Debbie,

This was kind of thoughtful debate we should have. The more boring, the better! If people can’t intelligently discuss issues, then we’re not blessed to live in the greatest country on earth.

Mitt Happens may get a lift out of it if only because he reminded people about the bad economy, etc. He’s a decent nitwit. And he probably helped himself tonight just when people thought his campaign was about to run off the rails altogether.

Obama is vulnerable but he’s still far from beaten and the odds still favor his re-election.

As for the stupid people, they won’t vote anyway. Any one who can’t follow arguments shouldn’t be allowed to vote and I might add its it would probably be a great idea to bring back the literacy test. A democracy needs an informed electorate.

NormanF on October 4, 2012 at 12:14 am

I have a feeling that Obama’s crowd may overreact to this debate, and do some foolish things. The Mormon card has not really been used yet.

Worry01 on October 4, 2012 at 12:19 am

As with football, people only care who won, not whether the winner was playing an inverted cover 2 or some other defensive scheme. No one knows the football details, and no one knows anything about Simpson-Bowles. They only know Romney won and looked “presidential.”

The truth is, the race all comes down a couple hundred thousand votes in a few counties in Ohio, because without those it’ll be Obama for sure. Romney can win Virginia and Florida, but without Ohio he’s probably sunk.

The little-know fact is that Ohio Republican Governor Kasich has been quietly working against Romney. Kasich has presidential aspirations, which will go unfulfilled should Romney be running for a second term in 2016. That’s going to make it tough for Romney, no matter how many debates he wins.

adam on October 4, 2012 at 12:26 am

A boring debate is to Obama’s advantage. He is the incombent, and the election is his to lose. A boring debate won’t change anyone’s mind, and Romney is the one who has to get people over to his side, especially considering the fraud factor in the elections.

He has to be able to appeal emotionally, especially considering the intellectual deficits of the viewers, but since he doesn’t really disagree with Obama about very much, this is difficult for him to do.

So in the larger sense, Obama won.

Little Al on October 4, 2012 at 12:28 am

I was a Debate Team’r in high school and then on the “B” team at University. This sh** ain’t Debate. Whatever jive jibber jabber they’re doing up there is as far from “debate” as Obama is from any kind of truth.

Jack on October 4, 2012 at 12:30 am

No one is really a Romney fan. He doesn’t have any fans. He’s probably the most liberal Republican since Nixon. However, you have to choose. Do you prefer Romney or Obama? If the answer is Romney, you’ve got to do something to help him. I just gave $200 because I’d rather have him than Obama. It’s that simple.

adam on October 4, 2012 at 12:40 am

This seems to be a fairly balanced assessment: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81999.html

Mr. Obama is not accustomed to facing people who disagree with him in any significant way. He does avoid forums that are not under fairly strict control. Mr. Obama not only does not like Fox News, but even CNN is not really a favorite outlet for him. MSNBC and local news outlets are not good preparation for dealing with genuine opponents. Mitt Romney has an opening now, but whether or not he is able to pry it open further is another question.

Worry01 on October 4, 2012 at 12:49 am

That’s a good analysis Worry01. I thought Romney also took a page from Gingrich’s book on how to deal with liberal moderators, ie treat them with cheerful disdain. Direct you displeasure not towards the opponent, but toward the annoying and partisan moderator.

I’ll be interested to see how Romney handles Gwen Ifill, who’s basically an Obama campaign surrogate. If he questions the assumptions which underlie her questions (another Gingrich tactic), does that open him to charges of racism. She’s such an unsympathetic person that it might just work as a strategy to attack Obama without seeming to be rude, hostile, or disrespectful toward The President.

adam on October 4, 2012 at 12:58 am

For the most part it is the same ole rhetoric occurred in the debate. The only difference is that Obama’s abilities are reflected in his dismal record of the last four years. Mitt will likely not do much better. He changes positions with the wind.

I think it physically impossible for anyone to right the economy as long as companies are continued to be allowed to move out of the country. Certainly you can blame some of this on over-regulation, but I think it just as strong an argument that the American stockholder’s demand for returns shares at least as much of the blame.

