Really? Obama didn't have any answers for how he doubled the debt and at the same time didn't improve the economy. He was asked about the second ammendment and assult riffles and then he talked about teachers instead.

As usual Obama appeared more comfortable shooting off lies about Romney instead of explaining his failed promises or getting into the details of his pleas for a second chance.

The thing that bothered me about the assault rifle debate, was that neither of them addressed the fact that families are struggling with mentally ill family members, such as the shooter in Colorado.

Other than that, MattCBR, Romney seemed full of his own lies, too.

MattCBR - they both lied. Romney lied about searching out women for his cabinet, and Obama lied about why Mexicans are not flooding the borders. As to assault rifles, I think they both ignored the bigger issue, which is NOT about guns, but about letting families struggle with mentally ill members. I don't know the answer to that.

well said - thank you

I'm with you, Stu. Everything I've read over the last 4 years has indicated that Obama has bent over backward to reach across the aisle & compromise with the Republicans to make improvements. But they made a pact in Jan 2009 that they were going to do their best to thwart him at every turn. From Romney, I heard the same old, same old. And that blatant lack of knowledge about Obama's statement in the Rose Garden, the day after the Libyan attacks, was just offensive. Romney is taking cheap shots about the Prez going to "Vegas" as if to catch a few shows, while he is, in reality going to work. Not only does Obama have to do his job being President, he does have to campaign as well. He doesn't have the same amount of leisure time Romney. To me, Romney came across like a cheap, used car salesman. It'll be George Bush all over again. And HE's the one who started this mess. UGH.

Oh so soon you liberals forget. Obama had an unchecked run for the first two years in office, more than time enough to repeal all the "evil" Bush tax cuts, close Gitmo, end both wars immediately, cut taxes for everyone except rich people, and reform nearly every failed sector of government as he promised...

Obama didn't, he passed his trillion dollar stimulus that didn't work and over the entire four years he doubled the debt. Republicans only gained control of the house, not the senate, so many bi-partisan solutions passed the house only to be killed in the senate or on Obama's desk.

I don't know why I waste my time with you, there is clearly no wrong Obama can do to America that'd convince you he's made the Country significantly worse.

Are you kidding? Nancy you obviously have no idea what started this mess. It was actually started in 1998 with a housing bill well before Bush was in office. It amazes me how little liberals know and how they listen to left wing nuts in the media and think it's true. Do you realize that neither you or Stu actually had one fact about what Obama woud do that would be good or one fact about what Romney would do that would be bad? This is exactly the type of information I always believe people on the left must have in order to vote for someone like Obama. Here are some quick facts about Obama's presidency; deficit has almost doubled, gas prices have doubled, real unemployment is up anywhere from 25 to 70^% depending on what all you include, people on food stamps has increased to 47 million, ObamaCare will end up bankrupting this country if it's not changed, companies are already laying people off or cutting down hours to prepare for ObamaCare. The list goes on and on.

MattCBR and Chadwick,
I see that you are very passioned about the election and you definitely don't like Obama. But you cannot make a determination on his presidency by looking at some data points at the end of his 4 years without considering the circumstances when he came into the office.
The stimulus was something that started under Bush's administration and in that point in time I believe Obama didn't have much choice but to continue it. Nobody really liked the Stimulus, neither Democrats or Republicans. But it has to be done to save our economy and numerous jobs in the automotive industry.
Also lets not forget what got us into this recession, it was the deregulation of the previous administration and letting investment banks gamble with investments and unchecked rating agencies that were giving high scores on investments that were crap. I do remember that in August 2008 the price of gas was over 4$. Also the recession kicked off one of the steepest job losses that started in August - September 2008 and continued until 2009. The highest rate of job loss occurred between July 2008 and July 2009. Don't take my word for it, please check it yourself.
As far as Obama care goes, the budget office has concluded that it would cost us more to repeal it than to use the program. It has also slowed the increase in health care costs. You can also check that.
If you would like to share your opinions please do respectfully. We are all reasonable people here that look at facts

Ivo, what actually got us into this recession was the government forcing banks, under threat of lawsuit, to lend to people that couldn't afford to make the mortgage payments. The government said that it was ok, that they would cover the losses via Freddie Mac & Fannie May. This was done under the Clinton administration. GW Bush tried to stop it while president, but couldn't get enough agreement in the aftermath of 9-11.

As for the stimulus, there were 3 separate bills, 2 under the Obama presidency. Either of those could have been stopped.

CBO is obligated to follow “scoring conventions” that, among other things, assume spending cuts in current law won’t be overridden by Congress when the time comes for some favored constituency to feel the pain. Example: the “doc fix,” in which Congress regularly keeps physicians and other providers from being whacked by scheduled cuts in Medicare fees.

In April, Charles Blahous, one of two public trustees for Medicare and Social Security, published a study offering a more realistic estimate of the law’s cost. Blahous found that over the next 10 years, Obamacare would balloon federal deficits by between $340 billion and $530 billion.

A big item is the double-counting of reductions in Medicare spending. This is several hundred billion dollars yanked out of Medicare and shifted to Obamacare.

CBO saw that move as a fiscal gain. If not for that, Blahous wrote, Obamacare “would have been scored as worsening the federal fiscal outlook.”

Here’s the problem. The Medicare spending reductions extended the life of Medicare’s hospital trust fund. As Blahous explained, when you take a dollar from Medicare and use it to pay for something else, the trust fund’s financial position improves.

