Shell-shocked Democrats are still trying to figure out what happened to President Obama last night as he got his clock cleaned by Mitt Romney. Most of the post-mortems seemed to center on his lack of aggressiveness on stage and his failure to raise the sort of personal attacks on Romney that have largely characterized the Democratic campaign. The expectation now is that the next time Obama and Romney face off, the president will be more engaged and perhaps ready to attack the challenger in a way that will please his followers. But the question Democrats should be asking themselves today is not just what was wrong with Obama that caused him to be so lackluster, but whether an attempt to savage Romney in person will be such a smart idea.
While the president did mention some of his familiar class warfare themes, pundits were almost unanimous in expressing their surprise that the phrase “47 percent” never passed through the president’s lips. Liberals were also appalled by his omission of any mention of Romney’s Bain Capital experience or tax returns. But if the only lesson the president learns from his defeat in Denver is that he must double down on personal attacks on his opponent, he may be setting himself up for another drubbing on October 16.
Democrats know that personal attacks on Romney have taken a huge toll on the Republican in recent months. They have had some success depicting him as a heartless plutocrat who cares nothing about ordinary people and who stashes money abroad while not paying taxes at home. Romney’s “47 percent” gaffe hurt him in large measure because it fit right into the portrait Democrats have been painting of him. But the assumption that the president would have done better had he echoed these nasty and quite personal barbs is faulty. Presidents are supposed to be presidential while leaving the business of carving up their opponents to lesser beings like vice presidents. If Obama’s cheering section in the media thinks getting down into the gutter on stage during a presidential debate is what Obama needs to do, they may soon be proved wrong.
The problem with the president last night wasn’t that he wasn’t nasty enough but the arrogance with which he seemed to regard the proceedings. His body language and long-winded lectures betrayed not just a man who didn’t adequately prepare for the format, but also a man who has no respect for his opponent or the ideas he put forward.
Yet the ultimate problem for the president is not so much what he did or didn’t say; it’s that he gave us a glimpse of the man that Republicans have always claimed him to be: the arrogant liberal poseur who looks down his nose at the rest of us. More than all the videos in which Obama uses racial incitement or talks down individual initiative, the real danger is that on the big stage of the first debate, he came across as less likeable. The stuffy, long-winded bore we saw in Denver is not the historic figure that inspired millions with his messianic promises of hope and change.
The shock isn’t so much that Obama lost this first debate but that he did so in a manner that leaves him open to the sort of second-guessing that often leads to different mistakes. Obama looked tired (perhaps Al Gore’s theory about him suffering from the altitude in Denver was correct) and disengaged. That is something he can fix in subsequent debates. He can also listen to advice about looking his opponent in the eye rather than constantly looking down and smirking. But there is a difference between being more focused and aggressive and resorting to personal slurs. If Obama takes the pleas for more savagery too much to heart he will wind up looking nasty and only make Romney look good by comparison.
More to the point, those dissecting Obama’s performance are also ignoring the fact that the president’s bigger problem is that his challenger has turned out to be more formidable than even many Republicans thought him to be. So long as Romney was viewed as merely a gaffe-prone tackling dummy, Obama could get away with not running on his record. But faced with a smart, confident opponent who is prepared to harp on his failings, it was the messiah of 2008 who looked like the empty suit.
The conundrum for Democrats is that the president has very little to say for himself or his record. Shorn of the demonization of the GOP, Obama is left with nothing. While such attacks work well on the campaign trail and in television ads, they are not likely to help in a face-to-face debate. Looking ahead to the next encounter, it won’t be hard for the president to better his Denver performance, but what last night might have exposed is not so much fatigue or overconfidence as it is the emptiness at the core of his re-election campaign.
Obama should have taken Michelle to an anniversary dinner instead of debating Romney. The independents will move towards Romney.
Not only will Independents move to Romney, but the D's are so demoralized by the President's performance that this could actually lower their turnout even more than it has already been hurt.
Dream on. We learned plenty in 2008 about a tough race. Romney is no Hilary, so don't count on Democrats packing it in because of 40 minutes of fiddle faddle from Etch a Sketch Mitt. We will be there with bells on in our millions to vote for the current and next president of the US.
