text:
Romney's Smile and Obama's Frown: Lingering Images from the First Debate
Hard to believe (isn't it?) that as I write these words, less than a week has passed since the first debate between Mitt Romney and the embattled occupant of the White House. Hard to believe that less than a week ago, the Romney campaign appeared to be imploding.
The Mittster's notorious "47 percent" remark, uttered behind closed doors to a group of supporters and promptly leaked to the public, seemed to crystallize the GOP nominee's image as a staunch and clueless plutocrat — an arrogant member of the privilegentsia who could blithely dismiss nearly half the U.S. population as freeloaders. It was only the latest in a long line of oafish remarks uttered by an otherwise intelligent, competent and supremely slick public servant. But coming as late as it did in the 2012 campaign, the ill-chosen quip seemed to seal Romney's fate.
What a difference a single debate can make.
Within minutes after the closing remarks in Denver, America's vast media machine unleashed a swirling torrent of punditry, nearly all of it blistering in its criticism of Obama's performance. "Calamitous" seemed to be the general consensus. Romney, they agreed, appeared sharp, well-prepared and eager to win, while the president essentially slumbered through the most pivotal evening of the entire campaign.
Even within the ranks of Obama's supporters — especially within those ranks — the disgust overflowed like hot lava from a long-dormant volcano. Liberal icon and generous Obama campaign donor Bill Maher wondered aloud if the president had spent his $1 million gift "on weed." Even The New Yorker, that bastion of urbane progressivism, issued a cover cartoon that carried the most damning possible image of the debate: it depicted Obama as an empty chair.
I watched the debate that evening and I have to admit I was blindsided by the intensity of the Obama-flogging that followed. I actually thought the debate was a draw — a conclusion that probably nullifies any pretense to political omniscience on my part.
The way I saw it, Obama said the right things and said them well (if not forcefully or memorably by his standards). He came across as a model of concerned rational moderation: supportive of America's beleaguered middle class… a champion of small business as the driving engine of the economy… commendably eager to reward businesses that hire American workers.
Romney, for his part, looked smooth and energized. He engaged his opponent forcefully but cordially, and generally took the high road. That much is praiseworthy. But he also told enough whoppers to turn his nose into a telephone pole. Liberal website ThinkProgress enumerated "27 myths" that Romney unfurled during the 38 minutes that he held the floor.
What I noticed at Romney's end was an abundance of weaseling — not outright lies (though there were enough of those, too), but clever evasions calculated to rebrand the GOP's elusive shape-shifter as a stalwart champion of the middle class. Example: Challenged on his scheme to cut taxes for the nation's economic elite, Romney repeatedly countered, "I will not put in place any tax cuts that will raise the deficit."
That's right, Mitt: you'll compensate for your tax cuts on the rich by cutting federal support for education, the environment and Big Bird. Anyone can see that, right? Mr. President? Care to comment? [Faint snoring sounds emanating from Obama's lectern.]
So yes, Romney succeeded in slipping some big ones past the president. He looked animated where the president looked worn and depleted; he drove the debate, deliberately slinked from the right to the center and danced around his opponent, who was too tired, demoralized, indifferent or simply unprepared to take advantage of all those glaring opportunities for potential counterthrusts. And yet, if I had to score the debate on content alone, I'd still call it a draw. Obama committed no gaffes; he didn't sweat or stammer; he simply told his side of the story. But it wasn't enough.
Contemporary Americans, of course, are addicted to style — the flashier the better. That's why Lady Gaga earns more than your average tax accountant. Back in 1960, Nixon famously "lost" his televised debate with Kennedy because he appeared haggard and unshaven. (He had just recovered from an illness and had lost several pounds.) Yet those who listened to that same debate on the radio generally proclaimed him the winner.
Obama is nothing if not a master of style, but a difficult presidency has taken its toll on the man who crusaded so brilliantly for hope and change just four years ago. He can still flash that winning smile, but he flashes it less frequently now. What a stinging irony that the silver-tongued orator lost the debate on style points to the starchy Mormon from Michigan!
In fact, the lingering image of Obama from last week's debate is that of a numb, chastened, unhappy man staring down at his notes with a petulant frown. He had good reason to be unhappy, even on his twentieth wedding anniversary. He had just been sideswiped by an opponent who was rebranding himself with each new statement, and no amount of note-taking was going to salvage the evening for him.
Romney made himself immune to attack simply by dodging and denying his previous positions, and Obama didn't know how to bring down a moving target. The rational Mr. Spock was no match for a Mighty Morphin Power Ranger.
One particular image of Romney lingers in my mind, too. I couldn't find a photograph that perfectly captured its essence, but I'll try to describe it for you. It was the image of Romney listening to the president, his craggy L. L. Bean male model's face fixed in a condescending but curiously indulgent smile. It was the look of a father listening to his ten-year-old son telling him that the dog ate his homework. It was the visual equivalent of Ronald Reagan's "There you go again." It was well rehearsed, and it was unnerving.
The fatherly glow in Romney's eyes seemed to radiate kindness, but it was the cursory kindness of a wealthy man who was decent enough to listen to a street beggar's sob story. It projected a sense of assumed superiority. It was the look of a man who knows that his authority and social position are unassailable. And as a tactical weapon in a debate with a sitting president, it was pure genius.
Rabbit permalinkOctober 8, 2012 2:32 pm
I've never succeeded in really disliking Romney, if he is elected I won't be very worried. Then again, I never succeeded in disliking W Bush either and it took me many years to really sort out how truly poor a president he was. If Romney is elected I hope he will be like G. H.W. Bush. As AMAC wrote, he may be the last chance to moderate the GOP. So, try to see the silver lining Rick.
As well, he made some pretty strong statements about what he won't do and I think he would have a pretty hard time turning around and making a pure lie out of his moderate statements in the debate, so the debate served a purpose, he has to come to the center and if it was a great fake then there will be a price.
I thought it was a good debate and a win for political decency. My moderate tendencies may make me a bit naive sometimes, but I thought it was a healthy and rather moderate exchange of views. I watched part of it out of one eye as I was doing other things, so I may have missed something.
Nate Silver still puts Obama at an 80% chance of winning and I feel he is at least better than 50%, so to me its seems that there is little reason for all the drama both sets of partisans are expressing. It was a good event for Romney, and news of his death had been greatly exagerated, by one tempest in a teapot after another.
But, you really gonna get it from the echo chamber for this one, best of luck to you, I'm staying out of that environment, see you when you post again. A one post per issue rule should keep me out of trouble My wife had a brilliant idea, she was not enjoying my political addiction, so she bought me an old motorboat to fix up. Worked very well, I should develop some other habits for here to cure me of!
October 8, 2012 8:54 pm
From this point to the election there has not been a challenger since Truman that has gained less than 3.7 points by election day. Reagan was behind carter until the last week and still won handily.
if you like motorboats or other hobbies, if they make you happy go for it. If making your wife happy makes you happy go for it.
but if posting on TNM makes you happy then do that.
Anonymous permalinkOctober 8, 2012 4:33 pm
October 8, 2012 5:05 pm
Rick, you tried hard to defend Obama's inept performance, but only those that accept the never ending sound bites and blaming the 1% will take that position.
As for Romney's position on taxes, he has told America he will cut tax rates and not add to the deficit. He has said he will eliminate loopholes. That's enough! If he says he will eliminate depreciation allowance, every industry taking advantage will attack him. If he says he will eliminate mortgage deductions for yatchs, second and third homes, the boating industry and real estate will attack him, "Mitt Romney will eliminate mortgage interest deductions and cause home values to decline. Is this what you want from you President" Even though the average American would not be affected, political strategist would make every homeowner think Romney was against them with ads like I put in quotes.
Now for our comment about reducing funding for education:
Please read this article. Shows what one can do with less money and still improve education. Money is not the answer. Getting our educators heads out of their butts and bringing our education system up using 21st century methods and not the methods developed in the 19th century and used for over 100 years is the answer. And note that this is a school system where they can make decisions without a union looking out for themselves instead of the students.
October 8, 2012 5:31 pm
The thing that really sticks in my mind about the debate is Romney's continual smirk…and of course, his resounding flip-flops. I've read that researchers have found that debates rarely determine an election, but I would think they have at least some influence…considering that an election can be influenced considerably by whether or not it's raining in a lot of the country. Interesting video posted by Anonymous, about Denver's altitude; I did feel like Obama was physically off, like he was getting sick. With just a few weeks until the election, I, personally, have made what are probably my last donations (I donated to Obama and to a House candidate after having to endure the Romney smirk), and now I am starting to brace myself in case the unthinkable happens. My husband (a registered Republican who won't be voting for Romney) and I have pretty much decided that, if Romney gets in, we'll come completely out of retirement and start a new business to try and protect our kids future.
JB Say permalinkOctober 8, 2012 5:43 pm
What we saw in the debate was unavoidable.. A POTUS without his teleprompter was easy pickiings for a guy who is clearly his intellectual and moral supeiror. It was delightful to see and hear. Rick, you and Chris Mathews need to go through therapy so that your love of Obama might be excised. I predict that no matter how many Monster enemy bottles Barry downs before the next debate, he will again be humbled. Let's face it, stupid is forever.
October 8, 2012 8:49 pm
I did not watch the debate though apparently 70m people did.
My read of the aftermath is that it focused on style rather than substance – which is not to say that Obama did better on substance. But it was personally disturbing that like myriads of other presidential debates we care less about the skills and policies that serve to run the nation than who looked better.
If Rick wants my agreement that this is not supposed to be a beauty contest – he can have it.
But I am disppointed in your analysis of actual issues.
