Jim, so much to respond to so little time. Let's try to be factual. One good topic could be fracking.

Do you agree that fracking involves the injecting of wastewater into the ground in drilling for oil and gas?

Do you agree that fracking has been tied to an unusual rise in earthquakes in the U.S.? See Bloomberg 4-12-12, citing data from the U.S. Geological Survey.

Do you agree that the oil and gas drillers are actively seeking trade secret status for their fracturing fluids making them exempt from disclosure to the public? Pro Publica 11-2-10

Do you trust the industry to self-police via the "invisible hand"?

I'm only going to comment on the gas price comparison, as my Republican friends always use this, and unfortunately, it doesn't show the whole picture. Download the spreadsheet and do your own calculations, but for a fair assessment, you really have to go back more than four years.

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost

Okay, I lied. I'm also going to comment, ever so briefly, on the tax argument. While I do believe that we need reform of social programs, it's also interesting to look at the historic tax rates. Pull out your old economics books and lay the tax rates over the important economic events in our country, and again, draw your own conclusions.
http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2011-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets

Kim, thanks for this, but how do these points relate to the point of the blog - that a second term for Obama will be incalculably harmful to America? Perhaps a translation of what you have seen in these charts?

I chose to look at the broader context ... if over 60% of Americans believe that the US is currently on the wrong track, will a second term totally derail America? If you believe that is true, Romney is your choice. If you believe that Obama is good for the future of our Country, Obama gets the vote.

In other words - what does America's future look like to you, and for your children?

Jim, the larger point, as I see it, is that your blog tends to offer nothing but unsupported claims and old bromides about Republicans believing in individual rights and Democrats believing in big government and blah, blah, blah.

Normally I'd pay little attention, but we are less than two months from an important national and state election. When you make claims you should support them. For instance, "Due to Obama’s Mid East policies, more US Embassies will likely be at greater risk around the world, leading to even more tragedies and hostage taking." Based on what? In comparison to what other president? In comparison to GWB? I thought "fighting them over there so we wouldn't have to fight them here at home" was a virtue?
Or, "The rising cost of social programs, without a corresponding responsible plan to pay for them, will continue to expand the National debt." What is the effect on the national debt of the disasterous decision to invade, overthrough and occupy Iraq? Why wasn't that misadventure paid for, instead there were tax cuts and the war was placed on the national credit card? Do you even know what the cost will be when all is said and done? Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist first estimated the cost at $3 Trillion Dollars, he has since stated that his estimate may be too low. Who will pay for the war? Shouldn't big businesses that benefited disproportionately pay a disproportionate share?

Jim, with all due respect to you, is this all you've got? We have all been living in the same Country for the past four years, exposed to the same nonsense, seeing the same results, hearing the same excuses, hearing how all the blame and accountability goes elsewhere, hearing all the noise about everyone playing by the same rules and paying their fair share when we know this is code for class warfare. We hear about the Republicans being resistent to the Democrats without mentioning that the Dems had super majority in 2009-2010 and railroaded so many bills and stimulus packages that the electorate expelled a record number of Democrats in the 2010 election. We see a media obscessed with the Democrat Party so pathetically that they have lost any semblance of - your guessed it - "fairness. That's the blah, blah, blah that so mnay of us have had to endure. Let's begin with that.

Obama made the big play that he would speak to the Iranian leaders who would reason with his charismatic self. Hillary laughed over that. But he also went to Cairo as the non Bush, new American seeking the fresh start, the man who had lived in Muslim countries and knew from where they were coming. All of this was part of the greatest hoax ever seen, according to Bill Clinton.

Bush is gone. He has been criticized in this space. Obama lied about the cost of Obamacare, a program he never talks about.

Thanks for replying (really), but a second term would be incalculably damaging (my opinion).

Jim,

You said " if it were easy, it would be easy, and there would be solar farms and windmills creating their useful eyesores all over the place."

It's not difficult to make wind and solar power. It's difficult to make *money* making wind and solar power. Take out the profiteering from energy, and the entire dynamic changes.

Great blog Jim- now we'll wait for the Liberal diatribe to begin. Keep up the good work !
I really wonder if some of the perennial Liberal/radical/extreme bloggers work at anything else ?

Ed, thanks for the kind words, I will need it because I have little doubt that the usual suspects will speak out. I am really hoping to hear new voices emerge, not just the loudest, most partisan ones. Somehow, when I point out that America wants practical solutions, not ideology, there are many people agreeing, but get cold feet fearing that the liberals will jump at them. We'll see.

Well, I was a new voice and you ignored my specific questions in your previous post.