"He can also listen to advice about . . ." n nArrogant, self-absorbed people don't listen to advice. This could not be more entertaining. Hopefully Mr Romney can build on this and the Democrats can have their turn at five weeks of angst.
Right! To quote the article: "The problem with the president last night wasn’t that he wasn’t nasty enough but the arrogance with which he seemed to regard the proceedings. His body language and long-winded lectures betrayed not just a man who didn’t adequately prepare for the format, but also a man who has no respect for his opponent or the ideas he put forward." Or respect for ANY ideas that conflict with his preconceived notions!
We've all known for a long time now that Obama doesn't like to be challenged. Last night, for the first time in his political career, he was forced to defend an actual record in a mano-a-mano debate with a sharp, well-prepared opponent without a sympathetic media to shield him or an adoring crowd to cheer him on. Under the pressure of actually having to think on his feet and defend his positions, he wilted. n nThere's no doubt which candidate looked presidential last night and which candidate looked like he's in over his head.
Simply said, Obama is a SCHMUCK, and Romney is Presidential.
Hey! That's my line – I said Romney is a MENSCH, Obama is a SCHMUCK! n n;) n n
That makes both of you assholes. No wonder why you have such high wingnut ratings.
That's OK, Hillel, I take no offense. n nI can imagine the bitterness watching dreams unravel can bring . . . . n n
Popping champagne corks after one debate? You're even a bigger asshole than I thought. But oh yeah, you don't believe in polls or fact-checking.
You're not a very nice person, are you, Mr. Hillel? n nAs for Obama, the balloon is pricked. He will deflate going forward. n n nFunny that the word 'pricked' should come to mind when interacting with you. Must be a Freudian thing, or something . . .
Your pattern is painfully obvious already: "Agree with my point of view or I'll call you mean names!" n nWhat are you? 14?
Mr. Hill, nAs someone else implied, it must be terrible watching your dreams die. No government mandated universal health care, the coal industry will survive, other people's tax money won't be given to obama bundlers who run solar companies, and under mr. romney we will see a lessening, for once, of government regulations. Ah, it's so nice watching the Democrat power machine falling apart.
Polls are highly overated Hill….. Common sense is what matters – Even before the debate, this was my opinion —-1. Not one American who voted for McCain 4 years ago will switch to Obama.But many millions who voted for an unknown Obama 4 years ago are angry, disillusioned, and scared about the future. n2. Black Voters— Nowhere but down in this category…. n3. jewish Voters — Don't even need to comment on this…. n4. Soccer Moms — "Vote like your lady parts depended on it"…. n5. Youth Voters– All the youngsters who voted for him 4 years ago are entering (or trying to enter) his unemployable nightmare…. n6.Blue Collar Workers, Small Biz owners….. Need I go on? nCommon Sense — Landslide win in November for Romney…….
Actually, I do. n n1) Polls are still close n2) Fact checks showed that each combatant had his pants on fire as often as the other, especially since Obama's campaign team themselves have admitted the "Five Trillion in new Taxes" meme is false — and yet Obama used it, failed to dent Romney, then doubled down on it again. n nyou ARE aware of that, correct?
Nice language, HillelA. Please change your name (or at least your screen name) to avoid unfair embarassment to your namesake. nAnd Obama IS a disagreeable fool, whether you like to admit it or not.
Hey Hillel, I never saw such a negative rating for a post before. You should give the Guiness Book people a call! n n nCongratulations! Everybody doesn't like you. n nYou have to work on your powers of persuasion.
HillelA gives us a glimpse of the Leftist intellect in action. What a thoughtful and thought provoking response.r nr nAs MarineMichael said, it is not surprising that you are a little up tight, so maybe you should have some slack–since your slacker got caught with his “proverbial” pants down last night.
Hey, that's racist… or something!