The claim that Romney's tax plan is a $5T cut for the rich is solely about credibility.
Numerous economists state that as proposed it will not reduce revenue or increase the deficit and does not represent a reversal of existing transfers from the rich to the poor.
The claim that it is a $5T giveaway to the rich is only true of the plan that opponents think is likely as opposed to the one proposed.
Politicians lie – and both candidates are equally challengable on that charge.
But there is a difference between claiming Romney's plan as proposed is a tux cut for the rich and saying you do not believe it will be implemented as proposed.
The distinction may seem minor but it is important.
Pres. Obama has probably not kept a single one of his campaign promises – for some we should thank god. Yet he too makes promises and proposals that are equally credulous and you take them as gospel, and if he is reelected you will excuse his failure – because he tried and besides it was all those evil republicans fault.
Treat politicians as liars if you wish – but absent a compelling reason, and if anything there is more reason to beleive Romney than Obama, treat them as equal liars.
Pretending that Romney will be a worse president because he will be unable to keep his promises, when you already know for certain that Obama has not and will not, is deceitful.
October 8, 2012 9:51 pm
I agree with you that we should focus more on content, but I think you also need "style". Confidence and energy are important in almost any field, and are very attractive in a leader. Having good ideas is useless without the ability to influence.
October 8, 2012 9:32 pm
I actually enjoyed the debate. I saw two men act like adults and have a healthy debate while discussing their points and differences. I felt this was the most refreshing debate I had seen in a while. I wasn't around for the Lincoln debates like some here (sorry for the jab), but I enjoyed what I saw. I am not afraid or even uncomfortable with confrontation, but I am a fan of men and women in positions of responsibility acting like grown ups. I hope this is a trend, but it won't last if the media or either political party has anything to do about it. Most seem to call for a more "spirited" debate, code for childish. We have been living in the baby boomer world where loud is logically equivelant with right (or correct). I hope this debate leads to a trend, and the trend becomes the norm. I didn't notice a huge win for either candidate, but thought Romney did very well. I would have declared him a winner.
It is nothing new to see a candidate appeal to the base of his or her party during the primary, and then recoil toward the center post-convention. I suppose it is just part of the SOP for a major election. I do still think Romney is the opportunity to return the Republican Party to its 1980's form. I hope so, anyway. I am not supporting Romney soley to balance his party, but it could be a very pleasant side effect. Some try to paint Reagan as the model for current day conservatism, but I think that Romney is much closer to Reagan than any current Republican Party figure. Yes, his religion is strange. But, isn't all religion strange? (Remember I am a christian!) Yes, he comes from a completly different world than most of us, but 99% of all politicians do. I have hope for him, but I am not planning to live in a bunker and crap in buckets if Obama wins. No matter what president we have, we still have a lot of local, state, and national government that will continue business as usual.
October 8, 2012 9:40 pm
RE: "No matter what president we have, we still have a lot of local, state, and national government that will continue business as usual." A good point, indeed. Interesting to hear a Christian claim that all religion is strange. I suspect that's a benign statement but would be interested to hear your take on that further.
October 8, 2012 10:07 pm
Well it is important to state that I speak for myself and not the UMC I am a member of. I believe the bible and much of organized religion has been organized by man and may not reflect the true nature of god or Jesus Christ's teachings. I believe that for every verse you find in the bible to support your belief, you can find two more that oppose your view. I believe in focusing on my faith and my personal relationship with Jesus rather than on my relationship to an organization led by man. I believe think violence has been prevelant in many religions over different time periods because so much of organized religion was set up by men during violent times. I think it is less important to follow a specific set of strategies and focus more on broad moral values that lead to faith. I hope to influence others to come to Christ by setting an example and showing the nature of christianity rather than talking about it. I think the bible can teach great lessons, but I do not consider it the treasure map to heaven. I also find it offensive to my faith to believe that aI have to belong to a certain political party to justify my faith. Religion should be kept out of politics more for protection of religion than of government. It is important, IMO, to talk about it when valuing various candidates, but not the end all be all. I have friends that do not believe, and they are very good people. I hope to influence them otherwise, but that will be accomplished better by setting an example, not by preaching or judging. These are some of my opinions. Not my chuch's or even my family's.
Sorry for getting so much in to this, just trying to answer a question. Hopefully I didn't outrage too many!
October 8, 2012 10:22 pm
AMAC, what a breath of fresh air! I, personally, think that is very enlightened. Thank you very much for sharing that.
October 8, 2012 10:26 pm
Thank you, JBastiat and LTO. In talking about religion or politics, you never know how the crowd is going to react!
October 9, 2012 12:13 am
"there you go again" would be an appropriate response to the President.
He has had his chance, what he has done has not worked.
Everything is someone else's fault – including his lackluster debate performance.
We are to believe that but for the evil republicans who thwarted some of what he tried things would be better, and we should elect him again so – that for another 4 years he can complain that republicans are preventing him from saving the world.
Pres. Obama's problem is Pres. Obama, not Romney not republicans.
It is my hope that we are seeing the last time these discredited ideas are tried.
October 9, 2012 12:31 am
Our founders created a powerful federal government – not a weak one – though it would be deemed pathetic by modern terms.
But they made that power incredibly difficult to excercise.
Requiring a majority of representitives and a majority of senators, and the president, and ultimately the supreme court to agree to accomplish anything.
They despised democracy.
Over two centuries we have dismantled most of the impediments to the excercise of power they imposed. We are becoming the democracy they feared.
Kent permalinkOctober 9, 2012 10:04 am
Rick, I am Centrist foremost. I have been silent for most of the time as you have probably noticed.
One thing keeps me thinking of Obama and the other for Romney.
Romney talks numbers and that is his game. He likes numbers. He knows what it takes to make things work. He's straight-forward. He tells you what he thinks without a heart and he does it in a "logical" structure. He's a "details" kind of guy. He's the guy who knows all the options and picks the one that solves the solution first and fastest….Damned the damage in the way.
Obama has compassion. He thinks out what policies will hurt individuals. He doesn't like numbers. Numbers are probably his worst enemy. Just do it and do it right…kind of guy. He wants to look good!! Most people I understand are in this camp. Obama is the "Don't give me numbers, just tell me what you want me to do". Give me options and then you just go do it. Just like the Osama Bin Laden plan.
Obama reminds me of "middle managers"…one I in fact had in the past. They are concerned for their position in a company. They take over a group of people, but they don't know a thing about what their people are doing. They show compassion, but never actually been in their position or did the work. They are focused on self via showing compassion.
Romney reminds me of the executive CEO's, The "boys club". The "Salesman", "Top Accountant", He number crunches, meets sales quotas, etc…but how many people were put into debt, and emotionally hurt? Where is the compassion?
The United States is built between those who look for help or no help. Those who like compassion in their elected representatives or those who just want results.
There is no question greater than to find than where you fit into this mess when deciding who to vote. Either to fix the country or for your own interests.
I do not find either appealing. So I revert back to what the founding fathers were thinking. They wanted everyone to fend for themselves and if needs are to be satisfied then the populace must meet those needs via community/locally.
If not, then the Federal Government must step in. In the Founding Fathers days the Federal Government only stepped into helping Americans only if it involved Security of the Nation.
In essence, protection from foreign forces…either military, or monetary.
China manipulating currency. Immigration. Balancing it's own budget. Sound military strategy. Taxes. Spending. Deficits. These all seem National Interests.
To require a law that "everyone" must have healthcare is a great idea, there is a lot of empathy, but it only protects the person who has it and punishes those who don't. It is a "divide and conquer" premise.
The U.S. wasn't built by the Founding Fathers to punish certain Americans…it was to protect all. If you didn't wish to participate then you don't reap the rewards. Plain and simple. That is what living in the U.S. was about in the early years.
A Government that promotes individual businesses and people to come together to make things happen is much greater than the Government that does it for everyone else. Government that promotes incentives toward a future…rather than a Government that dictates a future. The latter being composed on many selected individuals and businesses that lean either left or right on issues than on covering all Americans.
This is why we here today!! To decide on which group gets the control. Not for all Americans, but which side gets to "dictate" the rules of how we live for the next years going forward.
I don't like it. I detest it. I would rather vote for Gary Johnson knowing that it is the people who are fed up with picking the "best of the worst". The left and right only become more empowered when you put them into public office.
At least I know I picked the closest to my views and can't say I hate the other 50% of Americans. When you vote on Election day for a left/right candidate you basically hate the other 50% of Americans who vote opposite of yourself. You actually promote a "no solutions, only sides" agenda.
I prefer a Centrist, "No Sides, Only Solutions" agenda. Majority wins. You can't please everyone…do your best society.
As far as I am concerned I don't see either Party making me rich or better off. I guess I am going back to work tomorrow and shopping for groceries.
Kent permalinkOctober 9, 2012 10:33 am
Now, I am not saying that Gary Johnson is a Centrist, but I know that he doesn't want to separate others. The Libertarian Party just wants people to do their best on their own. That community comes first for fix things. They just want the Government out of the picture entirely. Which isn't a Centrist philosophy.
Centrist is like Libertarian, but it believes Government has a role.
At this point I am still undecided.
asmith permalinkOctober 9, 2012 10:36 am
Neither party will make you rich or better off, that is something you must do for yourself.
Compassion is wonderful, but it provides no basis for making decisions.
I have argued repeatedly that the vast majority of the so called "social safety net" has made the very people it was intended to help worse off rather than better.
Compassion without rationality leads to decisions that are bad for everyone.
So in the end who is truly more compassionate ?
