Toyota To Reveal New Camry Pandora CEO Says Mobile Use Above Demand for Advertising Pandora Shares Fall After Release of Spotify onespot says: Pandora Revenues Jump Triple Digits; Chance Of Breaking Even In 2012: Pandora ( NYSE : P ), which has seen its stock price battered sinc…
Continue reading …
Kan, 64, saw his approval ratings tumble amid a perceived lack of leadership after the earthquake, tsunami and nuclear crisis The Japanese prime minister, Naoto Kan, has announced he is resigning after almost 15 months in office amid plunging approval ratings over his government’s handling of the tsunami disaster and nuclear crisis. In a televised speech to the country, Kan said he was stepping down as chief of the ruling Democratic party of Japan, effectively ending his tenure as leader of the country. The decision was widely expected because in June, Kan had promised to quit once lawmakers passed three key pieces of legislation. The final two bills cleared the parliament earlier on Friday. The Democrats will vote on Monday for a new leader, who will almost certainly become Japan’s next prime minister – the sixth since 2006. Former foreign minister Seiji Maehara is viewed as the frontrunner to replace him. Finance minister Yoshihiko Noda and trade minister Banri Kaieda are also viewed as contenders. Looking back on his year and three months in office, Kan said he did all he could given difficulties he faced, including the disasters and a major election defeat in upper house elections last summer that left the parliament in gridlock. “Under the severe circumstances, I feel I’ve done everything that I had to do,” he said. “Now I would like to see you choose someone respectable as a new prime minister.” Kan, 64, has seen his approval ratings tumble amid a perceived lack of leadership after the 11 March earthquake and tsunami, and subsequent nuclear crisis. Survivors complain about slow recovery efforts, and radiation from the crippled Fukushima Daiichi plant has spread into the air, water and food supply. Political infighting between the ruling and opposition parties also have discouraged the public. Recent polls show that his public support has fallen under 20%. Japan’s new leader will take over a heavy load of tasks: rebuildling the country from the triple disasters, tackling a surging yen that is undermining the export-led economy and mapping out a new energy policy that is less reliant to nuclear power. Kan’s successor will also need to restore confidence in Japan’s alliance with the US – Tokyo recently cancelled Kan’s US visit for talks with President Barack Obama, expected in early September, due to the political uncertainty. Japan Japan disaster guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Health experts blame passive overeating for global pandemic, warning in the Lancet that governments must tackle obesity now Governments around the world need to make immediate and dramatic policy changes to reverse a pandemic of obesity which could affect an extra 11 million people in the UK over the next 20 years, public health scientists have warned. The call to act – which includes a prediction that almost half of British men could be clinically obese by 2030 – comes in a series of papers published on Friday in the Lancet medical journal . The journal begins with a strongly-worded editorial arguing that voluntary food industry codes are ineffective and ministers must intervene more directly. “Without prevention and control of the risk factors for obesity now, health systems will be overwhelmed to breaking point,” the editorial says. “Yet governments’ reactions so far are wholly inadequate and rely heavily on self-regulation by the food and beverage industry, and the so-called nudge approach.” There was a particular need for leadership ahead of a UN summit in New York next month on preventing non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and cancer, said one of the authors, Boyd Swinburn, from the centre for obesity prevention at Melbourne’s Deakin University. “Governments have abdicated responsibility. Like a frog sitting in a pan of hot water, we haven’t realised what’s been happening until it’s too late.” The journal carries four new research papers by academics in the UK, US and Australia on what is termed “the global obesity pandemic”, charting its causes, implications, likely progression and the ways it could be reversed. One study, by Claire Wang from Columbia University’s school of public health, uses British and American data to track the possible increase in obesity levels if governments continue with current policies. Based on around 20 years of historic data, the study says that by 2030 as many as 48% of British men could be obese – having a body mass index of more than 30 – as against 26% now. For women, the figure could rise from 26% to up to 43%. Such a progression is not certain , particularly given slightly more positive data over recent years. But if the historic trend continues into the next two decades the UK could have 26 million obese people, up 11 million on the current figure. Swinburn’s paper comes up with a clear primary culprit: a powerful global food industry “which is producing more processed, affordable, and effectively-marketed food than ever before”. He said an “increased supply of cheap, palatable, energy-dense foods”, coupled with better distribution and marketing, had led to “passive overconsumption”. Another study by Steven Gortmaker from Harvard University’s school of public health, concludes that the response by governments has been a failure of will which mirrored previous struggles to tackle tobacco consumption. Ministers knew it made sense to crack down on junk foods but did not have the political appetite to take on such a huge industry. “I think governments get it, but don’t know what to do about it, and don’t think it’s their responsibility. But