The Empty Chair:

In last night's debate it was apparent that Mitt Romney simply wanted to get through the evening without making a significant gaffe. Romney spoke in platitudes, and rehearsed talking points without any sense that he was talking about real people living on planet Earth. Agreeing with President Obama was the strategy team Romney employed. I lost track of the number of times Willard agreed with our President. The fact is Mitt Romney was the empty chair, and could have just as well emailed in his gibberish.

Who won the debate? The evidence is clear. CBS flash poll: Obama won 53%. Romney won 23%. Tie 23%. PPP Poll: Obama 53%--Romney 43%. CNN poll: Obama 48%, Romney 40%.

Romney was again a chameleon changing his position from being an extreme conservative to moderate-middle Mitt. The question becomes, based on Romney's performance, will he gain any moderate votes? I doubt it as there are just not many undecided votes to be had.

The fact that Romney changed his position to appear more moderate will frustrate right-wing Republicans, but they know conservative positions are unpopular and moving toward the middle is a common Republican practice. Conservative hatred for Obama is so great that they will give Romney a pass. In fact, conservatives are willing to vote for an empty chair, because that is who they have as a candidate.

“And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.”

-Barry Obama 10/22/12

Is the President of the United States channeling middle school taunts now??

I was waiting for him the start pumping his fist and yelling “SCORE!!!!!”

This is 13 year old little boy behavior is coming from someone who should have the maturity to know better.

Too bad there isn’t another debate. Then we might see Barry trying to slip a whoopee cushion under Romney as he sat down.

Pathetic, but, Hillaryous!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I like American cars.

So much so... Willard builds elevators for them in his homes!

The President hit it out of the park last night!

He had command of the facts and landed a few ZINGERS!

Job well done, Mr. President.

Romney? He's got NOTHING!!

The INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN;

I watched that debate last night, hoping to learn that Romney has some insight about world affairs. He doesn't. Romney, in his desperation to look like he knows SOMETHING, kept trying to change the subject back to domestic issues.

And with every response, I saw him shrink, a little smaller.

What oh what did I learn? Romney agrees with his President on foreign policy. He was eager to NOT get into a discussion about the Middle East, the fastest way to avoid it was to agree.

And then our feckless Mittens said something that should worry all of you who claim to be fiscal conservatives out there:

Mitty would do what the President has done, but he wants TRILLIONS more to do it.

Not only did Mittens reassure the world that the President is RIGHT, he also let us know that President Obama is a bargain in the process.

Mitt Romney, the Sarah Palin of Presidential candidates!

And once again, the losers in last night's debate are the American people who,through the work of the CPD, were once again kept in the dark on the most important issues facing them....the winners of last night's debates are ::drum roll::

the Federal Reserve,

the Demopublican-Republicrat Party,

Goldman Sachs,

JP Morgan Chase,

Bank of America,

Wells Fargo,

Halliburton,

Boeing,

Raytheon,

Lockheed Martin,

Northrop Grumman,

General Dynamics,

News Corporation,

Time Warner,

Viacom,

CBS,

NBC and

Monsanto.

Those who benefit from crony corporatism and continuous war thank you for your vote for their candidate Marittack Obamney!!

"We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."

That line was by far the lowest point of the debate for Obama. It's the kind of schoolyard snark we might expect from our own Miss Feisty, but hardly from a sitting president. And the demeaning condescension was soooooo left wing. I'm sure Obama's base ate it up. But millions of normal eyes were just rolling in disbelief.

Looks like the Wicked Witch of the West is conceding the Dems have no chance of taking over the House in the 2012 election. Yeah, reality sucks if you are a House Dem, especially the Minority Leader. She is probably looking at the possibility of just becoming retired in place like her good buddy “Cheater” Charlie Rangel, who she protected from the House Ethics (LOL!!!) Committee for years before the finally caught up with him and had the House vote to censure him. He just sits back in obscurity collecting his paycheck and has no responsibilities beyond getting re-elected. Nancy is probably thinking about how nice it would be to do the same thing while taking leisurely broom rides dreaming of the good ole days when she was momentarily relevant.

From Politico:

Nancy Pelosi move fuels speculation over her future
By: Jake Sherman and John Bresnahan and Anna Palmer
October 22, 2012 09:16 PM EDT

This time, Nancy Pelosi really has people wondering.

By delaying House Democratic leadership elections until after Thanksgiving, she’s spurred speculation about whether she is going to stay atop the caucus. On top of that, the delay is a reflection of the diminished Democratic hopes of taking control of the House.

Pelosi aides insist the leadership pushed back the internal elections because rank-and-file lawmakers were overwhelmed by three candidates running for vice chair of the Democratic Caucus — the lowest leadership spot.

But Democratic insiders say Pelosi’s move means one of two things: She’s getting out of leadership and wants to give someone else a chance to organize a movement against Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), the long-time number two; or she’s simply buying time to consider her future if Democrats fall short of the majority.

Either way, her surprising proposal is creating just the type of speculation about her future that Pelosi hates.

Mitt Romney disagreed with his Previous Selves last night in a BIG way.

Q. Do you think it is classic-form Romnesia?

Because Romney can remember enough false, canned speeches for a longish debate - yet NOT recall what he said yesterday/this morning/last week - on major issues affecting the lives millions of ordinary Americans.

Slam Dunk. Games over. President Obama beat Romney like a stepchild last night. For what ever reason Romney failed to show up for the debate. He spent most the time agreeing with the President. Who coached this guy? Yes, I know Romney's not heavily schooled in foreign policy, but come on, he looked like a fool out there last night.

Best line: Bayonets and Horses. Got to love it.

OBAMA IN 2012.

Hey Ron...

We need to select a date to make our election predictions!! :-)

By the way...that PPP poll you cited was an odd one. Check this out...from Business Insider:

PPP surveyed 500 voters in the 11 states and found that 53 percent picked Obama as the winner, compared with 42 percent for Romney.

But the poll wasn't a total slam dunk for the president. It's an extremely small sample, but Romney looked to score big with swing-state Independents. In the poll, 47 percent of Independents said they were more likely to vote for Romney after the debate, compared with 35 percent that said they were less likely.

Independents in this poll seemed to shift from Obama. Only 32 percent said they were more likely to vote for him, compared with 48 percent that said they were less likely.

CNN showed something similar...slight win for the President, but more people more likely to vote for Romney. Strange results, but I think that's what you get with these snap polls and small samples.

My personal take on the debate. Obama scored a slight win...but Romney held his own and passed the "Commander in Chief" test. I don't think this debate is going to result in a big move toward either candidate. This is gonna be a close race down to the wire.

And finally, kudos to Lynn University!!!!!! Great job guys!!!

Mitt Suffers Relapse of Romnesia. Last night, President Obama owned the foreign affairs debate just as he owned last week's debate. Obama owned it because he is consistent in his approach, his comments and clearly has the intelligence needed to navigate the complicated and dangerous world in which we live. President Obama has the temperament to engage with our allies and our enemies; our enemies understand that Obama says what he means and means what he says.

Romney lacks consistency, lacks clarity, he is simply all over the map. He makes comments, then counters his own statements. One day he is for something, supportive of policy, the next day he is against it. President Obama was absolutely right--foreign leaders are confused by Romney. The U.S. must be consistent, must show clarity of purpose as well as clarity of statements.

Once again, a newly minted Mitt Romney appeared at the final presidential debate. That makes three different Romneys in one month--never mind the multiple versions of him we have seen the past six years. Forget Romney's previous war mongering, forget the "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" attitude, forget that 17 of 24 Romney advisers are Bush/Cheney neocons eager to pre-emptively strike whoever gets in their way. Forget the opposition to President Obama's policies and actions, Mitt Romney now fully supports President Obama's entire foreign policy; Romney agrees with Obama; Romney said President Obama is "doing the right things".

Romney also called President Obama weak, leading from behind, criticized the Iran sanctions, criticized talks with Russia, criticized and criticized......then fully embraced the Obama policies. Pardon Americans if they were confused. Pardon foreign leaders if they scratched their heads and wondered why any sane person would vote for Mitt Romney.

I was struck by how completely out of touch Romney is with our military needs as well as a lack of understanding on just how much the USA spends on our military. Romney seemed not to grasp why we have fewer Navy ships than we did in 1916, why we have a smaller military. President Obama pinned that ignorance on Romney by talking about horses and bayonets, the comment that it is not a game of Battleship, that we have entire floating cities in the modern Navy, that we have ships that go underneath the water called nuclear submarines.

Focus groups were miffed when President Obama dared call Romney's claim that Obama went on an "apology tour" remarks what it is--the biggest "whopper" of the campaign. This nonexistent apology tour has been spoken by GOPers and factually debunked for four years. I say, it's about time Romney and the GOP are called the liars they have been, and too bad, if the focus groups were offended. Lies are lies, scrap our fragile sensitivities.

I have watched many presidential debates for decades. Never have I seen a presidential candidate, of either party, so completely lacking core principles. never have I seen a candidate who meanders from one view to the next as Romney does.

Those who watched Mitt Romney suddenly tack from war hawk to soft power must ask themselves if they really trust him; must ask if they really believe the new Mitt or the old Mitt. Romnesia has been prevalent throughout all the debates, prevalent throughout Romney's six years running for President. Romney was for it before he was against it; he supports women's reproductive rights but maybe not; he wants to bomb Iran, or maybe not; he wants to leave Afghanistan in 2014 as scheduled, or maybe not; he wants to cut everyones taxes, or maybe not; he wants to reduce the deficit and the debt, or maybe not; he will repeal ObamaCare, or maybe not; he was against leaving Iraq, or maybe not; he called Russia our #1 geopolitical enemy, or maybe not. Romney wants to invest billions in education and development in the Middle East but his policies make drastic cuts to those same domestic investments, or maybe not.

Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up? Talk is cheap, let Romnesia be your guide because anyone who votes for Romney is voting for a flip/flopper, whopper-lie teller, an empty suit with no real core values, no new ideas and worse, they do not even know who or what Mitt Romney really is. Here's a clue: despite his Romnesia, Mitt is Bush 43 all over again, Mitt is neoconservative foreign policy all over again, Mitt is fiscal irresponsibility all over again.

Obama/Biden 2012. Forward with 4 more for 44!

Forget who won last night's debate. Most agree President Obama won, but what was important was who lost. It wasn't Romney so much. Hell, he agreed with the President on just about everything. He didn't just pivot to President Obama's position, he gave us a display of world-class pirouettes. He didn't just throw his right-wing base under the bus. He buried them. His base was the loser, but they don't know it, and even if they did, they wouldn't care.

Romney still can't explain his "revenue-neutral" five-trillion-dollar tax cut. He can't explain it, because it's mathematically impossible. Just a week ago, Romney was saying the cut wasn't 5-trillion. He's not denying that now, but don't worry. He's balanced many budgets he says and he'll balance the federal budget. Just go to his web site to see how. Damned if he's going to answer the question on TV. He can't, and in fact, there is no explanation at his site. No matter, Mitt says he'll do it and that's enough. He's Mitt Romney.

There's that two-trillion dollars in added defense spending he wants and insists that it won't increase the budget and the national debt. Don't worry. Magic Mitt can handle it. Trust me, he says. Trust the guy who lied on his past tax returns and won't release his current returns? Trust the guy who has more positions than the Kama Sutra?

It's shocking when you realize that Romney knows less about foreign policy than Sarah Palin. Romney has taken Palin's word salad and allowed it to ripen. It's now word compost, but that doesn't matter to the base. So deep is their hatred for the President, they'd vote for Josef Stalin. You think they're kidding when they say, "Anybody but Obama"? They're not.

And so, we see a nation that hovers on the brink of decimation. It doesn't matter which poll you choose as your favorite. All of them show a tight race. If that's true, it should scare the hell out of a rational human being. There is little point in belaboring the fact that Mitt Romney is a totally amoral being. What is important is knowing that virtually half of the voters in this country will vote for him. They will vote for him simply because he is not President Obama. Morals be damned, they hate the President.

The other half will vote for President Obama. True, many cannot stomach the idea of a pure sociopath like Romney running the country. But there is a serious base that truly likes the President. A base that has genuine reasons to trust President Obama.

Whichever way this goes, if it's as close as it seems to be, regardless of the outcome, half the voters are going to look at the other half as their enemy.

Frank: I have always appreciated your honesty, but you know that is not true. It wasn't a slight win for the President.

He won decisively.

How do you rationalize Romney's desire to spend trillions more on defense, when he has agreed that the President is doing a darn good job?

Mittens is either lying about being a fiscal conservative, or lying that he knows anything about the world events, and his ability to discern what must be done.

What do I think? Romney is lying about all of it.

Mr. Shaeffer let Romney get away with a truckload of faux last words, without comeback. Kripes, how many WHOPPERS did Romney tell? Hazard a guess. Even so, our President put Romney in his place, with grace and truth.

President Obama has done brilliantly with the hand he was dealt when he came into office, and all serial tragedies and high dramas - many inflicted by GOP - over the last 4 years. Our President handled crisis after crisis, without assistance or ideas from the Republican party.

GOP spent the last four years campaigning. Mitt Romney spent even longer than that, preparing himself to run as a candidate. Even with ALL that time, Romney didn't put together a sufficient quota of tax returns - to pass even the most basic requirements for the hardest job in the world.

The President's attempts to land zingers looked so rehearsed and clearly had Axelrod's greasy little paw-prints all over it. Not very presidential, in my opinion.

Hi Grimey:

I know you are a soccer fan so the score will be 1-0 with Obama winning. I predict that Obama will win Ohio but I not so confident about Florida and South Carolina. Obama will take Virginia, thanks to the efforts of independent Goode.

What say you?

Hi NewDay...

Just my feeling that's all. I kinda found the debate a bit boring. When it ended, my feeling wasn't "Dang...game over man, game over." It was more of a "Meh". Felt like the President did better, but not by so much that this is gonna be an electoral rout. Again, though, just one person's opinion here...can only speak for myself.

Have a good one.

Alright Ron...this is my completely unscientific, gut feeling on who wins the swing states (and leaners):

Obama: PA, MI, NH, WI, NV

Romney: FL, NC, VA, CO, MO, IA

Which of course, leaves the election in the hands of the great state of Ohio. I just see this as being very very close.

Anyone else wanna weigh in on a 2 week out prediction of the swing states?

I would be worried that Romney would invade the wrong country just like "he who should not be named"! Shades of the Palin Iran/Iraq idiot on Hannity! Remember that one? ;-)

Apparently Romney has a geography problem!

ROMNEY: "Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea."

THE FACTS: Iran has a large southern coastline with access to the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. And it has no land border with Syria.

What party is he running for from again??

Obama/Biden 2012 for America and the Global Community!

The Ramblin’ Romney Show

From the article above:

On the one hand, the subject matter was foreign policy (which has been Obama’s strong suit and Romney’s weak one), and the outcome shouldn’t have been too surprising given that Obama is the incumbent president and that Romney is a former one-term governor.

America was utterly dumbfounded by the confused Governor’s behavior last night.

President Obama delivered a knock-out punch and will win re-election easily.

Thank you Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Ohio, Nevada and Virginia.

My observations:

There were many O.M.G moments, where the majority of American’s had a collective ‘Gasp’ at the Governor’s shear incompetence.

At several points during the second half of the debate, the close-up camera shots clearly showed the Governor’s realization that he’s in way over his head.

President Obama is the only choice for America’s Poor and Middle Class.

Comrade Romney informed us all that he wants to be partners with China. That means for every American job that goes to China, the Governor will make sure a job will be created here for a Chinese immigrant..

When the Governor was talking about a “Currency Manipulator” I swore he was talking about himself.

I think you’re valves are faulty, Governor

I’m sure the answer to why you lost the debate and the election is ALSO not on your website.

Salud

Dreadnoughts

Facts are not on the right wing and FOX BOTS side, so they ignore them with their rhetoric all except one: Right winger slime ball Brent Bozell Tweet.

Bad news for Romney: Poor performance, and lack of vision. Good news for Romney: No one knows; America had been put to sleep.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcbqvs8mXa1rg2rf7o1_500.gif
Krauthammer: Romney Won Unequivocally; Obama's Responses Were Petty
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/22/krauthammer_romney_won_unequivocally_obamas_responses_were_petty.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh my freaking Gawd did Krauthammer fall from his wheelchair on his head?
All polls, including FUX NOOSE's said President Obama won.

Thank you for voting!
President Barack Obama 62.95%

Governor Mitt Romney 37.05%

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/10/22/vote-who-won-the-third-presidential-debate/

Mitt Romney's Nonsensical Middle-East Geography

During the debate tonight, Mitt Romney mentioned that Syria is important because it's Iran's "route to the sea." The thing is, Iran doesn't even border Syria, as you can see our childishly-annotated map above. And Iran already has access to the sea on its southern border.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/romney-iran-syria-route-sea-map.html

Was Willard using a Fox Noise map?

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/live-20090727.jpg

Fox's Desperate Romney Debate Rehab: The Marines Still Use Bayonets!
Mike Wallace made a ridiculous attempt to paint Obama as wrong on bayonets in the mlitary. With a malicious grin, Wallace said, "Well, as it turns out, in the middle of the debate, after he heard (Obama's statement), a Marine tweeted Fox News and said the Marines still use bayonets. So it may be not be clear (sic) who doesn't understand what the military currently uses."
"Well governor we also have fewer horses and bayonets. Because the nature of our military has changed," Obama said.

Sure they do. Take a look>>>
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcbq3v8lj11qz581wo2_500.gif

Futhermore, Obama never said the military doesn't use bayonets at all. He said the military uses "fewer horses and bayonets." The Washington Post wrote that the military "almost certainly" uses fewer bayonets than it did in 1916, noting, "U.S. Marines still train on bayonets in boot camp… but the Army discontinued bayonet training at its basic training facilities in 2010."

Don't tell me Wallace didn't get the gist of what Obama meant. If Wallace had to grasp at these straws to prove Obama wrong, it indicates he had a very good night indeed. But three polls found President Obama won.
Romney on Obama's "apology tour":

Politifact asserts that while Obama criticized some U.S. actions, he "did not offer one apology." That verdict was echoed by FactCheck.org and The Washington Post's Fact Checker.

