WE REMEMBER.
Mitt Romney said "Don't try and stop the foreclosure process. Let it run its course and hit bottom."

30 years of deregulation, $Billions in risky financial dealings, President Bush's unpaid-for two wars, and his two unpaid-for high-end tax cuts in a time of war (for the first time in American history) -- all conspired to create a global and domestic economic meltdown, the worst in 60 years.

NIX THE FIX party candidate Mitt Romney wants to re-write three decades of history, by pinning 3 million foreclosures and 8 million job losses on President Obama's Administration.

The housing foreclosure crisis began LONG before fifteen senior GOP congressionals met in the Caucus restaurant in Washington - on the day of President Obama's Inauguration in 2009 -- when they pledged to obstruct all legislation, and BLOCK the President's every attempt to bring back the US economy from profound disaster.

Why do banks always need regulations to make them do the right thing? And if that's the case, then why should we trust anything to the "free" market?

@ Albany Joe --

You're right. Democrats are just as stupid as Republicans. Or maybe just as smart. Because for the past 10 or 12 years, they've always had a ready excuse for not getting things done.

What I said 5 days ago when he announced his support for gay marriage.

However, in this case, one just sees a poll-tested politician change his views to pander to his voting base. Leading from the back indeed.

What the NYT finds in their poll

Not surprisingly, the latest New York Times/CBS poll (whose methodology were a tad circumspect of… more in a few) finds that a resounding 67% of respondents believe the announcement was made for mostly political reasons, versus 24% who believe it was done out of principle.

Finger on the pulse or what?

@ Damage 123 --

They always say, consider the source. The Wisconsin poll you cite was actually bought and paid for by a bunch of Illinois businesses. Now why would they be interested in such a poll, anyway, and what effect might that interest have on the methodology used and the outcome?

Anyone can take a poll. But as the First Read staff indicates above, sometimes you need to look a little deeper.

Besides, if it proves anything at all, it just might be that money CAN buy elections. Walker is outspending the Democrats by a HUGE chunk of money, and most of that is coming from out of state.

If you think that's a good idea, then that says a lot about you. But then, we already knew what it says about you.

Dennis, Columbus, Ohio

The shrinking labor force

If the same percentage of adults were in the workforce today as when Barack Obama took office, the unemployment rate would be 11.1%.

If the percentage was where it was when George W. Bush took office, the unemployment rate would be 13.1%

Good job, Dennis

As we know facts and science mean nothing to right wingers. Let's hope they take note though.

And on the attacks on Bain. As Backhouse loves to post, 20% of companies that bain invested in went bankrupt after 8 years. So every time the Obama campaign roles out a story of a company that failed because of Bain, the Romney campaign are just waiting to roll out 4 stories of companies that succeeded.

You really want to have this debate in this economy?

BTW How many people are still working at Solyndra? What is the success rate for the Department of Energy in its Green investments? 80%?

Alan, NJ --

BTW How many people are still working at Solyndra? What is the success rate for the Department of Energy in its Green investments? 80%?

You don't know, do you?

But then, why should you? Insinuation is plenty good enough for your purposes.

Mitt Romney and Bain Capital:

The firm was founded in 1984 by partners from the consulting firm Bain & Company.

Mitt Romney was offered the CEO position of a new company, Bain Capital, by his current boss Bill Bain. Mr. Bain guaranteed Mitt Romney that if the company did not perform well he would get his old job back at Bain & Co. at the same pay plus any pay increases he would have received.

**There was no risk for Mitt Romney {period}**

Backhouse

4 million jobs were lost towards the end of 2008, under President Bush.

4.2 million jobs have been created on President Obama's watch in the last 25 months. The 4 million jobs lost immediately after President Obama was sworn in - are BACK.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney continues to tell the lie that President Obama hasn't "created any new jobs."

Backhouse

We can look for more of the same from Willard the "MYTH" Romney because he has nothing, i mean absoutely nothing but a failed record to run on. Therefore, apart from him being a gazillionaire lying is the only way he can remain relevant.

Anna Molly- Ahhh, so THAT'S the angle? "Money can buy polls and elections." Ok. Thanks. After Walker wins will you all be ignoring all the $$$ poured in by unions?

You can research employment under www.bls.gov. Also there is extensive, detailed coverage of jobs created under the ARRA is on the WH site, as well as the April 2012 Employment situation breakdown.

The 4 million jobs lost immediately after President Obama was sworn in are back, yet Romney keeps on lying that the President made the recession "worse".

And as this chart shows, the private sector job losses under Obama happened immediately after he took office,

How many times do I have to tell you that YOUR OPINIONS are not facts?

So prove that he's wrong or stop whining about it.

You don't know, do you?

But then, why should you? Insinuation is plenty good enough for your purposes.

No because the department of Energy is reluctant to give out the information. From this I conclude its not very successful because if the opposite was true it would be very easy to get the information.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57358484/tax-dollars-backing-some-risky-energy-projects/

CBS News counted 12 clean energy companies that are having trouble after collectively being approved for more than $6.5 billion in federal assistance. Five have filed for bankruptcy: The junk bond-rated Beacon, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt, AES' subsidiary Eastern Energy and Solyndra.

Others are also struggling with potential problems. Nevada Geothermal -- a home state project personally endorsed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- warns of multiple potential defaults in new SEC filings reviewed by CBS News. It was already having trouble paying the bills when it received $98.5 million in Energy Department loan guarantees.

SunPower landed a deal linked to a $1.2 billion loan guarantee last fall, after a French oil company took it over. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. On its last financial statement, SunPower owed more than it was worth. SunPower's role is to design, build and initially operate and maintain the California Valley Solar Ranch Project that's the subject of the loan guarantee.

First Solar was the biggest S&P 500 loser in 2011 and its CEO was cut loose - even as taxpayers were forced to back a whopping $3 billion in company loans.

Nobody from the Energy Department would agree to an interview. Last November at a hearing on Solyndra, Energy Secretary Steven Chu strongly defended the government's attempts to bolster America's clean energy prospects. "In the coming decades, the clean energy sector is expected to grow by hundreds of billions of dollars," Chu said. "We are in a fierce global race to capture this market."

AM: Why do banks always need regulations to make them do the right thing? And if that's the case, then why should we trust anything to the "free" market?

What's the "right thing"? It's not illegal to lose money AM. Chase made mistakes and now their executives, stockholders and investors will sort out what happened. And unlike the government dictated market, Chase will learn from their mistakes and do better next time.

So are you as concerned the federal government burns through $2 billion in deficit spending in 12 hours, each day, every day of taxpayer money? Where exactly is the reform for that problem? Do you trust the government to even be able to solve that problem?

Bill, Fairfax --

But eleveting a candidate's wife to the status of political pinata is a clear sign the opposition is grasping at straws in an attempt to overcome the weaknesses in their own campaign.

Too funny coming from the side that "elevated" both Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama into pinatas and then whacked at them relentlessly. Your hypocrisy slip is showing, big time.

Damage123 --

After Walker wins will you all be ignoring all the $$$ poured in by unions?

Please try to pay attention. Walker's out-of-state corporate supporters are outspending the "unions" by about 15- or 20-to-1.

http://badgerherald.com/news/2012/05/07/gop_outpacing_dems_i.php

According to campaign finance reports, Gov. Scott Walker’s campaign has raised over $25 million so far, while his Democratic challengers have only raised just over $2 million combined.

Former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk has raised about half of that with just over $1 million with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett following close behind with more than $800,000, according to finance reports.

McCabe said he had never seen this level of out-of-state money come into a Wisconsin election. He said a noticeable amount used to be 10 percent from out-of-state whereas Walker’s campaign reports show 60 percent of individual donations from outside Wisconsin, totaling $13.7 million, according to Wisconsin Democracy Campaign’s finance reports.

JoAnna --

What's the "right thing"? It's not illegal to lose money AM. Chase made mistakes and now their executives, stockholders and investors will sort out what happened. And unlike the government dictated market, Chase will learn from their mistakes and do better next time.

It's not ethical, either, to take big risks with other people's money, which is why sometimes we need rules.

Like The Ten Commandments, for example. Or don't we need those, either?

Chase will learn from this time just like they learned from the last time. Which means not at all.

But thanks, Ayn Rand, for the tutorial.

Hi Bev,

"We can look for more of the same from Willard the "MYTH" Romney because he has nothing, i mean absoutely nothing but a failed record to run on."

The Nix the Fix Party is betting on a misinformed, cynical electorate,

Using $Billions in corporate/transnational Lie Ads - to pull the wool,

And get us to vote against our own best interests.

JoAnna Smith 1

FR: *** J.P. Morgan loss spurs fight over regulation: J.P. Morgan Chase’s $2 billion loss is giving Obama and Democrats fodder. "This is why we passed Wall Street reform," Obama said in a preview clip of his appearance today on “The View.”

How so? Didn't the Democrats pass some kind of reform that was supposed to prevent this type of thing? So why didn't it work?

Sniff1

How come you didn't know it was defined by the corporate republican toadies?

President Obama deserves a halo for practically everything he does unlike those demons on the right and the "ONE" currently trying to get enough electoral votes to win the presidency ( btw he won't).

I know you don't like the idea of it being said President Obama is the 1st "GAY President"; you love it.

Dennis, terrific information. Much of that decline is due to the baby-boomers reaching retirement age. I know because in 2008, I retired and many of my friends retired as well not because of the economy but simply because we were old enough.

Ron, glad you reposted your terrific lost comments from yesterday. The gremlins still seem to be running amok on First Read and Newsvine.

Backhouse, so true, terrific post. If Mitt Romney and the GOP have their way, they will return to the same policies that failed so miserably not once but three times--Reagan, Bush and Bush. Listening to Jamie Dimon, Romney, the GOP, Wall Street complain about regulations is a bit like listening to the cat that ate the canary claim there are no feathers in its mouth, the collapse wasn't because of de-regulation and we should trust those same institutions will do the right thing....this time.

Romney, the perfect example of a true NARCISSISTIC. Unfortunately my Son-In-law is cut from the same cloth. Watching the way he treats his wife (my daughter) and their children sickens me. Fortunately my daughter has finally seen the light is in the process of divorcing the arrogant pig.

I see all these selfish characteristic's in Romney. Pridefulull, sees only HIS views. no tolerance for others, uncaring, hate - full, etc. etc. Is this what his Mommy and Daddy taught him? Did he learn it in his church? Where do these kind of people come from? And he wants us to make him the President of the United States. You've got to be kidding. Do you want this selfish, uncaring NARCISSISTIC running our Country? No votes for this clown.

Obama in 2012.

On the FAUX Entertainment 'bloated Government lie":

Presidents like HW Bush, GW Bush and Reagan, RAISED the number of government workers following recessions (and they weren't catastrophic Great Recessions like this one).

President Reagan understood the need to INCREASE the number of teachers in times of recession. Oops, Republican governors that have cut 200,000 teachers since 2010.

FACT: Under President Obama, there are 35,000 LESS non-military employees today than there were 30 years ago, under President Reagan.

And please note that during Reagan's term, US population was lower by 100,000,000 (one hundred million) Americans.

Damaged --

Anna Folly- In other words, you're preparing yourself for a win by Walker. That's what I figured. Oh well. At least the president is gay!

Stop it!!! You're not supposed to make me laugh.

@ Alan --

Well, the first few attempts at making an airplane didn't work out so well, either. Sometimes you have to crash before you can fly.

Nothing in what you say means that green energy is a bad idea. Au contraire. It only means that big oil has been successful in fighting off its competition ... for now.

Dennis' opening salvo contained this:

If the percentage was where it was when George W. Bush took office, the unemployment rate would be 13.1%.

The percentage of Americans in the labor force has been declining for more than a decade. In January 2000, 67.3% of Americans had a job or were actively seeking work. By 2007, just before the recession, that had fallen to 66%

This is GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out. We can run all the statistics we want, but it doesn't address the problem. Dennis, when you combine all those out of the workforce that have fallen off the UE roles we are looking at an unemployment rate of close to 19.5%. 5 out of every 100 workers aren't working. Some states are harder hit than others.

The crux of the matter is, the government isn't doing anything but interfering with the private sector in job creation. It almost seems deliberate. Last year an additional 2000 government regulations were imposed on business... we need less government interference and more freedom to do what's necessary to get the job market back up and running. Now of course if you are liberal, you support all these government rocks around the necks of American businesses. Correct?

AM: It's not ethical, either, to take big risks with other people's money, which is why sometimes we need rules.

Please. These are sophisticated investors that know the risk/reward and return on investment they can expect over the long run with their investments. These investors aren't some victims that were born yesterday that don't know the score. They know you win some and you lose some. The trick is to win more than you lose.

And about those "rules", why didn't those "rules" protect this from happening. Same with MF Global and Corzine.

Like The Ten Commandments, for example. Or don't we need those, either?

What?

Chase will learn from this time just like they learned from the last time. Which means not at all.

Yeah, that's why they are the #1 bank in the world. Do you even bother to pay attention to what is going on, or does your socialistic bias preclude all that?

And no answer on the federal government spending $2 billion in deficit spending every 12 hours? Obama sure has a problem with Chase losing $2 billion but seems unconcerned with the government selling the taxpayers down the river.

Yesterday, the Obama team was out with an ad that was debunked 18 years ago. See, one little fact missing from that ad- Romney had left the firm TWO YEARS before that plant closing. In fact, he was busy saving the Olympics from the scandal plagued administrators put in place before he managed to turn them around.

That ad, by the way, was culled from a twenty eight minute hit piece the WaPo gave four pinnochios.

Meanwhile, Obama was giving fashion advice to Barnard graduates. "you can be fashionable AND powerful", he intoned. Gee, thanks, prez- I guess those "girls" got into Barnard based purely n the contents of their closets, earned their grades the same way, and have every intention of living as paper dolls for the rest of their lives.

Who is totally disconnected?

Meanwhile, CBS/NY Times poll bears out what I learned at my local tax collector's office- the vast majority of people see right through this "marriage equality" statement- it's a distraction from what folks are really focused on-the economy, jobs, the soaring debt. (By the way, media folks- why DO you keep calling it Obama's 'evolution'? Given that he was FOR equal marriage rights, then AGAINST them, now FOR them- is this not a complete Revolution? As in, doing a 360?)

Anyway, it's got all the earmarks of his other distractions- as in, it's a fail.

Obama also had some highly negative remarks for the media yesterday. Says all you guys care about is "scandal and sensationalism". Take that, media! How dare you report on his Dollars to Donors program! What's that, you say? You hid his donors involvement so far deep in the story almost nobody read it? Well, you reported the bankruptcies, didn't you? Why did you do that? All media is only to report glowing reports of Obama's magnificence! No negatives at all! Unless, of course, it's about someone who opposes Obama- then, you unleash the hounds!

You want people to think he's less than perfect?

Never mind. Obama informed the Barnard girls that things will get better, because they always do. That's some economic plan, huh? Well, it's better than the rest of his plans- this one, at least, does not include borrowing us out of existence.

Ah, well, another day, more bad news for Obama. Greece is circling the drain, Spain and Italy are next, and Obama has no clue how to prevent their disasters from affecting us.

Too bad he's not open to suggestion- there was some good advice being offered- which he declined to take.

All of which adds up to-

Obama shelved in 2012.

Hey, Jo Anna sniff1

My post #1.30 - Tue May 15, 2012 9:47 got cut off

I know you don't like the idea of it being said President Obama is the 1st "GAY President"; you love it.

How come you don't understand metaphors? Wasn't Clinton the first "Black"president?

Fire it up. Get on it honey. Your comprehension is deteriorating.

Obama/ biden 2012

You have 0:00 to save your changes.

got cut off

I know you don't like the idea of it being said President Obama is the 1st "GAY President"; you love it.

Your comprehension is deteriorating. Wasn't Clinton wasn't the 1st "Black"President?