In 1970, 23% of jobs in this country were provided by manufacturing. Today it is less than 9%. We now have a sub-culture of an unskilled labor force with no where to go accept to subsistence and the satellite problems of broken homes, single parent children, moral decline, etc., etc., on and on.

This in addition to the other problems we have today, including glutenous congressmen and Senators who spend money we don’t have for votes, pander and appease on the world stage for the same – the problems are almost insurmountable for anyone.

It will take extraordinary leadership, consensus, and a long time to turn this around, and certainly that is neither Obama nor Romney, or the majority of the current Congress and Senate.

So sad.

JRay on October 4, 2012 at 1:01 am

First, I think this so-called “undecided” voter group is really not undecided. Most of the members of this group just don’t want to reveal to pollsters which candidate they prefer for various reasons.

Second, the “grand” debates are not held for the benefit of persuading the very small group of truly undecided potential voters.

Third, these debates are really marketing productions, not genuine discussions of important issues. Romney and Obama are simply brands that are designed to persuade the public that they are unique and distinctive products, when, in fact, they are really an assembly of similar commodities, like pitting Coke gainst Pepsi, 7Up against Sprite, Fruit Loops against Fruity Pebbles, and so forth. For those looking beneath the glitzy marketing strategies, the ingredients are really very similar. Both candidates talk about protecting and advancing the Middle Class, but both have policies that are actually designed to destroy the Middle Class–a process that both parties have pursued successfully for decades.

Fourth, the debates are not primarily designed to convince voters to vote one way or the other. The marketers behind both brands know that the members of the public have largely made up their minds already. Rather, the debates are about brand loyalty. Brand loyalty is a marketing concept in which advertising and promotion are done to “rally the troops” and to make the public “feel good” about its brand, making them feel that they are part of something bigger than themselves.

Fifth, neither brand EVER addresses the real problems facing the US Government from a business standpoint, including the Romney brand. If the US were looked at as a business, the first thing any business expert would tell you is that the government is riddled with waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.And it starts with the tone at the top. The leaders of the various government departments are not selected on the basis of business skills, achievement, ability, etc. If anything, people are selected specifically BECAUSE they don’t have those characteristics and background. Rather, they selected for political reasons that ENSURES that the waste, fraud, abuse, and mismangement will continue to occur, spiraling more and more out of control.

Ralph Adamo on October 4, 2012 at 1:42 am

The debates did wonders for Perot in 1992, but I doubt it’ll do that for Romney. However, if Obama makes a major gaffe, it could boomerang on him – like John Kerry’s reference to Mary Cheney in 2004.

Too bad nobody asked any questions regarding Islam, Muzzies, the Arab Spring or the movie mayhem in Muzland.

Infidel on October 4, 2012 at 2:44 am

The fact that Romney beat Obama in the debate means nothing. In 2004, John Kerry’s better than expected debate performance made the election a lot closer than people thought but he still lost.

A lot of people are early voting now and I still predict Obama will be re-elected. He could make a complete fool of himself in the next two debates and still win.

Like Debbie said on the other thread, when people have to pick between the real Obama and a fake one, they will pick the real Obama every time. Mitt Happens helped himself to some extent but the betting markets still don’t think that he really made the country comfortable with the idea of him being President.

He didn’t close the sale last night.

NormanF on October 4, 2012 at 3:23 am

“I found tonight’s Presidential debate extremely boring. There were no one-liners or zingers, and there was nothing particularly memorable.”

Debbie, it was a debate, not a talk show. Weren’t you on Debate Team in school? Don’t you, as a lawyer, understand the rules of rhetoric? Debating is dry, one sided and probably boring to those who disagree with at least half of what’s being said. The idea is not so much to learn what the candidates believe and their platforms but to see their level of commitment and how they handle themselves when they’re on the spot. It sounds as if Romney’s LEADERSHIP qualities stood out last night and I’ve never questioned that he would be the better executive. Who cares what they say during the campaign. It’s all political hoo hah anyway.

Italkit on October 4, 2012 at 4:40 am

The only difference betwixt the two is that one is an avowed America-hating, ideological muslim, Marxist, racist, mentored by his radical Marxist father, Frank Marshall Davis, who is bent on creating class warfare and revolution to overthrow our Republic and the other is an inept, milquetoast panderer who is not those things.

