By all means, if you are a Republican, and don't want to vote for Romney, vote for Gary Johnson. The Libertarian Party needs the support, to increase it's influence in American politics.

PS That's why Romney contested seating the Maine delgation at the Republican convention, because they sent too many Ron Paul supporters. Maine was hoping to win Ron Paul a speaking role. Romney thugs busted Maine over our libertarian delegates.

Gary Johnson is awesome!

He's the right wing Ralph Nader,

vote peeling Darth Vader,

drive down the Rombot a percentage or two,

that's all the President needs him to do.

Libertarians living in a fantasy land,

of log cabins and oxen plowing the land.

It's the 21st century out here b!tch,

so go churn your butter with a hickory switch.

Seriously though, I want to speak of THE DAGGER !

In twelve days, the President has a chance to end the Rombot threat permanently.

The debates are where the President can stick a dagger through the Rombots electoral hope.

It should be fairly easy since Rombot doesn't have a consistent position, which ever position the President

forces Rombot to choose will either alienate moderate independents or tea-bagger conservatives.

These debates will be THE DAGGER through the heart of an ill conceived and poorly executed Rombot

campaign.

As always...

Rombot.Has.Nothing.

Most Americans don't have a clue who Gary Johnson is, why would they vote for him?

ksw62118

Most Americans don't have a clue who Gary Johnson is, why would they vote for him?

Try this, and you tell me who you should vote for:

http://www.isidewith.com/presidential-election-quiz

By the way, Johnson will take the votes of Liberals (who actually care about civil liberties, job growth, and not living in a state of perpetual war) from Obama too.

why would they vote for him?

... why not? Tea Baggers unite! Vote for Gary Johnson! Tell the Weather Vane to stick it!

Libertarians - Talking to empty chairs and dreaming of returning to the 19th Century!

Johnson/Eastwood 2012! Seeing as how Clint likes speaking to empty chairs! I would bet Johnson couldn't fill a broom closet with all of his supporters.

Although this country may need a viable third party, the Libertarian's aren't it. There are 320 million of us now, not 15 million. Some government control is vital and necessary to keep us from falling into anarchy. But by all means, if you don't mind a failing infrastructure that will allow human feces to seep into drinking water, then follow the path of the Libertarians.

tonyeeerm: Our founding fathers decided that long ago. The Libertarians should read Hamilton, Jay and Madison's 'The Federalist Papers' they spelled it flat out.

Love your post. ☺

4 more for 44

Tonybeerm--that is one of the most intellectually lacking descriptions of Libertarians I have ever read. Really? You cant do better than that? That is like a GOP supporter saying anyone who votes democrat wants everyone on welfare, redistribution and cares about snail darters more than humans. Libertarians do believe in some government that is for the benefit of the whole in which individuals cant do on their own. For example, the military or clean air and water. There are some very good tenets of such as a smaller limited government that relies on self reliance and personal accountability than a "You didnt build that" view of small business. You certainly wouldnt have the nanny entitlement state that Obama has built for both individuals and corporations. We wouldnt have a $1 trillion dollar welfare budget over 70 assistance programs while similarly touting how great I am doing in the economy so elect me for another 4 years. Libertarians wouldnt have a woman speak at their convention who is graduating from Georgetown law and could take a job in the private sector and make $160,000 in her very first job and then ask all of us to pay for her birth control. They would expect each of us to pay for our own lifestyle choices. They would not be trying to be venture capitalists with taxpayer money and investing in companys based on political agendas, they would be investing in research and development and let the private sector determine the winners and losers. They would allow for competition in education and let reform move forward to close the education gap and not be beholden to the teachers unions to the detriment of the country as a whole. They would not be campaigning on being the party of the poor and middle class while their 4 year record has only shown that their economic policies have dramatically hurt minorities, the poor and middle class. My guess is your life might be a whole lot better off with some libertarian principles.

kirk - in other words, let everything become privatized, right? I think we've heard that one before. Btw, my life is fine with the man in charge right now. It wasn't 4 years ago.

tonybeeerm

From http://www.garyjohnson2012.com/issues/environment

When it comes to the environment, the Federal government’s responsibility is no different than in other aspects of our lives. It is simply to protect us from those who would do us harm and damage our property. There are bad actors who would pollute our water supplies and our air if allowed to do so, and we must have laws and regulations to protect innocent Americans from the harm those bad actors would do. However, common sense must prevail, and the costs of all regulations must be weighed against the benefits.