I am not looking to defend Romney – though I think he mostly says the right things – he does not fully grasp the benefits of free trade, open immigration and non-interventionist foreign policy – but neither does Obama. Otherwise he mostly says the right things – but ultimately i do not believe he will do much of what he says – but neither will Obama.
I will not be voting for Romney, but that is because the GOP is not ready to govern yet. It is because even if implimented Romney's solutions are insufficient, and therefore further failure is likely.
i believe we are headed back into recession at the moment. I hope I am wrong, but that looks increasingly likely Whoever is elected will start with the economy getting worse.
Further we have looming problems much larger than that. The housing bubble was tiny compared to what is essentially a bubble in debt, social security and medicare. If we do not fix those we are headed for more serious problems than the past 4 years. I do nto believe Romney will fix those.
Absent draconian changes we are facing another mild recession, followed by much worse.
These will likely occur on the next president's watch – regardless of who is elected. They are the result of decades of mistakes, not just 4 years. They are the result of statism by both parties.
If this is inevitable I would prefer to see the party that is less likely to see the light blamed.
Though Canada's successful efforts to reign in its unsustainable social parties came about through liberal efforts.
Regardless, we need to cut a Trillion dollars a year from government spending – not a Trillion dollars a decade, and we need to move aggressively towards that now.
Nor can that be done without goring anyone's ox.
i do not beleive things have gotten bad enough for us to grasp that, and I do not beleive we will build up the gumption to act until things are pretty bad.
But as pessimistic as this sounds, it is not. Our greatest growth and increase in prosperity – even for the least has occurred when taxes, spending, and government were all small. Further historicially government cutbacks are followed by growth not decline.
October 12, 2012 2:42 pm
I have to say that this debate was absolutely NOTHING like I thought it would be…..I expected Ryan to be his usual self – wonkish, but with an excellent ability to communicate complicated ideas and policy positions. I also expected Biden to be energetic and charming in his unique way – I have never been able to dislike Biden, and I warned my Ryan-supporting friends that the Congressman would have all he could handle with the combative VP.
I was right about Ryan – wrong about Biden. Any "debate points" that Biden scored – and he did score a few – were wiped out, in my view, by the way he absolutely beclowned himself, in the most juvenile, unserious, and disgraceful manner. It was obvious that his intent was to display contempt for his opponent, by the incessant smirking, eyerolling, smiling and laughing during Ryan's serious responses – often about deadly serious issues – as well as his refusal to ever call Ryan by name or to thank him (as Ryan graciously thanked Biden) at the end of the debate, as is pro forma at these events.
I was at work during most of the debate, which I DVR'd and watched later. But, while I was at work, I got a text from my youngest son. He is 22 and voting in his first presidential election. He has been undecided, at times leaning toward Obama, and, since the debate last week, leaning toward Romney. His text read:
"I would use the word disgraceful to describe Biden's performance so far. Constant and inappropriate interruptions and pathetic obvious lies as well as many hail mary appeals to the camera. Ryan is very classy anyone else would have given Biden the finger by now. Or worese" (Sic)
I think that Biden's over the top behavior will be the enduring takeaway from this debate. And that will not help Obama.
October 13, 2012 12:25 am
I am not voting for Obama-Biden, but I can't help but like Biden. I like his story, how he has succeeded and overcome so much. I like how you always know where he stands. I don't like how he can fly off the handle, as I prefer a little more professionalism out of people in positions of responsibility. I disagree with Biden on plenty. However, I have always felt you would have to be completely partisan not to like him at least a little bit!
October 13, 2012 12:47 am
I will also add that I would never consider voting for Biden for president unless he was running against that chair from the Rep. Convention! That chair took all that crap off of Josey Wales and didn't say anything.
October 14, 2012 11:11 am
Yes the loss of his family is what I spoke about overcoming. I don't know how I would react to losing my family and I hope I never have to face that. Maybe, as a family man, I am biased towards that situation. I think that losing my wife and children would be the largest obsticle that I could ever face. And note that I said, "You would have to be completely partisan not to like him a little." That means that you are exempt from commenting!
October 13, 2012 12:34 am
the democratic critique of Obama after the first debate was essentially that Obama tried to actually debate – badly. Rather than just verbally body slamming his opponent.
With the VP debate democrats got what they wanted – and WWF version of a debate.
but then the left thinks we are all too stupid to think for ourselves.
October 13, 2012 12:43 am
Yes. Clearly there is a conspiracy forming, or already formed, from the left. They hate America and think we are all idiots. How could you conclude anything else? It couldn't be that they believe they are doing what is best, could it? It is fine to disagree with them, but the rhetoric is mindless.
October 13, 2012 1:15 am
I was not claiming any conspiracy – just that in Biden in the 2nd debate the left got exactly what they wanted. It is pretty much what almost all the left criticism of Obama demanded. They were not looking to win the battle of ideas, they were looking for more verbal aggression.
And the fact that the left think we are all too stupid to think for ourself's is not some conspiracy it is the overt basis for most of their policies, it is the root of the nanny state, and it is what the left constantly argues directly.
The argument for regulating political speech is overtly based on the premise that we can not tell true from false.
I do not believe in majority rule – because aside from preventing us from doing violence to our neighbor, the majority has no right to dictate the lives of individuals.
But I believe we are each entitled to our opinion – so long as we do not force others to live by it. I believe we are each entitled to vote for whoever we please for whatever reason we chose – including any bad reason you can think of.
I think that even if ordinary people are ill-informed and stupid they have the right to be that if they chose – and I have the right to buy the biggest billboard or megaphone I can afford to change their mind if I wish.
October 14, 2012 11:17 am
I don't disagree we all have the right to vote. I am not a member of the "left". I do not agree that the left thinks Americans are too stupid to make their own decisions. That is a stupid comment, though. Enough on that… I took your stupid test so that I could identify myself as slightly to the right of center and slightly to the libertarian side as opposed to statist. I won't discuss it again.
October 12, 2012 8:59 pm
Smirkin' Joe was at his snideliest, as he ignored the ineffective moderator(?) Raddatz, and interrupted Ryan over 80 times. Raddatz allowed the VP to interject and distract to his heart's content, while cutting off the more polite Ryan on several occasions. How did the debate commission choose this person to run the debate, and what do we have to look forward to in the next two?
October 12, 2012 10:29 pm
Seriously, I thought Ms. Raddatz was terrible. At times it did seem that she and Biden were double-teaming Ryan, as she interrrupted and cut Ryan off many times,hardly ever Biden. I was trying to give her the benefit of the doubt for a while, and thought that maybe her constant challenging of Ryan's answers was an attempt to give him a chance to talk over Biden's interruptions….but once she brought up the abortion question, I realized that she was playing for Biden's team. No questions on Obamacare, the national debt or the deficit. Abortion, that's the ticket.
I don't know why the GOP agrees to some of these moderators…….
October 13, 2012 12:22 am
Again this is why you are a liberal not a moderate.
It is Ok to have a beleive, it is ok to advocate for it, but it is not ok to "pressure" others.
Norquist has no power beyond moral opprobrium and the money and resources other like minded people contribute to him.
Was planned parenthoods pressure on Komen for the Cure evil ?
How about boycotting Chick-Fil-a ?
Were these coercion? blackmail ? whether you say yes or no, they are no different.
How do you distinuguish between legitimate political advocacy and "evil" pressure.
Your answer is whimsy.
Politicians make promises all the time.
I see nothing wrong with trying to make them keep them.
Those signing Norquists pledge do so because they want his support.
Nor do I see them as coerced into making them.
You have no grasp of what is an is not force. You confuse personal inner turmoil with actual external force.
A political office is not a right. Further you still have these silly ideas about money and politics. Yes Norquists money can help or hurt candidates – but only because voters actually think keeping promises on taxes matter.
I can spend a billion dollars running adds that say Pres. Obama doesn't like blue pinstripe suits – and I might sway a handful of votes.
The purpose of political money is political speech. If Norquists words do not resonate it is irrelevant how much money he spends or how hard he works to get you unelected.
Worse still – you are not accusing Norquist of lying.
So basically you are saying it is somehow evil to tell the truth about a politician ?
How exactly is telling the truth about something that is not even secret evil ?
October 13, 2012 12:35 am
I have no idea how you are interpreting what Rick is writing. What he said is true. Politicians should not be beholden to one man, they are supposed to be accountable to our voters. What Norquist has done is a perfect example of why special interest money should be remove from politics. You don't see a problem with it because it supports your agenda. And you deduce rediculous conclusions from Rick's posts because they support your set opinions of him. I don't know where you come up with some of these ideas. I can't tell if you are just coaxing him into an argument, or if you really believe what you post sometimes. I am sticking with my original idea that you are an alter ego of Rick's from his I-phone to up the post count!
October 13, 2012 1:02 am
There not beholden to one man.
I am interpretting what he said as he said it.
I can not see any other way to interpret it than that it is wrong to engage in political advocacy if you are going to expect politicians to keep their promises and hold their feet to the fire when they dont.
I see absolutely no difference between what Norquist does and what MoveOn or any other political advocacy group does EXCEPT, that norquist is perfectly clear. He asks only one thing. He does not go after politicians who don't raise taxes. When he goes after someone what he says is true.
This is not about "my agenda". "Special interest money" is used by the right and the left – democrats receive more corporate contributions than republicans do. I do not care if the Nazi's or communists raise a ton of money and use it for political speech – it is still speech. It is still constitutional protected,
Not only do I beleive what I am saying, but honestly the counter argument is so ridiculously self contradictory I really find it difficult to beleive people think otherwise.
Once upon a time the left actually beleived in free speech too.
