Running Out the Clock

Romney and running out the clock… Dems begin to press the panic button… Greenberg’s and Carville’s advice… Dems win AZ-8 special election… After primaries in ME, NV, ND, and VA, Senate races finally take shape… Eric Holder, political punching bag… Jamie Dimon testifies on Capitol Hill… And Romney addresses Business Roundtable meeting at 11:45 am ET.

By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Brooke Brower, and Natalie Cucchiara

*** Running out the clock: With less than five months until Election Day, Mitt Romney and his team are running a campaign that would make Dean Smith (and his Four Corners offense) or Jim Tressel (and his grind-it-out gameplan) proud. If you're ahead -- or within striking distance -- against a talented opponent, you start running out the clock. Take, for instance, Romney's reply yesterday to a reporter’s ropeline question about whether he thought Democrats were taking his recent remark firefighter and police jobs out of context. "I'm not going to talk about that," he said. (Romney also has ducked reporters’ ropeline questions on Syria, JP Morgan, and even Wisconsin.) Or consider all the interviews he does with FOX (especially its cherry-picked programs vs. its newsier anchors) compared with other news outlets. Or think about the fact that the Romney camp isn't planning (for now) on delivering any new policy speeches. The message Team Romney is essentially giving: “We're going to talk about what we want to talk about -- and to whom we want -- and not talk about the rest.”

Advertise | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices

*** But does a president get to control what he talks about? It’s impressive message discipline. And as Smith and Tressel proved, you can win tons of games -- and the ultimate prize every once in a while (especially if your opponent makes mistakes) -- by running out the clock. But here’s something about sitting in the White House: A president often doesn’t get to pick and choose the issues he has to deal with. Think of many of the events in the past five years: the financial industry’s collapse, the European debt crisis, the BP oil spill, the Arab Spring, the violence in Libya and Syria, and the list goes on. While a president gets to pick his domestic priorities (tax cuts, education, and Social Security for George W. Bush; health care and financial reform for Barack Obama), so much of the job is reacting to unplanned events. Ironically, the very issue Romney wants to talk about -- the state of the U.S. economy -- is something that presidents have little control over, especially compared with foreign policy (which they have A LOT of control over). And yet how long can Romney go without going into more detail about how he would handle the various unplanned issues that he would have to deal with if he wins. Take Syria. We know he doesn’t like how the president has handled this situation but how would a President Romney deal with Putin and Assad? He’s provided no clues and his campaign appears to be making sure there’s little opportunity (for now) to find out.

NBC's Mark Murray discusses whether President Barack Obama's message on the economy is working.

*** Dems press the panic button: While Team Romney appears to be running out the clock and displaying an impressive ability at message discipline, the Obama White House and campaign are dealing with Democratic Party that’s beginning to panic after a rough last two weeks. “Is it time for Democrats to panic?” the Washington Post’s Tumulty asks. “That’s what a growing number of party loyalists are wondering, amid a rough couple of weeks in which President Obama and his political operation have been buffeted by bad economic news, their own gaffes and signs that the presumed Republican nominee is gaining strength.” One criticism from the Democrats cited in the piece is how insular Team Obama is, a criticism that has dogged the Obama political team beginning Feb. 10, 2007 (the day Obama announced). This story illustrates two of the Democratic Party’s and Obama White House’s worst traits -- pressing the panic button (especially when nothing fundamental about the race has changed in the past two weeks) and ignoring outside voices (which is a criticism we continually hear about the Obama team). Former Bush strategist Mark McKinnon puts it well in the piece: “[The Obama campaign folks] are not any more or less smart than they were four years ago. The dynamics are just different. This time, the wind is in their face instead of at their back.”

We Will Settle for the Next four years

Editor's note: Julian Zelizer is a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. He is the author of "Jimmy Carter" (Times Books) and of the new book "Governing America" (Princeton University Press).

Princeton, New Jersey (CNN) -- This presidential election tells us something unexpected about American politics. For all the talk about polarization and discord in Washington, it appears that both parties will have pragmatic problem-solvers at the top of their tickets.

