President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[Monker]

Youre the one whos trying to be funny with your polls left and right, but then say polls dont count if Democrats lead

Polls don't count...If they're weighted heavily in favor of one political pursuasion, which several of the major polls are right now.

Again, even FOX News had Obama up by five or so (not sure where it is now). Explain how FOX News would ever have a bias towards Obama.

[brandonx76]

ooooooooohh...no matter the winner, in 48 days, someone's gonna be bitter.....it's gettin' real in here..

"U Didn't Build That" - 'Bama Time..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQu2SVFF-cU

[Monker]

Gin and Tonic Sky wrote:

Again I was simply agreeing that Romney's complaint is pure nonsense and that in fact that alot of folks don't have to pay taxes is a good thing. My point is that if he and everyone else would quit pitting everybody against each other and focus on the real problem (which I see as oppressive government) he might not be in such dire straits.

I think you will find that we both agree the man is just not with it , although I clearly reach this conclusion from a different vantage point than you do.

Matt, you are wrong about Mitt on this. Today on Cavuto Mitt cleared this all up beautifully.

'There are a number of retirees and military who aren't paying taxes, and that's as it should be...'

'I think people would like to be paying taxes' by having a job,

I already made this point in an earlier post. Nice of you and Mitt to catch up.

He, and you, need to recalculate this 47% figure...because it is including this.

Now, is Mitt in favor of eliminating the earned income tax credit...which is another reason why a large portion of those people do not pay taxes. If so, he needs to explain why he is favor of doing this and not removing the capital gains tax loophole.

[RedWingFan]

Youre the one whos trying to be funny with your polls left and right, but then say polls dont count if Democrats lead

Polls don't count...If they're weighted heavily in favor of one political pursuasion, which several of the major polls are right now.

Again, even FOX News had Obama up by five or so (not sure where it is now). Explain how FOX News would ever have a bias towards Obama.

Looking at the polling breakdown on Pg 17, the Fox News poll shows they polled 42% democrat and 36% republican of registered voters, instead of "likely voters" which is far more accurate. Maybe FoxNews isn't as full of right wing bias as you thought. Enjoy your ass beating in November.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interac ... try-still/

[Monker]

Youre the one whos trying to be funny with your polls left and right, but then say polls dont count if Democrats lead

Polls don't count...If they're weighted heavily in favor of one political pursuasion, which several of the major polls are right now.

Again, even FOX News had Obama up by five or so (not sure where it is now). Explain how FOX News would ever have a bias towards Obama.

Looking at the polling breakdown on Pg 17, the Fox News poll shows they polled 42% democrat and 36% republican of registered voters, instead of "likely voters" which is far more accurate. Maybe FoxNews isn't as full of right wing bias as you thought. Enjoy your ass beating in November.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interac ... try-still/

Sorry, but it just isn't going to happen. Romney was, is, and always will be, unelectable.

I find it hilarious that Megyn Kelly goes off on the polls being biased, and you are pointing out that FOX's own poll is bias. Too funny.

The bottom line is ONLY Rasmussen had Romney winning - by one point.

The only ass that Romney is gonna whip is his horse's when he takes it dancing at the next Olympics.

[Behshad]

Youre the one whos trying to be funny with your polls left and right, but then say polls dont count if Democrats lead

Polls don't count...If they're weighted heavily in favor of one political pursuasion, which several of the major polls are right now.

Again, even FOX News had Obama up by five or so (not sure where it is now). Explain how FOX News would ever have a bias towards Obama.

Looking at the polling breakdown on Pg 17, the Fox News poll shows they polled 42% democrat and 36% republican of registered voters, instead of "likely voters" which is far more accurate. Maybe FoxNews isn't as full of right wing bias as you thought. Enjoy your ass beating in November.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interac ... try-still/

Sorry, but it just isn't going to happen. Romney was, is, and always will be, unelectable.

I find it hilarious that Megyn Kelly goes off on the polls being biased, and you are pointing out that FOX's own poll is bias. Too funny.

The bottom line is ONLY Rasmussen had Romney winning - by one point.

The only ass that Romney is gonna whip is his horse's when he takes it dancing at the next Olympics.

