Regards the daily intelligence briefings... Obama is simply following the exact same approach to meetings as Clinton did. No dereliction of duty and no one was making a fuss back in the '90s.

The Romney campaign inquest begins tonight, though, after the 47% tapes. He was going to lose anyway, but these tapes will (rightly or wrongly) finish him.

what are the 47% tapes? you lost me.

UPDATE: Found it. Probably will do damage. These things don't hurt Obama when they happen, because they are barely reported by the media. But when it's a Repug, it gets reported over and over for days.

To be fair, "you didn't build that" got an awful lot of coverage. These comments always get massive airtime. The problem with this Romney error is that it taps straight in to what people feel uneasy about with him: he doesn't give a shit about the working and middle classes. It's a catastrophic revelation for his campaign - I almost feel sorry for him.

Do you agree with his conclusion?

Saw a rogue report it was Jimmy Carter's grandson that leaked the video but can only assume that's bunk.

I agree, actually

I heard the Carter thing too.

It plays into people's fears about Romney.

You never hear me sing the guy's praises. I live in the state where he was governor. Ironically, he brought universal healthcare to this state, believe it or not.

The problem with Romney is not that he doesn't care, or that he's very ideological. The problem is he says what he thinks will get him elected. It's hard to know if he really believes in anything. I've always called him the Republican John Kerry.

I never understood his campaign management. He does an interview last month where he talks about him and Anne buying shirts at Costco. Yeah, right.

Why not just come out and say this: I had it pretty good growing up. My dad was governor, I went to all the best schools. I had all the advantages. But I worked my ass off when I got out of school. And I've worked my ass off my whole life. I built a great American company that launched and saved businesses, produced thousands of jobs. I became governor of a Democrat state, and worked with the other side to get things done. I'm a lousy dancer, I stink at golf, I'm the opposite of cool. But if you elect me President, I'll go to work every day, get the country back on its feet, and undo the damage of the last four years.

The things he foolishly got caught saying had much truth to them. Half the country doesn't pay taxes. But it's even worse. Many who do pay taxes work for the government. Many make six figures. But they will mostly vote Democrat. So it's not just about people who get a welfare type check from the govt. It's people who get a pay check. And we're getting close to a tipping point where too many depend on the government either for work or the entitlement.

Yeah, his campaign has been mismanaged and Romney himself must take responsibility for that. To my mind, its that lack of inner conviction that makes him such a poor politician. Probably a lovely man, but I fundamentally disagree with his economic plans and this leak confirms (at least in my mind) that the Obama campaign has his number.

You know, I agree that if he had played up his background much like the Kennedys did, he would be viewed differently. Whether he's played it down because he falsely believes he's self-made like someone born on the lower rungs of society, or because he's running scared of how the left may view him, it's clear he's not made of the right kind of stuff. For all his faults, Bush had the fortitude to be decisive and see through his agenda. Ditto Reagan, Clinton, Obama. All of these guys have something Romney doesn't. It's probably that inner conviction, I don't know.

As a counter to Romney's 47% stance, have a butchers at this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/18/romneys-47-percent-us-election

Romney is lacking in the inner conviction. That's why the Republicans tried to nominate just about anyone else in the primaries. In the end, they all had issues. Cain would have got the nomination were it not for his infidelity and lying about it. But he was flawed, of course, barely able to point to Europe on a map.

There are great young Republicans emerging. But the current crop of Presidential candidates was weak. The Tea Parties have really driven some exceptional new talent into office.

will read link later, got a meeting

prepare to have your mind blown:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-P.....-Rules-of-Engagement

Andrew: will read your link tomorrow; got home late.

Addressing Andrew's link:

I've seen the stats in similar articles. No question a lot of those, particularly the elderly, vote Republican, and if taken seriously Romney's strategy is foolish.

Although clearly Romney was addressing people in a private gathering, people who pay a boatload in taxes, so his remarks were tailored for that crowd.

I don't excuse the remarks, and it's unbelievable that in today's day and age Romney does not realize that everyone has a camera in his pocket now. You have to expect that everything you say has a chance of making it to youtube.

