Wednesday Chronicle
The Second Presidential Debate
The Foundation
"Here comes the orator! With his flood of words, and his drop of reason." --Benjamin Franklin
Memo From Mark Alexander on the Second Presidential Debate
Four things were apparent in the second presidential debate this week.
First, Barack Hussein Obama remains the undisputed champion of socialist rhetoric. The BO who showed up for this week's debate was the charismatic who, in '08, so effectively wove his deceitful web of populist propaganda into a mesmerizing mantra designed to appeal to those who vote according to their emotions. Obama can already count on the votes of ideological Leftists and the legions of disenfranchised Americans enslaved on the Democrat Plantation, but his deceptive oratory this week was targeted at those uncommitted voters whose allegiance can be co-opted by smooth emotive idioms.
Did it work? Yes, if this comment from a New Hampshire woman is typical of the emotive voters he targeted: "I am voting for Barack Obama and I'm voting for him because I feel that overall he best represents my feelings in terms of the economy, foreign relation and education."
Second, the fact is, moderators shape debates, and CNN's Candy Crowley is the third Leftmedia talking head in the lineup of moderators behind PBS's Jim Lehrer and ABC's Martha Raddatz. In case you missed the fine print, the moderator of this "townhall debate" chose the audience questions, so not only was Crowley a partisan referee, but she chose questions that would deliver Romney up for Obama sucker punches. As for the so-called "bipartisan" Commission on Presidential Debates, they shot down my "equally bipartisan" list of recommended moderators, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Rush Limbaugh.
Third, it was very apparent that in preparing for this debate, Mitt Romney's team did not review our "Memo to Mitt From Grassroots Americans," which we know his communications staff received. Romney's weakest campaign link is his disconnect with conservative grassroots Americans -- millions of Patriots who, if energized, will have enormous influence on the sea of undecided voters Romney needs to win this election. The fact is, Romney really does care about grassroots folks -- he genuinely cares about Americans from all walks of life. But his staff, many of whom are Beltway politicos and debutants, are clearly out of touch with grassroots Americans, and consequently, insulate Romney to good advice from the ground.
Last, will this debate derail Romney's momentum and re-invigorate Obama supporters? That depends on whether those emotive voters who Obama targeted last night can wake from their mesmerized state long enough to rise above the populist propaganda and see Obama's rhetoric in stark contrast against a backdrop of four years of failed socialist policies, rather than the '08 backdrop of "Blame Bush."
The last debate encounter will commence on Monday evening, October 22. It will be moderated by CBS's Bob Schieffer, who may be the most ideologically restrained of the referees. May we, once again, suggest Team Romney's managers take a moment to review the "Memo to Mitt From Grassroots Americans."
For more, link to our Patriot Headlines and Right Opinion pages.
Editorial Exegesis
"President Obama bounced off the canvas with a more spirited debate at Hofstra University on Tuesday night, as everyone expected he would. He was animated and on the attack. The question we kept asking as the evening wore on, however, is what does he want to do for the next four years? ... Judging by Tuesday's debate, the President's argument for re-election is basically this: He's not as awful as Mitt Romney. Mr. Obama spent most of his time attacking either Mr. Romney himself (he invests in Chinese companies), his tax plan as a favor for the rich ('that's been his history') or this or that statement he has made over the last year ('the 47%,' which Mr. Obama saved for the closing word of the entire debate). The paucity of this promise, the difference between now and four years ago, was never clearer than in the President's response to the young man who said he'd voted for Mr. Obama in 2008 but is less optimistic now. Mr. Obama responded by reciting his achievements -- ending the Iraq war, 'health-care reform to make sure insurance companies can't jerk you around,' more Wall Street regulation, the auto bailout and more jobs. As for the next four years: He said he has a plan 'for manufacturing and education and reducing our deficit in a sensible way, using the savings from ending wars to rebuild America' and pursuing 'the energy of the future.' Then he attacked Mr. Romney again. The Republican followed by reciting the economic failings of the last four years, piling on fact after depressing fact. 'I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you're going to get. You're going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can't afford four more years like the last four years,' Mr. Romney said. It was his most effective argument of a generally good but not great night. It is also the fundamental choice that Americans face in this campaign." --The Wall Street Journal
Upright -- Highlights from Mitt Romney
"The president's policies have been exercised over the last four years and they haven't put Americans back to work. We have fewer people working today than we had when the president took office. ... The unemployment rate was 7.8 percent when he took office, it's 7.8 percent now. But if you calculated that unemployment rate, taking back the people who dropped out of the workforce, it would be 10.7 percent [today]. ... [L]et's look at the president's policies, all right, as opposed to the rhetoric, because we've had four years of policies being played out."