As Kirk-2957282 states, your description of Libertarian policies is intellectual laziness at its worst.

Dude, do some research first. Seriously, keep an open mind and check it out. Yes, we want to cut government spending, yes we want government out of our personal lives, yes, we want to bring our troops home. Which part of that don't you like? You may not agree with everything -most Liberals have a hard time getting past the idea of a Laissez-faire market- but perhaps it is worth overlooking some of those things and voting for someone who can change the culture in Washington and voting for someone who hasn't already been corrupted by billions of dollars in campaign contributions.

Tony--of course not. things are not either black or white. Some things government will always be better at and some things the private market will be better at. I voted for John Kerry so just because I am not an Obama supporter doesnt mean I was happy with Bush. You are one of the fortunate that can say things are better for you but most of us cant. I live in Illinois and no one who lives here and cares for more than their own personal well being can say we are better off now and guess whose policies put us in this position? Romney and the GOP is clearly not a panacea but the direction that Obama is taking us by pitting americans against each other, leading from behind, abandoning the concepts of self reliance, personal accountability for your own choices in life is really just a shame. When is the last time you heard a liberal or progressive on this blog say even once, "It was my choice to go to college and major in ___— and it was my choice to work in this profession and it was my choice to earn and accept this pay and I dont begrudge for one second the person who decided to risk it all on a small business or the person who has had tremendous success in their profession and I dont want them to subsidize me for choosing to be a teacher, policeman or GM factory worker" When have you heard a liberal blogger even once say "I want a safety net, but lets not reward people for the bad economic, lifestyle or educational choices they make by bailing out their home, personal bankruptcy, eliminate their tax bill and hook them up to the entitlement gravy train"? When is the last time you heard a liberal blogger admit that seniors control over 80% of the wealth in this country so maybe we should have a real discussion on social security and medicare reform and not put our heads in the sand for political expediency? You want to make it seem as if Obama is good and Romney is evil when the truth is neither and they both are a little bit of both.

your description of Libertarian policies is intellectual laziness at its worst.

and you're living in a dream world where most people would be left behind. Kirk's post amounts to no more than a Tea Party rant.

Kirk's post amounts to no more than a Tea Party rant.

that is the scripted garbage you say anytime someone doesn't agree with Obama. While Tony sounds like one of the sheep out of Animal Farm

DingleB--one good example is the EPA clean air regs promulgated by the Obama administration that were pulled. They were being advocated based on some medical benefits that were estimated (without any real medical basis) to save 4000 lives. Now that sounds like a lot of people being saved but in a country of 325 million its a statistical nonevent when it comes to medical estimates. But like most progressive liberal supporters (and I had this argument with Anna Molly who punted and said she didnt care about the cost side of the equation) a cost/benefit analysis wasnt made. The Wall Street Journal had an article that said that these regs would cost 27,000 jobs in the cement and dirty coal electrical business along with elimination of all the ancillary jobs that service these industries and the bankruptcies of all the small businesses that service these jobs. The estimate was that it would cost at least $4 billion, lead to thousands of divorces, countless personal bankruptcies, hundreds of suicides, drug addictione etc that always comes from loss of jobs and industries. The cost in terms of lives could very well equal the savings of lives by the time a full blown analysis is made. Would we be then willing to adopt the regs knowing the costs? If so, then at least we know what we are getting ourselves into. Libertarians would force that analysis.

You want to make it seem as if Obama is good and Romney is evil when the truth is neither and they both are a little bit of both.

