You are incorrect, Romney has no plan, just rhetoric. He is short on details and long on his invisible plans. But Obama is the one with the record that can be attacked. Romney has no record to defend.

His rhetoric was sold to America last night as we see in the polls on the debate. He was very detailed I thought, especially with supporting numbers to back up his plans.  He even got down to regulations such as the Frank Dodd act and Sarbanes Oxley and seem to understand the smaller clauses in these better than Obama.

I am not incorrect. The two of us saw the same debate but have different opinions on it.  It is called perception.

Yes indeed, perception trumps all. You and many others perceived that Romney's hollow rhetoric was detailed enough to put him ahead. I saw empty words like the AFC spills. So vote for him maybe he will do some good rather than Obama under whose watch we are now severely in debt with all the spending. 

And Obama is long winded on details but short on delivery.  So, take your pick.  I say change is needed.

Are you shitting me????

Romney's most important plan "being how he would create jobs" !!!!! Are you drunk? What plan? What debate were you looking at?

He plans on expanding trade with Latin America, which is an original, well thought out plan. You should be a stand-up comedienne...if you can stand on a drunken stupor.

His tax plan was not the best, but the way he sold it made it sound believable. Hahahahah RMAOLOF

American industry and its workforce have undergone structural changes during Obama's 4 years and is poised to create 12 million jobs in the next 4 years even if Jerry Lewis were to be President. What an important Romney PLAN.

US exports increases from $1.1 trillion in 2008 to $1.5 trillion in 2011 despite a recession in Europe and Japan. The trade agreement Obama signed with So. Korea is significant.

Don't get me started on his tax plan and his pronouncement of reducing the deficit and not burdening the middle class.

You should be committed.....as in institutionally committed for the fart you spewed here.

Oi alena, I heard you farted, dat true? I even heard you gettin lock up, but I doan know if this gonna happen before.... or after you farted.

But Kari

Why did Obama not respond during the debates ? He was totally lost, unprepared and was clobbered by Romney. 

Obama has great skills, he just did not show up prepared, this is what happens when you underestimate you opponent. Obama will bounce back in round two. Let Rev Bhai have his fun for now, we must learn to be humble in defeat.

Obama's mis-steps caught up with him at the debate.  Obama clearly don't have a plan beyond what he has already done since 2008.  Rather than debate the man, he and the Dems started their counter-pints after the debate with their own twists and slant.

The Reps have a weak ticket but Obama cannot shake them. He is very weak.

Kari living in Obama's lala land.

The President's performance at the debate was poor, and it was not because he has a horrendous record (it stopped the bleeding and started the long climb back), or his challenger had a great plan (he lied a lot though these were not forcefully countered by the President), or because he's a poor debater. Obama took the strategic route not to respond to Romney for the most part tit-for-tat, but to put forth his vision of governance and to contrast it with the broad principles of Romney (which are difficult to pin down, given his shifting positions).

My point has been that the impact of debates is less and less as youtube, social media and the cable news network proliferate. How much more we need to know about the candidates is not as much as it used to be in earlier election cycles. Obama needs to stand his ground and Romney's lack of principles and lack of trust will show. As they say, cream aways rise to the top.

Analysts want to know why he didnt have energy when he had an audience of 70M, many of whom are searching for a reason to support him, but have yet to find this. 

Yet he was bouncing with vigor in front of people whose votes he already has...any one who shows up to a campaign during working hours is a die hard supporter.

Obama has ONE more chance to put Romney in his place.  If he doesnt he will need to worry about what the turn out in his support base might be.

If Obama lets Romney beat him up on Foreign Policy, one of his strengths, and a topic that Romney is as much of an expert on as he is of the structure of Guyanese Creolese, then he will have a problem.

Kari even Obama is not bleating about his record.  In fact i believe this is the reason for his apparent "tiredness" at the debate. Even he has become frustrated and intellectually drained of new ideas, given continued weakness of the economy, the intransigience of the Tea Partyers, and on going problems in Europe, and a potentially dangerous problem in China/Japan. 

