juppiter

Of course the numbers were wholly reliable when they were above 8% and now they are fudged. The fact is these numbers mean nothing anyway -- name one month that wasn't revised upwards or downwards after the fact. They are basically an educated guess by the BLS and both sides using them for politicking is just spin.

At the end of the day it matters not at all. I refuse to believe there are actually undecided voters left. There are Obama voters, Romney voters, a lot of people who will not vote, people who think they are undecided when really they are not but just don't want to be grouped with a party, and then maybe .005% of the population that is undecided and will actually vote. So does it matter that Obama failed miserably to call out Romney's gleeful lies? Not in the least.

It's always between a douche and a turd -- South Park.

You are good at seeing the big picture. Perhaps I should return my Political Science degree. LOL.

I disagree Carl; Obama is a lawyer and should have won that. Heads better be rolling in the Obama campaign tonight. He never ever should have allowed himself to be put on the defensive. Where was the 47% reference? Sabato is theorizing that somebody thought it was "not presidential" to go on the attack mode. But it's what he needed to do. Romney's arguments were like swiss cheese and Obama missed chance after chance. LOVE IT. But I am freaking. I have seen Democrats/Obama [!@#$%^&*] up too many times in my life.

I think Romney won by a little -- both got some good zingers in. Disappointed that Obama did not call out more of Mitt's BS, though his "Is he keeping his plan a secret because it's so good?" line was good. He needed to crystallize his thesis more though and be more on the offensive. Mitt was better -- coming up with a brand new tax plan just in time for the debate was genius. And I wish I had realized that cutting Big Bird while cutting taxes and increasing military spending would make the deficit disappear. It was BS, but kudos to Mitt for getting away with it cause Obama didn't call it out enough.

Why is this spectacular when Benjamin "Apartheid" Netanyahu's shelling for Mittens is not? Yawn.

I can't imagine Mitt not getting annihilated in the debates. He has campaigned on generalities -- all Obama has to do is force him into specifics and then he will make a buffoon of himself, no matter what. I expect Obama to have to play SOME defense in the debates, but it's nothing he can't handle. His defense can be "Mitt would make it worse" on literally every subject. Don't like the deficit? Mitt enacting even more tax cuts will make it worse. Don't like my broken Dream Act promise? Mitt would make that worse as well. Don't like Obamacare? Mitt invented Obamacare. I expect Obama to Q.E.D. in the debates. If Mitt were allowed to be himself, and nobody knows what that is but I think it's a moderate, he'd have a shot. But he is like the Viki Buchanan of American politics and is forced to have a million personalities and just cannot maintain that whatsoever. Ronald Reagan could.

Agreed! Glad I'm not the only one who noticed. Coulter's star has definitely dimmed in the last couple of years. But honestly part of it is just that she can't seem as outrageous as she used to -- she was this superstar who said outrageous things, and now that is the party line for the Republicans. If anything she seems to be to the left of the current Republican party. I do think that if Obama is re-elected the Republicans will move to the center and then maybe Coulter can have a comeback. She drove me nuts for years but I gotta say I kinda miss Ann. Just like many people in East Germany now miss being oppressed by Communism, I miss Ann's crazy ridiculous interviews.

Right. Voter fraud is not a problem -- but it theoretically could be, and that should be prevented. A national ID system like several European countries would solve it. What won't solve it is these state-by-state laws in an election year that are beng implemented to suppress likely Democratic voters.

When you think about it tho that hug had to have been pre-planned otherwise the Secret Service would've intervened.

And I know the lettuce thing sounds ridiculous but I am giving a practical example -- Republicans since 2008 have been grandstanding on broad issues and ideals, not specifics. It's so facile to say that illegal immigrants take jobs from Americans. But who wants a job picking produce that earns money not hourly but based on what is picked? Potentially $2 for an entire day's work? Not an American citizen. Example of grandstanding-- "We need to cut spending." "OK. Cut what?" "Just cut everything. Cuts from every department." OK, well that is now happening in January 2013 -- sequestration, due to Congressional Republican action. And every economist agrees it threatens us with almost certain return to recession. Though I see your point that not every illegal immigrant is the stereotypical farm worker. We do have a skills gap compared to other developed countries and allowing educated illegals to stay should be a no-brainer.

It's another thing where they have taken a position so extreme and refused to compromise -- like privatizing social security or voucherizing medicare -- that the problem won't get fixed. If Romney wins, there's no way in hell 20 million people get deported. It's impossible. But they've promised it to the base and can't renege so it just won't get dealt with again. Obviously allowing some to become citizens so they pay taxes and can contribute to society is the only solution at this point.

Agreed. I would like Brian to be more specific here. We all know that in England or France or Germany, the Democrats would be the conservative party.