It was the ACLU that fought to allow the Nazi's to march in Skokie.
Or the Klan to march wherever.
The remedy for distateful, offensive speech is more speech.
When you talk about regulating political contributions – what are you seeking to accomplish ? What you are after is supressing the expression of those ideas you do not like.
If you do not beleive the outcome would be different – than why are you trying to do this ? And if you do beleive the outcome would be different why do you beleive that ? Do you beleive that voters are being bribed ?
That is already illegal. No you are affraid they are being persuaded – well guess what, that is speech.
October 13, 2012 1:18 am
Some libertarian views on this election different from mine.
Bothe do a pretty goof job of assessing each candidate.
October 14, 2012 8:24 am
You know, I wanted to mention something about the Biden/Ryan debate that has not come up here yet…
Although Biden clearly spent the majority of the debate attempting to show that he believed Ryan's positions – and, I assume all GOP positions on the issues – are laughable, false and beneath his contempt – and, I assume, beneath the contempt of any Democrat – it was Biden in my view who told some real, serious whoppers. It's one thing to dispute Ryan's math (the math on federal budgets is complex and twisted beyond belief, so it's pretty easy for both sides to use their own math to shoot down the other side's proposals).
First, he said that he and Obama knew nothing about the Benghazi consulate having repeatedly requested more security in the weeks leading up to the 9-11 attack. He also said that the reason that the administration spent over a week blaming the attack, and the deaths of 4 Americans, on a video, was because that was what the Intelligence Community told them. This, despite the fact that the State has said that they knew within hours that this was a planned attack, having nothing to do with the video. Is it believeable – or even conceiveable – that the CIA and the State Department would not inform the Commander-in-Chief that we had been attacked, and our ambassador killed, in the course of a terrorist attack?
Secondly, Biden claimed to have voted against both the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq, because "we couldn't affort them." The record shows that he voted FOR both. That is a pretty bold lie.
Finally, at the end of the debate, Biden said that no religious organization would be forced to provide coverage for contraception and abortion, if it violated their religious beliefs. That is, also, patently untrue, and the Catholic Bishops came out the next day and said so.
Like I said, these are not your garden variety little lies or flip-flops, these are whoppers, at least in my view. I'm truly stunned that there has been so little coverage of them. I mean, Nixon was impeached for less, right? No one got murdered at Watergate. Or am I making too much of this?
October 14, 2012 9:16 am
Biden also voted for the Reagan Tax cuts that "had never been done before".
In fact there are numerous historical examples dating back to the twenties of tax substantial tax cuts that have stimulated the economy and maintained or increased tax revenue.
Biden's remarks on religious organizations, contraception and abortion are quasi true.
Any religious organizations that confines its activity to preaching and prosthelitzing is not subject to PPACA requirements to violate religious principles.
But any religious organization that practices its beliefs by caring for the sick, educating the young, or pretty much anything beyond preaching is not exempt.
Further any private individual employer is required to pay for services that may violate their beliefs.
Rick makes a big claim that "corporations are not people". Yet here is the left giving MORE rights to organizations than to people.
Whatever the issue. If you can force a church, charity, or business to do something – then you can force an individual (and are forcing at-least one). Conversely there can be no possible more grounds to exempt a church, charity, or business, from something you force individuals to do.
Our rights in groups are exactly the same as our rights as individuals.
This is a fundamental truth that Rick and those on the left just do not get. We neither lose nor gain rights by forming groups.
Rick like to rail against "special intersts" well anytime two or more people gather for a common cause – they are a "special interest". Now is a special interest. Planned ParentHood is a Special interest, Americans for Tax Reform(norquist) is a special interest, GM is a special interest, MoveOn is a special interest, The catholic church is a special interest, even the majority of voters is a special interest.
It is as proper for BoA to seek government benefits and protection, as it is for the catholic church to seek exemption from PPACA, or Planned ParentHood to seek public funding, or MoveOn to advocate for exiting Iraq, ir the majority of americans to favor health reform – and oppose PPACA.
It is all just people advocating for their interest. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.
It is not coercion, or violence to publicly tell a politician – do what I want or I will vote against you and persuade everyone I possibly can to do likewise.
Nor is it coercion, or violence to publicly tell a politician – do what I want and I will vote for you and persuade everyone I possibly can to do likewise.
"A people that values its privileges above its principles soon loses both."
― Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Life is indeed terribly complicated—to a man who has lost his principles."
― G.K. Chesterton
October 14, 2012 9:45 am
I think Benghazi has more effect on the election than the debates have.
Yes, Romney got a boost because voters got to see him and Obama without the media filter.
The Libya story has moved more slowly.
Since 9/11 we have tolerated restrictions on our freedom for perceived increases in safety. Both parties have adopted that. This administration failed. Killing Bin Laden was justified to keep us safe. There is no running from the failure here. Either you must have the courage to be honest with people and say – government can not assure perfect safety, no matter how much of your rights we take, sometimes bad things happen, otherwise you are stuck with blaming others. This was some nutbar movie producers fault, or embassy securities fault, or an intelligence failure, or …. a long litany of excuses.
I do not hold Pres. Obama responsible for this – atleast not in any way other that that it now appears clear that there were lots of warning signs months in advance that the administration – the white house chose to disregard. Regardless, bad things will happen.
My problem is that government – both left and right makes the impossible promise to prevent all the bad things in return for ceding even more of our liberty.
That said this administration has either lied, or at the very least spoken without knowing the truth. Romney's remarks that were excoriated at the time, have proven true in every respect. While the white house narrative has proven false.
This was not caused by a film insulting Mohammad.
This was not the result of actions by an angry mob.
This was a well coordinated terrorist attack, planned significantly in advance, likely coordinated with the Libyan security forces helping to guard the ambassador.
The administration had been warned that Al Qeda and other terrorist groups were growing in power in libya – as that did not fit their narrative it was ignored.
The administration was told that terrorist attacks against the US in Libya were increasingly likely.
The Libyan embassy security staff asked for more resources and instead had its resources diminished.
The administrations rules of engagement deprived those protecting the ambassador of any weapons to do so.
Whether Libya or Lewinsky, or Watergate, it is not the crime, it is the coverup.
October 14, 2012 12:02 pm
pearows..The absense of Hilliary Clinton in this mess concerning Libya is also telling. It was her department that was responsible for the consulate and she has been missing in action for the most part. I believe it was because she would not go out and tell the lies that Rice told after the attacks. I believe she is still refusing to support the administration in their coverup. Why? Because she still has her eye on the 2016 election and she does not want to say or do anything that will come back to haunt her in the endeavor.
And once the election is over and if O is reelected, it will be shortly after that Clinton announces her resignation to get the devil "out of Dodge" and distance herself from the mess created by the lies and coverup that is coming to light now.
October 14, 2012 12:29 pm
One thing for sure, I would not want Hilliary Clinton as an enemy. When you talk about the "Clinton machine", I believe that is run completely by Hilliary and not much by Bill. Try running her over, and she will make sure the vehicle your in is headed off a cliff. She will protect herself and when the "it" hits the fan, she will be positioned far from the splatter.
October 16, 2012 10:50 am
jbastiat. Well she is taking the fall.
October 16, 2012 10:30 pm
I think Mr. Rich's spin and understanding of the nuances of the right are abysmal. His own articals bad perceptions demonstrate the very ignorance that the left has of the rest of us. The spin in this is absolutely awful – reading it was like reading something Ian wrote about the right – everyone to the left of Obama is an extreme radical conservative.
Regardless, Rich gets one thing correct. The triumph of the right is inevitable.
It is inevitable because the vast majority of americans grasp that progressive government is an abysmal failure – and that perception of failure is increasing not decreasing.
The proponents of the inevitable demographic victory of the left forget another facet of demographics – this nation is a melting pot – if anything more so today than in the past.
Blacks and possibly asians are the only groups that have not been effectively assimilated.
Hispanics may prove the ultimate solution to the assimilation of blacks as hispanics effectively assimilate both ways.
I believe I have read that it takes about 3 generations in the US for a hispanic family to become "white" that is about the same as the Irish, Swedes, Italians, …. in the past.
Hispanics are one of the more conservative minorities. Their bond to liberals and separation form conservatives is most tenuous.
Further the "pure conservatism" will triumph doctrine is has an element of truth.
As Reagan noted – the soul of conservatism is libertarianism,
Personally I find the Tea Party to be a radical shift towards libertarianism for the GOP.
It is idiots who think that every ideology associated with anyone on the right is extremist, that misperceive the nuances on the right.
Bachman is NOT Santorum, is NOT Perry, Is not Caine, is NOT Paul, is NOT Bush, is NOT Romney. And Romney is running as someone he is not – if we can actually figure out who he actually is.
Conservatism will eventually shed most of what alienates others and move towards libertarianism. When it does the left is doomed.
Purely on the issues Gary Johnson is far closer to the american norm than any other candidate. Libertarians own the issues. They just have not figured out how to get rid of the mispreceptions. They are doing so by taking over the GOP from within.
October 17, 2012 7:30 pm
Ron P;
There is absolutely no need for a tax increase. Government functioned fine on the 3% of GDP it averaged through much of the 19th century. It did not go bankrupt on the 18% of GDP that was the norm since WWII, Until 2009 it never spend over 20% of GDP except during WWII, Even today we are spending more than 23% of GDP and nearly as much as the peak during WWII.
Conversely from WWII through the present tax revenues were lowest as a percent of GDP when rates were highest, From 1960 to the present revenues have never been below 15% of GDP nor above 20% regardless of the tax rates. In general tax revenues correspond far more strongly to economic growth than to tax rates.
