Mitt Romney's View on Corporations

Liberals and Democrats are having a field day with Mitt Romnhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifey's off-the-cuff remarks yesterday (responding to hecklers at the Iowa State Fair) that included this line: "Corporations are people, my friend."

Here's the entire exchange, as per the Washington Post:

ROMNEY: We have to make sure that the promises we make — and Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare — are promises we can keep. And there are various ways of doing that. One is, we could raise taxes on people.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Corporations!

ROMNEY: Corporations are people, my friend. We can raise taxes on —

AUDIENCE MEMBER: No, they’re not!

ROMNEY: Of course they are. Everything corporations earn also goes to people.

AUDIENCE: [laughs]

ROMNEY: Where do you think it goes?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: It goes into their pockets!

ROMNEY: Whose pockets? Whose pockets? People’s pockets! Human beings, my friend. So number one, you can raise taxes. That’s not the approach that I would take.

At a top level, Romney is right: corporations have been long treated by courts as independent "people", able to enter into contracts, commit torts, and -- perhaps, most important -- shield their investors from personal liability.

That's consistent with the Citizens United court's finding that corporations are entities that are subject to First Amendment protections: to paraphrase Romney's words, "Corps are people, too."(*)

(* - Robert Clark's seminal treatise, Corporate Law, declares that "One of the law's most economically significant contributions to business life, and one often ignored by lawyers because it generally generates less litigation than many other contributions, has been the creation of the fictional but legallly recognized entities or "persons" that are treated as having some of the attributes of normal persons." Sec. 1.2.3)

But read Romney's words again. He's actually not arguing that corporations are people, the way Dean Clark and the Citizens United court does.

Rather, he's arguing that corporations are made up of people. Every dollar that a corporation earns in profit is eventually paid to a real person, who owes taxes on that profit. And accordingly, Romney argues, corporation taxes should be reduced.

(We will put aside the political wisdom of Romney -- who's being painted as Mr. Corporation in the GOP primary, at least by Tim Pawlenty -- defending lower corporate tax rates.)

But under Romney's vision, corporations are little more than unincorporated associations: partnerships, if you will, who just happen to have stock tickers.

But if corporations are just the collection of people whom comprise them (i.e., stockholders), why should we grant them status as "legal persons"?

And why should the corporate shield on liability (the shield that kept Mr. Romney, and the rest of Bain Capital from suffering ill-effects from the bankruptcy of Ampad) be recognized?

To quote a different Supreme Court (albeit minority) opinion: "Taxes are what we pay for civilized society"

Here's What Mitt Thinks...

We wondered a few days ago what Mitt Romney would think of the current McCain/Palin Campaign efforts to distort Obama's record (and for that matter, to obfuscate some of the weaker points of Palin's record).

[Apparently clip was from earlier in the year; we still don't know what Mitt thinks...apologies for any confusion]

The Ghost of Ronald Reagan

Elections, we are told, are about the future. But so far, the 2008 Presidential election has been very much about the past -- and the legacy of Ronald Reagan.

John McCain, fighting to get control of the fractious Republican party, will later this week dust off old black-and-white photos with the then-Governor Reagan taken shortly after he was released from captivity in Hanoi:



Mitt Romney has spent much of the past month attempting to lay claim to the mantle of "the Reagan legacy" himself, albeit without much success. (It should be noted that neither McCain nor Romney has observed Reagan's 11th Commandment.)

On the Democratic side, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama famously engaged in a squabble during the South Carolina primary about whether Obama supported Reagan's politics, and whether Reagan was "transformative" political figure.

But the real parallel may be with Reagan's 1976 campaign for the nomination. Like Obama, Reagan was running against a virtual incumbent (Gerald Ford), at least in the eyes of the party, but one who had never been elected. Like 1976, the field was a two-person race (Reagan was actually almost knocked out of the running in the early primaries, rallying in North Carolina.) And like 1976, it appears that Obama will chase Hillary all the way to the convention, where Reagan gave one of the most famous concession speeches in modern political history.

And a speech that pointed the way to the Reagan sweep in 1980.

Predictions: New Hampshire

Picking up where we left off in Iowa:

GOP:
1. McCain - reminiscing
2. Romney - energized
3. Giuliani - hopeful
4. Huckabee - bad track
5. Thompson - wondering

Dems:
1. Obama - ran away
2. Clinton - losing touch
3. Edwards - angrily
4. Richardson - heading West

Update:
Obviously, the combination of independent women moving towards Hillary, and independent men (many of whom surely felt that Obama's apparent growing lead was safe) moving towards McCain -- as they did in 2000 -- was instrumental.