Medicare can’t spend a dime unless the trust fund has a positive balance. Lower Medicare spending today leaves more in the trust fund to be spent later.

But that money will also be spent on Obamacare. Each $1 in Medicare sent to Obamacare sets up $2 in overall federal spending. Obamacare “expands the spending authority of Medicare in ways not accounted for under the scoring conventions that show positive budgetary effects of the legislation,” Blahous wrote.

The biggest single expense will be the health care exchanges, estimated to cost nearly $780 billion over 10 years. Recipients will get both tax credits for premium costs and cost-sharing subsidies for out-of-pocket expenses.

This will create an incentive for companies to drop coverage and pay the required tax. CBO foresaw only a relatively minor shift from employer-sponsored policies to the subsidized exchanges, but it admits it has no clear idea how many people would be affected. Estimates by private consultants are much higher. If they’re right, costs would explode as more people migrate to the exchanges.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/10/15/3599789/sorry-but-obamacare-is-still-a.html#storylink=cpy

A comment was deleted for violating Patch's terms of use (http://southwestminneapolis.patch.com/terms) banning comments that are "defamatory, abusive, obscene, profane or offensive."

+1 To Chad, it's amazing how facts about the last four years can clear up the apparent confusion that we are in fact significantly worse off now than we were four years ago.

Now for logic. I Obama couldn't explain why his 2008 plan to "cut the deficet in half" by taxing and spending for the last four years not only didn't work, it made the economy worse... does spending your way out of debt work? Any keynesians want to explain ROFL!?

Honestly, how long can you blame Bush? Yes, he was a big spending, big government, fake republican who had a democrat controlled congress the last couple years of his term that didn't help. It's Obama's fault he not only followed his failed Stimulus and bailout mania plans, he doubled down on them!

Seriously, how long are you (democrats) going to make excuses for Obama? Conservatives have LONG ago stopped defending Bush.

Matt and Chadwick, do you think you could state your positions without being insulting? Please. In three weeks, the election is over and we all have to live with each other.

What are you talking about Michelle? the worst name we broke out was liberal and a comment about left wing nuts. "Liberal" is something democrats take pride in... just like Republicans don't mind being called conservative.

What you're really doing is trying to distract from the subject of Obama's failed first term. Again, How long will you continue to make excuses for Obama? Between Chad, Ivo, and I we've explained Obama was NOT set up to fail, he doubled down on them!

This -> http://www.businessinsider.com/consumer-comeback-2012-10?utm_source=twbutton&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=moneygame

Carbon: That program, CRA, which "forced" lenders to lend to low-income, not people who couldn't afford to pay back their mortgages, has one of the lowest default rates of any mortgage program. What led to this problem is the Wall Street banks and their greed. They kept creating riskier and riskier ways to get people into mortgages so they could slice them and dice them into Credit Defaults and other Collateralized Debt vehicles. Remember the Interest-Only mortgages and the No Income, No Job mortgages. With those kind of mortgage vehicles, the Greedy Wall Street banks were betting that people would lose their homes and the bank could turn around and sell it for a profit because housing prices were going up by 10, 12, 18 and 20% in some areas of the country.

Thats two idiots in a row You & Nancy, Get a life

Grasping at straws won't change the results. When Romney got called on politicizing the deaths of Americans, the results were clear. One person looked presidential and the other looked petty. Accept the truth...

What's the difference between 'act of terror' and 'acts of terror' one is plural???
To me they are the same thing and what Romney was trying to say is that the president did not call it a terrorist act. (act done by terrorists and not a consequence of a protest). Romney was right about that, but he didn't get the words right and that is why Crowley corrected him and made him look bad.
He wasn't wrong he just didn't say it right

I guess I don't get why it was a big deal. People died. Didn't matter if it was an act of terror or not.

Why must those of you who hate President Obama continue to refer to him by "cute" little nicknames that only expose you as bigots and haters. I believe if you fact check the entire debate, the truth will tell that Romney cannot be consistent in his opinions and his "facts" are far from true. The "fact" that the president had 2 years of a democratic congress to push through everything he wanted is not true. Democrats do NOT vote in lockstep as the Republicans do, and he (Obama) was up against a party whose PRIMARY goal was to defeat him in 2012, not do what was best for the country. Facts are facts, and cannot be reinterpreted to fit your agenda.

Thank God Democrats don't vote in lock step, I guess not all of them are socialists (yet). Soon though, like France and other European Countries the democrat party will split and create a powerful socialist party that'll exchange handouts for votes and win elections in landslides (Greece anyone?... the "Panhellenic Socialist" has been in control since 2005).

Like Reagan said, "I didn't leave the democrat party, the democrat party left me."

Correction there big boy - the president mentioned terrorism in the abstract and not directly referring to the attack in Benghazi as an act of terror. To me, it appears that you have other things you should be worried about and not who won the debate.

Fact checkers this morning have shown that Romney was correct about Obama's response.

Romney tried to give specifics about his plans and Obama mostly tried to change the subject.

While Obama did far better than the first debate, he didn't win this one.

You may not be able to fix it in one term, but a lot can be done to make it worse. Regarding the debate itself, references to another candidates statements should be quoted verbatim to the end. Too many times they are twisted, rebutted, and very few will do the research to see who is truthful. Bottom line we are worse off now. Listening to Obama is like rewinding 08 campaign speeches. He is making the same promises as before. If he was your employee would you fire him, or give him a raise?

