And the winners are...............king Free and Tosa720! Booooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!! LMAO!!!

I noticed the same thing. Romney respected Obama when he was speaking by paying attention. Obama showed no respect for Romney by either looking at his notes or at the moderator with that pitiful look on his face when he wanted the moderator to rescue him. The body language, eyes and facial expression say it all,

Rachel Maddow actually opened the post debate analysis with a LIE (not unexpected for MSDNC), claiming that Romney dominated the speaking time, when in reality, Obama was able to speak for nearly 5 minutes longer than Romney!

Anyone who watches MSDNC for any kind of credibility is being severely DUPED and Hoffa hopes that they realized this last night (as if the June 5th coverage of the Walker recall election wasn't proof enough already)!

@JRH -- It's not a lie it that was your honest impression. But that impression surprised me, because I called it correctly -- President Obama actually spoke longer. And they both talked over the moderator and went over their allotted time.

Special Ed Schultz had the same clueless expression on his face as he did when Walker won the recall.....Spittle Chris Matthews looked like a drunk drag queen!

@Randy1949 -

Anyone who watched the debate, and paid attention, had to have realized that Obama received more time than Romney - it was so obvious even without a stop watch.

The false impression probably came from the fact that Obama didn't use his time effectively, stuttering, making long pauses, etc., while Romney effectively used every second.

When you have a true understanding of the issues, as Romney does, it comes natural. Obama doesn't know what he's talking about without his teleprompter - that was abundantly obvious last night.

Anyway, the FACT that Obama received nearly 5 minutes of extra time should effectively prove the media bias to anyone who was doubting this!

And if Maddow had any journalistic integrity at all, she wouldn't have spoken until she knew the FACTS. She owes her viewers and Mitt Romney an apology!

@JRH -- Don't hold me accountable for the impressions of Maddow and Ed Schultz, who seems to have found something in President Obama's statements on 'tweaking' Social Security that I didn't see. Here's how it went -- President Obama did indeed speak slowly and go on long after his time was up, making his point even when Lehrer was trying to 'play him off'. However, Romney interrupted a lot more. Romney was also willing to be more combative with Obama.

The difference between their two styles is like the difference between yours and mine. I rarely lose my cool; just reply patiently with facts, because to go into the dirt makes a person lose credibility.. You're willing to call people liars when they really aren't, and you use a lot of rhetoric. I think the facts win in the end, but that's just me.

I also think the Obama campaign will have learned from this. He'll be less reluctant to be labeled an angry radical if he does stand up for himself next time.

@Randy1949 -

If Romney hadn't fought for the time that he did, Lehrer would have allowed Obama to dominate 15 minutes of extra time over Romney - would that have been fair or right? As it was, Obama received 5 additional minutes over Romney!

A real leader doesn't allow biased others to steamroll over them and deprive them of a fair format. Romney was right to fight for the time - and won!

And Hoffa isn't afraid to call it like he sees it or for what it is. At the opening of the post-debate analysis, Maddow claimed that Romney dominated the speaking time. Not only was this not true, but the exact opposite was in fact the case! How can you honestly call that anything other than a LIE?!?!

Come on!!!

@JRH -- I'm not arguing that point. But a lie is a conscious misrepresenting of the facts, not a biased interpretation of what actually happened. I mean, I could accuse you of lying when you insist Mitt Romney is better for the country. But we all differ in our beliefs, ya know.

I can claim Maddow and Schultz were wrong. Mistaken. My impression was that Obama spoke a little more than Romney But not by much. And it turns out I was right.

@Randy1949 -

Your premise is incorrect.

No one can conclusively prove a true opinion to be either true or false, as it's an opinion - it's personal and wholly subjective. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts (another great line effectively used by Romney against Obama last night, might Hoffa add)!

How much time was used by each candidate in the debate can be conclusively proven to the objective consensus reality by using a stop watch.

Maddow asserted her personal impressions as being fact, instead of premising them as representing her personal opinion. And as the assertion was clearly not true, it rightly gets labeled as a LIE.

And even if it was her opinion that Romney had more time than Obama, it would still be a LIE because such assertion can be conclusively weighed against an objective factual reality, which proved otherwise. Only not only would it represent a lie to others, but more importantly, it would represent a lie to herself!

In the words of George Costanza "It's not a lie if YOU believe it." Classic!

Jeebus, Hoffa, how many ways can I put it when I say Maddow was wrong. But to be a lie, you have to know it's wrong and say it anyway. That actually lets Mitt off the hook for a few things he said. He probably believes them. At least I hope he does.