Look, dude. We elect these people to go to work for us. I always vote for the person who is going to serve my best interest. For the last 30 + years, that's been the Democratic Party. They represent what I want to happen. And no, I don't believe that it's to try and set up a nanny state where everyone relies on the government. When you said that, you lost all credibility with me. You sound like nothing more than one of the other angry teabaggers on here who's real beef is that the president isn't what they're used to. There are some points you mentioned that deserve some merit, but if you think they could be implemented, then it's sad to say you're not in touch with reality. If you're wealthy, then by all means, go with Mitt Romney. He'll make sure you're taken care of. Otherwise, it's status quo. That's where I am. Have a nice day.

What is a Tea Party rant? Tony, step up to the plate and prove me wrong? Explain to me why I should support Obama's policies? Explain to me why I am wrong? Its amazing to me that when posters like Xabre, Seeking Sanity, David and even the ones that pretend to post for intellectual debates like Anna Molly have someone say anything back that requires them to actually defend their candidate rather than rant and personally attack the other side, they cant and run away or put you on ignore.

Tony--look dude yourself. Its a shame that you vote for the person who serves your best interest because thats the problem with this country. We should be voting for the person that serves the country's best interest. Of course if you are in a government Union, then the democratic party has served your best interest and in many instances for the detriment of everyone else because of their unholy alliance and cronyism. How could I lose you on the nanny state. Have you actually spent anytime on the numbers and statistics? If you mean I am for fiscal responsibility, self reliance and personal accountability and align that with the Tea Party I will gladly accept. I also voted for Clinton and think he was a great president and shared the same beliefs as me so I guess he is a teabagger too. I think I am very in touch with reality so explain what points have merit but are too far out to be reality, because maybe you could teach me something.

Do me a favor regardless of changing your vote. Research poverty statistics. Research how our safety net under either political party has lifted the economic circumstances on average of US citizens. Research the growth of entitlements outside social security and medicare since Obama took office. Now research nonpartisan studies done prior to this election that show the impact on generational welfare, unemployment compensation and government assistance on upward mobility and closing of the education gap. Now look at the unemployment and poverty statistics for minorities, the poor and middle class since Obama has taken office and compare those to the other income and racial profiles only since Obama has taken office. Explain to me then why you think his policies benefit such groups. Before you label someone and take things as black and white, go look at the real facts.

tonybeeerm

I always vote for the person who is going to serve my best interest

Is rampant corporatism in your best interests? How about torture, wars, TSA, IRS, IMF NAFTA, Bailouts, the Patriot Act, Foreign Aid to dictators, NDAA, and on an on? Are all those things in your best interest? If so, than by all means, vote for Obama/Romney

DingleB - You can't ignore the rest of the world like it doesn't exist. We've tried that before and it got us into two world wars.

What is a Tea Party rant?

Read anything by NoJo, Spanky or JoAnna Smith I and you'll see. Make no mistake, the Tea Party was formed for one reason, and one reason only. To discredit, derail and try to defeat Barack Obama. It never ever existed before that. For your part, they say nearly verbatim what you've said. So you tell me why I should believe you?

I never said you should believe me which is why I said go research some of the items that I listed. First, fiscal responsibility, self reliance and personal accountability are concepts that were around long before the Tea Party and should resonate far beyond their group. Just because the Tea Party is or was not formed to derail Obama is irrelevant to those concepts. No different than OWS movement, political movements have their good and bad points and political agendas but doesnt mean that all of their substance is wrong. I really dont think the Tea Party was formed to discredit and defeat Obama, as its clearly a fiscal economic political movement that has some very admirable strong tenets and some bad ones (just like all political movements by the way). It just so happens that Obama's economic policies fly in the face of fiscal conservatism so of course the Tea Party is going to want someone that aligns with their interests. Is it really any difference than Sandra Fluke and her movement and her so called War on Women and desire to have someone in office that will make sure she gets free birth control? She exists solely to discredit, derail and defeat any candidate that disagrees with her view that women should get free birth control because they are women and for no other reason. Instead of discrediting everyone on here that disagrees with Obama's economic policies as if they are loons, why not listen. I promise I have no problem listening to you tell me why Obama's policies will work better for the country.

kirk - you haven't told me anything except you don't like anyone telling you what to do and you hate Sandra Fluke. Where I live in Michigan, President Obama initiated loans that saved well over three hundred thousand good paying, middle class jobs. Jobs that would never have been replaced had the two automakers been allowed to go into bankruptcy liquidation. That's good enough for me. Now, as I said before, have a nice day.