it is their responsibility,” he said. His study lists eight cost-effective policies. Topped by a tax on unhealthy food and drink, the rest focus on shielding children from TV advertising or ensuring they exercise more. The Lancet carries a comment by Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the government, carried in large type across the cover: “The conclusions are unambiguous. We need collaborative societal changes in many aspects of our environment to avoid the morbid consequences of overweight and obesity.” A better-informed diet One of the Lancet papers covers the necessary calculations to lose weight, and brings bad news for those using the long-held rule of thumb that a reduction of 500 calories per day will see a steady weight loss of about 1lb (just under half a kilo) per week. Kevin Hall from the US’s National Institute of Health, said: “This is wrong. It just doesn’t happen.” Apart from the many variables of genetics and personal circumstance, this rule of thumb ignores the way the body’s metabolism tends to speed up when weight is lost, the reason many diet gains soon tail off. Hall has devised a far more sophisticated web-based model which allows people to take account of this effect, as well as factors such as exercise, to plot a more likely weight loss progression. The new simplified rule seems to be that 10 calories fewer per day will also lose you about 1lb – but over three years Obesity Health Health policy Public services policy Peter Walker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Health experts blame passive overeating for global pandemic, warning in the Lancet that governments must tackle obesity now Governments around the world need to make immediate and dramatic policy changes to reverse a pandemic of obesity which could affect an extra 11 million people in the UK over the next 20 years, public health scientists have warned. The call to act – which includes a prediction that almost half of British men could be clinically obese by 2030 – comes in a series of papers published on Friday in the Lancet medical journal . The journal begins with a strongly-worded editorial arguing that voluntary food industry codes are ineffective and ministers must intervene more directly. “Without prevention and control of the risk factors for obesity now, health systems will be overwhelmed to breaking point,” the editorial says. “Yet governments’ reactions so far are wholly inadequate and rely heavily on self-regulation by the food and beverage industry, and the so-called nudge approach.” There was a particular need for leadership ahead of a UN summit in New York next month on preventing non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and cancer, said one of the authors, Boyd Swinburn, from the centre for obesity prevention at Melbourne’s Deakin University. “Governments have abdicated responsibility. Like a frog sitting in a pan of hot water, we haven’t realised what’s been happening until it’s too late.” The journal carries four new research papers by academics in the UK, US and Australia on what is termed “the global obesity pandemic”, charting its causes, implications, likely progression and the ways it could be reversed. One study, by Claire Wang from Columbia University’s school of public health, uses British and American data to track the possible increase in obesity levels if governments continue with current policies. Based on around 20 years of historic data, the study says that by 2030 as many as 48% of British men could be obese – having a body mass index of more than 30 – as against 26% now. For women, the figure could rise from 26% to up to 43%. Such a progression is not certain , particularly given slightly more positive data over recent years. But if the historic trend continues into the next two decades the UK could have 26 million obese people, up 11 million on the current figure. Swinburn’s paper comes up with a clear primary culprit: a powerful global food industry “which is producing more processed, affordable, and effectively-marketed food than ever before”. He said an “increased supply of cheap, palatable, energy-dense foods”, coupled with better distribution and marketing, had led to “passive overconsumption”. Another study by Steven Gortmaker from Harvard University’s school of public health, concludes that the response by governments has been a failure of will which mirrored previous struggles to tackle tobacco consumption. Ministers knew it made sense to crack down on junk foods but did not have the political appetite to take on such a huge industry. “I think governments get it, but don’t know what to do about it, and don’t think it’s their responsibility. But it is their responsibility,” he said. His study lists eight cost-effective policies. Topped by a tax on unhealthy food and drink, the rest focus on shielding children from TV advertising or ensuring they exercise more. The Lancet carries a comment by Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the government, carried in large type across the cover: “The conclusions are unambiguous. We need collaborative societal changes in many aspects of our environment to avoid the morbid consequences of overweight and obesity.” A better-informed diet One of the Lancet papers covers the necessary calculations to lose weight, and brings bad news for those using the long-held rule of thumb that a reduction of 500 calories per day will see a steady weight loss of about 1lb (just under half a kilo) per week. Kevin Hall from the US’s National Institute of Health, said: “This is wrong. It just doesn’t happen.” Apart from the many variables of genetics and personal circumstance, this rule of thumb ignores the way the body’s metabolism tends to speed up when weight is lost, the reason many diet gains soon tail off. Hall has devised a far more sophisticated web-based model which allows people to