So the republicans will be peaceful when they have the presidency? Unlike the thuggish behavior they demonstrated under Bush? Unlike the obstructionism they have used as a strategy to make Obama look bad while hurting us?

Yes, you like all that togetherness as long as it consists of "Capitulate To Everything The Republicans Want." Where was your call for togetherness when Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said at the beginning of the Obama presidency that his main priority was to make him a one-term president? Your kumbaya is highly selective.

Christie sure talked a lot about himself and very little about Mittens.

@ B@B - Mitch McConnell is the MINORITY leader of the Senate. The Senate is run by the Democrats.

@QJ201 - ObamAA+ and his party has controll of the House of Rep. and had a SUPER-MAJORITY (i.e. - no GOP fillibusters) in the Senate for his first 2 years. Still spent all his time passing Obamacare and adding 3 trillion to the deficit.

ot a fan of Christie...but NObama!
Must support Romney.

And I suppose the Dumbocrats are any better then the Repug Party Nucky Thompson?

You are fooling yourself if you believe that!

Nucky.... you must hang out with Joe! - The democrats are the party of bad ideas and the republicans have been the party of no ideas. Don't you get it.... neither party has focused on the people's work, but prolonging their careers. I think Romney can change that.

Joe, why do you think Romney can change that? He panders to whoever he thinks will get him elected. He says one thing at one point, then contradicts himself at another. His platform is antediluvian. The last time we had a "good businessman" as president it was...Herbert Hoover. You want to try that again?

Work hard and if you want unicorns and lollipops for everyone you can make that happen! That is the philosophical difference between underachieving liberals who believe that they are stuck in their station in life and make excuses for it and those of us who believe that faith and hard work will get you where you want to be in life. Enjoy it, grab it, and don't be mired down by racial and economic divide that is the Democrat party.

When he has a heart attack because of his weight, that'll affect his ability to govern.

Jennifer, of course not. But if you look at what the Republicans are proposing, the deficit will go through the roof. Remember VP Cheney, who told us during the costly--and unpaid for--Iraq war that "deficits don't matter." I guess they only matter when the Democrats are in the White House.

What exactly do you think Chris Christie will do to help your children's future? I'm curious, because I've heard nothing from him about that. Last time I looked, he was interested in gutting public education and kicking poor children off of health care.

Chris Christie portrays himself nationally as a "truth teller" when he has less than a casual relationship with the truth. He speaks of NJ comeback....is he kidding. The only entity making money around here are sickening reality shows portraying Jersey people as ignorant clowns. He is just a blowhard looking for profile.

Jacki.....you can thank BOTH the Dems and Repubs for this mess. Unless of course you like keeping your head in the sand!

RIGHT ON JACKI

Jack!...your property taxes are thru the roof due to inept RWD village current and previous City Councils, Mayor and manager. They gut important depts. like Parks, Rec, Buildings, but give fat raises (4%) to overstaffed Police and Fire Departments, and 0% to all other departments and they have no clue how to rein in spending at the Board of Ed (that's where most of your money goes.). Oh, don't forget the fat $22,000 raise for the Village Manager.... thanks to all his layoffs in City hall.

Foreclosures - Hardly Christie's fault... he took office in January of 2010. The real estate crash occurred when?? Right, PRIOR to Christie and that was something put in place by the Democrat controlled congress, Barney Frank and Freddie and Fannie...sub-prime mortgages...lending money for home purchases with 0% down and to people unable to afford the payments. STUPID POLICY.
Hoffman LaRoche has been planning their departure from NJ back in 2008, under Jon Corisine. Do you ever read the newspaper??
Homes for sale inventory is actually low in most areas of NJ
Unemployment... again...READ THE FACTS. Yes, its high, but not the highest. California, Nevada and Rhode Island have us beat. But NJ has Camden, Newark, Elizabeth, Jersey City, and others, that are havens for those that LOVE the public dole... NJ has been a welfare state for YEARS...when Christie was in elementary school.

Jack! you are bitter partisan...stop reading the DNC talking points and think for yourself!!!