"When we're talking about math that doesn't add up, how about $4 trillion of deficits over the last four years, $5 trillion? That's math that doesn't add up. ... [W]e have his own record, which is we have four consecutive years where he said when he was running for office, he would cut the deficit in half. Instead he's doubled it. We've gone from $10 trillion of national debt, to $16 trillion of national debt. If the president were re-elected, we'd go to almost $20 trillion of national debt. This puts us on a road to Greece. I know what it takes to balance budgets. I've done it my entire life."
"I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you're going to get. You're going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can't afford four more years like the last four years. He said that by now we'd have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work. I wasn't the one that said 5.4 percent. This was the president's plan. Didn't get there."
"[T]he policies he's put in place from ObamaCare to Dodd-Frank to his tax policies to his regulatory policies, these policies combined have not let this economy take off and grow like it could have. You might say, 'Well, you got an example of one that worked better?' Yeah, in the Reagan recession where unemployment hit 10.8 percent, between ... the end of that recession and the equivalent of time to today, Ronald Reagan's recovery created twice as many jobs as this president's recovery. Five million jobs doesn't even keep up with our population growth. And the only reason the unemployment rate seems a little lower today is because of all the people that have dropped out of the workforce."
"[O]n the day following the assassination of the United States ambassador, the first time that's happened since 1979, when -- when we have four Americans killed there, when apparently we didn't know what happened, that the president, the day after that happened, flies to Las Vegas for a political fund-raiser, then the next day to Colorado for another event. ... The president's policies throughout the Middle East began with an apology tour and pursue a strategy of leading from behind, and this strategy is unraveling before our very eyes."
Demo-gogues -- Highlights from Barack Obama
"[Romney] said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney's now promoting. So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies we might be back in that same mess."
"[I]f we're serious about reducing the deficit, if this is genuinely a moral obligation to the next generation, then in addition to some tough spending cuts, we've also got to make sure that the wealthy do a little bit more. ... [G]overnor Romney's allies in Congress have held the 98 percent hostage because they want tax breaks for the top 2 percent. ... [F]or [those earning] above $250,000, we can go back to the tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president. We created 23 million new jobs. That's part of what took us from deficits to surplus."
"[I] think it's important to tell you that we did come in during some tough times. We were losing 800,000 jobs a month when I started. But we had been digging our way out of policies that were misplaced and focused on the top doing very well and middle class folks not doing well. Now, we've seen 30 consecutive -- 31 consecutive months of job growth; 5.2 million new jobs created. ... [T]he centerpiece of [Romney's] economic plan are tax cuts. That's what took us from surplus to deficit."
"[W]e have gone after al-Qa'ida's leadership like never before and Osama bin Laden is dead. ... While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release, trying to make political points, and that's not how a commander in chief operates. You don't turn national security into a political issue. ... Secretary [Hillary] Clinton has done an extraordinary job. But she works for me. I'm the president and I'm always responsible, and that's why nobody's more interested in finding out exactly what happened than I [am]. ... And the suggestion that anybody in my team ... would play politics or mislead when we've lost four of our own, governor, is offensive. That's not what we do. That's not what I do as president, that's not what I do as commander in chief."
"We're a nation that believes in the Second Amendment, and I believe in the Second Amendment. ... But there have been too many instances during the course of my presidency, where I've had to comfort families who have lost somebody. ... [W]eapons that were designed for soldiers in war theaters don't belong on our streets. And so what I'm trying to do is to get a broader conversation about how do we reduce the violence generally. Part of it is seeing if we can get an assault-weapons ban reintroduced."
