Alexander's Column

Who Inherited What from Whom?

Countering Obama's Blame-Shifting Baloney

By Mark Alexander · Oct. 4, 2012
“A few short weeks will determine the political fate of America for the present generation, and probably produce no small influence on the happiness of society through a long succession of ages to come.” –George Washington (1788)

The first of the 2012 Presidential Debates is over. More than 60 million viewers watched as the undisputed champion of this round, Mitt Romney, towered like the brilliant, unyielding professor over a petulant, adolescent “community organizer.”

The event pitted the socialist rhetoric of Barack Hussein Obama against Romney’s articulate free-market advocacy.

The focus of the debate was domestic policy – the economy, health care and the role of government. Chief among these topics was the economy, according to the conventional political wisdom that Americans vote first for their economic future and for the candidate who they believe will provide the greatest sense of individual economic security and prosperity.

The caveat here is the qualifier “who they believe,” and that perception will be shaped by competing visions built on both truth and leftist deception. The vision that prevails will be determined by the ability of voters to distinguish the difference. Unfortunately, the election of Obama in 2008 provided ample evidence that the American electorate’s ability has diminished in recent years, primarily because the spirit of Liberty has been eroded by decades of classist propaganda promulgated by the the Left.

Obama’s re-election prospects depend entirely on his ability to deceive a majority of Americans with the same old blame-shifting blather that he used to dupe them in 2008: “It’s Bush’s fault.” Obama can’t effectively focus his campaign on the textbook pillars of socialist propaganda, race and economic disparity, if he has to spend airtime defending his ruinous economic policies.

To that end, in the first debate Obama repeatedly invoked his now-familiar refrain about the financial crisis he “inherited”: “The approach that Governor Romney’s talking about is the same sales pitch that was made in 2001 and 2003, and we ended up with the slowest job growth in 50 years, we ended up moving from surplus to deficits, and it all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. … When I walked into the Oval Office, I had more than a trillion-dollar deficit greeting me. And we know where it came from … a massive economic crisis. … The reason we have been in such a enormous economic crisis was prompted by reckless behavior across the board. … Are we going to double-down on the top-down economic policies that helped to get us into this mess? Or do we embrace a new economic patriotism…?”

“Economic patriotism”? I would like to meet comrade Marxist staffer who coined that phrase for the debate so we can “discuss it.”

Obama even opened his closing remarks by asserting, “Four years ago, we were going through a major crisis.” Not nearly as “major” as the one we are in now.

Will shamelessly blaming the policies of the past work again on November 6?

To be sure, the once-noble Democrat Party has devolved into a socialist political machine, and Obama’s charismatic appeal has successfully convinced a growing constituency that they’re dependent upon the state for their well-being.

However, coming into this first debate and the upcoming election, Obama was and remains saddled with the Great Recession – the deepest and most prolonged economic stagnation since the Great Depression. His policies have failed miserably, and our national debt has exploded to more than $16,000,000,000,000. Consequently, he’s spent every day of his tenure in office blaming the previous administration for the economy he “inherited.”

But just who inherited what from whom?

In fact, the current economic decline did begin almost six months before Obama was elected. So if one looks no further than January 2009 as the starting point of the Obama economy, one might conclude that there’s some veracity to his claim of having inherited the economic decline that he has, ostensibly, attempted to reverse with historic spending and debt.

It’s true that the economy Obama inherited wasn’t the solid recovery that began some months after 9/11 under President George W. Bush and his Republican Congress. Instead, it was the gravely weakened economy of Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Harry Reid (D-NV) and their Democrat congressional majorities in both houses.

On January 3, 2007, the date that the Democrat-controlled 110th Congress took office after a record 52 months of job growth accelerated by Bush administration tax cuts, unemployment was at 4.6 percent, and the economy was growing at three times the current rate.

While it’s clear that Obama’s socialist economic policies have done great harm to an economy that was already in serious trouble when he took office, the catastrophic economic collapse of 2008 was the direct result of historic Democrat congressional mandates regarding real estate lending practices. Those policies resulted in a collapse of real estate values beginning in 2007, which cascaded into the failure of banking and investment institutions and the near failure of the entire banking system a year later.

