Romney walks a fine line-and falls off

I know that Mitt Romney is walking a very thin line during Sandy and the aftermath clean-up, but somehow he still got in wrong Tuesday. So would someone tell me the difference between a political rally in Ohio and a  relief rally in Ohio. I can't find one, and I doubt anyone else can either. And right on the Red Cross webpage, it states that bulk food or clothing isn't wanted and actually in the webpage as some of the items not to send. But there was Romney on the line accepting bulk food. New Jersey Gov. Christie set the correct tone when he said that he didn't give damn about politics right now since he had bigger problems to worry about. Former President Clinton and Vice-President Biden were both on the campaign trail and were at rallies, so Mitt, why can't you just call a rally and rally, tone down your vitriol against Obama and state what you're for. But that's the rub, isn't it. You're for dismantling FEMA and just giving the money to the states. Think that would work real well right now? Mitt, you could have said that there were no rallies during the disaster or held rallies and said the right things. But you couldn't afford to do the former, and I doubt you'd know how to do the latter. So all you did in walking that thin line was to fall off.      

Still want FEMA gone, Mitt?

As the storm continues to pummel the northeast, although people of parties and independents hope for the best, it should be remembered what Mitt Romney said about FEMA last year. During a debate last year, Mitt said that the money should go to the states and let them decide how to spend the money and what to spend it on, and that even better than that would be for the money to go to businesses. So under Mitt's plan, there'd be no FEMA and states would simply fend for themselves. Think the people of Delaware and Rhode Island want to compete with New York and New Jersey for clean-up dollars? Because wouldn't every state be on their own and trying to get companies to help with the clean-up? And wouldn't each state fight for the right to run their state as they want? So some governors could dispense money liberally while others could penny-pinch and lower taxes on businesses? You may want FEMA gone, Mitt, but millions of people will be glad it's there after the storm. And hopefully they'll remember what you said about FEMA when they vote on November 6th.

How much lower can the GOP go?

Every day, after everything I hear from the GOP, I expect that they can't go any lower. But every day, they seem to find a new low. I thought that yesterday, when Romney Co-Chairperson John Sununu, Jr. said that Gen. Colin Powell was only backing and voting for Obama because they were both black to be the low point for the GOP. And yes, that was an incredibly low point. For Sununu not only said that Powell was voting for Obama because of race, he was proud that the general had used race as the reason for his vote. So with one swing he said the Obama had no reason for people to vote for him except for race, called Powell a racist who only cares about race, but gives his backing for white racists to vote for Romney. After all, if it's okay for blacks to vote for Obama just because he's black, then it must be okay for whites to vote for Romney because he's white, right? Thought that was as low as the GOP could ever go? Think again. And Romney didn't need a spokesperson for this one.
Speaking in Ohio, Romney stated that Jeep was planning to move all their productions from Ohio to China. This can't be true, can it? No, absolutely it's not! But a right-wing blogger read that Jeep was looking into building Jeeps for China in China and wrote that Jeep was stopping production in North America. A Romney staffer read it (I take it Mitt didn't read it himself) and added it to a speech. And so Romney out and out lied about Ohioans losing jobs to China. Jeep later sent out press release explaining their stance, but think the people at that rally will hear about that or Romney will make a correction?
Every day, I hear something from the GOP in their statements to the American people which is racist, a distortion, or an out-and-out lie and I hope that's as low as this group of GOP people can go. But every day, they find a new way to go even lower. Just how low can the GOP go?    

Romney/Ryan decide to take the air out of ball, so to speak

Today the Romney/Ryan campaign let reporters know that there would be no more interviews until after the election. And Paul Ryan bowed out of a town hall conference call tonight in which questions would be screened beforehand. So, has the campaign really taken the air out of the ball, started running out the clock, take a knee (Use any sports analogy you like) with 12 days to go to the election? They won't talk about Mourdock and the rape comment? They won't talk about the court case against Mitt Romney and Bain? They'll just go from campaign stop to campaign stop giving their speeches and not answering questions? Fine. But if anything happens in the world that might show a problem for America or even when the job numbers for October next Friday comes out, don't go out and try to talk to reporters. If you won't answer their questions when they want to talk to you, don't talk to them when you want to say something. Say something on Wednesday, the 7th of November. Or better yet, give a concession speech on the night of the 6th. If you can't stand the heat of the reporters question now, you have no right to sit in the White House later.  

