Did you ask that same question when Biden was in town the other day?

Laura,

After reading this story I would say yes he paid for the extra security. It’s just too bad our current President's campaign won't pay his bills.

http://www.theconservativereview.com/2012/07/30/obama-wont-pay-newport-beach-california-for-fundraiser-security-bill-but-romney-paid-similar-even-bill/

Linda - Democrats aren't the ones whining about paying taxes for anything and everything under the sun that supports a democracy and civilized society. Romney doesn't need a birth certificate. He needs to produce his taxes. From Ryan, I'd like an EEG proving brain activity.

Biden would not need extra security because Republican protesters are peaceful. Romney will need extra security wherever he goes to control the crazy lefties the dems plant at each of his rallies. ;)

Good honest post TaterSalad !

Unemployment is not 23%, but then, facts and the GOP are an oxymoron and, of course you offer and Scoobydoo needs no proof. Here are the facts. The U6 US unemployment rate was 14.6% (MI 15.1%) the month Obama was sworn in. Today, thanks to Republican obstruction in Washington and wholesale union busting in the public sector by the red states, it is 15.0% (MI 18.1% ). Its peak was 17.1% (MI 21.5%) in 2008 - the very first year Obama took over the economy from the spend and cut taxes GOP. http://portalseven.com/employment/unemployment_rate_u6.jsp
http://proximityone.com/state_employment.htm

you are so wrong about 23% unemployment..Rush Limbaugh must have given you so misinformation while on oxycoden! the Dow was 6300 when President Obama took office and we were on the brink of a depression, now the Dow is over 13,000. Get the facts straight, we have come along way in 3 short years under OUR President

Own a lot of stock do you Paula? Enough to be in the one percent? Is the DJIA putting money into the average persons pocket?

Linda, to be counted in the unemployment numbers the government supplies each week, you have to be without a job and have looked for work in the past four weeks. The people that are unemployed and have looked for work in the past year are called "discouraged" workers. They aren't counted in the 8.2% number given to the American people. Look up the U6 number (which includes the "discouraged" workers, but still unemployed) and you will find the number to be around 14%. If you add in the longer term "discouraged" workers, those that are unemployed and haven't looked for a job in over a year, that puts you around 22%. Now, add to that the folks that haven't found a job and have signed up for SSI benefits, around 3 million, and you can see that the real number, the one they used to use prior to "cooking the books" is really close to 24%.

Do some research, don't just be content spouting the party line! Oh, unless you're one of those paid bloggers. I respect a person that does what they have to to make a buck!

In my post about unemployment numbers, the word "have" should be "haven't when referring to workers looking for work in the past four weeks.

Bryce's introduction of new measures of unemployment and underemployment notwithstanding, one should ask just what economic framework led to the rapid collapse and near total crash of the US economic system.

Despite the fact that the GOP considers "Bush" a four letter word and will not allow it to be spoken in Tampa next week, America remembers the nightmare. The crash was severe, and while one might have been able to argue for a different path to recovery, the current GOP recommendations are totally without validity.

Why?

#1, Romneyomics is little more than Bushonomics. Asking the country to "partake a little more of the dog that bit it" would not cure the hangover from Bush - it would deepen it.

#2, Ryan's plan is even more Draconian to the point of being something you'd expect from a Pherengi, not a "practicing Catholic". [Paging Ayn Rand, paging Ayn Rand ...]

#3, Most rational economists see Romney/Ryanism as a calamity, not a calmative, for the expansion of consumer demand (read "job growth").

#4, Romney's skill, as implied in the Gawker papers http://goo.gl/LNscq and discussed in the WSJ http://goo.gl/i0nXx, is in making money using Swiss and Cayman Island bank accounts and using dubious (and perhaps illegal) tax dodges, i.e., trying to hide regular income behind a capital gains hoax. That experience is no preparation for addressing a complex economic system, one wherein American labor is not expendable.

Ergo, Obama/Biden 2012.

TaterSalad-- you must not have gotten the latest memo from the Grand Ole Party. Unemployment is now up to a whopping 86%, and scientists now have indisputable proof that America will collapse if Obama is reelected. Please make sure you use the same fabricated numbers as all they other sheep.