Whenever Christie speaks, his puerile pseudo-enthusiasm makes him sound like he is running for High School Senior Class president...frightening to think that his boyish, boisterous and boorish charm could put him in the Whitehouse. VERY fightening prospect...game over.

say, joe!, looks like you forgot the GOP controlled congress for 12 years (except senate for less than 2 years), and the housing bubble burst in the first half of 2006 [see case-shiller index], before the dems took the majority. since the bubble triggered both the recession and the financial meltdown, your attempt to blame it on barney frank and the dem congress can only be the result of -- dare i say it? -- swallowing too many GOP talking points.

Remove your head from your a##.

Jacki, I am not a Christie supporter but you don't have one of your accusations right, just like Paul Ryan accusing Obama of being responsible for a GM plant closing when the plant closed prior to Obama becoming president. All your accusations refer to decisions and conditions that were present before Christie became governor. In my opinion, we did it to ourselves. It seems that Democrats not only want a free lunch but they want a free dinner too. As a Democrat, I am appalled at the lack of reality in both parties and the dire consequences that will follow if we don't forget our country and put politics first.

Amen!

Looks like you feel Romney will lose this election or you would have said Christie in 2020.

ricky's right. if romney wins, christie won't run till 2020. mccain might've been able to run in 2004 if his supporters hadn't voted for bush in 2000.

Wow....even my comments too?? I thought I was being very constructive and informative....especially regarding the ineptness of our Village elected officials and management. You don't have any thoughts about how overstaffed our police and fire departments are (mind you, Ridgewood is 1 of 5 towns in all of Bergen County with a PAID fire department) and how the Village manager and Council just cower and won't battle the police and fire unions, just capitulate to their demands, give them their 4% raise and yet no other village employee gets a raise...except the Village Manager?? Pay attention Josephine...every thing that is great about Ridgewood is being gutted and destroyed... the Mayor and his a couple of City Council members want to get rid of the villages employees and hire "contractors" to handle the work. No...I don't work for the Village. But yet, the largest parts of the Village's budget go unscathed....police and fire....because Mayor is seeking higher office and won't alienate the police and fire unions.

"Nothing constructive contributed to help solve our problems and make things change." - a perfect description of CC's term so far. Thank you for the words.

Joe... Christie did not cause all the problems in or state. But he cannot go around pretending to be the know all fix all either. He shouts about being the savior of this state. Talk is cheap..

Joe! I think George W Bush had an MBA from Harvard. So that businessman did us all favors in creating the conditions for the epic collapse of 2008.

I think everyone should have noticed that Joe has been stating facts, but people like Jacki and Harvey have said nothing but just false accusation ... after told the truth, they then turned to whine about something else. I am no republican , nor modern democrat. The Democrat party which I know of in the old days base on reasoning. But, now, it based on impulse emotions... What really scary is the education system is perpetuating this .. more people came out to be ignorant and just follow the Party. How could you vote for someone, such as Nancy P.... "you must vote for these 2000s pages of new bills, so then you can read it...!" There were a lot of down right stupid sayings... She, alike with a lot of modern day democrats, must think we civilians are a whole bunch of retard to see the falsehood of this.... It is such a big insult. Unfortunately, there are many people still vote for trash politicians like this...

it's probably true coolidge had more to do with causing the great depression than hoover, but few would claim hoover didn't make it worse over the next 3+ years, ending with lots of bank failures and incredibly high unemployment.

I do not think that the persona of the candidates would have mattered much in the long run. Its the party and their radical and extreme policies which makes them a minority party from the start.
Who in his right mind would like to associate with that ?

I think the most irresponsible thing one could do is to re-elect Obama. Anybody really is better than Obama but Romney is not just "anybody", he's a very successful businessman and that is what we need right now to fix this mess we're in.

Successful businessman does not equal successful governor. Jon Corzine was by any measure a very successful businessman; he was not a successful governor.

Condo Rice is pro-choice. The Gee Oh Pee will never nominate someone who doesn't love them some fetus.