You know, I am completely turned off by your anger. For anyone -- on either side -- to make the kind of absolute, black & white, all is lost if ***** or ##### is elected, that you do, makes me think you are some sort of zealot.
I am not inclined to vote for Obama. Since Romney picked Ryan, I have wondered why Romney, a financial guy, needed another financial guy as a running mate. The economy is, of course, a huge problem but Romney has no foreign policy experience -- why didn't he pick someone who knew something about foreign policy?
Can you stop blaming Obama long enough to convince me that my inclination to vote for Romney is the right choice?

Dennis, thanks and happy to have you. Yes, on my last blog I mentioned that the reason for voting for Romney would be on my nest piece, which it is. America is, or should be much wiser now regarding the harm that Obama has done, and how much worse he would be if he did not have to face the voters again.

I did check on the Peggy Noonan reference and found my answer - however, it was among the comments to her last column and not attributable to what she said on television. My error there.

Whoever you vote for, we must consider the record and measure what was promised vs. what was delivered. This administration get an A for blaming, an F for accepting accountability for what they've done. A great point is the current Mideast crisis. They have lied to America that they were not forewarned regarding the attacks. Instead they tried to blame Romney for making a cohernet statement, then blame a film that nobody has seen (instead of protecting our right to free speech).

We deserve better and I hope you believe that too.

Thanks for you note. All the best.

Jim--But why are you using a picture of Michelle Bachmann?? Oh wait...

Jim, it's time to go back to work.

Jim,
Many of your "Democratic" posters are quick to be offended by you using Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party or ObamaCare instead of PPACA, but they think nothing of referring to George W. Bush as "Dubya" or making crude remarks about Michelle Bachmann. As usual, David, you are not funny.

Hello Jim and Republicans, What's the word from the Fox Mothership after word that Romney crapped on 47% of the electrorate?

States with highest percentage of people who pais no federal income tax in 2008. Doesn't Mitt need to win nearly all of these these states?
39% Tennessee
39% Florida
39% Idaho
39% Louisiana
39% Texas
40% South Carolina
40% Alabama
40% New Mexico
41% Georgia
41% Arkansas
45% Mississippi
http://taxfoundation.org/...

So, just out of curiosity...still think it's been a great week for Willard?

Ben, thanks - yes, I am still very strong with Mitt, but what makes you think it has been such a good week for Obama?

Seems to me Jim that an overwhelming majority of folks who don't pay taxes live in states that consistently vote Republican. And the states that have the fewest of the pay-no-taxes folks all live in solidly Democratic states. I wonder if there is a message there.

And I am not sure why Romney is complaining about folks who pay no taxes. He is desperately trying to be one himself.

I have posted this before and it's worth examining again where the people who live off of government "largesse" live in light of the firestorm created by Romney.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/us/even-critics-of-safety-net-increasingly-depend-on-it.html

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html

Max, Ben and Jim ... thank you all for your warm words of discouragement. I hope that i would be as (seriously) under-dramatic as you have all been. Good job.

Yes, it is rainy today, and windy. It is going to rain tonight but tomorrow afternoon will be sunny once again. Let me leave it all there, and not get all defensive, and simply say that I stand by what I have written.

"There are a lot of people who are unaware of the statistics of who pays income taxes, and who doesn't, or even the percent paid by the 1% highest earners."

I couldn't agree more Jim.
Do you dispute the data that Max Walker and I cited showing that the people "in the wagon" are predominantly red staters? If so, what data can you cite to?
Do you agree that the people in the wagon include many Republicans?
is it possible Mitt is one of the people in the wagon?
Has Mitt paid U.S. income taxes, each year, in each of the last 10 years?
Should ordinary wages be taxed at a higher rate than carried interest?

Rather than be an 'angry liberal' I will let a brilliant and angry conservative say what a lot of other conservatives are saying beneath their breaths.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/opinion/brooks-thurston-howell-romney.html?hp

Oh I have a mooch of a 98 year mother who lives on social security and medicare (and is a rock ribbed Republican) and so I find all this hilarious (bye bye Florida Mitt). And all the other members of my family, self excepted, are Democrats who all have great jobs and work hard (one has started a successful new business) which really ticks me off when I hear comments like those from this guy who thinks the middle class starts at 200k. Of course, Obama gets a good week when such foolish and untrue comments are made. And, in a couple of days Scott Brown is going to head further into the swamp. All could have been avoided by good management not a nod to the PreppieWorld they want to give us.