In the short term, in practice, there will be little discernible difference, but I predict that Obama will win because he cheats at the polls.

DS_ROCKS! on October 4, 2012 at 4:48 am

I believe that Obama wanted to lose the debate. By winning decisively in the third debate momentum goes his way. People always like the comeback. I am not rooting for Obama but see him as a dangerous advessary against someone whom may very well get complacent and over confident. A Romney victory today will be a Romney defeat soon if Romney doesn’t win in the zingers battle in debates to come. If only Allen West had decided to run…

Fred on October 4, 2012 at 6:16 am

Greetings:

I didn’t watch the debate.

What’s the point?

It’s a choice between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.

Because, forty-five years ago, when I was inducted into my beloved United States Army, I publicly swore a sacred oath before our Creator that I would uphold, defend, and preserve our divinely inspired Constitution of the United States of America, in good conscience, I can’t bring myself to vote for either one of them.

Both candidates exist merely to perpetuate the “same ol’, same ol'” political status quo of despotic tyranny which has utterly destroyed this nation from within.

That’s why I posted a video, “FORMALLY DECLARING MY HAT IS IN THE RING!”, on my own personal web site, “OUR ETERNAL STRUGGLE”, formally announcing myself as a write-in candidate for President of the United States of America.

Yes, I’m aware it’s a futile gesture.

But, it’s intended more as a symbolic protest, focussing on the fact that there’s no real choice for the voters, while simultaneously calling attention to all the individual liberties that have been forfeited and/or usurped by government bureaucracy just within my own lifetime.

The country we live in today is not the United States of America that I grew up in.

Oh, by the way, Tuesday 06 November 2012 is not only Election Day, but it is also National Buy a Gun Day, a measure I enthusiastically endorse.

A sudden surge in sales of firearms, ammunition, and/or shooting accessories on Election Day will send a clear warning message to our government, regardless of who wins the election.

Thank you.

John Robert Mallernee
Armed Forces Retirement Home
Gulfport, Mississippi 39507

John Robert Mallernee on October 4, 2012 at 6:44 am

There are two things Romney should have done – yes, for most people Dodd Frank is over their heads. He should have pointed out to the lay person what the cost to them of this act is. The cost in terms of higher bank fees, service charges, etc. Not the too big to fail line.

Second when he said you Reid and Pelosi rammed through Obama Care in the first two years, he should have said the people do not want it and that was evident by the results of the mid-term elections.

Road Warrior on October 4, 2012 at 7:14 am

I respectfully disagree. The debate was not boring. Obama may have been boring, but Romney was energized, took the fight to a listless, lethargic, uninterested Obama and had him on the defensive most of the night. It got worse as the night went on with Obama clearly outmanned by a livlier opponent. Obama actually looked OLDER than Romney. Romney’s task was made easier due to Obama’s abysmal record over the last 3+ years, no doubt, but without TOTUS to guide him along, Obama reverted to the usual uhs and ahs throughout the night. Will this change the election? Not by itself, but in combination with other debates and the continuation of a failing economy, I think it will all add up over the next 4+ weeks.

JeffT on October 4, 2012 at 8:32 am

Now Debbie-

You could put me down as undecided, and I don’t think I am notably stupid …. ahem, at least not by the standards of posters on the DS site :~.

As I see it, tough choice, each has its merits: Romney, Johnson ….. Johnson, Romney :>)

Larry

P.S. to Road Warrior: Agree with you about Dodd-Frank. Lies outside the purview of the average undecided!

Larry S. on October 4, 2012 at 8:42 am

The majority of people watching the debate couldn’t care less or were hardly interested in what was being debated. Like watching a sporting event the only question was who had won.Romney swept the floor with Obama. He looked, acted and spoke presidential while Obama looked like, well a community organizer. Most people in this country I’m afraid vote based on emotion, not thought. This debate I think won Romney a lot of undecided votes.