Well said. Well said .

[Behshad]

I'm cheap and easy B...

I know you're cheap. But you're not buying me that shit. It's the beer of MY CHOICE and I want real beer
And not a 12-pack. I want a case of Carlsberg !

[slucero]

I'm cheap and easy B...

I know you're cheap. But you're not buying me that shit. It's the beer of MY CHOICE and I want real beer
And not a 12-pack. I want a case of Carlsberg !

Put it off till after the election... once the sugar high of QE-to-Infinity wears off..

[Seven Wishes2]

Drinking the yellow snow again, eh, LieFinder and CopyandPasteFan? Ran out of Kool-Aid, eh?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/September_WSJ_NBC_Poll.pdf

Obama leads by 5 points nationally. If the election were held today, he would garner more than 120 more electoral votes than Richie Rich. He's leading in five of the eight critical swing states, realistically needing to just win one and no more than two to assure himself a second term.

You can kiss Ohio and Pennsylvania goodbye. Mitchell was talking just last week about taking Virginia, too. Guess not:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/obama-leads-romney-virginia-washington-post/2012/09/18/fc0bc590-01ad-11e2-bbf0-e33b4ee2f0e8_page.html

[rsimpson]

Gin and Tonic Sky wrote:

Again I was simply agreeing that Romney's complaint is pure nonsense and that in fact that alot of folks don't have to pay taxes is a good thing. My point is that if he and everyone else would quit pitting everybody against each other and focus on the real problem (which I see as oppressive government) he might not be in such dire straits.

I think you will find that we both agree the man is just not with it , although I clearly reach this conclusion from a different vantage point than you do.

Matt, you are wrong about Mitt on this. Today on Cavuto Mitt cleared this all up beautifully.

'There are a number of retirees and military who aren't paying taxes, and that's as it should be...'

'I think people would like to be paying taxes' by having a job,

Too bad he had to have someone explain it to him.

[RedWingFan]

I can understand how idiot liberals can be so optimistic since the '10 midterms when Republicans won virtually all the way to county dog catcher. Everything has gone wonderfully since then. Then the Republicans screwed up by nominating the "unelectable" Romney who's not conservative enough and then having Ryan on the ticket who's too conservative. Everything is looking like a slam dunk for Obama. Anyone wanna throw down a real wager on the results? I'll take Romney/Ryan. Easy money for you!

[Seven Wishes2]

Romney pissed away his chances by pandering to the minority tea party faction of the Republican party instead of appealing to its more mainstream socially moderate, fiscally conservative base. I hate to tell you this, but America is becoming more and more left of center every passing year. The GOP needs to wake up before it's too late.

[RedWingFan]

Drinking the yellow snow again, eh, LieFinder and CopyandPasteFan? Ran out of Kool-Aid, eh?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/September_WSJ_NBC_Poll.pdf

Obama leads by 5 points nationally. If the election were held today, he would garner more than 120 more electoral votes than Richie Rich. He's leading in five of the eight critical swing states, realistically needing to just win one and no more than two to assure himself a second term.

Poll breakdown 42% democrat, 37% Republican, 16% independent. Page 13. Bye bye 5 points. Thanks SW. Republican turnout is going to far outweigh dem turnout. A lot of people have opened their eyes to hope and change.

[RedWingFan]

You can kiss Ohio and Pennsylvania goodbye. Mitchell was talking just last week about taking Virginia, too. Guess not:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/polling/obama-leads-romney-virginia-washington-post/2012/09/18/fc0bc590-01ad-11e2-bbf0-e33b4ee2f0e8_page.html

Poll breakdown Democrat 32%, Republican 24%, Independent 35%. Again only among registered voters instead of the more accurate likely voters. Stop lapping up what the Obama lapdog media is spoon feeding you. They're trying to shape opinion rather than reflect it. (Edit: In Virginia, registered Republicans outnumber registered Democrats by 36% to 33%.)
Keep drinking the Kool-aid!

[Behshad]

[Monker]

Romney pissed away his chances by pandering to the minority tea party faction of the Republican party instead of appealing to its more mainstream socially moderate, fiscally conservative base. I hate to tell you this, but America is becoming more and more left of center every passing year. The GOP needs to wake up before it's too late.