Apparently those ragging on TaterSalad are not aware that the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been publishing six different, well-defined and relevant unemployment rates for a long, long time, denominated U1 through U6. The one that people normally refer to as "the unemployment rate", for no very good reason, is U3. It counts people as unemployed if they are not employed but have been actively looking for work in the 28 day period prior to the survey. This count is then divided by the sum of employed persons plus the unemployed (this number is the "labor force") to give the unemployment rate. It should thus be obvious that the U3 rate has no particular relationship to overall employment -- if a lot of people stop looking for work, the U3 rate will go down even if total employment is stagnant or declining. It's really a rather stupid statistic to look at as it tells you nothing about what percentage of the population actually has a job.

On the national level, job creation has under Obama has barely kept pace with population growth, which is why the percentage of the population employed today is stagnant and well below where it was when Obama took office. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS12300000. Yes, Obama has failed miserably.

I was at the rally and heard what Mitt said and it was clearly a joke. Democrats are so thin skinned.

"Clearly a joke" is one interpretation, Linda. But that doesn't mean it was a random, off-the-cuff quip rather than a calculated message point.

Here's how a respected political correspondent, David Wiegel, sees it:

"It's just a joke. Well, sure, but who's the joke for? Since the summer of 2008, false rumors have circulated online, alleging that Barack Obama's pregnant teenage mother flew to Kenya -- or something like that -- and gave birth to a kid who wasn't eligible for the presidency. Starting that year, activists started filing lawsuits, full of false information, aiming to get Obama kicked off of presidential ballots. . . . Even through this year, Donald Trump has continued pushing the theory and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has convened a "cold case posse" that produced evidence -- all bogus -- that the birth certificate is forged. Romney's been endorsed by both those guys." http://slate.me/NlWw7W

And before someone else jumps on it: Wiegel is a former Washington Post writer now at Slate.com. He's also an influential straight-shooter.

Washington Post campaign blogger Greg Sargent, excerpted below, is among those who think the joke backfires. They could all be "thin-skinned Democrats," or not.

"Maybe this will get chalked up to Romney’s awkwardness and get dismissed, but it looks to me like a major mistake. Coming just after days spent debating Todd Akin’s 'legitimate rape' remark, this is again a reminder of the extreme voices in the GOP, which Romney has at times been slow to denounce.
"And it seems less than presidential, to put it mildly." http://wapo.st/T4BSGh

Linda, your fearfilled WJR propagandist would be disagrees with your interpretation:

--------------------------------
LIMBAUGH: Stay focused. Romney and Ryan in Michigan. Big, big crowd. And here is Romney, I'm convinced, test-driving something. I think this line is a test drive.
ROMNEY [audio clip]: I love being home in this place where Ann and I were raised, where both of us were born. No one's ever asked to see my birth certificate. They know that this is the place that we were born and raised.
LIMBAUGH: OK, now, as you c-- yeah, yeah, right on. As you can imagine, the media is in a tizzy. The media is in a tizzy. There's a tweet here from Jan Crawford at CBS. "At Romney event. Two reactions to his birth certificate joke. Reporters gasped, and the crowd of thousands laughed and cheered." ... So Ryan's out there talking about Obama and his bitter clinger quote. And Romney gets up to the microphone. It's his turn to speak, and he test-drives that line about nobody's ever had to ask to see his birth certificate.
-------------------------------- goo.gl/WUmiA

You might have gotten away with the "oh, he didn't mean that (wink,wink)" hocum, but we've got your Honorary GOP Congressman Limbaugh on the record, more than once.

Face it: WJR host Rush hopes Mitt can win by appealing to racism, and with WJR's 50,000 watts, he intends to help all he can, 3 hours per day, five days a week.

Linda, I'm trying to think of a way Obama could make a "joke" about how he's released years of his tax records without it sounding like a jab at Romney. I expect we'd have some "thin skinned" Republicans unhappy about that.

When will Barrack Hussein Obama release his college transcripts and birth certificate to be authenticated by "professionals" ? Jimmy Carter is glad that he is no longer considered the worst President in the history of the USA, that now belongs to Barry Obama.

'Romney's birth certificate joke lands with a splat' says the Freep head above editorial pg editor Stephen Henderson's column today. Excerpt:

"This may have been intended as a joke, but it’s not remotely funny because it smacks of a racist and entitled point of view.

"The point of jabbing at Obama about his birth certificate (which has been authenticated) is to remind people that he’s “other,” that his dad was a Kenyan and an immigrant. It’s to capitalize on the president’s innate differences, including the fact that he’s African American.