Democrats have accepted four more years with a pragmatist. President Barack Obama has consistently been willing to anger members of his own party by reaching out to Republicans and often embracing their issues, such as deficit reduction. Rather than a fighting for an ideological agenda, he has instead focused on one problem at a time and accepted the constraints that he faces.

Republicans are settling on former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has spent much of his career avoiding ideological purity. By all accounts, one of his virtues as a leader has been his eagerness to delve into difficult problems and his willingness to experiment when trying to find solutions.

Julian Zelizer

As everyone knows, he has shifted his positions on matters such as stem cell research and as governor he was willing to put forward an ambitious health care plan that expanded government by using a conservative idea, the individual mandate.

Some pundits will read the decision to support these candidates as continued evidence of party loyalty. In the case of Obama, there were no Democrats who decided that they would challenge him in the primary because they wanted to avoid the kind of turmoil that occurred when Sen. Ted Kennedy ran against President Jimmy Carter from the left in 1980.

In the case of Romney, the Republican hatred of Obama is so great that the party is willing to compromise on a candidate whose politics are hard to pin down but who stands a better chance of winning in November.

Yet another way to read these decisions is that, at some level, voters are genuinely angry about the polarized status quo in Washington. They are willing to support pragmatic problem-solvers because, at some level, they find it appealing to elect politicians who could overcome the deeply dysfunctional government we have.

There is some evidence to support this claim. In "Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America," Morris Fiorina argued that polarization was much stronger among political elites that it was in the broader electorate. His examination of poll data revealed that on many controversial issues such as abortion or gay rights, most Americans tended to be in the middle of the political landscape.

Second, the approval ratings of Congress also suggest that citizens are unhappy with polarization. Approval ratings for Congress are at about 12.5%, a historic low. When such a large number of Americans indicate that they don't approve of the institution, they are registering their complaints about the gridlock in Congress. Even though most Americans continue to vote for incumbents in their districts, they don't like the institution as a whole.

Finally, for all the talk about polarization, when it comes to electing presidents, voters have tended to go for the people who promise to reach out across the aisle. In 2008, Obama ran as the candidate who appealed to both sides of the political spectrum and who contrasted himself with the fierce partisanship of the Republican side.

In 2000, George W. Bush ran as the compassionate conservative who was willing to use government on behalf of some causes, and in 2004 he avoided some of the more divisive issues by emphasizing national security as his unifying issue.

In 1992, voters went for Bill Clinton, a proud pragmatist who wanted to move beyond the orthodoxies of the 1960s. Clinton was part of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group that sought to move his party toward the center. Clinton doubled down on this theme in 1996 as he leaned to the right following the Republican takeover of Congress, and he defeated Sen. Robert Dole by landslide.

The emerging contest between Romney and Obama thus provides more evidence that there is still room to move beyond Washington's bitter partisan stalemates.

When politicians yell and fight, they capture the attention of the television cameras but the public is not always with them. As this upcoming contest reveals, there is still a yearning in the electorate for a different kind of politics in Washington.

Follow us on Twitter: @CNNOpinion

Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion

Romney Accuses Obama of hiding Agenda

WASHINGTON—Mitt Romney, fresh off of three momentum-building wins in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, accused President Barack Obama on Wednesday of "rhetorical excess" and of muddling his second-term agenda in order to win re-election.

"He wants us to reelect him so we can find out what he will actually do," Mr. Romney told a gathering of newspaper reporters and editors at a Washington hotel. "With all the challenges the nation faces, this is not the time for President Obama's hide-and-seek campaign."

The former Massachusetts governor leveled his latest charges at the president from the stage where Mr. Obama slammed the GOP front-runner a day earlier for supporting a Republican budget blueprint that he called a "radical vision" and "thinly veiled social Darwinism."

Election 2012

• Romney Rolls Up Three Wins
• Santorum Prepares for Last Stand
• Obama Blasts 'Trojan Horse' GOP Plan

The back-and-forth comes as the president and Mr. Romney engage more directly ahead of an expected match-up in the general election, and amid signs that Mr. Romney has opened a nearly insurmountable lead in the GOP contest. Mr. Romney was addressing the Newspaper Association of America the day after his sweep of Maryland, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Romney draw new battle lines with the president by expanding on earlier criticism of Mr. Obama that came after the president was heard on a live microphone asking his Russian counterpart for more time and flexibility to negotiate a nuclear-arms treaty between the two countries.

