Associated Press
Sheldon Adelson has an impressive reach.
Karl Rove told Sean Hannity this week that President Obama and his allies have a dastardly election-year plan: they'll win by "trying to take their wallet and buying it."
Even for Rove, who has a history of projection, the irony was rich. He's complaining about Obama trying to "buy" the election just two weeks after we learned Obama will face a $1.8 billion operation trying to defeat him -- a figure that obliterates all previous records -- made up of $800 million from Romney and the RNC, and an estimated $1 billion from far-right attack groups, including Karl Rove's.
Someone's trying to "buy" this election, but I don't think it's Obama.
Indeed, the timing of Rove's silly criticism could be better. Just one day after the accusation, this bombshell came to light.
Casino mogul Sheldon Adelson, who helped prop up House speaker Newt Gingrich's presidential primary campaign for months, is now using his massive wealth to help former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney.
According to two sources familiar with the donation, Adelson is giving $10 million to the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future. Under Federal Election Commission law, Restore Our Future is free to accept donations of unlimited amounts from single donors but must reveal the identity of those givers.
It's the biggest single donation ever made to the group.
Keep in mind, Adelson's not done. He's cut this $10 million check, but Forbes reports that his financial support this cycle is effectively "limitless."
Also note, Adelson is a familiar name -- he's reportedly spent more in this campaign cycle than George Soros spent in all of 2004, and it's only mid-June -- but let's not forget that much of the 2012 financing will be secret.
As E.J. Dionne Jr. explained in his latest column: "Americans won't even fully know what's happening to them because so much can be donated in secrecy to opaque organizations. It's always helpful for voters to know who is trying to buy an election, and for whom. This time, much of the auction will be held in private. You can be sure that the candidates will find out who helped elect them, but the voters will remain in the dark."
Leave a Comment:
I wonder if Sheldon Adelson knows what a "Kapo" was.
TC, I had to look up the meaning of the word "kapo." Do you think your statement was called for? I don't. It was disgusting.
Perhaps, but as time goes in, it seems more and more an accurate term for what the other side wants to do.
TC...,
You were absolutely right in making that comment. Adelson is indeed of that mentality.
Leave it to the left to find the bottom of the barrel and tunnel through to even greater depths. Why don't you guys try writing something without personal insults as the main feature? Intelligent people don't need to sound like children with a new dirty word to repeat.
We are basically now debating secret government vs. transparent government.
The fundamental question to argue is well known:
How do voters (We the People) control our representative government, when the voters do not know who is funding the candidates?
We all know about politicians saying things to engage the audience, but what are they not telling us?
We need to be fully informed about allegiances of candidates, it is that basic truth. Otherwise, it is secretive and not transparent.
I still think it is obscene the amount of spending on ads while citizens in this country are left without basic needs. But that is beside the point.
I just wonder how many card dealers, front desk customer assistants and slot machine techs, etc…. etc…. Adelson could have hired for half that money…. http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z1ebjpgk2654c1_&met_y=unemployment_rate&idim=state:ST320000&fdim_y=seasonality:S&dl=en&hl=en&q=unemployment+rate+nv
But will hiring all those people help to keep him out of jail? Doubt it. He needs a new prez and AG.
Willing to buy them, he is.
This sounds like sour grapes:
a figure that obliterates all previous records -- made up of $800 million from Romney and the RNC, and an estimated $1 billion from far-right attack groups, including Karl Rove's.
First, Obama spent $750 Million in 2008 - his campagin alone - and his campaign's goal is $1 Billion this year before any outside SuperPAC money. I will bet that in the end BOTH sides will spend wayyyy too much on this election.
Someone's trying to "buy" this election, but I don't think it's Obama
So going with that comment, since Obama "obliterated" the campaign spending record in 2008, does that mean he bought the last election? I really don't remember anyone - especially here - complain when that record was set for a Presidential campaign. I think a lot of the "concern" here is that the Republicans will outspend the Democrats for the first time in the last election cycles. We need campaign reform.
Oh yeah and as for the amount of money being spent, it just shows how uninformed the average voter is. I mean think about it - most folks on this blog are engaged in the race and will still vote for their man/party regardless of the amount spent by the other side, but as this post points out, the fear is that the Republicans will outspend the Democrats AND that means the average voter will vote Republican because of that. THAT is the real problem - people voting for someone because they had the most lawn signs and negative ads. Hilarious and sad at the same time.
