Once you pass this 2700 page healt plan you will know what's in it!!!!!

What's the plan for reducing Obama's 5 trillion addition to the debt?

Why was Scott Brown carrying water for and accepting donations from executives associated with the pharmacy linked to the deadly fungal memingitis outbreak?

"Sen. Scott Brown has responded to questions from NewsCenter 5 about a July 24, 2012 letter to the Drug Enforcement Administration that he and ten other Senators signed, calling for changes in the way it allows compounding pharmacies to dispense controlled drugs....The letter was initiated by the International Academy of Compounding Pharmacies, an industry group that is leading the fight to change DEA regulations...Kevin Outterson, a Boston University law professor who also serves as the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics said, "Letters like this one that Sen. Brown signed are frequently used by their lobbyists to stop any further regulation of this industry."
Read more: http://www.wcvb.com/news/politics/Senator-Scott-Brown-defends-letter-on-pharmacy-regulations/-/9848766/16950402/-/hixcdez/-/index.html#ixzz29748YW5n

From the October 12, 2012 Worcester Telegram:
Republican U.S. Sen. Scott Brown said Thursday he will donate to charity about $10,000 in campaign donations he received from executives at the Massachusetts compounding pharmacy linked to a deadly outbreak of fungal meningitis.
Brown said the deaths linked to the outbreak were tragic and he plans to donate the money to the Meningitis Foundation of America.
Federal Election Commission reports show Gregory Conigliaro, a founder of the New England Compounding Center, donated $2,500 to Brown on June 28. Conigliaro and his wife also held a fundraiser on Sept. 7 for the senator at their Southboro home."

More on some of Scott Brown’s supporters and fundraisers from Reuters….The outbreak has turned into a major national health scandal with multiple investigations launched and a leading lawmaker, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, calling for a criminal probe of the company at the center of the storm, New England Compounding Center of Massachusetts. The Massachusetts health regulator accused the company on Thursday of flouting state laws for pharmacies. The compounding company has recalled the suspect product, surrendered its operating license and has said it is cooperating with the investigations…..

Jim...first off be careful...Ben hates posts that are off topic. But seeing as how he will probably like yours, I bet he doesn't mention it. But I agree with you. If Brown did something that helped these imbeciles, I won't vote for him. However that doesn't mean I'd vote for Lieawatha either. I'd just leave it blank.

My aplogies to Ben for the OT. I'll not do it again. BTW, Dave Lenane, the Irish appear to be in ascendancy. Go ND!

The mortgage interest deduction is very much in play. Romney Ryan are stonewalling. They definitely will seek to eliminate this deduction if elected. Sean Bielat let the cat out of the bag when he spoke in Milford. Folks should look at their prior years tax returns to see just how much elimination of this deduction would cost them. Curiously, the carried interest loophole, the loophole that allows people like Mitt to pay taxes at the 14% rate is untouchable to Romney Ryan..

There is a lot of confusion and political propaganda on this subject. I would urge everyone here to do some independent research on the correlation of income to taxes paid to tax revenue. The most fascinating thing I learned when researching this subject is that tax revenue to the federal government is very constant at approximately 20% of GDP. The tax rates do not affect the net revenue.

A good place to start looking is by going to http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/07/02/does-hiking-tax-rates-raise-more-revenue/. Then continue researching other sources to validate the accuracy of this information.

We have a spending problem in Washington. The language used by politicians is designed to keep them in power and spending more of your money. It is important to understand history and economics in order to cut through the political propaganda that is put forth as truth.

Ben, the real question in front of the voters is "Do you entrust the future of our precious America to Barack Obama and Joe Biden?" Have they earned our trust, inspired our confidence, provide the way more a stronger, more secure America?

The Liberals like yourself will toss out their usual silly bromides and character smear Romney, and the Conservatives will do the reverse. Both love to attach links that support their cases and suggest that after reading, "even you" will understand why they are right.

It's never that simple. Never. If America was on the right track, Romney would not be ahead in the polls - no matter how badly you want to smear him. We have debt we cannot pay, we have a future for our grandchildren which makes us more fearful by the day. We have a President who is challenged to tell the truth and a VP who wants to bully us to be quiet, be grateful and swallow the castor oil.