The timeline of that collapse is thoroughly documented in an essay I researched and wrote prior to Obama’s election: Economics 101: Crisis of Confidence.

Under Obama’s policies, the number of unemployed and underemployed Americans has swollen to almost 25 million. In addition, the number of households considered impoverished has grown to one in six, and the number of Americans on food stamps has risen a whopping 50 percent – all this despite the trillion dollars in debt he’s added in each of his years in office to fund socialist “trickle-down government.” Our national debt now exceeds annual GDP, despite Obama’s ‘08 campaign promise to “cut the deficit in half.” The economic recovery that Obama promised seems ever-more illusive given the decline in U.S. economic growth to a meager 1.3 percent in the most recent quarter.

Additionally, while Obama fiddles a tune about not raising taxes on the middle class, median household income is going up in smoke – declining by $4,520 (8.2 percent) since Obama took office. That is the “Obama tax.”

So how can Romney keep Obama on the ropes?

To defeat Obama’s deception and his FDR election model, the Romney-Ryan duo must contrast our great Legacy of Liberty with the oppressive socialist doctrines advocated by the Left. They must energize the largest conservative grassroots movement in history and enlist the support of American Patriots from all walks of life. They must alert our countrymen that we are on the downside of the fatal cycle of democracy and that the only way to circumvent the certainty of tyranny is to restore constitutional integrity.

Romney-Ryan must cast their campaign in the mold of Ronald Reagan and offer a clear and bold free-enterprise plan for economic recovery. They must boost American morale, and they must speak plainly about Obama’s failed socialist regime. They must also pledge to end Obama’s distorted dreams of “fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”

As Romney noted in his closing remarks: “This is an important election and … I’m concerned about the direction America has been taking over the last four years. … I know this is bigger than an election about the two of us as individuals. It’s bigger than our respective parties. It’s an election about the course of America. What kind of America do you want to have for yourself and for your children? There are two very different paths that we began speaking about this evening, and … they lead in very different directions.”

Indeed they do.

Obama recently remarked, “The most important lesson I’ve learned is you can’t change Washington from the inside.” Whether or not this is true, the time has come for American Patriots to expel this man and his socialist cadres.

(For a few of what I believe were the best remarks of the debate, link to reader comments.)

View all comments


Mark Alexander in Tennessee said:

A few highlights from the debate Part 1:

Obama: "Why wouldn't we eliminate tax breaks for corporate jets? My attitude is, if you got a corporate jet, you can probably afford to pay full freight, not get a special break for it." This from the guy who has spent more time at taxpayer expense on the most expensive jet in the world, Air Force One. A just-released book compared the Obama administration's record-breaking expenses to the British Royal Family. British taxpayers expend $57.8 million on the royal family. Robert Keith Gray writes in "Presidential Perks Gone Royal" that American taxpayers spent $1.4 billion on the Obama family last year.

Obama: "They have to let you keep your kid on their insurance -- your insurance plan until you're 26 years old." If Obama gets another term, those "kids" will be lucky if they can find a job by the age of 26.

Obama: "I think the American people have to ask themselves, [what] is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans secret..." This, from the "most transparent administration in history."

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:48 AM

William Brown in Mesa AZ replied:

He should have said "mine will be written out prior to congress voting on it for all to see and we won't have to pass it to find out what is in it!"

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Bill in Leawood, KS replied:

Let's eliminate presidential private jets and presidential vacations.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:54 PM

David Thompson in Bellville, TX replied:

We can still allow the President short stays at Camp David. But to my knowledge, Obama has never been there. To plebeian for his tastes.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 1:56 PM

David Thompson in Bellville, TX replied:

"Too" plebeian, that is.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 1:56 PM

SyJo in Cocoa Beach, FL replied:

I have a major issue with footing the bill for he and Queen Michelle campaigning on the tax payers dime, too! He is raising all this money from his pals in Hollywood, he should pay for his transportation and security out of campaign contributions while travelling to pull the wool over more Americans' eyes!