However, it's clear that Hillary's margin was obtained in the urban wards in Manchester, Berlin, and Nashua; a quick analysis would indicate that the race will be a traditional city/suburban split. But New Hampshire's cities -- like the state itself -- are overwhelmingly white. As the race moves south and west, cities will be much more diverse, and therefore more amenable to an Obama appeal.

It is worth noting that while New Hampshire has a huge "Independent" bloc, many are Independent because there are no penalties for being so -- the actual independents are probably in the 10% range, not the reported 40%. In other states, most NH Independents will stay in their respective parties.

Predictions: Iowa

Yes, yes, it's impossible to predict the Iowa caucuses, and the polls (especially those released in the last few days) are more likely to be wrong than right, but for just-for-the-heck of it, here's one view how the caucusing will go tonight, with one- or two-words of analysis (with kudos to the Daily Racing Form):

Republicans:
1. Romney - Muddy win
2. Huckabee - Bad homestretch
3. McCain - Closing
4. Giuliani - Went wide
5. Thompson - Broke down

Democrats:
1. Obama - Closed
2. Edwards - Holding on
3. Clinton - Faded
4. Biden - Classy, consistent
5. Dodd - Slow start


Post-Iowa Update:

Here's what the analysis should have been, with the apparent results at 12am:

GOP:
1. Huckabee - resolute
2. Romney - desperate
3. Thompson - uncertain
4. McCain - restarted
5. Giuliani - out-of-touch

Dems:
1. Obama - impressive kick
2. Edwards - clinging
3. Clinton - shaken
4. Richardson - surprising
5. Biden - distant
6. Dodd - quietly

"I Hate You More..."

It was noted a few weeks ago in this space that Mitt Romney (and for that matter Rudy Giuliani), had made a habit of bashing his 'home' state -- Massachusetts -- as part of his campaign's effort to position him as a true conservative who had to trim his sails to be elected in one of the most liberal states in the Union.

But the polls reported above by WBZ yesterday, has to give even the most ardent Romney supporter in Massachusetts pause. Romney does worse in a hypothetical match-up among Bay State voters with Hillary Clinton than Rudy (Romney would lose 65%-31%; Rudy would lose, 59%-34%).

Worse than the raw numbers (and a 2:1 margin is bad in any state, let alone one where you were governor) were the 'man-on-the-street' interviews put together by Jon Keller. (And Keller is no goo-goo liberal; his recent book "The Bluest State" calls Massachusetts, a "Brigadoon of 1960s liberalism.")

Favorite Sons

In the late 1780s, William Safire reports in his "Safire's New Political Dictionary", George Washington was referred to as "Freedom's Favorite Son." In the 1830s, Martin Van Buren was "New York's favorite son", and a few years later, Henry Clay was the same for Kentucky.

Throughout the succeeding century, it was an American tradition, as Safire explains, for the leading politician of a particular state to go to the national convention as the "favorite son" and control that particular state's delegates; the purpose was not to gain the nomination, necessarily, but to promote his particular state's interest.

The phrase -- and the gambit -- has gone out of style in the last few years, and as almost all state's delegates are elected by direct voting, it seems unlikely to return.

But two GOP candidates have taken the demise of the 'favorite son' gambit to an extreme: Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney have made an art of running against their respective home states.

Romney has famously been running against Massachusetts for the last several years.

"Being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts," [Romney] told a GOP audience in South Carolina, "is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention."

Needless to say, his former constituents (aka, citizens of Massachusetts), are less then enamored with Mr. Romney's current assessment of the state.

Guiliani's indictment of New York City is more nuanced. He does not so much criticize NYC, as (apparently) stand aside while conservative Republicans around him do so:

Speaking before the Alabama legislature this spring, he received a standing ovation, and Governor Bob Riley told him, “One of these days, you have to tell me how you really cleaned up New York.” To conservatives, pre-Giuliani New York was a study in failed liberalism, a city that had surrendered to moral and physical decay, crime, racial hucksterism, and ruinous economic pathologies. Perhaps the most common words that Giuliani heard when he travelled around the country this spring were epithets aimed at his city (“a crime-infested cesspool,” one Southern politician declared), offered without fear of giving offense. Giuliani cheerfully agreed.