Even in Massachusetts Obama is falling. A month ago his lead was 25%. Today it is 14% and falling. For years Kennedy, for all his Bidenesque nonsense, was good for 65% of the vote. Today, Warren, equally as offensive to many of us, can't even manage 50%. This is encouraging, at least to many of us.

So, toss around your attacks and your links, but unless you can erase the performances of Obama and Biden, and the lack of trust and confidence they have caused, we are where we are for a reason. Time for a change.

I can't believe those who would even consider voting to keep President Obama in office. Get real people. I will gladly take my chances with Mitt Romney. Besides, Mitt Romney is a very successful man in business and will create jobs. I don't care who you are, those odds are far better than President Obama and his record. Also, when the President decided to run again, WHY did he not change his VP. Do you not realize that If anything happens to the President we will be stuck with Biden as President and that would be such a joke to the entire world. Time for change!

Jim - Do I trust Obama/Biden? Absolutely. They said they would reform health care and they did. They said they would get us out of Iraq and they did. They said they would track down terrorists like OBL and they did. They saved the American auto industry. Pretty good track record overall. Romney says he will repeal the ACA entirely, then says he wouldn't. Romney says he wants to cover pre-existing conditions in his plan, but then it actually wouldn't. Romney says he thinks 47% of the public are free-loading moochers, then he says they aren't. Romney says he is pro-choice, then he is pro-life, then recently in Iowa he is pro-choice again. How could you trust someone who changes his opinion so often, and then with critical pieces of his plan (like where to find $5 trillion savings in loopholes) he leaves blank.

Proud to Live - You have drank the Kool-Aid. The whole Romney successful business man is a joke. He generated his vast fortune by gaming the system. He borrowed lots of money that other people were forced to pay back. He succeeded at Bain by essentially blackmailing the federal government to bail them out with FDIC money. Here are some links for more about the Romney business myth. Just read them before jumping to any conclusions: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-federal-bailout-that-saved-mitt-romney-20120829
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/greed-and-debt-the-true-story-of-mitt-romney-and-bain-capital-20120829

John, thanks for making my point by appending a self serving piece from an ultra lib who formerly worked in Boston. Good job. The Democrats are imploding. Their time came, and in a month will be gone. Find a lifeboat while you can.

If something is broke and you do nothing, its still broke! We had unemployment over 8% for the last 4 years, record numbers giving up on even LOOKING for a job, Record number on food stamps, a President who promised to reduce the deficit but instead grew it to 16T, an administration that is not sure (I'm being kind) if our ambassador asked for help before he was murdered, a VP who finds it humorous to talk about Libya and the atrocity that occurred. A POTUS who would rather go on the View than meet with the leader of Israel. etc. IT'S BROKE!
We deserve better.

Ben- I may not agree with many of the premises of your blog but I respect the work and thought that has gone into them . I would turn your example around and state that Obama/ Biden promised a real lot and what we've got is a real lot more debt. They have failed and deserve to be replaced.

I find it comical that John Sullivan is using Rolling Stone as an objective link to spew some propaganda about Mitt Romney...really? I don't think so.

Jim - I am unaware of any significant Boston connection with either author of those articles I cited. In any case, how does "formerly working in Boston" disqualify an author from exposing the fraud that is Romney?
Concerned Citizen - Nothing funny about the fraud that is Romney. Even if Rolling Stone is not the bastion of impartiality (which I agree, it is not), they are at times capable of respectable journalism. It was a Rolling Stone expose, after all, that led to change in military leadership in Afghanistan, if you remember that. In any case, read the article before you assume it is biased. It is based on facts from government documents of the Bain bailout, and interviews with those who were there. You can then quarrel with specific facts, but don't find it laughable that they are doing real journalism. I find it sad that the facts aren't more widely known.

John, here's the thing. You can always count on the Liberals to package up and send some report that rationalizes their position - which is fine, along with the thought that if you are bright enough to understand this rationale you will know you are wrong - which is not fine.

Let's be a little more real and practical. Obama has been President for 4 years. We see what he has done, and we either favor it or not. Based on what he said and promised, he has either delivered or he has not. If you like him, you are good to go; if not, you fear what will become of our Country should he be re-elected.