Tony--my mom grew up in Cadillac and her entire family now live in East Lansing. All my cousins live there and many of them were part of the auto industry. I understand that issue and I can fully understand why you would feel that Obama or the democrats have your personal best interests at heart. I dont hate someone telling me what to do, I hate hypocrisy more than anything else and intellectual dishonesty. When someone says keep your hands off my body but they find it ok to fleece my pockets I get a little upset but thats politics. I dont hate Sandra Fluke, I hate that she acts like a woman of her means and income potential needs the rest of us to pay for her birth control. I totally agree that she should lobby and advocate for access to birth control but this getting stuff for free for your personal choice is disappointing.

As for the automakers, I have no issue with Obama stepping into assist the automakers with debtor in possession financing as it was unlikely to be any available at that point in the recession. I do not agree that the automakers would have gone into liquidation bankruptcy they would have done a chapter 11 and emerged no different than American Airlines is today. I dont think he saved any jobs but I do think it was a very necessary step to keep GM afloat during those tough times. But your reasons are very good for voting for him but that doesnt mean everything else he does is golden and everything Romney stands for is bad.

what you are hiding can't be worse than the shambles you are in now.....or can it?????

Oh, Yes it could! If Mitt is afraid to release them they must be pretty bad (or good if you're Mitt).

Gail Collins had a great column about the Romney fundraising video today:

The fund-raiser, a $50,000-a-pop sit-down dinner, was hosted by Marc Leder, a financier who The New York Post reported as having a “wild party” last summer in the Hamptons “where guests cavorted nude in the pool” while “scantily dressed Russians danced on platforms.” You cannot blame Romney for that. If presidential candidates had to avoid all multimillionaires who held parties with naked guests and Russians on platforms, there would be no money for misleading TV commercials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/opinion/collins-mitts-snake-bite-season.html?_r=0

they know he will lose so are putting more money into the House and Senate races..

and that's where the Democrats should be concentrating their efforts. It won't be a total victory until we return the House to the fold. And this time, no lollygagging around. We pass legislation that will get this country back on track for at least the next generation. The Teabag/Republicans can go suck their thumbs.

Whatever happened to Mitt's stolen tax returns? Did the FBI catch and apprehend the guy(s)? Did Mitt pay the extortion money?

Whatever happened to Mitt's stolen tax returns? Did the FBI catch and apprehend the guy(s)? Did Mitt pay the extortion money?

Will the Weather Vane and Budget Boy punish those lazy 47%ers? Tune in Tuesday the 6th of November...

Gary Johnson was the Republican Governor of my state - New Mexico. Mostly he wanted to legalize drugs, but I guess you can Google him....

Me? I'm voting for President Obama

Which of course is wholly different than the Jay-Z/Beyonce vote, right Dangerfield?

Cause I'm just not sure that Snooki could afford one of those $100k Conac towers Jay Z laid out at the club the other night.

Ba dum bum bum....splat...

Another failed riposte...as it's so utterly one sided and predictable...(And they all have fundraisers, or so I've heard.)

Still spitting in the wind I see...How've you been?

Any ideas about how to prevent snatching defeat from the jaws of victory?

Been busy.

As to your comments on defeat and victory - them polls are tied.

Plus we now know Libya was no protest, just an attack, the jobs numbers this month are terrible, and a whole bunch of people just learned that 47% pay no fed. tax.

Things are going just fine. Except I do wonder why O has embargoed those photos.

Oh well, maybe he's just not a fan of alcohol fountains, eh danger?