". . . It’s beyond coarse for him to be denigrating, even in jest, the background of a guy like Obama, who was born to several distinct disadvantages, including poverty, and worked his way past them to become the leader of the free world. It’s worse that Romney did it for yucks in front of a red-meat Republican crowd in Oakland County, home to some of the nation’s wealthiest zip codes." http://on.freep.com/OfBtSY

Saying it is a joke is like when the mean girl in middle school comes up to another girl and says "you are SO ugly today - oh, ha-ha that is just a joke, don't be so thinned skinned"

I don't care if it was a joke. it was in poor taste, especially, as Alan Stamm points out it came from the kid born with a silver spoon in his mouth and was aimed at someone who worked his way up.

And, it isn't just that "Democrats are thin skinned" I voted Republican for many years until the party went off the deep end and I find it offensive and idiotic.

And Mitt, the reason no one has question your birth certificate may be that unlike the Republican party, the Democratic party is at least sane.

Why do the "birthers" seem to feel they need to write out his whole name, Barrack Hussein Obama?
Unless of course their intent is to sound racist...

Nice catch. The updated version of this story corrects the error.

FH Voice: What else do you call yourself on other forums MI Lib?
I suspect Paid Troll is more like it. You offer mounds of gibberish but just opinion as do many one here. Whether you agree or not it their right to free speech. You also have the right ot denigrade people if you so wich and apparently you do when all else fails.

Tell me what other candidate has ever had to show his school report cards? John McCain come out almost last out of a class of over 800. So what?

George Bush was forced to do so when he ran against Kerry. The press was attempting to show that Kerry was smarter than Bush. They were wrong, Bush outshined Kerry.

By the way, John McCain was not my guy. I was voting for Sarah

Wow. I can only hope you make comments like "I was voting for Sarah" to incite a frenzy of angry comments. I'm a republican but a bile so acidic it melts asphalt rises in my throat at the thought of Sarah Palin running the country.

Robert , obama did provide those documents more then once with his birth certificate . Ireason I saw them and some others did not because they watch too much tv news and do not read enough. It is not Obamas fault that you never read the release that were in several newspapers and news magazines.

I think Romney should show his tax returns after Obama shows his college transcripts which as of today, no one has seen. Hence the reason why this is such a hot topic.

No Mark, it’s because I vote with logic, not emotion. She’s a proven leader and governor. Much more experience than the impersonator in office today. I’m sorry that you’ve bought into the propaganda from the press to defile such a good person.

Lucille, the documents Obama released are not official docs. Per my original comment; I would be unable to get a Visa for Brazil with such faulty information. You believe what you want; I’ll know the facts as I want. Besides you’ll never vote for a conservative so why do you care what at think.

I'm confused Robert. Obama has never left the country because he hasn't been able to get a passport due to his faulty documents?

ROFLMAO - Romney won't even give you his taxes, And I'd still like an EEG from Ryan.

Robert - you were willing to vote for Sarah Palin - a person who went to fourth rate colleges with no selection criteria, had to change schools four times, took extra time to graduate and has no graduate degree without seeing HER transcript. However, you aren't willing to vote for a person who graduated from Harvard, the most selective law school in the US without seeing a transcript?????? Please explain how that makes any sense at all.

Robert, yes, I had to show transcripts as well. Depends on what kind of job you applying for, of course -- the more important it is, the more likely someone is to ask for them. Seems to me that President of the United States is a pretty important job. Would be nice to know how much time the candidates spent studying things like economics and statistics, for example. Of course the answer in Obama's case would be, none.

I was at the rally and it wasn't a birther remark. He was making a joke out of the whole birther issue. And by the way, how do you know you're winning an argument with a liberal? They resort to name calling.

Linda, name calling isn't just a liberal thing, perhaps you just don't recognize it when you agree with it. Here's a comment Robert made here. I'll copy & paste it so you don't have to scroll to find it.

"Obama / Biden for everyone? You must mean the lazy, deadbeats, drugatics, abusers, marxist, criminals, and illeagls?"

You're right Lucille, we did see his birth certificate but we have yet to see his college transcripts or his wife's thesis. I wonder why?

That was not an actual birth certificate, nor a legal document. I could get a more convincing one down on 8 mile which declares that I'm Barak Obama

I find this whole "controversy" to be insane. His mother was a citizen, so he is. It doesn't matter where he was born and he's shown his certificate. The whole argument reeks of desperation.