I agree 100%

Ann, I'm pretty sure Romney said he supports flexible working hours for women so they can get home and cook dinner...

Oh Simon, did your small mans disease flare up again?

The critical fact you are missing Ann Martin is that the republicans used a record number of filibusters during those two years (which isn't really two years as they aren't in session all the time and even when they are in session it's about 3.5 days a week) which meant nothing could proceed.

"Trickle Down Government." Buzzword created by the Department of Redundancy Department.

Regarding #1 - - In 2008, when Obama was a candidate, he said the high gas prices (not as high as they are now) were a result of President Bush's failed energy policy. And did I hear Obama say last night that the low prices when he took over (~$1.85) were because the economy was stalled? Anybody else hear that? Really? a stalled economy leads to lower gas prices? Never heard that one before. Did the national media pick up on this one the same way they picked up on Romney's mention of Obama's words the day after Libya? Shocked. If high gas prices in 2008 are a sign of a failed energy policy, what are they a sign of now? He doesn't seem to notice, does he? This President thinks we are greedy and wants us to share in the misery of lesser developed countries.

Isn't it funny to listen to Obama and Biden talk like they haven't been in office the past four years? They apparently weren't informed they were actually IN CHARGE the past four years. And regarding the bipartisanship, Obama said he was above it. He could make the two sides work together. He knew how to do it. Regardless of who is stonewalling whom, he hasn't done it. He doesn't know how to do it. If a company is failing consistently, the CEO has to go. She can't continually blame it on a division in her management. Let's be done with this CEO so we can move on. He doesn't have what it takes. We need a real CEO, not an organizer,

"did I hear Obama say last night that the low prices when he took over (~$1.85) were because the economy was stalled?"

Yes. Prices collapse when demand is cut. High unemployment means people use less gas in their cars (when you aren't going to work you don't drive as much, and when you have to live on less money you drive less to spend less). Supply-demand curve, this is Econ 101 stuff. Prices go down when demand goes down because supply is greater, competition is greater for fewer buyers, etc. This is how capitalism works. Housing prices collapsed during the great recession as well when the economy was stalled (and people can't afford to buy them), as did other prices in key sectors.
This is called deflation.

When the economy heats up, and more people are employed we get inflation, and prices going higher. More money chasing after the goods. Less money chasing after the goods creates deflation (lower prices).

On energy: Obama often touts a renewable enrgy source that is clean, instantly available, abundant. If is called "energy efficiency". How do we get it? Through smart grids, higher MPG cars, more efficient appliances like energy saving boilers, refrigerators, air conditioners, light bulbs. Subtracting demand through efficiency is MUCH less expensive, less destructive to the environment, and time/labor intensive than adding new supply through drilling or power plants. A McKinsey & Co. study found that efficiency alone can cut our energy demand 20 percent by 2020, which could cut our coal use in half. Perhaps this is what Obama was referring to when he jokingly said he could bankrupt the coal companies. This is actually a good thing, because he often says "the cheapest, cleanest, fastest energy resources" is efficiency. The cheapest power plant is the one we don't have to build.

Efficiency isn't as sexy as "drill-baby-drill", but it appeals to Obama's sense of logic. The cheapest fuel is the fuel we don't need to buy at all.

That's what he's saying when he makes these statements.

I agree with you that those debates are about appearance, but that is why I do not like the townhall settings. You throw some people together that obviously have not paid much attention to politics hence - undecided, and you expect them to ask good questions?
You end up with: What would you do to decrease the gas prices? and Who denied security to the embassy in Benghazi?
Obviously asked from people who don't have any idea how government works. I think that was a missed opportunity to ask questions that could get more specifics out of the candidates and show their position on other issues

" His shovel ready jobs were a lie"

Your statement here is a lie. Highway 5 was fixed under Obama's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Horrible accidents on that highway took many lives before the fix. No one has died on that highway since the reconstruction of it. Local lives have been saved. Thank you, President Obama.

I should revise this to say, "on the stretch of highway 5 that has been fixed." There was a recent accident that took a young life on a piece that wasn't rebuilt.

You mean the businessman who built Bain? No thanks.

Excuse me? unwilling to "man up" about taxes? Mitt Romney paid $2 million in taxes last year, what can you possibly mean by your comment? And name me a successful large business that does not outsource jobs? When foreign corporate tax rates are half of ours (ours is 35%), Romney would have been fired by every board of directors had he NOT outsourced. What is so complicated about this? Businesses need to make money so they can hire people and grow. Are you familiar with all the companies that refuse to outsource so they can willingly pay higher tax rates? Where are they? You're suggesting a sense of patriotism should have made Romney end all outsourcing from his businesses so he could pay higher taxes? Strange.

Romney knows why businesses outsource jobs. Obama has no clue and frankly doesn't care. A man who has almost no private-sector experience, who surrounds himself with like-minded individuals, will NOT energize an economy. He's proven it. If he had a clue of how to do it and had some intent to do it, he would've acted during his first two years when he had control of the Senate and the House. He refused. He doesn't WANT to improve the business climate, despite his rhetoric. I can't believe how people continue to be snowed by this fraud. Let a man who knows how to run a business be in charge of building a business environment.

Wealth and offshore accounts didn't seem to be a problem when John Kerry was running for the office.