As you doubtless know from my blogs, I am no longer a young man. I have seen Presidents come and go. None of them have made me fearful for the Nation until Obama.

So, what do you want America to be? Do you want an increasing culture of dependency and entitlement or do you want to protect individual liberties via a government of the people? You don't need hyper-partisan pieces to come to this conclusion. So, what do you want? What do you want for your children, and your grandchildren?

I believe we are headed in the wrong direction. Time for a change ... and if Romney does not have the answers, we should find the next President who can lead.

Not trying to offend you, just asking that you speak for yourself without throwing up some partisan propaganda on us. All the best.

Jim - You initially responded to my post by writing, "thanks for making my point by appending a self serving piece from an ultra lib who formerly worked in Boston." I asked you what "formerly working in Boston" has to do with anything, and you didn't answer. Not sure why the article is "partisan propaganda" or some "packaged up" report to serve my agenda. It is pretty much investigative journalism. Did you even read it? If you're as old as you say, then you know the only thing you have to fear is fear itself, and Mitt Romney in the White House, and Paul Ryan a heartbeat away. No offense taken. I was speaking for myself, and included some background info for those who aren't aware of what Romney did at Bain. The source is clearly stated. Including a link doesn't mean I am not speaking for myself. Success is not a zero-sum game. We can have an America in which everyone has the opportunity to succeed, not just those who are in positions of power and wealth. I cherish individual liberty, and government of the PEOPLE, not just of the PRIVILEGED. I would have probably voted for Romney's father, but this time around, Obama has the vision for the America I want to live in.

John, let me correct you ... I am not Winston Churchill old.

I need to say that most Republicans that I know are neither privileged, or were born into privilege. They earned their way. They got their education. They educated their children, paid their taxes, saved their money and worry about the futures for their children and grandchildren.

Many of the people that I know were never even political until the past two years - I am among that group. We have seen the Obama government takes us down a path that we consider unsustainable and dangerous for the health of our Nation. We see the prospect of a potential second term as especially disasterous.

We obviously differ in our opinion on Obama and Biden. However, if what I hear on my blogs is representative of what people say they really want - practical, common sense, bi-partisan solution and not ideological stagnation - then ROmney is clearly the choice. We certainly saw how Obamacare was jammed down people's throats. We have seen the Executive Orders that bypass the Congress. We are witnessing the unwinding of the Government's foreign policy via Libyan scandal,. And we witnessed Biden's debating performance. Where is even the possibility of bi-partisanship?

We need a change, i respectfully repeat, for the good of our Country..

Jim- You lament the lack of bipartisanship. When Obama took office in 2009 (and over 800,000 jobs were being LOST each month), and we were in the midst of two wars and the worst financial crisis since the great depression, congressional Republicans did something unprecedented in the history of our country. Rather than rally together to help our country, they decided that politically it would be better if the country got worse. They wanted to deny Obama any opportunity to claim success, thinking if things were so bad in another two years it would be advantageous to their political caucus, regardless of the effect on the country.

If Obama had not acted unilaterally, nothing would have been accomplished. Don't fool yourself into thinking the readers of your blogs is representative of a broad base of our population. And I think calling the "Libyan scandal" the unwinding of our foreign policy is a bit of an overreaction. First, it isn't so much a scandal as a tragedy what occurred. Second, the same Republicans who are calling the poor security a scandal, are the same Republicans who shamelessly cut the State Department funding that would have provided EXACTLY that same security. Republican Rep. Issa cut half a BILLION dollars from State Dept security budget over the past two years he has controlled the committee. Ryan's budget would slash it by ANOTHER 10% in 2013, even more in 2016. The real scandal here is the hypocrisy of the Republicans.

John, here's the problem with all of this. Obama had clear majorities in Congress for two years. The Republicans could do zero to prevent anything the Democrats did. The election of 2010 was a referendum on Obama;s forst two years ... you saw what happened. The people spoke up.

And they are ready to speak even loder in 3 weeks.

Did Obama face issues when he assumed office? Sure. But everyone who has ever replaced anyone inherits problems. The objective is to make things better, not make them worse, and on this Obama has failed us.

America cannot afford Obama.