Are you and Sam Vedder lying when you say Mitt Romney will reduce our deficit better than Barack Obama will in the next eight years? I'm sure you believe it, but the jury is still out.

@Randy1949 -

Hoffa is still waiting for you to explain Obama's plan, as the math just doesn't add up!

@Hoffa -- Which plan do you think will reduce the deficit better? Chipping away at the deficit by reducing cost and generating more tax revenue by letting the Bush tax cuts expire? Or 'not lowering taxes for the richest Americans' and hoping that somehow this is going to jump start the economy and generate extra revenue from the bigger tax base? I mean. your guy isn't even making sense anymore.

You're right that none of the arithmetic works, but we can't cut our way out of the deficit by taking it out of social programs and then hoping that further tax cuts (that don't really seem to be tax cuts) will magically create more revenue.

@Randy1949 -

Hoffa has always argued for an expanded base - everyone gets to play so everyone should have to pay something! As Hoffa has stated time and again, Hoffa actually prefers his proposed federal tax plan vs Romney's or Obama's, but unfortunately, Hoffa's plan isn't an option.

You previously brought up Hoover, remember? Hoover raised taxes significantly and especially on the rich - how did that work out for us again?

On taxes, Obama is closer to Hoover than Romney is!

Obamacare kills 700k+ jobs - not even Obama could debate this last night. And let's not forget that the CBO keeps on adjusting their projections for Obamacare upwards, so let's assume that Obamacare will in reality cost us 1.5M jobs. That's 1.5M people living off the system that would otherwise be paying into and supporting the system and themselves - that's a no brainer, or at least it should be!

Obama's stimulus didn't create the jobs projected, nor did it raise the amount of revenues collected by the government. Instead, it put us almost $1T deeper in the hole. Obama's jobs bill is essentially stimulus 2. It didn't do what Obama said it would do last time - it did the exact opposite! So, why try it again - so Obama can laugh about "shovel ready not being as shovel ready as we expected," again?!?!

Sorry, not buying it!

And Obama LIED - he wants to raise corp taxes, not decrease them. Remember, the private sector is doing just fine!

As a small business owner, Hoffa feels much better about the future viability of his business under Romney's plan than Obama's! Hoffa has already seen his business taxes go up under Obama. If they go up anymore, and if the Dems get their way on the $10/hr+ minimum wage (the progressive caucus actually wants a $16/hr minimum wage), it wouldn't be worth it to Hoffa and family to keep the business open anymore, as the profit margin would be reduced to a projected 4%-5%, IF business remained at current levels (that's a big IF). It wouldn't be worth the work, time invested, capital, headaches, etc for such a miniscule amount of money. And Hoffa is sure that several other small businesses are facing the same situation under Obama's plan. So, when we close our doors, laying off all our employees, how would that help the economy?

You admit that the math on Obama's plan doesn't add up, and that the math on Romney's plan might work if the projected job growth occurs.

Romney has promised not to raise your taxes. You're old enough so that Medicare would remain the same for you even under Romney/Ryan's plan. So, what do you honestly have to lose by trying out Romney? If he lies or fails to perform, then he's gone in four years.

But instead, you prefer to stay with policies that have already proven not work and with math that doesn't add up even under the best of projections.

Your choice makes no logical sense!

@king Free -

Were you watching the Presidential debate???

king Free = union teacher.

@James Hoffa:
Obviously king Free was sitting on his remote...kept hitting the ''Play over" !

So, in a word, you are saying Romney was Very Clintonesque.

Tosa720 -

I think you really mean a "... it was easy to see that he did a complete 180... and not 360..

Anyway, I agree with you.

Willard did have the BIGGER "flag pin"... impressive... ALL "Partiots" gotta have that!

I sincerly hope Jim Lehrer did not actually get paid for being the "empty chair."

This Debate(?) is just like Hoffa on the Patch...

@Tosa720 & @John Wilson -

Your problem (and it's a big one) is that instead of accepting the TRUTH about Romney and his policy positions, you've chose to drink the kool-aide and believe in the secondary sourced third party spin, lies, propaganda, rhetoric, talking points, etc.

You've been DUPED by the liberal MSM for the last year - and you still won't admit it to yourselves or others, instead choosing to double down on your line of crap!!!

You guys just aren't living in the consensus reality - please, WAKE UP!!!

Obama is the "habitual liar," not Romney as you've falsely asserted here.

