I think Romney’s run is losing steam and he needed something to stimulate interest in his campaign. What he didn’t allow for however, is the media’s ability to build a mountain out of a mole hill and their ability to bleed their subject for as long as they can.

I guess next time, he’ll be more careful.

"I bet each eligible voter $100 you'll vote for me,...payoff is election day!

Odds are, we BOTH win"

That Romney - what a HOOT!

Poor Willard, he just doesn't get it. Thanks to the Occupiers the dialogue has changed. It's no longer about increasing corporate welfare and eliminating taxes on the rich at the expense of everyone and everything else.

The dialogue NOW is about how to generate jobs and increase income for the American middle class. It's about the multitude of ways in which the system has been set up to benefit the very rich at the expense of everyone else. It's about reestablishing an America in which even people who weren't born wealthy like Mittens can share in the American Dream by working hard and living right. It's about preventing the banksters and Wall Street thieves like Romney himself from stealing that Dream from the common citizen.

Romney is a poor candidate. There's just no two ways around that fact. In that last debate, he struggled to be something he isn't, and came across looking exactly like what he is - a rich, preppy operating on several hundred cups of coffee. Trying to look spirited and fightingly engaged just isn't natural for him, and it comes across appearing like an act, which it was. I think he firmly put himself out of the running even before the betting faux pas.

But it's the bet that will be remembered. That was the equivalent of H.W. Bush's moment of marveling at those new-fangled code scanners at a grocery store - which of course anyone who actually has to shop at grocery stores instantly knew weren't all that new-fangled. Romney comes across as a rich, silver-spooned country club type, and trying to back up his point in a debate with a $10k bet only reinforces that appearance - which is an appearance rooted in reality.

You are just envious he has money it shows in his demeanour in his style, he is going to win the nomination, I love Gringrich fighting style if he wins ok but talk about elitist look at Obama now he is real special, NOT

Take a good look at how the "elitist" meme so often floated by Conservatives works.

ANY criticism of a member of the wealthy elites who is a member of the Conservative Movement is "elitist", no matter how well founded. Note that even many within the GOP are coming to the conclusion that Romney isn't a strong candidate, yet pointing that out is "elitist".

Meanwhile, a self-made man who was fed at times on food stamps, worked his way into Ivy League schools to graduate Magna Cum Laude, and became a constitutional law professor, Senator, and eventually President of the United States is an "elitist." If he were a Conservative he would be the American Dream incarnate. Instead he's an "elitist."

Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservative.

American Dream?? He received Fulbright Monies as a FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENT while attending Occidental College in CA. An America has to be studying abroad to receive those funds.

No American could enter Pakistan when Obama did........How did he get a passport as an American?

Tell us some more Birther stories hot daddy, that one was really funny!

History will not look well upon this time when the Republican Party mainstreamed crazy.

Not just Romney money, but all the PAC money from Karl Rove!

Yup, Karl no likee Slick Rick or the Grinch!

Talk about the tail wagging the dog.....the TeaPeople are driving Karl crazier than he already is.

Do you know if anyone heard what the Hermanator had to say on Fox after the debate? I had heard he was going to give his analysis of the debate and was just curious about his "spin" on it.

No phancy, I didn't tune in to Faux to listen to Hermie. Maybe there will be some clips tomorrow.

The debate was such a "I love you more" exercise between the wannabees and Obama is "not a leader", "repeal ObamaCares", I just went to bed!

I think Willard has met his Ben in Gingrich.

The problem is that these debates – whether among Republicans or Democrats – are really just people with essentially the same message attacking one another and attacking the other political “team.” The long term overentrechment of the Reps and Dems has led to these parties become further and further to their respective sides such that they are now diametrically opposed on nearly every issue. And, they seem more focused on simply beating the other “team” then doing what is best for this country. That is why we need to 1) reduce the power of these two parties and level the political playing field so that a legitimate third (or fourth, fifth, etc.) party can arise, 2) reduce the influence of the parties and large contributing organizations on these candidates, and 3) eliminate lifelong Congress members so that we can return to a healthy rotation of elected representatives and open some political seats for new faces not beholden to the Reps and Dems. These are some of the major focal points of the American Overhaul Act (www.americanoverhaulact.org). This Act proposes six separate Constitutional amendments:

• Congressional Term Limits: A maximum of two four-year terms in either House or Senate, and twelve years total in Congress.
• Federal Campaign Finance Reform: The majority of funds any candidate spends on a federal election campaign will come from a federal election campaign fund. These federal election campaign funds will be doled out equally to all candidates running for a position (candidates must meet certain predetermined minimum requirements), and at least three candidates for any seat must receive funds. Further, candidates will only be permitted to accept campaign donations from individual constituents, not companies, organizations, or political parties.
• Congressional Size Limits: Membership in the House of Representatives will be permanently fixed at 300 members.
• Congressional Compensation: Congressional salaries will be fixed at four times the median household income. Additionally, health insurance will only be provided to members while they are actually serving in Congress (no lifelong healthcare) and pensions for members of Congress will be eliminated.
• Eliminate Party Favoritism: This amendment will require the elimination of all laws, rules, or regulations that favor or disfavor, either by inclusion or exclusion, any elected official or candidate for an elected office, based upon affiliation with any political party, or lack of affiliation with a political party.
• Federal Budget-Deficit Reform: The total amount of federal government spending generally must not exceed the amount of money collected by the federal government. There will be exceptions to allow for extra spending in times of national crisis, but the excess “crisis” spending will be limited in amount and duration, and must be corrected by an equal amount of underspending in the years that follow.