Jim, I have also thanked you sufficiently well on this. Of course there are Republicans who are no tax payers. Contrary to the opinion os some, Republicans are not a homogeneous group of wealthy people. They consist of a cross section from every income strata across the Country. This should not be a surprise.

As to Mitt and his taxes, do you really believe that he has not paid his applicable taxes? As a candidate four years ago, and now, he obviously has known that his taxes would create the scrutiny/review by the IRS. C'mon, it's not attractive to be a class envying voyeur. Let's be a little real on this. That he may have benefitted from a lower tax on capital gains is no different from millions of Americans who are retiring and cashing in their 401K plans - me among them now that I have hit the magic age.

I do not know what you mean by your last question.

But, may I re-direct this back to my blog - it's about what happens if Obama is elected for four more years. All of this is small ball considering the calamity that awaits all of us under an additional Obama term. Don't you agree?

Are you sure Mitt paid U.S. income taxes, every year, for the last 10 years. From the New York Times, June 28, 2011:

Surprisingly, a not insignificant number of those who are clearly well off are also among the “lucky duckies.” There are 78,000 tax filers with incomes of $211,000 to $533,000 who will pay no federal income taxes this year. Even more amazingly, there are 24,000 households with incomes of $533,000 to $2.2 million with zero income tax liability, and 3,000 tax filers with incomes above $2.2 million with the same federal income tax liability [0] as most of those with incomes barely above the poverty level.

The only (incomplete) 1040 we have seen from Mitt indicates he paid about 14% in 2010. Why do believe its not possible that Mitt paid zero in one or more of the last 10 years? Why do you believe its not possible that Mitt took part in the amnesty program for tax cheats using Swiss bank accounts to illegally evade tax liability?

Does Mitt ride the wagon or pull the wagon? Release those tax returns Mitt.

The only reason to vote for Obama is because he's not Romney, and the only reason to vote for Romney is because he's not Obama. Sad but true.

Four more years of Obama means four more years of back-door violations of our freedoms like the NDAA and four more years of not dealing with the debt crisis. Four years of Mitt Romney means even more money for the 1% to send off to the Caymans (because apparently 38% of the Bush tax cuts for 11 years really hasn't been enough...) and a federal government uninterested in protecting Americans from the corporate plutocracy.

Sad part is, we've got the TPP and ALEC buying up our freedom while we're busy foaming at the mouth about who said what in response to a bunch of ultra-extremist Muslims attacking our embassies and bickering about who can marry whom.

I'd like to cut through insinuations and rhetoric and point out what is troubling about what Romney said at the fund raiser in Florida in May. When Obama points to the low capital gains tax rates that Romney uses to pay his burdensome rate of 14% and calls for the rich to pay their fair share, Romney and the Republicans scream, "class warfare!". Yet he was perfectly at home carping that the poor don't pay any income tax! Why isn't this class warfare? Hypocrisy thy name is Romney.

Nay nay, Max, but good try.

The capital gains tax laws were not enacted for Romney, they were enacted for everyone. i am not sure how many people own stocks - probably reasonably low, especially compared with people who have 401K plans. These plans were passed in 1976 (best instant recall), meaning that they have been around for 36 years - plenty of time for retirees to make significant capital gains for post tax investments, and pay 15%. Recipients are spread throught the income ranges, but they all share the 15% limit on long term gains - same as on individual stocks - and, by the way, many of these funds are invested internationally depending on the plan.

And, by the way, a capital gains tax is a secondary tax following the normal income tax on ordinary earnings. In other words, the same money is taxed twice.

Class warfare suggests that even though 1% of the taxpayers pay 37% of the total taxes, their "fair share" should be higher - like 40% or more. None of that, however, broadens the tax base which ultimately develops higher tax revenues via the multiplier effect.

the question is one of fairness. by what measure is 15% a fair tax rate for cap gains? it used to be 30%.

Here's another truth you won't hear from the GOP, faux noise or the WSJ. 36% of total federal revenue comes from payroll taxes and 47% from income tax. and nearly nobody gets a break on payroll taxes.

Why don't you just get it already?? Mitt doesn't want to be president. With what the FED did last week I don't blame him. Republicans do not want to get blamed for what is going to happen in a few years. The cost of living will increase, so go ahead and keep up the blog. It will no matter who wins the election, we were sold out a long time ago.

I have a question re: those that ' do not pay taxes', particularly those in the $200K per year bracket. Is the correct assumption zero federal taxes meaning after deductions any withholding that has occurred during the year is refunded to them from the government, or does that mean no additional taxes paid after filing? As somone in that bracket (barely), supported by two incomes and extremely frustrated at the number of deductions that are removed because of income, particularly tuition deductions, I'd like to find their accountants. BTW, as long as we're picking out Mitt's comments for analysis, hope everyone caught speaker Pelosi on the Today show speaking about Gov. Obama and his running mate Bryan.