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Steve in Wildomar, CA replied:

I totally agree with this! There really should be equality of campaign costs. Both candidates should be paying ALL their expenses out of campaign funds regardless of whether they are incumbent or challenger!!!! OR BOTH are able to use taxpayer dollars. Realistically, anybody campaigning should foot their OWN bill!

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Mark in Cheyenne, WY replied:

I totally agree with you, though that would require integrity and honor.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:26 PM

Joel in Decatur, IL replied:

Interesting that Obama kept outlining details of what he said were Romney's "secret" plans. Seems like an admission by Obama that he was making it all up.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Bill in Leawood, KS replied:

Odumbo won't discontinue your insurance so he can say :"If you like your insusrance you can keep it." Of course, he will make it so expensive that the job, if you have one, can no longer offer it but he does not care. The American public is so stupid that they do not notice the bait and switch - they never have - and will continue to vote for him

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 3:22 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

everyone is complaining about the presidential jet, the same jet Bush used to go on vacation. A point was made, what is Mitt, what is Paul hiding? Could it be they are going to give the shaft the the middle class? If you have a plan to raise spending,m cut taxes, keep Obama care (which he embraced), then tell us. Why is his campaign walking back his positions and what he said last night? Who am I to believe? the Mitt on stage or his campaign?

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Donna in Swansea, IL replied:

Believe Mitt during the debate; he realistically knows that according to our US Constitution, Congress has to initiate and then fund legislation which as President he can then sign into law. He is not making empty promises about details, because those details will come from and be negotiated in CONGRESS. He has a proven record as Governor of MA of bringing people of ALL political views together to find common ground to GET THINGS DONE. This ability of Romney is totally unlike the sitting POTUS who's administration has bullied legislation through Congress when he had democratic majorities and has side-stepped Congress with multitudes of "executive orders" when he is incapable of convincing Congress to do things his way.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 8:14 PM

Patricia Rams in Vallejo replied:

Right on Donna! If I remember it right that in 2008 Obama just promised "Change" but I don't remember him laying out any of his plans, do you?

Friday, October 5, 2012 at 12:12 AM

Bill in Texas replied:

This is the reason I didn't vote for him in 2008 and do my best to get others to follow the logic. The "Promise of Change" should have been "My Way, My Way!"

Friday, October 5, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Cepat2 in Los Angeles CA replied:

What is Romney keeping quiet? What are his secret plans? Have you done any reading at all sparky or do you just spew this drivel for fun? Romney/Ryan have a 55 point plan which addresses these issues. Read a little before displaying your ignorance please.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:03 PM

Donna in Swansea, IL replied:

If you are referring to me as "sparky", then please direct me to this 55 point plan to which you refer. I couldn't find it on the Romney official website which does both elaborate on a plan to create an environment for job and economic growth and provide cited research that backs up why the plan will have positive results. Please keep in mind that any politician having a plan cannot guarantee that his plan will ever be enacted. I refer back to the powers granted to Congress. It is the individual's right and responsibility to direct their elected officials to vote in ways that "we the people" deem appropriate.

Friday, October 5, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Dardinia in Jacksonville replied:

I think "Sparky" was actually R. K. Sprau. You are spot on Donna in your comments. Typically the President sets forth is policy and tries to get Congress to implement that policy. In the case of the current administration, if Congress doesn't obey, we just get an Executive Order. Who needs Congress? Not Obama.

Friday, October 5, 2012 at 10:57 PM

ND in Sacramento replied:

Got news for ya all, the president doesn't do anything at all. Their big business lobyists and buddies who pay for their campaigns do the call making. These guys just get the perks and vacations with mega buck 4-jet styles. Romney will lubricate his capital/corporate buddies as did Obumbo, lets face, the big banks, corporate greed, insider trading and price fixing, and triple non-competitive bidding in defense spending keeps going on their will be every job there can be outsourced but manual labor of picking grapes for the wine they drink. Anyone who has foreign bank accounts where criminals do, is a criminal, white collar one way or criminal the other ...

