November 28-29, 2011
Nov 28 10:36 Newt takes impressive lead in national polling Nov 28 11:14 Child care providers file lawsuit Nov 29 01:58 Rising tuition criticized by UC Berkeley’s Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion Nov 29 03:38 Chip Cravaack's no-nonsense bill cuts through TSA's red tape Nov 29 04:07 Ben Nelson is history Nov 29 04:37 Gingrich expands lead in SC Nov 29 10:50 Jennifer Rubin should resign from the Washington Post Nov 29 12:21 Romney rhymes with Mondale? It does to Joe Trippi
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Newt takes impressive lead in national polling
There've been a few recent polls on the GOP presidential race that could be called outliars. This morning, Majority Opinion Research announced that their polling shows Newt opening up a significant lead in a national poll:
Newt Gingrich has opened a sizable lead over Mitt Romney in the first national poll taken since the former Speaker of the House earned the key endorsement of the New Hampshire Union Leader, showing Gingrich with a nine-percentage point lead over the former Massachusetts governor.
The poll, conducted by Majority Opinion Research Sunday night, showed Gingrich leading the Republican field with 32 percent of support from those surveyed. Romney earned 23 percent, while Herman Cain rounded out the top three with 14 percent of the vote. Ron Paul led the remainder of the field with 6 percent.
Several things are noteworthy. First, Mitt still can't get out of that 20-24% rut he's been stuck in since he jumped into the race. People simply aren't warming to him. If you look at Mitt, conventional wisdom should have him as the prohibitive favorite to win the nomination.
Mitt's checked off all the right boxes. He's solid on foreign policy. He's doing well with fundraising. He "looks presidential." He's got a well-staffed organization.
Still, he's stuck at 23% in alot of polls.
Another thing that's noteworthy is that Newt didn't have trouble breaking the 30% barrier. He's at 32%. While other 'Not Mitt' candidates have hit the low 30's, Newt isn't another flavor of the month candidate because he's a strong debater, unlike Rick Perry. Newt's a substantive candidate, unlike Herman Cain. Newt's run a flawless campaign, unlike Michele Bachmann.
Here's a third thing that's worth noting in the polling:
Gingrich's lead has opened up as the former Speaker has rallied both older voters and independents. 39 percent of those 65 and older support Gingrich, versus 28 percent for Romney, while those in the 45-64 age range back the speaker by a 37 to 19 percent margin. Those figures would tend to support the emerging theme that conservatives are rallying behind Gingrich as their preferred alternative. Gingrich and Romney are virtually tied among voters 18-44, who are more likely to hold liberal views.
But Gingrich is also rallying independents, garnering 32 percent of likely voters who do not affiliate with a party. Among independents, Romney actually trails Ron Paul, who pulls 17 percent of the vote to Romney's 16 percent.
I'll need to see more polling that shows Newt polling better with independents to believe that this polling isn't an outliar. Still, the fact that Newt's beating Mitt amongst older voters, if confirmed, isn't good news for Mitt in Florida. Losing the senior vote by 9 points in Florida would be disastrous for Mitt.
Taking a step back, Mitt would be weakened if Newt wins Iowa (a possibility), South Carolina (likely) and Florida. He'd be able to continue campaigning but what's left of Mitt's momentum would essentially disappear.
The first votes haven't been cast so it's premature to declare Newt the GOP presidential nominee. It isn't too early, though, to say that Newt's lead exists and it's solidifying.
Posted Monday, November 28, 2011 10:36 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 28-Nov-11 03:00 PM
Flawless campaign? From "Newt Mexico"?
I've already been called heartless by one Republican candidate for President because I believe in enforcing our immigration laws. I'm very unhappy that another has said the same thing using different words.
Evidently Gingrich believes that the longer a person lives in violation of our immigration laws, the better a citizen he becomes.
E-verify, enforce the laws on the books, get legal immigrants and Americans back to work, and someone other than Newt Gingrich for President please.