I don't think it's OK that "both sides are doing it", but I gotta wonder if we really need to do all this fundraising all the time.
I don't think that is a valid argument much of the time, either.
I know one thing is true, more money in some hands and less in the other hands is creating less government business on behalf of the folks without any disposable income. Those with lots of money have more freedom than those with less money. This is creating a country whose concerns revolve more around those with more money and set aside the concerns of those whose disposable income has been bleeding out.
Fair point Sandy, but the silver lining is the ad revenue for radio and TV as well as the massive volume of printing will benefit companies in those businesses by the Billions.
True. At least we have that and agreed on voting based on most signs. Wow.
Although in CA, we have had it go both directions, most spending loses. Meg Whitman and No on 8 both lost while having more money.
So, I guess it is possible to have some voters not voting according to spending, but when the political talk shows are dominated with Republican framing most of the time, it is still an uphill battle for those of us trying to get the facts and know who is behind whom.
I find it very disturbing to think about foreign people and multinational companies having so much clout and we do not know who donated. We need to know whom is funding whom or what.
Sandy, I don't quite agree on the political talk show comment you made. I see most of those - especially the Sunday shows on the top three networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) as more on the side of Obama and the Democrats. Fox News is definitely pro-Republican but MSNBC bleeds Democrat Blue. The radio on the other hand may be in the Republican's advantage. That said I really don't think those political talks shows make much of a difference in infomation/influence since the vast, vast majority of Amercans do NOT watch those shows or listen to talk radio - they watch sports and reality shows and listen to their IPODs or CDs in the car.
As for foreign money I do have a little anecdotal story about that. In 2008 my fiance's sister went down to Grant Park in Chicago on election night for the Obama post-election rally. She struck up a conversation with a Belgian couple that had flown in just for the rally. They told her that they were proud that they "helped" Obama win since they gave to his campaign. Granted it probably was not a whole lot of money and it is the exception and not the rule, but I would venture to say that foreign money - in varying amounts - has been in our national (and maybe state and local) for a while now. There are always ways to get around the rules.
I don't believe it's just the money pooring into these races. It's the lies being told by the far right that is the problem. The problem is the people that believe these lies and instead of fighting these bullies, jump on the bandwagon because it is easier that trying to change what is wrong. Never in my life would I have believed that the Supreme Court, the highest court in the land, was bend and crooked. I'm ashamed.
I see most of those - especially the Sunday shows on the top three networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) as more on the side of Obama and the Democrats.
Jaw hits floor . Best rubber glue of the week
Is that the Alt Universe TeeVee you been watching .
First three google hits confirmed 282 republican appearances to 164 by Democrats
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4514
But there I go again with my LIBRUL facts . They do so in fact disrupt your version of reality.
My take on this - yes, both sides know that the more ads, signs, and paid staffers you can get out there, the better your chances of winning. I agree with Sandy that with Citizens United, those of us with little or no financial clout lost much of our voice in how this country will be governed. Not that anonymous funding didn't happen before the CU decision, but to a much lesser degree.
But now, the media only see dollar signs, and are going to be inclined to lean the direction of the side with the most dollar signs.
I think I'm going to read The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire. I'd almost be willing to bet that I'll find similarities between the beginnings of their fall and what we're seeing here in recent years.
Sick,
Still don't see the pro-Republican bias just because they had more Republican guests. But if you want to go by appearances, fine the Republicans win. It is my opinion from what I see on the shows - and I switch between ALL the shows including the "Alt universe Tee Vee" so I can see what all sides are saying and not just parroting what others say they are saying and putting their own twist on it(like here). Just because I may see things a little different does not mean I vote Republican (mostly third party if you must know because both major parties are jokes and have their own agendas). And anyway as I stated above:
That said I really don't think those political talks shows make much of a difference in infomation/influence since the vast, vast majority of Amercans do NOT watch those shows or listen to talk radio - they watch sports and reality shows and listen to their IPODs or CDs in the car.
And if you believe the "LIBRUL" sides is 100% honest on their take of things you are the one in the Alt universe.
I don't watch them precisely because they have no bearing on reality with both sides regurgitating talking points , but do not tell me there is a Democratic bias , because that is not the case .
If you vote third party you still have no choice .