Cross-Examination
"The last time Mitt Romney and Barack Obama debated, the press was itching to write the Romney Comeback story. Now they're itching to write the Obama Comeback story. This matters because people tend to see what they expect to see and have trouble seeing the unexpected even when it unfolds before their eyes." --columnist Peggy Noonan
"I found this debate deeply frustrating and unedifying. I thought the questions, prescreened by Candy Crowley, were for the most part indistinguishable from questions the Obama campaign might as well have drafted for her. Nearly every one was asked from a fundamentally liberal premise. Why on earth this debate was handed to undecided voters in a state where Obama is leading by nearly 30 points is beyond me. These weren't undecided voters; they were at best dyspeptic Democrats." --columnist Jonah Goldberg
"The biggest losers? The pathetic staged town-hall format: The questions are preselected and the questioners not spontaneous and often clumsy. They seemed unenthusiastic and their presence impeded a fuller exchange of views. Ms. Crowley was out of bounds by selectively attempting to offer real-time fact-checking -- endorsed by Obama ('Say that a little louder, Candy!') -- and fact-checking, no less, that was not quite factual. ... Final verdict: Again, I think polls and post-debate focus and reflection will suggest Romney did better than the immediate consensus of a draw." --historian Victor Davis Hanson
"Candy Crowley, the CNN moderator in charge of tonight's debate, covered for President Obama by endorsing his false narrative of the killings in Libya. She stepped out of the role of moderator to play an alleged 'fact-checker.' She corrected Mitt Romney's statement that Obama had referred to the Libyan attacks as a reaction to an anti-Muslim video, rather than a terrorist attack. Obama allowed his administration to claim that for days afterwards. He did refer obliquely to 'acts of terror' but also allowed the myth of the anti-video demonstrations to be perpetuated. Crowley's intervention will leave an incomplete and false impression with many debate viewers. The time for 'fact-checking' is after a debate, not during it. Previous debate moderators knew better." --columnist John Fund
Village Idiots
"I mean, we are seeing right now that we are in the midst of a huge recovery. Right? Because of what this president has done -- pulled this economy from the brink of collapse when we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. Now we're gaining every -- throughout most of his presidency, we've been adding jobs to this economy because of what he's been doing." --Michelle Obama
Belly Laugh of the Week: "You know, Barack doesn't have a big ego. You see this in, you know, how he leads the country. I mean, he is very open to other people's opinions. And he's always willing to compromise and he's always, always listening. So that would kind of be the last thing that I would think of when I talk about my husband is big ego." --Michelle Obama
Short Cuts
"President Obama vowed to work with Republicans to solve the country's problems if he's given a second term. It's not a reflexive action. He said compromise has become a dirty word in Washington and then he told the Republicans to go compromise themselves." --comedian Argus Hamilton
"Obama did fine, as long as people remember that Romney is the incumbent." --iowahawkblog
"Is Obama suggesting he'll revive the 'assault weapons' ban news? Didn't do wonders for Clinton, and we're even more pro-gun now." --humorist Frank J. Fleming
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team
200 Comments
Son of Liberty in Colorado
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Mark, a lot of folks disagree with your assessment. Romney won more on substance, and while the Obummah could "spin like a top" he was still an empty suit full of platitudes for the masses. I think that Romney needs to go out in debate Numbah Three with a take no prisoners attitude on National Security and on the 2nd Amendment. He showed some serious chinks in the Anointed One's armor, and needs to exploit them.
Robert Grant in SE AZ
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 3:18 PM
Total agreement with your comment, Son of Liberty. Well said! History of such debates indicates that there were, at time, actual blows between the two aspirants. Sort of though that was going to happen again! Compliments to Romney for his restraint and conduct in an obviously two on one encounter.
Grandson of Liberty in Coastal Carolina
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 11:47 AM
I loved how the President talked a good talk about supporting equal wages for women, even though there is a disturbing inequality in women's wages within his adminstration. I don't believe a word he says and you can't trust the media to give you the facts. Disgusting!
Jim in Alabama
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 11:50 AM
I came away pretty satisfied that Romney still wins the election. "We can't afford 4 more years" resonates. Obama's main counter was, "Oh yeah? So's your mother!" Still, much too much of it was less a debate than a contest to pile up the biggest heap of What-Government-Can-Do-For-You.
Greg in Ohio
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 11:50 AM
If $1.86 a gallon indicates a bad economy and $4.00 a gallon indicates a good economy as Obama says, then I'll take a "bad" economy any day.
Lisa in MD
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Yeah me too!
Rod in MI
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:51 PM
Mega-dittoes!
Major Stu in Peru, IN
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 2:21 PM
What President Obama was trying to say was that he inherited low gasoline prices from President George W. Bush. Then he hired Steven Chu to get us up to the prosperity of European gas prices.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 5:58 PM
Major Stu,
Osama Obama the Economic Terrorist would have been fine if he had only approved the Keystone Pipeline because fuel prices are now at levels where extracting oil from tar sands can be profitable, very profitable for Big Oil. But he didn't. Why do you thnk that is? Why has he purchased an estate in Hawaii? Golf anyone?
JJStryder in Realville
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:01 PM
My eyes glazed over at the lousy debate questions and of course Obamas meandering answers when we actually have numbers to reflect on were mind numbing. Obama came out with more energy and still managed to say the least in the most words. Calling this a tie when it was two on one is disingenuous, Romney still came out ahead despite Crowley's interference.