Jim, It is amazing to me how quickly people will revise recent historical events, as if simply saying that something happened in the past five years often enough will some how make it true.
Yes Obama had a Congress with a majority that was Democratic for the first two years. But to sugest that the Republicans "could do zero to prevent anything the Democrats did" is simply absurd. I keep hearing over and over again how Obama "got everything he wanted" his first two years and the Tea Party revolt two years later was the response. Actually, the Republicans used a record number of filibusters the first two years to stall all pieces of major legislation, requiring a 60 vote supermajority to pass anything. Obama wanted a larger stimulus package to help the economy, but due to Republican filibusters had to go for a smaller package (and now we see the weakness in the recovery due to that compromise).
Likewise, filibusters on healthcare reform consumed most of year of legislative time that could have been spent on other issues. The relentless obstruction by the GOP in the first two years severely hampered any efforts to make significant change. Of course that was the plan all along, so that the country would suffer and the GOP could use that for political purposes. The problems Obama inherited were more than any other president in memory thanks to W. Things ARE getting better, not worse. American cannot afford Romney,and a return to the policies that led to this mess

And John, it is equally as amazing to many of us that so many Democrats actually believe what you wrote. Yes, the Republicans resisted, but without the votes they could not block anything. The real problem was the reluctant Democrats who held out for bribes to pass legislation because "Obama's Presidency" hinged on passage or not.

Obama's Presidency? WHat about America's future? It seems we have the cart before the horse here.

And here's another newsflash - if Obama was so good for America, why must he spend over $1B trying to convince America that he has been good for America? It's pretty simple - he has failed America, put us on the wrong direction and amassed a breath-taking deficit that in his pre-election years he claimed was unpatriotic.

Democrats these days are not the same as in the JFK days. Instead of seeing America as an aspirational Country, you are card-carrying "tax the rich" class warriors, steeped in an entitlement/dependency/victim's group culture. This just does not work.

This is so sad. We must have a change now before more harm is done.

Jim - I have no idea what you are talking about, and don't know you well enough to know if your obfuscation is deliberate or innocent.
When you allege that the "reluctant Democrats...held out for bribes" what exactly are you talking about?
And as for your newsflash, what 1billion dollars are you referring to?
Here are the FACTS: So far Obama and chief PACs raised 690 million, of which they have spent 615 million. Romney and his chief PACs raised 633 million, and have so far spent 530 million (so has a lot more cash on hand). It is a closely divided electorate. To assert that Obama spending money on his re-election campaign is a sign of his failures is simply disingenuous.
The more interesting thing regarding the money is to note where it is coming from. The source of Obama's money is pretty straightforward. 91% of pro-Obama ads have been funded by the Obama campaign. The money the campaign receives is all disclosed, and is limited to less than $5000. (So primarily small donors).
This in stark contrast to pro-Romney ads, which have been primarily funded by the secretive 501c4 "social welfare groups" instead of the Romney campaign. From April to September, the Romney campaign aired 144,000 ads, compared to 250,000 by the outside groups supporting him. We have NO idea who is donating to these 501c4 groups. For all we know it could be Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. Continued....

continued...

Outside groups spent 23 million on pro-Democratic ads, 86% of which were from contributors whose names were disclosed.
In the same time period (April-October), outside groups spent 156 million dollars on pro-Republican ads, only 44% of which were from contributors whose names were disclosed. What is the source of the secret money?
Early tax returns for CrossRoads GPS (one of the social welfare groups supporting Romney) showed 90% of the funds came from as few as 16 donors, with several contributing 10 million dollars each! Who are these people and why won't they identify themselves?
This is the change we have the right-leaning Supreme Court to thank, in their brilliant decision in Citizens United.
It is very sad, and the best thing we can do for the security of our country and the ideals with which we stand is to re-elect Obama.
I know I can count on your help with this. Thanks.

John, this is just so humorous.

I'm sure you remember the Cornhusker Kickback, the Gatorade and the Louisiana Purchase pay-offs to Democratic Senators to buy their votes for Obamacare. And, who paid for those pay-offs? Heck, I also believe that Connecticut got $100M for a new hospital, VT got money and MA got some form of payback as well. And these were all Democrats - resisting to the end behind closed doors, without a Republican in sight. The only part of bi-partisanship is the bill that Republican taxpayers have to pay.