Giuliani so far has avoided direct criticism of his city; Romney does not bother so limiting himself.

Candidates' background has already become something of an issue in this election. Barack Obama is a Senator from Illinois, but was born in Hawaii and grew up (for a few years) in Indonesia. Hillary Clinton has made claims to Illinois, Arkansas, and (now) New York, where she serves as a Senator.

The trend towards nationalization of the election means that viable candidates are becoming 'citizens-of-the-world', or at least citizens-of-the-entire-nation. If Romney or Giuliani are ultimately successful, it will accelerate that trend. At the very least, it shows that the 'favorite son' gambit is probably a distant memory.

Romney vs. Giuliani

Having engaged and (seemingly) dispatched of Arizona Senator John McCain from the GOP primary on primarily the immigration issue, Gov. Mitt Romney has now seemingly turned his attention to Rudy Giuliani; and he's going to use the same issue -- immigration -- to hurt the former New York Mayor. (In fairness, McCain put the immigration ball on a tee for Romney; talk radio and the blogosphere did the rest.)

Romney's new radio ad (YouTubed above) cites cities like Newark (NJ), San Francisco, and New York, that are effectively "sanctuary cities" that essentially attract immigrants -- illegal and legal. (Romney's ad fails to cite a more local city -- Cambridge -- that does the same, as the Globe's blog points out; of course, running against The People's Republic may not be bad politics in a GOP primary.)

Giuliani, meanwhile, has emerged as a front-runner in the GOP field, much to the chagrin of those who watched him closely in New York. From this weeks' New Yorker profile by Pete Boyer:

When Giuliani’s tenure as mayor ended, in 2002, he left behind a city that was grateful, and more than a little relieved to see him go. He had achieved much of his program of radical reform, and he performed well on September 11th, but it had felt like an eight-year fistfight. Giuliani had fought with teachers and with Yasir Arafat, with the Brooklyn Museum and with Fidel Castro, with squeegee men, tennis fans, street venders, taxi-drivers, his own police chief, and, of course, his wife. He had repeatedly chastised New Yorkers for their incorrigible jaywalking and careless bicycling. (“All of these things are part of making the city safer. There’s been a lot of ridicule about it, which is unfortunate.”) Many Manhattanites felt that when the rest of the country experienced the Rudy Giuliani they knew—the flashes of pique, the slashing remark—the celebrity glow would quickly fade.

It hasn’t happened yet. The Giuliani whom New Yorkers recall isn’t campaigning. With some exceptions, like the debate dustup with Ron Paul, the Presidential contender is all smiles, and holds his tongue even when confronted by the occasional town-hall needler. He has taken to fence-mending as well, initiating a rapprochement with his former police chief, William Bratton, who is now running the L.A.P.D. A few days after they conferred, Giuliani told me that he could even imagine working with Bratton again some day. “I mean, I don’t know if it’s the effect of having been the mayor for eight years, of going through prostate cancer, or having a personal life that’s much happier, or if it’s September 11th—maybe it’s a combination of all those things, and just getting older and wiser,” he said. “But you sort of look back on some of the things and say, that was an extraordinarily productive relationship. . . . I mean, we took a city that nobody believed could be turned around with regard to crime, and really did turn it around. That’s not like a political slogan. We really did it. Now that I look back on it, I really appreciate the relationship.

Looks like it will be an interesting fall.

The Romney Video Strategy

Gov. Mitt Romney's recent appearance on conservative (and seemingly somewhat friendly, although very ummmm, aggressive, on the relationship between the executive and judiciary branches) Jan Mickelson's talk show on WHO radio in Iowa (previous guests include G.W. Bush in March, 2005), has driven the GOP news in the past few days. What is interesting -- in the development of the use of video on the web -- is the decision that the Romney campaign made to aggressively post the video and try to use it to drive their message that Romney is a stand-up leader.

What is interesting is the degree to which the interaction between the two -- which begins around 10:45 on the video -- is an apparently 'positive criticism' by Mickelson: "I think you are making a big mistake in distancing yourself from your faith." (Note: such constructive crticism is not unusual for friendly journalists, who generally seek to help strengthen all candidates on their side of the partisan divide.) Romney then engages in a surprisingly frank discussion, and is seems to be already formulating a 'general election' strategy of separating his political stances from those of his religion; yet while he comes across as having a clear understanding of his Church's doctrine, he does not connect how those doctrines animate his politics -- which is Mickelson's ultimate point.