“This [debate] is not the end. It is not the beginning of the end. But it IS the end of the beginning”r nW. Chirchill
2 weeks of spoon feeding The One that all he'd be facing is 'zingers' seems to have been based on incorrect intel and worse advice. Someone should spank Chris Matthews very hard for his mistakes on this point. We were told by The Balloonhead for 2 weeks before the debate that Romney will a silly cardboard loser practicing his 'zingers' and that all The One had to do was show up and he'd win. n n
At least two letters a week in our local excuse for a newspaper hammer on the 47% figure. But if Obama were dumb enough to trot out the 47% during a debate, he'd be giving Romney the chance to say what he meant, rather than what Mother Jones and the AP wanted him to mean. Every trial lawyer knows there are some questions you do NOT ask on cross examination so as not to give the witness a chance to explain; instead, you raise the issue when you are arguing to the jury, when the witness cannot contradict your version of the facts.
Exactly. It's the liberals' (or any other group that demands uncarved, primal cut chunks of of red meat, but especially liberals) penchant to believe that simple chants, sound bites, and, make me puke – 'stories' will win elections, hearts, & minds. It's very shortsided. And, taking the '47%', opens up the defendent (figuratively and, in my mind, literally) for Romney to bring up, hopefully w/ tact, Obama Phones, Obama Cash, SS Disability (disguised unemployment), and exponential growth in Food Stamp growth – to illegals and foreigners, no less.____If he could update the old grind about a gov't big enough to provide everything is big enough to take it away. And that by Obama's trying to 'help' people, that he's enslaving them to a life of dependency, and ultimately to a loss of autonomy, actualization, and self, outcomes far more cruel than any idea proffered by a mainstream Republican/Conservative, ever.
It would be a bad mistake for Obama to directly attack Romney on 47% or Bain. Romney surely has practiced the rebuttals to these things. If Obama is smart, he will attack the Republican Party for obstructionism and Bush for causing the Depression. The latter one isn't true of course, but both will be much harder for Romney to rebut than a crude personal attack.
Absoutely correct. The 47% is easily countered by "I admit to incorrect rationale on that one, Mr. President., but while we're on the subject, weren't you also guilty ofthe same incorrect rationale when you divided america into "bitter clingers to guns and religion" in front of your elite donors?" n nAnd, look —- Romney can defend Bain in his sleep. Obama knows this. Bain is great material for talking points targeted at poorly informed voters where there will be no blowback, it's a potential nightmare on a national stage. Obama does NOT know nearly as much about Bain, and those deals his campaign has been talking about, as Romney does. Not even close.
LOL @ Barrack Obama.
One of Obama's big problems seems to be he is down to 3 ideas: raise taxes on the rich, invest in green energy, hire more teachers/cops/firefighters. n nThat's it, that's all I've heard him say for months on end now. n nEven taken all together, at face value, with the best light on them, those 3 ideas are clearly not sufficient as a solution to our problems.
What happened to 4 legs good, 2 legs bad?
Brain washers (teachers), thugs (cops), and arsonists (firefighters). Your third item brought to mind “Fahrenheit 451″ and somehow that would fit all too well in the Obama vision of America.
I thought it was great watching Romney wipe the floor with Obama… I like the phrase when Romney said, "I have been in business for 25 years and I have no idea what you're talking about."
Just one of his several practiced zingers. But I do believe he had no idea what Obama was saying.
And he is not the only one, as the election will show.
Celebrate now, you won't later.
It;s not a zinger, it's a fact that there is no tax cut for shipping jobs overseas. What Obama is talking about is, when you move operations overseas, you no longer have to pay US tax. Romney didn't lance anyone with a zinger there, it's just that the point Obama made was so incredibly idiotic. Strawmen, meet reality. n nHillel, A? That sounds like a Jewish name. As a Jew myself I simply can't understand why any of my bretheren would vote Obama. I'd suggest you read about the long and painful history Jews have had with the type of leftist policies supported by Obama.
There is a law on the books since about 1920 –the Foreign Tax Credit– which could be considered a subsidy for doing biz abroad. But Obama has been prez for almost 4 years, the first two with his party.having a majority in both Houses of Congress. He could have changed the law if he had wanted to. So why didn't he change it?
Actually, it's worse than that. He was referring to the fact that a company can deduct the cost of moving an employee to a new location, whether it be to Albany, NY or London, UK. It's not a special deduction as Obama insinuates, just a normal expense item.
For some reason the lefties in this country don't get that… I thought that was a funny line.
I can’t wait to see the reaction from the Dems when they don’t get the house, lose the senate and Obama gets booted from office.