Dr. Rice gave a nice speech, but I had to wonder if she was actually referring to the republican party. She said; “it does not matter where you come from, only where you go”. Really??? The republicans have made such an issue of Obama’s background, his Kenyan father, his childhood in Indonesia, and whether or not he is a ‘real’ American. Rice stated that immigrants should be treated with compassion. I’m not sure that Hispanics would feel that correctly describes Romney’s immigration policy.

This is the best comment on this board!!!!! jab hit the nail right on the head.

Agreed! But in order to do so, you must get out and VOTE!

Amen!! But how do we do that?

Well, we had a "green" senator who became a "green" president and put us in deep red! I think we kill two birds with one acorn and get rid of the "green incumbent" in the White House. Yep...

YES vote all the incumbents OUT@@@

"Not like Mitt the Twitt who will not even show us his taxes."

Feel free to post up your tax returns.... 5 years will be sufficient.

Rosie isn't running for President. Mitt Romney is. Therefore he should show his tax returns. Hes just afraid that if he shows them he'll lose the already remote chances he has to get elected.

And if Mitt Romney chooses not to disclose them, that is his right. He has complied with financial disclosure laws as required. THEREFORE, you can kiss his ass.

It was Obama's right not to disclose his birth certificate, he did so anyway. Romney can disclose his tax returns. Most presidential candidates do so. If he can't do what most presidential candidates do, he shouldn't be running for President.

I find it interesting that you are quick to point out to me that judge in Texas struck down their voter id law and you are apparently happy with that. Yet you clearly have a problem with individuals having semi-automatic guns, which I would like to point out has also been through the courts and been upheld. So tell me, are you ready to support the rights of citizens to have those weapons since the court has ruled on that?

Yeah, I bet he wants Romney to lose.

Ok, first point. Many of the people who will suffer from the voter id laws are poor, they can't afford an extra bus ticket, taxi fare, have no kids living around them, or can't afford a train. Not to mention the fact that they shouldn't have to do any of that to be able to vote. To your second point, I'll admit it, I was wrong, nothing in the constitution specifically gives you the right to vote. That still doesn't change the fact that its wrong to deny people something that they've been doing for year because of a crime that doesn't happen. Third point, Republicans always bring up the Constitution to back up a right that isn't specifically stated. I brought the Constitution up to do the same, and I was wrong. The right to bear arms was meant for state militias, not private citizens. Republicans take it as an excuse to own any type of gun such as an assault rifle, which the Constitution does not say you can own.

If people who will suffer from the voter id laws are poor and they can't afford an extra bus ticket, taxi fare, have no kids living around them, or can't afford a train how do they get to the voting booth?

Thank you for acknwledging you weres wrong, so we can both agree that there is nothing in the constitution that specifically gives you the right to vote.

Where we disagree is you say it is wrong to deny people something that they've been doing for years because of a crime that doesn't happen while I know that voter fraud is a crime that happens every election and it must be stopped.

Regarding your third point, I am an Independent not a Republican. I do however believe the right to bear arms was meant private citizens, such as myself. Do I believe I have a right to own any type of gun such as an assault rifle, No. But I think it is safe to say that Constitution did not address this type of weapon since it did not exist in the day.

They can take the bus to the voting booth, because that is an expense that is expected, spending a bunch of time and money they don't have to go to the DMV is something that they cannot do. I don't know how you know that voter fraud happens every election when the facts are that it has happened only ten times since 2000.

Also they can walk to their voting location.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Right to Self-Protect, Billy Mays! And Hilary wants to let the UN take that right away from us--I don't think so!

Mr. Mays,

I find it difficult to believe that someone can take the bus to the voting booth, but they don't have the time and money to go to the DMV. Were you aware that the laws covering voting do require that you provide ID when voting? You stated the facts are that voter fraud has happened only ten times since 2000. Actually the correct number is higher. Since the Attorney General’s Ballot Access and Voting Integrity Initiative was launched in 2002, more than 120 individuals have been charged with election fraud offenses between 2002 nd 2006. Eighty-six people have been convicted of voter fraud in that time frame. That is of the voter fraud which we know about. How much voter fraud goes on unreported no one really knows so until we have voters provide ID the system is clearly subject to ths fraud. Here is the link to my source on voter fraud.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2006/November/06_crt_738.html

scroll to the bottom of the page to read what I quoted.