An extremely strong case can be made that increasing tax rates will at best decrease GDP and may even reduce revenue.
Romer & Romer (yes, Pres. Obama's Romer) produced data that seem to strongly suggest that the peak of the "laffer curve" is at a 33% marginal tax rate – that anything above that actually decreases the revenue government takes in and that since the curve is shallow, that reducing the upper rate as low as 25% will have negligable effect of government revenue (but a significant effect on growth).
The very economist that Obama cited as purportedly proving that Romney's 20% nearly flat tax would run several trillion short, has actually come out and said that the growth that reduction in rates would produce would result in a no change in tax revenues.
The majority of the economic community grasps that increasing marginal tax rates has no positive effects.
Econ 101 starts with supply/demand curves. When you increase the price of something consumption goes down not up. Increase taxes and whatever you tax you will get less of. If you tax investment – you will get less of it. It takes very little to grasp that there must be a point at which the negative effects of increasing the price of something outweigh the positive benefits. For marginal taxes the point of maximum return is approximately 33%, and the curve is sufficiently flat that the increase in revenue from 25% to 33% is very tiny.
And that presumes that the objective of taxes is to maximize government revenue.
Assuming that you are seeking the greatest economic growth – the most per capita wealth, the maximum is below 19% – we do not know how much below because there are very few governments with 19% marginal tax rates.
The numbers are strongly against this.
October 17, 2012 11:25 pm
asmith. I agree the problem we have today is spending and not revenue. However, in the next ten years, without even an interest rate increase, all of our revenues will be going to defense, Medicare and Social Security. And then add to that another 1 trillion on 20 trillion debt by 2016 and that leaves nothing for anything else.
So who pays for the 20 trillion of overspending for the past 30+ years. (10 trillion to obama and another 10 trillion since). Seniors with reduced Social Security? Future medicare recipients? Defense? None of these can stand the decrease to pay off the debt, so where does the balanced budget plus 20 trillion over 10-20 years come from? Or do we just leave the 20 trillion on the books and continue to pay China trillions in interest?
I say we reform tax policy to eliminate mortgage deductions on second homes in Pebble Beach or 3rd homes in Vail CO. Do away with special interest deductions that benefit only a few. Reduce the tax rates to encourage investments, but when someone like Buffett makes millions from investment income and does not pay anything on regular W-2 income, then there needs to be reform where any amount over what is considered the breaking point between the middle income and rich income levels should be taxed as regular income.
The amount taken in from these changes that is above the normal taxes under the current methods would be used to pay down the debt. Then balance the budget using what is left, with changes to all the entitlements to make them reasonable in their cost.
Unlike anyone in DC today or anyone wanting to move to DC today, I want the future generations in this country to live as well as my parents. Not as good as I have lived because my generation has lived off future generations money. But living as well as my parents gives them a nice house, two cars, 2-3 kids in college without student loans and some of the nice things that make a house a home.
Otherwise, they are screwed
October 18, 2012 8:28 am
That shift in spending only occurs if we let it occur.
I am not a pacifist. I have worked in defense. I beleive our defense budget can be cut by 2/3 – we would still be spending more than anyone else and still be the most powerful military in the world. We would still be ablt to invade almost anyone on whim – we just could not stay forever, which is a bad idea anyway.
Social Security and Medicare were supposed to be self funding from their own taxes. I have repeatedly tried to pound in that that is a lie and that they are ponzi schemes. People are finally starting to grasp that.
Social Security and Medicare funding needs to truly be separated into Al Gore's "locked box". There are numerous real solutions to their problems, and they are not all that draconian.
What part of increasing taxes will not get more revenue is difficult to understand ? Yes you can increase taxes – but it will not solve the revenue problem.
If you actually want more government revenue you MUST target the middle class. It is the only way that will actually produce an increase in revenue.
This is not about fairness – though I think the tax the rich argument is immoral.
Do you think that will be popular ?
Cutting a Trillion dollars a year out of the US budget is not all that hard.
And it can be done without significantly impacting "social programs"
As a practical matter though there are enormous other programs, converting the entire social safetynet to single negative tax is about the smartest most efficient and simplest thing we can do.
What that means is that you basically give the elderly, the poor, the disabled, the …. money and you let them work out how to spend it on their own.
There are 21m "poor" families in this country – if each was paid $22K/year that would be $500B/year That is less than medicare, less than SS, less than the cost of other social safetynet programs.
Implementing something like this to minimize the disincentives is problematic but possible.
One of the BIG problems that both Republicans and democrats have is this idiotic beleif that every problem is solved by the application of more money. Often that just makes problems worse.
AFTER adjusting for inflation were have doubled even trippled our per student public education spending since the 70's And quality has gone down. Public schools now cost more than all but the very best private schools.
I am just using education as an example. The real point is that money solves few problems.
October 18, 2012 10:35 am
asmith..first of all I agree that thowing money at a problem will not fix the problem. That is why I have said many times education can survive in this country and be drastically improved by less money and improved 21st century teaching methods.
Now you stated that this country can survive with a trillion less being spent than currently by lowering spending. That is true. But to get to where I want to be, it is going to take much more than a trillion. Anyone knows that you can't change D.C. overnight, so before we get to even a balanced budget we will be 20 trillion in debt or more. Ryans budget doesn't even get balanced for many years to come. So now we have cut that trillion, but to maintain a balanced budget when historical interest rates return, we need to cut almost another trillion just to pay the increased interest on the debt. So thats 2 trillion. To pay off the debt over another 20 years, that another trillion. So now we are at 3 trillion that needs to be reduced to maintain a balanced budget and to pay off the debt.
And yes, raising taxes above a certain level does little to improve the economy. But I want tax reform to make the tax structure more equitable. I have asked many different people how does Buffett paying 15% on money he has invested in stock, bonds and other interest bearing accounts create jobs, when the middle class is paying a much higher percentage and they have less to spend on consumer products. Would it not be better to have the middle class paying 15% on W-2 income, while Buffett pays 25-30% on investment income over 250K. How does those invested funds sitting in a stock fund create jobs compared to the middle class being able to buy a car every 5 years instead of 7-10 years? Total revenues may not increase from the shift in taxes, but it would increase because the multiplier effect of the middle class having more to spend in place of Buffett having more to invest in Stock funds would create more jobs due to demand. And last, how does mortgage deductions for yatchs, 2nd and third homes in million dollar neighborhoods benefit the middle class? Fairness is all I want, not differences that benefit special interest groups.
October 18, 2012 11:27 am
OK, so the multiplier effect doesn't exist. Four questions.
1. How do we balance the budget, not just slow the growth of spending.
2. How do we pay off the debt run up over the past 12 years? (all of it would be good)
3. Does Buffett keeping his money in investment accounts create more jobs than you or I having 10% less taxes paid to the government?
4. Does one getting mortgage deductions on multiple vacation homes create more jobs than you or I having less taxes paid to the government?
October 18, 2012 11:55 am
"Taxation should be about raising the requisite (minimum) amount of money needed to fund essential services, nothing more. Why should Buffett (or anyone) be taxed tied to their job creating value (as if that could be calculated?)".
Excellent answer. To bad that making the tax code match this position will never happen. If it did, you, I and Warren would all be paying the same rate. But this is the arguement used to promote a 15% rate for investments compared to a much higher rate for W-2 earnings. "Lower rates on investments create jobs" . Really???
One rate for everyone on everything generating what is needed to fund an efficient government.
October 17, 2012 7:54 pm
The presidents ability to improve things and his ability to make things worse are not symetrical. The president does have very little ability to improve the economy, but he has a great deal of ability to make it worse.
Numerous economists have countered Roggoff's "financial crisis are different
"meme. First this mess is no more a financial crisis than the great depression was caused by a stock market crash. On October 19, 1987 the stock market had its largest percentage single day crash in its entire history – and nothing of consequence happened.
This event was preceded by the S&L crisis and likely caused by it we did not even have a recession until three years later. Financial crisis are not different.
The severity (depth) of a recession/depression is proportionate to the magnitude of the false wealth created by the preceding boom.
The duration is proportionate to the efforts of government to ameliorate the effects.
Basically Government stimulus can diminish the depth, but at the expense of prolonging the duration – and the net economic harm – the area under the curve, is greatest when government is most activist.
Worse still than stimulus is government uncertainty. The more unknowns the greater the risk the lower the investment. As an example the major problem with the upcoming "fiscal cliff" which is a speed bump compared to our future problems, is that investors have no clue what will happen. The market can adapt to certain increases in taxes, and certain decreases in government spending. But it can not adapt to uncertainty.
I doubt that the Bush cuts will actually get repealed, but I actually expect some growth regardless – even if congress allows them all to expire which would be a bad thing, it would actually be less bad than not knowing. With know tax rates investors can make choices as to how to invest. With unknown future taxes investors do nothing because their choice depends on knowing what will happen.
The extreme duration of the great depression is more likely do to FDR's schizophrenic policy shifts rather than his socialism. There were many real pro growth policies of the Roosevelt administration, but these changed from year to year seemingly at whim. investors were unable to make even short term decisions.
Put differently bad news is often better than no news. We go to work to overcome obstacles. We sit on our hands when we do not know.
I expect that the economy will improve slightly after the election, it nearly always does. Regardless of who is elected.
October 18, 2012 5:31 pm
jB and Ron P–as you trek deeper and deeper into the weeds about the taxation issue/fairness argument, doesn't it feel to you that you are quibbling about how to rearrange the furniture on the Titanic? The system of taxation we have now has been massaged for decades to benefit various interests, and has turned into a beast that does not serve the interests of the country.Once again, I recommend the FairTax, a consumption based tax that can totally change the game. BTW, trying to send a message to someone by voting for Johnson is a fool's errand destined to ensure four more years of OJT for Obama (Re: Ross Perot?)