Mitt Romney's Nonsensical Middle-East Geography

During the debate tonight, Mitt Romney mentioned that Syria is important because it's Iran's "route to the sea." The thing is, Iran doesn't even border Syria, as you can see our childishly-annotated map above. And Iran already has access to the sea on its southern border.

http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/romney-iran-syria-route-sea-map.html

Was Willard using a Fox Noise map?

http://cloudfront.mediamatters.org/static/images/item/live-20090727.jpg

Did anyone notice that bellicose attitude hollow steel drum Micheal Steele took with Chris Matthes on MSNBC? When hollow Micheal Steele was on FOX NOISE with Hannity he was afrid to say BOO when challenged.

4 more 4 44
Obama/Biden 2012

What we have here is a candidate in the Republican Party who is in over his head when it comes to foreign policy. We all saw it. All of us.

What matters now is if people in the GOP care if he is in over his head. History tell us that they do not care. Republicans and their supporters have a tendency to brag and bump their chests out.

What they don't do is learn from our mistakes. Whether it be the candidate or their supporters. They are more comfortable making stuff up and hoping it will stick. And generally it has something to do with hating someone. And blaming others for their lack of character; lack of bothering to learn about the world we live in and our role in it.

This is not a football game. This is serious business.

Romney "played it safe" because he has nothing to offer on foreign policy. He didn't want to be challenged with his neocon views of the world, so he just sat there agreeing with the President of the United States.

He looked weak, he looked unprepared and he looked like a man who has been running for the presidency for years yet never bothered to learn about the world we live in today.

Maybe Mitt doesn't have to send his sons into the military, but many thousands of families do.

And he isn't who I want making decisions on our foreign policy.

It was a disgraceful performance by him. Disgraceful.

WOW -- California Tom advocates beating step children. All the while advocating low class sound bites. Typical lib.

Looks like Romney is going to start the next war with "Horse & Bayonets, Mitt got two black eyes last nights debate for Sure !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Republicans around here are 'rich' - and I don't mean that as a compliment!

Where are the Hawks? The War mongers? What has gotten into the "you're either with us or you're with our enemies" crowd?

It would appear that they have now become the meek, the mild - (and they quite LITERALLY intend to inherit the earth, eh? but I digress).

My 'R' facebook friends were WHINING last night that the President wasn't being fair. And yet, two short debates ago they LOVED their attack dog.

You would think they would at least revert to their 'consistency' strategy; but much like their candidate - none of them have any core values and they are therefore left as spectators while life literally passes them by.

That is NOT the kind of LEADERSHIP our country needs. We need the man with the firm GRASP of the issues, the steadiness to not go off half cocked (ooh, double entendre) and the confidence in his ability to remain COOL under pressure.

The only Coolness Romney showed last night was his propensity to sweat when he is out of his depth. And there can be NO MISTAKE. Romney was OUT OF HIS DEPTH. He continuously acquiesced to the President's Leadership and agreed with him on almost every topic. And as soon as he finished agreeing with the President, he lamely attempted to PIVOT to a domestic issue that he'd rehearsed.

I am embarassed for the R's in the room. I mean REALLY? I think they are pretty much ready to throw in the towel, plead Romnesia and get back to us in four years with a serious candidate. And if they aren't ready for that? They are just as delusional as their candidate.

Four More for Forty-Four!

Obama/Biden 2012

Romney/Ryan 1040 (yes, it still matters that your money knows more about international events than you do, Mr. Romney)

PS. Romney's Grandchild wanted to be held by the President instead of his own pappy. Hmmm - There IS hope for the next generation of 'bots - oops, I mean Tots!

Romney foreign policy,

Battleships, Bayonets, Binders and Big Bird.

Obama/Biden 2012

Beverly, two weeks left and I will never ever have to hear the likes of Michael Steele or any other republican again.

Just two weeks. I will never watch them again. 6 years of watching them on MSNBC is way too long. I'm done with them all. They're liars, they're cruel, they're not interested in making our country a better more progressive country. They don't care about America.

They only care about themselves. I can't stand them any longer and I will never watch them again once this election is over.

And there you have it:

Ben is at a loss for words. He can only attack another person on this board.

Which means that Ben knows that it was a bad loss for Romney.

ROBMEHOOD was a Echo of President OBAMA most of the debate, he was Totally out Classed by the Best !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

President Obama said...

“I was at Ground Zero for a memorial and talked to a young woman who was four years old when 9/11 happened, and the last conversation she had with her father was him calling from the twin towers, saying I love you, and I will always watch over you. And for the next decade she was haunted by that conversation, and she said to me, you know, by finally getting bin Laden, that brought some closure to her. When we do things like that, when we bring those who have harmed us to justice, that sends a message to the world, and it tells that young lady that we did not forget her father."

Every American will remember this moment when they go to vote.

Frank: I normally enjoy reading your posts, even though we disagree on our political point of views, but I have to take issue with the slight win and Romney looking Presidential. Both of those are just simply not true. Romney looked lost and only proved that fact while in his responses he said nothing and then agreed with everything the President said. What I will say is that it was impossible for Romney to win a debate on Foreign policy because without being President you have absolutelty no idea what is required.

So...maybe Romney did win because he kept his mouth shut..for the most part.

Fairfax Bill wrote:

"'We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.'

That line was by far the lowest point of the debate for Obama."

Of course Me-first Bill would think that was the low point. Me-first is also stuck in the past with Romney and his fellow knuckle-draggers. Yeah Bill, we don't rely on horses and bayonets for defense any longer, just as we don't rely on buggy whip manufacturers and cobblers to pull us out of a recession.

We are in the 21st century. Join us here, why don't you?

Pat, Steve Schmidt sits there and excuses Romney's gross litany of lies, on the grounds that he lied for political expediency.

Romney's vision of the military and theatrical warfare is anachronistic - geared to the Cold War and "geopolitical foe" Russia.

Romney would like to re-invigorate the Cold War era, and he is indeed, still playing "battleships".

IS THAT ALL?

DUHHHHHHHH......... (with drool running down my chin)..........

What is an "aircraft carrier".............. uglhhhllllllgggllll.........

When you can't stand on your record, attack the opposition & make it personal....

Romney was said to be out of his league when it came to going head-to-head with a 'master debating' person like BHO. Just another point Fiesty, Ron, Bev, etc... were wrong about...

Backhouse - Yep, Romney wants to go to war with Russia!

Keep lying and scaring the heck out of the ill-informed on the left so they will get out and vote! If you can't convince them with truth, confuse them with lies.

Romney / Ryan 2012

Hey Chris Matthews and Rachael Maddow, who's your daddy?

Can you say President Romney?

Dan...

No worries...what fun would it be if we all agreed on everything!! :-) I know mine isn't the most popular opinion on this board...but it is just that...my opinion and interpretation of last night's debate.

Have a good one! :-)

I'd like some of the Dems on here to give me one good god damn reason why Obama hasn't pulled troops out of Afghanistan yet. Anybody? And don't blame it on Bush. Why are we still giving money to the Middle East?. Why hasn't he closed Gitmo? And don't blame it on Bush. Why did he support NDAA? Damn the constitution too? Why did he support the PATRIOT Act again?

Never mind, just keep blasting away at Romney, ignoring the fact that your civil liberties are eroding just as quickly under Obama as they did under Bush and as they will under Romney. Ignore the fact that, yes, Obama is a war monger too.

Neither of these two candidates are worth wasting your vote for.

Gary Johnson 2012

Was Romney having Seizures on the debate or was he on drugs, he looked very Funky !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Backhouse, Steve Schmidt was disgraceful last night. We have troops in a war and he sits there more or less saying it's okay for Romney to flip flop on foreign policy.

Well it's not okay. I am sick to death of all of them, particularly the ones on MSNBC.

It is THEIR policies that got us into these messes to begin with. I'm tired of their lies, I'm tired of their excuses, I'm tired of them sitting there pretending they have better answers than the Democrats. They don't.

They have nothing but lies and excuses. And incompetence.

btw, how many people in the Republican Party are voting for Romney because they're racists? Tons and tons and tons.

And now it has gotten so bad, the UN has to oversee our elections.

There isn't a credible republican out there. Not one.

Bill in Fairfax, I am not sure which debate you were watching that led you to make these comments:

Romney came across as being comfortably conversant on a wide range of foreign policy issues .....Romney seemed relaxed throughout the evening in sharp contrast to the hard edge the president put on many of his rehearsed lines. The result was a challenger who often looked more confident and – dare I say it – more presidential than the president. So for Romney, mission accomplished.

If Romney's mission was to make it through the debate without committing any major gaffes, then Mission Accomplished.

If his mission was to ignore then reverse his prior positions on Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and Pakistan in a last-ditch attempt to appear Moderate, then Mission Accomplished.

If his mission was to regurgitate a few memorized geopolitical facts (similar to what a first-year political science major would know) in a lame attempt to appear informed, then Mission Accomplished.

If his mission was to articulate a thoughtful, reasoned, legitimate approach to foreign policy that recognizes the complexity of the modern Arab world and the sensitivity of how to advance American interests while recognizing other nations' sovereignty then it was a Massive Fail.

If his mission was to demonstrate his understanding of the future needs of our military, what they have to do in order to adapt to the threats facing our nation, and how his military spending proposals address those needs, then Massive Fail.

Much like his economic policy, Mitt Romney's ever fluctuating foreign policy offers no new ideas, no clear vision, and no details on how he would accomplish his vaugely stated goals of "peace and prosperity".

President Obama was correct when he summarized Romney's (latest) foreign policy approach as doing everything the Obama Administration had done "only louder".

Romney's economic policy of tax cuts for those who don't need them and increased spending for a military that hasn't asked for it demonstrates his "tone-deaf" approach to domestic policy.

The latest debate clearly demonstrated that Mitt Romney is unqualified to be President and unfit to be Commander-in-Chief.

Frank, I normally respect your opinion but I highly disagree that Romney passed the "Commander in Chief" test.

No offense intended, maybe it is just that after eight years and two wars under of GW Bush I have a much higher standard for the person who has the ability to send our young men and women into harm's way. Romney failed to demonstrate the nuance, judgement, and yes personal integrity that is essential for someone who aspires to be Commander-in-Chief.

Put a FORK in it.

This TURKEY is DONE.

I actually felt EMPARRASSED for the cowardly MITT ROMNEY.

ROMNEY was actually FOAMING from the MOUTH spewing his Snake-oil

PSYCHO-BABBLE when he realized Nobody was Buying into his Phony Smile

and that he, MITT ROMNEY, was NOT CLOSING the DEAL, and that the Voters were all walking off his USED CAR LOT and NOT BUYING the LEMONS he was trying to push on the AMERICAN PEOPLE,

CONGRATULATIONS Mr OBAMA for being our PRESIDENT for the NEXT FOUR VERY LONG YEARS.

If you think Obama won the debate and liked his tactics last night then that speaks volumes about you and your character or lack their of I should say. Obama was the same spoiled little kid last night having his fit and pouting. What a classless man you have chosen Democrats. And only a fool would listen to this clown. I give Romney the victory for holding his cool and not B slapping the President off his little stool.

best line of the night:

“Attacking me is not talking about an agenda,” Romney said at one point.

Obama clearly had the look and delivery of someone that knows they are going to lose. Having no economic record on which to run has made everything he says just more BS. He had a strategy of hope four years ago and has certainly learned what anyone in business knows: "Hope is not a strategy."

bears win, giants win, romney wins -- a great night in America!

Bill, Fairfax VA

Round Three – Advantage Romney

Romney didn't need to "win" the debate. Romney's goal in a foreign policy debate was to sit face to face with an incumbent president and prove that he could be credible in discussing matters of state

Sorry Bill but you are wrong. Mitt showed no credibility at all. He was in way over his head. The fact he couldn't even stay on topic showed how badly he'd handle FP. We don't need another rethugli-con cowboy like Ronnie Ray-Gun or bush jr. Been there. Done that. Enough expenditure of American lives and monies. America is not the world's policeman. We have no resonsibilty to police the world. While we've been throwing around our military might since the of WW2, countries like China, and yes, their governments have horrendous records on human rights, have been building up their infrastructure and manufacturing base. Is it any wonder why we've lost our manufacturing lead?

Enough of the cowboys!!!!!! America first. As Judy Collins once sang---Send in the clowns (Romney/Ryan), don't bother they're here.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012. My vote has already been cast.

#1 The pundits at Fox gave to Romney because he was aggressive.

#2 The pundits at Fox said Biden was disrespectful for smiling.

#3 The pundits at Fox said Obama was too aggressive.

#4 The pundits at Fox said Obama showed no respect.

Game, Set and Match to Obama/Biden; sorry Fox, if you want to be fair and balanced, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

My big takeaway from last night? No wonder Obama is such a failure at foreign policy.

Obama came, it seemed,prepared for Romney to attack him on all sorts of things- The Libya Lie, in particular. Instead, Romney made his own case for his own vision, in a calm, well thought out way.

Obama, however, could not change his own game plan on the fly. He snarled, belittled, made sarcastic remarks- including things that came completely put of left field, and had nothing whatsoever to do with the comment made by Romney. His "you were investing in China while I was putting sanctions on Iran" was only one such low point for Obama- and there were many to choose from. In addition, Romney made Obama look like a complete imbecile when Romney brought up problems in Mali- Obama had the look of someone hearing his opponent speak Hittite.

Why could Obama not adjust to the tone of the debate? Who knows- but it was remarkable to see him so easily out-maneuvered. Tells me all I need to know about his ability to negotiate anything.

He can't.

Despite the 'spin; by Obama supporters, Romney has increased his lead on the Realclearpolitics average of polls, and Gallup (which had a distinct Democratic bias in 2004 & 2008) has Romney ahead by 6%, and Rasmussen (perhaps the most accurate and least biased pollster in the 2004 & 2008 presidential elections) has Romney ahead by 4%.

The only poll that counts will happen in only 2 weeks.

@newday -- Oh well I was just doing the same snarky thing done by the left. No Romney didn't lose. He held his own in an area where the current president would have a definite advantage. Would I have been more forceful in some areas? Probably but that wasn't the game plan. Would I have pointed out that there was extreme confusion throughout the administration during the days before, during and after -- to this day -- on the Benghazi murders? Probably but that wasn't the game plan. Not so bad thought since the American public can see the utter incompetence of handling such a crisis. If that is what experience gets us -- then it is up to the voters to decide if that is what the want. I believe you'll see in the coming days the polls swinging Romney's way ever so slowly. Even when an announcement that can't be proved will come out in the next two weeks that a drone got the bad guys and another announcement on 11/02/12 -- based on cooked books -- that the unemployment percentage has dropped below 7.5%. Mark my words.

Last night Mitt Romney got schooled by President Obama. It was obvious from the getgo when Romney skirted around the Libya question that he just wanted to get through the evening without causing an incident or a gaffe. As the evening progressed this line of thinking became more evident as he agreed with the President's policies more often than he disagreed, thus giving the impression he was endorsing the him.

But what to me was most telling, was watching Romney sweat with that tight little smile on his face, he knew he was being schooled and the best he could do was agree for the most part.

This debate was seen around the world by foreign leaders and other interested parties, it has told them much about Romney, that he doesn't know much about the hotspots or the geography of the area, all he had were some words and little else. They learned that you cant bring a knife to a gunfight and when dealing with threats you cant sweat.

JFK's philosophy, never let them see you sweat, never let them see you cry. President Obama was a clear winner on both counts.

24 lies last night by Romney according to Think Progress.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/23/1070781/at-the-last-presidential-debate-romney-told-24-myths-in-41-minutes/

Here's what I saw.

1. Romney looking like he had a smelly diaper 2 inches from his nose.

2. Romney blathering on and on trying not to give the President any time (like he did in the 1st debate).

3. The President in command of the issues and determined to make sure that Romney wasn't going to get the opportunities that he gave him in the 1st debate.

OBAMA/BIDEN 2012 FORWARD!

Pat, I'm getting sick of those FOX NEWS rejects too; especially Micheal Steele. At one while I thought he had his head together when he was hanging out with Rachel Maddow.

Now he has got on his high horse and degenerated.

4 more 4 44

Obama/Biden 2012

Obama's whole attack plan in the debate was to paint himself as 'experienced', but T seem to remember that he had absolutely no experience when he ran in 2008, and what are the results of his 'experience'? Nothing but instability throughout the World and the United States pretty much disrespected everywhere.

Four more years? I think NOT.

Great job liberals. President Obama won last night's debate.

Albany Joe wants to talk about Nancy Pelosi--anything to avoid discussing last night's debate because Albany knows Romney failed miserably.

Fairfax Bill says President Obama engaged in school-yard snark. Well, Mr. Bill, Mitt Romney clearly needed a grade-school explanation of our modern military because he was clueless. Anyone who compares our military to what we had in 1916 has missed out on 90 plus years of progress. Mr. Bill, it wasn't snark, the truth is President Obama pinned the badge of incurious ignorance on Mitt Romney.

Anyone who says President Obama only won by a slight margin while ignoring the flash polls which clearly say otherwise; and then makes the claim that Mitt Romney met the "Commander-in-Chief" test last night has moved to that alternate universe known as Planet Denial. Romney has been inconsistent on everything including foreign policy; his comments contradict his own words; he is always walking back his comments, reversing his views. Romney insulted all of Great Britain, insulted the Palestinians and barely escaped Poland without sticking his foot in his mouth. Foreign leaders respect consistency, respect clarity--neither of which describes Mitt Romney. Romney failed the Commander-in-Chief test last night. Those who claim otherwise do so while wearing rose-colored glasses and engaging in wishful thinking.

Vermillion Sky

Actually, the posts give a clear picture of why we DO NOT want R$mney in the White House. Do you really want someone's finger on the button that changes their stance on the issues every minute? Maybe R$mney should wait until the Koch's Brothers checks clear his bank account in the caymen islands first.

Obama/Biden 2012.

What is this October Surprise Donald Trump is supposed to reveal? Is he going take that Fox Tail off his head?

Donald Trump Promises to Drop "Gigantic" Bombshell on Obama Campaign Wednesday

Read more celebrity gossip at: http://www.thehollywoodgossip.com/2012/10/donald-trump-promises-to-drop-gigantic-bombshell-on-obama-campai/#ixzz2A8E2dlZa

4 more 4 44

Obama/Biden 2012

Pat, in the 2nd debate Romney told 31 lies in 41 minutes.

What was the tally on the first debate? And 533 Romney lies documented over 33 months.