The issue is why is it so bad.....not all due to Obama given the wreck that he inherited from George Bush..who incidentally left him with debt of $11 T, and not the $10T that the GOP says (his first year budget was set by Bush). 

The problem that people have is whether Obama is able to fix the mess that Bush left.  Recently released stats show that since 2008 there has been declining laborforce participation, increased poverty, more people on food stamps, and declining real incomes.  And we do know that job growth is anemic and not sufficient to absorb new entrants to the laborforce...the reason why labor force participation rates have declined.  The Obama recovery has been quite weak.

Romney will be a disaster, but do not pretend as if Obama is this great success.  Even he will not make this claim, and as he said, he isnt perfect.

CaribJ, let's at least give currency to the following:

1. If people don't have money, they will not spend, and manufacturers will not produce.

2. The financial crisis wiped out trillions of dollars in Sep 2008 when the Dow lost almost half its value. So people don't have collateral against which to borrow or securities that they could liquidate.

3. Banks were tumbling into an abyss. Do you remember Citibank's share became penny share? Banks had to clean books and couldn't lend. Neither did the consumers have collateral against which to borrow. Remember house prices were halved?

4. Remember that the US Senate due to parliamentary procedures used the filibuster to block Presidential initiatives?

So let's be realistic about how much a President can and cannot do. You characterize Obama as someone who is trust worthy but ineffective to get the economy going. I would dissent from that opinion, because no President, even during the Great Depression faves TWO sector crises that are crippling- BANKING and HOUSING. I look at the President's initiatives on the economy and I grade him as a pragmatist. Here are some economic decisions ofthe President you have to give currency to.

(a) He took a political decision to bailout the auto industry, much like agricultural subsidies provide food independence to countries around the world.

(b) He did not allow the banking system to weed out the failed ones as this would have given us soup kitchens in 2008 and even up to now. 2008 had the potential to be worse than 1929.

(c) he chose to keep aggregate demand at a level that did not decimate service  industries by extending unemployment insurance.

(d) He got a health care bill passed that in years will make health care delivery on the demand side as well as the provider side be on a firmer footing. The Cleveland Mayo clinic has already revolutionized  health care in this country. Look at how computerizing the Insurance and medical record keeping has saved billions already.

(e) Weatherizing close to a million Federal buildings have saved a lot on energy demand.

I can list more, but the point is that where Obama can act he has been successful. Look at foreign policy. When has has to govern within the confines of Congress you get Hannity and Limbaugh, and Norquist, and Rev Al ruining things.

The Great Depression was still benefiting from the second industrial revolution (electricity and internal combustion. The 1st was the steam engine and railroads). The 3rd industrial revolution (IT) was spent in the 1970s....no not the Internet revolution that peaked in the 1999 bubble. This 3rd revolution automate a lot of jobs.

Then you have the demographic dividend - where there are more old and sick people (the entitlement people) than productive people. You also have the pricing of labor being transparent and hence jobs  going to other countries.

The point is that since the middle of the last decade factors have converged that would have made Reagan's ideology and Clinton's compromise be amateurish. When history books are written about this decade, Obama would have been seen to be a President more than capable of guiding America through these times of revolutionary times. That's because Obama has used a combination of monetary supply-side Economics, Keynesian pump=priming Economics and behavioral economics (of the type Austan Goolsby champions), along with an historic sense of redressing skewed income inequality. He's doing these not because he's a liberal. He's doing this because of a common sense vision.

So gimme a break about an ineffective Obama who has let down Black people. Obama would send the same message as Bill Cosby - don't blame others. But he also knows how to level the institutional biases against Black people. And it is the latter that confuse you and make you berate the one President in the last few decades who understand better than most about the Founding Fathers and economic as well as civil liberties.

Like ur losing it or what...

Well here you jump on my thread again with your old, assinine self.  You sound like a woman with your personal attacks.  Go watch the debate again and shut up!

Oh yes   It's Friday you know.

