What Romney Should Ask After Every Question in the Town Hall Debate...

[Politico]

After finishing his answer, I feel like Romney should respectfully ask the following of the individual who just asked him a question:

"I hope I have answered your question. If I may, because I care about your opinion, I would like to ask you something which I think is the central question of this election: Do you want the next four years to be like the last four years?"

[Politico]

Steadily decreasing unemployment? Hell yeah, I want that.

Now can someone please delete this?

I am trying to spur discussion about the next debate. Why are you afraid? Why do you believe this is a place of partisan censorship?

BTW, it would take 17 years of 114,000 jobs per month to create 23 million jobs. If millions had not stopped looking for work, unemployment would be 11% today. 50% of
college graduates this year have been unable to find work! Do you want to be one of them at some point in the not-so-distant future?

[Politico]

If he said the same thing after every question, it would get annoying and fake really fast.

He can find a way to change the wording for each person, and refer to answers from different people by their name...

[Politico]

Steadily decreasing unemployment? Hell yeah, I want that.

Now can someone please delete this?

I am trying to spur discussion about the next debate. Why are you afraid? Why do you think this is a place of partisan censorship?

BTW, it would take 17 years of 114,000 jobs per month to create 23 million jobs. If millions had not stopped looking for work, unemployment would be 11% today. 50% of
college graduates this year have been unable to find work! Do you want to be one of them at some point in the not-so-distant future?

Dude, have you ever wondered, WHY we need to create 23 million more jobs anyway? What event and who's policies made it so we those 23 million jobs aren't still here?

The why is complicated yet also simple: Subprime mortgages and the unity of investment/commercial banking.

It is simple to blame Bush like a simpleton (I, for one, was guilty of this four years ago). Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

[Politico]

It's interesting that you've abandoned your previous mantra: "Are you better off than you were four years ago?". A small, but significant difference.

Unfortunately, being subtle does not work as effectively as in 1980. You need to be a little bit more direct these days.

[Politico]

Steadily decreasing unemployment? Hell yeah, I want that.

Now can someone please delete this?

I am trying to spur discussion about the next debate. Why are you afraid? Why do you think this is a place of partisan censorship?

BTW, it would take 17 years of 114,000 jobs per month to create 23 million jobs. If millions had not stopped looking for work, unemployment would be 11% today. 50% of
college graduates this year have been unable to find work! Do you want to be one of them at some point in the not-so-distant future?

Dude, have you ever wondered, WHY we need to create 23 million more jobs anyway? What event and who's policies made it so we those 23 million jobs aren't still here?

The why is complicated yet also simple: Subprime mortgages and the unity of investment/commercial banking.

It is simple to blame Bush like a simpleton. Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

Exactly, these problems go back at least to the waning years of the Clinton Adm. If you expected over 12 years of mess to get cleaned up in 3 1/2 than there's something wrong here.

The problem is that Obama is clinging to an economic doctrine that is holding America back. Obama has failed to instill confidence that our best days are ahead.

We can recover far more strongly than this. Cheering over 114,000 jobs per month is PATHETIC. Only a person obsessed with gay marriage would think that is an accomplishment, especially when you consider that over 200,000 jobs were created in September 2011.

[Politico]

Also, like Romney pointed out in so many words, Dodd-Frank is a sweetheart deal for the "Too Big to Fail" New York Banks. Some of these New York bankers have Obama and Co. in their back pocket. But even many bankers on Wall Street, the ones who do not like crony capitalism, want to bring back something like Glass-Steagall, separating investment banking from commercial banking so that excessive government intervention does not become the norm down the road...

Repealing Dodd-Frank and replacing it with something like Glass-Steagall is a good trade-off for the country, and even most folks on Wall Street (i.e., the ones NOT funding Obama's campaign).

[Politico]

Also, like Romney pointed out in so many words, Dodd-Frank is a sweetheart deal for the "Too Big to Fail" New York Banks. Some of these New York bankers have Obama and Co. their back pocket. But even many bankers on Wall Street, the ones who do not like crony capitalism, want to bring back something like Glass-Steagall, separating investment banking from commercial banking so that excessive government intervention does not become the norm down the road...

So you're arguing that Governor Romney is to the left of the President on Wall Street Reform?

Romney favors smart, effective regulation and competition, not Obama's crony regulation that protects and coddles "Too Big to Fail" entities and certainly not Obama's excessive regulation that hurts small businesses and workers.

Prior to being repealed by Bill Clinton in 1999, Glass-Steagall prevented severe financial crises throughout the entirety of the mid/late 20th Century. It is conservative to bring it back. You bring it back because it works at keeping crises at bay, especially with regards to the non-financial segment of the economy (i.e., the "real economy"). You bring it back because it has a well-established track record. The country wants stability and more certainty, and so do most people on Wall Street (ironically, the few who do not want Glass-Steagall are mostly the ones from the "Too Big To Fail" entities who have Obama in their wallet, the ones who wrote Dodd-Frank after buying it).

Obama supporters, some of the bankers from the "Too Big to Fail" crowd have PLAYED YOU like a fiddle! America is burning, so stop being played like Nero's fiddle if you do NOT want to see America burn to the ground...