Carol Bee in Salt Lake City, UT
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:02 PM
I can't stand to listen to President Obama speak as he lies and lies and lies. I was yelling at the TV every time he spoke. We though Bill Clinton was a lier, but Obama takes the cake. The only thing he knows how to do is campaign. He has done nothing as president where he has put his heart and soul into it. Romney missed a few good opportunities, but he came across as more sincere and serious, with a plan to actually do something to help us. It was very interesting to see the Frank Luntz focus group in Las Vegas. They saw through Obama and his attacks. One man said, "I waited for 90 minutes for him to tell us something new that he would do, and I didn't ever hear it." The majority of that group voted for Obama, but are going to vote for Romney.
Rod in MI
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:53 PM
I watched the Tigers beat the Yanks, but was channel flipping. I read a lot so I don't feel the need to watch the blithering idiot in chief spout his marxist pile of dung. Still one of the times I did flip over to the debate was during Obozo's claim that he never said the Benghazi incident was not a terrorist attack. Baloney. Somebody replay the audio to him, and he will claim George Bush learned ventriloquism.
Ready4AChange in Illinois
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 2:31 PM
Priceless comment!!!!
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:03 PM
"The fact is, Romney really does care about grassroots folks -- he genuinely cares about Americans from all walks of life. But his staff, many of whom are Beltway politicos and debutants, are clearly out of touch with grassroots Americans, and consequently, insulate Romney to good advice from the ground."
Mark, I disagree. While I recognize your enthusiasm for a better America, you must also recognize that the Romneys are generations of career politicians. As such, they are co-opted by the Elitists and Mitt is no exception. It is clear that our choice is either a Socialist or a Marxist and I would submit to you that there is little difference. So, when Mitt "wins", what then? WIll he champion small government and do what is right by eliminating entire bureaucracies? Will he balance the "budget"? No, sir, I submit that he has been chosen to oversee the financial conquest of the United States of America. The Federal Reserve (neither Federal nor any sort of Reserve) will print USDs into oblivion and the New World Order can ride to the rescue with their one-world currency "backed by gold". They will conquer America without firing a shot. Now THAT'S a revolution!
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:09 PM
Your comments are those of a warped and deluded mind. If you can't tell the difference between the two, you are not to be trusted with a vote! You are a paranoid person, seeing conspiracies that don't exist. I hope your bunker has padded walls. Get a clue!
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:14 PM
After you're finished with your RRgasm, you'll wake up and discover it was just another wet dream.
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:22 PM
Thanks for another in a long line of inane comments troll. Your uninformed opinion is that of an idiot, I hope your are doing well in your bunker moron.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Well, wjm, perhaps you could inform us more about Romney and his record as a governor. Maybe start with RomneyCare. How about some links to articles instead of mindless name-calling (the hallmark of Liberals). You're not a closet Liberal are you? I'm waiting.
Mac in Colorado
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:47 PM
Sir, I think you ought to begin by reevaluating what this election is about. President Romney has drawn a stark contrast between Obama's socialist policies and his own laissez-faire ideals. Granted, he could do a better job. But we have two candidates, and if you think this election is simply between a Marxist and a Socialist (an assertion clearly drawn from somewhere deep in your bowels), then I suggest you be encouraged by the fact that millions of other Americans remain optimistic about this election with the knowledge that it's now or never. Pouting about it won't help our nation get out of debt or resolve a more affirmative foreign policy.
Mac in Colorado
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Correction, Governor Romney. I guess I'm a bit too optimistic just yet.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 1:03 PM
No, sir, that was a Freudian slip and spot on I might add. It IS President Romney and you're not the only one doing that, so no regrets. He IS the next POTUS. So, to your point then. It is MOOT. My question to you is: Will President Romney make substantive changes that will effectivey reverse the damage done by the Manchurian Candidate? Will he strike down Executive Orders that have all but made the Constitution a worthless piece of parchment? Will he strike down ObamaCare? Will he skillfully carve out of the NDAA provisions that annul our rights? Will he champion the Second Amendment or go along to get along and ban assault weapon AGAIN?
