In response to:

This Is Still a Terrible Economy and Obama's Responsible for It

evan43 Wrote: Sep 19, 2012 8:04 PM
In terms of spending, I agree that Obama spending is WAY too high. Government is inefficient and bloated, no doubt. But you say that Obama has spent "vastly" more than Bush. So does one's policies become "socialist" at some point in that vastness? What is the actual number spending figure one has to hit in order to qualify as a socialist? All I'm saying is that the whole ideological divide is not consistent with the reality that when it comes to actual numbers, these parties are basically the same while claiming to be diametrically different.

WASHINGTON- Somewhere in the last month or so, Mitt Romney's presidential campaign lost its laser-like focus on the bleak, job- starved Obama economy.

It allowed Obama's campaign to define him with a blitz of television ads in the summer, as Romney husbanded his resources and declined to aggressively punch back in the key battleground states that will decide the outcome of this election.

That allowed Barack Obama's shell game campaign of deception and distraction to move into the lead on some of Romney's bread-and-butter issues, including a slight edge on handling the economy, according to one poll.

...