*"If you have to show a ID to buy a pack of cigarettes or to buy alcohol, which you should, then certainly you ought to have to present an ID to vote, so that we are certain that you're not stealing someone else's liberty and their chance to vote," Bryant said.*

Remarkable argument for a governor to make given that neither of these is a constitutionally enshrined right or core to the fundamentals of our democracy.

I don't know how to characterize it exactly, but I think there is a strain of American businessman who feels that being morally upright with in his home life (church, marriage, family, charity) means it's perfectly acceptable to be dishonest and amoral in the pursuit of worldly goals.

Wherever the justification comes from, it is certainly surprising the Romney doesn't seems to be more consistent in bridging the gap between his personal and professional life. (And, that said, he seems to separate his personal life from even his financial life, given how unwilling he is to tell the American people what he's invested in over the past years and what dips and dodges he's used to shield his passive investment income from taxation.)

History will probably remember the "47% speech" as Mitt's ["brainwashed"][1] moment (the word that lost his father, George Romney, a bid for the presidency in the 1968 campaign), although he's offered up a few other options like the FEMA line, his "corporations are people" quip, and now his campaign's Hail Mary in Ohio to lie quickly and loudly enough that they can try to ride it to Tuesday.

[1]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/po…

Here's what he actually said.

Mitt Romney, in a closed-door, high-dollar fundraiser: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

Note for the record that if "all he said" was that he wasn't going to focus on certain voters, then why did he repudiated the comment weeks later? And why did he bring it up again (to his detriment) in the last debate?

Because it's not all he said. What he said is ridiculous, offensive, childish, stupid and wrong.

So be honest. How does ANYONE *think* that and then *say out loud* and something like the quote above and still present himself as a man of great integrity who is in this race for anything but his own ego gratification?

It took me a long time to fully understand the line in The American President the way I do after Mitt Romney: "How do you have patience for people who claim they love America, but clearly can't stand Americans?"

I thought Crowley did a pretty good job last night, considering how quickly Romney jumped out and starting breaking his own rules.

*They both lie so what the differece?*

Math? Even based on your evidence that they're the same, Romney was judged as "Mostly False" to "Pants on Fire" on 43% of his statements; Obama 26%. (Note also that Obama's "file" on that site goes back to the McCain campaign, so if you kept it strictly on the current campaign you're really reaching for any outright lies by Obama. It's mostly spin and shade, like any politician.)

Nearly 10% of what Romney said was "Pants on Fire" false by the Poltifact metric.

But I think the real difference is how Romney's statements seem to counter *all* of reality, and not just spin things -- items like that his healthcare plan covers pre-existing conditions or that Obamacare has a 15-person panel that makes binding decisions about what healthcare you can have.

You got the NOLA score right; final was 31-24.

My question... I wonder how much of that game Drew called from the line last night. It did feel like once they got into a rhythm and Pierre got a few yards on the ground (plus a lot of yards on a screen pass) they were back to their old selves.

Just got a text that a national Fox News reporter is expected at Koinonia. Go figure. If you want to be on TeeVee, that might be your chance.

I just hope Ole Miss doesn't get confused when they're playing another team called the Bears. :)

Thanks nbarton, you just made my point for me. Voters are already in a database, too -- they *register* to vote. You then go in and physically sign your name in the precinct where you vote. You're allowed to do this once. That's why there's almost no documented voter fraud.

Again, if conservatives were serious about voter fraud, they'd focus on where the fraud happens, at the registration level. Instead, the emphasis remains on tactics that suppress voting, meaning the constitutional rights of others. It's utterly shameful.

And, by the way, REAL ID, which actually passed, was a Republican initiative. In fact, the GOP attached it to a "must pass" Iraq War and Tsunami relief bill in 2005, at the height of one-party rule by the GOP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/real_id_Act

You might want to get your parties straight -- you may be supporting the wrong one!

One lie we're not hearing much about so far in the mainstream is <a href="http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012…">Ryan blaming Obama</a> for the credit rating downgrade by S&P.

> Ryan said the Obama presidency, “began with a perfect Triple-A credit rating for the United States; it ends with a downgraded America.”

What's interesting about it is what S&P itself said about the downgrade, and who was to blame, according to [Business Insider][1].

> Compared with previous projections, our revised base case scenario now assumes that the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, due to expire by the end of 2012, remain in place. We have changed our assumption on this because the majority of Republicans in Congress continue to resist any measure that would raise revenues, a position we believe Congress reinforced by passing the act. Key macroeconomic assumptions in the base case scenario include trend real GDP growth of 3% and consumer price inflation near 2% annually over the decade.

In other words, S&P didn't downgrade U.S. debt because of Obama's policies, but rather because it was clear the GOP would block any attempt to raise revenues as part of their approach to balancing the budget.

It really makes you wonder... I'm not surprised to hear that a career politician is lying; that part I get. But these aren't prevarication or interpretations - Ryan is just willing to stand their and go balls-to-the-wall with easily refuted stuff. It's... weird.

[1]: http://www.businessinsider.com/paul-rya…