I believe that PATRIOTISM is more than waving the flag. We should be talking about ECONOMIC patriotism- buy America, keep your company in America, pay your fair share of American taxes without trying to wiggle out of that responsibility. Successful American companies benefit from so much of what our taxes pay for: roads, schools to educate workers, defense, etc. Why, then, when they become successful does everyone think it is OK to ship jobs overseas to save a buck? I say shame on you if you have benefitted from this. If you are an American, be one all the way- don't hide money offshore, pay accountants exorbitant dollars so you don't have to pay as much in taxes, move your company to countries that exploit their workers! Just compare the growth in income over the last 3 1/2 years of those at the very top- it has EXPLODED! Greed keeps them spending millions to get tax policies that they can benefit from. And Romney is their man!

You're suggesting a sense of patriotism should have made Romney end all outsourcing from his businesses so he could pay higher taxes? Strange. YES! You say, Forrest, that Romney SHOULDN'T have felt a sense of patriotism? Well, that's all well and good - but he wants to be PRESIDENT!

Men and Women are DYING for this country. But the person who is running for President is too smart for this?

Kathleen, Obama is a millionare, like Romney asked 3 times in a row... Obama surely has "investments" in China and overseas in his diversified accounts.

Let's talk about WHY jobs are being sent over seas... could it be that corporate taxes are litterally half or less outside the US? 35% here and just 15% in Canada. Canada is basically a socialist country but even they understand "taxing the rich" only goes so far before the rich move away and take their companies with them.... it's a common sense balance Europe found out the hard way.

Just look at history and other countries... East vs West berlin before the wall fell... North vs South Korea, China vs Japan, Russia, over and over the countries with the smaller less intrussive governments that tax the least FAR outpace their close neighbors.

LOL Russia had so much tax fraud they ditched their complicated tax and beurocratic red tape system for a flat tax. Rich people paid their "fair share" and revenue to the government over doubled! But that'll never happen from Obama just look at the grocery list of bankers and corporations who donate to him LOL.

Really? And I suppose you believe all Baptist Christians are black people who sit at home on welfare and eat fried chicken?

Matt -- I know many Mormons, and they all subscribe to the same belief that women should not work, and they should marry and have kids and stay at home, even if it means financial hardship for the family.

Baptists? No, I've never read that their religion indoctrinates them on eating chicken or welfare. I know some hard working Baptists.

I was calling you out for being racist for assuming every single mormon is like the rest. I was making fun of your logic by given you an over the top example of racism... much like your racist assumption mormons are all woman haters.

Do "all" mormons really look down on women like you say?

Cut taxes and make them less complicated. Less taxes and less deductions (some call them loopholes), so taxes are fairer across the board. Romney's idea of a maximum deduction limit for healthcare/mortgage/etc. is a great idea. People are making a big deal about losing the mortgage interest deduction, but with the current low interest rates, the deduction doesn't amount to much anyway.

Another idea is to cut the cost of energy. Obama has said that he would like to bankrupt coal plants, and raise the cost of energy.

You can't punish companies for having their manufacturing in the most cost-efficient location. We need to make the US more competitive by lowering the cost of doing business here.

Good question Ivo, and though I have alot of ideas about that, I believe the single best way to fix these large problems in this country is to start with campaign finance reform. Our elected officials are not working for the best interest of taxpayers. They are in the back pockets of the special interest groups that finance their campaigns. Big Oil, Big Business, Big Banks, Big Unions are really in control in Washington and at the state level. We should eliminate all large political donations and get our government working for the good of the country, not for the good of the rich donors. On that level playing field, partisan politics will diminish. In my eyes, giving money to politicians for favorable legislation is a treasonous act and should be prosecutable as a crime against the general public.

Carbon Bigfuut,
The president does not pass laws. So the ideas that you mentioned, which I do think are good ideas is not something a president can do. Laws are passed by congress.
How does a president cuts the cost of energy? Either subsidizes it or tells company what to charge. Either way that is not a good idea.
Also could you give us a deference, where Obama said that? It seems like a very crazy thing for anyone to say.

Ivo, you're right on the crazy part. Here's some links:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-warned-his-policies-would-bankrupt-coal-power-plant-owners_644384.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/02/obama-well-bankrupt-any-new-coal-plants/

http://voices.yahoo.com/barack-obama-bankrupt-coal-plants-2149160.html

Good question, Ivo. Forget the Clinton years, which everybody seems fixated on. Because the fact is, people relied too much on credit. Look at the fifties: unions ruled, which meant the middle class had more expendable income. They spent the income, rather than hoarding it or saving it, like is happening with CEOs and shareholders now, and that income went back into the economy. Also, we didn't have a huge military expenditure, except for the Korean war.

I would study the fifties. Unions were strong, so the middle class had money to put back into the economy. Money wasn't hidden away in off-shore bank accounts by the rich. It was put back into the economy.

That's not communism OR socialism. That's real capitalism.

Obama's actions speak loudest. The American Recovery and Reinvestment act has "fixed" a lot of things, many in your own neighborhood. I can drive down Hwy 5 and not get killed today because of the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, for example.

Your statement about him not fixing things couldn't be further from the truth. The US auto industry was saved from collapse under Obama.

Do some reading. Reinvestment and recovery Act. Healthcare reform. Tax cuts for the middle class. The list of his achievements goes on and on. We were nearly in a depression when he took office. Bold action limited the recession (severe as it is) and saved jobs. It could have been much, much worse.

