Group items tagged

This is something to read bits and pieces of--not every single word. I think of Rush Limbaugh as a conservative version of John Stewart. He's a source of entertainment as well as a political commentator so he has no responsibility to consider anything objectively.

I thought the part where he talked about how the poles right now are just to shape your vote was really strong. Seeing the poles two months before the election can change but, if you see Obama is ahead, it can shape your vote to believe Romney has already lost or the other way around.

I thought the part where he talked about people who are being supported by the government are too scared to not vote for Obama was really interesting. I don't think it's fair to say "The fact that he's destroyed the economy will actually benefit him...The fact that he's destroyed the economy is gonna benefit Obama because all those people who are now on some sort of welfare-like assistance are gonna be scared to death to get rid of Obama because then what will become of their meager existence?"

Romney criticizes Obama for not speaking out against the attacks on the US Ambassador in Libya. The article uses this to make Romney seem hasty, because Obama did condem the attack eventually. This just seems like another attempt of Romney's to gain the upper hand by nitpicking everything about the Obama administration. Numerous senators are also quoted in the article saying that this isn't a time for political division and Romney needs to be more careful before he says something stupid and insensitive. 

The first thing that stands out to me in this article is that the attack is described as a test of crisis skills rather than an actual thing that happened. I think that Obama is right in saying that "Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later", especially with his comments. He's trying so hard to appeal to people that he doesn't always think about the effects of what he says. I don't think that Romney understands that sometimes apology is the best way to handle things.

I think this is a time where criticizing the other party is not effective and should not be the main concern. I agree with you Sabrina, that sometimes an apology, or even acknowledgment, is the best way to handle things. But Obama has been criticized for less harsh action on foreign affairs so I'm surprised he didn't condem the attacks first. I guess he won't waver on how he feels he should approach these acts of terror.

This article talks about the importance for a Candidate to win Florida. In 2008, Obama won Flora by only 3% and four years previous, Bush won Florida by a slightly larger 5%. Because Florida has a total of 29 electoral votes, it is the biggest and therefore one of the most important swing states. Not only that, but the majority of the state does not matter as compared to a small section known as the I-4 who really do determine this election themselves. 

This is going to be an interesting swing state due to its larger population of senior citizens and with Romney appealing significantly to the senior citizen population with a 52-41 percent lead over Obama according to an associated press-GfK poll with seniors likely to vote.

It's interesting to me that it seems that the entire election can come down to one swing state, and the whole state to one county. I think this is a example of why the electoral college isn't right-no one county should have that much power.

Wow, very interesting and enlightening article that I feel like a lot of Obama supporters aren't aware of. Certainly goes against everything that Obama argued for, which I thought was very interesting. Statistically, it checks out.

I agree with Sabrina that it's interesting to see the Huffington post writing this. I really did enjoy the way this article was formatted though, it was a nice change to most of the articles I have been reading. It also left points that will stick with me as they were concise and came with visual as well.

James, you are right. College graduates from 2008-2012 are more likely to be overqualified for their jobs more than ever, in addition, short term unemployment has increased by 3% and long term unemployment under Barack has doubled. And besides, if you look at the current rates of which we are spending, failing to ignore the next four years of "more progress" that Obama wants to implement, our national debt will be 23 trillion dollars. This is the pure definition of fiscal irresponsibility, Obama alone will have spent twice as more as all of the presidents before him. And this is if his current policies stay the same, not taking into account on whether he will spend more money. This is all neglecting the 520 billion dollar interest, and neglecting the fact that less than half of each dollar being spent will be our own, the rest China's. I can't think of a more fiscally irresponsible president. These are some statistics I never hear mentioned at the DNC and am ecstatic that even a liberal news site recognizes their magnitude.

This article talks about Obama's and Romney's responses to the recent violence in Libya. Obama is criticized with not speaking forcefully and being too apologetic in regards to the recent situation as well as some of the recent stuff going on in the Middle East. The article then goes on to say that despite the foreign affairs news, the economy is still the pressing issue of the election (not sure if I agree with that fully).

If things continue to escalate in the middle east, as they have been lately, than foreign policy will continue to be a major issue in the election. Danielle, I feel like you are right and that most americans will focus on the economy, but the two issues are intertwined, and bad news for one is bad news for the other if things continue to escalate. How much money are we willing to spend dealing with other countries? We already have out of control spending, but if things get worse then we will have to decide what is more important to our country: security, or money.

What seems frustrating to me about this whole situation is that both sides seem to be using Libya as an excuse to say "look at me, look at how good I am at foreign policy!" I wish that they would work together to actually solve problems instead of trying to prove what good problem solvers they are.

Now, despite small annual improvements, the deficit for the fiscal year that ends on Sunday will surpass $1 trillion for the fourth straight time. Against that headline-grabbing figure, Mr. Obama's explanation - that the deficit he inherited is actually on a path to be cut in half just a year later than he promised, measured as a percentage of the economy's total output - risks sounding professorial at best. This article highlights Obama's failing economic policies and challenges whether or not he will be up for fixing the problem if he is re-elected in 2012. It also highlights Romney's policies and what he plans to do if he ends up in office in January. What do you guys think? Who's plan is better and what could Obama have done better during his term as President to fix our economy?

I agree with Obama in his plans. I think that Romney is just saying what he thinks people want to hear without thinking of the consequences or the practical applications. However, I wish that Obama would stop saying that he inherited the problem. Yes, he did. But he needs to follow his campaign and look forward instead of back.

I think this quote is interesting: "The fiscal imbalance on Mr. Obama's watch, however much a result of economic and demographic factors beyond his control as well as his own policy choices, has increased the nation's accumulated debt by about 40 percent and has saddled him with one of his biggest vulnerabilities." I know that things have been beyond his control. Sabrina, this reminds me of Michael Potepan's talk the other day. He mentioned that the government has a really hard time of getting anything done right now which is maybe why nothing has changed, regardless of his campaign.