I guess I'll have to vote for it find out what's in it ;-)
Robert Grant in SE AZ
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 3:51 PM
Mr. Dunn, your comment (s) are quite lucid, and it is obvious that you are an educated man. The remarks of those ahead of this comment indicate these gentlemen to be much of the same mind. Your continual remark of Socialist and Marxist is inappropriate, in my view. Mr. Romney, and his forebears, have demonstrated a remarkable acumen in business matters. What Mr. Romney proposes, he will accomplish, if , that is IF, he has a Republican controlled Congress. Mr.Obama has most ably demonstrated he is a buffoon, and married one equally so. "For the first time in my adult life I am proud of America." That comment defines the Obama family, and the Obama regime. He could not have accomplished the disaster of his presidency alone. It is the buffoons that have infected the Congress that we must blame for this mess. My suggestion might be to outlaw the Socialist Democrat Party of North America. But that snake would come to life again under another name. We will always have the poor, and we will always have fools that use them as tools to their own profit. Bottom line, this Republic was created to divorce the population from a man much like Mr. Obama. King of England. Many agreed with that King. Just so today in the US. That is what we must overcome, and continually pointing at right, or left, Socialist, or Marxist will not correct that fact of life. Thank you for your comments.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 4:09 PM
E8, you state, "Many agreed with that King. Just so today in the US." Truer words were never spoken. The Founding Fathers were incredibly wise and knew that this country would come to this juncture. We are at a crossroads today and if history be any guide, this country shall not survive the round trip from bondage to faith to courage to freedom to abundance to complacency to apathy to dependency to . . .
it only took 5% - you know what I'm talking about.
Hamilton in IL
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 11:22 PM
Robert Grant,
I understand what you're saying but I insist that you grossly underestimate Obama if you consider him to be just a buffoon. No buffoon could craft the type of lies that he does, and with the degree of regularity that he demonstrates. It takes a type of intelligence to craft those lies and keep from being recognized as a habitual liar. Obama lies to create an effect - a political effect - manipulation of society on a grand scale. If we carefully consider his words we all can see the lies, but exactly what his end game is, is less easily seen. But it's there nonetheless.
Now if you understand that Obama isn't simply a buffoon, might you re-evaluate what you've said?
Gemma in New York
Friday, October 19, 2012 at 9:46 AM
and married one equally so
And thank goodness these educated men also understand that this woman and her cohorts do not in anyway represent me, as a proud American woman, or any of my female friends or family members. I know how God-given lucky I am to be born here. Our Founders were Divine-ly driven and as such here comes more diversity. Its the only way our Republic will grow in truth. Now excuse me while I get back to work! xo
Gemma in New York
Friday, October 19, 2012 at 9:47 AM
adversity not diversity...UGH!
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 10:10 AM
Mac,
Did you catch Odumbo's latest Freudian slip " . . . when I was President . . ."
Rod in MI
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:56 PM
Which one is MORE LIKELY to lead us out of the chasm into which we are presently headed "Forward" (tm)?? Uhhh, Romney hands down.
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 2:27 PM
Apples and Oranges idiot, and that is a description of a mentally incapacitated person, not name calling. But you keep your deluded opinions coming, proof of rampant stupidity among the population. Romney Care, as you call it, was a state venture that the people of Mass have to deal with, and it deals with the private sector, but you can't distinguish between Ronmney and Obamao, so how could I expect you to see any difference here either? Me a Liberal? Never, you however, could be lumped into the category of Lenin's useful idiots.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 2:36 PM
"Apples and Oranges idiot, and that is a description of a mentally incapacitated person, not name calling."
I see. OK, you're mentally incapacitated. I'm sorry for taking advantage of you that way then. I did not realize that, but should have from your posts. Sometimes I'm a little slow on the uptake. Forgive me. So, what else did you find out about Mitt Romney's stand on, say, the Second Amendment and Assault Weapons bans?
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 2:52 PM
Yes, you are slow, dimwitted, and completely arrogant in your self assesment. Are you really Obama? Or maybe Axlerod? And I find your assesment of service to country as "misguided" as despicable, for your sake and if you wish to remain unhospitalised, I would hope you keep your cowardlike opinion to yourself in the company of we veterans, who would take you to task for your treasonous talk. Your villiage has found its idiot, I would hate to be your neighbor.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Don't you know all a lot of them do is call names. Forget about there droll and listen to the more refined individuals on this blog has to say.
Hamilton in IL
Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 12:15 AM
wjm,
Don't get me wrong. In a choice between Obama and Romney, I'll take Romney hands down.
However, Git R Dunn might have a point. And here's why. Have you noticed anything about both presidential debates so far? ... Something BIG?
The truth of the matter is that on economic issues, while there's been plenty of supply-side talk, i.e. jobs and and who has them, and taxes and who pays them, neither the moderators nor the candidates have specifically brought up the expense-side, i.e. government spending and the outrageous growth of government. Not even Romney.
Over the last few decades, tax revenue has not been lacking. There has been no drop in federal tax revenue, corresponding to the meteoric rise in our debt. To verify this, look for federal tax revenue graphs and charts online We arrived at this deplorable state of indebtedness exclusively via government over-spending. Their spending has out-stripped what we've given to them. It would seem only common sense that the remedy to our period of spending exceeding revenue, would be an equal or greater period of spending being far less than revenue. This remedy should be applied long before talking about revising tax rates or creating new taxes, etc. I'm sorry but any other approach is unconscionable.