GMC, your reply to the above question on what you would do if you were president is very reminiscint of Romney's replies when asked the same, no specifics at all and pretty much evading the question entirely, just spouting off about something else.

Obama showed no plans for the future. He tried to justify his lack of accomplishments in the last 4 years by blaming others.

Uhh... Bane was a Batman villian long before Romney was a household name. He appeared in one of those George Clooney Batman movies and in comic books long before that. So, to answer your question of if it was accidental, of course not. It has no correlation whatsover. You have been brainwashed by Fox News.

I think that the ID of "Jim Bob," pretty much tells you how much critical thinking is likely to ever happen in this person's head.

Watts, nothing like a little adhomey attack to make you flacid point.

We know Romney and his greedy gang of capitalists have rigged the 2012 election so that big corporations, oil companies, Republicans, George Soros, Gwen Eyeful, white men, SUV owners, the Christian Coalition, and gun owners could conquer ACORN’s minorities. Romney will lower taxes so that big corporations, oil companies, and Republicans can oppress welfare recipients by eliminating the minimum wage and enacting Agenda 21.

Remember it was Romney who said, “"I think it's time we had a national conversation about communism. We need to get past all the tax talk and recognize that we are our own best hope for is building a bigger military and eliminating the social safety net. People need to learn that success is not something that is handed to you. You have to earn it the hard way like I did.”

"People need to learn that success is not something that is handed to you. You have to earn it the hard way like I did."

That's so funny. Romney was born on third base and he thought he hit a triple.

Edward, I don't believe Romney was actually born on third base. That would be rather messy and very slippery for the next one rounding third. I believe he was allowed to walk freely to third base without fear of being tagged out. The burning questions did he walk directly from home to third or did he have to touch first and second.

Once we determine this we can dig into why leftist Al Qaeda conspirators who control the US Senate are conspiring to put us in gay reeducation camps where sodomites then push their extremist agenda calling for the banning of FOX News. This of course is coming right out of the Hitler playbook. The ACORN elites infesting our government are copying from Mein Kampf chapter and verse so they can force us out of our homes and us live on hippie communes. Rumor has it that they want to replace the American flag with a rainbow flag.

How will voter ID solve THIS problem?

http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2012/10/virginia-gop-caught-destroying-voter-registration-forms.html

Everyone knows that George Soros is the front man for Agenda 21 bureaucrats who don’t want you to know that their real plan is to use stem cell research to clones even more greedy Wall Street hedge brokers who will spend their college years dating pinko vegans while wearing Che Guevara t-shirts. We know that Soros is using ACORN to bind and shackle all white people. That’s how reverse racism works, which is why we must enslave them before they enslave us. It’s not Soros but rather the Koch brothers who are working on their agenda to create alien-human hybrids that will vote Republication in all future elections.

Ben, I hope that answers your question.

obamacare? for the middle class?!??!??! bwahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahaahaahahahahahahaahahahaha

ya right...

Obama care is benefitting my middle class family as I write this. Nothing funny about it . . .

People with pre-existing conditions exist in all economic classes (including the middle), and they need protection from being cut from insurance. Obamacare gives them peace of mind and ability to get healthcare when they need it.

Just to clarify, when I write Obamacare I mean the Patient Protection/Affordable Care Act.

facepalm....
so the ONE thing that could possibly benifit the so called "middle class"....
ever look at the other 99% of that pile of garbage called "oblamacare"?

Yes, I have studied it, and there is MUCH to benefit ALL classes in society. I'm now able to keep my kids on my insurance policy until they turn 26 (and I'm using that feature right now). It is saving this middle class family many thousands of dollars this year alone.

Another key feature is digital medical records. Doctors will make fewer errors and it will reduce redundant tests (often the same test is given twice when one doctor can't access test results from an order given by another doctor). This will save the entire system a LOT of money, reduce errors, and ultimately save lives.

Another key feature is the comparative effectiveness studies that will also save money and create better health outcomes for EVERYONE, regardless of economic class.

These key features of Obamacare are SO GOOD THAT ROMNEY HAS PROMISED TO KEEP THEM!

I'm not kidding. Obamacare was modelled after Romneycare - the individual mandate is THE SAME!

Go figure. Something that both candidates agree on . . .

Jean, are you referring to the 0 democratic votes that he got in the senate for his budget proposals - two different times? Is that your example of "some Democrats won't vote with him"?

Actually, the Dems only held a super majority for 6 months at the most. Al Franken wasn't sworn in until July 2009, Ted Kennedy died in August 2009 and Scott Brown was sworn in January 2010. In 2009-2010 there were a record number of filibusters in the US Senate.

The reason there were 0 Democrats voting for his budget was that it was a protest about the Republican tactics in forcing it to the floor and Republican amendments that were attached to it.

Obama gets 0 votes from Democrats on his own budget proposal, and John says: "...it was a protest about the Republican tactics..."

Come on, John. Is that the best you can do?

Blame the moderator for a poor performance. Pretty lame. The Libya issue wasn't the only issue that Governor Romney was schooled in last night.

Don't forget Obama had 9% more time.

She is CLEARLY a liberal, that's who hosts all the debates. Conservative have been screaming for the republicans to boycott their debates or in exchange have a conservative group like the league of small business owners host the second debate.... you wouldn't get set up questions about AK-47s, woman's equal pay, and other "independents" to feed Obama easy questions.