These are the types of changes that are needed to return our government to its intended purpose: having representatives that are focused on the needs and desires of American citizens and who take actions that are in the best interest if the country for the long-term. I encourage everyone to go to the American Overhaul Act website at www.americanoverhaulact.org. And, if you agree with these proposals, please support this Act and share it with your friends, family, and elected officials – it will take a lot of continued support to get these amendments passed so that we can make a positive impact on the future of this great nation!

Overhaul America.................

I like your ideas except the part about Congressional Compensation. If we ever want our elected officials to understand and DO SOMETHING about the plight of the average American, their salary should match the average median family income from the district(s) that elected them. IF they were making a salary equal to what we earned, they would be doing things to make our lives better so that their lives would be better. After all, why should they be earning 4 times what the average wage earner makes? Large salaries and benefit packages in politics has created the problems we have by enticing lazy people into an entity where they can earn more than what they are worth and what they could earn elsewhere.

That sort of thinking would result in more of the same - very rich people running the country. Because there is no way someone living on $60,000 is going to be able to afford to keep homes and live comfortably in their home states and in Washington DC. Term limits and campaign finance reform are much more likely to result in helpful change. Also I find it hard to justify paying someone doing one of the most important jobs in the world less than an investment banker in his first year out of business school - and we're already doing that. Putting the right incentives in place is the only way to influence outcomes.

jonnynassau: There is something to be said for limiting financial incentive. In the same way that people eventually pursue careers in education because of a love and passion for the profession rather than the pay, so too could it be with Congress. Without the allure of a financially lucrative position, it is hoped that only those who are passionate and adamant about solving the nation's problems will endure the hardships necessary to get elected, and make the most of the time they have available in their office.

We've seen what two centuries of limitless time in office together with party politicking have done to this country - the creation of a completely ineffectual and disconnected legislative body that was meant to be the very core of our republic. Congress does, indeed, still work for the people; a very special class of people capable of keeping our would-be representatives frolicking about the upper echelon of society with only token regard for the little people come election season.

That all sounds like Karl Rove nonsense to me that would all benfit the rich and the right...Remember the SCOTUS already said that a corp was a person so there goes your money and no one would want to be there to do the right thing in other words the left thing.....Like I said it is a trick...

That all sounds like Karl Rove nonsense to me that would all benfit the rich and the right...Remember the SCOTUS already said that a corp was a person so there goes your money and no one would want to be there to do the right thing in other words the left thing.....Like I said it is a trick...Stop trying to get tricky with the constitution you don't have to amend it anyway to break it,just look at the Patriot Act....

@ inthemiddle12, ed3891, and johnnynassau: The reason that we set Congressional compensation at 4X median household income is because that is typical pay for other high-achieving mid-level professionals, such as doctors, bankers, and, most importantly in this case, lawyers. While we want to limit Congress's salary so that it does not get out of control, you also need to pay them enough that the pay will be commensurate with their level of skill and education. Since many members of Congress are attorneys, our belief was that they should be paid what a typical mid-level attorney was paid. Of course, many Congress members will actually be of a higher experience and seniority level than that, so they will still actually have to make the sacrifice of some pay cut to take the job in Congress. But that pay cut cannot be too burdensome or you simply would not have the best and the brightest seeking those positions, which is obviously what we want as a nation. I think the more important points of this compensation package, though, are actually the benefits portions, which are designed to help de-incentivize lifelong membership in Congress. We need to get back to a healthy rotation of Congress members, as we had in this country up until the mid 1900s, so that we can help to reduce the opportunities for corruption and keep Congress stocked with members that have higher ideals and less of a "good ol' boy network" mentality.

Does anyone care that Barry is planning to spend $1,000,000,000 to buy his reelection?

james, do you care that it'll TAKE that much money thanks to the legalized bribery of the Citizens United decision?

Don't direct your anger at President Obama, he proposed legislation to overturn the scourge of unlimited, anonymous campaign contributions. Blame the corrupt majority of the SCOTUS and Republicans in Congress who block meaningful reform.

SW PHIL@ Are you pissed at Obama for keeping the Patriot Act in Tact ? Or are you like ALL the other hypocrits? Bush Bad/ Obama walks on water? Two of the worst Presidents back to back. We F'd up we got the repubs out and put in a President worse than Carter. Bring me a Clinton.

Hillary 2012

Al in Vasalia, good line. "Mommy, that black rat isn't playing by my rules!"

t4t, finding Liberals who believe the Patriot Act should be allowed to expire is easy. I was here several years ago at the time of a Patriot Act renewal asking if Conservatives were going to be thrilled if President Hillary (my term) ended up wielding those powers. As predicted at the time Conservatives immediately flip flopped on the issue as soon as the White House changed hands.

Hypocrisy, thy name is Conservative.

At least it wasn't actors trying to pass themselves off a politicians.

That debate was loaded with both bad actors and bad politicians!

Loser, losers all!

You and your ilk are the idiots look at who you are backing an abysmal failure in a president!!!! Get smart jump of the sinking ship of Obamabots!

Nevermind

Hillary 2012

Um, Leona...the super committee didn't come up with ANY plan. If they had they'd be debating it in Congress...where legislation originates.

Here, let me help you with a source that can enlighten you on the subject. http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=schoolhouse+rock&x=0&y=0

Repubs won't raise taxes in a recession, so that deal was not going to work. The Super Committee had a plan and Obama ignored it. It was a comprehensive plan that had bi partisan support.

Obama is the "President of No"

Also I like the 10,000 dollar bet

Reminds me of "CaddyShack".

Tea Party is waiting till the smoke clears on the primary. We have our eyes on the prize.