This begs the question of why neither candidate will talk about the glaring need to cut the piss out of government. This is fruit for conspiracy theories like Git R Dunn has expressed. But just as businesses persistently try to reduce their overhead, every government official should be looking for ways to reduce our (the taxpayers) overhead, i.e. ways to reduce the size of government. But they've done the opposite.
No one should expect Obama to talk about cutting government, but we don't hear Romney harping about it either. Why doesn't he focus on the growth of government spending, relate it to our tax revenue, and then push heavily for the cuts we need. Any business with the overhead that we have (our government) would be out of business, and Romney knows that.
What are these politicos thinking? ... Whatever it is, it seems that they don't have the best interests of a solvent taxpaying public in mind. And one distressing fact is clear. If we allow our government to raise taxes in response to the debt they've racked up, we will be, in effect, sanctioning their overspending. And after that, family budgets will never be safe from the IRS.
wjm in Colorado
Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 10:36 AM
Point made, and that is why Romney chose Ryan as his running mate. His budget plan may be too slow for some, but it is a first responible step for reigning in big government and overspending. Romney actually recognizes the role of president, guiding policy that Congress legislates. I trust him to pass legislation repealing Obamacare, Dodd Frank, and curtailing spending in a budget we can all embrace as a start to end this government tyranny. Watch the economy explode when businesses are uleashed from the anti business regulations and executive orders of chairman Obamao....
Hamilton in IL
Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 11:06 AM
wjm,
And adding to what you said, we really don't have any other choices. If we are too suspicious of Romney because he's rich, or because he's a mormon, or because he's white, or whatever other irrelevancy we can conjure up - we'll get Obama. If we think and claim that Romney isn't conservative enough - we'll get Obama. The only rational focus right now is to get rid of Obama, and court, encourage, and support Romney.
I wouldn't say the Romney/Ryan plan is too slow, although everyone would wish it to act instantly. It took a long time for us to get to our current indebtedness; we not only have the debt but we have the interest on the debt; and the economy is a complicated animal to deal with.
But there's one thing of which I'm certain - any plan must begin with cutting the piss out of our overhead, which is government. The analogy of relating business overhead to the cost of government is a good way to get people to understand the government's piece in our economy. They are our collective expense - our overhead. A country that raises its overhead without the economy to justify it, is on an unsound path, and that's exactly what we've been doing.
Brian in Virginia
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 1:47 PM
I wouldn't count Romney among the career politicians. He was governor of MA for 1 term and held no other public office. That hardly makes him a career politician.
However, I hold the same concern for our country regarding the REAL powers that be (banksters). The money chooses who gets the nomination and may very well control who gets elected. Not only should we be voting, but we need to be on our knees praying as well.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 2:23 PM
Brian,
Mitt Romney is no kind of Saviour, by any stretch of the imagination. So, to your point, I will be on my knees. Thanks for the reminder.
R.K. Sprau in L.C. N.M.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Why only one term? Could he have won a 2nd? I'm only asking.
Senator_Blutarsky in Texas
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 5:43 PM
The back-and-forth was mostly a good excuse to get drunk -- right up until near the end. But then Romney did himself some serious damage, and it was self-inflicted. The issue turned to guns and Obama, as a Democrat, actually came off as more-moderate than Romney did on the 2nd Amendment!
Mitt got hit square in the face with his Massachusetts record as governor; he was reminded that as Governor he said:
"Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts", Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony on July 1 with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." - July 1st, 2004 -- Mitt Romney
He had every opportunity to repudiate that position and take a strong position of defense of the 2nd Amendment and instead he not only confirmed his previous statement he doubled down and used it as a good example of working across the aisle to find consensus!
In doing so he disqualified himself for the office of President of the United States as he said, in plain language, that he would if elected ignore the Constitution in favor of "consensus."
The Constitution is not about consensus; it is about unalienable rights. Consensus is about two wolves and a sheep holding vote on what's for dinner; unalienable rights are about demanding that the wolves not eat the sheep.
What Mitt Romney said tonight is that if he can find consensus on any issue The Constitution is damned to Hell.
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:05 PM
Romney's highlights are the truth, and Obamao's are marxist statist lies. If that is an Obamao win or a draw, then America is gone. What fool would believe cheaper gas equals a bad economy? If I were the black gentleman who asked what would get his vote, I would be convinced to vote against Obama, as his answer only detailed what has failed to get the economy going, and this is what we can look FORWARD to.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 1:48 PM
"If I were the black gentleman..."