Jerry G on October 4, 2012 at 9:17 am

I need to revise my comments of last night, in view of how the liberal media are reporting the debate. There surprisingly seems to be general acknowledgment that Romney did better, and that Obama did not do very well.

This media reaction will be read by millions who are to stupid to understand the intricacies of the issues, and their awareness that most commentators thought Romney did better might have some effect.

Of course the media quite likely will overcompensate for this next time, so Romney probably will have to score some knockouts in future debates.

Little Al on October 4, 2012 at 9:37 am

I have always believed that only people who contribute to Society should vote tax payer, retirees who paid taxes most of their lives and military people and veterans should vote. I also believe that all government unions should be considered illegal monopolies and their contract nullified. They would be under RICO laws. In addition instead of more double taxation on corporate income capital gains and dividends, taxes should be applied to fringe benefit. You get a basic exemption for health care insurance. It would be the GDP method of determining income. Private union can not get away with paying $10/hour in salary and $20 in (non taxable) fringe benefits.

madman on October 4, 2012 at 10:06 am

@Little Al – Forget the media, we know they are in the tank for Obama. Al Gore is blaming Obama’s poor performance on the altitude in Denver. BWAH

Road Warrior on October 4, 2012 at 12:04 pm

Romney 2012!!! We have to have a president so why not go with a proven and successful businessman and proven leader? Romney is unmatched and unparalelled in proven ability. When he was governor of Taxachusetts with 87% liberals in state power, look how proven his record is with a multi-billion dollar surplus after taking office with a multi-billion dollar deficit. There is no comparison beteween these two when it comes to decency, honesty and morals. Romney by far is the best candidate to run this nation and bring it back from the brink of destruction. Like Rush said yesterday, another four years with Obama, and America will fail! Look at the totality of each candidates proven and successful record and clearly the winner is Romney – hands down!

USA1811 on October 4, 2012 at 1:05 pm

Yup – in hindsight, things could have been worse. Obama looked like a tired, old man last night and he looked dark and brooding. Hard to believe when you’re 50 years old the toll of the nation’s highest office begins to wear you down. Obama no longer quite looks like the candidate of hope n change like he did four years ago.

If Debbie saw the side by side visuals – believe me, they told the story far more effectively than all the words in the debate. Mitt Happens is a far older man so the contrast is quite striking. No wonder people reacted the way they did. What’s the old adage? Ah, yes – seeing is believing!

NormanF on October 4, 2012 at 1:06 pm

We want to welcome you the next President of the United States, Mitt Romney! (Lord willing) 🙂

USA1811 on October 4, 2012 at 1:08 pm

Too bad they both can’t lose the election.

max on October 4, 2012 at 2:12 pm

Wow. There is sooooo much misinformation and incorrect statements in this article.

1. Romney had a lot of one-line zingers. And they hurt Obama. I can think of at least three. “You don’t pick winners and loser, you just pick the losers”. Awesome.

2. It was boring for low-information voters, who are probably gonna vote for Obama anyway (blacks, illegals, students, homoesexuals). I followed about 99% of their talking points, and Obama was clearly lying 99% of the time.

3. High-information voters, like myself, found Romney Reagan-esque: less government, less regulation, no tax increases. And he pounded Obama on his wasteful spending. Also awesome.

So, Schlussel, who do you want to be the next President – Romney or Obama?

FrenchKiss on October 4, 2012 at 2:32 pm

I to didn’t watch the debates overnight Debbie, because I notice that they weren’t going to bring up the other main issues, ie, the so-called Arab-Spring/Islamic-Winter, the threat of islam both here in the US and worldwide, the muslim riots in the middle east, africa and southeast asia and yes of course, how to stop and cut down on the 20-30 million illegal aliens in this country today.

Also, Mr. Lehrer (the baggy-eyed Bolshievik as Michael Savage refers to him) failed to bring up the “NDAA”, where the the US Armed Forces and/or government agents can come to your RFD address and arrest you and sieze your propterty for lord knows what, kinda what happens on a daily basis in Israel, Lebanon, Gaza & the West Bank! Also, Lehrer didn’t bring up Solyndra, Fast & Furious (which earlier this year killed a border patrol at the Arizona-Mexico border that got governor Jan Brewer really pissed at Obama, rightly so BTW), etc.