Correction to the Romney ad

Unlike the GOP, when I make a mistake, I'll be glad to correct it. So the Romney ad that said the Romney was backing Mourdock came out on Monday, the day before the Indiana Senatorial debate, and not Wednesday, the day after, as I thought and wrote about earlier. But the ad hasn't been taken off the air, and Romney hasn't taken back his endorsement. As a matter of fact, he said nothing about Mourdock's comment on rape and abortion, but instead, had a spokesperson say that Romney didn't agree with Mourdock's views. Yeah, that's quite a backbone you have there, Mitt.

Romney splits the difference and takes both sides-again!

Tuesday night in an Indiana Senator debate, GOP candidate Richard Mourdock stated that the only exemption that he would accept for an abortion was the life of the mother. So this would mean that rape or incest would not be an acceptable reason for an abortion any time after conception. This was quickly countered by Mitt Romney, who said that Mr. Mourdock's view wasn't his view and wasn't a plan for his his administration. But then the very next day, Wednesday, ads went up in Indiana with Romney saying that Richard Mourdock needed to be elected, and giving him Romney's full support. Now, I can think of dozens of policies that Romney has changed on, most in the last four weeks. But I can't think of any candidate that in one day he or she has tried to placate both sides of an issue. I find this to be completely unacceptable and it gives me another reason to not vote for Romney. But this also begs the question that I wanted Romney to answer on TV: What part of the 2012 GOP platform if you were President would you veto, if any. I believe that although Romney may not agree with all the far right ideas of the GOP now, it would show that he doesn't have strong enough beliefs to go against the GOP in any way. And that is completely unacceptable to me.  

Romney's mis-statements made Obama the winner

While the president missed several opportunities to point out several errors the Governor Romney made, mistakes that could have sealed the deal for President Obama, the third presidential debate was still won by President Obama.
Within the first half hour, it became obvious that when it got down to the gist of the actions, Romney has either been lying to the GOP base and is in lock-step with the president in most foreign policies or he lied Tuesday night about his stance on Egypt, Syria, Afghanistan and even Iran. So I'm sure there will be a lot of spin today and probably for the next few days by the GOP as they try to get Romney back to his old position of no timeline in Afghanistan, a no-fly zone in Syria, and allowing Israel to attack Iran in an attempt to truly cripple their nuclear military capabilities. But if that's because Romney really doesn't care much about foreign policies, which is a definite possibility since he's basically a business man, that's very scary due to the advisers he has working for him. And this is one of two very easy opportunities that President Obama missed.
The first was when Romney talked about the Obama Middle East tour, one that Romney is calling "The Apology Tour." Imagine if the president had told the truth and said, "Governor Romney, during the Bush years, it was thought by many in the Arab world and some here at home that the U.S. was at war with Islam, and I wanted to assure them and all the American people that wasn't the policy of the government. But Governor Romney, with 17 of your 24 advisers being part of the Bush Administration, how would you assure them, and why should we think your policies would be different from the former president's policies?" It would have been a devastating blow.
The other point was a very simple point that Romney made that Obama may not have had a chance to question, but Romney did say that a 5% cut in all domestic spending was his way of balancing the budget. But later Romney said that education and Research and Development (R&D) needed to be strengthened. So does education and R&D need more money or not?
But even with these missed opportunities, Romney seemed unsure about where he stood on many areas, or at least there wasn't any difference between his position and Obama's. He lied about his position on the auto-bailout, which the president pointed out. And because Romney never seemed comfortable, or really didn't want to talk about foreign policies, it gave President Obama a fairly easy win.                 

What's wrong with American politics today.

On The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd, Senator Lindsey Graham said more about what's wrong with politics in one sentence than anyone could say in an entire book. On the show, Senator Graham stated that he, Senator John McCain and Senator Kelly Ayotte had sent a letter to the CIA Director asking to be briefed about the situation in Benghazi. Senator Graham, why did you pick 3 GOP Senators to send this letter? Wouldn't the letter have had more impact if it was a bipartisan letter with at least one Democrat asking for this briefing? It doesn't surprise me that the Director, General Petraeus, a decorated Army veteran of 37 years years, wouldn't brief these 3 people separately, or that until all the facts are in, he would be reluctant to brief the appropriate Senate committee. But Senator Graham and most of the GOP don't care being bipartisan, or for waiting for all the facts before deciding what actually happened. All they care about is the headline in the paper, to demonize the other side. A
And in a way, I want to thank Senator Graham for showing me and the American people what's wrong with American politics today. In one sentence, he said more about the problem with Washington than any book about gridlock has explained to the American people.   