Monday, October 15, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Gofjohn in Alexandria, VA replied:

People yearn for more bi-partisanship for the good of the country:
Romney proved his credentials on bi-partisanship citing his record in Massachusetts with an 87% democrat legislature. He said that he focuses on his basic principles and then leaves plenty of room to negotiate details so the other side can also win some points. And he used that approach to explain why he is not going to get into arguing over details within his own plans, where he has to leave room for genuine give and take to reach a bipartisan conclusion. And he made his best point yet in the tough job of contrasting Massachusetts health care with Obamacare when he contrasted his results in MA with Obama's, who had no Republican support and had to resort to trickery (my word) to get a plan that passed in the House before Republicans took over, through the Senate after Massachusetts elected Scott Brown to Kennedy's seat to change the balance of power in the Senate.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 6:44 PM

Mark Alexander in Tennessee said:

A few highlights from the debate Part 2:

Romney: "[Y]ou said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant."

Romney: "You put $90 billion, like 50 years' worth of breaks, into -- into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers."

And one of the best comebacks was after Obama tried to look more "educational" by claiming, "So now I want to hire another 100,000 new math and science teachers." Romney referenced Obama's green losers: "You put $90 billion into green jobs. ... $90 billion, that would have hired 2 million teachers."

Many commentators question why Obama did not hammer Romney on his remark about "47 percent who pay no taxes" being dependent on government. Well, perhaps they got wind of our recommendation for how Romney should respond, published last under "The ObamaNation Plantation" two weeks ago: Romney should hand it back to Obama, and insist that the Left's underlying indignation is more accurately rooted in the fact that Romney did not declare that ALL Americans are dependent on government. That is precisely what Obama himself recently proclaimed in his now-infamous assertion, "You didn't build that. Somebody else [read: "government"] made that happen."

Finally, the one comment I most wanted to hear from Romney in his closing remarks, after he had previously referenced the Declaration and Constitution excerpts on the backdrop behind the stage: Gesturing toward that backdrop, he should have said, "Those words should be accorded the same authority today that they had when our Founders wrote them back in 1776 and 1787."

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Lorie in Panama City, FL replied:

One of my favorite parts was when Mitt said "Mr. President, you are entitled, as president, to your own airplane and your own house, but not to your own facts." WELL SAID Mr. Romney!

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Kathy in West Texas replied:

I loved that remark too! Romney got in some pretty good jabs last night, uncontrolled & unspinnable by the media. They can no longer accuse him of being milt toast. America saw it for herself.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 3:01 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

A little Reaganise.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 4:24 PM

demsarerats in Oregon replied:

Exactly right, Obonga did not use the 47% because the issue of the welfare spending explosion under Obonga is his greatest vulnerability and likely the only issue that could flip enough votes to change the outcome of the election.

Blue-collar dems can be reached by social issues, Reagan demonstrated how effective that can be; they can understand that the Obongawitch is getting her free cellphone while they pay for it each month

but they are not going to understand or remember 99% of what Romney said. That is why Obonga avoided the issue, his handlers are much brighter than the nitwit media pundits who are whining about it.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 3:30 PM

uwcharlie in Charlotte, NC replied:

With all due respect, while we may disagree vehemently with the president, calling him "Obonga" is both racist and insulting. If we expect the Democrats to treat us with respect, we must show respect to our opponents with at least using their correct name.

Friday, October 5, 2012 at 4:31 AM

Ken Largent II in Colorado replied:

"Obonga" is a reference to the admitted use of marijuana by the current occupant.

What I find insulting is your attack on another's free speech in an attempt to change the subject. This is a tactic that the left uses to draw attention away from the main topic.

Friday, October 5, 2012 at 9:54 AM

John Q Citizen in Colorado Springs replied:

Charlie, It would be nice if it worked that way. No matter how much respect we show to the Dem's they will not respond in kind in fact they will be nastier.