Get on it honey; Fire it up.

Need to fix anything? You can edit this comment for the next 0:01.

You have 0:00 to save your changes.

You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
(XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)

<p><strong><a href="http://joannasmith11.newsvine.com/">JoAnna Smith 1</a></strong></p> <blockquote class="commentSource"> <p>FR: *** <b>J.P. Morgan loss spurs fight over regulation:</b> J.P. Morgan Chase’s $2 billion loss is giving Obama and Democrats fodder. "This is why we passed Wall Street reform," Obama said in a preview clip of his appearance today on “The View.”</p> </blockquote> <p class="commentSource">How so? Didn't the Democrats pass some kind of reform that was supposed to prevent this type of thing? So why didn't it work?</p> <p class="commentSource"><em> </em></p> <p><strong><a href="http://joannasmith11.newsvine.com/"> Sniff1</a> </strong></p> <p><strong>How come you didn't know it was defined by the corporate republican toadies? </strong></p> <p><strong>President Obama deserves a halo for practically everything he does unlike those demons on the right and the "ONE" currently trying to get enough electoral votes to win the presidency ( of he won't).</strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong>I know you don't like the idea of it being said President Obama is the 1st "GAY President"; you love it. </strong></p>

You have 0:00 to save your changes.

By the way...slightly off topic but still politically related...did anyone see that Jeopardy! is doing DC Power Players week? (All are playing for charity) It's actually really cool, although sorry MSNBC, but Chris Matthews was just terrible last night. He pretty much sat there watching Robert Gibbs and the lady from CNN (can't remember her name) answering questions. No one knew Final Jeopardy and Robert Gibbs ended up winning. Check it out if you get a chance!! I didn't check the rest of the week, but can I assume we won't be seeing Mark Murray or Domenico Montanaro? Surely they'd have told us by now!! ;-)

Seems Dennis is openly misquoting statistics and thinks he has come upon a nifty nugget. When what he is showing is the apathy that job seekers have toward finding a job in this lousy Obama economy..

The fact that so many have given up Hope and Changed their life plans is really sad.

I guess no one has noticed that the economy went down the tubes after the democrats took control of congress and did not start to improve until the republicans took over the house.

JOBS

I agree George W Bush when Compared to Obama looks like a great President. But hey so doe Carter when compared to Obama.

Rick --

I guess no one has noticed that the economy went down the tubes after the democrats took control of congress and did not start to improve until the republicans took over the house.

Patently false. The economy began turning around at the end of 2009 after unemployment finally bottomed out -- a full year before the 2010 elections.

no joe, no bo, nj

Obama shelved in 2012

SPOILER ALERT: No Jo All blow

You're dreaming; honey. "Ain't no way".

The only thing Romney shelves is his dog "seamus!!!"

4.2 million jobs "created" ???

With over a hundred million workers in the US, one could assume there are more than a few people retiring every year. The majority of those jobs get filled with another person to replace the retiree. The Social Secrity Administration has added a couple million new people to it's roster over the past few years. Government employees who retire are not among those numbers because they do not take part in the Social Security system.

People also leave the workforce for other reasons such as illness, injury, death, and some move out of the country. Again...the majority of those jobs get a new person to do them.

I would like to see an 'honest' politician lay out the facts on how many new jobs have been "created" versus how many existing jobs have simply been "filled".

The President of the United States would not even dream of telling us the truth in these numbers as he'll ring that "4.2 million jobs created" bell to death.

When someone purposely does not speak truthfully, is that person "lying" ???

JoAnna --

And about those "rules", why didn't those "rules" protect this from happening. Same with MF Global and Corzine.

Not much surprise here. Rules only take you so far. If people aren't motivated to follow the rules, and no one ever enforces them, then this sort of thing will happen again and again.

Yeah, that's why they are the #1 bank in the world. Do you even bother to pay attention to what is going on, or does your socialistic bias preclude all that?

Nope. I rely totally on you. But all this goes to show is that greed trumps rules. Which is why the big whale banks that were too big to fail the last time are even bigger today.

Or maybe I do pay attention, after all.

And no one has learned a thing. Especially not you.

Hey Bev - You have 0:00 to save your changes.

Don't they have a Copy-and-Paste course at your local community college? That will help you lot. You can take it right after your Structured English class.

tony,

The 4.2 million is “net” number. People hired minus people that left the workforce for whatever reason.

Damaged Goods:

Once again my comments are based on research. You may not be familiar with the term, research, but it is a method of collecting facts. Guess you still haven't Googled "Characteristics of a Bully."

Well, the first few attempts at making an airplane didn't work out so well, either. Sometimes you have to crash before you can fly.

I'll tell you AM you make me look things up and find out some interesting facts.

http://www.govexec.com/federal-news/fedblog/2011/09/did-the-wright-brothers-need-government-help/40676/

Brownfield notes that in a speech this week at Sen. Harry Reid's National Clean Energy Summit, Energy Secretary David Steven Chu said that "the government played an incredibly intimate role in all the technologies that led to prosperity in the United States, and we must not lose sight of that fact."

That included, Chu said, development of powered aircraft. While acknowledging that the Wright Brothers invented their aircraft without federal aid, Chu said that without the support of the military and the Postal Service for aviation, airplanes might never have, so to speak taken off.

There's a curious fact of history that Chu leaves out. Harry P. Wolfe and John Semmens explain that before the Wright brothers' famous flight (which they funded without government help), Dr. Samuel Langley of the Smithsonian Institution used a $70,000 U.S. government grant to create an airplane. What happened? It crashed into the Potomac River, the Wright brothers succeeded in their flight nine days later, and Langley laid much of the blame on "inadequate" Federal funding. So much for government's "intimate role" in technology.

So, the government funded plane did indeed crash and the private equity plane succeeded (and probably got the government funds going forward).

LOL

Damage123

ONCE AGAIN, RON.....

How many times do I have to tell you that YOUR OPINIONS are not facts? You can list them all you want, and many other dimwits here may agree with you, but they ARE NOT facts. And your biggest "quote" from Romney; "I like to fire people", is purposely taken WAY out of context to give the maximum effect you are seeking. It's very dishonest, Ron. If someone who had never seen that quote in its proper context read your claim, they might not know that it was a crock of s**t. Not cool, Ron. Not cool.

Brian Damage123

How about this one from Rob-mey. People are corporations?

People are people. And that is a fact; Jack!!!!

Agree???

AM: Not much surprise here. Rules only take you so far. If people aren't motivated to follow the rules, and no one ever enforces them, then this sort of thing will happen again and again.

So you're saying the government is powerless in regulating the banks? That certainly contradicts what you said in #1.6: "Why do banks always need regulations to make them do the right thing? And if that's the case, then why should we trust anything to the "free" market?"

So which is it? Do you believe government regulations work, or not work?

@ Alan --

LoL You got me on that one.

But while you're at it, how many planes did the Wrights crash before theirs finally flew? And how many privately funded attempts had failed before that? Starting with Icarus.

"Those magnificent men in their flying machines ...."

JoAnna --

So which is it? Do you believe government regulations work, or not work?

Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. But sadly, if you don't have rules, or you don't enforce the rules, greed will trump principle most of the time.

Even God knew that when he told Moses that, "Thou shalt not covet ..." and "Thou shalt not steal."

And those two rules have also worked like a charm, wouldn't you agree?

Holy Crap Bev!

Isn't it a bit early to be getting your load on?

This may be the most incoherent that I have ever seen you and believe me, that is saying a lot.

One of you Lis R Us folks may want to check in on Bev this morning. Seems she has gone 'round the bend.

So I did some research Ron and here are my findings (not opinions). I credit you with the format as I don't want to plagiarize.

1.Lying: "I will not force people to buy health insurance"

2.Callously attacking the weak: Like Obama suing to keep opponents off of the ballot in Chicago?

3.Show little concern for the feelings and lack of empathy of others: "You'd think I was bowling in the special olympics".

4. Glib, shallow, and superficial: "You're likable enough Hillary"

5.Greedy and selfish: When then-presidential candidate Obama released his tax returns during the 2008 campaign, it was revealed that he began making significant gifts to charity after he started making serious money from his books — and after he decided to run for president. Before that it was around 1% of his income.

6.Makes fraudulent claims: "I never heard Rev Wright make those statements"

7.Spiritually empty: "I slept in Church while rev Wright made those statements"

8.Untrustworthy: There is good reason that he has to pander to gays, Hispanics and others as he pays lip-service to their aspirations, while doing nothing to advance their agenda. (Gay marriage is up to the states).

9.Unlikeable: I would say half the country doesn't want him over for a beer.

Go after Romney on his part ownership of the Rush Limpballs show, not Bain... Bain is just out to make a buck (which helps the economy in some ways after all) while Limpballs of course is one of the reigning PIGS that women hate...

AM: But all this goes to show is that greed trumps rules. Which is why the big whale banks that were too big to fail the last time are even bigger today.

So how did that happen, especially with a President that wants to make Wall Street "fair"? Are you saying with all the speeches made and legislation passed that Wall Street is worse today than when Obama took over nearly 4 years ago? How can that be seeing Obama said he fixed that problem?

You've already admitted that the Obama administration regulators are powerless. Now you've admitted things have gotten worse as the banks are getting bigger today (which you view as a huge problem). So what do you make of these failures by Obama, the failures that his trumpeted banking regulations didn't solve the problems he said they would solve, just like his "Stimulus" didn't stimulate, just like his unemployment rate didn't fall, just like his economy didn't improve, just like his unemployment payments didn't improve the economy, just like he lost taxpayer money bailing out GM.

| So which is it? Do you believe government regulations work, or not work?

AM: Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't.

Quite the indictment on the Obama administration. If they miss the big ones, how can you expect them to catch the little ones. Is there a point to the Obama administration? It almost looks like Obama isn't doing his job. Best he stick with the "Gay Rights" stuff then talk about any of the above.

And still no answer from you as to the reform of the biggest loser of money, the federal government, burning through $4 billion dollars of deficit spending per day. Kind of makes Chases loses seem kind of puny, wouldn't you agree?

Backhouse said: 4.2 million jobs have been created on President Obama's watch in the last 25 months. The 4 million jobs lost immediately after President Obama was sworn in - are BACK.

http://mollysmiddleamerica.blogspot.com/2012/05/private-govt-jobs-gained-lost-obama.html

http://polination.wordpress.com/2012/01/09/jobs-lost-under-obama/

Then of course, here's the liberals FAVORITE lack of fact site reporting in on the situation:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/05/04/478368/478368/?mobile=nc

Sure is funny, Thinkprogress is the only blog that supports the theory that all private sector jobs have been replaced since Obama took office. What I don't see is the statistics that show how many workers have taken lesser paying jobs, jobs beneath their skill levels, and have had to change their career paths because of the economy and Obama's economic policies. Talk about untruthful reporting because NOT all the jobs HAVE been replaced. One other thing... what the hell does the president have to do with private sector jobs in the first place? Obama hasn't created a single job!

Mitt the flip flopper would be a money pimp for the 1% and ship all our jobs overseas !

Brian B if the president has nothing to do with the private sector and jobs, it means he hasn't lost any either. If that is the case how is it Obama's recession?

I never understand how so many posters on here will take any single piece of information and no matter how neutral it is, will manipulate it to only fit their own agenda.

Here is my opinion, it won't be a fact until November, Obama can lose some states he had last time and still win the electoral votes to be elected, Romney has to flip a lot of states to win the electoral vote. The Obama hate is concentrated in states that will likely always be red, and Romney is just not a good enough candidate to flip enough blue states, Obama will win the electoral votes and hence the election.

THE EMPEROR'S WEARING NO CLOTHES. NYT/CBS POLL.

The trend is your friend. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time (excluding radical leftylibdems). Gather your chickens, the end is near. It's going to be a great day in America, back on track, economic renewal, correct priorities. And not a moment too soon.

CBS and NYT poll shows Obama losing women voters as Romney is gaining

Romney is winning 46% to 44 for women polled

Romney is winning 46% to 43 for all polled

The incumbent is toast.

ABO-2012

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/CBSNYTPoll_051412.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

Obama 2012 - The first gay President

and there it is - you couldn't help yourself JoAnnaSmith1, could you? The Newsweek cover has the same meaning as calling Clinton the Frist BLACK President but you take it so literally. You people are so predictable!

Dear hard to starboard, it is going to be so much fun. The republicans are bringing their Ryan/Recession they voted for with them. I can hardly wait for all the fun and starving and suffering to begin.

Then we will need to build new women prisons for women who have miscarriages. I am just so excited to see all the fun begin. I have always wanted to be a second class citizen with men like rush who don't even know how birth control works to be in charge of my bodily functions.

You too can have fun and vote for another recession, just vote for a republican the fun party.

Good point Akeem, I wonder if the right will credit Obama for something like the lowering of gas prices. They will not, nor should they. However, if prices were still going up they would surely blame him.

Yes, many posters use a single piece of information and use it to fit their agenda. For example, despite the fact that a President's policies will be insiginificant in changing the price of oil, compared to what speculators can do, they will blame him is gas prices are high. Of course the bigger contributing factor to its price is the supply and demand relationship for oil sometimes driven by economic conditions or foreign affairs.

bayllie: The Newsweek cover has the same meaning as calling Clinton the Frist BLACK President

Obama 2012 - The first Female-Gay-Hispanic-Asian-Jewish and second Black President

Apparently Mitt and the GOP are shocked. Shocked that President Obama would make a statement that appealed to his base and shocked that the President would besmirch Mr. Romney's character or his motives at Bain.

Karl Rove, Dick Armey and the right would never, ever do that to an opponent during a campaign.

Muslim, born in Kenya, the GM revival and the economy being worse than when he was elected apparently don't count.

Ooooh, the Whitehouse crew is getting desperate. Even the lamestream media toadies are declaring that the election is still, and will remain, about the economy. Having accomplished absolutely nothing in that regard during his 3 1/2 year tenure, Obama and his crew of thugs apparently have resorted to the "lame, meaningless attack of the week" strategy. I heard that next week they plan to reveal that when he was kindergarten, Romney called a little girl a booger-nose!

And the libs on this site, unable to defend Obama's complete lack of accomplishments, are resorting to the old reliable "It's Bush's fault; pathetic!

Your hypocrisy slip is showing, big time.

Wrong again AM, on both counts. You may recall this little gem from Michelle: "…for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country…" Many Americans took offense at that remark and her clumsy comment opened her up for well deserved criticism. You may also recall that Hillary played a policy role in the Clinton administration when she presided over the health care reform debacle, a role that made her fair game as well. Ann Romney, by contrast, is just the candidate's wife.

Oh, and I wear man pants. But thanks for your concern.

Akeem said:

Brian B if the president has nothing to do with the private sector and jobs, it means he hasn't lost any either. If that is the case how is it Obama's recession?

I never understand how so many posters on here will take any single piece of information and no matter how neutral it is, will manipulate it to only fit their own agenda.

It is a neutral point Akeem. The only thing the president does is set the countries economic policy. Well, except in the case of the last two administrations... they bailed out private sector businesses... which is totally against the Constitution.

Good observation though! When the unemployment figures come in, you will find the liberals dancing in the streets when the number notches down a percentage because they actually believe Obama has something to do with it... and when the numbers inch up a little higher, the right sees a failure in the administration.... The president has NOTHING to do with private sector hiring or lay-offs except in how his policies effect the nation. His policies include government regulations that strap the backs of the private sector businesses.

It is ironic that the liberals will blame Bush for all the job losses starting in 08 and attribute the gains to Obama... when Obama hasn't done a single thing to help private sector businesses at all. Bush didn't create the housing and banking crisis but yet liberals blame him for it. They fail to look at the democrats in congress that actually controlled those sectors through their committees.