More lies from the right, and why they're being said.

In a move to try to get more women to vote for Romney, more lies are being told about bills that the GOP would want passed. This afternoon on The Andrea Mitchell Show, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison stated that the Blunt Amendment would simply allow Catholic organizations  to back out of any insurance plans that included birth control pills. But as she well knows, the Blunt Amendment allows any employer or company to bow out of any insurance plan that the employer or company finds religiously or morally objectionable. In fact, doesn't have to be about birth control, but any item in the insurance plan that the employer or company objectionable could be used to opt out of the plan.
But this brings up another and, I think, more important question that the GOP/Tea Party need to ask itself. If your ideas for America are so great for the country and would be accepted by a majority of the people, why are you distorting them and your candidate is running away from them? Could it be that if the American people found out how far-right your plans for America is, they'd never vote for you? If so, what does it say about you and Tea Party tell that you can't state what your plans really do to America?      

Why Obama and Romney can't talk about the future in specifics

After two presidential debates, the majority of people still don't know where either candidate would take the country and what their plan for the future is. Well, maybe not a majority of people, but most of the undecided people, at least. And the reasons both Obama and Romney each can't state their plan and their party's plan for the future of the country show why Congress is so hated right now.
For the president, all he has to do is tell America about each of the bills he has sitting in the House and say that getting those bills passed would be most of his agenda in his next administration. That these bill would drop the number of unemployed by at 1.5% (CBO's worst estimate), and with the savings in the defense department after the drawdown in Afghanistan going to pay down the debt and help domestic spending. But all that would take the help of the GOP, both in the House and the Senate. And since they have refused to pass these bills and have obstructed the president in the past, it's highly unlikely that they'd do so in the future. So America, not only vote for me, but make sure I have a Democratic Congress, and that is the future the country can have. But since President Obama knows that this would just cause the GOP to say, "See, we told you that he refuses to compromise", he doesn't go down that road. It doesn't matter that the GOP is actually the group that is blocking the president's agenda, but that would be their answer. And enough people would actually believe the GOP lie that it could cause Obama to lose. And why say something that may be construed to benefit the other side? So that's why Obama can't be specific when talking about the future.
But for Romney, he has another complete different problem. If he believes in the GOP 2012 plank, then in theory all he has to do is tell America what it is and allow the people to decide which way they want to take the country. But that's the rub. In polls, America has shown that they really don't like the GOP plank. Cutting out environmental policies to allow companies to pollute and making it harder to sue when they do, passing the Personhood Amendment, eliminating financial laws to allow banking institutions to go back to pre-2008 laws, passing the Blunt Amendment allow to businesses to opt out of any insurance plans if any part of the insurance includes something that the company finds morally unacceptable, get rid of the Department of Education, eliminating all grants and loans to college students,  and overturn the Lily Ledbetter Act and the Consumer Protection Agency bill. These are all in the plank in some form, and all would be widely unpopular with the American people. Even the Affordable Healthcare Bill (Obamacare), which the GOP wants to repeal, while being slightly unpopular (It's now 47 for 53 against), isn't really all that unpopular. Take out the individual mandate, and all the other parts of the bill are acceptable to the American people. This is why Romney can't get specific.
But one thing Romney doesn't need talk about is Democratic obstruction. For in the House, the GOP is in control. And the GOP may get control hold the Senate. This would allow the GOP plank to go through pretty much unobstructed. But even if the GOP gains control of the Senate, can't the Democrats filibuster just like the GOP has done? Well, while the minority party in the Senate can filibuster just about bill, they can't filibuster an appropriations bill. And all they need to do is to de-fund all the agency they can't get rid of, and the effect is the same. So while one party can do what they want only if the other party agrees, the other party doesn't need that to happen. Think this would be acceptable to most Americans if this was explained to them? This is why the American people need both candidates to tell the truth about the future, and another reason why Romney will never get specific about the future.            

