truth on hold

"should" I don't know. But as stated previously I think this is the #1 battle ground because it speaks to Obama's greatest weakness and Romney's most important potential strength. I agree Romney has to do something to turn this around, and if I were part of his campaign Id be working 24/7 to figure it out. But as you say the mood of the country is anti-business with a particular contempt for Wall Street. One thing people arent getting is assessing Bain on how many jobs they created at companies they bought. When that has nothing to do with Private Equity. The only company Romney's performance should be assessed at is Bain, how much did they grow and how otherwise successful were they under his leadership.

The casino is fun, the Falls are spectacular and nearby Lewiston is one of the nicer areas in all of Western NY. Yeah, I could make a day of that

This is the part that really frustrates me. So it's a liability for a President to have been a successful businessperson, when the job of President has become more and more about the economy?

And you ought to give a ringy dingy to the 241 dead marines in a barracks in the middle of lebanons civil war, 3000 + dead American and 250000 dead Iraqi civilians who died for bogus WMDs and so we could retun to them a country even deeper in sectarian violence, or starving north Koreans who can't reconcile with south due to our presence, or 1 million Iranians dead at the hands of our sponsored invasion by saddam, etc etc etc etc. and the 100's of millions from future generations of Americans who will bare the financial burden of our deficit "defense" spending today.

Then it goes from "none of our business" to "stay the f#ck out". History shows the more invoked we are (Korea, Vietnam, Israel/palestIne, Iran) the more f#cked up it gets.

Fitz does not have Eli's arm. Thats the problem right there. Plain as day to see it.

None of our business

I highly doubt it. He really doesn't scare anyone

In 1959, President Eisenhower invited Nikita Khrushchev, the Butcher of Budapest, to the United States for 10 days of touring and talks. In 1972, Richard Nixon traveled to Beijing to toast and talk with Chairman Mao, who was responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of Chinese and tens of thousands of Americans in Korea. Ronald Reagan sought constantly for an opportunity to sit down across from the rulers of the “evil empire.” Iran is not remotely in that league, either in crimes attributed to the regime or any actual or potential threat to the United States. Have we no statesmen who can sit down, like Reagan at Reykjavik, and negotiate with Iran’s leaders for verifiable guarantees that she is not moving to nuclear weapons in return for something approaching normal relations? If we could sit down with Stalin and Mao, why are the ayatollah or Ahmadinejad so far beyond the pale? Can we just not handle that? Link to Article

Nearly 100% of the video news I watch is on the net, much on youtube of course. Network & cable news in the US is either agenda-oriented propagandists like Fox, lame tools of the government or political parties, or career-oriented reporters more interested in making a name for themselves than the actual story (Anderson Cooper). Most of my news is still from print, again though a high percentage from multiple sources via the net, usually starting with Google News. One of the youtube channels I subscribe to is Russia Today. News sources being FOS is nothing new, what is new is the consumers ability to readily access multiple sources and make up their own minds.

She's a hag, travelling around the world with her preachy hypocritical diatribe. I agree tomatoes were bad, don't want to do anything of a physical nature, should have just stuck to a good old fashioned mooning. Given how nasty the Clintons have become, I don't see any verbal taunts as off limits.

Its not that simple. I viewed Romney as one of the least negative in the Repub primaries

Most recent polls I see have him losing ground http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html Which is why people think the Obama attacks are working

Newt? Are you out of your mind?!!! That was a brain shart Yes to Paul.

I think he had a momentary brain fart and confused private sector with private parts.

He makes a good point: Romney will not win simply by slinging mud and trading barbs with Obama. Obama's been under the gun for 5 years now covering the primary against Hillary, presidential campaign against McCain and nearly 4 years in office. All the negatives are out and the guys still standing. Going negative will have minimal impact at this poInt. Romney needs to add Substance. What his cohesive overall plan? Vision? Platform? philosophy? Just being a rich guy who wants to be president whose not Obama isn't going to cut it .... Which was basically mccains criticism of him.

Romney isn't saying anything of analytical merit either. Just sound bite BS about BO being "soft of defense".

@ Doc, What makes you so confident ? BO's strength is public speaking and debate.

Article on her, verified legal 21 year old student at north Texas university. http://www.ntdaily.com/?p=67051

BOs major weakness is lackluster job growth. This is where MRs private sector success should be a huge positive vs a career lawyer / politician. BO campaign has to demonize his bain background to try ans block that from happening. To me is bain background represents a superior, hands on understanding vs BO. As you say the public so far is buying the attack on bain, unlike you I have no confidence in MR turning the tide. During the Reagan era yes, but the mood now is a bottomless pit of hate for anything wall street-related.

I'm starting to think Obama. Both are off to disgraceful starts IMO with lies and smears, when America is owed real debate and discussion. Dems trying to demonize MR for heading Bain. So what? It's the private sector and he did what private equity firms do. Unless there's something illegal, nothing wrong with it. Matter of fact everything is right with it from an American success story perspective. MR doing his part running around saying BO is "soft on defense", promising to keep defense jobs in key states where it's a big part of the economy, even though it's wholly irresponsbile for a so-called "fiscal conservative" to be making any such budget promises when the Federal Government is on the financial precipice and defense is the #1 discretionary item. Major cuts in defense and entitlements are needed, and everyone freaking knows it. But I think the early rounds are starting to go to BO, with his campaign organizers showing better media war skills. BO will also be a better, more proven fighter than primary lightweights. To account for the lackluster economy, he'll point to the state of the nation he inherited from Bush. And he has plenty of "ammunition" to show he's more than willing to offer American lives and tax dollars for foreign wars. The supporters he aliented like gays and peaceniks will be easily wooed back (already saw with gay marriage), because they won't see Mitt as an alternative. I also think he'll be an animal in the debates and tear MR a new one, like Cheney did to Edwards in VP debates. Remember, Mitt never had to go one on one in primaries. One thing up for grabs given the sleazy starts is taking the high road and appealing more to Americans on an intellectual level. BO did it to Hillary in the primaries (the latter running a "promise the locals anything" campaign), and he did the same to the senile, paranoid, babbling old kook McCain. Be interested what others think.

And it doesn't stop there. We're also trying to sort out the 1400 year old violent split between Shiite and Sunni Muslims. We've gotten so far away from the founding fathers vision if they were alive today they'd move to Canada.

Excellent backup, seemed like he could have started on many teams. Came.across as good guy too

Which I noted and explained why its not relevant to condi