Romney was pandering last night and the American people can be in no doubt, that he stands for ZERO-ZERO-ZERO.

You cannot send someone this false and delusional to negotiate on behalf of the United States.

= Romney Commander-in-Chief EPIC FAIL.

Bill in Fairfax:

"We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines."

You didn't like that line? Too bad. If Romney wasn't stuck in the past the President wouldn't have had to remind him things have modernized.

Great White -- Wow we agree. Romney did have that look because it was the "sh!tty" face of Obama near him.

Romney and the 1% Rule.

IF IT'S GOOD FOR THE 1%, IT'S GOOD FOR AMERICA!

And we saw that again last night.

ROMNEY: WE NEED MORE MILITARY SPENDING!

Why?

More Military spending means more money for the 1%.

When you have a massive military you need to DO something with it like invade Iran or Syria or Lebanon or beef up our troops on the ground in Afghanistan.

Why do we need more ships? To move troops over seas. There is no other reason build up the navy. You need ships to go over seas and fight.

Amphibious assault vessels?? We havn't made a full out amphibious assault since Korea! Who is he going to assault from the sea?

The bottom line is, and that's really all Romney is interested in, is more military spending helps the 1% who own the big defense contracting companies.

And, it gives him a military on steroids that's he's just going to have to out and DO SOMETHING WITH.

What Mr. Romney does not understand is, after 11 years of war the American people are weary. We've paid the price in blood and treasure and we want it to end.

What Mr. Romney does not understand is, we have the best military on the planet. We will have the best military on the planet for the next decade or more without buying any new tanks, ships or aircraft.

What Mr. Romney does not understand is, the next major war will be won in Cyber Space before a single boot hits foreign soil or a single shot is fired.

He wants to spend money to win the LAST WAR, not the next war.

He wants to spend money to help his fellow one-percenters in the defense industry.

He's just another out-of-touch chicken hawk being driven by the neo-con war machine.

Good job Mr. President. You are right, we don't need any more bayonets or horses. We don't need sabers or musket flints.

What we need is stronger cyber security and a healthy economy. That's what will protect America in the 21st century.

And you get there by investing in cyber technology and not military hardware. You get there by investing in our people and our economy, by building jobs and infrastructure and NOT more tanks, planes or ships.

Good job Mr. President. I just hope the ditto-heads understand that you are on the right track.

FOLKS, I am a military historian. I have studied military history, hardware, combat and tactics for 50 years. I know more about the military than most people IN the military.

I've been preaching for nearly three years that the next war will be won in cyber-space. I'm glad to see that the government is finally catching on. Mr. Romney apparently hasn't gotten the memo yet.

But President Obama certainly has and he's got us headed in the right direction.

Obama/Biden 2012

All Obama did in all 3 debates was say how bad things were when he took office and how great things are now. With no facts or specifics of course. With no plan for the next four years of course.

Last night, when asked a direct quesion, he could not answer it and he repeatedly changed the subject and attacked Mitt Romney on a completely unrelated topic!

Hard to believe we all watched the same debate.

NoJo - Romney made his own case for his own vision, in a calm, well thought out way.

No, Jo. Romney didn't make his own case and vision, he hugged Obama's case and vision for the middle east. He gave Obama credit for taking out OBL, agreed with the use of drones to take out AQ leadership, agreed with Obama's use of sanctions in Iran, agreed with his overseeing Mubarak's decline in Egypt. I actually guffawed when Romney said the surge worked in Afganistan. Romney agreed with the timeline and didn't say it was a mistake to set a date certain.

I could have stood up better to Obama's foreign policy. I was against the Libya incursion, I was against the surge in Afganistan. I want Obama to pull out immediately after OBL was killed. The surge didn't work in Afganistan, hundreds of US soldiers have died. As soon as we pull out that country will continue to fall into chaos. Better to leave now and save our blood and treasure.

My God, Mitt agreed with Obama on everything showing no alternate plan. As Obama said - Governor you agree with my policies but appear to only want to shout them louder. Romney has no grasp of foreign policy just as he has no grasp or Iranian geography. Calling Syria, Iran's route to the sea when they don't border each other and Iran has hundreds of sea coastline along the Persian Gulf.

How will the warhawks and neocons like, Mitt wanting to comprensively transform Islam and islamic nations with monetary carrots. This guys wants to cut spending here in my country but wants to waste money "nation building" in the middle east. How will the fiscal cliff doomsayers like that Mitt wants to increase the deficit by spending money in other countries? The biggest thing that Romney doesn't understand is that just because you shout, other countries will not listen unless you have consistancy and understanding.

If Mitt agrees with everything Obama has done then how come Mitt can disagree and say Obama has done everything wrong? I don't understand how the news media and others don't laugh at this guy and his constantly changing views. Mitt's game plan was to not rattle sabres last night but make no mistake this man is too simple minded and dangerous to become President.

One final point if my candidate agreed with everything the opponent said and did, I would not support my candidate anymore. Do you GOP hate Obama so much that you will actually vote for Mitt's empty suit.

Tweet, Michael Grunwald:

In conclusion, this failed president has made us weaker in the world, and I will continue all his policies.

Is the President of the United States channeling middle school taunts now??

Now the Albanian Idiot is crying because Obama had to reduce the debate to Romney's level 13 year old mentality. Just think, had he ratcheted it down just two more levels to Joe's elementary school level, even Joe would have understood what was happening.

It was good to see Romney being more moderate in his approach to foreign policy last night. Not that it was surprising to see him morph into someone different again, but the last thing we need in the white house again, is a shoot first, aim last cowboy like we had we W.

I do think Romney would eventually do fine on foreign affairs as long as surrounded himself with good advisors and experts.

Thank goodness the election is near. Early voting started yesterday in Texas and I have already cast my ballot. I knew nothing that was said last night would change my mind, because I think all of us have heard it before if we have been paying attention.

Let's hope who ever wins this election can do half of what they have promised us to do.

One side note. I found it interesting that Romney said he could balance the budget in 8 to 10 years. I would hope so, and I fully expect either party to be able to accomplish that goal and maybe better it. I was kind of surprised that the President did not jump on that opportunity since it appears the expectation from the right wing was for him to do it quicker than that or even now.

Amazing! Obama was beyond horrible in his first debate and MSNBC, Democrats in general and everyone on that side collectively (to a man, to a women, to a pundit) said so and called him out (I wrote and thereafter, several times on line that he looked like he was trying to loose the election)!

How is it then that when the President has 2 out of 3 wins (the last 2 debates) the far right can invent such obvious and laughable fictions? Honestly, if Mitt had jumped up on the top of the table in the last debate and took a proverbial bowel movement he would/was applauded by FOX and these "I hate Obama more then I hate Mitt" types for being manly assertive, in your face decisive, take no prisoners all while simultaneously being a really nice guy and Presidential... but somehow (to the point of ad nauseum) Obama was just an "angry Black Man! I'm sorry but you guys can never own it because even though you can dish it out... it appears YOU CAN NEVER TAKE IT! By the way for those who did not watch the last debate... Obama decidedly won and in the less then nuanced vernacular of boxing, "it was a knock out with Mitt going down for the count". Proceed Mr. Romney...

Add to that, Yellowdog, that Romney also said he needs an increased budget by TRILLIONS to do what his President has done.

Joe in Albany

Looks like the Wicked Witch of the West is conceding the Dems have no chance of taking over the House in the 2012 election. Yeah, reality sucks if you are a House Dem, especially the Minority Leader. She is probably looking at the possibility of just becoming retired in place like her good buddy “Cheater” Charlie Rangel, who she protected from the House Ethics (LOL!!!) Committee for years before the finally caught up with him and had the House vote to censure him. He just sits back in obscurity collecting his paycheck and has no responsibilities beyond getting re-elected. Nancy is probably thinking about how nice it would be to do the same thing while taking leisurely broom rides dreaming of the good ole days when she was momentarily relevant.

and here i thought you were talking about Feisty the Hun, the scourge of stupidity.

Well Obama did show up and did actually debate. He lied a lot. but the advantage was his to begin with. He does (at least suppose to) have security meetings that Romney doesnt have the priviledge of. Romney did stand well however and looked presidential. Romney looked good despite Obama's advantage. perhaps Obama should stick to doodling on I heart Karl Marx on the podium.

Hey NJNB -- The reason Romney didn't discuss the FOX "News" version of what's going on in Libya is because he knows he would have looked like a FOOL and sounded like a FOOL.

Presidents don't jump the gun. It would have reminded normal people of Romney's missteps over the Libya tragedy. Romney jumped the gun.

Romney brought disgrace upon himself with the last debate, I said from day one that Mitt is a total Loser and a Phony !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

By the way for you students of history this was no Checkers Speech for Mitt but a Nixon/Kennedy debate. He was sweating like he was coming down with something! You know that cold, clammy pallor we all get when we suddenly know the Sea Food was bad!

Albany Joe wants to talk about Nancy Pelosi--anything to avoid discussing last night's debate because Albany knows Romney failed miserably.

______________________________

Jody: Last time I looked at my copy of the Constitution there were three CO-EQUAL branches of the federal govt. If Barry wins one of them by a small margin, he will be forced to compromise with either or both of the other two branches of govt held by the Republican's in order to pass any bill. You may think Barry winning the Presidential election means His lefty liberal agenda will be implemented as He directs. Maybe on Planet Liberal (or as you call it "Iowa"), but, not in the reality based world of Planet Earth.

LMAO!!!!

California Tom

Best line: Bayonets and Horses. Got to love it.

Ambassador Stevens could have used a bayonet....a horse....even a marine....

Instead what he got was Obama & Clinton.

And death.

Like I stated above. If you can not see what a failure Obama is after 4 years you are a hopeless case. This man has done nothing to improve America. Only thing he has done is try and sell America.

What fools you have become.

Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL

BOOM!

We have witnessed severely conservative Mitt, moderate Mitt, pants on fire Mitt, irate Mitt, and mellow Mitt and last night we finally got a glimpse of AGREEABLE Mitt!

Romney will say and do anything to win this thing. Last night was the best example of how far Mitt is willing to shove his head up President's butt to score some voters.

We have witnessed No Shame Mitt, No Morals Mitt, No Ethics Mitt, No Backbone Mitt, and No Original Thought Mitt.

Obama was pathetically desperate last night, almost painful to watch- the maniacal stare and the incessant blinking- One and done!

.Joe in Albany

Too bad there isn’t another debate. Then we might see Barry trying to slip a whoopee cushion under Romney as he sat down.

Pathetic, but, Hillaryous!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's the best you've got after the president handed Romney his own ass?? Let me put it in words I know you will understand:

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

Who writes "hahaha" in all caps anymore? Are we back in grade school??

Oh My!

Willard telling a fib last night?

Who would of thunk it! lol

Mitt Romney claimed during Monday's debate that repealing health care reform would reduce the federal budget deficit. But that's not exactly true.

"Come on our website, you’ll look at how we get to a balanced budget within eight to 10 years. We do it by getting -- by reducing spending in a whole series of programs. By the way, number one -- get rid of is Obamacare," Romney said.

In fact, repealing Obamacare would increase the deficit by $109 billion over the next 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, since Obamacare saves money for the government.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/22/romney-obamacare-debate_n_2004035.html

Let the "little" people use emergency rooms for medical care!

How many Democratic votes did Obama's budget get again? (((crickets)))

Obama's campaign in debt, borrowing money from US banks, and this is the guy you want running the economy he's already failed at for 4 years?

http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-campaign-debt-dnc-692/

rukidding47

This man has done nothing to improve America. Only thing he has done is try and sell America.

I'll take Iowa for 20 bucks ... 15,000,000 bucks if Jody is part of the deal.

He was sweating like he was coming down with something!

What was up with THAT!

Both sides agreed to the room temperature being set at 65 degress!

Willard still melted like J-E-L-L-O left out on an AZ patio in August!

Nothing better than to see rightwingnuts with their panties in a bunch. They cry and stamp their feet that Obama came out aggressive and put the weak-minded Romney in his place. Too funny, in a pathetic kind of way.

Frank "Grimey" Grimes, Springfield, USA

Which of course, leaves the election in the hands of the great state of Ohio. I just see this as being very very close.

I think you're right, FG, and the scary part is why did 'Tagg' buy up all of the voting machines?? Shouldn't that be a conflict of interest? Those things are hackable from what I understand. The pubs would be screaming bloody murder if it were reversed similarly.

This message was brought to you by a conservative who has been laid off 5 times under Obama !

Why are you blaming your lack of work ethic and lack of skills on Obama. Do you blame the 10 times you were laid off during the Bush admin on Bush?

The sweating was awful! It seemed the more DEFENSE Romney was forced to play the worse it got. YUCK.

Iowa for 20 bucks ... 15,000,000 bucks if Jody is part of the deal.

SOLD to the sucker with wax wings.

Willard still melted like J-E-L-L-O left out on an AZ patio in August!

Speaking of WTF is up with that, after the debate ended, did you see Queen Ann rush up to grab and support him every time he leaned to shake the hand of a non-supporter? I'm surprised she didn't have a child leash attached .. it would have been easier for her to handle the feeble old man.

DingleB

And once again, the losers in last night's debate are the American people who,through the work of the CPD, were once again kept in the dark on the most important issues facing them....the winners of last night's debates are ::drum roll::

the Federal Reserve,

the Demopublican-Republicrat Party,

Goldman Sachs,

JP Morgan Chase,

Bank of America,

Wells Fargo,

Halliburton,

Boeing,

Raytheon,

Lockheed Martin,

Northrop Grumman,

General Dynamics,

News Corporation,

Time Warner,

Viacom,

CBS,

NBC and

Monsanto.

Those who benefit from crony corporatism and continuous war thank you for your vote for their candidate Marittack Obamney!!

_________________________________________________________

Good morning DingleB,,,,,,,,,,

,,,,,,,, the ONLY true & accurate post on this vine. Thank you!!!!!!!!!!

.

They BOTH suck !

.

Gilbert Gottfried/Carrot Top, 2012 anyone ???????????????????????

.

(,,,,,,, but wait,,, Gottfried would do no more harm than those 2 liars,,,and the idea of Gilbert Gottfried addressing congress would be worth it for the entertainment value alone.)

.

The Obama fanboys on this board and their MSM partners are a real hoot. They think Obama "won" the debate hands down by showing a commanding presence and facility with the intricacies of foreign policy. Good grief, is this the first presidential election they've ever experienced?

In any foreign policy debate I fully expect the incumbent president to display a gravitas and sense of command that no challenger can match. That's just the nature of the beast because a sitting president has been there done that, while no challenger has. So the reality is it would have been surprising beyond belief if Obama had not been able to put his best foot forward last night.

But a sitting president doing what he was expected to do and swaying hearts and minds are two different things. The more pertinent metric is whether challenger Romney was able to convey a comfort level when discussing foreign policy issues with the incumbent, and whether he was able to reassure voters that he would be a credible commander in chief. From that perspective it was quite clear that Romney came across as a deliberative man of sound judgment who was not at all like the reckless warmonger Obama tried to portray. And Romney scored heavily when he pointed out that the president's penchant for attacking him was not an agenda for the future.

And this leads to a broader point. The core strategy of the Obama campaign from day one has been to try and diminish Romney in the eyes of the voters, a strategy the president continued to deploy last night. That approach might work for a while as hundreds of millions of dollars were spent on campaign ads to paint a picture of a man who is evil beyond words. But beginning with the first debate, once voters see that the actual man is nothing like the Romney portrayed in those ads then suddenly all those campaign attacks lose most of their bite.

Back in 2008 candidate Obama said that when your opponent doesn't have a record to run on he reverts to demeaning the other guy. Axelrod and the president have taken that strategy to heart in 2012, but now they're paying the price for it.

Does anyone know if the 42-yr-old punk, Tagg Romney, visited a radio station after this debate to vow to hold president down and cut his hair?

No one calls Daddy Romney a liar and gets away with it!

Romney was hiding with the Mormon Missionaries in France while brave Soldiers died in Vietnam, as a Vet I'm calling Romney out as a Yellow Belly Draft Dodger and "COWARD" !!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been undecided prior to last night. But after the last two debates, I've decided to go with Romney.

But if Both Parties don’t start actually doing something to fix the real problems in our country like “out-sourcing”, illegal immigration and the out of control costs of health care insurance, by the next election – American citizens may just have to run a nation-wide campaign to vote every single incumbent elected official in the country out of office, so that maybe then they’ll finally get the message.

Our economic problems didn't happen overnight. It's been happening over the past 15-20 years, but the economy was kept going by middle class Americans tapping into the equity on their homes until they were completely tapped out.

Both parties have sold out the bulk of the American citizens, who they're supposed to represent, by allowing the "out-sourcing" floodgates to open wider and wider without taking any sensible measures to stem the tide. (Under Clinton jobs to China, Under Bush I & II influx of illegals or cheap easily abused labor into the US and jobs to Mexico/NAFTA) Our leaders are elected by the Citizens of the United States of America to represent the interests of those citizens and the country itself. They are NOT elected by the Global Market Place or foreign citizens!

It shouldn't be all about Democrats or Republicans! It should be about doing the right thing for our country and the majority of its citizens. I consider myself an independent voter, but going back to the Reagan days and with the only exception having been Perot, I’ve always voted Republican. But all this single-minded, left versus right, ideological one dimensional bull has got to go! This is the problem with our country. It shouldn't be about Democrats or Republicans! It should be about Americans, especially our elected officials, doing the right thing for our country and its citizens.

We need whoever wins this election to Start Protecting American Jobs and do whatever it takes to bring back the jobs they let go. They've got to give us somebody who will stand up for the American people.

We need to bring manufacturing back to the United States of America and both parties are ignoring tariffs as a way to level the playing field, raise money and bring jobs back home. Let's guess why. Oh that's right, tariff is a dirty word. Hum, maybe it’s that our so called leaders (political leaders) are beholden to the same people who are exporting our jobs.

I guess we should keep letting Corp Boards, Wall Street, CEOs and Foreign Lobbyists promote sending US jobs to countries where they work for slave wages, no benefits, no OSHA safety standards or no real environment regulations. How's that been working for us?

The so called “Global Market Place” is not a level playing field. Companies may have made higher profits by "out sourcing", but they've been putting middle class Americans who are a good part of the world’s customer base out of work. I’m not a lefty or member of any union. I run a business that employs over 20 people and produces products that are purchased by customers that do manufacturing and packaging. I’m just an average Joe, but I've been saying this for more than 10 years now. If I can see it, so can our so called leaders (political leaders) who are beholden to the same people who are exporting our jobs.

