- Another polling snapshot of Iowa shows the race in the same shape as earlier this week.
- Romney finds his Iowa swagger.
- He’s abandoned the expectations game.
- And says “Ron Paul’s not going to be our nominee.”
- The Union-Leader won’t give Paul a warm welcome in New Hampshire.
- Romney says Obama’s counterfactual argument on the economy equates to “Let them eat cake.”
- 1994 Romney is outraged, outraged, that a campaign could spend $10 million.
- Bachmann hoped for Romney VP spot and other highlights of her campaign’s downfall.
- Contrary to popular belief, weather doesn’t affect caucus turnout.
- Perry unfamiliar with landmark Supreme Court case that struck down Texas’ anti-sodomy law while he was governor.
- Pelosi aides say she won’t retire.
- And there’s only one way to get rid of annoying robocalls.
Morning Must Reads: Swagger
Related Topics: Must Reads
-
Latest on Swampland
Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25
TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.
From our PartnersObama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics
The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy
More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.