He still would not win. He has to appeal the base in the Republican party, which is far to the right. So, if he would have went all moderate, he turns his back on his own party, fewer Republicans vote and he loses.

Now, he goes to far to the right, and ends up like McCain...losing moderates who he needs to get elected.

Therefore, Romney is unelectable.

The Republicans are right now where the Democrats were after Carter....a bunch of loud voices who need to be appeased, and no way to win a national election. They can win individual congressional seats...but the Presidency is going to b e nearly impossible until they redefine what their party stands for...as Clinton did for the Democrats.

[Monker]

Drinking the yellow snow again, eh, LieFinder and CopyandPasteFan? Ran out of Kool-Aid, eh?

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/September_WSJ_NBC_Poll.pdf

Obama leads by 5 points nationally. If the election were held today, he would garner more than 120 more electoral votes than Richie Rich. He's leading in five of the eight critical swing states, realistically needing to just win one and no more than two to assure himself a second term.

Poll breakdown 42% democrat, 37% Republican, 16% independent. Page 13. Bye bye 5 points. Thanks SW. Republican turnout is going to far outweigh dem turnout. A lot of people have opened their eyes to hope and change.

And, many of those Republicans are going to be voting for a third party...not Romney.

Guessing that Republican turnout is going to outweigh Democrat is ridiculous. It's unpredictable.

[slucero]

Quoting myself...

I expect Romney to lose, but not not because Obama gets more Dem votes.

After what the GOP did at the convention, by changing the delegate rules when the delegate vote was clearly "no"... I expect enough Tea Party, Independent Conservative, Libertarian, and newly shocked & disgruntled Republicans will:

• write in a candidate,
• vote for Obama or
• simply stay away from the voting booth altogether.

While Romney offends Tea Party and fiscal conservatives... the inclusion of Ryan was to shore that up... it did.. at least until the RNC convention... where the RNC basically bitch-slapped Ron Pauls face, along with the Tea Party, libertarian and independent conservatives who like him.

The cost of the RNC fucking up at the convention... will be Romney losing those Tea Party, libertarian and independent conservative votes... and without that... he loses.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Quoting myself...

I expect Romney to lose, but not not because Obama gets more Dem votes.

After what the GOP did at the convention, by changing the delegate rules when the delegate vote was clearly "no"... I expect enough Tea Party, Independent Conservative, Libertarian, and newly shocked & disgruntled Republicans will:

• write in a candidate,
• vote for Obama or
• simply stay away from the voting booth altogether.

While Romney offends Tea Party and fiscal conservatives... the inclusion of Ryan was to shore that up... it did.. at least until the RNC convention... where the RNC basically bitch-slapped Ron Pauls face, along with the Tea Party, libertarian and independent conservatives who like him.

The cost of the RNC fucking up at the convention... will be Romney losing those Tea Party, libertarian and independent conservative votes... and without that... he loses.

And that is as true today as it was when you first wrote. (except I really doubt any libertarians or tea partiers would ever vote for Obama) The fact is that Romney believes in bigger government, and the last few days actually demonstrate that. - The motivation behind Romney's statement about the 47 was not based on a desire to help those folks over come the burden that government has put on their lives or free them from the "Julia" cradle to chains welfare they've been forcibly subscribed to - he wants them paying more, loading more hay onto the wagon so the government can spend more.

[Monker]

Quoting myself...

I expect Romney to lose, but not not because Obama gets more Dem votes.

After what the GOP did at the convention, by changing the delegate rules when the delegate vote was clearly "no"... I expect enough Tea Party, Independent Conservative, Libertarian, and newly shocked & disgruntled Republicans will:

• write in a candidate,
• vote for Obama or
• simply stay away from the voting booth altogether.

While Romney offends Tea Party and fiscal conservatives... the inclusion of Ryan was to shore that up... it did.. at least until the RNC convention... where the RNC basically bitch-slapped Ron Pauls face, along with the Tea Party, libertarian and independent conservatives who like him.