I think the GOP Teabag supporters are getting most of their info from bazooka bubble gum wrappers or the Tabloid !!!!!!!!!

YellowDog - would love to give BO credit for falling gas prices if he hadn't already pandered that no president is responsible for rising gas prices. But given his hubris of taking credit where none is due, I'm shocked, shocked mind you, that the omniscient BO hasn't made the attempt.

I remember in the 08 debates, candidate BO actually explained he'd avoid going into Iraq because as a leader, he would have "looked around the corner to see what obstacles and likely outcomes would occur". And the fawning leftylibdem swallowed the great oracle and his crystal ball explanation hook-line-and-sinker. So where's the almighty prescient one in Solyndra? Corizine? 7% unemployment? Trillion $ debt? Dismal economy? Debt downgrade? 2010 Congressional elections? Keystone?

It's called a "faker".

Today it looks as if Obama has about 253 electoral votes to Romney's 170 with about nine states as toss ups, which means Romney needs virtually all nine to go his way and Obama can win with just about any two going his way. If Obama takes the single states of Florida or Ohio Romney is finished right there. It's Romney who must push his rock up a big hill.

Elliot; You mean to tell us that Romney is gaining in women voters even though he and the GOP are waging a "War On Women?" GASP! Could it be that the American public is pushing aside all the CRAP that the liberals are throwing at them? Like having a liberal lesbian lecture us on "women's issues" (figure THAT one out) and telling us that stay-at-home moms don't work? Like digging up a 47 year old incident of Romney trimming some Peter Tork worshipper's bangs? Like Obama being forced to come out in favor of gay marriage because his idiot VP has diahrrea of the mouth? Like telling us a chickens**t flip flop is "evolving?"

This year may forever be known as the one where the American peoiple woke up and told the liberal media to go f**k themselves. It's long overdue.

Bill, Fairfax --

Ann Romney, by contrast, is just the candidate's wife.

Except when she's advising him on women's issues, or anything else related to the campaign, which he claims that she does.

Otherwise, what is she giving "speeches" about, anyway?

Oh, and I wear man pants. But thanks for your concern.

Glad to hear it. I mean, I was SO worried.

Forrest - While you are absolutely correct that it's the electoral college that determines who is the president, they have rules to follow too. When you concentrate down the amount of districts that will support Obama, they are very localized. States are determined by the majority of Electoral votes... That's why the count in Florida was so important in 2000 and Ohio in 2004. The Electoral votes have to match the popular vote in any given district... hence the reason for recounts. I don't know, this early in the cycle if Obama has enough districts that fully support him. The tide seems to be turning as it draws closer.

Even though Gore won more popular votes than Bush did, it was the concentration of those votes in the districts that mattered. If a state has 15 electoral votes and 7 of those votes go for one candidate and 8 goes to the other, all 15 go to the one with 8.

In my opinion, no matter what the main stream media says about it, the race is way too close to call at this early stage of the game. The toss up states are still a toss up.

Rich kid Mitt, hey guys - who wants to help me pindown a gay kid and hackoff his hair ! Personally l think the Flip Flopper is a Worm.

Forrest Grump 2.0
Today it looks as if Obama has about 253 electoral votes to Romney's 170 with about nine states as toss ups, which means Romney needs virtually all nine to go his way and Obama can win with just about any two going his way. If Obama takes the single states of Florida or Ohio Romney is finished right there. It's Romney who must push his rock up a big hill.

Just curious, at the Democrat National Convention, how many delegates will Kieth Judd have for taking 41% of the Democrat vote in WV?

Anna Molly

Rick --

I guess no one has noticed that the economy went down the tubes after the democrats took control of congress and did not start to improve until the republicans took over the house.

Patently false. The economy began turning around at the end of 2009 after unemployment finally bottomed out -- a full year before the 2010 elections.

The economy showed some improvement in 2009 after a cash infusion of 800 billion dollars. That lasted for about 3 months then tanked again.

Mitt the empty suit is still choking on the bin Kill !

Yellowdog said: I wonder if the right will credit Obama for something like the lowering of gas prices. They will not, nor should they. However, if prices were still going up they would surely blame him.

With good reason Yellowdog. The president sets the agenda for energy policies in this nation. Those energy policies help drive the market price of oil on the open market. When you place a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf, that effects the amount of oil there is in the market. In 08 when the price of gasoline spiked to over $4 a gallon, how long did it take for it to reach $1.89 again? About 5 months. Surely Bush didn't do anything to cause that... or did he? I'll let you research it because that's the only way to learn what a president can, or can't do to effect the price of gasoline on the open market.

So far, Obama has done NOTHING... but since he's so politically savvy, I'm certain he will do something about it before the election... after all, he wants to be adored.

Here we go again with the unfunded wars lines. I really don't get why Democrats have a problem with the wars being unfunded. The lack of anything being done in Congress is because the Democrats want things without funding. (Republicans are all for what the Democrats want, just so long as it's payed for by this generation.) How many Democrats voted FOR these unfunded wars?

Rick --

The economy showed some improvement in 2009 after a cash infusion of 800 billion dollars. That lasted for about 3 months then tanked again.

Not so. I'm tired of doing all the work for conservatives who spout this ignorant stuff. Look it up for yourself. It's not that hard to find the truth, if you only take the time.

hs321 --

The lack of anything being done in Congress is because the Democrats want things without funding.

If memory serves me, it was Democrats who enacted "PAYGO" way back in 1990, and Republicans who let it expire during the Bush administration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAYGO

@Beverly

Still shouting with self importance! "hey look at me, look at me, I'm Beverly and I'm obnoxiously loud and really have nothing to say but look at me."

So you write; "obama deserves a halo for everything he's done". Hmmm, We know EVERYTHING we need to know about you with just one ignorant statement like that. Do you have a poster of him over your bed? Is it the one from People with his shirt off? To demonstrate worship of someone to that degree is scary and you are a dangerous person. You're family should intervene becuase with a brain that mushy you're going to get yourself in pretty serious trouble and probably end up hurt or standing on a cliff waiting for aliens to take you home.

If you're going to quote Romney you might want to get it right before you post. He didn't say people were corporations. He said "corporations are people" and the way he was speaking about it was correct. In the eyes of the government a corporation is treated as a separate entity, or individual or some might say "person". So he was speaking about it in a business sense but you're way to pre-occupied with satisfying yourself over your barack centerfold to have any time for education so maybe that's why you and every other knee jerk liberal blew that one completely out of proportion.

You libs should take up painting, you would have good careers at Picasso duplication because everything you see is distorted and out of proportion to reality.

(psst, Beverly, Picasso was a famous artist who at one point painted things in a very abstract and cubist style. I know, you're going to have to look up cubist but we can't teach you everything.)

To imitate Patriotic American:

Obama the empty suit still hasn't had a budget approved.

How about this one:

Obama the liar said unemployment would go below 8% if congress passed his stimulus

Like that Patriotic American? I can keep going as long as you can.

I don't know the answer to that NH_Shellback.

Yes it is a long way out Brian, I am just pointing out that currently the huge electoral advantage is in Obama's favor and Romney has to virtually sweep the states that are currently considered toss ups. The apportioning of electoral votes by districts is a double edged sword, any electoral votes apportioned to Obama in those states spells big trouble for Romney. I'll say it again, Obama just has to do a little better than he is currently doing, Romney basically has to run the table. Obama will probably be our president come November.

To JoAnnaSmith1, if your interested as to why the new rules have not stopped what happened at JP Morgan Chase this might answer your question. Seems only about 33% of the oversight rules in the legislation have even been implemented as per this article from 3 days ago:

Legislation Congress passed in 2010 to rein in financial firms has collided with lobbying efforts to slow down implementation.

Article by: KEVIN G. HALL , McClatchy News Service

Updated: May 12, 2012 - 3:10 PM

WASHINGTON - Almost four years after America's financial near-collapse, regulators are empowered to police financial markets as never before. Yet some of the most important rules to curb Wall Street's bad behavior have yet to take effect -- and could be watered down.

The 2010 revamp of financial regulation -- the Dodd-Frank Act -- attempted to do what much of the legislation in the 1930s did: Reshape the landscape. Dodd-Frank empowered the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to regulate hedge funds, oil traders, credit ratings agencies, money market funds and a host of other Wall Street players that had enjoyed relaxed regulation.

Just last week, the revelation of a $2 billion trading loss at JPMorgan Chase added to a clamor for tighter regulation of financial firms.

But only about 33 percent of the new rules to rein in Wall Street are in force, according to the Davis Polk law firm, which specializes in regulation and puts out a monthly report on Dodd-Frank. And financial firms are aggressively trying to slow down the rulemaking process and roll back some of the rules. .........

Thought you might want to know...or not.

YellowDog - would love to give BO credit for falling gas prices if he hadn't already pandered that no president is responsible for rising gas prices.

Steved - Gas prices are falling because there is plenty of supply, tensions for the moment have subsized a bit in Iran, and the economy is not as robust as it was in the first quarter - lessening demand.

Solyndra? I support research and development for renewable energies. Unfortunatley, at Solyndra it didn't work. I think the admin. played it bad if they continued to give funding to the firm knowing that it was floundering. I can respect someone who was against this funding because they don't believe in government backing individual companies but can't respect someone who denys the need to move toward green energy.

Corizine? If Corzine is convicted of some malfeasance then he should be punished. As would be the case with any other Wall Street crook he should be jailed. Would like to see investigations into his firm, perhaps can get a twofer and do congressional hearings splitting time on him and on JP Morgan.

7% unemployment? Actually would love to see 7% unemployment. However, speaking realistically, I believe a milestone like 7.8 would be what it take for Obama to eek out a victory in November.

Trillion $ debt? To address the trillion dollar debt, will say for what must be the hundredth time, the Dem. plan to tax the rich only will not work. The GOP plan to give tax cuts to the rich only will not work. Tax cuts haven't helped us out during the Bush tenure and hasn't rescued us from its aftermath. Both ideas trumpeted by the "sides" will continue to add to the trillion dollar deficits. End the Bush tax cuts, impose portions of Bowles Simpson to deal with entitlements and tax reform.

Could go on but you will not read... or care.

Look folks. We can all argue about which President did or did not do what, but none of it is worth a fiddlers damn. We better be about understanding what needs to happen to get the country going again, and electing a Congress that will adhere to principals and policies that give life to a dynamic of equitable capitalistic endeavor. We cannot survive as a republican plutocracy. Socialized welfare, balanced within legislative dictums of comparative advantage capitalism works, as was proved by FDR during the great depression or WW2, whichever floats your ideological boat. We must get moving toward that ongoing historical dynamic of total equality for all, or suffer the variations of failures strewn among the annals of human history. An appropriate Congress, and President Obama, can and will take us there.

JoAnnaSmith1

Obama 2012 - The first Female-Gay-Hispanic-Asian-Jewish and second Black President

That's better. He should get the credit for all the "little" people he is fighting for. Unlike the Republicans who fight for the straight, white, rich males.

Romney: the 10,000th white-rich-male-Republican candidate

Corizine? If Corzine is convicted of some malfeasance then he should be punished. As would be the case with any other Wall Street crook he should be jailed.

Rick Scott made money with Columbia/HCA by defrauding Medicare. Not only did he not get punished, he got himself elected as the Gov. of FL.

@Dog

Trillion $ debt? To address the trillion dollar debt, will say for what must be the hundredth time, the Dem. plan to tax the rich only will not work. The GOP plan to give tax cuts to the rich only will not work. Tax cuts haven't helped us out during the Bush tenure and hasn't rescued us from its aftermath. Both ideas trumpeted by the "sides" will continue to add to the trillion dollar deficits. End the Bush tax cuts, impose portions of Bowles Simpson to deal with entitlements and tax reform.

I was not for the Bush tax cuts but I don't see how can dismiss them by saying they didn't help during the Bush tenure. What was the unemployment rate during the Bush years? This was after the 9/11 attacks and the country was very scared. I would say they succeeded in reducing unemployment, and if they were so bad, Obama would not have agreed to their extension so easily in 2010.

Now if you arguing that they were fiscally irresponsible because at the same time Bush did not cut spending, prosecuted two wars, and created a new unfunded entitlement that is a different argument. The last to administrations have been criminally negligent concerning the debt and deficit. David Walker, the ex-comptroller, showed a chart that by 2050, if we continue with our current spending and entitlements, the total federal budget (19% of GDP) will be consumed solely by interest payments. If both parties do not see this as a wake up call then all incumbents should be voted out.

ewo: To JoAnnaSmith1, if your interested as to why the new rules have not stopped what happened at JP Morgan Chase this might answer your question. Seems only about 33% of the oversight rules in the legislation have even been implemented as per this article from 3 days ago:

That's odd, because Democrat Barney Frank is asking for additional regulations. So why is Mr. Frank asking for additional regulations when the ones he has haven't been implemented?

US Representative Barney Frank said Friday that JPMorgan Chase’s disclosure that it lost more than $2 billion from a flawed hedging strategy underscores the need for tighter federal regulation of trading by banks.

Source: http://www.boston.com/Boston/businessupdates/2012/05/barney-frank-jpmorgan-chase-loss-demonstrates-need-for-tighter-regulations/UHZGUycZ5jyeXfGsmVT7vJ/story.html

And isn't it odd Mr. Frank is so worried about a private company with willing investors lost $2 billion while the government he manages is losing $4 billion a day in deficit spending?

Even Obama states Chase is a well run bank. So just what are these regulators attempting to regulate?

“JPMorgan is one of the best-managed banks there is. Jamie Dimon, the head of it, is one of the smartest bankers we got and they still lost $2 billion and counting,” the president said. “We don’t know all the details. It’s going to be investigated, but this is why we passed Wall Street reform.”

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/05/obama-jpmorgan-is-one-of-the-best-managed-banks/

All these investigations. And what has become of all them? One mid-level banking manager has been charged with obstruction of justice. One. Investigate away Mr. President.

bayllie: That's better

Obama 2012 - The composite President who will be anything you want him to be

Unlike the Republicans who fight for the straight, white, rich males.

The President should represent all Americans. Community organizers like Obama represent only a select few.

BrianB

So you are saying that Bush's lifting of moratoriums on continental shelf oil drilling brought prices down that drastically? Pretty naive. You don't think that the anemic economy in recession (Bush's last year) lessened demand. Let me say it another way, no single presidentail action other than attacking a middle eastern country and disrupting supply will affect the price of oil. Its a combination of many factors, read my post to steved.

By the way those inflows of oil still haven't helped us, because it takes years to develop and have that oil start flowing. Maybe their finite sources will start flowing about the time Obama leaves office in 2016.

Alan - I think the cuts where irresponsible during Bush's years because of the wars. I was mad at Obama for extending them, perhaps you will call me hypocritcal, but at least Obama had a belief, one I don't share, that removing the tax cuts would hurt growth. Bush had no such reasoning for going to war and giving a tax break.

I get it that politics is an ugly, dirty profession but I can't stand the current tactics being used. Very often am I hearing that a Presidentail press release, commercial, statement in an address, etc. are misleading, disengenuous, and outright lies. Look, it's the President and the President's administration- can't we at least expect the truth from them??

Why must the President say something he knows not to be true in a speech?- That's an obvious question though, he does it because no matter what you say it makes a mental mark in the listener and only a few might consider fact checking you later. The others will just go around believing what you said, some passing it on as the truth, and you move on to drop the next lie that will ply you with more money and votes. By the time someone calls foul (not that the media is actively looking to find fault with the President's words) it's gotten all the traction you needed- a few days. So by insinuating that Mitt Romney did something the President forces Mitt's campaign to spend money in counter aruging the President, puts them in a damage control mode instead of an attacking mode. Similarly, the President saying in Alabama that he was a byproduct of his parents getting together at the Selma protests (that happened 4 years AFTER his birth), he is using the moment to lie to the audience of happy followers to get cash and votes, prividing them with some mental reassurances that he's one of them, and encourages them to lobby their friends for him. So the lying also works to build you on the road.