October 18, 2012 11:24 pm
RP. I agree that the tax code is a mess. As for the form, I think it can be on a card placed in an envelop with the appropriate bio info, then about 8-10 or so lines. W-2 earnings, Investment earnings, other earnings, total earnings. tax rate (ie 18%), total earnings times tax rate, withholdings, difference (refund or send a check). (18% is for example only, I don't know what it would take to fund a balanced budget that spoent money wisely and paid off the debt over 20 years)
I am not convinced yet on the fair tax or consumption tax yet. I see that as another way to shift the tax burden further from those making millions on investment earnings and save a much higher percentage of their income than those middle income families just making ends meet, I do not mean the ones that have all the new toys the day they come out. I speak of the family of 4 making 50K and trying to pay for state college tuition so the kids don't end up with 20 years of debt to pay off.
I believe in a fair tax that taxes all income at one rate regardless of source, with no deductions for anything.
As for voting for Johnson, I will be voting for Romney. but my heart and mind is much closer to Johnson than the others. Maybe if enough people voted their heart and mind and not fear of the other candidate, we might have the Green Party and Libertarians on a closer basis with the two parties that are bought and paid for by special interest. maybe then we would have choices that everyone could be voting FOR.
October 19, 2012 11:26 am
If money dominated politics in the 1700's and 1800's like it does today, would we still be voting for the Federalist or Whig Party candidate? Money is the reason the Green Party and the Libertarians can not get a viable candidacy going, not their political views
October 19, 2012 11:04 am
And if you mean personal income at dispersal meaning when you and I buy something, therein lies my problem with the flat tax. It is much the same as a sales tax used by the states and is highly regressive. I believe in a tax where everyone pays the same percentage of their income in taxes. The lower the better. I do not believe it is "fair" for someone making 10 million in interest income spends 200K and pays 20% flat tax on the 200K of 40K for an effective rate of 4/10th percent of total income compared to a family of 4 making 50K, spends 40K, pays 20% flat tax or 8000 for an effective rate of 16% on income.
Many conservatives believe that a lower tax rate on investment income generates jobs. Many liberals believe that those with millions to invest are doing nothing but getting richer off the backs of the middle class and want the rich to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the middle class.
I fall right in the middle. We all pay the same effective rate on all forms of income, thus reducing tax rates for some, increasing tax rates for others and everyone is paying the same rate, with no special interest deductions or exemptions. A single women will pay the same rate as the family with 10 kids and the same rate as Warren Buffett.
October 18, 2012 8:30 pm
jB– that last comment about voting for Johnson was meant for less rational libertarians than you. As far as the tax issue is concerned, even a one page tax form leaves much potential for continuing idiocy. The FairTax would rid us of tax forms entirely (and the IRS, to boot).
October 19, 2012 10:20 am
I grasp that a vote for Johnson might result in Obamas re-election.
I am OK with that.
The Re-election of Obama is likely to leave the anti-progressive opposition truly independent. The return of the GOP to power will likely result in the supression of dissent within the GOP.
Which do you want – a GOP that presides over a decline that is at best not as bad as what would have occured had Obama been elected AND is blamed for it ?
A GOP where Mitchell, Boehner and Romney are whipping the entire party to toe the line ?
Or another 2-4 years of opposition ? Another 2-4 years holding progressives responsible for the mess they have created ?
2010 was a major water shed. Middle aged voters were out protesting in the millions.
Last time something like that happened was when this nation was born.
That was a huge deal OWS was meaningless.
That disatisfaction is still out there.
Distrust of government is as high as ever and rising.
As I noted before Johnson's platform – without party labels is overwhelmingly supported by a huge percentage of people – if we voted for policies and not people in a 3 way race that libertarian platform would still command more than 50% of votes.
I am not suggesting that people are going to vote for Johnson. But I am suggesting that they still know what they want and it is not what Obama or Romney are offering
You think it is a waste to vote for what you actually want.
I think it is a waste to vote for the lessor of two evils, when what you want is a choice.
Further I am not thinking about this election – but the next and the one after that.
If elected Obama will fail. I think most of us grasp that.
What will the results of an Obama re-election and failure be ?
I see Obama's re-election as empowering the libertarian and Tea Party factions of the GOP.
I see an Obama failure as significantly eroding confidence in Progressivism.
We have some time before heading off the real cliff. We can afford 4 more years of Obama – if it results in a real about face.
What are the consequences of electing Obama-Lite ?
i will admit that if he could actually pass it Romney's tax package would be stimulative far beyond belief. I think the likelihood of its being passed intact are slim to none, and I think that most of what Romney can manage to get in tax reform is coming anyway – even under Obama. I wish Romney had taken the last real step and gone all the way – flat tax excluding the first 20,000 of income, with no deductions. No business taxes, capitol gains treated as income, eliminate ALL government subsidies. Transform all "entitlements" to fixed cash grants, if you are disabled, or in poverty or … you receive a fixed amount of cash from the government – no food stamps no school lunch, no medicare, no …. do whatever you want with that money. blow it on drugs if you want, but you are not getting more. It is just as offensive to tell the poor they can not buy caviar with food stamps as it is to tell cinema patrons they can not buy 64oz drinks.
Other consequences of Romney ?
The GOP will have to govern, and it will have to succeed – it is not ready for that yet.
There will be enormous pressure to stifle GOP disenters.
Sometimes god curses us by giving us what we want – that is how I feel about Romney.
October 19, 2012 12:11 am
Libertarianism is the most optomistic political philosophy there is. It requires believing that individuals acting in their own self interests will nearly always benefit us all.
It requires a great deal of faith in people. It is liberalism that is pessimistic.
Rick does not trust that voters can see past money. He thinks that With enough money we could be persuaded that Torquemada was Mother Theresa.
Libertarians beleive in a better future – even if not some libertopia, still a place where free people have produced ever more, where our standard of living is higher, where ever more of our income is used not for food, clothes and shelter, but our wants and desires rather than our needs. They beleive that energy (and most everything else) will be even cheaper and more plentiful in the future
It is not about some virtuous purity. It is about understanding that out of human chaos comes spontaneous order. That you build from the dirt up, not the sky down.
October 19, 2012 5:06 pm
So what do you think is the worst case failure we are likely to see and its probability, and its possible consequences ?
Overall I suspect I think the odds of a serious calamity are higher than you do, but the real consequences are less than you do.
I keep ranting that "money is not wealth" it is just the way we measure wealth.
Nothing that can happen with government or money alters the real wealth we actually have.
The recent housing market bubble bursting had absolutely no impact on the real wealth of the country. But it had a radical effect on how much wealth we thought we had.
In a very short time much of the false wealth we thought we had created in the preceding decade turned to dross. The impact on real wealth was primarily a reduction in growth – or future value.
What forthcoming catastrophe is going to occur that is going to cause all our accumulated real wealth to vaporize ?
What is going to cause or factories to crumble, or homes to burn, …. ?
We are not facing real destruction – like global thermonuclear war.
We are facing the failure of ideas. That generally results in improvement.
We had massive political collapse in the USSR – did everyone there suddenly starve ?
Most of these countries went from a socialist economy to no economy to a free market economy in weeks.
Absolutely there were winners and losers. Worse still some nations of the former USSR made poorer choices and suffered worse consequences.
But in every nation and in most every way they are all doing better than 20 years ago.
They were all doing better within weeks or months.
No they were not all doing well – but they were in bad shape to start.
What is the end of the world scenario you are afraid of ?
What I am afraid of is decades of the mess we have now.
actually we can't have that, because 1% growth is extremely fragile. We must improve or get worse, we can not stay where we are for long.
I will be happy to agree with the President, the actions of government may have prevented something worse.
But worse only would have lasted a few months and recovery would have been both swift and steep.
In exchange for chopping the bottom out of this recession we have bought atleast 4 years of stagnation – do you think that is a fair trade ?
How many more people would you be willing to see lose homes they could not afford (and probably lost eventually anyway), in exchange for quickly bringing unemployment back to 5% ?


text:
Cruises focusing more on food, family groups
Cruise trends as the 2013 season gets under way are shaping up to include a bigger focus on multi-generational groups, more specialty food offerings, and continued efforts to wow passengers with new onboard firsts like an aquapark, a glass walkway and a vertical garden.
Here are some details on what's new in cruising.
The new 'it' ships
CruiseCritic.com editor Carolyn Spencer Brown says two of the hottest new ships debuting in 2013 are the Norwegian Breakaway, which will be the largest ship ever to homeport year-round in New York City beginning in May, and Princess Cruises' Royal Princess, launching in June.
The Breakaway's exterior features the unmistakable pop art of Peter Max, with Lady Liberty's face and a city skyline anchoring the brightly colored design. Onboard, the ship offers an open-air, quarter-mile boardwalk and an aquapark, including five multi-story water slides and a double freefall slide where the floor drops away. The ship will carry 4,028 guests and will sail weeklong cruises to Bermuda through Oct. 6.
The Royal Princess will carry 3,600 passengers and will feature a jogging track and the SeaWalk, a glass-bottom walkway extending 28 feet beyond the edge of the ship and 128 feet above the ocean. One part of the ship, The Sanctuary, is described as a "signature haven just for adults," with private cabanas and steward service for light fare and drinks. Its maiden voyage will begin in Southampton, England, and head for Spain and Portugal, followed by trips to the Mediterranean and Caribbean. It calls on Fort Lauderdale in October.
