This is an interesting disturbing issue, but likely both candidates would have to face. However, Obama's Justice Dept wanted to try foreign terrorists in our criminal courts, which I don't agree with, yet has used drones to target US citizen (although likely enemies of the US) without due process. A sticky issue, so I'd prefer to focus on the fiscal mess we are in.

"If current policies continue, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently projected, federal debt will rise from 70 percent of gross domestic product today to about 225 percent by 2040 — not even remotely sustainable. By that point, the federal government would be spending nearly four times as much on debt interest payments as on education, skills training, research and development and nondefense infrastructure combined."
http://www.pgpf.org/Issues/Fiscal-Outlook/2012/06/062812_OpEd-How-To-Handle-Our-Long-Term-Debt.aspx
I'm tired of folks fighting over their piece of the pie. We need this pie to grow but so many worried about the future.
So, my vote is based on that. I don't care about the rest. Hopefully, if the President wins he'll show some leadership and act like a grownup and get DC to live within our means.

So, it's really a vote for my kids. Simple as that.

I'm glad there are people around here that actually understand what NDAA is, what it's repercussions are, etc. Most people I talk to don't even know what it is, or that both candidates would have signed it. People need to wake up and realize that we are living under a one-party dictatorship, where both "sides" agree on all the important issues like this. While some folks might not see the indefinite detention of American citizens as an important issue, I do.

Joe Bobby - It was a close race, but congrats to the President and his supporters. My top issue is fiscal reforms (tax and general spending).

See, http://bipartisanpolicy.org/projects/debt-initiative/about

"If current policies continue, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office recently projected, federal debt will rise from 70 percent of gross domestic product today to about 225 percent by 2040 — not even remotely sustainable. By that point, the federal government would be spending nearly four times as much on debt interest payments as on education, skills training, research and development and nondefense infrastructure combined."

http://www.pgpf.org/Issues/Fiscal-Outlook/2012/06/062812_OpEd-How-To-Handle-Our-Long-Term-Debt.aspx

I've worked in the fed gov't and can tell you many agencies need reform (SEC/Madoff, etc.)

"Zients points to McKinsey data that show an ever-increasing gap between public and private sector productivity."
http://mobile.businessweek.com/magazine/rerereinventing-government-again-01192012.html?section=highlights

That's all I care about. If the President steps up and does the right thing (including long term veriable irresponsible spending reforms), I'm happy. If not, we risk a crisis and we will all be unhappy. Trust me.

one good thing about having Biden back....we will have some laughable moments while one of the lamest VP's ever is around, and his side kick King Hussein spends our money (oh yea, and gives it away) like there is no tomorrow. I just cannot bel;ieve people are that stupid to re-elect this guy who has done NOT ONE GOOD THING since coming into office. All he has done is put we the people into so much debt that it is unlikely we will ever get out of it. He has screwed things up so much woch than W did (and believe me W made some big mistakes) that the next 10 presidents after King Hussein will all be able to blame him for their problems. I still say if the King was so quick to give away money he should have given it back to those of us who paid our fair share and that would have stimulated the economy far better than payng off his political favors to the unions (who need to be eliminated as their usefullness is long gone and all they do now is protect the oldtimers and lazy people) and bankers, not to mention GM amongst others he bailed out. Why should I have to pay for someone else's piss poor spending and loans they cannot pay for?

I guess Little Bush had a great 8 years as president right? I wonder who left us with this mess...oh wait, he did a great job. He only got us involved in two wars at the same time with little to no support from our allies, gas prices went up because of the war, never caught Saddam or Bin-Laden or those damned WMD's that he was certain were over in Iraq and fell asleep at the wheel in handling 9-11. Clearly he didn't get fired!

The End is Near !! The Sky is Falling !! Oh, Woe is Me !! Four years from now, you'll be just fine, sonny. Put you signs away and live your life.

WAAAHHHHH. Look at the sore loser #WAAAHpublicans.
Do we need to put you on suicide watch, wingnut?
Or should we just push you off the ledge and get it over with?

It's now up to the GOP to work with the President -- NOT the other way around. Hurry and run to the arms of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. Those fools will comfort you and tell you want you want to hear.

Meanwhile, I'll sit back and enjoy watching the smoldering ashes of the modern-day Republican Party.

Obama is not going to work with anyone? Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid! When he was elected to his first term, the Republicans made it clear that they were not going to work with him. Mitch McConnell stated that his only job was to make sure that Obama was a one term president. Now that Obama has won again the right wing fanatics are already saying they will not work with him. Whatever happened to coming together and doing what's best for our great country?.

Bob-
Did you not hear Boehner speech? Happened today about 3:45. CNBC was all over how he made the first move and that maybe its finally the first step.
Too bad you missed it before you posted.

