Obama is correct to note that based on the most recent estimates there is approx. 1.2 trillion dollars of revenue to be gained from the removal of ALL deductions.

Also, the sequester should not be undone and the military should take a huge hit. That way they can reorganize and prioritize. In so doing, they can facilitate the perpetuation of the greatest military in the world.

“Embracing the term ‘Obamacare’ is a recognition that the president owns the law politically-speaking no matter what the court decides. That reality means he must re-define ‘Obamacare’ in the eyes (or, more accurately, ears) of the public. ‘Obamacare’ currently stands for everything people don’t like about the law. The White House has to make it stand for all the good things in the law.”

It may be that the TPers recognize the gross error in defining contemporary ‘Welfare’, entitlements, and the re-distribution of wealth as either un-American functions or functions that belong, not in the general gummint, but with the state gummint. Failure to address these gross errors will only exacerbate the problem and result in the inevitable collapse.

Of course, on the downside, it is almost impossible to imagine that Romney could ever do as we’ll or Obama as poorly. If Obama is the expert at leading from behind he ought to be able to come from behind on debate expectations.

Finally, I have a big question for Peter. In the answer of Romney’s to which you refer, he gave a new twist to the meaning of “pursuit of happiness”…he included in it a kind of obligation to those in need. he de-lockeanized it a bit..

Is this a stretched interpretation but good politics?
Is Mitt the first to have read the phrase in this way..This is right down the alley of Peter and other pomoconers…Please, speak on this