Well, since YOU brought up race, is "the black gentleman" black OR is he 50% white and 6.25% black and 43.75% arab? Were his ancestors slave traders?
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 2:30 PM
Thanks again for some more mindless drivel, if you watched the debate, Obamao was asked by a black man if there was anything he might say to make him vote for him again? You are completely clueless, and should seek mental help ASAP. Git lost troll...
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 2:42 PM
If you come down out of altitude for a bit, it will help. Ask Obama or alternately get some oxygen from Mac or Son of Liberty.
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 2:56 PM
Again you prove yourself a worthless and weak mind, if you ever think of something useful to say, I would probably be speachless. Did you get beat up regularly as a child?
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 3:43 PM
You definitely NEED that spell-checker!
www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=speachless
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 6:00 PM
Thanks, I've said before I am not a dictionary, but then we have you, thanks troll, I hope your bunker is welll stocked when the fecal matter hits the fan. You need to get a clue.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 6:38 PM
Well, sir, is your bunker stocked? If not, here is what you will need:
1.) Gold - or silver but NOT US Dollars when the Bank Holiday hits
2.) Grub - foodstocks and a reliable supply of water for at least a year
3.) Ground - land (not in or around Denver) and seed to grow food
4.) Gas - or other suitable form of energy
5.) Guns - and enough ammunition to hold off the 47%
6.) Good Luck or God - your choice
God's Speed, wjm. God's Speed
wjm in Colorado
Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 10:38 AM
Way ahead of you, I have all of the above and am quite prepared, thank you!
Robert Grant in SE AZ
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 4:08 PM
WJM, IMHO you are demeaning and defeating your argument with the incessant "name calling"! Such language construction dilutes the otherwise lucid thought you are attempting to present. Oratory of that caliber is more in the way of a bar room brawl. Lot of noise, little accomplishment.
demsarerats in Oregon
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 4:34 PM
Robert, lol, I enjoyed reading it, the wjm & Git R debate is better than Romney/Obonga any day. We are all on edge here because we love our country, the language used is coarse but not profane, why not let them blow off a little steam.
Btw, I think that Git R is correct in his view of what the future will be, Romney might slow the decline but will not reverse it, but for different reasons than the conspiracy theory he mentions. Universal suffrage was a suicide pact for this nation and third-world immigration combined with the welfare birthrate has already pushed us past the tipping point. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/us/whites-account-for-under-half-of-births-in-us.html?_r=4&hp&
I think that most of us here have an intuitive grasp that things don’t look good for this nation long term and I believe that such conversations serve a useful purpose, even if they are not pleasant to think about.
Robert Grant in SE AZ
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 5:11 PM
demsarerats, (I like that) , Concur, on all points. Different strokes for different folks, hmmm? I happen to deplore the concept of name calling as a form of argument. Not sure where that comes from, but Pa did not allow it, and it seemed a worthy concept in the "bunkhouse" discussions. Thank you for the comment.
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 6:01 PM
Its all we have here, can't take em out behind the woodshed for a little wall to wall councling!
WTD in AZ
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 8:47 PM
"Things don't look good" It's hard to believe that Romney (or anybody) could be worse than Obama, but the real problem is the breakdown of the U.S. as a nation of proud, industrious citizens. Too many in the growing "gimme" group who want nanny government. That coupled with the breakdown of the family, and moral and social decay has us on the verge of disaster. A worrisome reflection of the fall of ancient Rome. A once powerful empire that destroyed itself by rotting from within.
Scotch62 in O-town FL
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 8:49 PM
Hey Guys- I'm sure very few of us voted for Romney in the primary, but all have to admit that Romney is the only choice that's not a communist and that we did not get to this point in one election. It's been a slow decline over decades as the socialists infiltrated the centers of power in our society while the citizens slept. Romney will be a small incremental step back in the right direction and now that we are awake, we must continue to elect more tea party types and constitutional libertarians to repair our country. I believe Mitt, although (alot) more moderate than I would like, is a man of integrity and recognizes the precipice at which our country stands. I believe if we sweep the house and senate, he will sign appropriate legislation to accelerate our recovery. Romney is the choice for now, but the key is the legislature. Plan B is of course, gold and lead.
Bud in Colorado
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:08 PM
I hardly watched the "debate". Watching Justin Verlander was much more entertaining & informative. Truth is, BHO makes me sick to my stomach. And the "questions"? What a bunch of crap. Question: "what are you going to do about gender discrimination in the workplace?' This, after the taliban has attempted to kill a 14 year-old girl. Only when the two men expanded on the basic "question" was anything revealed. Romney stays with, maybe stretching, the facts, while BHO lies.