Child care providers file lawsuit
As expected, in-home child care providers filed a lawsuit this morning. These child care providers' lawsuit seeks to prevent the unionization vote that Gov. Dayton called for :
At a press conference this morning, a group of home-based childcare providers announced the filing of a lawsuit to block a vote to unionize their business. They contend that the vote ordered by the governor is unfair and unlawful. They also expressed doubts about the governor's assurances that union membership would be voluntary.
Childcare provider Becky Swanson spoke for the plaintiffs. 'Despite the talking points from the governor and union organizers, unionization will affect all childcare providers, but only a select group of providers is being allowed to vote. Since Minnesota is a 'fair share' state, non-members can still be required to pay a portion of union dues, which has been the case in several other states that unionized childcare,' she explained.
Ms. Swanson lays out with specificity the case against unionization. In fact, her facts essentially dismantle AFSCME's and SEIU's arguments.
Ms. Swanson didn't just make the case against unionization. She highlighted the unions' corruption:
Swanson said SEIU and AFSCME organizers operating under the names, 'Kids First,' and 'Child Care Providers Together' obfuscated the purpose of union authorization cards presented to childcare providers. 'If unionization would really be such an advantage for us small business owners, then why did union organizers approach providers during the day, when we were busy caring for children, and try to trick us, telling us the cards were just requests for more information?'
It's obvious that AFSCME and SEIU organizers have attended Euphemism U, the progressives' indoctrination center where activists are taught how to obfuscate and blur the truth. Euphemism U is where activists learn all the latest focus-grouped buzzwords that they use instead of telling the truth in a straightforward way.
When have unions put "Kids First"? EdMinn makes that claim but their primary responsibility is to negotiate the best contracts possible for teachers. An organization titled "Child Care Providers Together" isn't just presumptuous. It's deceitful.
At minimum, the child care providers that CCPT represents aren't singing in harmony with the child care providers that filed suit this morning.
This AP article highlights another flaw in Gov. Dayton's executive order:
Eligible to vote in the election are about 4,300 child care providers currently eligible for state child care subsidies. Critics say more than 6,000 providers ineligible to vote would still be affected by union actions. Gov. Mark Dayton ordered the election, and his office says ineligible providers could still participate in policy-setting.
Gov. Dayton's spokespeople are singing from the same page in the union hymnal. Gov. Dayton's spokespeople, in harmony with the unions, are saying child care providers that choose not to join the union would still have a voice in policymaking.
What they aren't saying is that the 6,700 child care providers that Gov. Dayton's executive order prohibits from voting would be required to pay Fair Share dues to either AFSCME or the SEIU.
If they'd be subjected to AFSCME's or the SEIU's dues, shouldn't they have a vote on unionization?
Posted Monday, November 28, 2011 11:14 AM
No comments.
Rising tuition criticized by UC Berkeley’s Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion
This is too rich. When OWS protesters initially started protesting on the UC-Berkeley campus, they protested against the university's high tuition costs. Rather than addressing the problem, the university's "Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion" told the students that rising tuition costs were giving him heartburn :
As protesters festively (oops! I mean 'heroically') rally on college quads across California in the wake of the gratuitous macing of a dozen Occupy Wall Street wannabes at University of California-Davis last Friday, UC Berkeley's Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion declared that the rising tuition at California's public universities is giving him 'heartburn.' It should, since Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion Gibor Basri and his fellow diversity bureaucrats are a large cause of those skyrocketing college fees, not just in California but nationally.
If UC-Berkeley's Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion disappeared, would the educational product improve or decline? It's impossible to know at this point but it's likely that California wouldn't be spending money recklessly at the same rate as they're currently spending money at.
The OWS thugs' behavior is repulsive, possibly criminal. Still, OWS has touched on a legitimate problem in this instance. There's alot of money that's spent on administration that shouldn't have been spent.
Academia's elites, whether they're on the UC-Berkeley campus or in MnSCU's offices, think that the university can't survive without them. They're totally misinformed in their opinion. This example of how outrageous things are:
Higher Education Chairwoman Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul, said college and university funding is far from enough. 'We are starving higher education,' she said.
For the record, the legislature increased the higher education by $296,000,000, an 11.3% increase over the previous biennium's higher education budget. Even with that big of an increase, tuition increased.