"He is intent on hiding," Mr. Romney, seeking to extend the significance of the president's remark to areas beyond foreign policy. "You and I will have to do the seeking."

While Mr. Obama remains personally popular, Mr. Romney is seeking to raising doubts about the president's character. Such doubts have been less prominent in the primary campaign, with candidates instead unleashing repeated broadsides against unpopular policy measures, including the economic recovery package and the new health-care law.

Mr. Romney accused the president of shifting positions to curry favor with voters ahead of the election, saying that "Candidate Obama" has "experienced a series of election-year conversions." As evidence, he cited Mr. Obama's recent calls to lower corporate tax rates, reduce regulations and develop more domestic oil, coal and natural gas.

The Obama campaign quickly turned the obfuscation charge back on Mr. Romney.

"From completely rewriting his record of more debt, more spending, fewer jobs and bigger government in Massachusetts to misleading on the President's record of promoting economic security for the middle class, there was very little in Mitt Romney's speech today that bore any resemblance to reality," said Lis Smith, an Obama campaign spokeswoman.

Mr. Romney also blasted the president for, in his words, mischaracterizing the House-passed Republican budget, which seeks deep cuts in agency spending and proposes a revamp of Medicare for future retirees.

"President Obama came here yesterday and railed against arguments no one is making, and criticized policies no one is proposing," he said. "It's one of his favorite strategies—setting up straw men to distract from his record."

The president and Mr. Romney are both painting the race as a contest between two starkly different visions for the country. Mr. Obama criticizes Republicans for offering what are, in his view, draconian cuts to social safety nets while protecting tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans, in turn, criticize the president for failing to bolster employment while piling debt on an already fragile economy.

"The November election will have particular consequence," Mr. Romney said Wednesday. "It will be a defining event."

He used the rest of his speech to deliver familiar criticism of the president's stimulus plan, the new health-care law and his attacks on over-regulation.

Mr. Romney largely steered clear of his remaining rivals for the Republican presidential nomination. His only mention of the primary came in response to a question from the moderator of the event about whether he had asked any of his GOP opponents to exit the race.

"I hope that we're able to resolve our nomination process as soon as possible, of course, because I'd like to focus our time and attention on those key battleground states and raising the funds to be somewhat competitive with the president and his billion-dollar quest," Mr. Romney said. "We have a real challenging road ahead of us, but I believe we will rise to the occasion."

Mr. Romney also offered a pointed critique of the news business for trading speed and frivolity for substance and responsibility.

"In 2008, the coverage was about what I said in my speech," Mr. Romney said, referring to his initial White House bid. "These days, it's about what brand of jeans I am wearing and what I ate for lunch."

He added, "I find myself missing the presence of editors to exercise quality control. I miss the days of two or more sources for a story."

Write to Patrick O'Connor at patrick.oconnor@wsj.com

Palin Heart Newt

Editor's note: S.E. Cupp is the author of "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity" and co-author of "Why You're Wrong About the Right." She is a columnist at the New York Daily News and a political commentator for Glenn Beck's GBTV.

(CNN) -- Far be it for me to offer unsolicited advice to Sarah Palin. She's built a very successful career out of going rogue and certainly doesn't need any tips from me.

And, as an occasional pundit, a political influencer and a private citizen, she's free to throw her weight behind anyone she wants.

But I just have to say it: Newt Gingrich? Really?

Now, I'm not in the camp of conservative elites who think she's seen her best days and should politely retire to obscurity. If anything, the premiere of "Game Change" on HBO on Saturday is proof that she's still relevant; she's got considerable influence over a certain wing of the party.

S.E. Cupp

And so with great power comes great responsibility. Is Newton Leroy Gingrich the most responsible pick?

Of all the remaining candidates, in fact, the one that makes the least sense is Newt. Mitt Romney I could see, if she wanted to bring the party together. Rick Santorum I could see for his social conservatism, strong Christian faith and similar family stories. I could even see Ron Paul for his "throw the bums out" and "end the Fed" rogue-isms. But Newt?

