well said Real Life !

You've got that totally backward. The current Democratic Party is the old Republican Party. The current Republican Party makes Birchers look sane.

"Forced to raise taxes 11 times to avert financial catastrophe, the Gipper nonetheless presided over a tripling of the American national debt to nearly $3 trillion. By the time he left office in 1989, Ronald Reagan more than equaled the entire debt burden produced by the previous 200 years of American history. It's no wonder that, three decades after he concluded "the supply-siders have gone too far," former Arthur Laffer acolyte and Reagan budget chief David Stockman lamented:

"[The] debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."

Ryan will be working against Romney with his buddies in the tea party and Grover Norquist. Are the Republicans expecting Ryan to make Romney look more competent? I think this is great for the Obama campaign. For once Democrats may appear unified next to those two. Republicans will expect Romney to just shut up and do what he is told.

@Real Life. I couldn't have said it better myself and I am a true independent. What I like about Ryan is he is as middle class as you can get out of all the bunch.

As far as MY opinion goes, Obama and his party had full control for 2 full years and did little for the economy. (in my life) He had little experience in the world as far as outside of Gov and inside as well, for that matter.

For the first time in my life I am actually nervous about what the future holds for all of us. I feel so much better about Romney now that he chose Paul. No matter what anyone says about the man he is very smart, has given our economy tons of his time and attention on how to fix it and I state again is as middle-class American as you can get!

Romney is a smart business man and made himself a ton of money. By choosing Ryan, I view it as another smart business move that hopefully will give us a future.

PS for the record I am not against National Healthcare, just against the way he did it.

Hope your post isn't ironical

DJFeichtinger said : " We now got "

Maybe Obama should throw more money at the public schools for English classes.

@Scoobydoo, these are casual posts, not doctoral dissertations. Go take a "chill pill".

Ayn Rand? Oh, come on. Paul is a little right of center, but a good guy with good conservative instincts. The looming bankruptcies of Social Security and Medicare are America's "most predictable crisis". Paul Ryan has a plan . . . the Democrats are just hoping the problem will go away. Good luck with that.

If you Google "Paul Ryan Ayn Rand" you will find a lot of links. He used to quote Ayn Rand all the time.

It is interesting how they "talk" one game but have their greedy little fingers in every government program they can get them into, along with, of course, all their friends.

No, these programs are not draining American dry. What is draining us dry is endless wars on the credit card, defense spending that is over 60% of the entire budget and bigger than all the defense budgets of other countries put together, free loading conservatives who resent everyone and refuse to invest in America's future, off-shored money and off-shored jobs robbing us of revenue, tax cuts for billionaires at the expense of the poor and elderly, bailed out banks, corporate welfare, and politicians that ripped off the entire Social Security surplus to spend on all of the waste and fraud above.

Sarah... I appreciate your comments I am also nearing that age. There is a lot of comment as of late everyone under the age of 55 -- don't know though if that's reassuring. It seems as of late either political party -- what is more important for the party is more important than what is good for the country. Don't know if you have had a chance to read this link -- It's disturbing -- down right fighting. What this country really needs is some good old fashioned across the aisle decision making, and I haven't seen that since the Bill Clinton era.

America's Ever Expanding Welfare Empire -- by Peter Ferrara, Forbes Magazine
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/04/22/americas-ever-expanding-welfare-empire/

I am so tired of people saying my social security check and medicare are entitlements ! I worked damn hard for as long as I could till 40 years with diabetes took it's toll. At least I paid into the system while working. Now lets look at the democratic side of the coin . Well it's okay if you don't want to work we will take this guys money so you can sit on your non working ass and play with your free iphone .

Sarah like your witty comments and agree all the way,

Sarah, it's funny that all the Dems are scared about _change_ to something that is obviously being sucked dry by abuse. They know that Romney represents a big, scary, unknown future for their broken system, while Obama would be able to "fix" that same system by borrowing more money from China. Sorry Mr. President, it's still broken!

Today's Republicans are so radical and extreme, they make John Birchers look like communists. Conservatives with their tax cuts and deficit spending have been running this country for 40 years and look at the mess they made. After the mess Bush created and left, who are you trying to kid.