This isn't a new technique, Hillary Clinton noted that she was named after Sir Edmond Hillary even though her birth didn't work out with him either. What's a (number) of little white lies anyways??

My point- How about we just try to run on whom we are and what we believe in? Simple enough. That might actually require having debates with thought provoking questions (not canned ones) though. I'm guessing that both parties might turn those down.

Last year an additional 2000 government regulations were imposed on business...

Oh my, here we go again with the "regulation" card. Let's see, last year Obama-bashers cried it was 400 regulations, then it moved to 900 regulations, now we are apparently at 2000. By golly, by next October, we will have 10million regulations implemented by Obama. Seems to follow the theme of 10million jobs lost, and the debt of 10trillion/gazzilion dollars, and finally, the 10bazillion/cagillion marriages ruined if gay marriage is allowed. "Fear Factor" should have been moved to Fox, where it belongs.

Bottom line - this election is going to be all about the economy. Swing voters and independents won't vote based on a high school prank from 40 years ago, gay marriage rights, Bain Capital dealings, Wall St. regulations or most of the other topics ideologues on this thread are bantering back and forth on.

What IS relevant is the fact that the current President is presiding over the longest stretch of unemployment above 8% since the Great Depression.
What is also relevant is the fact that less people are counted in our current workforce than at any time over the past 40 years, meaning the TRUE unemployment rate is much higher.
What is also fact is that NO incumbent since the Great Depression has been able to win reelection with unemployment above 8%.

People are feeling it too, that's why most Americans still believe we are in a recession, a full 3 years after we technically are not. You can spin jobs numbers all you want - the people who will decide this election have yet to see any real progress in the economy and that is Obama's biggest hurdle.

Beverly in Chicago

Obama is the first President that acknowledges his gay activities, but another President from Illinois was probably gay, his name Lincoln. It is widely documented that Lincoln had a very unusual living arrangement with a man and wrote several letters to the man. The letters had a distinct romantic tone.

Illinois has really cranked out some winners !

Obama is such a phoney on the same sex marriage issue. Obama says he is for it, but not enough to actually push for changes in Federal law. Much like Obama ranting about Wisconsin governor Walker taking away union rights to collectively bargain. But Obama never did anything to change the fact that federal union workers do not have the right to collectively bargain either. Obama is simply the master of truly standing for nothing. The Obama presidency is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

Anna Molly...Your memory does serve you correctly, it was the Democrats who put PayGo in place. Question is, what changed with them years later? Actually I know the answer, it's all the power and control struggles back and forth between the Democrats and Republicans and the incessant lying and bickering from both sides. That's part of the reason I became an independent in the 90's.

Backhouse4 million jobs were lost towards the end of 2008, under President Bush. 4.2 million jobs have been created on President Obama's watch in the last 25 months. The 4 million jobs lost immediately after President Obama was sworn in - are BACK.

You can spin it all you want, but according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, between January 2009, when Obama took office, and March 2012, there has been a net decline of 740,000 jobs for both men and women.

Again, according to the BLS, 8.8 million jobs were lost between the peak in January 2008 and when the job slump ended in February 2010. About half were lost under Bush and half under Obama. From Mar 2010 to Feb 2011, nearly 1.3 million jobs have been regained. So no, the jobs are not back. He's still down.

And if you want to do the blame Bush game and state he's responsible for 2009 losses, then you will have to take back when you stated in 2001, Clinton wasn't responsible for the losses in that year. Bush was, because he took over in Jan 2001. Can't have it both ways. Either the sitting President is reponsible or the previous President was responsible. IMO, Clinton was responsible for 2001 losses and Bush is responsible for 2008 losses since the Budget was their last Budget, their decisions, their programs. But Obama is responsible for 2009-2012 losses. Which the above figure is his, 2009-2012, still a 740,000 net loss!!!

CBS and NYT poll shows Obama losing women voters as Romney is gaining.

What's even more interesting here is that if you dig into the numbers, the sample that the CBS/NYT poll uses was skewed towards Democrats by 6 points. If I were a liberal (and yes, I nearly threw up in my mouth), I would be worried. Damage is right that the only poll that counts is the one in November, but to the Obama campaign and it's supporters this has to be disheartening news.

"That’s why, we guess, Vice President Biden apologized to the president -- his comments on “Meet the Press” guaranteed the gay-marriage story would be more about process and politics and not conviction"

From "Its Bush's fault" to "It's Bidens fault"; everyone is responsible for Obama's actions EXCEPT Obama. What a pathetic bunch of yes-men.

Alan - I think the cuts where irresponsible during Bush's years because of the wars. I was mad at Obama for extending them, perhaps you will call me hypocritcal, but at least Obama had a belief, one I don't share, that removing the tax cuts would hurt growth. Bush had no such reasoning for going to war and giving a tax break.

I think we're both going to be disappointed in this years lame duck session. Go knows what they'll agree to.

Always interesting, Obama evolves, Romney flip-flops. Obama evolved because Biden made him look like he wasn't in charge.

Brian

Patri-neurotic posts those same little mindless lines constantly. Be careful though, she really enjoys being a punching bag, as in, leather-hooded-masochist. I've been tempted to grab a bunch of her attempts at putting me in my place and posting them for the entertainment of others. I swear, no joke, it's like arguing with a third grader, maybe 4th at best. Her drivel gets really pathetic...I almost feel bad taking it too her verbally so often but then she spits something stupid out and I don't feel bad anymore.

I'm sure when she see's your post you'll find out. It's like a cheesy carnival ride, not really thrilling or challenging to get through but a little fun none the less. Enjoy

Anna Molly

Rick --

The economy showed some improvement in 2009 after a cash infusion of 800 billion dollars. That lasted for about 3 months then tanked again.

Not so. I'm tired of doing all the work for conservatives who spout this ignorant stuff. Look it up for yourself. It's not that hard to find the truth, if you only take the time.

I can understand why you are tired. Spinning your wheels all day long trying to justify your BS. Like I said, the employment looked better for a couple of months after the stimulus but started back in the wrong direction around October of 2010. Then republicans were elected and Obama decided to renew the Bush Tax Cuts.

This shows what happened with job growth. All the losses are around 2008-May, 2010

http://occupyintel.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/obama-private-sector-600x423.jpg?w=590

lawdog - what an absurd post. The President has not acknowledged any gay activities. Your parents must be so proud that they raised a moron for a son.

Illinois has turned out some winners. President Lincoln was an excellent President as is Obama. Each has undertaken speaking for a group of people who should have the same rights as the rest of us. That makes them outstanding Presidents - so much better than the weak ones who just go along with the biased and unintelligent - like you!

Obama/Biden 2012

The lame duck session agenda will be determined by the results of the elections. If Tea Party conservaties make any gains in the House, you will likely see John Boehner gone as speaker. If Tea Party Republicans lose seats (as is most likely) the GOP House will likely become more moderate. The Senate will also become more moderate.

If President Obama wins reelection, even if both houses of Congress are run by the GOP, the GOP will no longer have the objective of preventing him from winning a second term. As such, those who have done nothing for the last 3 1/2 years will act to govern. Many Republicans are up for reelection in 2014 and if the only results from 6 years in office will be their NO votes, many will not win.

If President Obama is not reelected, I anticipate that nothing will be accomplished in the final months of this Congress.

The following chart shows a lot better look at the overall employment between Obama and Bush. As can be seen Obama is still worse than Bush.

Anna-Molly - I have posted links several times to show you and your thick headed friends how we got here yet you continually ignore them.....so don't start crying to me about doing all the work. That is pure BS.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/chart.png?s=usurtot&d1=20010101&d2=20120531

Bill in Fairfax -- More like the Desperate Right. This will be a very close race because the right is filled with low info voters and much like robots, they will vote republican just because they always have. No need to think further or look into issues, just listen to what Fox News tells you or like you, Rush Limbaugh.

The Democrats will step up and do what's necessary to bring our fiscal situation under control. In fact, it's probably safe to say they will pick up Simpson- Bowles and run with it just to prove the right wing crazy obstructionists are tied to Norquists apron strings and not willing to do the hard work necessary to see that our Country get its fiscal house in order. They would rather we fall off a cliff and enter into a deep recession than to do the right thing. They are the ones giving business uncertainty with all their crazy talk. This will give a victory to the Dems. Keep spinning Bill while your party attempts to take this country right over the cliff, AGAIN.

Yellowdog,

I was mad at Obama for extending them, perhaps you will call me hypocritcal, but at least Obama had a belief, one I don't share, that removing the tax cuts would hurt growth.

President Obama struck a compromise with the Republican on extending the Bush tax cuts for top earners, in return for a one-year cut in payroll taxes, help for the 9/11 first responders, and an extension of unemployment benefits. He did it because if he did not, the 98% of population would have been affected one way or another.

Rick, I guess you'd consider people who can understand the facts "thick-headed", since it is in fact YOU who can't seem to understand what the graph is showing you. The economy TANKED late in the GW Bush Administration and has yet to more than partially recover. Thanks for linking a graph that shows just how much headwind President Obama faced coming into office...even without record obstruction on the part of the GOPTP.

Now for this;

Obama is the first President that acknowledges his gay activities

Feeling a little insecure in your masculinity, lawdog? I know this probably comes as a suprise to someone who's obviously threatened by homosexuals (gay-bashing Abraham Lincoln? Really?) but standing up for the rights of gays doesn't make one gay any more than standing up for the rights of African-Americans makes one Black.

But I do find it fascinating that Conservatives have chosen Neonazis as their new "base" to which they need to pander.

lawdog and friends: Bet you don't even know what your own candidates have said. Go to prezdebate.com -- candidates' lines about the economy -- report your scores back here.

You are the thick headed one. If you look at the graph above the economy tanked AFTER DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER THE CONGRESS, NOT BEFORE.

Hey Mr. Right, Are you having lunch with Sean Hannity - Getting your info setup for your BS lines, I'm warning you his BS could be very dangerous. PS - For starters, l"m a guy, Vet & Independent ! Have a nice day.

Ron

About the Romney hair cutting incident.

The chief witness wasn't there to witness the incident. The parents not only weren't aware that the kid's hair was cut, but the kid never said anything to either of the parents or his sister. When I was a kid I heard about everthing my siblings had happen if it was bad. My kids, the same thing. The incident is mainly a fabrication.

All your "facts" were refuted in less than 12 Hours.

And there it is. What the hell does Sean Hannity have to do with anything? Well, whatever, I've come to expect gibberish from you. You're a dude? Well dude, (with respect to the actual strong and intelligent women out there) take off the dress and makeup and learn how to argue a point and not just bitch and scratch at things. Vet huh? Well, thanks so much for the service but nobody ever said all vets were bright so hanging that flag out there gets you an atta boy but nothing else. Independent? No way, not even close. Nice try but with the display of character and opinions you've demonstrated that one ain't gonna fly.

You have a hunky dory day yourself sweetie. Easy with any gay comments, you wouldn't want to piss off your president now would you?

If you look at the graph above the economy tanked AFTER DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER THE CONGRESS, NOT BEFORE.

And you keep falling into the same trap EVERY SINGLE DAY, just like Lucy snatching the football away from Charlie Brown.

What Democratic policies did President GW Bush sign into law, causing the economy to tank?

Alan - THANK YOU!!!!! I am Jewish and a woman and I just can't look at Mel's face without thinking about what a disgusting human being he is.

Patriotic American U.S.A.

I think the GOP Teabag supporters are getting most of their info from bazooka bubble gum wrappers or the Tabloid !!!!!!!!!

Unlike you who gets your information from the inside of a cheap condom wrapper.

Unlike you who gets your information from the inside of a cheap condom wrapper.....unused

If Obama wins this upcoming election, It will be because of voting fraud. In all my travels, I have only met one, I'll say it again, one person who would vote for him and maybe two who said they would vote for Mittens. The current potus is a complete fraud and NWO puppet plant. The executive orders he has been handing out do nothing good for the republic of the USA. All these orders are set in place for the total control of the people, not to help US but to suppress US. The free people of the USA are a detriment to the NWO. So if you want to become a slave and lose all your freedoms, go ahead and vote for the kenyan or mitt. If you want to stay free to make your own choices and not let some csar tell you what to do every day, Vote for RON PAUL a true American Patriot. This whole administration is a fraud and an afront to what this country was founded on. LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT of HAPPINESS. Hang some traitors and a few bankers and things will fall back in order. LIVE FREE OR DIE.

RON PAUL 2012 is who true Americans will vote for.

PS: Mel Gibson is the man and tells a lot of truth about the jews. I was not put on earth to serve jews like it says in the talmud. IMO

Your tin foil hat's a little crooked there, worn out.

No John B, my eyes are wide open. You can go back to drinking your koolaid now.

This vine brought to you by the folks at MoreOn.Org.

There are contradictions in everything...Gee.

We will have more jobs in this country when you finally are willing to work for the same wage as a china man. Funny tho that the china man can not afford to buy the products they make. Cut cap and balance soon no one will be able to afford those cheap products.

Sorry no pun towards china man, actually we should demand their pay be the same as ours.

Russians may not see a difference between capitalism and capitalist pigs, but I do.

By the way I typed this on an iPad, shame on me

IR--BRAVO and very well said. I had totally forgotten the Kurt Vonnegut quote. To that, I will add a paraphrase from a book by Robert A. Heinlein, "Friday": Lack of civility precedes the collapse of a society.

"We have met the enemy and he is us!" Pogo by Walt Kelly

Great piece IR and I love that quote of Kurt Vonnegut's.

Mitt Romney has had one kind of success: creating mind boggling wealth both for himself and investors in Bain Capital. There is a huge difference between creating wealth and creating jobs and in jobs creation he has been dismally unsuccessful.

Excellent article and comments, IR. Also loved the Kurt Vonnegut quote.

As fictional character Gordon Gekko would say, "greed, for lack of a better word, is good" except it isn't good, it is simply greed which the Bible says is a sin.

Great post, IR. It is long past time that we as a society looked at the challenges those trying to get ahead face and the disparity of opportunities.

And IR wins the "I have no idea what the heck I'm talking about" award of the day- closely followed by Jody.

Yes, we are a representative republic. That is the POLITICAL structure of the country.

Yes, we are a capitalistic country- that is the ECONOMIC structure of our society. They are not, by the way, mutually exclusive.

Jody gets Edina prize for completely failing to comprehend that the civilian labor force is comprised of those 16 to 65, not institutionalized, ready, willing, and able to work; therefore, she and the rest of the Baby Boomers who have reached retirement ages are not counted.

The Civilan Labor Force participation rate- the important number which has fallen dramatically- is reflective of people who have simply given up the search for employment, on the grounds that there are no jobs available. I have explained this on more than one occasion- Dennis, as is his wont, prints off statistics from BLS, (taken from another site), with no idea what he is printing- and you all miss the point, which is, retires have nothing whatsoever to do with the number of people dropping out of the labor force.

They're not counted, anyway. Neither are those incarcerated, nor those in the military, nor those with disabilities that preclude them from seeking employment

16 to 65. Not institutionalized. Ready, willing, and able to work. It could not be simpler or clearer.

It just does not fit your narrative..

No Joe,

[Jody gets Edina prize for completely failing to comprehend that the civilian labor force is comprised of those 16 to 65, not institutionalized, ready, willing, and able to work; therefore, she and the rest of the Baby Boomers who have reached retirement ages are not counted.]

However when people retire early (under 65), are released from incarceration or discharged from their military service they are then included. There has been a 20% increase in early retirement over the last several years especially among the Public Sector workforce.

John...... if they are opinions everyone is entitled to them. Doesnt make them facts. Im just very glad the Democratic party were the Firsts in both The first Black president (Mr.Clinton) and the First Gay president (Mr. Obama) "WINNING"!!