When rumors first started swirling that Palin might back the former House speaker and self-appointed "cheerful" candidate, Gingrich was surging then. She said she'd vote for him in South Carolina if she could. She wanted to keep the primary alive, she said. And, playing to Newt's strength at the time, she urged "more debates" and "more vetting of candidates."

Julianne Moore's Palin '100% sourced'

Analysis: Gingrich not connecting

Palin leaves door open for 2012 run

Gingrich: 'I'm the tortoise'

But now, with Newt's ham-fisted campaign out of mojo, and no debates on the horizon, it would seem like a good time to jump off that train and get behind Romney or Santorum.

Instead, she doubled down Tuesday, telling Fox Business Network that she voted for Gingrich in the Alaska caucuses, where he finished dead last. And why? "I have appreciated what he has stood for," she said. "He has been the underdog in many of these primary races and these caucuses."

Again, Palin's free to like any candidate she wants, and those would be valid arguments, if they were true.

What Newt has stood for, both during his political career and during this campaign, sits in total contradiction to what Palin has stood for since becoming a public figure. She's for small government; he's shown a disturbing penchant for big government solutions. She champions Washington outsiders and rails against the establishment; he's the epitome of establishment, and has been firmly encamped inside the Beltway for decades. The very people who appreciate Palin should be the same people who despise Gingrich.

And he's hardly been an "underdog." With the backing of billionaire financier Sheldon Adelson and the benefit of serious name recognition, he's enjoyed the money, media attention and opportunity that other GOP candidates didn't. If Newt's been an underdog, I'm sure Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann would have been happy to switch places.

The truth is, Newt isn't the "little guy" in any sense of the word. And if that were truly Palin's criteria, there are actual little guys, such as Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson to champion.

Or even better, she doesn't have to support any of them.

Maybe Palin's got a master plan in which she makes a late run at the presidency and puts Newt on her ticket. Still, it seems like an incongruous pick and waste of her considerable influence among far-right conservatives.

But I'm sure she knows what she's doing.

‘Stop-Newt’ Republicans Confront Base Unwilling to Take Orders

Jan. 26 (Bloomberg) -- Two days after Newt Gingrich defeated Mitt Romney in the South Carolina presidential primary one of Romney’s big-name backers offered a grim prediction for his fellow Republicans.

“The possibility of Newt Gingrich being our nominee against Barack Obama I think is essentially handing the election over to Obama,” former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty told reporters on a Jan. 23 conference call. “I think that’s shared by a lot of folks in the Republican Party.”

Pawlenty’s comments echoed those being uttered publicly and behind the scenes by elected Republicans, party activists, fundraisers and pundits, who represent a portion of the party establishment -- a “stop-Newt” caucus -- populated largely by people who have known the former U.S. House speaker for decades.

The question is: Can they?

For two decades, the Republican Party has seen an erosion of its traditional, top-down hierarchy, a decline aided by Gingrich himself in 1990 when he led a House revolt against a budget agreement negotiated by President George H.W. Bush that raised taxes. The rise of the anti-tax Tea Party wing in 2009 splintered the internal levers of power further, making it even harder to impose a choice on the rank-and file.

“There really is no Republican establishment left that can control anything,” said Matthew Dowd, a onetime aide to President George W. Bush and now a Bloomberg Television contributor. “Some try to act like they are in charge, but the fraternity is now running the campus.”

South Carolina Dynamics

Those dynamics were on display in South Carolina. Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, lost by 12 percentage points even after campaigning throughout the state with Governor Nikki Haley and just a day after receiving the endorsement of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, the chairman of the Republican Governors Association. Haley, who rose to power with Tea Party backing, didn’t deliver either her state or its grassroots activists.

Meanwhile, Gingrich’s campaign gained momentum after Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who also has support from the Tea Party faction, said she’d vote for Gingrich in South Carolina if only to extend the length of the primary.

Similar signs of an insurgence came to light in the 2010 midterm elections, when Nevada voters tapped Sharron Angle -- a Tea Party-endorsed politician opposed by many of the state’s prominent Republicans -- to challenge Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. And Delaware Republicans chose Christine O’Donnell over former governor and nine-term U.S. House Representative Mike Castle to seek an open Senate seat. Both Angle and O’Donnell lost.