Friday, October 5, 2012 at 9:55 AM

Tom Stark in Parkersburg, WV replied:

With all "due respect" can you name any three things that anyone can say about President Obama (or should I say Davis?) that would not, in the mind of a leftist be labeled racist? I am so sick of everything under the sun being labeled racist as a means of defending and diverting attention from the errors, offenses, and mis-statements of this administration and its leader.

Friday, October 5, 2012 at 8:47 PM

Git R Dunn in Alabama said:

What a show! The drama, the riveting debate! Almost better than "Dancing With the Stars."

What a charade!

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

I sure hope you're all happy with your choice of a Marxist or a Socialist.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Denver Bandit in Denver, CO replied:

Are you saying Romney is a socialist? And you do know one has to get elected to effect change, right?

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

You're half right. Ask someone from 1776. Oh, wait, can't. Shucks.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 3:02 PM

pete in CA replied:

O, but we CAN ask someone from 1776.

They were smart enough to know there would be questions about our Constitution and Bill of Rights as soon as they were enacted, so they wrote letters (remember how to do that?) to each other and to papers openly discussing their views and counter views.

Those letters and commentary are now available in two books, "The Federalist Papers" and "The Anti-federalist papers."

Both should be required reading before anybody is allowed to post any kind of political rantings.

Monday, October 8, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:


Right you are! My tongue in cheek quip to the latter part of my post was aimed at the uninformed. Our Founders speak of two mechanisms of freedom, ballots and bullets, the latter of which they used successfully and the former of which they KNEW would never last.

Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 11:44 AM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

I do not know who you are, but as usual you cut to the heart of the problem

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Rumrunner99 in Peoples Republik of MD replied:

More like Fascist or Communist.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 6:13 PM

Ken Largent II in Colorado replied:

Perhaps you are new to this alternate media source. Accoding to this article: Socialism is a path toward Marxism which has the ultimate goal of communism. If you believe that the two candidates are the same, then how about voiting to fire the one that has already failed?

Friday, October 5, 2012 at 9:57 AM

Ken Largent II in Colorado replied:

Comment section needs a spellchecker.

Friday, October 5, 2012 at 9:58 AM

Emmit Hammers in California replied:

Yeah, "dancin' with the stars" is an accurate characterization of Romney's smashing of the "the smirker" . Romney was calling the tune, setting the tempo and "the smirker" was stumbling and tripping all over himself. His performance was laughable. What a fraud he is!

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

So, you get the point, right? That it's President Romney to you. It's a done deal. In the bag. Obamao is moving to Hawaii. The New World Order says it is time for Romney to drive the jalopy off the cliff so that the takeover of the world through financial collapse can occur. Who better than a Corporate Raider to do that? Buckle Up, Buttercup!

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Chuck in Illinois replied:

As your name implies...We will Git R Dunn in November when we elect Mitt and Paul..!

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Bill in Texas replied:

Chuck, no being from the south, allow me to provide some grammer and spelling for you: GIT ER DUN!

Friday, October 5, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Chuck in Illinois replied:

Bill in Texas.. My remark was to the post from ..Git R Dunn And I will correct your spelling.. Larry the cable Guy's is Get R Done...

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 2:55 PM

Chuck in Illinois replied:

Bill in Texas.. My remark was to the post from ..Git R Dunn And I will correct your spelling.. Larry the cable Guy's is Get R Done...

Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Jim in Alabama replied:

Fearful perception, keen analysis or foil-hat paranoia? The New World Order is now a talking persona? We shall see. And that may be the fight to come, but this is the fight now. And somewhere an Adam Sandler alter-ego is saying, "That old mild mannered Mitt just opened up a whole can of *ss Whoopin' on that Fool!" And when Uh-Uh-bama tried to come off strong again on the old campaign trail today, he just sounded like a punk trash talkin the dude who whipped him yesterday, now that he's safe out of reach. Hallelujah, Obama's going to be Obanished!

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Git R Dunn in Alabama replied:

"Hallelujah, Obama's going to be Obanished!"