KK - Of course the conversation is insane. The extremists in the GOP have totally taken over the Republican Party. Look at this from up above posted by Linda Johnson: "You're right Lucille, we did see his birth certificate but we have yet to see his college transcripts or his wife's thesis. I wonder why?" Wife's thesis? OMG, how totally nuts can they get? Ryan wants to destroy Medicare and outlaw all birth control classified as abortive, e.g. IUD; and Romney won't show his taxes or even tell you what he bought at the hardware store. And these yahoos are upset because they want to see Michelle Obama's thesis and Obama's college grades. With the lunatics running the insane asylum, it is no wonder this country and our politic process is a total mess.

Has any other President (or presidential candidate) been asked to release his birth certificate, college transcripts or....I can't even believe I'm addressing this one...his wife's thesis?

How on earth is this the same as releasing tax records? And I've read that in the past Romney attacked others for not releasing their tax records...it's just different when it's his I guess?

Oakland,

you hit the nail right on the head! this country is headed for another civil war and
Linda Johnson is too busy with Michelle Obama's grades to see.

Paul, why the hostile language? Linda has the right to make comments just as you do. Or do you prescribe to the typical liberal approach whereby everything other than what you think is hate speech

what language, how informative...

Paul, there you go again, being all correct and all ... ;)

@Paul,

When you have no intelligent reply you resort to name calling. Good call , must be a high count miller lite night ?

Repeating outlandish claims and lies, like Linda Johnson does, is itself hostile. People will eventually believe anything you tell them a million times. Fox news, Rush Limbaugh and their ilk, people like Linda Johnson, are being deceptively hostile to America's very foundation.

In Linda's world, a rapist is innocent if he knocks up his victim because God would not allow an egg to be fertilized if the woman was raped against her will ("hey God, hows about ignoring my eggs for a moment and stopping this thug from raping me? Thanks God!"). How crazy must people be who think this? Clinically mentally insane. And you can bet your life a right wing, ultra conservative Republican would change their mind in a split second if their child was impregnated after a brutal rape (especially if the rapist was black or ethinc).

It meanat nothing. Always looking for the worst in people? Too bad.

Hmm, maybe you need to read the comments on most websites and see how often the "word" ''ibertard' is used in place of an argument. Seriously, I have kept count and Republicans resorting to insults outnumber Democrats resorting to insults at least 2:1

As far as hate and name calling go - look at Robert's posts in this thread.

Obama has been subjected to unprecedented insults and accusations. Prior to Obama, when was the last time anyone in American history shouted at the President during a speech to Congress? NEVER. Saddam Huessin was treated with more respect when he was given the key to the city of Detroit.

Romney cracks a joke and you Dems go crazy. You apparently have no humor in your DNA but that not my problem.

artfully written, art. Yep, only in a response to a post that outlined GOP Uber Talker Rush Limbaugh's reaction would you fire, aim, and miss.

Yep, artful. (Hint: if someone gives you a book filled with "yo' mama" jokes ... oh, never mind. You probably wouldn't get the joke anyway.)

You really like to hear yourself talk don't you. Do you actually beleive the crap you write?

Why, Robert, I'm crushed. Did I get something wrong? You will share just what was wrong with the post so we mortals can understand and I can make you happy, won't you?

Was it quoting Limbaugh? Or recalling where Reagan launched his campaign? Or did you not believe President Obama released tax returns all the way back to 2000? You know, like you can see here: http://goo.gl/0G3OP ?

Thank you for reading and following the links. Enjoy.

Your "insights" are so factual and convincing, it is really helping me making my voting decisions for the November elections..!!

Yes you do love to tout yourself don't you.

Bottom line: Obama/Biden 2012 for all the people. Do you have anything to add about the topic of discussion, Robert? Surely you are not just whining, right?

Interesting how you just can't let someone else have the last word. Obama / Biden for everyone? You must mean the lazy, deadbeats, drugatics, abusers, marxist, criminals, and illeagls?

Romney / Ryan 2012!

Robert wrote: "Interesting how you just can't let someone else have the last word. Obama / Biden for everyone? You must mean the lazy, deadbeats, drugatics, abusers, marxist, criminals, and illeagls? Romney / Ryan 2012!"

If you were to post something other that diatribe, maybe I'd let you stand. You didn't.

And no, Robert, I meant ALL the people, some of which have declared themselves Republicans for Obama ( www(dot)republicansforobama(dot)org ). Visit the website and you'll see why they believe re-electing President Obama is the rational choice for the country.