But you can look at the numbers a different way as well. While many of those in the 47% pay no income tax because they are retired, there are also millions who DO pay income tax, but will mostly vote Democrat because they work for the government. When you add up government workers with those getting assistance from the government, it's a big number. Then throw in unions and companies that depend on an expanding government for their business. You're still not at 47%, but now throw in the environmentalist groups, the private school/guilt riddled liberals, and minorities, and you're over 50%. Well over it.

Fortunately, not everyone votes with their own selfish interest in mind. Not every federal employee or local teacher will vote Democrat. Many federal employees will care more about their country. Many teachers care more about their students and quietly understand the unions/Democrats have destroyed the school systems.

No, Andrew, I don't like Romney at all. Never have. I don't know what drives him. Maybe he has to prove to his dead father that he can live up to expectations by being President. W Bush had to have a big war to prove worthy of his father, a WWII hero.

In practical terms, Romney's malleability means he will work with the other side. I saw that in my state. He will compromise, which can be troubling, because it will mean government will continue expanding. But if one is a liberal, Romney really is not to be feared in any way. The day to day of government will be better managed, the economy will improve, foreign policy won't change much.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/.....2508418#.UFs8lo1lS80

Look at the participation numbers toward the bottom of the article. At Chicago Law School, Obama was a lecturer, not a professor, certainly not teaching "Constitutional law". He taught 3 courses, all standard Progressive stuff dealing with race and advocacy. That's it.

Faculty were expected to participate in the intellectual life of the school, to plan curricula. He did none of these things. He did next to nothing.

In the state legislature, he voted "present" more than any other legislature. In my state, Massachusetts, this usually means the legislator is not actually there, but has a colleague indicate present. Of course, sometimes it means the legislator wants to avoid a public position.

In the US Senate, again, he was a leader in voting "present", and also a leader in missing votes. He missed an astounding 24% of roll calls(average Senator is 2%).

Now as President he misses about 40% of his Daily Intelligence Briefings, and is criticized by both parties as being unavailable for legislators.

But he has three times the campaign events as Bush did, golfs constantly, and always has time for Letterman, The View, and Jay Z.

The empty chair image really works. This guy just isn't there, and never has been his whole career. Except for campaigning.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....d-attack_652761.html

CBS news reports that witnesses say there was not protest at the Libyan embassy. It was just a straightforward attack.

http://www.washingtonguardian.com/revising-libya-story

The 2 Navy Seals that died trying to protect the ambassador were NOT assigned to him. They just jumped in to help.

Essentially, the ambassador had effectively ZERO security. In one of the most dangerous areas of the world. And apparently the ambassador had mentioned weeks ago that he was in Al Quda's crosshairs. AND...the Libyan government had warned for weeks that security was a problem.

Can any of our liberal friends here explain this? Are you just gonna chalk it up to "Oops!"?

And as we've seen so many times before, the administration is in FULL cover-up mode. Watch any press conference. Even CBS said in its report that the investigation will be designed to conclude after the election.

If you're American, do you really want these people in charge of national security?

If you are not American, and I understand many of the non-Americans here essentially don't like the US, but do you really think that the world is a safer place with an incompetent and impotent United States?

Quoted from kev If you are not American, and I understand many of the non-Americans here essentially don't like the US, but do you really think that the world is a safer place with an incompetent and impotent United States?

Don't know anyone on the board who's anti-American, but if it's aimed at me, it couldn't be further from the truth. I like the States big time. Ever since heading over at 10 years old, I became enamoured by the big picture thinking that is largely lacking in the UK. It just aligns with how I view the world. America will always attract criticism (as she herself dishes it out - and criticism is a two-way street) as Britain has for its historical impact. When two nations are as geopolitically active as these two, egos will be scruffed up. Par for the course. To equate disagreement with anti-Americanism is obtuse.

The sources (esp Breibart) are highly partisan, so obviously of dubious quality. If it's revealed by credible sources (and yes, that's a mainstream media source, 'cos let's face it, they will expose big errors eventually), I will be equally as disappointed in the tactical errors as you evidently are, but at the moment it's conjecture with a slant - not a basis to admonish the Obama Administration's foreign policy unconditionally.