We need to add tariffs that are proportionate to the inequities in wages and regulations in the country where the goods were produced and or where we’re importing them from. We could then use the money raised by these tariffs to help companies build state of the art manufacturing plants here in the USA, which would create more jobs here at home for US citizens, which would then in turn increase our income tax revenue.

The people with all of the excuses as to why we can’t or aren’t willing to manufacture products here in the US are the same people who have provided us with the thinking that’s gotten us into this mess in the first place.

Over the past 15-20 years, I've seen too many of our customer's close manufacturing plants here in the USA and move those plants to different countries, decimating entire areas here in OUR COUNTRY. And I'm not alone. Returning jobs to American Citizens will provide income tax revenue to OUR Government versus our government having to pay unemployment benefits to those who would be jobless instead.

Bringing manufacturing back to the US not only gives jobs to the US citizens who would be working in those manufacturing facilities, but to the people that would be working in the businesses that would spring up all around them. This should also include the safe harvesting, production and distribution of our own natural energy here in the USA, rather than paying for fuel from countries where they hate us. Let’s keep that money and those jobs here in the US.

These so-called “free trade agreements” have to go. It was obvious when they were passing these agreements as to what was going to happen and sure enough it did. Our leaders had to have known this as well when they were passing these bills. It’s just common sense. We also need to bring customer support services back to the United States of America and staff them with employees who are US Citizens.

The “Global Market Place” is not a level playing field! The whole idea of the tariffs is so we can pay our factory workers a decent wage and not be blown out by these other countries where they don’t play by the same rules.

We may have to pay a bit more for products made here in the USA by US citizens, but at least we'll still have jobs and a future for our children.

The bottom line is that “Our Government” has to protect American industry and the jobs that those industries provide. If they do that, the rest will take care of itself.

Caesar Augustus-

Iowa for 20 bucks ... 15,000,000 bucks if Jody is part of the deal.

SOLD to the sucker with wax wings.

Morning Parker,

Now that is what makes me chortle about you roman-red-boy, you sees a rat on board and your solution is to sink the ship.

Well, shocking that Krauthammer says that the challenger won and Rachel says the incumbent won, and both by wide margins! That is why they are entertainers.

The "insta-polls" are slightly less biased than the entertainers, so for what it's worth;

A CBS News poll of undecided voters who watched the debate found 53 percent giving it to Mr. Obama, 23 percent to Mitt Romney and 24 percent declaring it a tie.

A CNN poll of registered voters who watched the debate put Mr. Obama ahead, 48 percent to 40 percent.

An online poll by Google Consumer Surveys had Mr. Obama winning, 45.1 percent to 35.3 percent

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/

-------------------------------------------------------------

The real question is, what do the soccer moms in Toledo think?

The wavering 3-5% of the electorate will continue to flutter in the breeze of the 24 hour news cycle, but are not really representative of the state of the electoral college map.

Patriotic American U.S.A.

Romney was hiding with the Mormon Missionaries in France while brave Soldiers died in Vietnam,

I will not fault anyone for not wanting to go to war to kill or be killed. But I will fault a person who does it AND criticizes others for protesting the war.

Mitt Romney protested against the anti-war protesters while hiding from the war himself.

Romney is a hypocrite who plays by his own rules. And he raised a son who thinks he can go on the radio and say he wanted to take a swing at the president.

President Obama was the clear winner last night. My feeling was, he went beyond trying to win the election, to trying to communicate with the ADD American people, who are seriously uninformed and inattentive regarding foreign policy. I loved hearing Obama explain the issues, and I feel more confident than ever of his leadership in the world.

Obama was brilliant - Romney reminded me of a news anchor, slick and scripted and empty. There was no "there" there.

A couple times a week I will read the comments from the days top stories. Everytime I am not dissapointed. The usual liberal suspects fill the board with comments, usually unstable and most times irrelevant. They are the uncle, who married into the family, that you don't want to sit by at any of the holiday events. Its the crazy lady at the airport that chimes in on your conversation only to turn it to something against Bush.

The first couple of times I was exposed to this liberal propoganda I got very nervous that this is where some undecided voter might get their information. Some actually might read the this and buy into it because it reminds them of what their college professor once said or that Chris Matthews yelled one day. But after a few times reading the faulty logic and a major lack of reality I knew that anyone with over 10% of common sense would see right through it.

Last night, I wouldn't call that prevent defense, I would call it taking a knee. No need for anyone to get hurt. Just get the victory and get out of town. I think people are realizing that Big Government doesn't work. That competition is what makes this country so great. I like choices. I love liberty. I don't want the government telling me what I need to do. No Greece for me thanks.

Romney/Ryan 2012

Pat Boston MA.

What we have here is a candidate in the Republican Party who is in over his head when it comes to foreign policy. We all saw it. All of us.

And Obama had how much foreign policy experience going into 2009?

Name one president of the last 40 years who did prior to being elected. (GHWB would be the closest but no cigar)

you sees a rat on board and your solution is to sink the ship.

im sure you're European brethren are all too familiar with the bubonic plague? But tell me how many Romans were all too ready to sink their trireme? enjoy the flight Ikarus

Like always Obama continues to think he is running for his first term and not his second. Of course all of you here would vote for any Democrat... As I would any Republican. We all vote for what is best in our home.

The problem you all face is ALL homes are paying double for basic needs, everything from Gas to Bacon.

So as your guys SAYS things are working from the middle out he is flat out lying. There is no amount of words Obama can say that will change the fact that a loaf of bread has doubled.... There is no amount of words Obama can say that doesn't show he didn't blow 6 trillion bucks on top of the 10 trillion from the past 30 years.

The very second the American people got to hear from Mitt Romney. The second they seen he could do Obama's job without sweat.... The landscape shifted INSTANTLY.

You/We all could be totally into this politic stuff but the fact is the Very first debate ruined Obama.... Damaged beyond repair. Not totally because Obama got caught with his pants down but more so because Romney became the Anti-Obama.

MOST Americans do not like Obama... for a vast range of reasons. Racisim is not one of them. Job performance is the top reason.

Bill in Fairfax --

swaying hearts and minds are two different things.

Why is it then that Romney embraced the President's policies?

Romney was able to convey a comfort level

Did you miss Romney's grimacing and profuse sweating? He WAS uncomfortable.

who was not at all like the reckless warmonger Obama tried to portray.

Yes, he was quite the chameleon last night. He didn't fool us though, we know he will not use reason and he'll act preemptively if he has a chance and put us in war. In other words, he's lying.

to try and diminish Romney in the eyes of the voters

Romney does that himself with his amazing capacity to flip flop on every issue. Who could trust a word he says? He changes colors so frequently.

Does anyone know if the 42-yr-old punk, Tagg Romney, go on the radio after this debate to vow to hold president down and cut his hair?

Adolescent and puerile comments are a pretty good indication of why some people support Obama. High school mentality is all well and good in high school, not so good for adults in the real world.

ProtectAmericanJobs,

you are sking for this:

Bringing manufacturing back to the US not only gives jobs to the US citizens who would be working in those manufacturing facilities,

but saying you will vote for Romney who belongs to the party that blocked this:

S. 3364 (Bring Jobs Home Act ) A bill to provide an incentive for businesses to bring jobs back to America.

and this:

S. 3816 (Creating American Jobs and Ending Offshoring Act ) A bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create American jobs and to prevent the offshoring of such jobs overseas.

and you want to vote for Romney whose Bain Capital appears to have benefited from a provision in the U.S. tax code that grants companies tax breaks for costs associated with offshoring American jobs. For example, Bain profited from the closure of a Denver factory in early 2001, when SEC filings list Romney as the sole shareholder and CEO of multiple Bain enterprises.

So keep spreading your fake reasons why you want to vote for Romney but ending offshoring is not one of them. If it was, you wouldn't be voting for Romney.

Time to bust out Roosevelt, because in these times we see the same things from the republican party once again.

Let me warn you and let me warn the nation against the smooth evasion that says

“Of course we believe these things.

We believe in Social Security.

We believe in work for the unemployed.

We believe in saving homes.

Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things.

But we do not like the way the present administration is doing them.

Just turn them over to us.

We will do all of them.

We will do more of them.

We will do them better.

And most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.”

ProtectAmericanJobs

I've been undecided prior to last night. But after the last two debates, I've decided to go with Romney.

Sorry to hear that, PAJ. He is a horrible pick. Plus if you vote republican you reward the republicans for their absolutely horrid, spoiled child behavior of refusing to work with the potus or the dem's on anything. Your vote will tell them that having such a "let 'em eat cake because we're not going to play" attitude works and then both sides will be doing it all the time. Why would they be given incentive to change if you vote for them? Think about it...

...American citizens may just have to run a nation-wide campaign to vote every single incumbent elected official in the country out of office, so that maybe then they’ll finally get the message.

I said this same thing last elections and I agree 100%.

Amy

You already spent your vote to the destruction of America. You proudly stated that. Now your just trying to justify it.

California Tom

Slam Dunk. Games over. President Obama beat Romney like a stepchild last night. For what ever reason Romney failed to show up for the debate. He spent most the time agreeing with the President. Who coached this guy? Yes, I know Romney's not heavily schooled in foreign policy, but come on, he looked like a fool out there last night.

Yup, I loved that Hail to the Chief thing.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mcbqvs8mXa1rg2rf7o1_500.gif

MYTH proves how keenly aware of his failings by agreeing wit President Obama!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL LOL, LOL, LOL

4 more 4 44

Obama/Biden 2012

Finally it is revealed. The candidacy of Mitt Romney is entirely based on the hateful racial bigotry of the people of this Country. No one, with the relative mental cognizance of living grass could vote for Mitt Romney based on His policies, or ideas. He has none. Most nonsensical Man ever to seek the office of President. No one actually knows if He knows anything. Actually, no one knows if He is being truthful, when He gives His name. According, to the republican hierarchy, and analyst's like "Chuck Todd" and "David Gregory" Mitt doesn't need any policy positions or knowledge of His job. They claim the President, through his policy positions, has given quarter to the overall outrageous and ridiculous lunacy, that is in fact, the candidacy of Mitt Romney. Such backward and illogical statements, are not, nor can ever be grounded in human reasonableness, and reflect only the feeble ability of the generator of such a premise. The republicans, and those who support them are after one thing, and one thing only. The Black son-of-a-bitch must be removed from this high office. All the talk, all the idiotic conspiracies, and the math from hell, tools yes, but all ancillary to the removal of this scandalous man from the Oval Office. Course, most who support the republicans will protest any form of personal racial hatred while holding a bible in one hand, the constitution in the other, all the while quoting disparities of both. It is a shameful time for this Country.

mygirl1

Adolescent and puerile comments are a pretty good indication of why some people support Obama.

so you find me pointing out what Tagg Romney - the son of the presidential candidate - acts like as adolescent and puerile but you don't find Tadd Romney's actual behavior adolescent and puerile?

Defending the honor of Tagg Romney - how noble

BtW, since I cannot really be both, am I adolescent or puerile? Or did you just learn a BIG word and wanted to sound intelligent but really don't know how to use it?

Hey Skip,

as a military historian, what is your take on Romney saying he want to arm "pro american" groups in the middle east-in the land of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". How long before that blows up in our faces (ie ben laden, sadam)

Obama clearly won, and Romney was floundering, stammering, and forced to agree with the President over and over because those positions are prudent and correct.

There is no question who is qualified to keep running this country, and who should go back to campaigning for another four years.

Obama/Biden 2012 - Romney/Ryan 1040

I thought the debate was lousy. no talk of the euro-crisis, mexico's drug crisis, eventual death of castro, and anything outside of the middle east. Just Romney talking about how Obama's policies are good-except they suck, and the President snarking back.

ok one additional negative point to Romney, who wants to defund everything except the military and foreign aid.

Mac Forrester...what an absolutely ridiculous and ignorant post that was. All people who vote against the President are automatically racist in your eyes. I will be sure to inform my family and friends of this. What a sad, sad view you have of this country and the people in it. Curious though...all of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 and that are planning to vote against him in 2012...did they "became racist" over the last 4 years in your eyes?

This man will become president if we don't stop him!

Quoting Romney:

“Maybe one of the few bright spots in the Middle East developments in the last year has been the rising of the people in Syria against [President Bashar al-] Assad. Obviously, as you know, Syria is Iran’s only Arab ally in the region. Syria is the route that allows Iran to supply Hezbollah with weapons in Lebanon. Syria is Iran’s route to the sea.”

— Mitt Romney, question and answer session at AIPAC
conference, March 6, 2012

SOMEBODY GET MITTENS AN ATLAS, STAT!!

We’ve puzzled over this comment for a while. When the presumptive GOP nominee referred to Syria as Iran’s “route to the sea” during the Arizona GOP debate in February, we figured it was just a slip of the tongue.

But then a reader counted at least five times in which Romney has used this phrase, including in the Feb. 22 debate, at last month’s American Israel Public Affairs Committee annual conference, in a TV interview (MSNBC, Dec. 21), on the radio (Kilmeade & Friends, Feb. 14) and even in a Washington Post interview (Feb. 10).

Considering that Syria shares no border with Iran — Iraq and Turkey are in the way — and that Iran has about 1,500 miles of coastline along the Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman, leading to the Arabian Sea, the reader wanted to know:
What’s Romney talking about?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/romney-and-irans-route-to-the-sea/2012/04/18/gIQAgTbXRT_blog.html

Frank Grimes:

My personal take on the debate. Obama scored a slight win...but Romney held his own and passed the "Commander in Chief" test.

He's be a better Command in Chief if he gets a little better grasp of geography, such as the fact that Iran already has a route to the sea that doesn't go through Syria, a nation with which Iran shares no common border. But I'm sure I would feel much safer if a President Romney added a few doze battleships to the US Navy in case Japan attacks Pearl Harbor again.

BTW: While not as significant as Romney's win in the first debate, all of the snap polls indicate that Obama's win was a bit more than "slight."

I get a kick out of all the IObama-Shama-Lama-Ding-Dongs running around this morning, as if their hair was on fire, screaming, yelling, cackling, anc hortling about Obama "wining" last night's debate.

LOL, Romney slapped that azz when he chided Obama about his "wiggle room" remark to the Russian President, and again when he called Obama out for saying the US was "derisive and dismissive" in his speeches to Arab/Islamic audiences in the middle east, shortly after he took office.

To say that Obama won so decisively, is "bluster" at best, and wishfull thinking at worst.

Romney held his own, even when Obama parroted the new Democrat company line that Romney isn't telling the truth.

However it was Obama himself who LIED last night when he said that the sanctions against Iran are working.

Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon, and it never should have gotten this far.

What's more, the issue of Benghazi wasn't brought up enough last night. Because, Obama did indeed LIE in the previous debate when he said he called the killings their an "act of terrorism."

My strong suspicion is that last night didn't change any minds, or win any hearts. Everyone remembers that first stand up debate. That's always the one that sticks in everyone's mind. That was the game changer.

Think of it this way; the fighter who's LOSING is the one who always throws wild punches in the final round, hoping to connect.

Obama's desperation was showing last night. These next two weeks will see some hard campaigning, and I hope people take this election seriously because it will determine who leads our country through this most tumultuous of times.

But, one thing is for certain; the American people deserve much better than what we're getting now, and if we keep Obama in office, we're only going to get more of the same.

It's time for real change, it's time for leadership, it's time for Mitt Romney!

DEMOCRATS FOR ROMNEY!!!!!

dangerfield -- You wrote:

The real question is, what do the soccer moms in Toledo think?

I heard last night that Romney was playing to women in the suburbs. Quite frankly, it insulted me. As if we are just now starting to pay attention to the race. Huh! Nothing could be further from the truth. Women have been paying attention since the start. We know Romney tried to tone down his warmongering last night in an attempt to appeal to us. We also saw him flip flop from his ALL his previous stances. He's not fooling us a bit out here in suburbia.

Hi Houston!...

Okay...instead of "slight" would you agree to "solid"? ;-)

I was going mostly on the CNN poll results.

If prevent defense means lying less then yes Romney played prevent defense. (on the plus side I didn't yell at the TV for a hour and a half straight.)

If prevent defense means having no real foreign policy then yes Romney played prevent defense.

If prevent defense means trotting out the old lame accusation of "your the apologizer in chief" then yes Romney played prevent defense.

If prevent defense means that you can just claim that you willing something hard enough will make it so then yes Romney played prevent defense. BTW Hitler had that belief in his will also.

If prevent defense means that your idea of accusing China of currency manipulation on "day one" will not really really really p!ss off China and ruin any hope of getting any cooperation on anything from them. Just because you think it won't. Then yes Romney played prevent defense.

In sports playing prevent defense is for teams with no heart, guts or belief in their own abilities. Teams that are exhausted with their heads hung low. It is also a sure way to lose. Three debates and three different Mitts. In four debates final score Democratic ticket 3 Republicans 1.

As an Independent , I have finally concluded that Romney cannot handle foreign affairs, He is in Bed with the Chinese, His only Business accumen is sending jobs to China, The only jobs he has created here In America are $7.00hr part time jobs, That you will still need to get food stamps to live on, He says 12 Million but does not explain how? Obama was handled a mess, I figure there is nosense changing Presidents when the guy that is already in the job knows what is wrong and trys to fix it, or do we spend 2-3 years to try and get Romney up to speed. I think not. Mr President I declare my and my Familys 6 Votes for you

How about Fox "news"

Who won the Presidential debate: Obama: 63%

obama is out of touch and a liar:

"First of all, the sequester is not something that I've proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed. It will not happen," Obama said.

obama cannot stop it. does he still think of himself as all-powerful?

Exactly Lori, we have already proven the folly of that in Afghanistan when the weapons we supplied the Mujahadeen to fight the Russians ended up being used against US when we went after the Taliban and Bin Laden.

It is foolish to think that there are nothing but "brave freedom fighters who share our values" in Syria. Al Queda has already infiltrated those groups and is just waiting to turn Syria into another Islamic Republic like Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The weapons we hand over to the Syrian rebels today will be used to kill Americans tomorrow.

If the UN wants to move in and help. Fine, we'll give them technical support like we did in Libya. But it would be FOOLISH in the extreme to send weapons into the Middle East. We been there, done that, and have the bodies of thousands of young Americans to show for it.