In specific terms, what would America look like after four years of Romney / Ryan?

Ben, first of all, do you really believe that the economy has added 4.5M jobs? Impossible. The math isn't even close, beginning with the idea that desire population growth, there are fewer people working today than when Obama took office.

But look at it this way, every month 1,500,000 new unemployment claims are made - at least - and tracking back since his inauguration. At the same time, the economy is said to have added (no more than) 150,000 jobs. So, if there are 10 new unemployment claims for every 1 job being created, how can we say this is good?

This is not to mention that the median facility income has declined each year, housing values have not improved, new business failures are at record highs.

I do not believe that Obamacare will show a deficit reduction because the numbers to build the case were low-balled (intentionally) based on assumptions that are now significantly higher. Medical costs continue to climb, and will.

But yes, all the "quantitative easing" money that the Fed has pumped into the economy to cheapen our dollars has been good for the stock market ... until it isn't, or until the Euro fails as it threatens to do.

This is not to even mention that the Government is now borrowing $4B/day to pay off the increasing debt, that has been expanding by over $1Trillion per year in Obamaland.

Bottom line, as I noted in the piece above, the economy is bad, and will only get worse in another term ... in my view. Thanks for the comment.

I used to own apple stock too which I picked up when it was 80 when the stock market went down, but sold too soon in the 300s. Yes I benefited from the 15% rate on that occasion as I have on other occasions. However my individual situation is hardly the point. Why is a 15% rate on cap gains fair while a top rate of 44% on regular income fair when there is not a shred of evidence (in fact there is evidence to the contrary) that a low cap gains rate leads to a stronger economy and more jobs? Tax policy has to be evidence based, not some pet economic theory of a small group of plutocrats. The Republicans want to shut debate about this, as if asking the question itself is somehow to be denigrated. Let's have a proper debate about this.

Rob, thanks for your compliment (I think?) but I am not sure which words I have twisted around. I know that the Fed is independent, probably in the same way that we are realizing that the Supreme Court is independent. Ron Paul had the best position on the Fed. If Romney wins I hope that he exercises some of them - at least audit the Fed (has already said he would replace Bernanke).

You be well also.

Jim, you lose a lot of credence when you make a comment like "gas prices, already more than double under Obama". Gas prices were like they are now for years under Bush....then amazingly, they plummeted in the summer of 2008... even though there was no similar plummet in the world crude prices. This was quite an event in the months leading up to an election where the "republicans/oil companies" were hoping to hold the White House! Unsurpisingly, the gas prices quickly climbed ... again without parallel comparison to world crude prices. Now we have people bashing Obama for gas prices. Look at the facts, man.I can not stand "baseless rhetoric" from either party. It leads me to dismiss all of what you say ... whether it has merit or not.

Paul, welcome to my blog and thanks for your note. Here's the thing. When Bush was President there was continuing uproar in the media - daily basis - as the price of a barrel of oil increased and gas prices correspondingly increased. No such coverage by the very same media these days - or ever - under this President. Why not?

And food prices have significantly increased in the past several years as well. I did not really push on that because factors like the draught are part of the picture.

I stand by what I wrote, however, that oil prices will continue to climb because of the Mideast situation, the refusal to tap into Keystone or off shore drill sites and the Fed's ongoing devaluation of the dollar. That's the facts as I see them.

Do you stand by your comment "gas prices, already more than double under Obama"?

I do not retract the comment. The factors are different now, created by Obama's policies in the Mideast and changing leadership in those countries, refusal to approve the Keystone pipeline or allow drilling permits off the Atlantic Coast - while loaning billions to the Brazilians and claiming he was looking forward to being their customer, and the Fed's monetary policy in response to our economic predicament that continues to cheapen our dollar.

Findbalance wrote:

"Max - You seem to be saying that people who live in Red states are the very ones receiving the most govt benefits, implying that they vote as if they don’t want others to receive “benefits” from the govt, but they are happy to receive their “benefits”. "

I don't seem to be saying it. That is what I AM saying. You haven't looked at the map carefully. There is a tab on the left of this map (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/02/12/us/entitlement-map.html) where you can see not only SS and medicare but also other categories of government benefits like income support (welfare). You will see that the case of geographical disparities in government assistance for income support is even MORE stark, not less, than for SS and medicare. It is very convincing if you take the time to look through the data carefully.