Presidential Debate #2

In last night's debate, it didn't take long for the President Obama to show that this debate would be different from the first debate, but it didn't take Mitt Romney even one question to keep up his strategy from the first debate: Move to the center if not out and out lie about what you've been advocating for the last year.
The very first question was about jobs and education, and after backing the Ryan budget which slashes the Department of Education and eliminates Pell Grants for the last year, Romney said that he liked Pell Grants. But when he talked about his 5 point plan for new jobs, President Obama retorted that in fact, Romney had only 1 point: His 20% tax cut. And for the next 90 minutes or so, the president came back and pointed out each flip-flop and showed every flaw in Romney's thinking. Whether it was The Lily Ledbetter Bill or House bills that would allow employers to opt out insurance plans that would include birth control pills or the Attack in Libya, when Mitt made a mistake or misstated things, President Obama not only pointed it out, he pounced and made Romney try to defend his statement, which he couldn't do. And whether it was Mitt not pointing out the differences in the 1983 and the 2008 recessions (The '83 was primarily caused an oil price raise and squeeze, while the '08 near-depression was caused by a world-wide financial collapse), or his   flip-flop on The Dream Act to allow illegals that are students to get green cards when they graduate (He has stated he'd veto the bill if President many times in the past), or lying about his backing of the Arizona Papers Bill, it seemed that Romney could never get a consistent fact correct. And all the while the president was glad to point out the fallacies in what Mitt was saying.
But as bad as Tuesday night's debate was for Romney, there was at least one shining light that he could hang his hat on: Although his momentum has been blunted, he's still in the race this morning, and if the president had been this way in the first debate, there'd be no doubt who'd be the president for the next 4 years, and his name wouldn't be Romney.      

The difference between Romney and Bush #43

A question on a Sunday talk show was: If the panel could ask Romney and Obama one question in the town hall meeting debate Tuesday night, what would it be? And for the most part, the questions were what anyone would expect. But one person said they'd ask Romney what policies he'd have that were different form George W. Bush. And he said that he was sure that if there was an answer, it would be not one thing different. But I think this actually paints Bush #43 in the wrong light. Does anyone think that W. would try to take all public finds from PBS or Planned Parenthood like Romney plans on doing? Yes, I have no doubt that on foreign policy, a Romney administration would be act the as Bush did, as the Neo-Cons that were in the Bush #43 administration are also in places of power in the Romney campaign. But on domestic policy, the Bush administration was not as right-wing fanatical as the GOP mainstream is now. My question, again, would be: What part of the GOP national plank would you veto? On this, I doubt there would be an answer. Is Romney really one of the far right that dominates the GOP, and therefore knows of nothing, or does he disagree with parts of plank and in not wanting to upset the GOP base keep quiet?
There's differences between the Bush #43 administration and the Romney campaign, and Romney is much farther right on domestic policies than W. ever was, but is Romney as far right as the mainstream GOP is now? That's the question I'd like to have answered.    

Fox News, be truthful and change your name

After watching the vice-presidential debate, I taped the both MSNBC and Fox News to get the reactions. And while I did find MSNBC's coverage to be slanted toward Biden, it was nothing like the complete hatchet job done on the vice-president by Fox News. So that got me thinking: What part of news is Fox really interested in? What news do they actually break? I have seen a couple liberal people on a couple of their shows, but are any of their shows actual news shows? I guess tape from 2007 is considered late breaking news. I have an idea for them, although I'm sure they won't listen to me. But, if you are going to tell the truth, even if it as only as you see it, shouldn't your name tell who you really are. So I suggest that you take the name News out and just be the Fox GOP/ Tea Party Channel. You could really take the GOP out and be the Fox Tea Party Channel. You could still have a few liberal people on the shows to give the viewer a sense of balance. But if you're the channel that's suppose to be fair and balanced, at least be fair to everyone and say who you really are: The Fox Tea Party Channel.      