Romney is a chicken hawk being driven by the same neo con chicken hawks who led Bush into Iraq and Afghanistan, ill-prepared and ill-advised.

The biggest mistake we ever made as a country was not charging Cheney and Bush with "crimes against humanity" for their foolish experiment in "nation building". If we had done that the rest of the neo con chicken hawks would have crawled back into the darkness with the rest of the roaches and we wouldn't even by having this conversation.

Obama/Biden 2012

Bill from Fairfax,

My son phoned me to see if I had been watching Mitt squirm when Obama used the "Aircraft carrier line and submarine line" Mitt began to sweat and it showed how absolutely ignorant Mitt is of our military is. Just throw $2,000,000,000,00o more dollars to the Pentagon that they haven't asked for. Does that tell you something about Mitts plans for the future? it should! just listen and remember his words last night!

I've said it from the very beginning, how can ANYONE vote for someone who stands for nothing. Romney would say the moon was made of cheese to get elected.

Wouldn't it be interesting if Romney got elected and turned out to be the most liberal president we ever had. Wouldn't that give the conservatives fits !?! The thing is, is it could happen. NO ONE knows where this guy stands, he's been on every side of every issue his whole political career.

Man. he really threw his whole base under the bus last night.I thought he was going to break out in song singing the presidents praises

Caesar,

I see you still haven't invested in a book that explains what Marxism means or its principals. You sound so darn ignorant and foolish with throwing out color words you have no knowledge of their meaning!

Remember when you hear Romney or some other Neo Con say Iran has gotten 4 years closer to a Bomb, that is code for we have to Bomb them as soon as we get into power. They say that they agree with President Obama on Sanctions . Yet they scream 4 years, What they wanted is to Bomb Iran 4 years ago.

Obama/Biden 2012 Because your children are not cannon fodder for more WARS

KayBee......Syira has a very large port there and because there was no forces left in Iraq nore any sactions with Iraq against Iran... Iran is now flying and driving across Iraq to Syrian ports in the Mediterranean Sea.

Dean Moriarty

Obamas struggling Jen better get out there and crank up the liberal hate machine.

That's twisted, Moriarty. Mittens is the man struggling. He was sweating last night. He looked like he had a serious case of indigestion.

Call in The Mitt Stabilizer!

Ann, do whatever it is you do to keep Mittens vertical and semi-verbal.

And for heaven's sake, quit starching his Mormon underwear!!

ed -- interesting observation. do you remember this exchange from 4 years ago?

ROSE: I don't know what Barack Obama's worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don't, either.

ROSE: I don't know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don't know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don't really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it's an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don't know what books he's read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.

newdayDAWNING...RETURNED

How about Fox "news"

Who won the Presidential debate: Obama: 63%

how can they say otherwise? How can they excuse "I agree" Romney"?

has anyone blamed Romney's crappy performance on the moderator yet? They did it for Debate #2, and the VP debate. Come on people let's be consistent with excusing Romney's/Ryan's inadequacies.

Drill Baby Drill-3459380

KayBee......Syira has a very large port there and because there was no forces left in Iraq nore any sactions with Iraq against Iran... Iran is now flying and driving across Iraq to Syrian ports in the Mediterranean Sea.

...and do you remember who it was who invaded Iraq, deposed the government, dissolved their military, fired their police, allowed looting and destruction of the oil fields, and incited a civil war?

...while claiming our troops would be greeted with flowers??

Have you forgotten already who it was who turned Iraq into an empty shell, leaving the Sunnis out in the cold and setting the country up for Shiite and Iranian control?

Get a clue or stay home on election day, as a service to your country.

By the way, have you ever heard of The Persian Gulf?

Romney sets new record.......24 "Myths" in 41 minutes....

1) “Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea.” Romney has his geography wrong. Syria doesn’t share a border with Iran and Iran has 1,500 miles of coastline leading to the Arabian Sea. It is also able to reach the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal.

2) “And what I’m afraid of is we’ve watched over the past year or so [in Syria], first the president saying, well we’ll let the U.N. deal with it…. Then it went to the Russians and said, let’s see if you can do something.” While Russia and China have vetoed multiple resolutions at the U.N. Security Council on Syria, the United States has also been working through the Friends of Syria group and other allies in the region. Obama’s approach “would essentially give U.S. nods of approval to arms transfers from Arab nations to some Syrian opposition fighters.”

3) “Former chief of the — Joint Chiefs of Staff said that — Admiral Mullen said that our debt is the biggest national security threat we face. This — we have weakened our economy. We need a strong economy. We need to have as well a strong military.” If Romney is worried about the national debt, why does he want to increase military spending from 3.5 percent of GDP to 4 percent? This amounts to a $2.1 trillion increase over a ten year period that the military says it does not need and Romney has no plan to pay for it.

4) “[W]hen — when the students took to the streets in Tehran and the people there protested, the Green Revolution occurred, for the president to be silent I thought was an enormous mistake.” Obama spoke out about the Revolution on June 15, 2009, just two days after post-election demonstrations began in Iran, condemning the Iranian government’s hard-handed crackdown on Iranian activists. He then reiterated his comments a day later in another press conference. Iranian activists have agreed with Obama’s approach.

5) “And when it comes to our economy here at home, I know what it takes to create 12 million new jobs and rising take-home pay.” The Washington Post’s in-house fact checker tore Romney’s http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mitt-romneys-new-math-for-jobs-plan-doesnt-add-up/2012/10/15/fd1d1e1c-170f-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html%E2%80%9D">claim that he will create 12 million jobs to shreds. The Post wrote that the “‘new math’” in Romney’s plan “doesn’t add up.” In awarding the claim four Pinocchios — the most untrue possible rating, the Post expressed incredulity at the fact Romney would personally stand behind such a flawed, baseless claim.

6) “[W]e are going to have North American energy independence. We’re going to do it by taking full advantage of oil, coal, gas, nuclear and our renewables.” Romney would actually eliminate the fuel efficiency standards that are moving the United States towards energy independence, even though his campaign plan relies on these rules to meet his goals.

7) “[W]e’re going to have to have training programs that work for our workers.” Paul Ryan’s budget, which Romney has fully endorsed, calls for spending 33 percent less on “Education, training, employment, and social services” than Obama’s budget.

8) “And I’ll get us on track to a balanced budget.” Romney’s $5 trillion tax cut plan and his increases to military spending could explode the deficit.

9) “Well, Republicans and Democrats came together on a bipartisan basis to put in place education principles that focused on having great teachers in the classroom.” Education experts have faint praise for his proposals while he was governor. “His impact was inconsequential,” said Glen Koocher, executive director of the Massachusetts Association of School Committees. “People viewed his proposals as political talking points, and no one took Romney seriously.”

10) “So I’d get rid of [Obamacare] from day one. To the extent humanly possible, we get that out.” Romney cannot unilaterally eliminate a bill passed by Congress and his plan to grant states waivers may also be a non-starter.

11) “Number two, we take some programs that we are doing to keep, like Medicaid, which is a program for the poor.” Medicaid isn’t just a program for the poor. While it provides health coverage for “millions of low-income children and families who lack access to the private health insurance system,” it also offers “insurance to millions of people with chronic illnesses or disabilities” and is “the nation’s largest source of coverage for long-term care, covering more than two-thirds of all nursing home residents.” Medicaid is also a key source of coverage for pregnant women.

12) “[W]e’ll take [Medicaid] for the poor and we give it to the states to run because states run these programs more efficiently.” A Congressional Budget Office analysis of Paul Ryan’s proposal to block grant Medicaid found that if federal spending for Medicaid decreased, “states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.” As a result, enrollees could “face more limited access to care,” higher out-of-pocket costs, and “providers could face more uncompensated care as beneficiaries lost coverage for certain benefits or lost coverage altogether.”

13) “Our Navy is old — excuse me, our Navy is smaller now than at any time since 1917…That, in my view, is making — is making our future less certain and less secure. The U.S. Navy is smaller than it was in 1917, but it is not making America less secure. The navy has actually grown in the sheer number of ships under Obama and Romney’s plans to increase shipbuilding is unrealistic. As one historian told PolitiFact, counting the number of ships or aircraft “is not a good measurement of defense strength because their capabilities have increased dramatically in recent decades.” Romney’s comparison “doesn’t pass ‘the giggle test,’” he said.

14) “And then the president began what I have called an apology tour, of going to various nations in the Middle East and criticizing America. I think they looked at that and saw weakness.” Obama never embarked on an “apology tour.”

15) “And I think that when the president said he was going to create daylight between ourselves and Israel, that they noticed that as well.” They haven’t noticed because it’s not true. Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Defense Minister Ehud Barak told CNN, “President Obama is doing . . . more than anything that I can remember in the past [in regard to our security].” “When I look at the record of President Obama concerning the major issues, security, I think it’s a highly satisfactory record, from an Israeli point of view,” said Israeli President Shimon Peres.

16) “And — and — we should not have wasted these four years to the extent they — they continue to be able to spin these centrifuges and get that much closer.” Obama hasn’t wasted time on Iran. In July 2012, Obama signed into law the most effective sanctions ever put into place against Iran, targeting the country’s oil and financial sectors. These sanctions were imposed unilaterally by the U.S. and come in addition to the four rounds of sanctions the UN has enacted since 2006. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak called the sanctions “very effective,” and Romney has said he would continue them if elected.

17) “I would tighten those sanctions. I would say that ships that carry Iranian oil, can’t come into our ports. I imagine the E.U. would agree with us as well.” Almost no Iranian oil has come into the United States since Ronald Reagan signed an executive order in 1987 banning all U.S. imports from Iran. The nation received a small amount of oil from Iran after the first Gulf War, in 1991.

18) “I see jihadists continuing to spread, whether they’re rising or just about the same level, hard to precisely measure, but it’s clear they’re there. They’re very strong.” Obama’s policies appear to have gravely weakened al Qaeda Central, the lead arm of the organization in Pakistan and Afghanistan principally responsible for 9/11.

19) “It’s not government investments that makes businesses grow and hire people.” The Romney campaign routinely touts government military spending as a way to create jobs and boost businesses.

20) “My plan to get the [auto] industry on its feet when it was in real trouble was not to start writing checks. It was President Bush that wrote the first checks. I disagree with that. I said they need — these [auto] companies need to go through a managed bankruptcy.” Romney’s plan for the auto bailout would have ensured the collapse of the auto industry. In his editorial titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt,” Romney advocated for letting the private sector finance the bankruptcy of General Motors and Chrysler. Auto insiders, however, have said that plan was “reckless” and “pure fantasy.”

21) “Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tanks is great. But investing in companies? Absolutely not.” Ryan’s plan, which Romney has endorsed, “could cut spending on non-defence-related research and development by 5%, or $3.2 billion, below the fiscal-year 2012 budget, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Over the long term, Ryan’s small-government approach would shrink funding for research and development to historically small sizes.”

22) “One is a path represented by the president, which at the end of four years would mean we’d have $20 trillion in debt heading towards Greece.” The U.S. is not headed down a path like that of Greece. Greece, contrary to popular belief, had a revenue problem rather than a spending problem. While its spending was high compared to US standards — 50.4 percent of GDP compared to 38 percent of GDP in the US — its spending was average among European nations. As CAP’s Michael Linden and Sabina Dewan note, “Over the past 10 years, Greece has consistently spent less, as a share of GDP, than the European Union as a whole.” However, it generated less that 40 percent of GDP from revenue — one of the lowest rates in the EU.

23) “I was in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat. I learned how to get along on the other side of the aisle.” Given Romney’s 844 vetoes as governor, Massachusetts legislators dispute this claim. As the New York Times has noted, “The big-ticket items that Mr. Romney proposed when he entered office in January 2003 went largely unrealized, and some that were achieved turned out to have a comparatively minor impact.”

24) “We should key our foreign aid, our direct foreign investment, and that of our friends, we should coordinate it to make sure that we — we push back and give them more economic development.” Romney’s website promises to “Reduce Foreign Aid — Savings: $100 Million.” “Stop borrowing money from countries that oppose America’s interests in order to give it back to them in the form of foreign aid,” it says. In November of 2011, Romney said he would start foreign aid for every country “at zero” and call on them to make their case for U.S. financial assistance.

Four very long years ago, Billy Bob, we ALL know where President Obama stands now. The story is about Romney taking positions on foreign policy that he has never taken before. I'm just saying that it doesn't make much sense to vote for someone who has no values or morals, except for his own blind ambition to become the president. The man is a power hungry sociopathic narcissist and,I believe, would put the whole world in danger.

And I'm talking about foreign policy, lets not even talk about Mr. Romney's stands on domestic issues

Again with the hyperbole

Most nonsensical Man ever to seek the office of President. No one actually knows if He knows anything.

Have you forgotten George W Bush so soon? Hard to believe as President Obama is still running against him.

BTW 3 Top headlines on CNN underlines that the election will be defined by the economy.

Dow sinks 240 points as sell-off accelerates
A sell-off on Wall Street gained momentum Tuesday, with the Dow Jones industrial average dropping 240 points after three Dow components issued...

More Americans delaying retirement until their 80s

DuPont to cut 1,500 jobs

Is this change you can believe in? For me, I say no thanks:

Over 8% unemployment for a record 43 months in a row! It's now said to be 7.8%, which still stinks. Oh, BTW, they didn't include California in the totals, which has over 10% unemployment. Duhhh. So, it's still over 8% folks.

Over $16 trillion in debt and counting? He increased it five trillion rather than reduce it five trillion as promised.

Over 14% unemployment for blacks.

Anemic economic growth, year after year, after year.

No budget for the past three years as required by the Constitution.

A healthcare plan that will cost over three times what they said it would, was opposed by over 60
% of the population, sucks $700,000,000 out of Medicare to help pay for it, and wasn't even read by any member of Congress that voted for it? How could you vote for a bill you haven't even read?

Solyndra FAIL and cover-up (or at least no due diligence) that cost taxpayers over half a billion dollars.

FAILURE to protect our embassy in Libya resulting in the deaths of four Americans, and the cover-up afterward.

Fast and Furious FAILURE, resulting in the death of a boarder control officer and the cover-up by the Obama administration. Holder held in contempt of Congress.

This presidency is a failure and it is time for Americans to realize it and vote for a man that is highly qualified to lead us out of it, Mitt Romney.

PLEASE help us and do what is right for America: Vote Obama out.

I don't know what the final election results will be in two weeks, but if anyone thought that Romney won that debate you have to be ashamed of you intelligence and power of observation! As a Forensics judge I can tell you it wasn't even close!

billybob-6210632

ed -- interesting observation. do you remember this exchange from 4 years ago?

stop Romneyfying quotes by using Goldberg's modified transcript of the interview that falsely suggests that Brokaw said "there's a lot about [Obama] we don't know," when, in fact, Brokaw attributed that claim to "conservative commentators" and that comments Brokaw and Rose made about their lack of familiarity with the candidates applied only to Obama when, in fact, they were referring to McCain as well.

A low inforamtion voter, aka Fox News viewer, might believe you but it doesn't change the fact that it's still crap information.

Clipping quotes to fit your propaganda - no wonder Romney is your guy.

Donald Trump Promises to Drop "Gigantic" Bombshell on Obama Campaign Wednesday.

OMG, Bev...I'm quaking in my boots. ;)

What is The Donald planning to do? Is he going to take off his wig and throw it on the White House lawn?

I think it was a draw, but Obama's arrogance and condescending nature blew it for him.

Now its been a week since Obama "won" the second debate so I think its safe to say he got no bounce.

ABC 10/13 Obama +3 ABC 10/21 Obama +1 Net -2

Politico 10/11 Obama +1 Politico 10/18 Romney +2 Net -3

SurveyUSA 10/10 Romney +1 SurveyUSA Romney +3 Net -2

Gallup Tracking Romney +6 No Change for 5 days now

Rassmussen Romney +4 Trending to Romney

Fedex is slated to lay off eleven hundred workers as well. Interesting little item generally overlooked by the Obama crowd is how many defense layoffs have been pushed back until AFTER the elections, much like how the effects of Obamacare have been pushed back as well. Everything that Obama has done that will negatively impact the economy has been pushed back until after the elections.

Interesting how his supporters never pay attention to what he does, they're all so smitten with his....hard to say really, certainly can't be his economic or foreign policies, they don't count apparently.

Allan: Note the focus of the Obama supporter, all surface and not one mention of the economy or the national debt or the fiscal crisis that is imploding. Nope, they are like teenagers, focus on fluff and superficialities, ignore reality. Papa Obama will take care of them, he will make money grow on trees and the oceans will part when he commands. Pfft.

Alan- and Romney stands for what? Name me one reason why you SUPPORT Romney. Now no saying it's because you hate Obama, why do you SUPPORT Romney. Name one of Romney's stands you support him on.

Dow sinks 240 points as sell-off accelerates
A sell-off on Wall Street gained momentum Tuesday, with the Dow Jones industrial average dropping 240 points after three Dow components issued...

More Americans delaying retirement until their 80s

DuPont to cut 1,500 jobs

and all of the above is due to the Uncertainty if Romney wins the Presidency, Eveytime in the last 2 weeks the Dow has dropped because romney has moved even in some poll, If Romney wins the Dow will Fall Like a Rock over a cliff, We have already seen what Bush did to the Dow and Romney wants the same policys, same policys = same crash and Millions of Investors will pull there money out Quickly

Bev, What you saw last night was Obama on the offensive and Romney playing prevent. In football sense, with the gameclock down to the last minute or two, Team Romney is playing it safe, and handing the ball off for short yardage. On the other hand, Obama was trying to strip the ball as the defender.

Romney just had to not do anything to change the momentum in the polls. On the other hand, Obama had to do something to change the momentum. Romney succeeded in his objective, the question is did Obama do enough to accomplish his goals in changing the momentum?

bayllie - Regarding 1.108... Please follow this link and read the brief story. Then let's talk about the manufacturing jobs BHO himself has "brought back" to the United States of America...

http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/target_8/Volt-no-jolt-LG-Chem-employees-idle

Romney: Syria is Iran's path to the sea.

Only if you go through Iraq. But why bother, when you can just go to Iran's own border with the Persian Gulf?

Romney: I can fix the economy in 8-10 years.

Then why are you criticizing the President for taking longer than 4 years? And why do you need even more money to fix it?