Independent R, great choice of post,

As Newt Gingrich said during this election cycle,

On Romney and Bain Capital: "Is capitalism about the ability of a handful of rich people manipulating the lives of thousands, and walking off with the money?"

Is it about taking all the money out of a company, leaving it bankrupt, and waltzing off with the $millions/billions, while destroying communities, futures, lives...

And more from our resident bully no jo: I have an employed son with serious disabilities. Didn't stop him from finding a job.

Romney is a bigot. Only those who think that denying equal rights to LGBT citizens, who pay TAXES in this country support him.

Jody: you must be completed flattered that no jo continues to try to gain both credibility and readership by copying what you do so well and she does so poorly.

Thanks Friends and Neighbors..............Snookie Jo I'm going to assume that that little rant comes from your days as an Economics Professor and take it for what it's worth...........Jolly I'm glad to see that your still going by the maxim if ignorance is bliss you have got to be the Jolliest Old Soul in America.

So Romney is bad because he founded and worked at Bain Capital. But, Obama gladly takes Big campaign $$$ from Blackstone group. Funny its OK for BMO to take the $$$ from a major Venture Capital firm but not OK for Romney to run one. What a f**ing hypocrite.

Outstanding piece, IR. If that doesn't speak loudly about the need to balance the creative power of Capitalism with reasonable levels of regulation you need to turn up your hearing aid.

If you have a truly free market system, then you have what Mr. Deresiewicz is actually writing about. With all the good and bad that occurs because of the ranges of human behavior, from the good to the bad. And regulations are what keep the bad in check. The problem isn't capitalism, it's bad, ineffective and unenforced regulation that fails to keep the corruption in check.

What are the other options? Socialism? Marxism? Communism? Unfortunately these systems, which look really good on paper, don't quite work out the way the pie-in-the-sky intellectuals would like us to believe. And for one primary reason. They fail to take into account the same human nature that causes problems with capitalism.

Why are All the Leftist Politicians Who Hate the Rich…So Filthy Rich?

By Wayne Allyn Root - 5/15/2012

Have you ever noticed how almost all the leftist politicians who hate and want to punish the rich with draconian tax increases…are filthy rich themselves? Confusing, isn’t it?

Actually, once you know the truth it's really quite easy to understand.

Take France’s new Socialist President Francois Holland. He never stops talking about his dislike and disgust for the rich. He is almost more obsessed with hate for the rich than Obama is. Yet it turns out Holland is…drumroll please…filthy rich himself.

That’s right. Socialist Holland owns not one, not two, but three homes in Cannes on the French Riviera. Unbelievable.

In America let’s think of the biggest haters of the rich. Obama is now filthy rich. He has been since selling his autobiography after getting elected to the U.S. Senate, and buying a $2,000,000 Chicago home (with help from a convicted felon). Once Obama leaves the White House (hopefully soon), he’ll spend the rest of his life getting paid millions for books and $200,000 a pop for speeches to the business groups he hates so much.

Bill and Hillary Clinton hate the rich. They left the White House broke and owing millions in legal fees. After quickly capitalizing with books, speeches and foundations they turned zero into an $80,000,000 fortune in a few short years. I’ve never heard of a job like that. I’m not referring to being President. I’m referring to hating the rich. It seems to magically make you…filthy rich.

Al Gore is far richer than his old boss Bill Clinton. Gore the bore is worth about one billion dollars from his TV network, documentaries and stock options. All of that wealth is based on disliking the rich, and trying to tax them to death in order to save the world from global warming. But Gore uses more energy on one trip in his private jet than all of us do in a decade of driving. And Al’s 20,000 square foot mansion uses more electricity in a year than most of us pay for rent in a decade. And, don’t forget Gore started out the privileged son of a U.S. Senator.

Or take New York’s disgraced ex-Governor Eliot Spitzer. The great anti-business, anti-Wall Street crusader never bothered to disclose that his daddy owns half the buildings on Manhattan’s Fifth Ave. I’ve never owned one building in my life, yet I fight for capitalism every day. I am a capitalist evangelist. Yet someone whose daddy practically owns the world’s most exclusive avenue takes great pleasure in putting self-made rich men in prison. Do you see the irony there? Do you see the pattern?

These people are hypocrites of the highest order. They are angry and guilty for having never earned a dime of their own fortunes. By dumb luck they were dropped down the right chimney, lucky sperm club members who had everything handed to them.

So, they hate self-made rich people. Self-made men and women remind them of what they are not. They remind them of the wealth they never earned. Remind them of the deep-seated guilt they feel every day of their lives. Remind them, but for the grace of God, they could (and probably would) be riding a bus in the Bronx, headed to a blue collar job.

That’s why leftist politicians (and lawyers, media and the Hollywood elite) hate the self-made rich so much. Because they never earned their own money- and they know it.

To each and every one of you who thought this piece was anything more than idiotic dribble, you're all just as idiotic. You people have no idea what capitalism is nor do you have a clue what this country was founded on. Thank God this is an MSNBC chatroom and doesn't represent the majority of people in this country. If it did, know what we'd have? Europe. By the way, given that they instituted a lot of the policies you morons advocate, how they doin' lately? The author here discusses psychosis, yet I didn't happen to catch his psychiatric credentials anywhere in the article. I also find it more than ironic that he's dismissing capitalism in favor of government control on the grounds that people on Wall Street cheat and lie. Uhhh...you mean completely unlike Obama or any or for that matter any other politician? It would be great if any one of you tried to exercise a little independent thought. Putting aside party politics for a moment, if you have a government that's increasing regulation and control of the economy and social structure in this country and a result, things keep getting worse, doesn't it stand to reason that that approach doesn't work? If policy after policy based on a certain political ideology fails, doesn't it stand to reason that the ideology itself is flawed and is the source of the problem? This isn't rocket science. I will never, ever understand how a group of people can operate day in a day out with complete disregard for basic logic and reason, then not only complain when things get bad, but blame someone else for their failure.

I love the way as soon as barack came out of the closet the buzz words on the vine from liberals all shifted to "bully" and "bigot". Those are the words of the month. Next month there will be another diversionary topic brought into light by barack and whatever nickname the opposition will be labeled with will become the new buzz words for the libs on here.

Libs love their little buzzwords or names. Hey, what happened to "racist". I miss that one, it was always a nice stand-by that brought brainless liberals out in droves. As soon as they start to lose an argument (which is most often very quickly) they'd pull that term out of their ignorant arses. Well, I'm sure that will come back in force very soon.

Someone whispered in that morons ear that all this talk about being gay is helping to evade the primary concerns of Americans. So this will stick around for another week or so and then fade off like everything he does. Litterally, everything he does is just a buzzword or momentary talking point and then it's just forgotten. He's an idiot and just keep throwing crap at a wall to see what he can get to stick.

What happened to "pass this bill, pass this bill right now"? I thought it was going to save America and if it was, there is no way a portion of congress would have been able to stand in the way. I guess it was all bull shi$.

What about "Guantanamo is closed by the end of this year."? If he was a real leader and it was that great of a move there's no way anyone would have been able to stop it from happening...after all it was a signed order. I guess it was all bull shi$.

What happened to the unemployment staying under 8% if we spent 700 billion? If he were a leader and it was going to work so well it certainly should have by now right? I guess it was all bull shi$.

What happened to showing all the discussions about the health care bill on C-span and giving the American public 72 hours to read bills before congress voted on them? If he was a man of his word and a real leader those things would have happened. I guess it was all bull shi$

What about bringing America together by being bi-partisan and thinking of the country first. If he were a real leader he would have kept his word and united people to get things done instead of dividing to try to alienate the "enemy". I guess it was all bull shi$.

Transparency? Bull shi$

Responsibility? Bull shi$

Integrity? Bull shi$

Honesty? Bull shi$

Hope? Bull shi$

Change ? wrong kind

There's one thing for certain; the barack presidency is a bunch of bull shi$.

*hope for change, anyone but barack 2012*

HS321, that was a logical, rational comment based on common sense. While I agree entirely, these other people aren't going to understand what you just said b/c it was a logical, rational comment. They don't understand that the alternatives that you listed are inherently and fundamentally flawed, not only b/c they're fiscally and socially unsustainable systems, but b/c also for the exact reason you said, the system itself still has to be run by someone. Interjecting the human element alone would cause these unrealistic utopian pipe dreams to implode. What I don't get is how these systems can continually fail everywhere they're instituted yet somehow the lesson is never learned.

Rightwingwac, you post: "Libs love their little buzzwords or names." You are one delusional self-righteous nutcase. Re-read your post(s), hypocrite. Count how many "buzzwords or names" you spew out in any single post.

So Jim, you're denying that libs coordinate their terminology? So everytime you hear the president and then dozens of different leftwing senators and legislators use the exact same term over and over, it's what? Coincidence? Only morons believe in coincidence.

So Jim, you're denying that libs coordinate their terminology?

Oh PUHLEEZE - do you think it's a coincidence Jimmy Carter popped in out of nowhere?

It was tried & tested by Frank Luntz & all you little lemmings jumped on it like a dog on a bone!

Talk about a moron - you're too stupid to even realize when you're being played! lol

Thomas (great name)

As much as I stump for the right, I would be the first to cheer for shattering of the two party system in this country. I have to go for the right because they're the closest thing to my beliefs. I certainly don't agree with everything "they" say but that's the problem. "They" have hijacked commnon sense on both sides of the isle. The question is how to get rid of "they" and who are "they"? Things have gotten so stupid with the "us and them" mentality that the freight train is entering it's final slow down preparing for a complete stop. If a republican came up with the best economic escape route known to man, you better believe there would be a boatload of libs protesting simply because of who came up with it...and vice-verse.

Nobody in Washington can really get anything done becuase of ego and partisanship. The "leaders" were never set up to be career politicians or receive perks up the wazoo or live higher than those they represented. They were supposed to be fulfilling a duty and not pursuing a life on high. So how do we get back?

Unfortunately because of the political network an outsider at this stage would possibly have even less of a chance to get something done. With pandering, posturing, pay-offs and outright bribes, this system is so broken it needs to be nearly dismantled before it can be rebuilt. The only real chance of re-structuring the people and their wicked ways is to rebuild from within. The powers-that-be need to essentially vote for their own demise and that will most likely never happen. So instead the country will burn while the elite ruling class sit on high and fiddle.

Term limits, no lifelong legacy benefits, no earmarks, no multi purposed non-severable bills, more puplic voting, popular vote voting, eliminating the fed reserve etc. Serving in a political position needs to be temporary really, really hard work, with moderate pay and proportional benefits to the rest of the country. That would instantly weed out the bone heads that are in if for the prestige. It's not about prestige it's about duty and serving your fellow man. You will be hard pressed to find any members of high ranking political offices that truly fit the mold.

If the system could be penetrated by a Gods-honest really ball-busting LEADER it would take a long time to get the system overhauled for the better. I'm not talking about changing the Constitution, I'm talking about getting back to it. Anyway, even if there were someone in place that could start the charge the brainwashing on both sides of the current isle would probably never see the good for which it stands and therefore we'd be right back where we are. Pretty depressing if you ask me.

Yea Thomas, we "coordinate" our terminology. There is a big liberal conspiracy going on, you know.

You believe that discussion of common values and goals is exclusive to the Left?

If so you need to question why all up and down this thread Conservatives have simultaneously decided to question the masculinity of Barack Obama, duly elected President of the United States.

General Motors is alive and Osama bin Laden is dead...deal with it.

Yea Thomas, we "coordinate" our terminology.

Talk about coordinating - do this idiots even remember what they are for breakfast?

Teleprompter - birth cerificate - Kenya - Muslim- 57 states - socialist... and on & on...

What a bunch of little harpies!

Jim,

No you read my posts. I get immaturely creative...like "meatball". Have you been hearing leaders on the right use that? How about "bone-heads"? Yeah, thats one I hear daily by Romney. I think I've used "dim-wit". Another very mature word used by leaders on the right. "Goofball", moron, etc. Oh yeah, I've used "dip-shi$ too, and "brainless". Yeah, those are definitely big political buzzwords.

Delusional? Not even close. Names? Hell yeah I use them and I've admitted it dozens and dozens of times here which brings me to my next point, Hypocrite? Nope, I practice what I preach, I admit what I do and I don't pretend I'm something I'm not. I can show multiple cases throughout my posts of very civil and respectful debate with people who don't carry my views, I can also show down right stupid and elementary banter with people who deserve every bit of ridicule they get.

What political buzzword labels did I use? Dude, don't even try.

Speaking of stupidity:

Feisty dead-head. Based on some of the most recent displays of your intellect you don't really deserve anything except; "shut the hell up". You're supposed to be ignoring me remember? Or is it because you still have that secret crush on me because I can wallop you at your own game. Wait, wait, my crystal ball shows me you telling another poster in the near future "don't even pay attention to the wac job, he's not worth it" Ahhh but actions speak so much louder that words crusty.

Crawl back in your hole, this is much do deep in a thread for you to be lingering. Hey, you might want to check your email, I think a new story is coming out on MSNBC in a few minutes. You better go prepare your first initial slam on Romney or maybe now on Luntz...

Here's some buzzwords from the right;

Debt, debt ceiling, deficit, unemployment, workforce, spending cuts, economy.

Now I know all you libs don't think those words are relevant for anything and I know that you think it's more important that barack address his belief about something he's not doing anything about (par for his course). But what good is it going to do to let the gay community get married if they are all homeless and on the governments dime. Wouldn't it be nice if during this fu#$ing United States Presidential election we were actually bitching and moaning about the foundational things that need to happen to keep this country afloat. As long as barack thinks John and Frank and Mary and Carrie should get married all will be right in the country. As long as barack and the libs are controlling the conversation the shi$ that matters just gets put off to the sides.

Animal sacrifice? How do you feel about that barack? How about PETA? Disco music was pretty damaging barack, do you think we should be allowed to openly listen to it? If so, at what decibel level? Cat's vs. Dogs? Should barnyard animals be forced to wear pants so we don't see the genitalia from the road side barack? What about sheep, how do you feel about sheep? I think we all know the answer to that one.

Haha, rightwingwac. Finally, someone owning up to their rhetoric. Nice. Don't get me wrong, though, we seem to be polar opposites on the political spectrum......

.....btw, civil liberties for all Americans isn't a diversion and will go a long way to keep things "right in the country". It's our (collective) right.

Jimsepa

I own up to everything I do whether for the good of "the cause" or for the humiliation of others or sometimes simply displaying accidental stupidity. That's the primary reason I give some people such a hard time on this thing. They're phony. I've stolen this line more than once. There's three sides to every story; yours, mine and the truth. I fight like crazy for my side and I'm sure you for yours. But somewhere there's a mix of both of them that is the real truth. I realize this but I love to push buttons of people who are so absolute and can't come up with anything from their own minds to defend what they supposedly believe in. Taking them on is a recreation sport with a keyboard.

I read somewhere last week someone stated that this is a form of entertainment and anyone who thinks differently is fooling themselves. If I post on this vine and honestly think I'm going to sway someone rooted in the lefts ideology I might as well be stoned (it would be more fun). As well as vice-verse, the idiotic name calling on both sides, buzzwords and banter are about as serious as either one of the candidates.

IF we're all adults there's no way that we can believe that posting on the vine is actually going to prove anything. Some people on here think they are just so important in the game. I know damn well if I decided to get something accomplished instead of fighting with (you guys) that no one would miss me a bit. But some people on here think the opposite and those are the ones that provide me so much entertainment that I can't help but to respond.

I'm sure we're polar opposites politically, some of my best friends are and somehow we still get together to have some beers and laugh our asses off at the world. My whole life I've found that to be the case. But lately the divide is harsh and getting coarser all the time. That's why I stump for someone, anyone to actually lead this country so that people like you and I could get a beer even though we see different solutions to common problems. If that happened a little more often we all might be finding a little more truth in things.