‘Voters in Charge’

“The voters are now in charge, and Republican leaders need to come to terms with that,” Dowd said. “The media needs to drop the myth that there is a Republican establishment capable of orchestrating anything more than a one-float GOP parade.”

Romney’s campaign, backed by well-known party strategists and fundraisers, has kept up a steady rollout of endorsement announcements from Republican elected leaders that demonstrate his broad support among the insiders. As of Jan. 20, he had the nods of five governors, 14 senators and 59 U.S. House members. That compares with two governors and a dozen congressmen who have endorsed Gingrich, according to Democracy in Action, a political web site that tracks endorsements.

‘Terrified About Newt’

“There are a lot of major players in the Republican Party who are terrified about Newt,” said Gary Gerstle, a specialist on social and political movements a Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. “At a more conventional moment in American politics, the establishment would count for a lot more, but this is not a conventional moment. There are now big segments of the Republican Party that will not bow down to the establishment.”

Gingrich -- who served 20 years in Congress, four of them as speaker, and then began a lucrative career in Washington consulting on federal policy -- has been working to turn party leaders’ angst about his candidacy to his advantage, portraying himself as a candidate feared by the ruling class.

In a Jan. 24 message to supporters, he wrote, “The establishment is right to be worried about a Gingrich nomination because a Gingrich nomination means that we’re going to change things.”

The Romney-Gingrich face-off is bringing the simmering power struggle between the Republican grassroots and the party establishment to the fore, said Richard Viguerie, a veteran Republican direct-mail strategist and the chairman of ConservativeHQ.com.

Internal Power Struggle

“There is a war going on here between the grassroots and the establishment,” said Viguerie, who is backing former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. “People in the grassroots see the Republican establishment as part of the problem, not part of the solution, and Gingrich has the ability to go over the heads of the Republican leaders.”

At the root of the concern about Gingrich is whether he will be able to appeal to the broader U.S. electorate. Polls indicate that he has high unfavorability ratings and wouldn’t fare well in a head-to-head matchup against Obama. A January Gallup study found that all national political figures are viewed negatively. Still, “Americans have become more intensely negative in their evaluations of Newt Gingrich -- who now has the lowest score overall,” the study concluded.

Independent Voter Turn-off

Gingrich’s branding of Obama as a “food stamp president,” for example, may not play well with independent voters, whom a Republican nominee would have to win over to have a chance of ousting the president.

Some prominent Republicans say there’s not yet enough of a consensus that Gingrich is unelectable to give rise to a concerted effort among party operatives to thwart his ascent.

“I haven’t seen that there’s an all-hands-on-deck movement to try to block any candidate -- Newt or anyone else,” said Frank Donatelli, the chairman of GOPAC, a training organization for state and local Republican candidates once headed by Gingrich, and a former top party official.

The last time there was such an effort was in 1996, he added, after Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary and prominent Republicans quickly coalesced around Bob Dole, who ultimately claimed the nomination.

“I haven’t heard that kind of alarm emanating about Newt,” Donatelli said.

Former Pennsylvania Congressman Bob Walker, a senior adviser to Gingrich’s campaign, said each time Romney rolls out a new endorsement or dispatches a one-time colleague to criticize Gingrich’s record, it bolsters the former speaker’s argument to voters that he’s their ally against a party machine that doesn’t care about them.

“It took them a little bit of time to realize that Newt Gingrich is capable of beating Obama, but now, I don’t think that they’re going to listen to party bosses anymore,” Walker said. “Newt is basically channeling the people’s anger.”

--Editors: Jeanne Cummings, Mark McQuillan.

To contact the reporter on this story: Julie Hirschfeld Davis in Washington at jdavis159@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jeanne Cummings at jcummings21@bloomberg.net

A reprint from Bloomberg Businessweek

"I told you so..."

My last post of November 14th was about the upcoming failure of the "Super Committee" to reach any sort of agreement and I was right. The deadline past without much fanfare by any media reporting or political backlash. It proves once again the truth about Washington being broken. The only winner was President Obama, that is, if his real purpose was to highlight that a "two-party" system can no longer provide for the American people, he succeeded.