Keep listening to old pill-popper Limbaugh and cluster FOX.

It has fluctuated so much over the last month, this is nothing unexpected to me... I'm using it as an opportunity to put more in and weather the storm!

"The stock market is crashing as we speak." Do you even know what you're saying ? Have you lived long enough to see the market "crash" ? There are really times when you should just read, and not write...........this is one of those times for you.

"crash" may be extreme. But today was the worst percentage decline of the year, at 2.36%, down 313 for the day.
Interesting fact per CNBC, the only other time to perform worse after a presidential election since 1948, was the day after Obama was elected the first time - on 11/5/2008, down 5.05%.
Other things happening, though, to consider - fiscal cliff and Europe. But both have been factors before today. You need to really consider the "Obama sectors" in the market decline before completely dismissing this third factor. As elections do impact the market.
Nice to see Boehner just speak and put taxes on the table and say they are waiting to be led. So let's see if bickering can stop.

oh don't panic, Chicken Little...

Ed Fisher, once again I commend you for your comments...they are spot-on, as per usual!!

My comment was intended for soldiermom, lyn, not you. Sorry that it appeared below your comment, which was well-stated, by the way.

Watts...

Seriously… there is no way you can objectively state that only the republicans objectify people. Really??? How about the democrats objectifying millionaires or grouping republicans into a 1950’s mindset? The list goes on and on. Both parties do it and to believe that only the republicans do it clearly shows a lack of objectivity. As to Obama, I do not recall one single advertisement discussing his religion, his nationality, etc. His political philosophy… well of course, that is what is discussed when someone is running for office and to state that as a negative is perplexing to me. As to looking in the mirror, maybe you need to do so as well and think about being objective, both parties use divide and conquer tactics in politics, it is nothing new and the rhetoric of today is mild to what it was 200 years ago in this country. As to this great nation “rejecting that way of thinking,” almost 58,000,000 Americans in this great nation agreed with the republicans. Hardly a clear mandate that this great nation rejected anything.

By race and religion (and arguably by gender and maybe more obviously, by sexual preference), yes I can absolutely state this. And if any of this was taking place in something like a job interview; civil lawsuits could be filed and won for what I have seen stated on channels like Fox, talk radio, sites like this, etc.. Except that these arenas are protected by the 1st amendment (as they should be). People are free to think and say what they want, but that doesn't make them any less racist, sexist, homophobic or religiously intolerant.

You can defend this all that you want and I have already given you that it is protected under the 1st amendment, but you are already culturally on the loosing end of this argument. 50 to 150 years ago, it would have been different for you, but for you to stand in defense of this very specific and very intentional type of objectification will put you on the loosing end of this discussion in 2012. And for you to not recognize this and to think that you could conceivably produce any type of counter argument to this, to defend such tactics, just proves how deeply entrenched into this type of thinking that you are. So I can't personally lower myself any longer to someone who is going to continue to try and defend things like racism and religious intolerance. It is America, you are free to believe what you want and voice those opinions, but it is also my right that I don't have to give you another moment of my life to listen to it.

Your post is really idiotic and insulting. Still name-calling even after the election is over...get a grip, man!! It's all over!! But thanks for being able to predict the future for the rest of us. Insanity: doing the same thing over and over (posting stupid comments) and expecting a different result (getting someone to see it your way). Nuff said...

Ed, for an alleged 'Libertarian' you are really kind of a meanie. I don't think you know what a Libertarian is.

Oh, Phyllis. Your innate ability to determine political affiliations based on Patch posts is truly a gift. Are Libertarians denied the right to be sarcastic ? A Libertarian can't be a "meanie" ? You make pronouncements as if you know me. You clearly don't.

You did defend it by trying to equate it to Democrat's discussions of economic stratification. For you to try and defend the literally millions of times that racial innuendo, references to Obama Islamist, etc. have been repeated on sites like this all the way up to the political pundits on national TV, as being the same as Democrats discussions of economic tiering in America (no matter how objectifying you felt the later was), is to be ignorant of the obvious disparity between the two. Guess what, as a society not rich people (nor poor people nor middle class people) have constitutionally protected rights that they will not be discriminated against if a diner doesn't want to serve them based on their income tier. That all falls under the "we reserve the right to refuse service to anybody" rule. But you can't do this based on race or religion. If Democrats or Republicans want to group people by pastels versus earth tones, wealth (as the Republicans have always done to the poor), or whatever, that is not the same as using racially and religious charged claims targeted at a specific person running for office. And the fact that you somehow think that these are equal to racial and religious objectification simply means that you, yourself, have to be blindly entrenched in that way of thinking not to be abel to see just how different they are.