I do think Obama has been a centrist thusfar. He has not raised anyone's taxes, his healthcare reform will increase business and profits for private insurance companies, and as for his stimulus and bailouts... we already had stimulus and bailouts under Bush! It was accepted fiscal policy until the Republican Party realized it was about to go the way of the Whigs and decided they need to oppose Obama on everything (including their own tax policy from Bush years, further tax cuts under Obama, their own health plan from the Clinton years, and their own stimulus and bailouts from the Bush years.) I also think Mitt Romney is probably a moderate -- we do not know because he has flipped on so many issues. But I also think he doesn't care on most things and just really wants to be President. So even if he is more moderate than Obama, he will be forced to defer to the extremist conservatives in congress. We have seen extremist conservatives calling Obama a Socialist Muslim born in Kenya, implying that rape cannot lead to pregnancy, and almost leading our country to default on its debt even when Obama tried to compromise by offering them $10 in spending cuts for each $1 increase in taxes. They have refused any compromise or moderation, and I believe either man will likely be accompanied by a Republican House and Senate. Under Obama, most of their insane ideas get vetoed. Under Romney, they become the law of the land. To me Obama has had more common sense solutions -- fix our massive debt by raising taxes on the wealthy, allow some illegal immigrants a path to citizenship. The Republican plans have been insane -- fix our massive debt by not only not ending the Bush tax cuts that created our debt in the first place but actually create more tax cuts? And then fill the hole by privatizing social security and voucherizing Medicare? Another insane plan -- deport all 20 million illegal immigrants (which will no doubt increase federal spending as it will take hiring many many ICE officers to turn the Southwest into a police state so we can track them all down and send them away and have lettuce prices skyrocket as nobody is left to pick it.) It seems to me that Obama's plan to lessen the debt -- to return tax rates for the wealthy to Clinton-era levels when the economy was booming, places less of a burden on the middle class. The Republican plan -- cut taxes to historic lows and fill the gap by cutting entitlements the middle class depends on -- helps the wealthy and penalizes the middle class. And don't forget that any attempt to touch Social Security and Medicare always fails. Bush tried and voters got pissed. So they will likely cut taxes first, ATTEMPT to reform Social Security and Medicare, feel the wrath of angry old people, and then their proposal will fail. So now we've got cut taxes and cut government revenue and no spending cuts. More debt. And as we saw with the Bush tax cuts, they do not pay for themselves, though Republicans will again insist they do. And that is where Republicans have plans at all. I get a lot of what they say they'd do has no chance of happening -- they really do not want a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and they really do not want to reverse Roe V. Wade. But then, those are the things they are concrete about. Then there are the vague areas -- Repeal and Replace Obamacare. Replace with what? I agree Obamacare is a bad law but repeal is not the solution. It is the first step toward the true solution to our sadly broken healthcare system. As I've said, the next Congress is almost certain to be Republican. People forget that 1994-1996 was a lot like 2010-2012. Clinton and the Republicans agreed on nothing because the Republicans were fixated on winning in 1996. After that, a lot of really great compromise legislation took place in Clinton's second term. I would much rather see Obama and the Republicans repeat that and compromise in his second term than a weak leader Romney kow-towing to wingnuts in Congress. We've had Reaganomics and a Conservative Supreme Court for 30 years and the Middle Class is dying because of it. It's not so much that I love Obama but that I'd like to move to the next phase that I must support him and hope that he can do ANYTHING to turn that around, because Romney clearly cannot... he is comfortable with the Age of Reagan that IMO has continued through the Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II presidencies just like the Age of Roosevelt before that continued through Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson. There are more reasons I'm probably brainfarting on to be honest... I just can't get on board with anything the Republicans have done in the past four years. The way they allowed the first black President to be shown as something "un-American" and "different" from previous presidents is just a huge turn off to me. Also I hear you on "having no place to go." I hated Bush but I really really disliked John Kerry even before he ran the worst campaign ever. 2004 was a tough one for me. 2008 I wanted Clinton but was more than happy to vote for Obama over McCain and 2012 I've never doubted Obama over anyone from the Republican primaries.

No, you're flat out wrong because Poland was an occupied country at the time. There was a powerless Polish government-in-exile in the UK, the actual country was ruled either directly by Germany or as a German Governorate. Maybe Polish people didn't mind Jews being sent to death camp but they did not actively collaborate and no official Polish government actively collaborated (to contrast with France which did have a government that collaborated.) The Nazi plan was to Germanize Poles with attractive genetic traits. The rest would either be exterminated or kept around for slave labor. It'd be like calling South Africa's Apartheid-era bantustans "Black-Run Bantustans."

He was for it... before he was against it... before he is now for it again. Of course the Democrats utterly fail to capitalize on his flip flopping because as always they are trying to lose...

Um? I am a liberal but this is not true at all... Obama made a blunder. Sure, Poland didn't have a great history with its Jews and many were happy to see them go, but Poland was defeated by then and the only responsibility for the death camps goes to the Nazis.

You have to look at the intention of the law -- was voter fraud a huge problem? No. Who, statistically, is most likely to be effected by the law? Anecdotes aside?

Todd Akin phrased it in an offensive way but he is really just adequately describing the GOP platform for 2012. No exception for rape, incest, or even the life of the mother. Just a brutal platform. Now realistically, would Romney/Ryan be able to overturn Roe V. Wade? No. Do I think they actually even want to? No. But it's in their platform and it is fair game.

Don't feel bad. Hogan Sheffer worked there for a year before he figured it out!

I think they really meant to recast Rosanna, since Meg seemed to just continue Rosanna's storylines after Rosanna left.

I gotta disagree with "All My Shadows" about making The Lie a two-parter. I loved The Lie and I thought it was perfect as a stand-alone episode. To me The Lie was very theatrical and complete, and there is nothing more awkward or amateurish than television's two-parter trope. True, it is sometimes needed, but is there anything more irking to a viewer? Is there anything where you're really showing your fourth wall and taking the audience out of the story in a way theater and films usually don't? Films rarely have two-parters, Harry Potter being the most notable exception I can think of, and it really takes the "art" away to me. I do think the ending of Laura getting her cigarette lit is just lovely. She's still longing and Knots understates that, just as Laura herself is quietly screaming throughout the whole first season. It's a really gorgeous shot and I think it'd have been ugly and cheapened with "To Be Continued" plastered over it as Dynasty would have done lol.

This post deserves some appreciation. I was lmao the entire time I read it.