Time and time again Mitt Romney has professed his vision to get the federal government out of state business. What is state business? Well, virtually everything, according to his campaign. At the top of Mr. Romney’s list of programs that need to go are federal assistance programs—including FEMA, the federal agency that oversees the cleanup and mitigation of damages caused by natural (and unnatural) disasters. So, let me pretend for a moment that I have a WWRD bumper sticker on my car and ask the tough question: What Would Romney Do if he were currently President? To help figure it out, let’s take a simple multiple choice exam 1. What would President Romney have done to assist in the days preceding the arrival of the storm? a. Commanded his legions to hit the ground and position themselves for a quick post-storm response. –OR– b. Issued an Executive Order to New England states to “Duck and Cover.” 2. After watching the storm coverage on Fox News (which explained it as an act of God to punish the Democrats), what would President Romney have said on the telephone to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie? a. Help is on the way. Tell me where to send it and how much. –OR– b. Tell the Governor that this is New Jersey’s problem, not America’s problem, and suggest that the state should rename the “Jersey Shore” to the “Jersey Sore.” So here’s the answer key: If Romney picks both “b” answers, then he is directly in line with his base and will have proved himself to be a trustworthy man who meant every word in his campaign promises. He will have also proven himself to be a heartless plutocrat whose only allegiance is to his tax bracket and not the lives of those who live outside of his bubble. Not very American. If Romney picks both “a” answers, then he is making the morally correct American decision, while at the same time exposing himself as a snake oil salesman who will lie and manipulate in his campaigns just to get elected. So if we vote for Romney we have to hope like crazy, with our fingers crossed, that he emerges from behind the campaign veil as just that one shining version of the Romster we might each prefer. Who knows, we could get Godzilla, but we could always get Mothra. Or…and are you ready for this…we could simply elect an American who doesn’t flip flop, does what he says he is going to do, and is not beholden to the special interests of corporate America. Hmm, what a choice. Too bad I can’t check in with a Zen-like spiritual being who can existentially rise...

Indiana candidate for the U.S. Senate Richard Mourdock (Republican) is a brilliant man. At a debate Tuesday night, candidate Mourdock said that women who get pregnant from being raped have no right to consider an abortion because it was “…something that God intended to happen.” Never mind that criminalizing abortion would violate every rational notion of freedom, vis-à-vis establishment of religion and rights to privacy. Hmm, makes sense. In fact, I wonder if we should even punish the rapist? The rapist must have been compelled to do the raping—after all, who can argue that free will is any match for the will of God? Furthermore, using this newly discovered Mourdock-ian logic, we should do absolutely nothing to attempt to put things back in their place after a horrible event occurs. I mean, if aborting a rape-created fetus is taboo, then so too must we disallow other forms of remediation. Richard Mourdock’s statement made me realize that we need to change this country from top to bottom. For instance: When bank robbers get caught, they shouldn’t have to return the money. It was God’s will that they have it. When a drunk driver swerves onto a sidewalk and kills a five year old girl, no bother—it was God’s will. Let’s give the drunk a courtesy ride home. After all, we can’t just say that some things are God’s will and others aren’t.  (Although, if asked, I presume Mourdock would tell us that successful abortions don’t count as the will of God.)  Therefore it goes without saying that our God fearing nation should immediately repeal ALL LAWS. Live and let live! Que sera, sera! Indiana, elect this genius as quickly as you can so he can get to Washington and begin unleashing the chaos that must be, quite clearly, the will of...

Not long ago the federal courts ruled that Texas could not use its discriminatory Voter ID plan to keep Texans from the polls. But that hasn’t stopped Texas Secretary of State Hope Andrade (appointed by Republican Governor Rick Perry) from making it harder to find a polling place. In fact, a visitor to the state’s website will find that they are REQUIRED to enter either their Voter Registration number, their driver license number, or their name on the registration rolls…JUST TO FIND OUT WHERE THE POLLING LOCATIONS ARE!  How sinister is that? So, Texas can’t require such ID to vote…but they can require it to tell you where to go vote? That is crooked all day long. To make matters worse, I am told that just two days ago the Secretary of State’s website allowed such searches merely by entering an address (to find the closest poll to your location).  No other information was required.  So why now?  What changed to justify this extra hurdle? And by the way, what happened to open government?  I should be able to know the locations of polling places whether or not I intend to vote, or whether or not I am even registered.  Or what if I am registered, but the computer can’t find me?  Can I not know where to appear to contest the situation? Texas, unfortunately you remain under attack by those who want to do their perverse will upon you… Here is the website at issue:...

Last year on the Wyatt Wright Show we covered the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC which opened the floodgates allowing unlimited amounts of money to flow in support of a candidate for office.  The ruling struck down a federal law limiting amounts and requiring disclosure of who was behind the money. But the ruling basically said the corporations (and the Super PACS) have the same “Free Speech” rights that humans have and that spending their money is protected speech.  While the ruling does not allow these Super PACS to give unlimited money directly to a candidate, they are free to run their own advertisements in support of their candidate, or against the opposing candidate.  The last vestige of responsibility following the ruling was the continued prohibition on “coordination of campaigns.”  That is, while the Super PACS are free to spend ten gazillion dollars on their man or woman, they can’t call up the candidate and share ideas or develop a coordinated strategy.   Some of you may be saying, “yeah right, I’m sure they don’t talk.”  Perhaps they do, but what may have been done in secret before is now being pushed into the open to test the limits of what is legal.  Ok, so talking on the phone and sharing notes is clearly illegal.  But what would you say if the candidate and the Super PAC endorsing him or her both hired the SAME market research firm to give target audience advice?  Does this cross the line?  What if the political consulting firms hired by the PAC and the candidate had different names, but shared the same office?  Not enough for you?  How about if the founder of the candidate’s consulting firm is married to the chief executive of the market research firm working for both the candidate and the PAC?  There is no question that this tramples the intention of the law, but does it violate it? This is the situation as it currently exists in the Mitt Romney campaign.  Would it make you feel better if I told you that the market research firm has promised that it isn’t sharing ideas with its two clients and that its employees have been instructed to pretend there is a wall between them? Yet, even if it Romney’s situation is innocent and the firms are able to keep things separate, by allowing this to occur aren’t we setting the stage for corruption in future cases?  Further, even if innocent, isn’t each client entitled to get the best work from its market research company?  How, then, can the market research company do anything other than give the same reports and the same advice to clients sharing...