Compelling video and an interesting dilemma for Romney. But posting the video was a simple choice for his staff -- they had none.

Money Troubles

The McCain campaign has borne the brunt of the press maelstrom this week, as disappointing 2nd quarter numbers were followed by a mass-exodus of senior staff. Unlike the John Kerry staff shake-up in 2003 (ahead of the early 2004 primaries), the McCain changes have the ring of a rats-off-a-sinking-ship, rather than Kerry's calculated -- albeit callous (he was heard eating his dinner while informing the remaining staff of the decision) -- dismissal of Jim Jordan.

McCain is not the only GOP candidate with money trouble however. Romney's financial reports, released Friday, showed that he spent virtually every dollar he took in during the 2nd quarter, but that includes a $6.5M loan the candidate wrote to the campaign. Without that loan (and the resources to make it), Romney's senior campaign staff might also be in hot water.

Mitt Romney and Clark Griswold

Mitt Romney's dog problems continue into another week; but it could be worse -- just ask Chevy Chase

Dick Lugar, Meet David Stockman

Reliable GOP Senator -- and respected foreign policy mind(*) -- Richard Lugar raised eyebrows on Capitol Hill yesterday when he essentially declared that he has run of patience with the current strategy:

'In my judgment, the costs and risks of continuing down the current path outweigh the potential benefits that might be achieved,' Lugar, R-Ind., said in a Senate floor speech. 'Persisting indefinitely with the surge strategy will delay policy adjustments that have a better chance of protecting our vital interests over the long term.'

While Lugar's statement is probably the third or fourth biggest political news of the week (after, in no particular order, Dick Cheney's declaration of the Office of the Vice President as being a de facto fourth branch of government; cloture vote on the immigration law; the Washington Post's disclosures about Cheney's procedural end-arounds in the White House, and news about the 2008 GOP candidates (Fred Thompson's lobbying past, Mitt Romney's investment in his own campaign, Rudy's problems with the Catholic Church)), it was not missed by the White House. Apparently, Lugar has been 'invited ' to a sit-down -- or perhaps a visit to David Stockman's woodshed -- at the White House with NSA Stephen Hadley later in the week. No word on whether a 'surge' will be applied to Lugar himself.

(*-Ohio Senator George Voinovich echoed Lugar's remarks today, but the bet here is that Lugar's comments will carry more weight.)

"I Was Wondering What that Song Was..."

Mitt Romney in Iowa, wondering what song is playing in the background. (Hat tip: MassLive (Springfield Republican) and Politico.)

Good New for Romney in Iowa

Latest Des Moines Register poll has good news for former Governor Mitt Romney -- he leads convincingly:

Romney 30%
McCain 18%
Giuliani 17%

(Likely GOP caucus participants, May 12-16)

Dems were polled on Favorable/Unfavorable impressions:

Edwards 79%F/18%U/3% unsure
Obama 74%F/22%U/3% unsure
Clinton 66%F/31%U/3% unsure

Among the less well-known candidates:

Richardson 48%F/25%U/27% unsure
Biden 40%F/36%U/24% unsure
Kucininch 29%F/37%U/34% unsure
Dodd 24%F/29%U/47% unsure

Romney's Top Ten Gaffes

Time Magazine has a laugh-out-loud-funny slide show of Mitt Romney's Top Ten gaffes during the Presidential campaign...so far.

Most under-reported one: praising Nazi efforts to liquify coal into oil. (As the New York Sun's Ryan Sager said at the time, you wouldn't think that anyone running for president would have to be told: "Don't mention Hitler in a positive light.")

While some may believe the miscues humanize Romney, it is worth noting that his own father's Presidential aspirations collapsed over a single word: "brainwashing."

Moreover, the types of miscues -- seemingly out of touch with everyday Americans, such as on the gun issue -- seem to be more reminescent of John Kerry, rather than George W. Bush. As Noam Scheiber wrote in this week's TNR:

But suppose most working-class voters want something different...Suppose that, in their heart of hearts, these voters don't aspire to be slightly better off than they are today; they aspire to be rich. And one of the ways they evaluate candidates, who are frequently rich themselves, is by wondering:Is this the kind of rich person I'd like to be?