Not only are guys lying to us, but you're lying to yourselves, and that's really sad!

Please, get yourselves the help that you both need as soon as possible - for all of us!!!

@king Free -

You are LYING to yourself and others.

The federal deficit at the end of 2008 was $459B. In 2009, Obama's first year in office, the federal deficit skyrocketed to $1,413B! Obama nearly tripled the deficit during his first year alone. From there, he did lower it in 2010 to $1,293B, but then it started to go back up in 2011 to $1,300B, and this year it is projected to be $1,327B.

Source: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

Clearly, Obama initially raised it. And while he did lower it in his second year, the current Obama trend is upwards!

Where are you getting your info from - The Daily Kos?!?!

lol @ king free. So Obama fails, lies about it, and you then lie to cover for Obama. Pathetic and it makes you a total coward.

On Jan. 7, 2009, two weeks before Obama took office, the CBO reported the deficit was projected to be $1.2 trillion.

@Walker -

Hoffa concurs that it's a real problem when differing branches and departments of the federal government can't even be consistent with the numbers, as it makes it difficult for the people to know what's really going on with their government.

But let's assume that your $1.2T last year of Bush deficit projection is correct. Even then, Obama still increased the deficit in his first year to $1.413T - it was not a decrease as king Free erroneously asserts.

Care to try again with something of actual substance?

I watched the same debate you did and I did not see a rehearsed Romney. I saw a man talking off the cuff about issues that were pertinant, with confidence. I saw an Obamantion who, without his teleprompter got his crib notes mixed up with the debate four years ago. I felt shame for Obama, he clearly is in over his head. This is illustrated not only by the debate, but also his job performance. Taking into consideration that Obama has never had a real job, I still feel it is time he get the pink slip. Affirmative action or not- this man has got to go!

Craig - Knowing you as a reactionary ultra-right winger, you of course did not make your points very well. and attacked Obama for being black (affirmative action dig). I would say being President of the most powerful nation in the world is a real job. I doubt you feel "shame" for Obama, you have to care for people to feel that.

Dirk, Unfortunately everyone in the country knows that Obama practiced debating for days at some nice resort....And he looked like the bum that he is.

@Dirk -

Making excuses for Obama's lackluster performance last night? It appeared that without his teleprompter, Obama doesn't know what he's talking about all that well.

Romney did not appear coached at all. To the contrary, he appeared like someone that has a TRUE understanding of the issues - unlike our soon to be former President!

When you have a true understanding of the issues, as Romney does, it comes natural - and that's exactly what we all saw last night.

Without his teleprompter, Obama isn't very good. And the media has been so soft on him over the last four years and during the 2008 campaign, that we never before had the opportunity to see the real Obama for what he truly is.

Obama came off as the used car salesman - begging for people's vote in his closing. Notice how Romney didn't pander for your vote at all in his closing - because he didn't have to, the choice is obvious to those with half a brain!

True leaders don't need teleprompters to look good because they have understanding!

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!!!

Hoffa - It is all subjective,and I stick with my opinion in spite of your weak protests. Obama is President with the greatest country on earth to run, a gentleman, a diplomat, a working man with a lot more to worry about then an unemployed rich bully acting out and threatening to fire the moderator and all his friends, interrupting, wanting the last word, pandering, changing his stand realtime.. No wonder you love people like him and the real Hoffa.

In the end, unless there are faux paus on either side or both, it is like being in the stands at a Bears/Packers game. There are very few undecideds in the stands, nearly everyone has made up their mind who they are cheering for. Many people have already voted already.

In that regard, it is close to being all over but the debating. And winning a debate apparently means little any way, as "W" came across as a village idiot in his debates, and still eked out victories.

Dirk, I am glad you liked it- I threw that in just for you.

Same here. I was listening to what the candidates actually said, rather than watching their body-language or counting up who was the most 'assertive'.

Romney promises to fix the economy and create more jobs, better-paying jobs. I'm not sure how. It's the opposite of what he did at Bain, which was to close a factory and give himself a bonus, load a company up with debt that eventually sank it and give himself a bonus, and 're-structure' the jobs he retained with lower pay and fewer benefits -- and give himself a bonus.

How is a supposedly revenue neutral tax plan -- reductions in rates across the board, balanced with reductions in tax exemptions and credits -- going to jump start the economy and generate the extra revenue to lower our deficits and pay off our national debt? President Obama made the point quietly, but the arithmetic just doesn't add up.