take account of this effect, as well as factors such as exercise, to plot a more likely weight loss progression. The new simplified rule seems to be that 10 calories fewer per day will also lose you about 1lb – but over three years Obesity Health Health policy Public services policy Peter Walker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Health experts blame passive overeating for global pandemic, warning in the Lancet that governments must tackle obesity now Governments around the world need to make immediate and dramatic policy changes to reverse a pandemic of obesity which could affect an extra 11 million people in the UK over the next 20 years, public health scientists have warned. The call to act – which includes a prediction that almost half of British men could be clinically obese by 2030 – comes in a series of papers published on Friday in the Lancet medical journal . The journal begins with a strongly-worded editorial arguing that voluntary food industry codes are ineffective and ministers must intervene more directly. “Without prevention and control of the risk factors for obesity now, health systems will be overwhelmed to breaking point,” the editorial says. “Yet governments’ reactions so far are wholly inadequate and rely heavily on self-regulation by the food and beverage industry, and the so-called nudge approach.” There was a particular need for leadership ahead of a UN summit in New York next month on preventing non-communicable diseases such as diabetes and cancer, said one of the authors, Boyd Swinburn, from the centre for obesity prevention at Melbourne’s Deakin University. “Governments have abdicated responsibility. Like a frog sitting in a pan of hot water, we haven’t realised what’s been happening until it’s too late.” The journal carries four new research papers by academics in the UK, US and Australia on what is termed “the global obesity pandemic”, charting its causes, implications, likely progression and the ways it could be reversed. One study, by Claire Wang from Columbia University’s school of public health, uses British and American data to track the possible increase in obesity levels if governments continue with current policies. Based on around 20 years of historic data, the study says that by 2030 as many as 48% of British men could be obese – having a body mass index of more than 30 – as against 26% now. For women, the figure could rise from 26% to up to 43%. Such a progression is not certain , particularly given slightly more positive data over recent years. But if the historic trend continues into the next two decades the UK could have 26 million obese people, up 11 million on the current figure. Swinburn’s paper comes up with a clear primary culprit: a powerful global food industry “which is producing more processed, affordable, and effectively-marketed food than ever before”. He said an “increased supply of cheap, palatable, energy-dense foods”, coupled with better distribution and marketing, had led to “passive overconsumption”. Another study by Steven Gortmaker from Harvard University’s school of public health, concludes that the response by governments has been a failure of will which mirrored previous struggles to tackle tobacco consumption. Ministers knew it made sense to crack down on junk foods but did not have the political appetite to take on such a huge industry. “I think governments get it, but don’t know what to do about it, and don’t think it’s their responsibility. But it is their responsibility,” he said. His study lists eight cost-effective policies. Topped by a tax on unhealthy food and drink, the rest focus on shielding children from TV advertising or ensuring they exercise more. The Lancet carries a comment by Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser to the government, carried in large type across the cover: “The conclusions are unambiguous. We need collaborative societal changes in many aspects of our environment to avoid the morbid consequences of overweight and obesity.” A better-informed diet One of the Lancet papers covers the necessary calculations to lose weight, and brings bad news for those using the long-held rule of thumb that a reduction of 500 calories per day will see a steady weight loss of about 1lb (just under half a kilo) per week. Kevin Hall from the US’s National Institute of Health, said: “This is wrong. It just doesn’t happen.” Apart from the many variables of genetics and personal circumstance, this rule of thumb ignores the way the body’s metabolism tends to speed up when weight is lost, the reason many diet gains soon tail off. Hall has devised a far more sophisticated web-based model which allows people to take account of this effect, as well as factors such as exercise, to plot a more likely weight loss progression. The new simplified rule seems to be that 10 calories fewer per day will also lose you about 1lb – but over three years Obesity Health Health policy Public services policy Peter Walker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Tory MP for Corby claimed earlier in week that ‘morons’ had threatened her children by email Police have arrested a 61-year-old man over online threats against Tory MP, Louise Mensch. The Metropolitan police said the man was arrested in Gloucester in connection with an investigation into “malicious communication and threats made via email and a social networking site”. Mensch claimed earlier this week that “morons” had threatened her children by email. A Scotland Yard spokesman said the police central e-crime unit and officers from the Palace of Westminster had been involved in the arrest. The spokesman said: “The 61-year-old was arrested at an address in the Gloucester area on suspicion of sending malicious communication. “He has been taken into custody at a Gloucestershire police station where he remains.” Mensch has three children and was