John Adams

So you think the Republicans didn't screw up the debt ceiling deal? That it broke down because of Obamaa and Boehner did not substantially contribute? Just take sequestration.

Both sides backed away. Boehner never had support and negotiated without approval. Obama had the same issue but to a lesser extent since he was POTUS but Obama asked for changes at the end to shore up his base (the tax raise goal post move) that he may have withdrawn but we will never know because when the president called to discuss them...3 times... Boehner refused to take his call. Horrific behavior. POTUS calls the Speaker. Speaker needs to take his call or call back. Obama and Boehner both failed the country. Last time around and it appears this time. Lets see if the Reps have the balls to raise taxes too. Obama put a lot of cuts on the table last time when we were nearing the debt ceiling. Reps did not put forward new revenue...only Boehner discussed that. And when Obama made a final push for it, Boehner sunk what would have been a helluva deal (that the parties may not have supported, ESP the Right). It hasn't stopped being more than party politics yet. At some point they may put country first.

Boehner refuses to increase revenue except through loophole closing. Not practical. Dems not wiling to cut entitlements as much as is needed. Not practical. We were at the meltdown or whatever it was called a year ago when dems had some 2.5T in cuts on the table but it fell apart after the same nonsense, then all of you re elected all the same people, hoping for a different result. I LOVE sequestration. It gets the job done. The problem is Congress will vote to ignore it. Bring on actual cuts and recession. Lets eat our peas. At least sequestration is a plan that gores us all.

The Norquist pledge is stupid in this day. The only way to get our books in order is with both cuts and tax hikes. As long as the cuts:hike ratio is in the 3 or 4:1 range, I'm good with paying more. In the almost-deal that Boehner and Obama scuttled, the cuts to hikes ratio was something like that so it's not unrealistic.

If it's any consolation, he had 3 carries in the 3rd quarter. 2 on the last 2 plays.

Also enjoyed it. Team of Rivals was better and this was an abridged adaptation. Very little about the war.

Stein?

Simpleton.

Of course. It's also a model that works in a wellness-based healthcare approach. My doctor's job is not to just fix me, his job is to keep me healthy.

When people are pissed because Fitz only lead the offense to 31 and not 38 points, it's possible they are missing the problem. Sure, Fitz is not great but WTF. The defense could not be worse.

Yes. My GP doctor takes no insurance (I can apply for reimbursement on my own). He runs a subscription based model. For about $100/month, I can text him, call him, video conference with him...but he takes neither private nor public insurance. I don't need a doc often so it's a model that works for docs and patients like me. He encourages wellness visits...little check-ins where we just make sure things are going well.

Hopefully he has more important things to push.

Something to file for next election. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?ref=politics Rasmussen again a big loser.

I don't care if certain public figures have affairs...but not the CIA director. Not the president. And why? See The stories NewBills linked.

Don't we have enough problems?

It will feel worse when they finish 7-9 this year and are picking 17th, ideal spot for a top safety.

Really? So we need to hit a cliff because of an election? Nothing could be done at all until we're 7 weeks out? That's why these schmoes need to go: Fixing the country is not their priority--getting elected is. (Not sure what the Congress retention rate was this time...mid 90% is my off the cuff guess.)

For a detailed behind the scenes on the almost debt deal, I recommend Woodard's The Price of Politics. Few at the top come off looking good. Maybe Geitner and actually also Biden. Everyone else is terrible. I like that there's all this talk about the fiscal cliff...like it's arriving from nowhere. Meanwhile, these cuts have been looming for months and no one had plans for dealing with them. I am not convinced that letting the sequestration cuts--that both sides agreed was the consequence of their not getting a deal done--go into effect and "eating our peas" as Obama likes to say, isn't the best course. The Dems and Reps both said this was the price for failing to get the deal done. Hey jerkoffs, let's pay the price...and maybe the electorate will have you all pay the price come November 2014.

This is like Jim in Anchorage's gay marriage. Interesting to discuss...but we have more pressing issues and the federal government needs to focus on those other issues. Rob is right: Romney never said "Who gives a **** about abortion and gay marriage if you don't have a job?"

Romney was about as close to a single issue candidate as you'll see. Maybe he added some foreign policy barbs late but for the most part, he never deviated from focusing on the economy. America didn't see either that issue as the main one or didn't like his answers to that problem.

Don't see it happening but bravo. Mitt did number 1 and was relatively quiet on social and religious issues. Did not reach out to Latinos effectively.

Jim is doing a lot of thinking about gay marriage. Slippery slope Jim.

Was it really a squeaker? A weakened president pretty much ran away with it.

Looks like you're thinking about gay marriage.

I voted for Romney, who was for amending the US constitution to prohibit gay marriage. So I also voted with economy as my number one concern. I was noting a tide turn. Ballot initiatives had failed before this election.