadder than he didn’t win. Not for him: I have difficulty drumming up much sympathy for multi-millionaires with wonderful families and great lives. I feel sad because we could have used a little less narcissism in Washington.

I bet you they all voted too!

And you know who these people voted for.

Red-faced state officials admitted last night they are trying to find as many as 19,000 missing welfare recipients — after the controversial taxpayer-funded voter registration pitches the state mailed to their addresses last summer were sent back marked “Return to sender, address unknown.”

The Department of Transitional Assistance contacted 477,000 welfare recipients who were on their books from June 1, 2011, to May 31, 2012, after settling a voter-rights lawsuit brought by Democratic-leaning activist groups that demanded an aggressive voter information effort by the state. That $274,000 push by DTA resulted in 31,000 new voter registrations — but revealed an alarming number of welfare recipients whose residency in Massachusetts can’t be confirmed.

“DTA is in the process of contacting those clients for which a forwarding address was prov­ided to verify their addresses, as a change of address might impact their eligibility,” a statement from the agency said. DTA critics expressed astonishment at the agency’s faulty address records — which were only uncovered by accident — saying it’s further evidence that the electronic benefits system sorely needs reform.

Yah, sure the problem is their addresses. Heh. I wonder how good their healthcare records are. Masshole tax payers must be loving this stuff.