The key difference in our outlooks, Robert, is that you think there are citizens in this country who do not deserve to be considered. In fact, it appears that you'd love to just expel everyone who disagrees with you from the country. To you, we who are not you are unworthy. Our posts are unworthy not because they are not well written nor well documented, but because they show support for (gasp!) President Obama.

You, and many like you, have come to believe that it is just fine to discard whole sections of the country because the people there are "different".

Our system does not work well on that basis. Think: how could we peacefully pass power from one administration to another if we are backed into believing that we're not all worthy human beings.

...

...
Today's struggles grow more toxic because one group of Americans rejects the valid claims of citizenship of its opponents, and that's the group claiming you as a disciple. Just consider how you castigate supporters of President Obama: "You must mean the lazy, deadbeats, drugatics, abusers, marxist, criminals, and illeagls?" Spurious, ridiculous rumors of "plans to confiscate guns" would be laughable, except your talk radio propagandists keep this fear alive as well.

Consider this difference: the Democratic Party and its candidates would never find a poll where a candidate polls at 0% in any ethnic group acceptable. Conversely, today's GOP uses it as a wedge, a badge silently proclaiming a deep ugliness.

The problem is that you actually believe President Obama is supported only by the unworthy, and thus any candidate, no matter how crass or ill-prepared, would be better. Even your reaction to my writing is hard edged not because of my logic, but because I have the temerity to challenge your lies and distortions. How dare I, eh? Just like you think of the President - how dare he sit in the chair?

I'm not trying to convert you Robert, just expose your "viewpoint", and ask that those who can see choose to reject fear, hate, and resentment, and get us back to a country that can and wants to pull together for our mutual good.

And that's why I suggest Obama/Biden 2012, for that is nothing like the banner under which Romney is running, or even wants to run.

And many votes for Obama/Biden will be votes against Romney/Ryan. And not for the reasons you stated. (Who's name calling in that post?)

How about the women who don't want their medical decisions legislated?
The LGBT who don't want their rights legislated away?
The people who don't think the rich need more tax cuts?
The poor (in this economy do you really think they're all lazy deadbeats?) who aren't seeing that 'safety net' Romney talks about?
The people who don't want the health care act repealed?
The people who aren't impressed by his term as governor?
The people who are unhappy with his outsourcing of jobs while at Bain?
The people who are tired of him changing his views on things every other day?
The seniors who are afraid of how much more Medicare will cost under Ryan's plan?

Nutz. A quick edit:
Even though our health care system isn't like that of Israel's (you know, the SOCIALIST one WITH 4 HEALTH CARE OPTIONS you praised), be assured that if it had been inserted any FARTHER, we have A LOT OF good doctors here.

There. That's better.

Romney's treatment of his own dog is disgusting too. http://www.dogsagainstromney.com/

Excellent montage JMB! I'm sure it will get the libs all bent out of shade, but the truth usually does

This is a very narrow "Reader's Digest" understanding of Obama Care...What about the raiding of Medicare to pay for all this and the way Obama Care will affect Employers, who might stop giving healthcare benefits, etc... There are no free lunches and I am sure that the Romney team knows what to do with Obama Care, what portions to keep, etc.
I have seen Socialized healthcare first hand and rest assured there are better solutions once the private sector can compete across State lines...Creating more jobs is the "Conditio Sine Qua Non" to generate a good, reasonable and fair solution to this issue..and that I don't see happening with the current administration policies...

Frank D. -- re: "the raiding of Medicare"

The PPACA drops 20% overpayments to insurance companies for services they were supposed to provide at less cost than the federal Medicare. Review the history of "Medicare Advantage", how its original purpose was to cut costs and its status prior to PPACA is to increase costs by 17-20%. Hence, the overpayments are cut from Medicare.

The PPACA pays on quality of care rather than frequency of service. With frequency of service, providers who don't improve the condition of Medicare patients get paid more because of repeat visits and treatments. With quality of care, those providers get paid less. PPACA cuts excessive payments from Medicare.

The PPACA increases checks for Medicare fraud and roots it out. PPACA cuts fraudulent payments from Medicare.

The PPACA cuts $716 million from Medicare waste, fraud and overpayments. (If Romney does this, it will be called "savings", not "cuts".)

Ryan and Romney call for restoring that money -- restoring waste, fraud and overpayments.