Agree "Just the facts"

Really, Oakland? You're okay with Obama increasing our national debt by billions of dollars every day, and you're afraid of tax cuts that would work to paying off that debt? Spoken like a true, scared Democrat. Republicans are only calling for these tax cuts because look who borrowed more money than every president before him: Obama! No need to look more than 4 years ago, nevermind 40!

I dare you to actually read the budgets that Paul Ryan has created, got passed in the House of Representatives, and then say he isn't planning on greatly diminishing the amount of money spent on various programs. The Department of Education alone would lose 44% of its funding.

The whole poll thing had me confused completely. It mentions 58 people, then 21 people so it's not clear if that means really 79, or 21 of the 58.

But either way you are right, it is certainly not a scientific poll anymore than compiling the opinions in this comments section would be.

I agree -- this is not a "poll" in any meaningful sense of the word. For one thing, they are all from the same political side.

Biden will go down in flames and likely with his foot in his mouth.

You mean as opposed to all of the taxpayers wealth being turned over to the Government? How is one better than the other?

Aaron - The wealth isn't being turned over to the government. It is being turned over to the banks and billionaires that own the Republican Party. It's what they pay them to do. The Democrats aren't much better, but at least they aren't insane, too.

Oaland - last I checked, my taxes went to the government. Some portion of that (and we can disagree on the exact amount) goes to banks. Now, maybe I misunderstand the logic/orig comment here, but I would rather give my money to a private, for profit, enterprise as opposed to the government, because with the government I don't have a choice as to how much I give, and I have limited choice as to what I get. If I give to a private enterprise, I decide what I give to, and control to a greater extent what I receive.

Mostly though, I don't understand the rational that giving to private enterprise is bad as opposed to the government. What makes that government better? That they aren't a "for profit" enterprise???

For resources that you have no choice but to pay for because they are public necessities (roads, firefighting, police, education, water, sewer, basic health care), it is much better and cheaper to have those run by the government. The government is supposed to serve the people. For Profit businesses only care about profit. The most a For Profit business cares about customers is how the customers' unhappiness might affect future sales. When a For Profit business has a Monopoly it doesn't even bother to care about the customers' unhappiness at all. Price gouging with minimal quality product (like the current health insurance system) is standard practice among Monopolies. When several For Profit businesses collaborate to keep prices high among them then they basically act as a Monopoly. That is one of the reasons medications are more expensive in the United States compared to anywhere else in the world.

I am a Disabled woman. I have had For Profit Health Insurance and Government provided Health Insurance (Medicare). When I just had my supposedly excellent For Profit Health Insurance, I fought with my Insurance companies almost every day for even the most basic of care (like an annual visit). Since I have been on Medicare, I haven't had to fight once to get ANY of my medical care covered.

Emily , do they get paid to put the blue mitten up too?, just saying because they do both. Heads up!

Huh? And GM and Chrysler didn't go bankrupt under Obama? I don't know how many keystrokes I have, but without the Administration seizing the means of production for the UAW, Nissan would further cozied up Chrysler, where there were a ton more synergies than Fiat. GM? I doubt that it would been broken up for scrap (although in many way it deserved to be). It would be easy to imagine a Fiat tie-up, or maybe its Chinese partner, SAIC.

In any case, any scenario would have been preferable to handing ownership to the UAW with our money. Which we will never see again.

We're smokin Democrats.

Trust me, they do both.

not true frogorf. I know many, MANY people that work for GM that were upset they were bailed out and wanted the bankruptcy to play out. Many felt confident that they would still have their jobs in the end. Many factory workers I know are VERY scared about their future, especially with gas prices sky rocketing. They also know if this administration gets re-elected, odds are the gas prices will keep going up which will ultimately hurt everyone in the auto industry. The Volt was Obama's project and look what happened to that.

It's not a matter of spending a little too much, it's a matter of spending so much that the entire program collapses. Ryan's budget avoids this scenario while not reducing benefits for current seniors or those nearing retirement age by one cent.

Most of Federal spending is defense, Medicare, and Social Security. Which would you like to cut, Therese?

Don't really think that you are right, but I sure did enjoy your little happy tune (comment) ! Truly, very funny.

Wow kiddy you sure sound very angry.....therapy works try it.

