Well, isn’t that swell?

“Well, different members of my party have different views on those different issues,” Romney replied. “I part company with many of the conservatives in my party on the issue of minimum wage. I think we ought to raise it.”

“Because, frankly, our party is all about more jobs and better pay,” he continued. The former Massachusetts governor said that the GOP must convince minority voters that the GOP has a better position on the issue of employment.

“The Democratic Party has shown that over the past five years of their leadership, income inequality has become worse,” Romney concluded. “And the policies over the past five years have not worked for Hispanic families or African-American families.”

Who is standing up for the idea of letting the market decide what wage is proper? Absolutely nobody — even though the market and only the market engages in profit and loss calculation, and thus determines the allocation of resources that best satisfies consumer needs. Governments can’t engage in profit and loss calculation. Only entrepreneurs can.

Yet here is our 2012 standard bearer preaching interference in the very same free markets that produce our wealth and prosperity.

America rejected Tweedledum and got Tweedledumber.

NOTE WELL: I voted for Romney. And given the choice between him and Obama, I would vote for him again. Unless you’re ready to revolt or secede, you have to work within the system, and choosing the less bad option is always better.

I’m a realist. Many of the things I have talked about on this blog lately, such as secession by red states like Texas, returning to the gold standard, or ending fractional reserve banking, are extraordinarily unlikely to occur, at least before the coming fiscal crash. (Afterwards might be a different story.) I discuss those topics to open people’s minds and begin a discussion about ideas that might surprise them. That doesn’t mean I think any of these things will happen tomorrow. And in the meantime, you have to work with what you have.

But there’s no harm in noting what a poor choice we had. And Romney’s totally unprincipled comments are a perfect reminder.

[guest post by Dana]

At this point in time, most of us are aware that Hillary Clinton dropped the ball by declining to designate Boko Haram a terrorist organization in spite of top State Department officials and a military commander urging her to do so. To be clear,

The State Department under Hillary Clinton fought hard against placing the al Qaeda-linked militant group Boko Haram on its official list of foreign terrorist organizations for two years.

Because of the two year delay until John Kerry made the designation in 2013, Boko Haram was able to grow, both in number and power, as well as gain support from al Qaeda affiliates elsewhere in Africa that could make it a threat beyond Nigeria.

Due to being unable to make use of the mechanisms provided the United States when dealing with a designated terrorist organization, the fears and warnings once again became reality with Boko Haram’s latest campaign against the Nigerian school girls.

Given this recent revelation, the question is: Does this – on top of Benghazi – hurt Hillary and her chances in 2016? And if so, how much?

On a side note, given that the president is now sending military officials and hostage negotiators to Nigeria to aid in the recovery efforts of the kidnapped girls, (and heroic Hollywood is fighting Boko Haram with hashtags!), do you believe this an adequate and/or appropriate response by the United States?

–Dana