The only category for which this is not so especially in 2009 is unemployment insurance and that is because everyone has been affected by it, especially in the high tech sectors.

Paul, there is some dispute over the Brazilian situation, and I do remember seeing Obama make the comment that he looked forward tot he US being a customer. As I recall there was also significant money loaned to Pemex of Mexico to drill.

But, why must any of this be in dispute at all? Why shouldn't we have been placing as much emphasis on tapping into American drilling sites as chasing after windmills and solar panels? Just the order to begin drilling into known deposits would reduce the price of foreign oil in an attempt to discourage the actual projects.

I might also note that in the Bush years the price of oil was pushed up because of the Iraq War, but it was also pushed up by 20% based on the overall risk of getting oil in the Mideast. It went to an inflated $150 barrel (the high point to which you alluded), then fell when the economy collapsed and the demand for oil dropped so significantly that a "surplus" was created, at least temporarily.

Another piece of the equation, of course, is the President. Obama is clearly no fan of fossil fuel - oil and coal. He has been attempting to push smaller vehicles down our throats, and also the electric cars. These have largely failed since the Volt has not made any inroads - and a lot of that work is done in China.

Bottom line - oil is not likely to be coming down in price.

Thanks for your note - forcing me to go back into my memory.

All of these republican "mis-steps" are going to result in us losing Senator Brown to a girl from Oklahoma who came here to teach 10 years ago. Warren has just taken a big lead in the polls. I consider Warren adept and I'm not "worried" about her representing us in D.C. but Brown IS Massachusetts, he IS middle class and he IS 100% behind our veterans. Same can not be said for Warren. There is just no excuse for the baseless comments being made against Obama ... and the American people know exactly what the Republicans are trying to do. Baseless rhetoric is a sure sign that people are either 1.) out of touch -or- 2.) intentionally dishonest ... neither of which says much about their character.

Ok, where can we agree so that we can make a statement about where we need to go? I can not join you to attack the windmills and address the Atlantic drilling or the pipeline options if you're going to going to premise it by attacking the loan to Brazil. This just can not be brought up. Its baseless rhetoric. Trust me, I'd love to spout off about the windmill chasing and how we should be drilling off the east coast. But, the loan to Brazil is good policy ... and totally void of any connection to some premise of Obama being anti-oil. Brazil has made significant progress in ethanol production, so any assistance from us to get them leaning back toward oil can only be considered "pro-oil" ... obviously not the brightest of platforms ... but also not the "anti-oil" monger you accuse Obama of being. Despite the way you "spun" it, the loan was good for America.

To the comment that my mother is not a mooch because she takes SS and Medicare at 98: Given that we haven't much of a clue as to who is in the 47% I can exclude her from moochdom only insofar as she votes Republican. Were she to vote Democratic, which she may well do this year, she is in the 47%. As for my family, I am kind of ticked that they work so hard and may not all be in Mitt's middle class, and I am really ticked that that bugger is ducking and weaving on taxes and paying far less in terms of percentage than they are (oh, and they all find ways to contribute to society in positive ways). They may not be in the 47%, but in the six or seven percent that will give Obama a victory. Or are they just living lives of self delusion and are really in a dependency culture? It is beyond me, and I agree with David Brooks, Peggy Noonan, Joe Scarborough and many other conservatives to believe that this guy can fix our problems, particularly since so many of his big funders (we don't know who is bundlers are, actually) funded the policies by the last Republicans in power, who wrecked our country. Finally, I do agree that we need to reduce dependency -- what an apple pie argument -- but we have to get beyond sniping about gas prices, keystone pipelines, Brazilians and all that to what constitutes the leadership we need, and a vision which addresses so many needs beyond balancing the budget. If Mittens can't run a campaign he can't run the country.

Paul, thank you for your comments.

I do not know if you are a regular reader. If not you might want to read my previous piece regarding Clinton's real message at the Converntion. If you have seen that already then you probably already sense that finding agreement will be difficult because I am begging for practical solutions, not ideology. Both Obama and Warren are "you didn't build it", redistribute/confiscate wealth, government-centered utopians who are content to make America a welfare State. Now, before you say this is baseless rhetoric, think again. Their vision of America is so different from our founding. What we have here is a debate on what you want America to be and all of us are entitled to our opinion - it's why we have elections.

I might say that not only is Obama anti-oil, he is anti-coal. He will single handedly put WV out of business beginning with 1200 lay-offs this week.