Everything you say is (relatively anyway) true, yet your "satire" is still lacking carbonation, and the President would be 5 points down and sinking if he wasn't up against;

John Kerry redux (Light)

Governor Romney is no fan of cognac , in fact he's has never touched alcohol, but he is certainly driving a lot of his supporters to those fountains lately...;-)

(I would have though that the anti-Spanky vote would be higher. Losing your appeal?)

them polls are tied.

Them? I thought you were from CA. What gives with the Southern Speak?

them polls are tied.

Really, Spanky? Them polls? Even right wing Rasmussen is showing our president ahead by +2 points.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

Out of half a dozen polls, only one is showing a tie. If you're going to lie, you might want to pick one that is not so easily exposed.

Forget about it, Sailcat. Spankster swims in that Egyptian river.

I think Romney can easily turn the tide if he just points to Obama and say I wont do that. More or less thats what Obama did in 08 when he said he wasn't Bush.

There's a river in Egypt named Dummass? Really? It does make sense, though...

I think Romney can easily turn the tide if he just points to Obama and say I wont do that.

Funny. President Obama has been pointing to Romney and saying, "I'm not doing that" and it's been working terrifically for him!

Maybe Mitt should try pointing to himself and say "This isn't really me." It's too late to prevent him from losing the election, of course, but it's definitely worth a shot.

President Obama by default in November! There doesn't seem to be anyone running against him!

Funny Sallycat not much Obama has been doing. I know I know he's still leading but I would stop the victory dancing now. See if Obama was so great with his policies and ideas, he would be saying look at the utopia we're in. Alas he has ran from his record, not on it.

Funny Sallycat not much Obama has been doing.

He's just been winning the election, Caesar, that's all. It's enough, isn't it? Maybe your candidate should try doing nothing because what he's been doing lately sure as hell isn't working for him.

By the way, when your candidate comes up with a policy or an idea that doesn't blow up in his face, let the rest of us know, okay?

He's just been winning the election, Caesar, that's all

Well winning and won are fundamentally different.

By the way, when your candidate comes up with a policy or an idea that doesn't blow up in his face, let the rest of us know, okay?

I will, but let me know when yours even has the fortitude to even come up with one at all

Well winning and won are fundamentally different.

It's just a matter of a few weeks, little guy! Better stock up on those Depends and tissues because you'll be needing all of them the morning after our president is reelected!

It's just a matter of a few weeks, little guy!

perhaps there sport, but it still remains to be seen.

Better stock up on those Depends and tissues because you'll be needing all of them the morning after our president is reelected!

Tell me why you vote for O? you did it once and it only feels right since you've become addicted to the pleasure of pain? Insanity of doing the same (failed garbage) over and over again expecting different results?

Just ignore Spanked and pizza pizza man until Fiesty gets back.

4 more 4 44

Just ignore Spanked and pizza pizza man until Fiesty gets back.

thats telling but no doubtedly Mickey should show up so you can continue the parroting of pizza pizza whilst ignoring the fact you're canidate has a failed record. Nov 6th is game day. not today, not tomorrow

Just ignore Spanked and pizza pizza man until Fiesty gets back.

Nah, slap 'em around. They like it rough.

I find it quite amusing that Fisty got a time out. All of the time she yells "re-reg", "how was your little vacation", and the like at others while typing some of the same things (only worse sometimes) as the ones she denigrates. Knowing as long a time as she got away with it she thought she was invincible.

Talk.... Feisty getting a time out shows that she plays by the same rules as everyone else. And, it should also prove to everyone that she doesn't work for msn or Obama. So, when the morons scream that she does, you can all recognize them for just what they are - morons.

Obama/Biden 2012

Well said, Seeking.

Insanity of doing the same (failed garbage) over and over again expecting different results?

So, Ceasar, that explains why you come back to the Vine again and again, just to be humiliated? It explains a lot, doesn't it?

They like it rough.

Oh my.

Talk.... Feisty getting a time out shows that she plays by the same rules as everyone else. And, it should also prove to everyone that she doesn't work for msn or Obama.

Same rules while screaming bloody murder at anyone who dares break them. In case you haven't noticed, MSN has nothing to do with this blog anymore. It's NBC News now.