Angry? Where are you getting that? I stated a fact and republicans tell you the Government is bad as they continue to live off of it.

wow kidcat you are very missinformed about Ryan. If you are against Ryan receiving benefits because his father died at a young age then you are against entitlements? How do you think Obama got into Harvard??

And unless you're on welfare there is no reason to blindly vote Democrat.

I don't vote blindly for anything, but it seems pretty clear to me that the country is heading in the wrong direction under Obama's leadership.

Mr Truth, JH's anonymous and (knee) jerk reaction notwithstanding, there is no reason for anyone to vote blindly. President Obama has been leading in the context of one of the worse "got nothing done" Congresses in history.

Etch-a-Sketch Romney, charting his vaporware programs on a white board (I am Romney. I am rich. Trust me. I should be President. The end.), along with his Paul "I didn't know she was an atheist until I was picked as Romney's sidekick" Ryan selection, has already demonstrated he's neither ready for prime time, nor deserving of our trust.

Romney's default budget specifics falling to those published by Ryan's plan fail to balance anything for three decades. This is the same "trick" the 2001 Bush tax cut justification: "follow my plan that eviscerates government finances and we will reach Nirvana bye and bye".

No, the Reagan/Bush/Romney "trickle down" scheme, rejected as false by experience and by sane economists, both on the left and the right, should make is clear for all to see: Obama/Biden 2012

Therese, please. "And please don't say it is Bush's fault! He hasn't been in the White House for almost 4 years."

That's like saying "Don't blame bin Laden for the fact that One World Trade Center is not completed; he's been dead for over a year!"

It is well within reason that an administration (like that of George W. Bush) could create an economic problem that would take more than four years to fix. Our economy is like a large ocean liner - just like it takes time to reverse an ocean liner's course, so too does it takes time to correct the damage done by Bush's cratering of the economy. The only reason we mention Bush is to remind people of the context of our times. While the current state of the economy is not as healthy as anyone would like, President Obama has led us from losing 700,000 jobs PER MONTH (as we were doing in the last months of the Bush administration) to over 24 months of net private job creation.

If those Republicans who chose to be traitors to the country had chosen to work with the President (instead of being willing to crash the economy and cedit worthiness of the country as a means to gain power with the elctorate), the rate of job growth would have been even higher.

So, instead of rolling your eyes when you read of Bush's contribution, remember the damage he wrought upon the American people. If enough people remember (Bush) history, we may not be sentenced to repeat it (read "suffer more of the same under Romney/Ryan).

Obama/Biden 2012

Frank Beckman promoting a virulent liar's books and movie on the "We're Just Republicans" 50,000 watt radio station? No thanks. Poppycock fiction.

A dose of reality:

"Clinton will have a starring role at the Democratic National Convention. George W. Bush won't even be at the Republican one -- the first time a national party has not given the stage at its convention to its most recent occupant of the Oval Office who successfully ran for reelection.

The GOP is counting on America's notoriously short-term memory ... on the reasonable assumption that such a memory might cause voters to avoid making the same mistake twice. As whoever-it-was once said, "fool me once ..." (and then mangled the rest).

Republicans want to obliterate any trace of the administration that told America there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and led us into a devastating war; turned a $5 trillion projected budget surplus into a $6 trillion deficit; gave the largest tax cut in a generation to the richest Americans in history; handed out a mountain of corporate welfare to the oil and gas industry, pharmaceutical companies, and military contractors like Halliburton (uniquely benefiting the vice president); whose officials turned a blind eye to Wall Street shenanigans that led to the worst financial calamity since the Great Crash of 1929 and then persuaded Congress to bail out the Street with the largest taxpayer-funded giveaway of all time." - http://goo.gl/V9mhN

Therese, you left so much excrement to wade through.

#1 About Reagan's "performance"
1977-1980 (Jimmy Carter, Democrat), +3.25%
1981-1988 (Ronald Reagan, Republican), 3.4%
The nominal national debt tripled under reagan, from $0.9T to $2.8T
Average national budget deficit per year: Carter - $56.9B, Reagan - $237.5B
and let's not start about who raised taxes more and more frequently

#2 "Reagan inherited as bad a situation as Obama did" That is nonsense: the Bush Recession was the worse since the Great Depression. And Obama got elected without promising to ship weapons to the Iranians.