elected as MP for Corby last year. On Monday she claimed that her children had been threatened by email and said she had passed the message to police in the House of Commons. She added: “I don’t bully easily, kids. Or in fact at all.” Louise Mensch Crime Social networking guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Tory MP for Corby claimed earlier in week that ‘morons’ had threatened her children by email Police have arrested a 61-year-old man over online threats against Tory MP, Louise Mensch. The Metropolitan police said the man was arrested in Gloucester in connection with an investigation into “malicious communication and threats made via email and a social networking site”. Mensch claimed earlier this week that “morons” had threatened her children by email. A Scotland Yard spokesman said the police central e-crime unit and officers from the Palace of Westminster had been involved in the arrest. The spokesman said: “The 61-year-old was arrested at an address in the Gloucester area on suspicion of sending malicious communication. “He has been taken into custody at a Gloucestershire police station where he remains.” Mensch has three children and was elected as MP for Corby last year. On Monday she claimed that her children had been threatened by email and said she had passed the message to police in the House of Commons. She added: “I don’t bully easily, kids. Or in fact at all.” Louise Mensch Crime Social networking guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …So the beltway media has been abuzz this week about Senator Marco Rubio’s increasing national profile. Reporters have been experiencing a case of “starbursts” through their keyboards. They wrote up a slobbering profile of the freshman GOP Senator . Then just days ago Rubio gave a speech at the Ronald Reagan library. What is happening here is pretty obvious to anyone who wants to cut through the BS. Helpfully Dave Weigel tells us the obvious : 1) Buttered-up profile pieces . Easily done. The Reagan speech got Rubio a McClatchy storyabout how Nancy Reagan personally beckoned him to Simi Valley. “You’ve been identified as someone to watch on the national political scene,” she said, giving future Rubio-profile-writers an insta-quote for the beginning of the what-people-are-saying section. From McClatchy, we also learn that John Boehner quoted Rubio, and that this is significant. 2) Scene pieces. See the Frank story for that. Most of the early coverage of Rubio’s speech informed us that 1) he gave a speech, 2) the crowd was huge, and 3) he helped up Nancy Reagan when she stumbled. 3) Micro policy news. In the debt speech, Rubio, who had not taken a lead role in the debt limit debate, staked his position: There could be no putting off the “day of reckoning.” In Simi Valley, he came out for a gradual Social Security phase-out. Barack Obama did the same thing — the exact same thing! — in 2005 and 2006, when he was a freshman senator who was constantly asked whether he’d run for president. He didn’t take the lead in the “There Is No Crisis” fight to beat Social Security privatization, but he gave setpiece speeches about it, most notably at Knox College. But Obama was more subtle; his media team (led by Robert Gibbs at the time) kept most of his setpieces in Illinois. Rubio has no shortage of places in Florida to do this stuff. And yet he goes to California, and North Carolina. Of course reporters have to waste their time asking Rubio if he’s gunning for national office, and writing down his humble “no,” but this is a friendly exchange of total bullshit. There is another point here that is worth making. One may think that Rubio is making some kind of strategic mistake by positioning himself for the number 2 slot in the GOP ticket. Face it the record of elected Vice Presidents becoming President is not all that great. The ones who have succeeded have been marred with resignations and humiliating losses. The last two who angled for nomination also did not make it into the White House. Yet if you think about it, Rubio is actually making a very calculated move. In my honest opinion, whether or not Rubio becomes the next VP is moot because the Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, there is I said it. Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, I get that President Barack Obama has had a terrible summer and his numbers are low. But I do not see the President losing to chumps like Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann (LOL). I am pretty sure Rubio’s strategic advisers know that as well. Yet Rubio has nothing to lose from running for the VP spot. Running for VP spot is extremely beneficial to Rubio because he will get the automatic national spotlight (look what it did for a joke like Sarah Palin). Even if the Republican ticket loses in 2012 – which it will – a VP nomination will essentially make Rubio an automatic favorite to get the GOP nomination in 2016. It will essentially ensure that 2015-16 run to nomination is more of a coronation for Rubio than a contest in the next GOP primary. So, what progressive and Democratic observers should do is start labeling Rubio is nothing more than yet another selfish politician, who is more consumed with his political self-interest than the interest of his party. I am guessing there are other Republican politicians who would be interested in that VP slot would be interested in threading that narrative. If Rubio becomes the VP nominee in 2012, it will be all about Rubio, just like in 2008 it became all about Palin. The question also becomes whether someone like a Perry or Romney would be interested in bringing in a guy like Rubio, who will most likely be looking ahead to 2016, rather than worrying about what will be an inevitable losing effort in 2012? Will someone ask these questions loudly during the nauseating Rubio tour or on the GOP campaign trail?