Baseman - Regardless of who wins Kari will still be living in poverty in Queens in his lala land.

And that's exactly what I thought 4 years ago when I voted for Obama!

You betcha!..

What has Obama done to reduce the instutional barriers that blacks face in this country.  NOTHING.  So dont say that you think that he knows.

Blacks were useful to Obama to get him where he got to in this country, but now he has kicked them to the curb.  He OPENLY campaigns to gte Hispanic support.  WHERE do you seem him appealing for black support, and urging them to show up to vote in the numbers that they did 4 years ago.

The blacks who vote arent the dysfunctional poor living in the projects. Few of them, apart from a few old ladies vote.   Its the home owning black living in South East Queens, the DC suburbs, and in other places, who are considerably worse off now then they were 4 years ago.  Just over 10% of the labor force, yet 40% of the long term unemployed.

Indeed in NC the margin of victory for Obama was LESS then the increase in black voter turn out.   Black unemployment there is now almost 20%!!!!!

Just ask yourself if Obama fails to get more than 40% of the white vote and if blacks account for only 10% of those who vote...rather than the 13% who voted last time who stands a better chance of winning.  If blacks dont vote then Hispanics are also likely to stay home as they have the same economic issues, plus some are angry that Obama has been more aggressive in deportations than even Bush was.  If Puerto Ricans in FL stay home Romney wins FL.

You cannot afford to insult ANY PART of the Obama base, and right now many of his most loyal, young whites and blacks, are asking why bother vote.

You really ought to stop regurgitating those White House emails that you get.

Yes Obamacare is good in that the young will be covered, no more limits on coverage, and it will be more difficult foir people with pre existing conditions  to be excluded.

Having said that Mayo clinin exists LONG before Obama care.  You are lying like Romney when you connect them to Obama.

Secondly the increased level of paper work and mandates will cause some employers to get rid of some workers if they are going to be in compliance.

Thirdly. Obamacare does not do ANYTHING more to deal with the underlying reasons why US health care costs are high and increasing rapidly than does the GOP proposals.

Its an Health INSURANCE act and no more.

And take it from me I know more about health care economics than you do.

And yes Kari more and more health care providers are refusing to add more Medicare patients to their rolls because they are unhappy with the bureaucracy of Medicare and also the reduced re-imbursements.  Not due to Obamacare, but Obamacare doesnt address the underlying problems which pre-existed it.

So please do not equate Obamacare legislation with that of Medicare/Medicaid.  Obama is no LBJ.  In a few years he will be forgotten.  Not bad enough as Bush, nor good enough as LBJ or FDR to be remembered.

Also Kari if the Obama campaign was like you he would be stomped.  Here you go insulting Obama leaning voters...yes we think he is a disappointment, but we KNOW that Romney is worse.

Hmmmmm.  Now suppose we do not vote.

But then you really dont care whether Obama wins or not.  Its just an intellectual exercise for you.

Now just know something.  Right now many blavck people are asking themselves why should they bother to vote.  Then folks like you insult them by blaming them for the disproportionate burden that they have borne since 1008 when they deliuvered Obama's highest support 95%. 

Their voter turn out was 13%, higher then the usual 11%.  This means that when one takes into account the fcat that poor people and young people vote less, the black voter turn out was higher then the white turnout, white sbeing slightly older, and considerably wealthier.

So continue with your nonsense that Obama doesnt need the black vote.  He will get fewer white votes than he did last time, so he better hope that the black vote turn out is better than it was in 2010.

No Democrat stands a chance of winning in most places if blacks fail to vote.  Kerry certainly found that out.

You're just an Obama hater. You are itching to call him Uncle Tom, aren't you? You're a closet Romney admirer. Soon you'll be holding hands with the Rev Al

YOU don't know that.  What you do know, he is White running against a Black, so your racists enzymes take over from there.

According to Caribj, Obama let down Blacks, Burnham let down blacks.  I don't know what he expect anyone to do, even a black leader.  Burnham did everything in the book for blacks that he could get away with, still this joker complains.