My reaction to the Vice-Presidential debate

After watching the vice-presidential debate, I again didn't see the same debate that I followed on twitter last night. But this time I know why, and after changing a few things, I agree with what I read. But my reaction isn't really what I thought it would be before the debate. I really thought that Ryan was enough of a wonk that he would be able to explain his domestic agenda but have trouble with foreign policy. But in fact, except for his answer about Afghanistan, he was able to at least to stay even with Biden. So in foreign policy part of the debate, where I thought Biden would wipe the floor with Ryan, I gave Biden a very small win. But in the domestic areas, Vice-President Biden had a ready response for everything that Ryan threw at him. And I'm sorry, Congressman Ryan, but I really wish you'd get your facts correct. A trimmed-down Department of Defense would have the fewest ships since World War I? Not even close. A Romney/Ryan administration would allow abortions in certain cases? But your own bill (The personhood bill) would make all abortions illegal. You stated that judges shouldn't have a say in abortions, but legislatures should have the final say. But then why do you make anti-abortion a litmus test for all judges? And isn't the judiciary the final say in whether any law is legal or not? If a tax increase on the rich won't balance the budget, and you were right, it won't, then how does another tax decrease balance the budget? And finally, Congressman Ryan, have you ever heard of the separation of Church and States? If so, if you vote to ensure the country follows your religion, haven't you gone much farther over the line than the Obama administration and allowing birth control pills to be on all health care policies? I could go on, but I think it is easy to see why I gave Biden a huge win in the domestic policy section of the debate.
And finally, I thought the moderator did a great job, but I really wasn't all that happy with her questions. Or maybe a better way of saying it is that while last week's 90 minute debate seemed to take 3 hours, this 90 minute debate seemed to fly by. Other than her background in foreign policy, I don't know why she started there. I also wanted her to ask questions about immigration, gun control, voting rights, and gay rights, but none of these were brought up, not in this debate or in the first debate. But I did think she did a great job of moderating, although I know those in the Tea Party will disagree.
And I'm sorry Fox News, the vice-president was not cranky or mean-spirited or anything like that. Yes, he did interrupt Congressman Ryan too much, but I think that in those cases, he just couldn't wait to show out the flaws in the Ryan's proposals. And even I laughed at some of the things that Ryan said, so the Vice-President's laughs didn't bother me. And while I have found some people on MSNBC to take a rather slanted view of the debate, for the most part I found most of the reporting to be very fair to Rep. Ryan.
But in saying that, I do think that Fox News and the Tea Party (GOP) are happy with Ryan's performance in the debate. They will find a few nuggets and sound-bites that will drive their point home to their viewers, but I don't see how any undecided voters would be swayed by what Ryan said. And there were many who will look on Biden in a new and better light. And in doing that, they'll have a more favorable view of the entire Obama administration. And isn't that the entire purpose of any debate?
      

Vice-presidential debate: A question for Ryan

With the vice-presidential debate being held later this week, I don't know how many people will be watching, but I do have a question that I would like to have answered by Rep. Ryan. I am sure that every time Vice-president Biden brings up the Ryan budget, he will try to explain a little, but I'm also sure he'll remind Biden that it's the Romney/Ryan ticket, not the Ryan/Romney ticket. And he'll say that Romney isn't going to use his budget. But that would lead to my question that I hope Biden asks. If Romney isn't using your budget, isn't going to cut programs that you want to cut, doesn't agree with your plans for social security, medicare, and medicade, doesn't agree with the personhood amendment that you and Rep. Akin sponsored, and you have no foreign policy experience to give him, why did Mr. Romney pick you? And if Mr. Romney disagrees with all your major plans, why did you say yes to being his running mate? Planning on changing his mind and convincing him of your ideas? And if so, why should we believe him now? Well, that may be more than one question, but that's what I'd like to know if I got the chance.    

Mitt's debate is civil, his friend's aren't

While Mitt's debate performance could be called several things, one thing it was to everyone was civil. While he disagreed with the president on several items, he didn't put the president down in any way. But for his friends in the GOP, and people in his campaign, they decided that being completely uncivil, mean, and vile was the way to go. First Newt Gingrich decided to go to the right-wing dog-whistle words. Newt said that for as long as he was in American politics, he couldn't understand the president, that the president didn't seem to have any rhythm in the debate, and didn't know why basketball was important to him. He could have just said that the president was a black man from Kenya and the meaning would have been the same and just as clear to the right-wing. But as bad as Newt was, he paled in comparison to John Sununu. a spokesman for the Romney campaign. He went on MSNBC on said that the president had a bad debate because the president is lazy. When asked if he wanted to take it back, or at least restate it, Sununu said no. Then on Fox News, when asked if  he thought the president would have a better debate next week, he said, of course not, that the president is too dumb to get better next time. So Sununu called the president lazy and dumb. Do  you really think, Mr. Sununu, that because President Obama didn't call out Mitt on all his lies that he's lazy and stupid? You know, with friends like this Mitt, it really doesn't matter how civil you are. If you won't get on TV and say they went too far, they show exactly how you really feel. And it doesn't matter how civil you try to be, the American people will take into account your friends, who aren't civil in any way.        

GOP tells ESPN: Your show's name is wrong!