Quoted from Kevin Although clearly Romney was addressing people in a private gathering, people who pay a boatload in taxes, so his remarks were tailored for that crowd.

Relatively speaking, it's no higher than other members (who earn considerably less) of the cherished 53%. Check out Robert Reich's blog for some statistical data on levels of high income earners paying little to no tax. Point accepted that he's a partisan Democrat.

Quoted from Kevin Many teachers care more about their students and quietly understand the unions/Democrats have destroyed the school systems.

Obviously there's no statiscal evidence of this claim. I'd be interested in any empirical studies that may back it up, but certainly know of no paradigm shifting studies. This is, of course, not just an American debate but a global debate. Look at the relatively strong union membership in Australia. Their economy (and reasons for this can be debated) largely remained unaffected by the GFC. The income inequality is also far less. So there's no commonality behind the claim that unions destroy any industry or profession. It's a conservative talking point. I'm not a union man per se, but any body that stands for the working man (who is as a part of a company's success as any suit) cannot be easily dismissed without facts. The notion that the lower skilled labour force is disposable fuels much of the thinking that barriers (unions) to getting rid of it are "getting in the way".

What you fail to address is the single greatest economic issue in the last generation, which is globalisation. Look at the Indian protests today at their PM opening up for foreign retailers. People are suspcious of it. The fact is that when companies are faced in competitive industries with shrinking bottom lines, they will - where possible - look to outsource jobs in an effort to cut costs and become more profitable. The resultant vacuum leaves people out of work and is exacerbated by a dearth of alternative jobs. Then you get "dependency" and welfare costs rise. As Clinton said, no one party has the monopoly on good ideas. But we all know the problems, so working together to solve them is the only suitable conclusion. That takes compromise and an open mind.

Now, you can of course argue that outcourcing is down to wages being too high in the homeland (although evidently not high enough to deal with rising living costs and inflation) fuelled by union interference. And that's a debate worth having, but to enter that debate with the conclusion unions are to blame makes no sense. The fundamental question is what kind of America do you want to live in? The benchmark of your country was the 'American Dream' and the largest middle class in the world. Everyone agrees that's in danger. There's a difference of opinion on how to rollback the losses of the last 30 years. However, it's a multi-faceted, complicated problem that cannot be described by blaming government, unions, big business, greed or whatever other conclusion you will see - it's naturally a conflation of all these issues and more. It's not a time for the blame game but for problem solving. And that's why the anger is there on both sides. The Republicans blame the supposedly government loving liberals, and the Democrats blame the supposedly intransigent, social Darwinist conservatives. There's no doubt an element of truth in both arguments, but there's also a lot of false conclusions too.

Robert Reich is not only a partisan, but he's an extreme liberal who has always been, shall we say, selective in data he uses. I would not trust any economic data he uses for arguments, no more than I would Krugman. More on this later.

I don't use Breitbart as a source. I might use his link if it shows mainstream video, such as from CBS, which it does here. I have not given any information on this that even the administration would argue. They will equivocate and change the subject, but the basic facts are not in dispute, and Jake Tapper of ABC has been dogged in asking these questions.

The stuff I am telling you about security in Libya is all over the news. Pick your source: CNN, Fox, the networks, the British papers. It ain't hard to find. There was no security, and though Carney is asked this every day, he deflects by saying "an investigation is under way". Watch him today.

Andrew, even liberals have caught on to the fact that Teachers unions have destroyed the education system. I could spend a day explaining it, but there is so much information in the public domain, why should I? Several life long liberals have done documentaries in the last couple years on this. What do you think a charter school is? Essentially it's a public school that has special permission to operate outside the union rules. They perform light years better than the regular schools. And families are desperate to get there kids into them. Meanwhile, unions do EVERYTHING they can to appose them.

There is a difference between private sector and public sector unions. Since a business's purpose is to make money, it's reasonable that workers should have protection. But a government entity does not exist to make money. There's no reason for public unions. Unlike a private union, public unions conspire with their bosses to take public money. Even FDR thought public unions would be a bad idea.

I can't speak to Australia, I know nothing about it's economy. Generally speaking, two things to keep in mind about the "income inequality" thing.