The cost of the RNC fucking up at the convention... will be Romney losing those Tea Party, libertarian and independent conservative votes... and without that... he loses.

And, that is true, too.

Romney has a lot of problems.

Romney is the Republican version of John Kerry. This "Anybody but _____" is not enough to win an election. You have to stand for something...and Romney stands for nothing.

[Monker]

Quoting myself...

I expect Romney to lose, but not not because Obama gets more Dem votes.

After what the GOP did at the convention, by changing the delegate rules when the delegate vote was clearly "no"... I expect enough Tea Party, Independent Conservative, Libertarian, and newly shocked & disgruntled Republicans will:

• write in a candidate,
• vote for Obama or
• simply stay away from the voting booth altogether.

While Romney offends Tea Party and fiscal conservatives... the inclusion of Ryan was to shore that up... it did.. at least until the RNC convention... where the RNC basically bitch-slapped Ron Pauls face, along with the Tea Party, libertarian and independent conservatives who like him.

The cost of the RNC fucking up at the convention... will be Romney losing those Tea Party, libertarian and independent conservative votes... and without that... he loses.

And that is as true today as it was when you first wrote. (except I really doubt any libertarians or tea partiers would ever vote for Obama) The fact is that Romney believes in bigger government, and the last few days actually demonstrate that. - The motivation behind Romney's statement about the 47 was not based on a desire to help those folks over come the burden that government has put on their lives or free them from the "Julia" cradle to chains welfare they've been forcibly subscribed to - he wants them paying more, loading more hay onto the wagon so the government can spend more.

John Stewart had a great segment on the 47% last night...essentially repeating what I have already said but breaking down the percentages a bit more. Retirees, military getting combat pay, people working but getting paid < $55k/yr. These are the people Romney wrote off as being dependent on the government and would never vote for him. The poor who survive on < $20k/yr are only %20 of that %47....the rest are normal every day people.

[Monker]

LOL...this from a candidate who took a full day of his convention and dedicated to one sentence Obama made, took it out of context, and turned into meaning something completely different.

Sorry Romney, but this was an entire paragraph of you speaking...not taken out of context. The problems it has caused, well, you built that.

Mother Jones, the left-wing magazine that released a controversial video of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's remarks to a fundraiser in May, now admits that it has no full tape of what Romney said, and that its video is missing "one to two minutes" at the most important moment.

The Legal Insurrection blog's William Jacobson and The Blaze both raised questions on Tuesday about whether Mother Jones had, as promised, revealed the full video, given an apparent jump cut in the critical section of Romney's remarks.

"Something is missing. Romney’s 47% answer was cut off before completed, and is not picked up on the Part 2 audio video," Jacobson noted.

Late Tuesday evening, Jacobson obtained the following comment from David Corn of Mother Jones:

According to the source, the recording device inadvertently turned off. The source noticed this quickly and turned it back one [sic]. The source estimates that one to two minutes, maybe less, of recording was missed.

Corn was forced to update his original post, which promised the "full" video, to reflect the fact that a key portion of the video is, in fact, missing.

There is no way to know, without the missing footage, exactly what Romney said. On Monday evening, Romney called for a complete video of his remarks to be released.

That now turns out to be impossible, either because Romney's remarks were never recorded in full (as Mother Jones now claims), or because some of his remarks--perhaps mitigating some of the controversial effect of his statements--were selectively edited out of the tape by Mother Jones or its chain of sources (including former President Jimmy Carter's grandson).

[Monker]

Republicans love to point that out, over and over again.

But, Romney has offered ABSOLUTELY NO POLICY to change it.

All Republicans can do is attack because their candidate sucks.

Number of able-bodied adults on food stamps doubled after Obama suspended work requirement


Obama administration officials have insisted that their decision to grant states waivers to redefine work requirements for welfare recipients would not “gut” the landmark 1996 welfare reform law. But a new report from the Congressional Research Service obtained by the Washington Examiner suggests that the administration’s suspension of a separate welfare work requirement has already helped explode the number of able-bodied Americans on food stamps.