Hey if we go for a beer maybe we can go see Feisty on her pole...I'm guessing the place wouldn't be very nice though. Hey, I'm the opposition, I can't stay nice too long or people will start to talk.

Here's to ya'

Since Independent Redneck, VA. copied and pasted an op-ed piece from the NY Times and you all liked it so much, I thought I would do the same with an Ann Coulter piece. IR seems to have deleted the part that labeled the piece as Opinion so I will let you all know that the following is an opinion piece:

Plutocrat Dems attack Romney as 'Richie Rich'

by Ann Coulter
02/08/2012

5651
Comments

Having given up on pillorying Mitt Romney for plundering his way to vast wealth -- because, unfortunately, it isn't true -- the NFM (Non-Fox Media) seem to have settled on denouncing him as a rich jerk.

Liberals are disgusted by people who made their own money, as Romney did at Bain Capital. But they admire ill-gotten gains, which is how John Kerry, John Edwards, Jon Corzine, John F. Kennedy, Franklin D. Roosevelt and innumerable other spokesmen for the downtrodden amassed their fortunes.

Democrats are very proud of the rich, patrician FDR -- who inherited all of his money and then launched a series of federal entitlements designed to bankrupt America 60 years later.

JFK also inherited his wealth, from a father who made his money as a bootlegger and stock manipulator. (In their defense, both men went on to create lots of jobs for bartenders and prostitutes.)

Kerry is in a special category of the gigolo. He acquired his fortune by marrying someone, who married someone, who inherited the money -- leading Kerry's children to refer to Teresa Heinz Kerry as their "step-money." In what can only be described as sheer luck, Kerry's first wife was also an heiress.

I've been diligently searching for the shrieks of horror from the media over John Kerry's tax returns when he ran for president eight years ago, but I can't find anything. (Although I did find a reference to Kerry's having served in Vietnam. Anybody else hear about that?)

Even when Kerry refused to release his wife's tax returns in order to avoid the humiliation of revealing his allowance, the press was demurely silent.

John Edwards made well over $50 million by shaking down hardworking doctors with junk science lawsuits -- as The New York Times has since admitted. The highlight of his carnival sideshows was when he channeled unborn children in front of illiterate jurors. (In the Democrats' moral universe, the unborn have no right to life, but they're perfectly acceptable as witnesses for the plaintiff in a malpractice suit.)

As I recall, Democrats were overjoyed with Wall Street financier-turned Democratic politician Jon Corzine. It was just three years ago, in 2009, when President Obama was hailing Corzine as one of the "best partners I have in the White House."

Today, prosecutors are trying to find out what Corzine did with hundreds of millions of his customers' money.

The media do everything they can to avoid looking into these mountebanks when they are active politicians. Then, when they're out of office, the NFM summarily announce that they always knew the Democrats were sleazeballs, and why are we still talking about them?

It's never a good time to talk about Democrat plutocrats until it's way too late to talk about them.

With Corzine, we'll have a window of three seconds to talk about his financial shenanigans. He's innocent until proved gui -- Convicted! -- What? You're still burbling about that guy?

Liberals will be carrying on about Richard Nixon until we're all long dead. Why has the time passed for them to really examine the man who was their vice presidential candidate only eight years ago and was desperately seeking the presidential slot just four years ago?

Until we hear ferocious denunciations of FDR, JFK, Kerry, Edwards and Corzine, liberals have no business criticizing Bain Capital.

Maybe some people are irrationally offended by the rich, but Democrats aren't. This is the party of George Soros, Goldman Sachs and Nancy Pelosi!

The six wealthiest senators are all Democrats, half of whom married or inherited their money. Some of the multimillionaire Democrats are:

-- Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the second-richest senator after Kerry, inherited his money.

-- Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the sixth-richest senator, married her money.

-- Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., was a bogus dot-com multimillionaire, cashing out before the stock crashed.

-- Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., the ninth-richest senator, who failed to pay taxes on her private plane until she was caught last year, married her money.

Meanwhile, with few exceptions, Republicans either made money on their own or they don't have it.

It's not an accident that Democrats oppose a tax on wealth, which they have boatloads of, but strongly support taxes on income, something they typically do not have.

Democrats don't hate the rich; they are the rich, luxuriating in fortunes acquired by inheritance or marriage, fleecing the taxpayer, trial lawyer hucksterism or disreputable money manipulation. Their contempt is reserved for those who engage in honest work for a living, whom they accuse of "greed" for wanting to pay the government a little less.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49401

Except of course that Ann Coulter is a liar;

Among voters earning less than $100,000 (78 percent of voters), 55 percent said they voted Democratic, 43 percent Republican. Among those earning $100,000 or more, 47 percent voted Democratic and 52 percent Republican.

And the fact that people with higher incomes are more likely to vote Republican has been consistently true since 1972,

http://www.minnpost.com/health/2007/11/party-rich-democrats-or-republicans

Figures don't lie but liars figure, and Conservatives are experts at using the statistics to tell only part of the story.

A fascinating explanation is presented in a paper published recently by four statisticians, including Andrew Gelman, a Columbia professor. Gelman writes a blog with the snappy title, Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference, and Social Science.

The title of the paper is a bit livelier: "Rich state, poor state, red state, blue state: What's the matter with Connecticut?"

Gelman and his colleagues show that in presidential elections since 1976, "richer states have increasingly favored the Democrats." On the other hand, "higher-income people have been consistently more likely to vote Republican, especially since 1970."

Even in blue states, they find, the wealthier people favor Republicans. But here is the surprising finding that explains the contradiction:

In poor states, like Mississippi, wealthy people are overwhelmingly voting Republican. In rich states, like Connecticut, the link between wealth and voting Republican is much weaker, barely correlating at all.

Sorry, but dropping the names of a few people who happen to be wealthy doesn't correlate to the wealthy being mostly Democratic.

I'm sorry too John but you happen to be completely full of @!$%#.

Tell me exactly where Ann Coulter lied and why her opinion is any worse than WILLIAM DERESIEWICZ.

And I told all of you that Ms. Coulter's article was an opinion piece where IR deleted the "Opinion" label from his cut and paste.

In poor states, like Mississippi, wealthy people are overwhelmingly voting Republican. In rich states, like Connecticut, the link between wealth and voting Republican is much weaker, barely correlating at all.

Sounds like you are saying only democrats are allowed to have an opinion. So I guess you are admitting what you liberals are up to. You intend to censor anybody that disagrees with you.

Hysterical! The only thing Rick can come up with to respond to IR's erudite post is ANN COULTER!

I suppose, Rick, that you also drool over Glenn Beck's every word.

No, really Charlie Brown, I'll hold the football for you!

http://slannder.homestead.com/

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/01/ann_coulters_lies.php

http://www.amazon.com/Brainless-The-Lies-Lunacy-Coulter/dp/0061243507

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2788441/posts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3GEs2C6FCs

http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/lies-and-hate-ann-coulters-comments-at-cpac-2011/politics/2011/02/14/17418

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1124

http://thinkprogress.org/media/2005/04/18/668/distortions/?mobile=nc

http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/brainless-the-lies-and-lunacy-of-ann-coulter

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4979615

http://www.mediaite.com/online/huckabee-confronts-ann-coulter-over-her-claim-hes-a-liberal-christian/

http://www.newshounds.us/2005/07/14/ann_coulters_fog_of_lies_about_karl_rove.php

http://mediamatters.org/research/200608070002

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20030630.html

I particularly enjoyed the one where Coulter tries to make a case that Mike Huckabee is a Liberal...

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

Since Independent Redneck, VA. copied and pasted an op-ed piece from the NY Times and you all liked it so much, I thought I would do the same with an Ann Coulter piece. IR seems to have deleted the part that labeled the piece as Opinion so I will let you all know that the following is an opinion piece:

What did you dipwads miss about the above paragraph? You people aren't too awfully bright now are you?

dang did I miss the election..the left wing lugnuts on here have the election one and done. Wow this group on this vine is out there. Talk about denial...

Conservatives: Giant Bullies That Abuse the Weak

AlterNet / By Chauncey DeVega

Mitt Romney is a bully. And he's just right for the GOP.

May 14, 2012 |

Mitt Romney says he likes being able to fire people. Mitt Romney takes a drive with a terrified family pet strapped to the roof of his car. Mitt Romney assaulted a gay student while in prep school. Mitt Romney tricked a blind teacher, apparently one he "liked," letting the man walk into a glass door. He is a bully. Mitt Romney is also the presumed presidential nominee for a political party of unapologetic bullies. Ergo, he is a near-perfect leader for the Tea Party GOP.

American politics in the age of Obama is beset by deep divides in partisanship, ideology and political values. These debates are about more than policy. They have devolved into disagreements about the very nature of empirical reality, facts and science. We're having fights over whether global warming is real; whether tax cuts for the rich trickle down to the rest of us; whether Barack Obama is a United States citizen.

According to the right-wing media echo chamber, Democrats and progressives are not just wrong on almost every major political and social issue. No, they are treasonous, deserving of death, and want to destroy the country.

Interestingly, research has found that the diametrically opposed worldviews of conservatives and liberals can be a function of differences in biology, brain structure and political personality types. For example, researchers have discovered that the fear centers of conservatives' brains are over-developed. This in turn makes them highly susceptible to anxieties about social change and threat, and creates a hostility toward people conservatives perceive to be the Other.

Moreover, conservatives tend to be deferent to authority and hierarchy, fearful of change, closed off to new experiences, possessed of a binary world view, attracted to simple moral appeals (right and wrong, good guys vs. bad guys) and highly intolerant of ambiguity. These traits are a formula for authoritarian thinking, which according to the book, Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics, has a broad impact on public opinion regarding such topics as immigration, privacy, women's reproductive rights, national security, gay marriage, and matters of race and racial inequality.

In all, these differences in political worldviews can be crystallized into one key divide: conservatives and liberals are radically different in how empathy impacts their political decision-making.

The University of Southern California's Ravi Iyer demonstrates this divide with the following chart:

he more empathetic a liberal is, the more likely she or he is to be interested in politics. The opposite holds true for conservatives: the less empathetic they are, the more likely a given conservative is to show interest in political matters. This is a damning reveal; it explains much of the Ayn Rand, dystopian, destroy the social safety net, one against many, politics of the Republican Party. By implication, those who show little empathy are rendered grossly incapable of even working through how either the Common Good or the Good Society should be values in the political calculus of governance, citizenship and leadership.

The Republican presidential primary season has provided ample evidence of how the GOP has become a party possessed by a deep lack of empathy. During the debates audience members laughed at the prospect of uninsured people dying. They mocked a gay soldier who was serving his country abroad. It was also suggested during the debates that Muslim Americans should be openly harassed and racially profiled (not one candidate intervened or suggested this was unconstitutional) and that undocumented citizens should be deported and/or the United States surrounded by electric fences.

In the conservative worldview, the poor are surplus people who are "unproductive," a "drain" on American society, and who leech off of the rich and "normal" Americans. The social safety net should be destroyed as "entitlements" like Social Security and unemployment insurance encourage laziness and sloth. Support for hungry children, public education, the unemployed, and the poor should be cut to ensure tax cuts for the rich.

The Republican Party has been practicing "bully politics" at its best since the election of President Obama.

The Republican leadership has proudly vowed to destroy Obama's presidency at any cost--even if the country suffers because of it. The Republican Party has worked to obstruct legislation at every turn--even popular bills supported by the public. There is a concerted effort to destroy the public's confidence in government with the hope that anger and rage will be distributed equally at both parties--as opposed to those in the Republican Party who are most responsible for these impasses in procedure and voting (even opposing legislation they previously supported in order to spite President Obama).

The foot soldiers of the radical political faction, otherwise known as the Tea Party, have prided themselves on holding the country hostage (as they did during the debt ceiling crisis), repeatedly demonstrating that zealotry holds precedence over good government and the public interest.

Mitt Romney is a perfect candidate for a political party of bullies, a collective both refined and gross. The policies offered by the Republican Party are a one-against-all mix of Ayn Rand's love of personal selfishness and unbridled corporate greed. Here, the government should be drowned in the bathtub and the social safety destroyed in order to transfer more resources to the rich.

Radical libertarianism, deregulation and a free market unmoored by any restrictions of common sense, humanity or reason will separate the weak from the strong. The rest of society be damned in this Mad Max view of Americans' obligations to one another and the social compact. We are all just individual agents, lacking any rights of citizenship which cannot be secured and protected by radical free-market capitalism, the bankers, financiers, and plutocrats.

This America, the one of Mitt Romney and the Republican Party's dreams, is a bully's paradise.

Mitt Romney, prep school bully of the weak and vulnerable, corporate raider bully who takes pleasure in terminating employees, nominee of a political party of bullies and "real Americans," and he who wants to be president of the United States, has made it abundantly clear that empathy is not a public virtue to be cultivated or encouraged.

What does that mean for the rest of us who don't get to sit at the cool kids table or have enough money to hang out with Mitt Romney and his exclusive clique?

The question voters should ask themselves before voting is: What kind of country do I want the US to be. Is it one where, the weak and vulnerable, whether they be old or young, are helped in their times of need or do we just cast them aside as less than valuable and not worthy of investment? Most of us in our lives have hit bad patches either through health issues and or financial difficulties, sometimes they come hand in hand. Are we going to become the type of society that is heartless and soulless as often exhibited here on this blog, where these people do not matter and bully them into accepting their lot in life? Or will stand up to the bullies and make it a society, we can all be proud to say the US is a caring nation and proves it at home as well as overseas.

Thank you for showing two examples of people grasping for anything they can while sinking into quicksand. ROFLMAO you made my day.

Another sign of desperation is to repost garbage from days before. Can't run on the issues, you have to run on made up and inane posts.

GBM- I gotta hand it to you people. Taking advantage of the current "Crackdown On Bullies" trend sweeping the nation, and try to use it for political purposes. Not working out for you, though. Remember, many of you same people said the USA itself was a "bully" during the Bush years (not the Obama years of course, even though our foreign policy is much the same).

The term "bully", will soon be overused by you lefties and will lose all it's meaning just the same way that the word "racist" has. We will have you all to thank for that. Thanks!

GBM, fantastic points.

The Romney/GOP party wants us to vote against our own interests & line their pockets - at any cost to us.

Their strategy is to bully us and BULLY THE TRUTH.

Great move. Demonize your opponents by dehumanizing them

Beverly, GBM, excellent information and comments. I agree, Backhouse, the GOP strategy is to bully us and Bully the Truth.

Thanks Backhouse, To me it is all coming crystal clear, BULLYING is the name of their game.

Everything they do is done in bullying fashion, whether it be in campaigning (carpet bomb ads against your opponent, Romney vs Gingrich for example),

Legislation (demean and diminish women, children, the weak, the sick, the elderly)

Religion (any social issue they can manufacture, womens' health, etc., human rights)

It is that old white male mentality, my way or the highway type of thinking, they are a diminishing breed thank goodness.

Great posts up above, thanks for keeping the flag of justice flying.

BULLYING is the name of their game.

Gingerbread Mamma,

Couldn't agree more - especially after reading some of their comments this morning!

I think they are in for a major shock when they finally realize it is not going to work this time around!

Might be time for them to retire that chapter from the Karl Rove playbook...

GBM---I think you have summarized the GOP tactics in one word----bullying. It shows in their unwillingness to compromise---their way or the highway; this is another form of bullying as well.

Jody, Iowa

Thank you; Jody I've got a long way to go in the information dept. I think you are the ultimate informer and most accurate.

First of all the only voter fraud going on is within the Republican party. Second, we need to do a little bullying on the republican party.

GBM---I think you have summarized the GOP tactics in one word----bullying. It shows in their unwillingness to compromise---their way or the highway; this is another form of bullying as well.