#3 "GWB had to rebuild the economy after 9/11" which is like crediting the arsonist with putting out the fire, but that's a whole other thread. In a month the Dow Jones, the Nasdaq and the S&P had regained its pre-9/11 price levels. As Bush was going out the door, we were losing over 700,000 jobs per MONTH.

#4 "Obama's promises of employment under 8%" Never happened. He never promised that. Read http://goo.gl/EtN0y Now, having read it, please stop posting that lie. Thank you. Part Two to follow ...

To continue ...

#5 "getting out of the wars he railed against" During Obama's term, we got out of Bush's Iraq War and cleaned up Bush's mess w.r.t. bin Laden. GOP is whining about the planned Afghanistan withdrawl.

#6 "robbing $716 billion from Medicare"
a) By reducing rates paid to hospitals, health insurance plans, and other medical providers (not physicians, by the way -- a mistake being made by media all over the place), the "draw" out of the fund is reduced by $716 billion between federal fiscal years 2013-22 (it was $449 billion between 2010-19 when the ACA was signed in March 2010). If the ACA is implemented as passed, then $716B less will be withdrawn over those ten years, meaning the Medicare Trust Fund will have about eight more years of solvency than if the ACA had not been signed into law.
b) Two GOP mouthbreathers got blasted for trying to push that lie: http://goo.gl/upNQ0
c) Paul Ryan’s budget proposal maintained these same $716 billion reductions/savings
... that makes those who repeat this canard guilty of a hypocritical lie and a misrepresentation

Final part to follow ...

#7 "Your Dems and Obama got through EVERY policy they wanted for the first 2 years of his administration. ... the GOP didn't stop him from anything" Democrats had control of Congress in 2009-2010 but still needed GOP votes to overcome the filibuster. The only exception was for a three month period between September 2009 and January 2010, when they did actually have the sixty votes they needed to pass ObamaCare through the Senate. Three months, not two years.

The GOP has filibustered an amazing number of times (http://goo.gl/yndHh) In addition, the filibuster and other other procedural tactics have been used by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to simply chew up legislative days. They have filibustered bills they support just to make them take three days to pass instead of five minutes. By slowing down the process, the Republicans reduce what actually gets done.

And that's why this Congress has a 83% disapproval rating.

Conclusion: there is much merit to defending President Obama, and certainly little merit to commend the behavior of the GOP during his administration. Obstructing job bills and then chorting about unemployment is a tired national policy, and are actions more akin to the actions of traitors than patriots. The country should not reward such treachery.

Obama/Biden 2012

Therese, it is disturbing as to how dedicated you are to the Romney-Ryan(Rand) ticket. Clearly, you will not let reality nor facts alter your support. You make allegations, I disprove them, and you ignore the proof offered that you were and remain wrong.

Never constrained by information easily checked and often supported with citation, you obviously would never vote for the President. You have a right to your own opinions, even after I and others have proven you so very wrong. Perhaps it is just better to leave you to your delusions (i.e., thinking Romney has a budget plan worthy of support when "by Ryan's admission, the Romney campaign is promoting a budget plan despite not knowing what it actually accomplishes" - http://goo.gl/tzMmj ) and pray for your recovery.

Obama/Biden 2012

Bryce, as a photographer, you should have developed a better picture: successful governance happens when all parties are committed to improving the country. The GOP has been committed to gumming up the works, and were bash enough to announce that they were willing to see the country's credit rating erode, people to have fewer job opportunities, and the country's economic recovery hindered by their refusal to compromise - even when given the opportunity to support plans they themselves proposed.

Yes, the economy in Sep 2010 was worse than it is today, and thus it is reasonable and rational to expect that today's recommendation about the tax plan has changed. Things change and time moves. You'd be better served by opening up the F stop on your mind.

As to Reagan's "success", you are not remembering correctly, but rather through rose colored filters: David Stockman on the 'Reagan Revolution': It Never Happened, the Mythology Only Gets Amplified - http://goo.gl/SXWqC

Your "excuse and blame" is my research and citation. Get the picture? I would guess not, since it appears you approach looking at President Obama's record and experience over the last few years with your lens cap on.