OUwhine

It was good to see Romney being more moderate in his approach to foreign policy last night.

Romney pretended to be a Moderate back in 2002 when running for office in Mass. After being elected, he gave a big, wet FU to the Mass voters and rubberstamped 800+ vetoes in 4 years. Result? Mass ranking on the bottom, Romney's 30 something job approval rating, and a feeling of repugnance by the Mass voters that they allowed Mitt to f*ck them over.

So be careful when you praise "Moderate Mitt" because no such thing exists.

It is clear the President won the last two debates. But he screwed up big time in the first one or this election wouldn't be close at all.

So now it's a struggle to the end, but I don't see Ohio going for a guy who was so diametrically opposed to the government financially helping out the auto industry, even though NOW he says he was for that. As Obama said last night "Ohio didn't forget" what Romney said and wrote. He originally spoke like a Bain CEO about how it should be handled, nothing of the conciliatory word he's saying now. This is why Obama has held the lead in that state. That is why he will win this election.

I could personally never vote for someone who has changed his positions so many times that I'd never know what he'd do in office. If I were the Obama campaign, I'd run ads about the auto bailout showing the real Romney effectively saying he'd have closed American car makers for good, every day, every hour in Ohio. And I'd be there every day reminding voters who really cared for the industry- Obama.

He didn't just pivot to President Obama's position, he gave us a display of world-class pirouettes. He didn't just throw his right-wing base under the bus. He buried them. His base was the loser, but they don't know it, and even if they did, they wouldn't care.

David, I couldn't agree more. I think Mitt just endorsed Obama last night!

On Iran, Romney emphasized economic sanctions rather than the threat of a military attack, effectively endorsing Obama's approach.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-debate-20121023,0,2131672.story

fielden

Romney: I can fix the economy in 8-10 years.

Then why are you criticizing the President for taking longer than 4 years? And why do you need even more money to fix it?

hypocrisy in its purest form, isn't it?

Bayllie: Puerile means adolescent and childish, silly and immature. Not a big word, go look it up, it is in the dictionary. "haircuts' and other snide and irrelevant commentary aren't examples of adult conversation.

Romney was against the GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER of GM... Do you have any idea how many people got screwed by Obama for taking over GM and turning 100 years of stock holders to the gutter? There is a huge difference between government support and GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER.

None of you morons should comment on any aspect of GM unless you know what the hell you are talking about.

Alan- and Romney stands for what? Name me one reason why you SUPPORT Romney. Now no saying it's because you hate Obama, why do you SUPPORT Romney. Name one of Romney's stands you support him on.

I support his efforts to simplify the tax code by reducing rates and removing deductions. I support his view on energy production. I think his emphasis on helping small businesses will produce more jobs whereas the ACA, for all its good intentions, will destroy "full time" jobs.

As to hating Obama, why would I hate him? He had a very tough time from 2009 - 2010. But he spent a lot of money on the stimulus, which I think was poorly structured, the ACA is a mess, and he has made no realistic effort to control the deficit. His policies since 2011 have been abysmal. He would rather have dinner with his wife and family than smooze congress. That's fine if you're a Senator from Illinois but when you're the President you have create relationships to get anything done. He basically checked out last year and spent his time running for re-election. The last two years have been worse than the first two so I don't see how he claim he has the country on the right track and that things are getting better.

Too bad there isn’t another debate. Then we might see Barry trying to slip a whoopee cushion under Romney as he sat down.

No kidding. Another debate will allow Romney time to fully endorse Obama, and then they could relax and have some fun chatting. That's the direction Governor Romney was headed in during this debate.

That line was by far the lowest point of the debate for Obama.

The entire debate was a low point for Obama. You put him at a table with a completely clueless person, who doesn't have an idea that his handlers have programmed into him.

And then, Obama has to pretend that he is talking to someone who could potentially be his peer. Given all this, Obama bore the 'debate' with dignity and grace.

I wish our Republican friends could take a look and understand what a real President looks like. It's too bad you can't tell the difference.

President Obama was clearly the winner in the last debate, no doubt about it.

But, I still award Mr. Romney the title of Miss Congeniality for the way he agreed to most everything the President is doing, and also the number of times he said that all he wanted was "World Peace."

@Frank "Grimy Grimes' etc.#1.118: Typical denial. You would likely serve yourself much better by sticking to your sports analogies.

@Drill Baby Drill-No's: Then why the hell are you running your mouth about it?

Just throw $2,000,000,000,00o more dollars to the Pentagon that they haven't asked for.

Obama has already cut the defense budget by $500 million and with sequestration looming another $500 million stands to be whacked. Secretary of Defense Panetta has stated those cuts will be "devastating." Kind of puts the $2 trillion number in context, something the left never does.

As for the notion the Pentagon has not "asked for" additional funds, I refer you again to Panetta's comment. In addition, it should come as no suprise even to a dolt like you that no general officer would risk losing their job by challenging their commander in chief on appropriate funding levels. Indeed, if they had their druthers they'd probably want a $4 trillion increase.

Okay Alan, so what deductions do you support doing away with to balance the budget? You do know that giving a 5 trillion dollar tax break while simultaneously increasing the defense budget by 2 trillion dollars is a recipe for disaster. There aren't enough deductions to cover this enormous boondogle. Unless, of course, one is willing to take way the deduction for home mortgages (Which would destroy the newly emergent housing industry,remember,JOBS,JOBS,JOBS), or maybe the child credit, that might be agood one to cut. you don't hear Romney saying anything about capital gains or the inheritance tax either, do you?

Obviously we know whose side this guy is on.

Alan, do you make over a million a year? If not, it would behoove you to vote your interests rather than drinking the Republican Kool-Aid

I've been preaching for nearly three years that the next war will be won in cyber-space. I'm glad to see that the government is finally catching on. Mr. Romney apparently hasn't gotten the memo yet.

But President Obama certainly has and he's got us headed in the right direction.

Great comments, skip!

Maybe we'll have to excuse Romney for his ignorance, as he's not privy to the same national security information that President Obama has access to. Plus, Romney's a tough talker (when it suits his political purposes) but a wimp at heart.

Or maybe Romney wants to return us to the days of fighting in regimental ranks, face to face on open battlefields.

What would anyone care to bet that Romney's goal of increasing military spending has something to do with ensuring and increasing the fortunes of his five sons?

We haven't forgotten Halliburton, have we?

and all of the above is due to the Uncertainty if Romney wins the Presidency, Eveytime in the last 2 weeks the Dow has dropped because romney has moved even in some poll, If Romney wins the Dow will Fall Like a Rock over a cliff, We have already seen what Bush did to the Dow and Romney wants the same policys, same policys = same crash and Millions of Investors will pull there money out Quickly

So Romney is responsible for people retiring in their 80's and for DuPont layoffs? Nothing to do with the most powerless Administration in history. As Governor Christie said, "If Arrogant" Obama Can't Change Washington, Then What The Hell Is He Doing?"

Unless, of course, one is willing to take way the deduction for home mortgages (Which would destroy the newly emergent housing industry,remember,JOBS,JOBS,JOBS), or maybe the child credit, that might be agood one to cut. you don't hear Romney saying anything about capital gains or the inheritance tax either, do you?

I am interested in the cap on deductions that was mentioned. There is also the example of the UK where they reduced the Mortgage Interest deduction over a number of years. I would ask why you support the Mortgage Interest Deduction? It seems to me aimed at the more wealthy of the middle class at the expense of the poor. Why do renters pay for this break and for the capital gains when the property is sold. As to child credits I would definitely cap that at two or three children. In fact I would change the individual deduction such that it included the credit for one kid and do away with child credit and deductions. That would mean if you are married with two kids you stay "revenue neutral". We need some disincentive to stop these religious nuts from having litters.

Alan, do you make over a million a year? If not, it would behoove you to vote your interests rather than drinking the Republican Kool-Aid

I am voting my interests because its in my interest to get the country back on a sound fiscal footing. If you don't like Romney's numbers fair enough. However, I've seen Obama's numbers for four years now and his remedy of the "rich paying a little more" is completely disingenuous. He has already spent the $70B - $100B in revenue many times over and he still is printing $1T a year to cover the difference.

Yes Romney is responsible, it is the UNCERTAINTY of a Robme Presidency. You know how you Republicons like to throw out the term Uncertainty well there is my definition of the term. EVERY-TIME Romney gets close to Obama in a Poll the Market takes a DIVE, not coincidence, it is the UNCERTAINTY of a Robme Presidency

Chris in MI. You must be a surface skimmer. To bad. Your just a Target like Obamno. By, by. Torpedo away and your sunk along with Obamno.

Well said Toxic & good to hear from you.

Obama was in a position that the polls were still sliding toward Romney. Obama needed to win. The Strategy was to bait Romney into making a mistake. Romney's counter strategy was to calmly refute with facts and stay out of areas Obama thinks he has a way to win.

Why do you think Obama stayed out of Bengazi? If he ventured into Bengazi, Romney simply had to say. You knew in the Rose Garden that Bengazi was a terrorist attack, and yet your administration spent the next 14 days telling our citizens and the world it was because of a video, only to have to back down and admit that the attack was really a planned Al Qaeda attack but you are still investigating?

What Romney showed by handling Obama he can handle the hacks in the other countries. Well done.

Romney made a huge mistake bringing up his opposition to the auto industry bailout. Forget about Michigan, which Romney has no chance of winning, but what about Ohio? Ohio is a battleground state, one that Romney really needs to win, and Ohio is also a state with a lot of auto industry jobs.

Reminding Ohio voters that he preferred to let GM and Chrysler go bankrupt is not exactly going to help him win their support!

Four debates down and the stock market is down 250 points.

IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!!!!!!!

As all you alleged "experts" go about your mental masturbation on foreign policy, the DOW is collapsing under the weight of our abysmal economy.

Dupont just announced severe drops in revenue and will be laying off over 1,500 workers. This trend follows other bellwethers, such as Microsoft, 3M and GE that have warned about weakness. Caterpillar has even extended its warnings through 2015. As these stalwarts continue to retract, our economy tries to balance itself on unproductive markets such as Google or Facebook.

Spain has received further regional downgrades by Moody's. The European Unions recession continues to expand. The ECB and IMF realize that even trying to prop up Spains bonds will only prolong the misery. China's economy is faltering as the global economy continues to show weakness as European and American markets continue to retract.

The bottom line is, this election will be decided on the economy. We can no longer accept 4 more years of stagnant growth, massive debt, 23 million Americans under/unemployed and mid-wage jobs being replaced with low-wage jobs. It's time to admit that Keynesian economics didn't work during the Depression and aren't working now.

The Federal Reserves futile attempts have only devalued our dollar and strengthened banks bottom lines as they continue to refuse to loan to a weak market. Business uncertainty continues to contract any growth possibility as we approach the "fiscal cliff" in January. The looming possibilities of a massive increase in taxes or “sequestration” have investors and businesses cowering.

As Barrack Hussein continues to try and prop up the economy on 20th century policy as the global markets expand in the 21st century we continue to falter. In January we will also be faced with another "debt ceiling" crisis. It's important to understand we have just burned through the $2.4 TRILLION increase in the last debt ceiling debacle, a mere 14 months ago.

This election is not going to be decided on "horses and bayonets" or playing "Battleship". This election is going to be decided by the candidate that can assure Americans that our once envied economy can be restored. This will be no simple feat. We are no longer the largest export nation we once were, we're third behind China and Germany. We are no longer a creditor nation, we are the largest debtor nation in the world. It's projected that China will overtake us as the largest economy in 4 years or less. The dollars credibility as the global reserve currency is being threatened.

We have significant systemic and functional defects in our economy. Our trade agreements are simply bureaucratic management disasters. China continues to be allowed to manipulate its currency as we worry about Lily Ledbetter. Our criminal out-dated progressive tax system has been manipulated in every conceivable manner and it still doesn't work. Job killing regulations continue to grow at alarming rates and we wonder why industries are hesitant to return to our shores. Unions continue to be industry destructive rather than supportive and we wonder why the jobs being created are low wage/no-low benefit. Our energy policy is a complete disaster while we sit on the largest reserves of energy in the world. Most importantly our Public Education system is an abject failure as we continue to graduate illiteracy rather than proficiency.

As Barrack Hussein continues to hide behind contraceptives, Big Bird, binders and other bogeymen, the economy continues to collapse. Last nights debate was nothing more than posturing. Regardless of your foreign policy position without a strong and growing economy nothing matters. To even debate weakening our military as our health care system continues to lose $750 BILLION every year to waste, fraud, abuse and corruption is insanity.

When our own government auditors admit that nearly 25% of our social programs fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serves at a cost of $125 BILLION annually, common sense can no longer be discussed.

When the Federal government makes $125 BILLION in improper payments in 2011, weakening our defenses is NOT the solution.

This election will decide the path America will be led down. Will it continue to be the uncontrolled, unsustainable growth of dysfunctional government idolized by Barrack Hussein, or will it be a smaller, better more effective and affordable government that works with industries to prosper that Mitt Romney envisions?

The choices are obvious.

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012 FOR REAL AMERICANS©

mygirl1

"haircuts' and other snide and irrelevant commentary aren't examples of adult conversation.

Combining Mitt Romney's bullying of a student by holding him down and cutting his hair and Tagg Romney's obviously ignorant, and disrespectful words only shows a pattern of 2 generations of bullies:

Like Father Like Son fits here perfectly, don't you think?

Again, defending Tagg Romney's honor - how noble - but tell me, why do you even think you have to? Out of all these comments, you spend your time defending someone who is a bully and is a son of a bully.

Bayllie: Puerile means adolescent and childish, silly and immature.

Fine, let's pretend one is not more appropriate for a child and one is not appropriate to describe one of teenage years, then what you are doing is being needlessly redundant (pun intended) . The point is, if you are going to preach to someone, make sure you know how to use big words to get your point accross. Otherwise, you just fall flat on your face.

Frank Grimes:

Okay...instead of "slight" would you agree to "solid"

Yes. I don't expect that the debate will have a big impact on the election. Romney at least didn't sound as scary as he did during the primary debates. His lack of knowledge of military and foreign policy issues was kind of scary, though.

I would be very nervous about voting for Romney, or anyone, who changed their positions so much during a campaign. Every time I hear him speak, he is playing with words, claiming he didn't say this or that and then changing some little word or adding a phrase to make his new stance sound plausible.

If he changes his mind so much before, during, and after each debate, how would we know what he would do if he were President.

Unreliable and sketchy politics.

The final thing that was really at stake in the debate was again, the undecided. In the focus groups of undecided in all networks, Romney won. If these groups are indeed representatives of the undecided, then the poll trend headed toward Romney is going to continue.

BTW: CBS asked Rob Portman who's was the one who came up with the debate strategy for the debates. Rob Portman said it was all Romney.

Chris in MI. You must be a surface skimmer. To bad. Your just a Target like Obamno. By, by. Torpedo away and your sunk along with Obamno.

Now, I'll be the first one to admit that I am a chronic 'typo' offender due to multi-tasking (usually having a conversation on the phone while typing) but come on - this guy doesn't even TRY!

Is this what Romney's "class sizes don't matter" looks like?

Come on Neo Cons, Reich Wingers, American Taliban, you have been shouting BENGHAZI for the last 3 weeks, lets here it BENGHAZI, BENGHAZI, even your man Mittens saw the light at the last debate how in a Bubble he and most of you Reich Wingers are. FOXBOTS , Obama man handled mittens, no plans, no future, just trust him. Nope thank You we already have a Captain that has righted the listing USS Bush

Obama Biden 2012

Bill Farifax, Va

Do $500,000,000 doesn't even buy a new ship in the Navy man so what is that? We are pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan and will not have to foot such a large bill for bush's wars and that will mean more money for the Pentagon to waste. We don't need to give them $2,000,000,000,000 so they can become trigger happy and didn't ask for!

Oh, I was please to see that voters polled after the debate saw the same thing I saw and some of your righties didn't.

ABC Obama 53% Romney 35% Tie 12%

CBS poll Obama 53% Romney 23% and Tie 24%

So far Fox has taken a poll and of course is afraid to put one on-line!

If you don't like Romney's numbers fair enough.

This is disingenuous at best. Governor Romney has no numbers. A "20% tax cut across the board" is not "numbers." He has to explain how his tax cut will not balloon the national debt another 5 trillion. For someone who seems to be so worried about the national debt, I find it vastly amusing that you are on the side of the guy who promises to expand it.

However, I've seen Obama's numbers for four years now and his remedy of the "rich paying a little more" is completely disingenuous.

Can you tell us some of the other parts of his "remedy?" Or are you seriously going to try to pretend that that's the entirety of his plan?

I am voting my interests because its in my interest to get the country back on a sound fiscal footing. He has already spent the $70B - $100B in revenue many times over and he still is printing $1T a year to cover the difference.

Please stop trying to pretend that the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility. You are not such an idiot. You know they are not. Have some respect for yourself even if you cannot muster it for us.

Obviously Ron Portman was wrong! I've judged a many Forensic ContestTand it wasn't even close for Romney. Thepolls say it even if some of you won't!

In addition, it should come as no suprise even to a dolt like you that no general officer would risk losing their job by challenging their commander in chief on appropriate funding levels. Indeed, if they had their druthers they'd probably want a $4 trillion increase.

Name me one bureaucrat who would not want an extra $4 trillion increase in their budget. That does not mean that an increase of $4 trillion increases national security. In fact, a large part of our national security lies in economic security and adding a 4 trillion hole to our budget does not increase our economic security. It reduces it.

Where is the money going to come from? Do you really think the Chinese are going to lend us 4 trillion dollars so that we can build bigger weapons?

Are you a Republican? I would guess that this is a display of your famous "fiscal responsibility."

Horses and bayonets. Pretty much sums it up. Romney is a joke.

I bet Mitt wishes he could get in a time machine, go back to before he wrote “Let Detroit go bankrupt” and tell himself to either not write it or not run for president.

So ... Mitt Romney has changed his position again ... this time on foreign policy.

Gee, after pounding the podium for two years about getting tougher on foreign policy issues ... even to the point of boastful talk that would inflame any country that is not America's friend ... now Romney is agreeing with the President and trying to come across as a Moderate peace-loving guy who is attempting to appeal to Undecided Voters.

How can anyone vote for someone if you don't really know where his stands on issues and if he changes his stance depending on who he is talking to or what is to his own personal advantage at the moment?