But you asked where we can agree, and a good place to begin on the Country we leave for our children and grandchildren. Our legacy is to expand opportunity and provide a better life. We must get financial hold of our entitlements, promote the value of work, encourage free enterprise that leads to new industries and innovative products that leap frog current technologies and create a new avenue for wealth - and jobs. And, we must figure out the math (tax reform) that repatriates millions of American jobs to get our people moving again. Practical, not ideological.

What is wrong with ideology? It forms the basis for policy. Democracy is an idealogy. So is Patriotism. Idealogues? That's another story.

Many would consider pragmatism as an idealogy, at least a philosophical "idea". Practical solutions are simply solutions derived from theory ... and the theories come from different "camps" or ideologies.

With all that in consideration, how do you categorically combine all of Obama's policies as "ideological" and place on it a stamp of "inadequate" ... as if it has no praticality.

If I was to choose my "top-10" politicians ... there would be more Republicans than Democrats but President Obama would be on it and so would Governor Romney. For the first time in a long time, we have two solid tickets. Nothing on either ticket is worrisome in my mind. I could get behind both tickets. We've come a long way since Bush vs. Gore.

Paul, this is moving away from the thought behind the blog, but I am enjoying the conversation, so let me give this a shot.

There is nothing wrong with ideology. In fact, ideology is a great thing. What I am talking about - and what my last blog was all about - is leading and governing. Rigid ideolgues ram their philosophy down your throat, unless you have swallowed the kool-aid first. This just does not work, and frankly it is what we have seen in the past four years, and it's where we are as a Country right now.

The key is to build bi-partisan solutions where neither side gets all they want, but neither do they get screwed either.

To me, this is a strong reason for a change. Romney is not an ideologue. His experience has been working with a governing class that is 85% from the other party. That the far right is not enamored with him should tell you a lot in this regard. At the same time, Obama has squandered his ability to govern with his rigor that led to the overthrow of his party in 2010 (then blame Republican stubbornness). If he were as had been hoped, his re-election would be a sure thing. That it is not tells you that he will never lead this Country, much as Bush could never lead after his re-election.

That's how I see it. And, to get re-centered, what do you want America to be?

Jim, my point is that Mitt (ok no more Mittens or Willards) said that the 47% who support Obama were part of a culture of dependency, etc.. which in shorthand or code is, or comes close to being mooching. welfare cheating, etc. Now my mother is excluded for two reasons. One is that she is a person of enormous dignity who has done very well after the company my father worked for over 48 years took away, after promising never to do so, her pension weeks after he died. Good ole capitalism. Probably pre-Bain in fairness. It is still a hugely profitable enterprise. The other reason is that she is a Republican and falls outside the stereotype. Because she is furious at the GOP's attitudes on women and still turns bright red when she thinks about the Shiavo case and recognizes Rick Scott as the crook he is, she may vote Democratic. That will put her in the 47% and therefore......And I still can't figure out where my wife and kids are. Maybe you can help on that. Please break down the numbers.

As for dark Manichean visions of socialist Obama vs. the righteous capitalism of Romney, such over simplified distinctions are unwarranted. We need regulation, we need oversight, we need government investment and even things like national parks and highways. As for the culture of dependency, would you agree that it extends to oil companies, corporate farms, airlines, loopholes for the rich and that side of the coin, or is just the 47% who are vets, retired, on unemployment, etc?????

"It’s time to admit the Romney campaign is an incompetent one. It’s not big, it’s not brave, it’s not thoughtfully tackling great issues. It’s always been too small for the moment."
"We are a big, complicated nation. And we are human beings. We are people. We have souls. We are complex. We are not data points. Many things go into our decisions and our political affiliations."
--- Peggy Noonan, WSJ, Sept. 18.

If Peggy Noonan is calling your campaign incompetent, have you lost the election?

Mitt is a CEO saying America needs a CEO and he is failing at being CEO of his campaign.

Am I going to have to sit out another election (wanted to vote for McCain last time; refused to vote for Palin)? The Hopey Changey thing never worked for me.

Ron - we need leadership! We need practical solutions not ideology.

As to your final question, I agree that there is a legacy of too many tax dollars subsidizing too many companies and industries, just as we have overfunded social programs beyond our ability to pay for them.

How about some fiscal sanity?

And, I have high hopes for your mother.

Jim,
I have said previously that it is of no use to me when a person of one political persuasion attempts to explain away his candidate's missteps by pointing to the opposition candidate's missteps, action/inactions or failures that occurred at some point in the past. It is all very school yard to me.
You say that Romney "is smart and capable". Agreed. But why is it that you know what "message he should have been pushing all along" and he is 'unwittingly forced' into it.