Now ask yourself: If you were a working-class voter in Middle America, what kind of rich person would you want to be? Would you want to be the kind of rich person who eats at pricy French restaurants, plays classical guitar, and vacations among the cognoscenti in Sun Valley, Idaho? Or would you want to be the kind of rich person who snacks on peanut butter and jelly, reads Sports Illustrated, and kicks back at a ranch in the middle of nowhere?

Finally, for a candidate who is apparently running against France, Romney seems to spend a lot of time thinking about French marriage laws, as well as being the only candidate wearing French-cuff shirts at this week's Republican debate:

Jack Bauer for President?

The Republican debate was interesting political theater. The format was surprisingly good, with a series of somewhat related questions asked in sequence to the candidates. The Fox reporters were able to induce some back-and-forth, some follow-up, and even some criticism of 'fellow Republicans.'

In the end, you got the sense that McCain felt that the night seemed to go badly. While his opponents were busy trying to spin unworkable fantasies about who would cut taxes the sharpest, and who could act more Reagan-like, McCain was left trying to justify his votes -- and bills -- that passed Congress and became the law of the land.

But the crux of the debate was in the last 15 minutes. Fox's Brit Hume spun a scenario where the US was already the victim of one terrorist incident, and yet had captured an operative who seemed to have information about a forthcoming attack. Virtually each of the candidates was falling all over themselves to prove that they would be tough enough -- "tell the CIA: whatever it takes"..."I will take the heat"..."I'd approve enhanced interrogation techniques." At one point Tom Tancredo stated the obvious subtext: he'd get Jack Bauer in the room, and let him work over the terrorist. After all, it works every Monday night on Fox.

Yet the man who has actually seen shots fired in anger -- and indeed has been the victim of torture himself -- stuck to his guns: no to torture, because it doesn't work, and because the consequences of such action on our captured troops is so grave.

"We could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people," he said. "It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know."

Yet when the debate was over, even McCain seemed to move away from his moral position. No to waterboarding (invented, he noted, by the Spanish Inquisition), he said on the spin session with Hannity and Colmes, but 'you have to do what is necessary.'

Giuliani, speaking on the same post-debate session, was even more interesting. During the debate, he staked out his bona fides on security, claiming that 'no one on the stage knew more about it' than he did. (Which begs the questions of, among others, why the City's disaster center was located where it was, in the shadow of the World Trade Center, or how he came to hire Bernie Kerik.) During the discussion on 'enhanced interrogation', no one was more enthusiastic about giving the CIA (or whomever, as Rudy seemed unsure) 'the tools' they need.

In the post-debate spin, Giuliani defended his position (along with his attack on Congressman Ron Paul's claim that the 9/11 attacks were caused by US bombing of Iraq, among other places). Giuliani said: "When you raise you right hand, and take the oath of office as President, you swear to preserve and defend, um, the United States of America."

Well, not exactly, Rudy.

The Pope and Mitt Romney

Pope Benedict, on a plane headed to Brazil, made news last night when he suggested that Catholic politicians who vote in favor of abortion (or, presumably, other Catholic doctrine), would be subject to ex-communication from the Church. The Pope was apparently referring to Mexican politicians who recently liberalized abortion rights in that country, but his comments must be read in the context of a Church increasingly calling Catholic politicians to account (in Italy in 2005, with John Kerry in the 2004 Presidential race) when they vote -- or support -- abortion rights.

Kerry struggled with the abortion issue, and his Catholic faith, throughout the 2004 campaign. While he continued to go to Mass and stated his personal opposition to abortion, was he considered (and is) a reliable pro-choice vote. In the Spring of 2004, a number of bishops stated that he should not continue to receive the sacrament of communion if he were to continue to vote against Church doctrine.

Kerry's position -- personal belief against abortion, but political support of pro-choice legislation -- harkens back to the Catholic politician's "position-of-choice" since 1960, when John Kennedy faced anti-Catholic sentiment in his bid for the White House. The original JFK felt that he needed to address the concern that, if President, he would be subject to instruction from the Pope or other church leaders. Speaking in Houston, in September of 1960, he said:

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured -- perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again -- not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me -- but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the President -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference, and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him, or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accept instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials, and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

The original JFK put the 'religious issue' behind him once and for all. (To be sure, Kennedy had tried to deal with the issue earlier in the campaign (e.g., a speech to the American Society of Newspaper Editors in April, 1960), but the Houston speech was the one that is remembered as effectively ending the issue in the general election.) His Houston speech has become part of the American political experience: of course the Leader of the Free World may consult with the Pope from time-to-time, but as one head of state to another, not as a Catholic seeking, in Kennedy's words, "instructions."