@king Free -

What part of Romney's plan don't you understand? If your comprehension is really that bad, Hoffa will help you out and explain it to you. So, just let Hoffa know what part of the plan you don't get and Hoffa will give you a primary source referenced answer.

@JRH -- "What part of Romney's plan don't you understand? If your comprehension is really that bad, Hoffa will help you out and explain it to you."

The part I don't understand is how it's going to work. A tax rate reduction across the board, balanced by reductions in 'loopholes' only for the topmost brackets is supposed to jump-start the economy and generate extra tax revenue to reduce our deficit? Sounds like we'd all be paying roughly the same taxes we pay now, so how is that going to reassure the 'job creators' into creating?

@Randy1949 -

We went through this yesterday over on the other board, so why play dumb?

First off, it doesn't have to be revenue neutral, as Romney plans on eliminating and/or consolidating several departments of the federal government according to the litmus test he presented. That's less spending. When you're not spending as much, you don't need as much in revenues to meet those reduced expenses.

Second, by lowering taxes, you'll bring jobs back and increase salaries, putting millions back to work with more money in their pockets - a projected 12M people. That's 12M less people living off the system, which again reduces expenses and generates revenue for the system, thereby broadening the base of and increasing revenue collection, even though rates are down.

Everyone, below $200k/yr individual, $250k/yr joint, pays less, but more people are paying, thus you experience more in revenues. Those making above $250k/yr will continue to pay about what they're paying now. And considering that those people are already shouldering nearly 50% of the burden... well, does Hoffa really need to expand further?

Either you believe this or you don't. But remember what Obama offered - he projected that his stimulus would create 8M jobs. Not only did that not happen, but it actually cost us as taxpayers nearly $1T! And his proposed 'jobs bill' was little more than another stimulus.

We don't need to repeat Obama's proven failures.

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!!!

But JRH, Romney said it would be revenue neutral last night. Was he lying? And it does need to be revenue neutral to use the cuts in federal spending to reduce our deficit, which he also claimed to be better at doing.

I know you think we went over it, but your arithmetic doesn't add up. What 'lower taxes' will return jobs to our shores and create new ones? The lower taxes on small businesses that pay the top individual rate? I thought Romney said he wouldn't reduce taxes for those folks? If you lower the rates but curtail deductions, these individual pay the same amount in tax, hence have no money to create jobs. Not that twelve years of lower tax rates have resulted in spectacular job creation anyway, so why should it now?

Honestly, Hoffa, Mitt's plan relies on people not paying close attention while he takes us on a rinky-dink.

@Randy1949 -

What do you perceive the term 'revenue neutral' to mean exactly? For Hoffa, that means that the spending to revenue ratio will not be effected - the ratio will remain neutral.

Hoffa believes that you, Obama, and other lefties are erroneously perceiving the term to mean that revenues will remain at their current level, as opposed to looking at it from the perspective of the ratio. Clearly, that is not the right way in which to look at it. Mitt is not lying, you're just not comprehending him correctly because of the predetermined bias that you've chosen to harbor - you must learn to look with your eyes and mind wide open instead of half shut.

And history has proven time and again that when you lower taxes, revenues go up - it happened under Reagan and W. Bush. If new jobs aren't being created, thus broadening the base of collection, then how on earth do explain such a phenomena?

And new or expanded businesses, although paying a lower rate, will also provide increased revenue because of the expanded business base - we can use those increases in revenue, in addition to the previously mentioned cuts in spending, to reduce the deficit and pay down the debt.

As far as Obama's deficit and debt reduction plan is concerned, the numbers just don't add up. He wants to spend more creating government jobs through stimulus (his proposed Jobs Bill) than what will be returned to the government in additional revenue from those jobs, thus increasing the deficit and debt.

According to CBO projections, the raises in taxes that he has proposed won't generate the revenue necessary to eliminate the existing deficit, yet alone counter additional expenditures.

And what's this about $4T in spending cuts that Obama is now proposing? That's the first that Hoffa has heard anything about this! Hoffa also can't find the proposed bill anywhere online, despite Obama saying last night that it was ready to go Congress. He also promised in '08 that he would put all proposed bills on line for at least a month prior to sending them to Congress so that the public would be able to offer their input on them - that was a part of his transparency pledge, remember?

So, can you explain the Obama plan, as the math just doesn't add up.