I'd hold the Hallelujah part if I were you. The "election" is already decided. It's President Romney and Joey the Dolt Biden said so. Question for you then. How do you repay $16,000,000,000,000 USD easily? Do you want the short answer? Hyperinflation.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 3:38 PM

demsarerats in Oregon replied:

Git R, your conspiracy theory is nonsense, the America hating Christian hating scum want Obama, not Romney. You are right about hyperinflation, Romney won’t stop that even if he wins, maybe slow it down a little.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 6:27 PM

Rod in USA said:


Thank you for this thoughtful commentary. I do a lot of reading and feel connected with the issues, so I could not bear to watch the debate (too much anxiety for me, at the thought of a possible poor performance by Romney and at the sure knowledge of all the non-sensical spin-doctoring Obama would be peddling).

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:32 PM

edward budzynski in greeley,co. said:


Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Chuck in Illinois replied:

Hopefully come November..we can eliminate "some evil" before they have a chance to totally destroy America...

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Larry in Clarence Center, NY replied:


Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 5:23 PM

COL David Holland, USA (ret) in brentwood, tn said:

keep hitting the ecomonics and jobs, BUT, he needs to back off the $17,000 limit on contributions to charity. That will kill charitable contributions, and cause a huge increase in taxes due. We annually give a lot more than his 'limit; and his comment leads me to believe he is pandering to some constituancy..don't know which one, because there are a lot of people and charities/churches and the like that need the funds more than the Federal Government.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:40 PM

ratmomdog in Duluth GA replied:

I agree that we need to back off the $17,000 limit on contributions to charity. Why hamstring those of us who do give all we can to help others? Tax deductability is not my motive for giving, but it obviously helps ease the drawdown on my "disposable" income. And, when we allow our people to help each other as God intended it eases the burden on government.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Cheryl in Columbia, SC replied:

EXCELLENT point: I just hope Romey/Ryan's "handlers" are reading the Post and reader comments.........last night was plastic versus steel to me........plastic melts under heat..........

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 1:21 PM

BobP in Denver area replied:

The 'burden' should never have been assumed by government, anyway. There is no constitutional basis for the welfare system... it should have always been a function of voluntary charity, not a forceful re-distribution of resources overseen by a nanny-state. This gvt oversight has lowered the available funds for charitable work, and decimated the American People's capacity for generous giving, while breaking our helpful habits over the last few generations...

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 1:37 PM

demsarerats in Oregon replied:

BobP, the nanny state is the natural result of universal suffrage.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 6:39 PM

JoeTexan1962 in Raytown, MO replied:

I think charitable donations to any organization that directly helps the poor and indigent, such as homeless shelters, charity hospitals, and food banks, should be 100% deductible with no limit. That would almost entirely eliminate the need for a ton of federal government welfare programs.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 1:35 PM

RK Sprau in L.C. N.M. replied:

Right back to which Mitt was on last night. the one who said, go to the emergency rooms or the one who embraces key provisions of Obamacare?

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 4:29 PM

Andy in Raleigh, NC replied:

Amen to that. That would, in effect, reduce the amount that we could give to charity. We count on the charitable deduction in doing our budget for how much we can give. If the deduction goes down, the amount we can give goes down.

Friday, October 5, 2012 at 9:58 AM

American Rifleman in McKeesport,PA.15132 said:

No doubt about it,Romney Rulled the debate. Even if Romney had shown up,in his under wear only,and sat blubering on the floor,he still would have made more sence than the democratic contender,of our currant chump in chief.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Ken Windeler in Hastings, Florida said:

The debate proved that Clint Eastwood isn't senile yet!

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Bill in Leawood, KS replied:

The empty chair had better ideas than Obama

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 1:02 PM

SyJo in Cocoa Beach, FL replied:

Love it!

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 2:31 PM

hoodoo in utah said:

I thought Obama got his head handed to him. He was lost without his teleprompter and had to think on his feet, which, obviously he cannot do. He was shown to be inept, uncaring and distant. Good for Romney, who stuck to the issues and would not allow Obama to get off course.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:45 PM

GordAuch in Hampton Roads replied:

Obama showed that he is a thief -- a thief of time -- fumbling on and on in his answers without regard to time parameters. For all his onerous preparation (no freah air on the golf links) he was continually stumbling through responses and non-answers to points asked and raised. Dancing with the stars, indeed!