Oh please, the whining about divisiveness is so Bush. Romney/Ryan(Rand) have no demonstrated history of fiscal responsibility nor a balanced budget - nor even "full employment" plans. I repeat:

Therese, it is disturbing as to how dedicated you are to the Romney-Ryan(Rand) ticket. Clearly, you will not let reality nor facts alter your support. You make allegations, I disprove them, and you ignore the proof offered that you were and remain wrong.

Never constrained by information easily checked and often supported with citation, you obviously would never vote for the President. You have a right to your own opinions, even after I and others have proven you so very wrong. Perhaps it is just better to leave you to your delusions (i.e., thinking Romney has a budget plan worthy of support when "by Ryan's admission, the Romney campaign is promoting a budget plan despite not knowing what it actually accomplishes" - http://goo.gl/tzMmj ) and pray for your recovery.

Obama/Biden 2012

Lee, this "shotgun" approach doesn't really work well. Even though nothing about your comment speaks to the poll question to which you've attached your salvo, here is a reply.

#1 - When people pay gasoline taxes they pay towards infrastructure support. It is surprising you were ignorant of that fact. Maybe you forgot, being so desperate to create a pithy attack post.

#2 - Suggesting that 90% of Americans are getting a free ride is either hubris, hatred, or intellectual sloppiness. Readers can decide which for themselves.

#3 - Moving from progressive taxation to a flat tax benefits those who already derive much benefit from the country. Moving to inverse taxation, such as would be the case with the Ryan plan (where Romney would be taxed at less than 1% on income) would enshrine a plutocracy. Your whine seems to imply that what you really want is to (further) punish those who are not uber rich.
...

#4 - Bush's policies left us losing 700,000 jobs per month. President Obama's policies helped start repair of that damage, with over 24 months of more jobs gained. There is nothing in the Romney/Ryan(Rand) budget that even hints of creating the increased consumer demand that drives business expansion.

#5 - The question posed was about Ryan's impact upon Romney's chances. Given that Ryan's intellectual muse was Ayn Rand, high priestess of selfishness, the last thing Michigan needs is that as a model for Michigan education.

The bottom line is that you favor policies that enshrine even more benefits for the uber wealthy. President Obama's policies are aimed at restoring fairness to the system.

We don't agree, Lee; our votes will cancel each other out, but given the polls, there appear to be more people inclined to vote the way I will than the way you will. I have no illusion, however, that such an outcome will ever convince you that your world view, however, twisted, is, in fact, twisted. A higher power than a web post will be needed for that.

Been fun, but gotta run. I don't have all day to play whack-a-mole with you and Therese.

Obama/Biden 2012

Ah Lee,

You are one of those "keep the government's hands off my Social Security" guys, aren't you?

Oblivious of the irony, you write "The gas tax hits us all in the pocket book. Why not apply it to the Federal level as well?" Look up "federal gas tax".

Then there is "Obama has a choice on where to send his kids, why not the rest of us as well?" You really think there is a law that says you cannot pay for your child to attend a private school?

"I hope my vote is the one to cancel yours." You are an inspiration to more people than you know, Lee, and your posts have the focus of a blunderbuss, as well as the same associated lack of penetrating insight, and are (with apology to The Bard) "full of sound a fury, signifying nothing".

"If there were a three point improvement since 2010, we wouldn't even have to hold an election in a few months."

Oh really? The difference between 1982 and 2010 is that the Democrats in Congress would have been virtually burned at the stake in the 1980's for allowing the country to descend into economic chaos, while the GOP in meetings on Jan 20, 2009, the day President Obama was sworn in, felt no such constraint. They formulated the plan then and there, before any action by the President, to oppose and obstruct by any means available.

Unfortunately, the press was complicit in this treason; it rarely challenged it or called upon GOP leaders to act for the good of the nation. Suggesting that the nation's election would have been cancelled itself would have been lambasted as an act of treason if it had come from the keyboard of anyone other than a GOP supporter.