I have watched conservative commentators like Ann Coulter and Bill O'reilley go on liberal talk shows and I have watched those that are hosting (the view is one of the worst) shout down their conservaticve guests effectively censoring them. It has also happened at some to the more liberal universities.

Talk about hypocrisy. I guess bullying has a lot to do with your point of view. And your point of view is totally dependent on where you are standing.

GBM - excellent. You brighten my day, as always

Beverly...

"Republicans and teabaggers are really not that smart".

Uh...OK...now how about an honest peek at the voting blocs who supported Mr. Obama at the highest percentages in 2008 ??? You know...the folks who vote the same way that you vote. I suppose those are all the vastly informed Democrat voters ?

Or you can look at my state's last election for governor in 2010. 1.13 million votes cast and a free spending Democrat wins by about 6,000 votes and immediately levies the biggest tax increase in state history. In the six poorest cities in our state, he won by about 75,000 votes...handing him the election.

Those "six poorest cities"...is that where all the informed and involved voters are now living ???

Belfast.......Merci mon ami. Il est, comme je trouve.

LMAO@ Rick. You are whining about the View shouting down conservatives? ROFLMAO!!! The View, that's the best you have? Bwaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaa

It's amazing to me how everytime a lib opens his or her mouth they're wrong. I would think that every once in awhile even a blind squirrel would find a nut but I guess not. Guess that's what happens when you live your entire life in fantasyland. I also find it more than a bit hypocritical that everything the left is guilty of they accuse the right of the exact same thing. I also find it more than a bit ironic that the left accuses the right of being stupid when the entire lib ideology is predicated on an absence of logic and rational thought. I'm not even going to address any of the ridiculous points in this comment string b/c it's not worth the energy it takes to press keys to respond.

Looks like the morning "Circle-Jerk" on First Read is in full session. The object of the day is too see how many times they can use the word "bully" or "bullying" as they attack Romney. Never mind what the article discusses, these are the orders from Media Matters !

I also love how they pat each other on the back and congratulate each other on their deep, insightful, meaningful posts ......... yeah, I am just kidding !

Obama contradicting Obama. It will be a fun campaign, all the Romney campaign need do is show what Obama has said versus what Obama has done.

I sure hope FEASTY has a large supply of popcorn on hand. LOL !

"That’s why, we guess, Vice President Biden apologized to the president -- his comments on “Meet the Press” guaranteed the gay-marriage story would be more about process and politics and not conviction"

From "Its Bush's fault" to "It's Bidens fault"; everyone is responsible for Obama's actions EXCEPT Obama. What a pathetic bunch of yes-men.

pj...

Don't forget about the tsunami in Japan...the president has used it as another of his excuses, despite the fact that the disaster had a negative impact on Japanese auto manufacturing when our our auto manufacturing needed some outside help.

Shellie-657180

LMAO@ Rick. You are whining about the View shouting down conservatives? ROFLMAO!!! The View, that's the best you have? Bwaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaa

Where is your head man? What in the hell are you talking about? If you opened your eyes for two seconds you would see that every time liberals invite conservatives to "speak" it is not about speaking, it is about censoring them. Like Coulter at the University of Indiana and Coulter on some dip@!$%# little afternoon TV show called "The Doctors". You all are hypocrites, pure and simple.

How about your two "Hard News" programs that all you liberals swear by and get all your information. That would be The Daily Show with John Stewart and The Colbert Report. You people all think you are comedians but take my advice and don't give up your day job.

I think you will find in that same poll, Denise, other results like Romney not only closed the gender gap but went ahead of the president; that the respondents believe Romney will do a better job on the economy than the president. Also interesting that the poll was purposely slanted to use more registered democrats than Republicans. What do you make of that? Purposeful lying maybe? Actual feelings maybe?

In the poll, 55% say the economy would get better over the next four years if Romney was elected, compared with 46% who say it would improve if Obama was re-elected. Twenty-seven percent say the economy would get worse in a Romney first term, compared with 37% who say that of an Obama second term.

"We're right back where we've been all along: The economy is a major issue, and it's one which neither candidate has a serious advantage on," says Gary Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California-San Diego. "Romney gets better ratings because of his reputation as a CEO, and Obama is going to benefit from the fact that optimism is increasing. … But it looks like it's extremely close."

For the first time during this campaign cycle, the GOP has an advantage in congressional elections. By 50%-44%, those surveyed say they're likely to vote for the Republican congressional candidate. The two parties were tied in the USA TODAY Poll in February, and Democrats had a 7-point advantage last August.

"Romney closed the gender gap". No, Romney hasn't closed the gender gap.

GOP and its ongoing Anti-Women agenda: Holding back birth control (anti-family planning when women have to work to make ends meet),

Defunding Planned Parenthood (Romney "I'll get rid of that")

Suing doctors, 'a fertilized egg is a person', 'abortions can cause cancer', doctors must lie to their patients or else...

The GOP anti-woman list goes on, but hey - "Just close your eyes."

@backhouse -- go about 5 minutes into the most balanced show on msnbc and you will see. Don't gasp too loudly LOL.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/vp/47425397#47425397

How stupid can you be to base any opinion on either MSNBC or a USA/Gallup poll? Do any of you use your own brain or is it always regurgitating the crap you hear or read in the news? Troglodytes. Everyone of you. You can quote any biased crap poll you want, but come Nov., there's going to be a lot of lefties that are genuinely confused about why Obama got beat down in a landslide.

Ummmmm ben, You are clearly confused. Try again.

Yeah, Shellie. This dude just used the words "balanced", "show", and "msnbc" in the same sentence in a comment string that started with reliance on an poll data. The only thing missing from that oxymoron was capping it with calling conservatives stupid.

I'm not sure why, but when I read ThomasPaine1776 I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes:

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of stregth." -- Eric Hoffer

Thomas...

A one day observer on this site would likely make two conclusions, if based on the majority of things written:

1) Anyone who even leans a bit to the conservative or Republican side is poorly informed, only cares about the wealthy folks, and is an angry bigot who also doesn't care much for women or children either. And they will vote for whomever Rush Limberger or Fox News tells them to vote for...no matter how evil-minded that candidate truly is. These folks are welcome to offer an opinion on a topic, but their inherent ignorance renders that opinion moot.

2) The more liberal or Democrat one's idea's might be...the better. Of course it helps that the more liberal one is and the more supportive of any Democrat candidate one might be...the better. And naturally, anyone who votes Democrat in any election...only does so because that voter is fully informed on the issues, has deep knowledge of how things actually work in the world, and is a compassionate, caring, and involved American citizen. Every single one of them, without exception. There are no liberal or Democrat voters who would not be better described as "truly intelligent Democrat voters". Even the ones who cannot read.

The nation would be a better place in a Newsviney sort of way, if we would all just accept these simple facts.

As one who leans a bit to the conservative economic side of things...I understand I am probably incorrect on my assessment, just like I am told any fact or opinion I may offer simply has to be incorrect by an addiction to Rush Limberger or Fox News.

And by the way Thomas...how is it possible that any sane person would find any candidate from here or any of the planets of our solar system, that could possibly be a better candidate than Barack Obama...commander of all he sees, savior of the world's problems, economic genius, and the absolute best little shrieking, finger-wiggling politician of this generation or any other.

Personally I can't wait to see what their National Convention will be like. Especially since they have decided they need to open carry. Stocking up on my popcorn.

Da Noid - Sure you aren't confusing it with the treatment of the Catholics who were protesting emporer Obama in Chicago yesterday?

Please don't tell me that's surprising or shocking.

Jody, terrific post. Nobody can do faux outrage as the Republicans. They are a 'tad' upset with our President and his party, as they get punked at their own game. In the The Obama team, Karl Rove and his ilk, have met their match and they are not happy campers. Let the games begin!

You guys actually believe your own lies?

What the NYT finds in their poll

Not surprisingly, the latest New York Times/CBS poll finds that a resounding 67% of respondents believe the announcement was made for mostly political reasons, versus 24% who believe it was done out of principle.

Jody, great post,

"Romney claims talking about such things as LGBT and women's rights is a distraction from the economy."

Meanwhile GOP/Koch is prioritizing abortion. Q. How long since Rove V Wade? (40 years.)

They put up 90 (ninety) laws on the subject in 2010!

That is what you call DISTRACTING FROM THE ECONOMY.

Thank you.

Ben, they are not lies; one only needs to look at the Ryan budget which Romney calls "marvelous", one only needs to see the GOP take their Oath to Grover more seriously than their Oath to the Constitution and the country. One only needs to look at the huge military budget that has increased yearly over the past 30 years to realize what is happening. The fact that you call those lies is a sad commentary on your conservative party because those are the facts within my editorializing that reflect what the conservative party does.

Backhouse

Where do you keep your head most of the time. Obama has made big news trying to force states to fund Planned Parenthood by withholding funding for health care from those states that refuse to use Planned Parenthood. Now those states that are saying, "Keep your money, Obama" are being sued as a further step.

Meanwhile, DNC/Soros is minimizing economic concerns so the dollar and the US economy will decline and Soros will make billions off a weak dollar just like he did in England when he almost "broke the Bank of England". Matter of public record, nobody is trying to hide that fact.

Great post, Jody. The funny thing to me about the emphasis on the military is that our risks have never been lower than they are today. I'm not minimizing the threat of terrorism but it is an entirely different foe requiring different measures to defeat. President Obama certainly seems to understand this but the Republicans seem stuck on past wars.

Men, women, infants and children across America;

Rely on Planned Parenthood for preventive care, cancer screenings - prostate and breast cancer, and basic health care.

Some rural communities rely completely on Planned Parenthood.

(And MY head is just fine, thanks.)

After the election the President can start pressuring these right wing states to get in line.

Job1 - Why would Romney do that?

After the election the President Obama can start pressuring these right wing states to get in line.

...as a shrieking lobbyist !

Oh boy, another four years of disregarding the Constitution of the United States, another four years of rejecting the sovereign rights of states to govern themselves. Another four years of watching kindergarten temper tantrums when the rest of the elected represetatives and senators in Washington do not kowtow to the President and do not hang on his every word and gesture as if it were divine revelation. I am going to go out on a limb here and presume that A) those of you who can support this craziness and wish it to continue have not yet felt the lash of unemployment, reduced wages and benefits, errodiing purchase power, loss of job, loss of home, loss of savings.......you can feel superior to us, pat us on the head and tell the government to give us a lollipop while you go about your business, thinking that America is this rosy place of limitless opportunity. You do not uplift the poor, protect the children, or defend the elderly, but rather you patronize them at every turn by advocating changes that you have no firsthand knowlege will positively impact their situations. You scream that you are for the rights of women, but what I am really hearing is that you are screaming for the rights of men, because as long as women have birth control and abortion, men do not have to accept responsibility for the products of their reproductive and sexual behaviors....It isn't about women's choice, it is about men's. Furthermore, as long as women have complete access to birth control and abortion, then men can go about their business blaming women for the fact that we earn less than men, because if we choose to have children and further the human race, we are not serious about work or career life. Your bashing of women who are fortunate enough to stay home as full time Moms clearly points to the fact that you consider that choice a reflection of lesser intelligence. Ironically, the welfare Mom, who stays home, and uses children as an excuse not to work, not to acquire education or training, who gets paid for sitting at home watching TV instead of her kids....somehow society is supposed to protect that form of stay at home Mom, while villifying the other.

Lets see Igor Obama after calling his opponent a vampire in an ad goes to dinner with the vampires bride. Why does this not surprise me in the least? Money talks especially in politics and integrity walks.Well he can keep suing us we always have at least one suit in SCOTUS since he took office. I would rather not fund any organization under investigation for $5 million in questionable charges caught in our states audit this year.

Thanks for re-posting JohnB!

Far to informative to let it go *poof* into cyberspace!

Only wish the beatdown you & Dennis put on little BB yesterday hadn't vanished as well...

Talk about good stuff! lol

Glad you re-posted JohnB, also Ron and any others I missed as I had Internet problems for most of the day. Terrific posts all.

That's it? Don't live with in your means if you want a robust economy? We've gotten away with it in the USA because so far the world likes the dollar. But after the last 3.5 years of Obama the dollar is starting to look tarnished. It started with his world apology tour that made us look weak and culminated with his inability to work with congress on the debt ceiling.

John B, as excellent today as it was yesterday before "poof", everything disappeared. One wonders how it is that those GOP self-proclaimed economic geniuses have yet to learn the history lessons that austerity has never and will never be the answer during a recession; that austerity adds to the economic downturn like a snowball rolling down hill gathering momentum in the journey. Hoover chose austerity and a recession became the Great Depression.

I think I used this quote yesterday and it, too, went "poof", What experience and history teach is this: that people and governments have never learned anything from history. Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel.

UAW, just when has the republican party lived within their means? I mean, please, provide us the last time the GOP was fiscally responsible.

John B, Des Moines, IA

You're funnin' us, right? First you quote an op-ed piece in the NY Times as gospel truth and then you quote an economist that is and has been a democrat all his waking life and I suppose you expect all of us to take that as gospel truth.

Remember that Krugman got his inspiration to be an economist from a work of science fiction and that very well could be what you liberals are counting on.

The DJIA since the announcement that the Europeans have turned their backs on austerity has lost approximately 700 points and has only regained a bit less than 4 points.

The idea here is to turn the economy around before austerity but you liberals want to keep spending.....I want to say until nothing else is left but what is left?

No, I think he was serious Rick. Sooner or later OPEC is going to stop taking Dollars for oil. Then liberals will understand why non-stop printing of money was a bad idea....

If I'm wrong then stop whining and put up some facts that prove these Nobel Prize winners and other prominent Economists wrong.

Otherwise it's just so much balloon juice.

Just because somebody wins a Nobel Prize doesn't make them the single authority on anything. It is a popularity contest, a vote, and as such, subject to error. There are many scientist, economists, humanitarians, who have a totally different idea about what is right and wrong carefully thought out, they just didnt' get picked. I question the entire validity of the Nobel Prize concept....Used to be reflective of "contribution to society" as a whole-people who developed life saving medicines, or devoted their entire lives to service.....and in recent memory, it is a popularity contest for political correct speakers. Who can memorize the popular culture mantra and recite it in the widest world forum......Still trying to figure out how Obama got one????? No resume to speak of, relative unknown....don't know of any huge body of research attributed to him.....Wonder if, as claimed by other posters, elections can be bought with Nobel being a purchased prize.......and who put up the funds to purchase it???

Winning a nobel prize doesnt neccisarirly qualify you as an expert. IE: Nobel Prize Winner----.001 term as President Barack Obama....

So disprove what I said. I put my case up in detail with citations. You're just saying "no it isn't", so as far as anyone can tell you have nothing to back up your position.

John B, Des Moines,

If "winning a Nobel Peace Prize" in any way is a basis for your post, then you fail to make a point.

Obama was "handed" a Nobel Prize in about his first month of office. This means he was nominated for the award before taking office ... with that, the Nobel Prize was substantially devalued. In no way did Barack Obama earn his award .... it was given to him as a political gesture.

Gee, no one has even TRIED to disprove Stiglitz and Krugman...

...I wonder why not?

We can talk all day about demographics and polls,

Amen Nash!

The only poll that counts is the one on election day!

What is Mitt Romney proposing to do to move America forward?

Willard has promised to tell us on Nov. 7th!

You know Feisty, it is sad that so many folks are willing to vote for someone who is basically running on the empty . . . so sad that folks don't expect more from someone who wants to lead the world!

P.S. Even though I can't check in as much as I want . . . knowing you are here keeping things straight gives me peace! :o)

You know Feisty, it is sad that so many folks are willing to vote for someone who is basically running on the empty . . . so sad!

What I find even sadder is they're willing to vote for this empty suit based solely on their hatred of the black man occupying the White House!