The Billion $? Really? How can you forget Obama's plan to get $1B to essentially eliminate Clinton from trying and to discourage competition - while using the money to convince you that he had done a good job. He got you, anyway - but the bloom is off that rose - even if Hillary Clinton wants to say when that famous 3am call came, Obama was apparently not accountable for the call. Isn't this embarrassing to you? And, btw, wasn't there a story last week about a Federal investigation into Obama's fund raising from untraceable foreign credit cards? Same with Warren?

And finally, Citizens United. I have to agree that this decision has polluted the process. But, to some measure it evened the playing field that allowed the Unions to freely fund Democrat campaigns and provide workers etc., even if the Union members do not agree with the U management.

No help from me. Time for a change, john, and in your heart you know I'm right.

Michael Gerson, a former speech writer for George Bush wrote in the Washington Post:

The “Republican ideology pitting the “makers” against the “takers” offers nothing. No sympathy for our fellow citizens. No insight into our social challenge. No hope of change. This approach involves a relentless reductionism. Human worth is reduced to economic production. Social problems are reduced to personal vices."

What struck me most was Gerson saying, “Human worth is reduced to economic production. Social problems are reduced to personal vices.”

Gerson went on to say that the Republicans could embrace Burkean conservatism or the Catholic Church’s long time support of the poor or “Or they could just read Abraham Lincoln, who stood for “an unfettered start, and a fair chance, in the race of life.”

Romney’s privately spoken “47%” comment has rattled around in my brain. Could he really believe this? Is what someone says in private more believable than what they say in public?

Clinton enjoys calling Romney “Moderate Mitt” but this is long after Romney told audiences that he was “severely conservative”. Those of us who live in Massachusetts know that he is not “severely conservative”. But far can the Republican right wing push him in order to support his election to a second term?

I have wanted a reason not to vote for Obama and have not found one in Romney. Gerson’s analysis of the Republican ideology has pushed me away from Romney.

Jim - I initially gave you benefit of the doubt that some of your distortions were innocent ignorance. But they seem to be happening so often now, and are so egregious, I now believe you are simply trying to distort the truth. For example, you write, "btw, wasn't there a story last week about a Federal investigation into Obama's fund raising from untraceable foreign credit cards? Same with Warren?"

No. There was no such investigation. This is an urban legend spread through the internet by right-wing ideologues like yourself. A conservative think tank called the Government Accountability Institute (GAI), who named themselves a name to confuse people into thinking they are the non-partisan federal agency the Government Accountability Office (GAO) came out with a report highlighting a concern about use of internet to raise money, since nothing to prevent those with foreign IP addresses from donating. (Keep in mind, these may be Americans living abroad who are donating, but whatever, it could be some Taliban as well I suppose). These same concerns apply EQUALLY to all politicians, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democratic.
There is NO independent investigation that has been announced into either the Obama or Warren campaigns, as you suggested. Pure fiction. Put now I expect nothing less from you. A far cry from your initial blog you wrote that seemed so sincere in its willingness to engage those non-Republicans among us. How long ago was that?

Also, FYI, the Obama website specifically requires all donors to acknowledge that “I am a United States citizen or a lawfully admitted permanent resident of the United States,” before donating. Additionally, the Obama for America (OFA) campaign notes, “Though not required by law, OFA requires a copy of a valid passport from any contributor who has been affirmed as eligible but donates with a mailing address outside the U.S. If they do not offer in one in a timely manner, the donation is returned.”

Does Romney do the same? Hard to know, since most of the money funding his ads are not through his campaign, but from these secretive shadow groups who don't disclose their donors, let alone what country they are from.

John, more humor spiced with a little mean spiritedness. Excellent.

We'll see about the donations (yes, Romney does have those requirements on his donate formwork), but does your silense on the "bribes" tell me that you recall all the give-aways in exchange for votes on Obamacare?

No comment either that I agree with you in terms of the obscene money involved in this process, but that the Unions need to be similarly checked. Heck, the Brown-Warren race is up to $60M - and their ads are dreadful.

And as to my tone - seems pretty typical of all my responses.

This is what it comes down to. This election is about your philosophy of government and what you want America to be. Never before in my lifetime has there been such polarization. There is a reason for this.