"The important thing about these two ships is what they say about cruising, which used to be you were outside during the day, and at night, you got dressed up and had dinner and went to the theater," said Spencer Brown. "Both ships reflect the new trend of being outside all the time with outdoor restaurants, more on-deck seating and other reasons for you to be outside."
New attractions and activities
Today's cruise ships offer everything from skating rinks to planetariums to climbing walls, but the new attractions and activities just keep coming. Among the latest:
Crystal Symphony debuted in September with a vertical garden, which is a plant-covered freestanding living wall, 7.9 feet high.
The MSC Preziosa ship, debuting in March, will feature what's being called the longest single-rider water slide at sea, 394 feet long.
On the Celebrity Reflection, an all-glass shower extends over the edge of the ship with a wraparound verandah and special glass so you can see out, but not in.
On Cunard's Queen Mary 2, Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth ships, passengers can take "back of the house" tours and visit everything from the engine room to backstage theater areas to the kitchen galley and the recycling facility.
Carnival Cruise Lines offer TV-quality game shows at sea with passengers as participants, along with 3-D movies in theaters equipped with motion seats and special effects like wind and water.
Holland America Line has a programming partnership with "Dancing with the Stars" while Celebrity is partnering with Zumba for fitness workouts and pool parties.
Theme cruises woo fans of everything from country music to sports by hosting performances and celebrities onboard. NFL coach Don Shula and Miami Dolphins Hall of Famer Larry Csonka will be on a Crystal Serenity cruise this summer.
Specialty food
Seems like every cruise line is upscaling and expanding food options. Disney Dream and Disney Fantasy in October began offering a $50 per person Champagne brunch at Remy, Disney Cruise Line's adult-only restaurant named for the character from the animated film "Ratatouille," with dishes created by the French Michelin-starred chef Arnaud Lallement.
The Norwegian Breakaway will have everything from a churrascaria (Brazilian-style steakhouse) to separate bars for Asian noodles, gelato and raw shellfish. On MSC's forthcoming Preziosa ship, there will be an Eataly Restaurant modeled on the Manhattan Italian gourmet food mall.
Celebrity chef Jacques Pepin has served as Oceania Cruises' executive culinary director for nine years, and this September, he'll be a guest on Oceania's Riviera ship, doing a cooking demonstration, and meet-and-greets with guests at his namesake onboard restaurant, Jacques, and the ship's culinary center.
But there may be a downside to some of the new food offerings. Arnold Boris, editor-in-chief of Cruise Gourmet, said he has found that as specialty food options with extra fees increase, basics that used to be offered for free decrease. "It's all unbundled now," he said.
Spencer Brown agreed: "The quality of the main dining room has gone downhill while they've raised the prices to get into these alternative restaurants."
For example, she said Royal Caribbean now "charges for food in the dining room that used to come with your cruise. Surf and turf is $38, but surf and turf used to be part of the dinner. The dining room had been sacrosanct in terms of hands-off, no extra fees, except for liquor. On Celebrity cruises, you go to a French restaurant and you pay to get in, and they greet you with a glass of Champagne, then you look at the bill and see it's an extra $18."
The unbundling trend is seen in other areas as well, with mass market lines keeping fares low but charging extra for various onboard activities. Ironically the opposite is happening on luxury lines, where "they don't want to lower [ticket] prices because it doesn't look good, but they're throwing everything in for free. Luxury is the best value it's ever been," Spencer Brown said.
Ship revitalization and multi-generational trips
Fewer cruise lines are building brand-new ships, but many are doing intensive renovations on existing ships. Some of these renovations involve adding new spaces to accommodate a fast-growing segment: multi-generational groups. Cruises are being marketed as the perfect vacation for grandparents, parents and kids to take together because they can pursue different activities onboard, then have a meal or shore excursion together.
On Norwegian, for example, between 15 and 20 percent of guests on any cruise are part of a multi-generational group, according to spokeswoman Vanessa Lane. "Families are the second-largest cruising segment, only behind the 55-plus age group," she said.
More than half of Carnival bookings involve more than one state room, no doubt many booked by family groups.
Even luxury lines, which tend to attract an older crowd than mass-market ships, are seeing more children. Crystal Cruises saw family groups increase 30 percent in 2012 over 2011, said spokeswoman Mimi Weisband. "Our youngest world cruiser is 2½," she added.
To accommodate the diverse needs of old and young, ships are expanding areas for youth activities while at the same time creating more adult-only pools and quiet areas where passengers can nap, sun or read a book. Carnival ships have "Serenity Spaces." Norwegian ships offer exclusive suite areas with key-card access and private courtyards called The Haven; they're not adult-only but they are designed to be quieter than other parts of the ship.
Carnival ships increasingly offer observation areas next to youth play areas where parents and grandparents can watch their kids play. "My mom's not going to play basketball with her grandson, but she sure wants to take pictures," said Jim Berra, Carnival Cruise Line's chief marketing officer.
Social media and online booking
The cruise industry has long recommended that consumers use travel agents to navigate their options: which cruise line, which ship, type of room, itinerary. But an increasing number of travelers are abandoning the middleman and booking directly with the cruise line of their choice, either by calling or through the cruise company's branded website.
Traditional travel agencies "not long ago accounted for three-quarters of all cruise sales," according to a November 2012 report by PhoCusWright, but "slipped to 62 percent in 2011." Overall, 13 percent of cruise bookings were made online in 2011, up from 11 percent the year before. Of those online bookings, in 2010, 43 percent were made through cruise line websites, a share that is expected to rise to 59 percent in 2014, PhoCusWright said.
Meanwhile the cruise industry is making new efforts to reach travelers using social media. A new YouTube channel, Cruise Industry TV, launched this month at www.youtube.com/cruiseindustrytv. Also new is CruiseForward, a website with a Facebook page, for showcasing stories from the cruise industry such as voluntourism efforts, www.facebook.com/CruiseForward.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Recently added item(s) ×
You have no items in your shopping cart.
View as
1 Item(s)
View Details
We are Chevy, Ford & Dodge Truck Suspension Specialists.Improve your 3/4 and 1 Ton Truck looks and performance with the parts and accessories found on our site. We are the leading performance truck accessories online retailer, providing truck performance products with worldwide shipping at awesome rates. It doesn't matter if you have a Daily Driver, Hauler, Off-road or Racing truck. Whether you are looking for 4WD suspension parts and accessories or want improved off road performance, we have the truck parts and 4WD accessories you need.


text:
Today's News: Our Take - Keck's Exclusives: First Look at Jack Wagner on Castle — Is General Hospital Next?
When Castle producers needed to cast an actor to play a cocktail-swirling former pro golfer for their Jan. 7 episode, they went for an obvious choice: soap star Jack Wagner (General Hospital, The Bold and the Beautiful, Melrose Place).
Wagner, once an aspiring pro golfer, runs an annual celebrity golf tournament that raises money for the fight against leukemia and lymphoma. "I think the producers knew about my golf, but I still had a normal audition," says Wagner, whose character, Billy Piper, becomes a suspect when his ex-wife turns up dead.
Speaking of ex-wives, I asked Wagner if he would finally return to ABC's General Hospital as the wildly popular Frisco Jones, opposite his real-life ex Kristina Wagner, who returned earlier this year as Felicia.
"There was a call in February when I'd committed to Dancing With the Stars and wasn't able to go back, and since then there's been nothing," reports Wagner, who also declined B&B's recent invite to return for Stephanie's teary farewell. "General Hospital is always dear to my heart and I'm really happy Kristina's back. She still looks so beautiful. Kristina and I haven't talked about it, but I have a feeling if I went back that would probably garner just a little bit of attention."
Here that GH? Call him now!
Subscribe to TV Guide Magazine now!
View original Keck's Exclusives: First Look at Jack Wagner on Castle — Is General Hospital Next? at TVGuide.com
Other Links From TVGuide.com


text:
Gum Disease
Diabetes and Periodontal (Gum) Disease
Diabetes that is not properly controlled can lead to periodontal (gum) diseases in both young and old people. Periodontal diseases are infections of the gums and bone that hold the teeth in place.
Because of blood vessel changes that occur with diabetes, the efficiency of the flow of nutrients and removal of wastes from body tissues may become impaired. This impaired blood flow can weaken the gums and bone, making them more susceptible to infection.
In addition, if diabetes is poorly controlled, higher glucose levels in the mouth fluids will encourage the growth of bacteria that can cause gum disease. On the other hand, uncontrolled periodontal disease may also make it more difficult to control the diabetes.
A third factor, smoking, is harmful to oral health even for people without diabetes. However, a person with diabetes who smokes is at a much greater risk for gum disease than a person who does not have diabetes.
Paired with poor oral hygiene, diabetes can lead to gingivitis, the first stage of periodontal disease, or to periodontitis, severe gum disease.
What are the signs and symptoms of periodontal disease?
The following are the most common signs and symptoms of gum disease. However, each individual may experience symptoms differently. Signs and symptoms may include:
- Red, swollen, tender gums
- Bleeding while brushing and/or flossing
- Receding gums
- Loose or separating teeth
- Persistent bad breath
- Dentures that no longer fit
- Pus between the teeth and gums
- A change in bite and jaw alignment
The signs and symptoms of gum disease may resemble other conditions or medical problems. Consult a dentist or other oral health specialist for a diagnosis.
What are the different types of periodontal disease?
