Everything was perfect, just perfect.

Recent news reports have revealed the previously little-known fact that Johnson, at some point between the announcement and August of that year, intended to get back in the nomination race, hoping to take it away from VP Humphrey at the Chicago convention.  What additional drama and chaos that would have caused at a convo already filled with drama, chaos and violence.

Still little known is the reaction of the politically astute MLK upon hearing Johnson's 3-31-68 address:  Dr King thought it was a ruse, with Lyndon intending it as temporary only, with a re-entry later in the campaign, which is exactly what LBJ had in mind or sought to bring about later..

Also on the theme of 3-31, the memoirs of LBJ aide Horace Busby (a major source for historian Rbt Caro)  were posthumously published by his son, Busby having been a versatile assistant -- speech writer primarily, and political consultant among other things.  The book which came out last decade, The Thirty-First of March, has a couple of revealing chapters in the middle re LBJ and JFK, their difficult relationship, Johnson's obvious social uneasiness upon visiting the Kennedys at Hyannis shortly after the convention, and some surprising (for a loyal Johnson man) impressions and conclusions about JFK.

... White House sources are now telling reporters that the president is "strongly considering" including entitlement cuts in his 2014 budget, to be introduced around April 10. The budget could lay out precise cuts to Social Security and Medicare, as well as Medicaid, that the president has reportedly been offering in futile negotiations with Republicans, but that he's never officially spelled out.

The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that the budget will likely include the chained CPI for Social Security. "We and all of the groups engaged on this are starting to feel it may well be in the budget," AARP vice president Nancy LeaMond told the WSJ. The same day the New York Times revealed that Obama and House Republicans are getting close to agreement on a package of Medicare cuts that would restructure Medicare parts A and B - one covers hospitalization, the other doctors' visits -- to raise deductibles for the 80 percent of seniors who see doctors but don't require hospitalization in any given year. The Times reports that some version of the proposal might also find its way into the 2014 budget.
...
But if he's now embracing them publicly, doesn't that remove them as something to bargain over?

Let's remember the key passage in Ron Fournier's recent piece predicting that a "grand bargain" including tax hikes and entitlement cuts was still possible, Republican obstructionism notwithstanding.

What is the GOP incentive to deal? First, getting the signature of a Democratic president on a bill reducing entitlements would be a victory for a generation's worth of Republican candidates. Casting GOP politicians as Granny-bashers would be harder to do after a Democratic White House tweaks Medicare and Social Security. Second, even token reforms by Obama in 2013, opens the door to deeper entitlement changes in the future.

OK, I'd rather not see Obama make that deal, because I think it's bad policy. As a New York Times editorial argued Sunday, less than half of 55- to 64-year-olds have any retirement savings, and of those who've managed to save, half have less than $120,000. It's also bad politics: Watch for Republicans to hang those cuts around the neck of Democrats for years to come. But in the context of a big deal that raises revenue, they're at least debatable.

But putting them in a budget document with the president's name on it, without getting anything in exchange? No one in the Senate wants his or her name on chained CPI: 10 days ago by voice vote they backed a measure by Sen. Bernie Sanders specifically opposing a switch to the chained CPI. No voice was raised on the other side. link

According to the DA, this was done after speaking with 800 victims and family members.  While not actually saying what they wanted, he certainly implies it.

While I have no moral issues about killing Holmes, it will cost the state of Colorado a small fortune.  And I do have issues with society spending entirely too much energy trying to kill people.  Eye for an eye 'justice' is not healthy for society because they are committing the same act as the accused/convicted, just under a different pretense.  

Apparently the pro-gun people have decided to take the offense and start arming people who can't afford guns.  IOW, putting more guns in the ghetto.

The goal is to find if there exists a causal link between an increase in the presence of firearms and the level of crime.  

Great, and what happens if the causal link is not to their liking and that even more people die because their introduction of more guns ?

But fear not:

All participants that wish to receive a weapon, and take our training, will receive one break-over 20 gauge shotgun, which holds one shell at a time.

Why aren't they giving away hand guns or assault riffles, the answer is obvious.  Just wish they would conduct their little social experiments in the own neighborhoods and leave my city out of it.