I'm not old enough for little blue pills, Sharon. Not sure what you're insinuating...

But you're right about the medical risks - the TV commercials make that clear.

She was referring to the little blue donkey shapes as well as the little red elephant shapes found in a Flintstone vitamins bottle.

YABA, DABA, DOO! (or DEW!)
So say we all...

Larry, most of the level-headed folks I know (including myself) are undecided right now. That's what makes them level-headed.

Well Jason, if those are your children in your arms and you are considering Obama for another 4 years, I hope you are prepared to explain to them as adults why you felt he was the best choice. There's no way I am going to have that conversation with my grandchildren. I feel it will be far easier to explain why I voted against him.

Thank God we still have freedom of choice eh?

You may find it difficult to believe, Larry, but it is the truth. A rational, well informed citizen would find pros and cons with both candidates. The choice is deciding which candidate you feel would best represent the nation's best interests.

John, I understand and I mean no disrespect to you guys here, today, right now. : ) Typing as opposed to in person speech may seem short and crass and I apologize if my comments here were that. I didn’t mean it.

My feelings are that I have seen Obama do things that I am very unhappy with and I am worried about his irresponsibility to the electorate during a second term because I truly believe he will continue to break the law as he has done in his first term.

My point simply is what could he possibly do to impress America so much in the next few weeks that would be such a deciding factor to risk electing him again?

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president”

Larry - those are my kids, and you're right: when the time comes for me to sit down and explain the last 30 or so years of political history to them, as it pertains to the nation they'll be handed as adults, I'm going to have a lot to answer for regardless of how I cast my ballot in this election.

I understand. Let's pray that God will save this nation before it's too late.

Again, my apologies for sounding crass. I'm sure you are fine individual and parent.

Larry - the issue with those undecideds and those in the middle is that many are detached from the partisan side of things as well as the extremes of both sides. They typically vote for their self-interests - not necessarily "selfISH" but about their current state of affairs - jobs, education, healthcare, etc. They put things like marriage, abortion, Fast and Furious, foreign policy events in Iran and Libya, etc. all aside to a lower level of importance. Many live in the now. If they have no job or healthcare NOW, they are not too concerned with telling grandchildren 10, 20, or 30 years down the road why they voted a certain way.

I will also say that trying to pin down the 'undecideds' and those in the middle has become one of the most difficult things to do in politics. I know high pay 'experts' who cannot do this. Ideologies shift. Priorities shift. Circumstances shift. And then you have regional, cultural, etc. shifts as well. We can make broad generalizations on this group but it is foolish to do so. Some people who are deeply patriotic, flag-waving Americans are facing hard times and put paying bills and putting food on the table much higher than "Obama is turning us into a Marxist utopia" in a set of priorities. When they compare the two candidates, as I said before, they have the devil they know and one they do not - one who has done a poor job of selling his product - not good for a top notch businessman.

Larry,

Would you care to share some specific examples of the president "breaking the law" ?

Gee, I don’t know but I could hazard a guess, how about policy issuing work permits to those eligible for DEPORTATION in our system? Unless of course you believe ACTIVELY not enforcing laws isn’t really breaking one somehow.

R, you are exactly right and if America feels that it's okay for Obama to push the limits of law breaking a little during this first term, I believe America should be prepared to see a lot more during his second rule.

Couldn't agree with you more, GM. There are a lot of folks who haven't "picked a side" because they don't want to pick sides. They want to elect people who will make the country better, not advance agendas - and that's why they'll be watching to see which candidate gives them the best hope for that kind of leadership.

Sadly, neither is giving off that vibe right now.

Well it’s hard to judge if the plans aren’t published (or subject to change without notice) in a manner that allows one to check it against the actual constitutional powers of the office…

Akin to having to vote "to pass it, so we can find out what's in it"

Grant, you can vote for Obama if you want to. Your vote won't matter in Georgia.
CHUM! : ) That goes for the rest of the left.

So ,
I take it you have no interest in any sort of actual discussion of the candidates or the issues involved?

Gee, thanks so much for that exceptionally well thought out input

Have a nice day

C.J. - thanks for the examples, and while President Obama has certainly had his share of conciliatory efforts blocked, both parties are guilty of hamstringing the process.

I have sensed, though, with the president's campaign rhetoric - the idea of choosing between two different Americas - that his time for reaching across the aisle is over. And I'm not sure if Governor Romney will go back to his moderate ways if elected.

Both of those observations sadden me.

Bingo...well done sir .

RE: "...both parties are guilty of hamstringing the process..."

Jason,

With respect, if you're going to make that assertion, then I think that you should support it with evidence. When have Democrats supported and then reversed themselves on their own ideas or on presidential nominees that they had previously expressed support for?

There's no doubt that Democrats have either voted against or filibustered legislation or nominations that they always opposed. But to my knowledge, they have never reversed themselves specifically to "hamstring the process."

Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein wrote--
"We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

You just contradicted yourself. The "lesser of the two evils" is exactly why people are undecided. So do we vote for Obama because we don't want Romney, or for Romney because we don't want Obama?

Ahhh yes... I knew it would take too long before someone would pop in with the name calling .
Because calling strangers names on the internet is always the best way to prove your point...
FAIL
NJ4 writes

"I love my freedom far too much"
I take it you havent actually read the Republican Platform in which they espouse Constitutional bans in the name of "freedom". To help you in your research , as I can tell you are interested in seeking a full understanding what the candidates have to offer , here is a link for your perusal http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/

Have a swell day chum :)

"If, while campaigning, either of the candidates has a change of heart, or even a softening of heart in any of the social concerns or economic and foreign policy stances, will he lose those voters that represent his base?"

No, not with Democrats. If that were true, then President Obama's base would be gone. Again, most liberals would have preferred a much bigger stimulus, single payer health insurance (aka: Medicare for All), a carbon tax instead of Cap-and-Trade, breaking up the big banks, relief for underwater homeowners, and so much more. Liberals are unhappy about Guantanamo, Obama's embrace of a "grand bargain" along the lines of the awful Simpson-Bowles proposal, and are deeply concerned about the potential long-term blow back that could arise out of the silent war in Pakistan and elsewhere with the drone strikes that have resulted in so many civilian deaths. But the Democratic base expects progress, not perfection.

Compare that with what happens to Romney when he says or does something that angers his base. He recently had to fire a member of his staff because he was gay. Conservative pundits demanded that one of his spokespersons be fired because she dared to tout the benefits of RomneyCare. The man is walking on such a tightrope that any wrong utterance sends his base into a tizzy.

No ma'am, Democrats and Republicans are not mirror images of each other.

"Clearly, you're not going to change your vote no matter what ..."

You're mistaken. I vote issues. If I woke up tomorrow morning and Republicans took up the fight to close the gun show loophole and Dems were fighting to keep it? If tomorrow, Republicans were fighting to expand the Affordable Care Act by adding a public option and Dems were fighting to dismantle it? If I woke up tomorrow and Republicans were voting to create jobs by fixing our infrastructure and investing in clean energy and Democrats were pushing oil subsidies while chanting, "drill, baby, drill?" You bet I'd vote Republican.

I'm one of the 19% who voted for Perot in 1992. I voted for McCain in the Republican primary in 2000. I voted for Johnny Isakson for both the state senate and for U.S. Senator. Sadly, Perot is crazy. Sadly, McCain has reversed himself on numerous issues. Sadly, Isakson changed from crossing the aisle in the state senate to voting with every Republican filibuster in the U.S. Senate, even on issues that Republicans previously supported.

What are your positions, Gail? Do you want to repeal the Affordable Care Act or not? Do you want to privatize Social Security and Medicare or not? Should the wealthy pay Clinton tax rates or get more tax cuts? Should we bomb Iran on inauguration day or let the sanctions work? Should we slash Medicaid and food stamps for children and the elderly or not? Figure out where you stand, and you'll have no problem deciding who to vote for.

C.J., why is it that when I read what you post, I imagine a balding, single guy with a fridge full of TV dinners? It seems that you argue and insult simply to get a rise out of your opponent. You often make a good point and then you spoil it with 2nd grader insults. Just an observation.

Sandy,

With respect, you just wrote that you imagined me as a balding, single guy with a fridge full of TV dinners. Then you complained that I spoil my posts with "2nd grader insults." You don't see the contradiction? Perhaps you should hold yourself and your conservative friends to at least the same standard that hold me to.

Incidentally, I have no idea what second-grader insults that you're referring to, but feel free to flag any of my posts as inappropriate, as needed. For the record, passionately disagreeing with somebody is not the same as insulting them.

C.J. I'm a right-leaning sort of gal, but I can still see the fence and recognize that the Democrats are not evil; Obama isn't the anti-Christ with the "666" marks as Jason mentioned. My Republican friends feel I'm way liberal; my liberal friends consider me pretty conservative.

My question wasn't about "Republicans" and "Democrats" so much as it was these particular candidates stepping away from the party talking points. Certainly it seems you have your triggers which would make you vote other than your historical party stance - everyone does.

But for many of us, it isn't as easy as answering your questions with "No, No, No, Yes, No." It seems evident that health care/insurance needed an overhaul. This one isn't perfect - I would like to see other options other than "We're going to repeal because Obama brought it in." In general, I think we can't afford to cut ANY taxes - but that's not a politically correct talking point in an election cycle. We can't afford to maintain our defenses or our debt if we cut taxes.

Quite honestly, some of those instances listed make me a little disappointed with the Republican Party in general, but not so much this particular candidate. Where do I stand? Still to the right of center ... What keeps me from being far right? It's the radical religious that have found a welcome home in the Republican Party that scare me enough to move me closer to the center.

Thanks, Gail!