[Politico]

Steadily decreasing unemployment? Hell yeah, I want that.

Now can someone please delete this?

I am trying to spur discussion about the next debate. Why are you afraid? Why do you think this is a place of partisan censorship?

BTW, it would take 17 years of 114,000 jobs per month to create 23 million jobs. If millions had not stopped looking for work, unemployment would be 11% today. 50% of
college graduates this year have been unable to find work! Do you want to be one of them at some point in the not-so-distant future?

Dude, have you ever wondered, WHY we need to create 23 million more jobs anyway? What event and who's policies made it so we those 23 million jobs aren't still here?

The why is complicated yet also simple: Subprime mortgages and the unity of investment/commercial banking.

It is simple to blame Bush like a simpleton. Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

Exactly, these problems go back at least to the waning years of the Clinton Adm. If you expected over 12 years of mess to get cleaned up in 3 1/2 than there's something wrong here.

Reagan. Though the Clinton years are very much part of the problem.

Not that Obama has been ready to tackle the problem... it would hurt bankers's bonusses.

This, like many problems in America, goes back as far as Carter. Subprime mortgages would have never existed if not for Carter's meddling.

I strongly believe Carter is a man of morality who cares about America, and honestly wanted what was best for America. However, I am absolutely 100% convinced that at least one or two people in Carter's inner-circle were Soviet spies, or at least lone wolf Soviet sympathizers, who somehow managed to slip through the cracks, and remain undetected even after all these years. For example, hell, maybe (a definitely maybe) it's not even a coincidence that John Lennon went into retirement right around the beginning of Carter, and came out of retirement right after Reagan's rise. I fully understand the sad implications of this suspicion because I grew up adoring the work of John Lennon.

[Politico]

Steadily decreasing unemployment? Hell yeah, I want that.

Now can someone please delete this?

I am trying to spur discussion about the next debate. Why are you afraid? Why do you think this is a place of partisan censorship?

BTW, it would take 17 years of 114,000 jobs per month to create 23 million jobs. If millions had not stopped looking for work, unemployment would be 11% today. 50% of
college graduates this year have been unable to find work! Do you want to be one of them at some point in the not-so-distant future?

Dude, have you ever wondered, WHY we need to create 23 million more jobs anyway? What event and who's policies made it so we those 23 million jobs aren't still here?

The why is complicated yet also simple: Subprime mortgages and the unity of investment/commercial banking.

It is simple to blame Bush like a simpleton. Unfortunately, it's not that simple.

Exactly, these problems go back at least to the waning years of the Clinton Adm. If you expected over 12 years of mess to get cleaned up in 3 1/2 than there's something wrong here.

Reagan. Though the Clinton years are very much part of the problem.

Not that Obama has been ready to tackle the problem... it would hurt bankers's bonusses.

This, like many problems in America, goes back as far as Carter. Subprime mortgages would have never existed if not for Carter's meddling.

I strongly believe Carter is a man of morality who cares about America, and honestly wanted what was best for America. However, I am absolutely 100% convinced that at least one or two people in Carter's inner-circle were Soviet spies, or at least lone wolf Soviet sympathizers, who somehow managed to slip through the cracks, and remain undetected even after all these years. For example, hell, maybe (a definitely maybe) it's not even a coincidence that John Lennon went into retirement right around the beginning of Carter, and came out of retirement right after Reagan's rise. I fully understand the sad implications of this statement.

Could you tell us who you suspect to be Soviet spies?

There are some who undeniably love America and did what they thought was best for the country (e.g., Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Paul Volcker). There are others who may or may not be who they say they are (it is far more likely that we're looking at somebody at the advisory level, not an actual cabinet member since most of them appear to be obvious patriots). When it comes to something like this, we're probably better off never finding out.

There's a reason why some corners of the Carter campaign were bat[Inks] crazy thinking about the prospect of Reagan in the White House. Reagan was right up there with Buckley and Goldwater as one of the fiercest anti-communists of them all.

[Politico]

Repeating the same thing over and over not only wastes time better used to make other points, but gets annoying. So no, politico, I think it is a bad idea. Doing it once might be OK with the right questioner.

I agree.

He needs to do it at least once, preferably with a female questioner that is obviously struggling based upon her question, so that the question is silently answered by all viewers. After all, all of us know what most viewers will answer in their mind.

If Romney plays his cards right, delivers the same positive, energetic body language and rhetorical flair, this can be the defining moment of 2012. It can become on par with Reagan's "are you better off than you were four years ago?" and there is absolutely NOTHING Obama and Co. can do to stop Romney if that happens.

[Politico]

Obama could respond by asking people "Can you name one way Governor Romney substantially differs from my predecessor George Bush?"

Hear that? It's the sound of Independents who are overwhelmingly sick of the excuses and refusal to take responsibility for anything, even the last year or two.

It could not be more clear that Mitt Romney is NOT George W. Bush. After the first debate, that is like comparing Tom Brady to a second-string QB. At this point, that is absolute rubbish that nobody buys other than the Democratic faithful, who are left clinging to Joe Biden right now. BTW, expecting Joe Biden to save the day is like expecting Tim Tebow to win the Super Bowl for you LOL!