Obama was not saying anything meaningful or worthwhile. Evidently he's following your advice: Rely on the polls and coast to Election Day.
" several practiced zingers" nProjecting again, are we, HillelA? n n" he had no idea what Obama was saying. " nPerhaps. There are some lies that are not only so false, but are so devoid of any connection to reality and so downright bizarre that no honorable person should feel the slightest shame in admitting that he does not understand them.
You obviously don't either but it sounds so good to your ignorant ears.
This was my favorite line of the night. A nice way of saying that the President of the United States is just making stuff up. I would add that the MSM has not come forward to demonstrate that President Obama's statement was correct which seems to confirm that it was just made up. I would expect a truly independent press to call anyone on such a stupid statement, but in this time it does not happen if you have a D by your name.
When the supermarket bag boy told me today as I checked out of Publix that he hoped Romney would get elected and fix America, I knew then and there Obama had lost the election. The MSM and liberal pollsters can put up as many polls as they want, and the pundits and Democrats can cry and whine and call as many names as they'd like, but in my opinion, it's over guys.
Make sure that young fellow is registered to vote and knows where to go on election day! n nI had a somewhat similar experience today, one of my co-workers told me "obviously" Obama is a one-termer.
I have a feeling this young man knows where to go to vote. And by the way, he was Hispanic. Another Obama myth deflated?
It's kind of like the Wizard of Oz ending, except the man behind the Oval Office curtain is a schmuck . . . .
A very bad man and not just a very bad wizard?
"I have been in business for 25 years and I have no idea what you're talking about." n nIt's always dangerous to admit to not knowing something, even if it's because such thing doesn't exist. Right now Obama is back at it with his adoring crowds mocking Romney's comment. Of course, it's very unpresidential to mock and ridicule someone behind their back, though Obama has made that part of the daily function of his presidency. Still, that's dangerous and my faith in Americans as decent good people leads me to believe that it's turning others off as well as myself.
Two more debates like that and we are looking at another Reagan landslide. Thank you for “a glimpse of the man that Republicans have always claimed him to be: the arrogant liberal poseur who looks down his nose at the rest of us. ” Keep up the incompetence and the nation will fix an awful mistake we made 4 years ago!
Most of the article was written in a nonpartisan manner which gave it credence. The main premise that Obama needs to be more forceful in future debates without resorting to attack lines is something I completely agree with. r nr nHowever, that credibility was completely wiped out with the completely partisan ending, “The conundrum for Democrats is that the president has very little to say for himself or his record. Shorn of the demonization of the GOP, Obama is left with nothing.” r nr nThis is completely false, as Obama did defend his record during the last 4 years and will continue to do so. Without that last paragraph, it was a good article. With it, it falls flat.
Obama TRIED, and was completely unable to defend his failed policies of the last 4 years. nAn inept and more forceful Obama will just backfire.
I still love this line from Romney, "I have run businesses for 25 years and I don't know what your talking about..maybe you should get a new accountant." n nThis was classic. I felt like I have lived in a different country the last 4 years, we finally hear it. I think Romney finally got his chance telling him face to face and boy he did. It's only the beginning. I agree… it's over…. Romney will be our next President.
You really think there'll BE another debate? Really? Why? It would be lose-lose for Obama. Surely he can come up with some crisis that demands his attention. I'll bet he can get an embassy attacked 10/15 or 16 and, rather than heading to Vegas, he'll call in his National Security team and the debate will just have to be cancelled due to a major forieng policy crisis only he can deal with and that he can't let a campaign event get in the way of. He'll just call Morsi and ask for a favor…. n nThe guy HATES prep. He does NOT know his stuff. He can't STAND being there. His policies all have failed. He has nothing positive in his record to run on. The MSM will not stay on the bus after this – they'll begin looking for post-O credibility. After the Benghazi debacle & another agent shot with F&F guns on the border, he'll be even more vulnerable on foreign policy than on the economy. n nValerie will not let him have another debate. She's out there wagging her tail looking for a dog right now.
"the debate will just have to be cancelled due to a major forieng policy crisis only he can deal with and that he can't let a campaign event get in the way of. " n nYeah, but won't at least some people see through that when he goes on Letterman and the VIew instead of the debate, crisis notwithstanding?