@Hoffa -- Romney was referring to his tax plan as being revenue neutral. Not his budget. In other words, he was insisting his curtailment of deductions and exemptions would make up for the reduced rates and the same amount of federal revenue would be collected. Increased revenue would depend on this economic growth that his tax plan would cause, except everyone is paying the same mount in taxes, more or less -- they have a lower rate but a higher AGI.

The reality of it is that some people would pay less and some people more under the plan, and we really don't know who will be hit or if enough money can be made u for in 'loop-holes' to make sure that only the well-off are still paying the same amount in taxes.

As for this economic growth under Bush Jr., the stock market was booming, the federal government was running increasing deficits, and middle-class income was holding steady or falling. The money was going somewhere, but it wasn't to the 90%. Job growth under Bush Jr. was lackluster.

@Randy1949 -

Still waiting for that explanation on the math of Obama's plan, as Hoffa did the math and it just doesn't add up!

@Walker -

Romney didn't tell any lies - that would be your boy Obama who was telling the LIES about Romney and Romney effectively called him out on it!

Obama's ship is sinking fast!

Now you're lying.

Nothing could beat the recall reaction, right?

While it will be a spectacle to behold, Hoffa doesn't know if anything could be better than "watching the Blue Fisters lose the Walker Recall...."

"Fact Checkers"= akin Democrat Party operatives. The good theater is watching your kind come apart when Your Leader loses.

I think we all can agree that bad theater is regurgitating the same old lies from four years ago so many times that idiots may start to believe the lies.
Not that it matters...
Anyone stupid enough to believe Obama (this time around) is too dumb to find the polling place.

@Tosa720 -

Romney didn't lie about anything - Obama did! Your so called fact checkers are not telling you the truth. You can't trust anyone to be non-partisan in the divisive political environment that Obama's lack of leadership has created over the last four years - especially the so-called fact checkers.

Yeah, Lehrer lost control of the debate all right - and still Obama received nearly five (5) more minutes of speaking time than did Romney! Are you saying that had Romney not fought for his time as he did, that Lehrer would have given Obama fifteen (15) minutes of extra speaking time over Romney, and claiming that doing so would have been fairer?!?!

That's just incredible!

Wake up and join the rest of us in reality!

Tosa720, you are so right!

Read about Romney’s 27 lies, distortions and inaccuracies that he told at the first debate.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/

This guy will say anything in order to try to get elected!

We simply can't trust him! Learn more about these Romney lies at the Washington Post's Fact Checker Blog, MediaMatters.org and FactCheck.org.

@Joseph Robert -

Once again, the sources you cite are all known for their extreme liberal bias - especially ThinkProgress.

Not that any of the so-called 'fact-checkers' have ever proven to be all that accurate, but most of the somewhat reputable ones seem to concur that both Obama and Romney equally misrepresented the full truth during the 90 minute debate, with Obama actually doing just a bit more 'lying' than Romney! Even then, much of the assertions of the so-called 'fact-checkers' are premised upon interpretations, assumptions, conjectures, projections, suppositions, etc as opposed to hard objective truth!

http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/advisor/fact-check-presidential-debate-missteps-155346190.html

Perpahs you need to learn how to research the primary sources for youself, peform your own analysis, and come to your own conclusions instead of being a lemming to the liberal media opinion makers!

Don't believe the self-declared 'fact-checkers' - do your own research of the primary sources and come to your own conclusions!

@Craig -

It was actually closer to 5 minutes of extra time that Obama received over Romney, if you count from the beginning of Obama's opportunities to speak as opposed to the first word uttered from his mouth.

In either case, the media still gave Obama that advantage with the extra time and he still couldn't capitalize!

MSDNC's Rachel Maddow even LIED about this in the opening of their post debate analysis, claiming that Romney had dominated the time during the debate, until she was corrected almost a half hour later by her colleague Steve Schmidt, and even then, she didn't apologize for having clearly LIED to the American people earlier - instead she just laughed it off the way that Obama laughed off shovel ready jobs in his failed stimulus!

Hoffa hopes that people are starting to wake up from their Obama induced slumber of deceptive hope and change!

Support real leadership instead of a teleprompted illusion!

ROMNEY/RYAN 2012!!!

Hoffa I was being conservative with the four minutes comment. Had I said five minutes, there would most certainly be some fool liberals calling my numbers fuzzy math- even if I was off by ten seconds.
I have to give you props for putting on MSDNC, in my house that channel usually causes a mini throw up, follwed by two weeks of Prilosec OTC.

Don't worry, Tosa720, Romney will spin the full 360 degrees soon enough.

On a couple of occasions Lehrer actually redirected attention to Obama in an attempt to get him to counter Romney.