This is about the election being bought .
Listen to George, You have no choice only owners
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsL6mKxtOlQ
KJ, CR, IA One thing about the fall of the Roman empire I have learned from the writings of a Roman politician, this politician said it was bad when the government was corrupt but became worse when the military became corrupt. I hope I never see that happen.
I disagree that the media is tilted toward the left, skip. The stories on MSM are Kardashian and Dancing with the stars, which are fine. However, we need some more real reporting and less showing the president as causing bad economy and how bad economy is when Dow has doubled and jobs are gaining, just not instant fix like Americans think a president can do, regardless of loosening the lug nuts by Republicans. Derailment is shameful and media are complicit most of the time.
No, Fox & MSNBC are definitely rivals, but one tells factual stories of sometimes mundane topics that people would rather not hear, while angry at the gov'ment (but not angry at corps?) is somehow soothing to some people.
It's the oil companies being subsidized and charging high prices, despite tax subsidies that people should question. Yes, some politicians might have their hands dirty in that regard, but the corps are buying politicians and persuading gov't. officials to do it for THEM (not people), not US (people).
Any claim that the MSM is basically liberal/pro-Obama is so obviously and mid-bogglingly false, that such a claim necessarily invalidates anyone who makes it.
Look into history 1870 - 1920 The " Guilded Years" Rockafellers, J P Morgan,Chevron oil and Carnegie steel this is when unions were formed to protect the working class.
The natural selection of the rich and poor was coined........It doesn't matter so much who is holding the Presidential seat we as the american people need to break congresss and get on the right track agin before we fall like the Roman Empire.
You've got that right. WE the PEOPLE have got to stand firm - as Congress is not about to cut the purse that pays for their ads! If WE have to go state by state to pass referendums to restrict spending, add transparency to know who is funding the advertising, limits on corporate spending - then WE have to get to work! In the meantime WE have to vote the GOP (& DINO's) out of office - they have already shown that they aren't working for the American people!
That's what I'm talking about Congress is the problem, but I do think for now we can't have another SCOTUS Justice appointed by a Republican, because Republicans are way far right these days. If Republicans were a little more like their past selves, then I would agree that the President would matter less. But for now, I will fight against Republicans and corporatists. We have a system of money buying power that I detest, but can we win anything by refusing to fundraise? Seems very unlikely until the public can see through that smokescreen and pay attention to how it is they keep losing their jobs and wages are lower, yet bills go up..
Depends. If money is what it takes to influence the normal political process, then the normal political process is closed to all but the 1%. That leaves direct action, but I suspect that a lot of us will be dead of old age before Americans wake up to that reality.
True, but the backlash may come before we're all dead, but then again they may just keep applauding the deaths, rather than have health care for all. The poor will just have to die before they will spend a dime for someone else.
Like that hat sign being held "tax the rich or eat the rich" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qpR4F32k28
The only good thing about getting old is that I will no longer have to watch my country slide into corporate dictatorship much longer. The American people have pretty much demonstrated over the past 30 years that they lack the intelligence, the commitment and the interest to correct that slide, the next 30 years are going to be extremely difficult for the USA, probably one or two depressions, a couple of major wars and at least one serious revolution, not sustainable for a first world nation.
Fred, I wholeheartedly agree, the upside of being in my sixties is I, too, will be happy to pass on the coming decline of the American Empire. We have become a stupid, uninterested people. More interested in who wins American Idol than in who funds our pathetic and corrupt government. Hope the next plane of existence is better than this one has been. To quote my wife, "we grew up in one country and we will die in another." Scary thought!
This country has been declining since the republicans got in office in the eighties. In the late seventies, we were number one in the world in education. After Dubya's administration, we are twenty- fifth in the world. We have people running congress who don't believe in education. It is easy to tell, because they never got any, even if they purchaced a degree. My congressman is a bigtime birther, and the people in his district eat that up. Why because they watch fox new, almost the only national news channel they get with the cheapest satalitte service. The people in the south are brain washed. The best thing we could do for the country is get this channel off the air. False advertising would be good. You can't be fair and ballanced and give millions of dollars to republicans. Can we sue?
Take a stroll back in history to 1870--1920 The "Guilded Years" Rockafeller, Gould,Carnegie................look familiar. This is why we fell into a depression and unions were formed, to protect the working class of America. We The People of These United States ....need to take over congress and make America Right again!!