Obama was petulant and clearly out of his depth. It is hilarious to hear Chris Matthews recommend Obama learn how to defend his points by watching MSNBC! Doesn't he know how crazy that is, to think you can redeem this POTUS by teaching him what his policies actually ARE and what they are DOING to our nation?! Listening to Matthews/Maddow et al to familiarize yourself with your own administration's machinations so you can win a debate is reason #874 to get this guy out of office. What an Obamanation BO truly is. He can't fight facts with fiction when he has to go toe to toe. THIS IS BETTER THAN A PRIZE FIGHT! I love seeing BO getting his can kicked so badly in front of his adoring public…clearly proving he is as we keep claiming…empty chair, empty suit, empty promises.
I think one of the reasons he didn't use the 47% is that somehow (internal polls maybe?) they know that this works more to Romney's advantage than otherwise. Despite the LSM''s fascination with this comment, the average American feels in their heart that things are going in the wrong direction, that too many in this country are not only not invested in making the country better – they are not invested in making their own lives better! The majority of Americans have never been one''s to sit around waiting for a handout, and I pray they never will be.
The reason that Obama didn't use the 47% is that incumbent Presidents who launch personal attacks on challengers end up losing. Carter in 1980, for one. n nOnly Obama's base expects Obama to be a rabid partisan in these debates. Independent voters expect him to act Presidential.
"the emptiness at the core of his re-election campaign" is just a reflection of the emptiness at the core of Barack Obama. He has always been a nothing, and embracing Progressivism is one of the key pieces of evidence. It's not a philosophy for anyone with healthful values at his core. n n
The problem with the debate performance last night was precisely that: it was a debate instead of a stage-managed stump speech. Mr. Obama is accustomed to speeches written by professionals, read off a teleprompter, before hand-picked crowds, reviewed by a sycophantic press. A debate is a different kettle of fish. Romney was far better versed in the philosophical and factual basis for his points, respectful and dignified in demeanor, and clear in delivery. Obama demonstrated none of those virtues. This is a president elected on vacuous slogans and manipulated visuals, neither of which are of any assistance in a substantive debate. Mr. Obama himself told the audience of "The View" that he was only there "as eye candy". How prescient.
My favorite summary of last night's debate was a tweet by Dennis Miller: "Obama better hope a kicked ass is covered under Obamacare". n nNice job, Mitt.
It is my belief that 90% of the people in these United States are smart, reasonably objective individuals, capable of admitting when they have made a mistake. n nMany pursue mastery of subjects irrelevant to economics and social engineering, largely foregoing a basic understanding of issues relevant to discriminating between a competent and an incompetent political leader. n nAbsent knowledge of a given subject-matter relevant to the question at-hand we are left to make decisions based on our human emotions. The same emotions which drive us to love, to hate, to create, and to destroy. n nSometimes it is OK to admit when someone is a good person, but not a good person for the job for which they were hired. Obama is a good man, who is in way over his head. n nMitt Romney has made his fortune by assuming responsibility for failing enterprises, diagnosing their ailments, prescribing appropriate medication, and saving over 80% of the companies he assumed on their death beds. His intimate knowledge of industry and economics is second to none. n nObama taught at Chicago Law School for a couple years, voted "present" for a few years in the senate, and in a recession-induced national daze was somehow deemed qualified to run the most complex, far-reaching civilization in human history. Despite the fact that he's never had an actual "job." n nI invoke you, my fellow citizen, for whom I have a profound respect: look at the facts. Vote on objectivity, not emotion. Watch the debates, and realize truths that you may not want to realize. The magnitude of the mess we are in is too great to ignore, and I cannot sit back and not at least attempt to persuade rational people. n nLet's get someone in the Presidency who is capable of DOING something, not someone capable of BEING something. n
'voted "present" for a few years ' n nBut not always. He made an impassioned speech in the Illinois Senate in favor of continuing to let hospitals commit infanticide when a doctor botches an abortion. It was one of his few actual votes.
My favorite summary was: Romney put Obama in a crate on his car while he drove thru the Rocky Mountains for ninety minutes.