Your logic would mean that a casual post in a thread like this comparing Mitt Romney to Montgomery Burns, would be equal to depictions of Obama growing watermelons on the White House lawn. While both are protected by the first amendment (which I don't at all question), only one of those is based in racial stereotyping, which our culture has rejected and which has been important enough of a cultural issue that discrimination based on race is banned under a constitutional amendment. So when you say racism and religious intolerance coming from Republicans is no worse than anything based on wealth that came from the Democrats, that is the defense of those acts.

Your claim of "both sides do it" is exactly the problem. Both sides do not make racial objectifications of their opponents. Only the Republican party does and if you consider Fox news the fringe (honestly, I do, but I know that most Republicans think that it is real news), then you would be one of the few on the right who recognize things like Fox as the fringe.

Look, I could give a crap you can follow this or not or if you are racist or not or if you can't recognize racism or not. The Democrats buried the conservatives on all levels; from the white house, to state seats to propositions. One of the reasons is the changing demographics of this nation and the cultural rejection for this level of dog whistle politics based on race and religion. If you want to continue to fail, then sit there whining that "both sides do it" and remain ignorant that what each side is doing are on completely different levels of what society is willing to accept.

End of story. If you want to make another post and feel like this is some discussion that you have a chance of winning in the eyes of anybody reading this, then have at it and dig your heels in that all of what the Republican party did like this is A-OK and in 2 to 4 years you will have lost the House as well.

Watts, are you still on the dog whistle meme? Watts, in my experience it is the liberals that pay way more attention to race, gender, and sexual orientation. Al the hyphenated American stuff is nonsensical. What is good for one race should be good for all races, no?

@MZ

If you want to come out and mock and minimize the issue of racism in this country, feel free. Like James, your starting point is already on the loosing end of this issue, based on cultural rejection and constitutional acknowledgment and protections. You are the local guy who some people may likely know or at least engage with more often on here. If you are proud of that position, then rock on with your indifferent self.

Watts, you can fixate on race all you want, nobody will stop you. I think it is rather unhealthy and certainly unproductive to do so, but to each his own. I'll follow Mr. King's wise advice and judge people on the content of their character and not on the color of their skin.

For all the "old white male" comments from liberals who cry racism, I suggest they look in the mirror.

What a twisting of history to re-appropriate Dr. (not Mr.) King's words.

To try and diminish one of the most significant social issues that defined one of this nation's darkest problems in its history and plagues us still today, is unforgivable in my book. This will be the last that I will lower myself to engage with such a person. Stand by your words and positions and trust me when I say that those who know you are embarrassed for you right now.

Lower yourself? Wow.

Trust you that people you don't know are embarrassed about someone you have never met? Very interesting indeed.

I don't feel that I misappropriated Dr. King's words at all. But I guess just because you state something it must be true.

I am unsure of why you are directing me to stand by my words and positions, but have no worries, I always do.

Best I can tell is that you are mad because I don't hear "dog whistles" in everything a republican says. Could it be possible that I don't fixate on race?

Lastly, I would like to point out to the world that it is clear you have made an assumption about my race. Correct? You have assumed my race based on my conservative leanings, that I don't hear dog whistles, and that I live in the suburbs. Thanks for stereotyping me. Thanks for showing your assumptions about race. Thanks for making it clear that what is on the outside is so much more important to you than what's on the inside.

I won't look for a reply, wouldn't want you lower yourself by responding to someone like me.

I just LOVE this PC term "homophobic" that Shripathi Kamath used. Cracks me up every time. When a conservative (or anyone for that matter) does not agree with the homosexual agenda they are suddenly phobic and intolerant. Phobic btw indicates a fear of something. The only thing I am phobic of is this idiot president is going to allow homosexual marriages to be law (just like killing babies). AllI have to say if that happens, is remember 2 places called Sodom and Gomorrah. Where are they today? GONE OFF THE FACE OF THE EARTH. So be careful what you wish for you might get it.Bottom line on this one issue here...if you do not believe in the Bible as the true and perfect never changing word of God who created all things then this is a non issue here because at that point we are on different morality levels which is why the media creamed Sarah Palin. She attends church on a regular basis and is immediately cast in the media as a demon. This intolerance crap just really gets me laughing to tears. You call anyone who is against what you believe intolerant yet you are intolerant of my intolerance, so you are no better than me. Do I think we should mistreat homosexuals? NO! They need to be treated with the same respect as you and me. Should they have the same marriage exemptions as heterosexual marriages? No. Marriage has already been defined as man and woman, but again if you are not a believer in what the Bible teaches there is no point discussing the matter.

I must have touched a nerve. No worries though. Life is good.

Who's the one behaving like excrement?

get a life

Get your nose out of pill-popper Limbaugh's you know what. Maybe you believe Karl Rove's gripe about Dem voter suppression too. Your foolish staement makes me think you're too young to know any better.