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 2:20 PM

Richard Loudin in Boulder City said:

The people of this country elected a socialist Marxist (at best) last time and if elected again The America I grew up in will be nevermore !

What do you call someone who lies?

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM

R.C. in Colorado said:

Every time that BHO brings up the economic prosperity during the Clinton years, I was some conservative would speak-up and say that it was completely due to the dot-com revolution. Something that was unprecedented in history. It was not due to anything Clinton or the government did.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Robert E8 USN Ret in SE AZ replied:

Bud, a great deal of "Slick Willies" so called success can be attributed to the efforts of the Speaker of the House. Note that the gentleman at that time is a Republican. A true Republican. All the talk of Bush II creating the "mess" Obama constantly refers to, actually is to be attributed to the Democrat controlled Congress in the final two years of Bush II. The once great "party of compassion" has been infected with those extremists that promote compassion, a strength, to the point of weakness. " A strength taken to extreme becomes a weakness." The current Democrat Party is a fine example of that concept.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Susan in Soulsbyville, Ca said:

This finally gave the American people a chance to see the real Obama, a lip service for the socialist anti-America group that primed him for this. He looked like what he is, an uncaring, uninformed lap dog. God help us if this jerk gets back in office. America as we know it will be gone in all aspects. With him as our "commander in chief" (tongue in check) we are open for more attacks from terrorists, deeper and deeper in debt to China and not the respect we have always had. His butt kissing has been an embarrassment to this country and his using the taxpayers money for his and his wife's partying and vacationing has added to our problems in this country. He treats it like his own personal bank account while we are drowning in debt. Those that vote for this man are of the same ilk as him.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Sharon in Ohio said:

I throughly enjoyed the debate and I thought it was well moderated and the questions were pertinent to the current situation. Gov. Romney was a shining light and a true vision of hope for our struggling nation. At one point I felt sorry for the President with his wandering off topic answers and wondered if he really knows what is going on or actually just reads others answers from his teleprompter. Clint Eastwood hit the nail on the head and it is much clearer now.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Don Davison in Flagstaff, AZ said:



Obama’s confusion and smug ire were obvious.

The adolescent came to the debate thinking he knew enough (as all adolescents do) and lost.

Thinking doesn’t get it done. The triumvirate of Thought,
Word, and Deed are all essentials of a maturing adult.

The disparity between the professor and the student was all too evident.

Obama can’t be prepared enough to divorce himself from his character profile. It is what it is.

He was and is the wrong person for the job of president of the United States of America.

Please go to: to follow critical social and political criticism.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Stan Spolski in Smithtown, NY replied:

Obongo's performance last night was a perfect example of someone operating at his peter principle. The closest thing that could be considered business experience for him was his time as a community organizer. eg Representing ACORN shaking down banks to write Sub prime mortgages.
He had no qualification to be a state senator let alone a US Senator or presidential candidate. His only qualification is oratorical, and then only with a captive audience of liberal supporters, uninformed impressionable college students, black and liberal groups who will buy his Alinsky principle uninformed sound bites. The man is lazy he prepared and performed the way he governed. He is clueless and incapable governing and did the only thing he knows since 2007-he campaigned. Last night he quickly realized his Alinskyite lies were useless. That a Presidential opponent would refute them effortlessly with fact. Further he could not defend his record as you can't defend a disaster.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Tony in NJ said:

Romeny.Ryan must let the public know specifics of obamacare. The unprecidented use of IRS and the power given them over individuals money and property. They must push much more with the treatemnt board and who is actually making medical decisions - government or doctor/patient. The government control of all facits of American life must be clearly exposed. The attack on Freedom of Religion must be clearly exposed - this is a basic right and it's being eliminated - people must be made aware - even free speach is under attack - this must also come out.
Clear pathways back to a Constitutional government must be shown and explained.

Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 12:53 PM