When all you have is blaming Bush and class warfare, what's a prez to do?
There was no record to defend yesterday and there will be no record to defend for the next 2 debates. nTherefore trying to kill Romney with lies will be the only tactic. nRomney must watch his back. Dirty tricks may be used against him.
We tend to forget that the natural identity of the Democrats since Gore/Bush is that of “whipped spaniel” looking up with big brown eyes and tucked tail at its dominant master the GOP. Whipped spaniel is the Democrats we know from acquiescence in the Patriot Act, Iraq War, and meek silence until Cheney and sock puppet W socked themselves into insensibility. The demise of the weird “W” plucked the little puppy up, but he was back in evidence last night. One ba
Loved the debate last night, and I'm enjoying the right wing side of politics standing up for itself for once. However, I see President Obama out on the campaign trail, charming the adoring 47% all over again, and there they are, unfailingly slurping his Kool-aid. I sincerely hope that a significant number of Americans start paying attention and make informed choices. Am I hoping for too much? n nLast night's debate and the results are giving me reason to hope. Romney/Ryan 2012.
Obama had a very intensive debate prep in Las Vegas; unfortunately what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas.
It is just possible that the reason Obama did not respond is he is not capable of discussing things at the same level as Mitt Romney. Romney has an exceptional resume and exceptional experience and probably most people cannot compete at his level — including the President of the United States.
It still comes down to Nevada, if you are honest with yourselves you will admit 2 things. 1 Kerry served Bush just as bad in 2004. 2. Romney is no Ronal Regan, its not 1980, and Obama is 5 electoral votes from victory.
Obamas campaign consist of only trashing Romney. Using derogatory tactics against Romney amongst the common people who do not know any better.
Obama didn’t really want to be there because he didn’t see the need. From what I’ve heard, one of Soros entities is involved in the electronic vote counting for the election. The polling is all skewed to give them cover as they steal the election. With no audit trail, whoever loses is probably going to he rather high spirited in their objections.
The overriding focus of all Mr. Obama's work these 4 years has been domestic issues. He's not being bothered to even consider that his projection of weakness on the world stage is inviting the sort of low-skill-level attacks against American embassies and consulates abroad which included the unrequited murders of 4 good Americans in Libya. The next 2 debates will be partly (2) and wholly (3) about foreign policy issues. Obama owns and celebrates the decline in America's stature abroad, yet I doubt that the American electorate share his Kenya-centric view of the world.
There will be–and is already–great pressure on Obama to go in the attack in future debates, and it will be a bad mistake if he does. More than anything else, independents and swing voters like politicians to play nice. Just as they were disturbed to see Obama make faces and show discomposure, they will become even more disturbed if they see the angry demagogue that has been hiding beneath Obama's "calm, cool" demeanor.
I have two theories.1) Obama is actually concerned about where the chips may fall regarding responsibility for the middle east fiasco resulting in the unnecessary deaths of a number of people, that is indeed a heavy burden even to the mighty. 2) He is just a stoner and left his stash at home.
WHAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS IS NOT MORE DEBATES BUT MOREr nJOBS, JOBS, JOBS.AND NOT TAXES, TAXES, TAXES. r nMONEY THROUGH TAXES WILL BE USED FOR FOOD STAMPS, r nENTITLEMENT HAND OUTS AND OTHER VOTE BUYING VENTURES.
nITS OBVIOUS FROM THE DEBATE THAT OBAMA IS SO SELF ABSORBED THAT n HE REALLY THINKS HE WAS ELECTED BECAUSE HE WAS QUALIFED. n
"why didn't Obama talk about the dog on the car roof" nMaybe because Obama had already had dinner.
Please tell me how Mitt is going to grow the economy. What magic button has he invented that only he knows how to use? Its the same thing as McCain saying the he would get Bin Laden, but couldn't tell anyone how he would do it. Mitt Magic grow pills for the economy – must be like that Enzyte commercial, all innuendo and hype. No reality.
Personal attacks in debates are absolutely a mistake. Obama should attack the Republican Party, not Romney personally. Of course, there are plenty of ways Romney can lay right into the Democratic Party, and Romney could still get the better of Obozo.