“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on October 4, 2012 at 3:13 pm

So old Mittens took the gloves off on Odumbo last night. I watched it on Fox News but cut it off when Hannity came on. I just can’t stand his stupid mug on my TV. Anyway it was awlfully funny watching a smiling Romney basically bitch slap a tired, bored, old looking president. His performance even had hacks tingle boy Matthews and the little troll Maher pissed. That in itself is funny. Romney’s debate performance will help him in the polls somewhat and I’m pretty sure that he will do ok in the next two. He still does have to deal with a MSM that will stop at nothing to help out DA WUUN. Maybe next time Maher can bring his teleprompter and Matthews can bring him clips of PMSNBCDNC to watch.

Ken b on October 4, 2012 at 3:17 pm

I thought of it further and the old adage – “seeing is believing” came to mind in view of last night’s debate.

Obama looked drawn and tired. Romney looked young and fresh. Its stunning when an older man looks better than a younger one. If Debbie doesn’t believe me, she can look at the side by side visuals.

Which brings up another saying: “one side by side photo is worth an entire debate.”

NormanF on October 4, 2012 at 4:13 pm

I’m sorry, I am NOT changing my mind about the debate. I thought it was uber-boring and the ONLY thing that shocks me today is that the Liberals were honest in their disappointment in how Obama-Putin did. I am used to them agreeing when 2+2=5.

I think that honesty is spiking the (over) celebration by the “Conservatives”. I can understand that but I will NOT act as if Flip Floppney is the greatest. DS has covered why he isn’t quite nicely in her last 2 Romney threads.

I refuse to get lost in the (over) “Conservative” celebration. It is embarrassing me!

I did listen to the debate last evo and didn’t see it and I am sure I missed out on some very vital nuances (a tired, annoyed Obama-Putin) but I am sticking to my guns. I know what I heard and what everyone is saying about Romney is NOT true. It’s like an over-inflated game of “Telephone”.

Skunky on October 4, 2012 at 4:41 pm

Skunky,

Conservatives have little to cheer about these days.

I am no fan of Mitt Happens. That said, I take sheer pleasure at the sight liberals going into sheer panic over last night’s debate.

They are the ones who are stampeding for the exits. When Algore tells us the altitude made Obama have a bad night — now that’s a creative excuse.

As horrible as Romney is on policy points, he is a decent man who would never have others make excuses for him. Its embarrassing that liberals actually have to apologize for a grown man, whom they treat like an errant child.

We saw the real Obama last night and he never answered the question of why he deserves to be re-elected. The Left doesn’t know what hit ’em last night.

Serves ’em right!

NormanF on October 4, 2012 at 5:11 pm

I saw the debate on my RAZR this morning. It was boring in an interesting way.

Mittens repeatedly “me too’d” Hussein on issues where we would expect even a mildly conservative not to. Mittens, for example, didn’t mind supporting Hussein’s efforts for the Feds to fund every darned college education. Parents are SUPPOSED to be funding college. Too poor? Why should other citizens fund the results of 80% bastardy amount blacks? The “loan” program is another boondoggle that only causes massive inflation of tuition and funds those who would benefit more from a technical education. In flooding schools with student riffraff, the status quo also encourages inept teachers. This was one of numerous examples. And such examples do not include areas that were utterly avoided, thus IMPLYING a “me too,” such as immigration.

In short: Mittens implied that he would maintain a huge leftist government, but that his would be more efficiently run, hence a bit less bloated.

I guess I was entertained watching Mittens effectively implementing a “strategy of ambiguity” by duplicating Hussein then adding marginal improvements. (Of course, Mittens was lying about killing PBS.)

I will not vote, as I’ve said numerous times. I will do my part not to reward the elites who pushed Mittens on us and monkeyed with the rules to get him nominated. They do NOT need those extra cushy parties and consulting jobs.

skzion on October 4, 2012 at 7:52 pm

Realistically, no Republican is going to tell Americans they can’t send their kids to college or that seniors are not going to get the current level of Social Security.