I already know I don't want to vote for Obama. You know I question Romney selecting Ryan -- and perhaps even more -- question Ryan accepting. This is an election that the Republicans should win. Better days need to start yesterday.

Dennis, thanks and I have to say that you are a real curiosity to me. You raise questions, I respond honestly, then you chide me for whatever and you remain where you were when the process began.

So, you might imagine that some of us Republicans actually converse with one another about the issues and what we woul like to see our candidates do. For many of us Mitt was too unspecific for too long. Now, through the fates he had not planned he is where he is - and where some of us should be all along - making people ask the question, "What do you want America to be?"

Sound familiar?

I think this is about the best I can do for you. Good luck and all the best.

Jim, thanks for agreeing with me on one part of what I wrote about; I'd like some answers on some of the others. I hate to say, but otherwise all I see very often is the party line in your positions. Not really independent conservative thought. This all said, I believe that your posts offer the opportunity for civic dialogue and, by and large, some of us 'angry liberals' or whatever we are notwithstanding, like to debate.

I would be curious to know who your favorite Republicans have been and who influenced you as you began your quest to think and talk about politics? I can tell you I enjoyed Eisenhower (one of my all time heroes who would gag on military involvement and spending today), Barry Goldwater (who I spent a fair amount of time with; he was a bit off the wall on some things, but a wonderful person), Nelson Rockefeller (whose campaign I chaired on a university campus where Dick Cheney was one of my students -- earnest feller), and even Ronald Reagan, who was infinitely more sophisticated than the current crowd of red state bible thumpers, women haters, and no-tax me folks. One of my intellectual heroes was Wm F Buckley, who would throw up on this crew today. I subscribed to the Nat Review for years and years. All of these people understood the relationship between theory and practice. Today we get theory from eggheads like Ryan and practical nonsense from Romney in the guise of 'fiscal responsibility', and who remains a guy in a tin suit as far as I'm concerned.

Ron, I think you are offering me faint praise - even if I attempt to put out thoguhtful essays that I at least feel are pretty creative.

Nevertheless, your question takes us far adrift the topic of the blog. Somehow I keep hoping for more people to tell me what they want America to be because that is what the discussion must be about in this election.

I mentioned JFK in a recent piece as my first political hero. He was young and from Massachusetts and i was younger and from the same place. The ramifications of his assassination have not been fully enough explored.

I have had only one other political hero - Ronald Reagan, which can hardly be a surprise. Both Kennedy and Reagan made me believe, a quality not present in Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter or Bush 1. I loved the resolve of George W, but realized that he was flawed, not altogether of his own making. Clinton squandered his Presidency - he should have been so much more, and I keep wondering why Democrats admire him as much as they do. I have described Obama as all hat, no cowboy. A disappointment to me.

Over time the Parties have become one dimensional. 50 years ago each party had liberal and conservative wings - now not so much, which is part of the problem with governing because voting out of lockstep with the party leader is a career ender.

One of the reasons I like Romney is the expectation that as a moderate he can work with the parties to create practical solutions. We need this now.

I think that blogs offer the opportunity to spread wings a bit and your response is interesting. I was pretty much a Republican until I watched the Nixon-Kennedy debate, saw how JFK handled the Cuban missile crisis, photographed him in a parade in Laramie and then, when he was shot, hitch hiked over a thousand frigid miles to be with my now wife and friends for hours and hours of talk. I admired some things LBJ did, but was infuriated by his Vietnam policy, which I was lucky enough to study with the help of the Marines as the war ended. To me Clinton handed the election over to Bush with his Lewinsky nonsense and dissembling, though what transpired on the GOP side was equally stupid. But Clinton and Newt cut their deals and all triangulated. In my mind compassionate conservative Bush, who was asleep at the pre-9/11 switch, was taken over by Cheney and crew, and we went down a path to disaster and a party that began to depend too much on its Southern base and no-tax mantras. There is more than ample blame to go around on the economy, banks, and foreign policy, which I feel has been a bi-partisan catastrophe. Not surprisingly I like some things Obama has done in the health care area, where I worked for many years (thanks Mitt), but am horrified by some of his civil liberties positions (torture, habeas corpus). Pay attention to Gary Johnson. He may be a nail in the Romney coffin out west. Smart guy with good libertarian and foreign policy positions. Flexible of mind.

Romney has demonstrated some willingness to bipartisan solutions ... for sure. But, I see a man who is also capable of holding the line. I think that's dangerous. He's an ideologue in his spiritual life but I do not see that heavily influencing his political decisions. That, in and of itself, is admirable. He's also a strong businessman and to succeed in business, you have to be able to work with people.