That doesn't specifically state whether it is voter registration fraud or actual fraud at the voting booth. You've probably never been poor. My parents have been poor before, they walked across 5 neighborhoods in Brooklyn because they couldn't afford the Subway fare. Even if it has happened 120 times, how many people live in this country? Oh yeah, like 350 million. Huge impact on the election. That also doesn't specify whether that happened in local, state, or federal elections. Bottom line is that all of this legislation is being put forth by Republican legislatures, who are also making it hard to obtain free id. I'm pretty sure that a Republican rep in Pennsylvania has been quoted as saying that if voter id laws are put into law, Obama will lose the election. Facts are that the Republicans are trying to change the outcome of an election by making laws that will prevent minorities and the elderly from voting. Liberty, "possessions of firearms" doesn't say what kind of firearms.

Ok, I just went back and checked my facts. There have been ten cases of voter impersonation since 2000. The voter fraud number could have been higher. But thats what these id laws are trying to fight right? Voter impersonation.

Billy,

Actually I have been poor so I know the challenges it presents. I walked 5 miles to my first job for three months before I could buy a car so my wife and newborn daughter would have the car if they needed it. Not that the car was much to speak of, it was 10 years old and cost me $1,000.00 and can best be described as a beater. We sacrificed much in our early years to get to where we are today.

The fact that it happens at all is the point that your missing. And no one really knows how much voter fraud goes on. Put this into terms you should understand lets say you have 350 thousand dollars and someone only steals $1,200.00 from you you mean to tell me that wouldn't matter to you. Of course it would, it's not the amount it's the principal.

I agree with you that this legislation is being put forth by Republican legislatures however you are wrong that they are also making it hard to obtain free id. That is just a Democrat talking point. It may well be that without illegal citizens voting Obama could lose the election. If that should happen then that is unfortunate but appropiate.

Yes I do agree, "possessions of firearms" doesn't say what kind of firearms. I think we could agree that the founding fathers could not have imagined the types of weapons we have today. Because of this we now must determine what is appropate for today. Not an easy task. Automatic weapons are a bit out of reason in my humble opinion

That judge in Texas that struck down their voter id law must be a huge liberal then. Since he said that it would be unfair to poor citizens because a third of the counties in Texas don't have DPS offices where they could obtain voter id, and it would cost $22 for them to get a copy of their birth certificate. Same goes for states like PA.

Billy,

You are 20 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than someone with an assualt semi-automatic rifle. Clearly even you can see that by the information Long Time Resident has provided. Looks to me like your arguement against guns has been blown away......pun intended.

Facts are a horrible thing when they aren't on your side!

No one can help Mitt. Only reason Ryan is on the ticket is to start prepping him for 2016.

Billy,

Actually I have been poor so I know the challenges it presents. I walked 5 miles to my first job for three months before I could buy a car so my wife and newborn daughter would have the car if they needed it. Not that the car was much to speak of, it was 10 years old and cost me $1,000.00 and can best be described as a beater. We sacrificed much in our early years to get to where we are today.

The fact that it happens at all is the point that your missing. And no one really knows how much voter fraud goes on. Put this into terms you should understand lets say you have 350 thousand dollars and someone only steals $1,200.00 from you you mean to tell me that wouldn't matter to you. Of course it would, it's not the amount it's the principal.

I agree with you that this legislation is being put forth by Republican legislatures however you are wrong that they are also making it hard to obtain free id. That is just a Democrat talking point. It may well be that without illegal citizens voting Obama could lose the election. If that should happen then that is unfortunate but appropiate.

Yes I do agree, "possessions of firearms" doesn't say what kind of firearms. I think we could agree that the founding fathers could not have imagined the types of weapons we have today. Because of this we now must determine what is appropate for today. Not an easy task. Automatic weapons are a bit out of reason in my humble opinion.

That judge in Texas that struck down their voter id law must be a huge liberal then. Since he said that it would be unfair to poor citizens because a third of the counties in Texas don't have DPS offices where they could obtain voter id, and it would cost $22 for them to get a copy of their birth certificate. Same goes for states like PA.

