Thank God he won WWII for us!!

Let me make a quick observation here. The tactics of the Obama campaign and its many constituents can be very clearly and accurately predicted. Please be assured that there are organizations sitting on a number of such "bombshells" waiting to release them into the media feeding frenzy over the next 6 weeks. The Romney campaign cannot be unprepared or diverted from this but must be prepared in advance to counter attack. Furthermore they must have a better strategy to get in front of the "growing momentum" meme that the mainstream media is now using to try to create a self-fulfilling prophesy of Obama's prospects. If they begin to display an air of desperation or defensiveness, the tactic will have worked perfectly. Please figure this out!

Way to go Michael, your father would be very proud!

Hard to pick just 8 - Keystone Pipeline, Message to Medvedev, trying to intiimidate the Supreme Court, Refusal to enforce DOM, Overlooking voter intimidation by Black Panthers, Recess appointmensts when congress not recessed, Shakediown of BP after Gulf Oil Spill, Stuffing the NLRB with pro-union hacks, Trying to tax corporate jet owners while flying separate 747's on vacation, Use of public funds for non-stop campaigning since he was elected. I know that moments can be a bit semantic and I'd go on but I get tired of thinking about his abuses of power and privilege.

Just one small comment, the demos as you call them were in fact betrayed by their elected representatives, who could only pass the bill using coercion and bribes of the less cooperative members - the results of November 2010 demonstrate this pretty clearly. I agree with your conclusions but it is also a lesson in what representative government can become when it primarily represents itself!

I understand the reason people like Mr. Bush would say they would take a 10 to 1 tax deal; it sounds reasonable on the surface and perhaps he thinks it would soften the edge and appeal to a larger portion of the public. However in the current environment spending is completely out of control and we know that any tax increase can both lessen the incentive to control spending and adds to the perverse incentives built into our system that discourage real growth and progress. Not to mention that 1) most of the time the cuts we are debating are cuts in the rate of increase not real cuts and; 2) cuts don't always happen but tax increases do. I would suggest a better response to a 10 to 1 offer would be "Let's just compromise and make it 9 to 0" !

Amen!

I guess I tend to be in the lesser of two evils category Steve but let me suggest a couple of thoughts that may allow you to vote for Mr. Romney with a clear conscience. Two key points to keep in mind: 1) We have a (small-r) republican, representative form of government, so we have every right to believe that our representatives should listen to us and respond accordingly. Mitt Romney's election would in large part be a repudiation of Obama's ideologically driven and non-representative approach (i.e., Obamacare and the Keystone Pipeline are just two examples of his flagrant disregard for the will of the people) …

... continued 2) With point 1 in mind, the President’s job is technically that of an executive, in other words carrying out the functions of government. Although successful presidents must be good leaders, and they have tremendous latitude to set policy, it is not necessary for them to lead public opinion as much as to be sensitive to it and gain consensus for it. It is our job as citizens to elect people who will see the job as a mandate to enact a popular agenda, not their own. I think Mr. Romney would be far superior in this respect than 4 more years of Mr. Obama’s personal agenda. I recognize that this is not a perfect solution, but sometimes perfection is the enemy of good enough! Best regards, Rick G., California

Hi Dan, I really respect your work. I think maybe you missed one opportunity here - when he claimed that the vast majority of income is pass-through income not dividends and capital gains, you might point out that President Obama has not put anyone in that situation on stage with him to protest that their taxes are too low. Why is that? Because the people he cites as examples do get the majority of their income through dividends and capital gains. It is not a coincidence that he focuses on one set of "millionaires" as evidence of the problem then his spokesperson acknowledges that it is irrelevant to the vast majority of "millionaires". Can he name some small business owners that make millions and pay less than their secretaries?