With all power of the Presidency, and control and protection of much of the media, not to mention Obama's funding (you did not mention is nearly $200M haul in September), his movie star friends et ale, this should be a slam dunk for the President. But it's not, because a growing number of people know it's time for a change.

Sorry, didn't intend to be mean-spirited, but I am frustrated by your propagation of half-truths and other distortions.
My "silence" means nothing. Sad to say, what you call "bribes" is the way things work in Washington, on both sides. Nothing about that was unique to Obamacare. Any piece of legislation involves this process, and that is how bills get crafted. If you think this didn't happen during Bush, Clinton, Reagan, etc... you are really out of touch. It happens with Democratic and Republican senators, regardless of who is in the Executive Office.
I still have no idea what you are talking about with the billion dollars to "eliminate Clinton", sounds like your paranoia creeping in again.
My numbers did not include Sept, you are correct. Obama had a slightly better month than Romney that month, raising 181 million (not 200 million as you again mistate), to Romney's 170 million. In the overall scheme, that 10 million is nothing, especially with all the outside groups supporting Romney.
All this talk about Hollywood.... Nothing compares to what these outside groups are spending on Romney.
You talk about "control of the media"....Please. The paranoia is tiresome.
If anyone should be paranoid, it is the Obama supporters with how the Supreme Court is about to steal another election by disenfranchising early voters in Ohio. We'll see how that plays out. Anyway, I've wasted enough time engaging with you. Good luck Jim!

John, all I can say is "reverse ditto" to everything you said. And by the way, how can I be paranoid? I am a Massachusetts Republican?

BTW, these were bribes. THe amount of taxpayer money was so huge that this was not business as usual in Washington. I'm sure you know this.

Despite your noise and nonsense the Country is on the worng track. Everybody but the Obamanians understands this. Time for a change. You may not be happy about that, but if you have children and grandchildren, they will be the beneficiaries.

I agree about being done with you too.

Ok, so I took a bit of a patch break, and there's a lot to respond to here.

First of all, Jim - your generalizations "All Liberals do this" are cuckoo bananas. First of all, they are patently false. Secondly, you are accusing liberals of doing things I have seen conservatives do on so many more occasions than liberals. Debate points, don't shout nonsense into the ether - you're better than that.

Secondly, the argument that "Obama had a Democratic Congress for two years" holds absolutely no water.

The way congress works is that identical legislation must pass through both the house and the senate. In the Senate, the legislation must have a 60 vote majority in order to pass, or the opposition can filibuster. Historically, this was done with relative rarity. Well guess what -

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/is-the-filibuster-unconstitutional/2012/05/15/gIQAYLp7QU_blog.html

The Republicans have filibustered or prevented cloture votes at an exponentially higher level during President Obama's term (when they have been in the minority), preventing nearly all major legislation.

So yeah.

Ben, yet here we are ...

Mitt said:

I like firing people.

I’m not worried about poor people.

I am severely conservative.

47% of the people don’t take responsibility for their lives.

I don’t know if Britain can handle security for the Olympics.

The reason the Israeli economy is so much stronger than the Palestinian economy is due to the Israeli culture.

I told my staff to find qualified women to serve in MA gov’t.

Borrow money from your parents.

I signed the pledge.

My numbers add up.

I’ll repeal National RomneyCare.

My administration will not support any legislation that will overrule abortion.

I’ll defund Planned Parenthood.

I’ll add $2 trillion to the defense budget even though the Pentagon hasn’t asked for it.

I care about the American people.

I have a secret plan to reduce the deficit.

I support the Blunt Amendment.

Robert Bork will be my first nominee to the Supreme Court.

Obama said:

I tried!

It's Bushes fault.

It's Romney's fault.

It's Hillary's fault.

It's the Tea Parties fault.

It's youtubes fault.

It's the rich people's fault.

it's the Taliban's fault!

It's Rev. Wright's fault!

It's Joe Biden's fault!

This election is about who is in control. Does the government control how we spend our money or do we control how the government spends our money?

I fear that the people in this state have relinquished their sovereignty to the government.