First, measuring such a thing is fraught with problems. Even assuming you had honest researchers, such a thing would be difficult to measure. And seldom if ever are there honest researchers. Generally the people that measure such a thing either deliberately or subconsciously build in a bias, and the bias is always from the Left, because they are the ones obsessed with it.

Second, a shrinking income gap usually results from this: a shrinking economy. A growing economy produces a larger gap. That is statistically so, but even more, it's common sense. When the economy is strong, productive people do better.

You are correct I did not address globalization. It's a very difficult problem. To be honest, I am very unsure what is the best way to handle many of the problems that arise with it. I would agree with your general approach that it is not a problem that one philosophy or ideology will fix, and requires some compromise.

But government programs are already in place for these things. And government bureaucracies are like monsters that feed and grow on their own once birthed. Look at the Ethanol program in the US, which has increased carbon emissions AND increased world food costs. It's a lose lose situation, but they will never go away now.

The never expanding size and scope of government is a real and present threat to freedom. Poverty is preferable to enserfment.

As far as the rolling back the "losses of the last 30 years", this is a fiction created by Leftwingers. The Left could not accept the pronounced success of Reagan and Thatcher, so they play with numbers, like Reich, to create the reality they want. Let me give you an example.(And I don't have time to cite sources, sorry. But one can see how this works)

It has been said that under Reagan, the poverty rate increased dramatically for blacks. So Reagan's economy was terrible for them.

I can show you easily how this was wrong, and it really matters to understand why.

It's true that statistically black poverty rates increased. But something else is true statistically: a dramatic and unprecedented number of black families moved into the middle class. They found the American dream.

How can both things be true? Easy, and this is why statistics are dangerous, and you have to be careful.

Single parent birth rates among blacks skyrocketed in the 1980s. There was also the crack epidemic, but the main thing throwing the numbers was the millions of babies living in poverty to single mothers. The increased poverty rate was due entirely to this birth rate. And none of this had anything to do with Reaganomics. Nothing. If anything, it was a product of the social welfare experiments launched by Johnson.

So blacks did very well under Reagan. My best friend's family loved Reagan for that very reason. They remain Republicans to this day.

If you could go back and time and prevent Reagan's election, the single parent birth rate would still occur. But the economic expansion might not(I would say would not). Hundreds of thousands of black families would remain in poverty as a result. I wouldn't want that on my conscience. So I'd be careful what stats you look to and what conclusions you draw.

Let's get some perspective on the Robert Reich thing... he's a former member of the Clinton Administration - a third wayer. You describe him like he's George McGovern. if we're on the partisan scale, he's nowhere compared to a Thomas Sowell or the Breitbart jokers. Also, he has a strong and respected command of economics, just like the Nobel Prize winning Krugman. To dismiss guys of this calibre who cite actual figures and data (unlike the hack that is Sowell) is to ignore reality.

Kev, you can't say "even liberals" have caught on to the supposed fact that teachers unions have destroyed the education system in the US. I'm all ears for reputable sources and information that demonstrates any liberals (or independents for that matter) solely blame teachers unions for the alleged destruction of the US education system. That's a painfully one-sided conclusion that is just not true.

Public or private sector unions. Yes, you can slice them if you wish, but to this point you've lumped them in together. So now you're saying that private sector unions are good and it's the public sector unions only that are naughty? I am, of course, being facetious. Unions are there to protect incomes but also working conditions. Judging from your assessment of the Obama government, isn't it wise for these guys to protect themselves from "the liberals"? I cannot agree with your conclusion that public sector unions collude with middle management to steal money from the public purse. Sure, you can pervert their motivations, but it doesn't make it so. To conclude this is to essentially agree with the nonsense that Romney put out there about government dependency for 47% of Americans.

Kev, if you don't think there's been an exacerbation of income inequality (the raw measure being the income between those at the top and those at the bottom) you are not looking at the figures. This is undeniable. To debate the causes of this is one thing, but to debate the existence is to bury your head in the sand. Worry not, it's not a uniquely American trend.