But it'd look bad if Romney didn't show up or even mentioned the obvious bias of liberal moderators.

All things considered Romney didn't do bad... read the polls most except liberal sites like ABC have Romney as the winner....

MattCBR, it's not surprising to me that conservative groups are asking people to boycott debates. Maybe you need to ask yourself why. I'm thinking ... they don't trust the intelligence of their own constituency.

Here is an earlier post from me:
Its nice to pick out one poll that favors your wishes (i,e,: Gallup) but here are the Real Clear Politics Polling averages. No Bias, just an average of all the major polls (including the beloved FOX poll);

Poll Date Sample MoE (R) (D) Spread
RCP Average 10/7 - 10/16 -- -- 47.4 47 Romney +0.4
Rasmussen Tracking 10/14 - 10/16 1500 LV 3.0 49 48 Romney +1
Gallup Tracking 10/10 - 10/16 2700 LV 2.0 51 45 Romney +6
IBD/TIPP Tracking 10/11 - 10/16 931 LV 3.5 45 47 Obama +2
ABC News/Wash Post 10/10 - 10/13 923 LV 3.5 46 49 Obama +3
Politico/GWU/Battleground 10/7 - 10/11 1000 LV 3.1 48 49 Obama +1
Monmouth/SurveyUSA/Braun 10/8 - 10/10 1360 LV 2.7 47 46 Romney +1
FOX News 10/7 - 10/9 1109 LV 3.0 46 45 Romney +1

Don't get too excited by one day's poll.

Look at the President's facial expression and hear his words; "Governor please proceed" He did and made a fool of himself. Even so, like I said, the Libya issue wasn't the only issue that Governor Romney was schooled in last night.

What's more exciting: likely voters' opinions of who's doing -- or who will do -- a better job addressing hot-button election concerns.

From a CNN (no friend of conservatives it) poll taken shortly after the debate:

Romney had a 58-40 edge on the issue of economics/who had the best plan for righting our economic ship.

Additionally Romney had the edge in the following 3 key areas:

• Taxes 51-44

• Solving budget deficit 59-36

• Healthcare 49-46

Didaskalos, different poll, different results!

Obama beats Romney in most of latest ABC News/Washington Post Poll:

Obama better understands economic problems, 51 percent vs. 40 percent Romney:

Obama better in handling unexpected major crisis, 52 percent vs. 40 percent Romney.

Obama is viewed as the stronger leader, 59 percent vs. 45 percent.

Obama is viewed as more honest and trustworthy, 56 percent vs. 45 percent.

Obama is viewed as caring most for the middle class, 68 percent vs. 31 percent Romney.

Obama is viewed to better handle Medicare, 53 percent to 38 percent Romney.

Obama is viewed to better handle taxes, 49 percent vs. 45 percent Romney.

Romney is viewed as caring most for the wealthy, 58 percent vs. Obama, 17 percent

Romney is viewed as not providing enough details for his planned policies, 63 percent vs. 53 percent Obama.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/postabc-poll-finds-obama-romney-virtual/2012/10/14/afd40b36-167c-11e2-a346-f24efc680b8d_page.html

wow....spew GARBAGE much?

yomammy,

Your posts have no substance. A lot of gassing but no facts. I learn NOTHING from your posts.

Mark, you seem kind of emotional. Calm down a bit. I want to address your points one by one.

"Romney opposed the equal pay for equal work act (Lily Ledbetter Act) for women."
Romney is against the government telling private businesses what they have to pay their workers. In a free country, that is not the purview of the government, and Romney recognizes that. His opposition has nothing to do with women.

Romney favors the Blunt Amendment that would deny contraception coverage for women." Romney is against the government telling private insurance companies what they should and shouldn't cover in an insurance product they sell to consumers. Again, in a free country, that is also not the purview of the government. It, too has nothing to do with women. Contraceptives are products that are needed, in most cases, because of private recreational activities. Why should anyone else pay for what someone needs due to private recreational activities?

To be continued...

"Romney favors a “personhood” constitutional amendment that would define “life” as beginning at contraception, and could make abortion illegal. When asked to clarify his support, he answered, “Absolutely.” Why is this anti-women? Are there no girls that get aborted? He believes that abortion is murder, so of course he supports this. And human fetuses are human, but to say that they do not have "personhood" is a slippery slope. That logic has been used to justify slavery, Nazism, and many other genocides and evil acts throughout history. Africans were human, but did not have legal personhood. The same for Jews in Europe. They didn't have personhood according to the Nazis. You need to be careful when defining nonperson humans. His opposition to abortion is about protecting human life, not oppressing women.

Oh, and my wife is voting for Romney. She must be anti-women too. Just like all the conservative African Americans are "race-traitors".

Ryan, in the VP debate, said that he supports abortion in cases of rape, incest, or threat to life of the mother. I'm guessing that would be Romney's new position, too. How does that square with this "personhood" constitutional amendment?

Show your work.

In the Wall Street Journal today (10/18):

"Gallup reported on Sept. 9 that only 30% of the public is “satisfied” with the condition of the country. The Oct. 13 Washington Post/ABC poll found that 56% think the country is “off on the wrong track.” The rates of unemployment, second-quarter GDP growth and labor-force participation are all worse than they were three weeks before any modern presidential re-election. Mr. Obama’s status-quo, stay-the-course campaign will be a hard sell with a public that wants change.