ESPN has a show called Numbers Never Lie, and after the unemployment rate was reported at 7.8% today, the GOP said that yes, those numbers are a bald face lie. Why does the GOP disbelieve the numbers? Well, actually, it started the night of the the 2008 election. The same night that Obama was elected, the GOP hierarchy decided to give the President-elect no victories to ensure that Obama would be a one-term president. So every vote that came up after the GOP won the House in 2010 that was suggested by the president was tabled, including jobs bills that would lower the unemployment rate. And every month that the unemployment rate was above 8%, which is what Obama said the rate would never get above, the GOP made sure the nation knew, and they hung the number like a noose around the president's neck. Why did Obama use this number? When the recession of 2008 was thought to be a 3.5% decline, economists thought this would be the number if the government stepped in. But when the recession came in at over a 9% decline, after the election, the unemployment rate had to go higher. But the GOP has used the 8% number anyway. But today when the unemployment number came out today at 7.8%, the GOP said that the Obama administration had cooked the books to make up for a bad debate Wednesday night. It doesn't matter that for months economists had questioned the high numbers the last 3 months. It doesn't matter that several people in the know of how the numbers are crunched have said the numbers could never be manipulated.  It didn't matter that the drop was only .3 of 1 percent, the GOP said it couldn't be true. And it had to be manipulated by the administration. No proof needed for the GOP to believe it's true. To the GOP, if the number isn't something acceptable to them, they lie. Sorry ESPN, to the GOP, that show's name is wrong: If they don't believe them, the numbers do lie.

The debate-Did I see the same one you did?

I watched last night's Presidential debate earlier today, as I was watching something else last night, and I'm not sure I saw the same debate that everyone else did. While I was watching the tweets from the debate last night, I thought that President Obama was getting killed. But I saw something different, actually something completely different, from what I thought I'd see. What I saw was two campaigns that had two different plans going into the debate, and they both did what they wanted. Romney, being behind in the polls, wanted to attack the president, and President Obama, being ahead in the polls, didn't want to talk down and bully Romney. He wanted to play it safe, as it was, just stating the facts and let the people decide which one was right. He even said so several times. So what was actually said, what actually happened, and what should happen for both candidates in the future?

Well, to start with, those aren't the real questions, Jim. What are the difference in the candidates on any issue isn't the question, it's what you're trying to find out. So Jim, you want to know the differences in the candidates? Then, to use the first question as an example, Mr. President, both you and Gov. Romney agree that the unemployment rate is too high. What is your plan to lower the rate? Gov. Romney, what's your plan?  Now, if there's no time left, it's your job to stop the debate and move on. Any high school debater knows this. But, as any debater knows, the topics are general, and it's the debaters job to shoot holes in the other side's argument. Debates aren't Sunday morning shows, where the host draws distinctions from the two sides. So Mr. President, you were poorly prepared for the flip-flops that Gov. Romney said that were different than his stump speech at rallies. He stated that he wanted the best schools, and thought there were many things that Education Secretary Arne Duncan had enacted that were good, but one of the Departments the GOP want eliminated is Education. No tax cuts for the rich? You've been arguing for tax cuts and trickle down economics for this entire campaign. Some regulations for businesses are good, including parts of Dodd-Frank, you said. But you've been arguing that Dodd-Frank should be repealed since even before it was passed. So on some items, you abandoned the far right GOP budget plan. But in other items, you were a true conservative. Every time you stated what it would cost a small business to enact ObamaCare, it was by a small business group. Do you really think they'd agree any regulation would be approved by them? You stated that it is immoral that debt be passed from one generation to the other, but the Ryan budget, which you've stated is outstanding, doesn't balance the budget until 2040. So how does that work for you? And you complained about the president not getting any GOP votes for ObamaCare. But, it was good enough for your state when you were governor, and you said that you worked with both sides to pass the bill. And it was the Heritage Foundation, a GOP think tank, that came up with the individual mandate. So why isn't it the GOP's fault that they couldn't agree? I could go on, and may in another blog, but I'll try to wrap this up.

So, what really happened? Well, we were just reminded that Gov. Romney is a good debater, and the GOP knows how to read the rules. And the President Obama, no matter what the GOP says, really doesn't like to attack the other side. He isn't comfortable putting the other side in a box. He had many chances, and I agree with MSNBC that he should have gone on the attack on obvious lies and flip-flops.

So what should happen in the future debates? Well for Romney, he has to keep on the attack and hope the president doesn't call him on it. For the president, he has to actually debate. When Romney states a lie or goes against what he's stated on the campaign, he has to point it out and pressure Romney on the point. The first debate isn't a blueprint for all the other debates, and the president can come back after a so-so first debate. It was done in 2004 with George W. Bush after Kerry won the first debate. I believe W. was a 2 term president, and so can Obama.