I find it interesting that you are quick to point out to me that judge in Texas struck down their voter id law and you are apparently happy with that. Yet you clearly have a problem with individuals having semi-automatic guns, which I would like to point out has also been through the courts and been upheld. So tell me, are you ready to support the rights of citizens to have those weapons since the court has ruled on that?

No, I'm not willing to support the "rights" of those citizens, because their rights to own a gun often take away other people's right to live.

Billy -- My right or anyone else's right to own a gun has not taken any one's life. In fact, it has probably saved many life. But, if you seriously think guns kill people, then you must think too, my kyebaord just misspell that word!

So let me see if I undeerstand this correctly. You embrace a courts decision as right and just when you agree with that decision, but you object to the U. S. Supreme courts decision on the rights of citizens to own guns. How do you defend that? Isn't that a bit hypricital?

It's not a question of your supporti the "rights" of those citizens, the courts have decided their rights to own a gun. And your belief that legal gun owners often take away other people's right to live may be true but far many more guns that are not legal are involved in killing than legal guns. And if you would like I can site for you many situations where an armed citizen saved a persons life including a police officer.

I was not aware that semi-automatic weapons were part of a case that went to the Supreme Court, a lower court's ruling, yes I can dispute that. Curt, there is no need for someone to own an assault rifle. I can see why someone would want a pistol to defend themselves with, to keep at home, and thats fine with me. It is dangerous and unreasonable to allow people to buy huge clips of ammo and rifles that fire a huge amount of shots per minute. If people weren't allowed to obtain these types of guns, incidents like the one in Aurora or Virginia Tech wouldn't have happened. Guns are an accomplice to crimes.

Mr. Mays,

I find it very telling that you would decide on your own what court rulings are justifiable and right and others are not. This country was founded on the rule of law, not opinion. I sincerely hope you are not an elected official since you feel that you know better than the people who are charged with making legal decisions from the courts that are imposed on all of us. I accept and support the Judges ruling that struck down the voter ID laws, even though I disagree with that decision.

It is clear to me that you think you know better than everyone else, which I doubt is the case. You do not want to own a weapon. That is fine, that is your right, but you also want to deny everyone else the right, granted by the constitution, to own weapons, which is clearly wrong.

I would argue that if more people were allowed to obtain handgun carry permits incidents like the one in Aurora or Virginia Tech, or even the Fort Hood shooting may well have been avoided or minimized.

Yes, because people shooting at each other in crowded theater full of smoke and people running around is a great idea, just as great an idea as people shooting at each other in a classroom full of people running around and panicking.

Well then Mr. Mays, I trust you will stand with me to take all the now legal forms of alcohol out of society too. Let’s face facts. No one needs a 30 pack, or a fifth of whisky. But those large qualities were clearly and documented to be responsible for 42 drunken driving deaths in America just today. There will be another 42 tomorrow and 42 after that and so on and so forth.

Believe me. I fear a drunk driver a heck of a lot more then someone with an auto, or semi-automatic weapon.

Also, and I’m sorry to be so blunt. But if a person is intent on killing others, that person will find a way, with or without a gun. I believe if you search history, not too long ago, you’ll find over 900 people were killed in one afternoon by a grape flavored drink, mixed with cyanide, and Valium!

BTW that 900 stands as the largest mass murder in history!

You can't really kill someone else with alcohol, now can you? Not a large group of people at least.

Mr. Mays,

If your concern is about Americans being killed then you should be very concerned about cars and trucks. More Americans, between 30,000 and 40,000, are killed annually by car and truck accidents then are killed with guns. By contrast all guns were responsible for 8,734 deaths in 2010. This information is from the FBI - see link below.....

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10tbl20.xls

Knives were responsible for 1,700 deaths in 2010. Handguns were responsible for 5,973 deaths in 2010 while rifles, including semi-automatic assualt rifles, were only responsible for 357 deaths in 2010. So your arguement about semi-assualt rifles is a bit weak. 745 people were killed by other people with their hands, fists & feet in 2010 more than double those killed by assualt rifles. I think you may need to educate yourself a bit more about the facts rather than just accept others talking points and following blindly what someone else says. I hope this information helps you understand the facts about giuns better.