The vice chancellor for equity and inclusion at UC-Berkeley isn't just a California phenomenon. A month ago, Newt spoke about a report he'd read that predicts that there'll be 1 administrator or clerk for every college professor by 2014.
If universities don't get their spending under control quickly, tuitions will continue increasing until the higher education bubble bursts.
Posted Tuesday, November 29, 2011 1:58 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 29-Nov-11 07:17 AM
"Academia's elites, whether they're on the UC-Berkeley campus or in MnSCU's offices, think that the university can't survive without them." Please don't mix apples and oranges.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Nov-11 10:22 AM
I'm not mixing. They're birds of a feather.
Comment 2 by LadyLogician at 29-Nov-11 08:24 AM
Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion??????? Is it any wonder that tuition at UC schools has gone up 81% in the last year? They pay for so many BS bureaucrats....
LL
Chip Cravaack's no-nonsense bill cuts through TSA's red tape
According to this report , Chip Cravaack's latest bill would restore a little common sense to the TSA's routines:
Battle-weary members of the military who have completed tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan would face one less hassle on the trip home if legislation passes the House today rewriting the rules for airport security screening of the armed forces.
'Our soldiers who are putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere should be afforded extra respect when returning home to their loved ones and shouldn't be viewed as potential terrorists in our airports,' said Rep. Chip Cravaack (R.-Minn.), the bill's sponsor.
'This legislation would require TSA [the Transportation Security Administration?] to develop a separate screening process for military personnel flying on civilian aircraft - it is past due for so many of our nation's heroes serving our great country,' Cravaack said.
The legislation requires the TSA to create an expedited new system within six months for all members of the U.S. armed forces as well as their families traveling on official orders.
The new protocols include screening guidelines for military uniforms and combat boots, with the goal to reduce wait times and other inconveniences.
In April of 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan would be considered as terrorist threats :
Right-wing extremists in the United States are using economic worries and the election of the first black US president as recruiting tools, the US government warns in a new report.
Fears of possible new restrictions on firearms, as well as troubled veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violence attacks," warned the US Department of Homeland Security.
Thanks to Rep. Cravaack's legislation, TSA will have to apply common sense when dealing with military heroes returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Why this wasn't done before is a testament to the TSA's foolishness.
Rep. Cravaack has done a fantastic job thus far. In addition to this common sense legislation, he's helped push the EPA and the MPCA in getting the permits approved for PolyMet. He's brough sanity to a federal system that's been out of control for far too long.
Posted Tuesday, November 29, 2011 3:38 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 29-Nov-11 07:14 AM
Cravaack would be a stronger VP choice than Pawlenty if geographical ticket balancing is a consideration. His only record is having unseated Oberstar, never mind details. Pawlenty is betting heavily on Romney, but Romney owes him little to nothing. Timmy as Veep seems remote. Romney is brighter than that.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Nov-11 10:26 AM
Chip won because Jim Oberstar thought he'd just have to show up, talk about the pork he'd brought to the district & wait for the returns to come in. He didn't think that he'd actually have to serve his constituents. He didn't understand that serving constituents involved listening to them, then acting on their behalf.
Chip Cravaack is getting common sense things done that improve the lives of his constituents, something Jim Oberstar didn't do.
Ben Nelson is history
If this polling is accurate, then Ben Nelson can start writing his concession speech:
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) would start his 2012 reelection race in a weak position if Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning wins the primary, according to a new poll. The survey by Republican firm Magellan Strategies put Nelson 6 points behind Bruning in a general election.
This isn't a surprise. In fact, I've been predicting since Sen. Nelson negotiated the Cornhusker Kickback that he's history the next time he's up for re-election.
This is just verification for that prediction.
Ben isn't the only Nelson senator in tough shape this cycle. Bill Nelson isn't in good shape in Florida:
Congressman Connie Mack's entrance into Florida's moribund U.S. Senate race has propelled him into instant-frontrunner status in the Republican field and threatens incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson, according to a new poll.