In addition to the broader work requirement that has become a contentious issue in the presidential race, the 1996 welfare reform law included a separate rule encouraging able-bodied adults without dependents to work by limiting the amount of time they could receive food stamps. President Obama suspended that rule when he signed his economic stimulus legislation into law, and the number of these adults on food stamps doubled, from 1.9 million in 2008 to 3.9 million in 2010, according to the CRS report, issued in the form of a memo to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va.

“This report once again confirms that President Obama has severely gutted the welfare work requirements that Americans have overwhelmingly supported since President Clinton signed them into law,” Cantor said in an emailed statement. “It’s time to reinstate these common-sense measures, and focus on creating job growth for those in need.”

Since Obama took office, food stamp recipients have risen almost 50%, from 32 million to over 47 million today. That's close to the populations of Canada and Austrailia combined.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

(CNN) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday strongly defended her party's support of the federal food stamp program...For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, Pelosi said that $1.79 is put back into the economy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture cites an even higher figure of $1.84.

"It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck," she said.

Do Americans really believe this? Is this what we want?

Believe it or not Alan, sadly thousands upon thousands of folks who have sat through the slanted brainwashing of college macroeconomics courses and its unfounded unproven belief in the existence the Keynesian multiplier believe this horseshit.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

(CNN) - House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Wednesday strongly defended her party's support of the federal food stamp program...For every dollar a person receives in food stamps, Pelosi said that $1.79 is put back into the economy. The U.S. Department of Agriculture cites an even higher figure of $1.84.

"It is the biggest bang for the buck when you do food stamps and unemployment insurance. The biggest bang for the buck," she said.

Do Americans really believe this? Is this what we want?

Believe it or not Alan, hundreds of thousands upon hundreds of thousands of folks who have sat through the slanted brainwashing of college macroeconomics courses and its unfounded belief in the existence the Keynesian multiplier believe this horseshit.

Oh I know, but what about real Americans, you know, the ones who work for a living and vote. There are millions more of those types I think.

Well you would hope those all of those where too hung over when they were sitting in their undergraduate econ classes and unaffected by the nonsense. Highlight of my undergraduate econ class at the U of Minnesota was sitting across from one of the U of M women,s volleyball players. that girl was hot- talk about certain things rising, and it weren't supply and demand!

[The Sushi Hunter]

Mother Jones, the left-wing magazine that released a controversial video of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's remarks to a fundraiser in May, now admits that it has no full tape of what Romney said, and that its video is missing "one to two minutes" at the most important moment.

The Legal Insurrection blog's William Jacobson and The Blaze both raised questions on Tuesday about whether Mother Jones had, as promised, revealed the full video, given an apparent jump cut in the critical section of Romney's remarks.

"Something is missing. Romney’s 47% answer was cut off before completed, and is not picked up on the Part 2 audio video," Jacobson noted.

Late Tuesday evening, Jacobson obtained the following comment from David Corn of Mother Jones:

According to the source, the recording device inadvertently turned off. The source noticed this quickly and turned it back one [sic]. The source estimates that one to two minutes, maybe less, of recording was missed.

Corn was forced to update his original post, which promised the "full" video, to reflect the fact that a key portion of the video is, in fact, missing.

There is no way to know, without the missing footage, exactly what Romney said. On Monday evening, Romney called for a complete video of his remarks to be released.

That now turns out to be impossible, either because Romney's remarks were never recorded in full (as Mother Jones now claims), or because some of his remarks--perhaps mitigating some of the controversial effect of his statements--were selectively edited out of the tape by Mother Jones or its chain of sources (including former President Jimmy Carter's grandson).

This entire “hidden camera” deal sounds like a total bullshit creation. It’s been crafted to make the Republican party look bad. No surprise in regards to who's advantage.

[Monker]

Mother Jones, the left-wing magazine that released a controversial video of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's remarks to a fundraiser in May, now admits that it has no full tape of what Romney said, and that its video is missing "one to two minutes" at the most important moment.

The Legal Insurrection blog's William Jacobson and The Blaze both raised questions on Tuesday about whether Mother Jones had, as promised, revealed the full video, given an apparent jump cut in the critical section of Romney's remarks.

"Something is missing. Romney’s 47% answer was cut off before completed, and is not picked up on the Part 2 audio video," Jacobson noted.