Leaders do, in fact, get things done, and despite the treason of the GOP, President Obama did. If you can look at this list of the president's accomplishments after three years, and not be excited, you have a serious problem with perspective. Or you just hate him for having any success. The list, with supporting links for each item, is here: http://goo.gl/0OgkF

For a different way to look at it, consider a very good summary of just some of the major progressive achievements of the Obama administration (http://obamaachievements.org/):
-Overhauled the food safety system
-Advanced women's rights in the work place
-Ended Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) in our military
-Passed the Hate Crimes bill.
-Appointed two pro-choice women to the Supreme Court.
-Expanded access to medical care and provided subsidies for people who can't afford it.
-Expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
-Fixed the preexisting conditions travesty [and rescissions] in health insurance.
-Invested in clean energy.
-Overhauled the credit card industry, making it much more consumer-friendly.
-Took steps to re-regulating the financial sector with the Dodd-Frank bill
-He created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
-He got help for people whose health was injured during the clean-up after the 9/11 attacks.

None of these things were priorities for Republicans. They actively opposed, directly or indirectly through obstruction, every single item on this list. In fact, they succeeded in killing a Cap & Trade bill (initially a GOP idea) in the Senate after it had passed through the House.

All of these things are improvements that would not have occurred under a McCain-Palin administration. Moreover, a McCain-Palin administration would have moved in the other direction on most of these issues, or come up with even worse compromises.

So, we have an energetic President with significant accomplishments running against a former governor who has switched every position he's ever taken and has presented an undefined plan and a running mate who worshipped the Queen of Selfishness. Your dismissal notwithstanding, President Obama has been an editor, author, college professor, activist, Senator, and - duh - President. The sane choice is Obama/Biden 2012.

Hi Lee,

Is it safe to post here?? I am still offended by the Patch police there was no reason to shutter the comments last week .

This was one of the reasons why I stopped being a Patch Blogger was because of this censorship by Patch.

Enjoy the banter I cannot post on this site under the threat of censorship....

No, Lee, check the topic: "Red Mitten Flash Poll: Paul Ryan Will Improve Mitt Romney’s Chances in Michigan". I don't feel compelled to debate every last fact of American political, economic, or foreign policy here.

Your canard is this: "The govt is sucking the will out of folk to actually work for themselves." Create your own blog and argue this by yourself. It is nonsense, and the fact that I won't engage you in this thread on this topic is driving you crazy.

Well, crazier.

For proof, you actually believe "There are plenty of jobs out there, folk just want to collect instead." describes the entire employment/unemployment situation in America.

I rest my case. Rest might do you good, too.

Chris, tasty Ryan quotes. Don't choke:

- I just want to speak to you a little bit about Ayn Rand and what she meant to me in my life and [in] the fight we’re engaged here in Congress. I grew up on Ayn Rand, that’s what I tell people.
- I grew up reading Ayn Rand and it taught me quite a bit about who I am and what my value systems are, and what my beliefs are.
- It’s inspired me so much that it’s required reading in my office for all my interns and my staff. We start with Atlas Shrugged. People tell me I need to start with The Fountainhead then go to Atlas Shrugged [laughter]. There’s a big debate about that. We go to Fountainhead, but then we move on, and we require Mises and Hayek as well.
- But the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.
- And when you look at the twentieth-century experiment with collectivism - that Ayn Rand, more than anybody else, did such a good job of articulating the pitfalls of statism and collectivism - you can’t find another thinker or writer who did a better job of describing and laying out the moral case for capitalism than Ayn Rand.
- It’s so important that we go back to our roots to look at Ayn Rand’s vision, her writings, to see what our girding, under-grounding [sic] principles are.
- Because there is no better place to find the moral case for capitalism and individualism than through Ayn Rand’s writings and works.

http://goo.gl/pXtSl

Next time you want to join in a battle of wits, come armed. At least come with facts. Dismissing the association of Ryan and Ayn Rand because "no one cares that the guy read a book and was moved by it" merely demonstrates your ignorance. Of course, you may hide behind the handle of "Chris", but in this case, you might as well have posted under "Chris the Uninformed".

P.S.: Hope you are still laughing.