Diane in Tx
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Hear, hear!! JV is always more entertaining.
Rod in MI
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:57 PM
Me too. Justin Verlander for President! Go Tigers!
Lisa in MD
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:15 PM
I think anyone that votes for Obama is a fool.
Bullhead in MI
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:16 PM
Completely disagree with your assessment of the debate. Romney missed getting in a good answer but with moderator cutting him off he didn't get a chance His time of pointing out just what a rotten time the last 4 years have been was a great response to a question.
Joe Clem in Mt Juliet TN
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM
Obama said in the debate last night that it was offensive that anyone would infer that anyone in his administration would mislead the American people when 4 brave Americans were killed.
I'm most disturbed about this Benghazi embassy affair because it shows a fundamental lack of character in Obama. Just as the Wall Street collapse on 9/15/08 turned defeat to victory in 2018, Obama realized immediately that what happened on 9/11/12 would lead to defeat in 2012.
So, unless he could put the perception out there that his policies, including lack of security, were not responsible and that something else beyond his control was responsible, a spontaneous demonstration due to a film, his defeat was sure.
So for weeks afterward he and his sacrificial lambs continued to fall on the sword of, "it was a spontaneous demonstration due to a film," with the final sword being Hillary taking responsibility for her State Department, then getting out of Dodge City (interesting name isn't it)!.
If this isn't OFFENSIVE, I don't know what is?
This is most important in knowing who to vote for!
Lisa in MD
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:20 PM
One other thing that Obama said and I am not sure if I heard him correctly was he got a GI Bill for school because of the service his father did during WW II?? or something like that, did I hear that correctly? I thought that his father was NOT a US Citizen and didn't even live in this country.
Robert Grant in SE AZ
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM
Lisa, you apparently were confused by Mr. Obama's comment. You are correct, Barack Husseing Obama, Sr. is a citizen of Kenya, and therefore a resident of the UK. Junior's comment, I believe, referred to his grandfather, a white man, citizen (apparently) of Hawaii, then a Territory of the United States. Junior would not be eligible in any way for the GI Bill, with the exception of his grandfather (possibly) having been decorated militarily by the US. That, to my knowledge, did not occur. In fact, I question much of Junior's comments regarding Juniors forebears. The comment about his grandmother was misleading. I believe she did work for the government. In the recorder's office. It is from there that Junior got his Social Security number. Which originally was issued to a (white) immigrant in Connecticut, who then retired in Hawaii, and died there. More falsity in Junior lineage, hmmm?
Edgar Fox in Sedalia Co
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:23 PM
I think that Mitt performed very well especially with playing from a stacked deck. The fact finders are coming out in droves with data that supports Mitt's presentations. What gives me further solace is that Rush also feels that Mitt's performance was stellar
demsarerats in Oregon
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 4:42 PM
Edgar, yes, it was not a blowout but Romney still looked better than Obonga. Obonga got in some good punches but at the cost of his nice guy image. I think that the key demographic is white women who are not hopeless dependent parasites but merely bought in to the hope and change theme; they will see a more accurate picture of Obonga as a person, to our advantage.
Bridget in Woodstock, Maryland
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 12:24 PM
They have the audacity to say Obama won when it was two against one! Romney did great and lots of people I know are calling Obama a liar because....everyone knows it. People are getting very angry and fired up and Ryan should have made Biden give the unemployment numbers because you could see Biden panicked at saying that. Romney did great on the oil issue but wish he had done that for everyone of Obamas lies. People are waking up and fed up. Obama honestly is soo pompous that he was shocked Romney called him out in the first debate. Obama doesn't understand how our country works and freedom is important!
Lucy in Glendale
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 4:22 PM
Bottom line? These past 3 1/2 years have portrayed a government that has no concept how to "fix" this economy. They tighten a screw here and apply epoxy there, but in the end, the "fix" , JOBS, is above their pay grade. When all indications are that nothing is going to change, go with the other guy. At least the other guy has been on the side of writing the pay checks, and has learned how and when to increase the workforce, and understands the basic selfish reason of all, how to make a profit, a "dirty" word for our present administration.
Scotch62 in O-town FL
Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 10:00 PM
It's funny how the socialists hate profits (partly because they have NO idea of how they are created) and don't understand that profits and incomes created by businesses are the thing they tax...and due to their economic ignorance they don't understand they are killing the source of their revenue. IDIOTS....they don't understand true economics and that they can't mandate economic law, as they want to mandate all else.
Git R Dunn in Alabama
Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 10:20 AM
Oh, but they believe that they CAN mandate economic law just like their hero Stalin did ;-)