When ineffectual, blame someone else - as usual.

Probably because President Obama is too much of a gentleman to call his opponent a liar. Did Romney's health plan in Massachusetts result in that percentage of lost jobs?

Could you explain why a large number of new customers for private insurance plans will result in a loss of jobs?

Good question on the jobs creation rate in Massachusetts, Randy. Does anyone know how the private sector jobs creation rate in Massachusetts compares to the other 49 states, since Romney-care?

@Jay Sykes -- The figure we're interested in is not job creation, it's job loss. Two different things. Does such a health plan harm the economy, help the economy, or not affect the economy of a state? That's what we should be interested in, and I honestly don't know.

What difference does it make? We know we can't afford it. I am barely able to afford my OWN premiums with a $5000 deductible, there is no way I want to be paying for someone else also.
Now if you want to talk about job creation, I think that was pretty well covered in the debate. It was black and white, a stark contrast, a man with no plan and a man with a plan. Just on that one topic alone: I think Romney hit a walk off home run, while Obama is still trying to find first base.

The last time a third party candidate was included in the debates was in 1992. Was that because he was on the ballot in all 50 states?

@patchreader 123 I absolutely agree. They denied Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party because he did not have 15% of the vote in the polls. He probably would have 15% if he were included in the polls to begin with! What a sham!

It appears to be a circular strategy. Ignore third party candidates within the main stream media to deny them of any exposure within the general public.

Then deny them from the general election debates (and further public exposure) under the auspice of insignificance (i.e., don't let them debate because they have no chance of winning).

@patchreader123 Patch had a blog site about Gary Johnson but they put it on the 3rd page. No one probably saw it! Go figure!

"Was that because he was on the ballot in all 50 states?"

It was likely because Bush demanded Perot's presence during "debate negotiations" in an effort to undercut the Clinton vote.

The CPD requires satisfaction of a 15% polling requirement to "qualify" for a debate. Hence the circular strategy.

@Patchreader 123 The last thing I read about Johnson's campaign was that Republican lawyers were contesting his candidacy all over the country. Oklahoma was really a bag full of shenanigans. Heck, the American people have no idea about what is going on.

So, looking at the last time it happened, what was the net effect of including Perot in the debates?

@Bob McBride Perot received about 20% of the popular vote!

I'm assuming that Bob already knows the answer to the question.

Clinton won 46% to 41%, with Perot taking 12% of the vote. Many surmise that Perot lost the election for Bush.

@Patchreader 123 I stand corrected.

I think you can see why there's a reluctance to include third party candidates in the debate.

Like it or not, we have a two party system. Perot was probably the most successful third party candidate in recent history and the net effect of his candidacy was to act, essentially, as a spoiler.

A third party President (should one ever be elected) is likely to get little or no support for his initiatives, as the incentive would be to render him ineffective, setting him/her up for defeat in a re-election bid. We keep hearing about how the current President is hampered by the actions of opposing party members in Congress (as we do with every President, actually). Imagine having members of both parties in Congress doing the same thing to a President with no natural constituency in Congress.

In order for a third party to be effective, we'd have to assume all the things that currently exist in terms of partisanship would magically disappear with the introduction of a third party. Highly unlikely that a third party Presidential victory is going to cause such a quantum change to occur. Unless such a party managed to achieve a relatively solid position in Congress as well as achieving the Presidency, they would essentially have no bargaining chip large enough to overcome the current partisan power positions. It would be better for the two main parties to ride it out and let the third party fail.

@Bob McBride President Tyler faced a situation that you were describing. He vetoed a national banking bill, which caused both parties to turn against him. His entire cabinet, except for his secretary of state, resigned from their posts in protest. His remaining term accomplished absolutely nothing.

Bob:

The U.S. almost achieved third party significance with the Tea Party. However, the Republicans strategically "absorbed" it, thus nipping any third party significance in the bud. Bad move for the Tea Party.

"A third party President (should one ever be elected) is likely to get little or no support for his initiatives,..."

Yes, this is likely true and why we need a further third party presence in the Congress. Such a presence in Congress would lessen the significance of the "two-player game" therein.

Hoffa believes that Jesse Ventura was fairly effective in Minnesota.

JRH:

You're right. Ventura did well in Minnesota precisely because he was allowed to debate. After each debate, his poll numbers went up. Those debates were run by the Minn. chapter of the League of Women Voters.