Do kind of miss the ol' gal's blind faith comments...............Nah not so much.

So, Ceasar, that explains why you come back to the Vine again and again, just to be humiliated?

if that makes you feel better sure. Its your lie, you spin it. I feel fine and a little humility never hurt anyone, but tell me coffee house lib, why doesn't O run on his record?

Its your lie, you spin it.

I think just about everyone would agree it's self-evident truth. You just need to come to grips with the fact that not only is your failed candidate a loser, Caesar, but you are, too. Deal with it, little guy.

My thoughts exactly. You would have thought that in 4 years, and with all of the outright hate they have for this president, that they could have found someone amongst their ranks to counter with. Pretty sad when you think about it. Although I don't agree with Republicans, I at least used to have some respect for them. Now, I have absolutely none and openly laugh at their antics.

tonybeeerm - Joe Scarborough said it last night on Leno. He's a conservative but could not fit the Republican party today that has gone so far right. He basically said the Republican party of old doesn't exist any more and he berated all of them for not working for the good of the country.

Obama/Biden 2012

Old T.Pawlenty finished his gig for Romney and hopefully got that pesky bill from his failed comaign paid off .

I wouldn't say he finished. He resigned. Apparently he didn't have good job security after examination on where that campaign was headed.

He resigned.

Like rats off a sinking ship... "T" Paw jumped ship? Well he isn't as dumb as he looks.

You would think if you guys are so confident, you would stop the personal attacks and just sing the praises of all of Obama's accomplishments for the last 4 years. Xabre, you love to make up the Romney budget deficit increase from his tax plans in a false manner by not taking into account any revenue gains from the elimination of deductions and loopholes etc, but what would be very informative on your part would be to take the Obama budget that he has proposed and line it up next to the Romney one and lets compare how the deficit grows and have an intellectual discussion on the merits. Prove the wonderfulness of your candidate. I have asked seeking sanity to defend and support Obama's proposal on taxing companies offshore as a way to inshore jobs but she hasnt been able to do that because she is too busy telling us how stupid anyone who supports self reliance, fiscal sanity, personal responsibility is. Are you the same?

Xabre, you love to make up the Romney budget deficit increase from his tax plans in a false manner

he won't brandish proof.

You would think if you guys are so confident, you would stop the personal attacks and just sing the praises of all of Obama's accomplishments for the last 4 years.

they cant and wont. but what they will do is say defend Romney. tell me why you would vote Romney. that is the extent of their argument.

Xabre can never support or back up his wild outlandish embellished claims as he is just a campaign troll and isnt interested in substantive debate. He and Seeking Sanity could actually be the same person. They run from Obama's record and their only reason for posting is to disparage anyone who might vote for Romney.

He and Seeking Sanity could actually be the same person

I noticed that too. But Xabie has me on ignore, Seeking usually gets put in its place.

They run from Obama's record

so does their canidate.

Kirk - The thing about listing accomplishments is that even when an intrepid liberal posts the things Obama has done the right does not believe them, downplays them or disagrees with them.

I can clip and paste a laundry list of accomplishments from a left leaning site (claiming he is the best thing since sliced bread), or I could actually write out a personal list of where I think Obama has actually done something. Either way it will be sneered at and disregarded.

Regarding budgets and policies, even if I were to bring up CBO forecasts that Romney/Ryan policies would increase the deficit I would wager you wouldn't accept it. Your point is taken that there is a possibility for Romney to get some increased revenue through closing loopholes but what are they? Again, Corporations may be but specifics are not his friend.

We've spoken before I think economically things can get better despite or because of whoever is President. It is time. I believe however, that some Government help via jobs programs and legislation can help in specific areas (call me a left winger). I personally think that Obama will be better to help economically just because he will have to work with a R Congress, who I hope finally doesn't filibuster every single bill. Bipartisan legislation could come out to improve infrastructure, improve our energy grid, look for ways to increase old and new energy sources.

Not every government idea or bill is bad. Example, the veterans job bill that the GOP just rejected. That is something I think would pass in a 2nd Obama term. In a Romney term even if it passed Congress he would veto it with gusto.