So what does all of this have to do with Mitt Romney?

Mormons (or Latter Day Saints) stand in a somewhat parallel position today to Catholics in 1960. The religion, while wide-spread in the United States, is not well-understood and has suffered a history of persecution; the current PBS series "The Mormons" highlights some of the mis-understandings.

Analagous to the Pope for Catholics, Mormons are led by a sole individual (the President of the Church, the most senior member of the Apostles (a select group of 12 individuals)). The (Mormon Church) President's views, while perhaps not perceived as 'infallible', undoubtedly carry great weight for Latter Day Saints.

If the Pope continues to press the issue with the Catholics in the Presidential race (Dodd, Biden, et al), it will make them uncomfortable. But the attention that the Pope (or other Catholic bishops) bring to the Catholic politicians will -- sooner or later -- raise the Romney/Mormon President issue. And while Catholic politicians may reference JFK's Houston speech, Romney have to define his own relationship with his church, and its leaders.

Update: Another potential politican with a "Catholic doctrine" problem: Rudy Giuliani, who yesterday decided that he will run a 'pro-choice' GOP campaign.

Romney on the Radio

Although there appear to be a dearth of references to it in the blogosphere, Mitt Romney had a positive/bio radio ad this morning on the Imus in the Morning Show on WTKK (96.9 FM). The station does have some reach into southern New Hampshire, and perhaps Romney's advisers are trying to counteract this recent NH poll:

McCain - 28 percent of likely New Hampshire voters
Giuliani - 27 percent.
Romney - 13 percent.

Source: WMUR/CNN

Nominees Finish...Second?

Today's Globe article by Scott Helman featuring a leaked (or perhaps lost) Romney campaign strategy memo contains the following:

The plan concedes that, with McCain and Giuliani in the race, Romney is unlikely to be the top pick for those voters looking for a "war/strong leader." His goal appears to be establishing himself as a credible second choice for those voters, but the first pick for voters looking for an energetic, optimistic, and innovative chief executive. (A page titled "Own the future" dubs McCain the past, Giuliani the present, and Romney the future. )

Running for second place, or at least running to be the second choice of McCain- or Giuliani-supporters is a little reminescent of the last Massachusetts politician to run for President:

Bumper Sticker in Iowa and NH: "Dated Dean, Married Kerry."

McCain v. Bush II

Not such good times for John McCain. First Sibiling Jeb Bush has been steering operatives and fundraisers to Mitt Romney's campaign since last fall. For instance, here's Bush's Lt. Governor:

"Governor Bush said, 'Before you commit, I want you to meet Mitt Romney. He is the kind of guy you will like no matter what,'" said former Lt. Gov. Toni Jennings. "The governor was very candid about the fact that he really liked this guy."

A number of former Jeb aides have apparently gone to work for Romney's campaign.

Then, today's political news includes VP Dick Cheney taking McCain's comments over the weekend about Don Rumsfeld to task:

Karl: And I wanted to ask you. You probably heard John McCain again come out and say that your friend Donald Rumsfeld is perhaps the worst secretary of defense ever. What do you make of that?

Cheney:I just fundamentally disagree with John. John said some nasty things about me the other day, and then next time he saw me, ran over to me and apologized. Maybe he'll apologize to Rumsfeld.

Karl: So what's your take on where Secretary Rumsfeld fits in?

Cheney: I think Don's a great secretary [sic]. I know a little bit about the job. I've watched what he's done over there for six years. I think he did a superb job in terms of managing the Pentagon under extraordinarily difficult circumstances. He and John McCain had a number of dust-ups over policy, didn't have anything to do with Iraq -- other issues that were involved. John's entitled to his opinion. I just think he's wrong.

Karl: And I know we're just about out of time, but I wanted to clarify, Sen. McCain had said that the problem with President Bush is he listened to you too much. So this is what he was apologizing to you for?

Cheney: Yes, yes.

Karl: What did he say?

Cheney: Well, he came up to me on the floor a couple of days later, the next time I was on the floor of the Senate, said he'd been quoted out of context, and then basically offered an apology, which I was happy to accept.

Not exactly a warm embrace of "Straight Talk" by a man who is thought to be closest to Bush 43.