Contrast that with the CPD, which took over the presidential debates from the League of Women Voters, where you're not allowed to debate unless your poll numbers are up - just the opposite of the facts underlying Ventura's success.

JRH:

BTW, Ventura has said that he'd be on the 2016 presidential ticket if two requirements are met:

1) that a grass roots effort gets him on the ballot in each of the 50 states; and
2) that he be guaranteed to participate in the debates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF3vmBurlJg

@patchreader 123 -

Not only was Ventura effective with his campaign, but he was also an effective and beloved governor, despite having to deal with partisan party opponents in his state legislature, achieving the highest popularity numbers of a state level executive in recent history - many Minnesotans were disappointed when Jesse refused to run for a second term.

And the partisanship was actually why he didn't run for a second term - the parties came together to go after him, and especially his family, on a personal level. While Jesse didn't mind being personally attacked, as a father, he did have a problem with the parties colluding with the media to go after his children.

Hoffa doesn't believe that an independent or third party President would be as ineffective as many here appear to believe, and cites Ventura's success and popularity as an example.

Moochelle looked like the McDonalds Grimace in her purple dress, not to mention the scowl on her face

She sure does portray an agenda-based public image. At least when her hubby lies, he tries to hide it. She just telegraphs her feelings!

Come on Nuitari. You know why she had the sour look.
Her husband was impotent last night, she knew it....
I felt kind of sorry for her. BO has failed at everything in the last four years, he likely forgot it was their anniversary until just before he went on stage.

What same 'wrong facts' were those? Be specific.

@Randy1949 -

Let's start with the LIE that Romney wants to raise taxes on middle income Americans so that the extreme wealthy can get a tax break - that's a pretty big whopper!

Well, is not his plan to reduce the tax rates by 20% across the board and make up for the shortfall with cuts to deductions, credit, loop-holes, etc? How much money is there to be found in these reductions to AGI? How much money is to be found in these reductions taken by those making over $250K or whatever Romney considers to be the richest Americans?

There are going to be winners and losers in this plan, and we really don't know who they will be until we have concrete figures.

@Randy1949 -

Still waiting on your concrete numbers on Obama's plan! Hoffa's given you all day to come up with something, but has only heard crickets regarding the math on Obama's plan - what's the deal here?

Considering that despite all the exemptions, deductions, tax shelters, loopholes, etc. that the top 1% are still footing nearly 50% of the federal income tax burden, and the top 10% about 60% of the overall burden, Hoffa would perceive those tax gimmicks to be quite significant and adding up to quite a large sum.

After all, if the Cayman Islands, Swiss Bank Accounts, deductions, exemptions, etc, don't amount to jack, then how come you guys on the left are constantly claiming that Romney practices fraudulent tax avoidance and making such a big deal out of it?!?! Are you admitting that whole line of attack to be little more than an irrelevant side show in the grand scheme of things? And yet, that's what Obama banked his campaign on for months! Doesn't really say very much for the seriousness of your candidate, does it?

Hoffa has at least demonstrated to you that he understands the math of Romney's plan. Do you understand the math of Obama's plan - if so, then show us by walking us through the numbers!!!

I've given you all day to explain the arithmetic of the Romney plan and heard crickets.

You're crying me a river about the share of the federal tax burden the 1% pay. But what is the percentage of the overall tax burden of the nation they pay? And what is the percentage of their income that they pay to taxes compared to those less well off?

@Randy1949 -

Hoffa already explained it to you time and again! Just because you don't like the answer that Hoffa gave doesn't mean that Hoffa responded with crickets, as you erroneously assert!

No plan premised upon projections, assumptions, and conjectures can be accurately conveyed in numbers with any degree of certainty. If they could, then there'd be only one ultimate plan that everyone would agree on! You know this.

Hoffa has at least demonstrated an understanding of Romney's plan to you time and again. Hoffa wonders if you even know what Obama's plan is, as he really doesn't have one.

"But what is the percentage of the overall tax burden of the nation they pay? And what is the percentage of their income that they pay to taxes compared to those less well off?"

When you say "overall tax burden" what do you mean and why is that relevant? And why are you comparing apples to oranges - income tax vs cap gains tax?!?! As predicted, all you do is revert back to the class warfare rhetoric of your candidate because he's given no plan or even a general framework from which we can contemplate his plan.

Are we just supposed to trust Obama to do right by us?

Obama's plan is much more elusive than Romney's plan!

So, once again, it's your turn - please explain Obama's plan and show us all how it would work!

No, you tell me what you think they were, because I saw Romney get away with some whoppers of his own.