Outside of politics, one is more free to take a more libertarian and free market approach to what the government should do. We don’t really disagree. Having been in the private sector, Mittens probably does look at it much the same. There are just things in this country its impolitic to state in a debate.

The American people aren’t thrilled with Mitt Happens. If they hire him, its as as economic manager to create jobs and get the economic moving again. He can do for America what he did for Bain Capital. Americans like self-made people and whatever we think of Mitt’s views on illegal immigration, Islam, and Middle East – his private sector work speaks for itself.

Obama is taking the country in the direction of Greece. Is that what we want for America? I don’t think American people as I noted earlier in the summer, want to be content to preside over our national decline. That is not who we are.

NormanF on October 4, 2012 at 8:52 pm

“Realistically, no Republican is going to tell Americans they can’t send their kids to college or that seniors are not going to get the current level of Social Security.”

Norman, I’m not telling Americans that they can’t send their kids to college. I am saying that a Republican should be able to make the argument that parents are a necessary source of funds *if* the parents want their kids to go to college. Do you seriously think that a Republican would take a hit if he made this point? Every parent who did largely fund his or her child’s education would effectively get a rebate of the tax funds that went into funding other parents who will not sacrifice. Nor will colleges charge so much if their costs aren’t automatically underwritten by huge guaranteed. Look, if the money isn’t available, tuition and school bureaucracy will decrease.

But as I said, there were many of the “me-too’s”. More math and science teachers …: LOL! Since Moynihan we’ve known that more money does not improve educational results. So why is Mittens “me too’ing”? You think that parents who would ever vote Republican support even more of their money going largely to teacher’s unions and to inner-city schools? The truth is that parents’ education is the big predictor of whether school will make a difference.

But look dude, curtailing illegal immigration is a plus for MOST voters. This should be an appealing issue for either party, but particularly for Reps. Yet it is the “me-too” elephant in the living room.

“He can do for America what he did for Bain Capital.”

Oh no! You’re sounding like Ann Coulter!

“Americans like self-made people and whatever we think of Mitt’s views on illegal immigration, Islam, and Middle East – his private sector work speaks for itself.”

Yes, when Mitt acts on the principles that I expect from a Republican president, the results speak for themselves. And if Mitt acts on Democratic principles in government–and he has heretofore–those results will also speak for themselves.

“I don’t think American people as I noted earlier in the summer, want to be content to preside over our national decline. That is not who we are.”

In fact, though, if the American people are who you say they are, then it’s way past time that a presidential candidate started dealing with our slide to destruction. If Hussein is reelected, the country will decline substantially. OK, so it declines. Maybe then we will avoid a false choice in the next election.

skzion on October 4, 2012 at 9:29 pm

How come pro football players play for 3 hours or more, but out pro politicians are only debating for 1.5 hours? I think we have this backwards.

The debates should run 3 hours with an intermission. In fact, I’d love to see a debate marathon; rock till they drop.

There were too many times the moderator had to point out time restrictions. Lift the time restrictions. Go 3 hours!

There is NO Santa Claus on October 4, 2012 at 9:54 pm

Santa, you don’t really want to give Hussein that much time to descant on OUR (not his) deformity, do you?

skzion on October 4, 2012 at 10:42 pm

To all of you who declare that you won’t vote ‘in protest’ of Romney as a candidate, what are you accomplishing except helping Obama?!

I completely get that Romney wasn’t everyone’s first choice, he wasn’t mine either. However, you may as well just show up and vote for Obama bc you are only helping him continue his destruction of our country’s heritage. Yes, there are too many parts of Romney that aren’t libertarian or even conservative enough to make us all happy, but he is the ONLY actual opposition to Obama in this election. No stupid write-in candidate and absolutely no abstaining from voting will defeat Obama. People on this site are too intelligent for this. Obama has been enormously successful in the past 3.5 years at deconstructing our country both domestically and internationally. Do you WANT four more years of this?! Romney may not be everything we all want in a candidate but he is certainly not the one in this election that opposes Everything that we all believe in as Obama does. Don’t deceive yourselves, wasting your vote is contributing to the problem, not doing something about it.