"That’s reflected in polling data. Mr. Obama led 49.1% to 45% in an average of national polls conducted about one week before the candidates’ first debate. In national surveys taken since then, Mr. Romney averages 47.4% to Mr. Obama’s 46.9%. The Republican candidate continues to lead among independent voters. In eight recent national polls, an average 49% of the likely independent voters say they support Mr. Romney, while 37% favor Mr. Obama.

"On Monday Mr. Romney reached 50% in Gallup’s daily tracking of likely voters [he's up 52-45 today]—something Mr. Obama has not yet been able to do. No other presidential candidate has been at 50% or higher at this point in the race in this survey and lost."

Will Pres. Obama be the first president to break that precedent? I say, don't bet the mortgage on it.

lol, Women in the Obama administration make 18% less than males!

oh and just because someone posts something on a blog doesn't mean that it's true;)

This.

Nick well said. We will see what happens Monday night. The news is trying to keep the Libya deaths low key, but is isn't going to work. When Pres. Obama goes on John Stewart & says the deaths of these four great Americans is Optimal, that hits below the belt. It was just something that got in the way of his Campaigning. That is just one issue of his Foreign policy that isn't working.

Doreen Machin, in regard to the John Stewart interview, you're twisting things a bit. But I invite people to watch the interview themselves, to make up their own minds. Google John Stewart/Obama or whichever way you want to go. It's out there.

Congress' approval rating isn't exactly soaring, is it?

I could envision a few other things to talk about for the next three weeks, but it'll be hard, especially when Romney just forged into his first lead in the RCP electoral college map today.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html

The "Detroit auto bailout" was Bush's policy. Obama only continued it. The bail out check from the federal government was for $14.8 billion, dated December 12, 2008, and had George W. Bush's signature on it.

Bushes fault....even if continued by the next president...

There is plenty to be critical about Obama, but in this case it was good policy that saved thousands of US jobs while all of the bailout money was paid back.

The point of the expose is the Romneys close association with the slime bag Paul Singer whose extortionist actions have been made illegal nearly everywhere but in the US. His money making ways are contrary to the Romney rhetoric.

Yep and the $700 billion dollar wallstreet bailout had Obama's signature on it... ROFL!

Indeed, as I said there is plenty of real issues to criticize Obama on. How about the current open-ended $40 billion a month of quantitative easing by the Fed who purchasing mortgage debt - http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-13/fed-plans-to-buy-40-billion-in-mortgage-securities-each-month.html.

It is amazing to me how folks are sucked into a pissing match between the "differences" between the two party duopoly, when in reality they are just different sides of the same coin. You must vote for one of the two because if the other guy gets in the sky will fall, and nobody else can possibly win.

Voting for either of the two is just an endorsement for the status-quot of a failed system. This seemingly never ending cycle needs to be broken.

Vote third party.
Support disclosure of political contributions, PACs, and Super PACs.
Support a Constitutional Amendment to effectively reverse the Citizens United decision and eliminate corporate person-hood.

Yes, because voting third party always works. Just like it worked so well for the tree huggers in 2000 with Ralph Nader.

Why do you think the Tea Party is not a new political party? Because they are smart enough to know that if you want to change things, you do it from the inside. They're changing the Republican Party from the inside. Something the Libertarians have not been able to accomplish.

Right, Nick, just like it didn't work for Jesse Ventura....oh wait, it did.

The more back and forth we have the more I am inclined to believe that Markus, and even Rich here, might have a better idea. The problem is that I don't know that I buy into the Libertarian party either. I truly believe it is going to be something different. I hope that there will be some smart people coming forward, with the necessary financial backing that will get the country back on track. The problem is that is seems the extremes still define what "the right track" is...

Sorry, the tea party is a complete disaster that is turning into a joke! Extremes will no longer work in this country for the average American and the sooner those on the extreme edges understand this, the sooner we will get back on track.

Jesse Ventura was a novelty governor. He got elected for that reason only, just like Arnold Schwarzenegger. If he were anyone else, the "third party" thing would not have worked.

And according to most people I have talked to on Ventura, he taught them a lesson, not to be immature about your voting preferences. Unfortunately, and this is the part many people don't like, the reality is that with elections is that you nearly always choose what is the least bad. It takes a thinking adult to do that, and many people vote based on their emotions, rather than their heads. Voting third party is emotional, not logical. Protest votes don't do anything.

And the Tea Party is not a disaster or a joke. They are simply portrayed as such by the liberal main-stream media. They are anything but a joke. Have you ever been to a Tea Party rally? It is quite uplifting, and they are the nicest people you would ever want to meet. They are just grandparents, parents, children, single people, couples, friends and neighbors from all walks of life who love their country.

And they are winning elections and changing the Republican Party from the inside. If they win a majority, gone are the corporate loopholes that allow GE to pay no taxes, gone is corporate welfare and big-business bailouts, gone are the Republicans who cut taxes just to borrow more and sink us deeper. I don't think that's extreme. I think it's right.

Third parties have been successful. The Republican Party started as a third party.

The only reason the Tea Party has been successful at all is because of the people with big money that co-opted it at its inception.