Like what Randy?

Like, he's not planning to cut taxes for the 'job-creators'. But at the same time, his cuts for those small business owners paying the individual rate will stimulate the economy and create jobs. So, is he going to cut or not?

He also doesn't plan to return that $716 billion to Medicare. That's the same cut to Medicare Paul Ryan is relying on for his budget. You know, the one that Mitt Romney said he'd sign.

@Randy1949 -

Hoffa wasn't aware that the Ryan budget passed Congress - when did that happen?

@Randy1949 There is a fallacy out there that still seems to have life with some people. This concerns tax cuts for the job creators. The illusion is that if a company has more money, therefore that company will hire additional workers. This has been disproven time and again. Companies hire based on an increase in demand for their goods and services; it would be ridiculous for someone to hire people solely based on a proposed tax cut!

@Michael McClusky -

If people are given tax cuts, they have more money in their pockets. And, as you've noted before, the American way has proven to be spend as opposed to save, thus people tend to spend that additional money, thereby increasing the demand for goods and services, thus causing businesses to hire more people. More people working with lower taxes means even more spending, more demand, more job creation, and the circle of the economy just keeps on growing exponentially!

A tax increase on people has the exact opposite economic effect.

Higher taxes on businesses means increased prices for consumers, as businesses prefer to maintain their profit margins - it's why they're in business after all. Higher consumer prices usually translates to lower demand by consumers. Less demand equates to less supply needed, which equates to less workers needed and less jobs available in the marketplace.

A tax cut on businesses has the exact opposite economic effect.

Did Hoffa really have to explain this to you???

Come on, you're a smart guy - you should have known all this already!

@Hoffa Basically the conclusion is this: just because a company has money does not mean that it intends on hiring anyone. A company figures on its present and future prospects, then proceeds to determine whether hiring is in the cards. Much of this speculation has to deal with the sentiment and well-being of the customers. Many employers have been slow to hire because confidence has not been at a premium. Demand is based on the employees well-being, not the producers.

@Michael McClusky -

But you also can't deny that taxes greatly effect prices, and prices often dictate the level of demand.

@Hoffa True. My point is that there is a real disconnect within the business community about the relationship between the employer and the employed. I have had heated arguments with my own brother about this. He contends that an employee should not be considered a consumer- just an expense. I contend that it is that attitude that has created a downward spiral in demand in the marketplace.
The Wall Street Journal has conceded that American companies have put the screws to their employees unnecessarily during this bad period to increase their profits. The Washington Post has called the business climate 'predatory' and 'exploitive' when it comes to labor of any kind.
All of this has had terrible ramifications throughout the country. The business community had better re-examine what the hell they are doing, otherwise we will all end up living in cardboard boxes and eating spam.

@Michael McClusky -

Hoffa contends that what you describe has more to do with the function of our current trade policy than our tax policy.

@Hoffa It has to do with greed, pure and simple.

Thank you so much Gregory. Please extend the same advice to the Democratic goons who called GWB 'chimp', and the vile names their kind extended to the Palin children.

Is Owebama OK?

Not a big fan of the name Owebama, but at least that has no racial connotations. I agree H.E.P. that the name calling needs to end when speaking of the President, past, present or future.I had the opportunity to observe a video of a young girl about 14 or there abouts speaking at a conservative rally (Tea Party event?) and a man was calling her every filthy name in the book. Had that been my daughter being assaulted like that, I would have carted him off by the scruff of his neck.

@Tosa720 -

Are you honestly trying to assert a personal insult against Hoffa by citing to esquire.com?!?!

LOL!!!

Thanks for the laugh - Hoffa appreciates it!

Perhaps you should change your screen-name to Tosa420, as 420 would at least accurately convey what you must be smoking!

So in other (and less) words, liberal elitism.

No thanks - Hoffa will stick to his Miami Vice fan club monthly news letter!

@HOffa: Miami Vice Fan Club Monthly Newsletter????? ha-ha - hilarious!
Enjoy yourself - must be very stimulating.

@Tosa720 -

Far more stimulating than the liberal trash found on the pages of esquire, Rolling Stone, and the like!

And the Democrats aren't corrupt as well .. Hahahahaha .. When are people going to realize they r both against us ... We need REAL change .. not just a freakin catch phrase .. but i guess the ignorant will fall for anything

Both parties use dark money to finance their campaigns. We are not allowed to know where this money is coming from. Both sides are corrupt. We simply don't count anymore.