AaronMcG1 on October 5, 2012 at 9:24 am

skzion, I could not disagree more. I AM a regular and I have not heard a single convincing argument on here not to vote against Obama.

If Barry gets re-elected, we are not looking at the crushing of the Democratic brand. You are dreaming. We will be looking at the implosion of this country from which it will never recover. The dependency class in the USA will grow to a super majority, thus ensuring permanent liberal leaders. The federal debt under Obama grew another $10,000 per person in just four years (including babies and rest home folks) and that will get MUCH worse. Obama’s pandering and slobbering all over the Islamic world while giving the middle finger to Israel will increase exponentially. Four more years of this damned incompetent communist Muslim idiot will utterly destroy this countries economy, gun rights, health care, military, and much more.

DS herself has said on numerous occasions that she will hold her nose and vote for Romney.

It is time for YOU to grow up and stop pandering to the tin foil hat group. This election is FAR too important.

PDMac60 on October 5, 2012 at 11:22 am

Skzion,

The last four years have already been a catastrophe. There’s no facet of American affairs which has improved in the last four years. Europe is going bankrupt, the Middle East is boiling hotter than usual, our embassies are being dominated, national debt is skyrocketing, unemployment is increased, and the list goes on. You are saying you want more of that?! Obama is diametrically opposed to the things we hold dear and is bent on destroying the America we know. This guy isn’t bill Clinton. He’s not even jimmy carter. He’s actively sabotaging America, not by bumbling or trying to be nice or just to satisfy pollsters, he’s doing this with intention.
Ploys to say that we shouldn’t vote help nothing. Did I want Allen West, or Herman Cain, sure, but they are NOT in this election. It’s time for you to grow up and realize that you change nothing by not voting or by writing in some inconsequential name. Is Israel worth voting for? Or would rather the guy who literally bows down to Muslim extremists running America?

AaronMcG1 on October 5, 2012 at 11:29 am

I shouldn’t have said “grow up.” However, I stand by my call that you stop being manipulated.

As at least least one of you claims to be a regular, I don’t see how you missed my repeated statements on the matter. Search for my nick in the following, after removing the blanks around the periods.

www . debbieschlussel . com/50515/poll-20-of-north-carolina-blacks-will-vote-for-romney/

www . debbieschlussel . com/46606/meet-the-newt-bashing-islam-pimpers-for-romney/

www . debbieschlussel . com/16411/stop-her-carly-fiorina-praises-bud-jesse-jackson-islam-sold-to-iran/

skzion on October 6, 2012 at 1:01 pm

Mitt Romney, although not perfect, is the correct choice for fair minded Americans this November.

I give credit to Americans when they chose Obama in 2008 because he’s the first African American to become president……because they wanted to show that they wanted to be fair to African Americans and give then a chance to be president. For the record, Obama would not have become president if it were not for a substantial white vote for Obama.

But that’s the past. Obama regardless of his race, has FAILED to bring America out of a recession since 2008. Bill Clinton LIED when he said Obama faced the worst econony since the Great Depression. When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980…..Jimmy Carter left America with MASSIVE INFLATION at 15%…..and skyrocketing unemployment rates. Reagan with his conservative tax cutting programs substanially lowered inflation rates and unemployment rates to manageable amounts.

Republican Ronald Reagan had a much WORSE economy to deal with then Barack Obama…….yet his policies improved America’s economy much more then Barack Obama’s has done since 2008.

Barack Obama has FAILED to reduce the deficit in half like he promised and has ADDED 6 TRILLION dollars to the national deficit since he took office. He basically increased the American deficit SIXTY PERCENT since he took office.

Barack Obama is a nice man, but he has NO CLUE how to fix our econonmy. He even has resisted increasing America’s huge capacity to produce natural gas and oil in America and off America’s coastline….which will only make America a slave to oil producing countries that hate America like Saudi America.

We urgently NEED a president who understands how to create jobs for many Americans (in the energy sector and elsewhere) and make America independent in its energy away from countries that despise America like OPEC nations like Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries. THAT MAN is Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney if elected president will implement economic policies much more similar to Ronald Reagan then Obama will

USA view on October 10, 2012 at 5:22 am