Mack garners 32 percent of the theoretical vote, while his fellow Republicans are polling in the single digits, the Quinnipiac University poll shows. In a general-election matchup, Mack would get 40 percent of the vote and Nelson 42 percent.
'The entrance of Congressman Connie Mack into the Senate race changes what had been shaping up as an easy reelection for Sen. Bill Nelson into a tough fight that the incumbent could lose," said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. 'The fact that Mack is essentially tied with Nelson, who has been a statewide political figure for two decades, should set off warning bells at Democratic headquarters.'
It's one thing for a sitting senator to be getting 46-48% of the vote this far out. That'd indicate the sitting senator is in for a tough fight but it's still winnable. Getting 42% of the vote is totally different matter. The rule of thumb is that undecideds break 2:1 against the incubent. If you're at 48%, that's still doable. When you're at 42%, there's a strong possibility that you'll get thumped.
The Democrats have alot of open seats and weak incumbents this cycle. What's worse is that they're defending 23 Senate seats while the GOP is only defending 10 seats. Anyone thinking that Democrats will hold onto the Senate is doing alot of wishful thinking.
At this point, it's really a matter of whether the GOP gains a majority or whether they crush Democrats. If I had to bet, I'd be betting that they'll get crushed.
Posted Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:07 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 29-Nov-11 07:10 AM
Ben Nelson, good riddance. He'd only have appeal if the opponent were a Michele Bachmann, a Rick Santorum, a Sarah Palin. Any sane and sensible individual who can fog a mirror and is not already owned by lobbyists would be better than a senior blue dog owned by lobbyists.
Gingrich expands lead in SC
This polling indicates that Newt Gingrich is expanding his lead in South Carolina. The margin of Newt's lead is daunting to his opponents:
Newt Gingrich has taken a commanding lead in the South Carolina Republican primary, with more than twice the support of Mitt Romney or Herman Cain, according to a poll conducted Monday evening for the Augusta Chronicle.
Gingrich, a former congressman from neighboring Georgia, has 38 percent to 15 for Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Cain, a Georgia native who retired from the national restaurant business to become a talk-radio host in Atlanta, had 13 percent.
No other candidate reached double digits in the telephone survey conducted Monday night among 519 registered voters who say they're likely to vote in the state's GOP primary. InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research conducted the poll, and it has a 4 percent margin of error.
If Newt stays disciplined, he'll win an impressive victory. If Newt can have impressive performances in Iowa and New Hampshire, he'll have momentum going into South Carolina. It's possible that Herman Cain will have dropped out by then. If that happens, Newt will win with close to 50% of the vote.
That will eliminate Mitt's aura of inevitability.
'Gingrich has consolidated a substantial lead among those who consider themselves 'Republicans,' which are the more long-time GOP voters,' said InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery. 'The independents who had supported Cain are moving to Gingrich as well.'
The pattern is repeating itself in additional early-voting states, as illustrated in other polls Towery's organization conducted the same night for different news outfits. In Iowa, Gingrich leads with 28 percent, followed by Texas Congressman Ron Paul's 13 and Romney's 12. Paul only has 7 points in South Carolina.
That polling isn't good news for Mitt. If Newt wins Iowa with a solid margin, then wins South Carolina with 40-50% of the vote, that'll turn Florida into a must-win state for Mitt.
If that isn't trouble enough for Team Mitt, this won't help with Mitt's heartburn:
In New Hampshire, a state Romney has a vacation home and where some of the Massachusetts media reaches, Gingrich has 27 points to Romney's 31, putting them in a tie once the 4-percent margin of error is considered.
Winning in New Hampshire is still a challenge for Newt. Still, finishing within 5-6 points of Mitt would, I suspect, put a smile on Newt's face.
The other shoe that hasn't dropped is whether Sarah Palin will endorse Newt as rumored. If that happens, that'll add to Newt's fundraising. It won't hurt him with his enthusiasm gap, either.
Posted Tuesday, November 29, 2011 4:37 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 29-Nov-11 07:06 AM
"If Newt stays disciplined, he'll win an impressive victory."
I am confused by that.
Do you mean if he works hard instead of loafing and being distracted and having another round of staff upheaval?