On Saturday night, December 10th, the latest round of Republican debates was featured and for the most part, I haven't watched any of the others, but there was literally nothing else on television besides Christmas shows I have already seen, so I decided to watch most of the sparring by the six major contenders. Honestly I think ABC and Yahoo would have been better off simulcasting The "Grinch Who Stole Christmas" rather than a night of misleading speeches by those that can't decide on who their enemy is. 


Yes, there were a few light moments on stage. Mitt Romney offering a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, a faux pas that could take serious numbers away from Romney. Michelle Bachmann and her consistent reminder of her "tragic" upbringing of being in a broken family. And, even the sparring between Romney and Newt Gingrich arguing about who was the closer friend to Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.


I really have no idea who might have won the debate as there was more sparring among the participants than actual posturing on key election topics. Maybe Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, or former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania actually came out on top because I heard very little from them about anything. 


I guess it's true that it's not what is said, but what you hear. For example, Romney incorrectly stated that President Obama said Israel must "go back" to the 1967 borders. That is simply not true! Obama stated Israel should go back to those borders as a starting point for "mutually agreed swaps".


Perry states that over the past 11 years Texas, under his leadership, has created over a million jobs, while there has been over two million job losses across the rest of the country. A statement that is both misleading and false. Numbers are inflated by Perry to make himself look good because as a matter of fact the U.S. has only lost 897,000 jobs according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics over the same period of time.


The one thing this over-used forum has proven is that it's really difficult to know who a Republican should vote for. With little criticism lobbed at Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, maybe they can sneak away some of the lead of the career Washingtonian, Newt Gingrich. I wish you good luck when you finally go to vote in the primaries across country. My advice...eennie meanie minee mo!

Republican Candidates have all the answer, or do they?

With the upcoming 2012 Presidential campaign in full swing, at least on the Republican side, the People will more than likely see less and less accomplished in Washington. But make no mistake that we the people are not forgotten in this political process that clouds the mind with whom shall we vote for. The answers will be clear as mud as time goes on and the nearer we get to deciding who will lead us for the next four years.


However, one thing is clear, the Republican candidates are so used to bashing the Democrats ideas that they can’t decide on a viable plan in which to get the nation back on it’s feet again. Take the current candidates position on the tax  code.


Texas Governor Rick Perry’s plan would give taxpayers and corporate America a choice of paying a flat 20% or their current tax rate. Herman Cain has his 9-9-9 plan which would make a 9% federal sales tax, 9% personal income tax and a 9% corporate tax. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich wants a flat 15% income tax, while former Massachusetts’s governor Mitt Romney has a 59-point economic plan. And former Utah governor Jon Huntsman would set only three tax rates and eliminate all deductions, which in my opinion would stifle economic growth by causing people to hang onto their money rather than give money to charity, purchase a house or even contribute to political campaigns. Talk about a “shoot yourself in the foot approach“.


Perry’s plan is not as well thought out in my opinion as many people in this country would end up not paying any income tax at all. Take a family of four that are buying their home making $60,000 a year combined. The flat rate would be would be $12, 000. Take away four $12,500 tax deductions per person, they now have effectively reduced their income by $50,000 leaving a 20% tax on $10,000. But if you include the deduction for mortgage interest, you are bound to zero out any remaining tax owed and that doesn’t account for deductions for charity, or state and local taxes.


With all these concepts on how to tax the people and corporations of this country, not answering the question of how to put 9.2% of the country on unemployment back to work, deal with the healthcare issue, repairing our infrastructure and funding special needs like our education system, military and government to name a few, how can they be serious about running our country.


It’s easy to say President Obama has failed this country and driven it into a larger debt. Failed healthcare reform, infrastructure repair, balance the budget, and so on. It is easy to cast blame on the Democrats while the Republicans and Tea Party members say they have all the answers if only the opposing party would just listen. But it is still the constituents that have and will continue to suffer long after 2012 has come and gone. Everything put before Congress has been shot down by opposing chambers and at least we have the simple task of deciding who we want to guide us for the next four years. It seems clear as mud to me.