But, standing at a podium and espousing that 47% of the nation is lazy is just plain ignorant. So, if he's capable of doing that, it scares me what else he might do if placed in the oval office. I have no such fear of Obama. Also, Romney's indignation and arrogance in London and over simplification of the affairs in the Middle East was so disrespectful and lacking of character. It did nothing to help the situation.

I'm still on the fence.

By the way, I want America to be what it was always intended to be - “The land of the free”. I wish we had a lot more Monroe Doctrine in us these days and a lot less capitalism. There is a lot to be said for social medicine and also for small government ... contradicting ideas as they may be. I wish the American public could be less provincial and more responsible. None of this patriotism in the wake of disaster crap, we need every day patriotism. If you see a soldier in a Dunkin' Donuts, but them a cup of coffee!

Jim H. how about doing a blog on Lizzie and Traveler's Insurance ?

How the moochocracy works:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-september-19-2012/chaos-on-bulls--t-mountain---the-entitlement-society

Jim, some people are saying you are "FindBalance". Is that true? I said I'd ask, and now I have. If you ARE "FindBalance", I wonder if you would explain why you post under different names? What could one say under a pseudonym that one would not say as oneself? If you are NOT "FindBalance"--and I hope you are not (because FindBalance is so much less polite and reasonable than you, in my opinion)--that's great!

David, I am not Find Balance so you, and whoever else is wondering about this, can rest very comfortably. I look forward to your anticipated hits in my next piece which was submitted over the weekend and should be posted today.

I might say that since there seem to be few conservative posters compared with the liberal crowd, I appreciate his comments which are typically supportive.

I see the 'thought police' are after you Jim...keep up the good work and Find Balance is another 'balanced' voice.

John Tehan, I am sorry that this is so out of order. Nontheless, i thank you for your question - which I actually answered in my response directly above your post.

So - if Democrats can actually believe that Mitt Romney is so potentially sleazy to have cheated on his income taxes - which are closely followed by the IRS, why can't Republicans wonder if Obama applied to the colleges as a foreign exchange student to seek an advantage similar to what Elizabeth Warren claimed?

As I said repeatedly, and now again - if everyone wants openness, let's have openness, all around. Set up a prime time special for the big reveal and let the chips fall where they may.

What I find rather curious is that the same Democrats who seem to revere President Obama would demonize a person as accomplished and generous and unscandalized as Mitt Romney. Why, because he has been so successful as a businessman, parent, husband, Mormon, and public servant?

I don't understand ... but then again, I am a Republican in Massachusetts.

Jim,
I think the real question is, "Is David Nolta Linda Worthy?"

A gentleman would never ask ...

I would be honored to be Linda Worthy! And Concerned Citizen's concerns are clearly misplaced. True, Concerned Citizen is no gentleman, she is a small person in her own right.

Thank you again, Jim, for your candor--SO refreshing! And of course I look forward to your next post!

David - Who are "some people" that are saying Jim H is me? I haven't seen any postings that say that. Are you in touch personally with these people? I think it's just you.

I don't like your tone David, calling me less polite than Jim H, implying that I am not polite in my postings, attempting to undermine what I say. I leave it up to the readers to make their own decisions on my postings (without your help) - and yours.

I see you have slightly softened your method of degredation from Friday (you know of what I speak) - if you continue on this mission of character assassination, trying to paint me as something I am not, I willl move to have you banned. You have crossed the line.

And for the record, I am not Jim H, and Jim H is not me.

David ...cute ... LOL.

Actually, as you my have noticed, as someone who puts out pieces - and admittedly rather lengthy ones at that - I consciously do not typically blog into someone else's work because I already have my chance to express myself. Why try to hog, or diminish, their spotlights when I am already treated like a piñata in my own? As a result, I do not read all the blogs all the time ...

Thank you again, Jim, Still, in that situation, you might have granted me the courtesy of believing me when I said that the question had been raised (not by me), and I had promised to ask (it's all documented, right here on The Patch). And to repeat, I'm glad, and thank you again for your candor!

Oh, I understand why you are not replying to me, David – you are not even reading my posts because they are "not read-worthy".

As for granting the courtesy of believing you that others have raised said question – you often ask for proof of statements, and when I have asked you for proof of some of your statements, you have offered it without asking for courtesy. Why now are you asking for blind faith?

And what courtesy have you yourself offered recently, hurling insults at me and belittling another poster as being a small person? Playing “nice guy” only with Jim H on the opposing-view side doesn’t cut it.