Late Tuesday evening, Jacobson obtained the following comment from David Corn of Mother Jones:

According to the source, the recording device inadvertently turned off. The source noticed this quickly and turned it back one [sic]. The source estimates that one to two minutes, maybe less, of recording was missed.

Corn was forced to update his original post, which promised the "full" video, to reflect the fact that a key portion of the video is, in fact, missing.

There is no way to know, without the missing footage, exactly what Romney said. On Monday evening, Romney called for a complete video of his remarks to be released.

That now turns out to be impossible, either because Romney's remarks were never recorded in full (as Mother Jones now claims), or because some of his remarks--perhaps mitigating some of the controversial effect of his statements--were selectively edited out of the tape by Mother Jones or its chain of sources (including former President Jimmy Carter's grandson).

This entire “hidden camera” deal sounds like a total bullshit creation. It’s been crafted to make the Republican party look bad. No surprise in regards to who's advantage.

Yeah, they should have had an extra mic so the audio would be more clear and they would have that 2mins of speech where Romney made himself all rosey like.

[The Sushi Hunter]

Mother Jones, the left-wing magazine that released a controversial video of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's remarks to a fundraiser in May, now admits that it has no full tape of what Romney said, and that its video is missing "one to two minutes" at the most important moment.

The Legal Insurrection blog's William Jacobson and The Blaze both raised questions on Tuesday about whether Mother Jones had, as promised, revealed the full video, given an apparent jump cut in the critical section of Romney's remarks.

"Something is missing. Romney’s 47% answer was cut off before completed, and is not picked up on the Part 2 audio video," Jacobson noted.

Late Tuesday evening, Jacobson obtained the following comment from David Corn of Mother Jones:

According to the source, the recording device inadvertently turned off. The source noticed this quickly and turned it back one [sic]. The source estimates that one to two minutes, maybe less, of recording was missed.

Corn was forced to update his original post, which promised the "full" video, to reflect the fact that a key portion of the video is, in fact, missing.

There is no way to know, without the missing footage, exactly what Romney said. On Monday evening, Romney called for a complete video of his remarks to be released.

That now turns out to be impossible, either because Romney's remarks were never recorded in full (as Mother Jones now claims), or because some of his remarks--perhaps mitigating some of the controversial effect of his statements--were selectively edited out of the tape by Mother Jones or its chain of sources (including former President Jimmy Carter's grandson).

This entire “hidden camera” deal sounds like a total bullshit creation. It’s been crafted to make the Republican party look bad. No surprise in regards to who's advantage.

Yeah, they should have had an extra mic so the audio would be more clear and they would have that 2mins of speech where Romney made himself all rosey like.

So the edited version is in stereo?

[The Sushi Hunter]

Now this is rich....nope, no bias at NBC.

On her MSNBC program this afternoon, NBC News' Andrea Mitchell said the network would not air the clip of then-State Senator Barack Obama endorsing redistribution in 1988 because the network could not "authenticate" the clip.

"Let's explain this redistribution issue because we have not authenticated this 14-year-old tape from Loyola College when Barack Obama was a state senator. So because we have not independently at NBC news and MSNBC authenticated it, we're not airing it," Mitchell said.

"But the basic issue is they're accusing President Obama, as John Sununu said to be yesterday, of class warfare. That is trying to change the subject," Mitchell added.

1988? That was so far the best year of my entire life.

[Behshad]

Now this is rich....nope, no bias at NBC.

On her MSNBC program this afternoon, NBC News' Andrea Mitchell said the network would not air the clip of then-State Senator Barack Obama endorsing redistribution in 1988 because the network could not "authenticate" the clip.

"Let's explain this redistribution issue because we have not authenticated this 14-year-old tape from Loyola College when Barack Obama was a state senator. So because we have not independently at NBC news and MSNBC authenticated it, we're not airing it," Mitchell said.

"But the basic issue is they're accusing President Obama, as John Sununu said to be yesterday, of class warfare. That is trying to change the subject," Mitchell added.

The sad part is those who want to go back 14 years to come up with something to deflect the attention from Romney's foot stuck in his mouth.