How can we ever know his policies if he is always changing them to suit his political strategy?

Same thing that he has done with education - cutting or not cutting?

Foreign policy - war or no war?

Which Romney do we believe?

Jim Spence -- You are deflecting.

Foreign Policy is VERY important. But since you want to make it about the economy please acknowledge wars played a role in ratcheting up our debt. Romney would add to that debt by throwing another TWO TRILLION onto the tab for unnecessary defense spending, but hey, it's your right to ignore that fact.

CHINA is not the worst currency manipulator and our exports to China have increased under Obama. Overall exports have increased as well when looking at it historically.

United States exports were worth 181 Billion USD in August of 2012. Historically, from 1992 until 2012, the United States Exports averaged 100457.2 Million USD reaching an all time high of 185182.0 Million USD in June of 2012

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/exports

2) China is not the world’s worst currency manipulator, or even particularly close to it. Singapore is worse than China. Taiwan is worse than China. These days, Switzerland and Japan are arguably worse than China. And there are other countries, like Israel, who aren’t worse than China, but who are still pretty bad. Here’s a list (which, for technical reasons, doesn’t include the role of Sovereign Wealth Funds) from Joe Gagnon, an economist at the Peterson Institution for International Economics who has been tracking currency manipulation:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/22/footnoting-the-final-debate/?hpid=z3#liveblog-entry-16571

Topic: Trade with China

Obama: “We doubled exports to China since I took office.”

NOT QUITE – an increase of 49% from 2008 to 2011 ($69.733 billion versus $103.94 billion in 2011) and we are on track for an increase to approximately $105 billion in 2012.

http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/10/23/fact-check-foreign-policy-debate/

I could go on and on countering you with facts. BUT what's the sense in that. I suspect you are a paid poster, thus the copyright in every post you write, and you're not interested in facts.

So the emphasis of the Obama campaign is name calling. It is desperation time. Romney seems to be the better choice then Obama when it comes to the economy. The Obama administration has run up huge deficits with little show for it and is offering only more of the same. Hopping that things change has not worked very well. The President has failed to adequately explain why he has not kept promises regarding unemployment and the deficit. The President has yet to offer a detailed plan for paying back the debt. The taxpayers have a right to know how much all this federal borrowing is going to end up cost them. Romney showed at the debate that he is definitely not more of a threat to get us into another war than Obama is.

fission

I bet Mitt wishes he could get in a time machine, go back to before he wrote “Let Detroit go bankrupt” and tell himself to either not write it or not run for president.

In Romney's mind he already did. By saying he never said that he thinks he magically erased our memories thus the "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" article never happened.

In Mitt's parallel universe, it's this easy to make things unhappen.

Thanks KB. It just aggravates the heck out of me for someone as obviously ignorant about the military as Romney to try to defend increased defense spending.

We already outspend the TOP TEN military organizations in the world added together and it is completely unnecessary. We ARE the big dog. We ARE the 800 pound gorilla in the room. We don't need another tank or airplane or ship. That money could be re-invested in infrastructure.

Eisenhower learned a lot from his time in Germany during the war. Do you know what Eisenhower did when he became President? He didn't start by ordering bigger tanks like Hitler, he started building an interstate highway system like the Autobahn. INFRASTRUCTURE. The Germans built there super highways to facilitate moving their military and that's was the greatest priority and accomplishment of the Eisenhower administration.

Infrastructure projects will replace crumbling bridges and roads. They'll connect the country and make the transportation of goods easier and cheaper which will be good for the business community. We can maintain the status quo militarily for a few years, maybe even a decade and that money could be used to pay down the deficit and create JOBS.

For every defense industry job lost due to cutbacks we would create ten jobs building roads, bridges, and more. Romney is looking back. We need to be looking forward.

You keep givin' hell girl, you're doing a good job.

Obama/Biden 2012

concernedone

Then let's talk about the manufacturing jobs BHO himself has "brought back" to the United States of America...

your article is about up to 40(!) employees that complain they have nothing to do? Fine, so let's look at Ohio for example. The state is being fueled by the American auto industry, the growth of energy production in the U.S. and the skyrocketing demand for steel and other building materials overseas.

Companies are rebuilding their inventories, increasing capacity and relocating jobs back to the U.S. from India, Mexico and Asia because many employers are finding it cheaper and easier to produce products for North America in the U.S.

That's why Ohio loves President Obama.

BTW, do you also fault Romney for funding Konarka?

@ Feisty Redhead Roselle, IL post 1.2

Don't worry about Romney showing up to any meetings, he doesn't even know where the other countries are. What he lacks in direction he also lacks in knowledge of!

You know all you libtards keep going back to "What Deductions" if you guys would open your ears and minds you would clearly see ALL deductions would be open season for being rid of... I look at it like this: Obama isn't going to do jack crap about taxes or nothing.... He just isn't.

When he, Reid and Pelosi had full power to do whatever they wanted to do with the tax code what did Obama do???? Come on retards what did they do????

The extended the "Bush Tax Cuts" AS WRITTEN! For two more years! So those are now really the Obama tax cuts... When Obama says he cut taxes 18 times?

Sure if you are a poor person making 25K a year he also said you could put 25K of solar panels on your house and buy a 30K electric car.... Yeah that really helps the poor.... You people are morons!

So more of those 18 tax cuts? Sure you can put a 100K windmill on your business...

Get 100% tax break if you put solar panels on your factory.

A measly 3500.00 deduction if you hire a vet.... Oh that's really awesome!

You Libtards don't have a clue... He has done NOTHING tax wise!

Here is what Romney says he wants to do... But you kool aid drinks don't want to listen. He wants to LOWER ALL tax rates.

let me splain it to ya with an example. Corp. tax rate is currently 35% (Highest in the world) UPS paid an effective tax rate after deductions of 22% in 2010. DHL in is the exact same business (but not USA owned) After their deductions they only paid 9%. So you think about that for a minute. Was that "Fair Share"?

Romney looks at it like this, why not remove ALL deductions (For evil oil too) Or GE that paid zero taxes and have them ALL pay 20%. Some mom and pop companies pay 35% because they have no govt lobbiest. lower the rates and remove the game playing.... Flat Fair Tax...

Now look at individuals.... Joe high school drop out has two kids ans a prego wife. He works at the gas station and makes 25K a year. Plus he gets food stamps and other govt support. After deductions his income is ZERO he pays no taxes. Romney's plan gives him 25K in total deduction on his first 25K in income. When he does his taxes he can do them in 5 minutes.

Joe Middle Class makes 60k a year and his current tax rate is 25%. He has two kids, and a prego wife. After deductions he pays 4 grand in taxes. Romney lowers his tax rate to 10% and he gets the first 25K knocked off his income. That makes his taxable income 35K @ $3500

Joe millionaire, has kids, wife, 3 houses, added solar and bought his wife and kids 3 Hibrd Cars, donates 10% to his friends charity, moved 10% to retirement funds, cheated some, sending one of his kids to Yale and spent 50K on Cadillack health insurance. After all deduction from his Million buck he has 500K left in taxable income @ 35%. He pays 175K in taxes.

Romney's Plan? the millionaire gets 25K in max deductions and his tax rate is 20% on 975K... The millinaire pays 210K in taxes at a lower rate.

When Romney says his plan will not add to the deficit he means it. PLUS! EVERYBODY plays by the same rules. The reason why this is so unpopular in Washington is because it takes so much power from Congress and the Senate when it comes to earmarks <- Cronies No tax breaks for your buddies.

If you think the Tea Party is extream... Well simplicity is what they want. Less government. Not more racisim.

"Boycott Trump" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Barrack Hussein has just put out his economic policy in a 20 page booklet called,,,,

“The New Economic Patriotism: A Plan For Jobs & Middle-Class Security.”

I guess the "Jobs Act" was just too confusing. So just make the title longer to make it seem more "patriotic" and "economic".

Too bad CNN's Jessica Yellin says, "There’s not anything significantly new in here".

RUT ROH, looks like Barrack Hussein and his useful idiots have finally gotten the memo that, IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!

Of course he unveils this useless piece of garbage less than 2 weeks before the election hoping to appear involved and concerned.

For 4 years he's been lying to American's that he will "focus like a laser" on the economy and jobs and finally today he thinks this bamboozle will work.

The desperation is obvious. As the campaign has tried to deflect from the economy with contraceptives, Bain, tax returns, Big Bird, binders, battleships and any other nonsense, the American people can see right through it.

Of course we know the typical bobblehead Liberal will never read 20 pages of anything. This is just more "symbolism over substance".

Typical Liberal smoke and mirrors as Barrack Hussein has no plan for any of the important issues.

The choice is obvious.

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012 FOR REAL AMERICANS©

haha! a 19 page booklet for Running America...

@ baylli. Gee you can't even comprehend that the typo was done on purpose. Thought you had the intelligence to figure that out, but I guess not. Must be a dumb Democrat. Are you blond too?

Dont_carry_it_all

Nice try at spin.

Our trade deficit widened in August because exports fell to the lowest level in 6 months.

The deficit grew 4.1% to $44.2 billion in August as per the Commerce Department. This is the biggest drop since May. Exports dropped 1% to $181.3 billion. Demand was especially low for American-made cars and farm goods.

Imports edged down 0.1% to $225.5 billion. Purchases of foreign cars and heavy machinery fell, the cost of oil imports rose dramatically.

This discrepancy will never allow us to reduce our Debt or Unfunded Liabilities. Sure, if you want to buy a Boeing 757, Caterpillar D-9 bulldozer or an MRI machine you get it "Made in the USA".

However, if you want to buy a toaster, pair of tennis shoes or a 6 pack of underwear, good luck finding an "American-made" product.

A widening trade deficit acts as a drag on growth. At an annual growth rate of 1.3% in the April-June quarter versus a growing trade deficit explains it all. Estimates for the July-September are even lower.

Our pathetic growth rate of under 2% is an indication of an absent economic policy for the future. The 5 million jobs allegedly created are mostly low wage/low-no benefit sectors such as retail, home service and hospitality.

60% of the jobs lost in the recession were mid-wage jobs. More than 60% of Barrack Husseins jobs are low-wage jobs.

Our trade deficit is running at an annual rate of nearly $600 billon up from last year's $560 billion.

I guess we don't need global trade when we have toner cartridges and ink in general to keep printing more useless devalued dollars to pretend we have an economic policy to challenge the 21^st century economies that are emerging around the world.

You can "deflect" the numbers all you want, the Barrack Hussein economic plan has done nothing and will continue to do nothing unless we address the Draconian austeruty measures needed to save our wealth, prosperity and standard of living.

You Libbies may be used to earning minimum wages, but real American know we can do better.

It's time to bring leadership rather than class warfare to our White House.

The choice is obvious.

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012 FOR REAL AMERICANS©

BTW, my copyright is a joke so you limp-wristed Libbies don't try to steal my posts.

Try to keep up Spanky.

http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/ustrade.html

There is a Binder full of retards on this site.

bayllie - My comment about Obama's job 'creation' was in response to an angry little outburst you made way up the vine...

The link I forwarded to you is one of what now, like 10 "green technology" companies BHO "bet" on by giving them stimulus dollars - who have turned around and FAILED. Only problem, this company is not in the FAIL column yet, because they still have stimulus money to pay employees to play cards. And it isn't just the 40 or so hourly people, how many more salary / administrative employees are there?

Write this company and OUR $150,000,000 BHO gave to them off. Do you remember when $150,000,000 was a BIG number? I do.

BHO stood at that plant and touted it as the resurgence of manufacturing in America 2 YEARS AGO, and they still HAVE NOT produced a single unit. Tax abatement's and incentives are reliant on the success of the company. If the company fails, the tax payers in Michigan are on the hook for 10's of millions more. Is this OK in your book?

If we have clear evidence of this crap, how many more "green sector" companies are funded with OUR tax money that are not solvent?

Job "creation" by behind! The experiment is over! This is what you get when you put a guy with ZERO experience in the office of the POTUS. Enough is enough!

Romney / Ryan 2012

President Obama has done what I did not think was possible after the fall of the American economy almost caused global financial collapse in summer/fall of 2008:

He stopped the disastrous free fall, slowly turned it around, and got it headed back in the right direction, and he did it with no help from the Republicans or the Tea Party who fought him every step of the way.

The GOP did not even care enough about America to want to help fix the catastrophe their party created. They loved their own political agenda more.

A good friend of mine who is a real estate broker said she just bought the ReMax franchise in this area because she sees real estate making a slow turn around, too.

The President told us before he was elected that these monumental problems may not be fixed in four years, or maybe not in eight years, but he would stop the freefall and get it headed in the right direction.

Thanks, Mr. President, for keeping your promises, and don't worry about those who are screaming "You didn't fix it enough! You didn't fix it enough!" Just like the rest of the GOP and TP, they know you really have made progress, but the truth just doesn't fit into their own selfish agendas and prejudices either.

@ concernedone. You are so right, but you can't convince these people that have been fitted with a supposed gold ring placed in their noses, and led to the slaughter house without a clue as to what is going to happen to them. What a pity.

Dick-1345097

@ baylli. Gee you can't even comprehend that the typo was done on purpose. Thought you had the intelligence to figure that out, but I guess not. Must be a dumb Democrat. Are you blond too?

dick, I'm not psychic. Dumb would be of you to assume that people would see through your idiotic comment. What was the purpose of it anyway? To fit in with the rest of the low information, Fox viewer readers?

Jim Spence -- You do understand that there is a global slowdown, right?

BTW -- Grow up. You sound like a grade school bully with your name calling.

baylli. I rest my case on your comprehension. Guess you were never privy to military jargon. So I'll give you a reprieve. By the way, I'm not a Fox fan either.

Romney should have just scheduled a debate with his former self. What a shape-shifting boob he is. Seriously, how can anyone believe anything he says when there is no guarantee that he will say the same thing again the next day? Who was that man debating with President Obama last night?

JimSpence

Four debates down and the stock market is down 250 points.

Don't see how those two mix together, but go on ahead.

IT'S THE ECONOMY STUPID!!!!!!!

Obviously. It has always been that way. Tell that to Bill Fairfax.

As all you alleged "experts" go about your mental masturbation on foreign policy, the DOW is collapsing under the weight of our abysmal economy.

And do you know why our economy is slow??? Because we just came out of a FINANCIAL CRISIS, which is THE WORST TYPE OF CRISIS. Especially when it's caused in part by too much consumer debt.

Dupont just announced severe drops in revenue and will be laying off over 1,500 workers. This trend follows other bellwethers, such as Microsoft, 3M and GE that have warned about weakness. Caterpillar has even extended its warnings through 2015. As these stalwarts continue to retract, our economy tries to balance itself on unproductive markets such as Google or Facebook.

Which is exactly why we cannot wait for the private sector to heal by its own. That would take years, and we don't have time for that. If you want a better recovery, we need to stimulate the economy, and that means more stimulus spending. That will increase employment, which will also increase demand for capital and consumer goods, creating more jobs and thus more demand.

Spain has received further regional downgrades by Moody's. The European Unions recession continues to expand. The ECB and IMF realize that even trying to prop up Spains bonds will only prolong the misery. China's economy is faltering as the global economy continues to show weakness as European and American markets continue to retract.

This is EXACTLY why we should not go into austerity; the Europeans had it right when they used stimulus in 2009 and 2010, but then lost it when they chickened out at the deficits (which are NATURAL in a recession, if you have ever been to Econ 101) and then fell for "expansionary austerity," which is just another euphemism for do exactly what Herbert Hoover did for the Great Depression.

The bottom line is, this election will be decided on the economy. We can no longer accept 4 more years of stagnant growth, massive debt, 23 million Americans under/unemployed and mid-wage jobs being replaced with low-wage jobs. It's time to admit that Keynesian economics didn't work during the Depression and aren't working now.

Are you @!$%#ing kidding me??? Keynesian spending GOT US OUT of the damn depression you idiot!!! The New Deal helped, but World War II was the real impetus behind the U.S. recovery. And do you know what happened during World War II?? The government hired MILLIONS of people to go into the military while spending billions (technically trillions in today's money) of dollars buying tanks, ships, airplanes, jeeps, and munitions, which boosted employment and demand for capital and consumer goods. THAT is Keynesian spending!!! Keynes had it right all along!! What you're essentially saying is that we ought to go back to the same economic theory (classical economics) that failed us in the Great Depression!! How in God's name can you go against basic facts???

The Federal Reserves futile attempts have only devalued our dollar and strengthened banks bottom lines as they continue to refuse to loan to a weak market. Business uncertainty continues to contract any growth possibility as we approach the "fiscal cliff" in January. The looming possibilities of a massive increase in taxes or “sequestration” have investors and businesses cowering.

Oh bull@!$%#. Your Republican boys in the House and Senate caused the damn problem by refusing to agree to a "grand bargain" during the Gang of Six talks and the Obama-Boehner negotiations. You cannot reduce the deficit without cutting spending AND raising taxes; it is virtually impossible. And to hell with the confidence of the private market; they are mainly concerned by the effects of the fiscal cliff on DEMAND, not on the tax increases and spending cuts themselves. I personally wouldn't have cut defense or social spending by that much, but it's good enough. I say go off the fiscal cliff and solve the deficit for the time being so we can focus on fixing the damn economy and eventual tax and entitlement reform.

As Barrack Hussein continues to try and prop up the economy on 20th century policy as the global markets expand in the 21st century we continue to falter. In January we will also be faced with another "debt ceiling" crisis. It's important to understand we have just burned through the $2.4 TRILLION increase in the last debt ceiling debacle, a mere 14 months ago.

You just stated that the fiscal cliff (spending cuts+tax hikes) will ruin the economy, and now you're arguing FOR austerity!!! If you really want deficit reduction, the fiscal cliff is your best option; it reduces the deficit in a fair and balanced way and solves the problem for the medium term. Any other plan will either cut too much spending, not be able to pass due to partisan preferences, or won't be big enough to deal with the damn problem. Jim, make up your damn mind. If you want deficit reduction, quit whining and support going off the fiscal cliff.

This election is not going to be decided on "horses and bayonets" or playing "Battleship". This election is going to be decided by the candidate that can assure Americans that our once envied economy can be restored. This will be no simple feat. We are no longer the largest export nation we once were, we're third behind China and Germany. We are no longer a creditor nation, we are the largest debtor nation in the world. It's projected that China will overtake us as the largest economy in 4 years or less. The dollars credibility as the global reserve currency is being threatened.

