There's baseball, too. You can watch NY Yankees not hit, outing after outing.

They're old and in the way, but not for long.

The debate was alright. More fluff and buffoonery from both sides. Obama held his own, which is all he really needed to do to win the election I think.

I judge a liar by anyone that promotes or allows a falsehood. So both lied their butts off.

I think I'll write in Hillary.

Gov Romney was simply agreeing with Joe Biden: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/02/biden-says-middle-class-buried-last-4-years-republicans-pounce/

I've never seen the insta fact check by the moderator (Candy Crowley) on Romneys claim that Obama did not mention the terrorist connection to Amb. Stephens murder. This followed by the actual footage with Obama's quote proving the point most poignantly. Now that was cool-moderator as fact verifier. For you journalists an acme moment in your profession. Bravo.

Not sure I follow... Obama and his cadre have been in charge (and making policies) for four years now; but it's guys like Romney who crushed the middle class over this period of time?

If Obama was in charge, why didn't he stop the bad business guys? He had the House for two years, and still has the Senate. Everybody had high hopes.

If guys like Romney were really running things, then was it done with the approval of the President? He certainly took plenty of their campaign money.

Romney is a vulture capitalist. Romney is a banker. Bankers have raped the middle class, repeatedly. Obama is in on it, but Romney and his ilk are behind it.

Obama gets money and influence from banksters, and (in your words) he's in on it. You clearly do not approve of banksters, yet you support Obama. I'm not sure why.

Obama isn't running (can't run) on the results of his first term, and his proposed economic recovery plan doesn't in any way eliminate these banksters.

Instead, would say that more of the same will increase the influence (and profits) of a small number of very large("too big to fail") banks, and other juiced-in high fliers.

Think of the insiders who benefited from all of the green energy "loans" that we've discussed here many times. And the GM bailout ($24 billion owed to taxpayers), &c.

Can you reconcile this? I'm guessing that it's a lesser of two evils choice. IMHO this philosophy is far from aspirational, not a positive plan for renewed prosperity.

Of course. It's the lesser of two evils. Isn't it always? Romney is a selfish creep who's made multi-millions on the backs of working people -- then weaseled out of paying taxes with Cayman Islands dodges. Guys like that should be in jail, not the White House. But some voters worship money, and they make gods out of those who have it. That's Romney's career in a nutshell.

I didn't watch, could care less. We all know what will be said and what won't [Italian Yellowpages Bain Takeover, lol][..or rumors that Bin Laden was dead before we ever even hit Iraq]

As an college educated Army veteran, Im voting Gary Johnson, regardless. At least he might have a chance in hell of making the ballot in 4 more years if we survive the Chinese/foreign buyouts, 1st.

I read earlier about someone stating an opinion of a classic Soviet election. Two puppets who suck equally as well, choose your destiny, blah.

""By guys like you, Mr. Rich Banker,""

I think I'd save the same comments for all of Congress, Obama and especially Mr Bernanke who seems to think doing the same thing over and over (giving banks cheap money) is going to put more money in the average guys pocket - Or at least enough to replace the taxes taken.

Of the many criticisms of Obama, which are fair, I think the 'own the economy' one is not.

Much of it was inherited, and bills to get things moving have been blocked in congress. More bills that might have been but forth were not due to the chilling effect of getting shot down over and over. That said, when he is re-elected, congress will still be blocking his moves.

Let us remember that in foreign and military policy the president has enormous power. Domestically the president shares power. So should share the blame.

Were Romney elected his purported plans are more likely to be enacted. I find these plans destructive, so I won't vote for him.

"I think the 'own the economy' one is not."

So you willing to give him another 4 years of excuse-making? He has blamed Bush, the tsunami, the Euro crisis amongst other things. I kinda thought "leaders" took responsibility for stuff, even if it goes wrong.

"I kinda thought "leaders" took responsibility for stuff, even if it goes wrong."

No rational or reasonable person "takes responsibility" for things they did not cause and that are beyond their control. After the banker-fueled worldwide bubble created over 10-20 years burst, Obama took reasonable steps to avoid the worst of the fallout. No matter what Romney/Ryan/Rove say, nothing either candidate can do will make much of a change in the macro forces now at work worldwide.

Obama appointed Geitner as Secretary of Treasury.

Obama's Dept of Justice has prosecuted no significant financial crimes, including MF Global. Co-mingling of funds ought to be pretty simple to get a conviction. If not, then why not eliminate the pretense that we have any financial laws?

Obama's SEC remains toothless as high frequency trading and fraudulent accounting run rampant.

No too-big-to-fail institutions have been broken up.

And you think Romney is to blame???

Had we taken our pain back in 2007 and let institutions fail, we'd likely be over this depression. As it is, the fun is just starting.

I'm also struck by the impression that the choice is only between two idiots - Romney & Obama. Like the Portland Mayoral election, I'm writing in as a protest.