Obviously you (and select other Liberals) care enough to spaz out about it. The rest of us (normal Dems, independents, and Republicans) are more interested in knowing what the presidential hopefuls are willing to do to save our country, not about what books are on their VP's bookshelf. And the brightest of those people aren't interesting in being fooled a second time by Obama- insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

And oh yes, I'm definitely hiding behind whatever name Patch decided to show when I signed up with Facebook or Twitter or whatever other service was easiest. You're not providing us much information either Mr. Conliffe- your profile is only filled with comments of extreme liberal mumblings and that's all. Give it up- you and the rest of the "diehard" Libs are scared and grasping for straws in this election by launching non-stop attacks on Romney and Ryan, while those same two gentlemen are working on plans that will actually reduce the unemployment rate which Obama has jacked as high as 10% on multiple occasions, reverse the ever-bleeding national debt, and fix the extremely broken medicare system, a system that somehow got worse after Obama stole over $700 million from it. A vote for Obama only assures that these atrocities continue, while Romney provides a chance at actual hope and change.

Chris the Uninformed, you lie: "a system that somehow got worse after Obama stole over $700 million from it" - didn't happen, no matter how hard you hit the keys on your keyboard.

"The rest of us ... are more interested in knowing what the presidential hopefuls are willing to do to save our country, not about what books are on their VP's bookshelf." Weak try. Having merely read a book says little about the belief system of a reader. However, the evidence I presented and that is readily available points to the fact that the personal philosophy of the potential VP was shaped by Ayn Rand, AND that he was an apostle of her philosophy.

Romney picked Ryan, and he can't escape the contageon.

"grasping for straws in this election by launching non-stop attacks on Romney and Ryan, while those same two gentlemen are working on plans that will actually reduce the unemployment rate" No, they are not. They were counting on vague outlines and an election not based on a choice, where they'd have to actually stand for something specific, but a referendum on the President. They were wrong.

What they are doing is campaigning and fund raising.

And dodging questions as to why they don't release just as many years of tax returns as the President already has.

And trying hard to distance themselves from further evidence of the GOP War on Women provided by GOP Representative Akin.

P.S.: Chris, you don't seem like you are laughing quite so much. In fact, you "sound" angry.

Oh, Lee, I didn't know you were part of the Ayn Rand cult. That explains a lot.

Yes, I suffered through "Atlas Shrugged". I enjoyed the innovative government directed landing of a vehicle on Mars a lot better. I watched it on both my television and the internet - you know, the communication medium that was spawned by government investment in its early ARPAnet form by VP Al Gore? I wasn't using the US developed Apple iPad that seemed to find fertile ground here in the US; I was using a Dell to watch simulations and the real time celebration of government employees celebrating the accomplishment.

In fact, given your note, you might think all innovation has ceased in the United States. Clearly, it hasn't. You might think there are no more small businesses. Clearly, there are.

This country long ago rejected vulture capitalism. Back then its masters were known as Robber Barons. We had the good sense to moderate capitalism's excesses. Romney and his cohorts yearn to undo that progress and turn the clock back to before Roosevelt.

Teddy Roosevelt.

This election decides whether we surrender to the excesses of the system, or act in accordance with moral teaching throughout the world and in places of worship throughout the country. It is a competition of views: either we worship selfishness, or we act in accordance with the idea that we are all in this together.

I choose, and advocate for, the latter: Obama/Biden 2012.
(Isn't it time to close this thread?)

Bryce, at least the Democratic Party Convention will acknowledge former President Clinton, last in office on Jan 20, 2001. Will we hear from former President George W. Bush, last in office Jan 20, 2009?

Well, while at the ranch on a 6 week vacation in August, 2001, Bush received a memo from Condoleeza Rice entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."

That's what happened a few weeks later on September 11 - apparently after no special effort by the White House to step up protection against the hijackings that were being predicted by intelligence reports.

Several days after the attacks, when U.S. air space was still closed, Bush authorized special flights back to Saudi Arabia for Osama bin Laden's relatives and other wealthy Saudis, "for their safety."

Bush then vigorously fought creation of the 9-11 commission, which Bush and Cheney finally testified before TOGETHER. With 14 of the 18 hijackers from Saudi Arabia, Bush redacted multiple pages of the commission's report on Saudi involvement in the attack.

Four years later, while on another extended vacation at the "ranch," Bush was briefed on the destruction about to be unleashed on the Gulf Coast by Hurricane Katrina, including the likelihood that levies in New Orleans would be breached. Bush asked no questions, but then flew to California to fundraise.

The rest, well... avoiding their failed administration, neither Bush, nor Darth Cheney, will be seen much less heard at the GOP convention.

Yes, Bryce, follow Lee's suggestion: give up. Obama/Biden 2012.