Regards a growing economy equalling a widened gap as a natural consequence, I have seen Tony Blair (another darned liberal and proud) argue the same thing. There is some legitimacy in this idea. Fact of the matter is, however, that a kid born into this world should not have their opportunity decided by the luck of the birth draw. What action (if any and that's the debate) we should take is the discussion - not trying to hide away the inequalities in our societies. What is certainly true (and both Romney and Obama are pushing this same idea) is that the American Dream is slipping away. There are inequalities greater today than in 1979 and we must acknowledge them.

Was Reagan good for any one particular group? Well, his policies (intended or not) were certainly good for the wealthy. These are all issues for debate, but to buy into the notion that Reagan performed economic miracles is to ignore the deficits that started under his watch (and continue to this day) and a sharp rise in income inequality. As I always say... this is my opinion. And that is all.

I don't think I've ever met two people more in tune with their political sides than you two.

I mean that sincerely my friends.

The exchange you guys have going on is deep.

I'm impressed.

Shawn.....><

Andrew, Reich ran for governor in my state. He's a professor at Harvard. I've watched him speak on TV hundreds of times and read his editorials. It's not just that he's a partisan, though that is not the word I used. He's a hard core ideologue. He does things with stats similar to Krugman, and similar to what I explained with black poverty under Reagan. It's not honest scholarship.

Juan Williams is one of the liberals who has done a documentary about the schools, and suggesting the unions are the problem. There was a 2 hr movie/documentary put out by  a liberal 2 years ago about the same, but I can't recall it at the moment.

There are many reputable books on the subject.

But again, there's common logic. And let's start with the charter schools, what they are, why they work.

Andrew, unions are there to bargain collectively. For whatever that can achieve.

Who said anything about middle management? Unions bargain with elected officials for more money. And they give direct campaign contributions to those same officials. Is that not the definition of corruption? What is so hard to understand?

"The Gap".  You don't seem to want to understand. There was no RISE in income inequality under Reagan. This a statistical fiction. It's exactly as I pointed out with the black population.

Black poverty grew, and the gaps between blacks and and the rich grew. But that is not because of economic conditions. It's because of the explosion in birth rates. Most of these infants were born without an income. This really is the cause Andrew, the COMPLETE cause. Look it up.

And the exact same thing is true of the population at large. You take away the increased birth rates among single mothers, poof, the gap disappears.

I've tried to explain how silly this "gap" is. Let's say there are 10 families on your block, and their incomes range from 20K a year to 300k. If everyone's income goes up by 10% next year, the "gap" grew larger. If everyone's income goes down by 10%, the gap was reduced. Go ahead, get your calculator out. Try it.

Come on, man, don't be fooled by this crap.

I am old enough to remember the 1980s. When Reagan took over, we had high unemployment, AND high inflation. It was a disaster, and people thought it would never end. Lberals said Reagan's plan would make it worse, and people would suffer.

But after a period of adjustment(about a year and half, if I recall), things turned around big time. The economy roared. Trust me, everyone benefited. I was just joining the job market then, and I SAW the change. Man, did wages go up fast! If things had stayed the way they were under Carter, God, what a different world we'd live in.

Twenty years from now, if we manage to get Obama out, we'll be saying the same thing.

I remember the frustration of liberals when the Reagan economy soared. God, that tortured them. But they had their old standby: the gap.

And the news broke out the homeless stories every night. Man, what a fictional world liberals can create. Not that there aren't homeless, but have you heard about any lately?

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/.....zi-attack/?hpt=hp_t1

As is often the case, Fox News first broke this story. A couple days later CBS picked it up. Now finally the administration is changing its tune.

It turns out there may not have even been a protest at the Libyan embassy!

For those of you out there that attack Fox News, you have to understand that there are a lot of important stories that would never get covered otherwise. All of the networks, CNN, and of course MSNBC, have forgotten their media role to be truth tellers to power. I could live with the fact that these groups all see things from a liberal angle, but I'm sorry to say the problem is much more severe. In choosing what to cover and investigate and what not to, these "journalists" have become advocates who are really just activists. Any story that might hurt this administration is purposely buried. The list of examples goes on and on, and if you watch closely, there is strong evidence in every broadcast. I really don't know how this people sleep at night. Doesn't honesty count for anything anymore?