The different types of periodontal disease are often classified by the stage the disease has advanced to at the time of evaluation, including:
- Gingivitis. With gingivitis, the mildest form of periodontal disease, the gums are likely to become red, swollen, and tender, causing them to bleed easily during daily cleanings and flossing. Treatment by a dentist and proper, consistent care at home help to resolve the problems associated with gingivitis.
- Mild periodontitis. Untreated gingivitis leads to mild periodontitis. This stage of gum disease shows evidence of the development of periodontal pockets (gums pulling away from the teeth, causing the crevice between the teeth and gums to deepen), and early loss of bone around the teeth. Prompt medical attention is necessary to prevent further erosion and damage.
- Moderate to advanced periodontitis. This most advanced stage of gum disease shows significant bone loss, deepening of periodontal pockets and possibly receding gums surrounding the teeth. Teeth may loosen and need to be extracted.
Treatment for periodontal disease
Specific treatment for periodontal disease will be determined by your dentist based on:
- Your age, overall health, and medical history
- Extent of the disease
- Your tolerance for specific medications, procedures, or therapies
- Expectations for the course of the disease
- Your opinion or preference
Treatment may include any, or a combination of, the following:
- Tartar and plaque removal beneath the gums. Deep cleaning (also called scaling and root planing) can help remove the plaque and calculus beneath the gum and infected tissue in the early stages of the disease, while smoothing the damaged root surfaces of the teeth. The gums can then reattach to the teeth.
- Medication. Antibacterial medications may be placed topically in the periodontal pockets or taken orally.
- Surgery. When the disease is advanced, the infected areas under the gums will be cleaned, and the tissues will then be reshaped or replaced. Types of surgeries include:
- Pocket reduction
- A regeneration procedure
- A soft-tissue graft
- Crown lengthening
- Dental implants
Diabetes and other oral problems
Diabetes can also cause other oral problems, including:
- Thrush. Thrush, a fungal infection of the mouth, occurs more often in persons with diabetes because of high glucose (sugar) levels in the saliva. Fungus thrives on glucose.
- Dry mouth. Dry mouth (often a symptom of undetected diabetes) means the mouth does not have enough saliva to keep itself wet. Saliva is necessary to help digest food, and prevent infection and tooth decay by controlling bacteria and fungi. Dry mouth can make tasting, chewing, and swallowing food difficult, and can impede speech. In addition, dry mouth can cause mouth infections and tooth decay. Although each individual may experience symptoms differently, symptoms of dry mouth may include sticky, dry mouth, dry lips, sense of burning in the mouth, tough tongue, and mouth sores or infection. Always consult your doctor for a diagnosis. Treatment for dry mouth depends on the cause of the condition. Dry mouth can be caused by medication, disease, cancer treatment or other salivary gland damage, and nerve damage. Some tips to prevent dry mouth symptoms include:
- Take frequent sips of water or sugarless fluids.
- Avoid caffeine.
- Drink fluids during meals.
- Avoid spicy or salty foods.
- Avoid tobacco and alcohol.
- Use a humidifier at night.
- Chew sugarless gum or sugarless candy.
Preventing periodontal disease and other oral problems
Proper care of your teeth and gums can go a long way in preventing the onset of oral problems associated with diabetes. The following toothbrushing and flossing tips are recommended by the National Institutes of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK):
- Brush twice daily with a soft, nylon brush with rounded bristles and fluoride toothpaste.
- Use small, circular motions and short back-and-forth motions (avoid hard back-and-forth motions).
- Brush the tongue each time you brush your teeth.
- Brush for about three minutes to clean all of the teeth well.
- Brush the top, back, and front of each tooth.
- Dental floss should be about 18 inches long with each use.
- Do not use a "sawing" motion in between the teeth.
- Curve the floss around each tooth and scrape up and down several times, from below the gum to the top of the tooth.
- Rinse after flossing.
Your dentist is part of your diabetes management team. The NIDDK suggests that you alert your dentist to changes in your health or medications on each visit. In addition, sharing some of your diabetes test results, like your A1C test or your fasting blood glucose test, can help the dentist better manage your dental care. Finally, if your diabetes is not well controlled, ask your dentist if you need antibiotics before and after dental treatment.


text:
All content on this website, including dictionary and other reference data is for
informational purposes only. This information should not be considered complete,
up to date, and is not intended to be used in place of a visit, consultation, or
advice of a legal, medical, or any other professional.
WikiLED Copyright © 2013


text:
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 Results
Greening India's Financial Market: Opportunities for a Green Bank in IndiaReportAugust 19, 2016
Jump to navigation
When you sign up you'll become a member of NRDC's Activist Network. We will keep you informed with the latest alerts and progress reports.
© Natural Resources Defense Council 2023 Privacy Policy State Disclosures


text:
25 Ideas for Kitchen Cabinet Makeovers
Country charms
Cabinets given the patina of age contribute to country charm. Replacing doors on one cupboard with curtains expands on the theme. (And talk about country-look at that faucet!)
Beautiful bling
Gluing baubles onto knobs (or purchasing decorative ones) transforms practical into beautiful.
Wired for fun
Replacing the center of doors with chicken wire exudes country charm and keeps contents visible.
Background notes
Painting the inside of cabinets a different shade energizes without overwhelming. Use your dishware as inspiration for the color palette.
Triple the impact
Give each zone its own personality with a different shade of paint. The corner office is calming blue, the cook zone energetic yellow, and the doorway is a powerful terra-cotta.
Artsy application
Backs, sides and ends of cabinets tend to be plain and flat. Consider them a blank canvas!
Catch the wave
Replacing the wood of a cabinet door with glass-smooth or textured-increases the sense of space.
About face
Refacing cabinets updates the look fast. If that is beyond budget, stripping and staining wood cabinets brings out the grain.
DIY style
Decoupage on decorative details for a really personal look.
Change the hue
Power blues set a serene tone by calling to mind the sky. This shade lends casual elegance, too.
Super stencils
Stencils add dimension to otherwise plain doors and come in almost unlimited designs.
Applying architectual elements enhances a look. Corbels like this come in a range of styles so can be matched to your home's decor.
Make a statement
Tell everyone what is behind closed doors with etched glass. Or conceal contents with abstract designs.
Convenience factors
Communication centers are practical, trendy additions. Magnetic and chalkboard paints make creating one simple.
Rich shades
If your cabinets are wood, updating the look is a matter of stripping and staining. This dark shade reflects the traditional style of the cupboards.
Sunny shades
We spend a lot of time in our kitchens, so keep a sunny perspective by applying a sunny shade to the expanse of cabinets. Choose your mood-pastel to neon.
Fabulous fabric
Fabric pops in these cupboard doors. Replace the center of a few doors with fabric for eye-popping impact. Toile, gingham and plaid all look great in kitchens.
Trims work
Crown molding elevates the look. Dentil, smooth, cove, egg and dart ... there is a style for your home.
Eliminate the obvious
Removing cupboard doors extends sight lines to increase the sense of space. Just be prepared to keep dishware and glassware organized for a neat look.
Focus on one point
A rich shade of red draws all eyes to this majestic kitchen centerpiece while framing the decorative tilework.
Great grilles
Traditional kitchens might benefit from inserting grilles in glass panes. Snap-in versions make the update quick.
Expanded storage
An appliance garage on the counter expands storage for everyday appliances. Tambour (roll-up) doors in an accent color inject mod styling.
Naturally bright
Inspired by butterflies, this kitchen has a bright outlook. In addition to painting, the owners installed clear acrylic handles that almost disappear but still make a modern impact.
A leg to stand on
Give basic cabinets furniture details such as column onlays, which come in styles from Doric to Craftsman.
Flip it up
Cabinet doors that flip up have modern flair corresponding to the corrugated steel backsplash.


text:
Our People, Our Land, Our Images
Thursday, June 16, 2016
Nebraska State Historical Society
PO Box 82554
Lincoln NE 68501-2554
Opportunities to view indigenous peoples through the eyes of indigenous photographers are rare and recent. This photographic exhibition features the work of indigenous artists from North America, Peru, Iraq, and New Zealand. The exhibition is distinctive in its historical reach, including newly discovered 19th-century trailblazers, members of the next generation of emerging photographers, and well established contemporary practitioners.
Learn more here.


text:
Homeless Kansas City man turns in lost engagement ring, receives $100,000
KANSAS CITY, Mo. (AP) - A homeless Kansas City man will soon have well over $100,000 after returning an engagement ring to a woman who accidentally dropped it in his cup earlier this month.
"I think in our world we often jump to like the worst conclusion, and it just makes you realize that there are good people out there," said Sarah Darling, whose fiance set up a website seeking donations for Billy Ray Harris, the man who found the ring. By Monday, more than 6,000 people had donated more than $145,000 to the fund.
Harris, who frequently panhandles on Kansas City's Country Club Plaza, discovered the ring about an hour after Darling dumped spare change from her coin purse into his cup. She had taken off her ring earlier that day and put it with the coins.
"The ring was so big that I knew if it was real, it was expensive," Harris told KCTV.
Darling was horrorstruck when she realized the next day what she had done. She went back to Harris, squatted beside him and told him that she might have given him something valuable.
"'Was it a ring?'" he recalled asking her. "And she says, 'Yeah.' And I said 'Well, I have it.' "
Darling gave Harris all the cash she had in her wallet at the time.
"It seemed like a miracle," Darling said. "I thought for sure there was no way I would get it back."
In explaining why he didn't keep the ring, Harris said he had a religious upbringing.
"My grandfather was a reverend," Harris said. "He raised me from the time I was 6 months old and thank the good Lord, it's a blessing, but I do still have some character."
Online: http://www.giveforward.com/billyray