Continue reading …So the beltway media has been abuzz this week about Senator Marco Rubio’s increasing national profile. Reporters have been experiencing a case of “starbursts” through their keyboards. They wrote up a slobbering profile of the freshman GOP Senator . Then just days ago Rubio gave a speech at the Ronald Reagan library. What is happening here is pretty obvious to anyone who wants to cut through the BS. Helpfully Dave Weigel tells us the obvious : 1) Buttered-up profile pieces . Easily done. The Reagan speech got Rubio a McClatchy storyabout how Nancy Reagan personally beckoned him to Simi Valley. “You’ve been identified as someone to watch on the national political scene,” she said, giving future Rubio-profile-writers an insta-quote for the beginning of the what-people-are-saying section. From McClatchy, we also learn that John Boehner quoted Rubio, and that this is significant. 2) Scene pieces. See the Frank story for that. Most of the early coverage of Rubio’s speech informed us that 1) he gave a speech, 2) the crowd was huge, and 3) he helped up Nancy Reagan when she stumbled. 3) Micro policy news. In the debt speech, Rubio, who had not taken a lead role in the debt limit debate, staked his position: There could be no putting off the “day of reckoning.” In Simi Valley, he came out for a gradual Social Security phase-out. Barack Obama did the same thing — the exact same thing! — in 2005 and 2006, when he was a freshman senator who was constantly asked whether he’d run for president. He didn’t take the lead in the “There Is No Crisis” fight to beat Social Security privatization, but he gave setpiece speeches about it, most notably at Knox College. But Obama was more subtle; his media team (led by Robert Gibbs at the time) kept most of his setpieces in Illinois. Rubio has no shortage of places in Florida to do this stuff. And yet he goes to California, and North Carolina. Of course reporters have to waste their time asking Rubio if he’s gunning for national office, and writing down his humble “no,” but this is a friendly exchange of total bullshit. There is another point here that is worth making. One may think that Rubio is making some kind of strategic mistake by positioning himself for the number 2 slot in the GOP ticket. Face it the record of elected Vice Presidents becoming President is not all that great. The ones who have succeeded have been marred with resignations and humiliating losses. The last two who angled for nomination also did not make it into the White House. Yet if you think about it, Rubio is actually making a very calculated move. In my honest opinion, whether or not Rubio becomes the next VP is moot because the Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, there is I said it. Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, I get that President Barack Obama has had a terrible summer and his numbers are low. But I do not see the President losing to chumps like Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann (LOL). I am pretty sure Rubio’s strategic advisers know that as well. Yet Rubio has nothing to lose from running for the VP spot. Running for VP spot is extremely beneficial to Rubio because he will get the automatic national spotlight (look what it did for a joke like Sarah Palin). Even if the Republican ticket loses in 2012 – which it will – a VP nomination will essentially make Rubio an automatic favorite to get the GOP nomination in 2016. It will essentially ensure that 2015-16 run to nomination is more of a coronation for Rubio than a contest in the next GOP primary. So, what progressive and Democratic observers should do is start labeling Rubio is nothing more than yet another selfish politician, who is more consumed with his political self-interest than the interest of his party. I am guessing there are other Republican politicians who would be interested in that VP slot would be interested in threading that narrative. If Rubio becomes the VP nominee in 2012, it will be all about Rubio, just like in 2008 it became all about Palin. The question also becomes whether someone like a Perry or Romney would be interested in bringing in a guy like Rubio, who will most likely be looking ahead to 2016, rather than worrying about what will be an inevitable losing effort in 2012? Will someone ask these questions loudly during the nauseating Rubio tour or on the GOP campaign trail?