Do you mean staying on message, KISS, vs trying to spin gossamer webwork because he likes to hear himself talk?
"Discipline" in this total context is an unclear usage.
He has to stay within a budget because Romney has more money than any of the other challengers to Obama.
I believe you are correct, that Gingrich would be more of a contrast to Obama than Romney - the latter two are more similar in style and personality than either is to Gingrich. Both are corporate mainstream types. I disagree that such a situation is an ultimate benefit to Gingrich. Both Obama and Romney have squeaky clean backgrounds, no rattling skeletons, long stable marriages. It would not surprise me if there are other Republicans who view Newt as Bob Dornan does, but are publicly more quiet about it but talking to one another within GOP circles. Not being a part of that, I can only guess.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Nov-11 10:29 AM
Here's another way of putting it: If Newt continues to offer sensible solutions on this nation's biggest problems, he'll win decisively. Is that clear enough for you?
Finally, saying that President Obama is mainstream isn't just a stretch. It's a laughable statement.
Jennifer Rubin should resign from the Washington Post
It's been clear for quite awhile that Jennifer Rubin was the Romney campaign's plant at the Washington Post. This post confirms it:
There a few things more distasteful about Newt Gingrich than his grotesque hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a quality not uncommon among pols, but Gingrich takes it to new levels. The man who was for the Libya war before he was against it, was for the individual mandate before he was against it, savaged Paul Ryan's Medicare plan before he admired it, and snuggled up to Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on global warming before he renounced her global warming fetish has no problem casting himself as the heroic, consistent conservative while criticizing his opponent Mitt Romney for his changes of mind.
And when it comes to excoriating lobbyists and special interests, no one tops the candidate from Big Pharm, Freddie Mac and the ethanol industry.
Let's address these issues one-by-one. Ms. Rubin is deploying the myth that Gingrich was ever for attacking Libya. He wasn't and she knows it. What happened is that the interviewer talked about President Obama's statement that Kadhaffi "had to go." Then the interviewer asked how a Gingrich would make that happen. Newt wasn't asked if he'd make the same decision. He was given a hypothetical situation and asked to deal with it. He did.
As for being for the individual mandate, that was in 1994. By 1996, the Heritage Foundation and Speaker Gingrich abandoned it because it wouldn't do the things they thought it might. Newt has since admitted that he was wrong about the individual mandate.
Why hasn't Mitt admitted that his supporting the individual mandate is a mistake?
What's worse: Newt shooting a commercial with Ms. Pelosi or Mitt taking John Holdren's advice to implement stringent job-killing CO2 emission standards?
Ms. Rubin whines about the water Newt supposedly carried for Fannie and Freddie. She's a well-connected DC journalist. Why hasn't she told the world what water Newt allegedly carried? It's one thing to offer policy advice. It's quite another to help protect Fannie and Freddie.
Thus far, Ms. Rubin hasn't shown how Newt lobbied Congress in an attempt to protect Fannie and Freddie. Perhaps that's because he only offered policy advice to the mortgage giants?
But nothing quite tops his lecturing Herman Cain about adultery. Politico reports : 'Newt Gingrich, who has been friendly with Herman Cain but who has suggested his opponent needs to deal with the drip-drip of allegations about his past, suggested the businessman needs to address the claims made by Ginger White.
I watched John King's interview. He asked Newt if Herman Cain's campaign was finished. Newt replied that that's Cain's decision, along with his family. At no point did Newt lecture Cain. If Ms. Rubin watched the interview, she'd know that. What happened was that Newt said that, from a campaign matter, Cain would have to address the situation or face daily questioning about the allegations.
The very fact that Gingrich would so blithely direct Cain to bear his soul undermines Gingrich's canard that he's truly repentant. If he were truly remorseful and shamed by his own conduct, would he be going into his holier-than-thou routine? I think not.
Did Ms. Rubin watch the interview? If she did, she'd know that Newt didn't revert to "his holier-than-thou routine." If she said that after watching the interview, then wrote this trash, I'd ask her what led her to believe that Newt went into "his holier-than-thou routine"? If she couldn't give an explanation, I'd then ask if she's just attacking Newt because she hates him.