Billy,

You are 20 times more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than someone with an assualt semi-automatic rifle. Clearly even you can see that by the information Long Time Resident has provided. Looks to me like your arguement against guns has been blown away......pun intended.

Facts are a horrible thing when they aren't on your side!

Too bad the Republicans don't believe in half the stuff she talked about.

You know what was even more wonderful? When she sat in front of the 9/11 Commission and when asked about the now-infamous August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US", she breezily referred to it as a "historical document." And it was really swell when she 100% supported a war based on lies. That's SO inspiring..... /snark

Don't underestimate Christie. He is smarter than most of the Republicans out there. He still hasn't bowed down to that Tea Party bs.

Yeah, "charisma" is what I look for in a world leader.

How have I in anyway said that?

Have another drink. Hope you aren't teaching your kids this kind of rhetoric or grammar. If looks are everything I guess you will be voting for Romney, right?

Since you seem so sure that voter fraud happens a lot, why don't you produce the money that all those elderly minorities will have to pay up to get their birth certificates so they can get an ID. By the way, they need to get the ID at the DMV, not at voter registration places. Guns are an accomplice to crimes, in our law system, accomplices are jailed too.

Frank, stick to writing about fishing and hunting, you’re pretty good at that. This is definitely not your forte!

If you want Obama to be impeached for the death of that agent, don't you think Bush should be put in jail for all those young men and women that died as a result of the two wars that he started? One of which he started by LYING to Congress?

“As for the birth certificate issue, my personal belief is that it should have been produced and authenticated by and independent source to end the controversy.”

How is the Hawaii Dept of Health NOT an independent source??? They verified Obama’s birth certificate long before he was even elected. If you were paying attention, you would have realized that the controversy was ended four years ago.

You want people to respond intelligently yet you lead by perpetuating more nonsensical hogwash about the birth certificate? Interesting...in the case "Fast and Furious," the Justice Department actually declared those gun sales completely legal, thus the reason no charges have been filed. Obama did absolutely nothing illegal or impeachable, and neither did Holder. This was actually a Bush program that was planned, authorized and implemented under Bush, continued under Obama. And let's get real here, the Contempt of Congress charge was 100% politically motivated to make Obama look bad. If you can't see that then you are just a Republican calling the kettle black. If the republican controlled congress had anything remotely close to a tidbit that could be used to impeach Obama, you don't think they would have done it in a heartbeat? Hell, they tried to impeach Clinton because he lied about a completely legal, private act.

You are entitled to your opinion with regards to policy and political affiliation, but don't troll around on issues like the birth certificate and fast and furious to make it sound like those are real issues facing the country. Energy, environment, healthcare, economic growth, immigration, education: all major issues that we should be debating and discussing. This Bain Capital/Birth Certificate/F&F crap is a distraction and a waste of time. Intelligent respones, HAH! What a joke, I'm glad we all know who you are now...knucklehead.

A serious question to any Life Insurance Actuaries out there: What are the statistical odds that Chris Christie will still be around to run for office in 2016 or 2020?

Many actors are lousey speakers. Who knows how many takes Eastwood had to do to get that Iconic line "Make My Day." line. His body of work both as an actor and a director is great but just like Mel Gibson he should not be allowed out in public. I wonder when the last time Ann Romney heard someone make reference to doing that kind of impossible act to oneself. There was so much "Queen for a day" in the rest of the speeches I was waiting for George Carlin to be brought back from the grave and talk about his one legged single mom, hopping 38 miles one way to go to her job as a hot tar roofer so that he and his 19 brothers and 1 sister could have a better life in America.

Two words for Jon:

Electoral College

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups.html

@ KMN - Romney leads in enough states to have 267 Electoral votes as of last week (pre-Convention bump). That includes leads in Florida, NC, Wisc, Iowa and Michigan. All Mitt needs now is to win NH or Colorado for the 270+ Electoral votes. That even if Romney does not win Ohio or Virginia.