Let us never forget this is a money making operation for Rove, et al. The top dog in the campaign gets paid first, always. And it is usually a percentage of money raised. 10 or 20 % of a billion.......
Freedom of $peech!
I am still giving $1 BILLION as the over/under on how much untraceable money will flow thru the Karl Rove type operations. Over/under is 97.5% of it going to support repukes.
I hate Friday’s; especially in an election year. If the last presidential election was any indicator, Friday’s are usually when some PAC launches an attack so that it’s stuck in perpetual replay in the void that is the weekend cable news cycle. Horrible, disgusting attacks that only serve to corrode American society.
There has never been substance from the Right, and they are not the instigators here. There is no foundation other than a handful of very, very rich individuals able to write large checks to a PAC organization hoping to protect their personal interests. It has nothing to do with equal rights, woman’s rights, gay rights, middle class, social programs, social security, racism, birth certificates, etc… it is just about who has the most money. That money, given to the Right, has established an effective blockade, to muddle whatever direction, thought, idea, etc… the only requirement: Stop all momentum (that will harm my personal interest). Lie as often and you have to by any means possible; here is the check.
These very, very rich individuals… they are the czars of the America. This is our future; democracy in name only. Buy your puppets to lead, heavily fund the extreme fringe to keep a centrist or moderate society off balance and unfocused, and you have made a nice palace for yourself and your peers that will be free from any distractions.
And now the slog of garbage will increase. I love my 1st amendment rights, but the 1st amendment says “Congress shall make not lay respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for redress of grievances.” At what point do we petition the government to redress the unbridled barrage of lies?
I hate Friday’s.
The good news is Sheldon Adelson won't want anything in return for his generous donations to keep 'murka 'murkan. Right?
Yeah, he will be like all big donors for both parties and not want anything in return. :)
For weeks I've been thinking about them throwing a national parade/BBQ and passing out hundred dollar bills with the candidates name attached. It's like that but the voters get none of the benefits: zero dollars directly to them and no tasty BBQ/entertainment. Just more ads to wade through. Merely an investment for big business with special interests. I get it finally, it's not just about the money being spent, it's about the multiple, often misleading messages they are able to repeat over and over with the money to an incredibly wide audience in ways that many Americans won't question. Whoa. Dangerous and so much worse than directly buying votes.
Yikes! Couldn't you guys at least post a better picture of Sheldon Adelson? It's a pretty dishonest and insincere tactic to use crappy pictures of people while denouncing them. And how about blaming American voters for not doing their homework before they vote?
That assumes that there are any "good" pictures that don't depict him as a repulsive, inhuman reptile-man who looks like the next Bond villain. I suspect there aren't any.
Dude, seriously...have you ever SEEN Sheldon Adelson? I have, and I can tell you, it's not the picture's fault!!!
GOP, The Party of Lies & the Wealthy Few vs. the Dems, the Party of Truth & the Many! Everything the Republicans say about Pres. Obama and the Dems are really the arguments and polcies that they are about and what they are doing.
Democrats did not hi-jack the Debt Ceiling thereby weakening the Econony. When Pres Obama is as able to act without the Congress, he has been a success,example: auto industry, Bin Ladin. But the truth of the matter is in regards to the purse strings and getting his polcies enacted on, he needs the cooperation of the GOP-Congress, who has stalled and refused to pass these Initiatives, because they don’t want to create jobs and make Pres. Obama a sucess. This is very troublesome because there are thousands of homeless familes hungry and jobless all across the USA and yet the GOP Congress refuse to lift a finger to help them! And remember, Romney wants less Government and therefore less teachers, firemen and policemen. He wants less student loans, and aid to the poor and middleclass. They don’t want good paying jobs but Banana Republic Jobs. They never want to raise the minimum wage and ObamaCare is really Romenycare who is and was the Author and Father of Obamacare!
Am I mistaken, or is gambling against Mormon dogma? I googled "mormons and gambling" and found this citation:
What Mormons Believe:
"Mormon prophets and leaders have counseled the members over time, to avoid gambling of any type. Doing so, leads one away from righteousness and into the hands of Satan. The Mormon belief is that it is an addictive behavior and leads only to destructive habits and practices. It undermines the value of work and motivates one to think that they can get something for nothing. In time, the gambler will deny themselves, as well as their family the basic needs of life. They will oft times steal from others to finance their addiction, which in turn leads to stealing, robbery, etc."