Ben, as in any Presidential election you have to look at both sides, as we look to our current President, we see promises to cut deficit, when in fact it was grown. 5 Tuh-tuh-tuh Trillion dollars of new debt. Abroad we have a President who has proven he'll not do what it takes to keep Americans safe. Lets face it -- Obama's set the bar Real Low! We know Mitt will work across the aisle and we know he can balance a budget as he did right here in MA.
...let me ask you this -- If Obama called you up and said - "Hey Ben, I like your work on the Patch and really need your help, we have this great new job abroad, its in a sunny place called Libya, and you'd be the Ambassador..." ----WOULD YOU?

Mike -- I didn't have to make anything up : )

But seriously, I would greatly prefer a Constitutional amendment to change the term of office of the President to a single six year term (5, if you like). Currently, with a re-election built into every President's first 4 year term, it seems that the second two years is spent gearing up for, and then campaigning for, re-election. I think we would be better served if the sitting President spent all his/her time governing and not electioneering. We also must get the money out of politics and move to shortened, publicly financed elections along with term limits for members of Congress. I don't think we can get to us "controlling how the government spends our money" until we get corporate money out of Congress.

Dennis, I admit "some" of my comments were tongue in cheek. However the overall gist of what I said, I stand behind. The majority of democrat voters I have spoken with do not evaluate the results of government policy. They vote on the rhetoric of "feel good" statements. I will go one step further and say that many people who vote the democrat ticket exclusively, vote for people who implement policies that contradict the values of the people voting for them.

We don't need a constitutional amendment to change the terms of office for our politicians. We need a citizenry who is educated and engaged in the political process. We need for people to understand that politicians will continue to waste our money if we do not hold them accountable.

We can cut government spending without cutting end user benefits. There is tremendous waste and fraud in the system. However I fear that many reading this post will label me as heartless and greedy because I believe we can reduce government spending and still provide services for those in need.

I can't avoid asking how you know that "people who vote the democrat ticket exclusively, vote for people who implement policies that contradict the values of the people voting for them".
Obviously, one could make the same statement for ""people who vote the [name any part here] ticket exclusively.
How would you create "a citizenry who is educated and engaged in the political process"?
How would you get people to understand that which you want them to understand?
How would you "hold them [politicians] accountable"?
How would you decide who are "those [people] in need?

Dennis, you are correct to call me on the over reaching generalization that I made. I will retract and restate my premise. Some of the people I know who vote for politicians who implement policies that contradict their personal beliefs.

One case in point is the subject of womens issues. Some of my friends believe that if Mitt Romney is elected as President he will actively work to ban birth control and implement laws that discriminate against women. Romney's track record with womens rights shows the exact opposite. He actually sought out women for high level positions in his administration while Governor.

Being engaged in the political process is actively seeking the truth by having discussions such as we are having here along with seeking the truth on the issues.

You said (Romney) "sought out women for high level positions in his administration while Governor." Not so. He did not 'seek' them out. Read on.

“Massachusetts Government Appointments Project, or MassGAP, was formed in August 2002 to address the shortage of women in high-ranking government positions. They assembled groups of applicants, taking several months to reach out to women’s organizations around the state and preparing to present potential hires to whichever candidate won the election.

Both candidates agreed to work with MassGAP and after he was elected governor, Romney appointed Kerry Healey to be the liaison to MassGAP. Several weeks after the election, MassGAP presented several hundred applicants to Healey, according to Liz Levin who was chairman of MassGAP until 2010.

Midway through his only term as governor, 42 percent of his 33 new appointments were women, according to a study done by the UMass Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy.

But over the next two years, women made up only 25 percent of the 64 new appointments Romney made. By the end of his term, the number of women in high-ranking positions was slightly lower than it was before Romney took office.”

MassGap took the initiative to identify qualified women for government positions in Massachusetts...not Mitt Romney. He hired some and then he didn’t.

http://tinyurl.com/chkh9km

Mike, if elected, Romney will nominate conservative judges to the Supreme Court -- think Scalia. If the Republicans control the Senate, those nominations will be approved. The social conservatives of the Republican party -- who, of course, Romney would owe big time for helping to elect him -- will then mount a challenge to Roe v. Wade and it will be overturned. So even if Romney doesn't 'actively work' to reduce the rights of women, he will cause it. Your friends should worry about this discrimination against women.