The economy will only get much, much better for the very rich if Mitt wins. He's already promised more tax cuts to the uber wealthy (I mean he has to pay them back somehow right?). The whole thing, for lack of a better word, sucks. All of it. I weep for the future.

Social issues, really?

"The number of Americans identifying themselves as pro-choice has hit a record low of 41 percent while those identifying as pro-life now stands at 50 percent, according to a new Gallup poll."

Remember "hope and change" - Obama has extinguished hope. He's a failed president.

The economy doesn't matter?

Yeah sure.

That's a good fit with "the debt doesn't matter".

Mayor Creepy could extend that into nothing matters.

It's classic how many of the same neo-cons who worked over America with the Bush administration are on Mitt Romney's team.

Did you notice how the big star who dazzled everyone at Romney's Park City, Utah retreat was Condi Rice, as Karl Rove worked the room?

Meanwhile Mitt pledges to do the "opposite" of Obama regarding Israel which is code for rushing headlong into Iran, despite many senior military leaders in Israel saying it's a bad idea.

The neo-cons never really went away, but now they're counting on Americans to forget 8 years of Bush/Cheney and turn the keys to the White House back to them so they can start more unnecessary wars, and complete their destruction of what's left of America.

The only thing still to do is a little marketing - convince the dumb asses out there that everything will be great again in America once that horrible man Obama goes. He's the problem.

Focus on what a disaster "Hope and Change" was but for God's sake, do not remind anyone what a monumental disaster "Compassionate Conservatism" was. Tell George W. Bush to go ride his bicycle for a few months and stay out of sight.

Do what you do best: Market. Move the needle. By now, you know exactly how many billions it takes to get a certain percentage of Americans to think what you want, so focus on that, and then bring the same wretched cretins back to power for more mayhem.

That's the plan, and it's working.

Bill that sounds exactly like the baloney used to keep anyone sane from being elected in Portland or statewide in Oregon.
Your broad brushing of "neocons" and their "plan" to "destroy what is left of America" is as stale as it gets.
I read your post as empty bromide excuses for blindly voting for Obama.

Your obsession that that in all the years of Clinton/Bush/Obama it's Republicans destroying America is just lame.

The many similarities of the Obama administration to the Bush administration should have lessened your obsession but I notice your concerns for the Obama county and Obama constitution are mostly AWOL.
How selective of you.

So here we go again with stop Mitt. He's like Bush and he'll destroy both.

Politics be Funny,
You failed to address the contention that Romney was hiring Bush's neo-con team. Are you saying that's an empty bromide? Are you saying Condi didn't get a standing ovation at Romney's big weekend event? Are you saying Karl Rove wasn't there and isn't involved in getting him elected?
Here's a paragraph from an article called,"Mitt Romney's Neocon War Cabinet" - I'll include a link at the end:

"Romney is loath to mention Bush on the campaign trail, for obvious reasons, but today they sound like ideological soul mates on foreign policy. Listening to Romney, you’d never know that Bush left office bogged down by two unpopular wars that cost America dearly in blood and treasure. Of Romney’s forty identified foreign policy advisers, more than 70 percent worked for Bush. Many hail from the neoconservative wing of the party, were enthusiastic backers of the Iraq War and are proponents of a US or Israeli attack on Iran. Christopher Preble, a foreign policy expert at the Cato Institute, says, “Romney’s likely to be in the mold of George W. Bush when it comes to foreign policy if he were elected.” On some key issues, like Iran, Romney and his team are to the right of Bush. Romney’s embrace of the neoconservative cause—even if done cynically to woo the right—could turn into a policy nightmare if he becomes president."

I also want to add Mitt Romney's quote about John Bolton: "John’s wisdom, clarity and courage are qualities that should typify our foreign policy." You remember John Bolton?

In closing, I have to be fair and admit that Romney's positions were made 48 hours ago, so by now they could have changed.

http://www.thenation.com/article/167683/mitt-romneys-neocon-war-cabinet

I'm waiting for Romney to describe any specific policy he might pursue.

"Obama bad" is not a sufficient platform for me, though I know he's not the first of either party to use that approach against the incumbent.

The fact is that Romney is likely at peak support right now. He's bad in front of a camera and getting pinned down on specific policy positions will only erode support.

I've said it before, and I'll probably say it again in the future; the days of FDR and Eisenhower are gone. From here out, it's just hacks that want to be President for the sake of being President.

Anyone with enough fortitude to do a good job in that office is also smart enough to stay the hell away from it.

Polls be damned, if the economy is doing bad (and it is) more often than not the incumbent gets tossed out on their ass.

Bill McDonald: ....- convince the dumb asses out there that everything will be great again in America once that horrible man Obama goes.
JK: I can do that!
Romney probably WILL NOT:
-- Waste billions on solar & wind pixie dust.
-- Block domestic oil production on federal land
-- Try to block natural gas production
-- Do anything to further the popular delusion of climate damage.
-- Shut down 50% of our electric production to save the climate
-- Make electricity prices skyrocket
-- Give us more supreme court justices that believe the Feds have the power to tell us what food we can grow in our backyards
-- Give us more supreme court justices that believe the government has the power to take all of our land’s value without compensation, as long as they let us keep the title. (Of course a truly conservative court would come down on the side of individual liberty: marriage; we control our bodies; pot; land rights; states rights; less intrusive government; no more money for toy trains)
-- cause gasoline prices to rise. (I expect a free market price of under 2$/gal. in a few years if some one tosses out the greeenies. Or over $5 with another BHO greenie lovefest.) (By greenie I mean those uninformed zealots who want to save the planet at the expense of man’s well being - like the WWF, Sierra Club & similar multinational multi-million dollar corporations.)