Do you know WHY we aren't a leading exporter and creditor??? Because we fell for the fallacy that is supply-side economics and free trade. Supply-side economics BANKRUPTED our Treasury; you can see that in the way that your idol Reagan TRIPLED the national debt and how George W. Bush DOUBLED it in 8 years each. Supply-side tax cuts never pay for themselves or cause growth, and even demand-side tax cuts have a weaker effect on the economy than stimulus spending. As for our trade deficit, we have been too focused on opening up foreign markets and not enough on actually making our industries competitive. Instead of investing and reforming education and job-training in a reasonable way, we focused more money on defense spending and tax cuts for the wealthy. Instead of improving our infrastructure and investing in more R&D and innovation, we squandered away resources for "nation building" in godforsaken lands halfway around the world. And the entire concept of free trade only makes sense if EVERY country endorses it; if a few nations stay protectionist, the whole house collapses. Instead of wising up and realizing that other nations won't open up and play fair and deciding to protect crucial industries like manufacturing and high tech, we kept pursuing the failed concept of free trade. I was once a supporter of free trade; now I see it for the idealistic fallacy that it is. If you want to improve our credit and trade status, we have to abandon free trade and start raising taxes ON EVERYBODY and cutting spending where it is not needed (particularly defense & entitlements).

We have significant systemic and functional defects in our economy. Our trade agreements are simply bureaucratic management disasters. China continues to be allowed to manipulate its currency as we worry about Lily Ledbetter. Our criminal out-dated progressive tax system has been manipulated in every conceivable manner and it still doesn't work. Job killing regulations continue to grow at alarming rates and we wonder why industries are hesitant to return to our shores. Unions continue to be industry destructive rather than supportive and we wonder why the jobs being created are low wage/no-low benefit. Our energy policy is a complete disaster while we sit on the largest reserves of energy in the world. Most importantly our Public Education system is an abject failure as we continue to graduate illiteracy rather than proficiency.

First of all, our free trade agreements are pieces of bull@!$%#, plain and simple. If we really want to compete in the world, we gotta protect our crucial manufacturing and high tech industries and invest money (yes, subsidies and grants included) in new areas, like green energy. China's currency has already appreciated by a large amount, so we ought to stop blathering about that. Our progressive tax system has lost its progressivity as tax cuts for the rich have been pushed along with stupid deductions and loopholes. We need regulatory reform, I'll give you that, but that means both simplifying our regulatory code AND adding new regulations or replacing old ones when needed (and by the way, people will only invest here when we fix our job-training and education programs). Median income has stagnated and even fallen over the past 30 years as the nation has finally fallen sick with the virus that is laissez faire economics, all while the collective power of unions has fallen thanks to anti-union policies that have hurt middle-income Americans. We don't sit on the largest energy reserves in the world; natural gas and oil ought to be exploited, but we ought to focus more on energy efficiency and renewable energy (along with nuclear power) lest we switch one evil for another. And finally, we do need education reform, but we cannot keep letting the states do nothing with education as our competitors take charge and gain an edge in education.

As Barrack Hussein continues to hide behind contraceptives, Big Bird, binders and other bogeymen, the economy continues to collapse. Last nights debate was nothing more than posturing. Regardless of your foreign policy position without a strong and growing economy nothing matters. To even debate weakening our military as our health care system continues to lose $750 BILLION every year to waste, fraud, abuse and corruption is insanity.

That is why I support healthcare reform; abandoning our ineffective private health insurance and fee-for-service system and having a more government-run insurance system and a government option for hospitals.

When our own government auditors admit that nearly 25% of our social programs fail to show any positive impact on the populations they serves at a cost of $125 BILLION annually, common sense can no longer be discussed.

Got any proof on any of that???

When the Federal government makes $125 BILLION in improper payments in 2011, weakening our defenses is NOT the solution.

And since when has spending like you're at war during when we are at peace (as we will under Romney) be the solution???

This election will decide the path America will be led down. Will it continue to be the uncontrolled, unsustainable growth of dysfunctional government idolized by Barrack Hussein, or will it be a smaller, better more effective and affordable government that works with industries to prosper that Mitt Romney envisions?

Since when does smaller government automatically mean prosperous economy??? I mean, we do need to make our government more affordable and effective, but since when is gutting social programs for the poor and the elderly and then using those savings to cut taxes for the wealthy and increase defense spending making our government better??? And where is the proof that smaller govt equals a prosperous economy??? Romney is merely pursuing the same policies that failed under George W Bush and will fail if implemented again.

The choices are obvious.

Yes, indeed they are.

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012 FOR REAL AMERICANS©

OBAMA BIDEN 2012 FOR SANE AMERICANS

Deny, defy, refuse, refute, pander, scare, morph, lie... Rush/Rove/Romney/Ryan

Release the Hounds.

Freshieee

And where is the proof that smaller govt equals a prosperous economy???

Ok Fishieee, I’ll play with you. I usually don’t waste my time debating unarmed Liberals/Progressives, but I’ll make an exception because I caught this statement at the bottom of your reply/blathering.

Last year economists at the European Central Bank produced a study showing that government spending is unambiguously harmful to economic performance. Here is a brief description of the key findings.

…we analyse a wide set of 108 countries composed of both developed and emerging and developing countries, using a long time span running from 1970-2008, and employing different proxies for government size… Our results show a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth. …Interestingly, government consumption is consistently detrimental to output growth irrespective of the country sample considered (OECD, emerging and developing countries).

The takeaways here are that 1) government spending IS the problem and 2) the problem exists whether the budget is financed by taxes or borrowing. As is usually the case, too many policy makers focus on the symptoms (deficits) rather than the disease (big government).

This is a classic case of one bad government policy being used to justify another bad government policy. In Europe, as in our government, they undermined prosperity by recklessly increasing the burden of government spending and now they’re using the resulting fiscal crisis as an excuse to promote inflationary policies via the ECB and the Fed.

The study also shows that the only good answer is to reduce the burden of the public sector. It shows it by discussion of the growth-maximizing size of government.

… economic progress is limited when government is zero percent of the economy (absence of rule of law, property rights, etc.), but also when it is closer to 100 percent (the law of diminishing returns operates in addition to, e.g., increased taxation required to finance the government’s growing burden – which has adverse effects on human economic behaviour, namely on consumption decisions).

I’m sure you’ve seen multiple examples of this described as the Rahn Curve.

The key lesson is that government is much too big in the U.S. and other industrialized nations. Another interesting finding in the study is that the quality and structure of government matters.

Growth in government size has negative effects on economic growth, but the negative effects are three times as great in non-democratic systems as in democratic systems. …the negative effect of government size on GDP per capita is stronger at lower levels of institutional quality, and ii) the positive effect of institutional quality on GDP per capita is stronger at smaller levels of government size.

This simply shows that government spending doesn’t do as much damage in a nation the size of Sweden as it does in a failed state such as Mexico, or soon ours.

Most importantly the study analyzes various budget process reforms. It’s a bit verbose, but it essentially shows that spending limits are far better than balanced budget rules.

…we use three indices constructed by the European Commission (overall rule index, expenditure rule index, and budget balance and debt rule index). …The former incorporates each index individually whereas the latter includes interacted terms between fiscal rules and government size proxies. Particularly under the total government expenditure and government spending specifications…we find statistically significant positive coefficients on the overall rule index and the expenditure rule index, meaning that having these fiscal numerical rules improves GDP growth for these set of EU countries.

This is important because it shows that rules focusing on deficits and debt, such as balancing the budget, are not as effective because then politicians can use them as an excuse to raise taxes. The main message from this study is that government spending cannot grow faster than the private sectors expansion.

Here is the link to the study:

http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1399.pdf

Now, I know as an indoctrinated Keynesian redistributionist, you won’t believe anything this study shows. That’s because you Liberal/Progressive big-government worshippers go by the basic tenet, “when the only tool in your tool box is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” What complicates this is that when the hammer does work, they never reach the conclusion that the reason it didn’t work is because the problem wasn’t a nail, no, the conclusion is always the hammer wasn’t big enough.

I don’t have the time or the patience to discredit the rest of your nonsense you posted but I’m sure you’ll enjoy trying to discredit this study in typical Liberal/Progressive dysfunctional ways.

Let me see, how do you usually state it so eloquently?

Are you @!$%#ing kidding me???

Or this childish rejection always amuses me.

Oh bull@!$%#.

Let me just ask you one simple question. If our government, that has created all this chaos and calamity based on Progessivism can’t fix it, is it really a problem of not being able to be fixed, or is it a failure of Progressivism.

I’ll let you dwell on that for a while Spanky.

In the meantime, remember.

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012 FOR REAL AMERICANS©

concernedone

bayllie - My comment about Obama's job 'creation' was in response to an angry little outburst you made way up the vine...

wow, you must have witnessed my yelling, and screaming and throwing things, too. "Angry little outburst" huh? You are either psychic to see beyond the written word or just plain delusional.

Since I assume you are refering to post 1.108, tell me, what gave away my "anger"? was it pointing out 2 bills that the Repubs had no balls to vote on?

BTW, Don't worry, it's very hard to get angry reading some of the posts here - I laugh too much reading them just like yours pointing out my "angry little outburst. PRICELESS.

The experiment is over!

if we used your reasoning in R&D of drugs, you wouldn't have Viagra as your back up. Do you know how much money is spent on Big Pharma in R&D before a drug is even produced?It's a series of costly failures. But the industry R&D risks and costs are often significantly reduced by taxpayer-funded research. And after the drug is produced, we pay top dollar for it.

How about the Oil Industry taxpayer subsidies? Estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies are up to $52 billion annually.

the green energy is not an experiment. It is our future and if we do nothing, we will soon be dinosaurs compared to the rest of the world. We put a man on the Moon first so we can be a green energy leader as well.

Obama's whole attack plan in the debate was to paint himself as 'experienced', but T seem to remember that he had absolutely no experience when he ran in 2008, and what are the results of his 'experience'? Nothing but instability throughout the World and the United States pretty much disrespected everywhere.

Obama seems to have a lot more respect around the world than Bush! The entire world hated us when Bush was in charge. Romney makes one trip abroad to try to look presidential, and embarasses himself everywhere he goes.

Biden was chairman of the foreign affairs committee, and Obama was on that committee - the two of them were far more knowledgeable and experienced going into the White House than a (God forbid) MitWitt/Lyin'Ryan ticket would be.

Bush was despised by most of our allies. Obama is not. Romney's only met the leaders of 2 and since he left headlines of Mitt the Twit in one of them I'd say he hasn't gotten off to a good start. Obama selected Biden for his foreign policy experience because of his limited experience in that area. Neither Stench nor Gilligan possess any foreign policy experience.

JimSpence

Freshieee

And where is the proof that smaller govt equals a prosperous economy???

Ok Fishieee, I’ll play with you. I usually don’t waste my time debating unarmed Liberals/Progressives, but I’ll make an exception because I caught this statement at the bottom of your reply/blathering.

Last year economists at the European Central Bank produced a study showing that government spending is unambiguously harmful to economic performance. Here is a brief description of the key findings.

…we analyse a wide set of 108 countries composed of both developed and emerging and developing countries, using a long time span running from 1970-2008, and employing different proxies for government size… Our results show a significant negative effect of the size of government on growth. …Interestingly, government consumption is consistently detrimental to output growth irrespective of the country sample considered (OECD, emerging and developing countries).

First of all, I did go over it (not completely, but I did check some of the data), and in the introduction it is argued that the negative effects of a large government are most prevalent in non-democratic societies. Secondly, the current federal government is spending at roughly 23-24% of GDP; if you want to count in the states, it would total to around 41%. That is arguably a lot; however, much of it is put back into the economy, albeit in a directed way (via subsidies, grants, contracts, etc). Thirdly, this study only takes place from 1970 to 2008. It does not count the rise of progressive policies from the mid 1930s to the 1960s. From 1970 onward, the U.S. was affected by several major revolutions and changes, like the rise of monetarism and supply-side economics in the 70s and 80s and the increase in government spending and declining revenues in the early 2000s thanks to the Bush fiscal policies. And most importantly, the cost of healthcare has increased dramatically over the past 40 years, affecting this study's findings by blowing up the size of government spending at several times the rate of inflation.

The takeaways here are that 1) government spending IS the problem and 2) the problem exists whether the budget is financed by taxes or borrowing. As is usually the case, too many policy makers focus on the symptoms (deficits) rather than the disease (big government).

What do you mean by "the problem??" If you're talking about the current economic slowdown, my argument would be that it is a lack of demand that is slowing down the economy, not a lack of supply. And there is considerable proof. Corporations have $2 trillion stored away in assets; they have no shortage of capital and can easily invest if they wanted to. The problem is that demand is low thanks to a combination of the consumer debt overhang from the housing crash (which did not decline at the pace of corporate debt) and the fiscal cliff, which will affect demand considerably (reducing government contracts and the amount of money consumers will receive in after-tax income). If you are talking about the debt and deficit problem, you fail to realize that the U.S. budget was balanced and had a considerable surplus at the turn of the century (minus the fantastic projections) thanks to the fiscally-conservative policies of the Clinton administration (who by the way advocated for government investments in education and infrastructure). But when the dot-com bubble burst, reducing revenues and plunging the nation into a recession (which further depressed receipts), George W. Bush found a political and economic opportunity to justify his massive tax cut for the wealthy. In 2003, when the economy was barely limping along after the crash, he passed a second tax cut, albeit smaller than the first. This tax cut, combined with the explosion of government spending thanks to new programs like the Dept. of Homeland Security, Medicare Advantage and Part D, the rise in security and defense spending after 9/11, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and the struggling economy) erased the expected $5.6 trillion surplus and replaced it with a roughly $6 trillion deficit, a reversal of $11.6 trillion. THAT is what caused our fiscal problems. And unfortunately, Bush had squandered well over $11 trillion exactly when we needed that cash to reinvest in our infrastructure and to store for the eventual retiring of the Baby Boomers, which would blow up Social Security and Medicare spending and plunge the nation into a sea of deficits. The fiscal cliff, if allowed to happen, will only deal with the medium-term problems of the deficit (aka the Bush problems); we will still be on the hook for entitlement spending for decades to come.

This is a classic case of one bad government policy being used to justify another bad government policy. In Europe, as in our government, they undermined prosperity by recklessly increasing the burden of government spending and now they’re using the resulting fiscal crisis as an excuse to promote inflationary policies via the ECB and the Fed.

Europe (with the exception of Greece) did not overspend; in fact, Nordic welfare states like Sweden were cutting back from their welfare states to compete in the modern economy, while other nations like Spain, Ireland, and Italy were either running surpluses or reducing their debt levels. In fact, Ireland was a model for supply-side analysts like the Washington Consensus because it had an extremely low corporate tax rate. What blew up their deficits was the financial crisis and housing collapse, which led to massive financial bailouts and record unemployment levels, depressing economic growth and sending these countries into the red. I am personally disgusted at how the Europeans chickened out when the deficits occurred (which would have happened either way), because rule #1 in Econ 101 is that you don't cut spending or raise taxes during a recession. Everyone across the political spectrum accepts that. THAT is why they have high unemployment, not because the cost of government is crowding out private investment (except Greece, whose debt is affecting investors and threatening their membership in the EU). Remember that private investment is lacking during a recession, and the government must fill up that gap between actual and potential output.

The study also shows that the only good answer is to reduce the burden of the public sector. It shows it by discussion of the growth-maximizing size of government.

… economic progress is limited when government is zero percent of the economy (absence of rule of law, property rights, etc.), but also when it is closer to 100 percent (the law of diminishing returns operates in addition to, e.g., increased taxation required to finance the government’s growing burden – which has adverse effects on human economic behaviour, namely on consumption decisions).

But that first statement is completely open-ended; it basically states that the optimum size of government is 50%, as it the curve is based off of the Laffer Curve, which was used to justify Reagan cutting the top tax rate from 70% to 50%. Now, we all know that 50% is a little much; for the U.S, an optimum level would be around 35%. However, in this era of aging populations and competitive markets, I think we need to change the range of U.S govt spending; my optimum level of government spending and revenues would be around 24-25%, but less focused on healthcare for the elderly and more focused on the needs of the young and the middle-class (no offense to seniors). In no way am I supporting the Ryan plan for Medicare and Social Security, but we all have to admit that in order to optimize our government, we need to focus more spending on education, infrastructure, R&D, and economic progress and less on expenditures for retirees.

Now, I know as an indoctrinated Keynesian redistributionist, you won’t believe anything this study shows. That’s because you Liberal/Progressive big-government worshippers go by the basic tenet, “when the only tool in your tool box is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” What complicates this is that when the hammer does work, they never reach the conclusion that the reason it didn’t work is because the problem wasn’t a nail, no, the conclusion is always the hammer wasn’t big enough.

On the contrary, I do accept the notion that the size of government has its limits; it shouldn't be over 50% unless absolutely necessary, and it shouldn't increase faster than GDP and/or inflation unless one is in a recession or a war (or other major crisis). Yet I cannot accept the notion that we have to cut government spending AND cut taxes for wealthy Americans in order to be great. I have a question for you: when was the most prosperous time in U.S. for ALL Americans?? Was it before the advent of unions, anti-trust laws, and the minimum wage??? Was it after we started cutting taxes for the wealthy under Reagan and deregulating the economy???

Let me just ask you one simple question. If our government, that has created all this chaos and calamity based on Progessivism can’t fix it, is it really a problem of not being able to be fixed, or is it a failure of Progressivism.

The government CAN fix it. The government could easily pass a bill investing $2 trillion over 10 years in infrastructure, innovation, R&D, and education, boosting GDP by perhaps 1.5% and strengthening the economy. It could also just repeal the Bush tax cuts, cut defense by $600 billion, cut social spending by $300 billion, bundle Medicare payments to providers, allow them to negotiate drug prices, raise the taxable maximum for Social Security, and fix its benefit-indexing system to slow increases in benefits. That would easily make the U.S. government solvent over the next 75 years.

I’ll let you dwell on that for a while Spanky.

In the meantime, remember.

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012 FOR REAL AMERICANS©

And I'll let you dwell on this for a while, righty.

In the meantime, remember:

OBAMA BIDEN 2012 for SANE AMERICANS