Caribj, FYI, it's people like you who preach "entitlement" that continue to let down the black youths.  People like you create negative energy against the many progressive blacks out there who are trying to break with your mindset.  YOU are your own worse enemy.

OMG! All these verbose analyses scaring me off political!

Miraver you have a point. The only reason lengthy postings appear is to refute obvious one-liner lies. When someone says you're are abusive to you mom for instance, you cannot say "no, I'm a loving child", and leave it at that. It doesn't help to determine whether you're a good or bad child. So hang in there and be tolerant of some of these posts which provide an opportunity for low-information people to look at some things.

Truth of the matter Miraver, alot of analyses and slanted facts have to be put out there to occupy the reader and make you not think too much of the failure over the past four years.  Both sides and equally guilty, but in the end one needs to ask, have our situation improved, the answer is NO.  Obama's focus on ideological/social issues his first term squandered the opportunity to turn things around.

His focus should have been economic fundamentals, getting what we have working again then address the others. He has been unable, thus far, to say what he will do differently in his second term than in the first.  This leads one to believe we will continue with divisiveness and stagnation while the labor participation rate remains low and the food stamp usage remains high.

more nonsense from and for the poorly informed

 Kari, I'm smiling here from ear to ear with your analogy I know I am digressing from Alena's topic (derailing her thread), but I'm sure someone will bring back on track. I hope I can cultivate some measure of patience to read through the posts, cast aside the name calling & mud slinging, and cull the important & sensible thoughts.

Miraver, the whole debate thing is about governance in the US. The rest of the world look to the US for leadership, especially given its history of free enterprise and individual freedoms. America is approaching the maturity of Europe with the same principles of governance for all sectors of the populace, but an approach that is market-driven.

Conservatives want to see a utopia of unfettered markets, look after yourself first, a strong military, a belief in faith, and so on. Liberals also want to see that utopia, but are willing to confront realities on the ground. America has had a social compact that has seen an insurance-driven social security and medical care when you are not in the income receiving part of your life. This has become a strain on the economy because of a lot of wasteful Federal spending, most notably on the Iraq war. The key that liberals hone in on is the free-market economic principle that skewed returns of income towards an oligarchy is not good for economic growth. That is the nub of the Democrats versus Republicans. The latter want government only to fight wars and everyone to make do on their own. The former recognize that the exercise of human advancement is not so cut and dried.

THIS IS FUNNY AND ENTERNAINING--DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS WILL ENJOY

So let's get the gist of this:

The Iraqi war is the principle wasteful spending causing the US's problems.

The Republicans are a party who sees the Govt role as primarily fighting wars;

I thought it was a Democrat, FDR who took the nation to war in 1941.

Who started the Vietnaam - Kennedy

Who escalated Vietnaam into a huge and protracted war, Johnson, a Democrat.

The Iraqi leg of the war on terrorism was a mistake taken in the heat of the moment reaction to 9/11 which will have huge strategic ramifications yet to play out.  However, to say it is the principle reason behind the current woes is a bit overstretched.

Social Security, WIC, Unemployment Insurance were all enacted with wide spread bi-partisan support.

To say the Reps are a party wanting to return the US to some type of medieval capitalism,

Obama have some good ideas, but so do many.  However, he has failed to move the needle on the economy and does not offered path any different in the 2nd than in the 1st.  We have two choices, one of a known failure or one of a bit unknown.  I say we take the path of the unknown as it cannot by more risky as four more year of the same failed approach.

My only hesitancy with this ticket is Ryan and the TEA influence.  The Reps are not irrational ideologues, but the TEA are and this concerns me and on this I share some of your sentiments.

Regarding the US approach European maturity, well I hope you do not champion the Greek, Italian or Spanish maturity.

Funny, where you find these things?