Filmmaker Taki Oldham from Australia investigated them in 2010 culminating in the film "Billionaires' Teaparty: How corporate America is faking a revolution" (http://www.billionairesteaparty.com). The film is no longer free but there is a synopsis on the site (http://www.billionairesteaparty.com/about/synopsis/) and you can download a transcript at http://www.billionairesteaparty.com/TBTP-storage/The_Billionaires%27_Tea_Party-Transcript_300411.pdf

Once again the Koch bothers, Americans For Prosperity, and Freedomworks, among others, have duped ordinary folks.

Personally I don't follow Fox news because it isn't, but in this case one of their analysts Judge Napolitano just about got it right. Read his "What if Elections don't Matter" commentary on the two party system at http://www.creators.com/opinion/judge-napolitano/what-if-elections-don-t-matter.html or watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BR0KnWnves

I'm voting for a third party candidate not as a protest, but because their platform is the closest match to my stance on the issues.

Nick wrote: "They are simply portrayed as such by the liberal main-stream media."

Nick, I have a question that is off topic, but something I have thought about recently. Why do you think the main (lame)-stream media is liberal? I am not saying they are not, but I wonder why they are. Do they get some benefit from leaning left, or do you think that maybe they may actually agree that it is the better path?

Susan, I think that the media has become liberal for several reasons. One being personality types of people who want to become journalists. The same personality traits that lead you to be liberal may also lead you to become a journalist.

Another is college. College journalism professors are almost all liberals. They influence young journalism students, indoctrinating them with liberal ideas. Conservative students would not feel welcome in an environment where the professors and other students are constantly pushing ideas they don't agree with and they would likely drop out of journalism and choose a different path, where they fit in better. Journalism is not like the natural sciences; it is very subjective, and the opinions of the professors would strongly influence the classroom atmosphere and how the curriculum is presented.

Once a liberal journalism student gets a job and is surrounded by other liberals in his or her work environment, such a person would have to be incredibly independent-minded to try to look at things differently. And to do that may come at great personal and professional cost. There would simply be no motivation to consider conservative views.

"The majority of the Tea party people I have met..have one concern..Obama is black.."

You seem to have 3 random thoughts there. You have met a majority of the people in the Tea Party? In just this area, the whole state, or the country?

Who has one concern? You?

Obama is black. Actually, he's half black and half white, which is generally known as "Mulatto".

I have met only one person who didn't like the fact that Obama was black, and he's not associated with any Tea Party groups at all. None of the criticism for Obama that I have ever heard had anything to do with his race. It's his policies and his behavior and the way he makes us look to the rest of the world.

There may be a relatively large number of people who don't like the fact that Obama was elected because he was black. That isn't the same as disliking him because he is black, and doesn't make that person a bigot.

@Carbon
What then does it make the "people who don't like the fact that Obama was elected because he was black"? Just people with everyday normal non racially motivated opinions? Are you for real?

Yes, I'm for real. People voting for Obama just because he is black is an example of racism, and most people dislike racism.

And "people who don't like the fact that Obama was elected because he was black" aren't racists?

Being popular and being respected as a strong leader are quite different. I don't want a President Kardashian, or a President Hilton. I want a leader. Often, that is at odds with being popular in Europe, of all places.

Frederick, you wrote, "It would seem to me that true libertarians and persons wanting less government would be opposed to both amendments."

Libertarians ARE opposed to the marriage amendment, but generally not the Voter ID amendment. Libertarians are not representative of the GOP in general. In fact, they are liberal on both social and defense issues. The only place that a Conservative crosses paths with a Libertarian is on fiscal and economic issues.

You seem to be equating Conservatism with Libertarianism, which is a distinct misconception on your part.

Nick--I was thinking of fiscal conservatism on the cost of the voter id amendment.

This year both my neighbor and myself have had Obama signs stolen. This is the third year in a row that I have had signs stolen from my yard. Back off on painting this as a "righteous liberal" thing and call it for what it is, the actions moronic idiots who can't accept that someone has a different stance their own.

guy davidson, sorry about your sign. I'm sorry about people on both sides of the issue who can't accept that people might have another point of view, because that leads to the fact that they can't accept that they live in a democracy. And that's scary. Stealing political signs is a felony, and I strongly urge anybody who is doing it, to stop. And talk to your kids to make sure they aren't doing it, either. Felonies are not something anybody wants on their record; it means you can't live where you want and you can't vote and your job choices are limited. I suspect the reason the police don't arrest people over it is out of mercy. That's a huge consequence for one stupid, useless act.

My Obama sign went missing too, after someone threw flip flops at it (kind of amusing, they ended up under the sign in my yard). The irony is that Romney is the bigger flip flopper (has changed positions on abortion, individual mandate on healthcare, etc).

"Michael Brodkorb explained why Republicans are supporting the amendments..They want to get their Tea Party base (which consists of Homophobics, and Bigots ) out to vote."

Do you have any idea how intolerant and ignorant you sound? What do you know about the Tea Party? What you heard on MSNBC? You think that's accurate? Why don't you go to a Tea Party rally and then revise your ignorant statement.

The amendments are to get their base out. This is a tough year for Republicans in Minnesota (top of ticket is weak -- Klobuchar had the race before it even began), and they needed a rocket booster that the amendments give them with their base. It also gets outside groups involved and spending money (which they don't have, thanks to Tony Sutton's fiscal mismanagement) to get out their vote. They badly needed that this year since the MN GOP can't even pay their rent.

I think Gus might be on to something. Poor people needed them but couldn't afford to buy their own. We wouldn't want to disenfranchise people who can't afford to purchase Obama signs from the campaign, would we?