Isn't Romney's accepting gambling money from Adelson a contradiction of his "values?" Why is this not a topic of discussion? The level of hypocrisy and projection is to vast that one finds it difficult to believe that intelligent and informed people, such as Rachel Maddow and Steve Benen, are not able or willing to bring this point of view into the discussion. And, as someone elsewhere said, where is NBC Nightly News on this issue?
yea, and also remember that Romney was a bettin' man in that debate.
LOLOLOL!! It's funny because it's true....
We must elevate the conversation from which person or party is most to blame to one that examines the root cause. The system is hopelessly flawed, and what we now see is only the logical extension and full flowering of its deficiencies. So long as money is in politics, greed will shape policy. In 2012 we face the question of "how much does a President cost?" The super-rich now pay to craft the message and get their person into office so their interests are supported. This is not democracy and never will be with money ruling the airwaves and the elections. So what to do? That answer is far beyond a simple comment, however, it balances of three legs. Limiting to two terms any official at all levels reduces the dynastic tendencies that concentrate power. Legislating an, for example, eight week campaigning period gets away from the continual campaigning culture that breeds divisiveness, wastes money, and produces next to nothing. Thirdly, public financing of candidates takes the ultra-rich out of the game along with lobbyists and places the candidates principles evenly for the populace to view. Before someone jumps in and says this cannot work, it works in other democracies, just not in the US.
The Citizen's United decision has turned out to be the absolute worst ruling the Supreme Court has ever made, and that's going some! The damage, even if it is ever repealed, will be felt for decades to come. We the People has changed to We the Rove. Many polititans have been thought of as 'bought' by special interest groups, now they are bought the billionaires funneled through Rove. The thought that should scare everyone, Rep or Dem alike, is that he will be dictating policy from now on.
Dredd Scott included?
Dred Scott precipitated the Civil War and the eventually emancipation of the slaves. It took decades, but the wounds of that decision ultimately healed (or at least, scabbed over). Citizens United will precipitate the utter dismantling of our democracy itself and eventually the abolition of our entire Middle Class. It is the undoing of our nation, a poisonous, festering wound from which we will not recover until it is lanced and cleansed by either a constitutional amendment overturning the decision or a subsequent Supreme Court opinion overturning its flawed holding. I am not optimistic about either.
ok- this a bit off topic- but how did Dred Scott precipitate the civil- I have studied the civil war extensively- the seeds for the war existed long before Dred Scott- and ultimately the civil war was inevitable for a lot of reason unless
Scott v. Sandford was in a way the Citizens United of its time, in the sense that a very narrow question had been brought to the Court which then used the opportunity to issue a sweeping ruling only tangentially related to the actual case before it.
In the case of Scott, the issue before the Court was whether temporary residence in a free state was sufficient to confer free status on a slave. The Taney Court could simply have said 'no,' which would have been reasonable enough in light of the full-faith-and-credit clause. (Scott was a slave under the laws of his home state, therefore free states were required to give full faith and credit to those laws.) The Court could have simply ruled on this basis, but didn't.
Instead, the Court ruled that no black person, neither slave or free, could ever be a citizen of the United States. It had been a matter of legal convention in the US up until then that the children of immigrants (willing or unwilling) were citizens. The Court carved out an exception for the descendents of enslaved and transported Africans. (This is the reason for the first article of the 14th Amendment.)
The Court also overturned the Missouri Compromise, under which one slave state had to be admitted for each free state admitted to the union. This had kept the balance of power in the Senate, and a state of relative peace in the country. But when that compromise was overturned, a race began between those who wished to export the institution of slavery to the territories in order to increase the number of slave states, and those who sought to prevent that from happening. This development helped led people into being less willing to compromise, and more inclined to fight as each side hardened its position (especially the pro-slavery faction).
So, in short, that is how Dred Scott was one of the factors that led to the Civil War. It was not a direct cause, naturally, but by overturning a long-standing political compromise that had largely kept the peace between the two sides on the issue of slavery, Scott removed the one thing that politically had been keeping open violence mostly in check.