If Ms. Rubin wants to frequently write hate-filled anti-Newt diatribes, which she's doing, she shouldn't get paid by the Washington Post. Mitt's campaign should be paying her.
Ms. Rubin should resign because she's writing hate-filled posts rather than writing informative articles. Her hatred for Newt is clouding her judgment.
Ms. Rubin undoubtedly complained about the media's slobbering over President Obama. Now she's taking things to the next level. Not only is she ignoring Mitt's shortcomings, she's attacking candidates that expose Mitt's shortcomings.
Ms. Rubin, it's time for you to resign.
Posted Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:50 AM
No comments.
Romney rhymes with Mondale? It does to Joe Trippi
This article by Joe Trippi is fascinating analysis of the similarities between Mondale's campain in 1984 and Mitt's campaign this year:
Mitt Romney has been able to coast throughout this period. But his relatively smooth ride is likely to get pretty rocky once Republicans settle on their other candidate.
Going back to 1984, Mondale won the Iowa Caucuses with 49% of the vote. Gary Hart, who had languished low in the field for the better part of two years, finished in 2nd place with 19% of the vote (someone had to take second). We beat him by 30 points, but it didn't matter because the world had found the other candidate and we lost state after state to Hart and had to fight back all the way to the last primary to barely win the nomination.
Romney faces an even more difficult situation.
Mitt is the guy that the GOP establishment supports because he's checked off the 'right boxes'. It isn't that people are ready to run through walls for him. It isn't that Mitt's electrifying bigger and bigger crowds. It's that he's the safe pick.
Or is he?
Romney's problems are enormous. He is behind in Iowa and faces a tougher contest in New Hampshire than most analysts are predicting, largely because few are prepared for Iowa in 2012, like in 1984, to reshape the primary by deciding who is 'the other candidate.'
Romney rarely polls over the high 30s or low 40's in New Hampshire. Right now with a big field and no consensus around about who is 'the other candidate' (a situation like Mondale had in Iowa in 1984), Romney looks like he will win New Hampshire big (again like Mondale won Iowa).
At minimum, last Sunday's Union Leader endorsement of Newt solidified the race. This is now all but officially a 2 man race. With Mr. Cain on the verge of dropping out and with Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry having difficulties breaking out, this is quickly turning into Mitt's worst nightmare.
Mitt's hope has been that most of the ABM candidates would split the vote in the early primaries so he could build momentum. That won't happen because the pretenders have fallen by the side.
While the comparison between 1984 and 2012 rhymes, Romney lacks the one thing that saved the nomination for Mondale: strong support and loyalty from the base of his party.
Mondale was one of the strongest frontrunners in the Democratic Party over the past few decades. Romney is arguably one of the weakest GOP frontrunners in recent memory.
Walter Mondale was a darling of the base of the Democratic Party. Mondale was regarded by the liberal base as a liberal through and through, and when he faltered, activists and party groups rallied to his cause and joined the fight to save his campaign.
If Romney falters, who in his party will fight for him? Who in the GOP will try to catch him and hold him up? Romney does not enjoy the loyalty and support of the conservative base of the GOP. If Romney stumbles he will be on his own.
While it's true that Mitt's supporters are loyal, it can't be said that they're numerous. I wrote that Mitt's on the negative side of the enthusiasm gap against Newt:
It's clear that they came to show their support for Speaker Gingrich. That type of enthusiasm isn't something that Mitt Romney can brag about.
For the most part, Mitt's supporters are faithful. For the most part, Mitt's supporters write checks. For the most part, they don't man phone banks or knock doors. That matters in GOTV operations.
Romney's built an impressive-looking house of cards. His problem is that those aren't the sturdiest of structures. They're capable of collapsing quickly.
I'm not predicting a quick collapse by Mitt. I'm just highlighting the possibility that it might happen if cards fall the wrong way for Mitt.
Posted Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:21 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 30-Nov-11 06:32 PM
Gary Hart.
Was that when the "Monkey Business" thing became news? Donna Rice?
The GOP lot had best avoid any "Monkey Business," such as that which Cain might be reassessing.