Base, you must be told that the Iraq war was not a mistake i the heat of the 9/11 aftermath. It WAS decided before Bush took office in 2000 that the next Republican President will invade Iraq as the main plank in the "Defense of a new American Century". This is the seminal document of the Think Tank that will guide the Republicans in foreign affairs following the collapse of the Soviet Union and America as the lone standing super power with a huge gap with all other nations. Iraq was to be the domino in a region that the Republicans felt Clinton had made America weak. That's why you heard Obama in 2008 talking about showing the power of the American example rather than the example of American power.

What you must also know, Base, is that recovery from a financial crisis takes longer than other recoveries. The 2008 financial crisis also had the double whammy of the HOUSING crisis. Remember how the housing assets drove consumer spending and hence manufacturing and jobs? If yo examine the facts you will see that America is doing better than the curve in all previous financial crises - Japan in the 1990s and 2000s; Argentina in the last decade; and so on.

you also need to know Base, that jobs leaving American manufacturing is a phenomenon that started decades ago and accelerated under Bush.This is why you hear Obama talking about stuctural change in education and infrastructure and R & D. Remember that the biggest products in private industry came from the DoD and NASA

You also need to know, Base, that we have seen the entitlement society being larger than the productive society in recent years. Know too that unemployment insurance following the 2008 jobs destruction (a bipartisan effort) added to the federal deficit. And don't forget that public sector unemployment sucked some demand out of society and added to entitlement in the form of unemployment insurance.

Know also Base, that no American President faced a Congress that refuses to do business with it like the 2010 edition of the house of Representatives and the 2008 Senate.

Know also Base, that the tax policies and reduction in the entitlement have been tried before and failed. Know also Base, that the Clinton era tax rates - higher than under Obama - led to job growth and a booming economy (along with other factors like technology and peace time, of course).

So Base. tell me about moving the needle again?

Miraver....now you know why you have long posts - one guy makes sweeping statements that are like religion and have no basis in factual reality.

And you have all the reality, like the empty chair.

Need further proof, Miraver?

Aa sad lack of understanding of American power projected abroad, and of what impacts economic performance. It's like Romney saying that on Day 1 he will repeal Obama care - he must know that a President cannot repeal an existing law. That's for Congress to do.

Well, that past four years have not been a good example.  But I agree, Romney cannot repeal Obamacare without congress, it's now the law.  I don't object conceptualy to it, just Obama's priorities seem upside-down.

What we know is that Romney while he had the personal freedom to keep Americans employed chose to lay those people off and ship their job overseas for bigger profits. That is contrary to him sayong now that he will create jobs for Americans with Americans' money. Then he personally chose to keep his personal profits overseas which contradicts his now claim that he loves America and want to see it great again. Then in an effort to garner monetary benefits from the rich shamelessly painted nearly half of the American population as people who will not take responsibility for their lives when only a small portion of those people are really not responsible. Most of the people receiving help would prefer to have a regular job than have a handout but his disdain for them cannot allow him to understand that. Now he is saying that he was wrong? No amount of apology can remove what is in someone's soul.

Has nothing to do with him being white and Obama being black and anyone being a racist. It has everything to do with someone seeking to trick the voters by saying whatever he needs to say to get elected. Remember his own confession that he shifts positions based on his audience.

Lastly, Obama does not need to do anything different during his second term. What he is doing now is moving us in the right direction. The difference during his second term is that the GOP will not be total obstructionists as they did during his first term so they will for their own political lives cooperate with him to get his economic programs enacted. What he said was good enough for me and no amount of acting by Romney will sway me. Romney's falsehoods will come back to haunt him before the elections.

Now Miraver, Ksazma wrote things that are factual:

• Romney's private firm movement of jobs overseas (nothing's wrong with this BTW and it is the way of the free market given the transparency that technology has brought)
• Romney's money in foreign bank accounts to take advantage of the tax regime to not pay as much taxes as he would were the money repatriated to the America he so loves.
• Being unable to understand that 47% of the American population who pay no Federal income tax (but pay payroll taxes and state taxes and house taxes, etc.) want work and are not interested in hand outs
• Romney's etch-a-sketch trickery on the voters is well documented.