Yeah - I said it, when in history have you ever seen these yahoo's running a canidate known as ABO = Anyone But Obama?

knowing you are here keeping things straight gives me peace! :o)

GF - You were my mentor! I will always have your back!

PS: Got the package, gonna test drive it for dinner tonight, I'll let you know! ☺

Feisty....there's always that convicted felon in Texas you can vote for rather than President Hope Dope, the empty suit! Forty one percent of the registered democratic voters in West Virginia have perferred a bonified crimminal rather than a future one.

Well Nash. Since America has seen what Obama and the liberals idea is of "forward", Romney's most important task is to stop that. It's pretty simple. Liberals have been moving this country "forward" for years and there are still apparently millions of poor, our culture has gone down the shi**er, illega aliens are welcomed, coddled and given sanctuary by liberals, Blacks are attacking Whites in mobs all over the country and all Obama can tell us is "(Noun) (verb) bin Laden" and "rich people suck".

Obama is not telling us how we can move forward. All he does is criticize republicans and make partisan politics speeches.

bob-2579213

Feisty....there's always that convicted felon in Texas you can vote for

Yes. There are always clueless idiots who will vote based on their hatred of Obama. Which convicted felon will you be voting for, Bob?

There are always clueless idiots who will vote based on their hatred of Obama.

Houston! LOL

How many states is candidate ABO on the ballot?

I rest my case!

It is so interesting that even the Romney supporters cannot name a damn thing this man stands for . . . all they can talk about is "Obama".

Pathetic.

P.S. Damage, still praying for your sanity my friend . . . I see you are still afraid of black people . . . all I can say to that is . . . BOO! ;oP

Uhhhh guys -- those clueless idiots you are talking about are DEMOCRATS. WV is not a state where parties can cross lines in primaries. LOL.

Wow Ben . . . that IS so funny . . . almost as funny as you not being able to think of anything worthwhile to say about Mitt Romney!

ROTFLMAO!

Nassville, it just politics. The Democrats in the last three elections just badmouthed republicans and said as little as possible of substance. That is what challengers do . Also, Obama does not really say anything substancial.

The lol (left of left) Mob is out on force in this post because the Polls from their own mantra has Romney in front so it says:

the latest New York Times/CBS poll (whose methodology were a tad circumspect of… more in a few) finds that a resounding 67% of respondents believe the announcement was made for mostly political reasons, versus 24% who believe it was done out of principle.

Feisty, good article thi weekend, you are not as bad as I was hoping, of course you are a lefty if I might say so.

Look Girlfriend, you are correct and so is Job1 when you say that the Polls only count on the day of the election.

We do agree on some things,

1. Gay Civil Unions with all the benifits.

2. This is the best Country in the world (not perfect). Have you ever lived in any other Country.

3. You know truth when you see it. (only your truth)

4. You lol are more intelligent than anybody else.

5. We both know that this will be a close race and that is why you insult so much.

6. We both have gay people in our families.

OK, so I'm being a bit sarcastic.

Concerned Citizen:

Yay for Mitt Romney that he is out front! Now, the question is, if he wins, then what?

Like I said, *crickets*.

P.S. Don - yeah, it's all politics, "both sides" do it, yadda yadda yadda. But at the end of the day, President Obama HAS a plan and he is campaigning on that plan. How in the hell can you run for President claiming you are now against everything you spent your entilre life being for? WTF is Mitt Romney going to do as President? If he can't answer that, and you vote for him anyway, then the problem is not Mitt Romney, it is you.

Well Nash, I really don't care that you call Democrats clueless idiots.

I hate to break it to you; the Republicans are the clueless idiots. Facts are facts.

Sorry J1 but you are wrong. Your own ilk called Democrats clueless idiots. Just read 9.7. That's all I was referring to. You need to take that up with Nash and Feisty not me.

Sorry Ben, maybe you can get new reading glasses. It clearly states that the Republicans are clueless idiots. That is a know fact.

So republicans are clueless idiots? That's probably true since, you know, you said it online. So since you're political ideology is based on unsustainable social and fiscal principles, that makes the opposing view point idiots? Even if that's not true, which it is, you're contention here is that it's not possible for someone to disagree with you and still be smart? Just for the record, have you ever drafted a budget for the federal government? Whether you agree with it or not, you're saying that someone capable of drafting a budget proposal is an idiot? Good thing that's not a narrowminded view, b/c if it was, you might be the one that sounds like the clueless idiot.

I will let President Obama continue to draft the budget proposals.

Job...

The president has not been able to summon a single vote in support of budgets he himself "drafted" over the past two years. And you are fully fine with that and obviously feel he's doing a great job submitting budgets to the nation...while calling Republicans "clueless idiots" ???

Lots of logic in that !!!

tony-268769,

You are looking for logic from a libbie ? My God, man ! Your expectations are way too high !!

Obama apparently never had a basic course in accounting while in office. He doesn't appear to have had one in economics either. He DID take a salesmanship course, however ... his teacher was the sham-wow man !!

Heck who cares about Obama the seabreeze is working this year and it is raining. Hey Houston will you explain why I should want to blow more of the states money on Planned Parenthood when they are under investigation for $5 million in questionable charges in your area caught in the states audit this year.

Looks like you like taking it in the rear from blue folks.

Here is a good source for poll info

http://nationalpolls.com/

These numbers look pretty good for the President.

How about accepting money from Wells Fargo, BoA, etc. for the convention in a state he has no fricking chance now. LOL!!!!!!

And another story on the media's promotion of the false equivalency is this article by Greg Sargent:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/only-one-partys-to-blame-dont-tell-the-sunday-shows/2012/05/14/gIQAXOcPPU_blog.html

Apparently, it's now taboo to report anything about the rather obvious fact that the Republicans are almost totally responsible for current dysfunctional state of the federal government, even when respected political analysts like Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein are the ones who are pointing it out. Ornstein has been a frequent guest on the talk shows in the past, but the subject of his new book on Republican extremism apparently is too politically incorrect to be permitted a public hearing. Wouldn't want to upset younger or more sensitive viewers with actual facts.

Ben-636050

How about accepting money from Wells Fargo, BoA, etc. for the convention in a state he has no fricking chance now. LOL!!!!!!

So, how about it? When did Obama ever say these corporations were evil? Put up or shut up. (Not that you actually would ever shut up and deprive us of your ignorance.)

Houston, Bain capital acquired d firms on the verge of bankruptcy and was able to revive some with cost cutting, but no one can have a 100% success rate. Jobs were going to be lost regardless, and many of the companies would have gone under anyway.

There is no way to revive a near bankrupt company without getting costs under control.

DON9876543

Houston, Bain capital acquired d firms on the verge of bankruptcy and was able to revive some with cost cutting, but no one can have a 100% success rate. Jobs were going to be lost regardless, and many of the companies would have gone under anyway.

Maybe in some cases, it did. But it also acquired healthy companies like the steel company in the Obama ad, drove the company into bankruptcy, and Mitt walked away for a big profit. That happened more than once, and once is one too many times for that kind of predatory capitalism.

Search Houston and you will find:

As the resulting financial and emotional agony was spreading among millions of voters across the land, federal and state Democrat lawmakers, led by President Obama, and aided by the mainstream media, were swift to paint "big banks" as the "evil boogeyman," whose unethical actions caused the devastating financial crisis since the Great Depression.

When I voted for President Obama in 2008 I expected to get a full-time President that cared

about our nation. I did not get what I wanted. I got instead a man that has not stopped to

push his own agenda forward and has not stopped to look at himself as someone to better

the people of this nation. I am jobless at this moment and have been since 2010. We do need

"Change" and "Hope", but from a different President.

Mr. Obama.....you have an "F" from this past voter.

Ben-636050

Search Houston and you will find:

All you found is something from a blog you failed give a link to with quote marks that appear to be typed in by the unknown blogger around that blogger's own words to make them look "more credible." But you failed to find an actual quote from Obama or anyone associated with him asserting that big banks were evil boogeymen. Try again.

Don, half wrong. Bain also acquired highly profitable firms, leveraged against their good name and credit to buy other firms draining resources from those firms and ultimately bankrupted them often leaving the tax payers to foot the bill for the pension funds Bain raided to line their own pockets. The steel plant Romney touts as a Bain success received huge amounts of taxpayer money, something like 37% of the funds for that plant came from Government--more than double what Bain invested. Romney is more than happy to take Government money for his personal gain whether it is for a steel plant or the Salt Lake City Olympics and out of the other side of his mouth, he whines about GM and Chrysler and any other Government infusion of capital into private business. 22% of the companies Bain acquired went bankrupt; not all of those firms were in trouble before Bain bought them but were in trouble after.

The Democratic superpac on GST steel and Ronmey is not that accurate:

That picture is not accurate, as Mike Flynn reports today in an article on Breitbart.com. Bain Capital shut down GST Steel in 2001, two years after Mitt Romney left the company to accept the job as CEO of the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. Flynn reports the key decision-maker at Bain Capital, when GST Steel was closed, was Jonathan Lavine. Lavine is an Obama supporter and bundler who raised more than $100,000 for the president's reelection campaign. Lavine started working for Bain in 1993.

Houston

But it also acquired healthy companies like the steel company in the Obama ad, drove the company into bankruptcy

Some analysts say Bain should not be blamed for the company's failure, noting that a wave of cheap imports forced nearly half of the U.S. steel industry into bankruptcy during that period. Another company set up around the same time, in which Bain took a minority stake, Steel Dynamics in Fort Wayne, Indiana, thrived.

Besides, Putting this all on Romney is dishonest as the company in question went under in 2001. He left the company in 1999 to SUCCESSFULLY run the 2002 Olympics. Yes he received dividends during that time, so what? That is common practice in the business word for former executives.

Why don't some of you try to dig up some information of the 78% successful companies Bain helped to save?

Atticus, I agree. A firm that takes over failing firms cannot have 100% success some will thrive with cost cutting, some won't. There is no other way to save companies nearly bankrupt without controlling costs.

AtticusFlinched

Another company set up around the same time, in which Bain took a minority stake, Steel Dynamics in Fort Wayne, Indiana, thrived.

That's one of the Bain companies that got subsidized by taxpayers. Romney doesn't mind Big Government when he makes a profit off it.

DON9876543

Atticus, I agree. A firm that takes over failing firms cannot have 100% success some will thrive with cost cutting, some won't. There is no other way to save companies nearly bankrupt without controlling costs.

You're pretending that nobody has told you that Bain made money by acquiring healthy companies and driving them into debt, even though that inconvenient fact has been mentioned numerous times here already.

Houston...

A lot of things get "mentioned numberous times on this site"...that doesn't necessarily make them "facts"...and often, not even close.

tony-268769

Houston...

A lot of things get "mentioned numberous times on this site"...that doesn't necessarily make them "facts"...and often, not even close.

When right wingdings are losing an argument, they always prop up a strawman argument that nobody actually made that they can knock down instead. Of course, I didn't say mentioning something many times on this site does make it a fact. But it's a fact that Romney did make money running companies into the ground and walking away with a profit.

And you make fun of what those on the 'right' have to say ???

But of course...as a 'non-right wingding' you actually possess Mr. Romney's college transcripts that show he majored in "Running Companies Into The Ground And Walking Away With A Profit".

And call it a "fact".

Time to grow up. Not every business survives and not every business is meant to survive. Buildings get torn down, the rubble gets sold as 'fill', the equipment that used to be inside the building gets auctioned off and put back to work, and the property gets sold to the next owner. This isn't the Land of Oz. I thought those on the left side of the aisle believed in being "green". Well, businesses and buildings need to get recycled too and sometimes, like plastic bottles they come back in another form.

And the fact of the matter is that businesses fail...every day of the year. What was Mr. Romney supposed to do...keep trying to keep dying businesses afloat to eternity ??? For every worker who blames Romney because his or her job died a natural death there are many more people who found jobs. Do they count ?

And that steel company that failed...the one in Mr. Obama's latest ad...why don't you research out just how many steel manufacturing companies went down the tubes back then ? That business was getting slaughtered by foreign competition...a lot of the steel for our buildings and bridges being built then does not carry a 'Made in USA' label on it. I guess that's Romney's fault too.

And speaking of the 'Land of Oz'...Mr. Obama's continuing "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain (himself)" campaign plan is pretty weak...what is his economic plan anyway ??? He's out there shrieking "I'm not gonna stop talking about the economy !!!" and then spends his time shrieking about something else.

He has become a bore. And that's a fact.

tony-268769

Time to grow up. Not every business survives and not every business is meant to survive.

Time for YOU to grow up and stop propping up straw man arguments in your laughable attempt to hide the fact that you're not adult enough to face inconvenient facts. Not every busilness is meant to survive, but some of them suffered untimely deaths when Mitt Romney was on the prowl for quickie profits.

Absolutely. When an incarcerated felon can seriously challenge Obama you know that even obedient Domocrat sheep are starting to wake up to reality.

The only poll that counts is right before the election. However, President Obama and Romney are pretty close in number and that old margin of error factor comes into play.

I remember how bad Obama and Biden trailed McCain and Palin in 2008.

CBS poll places Romney ahead of Oblumbles by 3% in a nationwide poll of independent voters. Starting to get desparate yet Barack??? LOL

He does take credit for a lot of things that occurred in the 3 years of his admin that he had nothing to do with .

You're not watching or reading the President's interviews and speeches. He talks about his record of accomplishments constantly.

Houston, If I were one of the CIA folks that did the heavy lifting finding Bin Laden or a navy seal on the mission, I would be horrified that Obama wants the credit.

DON9876543

Houston, If I were one of the CIA folks that did the heavy lifting finding Bin Laden or a navy seal on the mission, I would be horrified that Obama wants the credit.

You're horrified because Obama managed the raid in a competent manner, even insisting on the backup copters that saved the raid from being a disaster like the one that happened to Carter in his failed hostage rescue attempt. You're horrified because you know that Bush failed to get Bin Laden because he was an incompetent leader.

I really think all Obama did was agree to the plan set up by the military and give his permission. If Obama micro manages things the way you feel he does, I don't think he is a competent leader.

I think a good leader needs to learn to delegate things. I am sure Obama was not active in the day to day planning done by the military.

I don't think Obama is actually an expert on all military matters that you feel he is.

DON9876543

I really think all Obama did was agree to the plan set up by the military and give his permission.

What you think does not conform to the reported facts. Some of Obama's advisers told him he should take the less risky approach of just dropping bombs, which would have destroyed all the files recovered by the SEALS, as well as evidence that Bin Laden was there. Other advisers advised him to do nothing. He chose the riskier approach and it was Obama who insisted that the backup helicopters be sent in. The mission would have failed without them, and the SEALS would have at best ended up as prisoners of Pakistan if it weren't for Obama's judgment.

I don't think Obama is actually an expert on all military matters that you feel he is.

I never said he was an expert on any military matters, let alone all of them. He's proven himself to be someone who listens carefully to the experts, who often disagree with each other, and weighs the risks and benefits of courses of actions before making a decision. To me, that's better than the strategy that G. W. Bush used in Iraq which basically was: "Let's poke a stick in this hornets' nest and see what happens."

Does anyone seriously think that if bin Ladin was killed on Bush's watch, that you'd be able to remove the smirk from President Bush with anything less than a sledgehammer?

Good or bad, presidents are responsible for what happens on their watch, regardless of whether they had anything to do with it or not. That may not be fair, but it's life. You can't trash Obama for the failure for the economy to recover as quickly as people would hope, while also not giving Obama credit for making the decisions that took out OBL. Like every president, Obama has had successes and failures. The big issue will be whether the successes of the Obama administration outweigh the failures.

Houston, If I were one of the CIA folks that did the heavy lifting finding Bin Laden

Fortunately, for all of us, you weren't - we don't need cowards acting as heroes. Obama as CIC and all the team he assembled to complete the bin Laden mission are the true heroes.