A Romney term with a R Congress would rubber stamp bills flown through committees with ideas straight from Grover Norquist and social value's leaders. His recent statements and supposed attitude to nearly a majority of americans is troubling. In addition, Mitt scares me at his temparment and ability to be CIC. Not that I have agreed with Obama on all his foreign policy decisions, but Romney's shout first and think later attitude does not give me comfort.

Maybe another day I will post my thoughts on Obama's record but I personally believe looking at the pro and con the scale weighs heavily on the pro.

Why do the liberal posters use the ignore button? Seems like its the equivalent have not having the intellectual or critical thinking ability to debate or rebutt. Its the sports equivalent of taking your ball and going home because you werent good enough to picked on a team. I have never personally called anyone a nasty name. I dont adopt the religious, ractial or gender bigotry of Fiesty (Jen from the Obama campaign team) but get crucified constantly from thier little club. So what is so threatening that they use the ignore button. The best part is when they post replies as if they have an audience of people who they think will clap through the wireless airwaves and be swayed by their amazing wit. The reality is they willl change zero minds and their is zero risk of being honest and forthright on an anonymous blog.

Yellowdog--you and I agree on more than can be shown on a blog like this. I think I am one of the few Romney supporters that would agree with you on many of Obama's accomplishments. I also am not a big supporter of most if not all of the GOP social agenda platform. I voted for Clinton and I think Bush will go down as one of the worst presidents so enough said. You and I could sit down and have a beer and my guess be amazingly close in views on so many things. Probably one of my problems is being here in Illinois and having watched Obama for many years prior to running for President. I have professional colleagues who worked with Michelle a long time ago when she was a lawyer and many professional colleagues including a Chicago alderman and 2008 campaign person who knows Obama personally very well. So I disagreed with his economic views long before he ran for president. I am not one of those people who thinks he is a socialist but there is zero doubt that his personal views are much closer to wealth redistribution. I know he personally believes that we as a society can build a government that creates more equality of outcomes and discounts self reliance and personal accountability because he thinks the deck is stacked against those who havent achieved success. Because of either his background or the fact that he has never worked in the private domain, he doesnt understand the impact that cognitive ability, talent, ambition and personal effort have on outcomes. In addition, I think he is a very ineffective leader who creates divisiveness and leads from behind rather than being a bold principled leader.

Do I think Romney is a panacea--absolutely not and I would hate to see him adopt the social agenda of the GOP and do the same thing Obama and Pelosi did at the beginning of their terms in 2008 and ram their agenda down the countrys throat with no bipartisan involvement. I agree with you on that one 100 percent. On the other hand, I do believe its far more likely that the deficit, tax reform, incentives for private enterprise etc would be addressed by Romney. Obama isnt interested in tax reform but Romney is. I am all for a progressive tax system with lower rates and elimination of the social engineering aspect of the tax code in the form of loopholes and deductions. I think we need to eliminate this tax discussion by lowering rates but increasing revenue from each income as all working people above the poverty line should be paying income tax not just thier future contributions to their federal retirment and medical benefits. We need to eliminate the earned income tax credit and call welfare what it is and put all government assistance under one program instead of providing sneaky welfare payments. I just think its more likely that Romney reforms the code and stops the class warfare rhetoric than Obama. I think its more likely that government spending and education reform is adopted by a GOP president than Obama. I also think Romney is not even close to being a social conservative to my guess is that he really isnt going to pander to that side once in office.

Yellowdog--but I also dont view the election of this president to be one that would really make a radical difference. Just like the world didnt end when Clinton was elected in the second term nor when Bush was reelected even though their detractors thought it would.