Steve B,

Keep dreaming. RCP state poll averages show the President leading in MI, FL, WI, and IA. Mitt's lead in NC is only 0.7%.

Mitt's going down like a Lincoln Tunnel hooker during Fleet Week!

The "No Tossups" map is a joke because there are so many states in play (and the pool keeps getting bigger as more states leave the "Lean Obama" category), and the longer that condition exists the worse it looks for any incumbent.

It's time for the Obamanites to start girding themselves for a big let-down in November. Or as Nedd likes to say, STFU!!!

Oooh. "Faux News". That's clever & original.

{end of sarcasm}

Making stuff up? you don't even have the ingenuity to make up your own screen name!

Ms. Thomson, nice retort.

OMG, THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!! Seriously, no one is after you, calm down. Psychos like the ones at Aurora and Virginia Tech were able to legally obtain guns. The guy at Virginia Tech had a history of mental issues, and yet he bought a coupe of pistols that he used to take 30 lives. If they repealed the 2nd amendment, the ATF and Police could actually focus on finding illegal guns instead of sorting through documents trying to figure out whether someone owns a gun. No gun is made to be sold illegally. The market for legal guns is the reason why we end up having illegal guns.

Do you have children? Any gun that is "at the ready" to be used if someone breaks into your house is by definition not safely stored. You are far more likely to end up shooting a member of your family than you are an intruder. Life isn't like the movies, where regular people are crackerjack shots in a crisis. Look at the recent shooting at the Empire State Building. 9 people were injured by bullets and fragments shot by police guns -- and they are TRAINED in crisis management in a way you are not.

B@B,

I have owned weapons (handguns and rifles) for 36 + years. I obtained these weapons during and after my service in the U.S Army and I did have children in my home when these weapons were in the house? You claim that:

"Any gun that is at the ready to be used if someone breaks into your house is by definition not safely stored. You are far more likely to end up shooting a member of your family than you are an intruder."

If your statement was even close to being accurate we would be hearing of Police Officers wives, kids and other family members being killed at home everyday. I can't rememer EVER hearing that happening or being reported.

The only corect thing you said was that was accurate and true was the Police are TRAINED in crisis management. You make the assumption that a citizen, who is not a Police Officer, can't have the same training. WRONG, in many cases a citizen can and does have the same weapons training as the Police. Additionally, some citizens are BETTER trained than our Police. You clearly need to educate your self about this issue.

Yeah but a gun wouldn't have helped on 9/11. I think the 2nd amendment is fine, but assault rifles should be banned.

You can't kill a whole bunch of people with alcohol?! A drunk driver hitting or running a schoolbus off the road sure can! That drunk woman driving the wrong way on the Taconic last year killed 8 people--does that qualify as a bunch?! I'm with that other guy, I'm more afraid of drunk drivers than anyone with a gun!

I meant intentionally kill people. People intentionally kill people with guns. And yeah, I think that it would have been hard for them to obtain guns.

You know, in Europe, guns are much harder to come by, their murder rates are much lower than ours.

And they are allowed to obtain guns.

Dan--I have no idea what you just said. Are you for or against the 2nd amendment? And what is a "Civil Society?"
And Billy, those off-their-meds, mental people would obtain those guns, legal or not, anyway they could, because they are determined to commit the act.

Oh so wrong. It's what would happen if the elections were held the day of the polling (in some cases the polls are now weeks old, and in any event, the election is in NOVEMBER), the electorate in each state as a whole voted precisely as a handful of the people polled indicated they would vote, and the pollster got the demographics of the electorate precisely right (e.g., didn't overweight Dems, minorities, young voters, etc.).

That's a lot of "Ifs," and it's why pollsters have this thing called the Margin of Error! When that's taken into account, Obama can safely say that right now he is well short of the electoral votes needed to be sworn back in next January.

As for the "538" page on the Liberal NYT's website, Mr. Silver has to fill a lot of column inches so he gives us ample amounts of his Liberal POV on the polling. After the election, much like many of the Liberal prognosticators, he'll be telling us how he and all the pollsters never quite saw the Romney victory coming until it was too late.