Continue reading …So the beltway media has been abuzz this week about Senator Marco Rubio’s increasing national profile. Reporters have been experiencing a case of “starbursts” through their keyboards. They wrote up a slobbering profile of the freshman GOP Senator . Then just days ago Rubio gave a speech at the Ronald Reagan library. What is happening here is pretty obvious to anyone who wants to cut through the BS. Helpfully Dave Weigel tells us the obvious : 1) Buttered-up profile pieces . Easily done. The Reagan speech got Rubio a McClatchy storyabout how Nancy Reagan personally beckoned him to Simi Valley. “You’ve been identified as someone to watch on the national political scene,” she said, giving future Rubio-profile-writers an insta-quote for the beginning of the what-people-are-saying section. From McClatchy, we also learn that John Boehner quoted Rubio, and that this is significant. 2) Scene pieces. See the Frank story for that. Most of the early coverage of Rubio’s speech informed us that 1) he gave a speech, 2) the crowd was huge, and 3) he helped up Nancy Reagan when she stumbled. 3) Micro policy news. In the debt speech, Rubio, who had not taken a lead role in the debt limit debate, staked his position: There could be no putting off the “day of reckoning.” In Simi Valley, he came out for a gradual Social Security phase-out. Barack Obama did the same thing — the exact same thing! — in 2005 and 2006, when he was a freshman senator who was constantly asked whether he’d run for president. He didn’t take the lead in the “There Is No Crisis” fight to beat Social Security privatization, but he gave setpiece speeches about it, most notably at Knox College. But Obama was more subtle; his media team (led by Robert Gibbs at the time) kept most of his setpieces in Illinois. Rubio has no shortage of places in Florida to do this stuff. And yet he goes to California, and North Carolina. Of course reporters have to waste their time asking Rubio if he’s gunning for national office, and writing down his humble “no,” but this is a friendly exchange of total bullshit. There is another point here that is worth making. One may think that Rubio is making some kind of strategic mistake by positioning himself for the number 2 slot in the GOP ticket. Face it the record of elected Vice Presidents becoming President is not all that great. The ones who have succeeded have been marred with resignations and humiliating losses. The last two who angled for nomination also did not make it into the White House. Yet if you think about it, Rubio is actually making a very calculated move. In my honest opinion, whether or not Rubio becomes the next VP is moot because the Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, there is I said it. Republicans are not going to win in 2012. Yes, I get that President Barack Obama has had a terrible summer and his numbers are low. But I do not see the President losing to chumps like Rick Perry, Mitt Romney or Michelle Bachmann (LOL). I am pretty sure Rubio’s strategic advisers know that as well. Yet Rubio has nothing to lose from running for the VP spot. Running for VP spot is extremely beneficial to Rubio because he will get the automatic national spotlight (look what it did for a joke like Sarah Palin). Even if the Republican ticket loses in 2012 – which it will – a VP nomination will essentially make Rubio an automatic favorite to get the GOP nomination in 2016. It will essentially ensure that 2015-16 run to nomination is more of a coronation for Rubio than a contest in the next GOP primary. So, what progressive and Democratic observers should do is start labeling Rubio is nothing more than yet another selfish politician, who is more consumed with his political self-interest than the interest of his party. I am guessing there are other Republican politicians who would be interested in that VP slot would be interested in threading that narrative. If Rubio becomes the VP nominee in 2012, it will be all about Rubio, just like in 2008 it became all about Palin. The question also becomes whether someone like a Perry or Romney would be interested in bringing in a guy like Rubio, who will most likely be looking ahead to 2016, rather than worrying about what will be an inevitable losing effort in 2012? Will someone ask these questions loudly during the nauseating Rubio tour or on the GOP campaign trail?
Continue reading …