They call for repealing (not repairing) PPACA.

They call for shifting the costs of health care from Medicare to the Medicare patients. That reduces government spending by increasing your spending.

I would add (though Frank D. didn't mention it) that this $716 million savings in Medicare fraud, waste and overpayments is used, in part, to fund the provision in PPACA that covers Medicare Part D -- closing the "doughnut hole" in prescription drug payments. This provision has been saving Medicare patients hundreds of dollars per year since 2010.

Good, maybe he'll push back on our enimies instead of bowing down to them. By the way its insulting to call someone names just because you do not believe the same as you.

MRSPirateLarz, I admire your appeal to rational thought. Consider that it is one thing for people supporting politicians to rant and rave. It is another for the ranting to be led by the candidate himself. Romney, by his reference, knew that he was joining Trump, Arpaio, and the other birthers by implying President Obama is not a citizen, didn't earn his degree, and is an illegitimate president.

This thinly veiled appeal to racial resentment continues to poison this campaign.

Then there is Romney's insistence that we trust him to deliver some sort of plan, but neither Mitt nor Paul have any plans to reveal the details. The only image of what might be coming is Ryan's budget, but they don't want you to look too deeply - Ryan's budget doesn't even try to balance for 30 years, and the threat to revoke the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act means they would inflict additional costs on seniors by re-opening the prescription drug "donut hole". No wonder they don't want to reveal more.

Romney is offering a vaporware campaign, with appeals to baser instincts.

Vote Obama/Biden 2012 for a rational President of all the people, one who believes women should earn equal pay for equal work, women should determine their reproduction options, and that the end of the Bush tax cuts for those earning income over $250,000 is necessary to continue our recovery..

Protect me from the greed of corporations who are NOT people. My company did not represent me when it did commerce with Aprartheid South Africa.

John McCain was born on US soil, since bases in foreign nations and embassy property are considered sovereign soil. George Romney's birth is of no consequence. It did cause George to abandon Presidential aspirations.

I point this out only to point out the holes in your argument. However, I believe sufficient evidence has been presented to show Obama was indeed born in the USA. If my email inbox is any slice of the current GOP meanderings, a large swath of the party are indulged in closet racism. The rest just need to fasten down their tin hats more. Evidence to the contrary, it is impossible to convince a closed mind of the truth evidence presents. I am so dismayed at the current state of the GOP I am ready to leave for good. We have become the refuge of bigots and those with no taste for civil debate or facts. It is destroying the party.

Laura, just a correction -- military installations in foreign countries "are note part of the United States" according to the US State department. See the State department document at http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf, page 13, section "7 FAM 1113 c(1)", which reads:

"Despite widespread popular belief, U.S. military installations abroad and U.S. diplomatic or consular facilities abroad are not part of the United States within the meaning of the 14th Amendment. A child born on the premises of such a facility is not born in the United States and does not acquire U.S. citizenship by reason of birth."

That's why a Senate resolution was required to address Mr. McCain's eligibility to be President.

I know -- surprised me too. It's an interesting document.

George Romney abandoned his Presidential aspirations because of his infamous "I was brainwashed" pronouncement -- Nixon clobbered him on that, and he dropped out of the race. I don't recall his foreign birth having ever been mentioned as a concern.

There may be holes in my argument, but those aren't them.

The Avengers broke a lot of attendance records, too. Did not make it true.

DK, ... as Mitt Romney struggled to win the hearts of conservative voters in the Republican primaries, he enthusiastically adopted extreme positions that were sure to come back to haunt him in the general-election campaign. From immigrant-bashing to abortion absolutism to climate-change denial, Romney was apparently willing to say pretty much anything at all to win the nomination.

(Later) ... one of Romney’s advisors then coined the political term of the year. His boss would not suffer at the polls in Nov for all the extreme positions he had embraced ... because his campaign could "shake the Etch-a-Sketch" as soon as the nomination was secured. Romney would, therefore, soon be repudiating (or at least distancing himself from) the positions that he had taken for the last several years - which were, in turn, repudiations of (and distancings from) positions that Romney had taken in still earlier years.

