From this morning's Nashua Telegraph:

The stakes for this next election are too great to sit this one out, Romney said to a Lincoln employee, a female in her late 20s, who said she’s only voted in one election.

“If you like what I’m saying, I would like you to vote multiple times. If you don’t like that, then stay home, just kidding,” Romney joked.

In light of the way the Romney team likes to rig straw polls, that Mitt was seriously suggesting that this woman vote multiple times seems, well, a little too easy to believe...

More Mitt weirdness: he's been telling people he's flown F-16s. Given that Romney's own bio at his own site makes no reference to any service in the military, let alone any that would involve interaction with planes, I'm calling BS on this one.

I also suspect that Romney's claims to have fired an Uzi and an AK-47 are bull. I've fired an AK, my guess is that she may have fired a few Uzis in her lifetime, but the guy who personally pushed and then signed into law a permanent ban on AKs and Uzis in Massachusetts? Sorry, Mitt, I ain't buying it.

If you have indeed fired an AK, or an Uzi, then you certainly didn't do it in your home state, where you banned them in 2004, saying "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts... These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

> Read more & share

Forget about John McCain's concerns about his sweaters. There are some outfits candidates just shouldn't be seen in. This is one of them



Spandex works nicely if you are Lance Armstrong. It works less well on a vaguely untoned middle aged presidential candidate.

> Read more & share

Fantastic. A couple of weeks ago, Sens. Baucus and Grassley went crazy and decided to hike some energy taxes. Then, they decided that because someone works as a private equity guru--surprise-- they don't get to benefit from the same capital gains tax rate as the rest of us (maybe next week, we can create a special rate for teachers, a different one for policemen, and yet another different one for lawyers-- who knows where the fun will end!)

Now, these crazy kids, aided and abetted by Chuck "the Schmuck" Schumer and Lindsey Graham (unfortunately, this is the first thing Lindsey's done in awhile to annoy me) decided to get on with moving legislation to deal with the pressing problem of China's currency rigging, basically by way of bringing back protectionism. Way to go, guys!

Let's park for a moment my utter conviction that Baucus and Grassley are out to raise every damned tax, or anything that acts like a tax, that they can, and assess what's wrong with taking steps to "balance out" the effect of China's currency rigging. Essentially, what's wrong with it is, if it involves slapping-- or having slapped-- penalties or tariffs (or anything like them) onto Chinese products-- which is what this lovely bit of legislation is basically going to lead to-- it involves higher prices for American consumers. I mean, c'mon, it's not like the Chinese are going to go "oh dear, silly us, we were being anti-competitive, well, let's bear the burden of the [insert name of protectionist slap to the Chinese], and not pass it on to those who buy our product." Obviously, any extra cost that they incur as a result of this legislation will be passed on to consumers. And Americans buy, and rely on, a lot of Chinese products.

I'll be honest here: I don't trust China very much at all when it comes to the way they approach trade, intellectual property, defense-- an...

> Read more & share