How about STOPPING some things that we know will kill job creation? n-wasting money on subsidizing non-existent green jobs for cronies who then go bankrupt leaving taxpayetrs holding the bill; n-circumventing the bankruptcy laws in order to benefit UAW members and other donors; n- shutting down investigations into his cronies' misuse of government funds; n- imposing massive job-killing costs — and even more job-killing uncertainty – on the job-creating private sector; n- NLRB abuse of the labor laws, as it attempted to do with Boeing; n- class warfare demagoguery that stirs up the voters but does nothing to spur job creation; n- regulatory abuse by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats that drives up costs and drives jobs offshore.
any business person could tell you what we need to do to grow jobs in the private sector: n-reduce the debt by several trillion n-cut all federal spending by 10% n-fix the social security mismatch – by shifting out benefit eligibility age gradually and by reducing benefits based on income n-lower taxes rates permanently (not through bs one time payroll tax reductions which steal from ss) n-throw out all parts of Obamacare (but keep the children on parent's insurance and keep the restrictions on insurance companies using pre-existing conditons to deny care) n-throw out the $700 Billion stolen from Medicare by Obamacare n-drive down the cost of medical care (by capping malpractice suits and penalizing frivolous lawsuits and by allowing insurance companies to operate and compete in all 50 states, and by allowing drug importation from outside the US) n-stop spending money on fantasy green jobs ($90 billion on Solyndra schemes) n-strongly legalize (and regulate) fracking n-allow the Keystone Pipeline n-stop demonizing business people n-extend the Bush tax cuts across the board by 5 years n-make the treatment of dividends in the Bush tax cuts, permanent n-change the estate tax permanently to a 5% across the board tax, with no exemptions n-grow the economy at 3% annual GDP growth again n nBut most of all, elect someone who believes in America and believes in market forces to improve America. If Romney were elected, job creation would jump from 100,000 per month to 300,000 per month, overnight. GDP growth would go to 3% overnight. Because all of the business people who are on strike right now, would come put America back to work. n n
Economies grow by increasing investment in business and by businesses. In order to grow and economy, you look at all the factors that remove capital FROM business and mitigate and modify them. These factors include, but are not limited to: (a) cost of borrowing, (b) access to debt financing, c) access to capital markets, d) high tax rates, e) unneeded regulations, f) required set-asides (SS, Medicare, Obamacare) etc. n nA and B are currently not a problem. C can be somewhat problematic, but is beyond government's ability to affect — you can't make somebody buy stock who doesn't want to, and you certain don't want the government doing it. D, corporate tax rates, are a major problem; Romney is suggested a flatter code. E has become a growing problem over time, especially under Obama, and Romney suggests that both old and new regulations have to have at least a flat ROI to be considered. And F, of course, is an enormous overhang for our businesses and our economy in general; Romney suggests reform in this area as well. n nThe leftists have adopted a false meme which says "this is all a demand problem." That's short and sweet, but I am unconvinced that Americans want fewer "things" than they did in 2007. They are not buying "things" at the same rate, however, due to the effects of uncertainty in the economy (high unemployment) and the lessened value of their primary investment (their home.) Romney is somewhat limited in what he can do in this area as well, but he CAN address the uncertainty issue by removing Obamacare from the equation while at the same time codifying certain reforms whilst permitting the insurers to manage their risk through product packaging (something that was prohibited, VERY unwisely, by the ACA.) n nHope that helps.
Yea? What lie? Please be specific. n nAnd , how do you think that Obama would respond, if he attacks Romney as such, if Romney asked him to apologize to the values voters that voted for him in 2008 based on his statement of support for DOMA, which he flipped on this year? Oh, what about when Senator Obama voted AGAINST raising the debt ceiling, calling it a moral obligation, just to turn around and accuse the GOP of being anti-American by opposing the same? n nIf he goes after Romney on any ostensible "lie", then he's opened the door to issues of his OWN lack of consistency since his 2008 campaign — and his consistency is NOT GOOD. His supporters use limpwristed terms such as "He evolved" to explain these issues, but the voters will not be so kind when reminded of his jello-like vascillation on major issues, and the question on why HE is permitted to "evolve" while the same actions for the GOP he calls "lies." n nBRING IT ON.