I know ... it's like it's "Pot Stirring Thursday" or something!

Go easy on yourself Jason. You're stuff isn't half as boring as what Brian dreams up.

Seriously. I thought yesterday's post would've been the Pot-Stirrer, but noooooooo...

Tammy - come on be honest here. Romney is not an idiot. He used a number from several studies out there. The number refers to 46.4% of households in this country who do not pay income tax. He mischaracterized them as being dependent on government and therefore no hope for their vote. But when you look at the facts of the number he used, these people he referred to as not paying taxes do so because of the deductions and credits - many passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by a Republican President. Go one further to see every Republican pundit that supported Romney's comments ran with this same logic and attacked this 46.4% as the reason we are in trouble and many more ran with the 'moocher' comment.

If you go back to the actual studies, half of that 46.4% are elderly households receiving breaks and deductions. Many more are households receiving credits and deductions from charitable, education, mortgage, and child credits. This actually includes me. I get back far more than I put in. I am a middle class producer working 60+ hours a week making a median income. I am very conservative. But according to the comments made by many on my side, I am a moocher. Well then if you take any deductions and credits out on your taxes, you are in this category as a moocher and a cause of America's financial problems as well. But no one wants to hear that. His point was clear. The source of his number is clear. He was appealing to the base but the base is part of the 46%.

I think we all knew what Romney was saying to his group of supporters - and most of us really understand that it is a fairly accurate statement. HOWEVER, when campaigning, it just isn't wise to discount the votes of ANY American citizens. If elected, he will represent even those folks and this kind of rhetoric definitely makes them seem irrelevant to his thought process. While I suspect that isn't the case, when on the campaign trail, perception is everything. Tammy, I like Romney; met him when he was in Snellville during the summer. But this was not a good moment - as a candidate you have to assume (especially in this day of instant web access) that everything EVERYTHING you say will be recorded, dissected and inspected under a microscope. If your words or even your inflection is in any way inappropriate, it will be exploited.

Jason is a pretty smart guy - I suspect he reads the "take" on both sides of each of these gaffes.

RE: "I think we all knew what Romney was saying to his group of supporters - and most of us really understand that it is a fairly accurate statement."

Gail,

When you say that most of us really understand that what Romney was saying is fairly accurate, did you mean this part too?

"There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them."

Tammy,

Click on my initials, and it will take you to all of my comments on Patch. Find the comment where you agreed with me (used my "exact words"), and in reply, I "spit" on you, "insulted", and "blasted" you. Paste the comment here, and I'll humbly apologize.

The undecided apparently don't mind http://tinyurl.com/d3og8s9

Lee makes an excellent point. Jason wrote that he is looking for a candidate who will, "focus on solutions that improve the lives of people."

If Democrats had passed the following individual laws, then a lot more people would know about what the Affordable Care Act (ACA) actually does:

* End Denial of Health Insurance for Pre-Existing Conditions Act
* Stay on Your Parents' Health Insurance Until You're 26 Act
* End Health Insurance Coverage Rescission Act (i.e., no more cancelling policies after you get sick).
* Increase Access to Preventive Health Care Act (i.e., eliminate co-pays for preventive care)
* End Excessive Premiums Act (i.e., insurers must use 80% of premiums collected for health care.)
* Medical Bankruptcy Protection Act (i.e., no more arbitrary annual or lifetime caps on coverage)
* Eliminate Medicare Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Act (i.e., savings extended the life of Medicare without cutting benefits)
* Close the Senior Prescription Drug Doughnut Hole Act.
* Increase Health Insurer Competition Act (i.e.,. health insurance exchanges will come online, giving people significantly more choice in who they can purchase from)

There's so much more. The ACA saves lives and livelihoods.

Of course, if you don't follow this stuff....if your attitude is, "Both parties are the same. All politicians suck. Both sides do it. Keep it or repeal it? It doesn't matter." I don't know what to say. It matters.

Well at least there WILL be a "suit" in the chair...

I wouldn't take Morris too seriously. At this same point in 2008 Morris said McCain was poised to overtake Obama and would win by a huge margin. His assessment was way off. Pollsters know much better the mood of the voter. The live call pollsters can gauge the pulse and account for this in their numbers. Any pollster worth their weight will adjust for swaying. Pollsters do use 2008 but also figure in demographic changes as well as how cells have caused these changes. Robo/autodial pollsters do not reach the cell voters. Even Rasmussen shows Obama on a higher number in swing states than Romney. Unless the Republicans are now turning on the one pollster they always use as the example of correct polling, this should bode ill for Romney.

In this election most independents are already committed. They may swing back based on what happens between now and election day but are already picking their sides based on how things are today.

Morris' track record over the past few cycles leaves a lot to be desired. He is great at calling the obvious but has a horrible grasp of the fine details. We have a lot of time left on the clock and based on how things are now and the results of Romney to date, Republicans should be nervous - even on down ballots.

Hope you're right about the down ballots.