Kirk (Post 7.8) - I do enjoy our posts, not sure why others ignore people especially those that aren't name calling trolls, obviously you are not one of the trolls. My personal thoughts about this blog. Oft times I enjoy posting a contrarian or "devil's advocate" post to my fellow liberals, not to get a rile out of anyone but sometimes because I have the contrarian view myself. As if all liberals must have the exact same ideals, beliefs and thoughts. That is not what I'm about and I will talk to anyone outside of the aforementioned group on any issue. Another observation, the voting up of hateful comments whichever side it comes from is disheartening at times and has gotten worse. Seems like a cop out, but IMO the liberal you mentioned is not the worst of the bunch. Call me biased but despite her personal attacks she does make some good points. There are far nastier posters who reside on the right. It reminds me though, "Those without sin cast the first stone..." So for now, I will get off my soapbox and stop pretending that I am worthy to cast a stone.

edit

(7.9)

I know he (Obama) personally believes that we as a society can build a government that creates more equality of outcomes and discounts self reliance and personal accountability because he thinks the deck is stacked against those who havent achieved success

I disagree that the Pres. discounts self reliance and accountability. Despite some popular belief we on the left do not look at those who haven't made it as victims. We believe in a degree of fairness and a time to help when it is required. Obama's speeches do use a bit of populism but I feel (doesn't make it absolute) he is only trying to contrast his policies and world view from Romney. If you believe if you play by the rules, work hard you can succeed.

Hey I'm starting to sound like a campaign commercial. Got to go. You are from Chicago. About that beer, we may never have one for real but Cheers all the same.

You asked why do some people use the "ignore this author" button, the reason I do it is very easy to explain, when people refer to the President of the United States with terms like "Obummer,, Obozo, that muslim communist, or (when President Bush was in office) that idiot Bush" or similar disparaging comments, or direct insults, usually in the first sentence of whatever comment they are making, I find that the writer is generally not worth reading.

If a writer says that a particular politician said something stupid or acted like an idiot when they said something it is entirely different than saying that stupid person XXX or that idiot XXX. I don't always ignore someone, sometimes even the insults can be entertaining.

I'll ignore a person for a while, until I think it likely that they have returned to coherent discourse.

Dirp--that is fair and I do the same without hitting the ignore button. Both sides are guilty using Teabaggers or whatever cute name people think up for Romney absolutely reduces that person's credibility as a intelligent poster. But I dont use ignore as you can easily just skip past. But I agree with you.

Yellowdog--yes I am in Chicago but actually looking at some job opportunities in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Nashville so maybe a move is on the way. I agree that Obama's views are not absolute, they just tend to be a little farther to the left than my personal small business experience (parents were small business owners in a relatively small blue collar town) and business experience as an adult in terms of individual economic behavior and choice. But I do agree he is not a socialist where total equal outcomes is the desired outcome. I think he believes that the playing field is wildly unequal--something in which I somewhat agree with too but for much different reasons than him. He thinks outside circumstances or income inequality creates the unlevel playfield which includes discrimination of all kinds etc. I believe the unlevel playing field comes from an education gap, differing levels of talent, hard work and ambition along with personal choice and lastly and most importantly, the playing fields are not level because cognitive ability is wildly different individually and skews outcomes. I will never be Albert Pujols and make the kind of money he does as a result no different than I will be a brain surgeon or a hedge fund manager. Unfortunately we cant control for the last trait but its a huge factor in success. I dont believe the government can level the playing field and create income equality for those traits but it can fix it for discrimination and it should and it has. But he wants to use that sword in a way to fix it for those other traits which is why it gets the fiscal conservatives so riled up.

Interesting chat and thanks for the civil discussion as always.

LOL!

Reminds me of another one:

If you had to give $10.00 to Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, An Honest Republican Presidential Candidate and A Happy Hooker how much money do you have give out ?

Answer: Ten dollars for the prostitute, all the others are "Myths."

One could almost say Romney makes liberal use of A1, likes his steak done 'medium', and uses the salt conservatively.

It is called trying to make a well-done steak medium-rare.

... and I thought putting toothpaste back in the tube was impossible.

Because they hate the other guy they made up out of malice and brown.

If it makes you feel better, right wing Rasmussen is showing Obama +2 in the polls. Whoopie!

In fact, out of six polls, not one gives Romney the lead over President Obama:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html

You live in a dimly lit fantasy world, don't you?