P.S. I love how any polling that shows Romney in the lead means that it's a Republican leaning poll. Bias, not a chance!

Here is an interesting point of view that incorporates the two sources we have been discussing:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-the-race-is-not-tied/

No personal experience here, but having once worked on 34th and 10th Ave., it was kinda hard not to notice them patrolling the streets iso truckers looking for a quickie.

James,

Of course the model, applied "retroactively" picked the winners since 1980. Yeah right! How does the model factor in the weakness and ineptitude of the Romney/Ryan ticket.

I mean really, Mitt builds his whole campaign around how a president must have "business experience". Yes....ladies and gentlemen, it's a must have in order to understand how the economy works. And just to prove how critical it is for a president not have business experience, Romney picked a 42 year old career politician, with no business experience, as his running mate. You can't make this stuff up!

Mitt Romney, for it....before he was against it!

As a comment on youtube noted - we have a president, not a king. The real silliness starts and pretty much ends with the Congress. Fact check that.

The fact that you used Dick Morris as your source speaks volumes with respect to the lack of credibility of your point. The man is a hypocritical idiot. See below:

http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/08/weekinreview/dick-morris-s-behavior-and-why-it-s-tolerated.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Wow, a NYT's story from 1996. Great rebuttal. The better question is why the guy the Dems really adore, WJC, kept using him, or why NOW wouldn't denounce him. They're the real hypocrites.

I didn't say WJC should denounce him. Reread my comment and the article. And if he had considered it, he probably thought of all the scanks he was "doing" and thought, there but by the grace of God . . .

Lest we forget one of the most famous lines of our lifetime, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman . . " What a wonderful guy to stand up and vouch for you!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

I think you've confused me with some of the losers you know in LV.

As for Clinton, he's proven he'll say or do anything, including lie with impunity, to sway public opinion.

It's also sad that a sitting President has to haul a retread out of semi-retirement to bolster his re-election chances. I guess he's determined that the people won't vote for him based on his weak record, so why not run on the "Renaissance" Years of the Clinton Presidency.

As the memory of the recent convention fades, and all America is left with is the reality of a weak economy that Obama's policies have failed to revive, his ratings will sink and he can start to call around to see who's available to move his stuff out of the WH this coming January.

In 1980, Reagan looked unelectable. All the way to election day, when a final-week surge led to a 10-point landslide.

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/vault/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-CARTER-NOW-FAR-AHEAD-OF-BOTH-REAGAN-AND-BUSH-1980-01.pdf

Gallup polling today put Obama ahead of Mitt Romney by 4 points after the godless DNC Convention.

Back in 1980 Gallup had Jimmy Carter up over Ronald Reagan by 4 points in mid to late September… And, Carter was up 8 points in October. In fact there was a published Gallup poll showing Carter up six among likely voters in a poll conducted Oct. 24 to 27.

Ronald Reagan ended up winning by 9 points and taking 44 states.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012...september-1980

With Independent voters supporting Romney in large numbers Romney will repeat the Reagan Landslide and may even win by more than 10 points.

James,

The difference for Reagan is he led Carter by some 30 points after the GOP convention. Romney has never led the President. I would suggest you read Nate Silver's blog for more insight. The link is listed in a posting below this one.

KMN,

I suggest you might educate yourself also by reading at the website below....
http://www.breitbart.com/

KMN

Unlike Obama and Mitt, the data does not lie.....there I fixed that for you.

No need to thank me.

The WSJ editorial page is Conservative, the reporting side of the house is not.

As for the polls, there are now more states in play than ever. Obama is weak and there's still two months to go till election day. As much as you try to make an Obama victory look inevitable, it is far from over. Aloha Mr. Hand.

It's over. You're just one of the last ones to admit it.

The Mitt-o-matons should take heart. If Obama gets an EC win without a popular vote win, they can spend the next four years screeching about he's not a legitimate president because he didn't win a majority of the popular vote...and in true conservative fashion, they can conveniently forget that their hero George W. Bush was in very much the same situation, only he needed the Supreme Court to get his EC win for him.