Here's what I find intriguing:
Romney has moved very much to the middle in his two debates; unlike his race to the nomination. His party can't like that; they never liked the guy much anyway before he managed to win the nomination. So why would he think he'd have a tame enough Congress and Senate to get what he is promising done? Obama couldn't get much done with his own Democratic party in control (yes, that's concerning) and then hardly anything once the tea partiers took control in mid term.

At this point I have no idea what a Romney presidency would look like (other than being populated by rich white guys), because his positions are always dictated by his audience de jour. Thus even if I liked some of the economic approaches "moderate Massachusetts governor" Romney proposes, I wouldn't vote for him because I don't trust him, or trust that he actually believes anything he says. He strikes ma as a guy who doesn't have any guiding political philosophy, other than staying rich, and getting POTUS on his resume. Love him or hate him, with Obama (kinda like Reagan), you know what you are getting before you buy.

Romney is tied very closely into Daddy Bush and all the secret channel folks making end runs around the constitution - going all the way back to the JFK hit in Dallas while daddy Bush was there on the spot.

So if he is elected (most likely stolen), expect a whole bunch more planned chaos to help move the "agenda" along.

Obama on the other hand is just a willing dupe of other power players in Chicago and Wall Street. The good news is that they seem to have some constraint on how far they will go.

Here is one issue that concerned me when I listened to the debate. There are at least 12M illegal aliens in the United States, and some estimates put that number at closer to 20M-30M. Romney says he never intends to simply round up and arrest illegals, and instead he proposes to force employers to hire only legal workers. Romney claims those who can’t get work will have to leave, solving the illegal alien problem. I’m quite concerned we would end up with 12M-20M unemployed illegal aliens who don’t leave. How are they going to leave? Crime rates would soar, public social services tapped, etc. etc…

Talea -At this point the right just wants to beat Obama. There is little Romney can say to alienate his base now.

Saying that Obama and the Dems controlled the Senate is more than a little disingenuous. They had a majority, but not one large enough to play by the new rules requiring 60 votes to do something as simple as proclaim National Cabbage Week.

In a time of national hardship, Republicans did nothing other than impede attempts to make things better and follow the game plan outlined by Mitch McConnell: "Our No. 1 goal is to make Barack Obama a one-term president."

They had a majority, but not one large enough to play by the new rules requiring 60 votes to do something as simple as proclaim National Cabbage Week.

That's not true. When Franken was seated, the Democrats had the 60. Nice try, but it wasn't a lack of power that squandered the control. It was a sellout.

In 2009, the just seated Senate had a clear majority (58, or 59, or 60) depending on how you want to call it.

The majority party sets the rules of the Senate for that session. Harry Reid was confident enough that it was OK to keep the 60-vote filibuster rule; he could have easily changed it to a simple majority, yet did not.

In other words, the Democratic majority have only themselves to blame for their lack of moving forward with their agenda. Hard to blame the Republicans for that, unless they are so powerful, they forced this on Reid.

Democrats only had the super majority needed to get anything through the Senate for about six months. Francken was sworm in during July '09, and Ted Kennedy died six weeks later, vacating his seat until he was replaced on an interim basis. Scott Brown was sworn in the following February.

In the first 11 months of the 2009-11 Congress, Republican senators used the filibuster 100 times. (Back in the '70s, the figure was around 20 per year.) So what Mike is saying is that Democrats have only themselves to blame for not anticipating that Republicans would act like 3-year-olds. He's probably right.

" ... I'm also struck by the impression that the choice is only between two idiots ... "

Who else would run?

All we need is a Presidential debate with two questions:

1. "Which special interests have you helped out?"

(If either candidate says "no" or some variation of such, then the Moderator will list every special interest they've supported."

2. If elected, how will you help the average citizen and not be beholden to special interests?

The only difference between a Republican and a Democrat is which special interests they are owned by. Take 100% of the population...20% goes to the Republicans, 20% goes to the Democrats. The bottom 10% or so will get government help no matter what either because of charity or obligation. That leaves 50% that get screwed no matter what.

"Obama took reasonable steps to avoid the worst of the fallout."

I don't know - I see about $4T (at least) worth of extra debt (about $12K/person), rich banks and not that much extra wealth per citizen.

That's the point - What the heck is Obama's plan besides listening to Bernanke and killing the rich? Then he has everyone buying the line he can't do anything for the past 4 years because someone else messed up. What makes him any different from Romney besides a few less rich people?

Jack wrote: Of course. It's the lesser of two evils. Isn't it always?

Often, but not always. I certainly felt that way about McCain in 2008. Genuine war hero and great American, but a squishy Senator, and pretty sorry Presidential candidate. I held my nose and did the deed. Glad it's different this time.

I should point out that I rather agree with you about the experience of watching debates -- I try to (if this makes sense) pay attention without watching, as the live experience is unsettling and often infuriating.