I find it really funny that the pro-Left is now blasting the GOP for out-raising funds for an election when (they've) done it before and neer a peep was said....someone buying an election/oh dare say it's never been done before....ya! You have a funny way of thinking or criticizing others....Obamacare is so wonderful/rushed through before it was even read to "find out what's in it" -but wanna talk smack about Romney doing a version in one particular state as Governor? NO incidences of voter fraud either aye...but when states try and investigate/take illegals or DEAD people off the records...it's blocked by Holder and claimed prejudiced against latinos and others...? Obama and his drug history/major stoner, but it's no biggie it was years ago in college you say...but try to create a story about Mitt in college being a "bully" to a possible gay man--timed right after the overnight acceptance of gay marriage...oh btw the story was found to be FALSE! You lefties have a warped reality or maybe convenient memory loss...Say or Do things then blast another person for the same things...the TIME LIMIT for blaming another President for this ones failed policy attempts/"job creations" and lack of leadership is UP. A real man or capable President, deals with what he has not try and make excuses, distractions or shift the blame to someone else....or jump into racial issues in the country to show favoritism. Maybe if he and the fam wasn't always taking a vacation on the taxpayers dime...or playing rounds of golf/including the day OBL was killed...he might appear to be taking our affairs more seriously....Luckily more in the country are aware of our economy and job situation and will make a real CHANGE this coming November....not sure you have enough college students, minorities, dead people registered to vote, ACORN cronies, Hollywood Stars or as it seems $$$ to win...God Bless America/down with Socialism!
Hannitized.
Just count all the talking points in that post!
But Mitt didn't bully anyone or never had any Health reform of jobs lost in his tenure as Gov., (shhhh...we're not supposed to talk about that) and W never took vacations or golfed, "now watch this drive". Neither did W do any drugs or be a puppet (like Rmoney would be) for neocon hawks that want to bomb every country in middle east and occupy/create oil pipelines for corps. Naw…..
Oh, Stephen . . . this was almost Olympic caliber Fox Noise talking point hurling, but I'm afraid you're disqualified for not mentioning George Soros. Too bad, man, but you keep on trying...
I don't even have to read it to know what kind of crap that post contains. Idiotic punctuation, all caps words, arbitrary capitalization, one big mess of a paragraph. Just a glance is all it takes to see it's just another inept, paid-by-the-word tr0ll.
How about is Warren Buffett just swoops in and buys the election for Obama. With a payoff being that his company gets to build the new rail system. Come on Warren! There are plenty of billionaires who can buy these scum with the money in their wallets. Soros, Gates, many Hollywood tycoons. Let's go guys! You can play too!
And to think: All this time I thought the Founding Fathers were talking about a PLUTOCRACY, when I thought they were talking about a DEMOCRACY. My bad.
I hope this means I get to see Ham Rove on Colbert tonight!
If everyone of us 99% were to give Obama's campaign even a few bucks we could buy us an election too.
Romney keeps talking about how he wants to run the government like a business. The objective of a business is to make a profit. The purpose of a government is to protect and nuture its population. Duh!
Kapo, essentially, means Head in Italian. Kapo is used as in the Head of the Family meaning, the Mafia.
Alas, it seems America is for sale to the highest bidder and some of these millionaires are willing to buy it wholesale. The Koch brothers already OWN Wisconsin. OWNING the presidency seems like a daudle.
What a shame!!!
Actually what you are referring to is spelled with a "c" as in caporegime or capodecina and does indeed indicate the head of a family. The term Kapo used by TCinLA was a term used in the Nazi camps to designate a prisoner who was given special favors for taking a position of foreman over his fellow prisoners. They were generally brutal men of low character who's sole concern was their own well being. I think that discription fits Mr. Adelson pretty well!
It does indeed fit him very well. It would be interesting to see someone ask Adelson about the posthumous baptisms of Jews by Mormons, including victims of the Shoah, including Anne Frank. The LDS church claims that this is against church policy, but considering their history, I'm sure they are lying. Of course hardly anyone in the MSM would have the courage to ask him a question like that.
Maybe he's bored, he should take some time off and study the ancient teachings and meanings of the Koran or listen to some Led Zeppelin..
Allen you're forgetting Bush v Gore which gave us this horrible supreme court in the first place. Without that bad decision, this country wouldn't have been in two wars, wouldn't have the obscene republican money buying our democracy, and would be trying to decide how to spend our surplus.