Now, ... (Romney) has named Wis. Congressman Paul Ryan as his V.P. choice, and the Etch-a-Sketch imagery is all too real, once again. This time, however, we have the Romney campaign trying to manage the public image of someone whose record is consistent, unambiguous - and sure to be extremely unpopular with swing voters. How will the campaign handle this problem? In the same way that they are trying to handle Romney’s opportunistic inconsistency: Pretend that the record does not matter, and shake a new Etch-a-Sketch with Paul Ryan’s name on it. http://goo.gl/wKOfN

Translation? The odds of getting many details are worse than the odds that we'll see more tax returns from Mitt. The only exposed plan is Ryan's, which both Ryan and Romney have praised and supported. Consider it vaporized by the campaign, a casualty of the laser focus Mitt has upon topping his dad and getting elected President.

FH -- while Ryan (obviously) supported his plan, and Romney embraced it during the primaries, both of them have ducked away from the Ryan plans -- both the original and the subsequent revisions -- since they became a Romney/Ryan team.

Asked about his plan, Mr. Ryan responded that he would be embracing Mr. Romney's plans, that Romney would be setting policy. When the FOX interviewer asked when Mr. Romney's plan would balance, Mr. Ryan deferred, saying that they "haven't run the numbers yet". Mr. Romney, for his part, was sure that there are differences, but they're really the same thing. The official campaign memo says "Romney applauds Paul Ryan for going in the right direction with his budget, and as president he will be putting together his own plan for cutting the deficit and putting the budget on a path to balance."

Will be. Hasn't yet. Will be putting together a plan.

Duck. Weave. Rope-a-dope.

@Greg Thrasher,

Your saying Mitt's questioning of Barack's birth certificate is racist is just ridiculous.

I think that Obama Hitler nonsense will backfire on the GOP. Hitler was a right wing, conservative Catholic who was funded by corporations and had the same prejudices against Blacks, Jew, Muslims, Liberals, Atheists, Communists and Gays that the right wing radicals now have. Many Gays, Atheists, Communists, Liberals as well as Gypsies were murdered by his regime, along with millions of Jews. I don't think you are going to convince many Jews that Obama is the candidate most like Hitler - Jews know too much about that period of history. This type of thing just makes Republicans look ignorant and desperate to Jews or anyone educated.

Those "silent voices" will have little effect even if they do speak up. This whole "debate" is a testiment to that. And when the leaders of the party will not lead away from where you want to be, it is your duty to not follow. Your party has left you behind on social issues and has done it's best to purge itself of moderates. Become indepenant in the true sense of the word, research and rethink the issues, watch the true debates with a wide open mind. And then vote for the person that has the best interests for the country and all it's people.

FHVoice, you are so right.
All the deregulation Clinton (a democrat, in case you forgot) signed into law has had a spectacular outcome years later. Talk about financial responsibility...that's it.
You realize Clinton signed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act as well as the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. He also rewrote the Community Reinvestment Act.

Talk about some stellar Democratic management of our economy.

Let's see, give everybody a house, even if they can't afford it. Push banks to lend to those less worthy. Deregulate Credit Default Swaps. Remove barriers between banks, securities and insurance.

That about sums up the Democratic run economy....care to object to that?

Thank you for the prompt response Teresa. I'm all for allowing people to debate the issues but for those of us who like reviewing and commenting on various articles on The Patch it becomes difficult to find any other conversations when the Recent Comment section is crammed with pointless debate like this one. If you look here it essentially a few people who will never agree going round and round for what could be eternity. Just a suggestion on perhaps no longer updating the Recent Comments section after a certain number of comments. Thanks again for responding so quickly, enjoy the rest of your day.

I agree with Mark. Many of my Patch visits also start at its website landing page, and I miss being able to see a diverse sampling of the latest readers' voices in the right-side "rail" (column).

I appreciate how Michigan Patch, like network cousins nationwide, encourages lively, open dialogue -- a great idea in theory, but a opening for maddeningly repetitive loops on political topics. And because regional-interest articles such as this are on all 29 Southeast Michigan sites, readers interested in at-a-glance local comments about their communities see only rabid partisanship, over and over and . . .

When discussion of a Friday event exceeds 130 comments three days later, though this thread is far shorter than some two-week Patch reader "debates," it may be apt to decide all relevant points have been voiced and all interested parties have been heard.

At some point, which is for editors to determine, debate becomes diatribe and an e-forum becomes hijacked.

I don't mind endless comments sections but would like to add to Mark's suggestion; perhaps the "Recent Comments" section could be curtailed to local news. Our national politics are incredibly divisive and prone to idiotic debate. Lincoln-Douglas, this ain't.