Thanks
JK

Yes, this time, it does come down to a choice between the lesser of two evils.

The economy is priority #1 for the American People.

Obama had the chance to make the economy the #1 concern of his administration, but spent a lot of political time and capital on health care and cap-n-trade carbon tax his first two years in office when Democrats controlled both the House & Senate.

Wow Jimk. $2 a gallon. I would ask if you knew how gas is priced in a global market but you clearly don't, and obviously prefer "well-reasoned" conspiracy theories. If you want gas at that price then your only real hope at this stage is that the global economy completely implodes or someone makes a miracle breakthrough on alternatives leaving the price in free fall. Or maybe find another Saudi Arabia, but the last one was 70 years ago and everybody has been looking ever since.

(BTW I don't know if anybody has told you this but your clever tag line that you seem compelled to use no matter what the context pretty much signifies you as a real jk. IF that is is the effect you are going for, then fine carry on, but otherwise I would recommend dropping it and just using your name).

Jim Karlock, find your libertarian paradise by heading east-southeast. You'll find Somalia much to your liking, I'm certain.

ISBP

Shadrach: Wow Jimk. $2 a gallon. I would ask if you knew how gas is priced in a global market but you clearly don't, and obviously prefer "well-reasoned" conspiracy theories.
JK: You obviously haven’t been keeping up on the news lately.

Shadrach: If you want gas at that price then your only real hope at this stage is that the global economy completely implodes or someone makes a miracle breakthrough on alternatives leaving the price in free fall. Or maybe find another Saudi Arabia, but the last one was 70 years ago and everybody has been looking ever since.
JK: Finally, you mention reality, but as a mocking line at the end of your paragraph.
We have discovered one or more Saudi Arabias recently. Fracking. Bakkan. China. Alberta tar sands. When fracking gets fully utilized with oil, the world will be awash with oil. Just like the USA is now awash in natural gas, and that is spreading world wide.

And the natural gas revolution alone is enough to crash the price of oil since oil can be made from natural gas and more plants are being built to do this now. With natural gas at around 25cents/gallon gasoline energy equivalent, there is lots of incentive to use it to make gasoline. See the December 23, 2010 New York Times story reports that refining costs for a gallon of diesel fuel from natural gas is only 50 cents compared to 31 cents from oil. I assume you know the basic process has been used for many decades.

All this is on the assumption that the greens current propaganda campaign against fraking & oil DOES NOT succeed in shutting off these new energy sources

Shadrach: ... but otherwise I would recommend dropping it and just using your name.
JK: At least you avoided name calling.

Thanks
JK

ISBP: Jim Karlock, find your libertarian paradise by heading east-southeast. You'll find Somalia much to your liking, I'm certain.
JK: And you can find your ideal nanny state, everybody equal (allegedly), workers paradise just south of Florida.

Thanks
JK

No Jim, those are not Saudi Arabia's. None of those examples--or even all of them together--comes anywhere close to the Saudi fields, or is most of it cheap to extract. The tar sands are close, at least in volume, having lots and lots of oil, but it takes a tremendous amount of energy and earth raping to extract it. Last I looked a price over $100 a barrel was a requirement for profitability--and that is well over 2$ a gallon.

You make a very good point about natural gas, and I agree that it will be a very strong component of our energy future. Its a much much better then our ethanols (although Brazilian suger can make a case). There are lots of gov folks working towards making this happen--even in the current admin. That said the best solution is to continue to try everything in a quest to find better energy alternatives to costly--financially and environmentally--and physically limited oil. The potential upside is much much larger then the few measly bucks we might spend on research. If you would do some open investigation research on the history of technological innovation then you might begin to cease letting your partisen ideology continue to trump your analytical abilities. Then again you seem to view science as an existential threat to your way of life so maybe not. Whatever fracks your boat I guess.

Shadrach: No Jim, those are not Saudi Arabia's. None of those examples--or even all of them together--comes anywhere close to the Saudi fields, or is most of it cheap to extract.
JK: As an expert in the oil market, you might be interested in this:
Here’s an excerpt in which Maugeri explains why he sees a decent chance that the United States will become second only to Saudi Arabia in oil production by 2020 (abundant deposits of shale oil are only one) http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/25/a-fresh-look-at-oils-new-boom-time/
AND
Oil production capacity is surging in the United States and several other countries at such a fast pace that global oil output capacity is likely to grow by nearly 20 percent by 2020, which could prompt a plunge or even a collapse in oil prices, according to a new study by a researcher at the Harvard Kennedy School. (Bold added) IBID
Don’t miss this report:
belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/Oil%20-%20The%20Next%20Revolution.pdf

Thanks
JK

I'll bet you my entire net worth that there is never a "plunge or even a collapse" in oil prices in your lifetime.

Hey Jo,
According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Green River Formation in Colorado and Utah contains around 3 trillion (3,000 billion) barrels of oil, at least half of which will be recoverable. Given that the US consumes around 7 billion barrels a year ... well, you can do the math.
...
In the meanwhile, the Bakken shale formation in North Dakota and Montana continues to hold the spotlight for its role in the revival in US oil production. Between 2010 and 2011 production from the Bakken field doubled from 260 thousand barrels per day (bpd) to 445 thousand bpd. But as world class as the Bakken Formation shale yield is proving it is estimated that Russia’s Bazhenov Formation in Western Siberia is around 80 times larger still.
from: http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm/11062/The-End-of-OPEC-Despotism

The math: 3,000 / 7 = 420 years. Of course some think this will not affect the price of oil. Probably because they slept through econ 101.

Thanks
JK